Public Interaction with Women (Warning: Rape References) [Archive] - Page 2

Firebrand

12-05-2009, 04:24 PM

The words "self-fulfilling prophecy" occur to me on reading this at first blush.

---------- Post added 12-05-2009 at 07:38 PM ----------

It is not the victim's fault that they were raped. It is the rapists' fault.

It is not the victim's fault. It is the attackers' failing.

Ok, having spent years in martial arts, with many women and having helped train women in self-defense, I can tell you that this statement is 100% false. Your body-language tells the potential attacker everything about whether or not you'd make a good target. Stand tall and confident, and you significantly cut down your chance of attack. Slump, look uncertain, and give off a general sense of lack-of-confidence, and the attacker will know you make a successful target for them. Note, that this applies to men as much as women in cases like muggings. The only thing a predator fears is another predator.

I'm not, for the record saying that the defender is responsible for the attacker being the type of person to attack someone (and I meant this in the abstract) to begin with. I'm saying that every person is responsible for themselves to make a good target or not.

Here's a mailing from my previous Aikido instructor :

"1. Tip for self defense - Strike! :
The elbow is the strongest point
on your body.
If you are close enough to use it, do!

2.. Learned this from a tourist guide.
If a robber asks for your wallet and/or purse,
DO NOT HAND IT TO HIM.
Toss it away from you....
Chances are that he is more interested
in your wallet and/or purse than you,
and he will go for the wallet/purse.
RUN LIKE MAD IN THE OTHER DIRECTION!

3. If you are ever thrown into the trunk of a car,
kick out the back tail lights and stick your arm out the hole
and start waving like crazy..
The driver won't see you, but everybody else will.
This has saved lives.

4. Women have a tendency to get into their cars
after shopping, eating, working, etc., and just sit
(doing their chequebook, or making a list, etc.
DON'T DO THIS!)
The predator will be watching you, and this
is the perfect opportunity for him to get in
on the passenger side, put a gun to your head,
and tell you where to go.
AS SOON AS YOU GET INTO YOUR CAR ,
LOCK THE DOORS AND LEAVE..

If someone
is in the car
with a gun
to your head
DO NOT DRIVE OFF,
Repeat:
DO NOT DRIVE OFF!
Instead gun the engine
and speed into anything, wrecking the car.
Your Air Bag will save you.
If the person is in the back seat
they will get the worst of it .
As soon as the car crashes
bail out and run.
It is better than having them find your body
in a remote location.

5. A few notes about getting
into your car in a parking lot,
or parking garage:
A.) Be aware:
look around you,
look into your car,
at the passenger side floor ,
and in the back seat
B.) If you are parked next to a big van,
enter your car from the passenger door.
Most serial killers attack their victims
by pulling them into their vans while the women
are attempting to get into their cars.
C.) Look at the car
parked on the driver's side of your vehicle,
and the passenger side... If a male is sitting alone
in the seat nearest your car, you may want to walk back
into the mall, or work, and get a
guard/policeman to walk you back out.
IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY. (And better paranoid than dead.)

6. ALWAYS take the elevator
instead of the stairs.
Stairwells are horrible places to be alone
and the perfect crime spot.
This is especially true at NIGHT!)
(A note on this one, if there is one person on the elevator, then wait for the next one. If you are alone on the elevator, and a possible attacker(s) comes on, then get off immediately. The worst thing is to be trapped in a sound-proof, metal box, alone with an attacker, or possibly multiple attackers. Don't worry about 'hurting people's feelings' by getting off the elevator when you feel uneasy.)

7. If the predator has a gun
and you are not under his control,
ALWAYS RUN!
The predator will only hit you (a running target)
4 in 100 times; and even then,
it most likely WILL NOT be a vital organ.
RUN, Preferably in a zig -zag pattern!

8. As women, we are always trying
to be sympathetic:
STOP
It may get you raped, or killed.
Ted Bundy, the serial killer, was a good-looking,
well educated man, who ALWAYS played
on the sympathies of unsuspecting women.
He walked with a cane, or a limp, and often
asked 'for help' into his vehicle or with his vehicle,
which is when he abducted
his next victim.

9. Another Safety Point:
Someone just told me that her friend heard
a crying baby on her porch the night before last,
and she called the police because it was late
and she thought it was weird.. The police told her
'Whatever you do, DO NOT
open the door..'
The lady then said that it sounded like the baby
had crawled near a window, and she was worried
that it would crawl to the street and get run over.
The policeman said, 'We already have a unit on the way,
whatever you do, DO NOT open the door.'
He told her that they think a serial killer
has a baby's cry recorded and uses it to coax
women out of their homes thinking that someone
dropped off a baby. He said they have not verified it,
but have had several calls by women saying that
they hear baby's cries outside their doors
when they're home alone at night.

10. Water scam!
If you wake up in the middle
of the night to hear all your taps outside running or what you think is a
burst pipe, DO NOT GO OUT TO INVESTIGATE! These people turn on all your
outside taps full ball so that you will go out to investigate and
then attack.

Stay alert, keep safe, and look out for your neighbours!
Please pass this on
This e-mail should probably be taken seriously because
the Crying Baby Theory was mentioned on
America 's Most Wanted when they profiled
the serial killer in Louisiana "

It really comes down to common sense. Know the area and potential threat of the area you're going to. Above and beyond that, learn to size people up quickly and trust your gut about people. This shit's not complicated....

daydreamer

12-05-2009, 05:20 PM

can't help but notice none of those tips use aikido.

"this shit's not complicated." be aware, be paranoid, but don't freak out if a nice guy smiles at you. contradictory, no? women - it's your responsibility to live in constant awareness (ie., fear) that you could be attacked at any time... but it's unfair for men to have to be aware that you feel that way.

women, be prepared for the fact that you might end up in the trunk of a car someday... and remember, being the cause of a crash is better on balance for society than for society to find your body in a remote location. i'll try to take society in consideration next time i'm threatened. oh and that nice guy who just wants a date.

i think it is odd that many of the same men who will get offended at the notion that they be aware and act in a manner consistent with showing sensitivity to this awareness, will also be the same men preaching taking self-defense, and practicing houdini methods of escape.

Rudy

12-05-2009, 05:35 PM

i think it is odd that many of the same men who will get offended at the notion that they be aware and act in a manner consistent with showing sensitivity to this awareness, will also be the same men preaching taking self-defense, and practicing houdini methods of escape.

What I'm offended by is the idea that it's my responsibility to be thinking about this when I'm just doing my own thing. The sidewalk example again: I'm a pretty oblivious person; if I'm walking on a sidewalk at night, the fact that there is a lone woman walking near me will probably not even register. Nor should it be my responsibility to register it, unless it is my intent to interact with her. Hence my assertion that she should cross the street if I make her uncomfortable, rather than expecting me to a) be aware of her potential discomfort and b) cross the street myself.

It is when I intend to interact with someone that I have an obligation to respect their boundaries and be careful in the way that I approach them. When I have no intention of interaction, their fear does not lay any moral impetus on me.

reb

12-05-2009, 05:35 PM

Firebrand, you can't talk 'personal responsibility' to some people. they don't understand that wolves look for weak animals to eat; it escapes their mechanisms; they think the world should be safe, like their fantasies.

i'm male; it's not about penises. some of y'all are female, it's not about vaginas.

if i saw gloria steinem getting raped, i would not intervene. she's liberated, and deserves the same treatment i would afford a man. besides, i think she is against concealed carry....so that's two reasons i would not intervene. the less of her there are around, the better i like it.

is it any wonder i don't want to deal with women who have a bucketful of reasons why this world should be other than it really is? carry a knife, be aware at all times. the cops aren't going to help you. you have to help yourself.

i watch my hairy white ass all the time; if you can't watch your own, then maybe you ought not go anywhere except with a dozen body guards trained in martial arts. i accept that 'shit can happen'; i don't like it, i might whine about it if it does, but it's a harsh world. deal with it, or hide under the couch.

daydreamer

12-05-2009, 06:10 PM

What I'm offended by is the idea that it's my responsibility to be thinking about this when I'm just doing my own thing. The sidewalk example again: I'm a pretty oblivious person; if I'm walking on a sidewalk at night, the fact that there is a lone woman walking near me will probably not even register. Nor should it be my responsibility to register it, unless it is my intent to interact with her. Hence my assertion that she should cross the street if I make her uncomfortable, rather than expecting me to a) be aware of her potential discomfort and b) cross the street myself.

It is when I intend to interact with someone that I have an obligation to respect their boundaries and be careful in the way that I approach them. When I have no intention of interaction, their fear does not lay any moral impetus on me.

yep. i get it. and i don't blame you for feeling that way... a lot of guys feel the same way. but some of the same group of guys will think it is a woman's responsibility, while they are going about their own thing living their life, to be sure to know how to break out a taillight when thrown into the trunk of a car. i mean, somehow, that's just common sense !

i don't ascribe this to you Rudy, i'm not trying to imply that this represents how you feel - i dunno all how you feel about the trunk in particular lol

rain

12-05-2009, 06:20 PM

The words "self-fulfilling prophecy" occur to me on reading this at first blush.

---------- Post added 12-05-2009 at 07:38 PM ----------

Ok, having spent years in martial arts, with many women and having helped train women in self-defense, I can tell you that this statement is 100% false. Your body-language tells the potential attacker everything about whether or not you'd make a good target. Stand tall and confident, and you significantly cut down your chance of attack. Slump, look uncertain, and give off a general sense of lack-of-confidence, and the attacker will know you make a successful target for them. Note, that this applies to men as much as women in cases like muggings. The only thing a predator fears is another predator.

I'm not, for the record saying that the defender is responsible for the attacker being the type of person to attack someone (and I meant this in the abstract) to begin with. I'm saying that every person is responsible for themselves to make a good target or not.

Here's a mailing from my previous Aikido instructor :

"1. Tip for self defense - Strike! :
The elbow is the strongest point
on your body.
If you are close enough to use it, do!

2.. Learned this from a tourist guide.
If a robber asks for your wallet and/or purse,
DO NOT HAND IT TO HIM.
Toss it away from you....
Chances are that he is more interested
in your wallet and/or purse than you,
and he will go for the wallet/purse.
RUN LIKE MAD IN THE OTHER DIRECTION!

3. If you are ever thrown into the trunk of a car,
kick out the back tail lights and stick your arm out the hole
and start waving like crazy..
The driver won't see you, but everybody else will.
This has saved lives.

4. Women have a tendency to get into their cars
after shopping, eating, working, etc., and just sit
(doing their chequebook, or making a list, etc.
DON'T DO THIS!)
The predator will be watching you, and this
is the perfect opportunity for him to get in
on the passenger side, put a gun to your head,
and tell you where to go.
AS SOON AS YOU GET INTO YOUR CAR ,
LOCK THE DOORS AND LEAVE..

If someone
is in the car
with a gun
to your head
DO NOT DRIVE OFF,
Repeat:
DO NOT DRIVE OFF!
Instead gun the engine
and speed into anything, wrecking the car.
Your Air Bag will save you.
If the person is in the back seat
they will get the worst of it .
As soon as the car crashes
bail out and run.
It is better than having them find your body
in a remote location.

5. A few notes about getting
into your car in a parking lot,
or parking garage:
A.) Be aware:
look around you,
look into your car,
at the passenger side floor ,
and in the back seat
B.) If you are parked next to a big van,
enter your car from the passenger door.
Most serial killers attack their victims
by pulling them into their vans while the women
are attempting to get into their cars.
C.) Look at the car
parked on the driver's side of your vehicle,
and the passenger side... If a male is sitting alone
in the seat nearest your car, you may want to walk back
into the mall, or work, and get a
guard/policeman to walk you back out.
IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY. (And better paranoid than dead.)

6. ALWAYS take the elevator
instead of the stairs.
Stairwells are horrible places to be alone
and the perfect crime spot.
This is especially true at NIGHT!)
(A note on this one, if there is one person on the elevator, then wait for the next one. If you are alone on the elevator, and a possible attacker(s) comes on, then get off immediately. The worst thing is to be trapped in a sound-proof, metal box, alone with an attacker, or possibly multiple attackers. Don't worry about 'hurting people's feelings' by getting off the elevator when you feel uneasy.)

7. If the predator has a gun
and you are not under his control,
ALWAYS RUN!
The predator will only hit you (a running target)
4 in 100 times; and even then,
it most likely WILL NOT be a vital organ.
RUN, Preferably in a zig -zag pattern!

8. As women, we are always trying
to be sympathetic:
STOP
It may get you raped, or killed.
Ted Bundy, the serial killer, was a good-looking,
well educated man, who ALWAYS played
on the sympathies of unsuspecting women.
He walked with a cane, or a limp, and often
asked 'for help' into his vehicle or with his vehicle,
which is when he abducted
his next victim.

9. Another Safety Point:
Someone just told me that her friend heard
a crying baby on her porch the night before last,
and she called the police because it was late
and she thought it was weird.. The police told her
'Whatever you do, DO NOT
open the door..'
The lady then said that it sounded like the baby
had crawled near a window, and she was worried
that it would crawl to the street and get run over.
The policeman said, 'We already have a unit on the way,
whatever you do, DO NOT open the door.'
He told her that they think a serial killer
has a baby's cry recorded and uses it to coax
women out of their homes thinking that someone
dropped off a baby. He said they have not verified it,
but have had several calls by women saying that
they hear baby's cries outside their doors
when they're home alone at night.

10. Water scam!
If you wake up in the middle
of the night to hear all your taps outside running or what you think is a
burst pipe, DO NOT GO OUT TO INVESTIGATE! These people turn on all your
outside taps full ball so that you will go out to investigate and
then attack.

Stay alert, keep safe, and look out for your neighbours!
Please pass this on
This e-mail should probably be taken seriously because
the Crying Baby Theory was mentioned on
America 's Most Wanted when they profiled
the serial killer in Louisiana "

It really comes down to common sense. Know the area and potential threat of the area you're going to. Above and beyond that, learn to size people up quickly and trust your gut about people. This shit's not complicated....

These are the most fascinating tips I have ever read.

You're supposed to kick out the taillights and wave your arms out through them if someone ever throws you into the trunk? Oh and if someone has a gun, run and he might hit you, but not a vital organ part? LOL, ok...

Who would've thought!

Cooper

12-05-2009, 06:26 PM

Zig zag patterns are too predictable...its like shooting ducks

Rudy

12-05-2009, 06:36 PM

yep. i get it. and i don't blame you for feeling that way... a lot of guys feel the same way. but some of the same group of guys will think it is a woman's responsibility, while they are going about their own thing living their life, to be sure to know how to break out a taillight when thrown into the trunk of a car. i mean, somehow, that's just common sense !

i don't ascribe this to you Rudy, i'm not trying to imply that this represents how you feel - i dunno all how you feel about the trunk in particular lol
I certainly don't think it's a woman's responsibility to know these things, but I think it's wise for anyone to know them, because of the sad fact that there are very nasty people in the world.

Take the taillight thing. If someone was kidnapped and ended up dead because they didn't know this trick, my reaction would not be "Oh, they should have known to kick the taillight out, then this wouldn't have happened." it would be "Poor so-and-so :(. if only they'd known to kick the taillight out." followed by calls to hunt down and possibly kill the kidnapper.

This is an important distinction, I think.

plotthickens

12-05-2009, 06:57 PM

Zsych, yes, I am female. I also have a second-degree Dan in Kendo, with a few minor apprenticeships in the more contact sports, and am a California Armed Guard. Ability to defend one's self does not mean a guaranteed successful defense.

One out of every six women will be sexually assaulted. One out of every 2.5 women will have an abortion. These are sexually traumatizing experiences. You just wrote off a large portion of the population. I am part of that population. Let's see if I can turn this around: "Seriously, we don't NEED priviledged white males who offhandedly insult entire races, genders, and assaulted women groups. Our lives would be just as good without ever talking to them. Probably better." If you're not a (relatively young) white male, please accept my apology. I've never seen any other gender/race combo so offhandedly spout off something like
I admit that lets say I see a dirty looking black guy with his hands behind his back (holding who knows what) knocking at my door(no offense intended to our African American friends here, I'm just making it sound bad),...

Hm. Better: if you have six or more women in your family, one of them was likely assaulted because she didn't come with XY secondary characteristics. Blood, swelling, pain, tears. But, yeah, you don't need those women. Right?

Ok, having spent years in martial arts, with many women and having helped train women in self-defense, I can tell you that this statement is 100% false. Your body-language tells the potential attacker everything about whether or not you'd make a good target. Stand tall and confident, and you significantly cut down your chance of attack. Slump, look uncertain, and give off a general sense of lack-of-confidence, and the attacker will know you make a successful target for them. Note, that this applies to men as much as women in cases like muggings. The only thing a predator fears is another predator.

Won't matter to a group of attackers, nor someone hyped up on drugs. And about "only rapists can stop rape": I have found three people -- two women, one man -- dead of suicide when they could not stop their rape. One of them was... bad. It took five days to clean away. All of them had been chastised for 'not doing enough' and 'maybe you really wanted it, you dirty $!#&." Where people want to learn to defend themselves, they do. When they are attacked, they fight back. When they are overwhelmed by the common crushing depression, "you didn't do enough, it's your fault" is the only logical correlation to a traumatized mind. And then they find the moproom in the back and kill themselves. 'only rapists can stop rape' keeps them from blaming themselves (we saved a few with that mantra, after we learned the lesson) and doesn't keep those who wish to, from learning how to defend themselves.

i think it is odd that many of the same men who will get offended at the notion that they be aware and act in a manner consistent with showing sensitivity to this awareness, will also be the same men preaching taking self-defense, and practicing houdini methods of escape.

Double standards. Women must be constantly open to all men, never closed, but able to help themselves if attacked because they are alone on this one, baby.

It is when I intend to interact with someone that I have an obligation to respect their boundaries and be careful in the way that I approach them. When I have no intention of interaction, their fear does not lay any moral impetus on me.

Yeah, this is why one acts the same everywhere. In the big city, in a bar, on a crowded street, in a store, every location: no modification is necessary.

Please.

These are the most fascinating tips I have ever read.

You're supposed to kick out the taillights and wave your arms out through them if someone ever throws you into the trunk? Oh and if someone has a gun, run and he might hit you, but not a vital organ part? LOL, ok...

Who would've thought!

Well the gun part is correct (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), at least. Keep in mind while looking at this chart that most people high on adrenaline and everything else can't aim for $#!T.

Rudy

12-05-2009, 07:00 PM

Yeah, this is why one acts the same everywhere. In the big city, in a bar, on a crowded street, in a store, every location: no modification is necessary.

Please.
I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Of course one acts differently in different places. However, if I were to go into the worst part of Philadelphia (which I have not yet done,) and I were afraid of each person I saw being a potential mugger, it would not be their moral responsibility to maintain distance from me, but rather my responsibility to maintain distance from them, if that is what I desired.

firebee

12-05-2009, 07:01 PM

daydreamer

12-05-2009, 07:12 PM

if someone has a gun, make sure you do too. there's little point in having a knife, if you don't have the strength to wield it

Titian

12-05-2009, 07:48 PM

How do you do that? How do you foster the resources that make healing more effective?

I've talked to quite a few people who've been raped or abused, and there's a big spectrum of symptoms down the line, some people almost seem to shut it away and carry on, for others their world is shattered - the difference seems to be the people, not the events. I'm interested in any ideas and advice - there are many women I care about (not least wife and daughter) and as you say, the chance is never 0%.

It's different to talk to you than to talk with a victim so it may be difficult for you to understand some of the feelings. I also want to be clear that suppressing feelings or having them magically go away is not an option for healing. I can still clearly remember the feelings I had at that time. Now I'll try to explain to you what did help and why I do not live in fear now.

The first thing that hit me when I was a child was that it must be my fault. This is irrational but when it was me against a guy like that then I had to come to terms with reality. I had to reconcile that I was right to challenge him and right to condemn his action. This doesn't happen to every victim but it did happen to me because of the circumstances. The helpful thing to know in this is to connect with reality that you are a victim. If you got cut and the trauma of it puts you into a shock so that you stop thinking about being cut then you may just go on bleeding. You need to react. You need to assess what has happened realistically, know you've been hurt, and know you're going to need to heal.

I saw this clearly over time and began to set my goal for healing at a full recovery. I had no intention of letting the crime negatively affect my life any more than was absolutely unavoidable. I don't know how common this attitude can be for victims but I do know that being able to recall the feelings of the rape does not make me afraid now. I felt them and I came to terms with them.

Since this is you and maybe you will be able to help then you need to know what has happened. You'd need to have that in your mind. I know it may be an immediate impulse to feel rage or even to feel helpless yourself but you need your priorities straight. You need to focus on the victim. This may have to be done in a very practical way. They need to feel safe again and if you are someone who can help with that then you need to be there. You've got to keep in mind what needs to happen though. The rapist will have taken away a certain mental and emotional state that was hopefully healthy before and you need to stay focused on seeing those wounds heal. If healthy is not coming back then what you're doing is not enough or it isn't right. One thing here is going to be that you should know what you're doing. It seems like there are usually as few people close to a rape victim that have a strong sense of this as there are victims who are prepared. There are people who specifically train for and gain experience with helping in this situation. You don't have to feel helpless and alone either because there are people willing to help.

RAINN (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) has a phone number that you can call for immediate counseling assistance at any time and either the hotline or the website can be used to search for a counseling center close to you. The website also has an information (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) page that addresses issues ranging from medical concerns to what family members can do to very important things you may need to know for the recovery process. It also, by the way, does have a page on sexual assault prevention (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) that includes information which would have been relevant to my second incident and reiterates some of the more valuable advice in the article discussed by this thread.

Lastly Martin, I know we aren't really close friends but I did extend my friendship to you with sincere meaning. I am very willing to help you or anyone else here on the forum as much as I can if you are in this situation. Even if it is just needing someone to listen.

Night Runner

12-05-2009, 07:50 PM

Of course, this assumes that you were not strangled to death with your own overalls first.
Or tied up or drugged. :rolleyes:

if someone has a gun, make sure you do too. there's little point in having a knife, if you don't have the strength to wield it
Surely you're not an advocate of NRA's wet dream of ensuring universal courtesy by arming every American? :suspicious: Unless you have a gun glued to your palm, it'll take you quite a while to reach for it, grab it (assuming, once again, that you have it in an easily accessible holster or pocket, not a purse), take the safety off, aim it and fire. A knife may not be a perfect weapon, and hardly anybody knows how to really wield it, but it can be very effective and might discourage a certain percentage of attackers.

firebee

12-05-2009, 08:34 PM

Or tied up or drugged. :rolleyes:

Or having had one's Achilles tendons severed by a razor-blade-wielding rapist who is flat enough to fit underneath a compact car. We must by all means enumerate a list of one-off strategies to deal with the latest oddly specific rapist-tactic that arrives in our inbox. It makes us feel safer.

Unless you have a gun glued to your palm, it'll take you quite a while to reach for it, grab it (assuming, once again, that you have it in an easily accessible holster or pocket, not a purse), take the safety off, aim it and fire.

Indeed. Useless as they are, why is it that people continue to use the silly things? It's a better idea to have a knife open and in your hand at all times, so that you don't have to worry about fishing out your weapon when the time comes to gut someone. Which happens often.

A knife may not be a perfect weapon, and hardly anybody knows how to really wield it, but it can be very effective and might discourage a certain percentage of attackers.

Personally, I am all about carrying around a weapon that hardly anyone (including myself) knows how to wield. Of course, I assume by "discourage" you mean "exsanguinate", since one of the few things I know about kniveses is that the one that your opponent sees is being held by an idiot.

Night Runner

12-05-2009, 08:48 PM

Or having had one's Achilles tendons severed by a razor-blade-wielding rapist who is flat enough to fit underneath a compact car. We must by all means enumerate a list of one-off strategies to deal with the latest oddly specific rapist-tactic that arrives in our inbox. It makes us feel safer.
Yup - just like those ancient chain emails advising women to wear their hair short and wear clothing that would be difficult to cut off. :rolleyes: In my opinion, those tips encourage a false sense of security, which can lead to some mighty careless actions. I agree with Rudy that being paranoid 24/7 is not a very good tactic. That said, being vigilant (and smart) in potentially dangerous locations (alleyways, empty parking lots, etc.) should be encouraged.

Indeed. Useless as they are, why is it that people continue to use the silly things? It's a better idea to have a knife open and in your hand at all times, so that you don't have to worry about fishing out your weapon when the time comes to gut someone. Which happens often.
My point was that a knife is far easier to carry in your pocket. If the situation in question calls for vigilance, all you have to do is keep your hand in the pocket. If/when something happens, the knife is ready to use in less than a second.

Personally, I am all about carrying around a weapon that hardly anyone (including myself) knows how to wield. Of course, I assume by "discourage" you mean "exsanguinate", since one of the few things I know about kniveses is that the one that your opponent sees is being held by an idiot.
Like you said, it makes us feel safer. Illogical though it may be, in the end it's all about perceptions. Sure, it would be great if you could call a time-out, reach in your purse for your S&W, aim for the kneecaps and yell "okay, go!" but in the absence of that, any sort of weapon in your hand - even a knife - could scare off some of the attackers. Of course, if the attacker in question is a 300lb gorilla in a drug-induced rage, the victim has little - if any - chance...

Crazyblue

12-05-2009, 08:58 PM

If you have any weapon you had better be damn well ready to use it if the situation calls for it. That's what I've learned. Don't escalate with a weapon until you're going to use it. Personally I keep a survival knife in my truck and if there's ever a situation where it'd be necessary to use it, I wouldn't hesitate.

This should not be an issue that women have to even worry about, but it's not possible until this behavior is stopped, and going off of trends that doesn't seem likely. I can only influence my grid square, my own behavior and other people around me depending on my location. I avoid people at night as well, it just isn't worth the risk. In fact, I've had a co-worker jumped by 6 guys and he was hospitalized for several broken bones. It comes down to where you live and what it takes for you to be comfortable living there. I'd go pick something up from a store around here at night, but I definitely wouldn't be walking around.

IrishGuy

12-05-2009, 11:03 PM

Remember, kids, if a serial killer ever stuffs you in the cargo area of an first-generation Ford Explorer, the liftgate may be disassembled through the following procedure:

Open the liftgate door.
Remove the upper rear center garnish molding.
Support the door in the open position and disconnect the liftgate gas cylinder assist rod assemblies.
Carefully move the headliner out of position and remove the hinge-to-header panel attaching nuts.
Remove the hinge-to-liftgate attaching bolts and remove the complete assembly.

Of course, this assumes that you were not strangled to death with your own overalls first.

Most cars have a cable running from the left side of the drivers side seat to the clasp on the trunk. One need only remove the plastic/fabric covering the clasp (most cars I've seen you can just rip it off) and pull on the cable to release the trunk clasp. Of course if you've been tied up and cannot get free the ease with which most trunks can be opened is quite irrelevant.

Reon

12-05-2009, 11:50 PM

Second google result for "This e-mail should probably be taken seriously because the Crying Baby Theory was mentioned on America 's Most Wanted when they profiled the serial killer in Louisiana":

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Remember, kids, if a serial killer ever stuffs you in the cargo area of an first-generation Ford Explorer, the liftgate may be disassembled through the following procedure:

Open the liftgate door.
Remove the upper rear center garnish molding.
Support the door in the open position and disconnect the liftgate gas cylinder assist rod assemblies.
Carefully move the headliner out of position and remove the hinge-to-header panel attaching nuts.
Remove the hinge-to-liftgate attaching bolts and remove the complete assembly.

Of course, this assumes that you were not strangled to death with your own overalls first.

Seems like a lot to remember in a time of sheer terror.

This topic is so disappointing to me, this always happens. As soon as a group of people start talking about rape, two groups begin to emerge. One where women must be constantly vigilante and confident so that she will avoid rape; the fault lies with her, not the rapist. The rapist is only but a predator who will logically deduce which woman is worth the risk This group is typical endorsed by males who want to be able to approach women at any time without them being apprehensive towards them. The two second groups consists of those who realize that rapes happen, and it's never the fault of the woman (which it isn't) but must always have a shield and a fear of what a random male do to her. The proponents of this point of view are typically women. I know this is a generalization of this topic but, in general, nothing REALLY has been said that has not been said before.

Titian: Most people I know that have been raped follow the same line of progression that you have and they seem well off and adjusted to society. The others typically seem more or less sociable but if you go to far they will instantly shut down and often violently repulse anyone and everyone near them. In regards to the latter, how do you help without crossing their comfort zone?

IrishGuy

12-06-2009, 03:52 AM

Seems like a lot to remember in a time of sheer terror.

This topic is so disappointing to me, this always happens. As soon as a group of people start talking about rape, two groups begin to emerge. One where women must be constantly vigilante and confident so that she will avoid rape; the fault lies with her, not the rapist. The rapist is only but a predator who will logically deduce which woman is worth the risk This group is typical endorsed by males who want to be able to approach women at any time without them being apprehensive towards them. The two second groups consists of those who realize that rapes happen, and it's never the fault of the woman (which it isn't) but must always have a shield and a fear of what a random male do to her. The proponents of this point of view are typically women. I know this is a generalization of this topic but, in general, nothing REALLY has been said that has not been said before.

I think you missed the second camp. Not only do they state that rapes happen and that it is not the fault of the woman, but usually tack on "that rape is the failure of the rapist" or something similar. The problem with this is that it assumes that rapists are just supposed to regulate themselves or that society is supposed to train all young boys/men that rape is wrong; no means no etc. They assume that rape is purely an issue ego and male entitlement created by a society that pushes this ideal of the "assertive male" who brings home the bacon.

Here's the problem: animals (including primates) often force the opposite gender (usually male forcing female but not always) to submit to intercourse. This by definition is not rape since there are no laws governing consent amongst animals, but the behaviors are similar. This implies that rape is not only societal but also genetic; there are factors that make an individual more likely to commit rape. This means that education of all men will likely fail to prevent all/most male initiated rapes. Also, treating rape from this angle tends to criminalize all men; meaning that in every suspected case of rape involving men and women police will assume the male is guilty before seeing a scrap of evidence. This is something that applies to all crimes that are traditionally made by males towards females (autotopic reposted a link to a domestic violence case a little earlier). Most of the time this assumption will be correct, but when it is not correct irreparable damage will have been done to an innocent male's reputation which could affect their ability to succeed in life. This damage can be easily avoided. Then again, rape victims also experience irreparable damage, but can this damage be avoided?

What about the idea that women should just learn to protect themselves/become excellent judges of character/women are purely responsible for rape? This ignores that rape is a probability and not a certainty. No amount of prevention will provide an impenetrable armor against rape since it is the rapist (ideally, lets leave any notion of a "mistaken rape" out of this) is the one who ultimately initiates the rape. The rapist more or less controls the whole situation. Forcing all women to be extra vigilant to the point of paranoia tends to be counter productive since it just creates a lot of mental stress.

Does that make sense? Let me put it in terms of bicycles. On one extreme you have a bicyclist who is covered head to toe in protective gear (helmet, knee pads, elbow pads, training wheels, mouth guard etc). They are never allowed to go too fast on the bike for fear of having an accident. This is the paranoid, but mostly safe woman.

On the other end we have a bicyclist who wears no protective gear and rides recklessly; going very fast and running through stop signs etc. This is the reckless woman.

In the middle is the bicyclist who rides at a moderate pace and who wears a helmet just to be safe. They ride quickly but obey the rules of the road and keep an eye on traffic since not all drivers are paying attention. This is the woman who utilizes basic precautions to avoid being excessive risk, but not so many precautions that she lives in a bubble. What does this individual look like? That's highly debatable.

Bottom line is that in order to completely eliminate rape, someone's liberties will have to be violated. We can teach our young boys to respect women, but we cannot monitor and control them all the time, even if they have a gene or a background that makes them likely to rape, without violating their liberties. We can teach our young girls to be safe, but we cannot force them to live in a bubble without violating their liberties.

I think we could call this the prevention paradox.

Seriously

12-06-2009, 07:53 AM

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Of course one acts differently in different places. However, if I were to go into the worst part of Philadelphia (which I have not yet done,) and I were afraid of each person I saw being a potential mugger, it would not be their moral responsibility to maintain distance from me, but rather my responsibility to maintain distance from them, if that is what I desired.

If they wanted to approach you in order to befriend you or get to know you better it would behoove them to do so in a non threatening manner otherwise you could possibly consider them a threat. Which would be counterproductive to their goal. The point of this thread initially IMO was to just give men a heads up that it might behoove them as well to consider how they are approaching a woman if they want to actually find her receptive. (behoove is my word for the day. ;))

Great analysis IrishGuy. I think you sum up the problem/situation extremely well.

reb

12-06-2009, 08:02 AM

Titian

12-06-2009, 09:46 AM

Titian: Most people I know that have been raped follow the same line of progression that you have and they seem well off and adjusted to society. The others typically seem more or less sociable but if you go too far they will instantly shut down and often violently repulse anyone and everyone near them. In regards to the latter, how do you help without crossing their comfort zone?

It's difficult to react to "go too far" because I don't know if this refers to actions that are non-threatening which are being perceived as threatening by someone who still needs to heal or if it actually means taking something that is perceived as non-threatening to legitimately cross a line. The first scenario is probably most likely to occur in someone who has not realistically faced what happened to them. The second is most likely to occur because of a lack of empathy in the person who thinks their actions are harmless.

Speaking for myself I know that it would take a lot for me to react violently. Even being hit does not guarantee that I will hit back. I am opposed to violence in general. If I do not think a situation has forced a violent reaction I will continue to remain calm and aware. I vastly prefer the word "aware" to "fearful". Fear, simply put, is only useful for raising your adrenaline levels. Adrenaline is not very useful by itself and is meaningless if it is only the resource of a terrified mind.

What is tricky about it is that realistically facing what has happened is not comfortable. Some things that should be perfectly normal and not threatening will not be comfortable. Take sex for instance. If the victim was in a sexual relationship prior to the incident then that relationship is going to necessarily go through a phase where sex has a new context for one of the partners. Not knowing where the line is will be hard and there is no easy answer. The issue has to be faced by the victim and the victim's feelings have to be considered by their partner. How do you help without crossing the comfort zone in this case? You can't. You have to deal with this with patience and counseling. It's not going to be comfortable for anyone. The same thing would be true if the victim was frequently required to travel to the place where the rape occurred. Maybe this is necessary to go back to work. This can't be a comfortable part of the recovery process but it shouldn't be avoided.

I have to go back to my comparison to a wound healing. Let's say it's your hand that gets hurt. You need that hand. It will have to heal in order for you to go back to something like normal function before. The healing process takes time for the hand to feel like it can work again. If the hand gets back to the point where it should be able to work and can't because it still feels hurt then you have evidence of something other than physical damage. This would be easy to see in the case of a physical wound. The only way to see it in the case of psychological damage is to compare the condition of the person before and after the rape. If they were always uncomfortable with sex or afraid of their route to work then you have other issues to deal with. If they were comfortable with sex and had never been worried about going to work then they need to get back to that point. It's not likely they will make it all the way back to that point. You're going to have to deal with this like you would with seeing someone suddenly wince in pain and hearing "Oh, that's my old college football injury acting up." as an explanation. They're not going to want to be uncomfortable but they will have to deal with their memories.

The simplest answer that I can give to your question is to consistently care that you are helping. Some help cannot be given without the victim's cooperation so you should not place that responsibility too heavily on yourself. Definitely stick with the consistent desire to help though because what you are doing will be difficult and thus very meaningful to the person that you care about.

plotthickens

12-06-2009, 12:47 PM

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Of course one acts differently in different places. However, if I were to go into the worst part of Philadelphia (which I have not yet done,) and I were afraid of each person I saw being a potential mugger, it would not be their moral responsibility to maintain distance from me, but rather my responsibility to maintain distance from them, if that is what I desired.

Yes. Everyone acts differently because we must be able to live together. It is out of deference to others that I meet eyes on the way to work *eyeroll*. So our behaviour is shaped by the surrounding environs and people.

If you're discriminating against people who are afraid -- where all other deferences (Inside Voice, meeting eyes, wearing a bra, shaving) are OK except those made to people just because they may be victims -- then that's a Tough Love so hard even I cannot contemplate it.

combustor

12-06-2009, 02:07 PM

Or tied up or drugged. :rolleyes:

Surely you're not an advocate of NRA's wet dream of ensuring universal courtesy by arming every American? :suspicious: Unless you have a gun glued to your palm, it'll take you quite a while to reach for it, grab it (assuming, once again, that you have it in an easily accessible holster or pocket, not a purse), take the safety off, aim it and fire. A knife may not be a perfect weapon, and hardly anybody knows how to really wield it, but it can be very effective and might discourage a certain percentage of attackers.

It's obvious you have no experience in defensive tactics with firearms by making up a bunch of nonsense about it. With a bit of training and a fair amount of practice one can draw from concealment, aim in on a target at 7 yards, put three rounds in the chest -- all in under 2 seconds. I'd hardly consider that "quite a while". And at shorter range it's even faster.

Knowing my girlfriend won't be a helpless victim when I'm not around is priceless. When I am around I am certainly glad to have an extra set of eyes and backup. I have never been the victim of a violent crime, but being able to learn from others' experiences and mistakes has given me a huge advantage with life in general. I never wait for something to happen to me before I resolve to do something about it or be prepared. You'll notice that most sheeple walk around completely oblivious to their surroundings, with the biggest exceptions being prior violent crime victims, criminals, or LEO. It is especially tough as an INTJ to get outside your head sometimes, and become aware of the external world, but it can be done. Your brain is best defensive tool there is, and INTJs usually have a good one.

Rudy

12-06-2009, 02:15 PM

If they wanted to approach you in order to befriend you or get to know you better it would behoove them to do so in a non threatening manner otherwise you could possibly consider them a threat.
That I agree with absolutely. As I said earlier, it is when I wish to interact with someone than it is my moral responsibility to take their wishes into account. It was only the suggestion that I should cross the street when walking alone with a woman that I was reacting to.

Yes. Everyone acts differently because we must be able to live together. It is out of deference to others that I meet eyes on the way to work *eyeroll*. So our behavior is shaped by the surrounding environs and people.

If you're discriminating against people who are afraid -- where all other deferences (Inside Voice, meeting eyes, wearing a bra, shaving) are OK except those made to people just because they may be victims -- then that's a Tough Love so hard even I cannot contemplate it.
So, you're saying that everyone in a bad neighborhood should cross the street to avoid me, since I'm afraid that they might be a mugger? I'm confused. If you're not saying that, what is the distinction?

IrishGuy

12-06-2009, 02:50 PM

Irish, i don't have a prevention paradox. rape among 'civilized humans' is wrong. education is wonderful; prevention is wonderful; being alert is wonderful. however, there will still be some who wish to rape, which is mostly about 'control issues' from what i've read....

therefore, get rid of the 'rape' gene. the simplest way is to immediately kill proven rapers. kill them before they can pass on their genes, if possible. part of the problem is...like wine on the carpet...it will be impossible to get rid of all the 'rape' dna, most likely.

hope the 'animal' metaphor works for you...there are evidently a lot of posters in this thread who disagree that humans have any commonality to animals.

When you say you don't have a prevention paradox, do you mean that you disagree that moving to either extreme of prevention will infringe on another individual's liberties?

We could kill all proven rapers to remove them from the gene pool or life imprisonment would effectively do the same thing. Only problem is that I suspect that the decision to rape is dependent upon nurture and nature since morality (used broadly) must be taught while the drive to pass on ones genes is derived from our dna.

firebee

12-06-2009, 02:57 PM

So, you're saying that everyone in a bad neighborhood should cross the street to avoid me, since I'm afraid that they might be a mugger? I'm confused. If you're not saying that, what is the distinction?

Or because they're afraid that you might be a threat, yes. If you're in a bad neighborhood, it is a prudent recommendation to be aware of the people around you and where they are going -- actually, it's good to do that wherever you are so that you don't run into people. One of the pieces of information that is gleaned from this is "The relationship between me and that person is as follows: We are walking in the same direction, I am a block behind, I am gaining on them slowly." When I encounter a situation meeting this pattern, I may not cross the street, but I do try to alter my behavior to avoid that relationship. It strikes me as the same sort of vaguely-inadvisable rudeness as hanging out behind the B-pillar of a car on the freeway, which is another thing that I choose not to do despite there being no explicit legal or moral requirement to avoid it.

Another thing: If, for whatever reason (whether that be age-race-gender or location or personal habits or whatever) you have not experienced certain kinds of thoughtless behavior from other people, and you don't perpetrate it yourself, it is easy to mistakenly come to the conclusion that everybody who is reasonably civilized knows that thoughtless behavior is thoughtless and therefore does not need to be reminded.

This is not necessarily true. I don't live in New York City and I project something that is other than "easy mark", yet I do occasionally have these sorts of experiences from people who appear to be fully paid-up members of society (at least more or less). A couple months ago, some girls from the local high school evidently thought it was a hilarious idea to attempt to sneak up on a person that they did not know from Adam (i.e. me), apparently because that person appeared to be close to them in age (and therefore a valid target for hilarity) and appeared distracted (hence likely to do funny things when surprised).

Prior to this event, I would have thought that it was too obvious to mention that sneaking up on people that you do not know is both monumentally rude and quite dangerous, because people do not like being stalked like a deer and not everyone does funny things when surprised. Clearly, I was wrong. I still have no idea what the hell they were thinking (and not for lack of asking in Command Voice Of Death, let me assure you), but if a person can get to senior high school / freshman college age while thinking that sort of thing was OK, it rather leads me to err further on the side of mentioning the obvious.

So: Don't sneak up on people. There are a number of people (and I am one of them) who have quite bad associations with that sort of behavior; in addition, the generic animal-which-wants-not-to-be-eaten does not like it. It is rude. Furthermore, just as the person you are sneaking up on does not know you, you also do not know them. They may have anger management issues. They may be a military veteran with PTSD (yes, even if they are a woman). They may be a rape survivor with PTSD (yes, even if they are a man). They may for some reason have developed a problematic tendency to mule kick first and ask questions later. You do not know. Therefore, if nothing else, they are potentially dangerous to you; this is true even if for demographic reasons you feel comfortable being mostly oblivious to personal safety issues.

PSA concluded. To avoid misunderstandings: No idiotic giggling teenagers were harmed in the making of this PSA. I have struck another person in earnest exactly once in my life, and it was in a situation where I fairly obviously did not have any other options for protecting myself from imminent physical danger. This was not that time.

Rudy

12-06-2009, 03:13 PM

Or because they're afraid that you might be a threat, yes.
Well of course if they're worried about me it's their right, and possibly a good idea, to cross the street. However, they have no obligation to cross the street for my sake. That's all I'm saying.

If you're in a bad neighborhood, it is a prudent recommendation to be aware of the people around you and where they are going -- actually, it's good to do that wherever you are so that you don't run into people.
I could probably stand to be a more aware person in general, but that has nothing to do with what is morally required of my behavior. I may be placing myself in further danger by being ignorant of the people walking on the sidewalk with me, but that's a different matter.

One of the pieces of information that is gleaned from this is "The relationship between me and that person is as follows: We are walking in the same direction, I am a block behind, I am gaining on them slowly." When I encounter a situation meeting this pattern, I may not cross the street, but I do try to alter my behavior to avoid that relationship. It strikes me as the same sort of vaguely-inadvisable rudeness as hanging out behind the B-pillar of a car on the freeway, which is another thing that I choose not to do despite there being no explicit legal or moral requirement to avoid it.

Another thing: If, for whatever reason (whether that be age-race-gender or location or personal habits or whatever) you have not experienced certain kinds of thoughtless behavior from other people, and you don't perpetrate it yourself, it is easy to mistakenly come to the conclusion that everybody who is reasonably civilized knows that thoughtless behavior is thoughtless and therefore does not need to be reminded.

This is not necessarily true. I don't live in New York City and I project something that is other than "easy mark", yet I do occasionally have these sorts of experiences from people who appear to be fully paid-up members of society (at least more or less). A couple months ago, some girls from the local high school evidently thought it was a hilarious idea to attempt to sneak up on a person that they did not know from Adam (i.e. me), apparently because that person appeared to be close to them in age (and therefore a valid target for hilarity) and appeared distracted (hence likely to do funny things when surprised).

Prior to this event, I would have thought that it was too obvious to mention that sneaking up on people that you do not know is both monumentally rude and quite dangerous, because people do not like being stalked like a deer and not everyone does funny things when surprised. Clearly, I was wrong. I still have no idea what the hell they were thinking (and not for lack of asking in Command Voice Of Death, let me assure you), but if a person can get to senior high school / freshman college age while thinking that sort of thing was OK, it rather leads me to err further on the side of mentioning the obvious.

So: Don't sneak up on people. There are a number of people (and I am one of them) who have quite bad associations with that sort of behavior; in addition, the generic animal-which-wants-not-to-be-eaten does not like it. It is rude. Furthermore, just as the person you are sneaking up on does not know you, you also do not know them. They may have anger management issues. They may be a military veteran with PTSD (yes, even if they are a woman). They may be a rape survivor with PTSD (yes, even if they are a man). They may for some reason have developed a problematic tendency to mule kick first and ask questions later. You do not know. Therefore, if nothing else, they are potentially dangerous to you; this is true even if for demographic reasons you feel comfortable being mostly oblivious to personal safety issues.
You seem to be equating, in some way, passing someone on the sidewalk, with sneaking up on them. I would never sneak up on someone that I don't know, and often go out of my way to make my presence known.

The only point I am making in all of this is: if a woman is alone on the sidewalk, and is bothered by the possibility of my catching up to her, it is much more reasonable for her to cross the road herself, or otherwise change her behavior, than to expect me to a) be aware of the problem (which I am probably not, being an unaware lump) and b) alter my behavior to suit her problem.

daydreamer

12-06-2009, 03:23 PM

Night Runner

12-06-2009, 03:28 PM

It's obvious you have no experience in defensive tactics with firearms by making up a bunch of nonsense about it. With a bit of training and a fair amount of practice one can draw from concealment, aim in on a target at 7 yards, put three rounds in the chest -- all in under 2 seconds. I'd hardly consider that "quite a while". And at shorter range it's even faster.
See my original point on NRA: shall we enforce mandatory shooting classes so that every single person in the country would have "a bit of training and a fair amount of practice" and be able to kill somebody within 2 seconds? To use your own wods, it's obvious you have no experience in the way reality works. I'm sure your girlfriend will do just fine if the rapist behaves just like he is "supposed" to. If, however, he sneaks up from behind, or spikes her drink at a party, or discovers an unlocked door when she's asleep at home, there might not be seven yards of distance to separate the two of them.

Two years ago in my town, there was a series of rapes: the guy would target women who would be alone late at night, usually walking alone. His rampage culminated when he kidnapped and killed a girl from her friend's house. She was on a winter break, went to a party with her friends, came back home, and fell asleep on a couch in the living room. Her friends forgot to lock the door. The house was in a good part of town, right next to student apartment buildings, the local college, etc. The guy found the house, the unlocked door, and ambushed the sleeping (and possibly hungover) girl around 3am. They didn't find her body until a month later... This is the typical SOL ("shit out of luck") scenario where nothing would help: she could be an expert at shooting and martial arts, but she was ambushed in a supposedly safe place in the middle of the night by a large man while she was asleep...

I have never been the victim of a violent crime
That's exactly my point. Chances are, we're both way off in our assumptions. However, whereas your assumption is to trust your firearm training and hope every attack goes just like your trainer described it (a warning and at least seven yards of distance), my admittedly pessimistic assumption (which may or may not be based on Murphy's Law) is more universal: keep your eyes open, remember that there is no such thing as absolute safety, and think, damn it. :)

You'll notice that most sheeple walk around completely oblivious to their surroundings, with the biggest exceptions being prior violent crime victims, criminals, or LEO.
Oooh, look - we actually agree on something! ;)

Your brain is best defensive tool there is, and INTJs usually have a good one.
And you conclude your post with agreeing with the main point of the message you were responding to. Heh...

firebee

12-06-2009, 03:40 PM

You seem to be equating, in some way, passing someone on the sidewalk, with sneaking up on them. I would never sneak up on someone that I don't know, and often go out of my way to make my presence known.

Actually, no; they were two different subjects. If anything, I was pointing out that the assumption that people who are not plainly social cretins and/or outlaws understand and act on certain concepts that seem fairly obvious is not necessarily valid.

People do silly things. There are folks on this forum who are not all that much older than those kids, and maybe they haven't thought of this thing yet. I might not have, at their age. For that matter, I fail to follow rules that I know are sensible and wise, which was probably a major contribution to how this problem occurred in the first place.

When I first encountered those young ladies, they were in a quasi-walking, quasi-socializing arrangement occupying the entire sidewalk and not moving very rapidly. I came up to them (foot-scuffily, naturally) and endeavored to pass by. Here is my mistake that I knew better than to do but did anyway: Rather than skirt the group entirely, which would have required that my lazy ass walk all the way around them, I put my hands together in crowd-navigating position, turned my shoulders, "smile-say-'scuse" and walked through the group.

This is a bad thing to do. When you walk through a group of people, you are pretty much always putting yourself in immediately-lethal range to three, four, maybe more people all at the same time. If they are so inclined (and yes, one might assume that giggling teenage girls are usually not so inclined), they are in a position to handily beat the living daylights out of you. Also -- and more relevantly to this particular case -- a group has a personal space. Walking through it says "Hai. Ur personal space? I iz in it. Mai metaphorical penis? Biggerz." It constitutes a challenge. And if, for instance, those giggling teenage girls think that I am a member of their social hierarchy? They're going to respond to that challenge.

Fortunately, the group that I decided to engage in a dominance contest was the sort that conducted dominance contests with juvenile pranks instead of firearms. But still. I even knew this little protip, and nevertheless managed to screw up. I'm forced to conclude therefore that screwups happen.

reb

12-06-2009, 05:07 PM

When you say you don't have a prevention paradox, do you mean that you disagree that moving to either extreme of prevention will infringe on another individual's liberties?

We could kill all proven rapers to remove them from the gene pool or life imprisonment would effectively do the same thing. Only problem is that I suspect that the decision to rape is dependent upon nurture and nature since morality (used broadly) must be taught while the drive to pass on ones genes is derived from our dna.

disagree? there is no such thing as an extreme of prevention, unless you are tippy toeing around 'killing rapists as a preventive measure'..there is only awareness and alertness to one's situation; paranoia is not required. as far as individual liberties are concerned, the rapist gives up any consideration in my outlook when they decide to rape, just as any attacker does-chopping off their genitals is not a violation of their rights after they have proven they will act on 'the rape impulse'. when/if they conclude (or act, might be a better term) that they 'have the right to violently attack someone else', they have no rights in my view. you will get no agreement from me on 'rapists' rights'.

as far as what we might or might not suspect about 'the decision to rape' (i'm not certain that it's a conscious decision in many cases-do animals which attack other animals 'make a decision', or is the act born of 'need' or a simple arrogance that they can do as they please?), i have no clue. i'm awaiting any work that may be done to correlate the genome studies with violence. frankly, given conditions in the world, and governments, i don't look for anything like that to be on the upper end of the thought register.

i see no difference between humans and my ram; my ram is going to become sausage because of his violent acts. as far as i'm concerned, we could as easily turn proven rapists into 'soylent green' and feed the poor masses or otherwise feed the hogs. others will likely hop in horror...i am a pragmatist on matters such as this. if rapists are gone, they do not have to be fed or feared, which is the situation the ram is in. there is no educating him-there is no educating a rapist, either, i believe. the bb gun does a fair job of stopping the ram's initial impulse if i am there to use it. perhaps a 'shocker' which would be imbedded in the area of the brain which is triggered when violent thoughts begin for rapists? a technological solution lol! we destroy violent animals all the time; dogs, loose lions and tigers, mean bulls...ranchers shoot wolves which eat their sheep and calves. no difference with a rapist-an animal that does not belong with the herd.

IrishGuy

12-06-2009, 08:09 PM

disagree? there is no such thing as an extreme of prevention, unless you are tippy toeing around 'killing rapists as a preventive measure'..there is only awareness and alertness to one's situation; paranoia is not required. as far as individual liberties are concerned, the rapist gives up any consideration in my outlook when they decide to rape, just as any attacker does-chopping off their genitals is not a violation of their rights after they have proven they will act on 'the rape impulse'. when/if they conclude (or act, might be a better term) that they 'have the right to violently attack someone else', they have no rights in my view. you will get no agreement from me on 'rapists' rights'.

as far as what we might or might not suspect about 'the decision to rape' (i'm not certain that it's a conscious decision in many cases-do animals which attack other animals 'make a decision', or is the act born of 'need' or a simple arrogance that they can do as they please?), i have no clue. i'm awaiting any work that may be done to correlate the genome studies with violence. frankly, given conditions in the world, and governments, i don't look for anything like that to be on the upper end of the thought register.

i see no difference between humans and my ram; my ram is going to become sausage because of his violent acts. as far as i'm concerned, we could as easily turn proven rapists into 'soylent green' and feed the poor masses or otherwise feed the hogs. others will likely hop in horror...i am a pragmatist on matters such as this. if rapists are gone, they do not have to be fed or feared, which is the situation the ram is in. there is no educating him-there is no educating a rapist, either, i believe. the bb gun does a fair job of stopping the ram's initial impulse if i am there to use it. perhaps a 'shocker' which would be imbedded in the area of the brain which is triggered when violent thoughts begin for rapists? a technological solution lol! we destroy violent animals all the time; dogs, loose lions and tigers, mean bulls...ranchers shoot wolves which eat their sheep and calves. no difference with a rapist-an animal that does not belong with the herd.

Well, when I was talking about liberties I was not referring exclusively to the rapists but rapists and those who are profiled as rapists (generally men). If a rape or a case of domestic violence is reported by a woman and she accuses a man the man will automatically be assumed to be guilty. The police will begin to gather evidence against the man without consideration of the woman. That's what this article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) was all about. What happens if those kids are not there? They're using the threat of the law as a prevention tactic; in some states police officers are required to arrest somebody when domestic violence/rape etc cases are reported (in some states both parties involved in the issue at hand are arrested and questioned which is fine). This attempt to prevent violent crimes through force of law is only leading to profiling. People are being arrested based upon whether they fit the profile instead of whether the evidence indicates a crime. When police arrest someone based upon a profile they begin to look for evidence to support their assumption instead of gathering the evidence and analyzing it to see where the evidence points. If you move further to the extreme I think it will only get worse.

We are entitled to be innocent until proven guilty. Profiling corrupts this entitlement by introducing additional bias into the legal system. I think you can apply this scenario to the opposite end of the spectrum involving the victim. Thus, my consideration of liberties has little to do with the actual rapist.

Kisai

12-06-2009, 09:21 PM

if someone has a gun, make sure you do too. there's little point in having a knife, if you don't have the strength to wield it

No. If the distance is within 3 feet, my money's on the person with the knife.

firebee

12-06-2009, 09:41 PM

No. If the distance is within 3 feet, my money's on the person with the knife.

... if the person with the knife is prepared to use it effectively and with commitment to the task at hand. Otherwise, I predict a draw.

daydreamer

12-06-2009, 09:46 PM

No. If the distance is within 3 feet, my money's on the person with the knife.

i'm not sure i'd consider myself being attacked quite yet if the person was out of close range.

Cooper

12-06-2009, 09:50 PM

If an attacker is within three feet, gun or knife, anyone any size, unarmed, if taught the technique, can shatter bones...frontal or rear attack

firebee

12-06-2009, 10:10 PM

If an attacker is within three feet, gun or knife, anyone any size, unarmed, if taught the technique, can shatter bones...frontal or rear attack

Truth. Also truth: Guns and knives and elbows and knees are nasty things. Also also truth: Remember to kiyap really loud so that the crunchy sounds won't feature in your nightmares. Also? When knives are involved, draws go to the house. "The house", in this case, is "Your respective afterlives".

These issues are one of many many reasons why it is a sensible and wise thing to do some thinking about what your comfort level is with respect to risk of being involved in the above, and why it is a polite and wise thing to do to be respectful of how other people define their comfort levels.

schwartzie

12-06-2009, 10:59 PM

What I'm offended by is the idea that it's my responsibility to be thinking about this when I'm just doing my own thing. ... When I have no intention of interaction, their fear does not lay any moral impetus on me.

In my opinion, none of this has a moral impetus. This thread is, I think, merely about information. You are a generally nice man who likes to think of himself as a good person, and so may feel the need to hold yourself up for examination in light of the information given. But, at least, for my part, I do not see it that way; I see it as information being made available for understanding.

The parts I've contributed are just from my own experience; they are just facts and not changeable by argumentation. It is a simple fact that women's experience of daily life is framed in part by their understanding that the male half of the population, unlike the female half, includes persons who may intend them great harm, but who are not readily distinguishable from persons who have no such intention. Few men understand or are willing to act on that information by attempting to communicate, when they are in a "dark alley" situation with a woman, some sense of harmlessness or disinterest that lets a women not need to go to watchful awareness/yellow alert. I've mentioned a few things that I've witnessed aware men do and felt my own emotional response of appreciation. This is not life or death stuff, tho. Acting on it is, at best, a courtesy.

Cooper

12-06-2009, 11:01 PM

Truth. Also truth: Guns and knives and elbows and knees are nasty things. Also also truth: Remember to kiyap really loud so that the crunchy sounds won't feature in your nightmares. Also? When knives are involved, draws go to the house. "The house", in this case, is "Your respective afterlives".

These issues are one of many many reasons why it is a sensible and wise thing to do some thinking about what your comfort level is with respect to risk of being involved in the above, and why it is a polite and wise thing to do to be respectful of how other people define their comfort levels.

I am an expert on nightmares of the "crunchy" kind. I will spare you the details, but I will say, "kiyaping" is not recommended as it will give away your position. I take it you have been in a knife fight?

My thoughts about the article that started this thread have already been stated, so I will not repeat them, however, I will state that I believe we (humans) are responsible for "our" society. That means we take the time to understand each other and respect one another.

firebee

12-06-2009, 11:19 PM

I am an expert on nightmares of the "crunchy" kind. I will spare you the details, but I will say, "kiyaping" is not recommended as it will give away your position.

I'd not given it much thought, but I kinda assumed that "giving away your position" favored the defender (if anyone) in many self-defense sort of situations.

I take it you have been in a knife fight?

No, but... this will sound perhaps a bit complicated... I briefly studied sword-fighting under a fellow who had (former Special Forces, IIRC), and several of my friends have learned the sword and knife from that person. Hence, I've heard things about the basic parameters of knife fights that line up with information that I've also seen elsewhere.

I've got a book around somewhere called "The Owner's Manual to Violence" or some such thing. A lot of its aim is to turn down the volume knob of macho young men by illustrating that actual violent encounters are not nearly as romantic as those protrayed in movies. More knowledge along this front has a way of being sobering; among other things, it's a common occurrence in class to go "This thing here? You do this and this and now you're basically dropping this person on the back of his head. On a surface that might be pavement. That's how quickly something that can kill a person can happen."

There are a lot of things I've heard about that I'm firmly motivated to avoid actually experiencing.

Cooper

12-06-2009, 11:45 PM

I am a former Marine Lt., MCIA Europe, and trained in advanced hand to hand combat along with other training. I know how ugly violence is and I avoid it. However, I think that self defence training is helpful in more ways then being able to fracture someones skull. I think it goes a long way for self-confidence, which CAN deter SOME attackers. I also think that the male population needs to be aware of what our mannerisms say to the female population. If I take responsbility for how I am viewed and take the time to understand others, then I am being a contributing member of society. If all of us do this, won't society be better for all?

stasis

12-07-2009, 02:13 AM

If I take responsbility for how I am viewed
It's such a ridiculous thing to try to take responsibility for. You have no control over the manner in which others actually perceive you. At best, presentation can be controlled. And in controlling presentation, you are appealing to like-minds only.

athenian200

12-07-2009, 03:07 AM

I agree with the article for the most part. But I would say it's not all about women.

I know many physically weaker and smaller men who have similar problems, and deal with them in the same way. Honestly, anyone who has to compensate for being small and weak has potential to come around to thinking and react in this way. Especially if they've been victimized or traumatized before. It's not female, so much as it's human.

People are more suspicious of men because they're more assertive, and physically more powerful (all due to hormones), and thus far more likely to be a threat than women, even if they don't consciously intend to be.

Just thought that was an important note.

reb

12-07-2009, 03:49 AM

Irish, i get the 'basis' of your comments now. you can always safely presume when i am discussing matters like this, i am not talking about 'accusations' such as someone accusing someone else of a crime and the system 'going bonkers' over the accusation, circumstantial evidence which may or may not actually prove guilt, or any other silly politically correct junk or foaming at the mouth the system generates. when i posit regarding the term 'rapist', i mean someone who actually has committed rape, with witnesses who are not reinforcing a 'set up'.

any person who sets up a situation accusing someone else, and is later found to have used this as a 'tactic' without 'actuality of crime' should be given the punishment that would have been given their victim had the victim been found guilty. that kind of thing is life ruining, and is as bad as rape in my view...it's rape of the reputation. beneath contempt.

Kisai, some friends of mine exhaustively proved an intentional attacker can reach you before you can draw a concealed firearm is 20 feet. this i think must be seen as 'an alert person', since they could not do the 'pink panther suprise attack' using their timer under the conditions of their test. there are actually too many variables to forecast in an actual situation to be 'factual' in all cases....attacker slips, defender gets shirt caught in weapon, attacker gets elbow in the eye, etc.. there are simply no guarantees that i am aware of...

firebee, i have been 'dropped on concrete' during sparring. it is not fun; it could be fatal. a street fight where that happened, especially with more than one attacker, would truly suck. evasion, avoidance or escape would always be the better choice, imo. the similarity of this situation reminds me of people who drive like aggressive maniacs-the reality of the blood, gore and aftermath of a bad wreck are much less romantic than some whackos think. kind of like deer hunting...it seems pretty cool until you have to dress the critter, pack it out, then either grind it up or pay for processing later. ideation does not always reflect reality.

thod

12-07-2009, 04:12 AM

As a tall and well built guy I have encountered the opposite problem. I could be walking on the sidewalk, catching up with a woman due to my longer legs and suddenly become aware that something is wrong. I pick up on her nervousness and distress signals where I had previously not noticed her (I have my head in the clouds most of the time). The question is what to do. I pretend to have not noticed and give her more distance as I pass her. She clearly cannot pull a knife every time someone walks past her in the street. I have seen people cross the street as I approach too, I feel quite offended. The problem of encountering a woman in a dark alley is a more classic example. I don't want to rape her, I don't want to interact at all. Yet she will be nervous and I must pass her. I certainly don't want to speak to reassure her, any interaction would be seen as confirmation of her fears.

gestalt

12-07-2009, 07:57 AM

I've had the hello/smile a lot from unaccompanied women on the street. I always thought it was just being polite! Now I know better. I've also done the smile/scuse overconfidence with groups but after reading about bonecrunching nightmares I think I'll avoid that. Posture and weight is important, having been a 6'4" swimmer and soccer and rugby player, I've noticed a great deal of difference in others' evaluation of me on the street, depending on what I'm weighing at the time.

Sort of surprised noone has mentioned that single women walking around in large cities after 8PM could really be more reasonably interpreted as bait than maybe-not-clueless incognito ninjas. All the more reason for me to avoid them publicly. Basically I think the lesson that I've read so far is: Don't approach women publicly. Save it for semi-private settings. Forget about pickup and the game. Just work on making yourself better and that confidence and calmness will carry over to how strangers see you.

schwartzie

12-07-2009, 08:24 AM

... .I could be walking on the sidewalk, catching up with a woman due to my longer legs and suddenly become aware that something is wrong. I pick up on her nervousness and distress signals ... I pretend to have not noticed and give her more distance as I pass her. ... I have seen people cross the street as I approach too, I feel quite offended. ... ... she will be nervous and I must pass her. ...

Thod, if you have thoughts, I'd be interested, on:

After having read this thread, do you think you would still be offended if the strange woman crosses the street?

Any thoughts on what the woman can do in the situation you describe, other than ideas already offered (and are you urban or rural and what general part of the world, if you think local norms might be relevant)

Cooper

12-07-2009, 08:29 AM

It's such a ridiculous thing to try to take responsibility for. You have no control over the manner in which others actually perceive you. At best, presentation can be controlled. And in controlling presentation, you are appealing to like-minds only.

How silly of me to think that if I walk down the street dressed like I should be the main character in a horror film and carrying an AK-47 that I am not responsible for scaring the crap out of poeple, except for others dressed like the main character in a horror film, carrying an AK-47. It is also silly of me to think that people would understand my point without getting hung up on semantics.

stasis

12-07-2009, 08:34 AM

How silly of me
Yes, quite silly.

Cooper

12-07-2009, 08:35 AM

Yes, quite silly.

Sarcasm...

schwartzie

12-07-2009, 08:37 AM

It's such a ridiculous thing to try to take responsibility for. You have no control over the manner in which others actually perceive you. At best, presentation can be controlled. And in controlling presentation, you are appealing to like-minds only.

yes, there can be a difference between concern/control over how others view you vs a concern/control over your appearance/behavior. But it was clear from the context, I thought, that cooper was placing the comment into the frame of "what constitutes reasonable/civil social behavior," which is a bit of both ... and reflects, to some extent, local norms for public behavior.

stasis

12-07-2009, 08:51 AM

the context of frame of "what constitutes reasonable/civil social behavior," which is a bit of both ... and reflects, to some extent, local norms for public behavior.
We're dealing with actions in this thread as simple as walking down the street without so much as gesturing in the general direction of another person. There's no "taking responsibility" for the perceptions of others in this context; the very idea is rendered absurd because the baseline perceptions of others are a function of the others themselves. Moreover, a default presumption of rape is an antisocial presumption. The idea that people should be beholden to cater to that kind of paranoia by default, not because they're covered in gore and bits of brain matter, but simply because they exist and are male, is neither reasonable nor civil in my opinion. And in no case is it a responsibility.

If you're a guy and you're walking alone down a street at night while a girl is approaching from the opposite direction, and she smiles and you do not return her smile for whatever reason, and so she maces you, then she's a fucking basket case and needs to go to jail. You aren't the one acting irresponsibly, she is. You weren't responsible for managing her perception, she was.

Honestly, any argument which states or borders upon the notion that women need coddling from men because women are women and men are men is something I find disgusting. If being of the masculine sex generates a responsibility to lead with special reassurance whenever women happen to be near, for her comfort, does being of the female sex similarly require leading with makeup and dinner at eight, for his satisfaction? That sort of thing is a responsibility, is it? Feminine and masculine responsibilities?

Cooper

12-07-2009, 09:27 AM

Are we perhaps dealing with not just a difference of opinion, but also a difference of values, generation, and selfishness/self-rightousness? Just a thought...

stasis

12-07-2009, 09:38 AM

Are we perhaps dealing with not just a difference of opinion, but also a difference of values, generation, and selfishness/self-rightousness? Just a thought...
I dunno. Are you an old geezer? I'm in my late twenties. But I'd expect even somebody from my parents' generation to balk at ceding the ground that feminists were able to secure over gendered responsibilities. And all balking aside, there are ethical and aesthetic objections aplenty.

Cooper

12-07-2009, 09:44 AM

Are we perhaps dealing with not just a difference of opinion, but also a difference of values, generation, and selfishness/self-rightousness? Just a thought...

I dunno. Are you an old geezer? I'm in my late twenties. But I'd expect even somebody from my parents' generation to balk at ceding the ground that feminists were able to secure over gendered responsibilities. And all balking aside, there are ethical and aesthetic objections aplenty.

I do believe my point is made...

cannotseethe

12-07-2009, 09:46 AM

Are we perhaps dealing with not just a difference of opinion, but also a difference of values, generation, and selfishness/self-rightousness? Just a thought...

I read this as a question of whether certain behaviors are courtesies or responsibilities. It's one thing to say that a man's being mindful of a woman's perception of threat, e.g. by crossing the street when walking behind a woman at night, is a nice thing. It's quite another to say that all men are responsible for doing this.

Further, how can a society remain cohesive if half its members presume a priori that the other half are ill-intentioned until they demonstrate otherwise? Such a massive, default presumption of guilt is antisocial, isn't it?

SelfMadeBum

12-07-2009, 09:48 AM

I'll just pop in to say I don't regard men that way at all and don't identify with the article in the least.

Airius

12-07-2009, 09:50 AM

This article makes my head hurt. I am by statistics, one of those girls who has been sexually assaulted in her lifetime. But just because bad things happen, you can't envelope yourself in fear of the world around you. If I automatically assumed that every stranger was an immediate threat to my wellbeing, I'd have an ugly meltdown.

SelfMadeBum

12-07-2009, 09:55 AM

Thing is, most rapes are by someone you know... like someone commented, strangers are not the problem.

stasis

12-07-2009, 10:08 AM

I read this as a question of whether certain behaviors are courtesies or responsibilities. It's one thing to say that a man's being mindful of a woman's perception of threat, e.g. by crossing the street when walking behind a woman at night, is a nice thing. It's quite another to say that all men are responsible for doing this.

Further, how can a society remain cohesive if half its members presume a priori that the other half are ill-intentioned until they demonstrate otherwise? Such a massive, default presumption of guilt is antisocial, isn't it?
Right. It is usually courteous to be mindful of somebody's discomfort, no matter the sex of the person. That's the empathetic thing to do. But there is such a thing as irrational anxiety, and the idea that women - because they are women - should well carry this anxiety, and men - because they are men - have a responsibility to soothe it, is a nasty amalgamation of antisocial misandry and paranoid antifeminism.

Airius

12-07-2009, 10:14 AM

SMB is right. You just have to utilize some common sense. I do believe that every woman should get herself a small bottle of pepper spray, and not to drink anything you didn't open yourself. But most women who have been sexually assaulted know the person who did it.

SelfMadeBum

12-07-2009, 10:27 AM

I was genuinely surprised by the encouraging comments on the article. It's encouraging women to be perpetual possible-victims, and berating men who don't treat them that way.

schwartzie

12-07-2009, 11:23 AM

...a default presumption of rape is an antisocial presumption.... neither reasonable nor civil in my opinion. ... Honestly, any argument which states or borders upon the notion that women need coddling from men because women are women and men are men is something I find disgusting. ...

I think the concern about maintenance of a dual standard is a very legitimate concern, and posit that it is not appropriate for all men to feel morally or socially responsible for the fact that all rapists are male. That is a straw man you (and others) have erected, twig by tortured twig.

This thread is about adult education and informed choice, not the setting of a New Rule of Social Responsibility.

Also, I disagree that things are as black and white as you might prefer. I believe you will find complexities to it after you or your friend/sister/daughter are raped. Statistically, you can expect that at least one of you will be raped, probably many more. When you hear her story you can judge her specific facts to decide whether she was in one end or the other of the dichotomy you perceive: at the moment when she realized she was at risk of assault and rape, was she antisocial or did she fail to take reasonable precautions?

How about a nice game of You Make the Rule? Here's two examples from real life.

Scenario one: a young mother, 5'5", short on sleep, husband who needs to go to school in the afternoon followed by a job in the pm, has the time when her husband is home (after 10 pm and before 6 am) to go to the store, baby-hands-free. It is 10:30 pm, mid-autumn, dark, but with moonlight and coolish temps outside. The car is parked in front of the house. As she walks out of the house, keys in hand, she looks around, sees noone. As she walks around the car and approaches the driver's door, she sees behind her, out of the corner of her eye, a man of medium build in dark clothing, silently, rapidly, running directly at her. He is approximately 25 feet away, and at his present speed, she has maybe 2-3 seconds, tops, before he is on her.

Scenario two: a college student, female, 5'3", rides the campus bus along a busy route from campus to the community center located not far from where she lives, where she is taking a kickboxing class. She's taken a variety of classes there, and knows that the community center and surrounding residential area are moderately heavily traveled this time of day (6:45 pm), as students are walking, taking dogs out, and doing things at the community center and surrounding green space. When she gets off the bus, she notices a man of approximately her age and moderate build also get off the bus and stand by the bench at the bus stop. She heads down the 50-foot long walkway across the grounds to the community center entrance. As she is approaching the door to the community center, she sees what she thinks is the same man silently hurrying toward her from behind. He is about 10-12 feet away from her, and she is about 10 feet from the building entrance. She has at most 2-3 seconds before he'll be on her.

You get to decide what the appropriate thinking and behavior should be of these people.

First, the women: what should each woman be thinking about the man she sees approaching her in order that you judge her reasonable, not anti-social, but taking appropriate responsibility for her own well being in your world, where reasonable civil men do not consider the circumstances under which they approach women?

Lets also consider the men. Let's assume that each of these men is a good guy, doing something reasonable, like, say, the bus stop guy was bringing the college student a glove he saw her drop at the bus stop and he was hurrying because his transfer was due any second; or, the guy with the mom, he was thrilled to see her because he wanted to use her cell phone; he'd locked himself out of his house, and he'd seen noone outside for almost 20 minutes (and he was starting to get really cold.)

Do you think the "reasonable, civil" man in each of these scenarios would like to know that they frightened the crap out of each of these women? If they knew, do you think they would want to act differently next time they were in situation like this?

THAT contemplation is what this thread is about--adult education and choice.

Now, as it happens, these are true stories. In the real scenarios, both women reacted to what they saw by dropping everything and trying to get away.

As it turned out, one of the men was a rapist and one was just ... some ignorant happy, self-focused guy. Which do you think was which?

Which woman behaved anti-socially in presuming she was about to be assaulted? Which acted responsibly by trying to protect herself? Should the woman who was grabbed, gagged, dragged off and raped (but lived!) want to educate her fellow citizens on what it is like to be approached by a potential rapist?

Sinequanon

12-07-2009, 11:43 AM

THAT contemplation is what this thread is about--adult education and choice.

These are not the scenarios raised in the article. The scenarios raised in the article are a man deigning to think he has the right to talk to another human being who happens to have a vagina.

schwartzie

12-07-2009, 11:47 AM

ok, so you draw the line.

What fact scenario, if any, do you think would cause a reasonable man to want to know if he was spooking the woman he was approaching?

SelfMadeBum

12-07-2009, 11:56 AM

I think men are already reasonably sensitive to making women severely uncomfortable.

Sinequanon

12-07-2009, 12:01 PM

ok, so you draw the line.

What fact scenario, if any, do you think would cause a reasonable man to want to know if he was spooking the woman he was approaching?
When someone is being fairly unambigiously non-threatening, even if they may be bothering you (like the "reading on the bus" scenario), it is reasonable to assume they're not invoking a primal fight-or-flight response and it's reasonable to counsel women not to push themselves into that space.

The main problem I have with this thread is (some) women's implication or perception that men have some sort of "rape switch" that goes off in their heads, and that the otherwise "good guy" is going to turn into a beast if the right conditions are met. I have never in my life had the thought upon seeing someone: "Oh my god I've gotta rape that like right now", nor have I ever been in a dark alley thinking "If only some woman would come along, since this place really gets my rape-juices flowing". To even access that dark a place in my brain I can tell I would already have to be deeply disturbed. I do think there's a subset of crime that is sadly unavoidable, committed by people unfit for our society.

As mentioned, most rapes and sexual assaults occur when the woman in question knows her attacker. I have been in a situation where there was a rapid loss of trust and the woman I was with thought that she was in danger, and it sucks, because nothing could have been further from the truth. I sensed what she was going through immediately (though she never said this and remained very measured), and backed off. I did this because I'm a good person. A less good person would have perhaps taken advantage of her there, but that is a social/personal (that person's) problem with regards to a lack of self control, not her failing. All of this vigilance and training is good and no one should discourage it, but it might not help ultimately if the majority of these crimes happen from people that you already trust.

thod

12-07-2009, 12:02 PM

Which woman behaved anti-socially in presuming she was about to be assaulted?

We have all had guys run past us, on whatever errand takes them. I cannot accept that presumed ill intent is a good reason for launching a pre-emptive assault. The man would be quite justified in filing a police complaint against her. If we were to allow "I thought I was danger" as a sufficient defence then we provide a catch-all excuse for every assault and murder.

Which acted responsibly by trying to protect herself?

Men are entitled to walk, or run, down public streets. That in itself is not grounds for taking out a gun and blasting him. She is not protecting herself until an assault actually occurs. She becomes the assailant and he is protecting himself. Women do not wish to see their fathers, husbands and sons blown away by crazy ladies either.

Should the woman who was grabbed, gagged, dragged off and raped (but lived!) want to educate her fellow citizens on what it is like to be approached by a potential rapist?

Every single man is a potential rapist. Every single man is a potential mugger too. Potential is not sufficient to conclude intent. If it were we would have to jail every man right now. Since there are men that fear women, we would have to jail all the women too.

firebee

12-07-2009, 12:12 PM

The main problem I have with this thread is (some) women's implication or perception that men have some sort of "rape switch" that goes off in their heads, and that the otherwise "good guy" is going to turn into a beast if the right conditions are met.

And since women have been shown to be implying or perceiving that in this thread, you're ready with quotes demonstrating this... right?

We have all had guys run past us, on whatever errand takes them. I cannot accept that presumed ill intent is a good reason for launching a pre-emptive assault.

Congratulations. You agree with every commenter on this thread plus probably most of the comments on the article cited. Are you looking for a group hug, or are you joining the long string of people who are warming yourself by the burning straw-woman?

schwartzie

12-07-2009, 12:22 PM

materfamilias

12-07-2009, 12:44 PM

Ah. I've been enlightened. So the next time a stalker gets into my workplace, I'll pause to consider whether I'm being anti-social and making an assumption about his gender, that perhaps might wound him emotionally. I'll be sure to remind myself next time that maybe, this person is here to share a cup of tea or is just passing through my newsroom and wants to have a little chat. Perhaps he means me no harm. I'll also be sure next time to share some of the arguments I've seen on this thread with my intj publisher -- a geezer, as I am, who may also have made improper gender assumptions about said stalker by getting the poor guy into his office (and away from me) and calling the cops.

cannotseethe

12-07-2009, 12:45 PM

Thod, neither woman assaulted. Both reacted with fear, and tried to get away. Two or more other posters claim that this response, the response of anticipating rape that hasn't yet occurred, is always anti-social. And that for any man to care is bad, with important political consequences....

I think the question at issue was whether men were responsible for assuming that women would react as if they were about to be assaulted even in seemingly-innocuous situations such as being approached on the subway. I don't recall anyone credibly disputing that, minimally out of courtesy but also as a matter of empathy, men ought to be attentive to how women are reacting to them and take care not to leave them feeling threatened.

As realistic, or pragmatic, or safe as it may be, as a matter of principle the default assumption that all men are potential rapists, and that men ought to behave a particular way lest their potential be assumed actualized and subsequently treated with mace, is a fairly antisocial one. In particular situations, that assumption is no doubt justified. But as a governing principle? As a principle of social organization, or an ethical principle? That's a different matter.

stasis

12-07-2009, 12:45 PM

This thread is about adult education and informed choice, not the setting of a New Rule of Social Responsibility.
I dunno, cooper seems to think it is. And you were apologist to his statements a moment ago.

Also, I disagree that things are as black and white as you might prefer. I believe you will find complexities to it after you or your friend/sister/daughter are raped.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Statistically, you can expect that at least one of you will be raped, probably many more.
Which sounds like you're saying "statistically, women can expect to be raped." Tell me - if the vast majority of women are never raped, why should women expect to be raped? Because some women are raped sometimes? Should I buy and carry a firearm because some people are mugged too? Wild west, wild west!

Your scenarios are funny. Night: impeded senses, danger. Running: decreased thinking time, urgency. Dark clothing: spooky.

But yeah, Halloween ambiance and blitzkrieg notwithstanding (speaking of straw men), the position upheld by the article - that women need to think about each man they come across as a potential rapist - is antisocial because it falsely regards half of the population as violent sexual criminals. I can see nothing particularly civil about validating such a falsehood. Most men are not rapists and most women are not raped. And this is not because the women who aren't getting raped are hypervigilant cynical ninjas, ready to vault the nearest bush at a moment's notice. The position that guys need to wear cowbells around their necks for the feminine peace of mind is almost as strange as it is awful. It reads, "I hate you; protect me."

Cooper

12-07-2009, 01:18 PM

Stasis...your views have me wondering what your parents taught you. Were you taught chivalry?

stasis

12-07-2009, 01:34 PM

Stasis...your views have me wondering what your parents taught you. Were you taught chivalry?
My parents were noncorporeal prime evils in the service of the dark lord. I therefore studied along the left-hand path in my youth, with an utmost emphasis on alchemy and fatal hexes.

Cooper

12-07-2009, 01:38 PM

My parents were noncorporeal prime evils in the service of the dark lord. I therefore studied along the left-hand path in my youth, with an utmost emphasis on alchemy and fatal hexes.

That was the type of answer I thought you would give, and it is an answer in itself...

stasis

12-07-2009, 01:43 PM

That was the type of answer I thought you would give
What frightening insight you must have. I'm impressed.

So were you going somewhere with the fallacy ad hominem, or was it intended to be an end in itself? Any more silly questions for me?

Cooper

12-07-2009, 01:50 PM

What frightening insight you must have. I'm impressed.

So were you going somewhere with the fallacy ad hominem, or was it intended to be an end in itself? Any more silly questions for me?

Nothing to be impressed by, it was a predictable answer...

No need to ask questions of any kind when the point has been made...

schwartzie

12-07-2009, 02:12 PM

Stasis, I think that rhetoric is getting in the way of useful conversation. The characterization of me as "apologist" isn't accurate; I merely noted that then you unhelpfully mischaracterized cooper's statements.

Your characterizing my statements as "appeals to emotion" is also inaccurate. I suspect that you posit a dichotomy because you are uninformed. I think that, generally, facts matter in discussions like this; otherwise we speak past one another and get nowhere, and, eventually, that hinders productive conversation.

You mischaracterize my statement that you or a friend or family member will probably be raped. Unless you have very few people in your life, it is likely that you'll have a personal experience of some sort with this, and, probably you'll learn something from it.

You describe the scenarios I wrote as "funny", even tho I said the events occurred exactly as written. That is inappropriate. My friend, the girl raped on her way to kickboxing, was a remarkable person; the first of her family to go to college, bright, funny, lovely. She barely survived the beating and rape, had many surgeries to repair the damage to her body. The nice man who bolted at me had indeed locked himself out, and had seen me as his saviour, and without a thought in his head, rushed over to grab me to save him before I drove off. Lala head!

And finally, as I repeat for your sake the third or fourth time, I agree that a proscriptive approach has negative political aspects to it; I did not read the OP's piece as proscribing how women "should" think; how men "should behave;" assert that "if male then rapist", nor set out a political agenda for a social reformation. I agree that there is a tension between a striving for perfect value-neutral equality--which you seem to envision as a chauvinism-free world for purposes of this discussion- and a somewhat bumpier version of equality in which we acknowledge that differences exist and offer informed choice as a vehicle for accommodating our differences.
IDK if this is helpful, but before moving to where I now live, I tried to find a place in or near an ethnic community not far away, where the social relations between men and women are vastly different from those we've been speaking of; there, segregation is the rule. The civic world is mostly run by men and the women are only rarely part of public life. The men utterly ignore strange women on the street and in shops. The women and kids are friendly and plentiful. They also are first generation immigrants and have a higher than average percentage of people working second and third shift--with more people on the streets round the clock. Those difference could make the odds much better for spotting a predator in the herd, I thought... :)

The OP article had colorful language and hyperbole, which engages people and sells writing; that aside, at its core, it was merely adult education; take it or leave it.

stasis

12-07-2009, 02:51 PM

Stasis, I think that rhetoric is getting in the way of useful conversation.
The thread is heavy on the rhetoric, as are all debates and many less than cheerful exchanges. Define useful? If your definition runs along the lines of educating people who disagree with you, I'd suspect something else is in the way.

The characterization of me as "apologist" isn't accurate; I merely noted that then you unhelpfully mischaracterized cooper's statements.
We clearly disagree there.

You mischaracterize my statement that you or a friend or family member will probably be raped. Unless you have extraordinarily few people in your life, it is statistically probable that you will have a personal experience of some sort with this, and, probably you will learn something from it.
Who knows, maybe I've already had this type of experience with it. Your suggestion that being personally involved through a friend or family member will cause me to change my tune is reasonably dismissed as an appeal to emotion because that's what it is. You don't follow up your presumption of my ignorance about the subject with 'if you care to learn more about it, you'd find', or something to that effect - which would be specific to the matter of being informed. Instead, you went with 'when your daughter gets raped, then...' This looks like a fairly standard example to me. I'll find out the hard, shocking way. That'll capture what you consider to be my currently lacking attention.

It is "statistically probable" that any given woman will not be raped. Is there more to your position than this statistic? What is your position, exactly? What do you think mine is?

You describe the scenarios I wrote as "funny", even tho I said the events occurred exactly as written. That is inappropriate. My friend, the girl raped on her way to kickboxing
I don't find rape funny, schwartzie. To be clear. I wonder, before we get into what is and is not appropriate, do you think rape is a "game"? Shall we "play" with the subject, as you put it, when discussing scenarios in which a rape occurs? Or would that be too irreverent.

The OP article had plenty of colorful language and hyperbole, which engages people and sells writing; that aside, at its core, it was merely adult education; take it or leave it.
I'll have to go with the latter. The hyperbole drowns any enlightening content it might have otherwise contained.

reb

12-07-2009, 03:55 PM

i want y'all to know, wandering around in a sporting goods store and the grocery store today, there were a couple of women wandering the aisles, too. i compared the body language of the women with the body language of the men i passed. the women were mostly 'ok' in their stance, although one was nervous as heck (she rounded a corner and came up against me with her cart between us, and jumped 2 foot-i tried to talk slow and gentle to her during the short contact...she was still nervous??? i dont think it was me..). the men make eye contact and nod-generally. the women make very quick eye contact, and look away-in general.

strangely, in the grocery store, i noticed that women older than me look me right in the eye and nod, just like the men do (no older ones in the academy store); the young women use oblique eye contact. there is a psychological study here for someone who would do it without slant or to grind their axe. there might even be a possible way to help deal with the 'scared' mindset, also, but that's a stretch...first, someone has to know their mindset is somewhat paranoid. then they have to want to do something about it....that's not going to happen while 'rome is burning', i don't think.

my short test convinces me that there is actually something to the mindset. i don't agree with the mindset, but i see that it exists. i would never tell you that our academy sports store is dangerous; cannot believe anyone would 'feel' that way. the grocery store, i can see....all kinds of somewhat non-lustrous looking characters there. i think the clint smith statement i posted over in the 'email jokes' thread is correct; if one has a firearm on them, what is there to be paranoid about? however, i would not be skittish without one, frankly. don't turn that statement into a brady thing....

the more i know about humans, the better i like my animals.

Titian

12-07-2009, 04:22 PM

Basically I think the lesson that I've read so far is: Don't approach women publicly. Save it for semi-private settings.

It took me until this comment to figure out what was bothering me about this article. Then I looked at the title of the thread and I realized it again.

The article spends a great deal of time and effort talking about situations that most people would find questionable and which most people would associate with potential danger. It warns against public interaction with strangers. It warns about dark alleys and eccentric men. It warns guys that these are situations and factors that aren't suitable for romantic interest. I mean it's talking about specifically that. It's not talking about rape at all. Real rape statistics have exactly nothing to do with any of those factors. This isn't about rape. It's about dating. This is about identifying and explaining behavior that is seen as negative in the context of being approached for romantic interaction. My guess is that the majority of rapists actually do conform to these behavioral standards. Very few rape statistics have anything in common with a mugging, robbery, or seemingly random violent incident.

Here are some actual rape statistics in America to put this back in perspective for anyone reading this to understand the dangers and what interacting with a rapist is really likely to be like.

73% of rapes are perpetrated by a friend, acquaintance, intimate, or relative. 93% of juvenile victims are raped by someone they know. The victim is quite likely to know the rapist fairly well.

60% of rapes occur at the victim's home or the home of a friend or relative. Rape is likely to happen in a place where you feel safe and fairly likely to happen in the place where you feel the safest.

76% of rapes happen during hours when most people are awake.

84% of victims are assaulted using only physical force.

66% of rapists commit rape without being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Most rapists are not intoxicated.

Most rapists are not serial rapists.

The majority of rapists are between 18 and 24 years old.

15% of victims are under 12 years of age. 29% of victims are between 12 and 17 years of age. 36% of victims are between 18 and 29 years of age. The highest frequency of occurrence for victims is between 16 and 19 years of age.

82.4% of all women will not be rape victims.

So the most important statistical likelihood is that the average rapist is not Schrödinger’s Rapist.

A random guy you meet and who tries to start a conversation with you indicating they are romantically interested in you is less likely to rape you than an acquaintance you see frequently. A random girl encountered on a street, in a subway car, or an elevator is less likely to be a rapist's preferred victim than a teenage girl the rapist is acquainted with.

One encouraging statistic is that the percentage of reported rapes has been steadily declining since the 70s.

reb

12-07-2009, 04:52 PM

18 to 24. that makes the 'why' more obvious. testosterone poisoning.

SelfMadeBum

12-07-2009, 05:34 PM

nacht

12-07-2009, 06:13 PM

A random guy you meet and who tries to start a conversation with you indicating they are romantically interested in you is less likely to rape you than an acquaintance you see frequently. A random girl encountered on a street, in a subway car, or an elevator is less likely to be a rapist's preferred victim than a teenage girl the rapist is acquainted with.

I have used child abduction statistics to illustrate this same point.

There is a huge amount of fear that's invested into "little 8 year old Johnny being abducted by the random weird guy in the playground or in front of school," but the statistics paint an extremely different tale (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):

There are about 100 juveniles abducted by a stranger or vague acquaintance each year from anywhere in the US. 2/3rds of those are over the age of 12.

So your 8 year old on a playground? Not a likely target for the random yahoo who the parents are scared of. It is much more likely to be the gardner, or the estranged spouse, or Uncle Freddie.

With rape it is most likely to occur at or within a mile radius of your own home or a friend's home. It is most likely to be someone you know, possibly someone you know quite well. It is most likely that neither a weapon nor drugs will be involved.

As a result, I am relatively unimpressed with the vast majority of "how not to get raped" advice out there, especially if it starts talking about tattoos or crossing the street because some guy is walking alone (you may, admittedly, have other justifiable reasons for such--but that is true irrelevant of gender, and has very little to do with rape).

Sinequanon

12-07-2009, 06:33 PM

And since women have been shown to be implying or perceiving that in this thread, you're ready with quotes demonstrating this... right?
People are supporting an article which says more than once "You are Schroedinger's Rapist"; this has several disturbing implications:

- you are a rapist until proven otherwise
- I will treat you as a rapist until you are proven that you aren't
- This is a reasonable set of positions to take
- Even if you're a "nice guy" you could still be a rapist

It is these set of assumptions I take issue with. The totality of them coalesces into an unspoken current in this thread that all men are potentially capable of this. I think, in normal circumstances, this is not true. Every woman (every person) is capable of murder but it is unreasonable to treat everyone as a potential murderer until proven otherwise. Such is the same with the assumptions in this article and thread.

Titian hit it DEAD on, the use of rape in the article is inflammatory. The behaviors exhibited are annoying but are not life threatening in the way that a potential rape is, and it conflates the two to exacerbate situations in which potential rape may occur. I don't doubt that if someone is going into something potentially dangerous that they might leave contact information just in case- I do this when I go to bad neighborhoods. Reasonable people take reasonable precautions (it's not only logical, but tautological!); unreasonable people do not. This article encourages a position of victimhood for the woman and casts all men as potential criminals for doing things such as saying hi on a bus. It's crazy.

Night Runner

12-07-2009, 07:47 PM

I think at this point in the thread's development, it'd be appropriate to share another story about the kidnapping/rape/murder case I'd talked about before. It took over a month to find the girl's body. Her relatively rich family paid for a state of the art PR campaign that alerted not just the city, but the entire country (you may have heard about the Brianna Denison case). Everyone was jumpy, everyone was on the lookout for potential rapists, and the mass hysteria culminated when a local feminist group demanded (in all seriousness) that all men in the city have their DNA collected for a criminal database. Essentially, they equated all men (not women, mind you :rolleyes:) with rapists and murderers. Anybody who would dare to speak against them would be automatically labeled as a suspect, because why would a law-abiding John Smith possibly object, unless he had something to hide? I wasn't alive during the Red Scare and Communist witch hunts of the 1950s, but I believe it must have felt at least somewhat similar.

Luckily, the body was found - and then, months later, they found the rapist. My point is that demonizing an entire gender is a very slippery slope. Had there been more attacks in the area, the Powers That Be might have caved in and ordered the mandatory DNA sweep...

larkin

12-07-2009, 07:48 PM

Storm

12-07-2009, 07:59 PM

larkin

12-07-2009, 08:03 PM

Any argument can be made to seem contradictory when you conflate the two sides into one.

What argument? I probably agree with the general sentiment that the original post takes it too far, but my only point is that with no shortage of contradictory information out there on exactly all the things women should do to keep themselves safe - as you and I have both noted before, starting literally from early childhood - is it any wonder why some have dramatically different interpretations of what's appropriate?

Storm

12-07-2009, 08:05 PM

I thought you were saying that an undefined person (males? not sure) were being hypocritcal. My point was that there is almost always exact opposite advice for any sort of hotly contested issue.

larkin

12-07-2009, 08:13 PM

I thought you were saying that an undefined person (males? not sure) were being hypocritcal. My point was that there is almost always exact opposite advice for any sort of hotly contested issue.

Nope, I doubt anyone is being hypocritical. The advice is well-meaning (I'm not suggesting it's coming from not a single person, rather pretty much everyone), it's just tiresome. And for young women particularly, confusing. Is it any wonder women send mixed messages to guys? These are the messages they're getting about their sexuality and personal safety, plus probably a million others.

And the implied (or explicit) judgment should women fail to follow any of these contradictory lines of advice is definitely tiresome.

eibuos

12-07-2009, 08:14 PM

perhaps israelis just need to learn martial arts.

Or they could stop bulldozing the Palestinians.

nowt

12-07-2009, 08:18 PM

Schrödinger’s rapist wants Schrödinger’s victim's Schrödinger’s box.

The article is true only if every woman is Sweet Machine.

Hello, Sweet Machines, one and all.

Firebrand

12-07-2009, 09:39 PM

can't help but notice none of those tips use aikido.

Because they are taught to women during 1-day self-defense seminars, not women who want to take the 5-year road to get a black belt in Aikido.

---------- Post added 12-08-2009 at 12:42 AM ----------

Firebrand, you can't talk 'personal responsibility' to some people. they don't understand that wolves look for weak animals to eat; it escapes their mechanisms; they think the world should be safe, like their fantasies.

I bet you 100 bucks that it's F types who think this way.

---------- Post added 12-08-2009 at 12:43 AM ----------

Zig zag patterns are too predictable...its like shooting ducks

Don't run like a robot duck. That's a tip. Write it down.

Shorgenfunkel

12-07-2009, 09:55 PM

Goddamn rapists ruining it for everybody else.

I bet if we didn't have rape, everyone would be having more sex overall.

Firebrand

12-07-2009, 09:58 PM

Won't matter to a group of attackers, nor someone hyped up on drugs. And about "only rapists can stop rape": I have found three people -- two women, one man -- dead of suicide when they could not stop their rape. One of them was... bad. It took five days to clean away. All of them had been chastised for 'not doing enough' and 'maybe you really wanted it, you dirty $!#&." Where people want to learn to defend themselves, they do. When they are attacked, they fight back. When they are overwhelmed by the common crushing depression, "you didn't do enough, it's your fault" is the only logical correlation to a traumatized mind. And then they find the moproom in the back and kill themselves. 'only rapists can stop rape' keeps them from blaming themselves (we saved a few with that mantra, after we learned the lesson) and doesn't keep those who wish to, from learning how to defend themselves.

Right, right, right, I was talking about preventing rape, not coping with having been raped. As far as the multiple attacker situation, still my experience and training dictate that presenting yourself as someone "not to be fucked with" is imperative if you want to cut down your chances of being attacked. It's even advantageous to temporarily act insane for the sake of psychologically off-balancing your opponents. These types of psychological tactics are mentioned in Stephen Haye's first Ninjutsu book (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on page 32. A conflict is first psychological, and second, physical.

---------- Post added 12-08-2009 at 01:03 AM ----------

Second google result for "This e-mail should probably be taken seriously because the Crying Baby Theory was mentioned on America 's Most Wanted when they profiled the serial killer in Louisiana":

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hehe I never said my Aikido instructor wrote it, just that he sent it. He currently teaches women's self-defense, rape-prevention, and "redman" seminars for women. I've also taught basic self-defense to some ex-girlfriends and women I know. Note that I say self-defense, not martial arts.

---------- Post added 12-08-2009 at 01:12 AM ----------

Seems like a lot to remember in a time of sheer terror.

This topic is so disappointing to me, this always happens. As soon as a group of people start talking about rape, two groups begin to emerge. One where women must be constantly vigilante and confident so that she will avoid rape; the fault lies with her, not the rapist. The rapist is only but a predator who will logically deduce which woman is worth the risk This group is typical endorsed by males who want to be able to approach women at any time without them being apprehensive towards them. The two second groups consists of those who realize that rapes happen, and it's never the fault of the woman (which it isn't) but must always have a shield and a fear of what a random male do to her. The proponents of this point of view are typically women. I know this is a generalization of this topic but, in general, nothing REALLY has been said that has not been said before.

Ok, but the original article stated that all women fear being raped. The reply by me originally is in reference to a worse-case scenario, such as a woman walking back to her car in an urban setting, say, where some basic knowledge of the psychology present can help. This is different from a situation at the neighborhood Starbucks where a guy has to be afraid and wear kid-gloves to simply approach a woman because "she may have previously been raped" or "thinks you may rape her" which the article is mainly about. People have to be responsible only for themselves. Otherwise that's like me being afraid of people with red hair because I was in a car accident with a woman with red hair one time.

reb

12-08-2009, 06:04 AM

Firebrand, no bets from me...lol!

this whole overly emotional issue is a non-starter with me. if one is 'afraid', then one needs to deal with that in the way that seems the most logical and effective. i have used 'monkeys screaming as the leopard walks under the tree' to describe my view of a good portion of humanity before; this thread to some degree reminds me of that....throwing guavas and sticks at the leopard, but not doing anything to run the leopard out of the forest. very effective; very sensible...typical of much of the emotional, useless crap that leads to some of the modern government abuses.

if one has been raped or mugged, then i am certainly empathetic with that to some degree. however, an overly emotional reaction to the violation of one's person is not going to get one 'better'. what will get one better is to dissect the experience, and to then begin to overcome it. and by 'overcome' i don't mean 'blame everyone who looks like that person or sounds like that person who messed me up'. i am guilty of the same kind of thought process with muslims sometimes....but, still, i understand we need to disconnect the violent ones from life support, and not mess up the ones who want to live in peace.

i wonder if any of the 'f's are learning anything from this thread? no asynchonous situation that 'fantasy' begins with 'f'. lol!

larkin

12-08-2009, 09:59 AM

I bet you 100 bucks that it's F types who think this way. [...] Don't run like a robot duck. That's a tip. Write it down.

Okay, got it, don't run like a robot duck, I will add this to the list of tremendously helpful, logical, effective and not at all "emotional" advice that has been received from reading this thread.

i wonder if any of the 'f's are learning anything from this thread? no asynchonous situation that 'fantasy' begins with 'f'. lol!

Yes. We have learned to stop living in our fantasy world, and be more like a T. Also now on the list.

You know, if only more people thought that way, there wouldn't be threads like this...wait a minute...

Titian

12-08-2009, 11:15 AM

We're too careful, we're not careful enough. We need to be educated on how to better defend ourselves, but no amount of education will stop us from getting raped. We should consider carrying mace or a firearm, but we don't want to blow things out of proportion, because we're more likely to get raped by someone we know, so don't under any circumstances let yourself be alone with a guy you know, but not very well. But don't treat all men as potential rapists. But always be aware of your surroundings.

Got it.

There's no such thing as too careful but "careful" and "paranoid" are not the same thing. We need to be educated on how to better defend ourselves because those skills have broad general usefulness and increase your capacity for responding to rape attempts even if it doesn't prevent a completed rape. We should consider carrying mace or a firearm if a situation legitimately calls for that but should not consider either of those to be likely to help with rape or sexual assault. If they were going to be available to help with rape or sexual assault you'd have to have them on your person at all times and they would be even more important to keep on you when with friends or common acquaintances at or near your house or other frequently visited locations. You would also have to consider that the person for whom they would be most useful would be teenage girls. There is no point to worrying about being alone with a guy you know well, very well, or often encounter unless you just really like worrying. There is a point to being aware of your surroundings and situation at all times and in all situations. There is no point to treating all men as potential rapists because all men are not potential rapists and because not all rapists are male. There is a point to being vigilant about yourself, your relationship to people you are around, and emerging indications of danger. There is a far greater point to acquiring self-defense and medical skills in case of attack from an unexpected source and being prepared to deal with the effects of such an attack.

firebee

12-08-2009, 11:19 AM

There is a far greater point to acquiring self-defense and medical skills in case of attack from an unexpected source and being prepared to deal with the effects of such an attack.

And what sort of thing do you think constitutes "self-defense skills"?

Titian

12-08-2009, 11:52 AM

In this case, the preferable skills to acquire would be those that make the most out of your physical and mental assets without the addition of a weapon. Certain fighting techniques do actively attempt to compensate for size and power differences between combatants. These include techniques such as Aikido, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (practiced by the author), or Krav Maga which I personally recommend if you can find anyone teaching it in your area. Other skills which are very helpful for self-defense can be gained by engaging in team sports. This will increase reaction time and strategic awareness in many cases. Basketball is particularly useful for this. It helps with knowing where you are in relation to a group, to a goal of placing yourself outside the physical influence of someone else, and to anticipating people making sudden moves in close proximity to yourself. It is also generally useful to practice physical training that increases coordination, flexibility, speed, and strength.

The acquisition of such skills not only increases your capability of responding to attacks but also introduces fitness, confidence, and sources of fun into your life. In some cases it might even help with overcoming unnecessary social awkwardness.

Kisai

12-08-2009, 12:07 PM

Were you taught chivalry?

Flash fact: The concept of chivalry actually traces back to Arabic knights, not European ones. It entered European consciousness during the Arabic occupation of Spain.

tp6626

12-08-2009, 12:10 PM

What a fucked up world we live in, where that stuff needs to be even said! :(

I read through it, getting pretty annoyed by its overall tone, but then assumed that there probably are a few bad eggs out there who put the scares on women.

However, I can't help thinking that it's slightly over reacting, and is kind of exaggerating fear. By saying that I'm not intending to undervalue or dismiss your feeling of safety.

This is a similar thing to the paedophilia scare culture that seems to permeate nowadays. Did you know that in the UK now, most kids don't stray more than a few metres from their houses to play. I remember when I was a child (90's), I used to roam for miles and miles with my best mate, and my parents let me.

Parents nowadays have fear forced down their throats by the media / government, and as a result deny their children important developmental activities.

I can't help thinking that the same thing is happening here with dating.

Kisai

12-08-2009, 12:23 PM

I bet if we didn't have rape, everyone would be having more sex overall.

No. Females appearing to be sexually selective[1] is a prime strategy for reproductive success. Female coyness is shared by many species[2].

[1] But actually having a lot of sex with different partners and obscuring this fact.

[2] The best male strategy is to be a 'rogue male' and be tempting yet discreet.

catzmeow

12-08-2009, 01:26 PM

In all fairness, not all women look at it like that. I have been the only women in a group of male co-workers for years, and my best friend is a guy, and I am VERY comfortable in the company of men, and feel I'm good at evaluating my level of risk. Yes, at times, I worry about being raped, but I certainly don't think about it the vast majority of the time. When I'm traveling alone, or parking in a dark garage (which I now refuse to do), I do think about it, but I take proper precautions with men I don't know well. However, I certainly don't view all men as potential rapists. That's a very hyper-paranoid and negative outlook on the subject.

The overwhelming majority of women will NEVER be raped, and frankly, a lot of the studies on the subject are based upon flawed data and definitions that actually exaggerate the problem.

tp6626

12-08-2009, 01:35 PM

I wonder if projection and self-fulfilling prophecies could play a role here? I.e. Going into a situation expecting the worst, might make it more likely to happen??

Kisai

12-08-2009, 04:03 PM

tp6626

12-08-2009, 04:10 PM

I think the writer of the article wants every man, when approaching a woman, to say firmly yet gently "I'm not here to rape you." I'm sure that'll put the woman at ease and it will remind the man of advice #5 : Don't rape.
Yes good advice, which applies equally well in the work place. "I'm here to do business, not rape you."

Maybe I'll trial it tomorrow and let you know tomorrow how it went (even though I can't see it not putting our female staff at ease).

Bene Gesserit

12-08-2009, 04:16 PM

live in fear nope:thumbsdown:
always thinking the worst when meting a man nope

Sinequanon

12-08-2009, 05:34 PM

I think the writer of the article wants every man, when approaching a woman, to say firmly yet gently "I'm not here to rape you." I'm sure that'll put the woman at ease and it will remind the man of advice #5 : Don't rape.
I actually had this thought as I was being checked out at the super market. I was busy listening to my iPod and really not paying attention to anything but getting out of there as soon as possible when she asked me if I wanted change. I thought that giving her a reassuring but disarming smile and letting her know that I was just here for the groceries today, and not for the rape, would have been a great courtesy. But just shook my head no and went on about my business. I wish I was a better man. :(

The only negative consequence I can perceive of this might be that the checker might have broken into exaltation since I, being the sensitive male I am, read precisely what was on her mind at that point. But quite frankly, I don't want that much attention at a checkout line unless I'm the millionth shopper.

firebee

12-08-2009, 06:06 PM

I wish I was a better man. :(

I have good news for you: You actually did tell her that you were there for the groceries and not for the rape -- by acting like a customer (which, as it happens, you were) instead of a rapist.

Not every communication requires the delivery of a five-paragraph essay.

Sinequanon

12-08-2009, 06:18 PM

I have good news for you: You actually did tell her that you were there for the groceries and not for the rape -- by acting like a customer (which, as it happens, you were) instead of a rapist.
Yes, but knowing that she viewed me as a potential rapist weighed heavily on my mind, considering I caused her no small amount of psychic trauma by my presence (I am fairly tall and I was dressed like a bum today :)). I would rather have alleviated her fears in the moment than let them be confirmed by the passage of time.

Not every communication requires the delivery of a five-paragraph essay.
I'll (otherwise) put aside the irony of something like this being said by either of us. ;)

firebee

12-08-2009, 06:58 PM

I would rather have alleviated her fears in the moment than let them be confirmed by the passage of time.

I have bad news for you: Pattern detection mechanisms highlight the unusual -- and walking up to a cashier and saying "I am not a rapist" is just a tiny bit unusual. Furthermore, many people have experience with people who make unprompted declarations that turn out to be entirely untrue or only very narrowly true. Hence, your well-intentioned act could possibly be viewed in an entirely different light because of a small failure to perceive matters from the perspective of another person.

A kind soul might warn you of such things, if they thought that doing so might benefit you and the people with whom you interact.

I'll (otherwise) put aside the irony of something like this being said by either of us. ;)

I am completely innocent. The horns hold up the halo. ;)

Kisai

12-08-2009, 08:34 PM

firebee

12-08-2009, 08:47 PM

Checkout lady: "That'll be $36.75."
Me: "Thank you. Here is your money. This is purely a business transaction. I am not here to rape you."
Checkout lady: "Why not?"
Me: "Ummm... because I have a lot of raping to do this afternoon and I want to pace myself?"

And did this work out well for you?

To adapt a joke slightly, I'd like to suggest an experiment: Since only intentions matter, and you can expect people to look into your soul and see your good heart if you inadvertently do something that momentarily suggests otherwise, why doesn't someone try running up to the next police officer they see and trying to hug them?

I mean, everyone likes hugs, right?

And a suggestion that someone might see a person acting strangely in a way that is directed at them and be dismayed by the prospect of some negative experience -- that's something that should rightly and properly be mocked and not taken seriously... right?

Sinequanon

12-08-2009, 09:10 PM

And a suggestion that someone might see a person acting strangely in a way that is directed at them and be dismayed by the prospect of some negative experience -- that's something that should rightly and properly be mocked and not taken seriously... right?
I think what's being mocked is the implication that a man talking to a woman in a public space qualifies as "a [man]* acting strangely," and is a reasonable justification for the paranoid and hyperbolic tone of the article.

*I only specified here to draw a causal arrow relevant to this specific point, not to force your implication. I gather that what you said could be applied universally.

Seriously

12-08-2009, 09:42 PM

My goodness. I tried out the line today at the checkout counter.

Checkout lady: "That'll be $36.75."
Me: "Thank you. Here is your money. This is purely a business transaction. I am not here to rape you."
Checkout lady: "Why not?"
Me: "Ummm... because I have a lot of raping to do this afternoon and I want to pace myself?"

Checkout lady: That will be $36.75
You: Thank you (hands money and allows hand to linger slightly) So I see on your name tag your name is Jane.
Checkout lady: Umm yes. Have a nice day (pastes on fake please leave me the fuck alone so I can do my job smile)
You: I see you here every time I come in and you always are so pleasant. I make it a point to shop when I know you will be here.
Checkout lady: Thank you, I try. (looks around for escape route)
You: Well maybe I will see you next time I come in?
Checkout lady: Maybe so (makes plans to change schedule so creepy guy doesn't know when she is working)

You - Post a thread on INTJ in relationships:

Why doesn't the Hot Checkout Lady Love Me?

I go to the grocery store and every time I am there she smiles at me. So I approach her and she shoots me down. What do women want???

:thinking:

Why not instead of mocking the article (which most of the women on here agreed was somewhat over the top) take some tips from it that ARE helpful. When you are actually approaching someone you are interested in instead of just thinking of your perspective think about how you might be perceived. You aren't just doing it for them you are doing it for yourself as well...so you can actually get a freaking date....you know that thing that seems so elusive to INTJ men.

firebee

12-08-2009, 09:53 PM

I think what's being mocked is the implication that a man talking to a woman in a public space qualifies as "a [man]* acting strangely," and is a reasonable justification for the paranoid and hyperbolic tone of the article.

A man approaching a woman for the purposes of attempting to date is the subject of the article. It is one of the many scenarios, like a woman interacting with a police officer for the purposes of receiving a speeding ticket, a burrito-seller approaching a person in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart after dark for the purpose of selling burritos, or one car approaching another car for the purposes of making a left turn onto a busy street, where the possibility exists for a well-intentioned person to inadvertently act in a way that is highly unnerving to another person.

These scenarios were not included in the article because the scope of the article was limited. If it had not been, the article would have been much longer. Failing to include these other subjects does not mean that the author was necessarily stating that nervous highway patrolmen, persons who are violently allergic to burritos, drivers with an itchy brake pedal, wavelet transforms used in the JPEG-2000 compression standard, or parasitic diseases affecting lemurs do not exist or are not of significance to life, the universe, and everything. They simply were subjects outside the scope of this particular article which were left unaddressed.

If you need to know how not to get your ass kicked by the police, how to market your family-owned burrito business, how to successfully negotiate traffic in Boise, Idaho, how to compress images without introducing blocking artifacts, or how to care for your pet lemur, this article is of absolutely no use for these purposes because it is not about those things. If you want to approach a woman you don't know because you want to know her better and if possible Biblically -- and for some reason I think that might not lack relevance to some people here -- this article and the accompanying comments may produce enlightenment as to how you might (not) conduct your approach.

cannotseethe

12-09-2009, 04:20 AM

If you want to approach a woman you don't know because you want to know her better and if possible Biblically -- and for some reason I think that might not lack relevance to some people here -- this article and the accompanying comments may produce enlightenment as to how you might (not) conduct your approach.

Call me crazy, but I suspect that the self-selected sample of people who have read this article and followed or commented on this thread does not significantly overlap with the set of people in need of said enlightenment, sardonic commentary notwithstanding.

plotthickens

12-09-2009, 08:00 AM

Why not instead of mocking the article (which most of the women on here agreed was somewhat over the top) take some tips from it that ARE helpful. When you are actually approaching someone you are interested in instead of just thinking of your perspective think about how you might be perceived. You aren't just doing it for them you are doing it for yourself as well...so you can actually get a freaking date....you know that thing that seems so elusive to INTJ men.

SHHHH! You know how lowriders with tinted windows blasting rap music indicate a certain kind of inhabitant? And you can reliably expect a certain kind of behaviour? Helpful kind of warning, isn't it? And they'll keep blasting music and sagging their pants, even while they complain that people treat them like thugs?

Yeah. Let 'em do what they want.

firebee

12-09-2009, 08:44 AM

Call me crazy, but I suspect that the self-selected sample of people who have read this article and followed or commented on this thread does not significantly overlap with the set of people in need of said enlightenment, sardonic commentary notwithstanding.

This thread, like many other threads on the subject of male-female relations that I could point to, has turned into a 15-page hairball with a digression in the middle of "Oh please, bitch, you know you want it." The comments on the original article itself are closed because their moderation team was driven to drink.

It strikes me as not outside the realm of possibility that someone with an attitude toward women that could use a little polishing has read the article.

Titian

12-09-2009, 11:59 AM

A man approaching a woman for the purposes of attempting to date is the subject of the article...

If you need to know how not to get your ass kicked by the police, how to market your family-owned burrito business, how to successfully negotiate traffic in Boise, Idaho, how to compress images without introducing blocking artifacts, or how to care for your pet lemur, this article is of absolutely no use for these purposes because it is not about those things. If you want to approach a woman you don't know because you want to know her better and if possible Biblically -- and for some reason I think that might not lack relevance to some people here -- this article and the accompanying comments may produce enlightenment as to how you might (not) conduct your approach.

The article is additionally of no use on the subject of avoiding or dealing with rape because it is not about that issue. It did unfortunately extensively mention that issue and unnecessarily precipitate conversation that confused dating advice and rape advice. If you manage to separate those two issues in the 15 page ball of tangled hair and slime that we've created thus far and turn the focus of the article back toward "approaching a woman for the purposes of attempting to date", which is certainly a topic that some people may find relevant, then the article is useful for informing men that there are women who think like this and giving reasons that could eliminate confusion when those women are encountered and are the desired target of romantic attention. It is, in fact, particularly good advice for interacting with women who do think like this. It is actually even relevant to bring up the topic of rape in that context because it can be correctly sub-categorized under "women who think like this" despite the fact that the article itself cannot be correctly categorized under "rape advice".

Elfrun

12-13-2009, 01:06 AM

It's not about labelling you as a rapist, it's being aware that in [enter scenario a women finds unsafe] where she is potentially vulnerable you are considered a potential threat and she will be hyper alert to your behaviour in order to prevent becoming yet another victim. I fail to see how a man, who does not have to think like that, has the right to be offended.

Is this something you are actively taught or 'just do'?
At what age does this start?

Stranger danger is taught to boys and girls at school, when they're young and could be the target of pedophiles, but at a certain age it stops for boys, and that's when girls are conditioned even more, now it's not just stranger danger, it's about being cautious of the boys that want to take you on a date too, it's not just the dirty old men but boys that are closer to your age, that's the difference, girls never stop having to learn that lesson, most boys do.

Those rape statistics seem counter intuitive, maybe I just live in a really safe country.

*looks up stats

About 1000 women are raped every year in the state where I live (6 million people). In fact men are more common victims of crimes against the person in general (rape being just one example of this.) Especially young men like me, I should be the most paranoid walking around at night according to these statistics. Maybe things are just extremly different in USA, 1 in 6 sounds far far too high. If it is true, I can understand the paranoia to some extent, but I would be carefully looking at how those figures were calculated, since they seem so counter intuitive.

Found this interesting...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Reported rapes:

# 1 South Africa: 1.19538 per 1,000 people
# 2 Seychelles: 0.788294 per 1,000 people
# 3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people
# 4 Montserrat: 0.749384 per 1,000 people
# 5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people
# 6 Jamaica: 0.476608 per 1,000 people
# 7 Zimbabwe: 0.457775 per 1,000 people
# 8 Dominica: 0.34768 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people
# 10 Iceland: 0.246009 per 1,000 people

DEFINITION: Total recorded rapes. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. Per capita figures expressed per 1,000 population.

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

Keep in mind, about 60% of rapes are unreported.

Really no one even thinks about rape here. Its a foreign concept.

Umm... bullshit.

I'm Australian, based in Adelaide and a frequent visitor in Melbourne and I relate to that blog, I've never been raped but know many girls who have, I take more risks than most of my girlfriends would, like walking around alone at night but I am constently alert and aware of my surroundings, if a man or group of men walk near me I get out of their path if I can, if I can't I'm prepared to react if they become a threat. It is not an American thing, it is a universal female thing.

Just cause you're a male and don't think about it doesn't mean it's a foreign concept, ask your female friends.

callalilly

12-15-2009, 09:42 PM

Article was on the extreme side but true. I for one am VERY precautious when it comes to men.
I think it depends on how sheltered you were growing up and if you have had any experiences as a women with rape of violence against women.
Not every women feels this way, but not every women knows the statistics either.

Luciferi

12-17-2009, 09:53 PM

I haven't read all 16 pages of this thread, but I did read the original article.

The author of that article strikes me as being overly paranoid and suffering from a severe case of a victim mentality.

Seriously, ladies, do you really worry 24/7 that someone is going to come and rape you? Do you really size up every guy that crosses your path in case he might rape you?

Predators are generally cowards who will back down at the first sign of resistance. Anyone who goes around with the kind of passive victim mentality that the author of the article has painted is probably sending out strong signals that she is an easy target. Fear is not a deterrent to an attacker; it is an invitation.

There is, however, nothing wrong with being aware of your surroundings, but that is not really what she is talking about. Project awareness, project confidence, and be ready to fight if you have to. If some guy comes up and talks to you, it is probably because you seem approachable. Don't want to be approached? Pay attention to your body language.

Most women have been conditioned to be meek, passive victims. As a woman, you need to take responsibility for your own safety and stop berating men to "respect" you. You should care enough about you to be ready and able to defend yourself in the unlikely event that someone does try to attack you.

I am not a big or strong woman by any means, but I can guarantee you that any guy who tried anything with me would quickly find his eyes gouged out.

Women like the author of that article are a huge reason why I cannot stand other women.

hubcap

12-18-2009, 07:56 AM

Nothing like profiling an entire gender.:rolleyes:

eyeonyou

12-18-2009, 09:26 AM

Roke

12-18-2009, 10:52 AM

Just curious what you women who relate to the article think of racial profiling? Not trying to bait you into anything here, just wondering since the concepts seem similar to me.

On a side note, many seem to be considering the 1:6 statistics in a misleading way. Let's just accept it as an accurate statistic for simplicity. You should still apply context to the stat. Your average dude at the library doesn't have a ~17% chance of being a rapist (or whatever you think it should be based on victims per rapist). If I have 6 friends, there is not actually a good chance that one of them would rape a woman. My friends, the guy studying at the library, etc., are not randomly selected.

By all means, please be safe and responsible. Be rude to strangers if need be, but don't let these statistics completely override your judgement. Be careful in the way you translate this general outlook to individuals.

firebee

12-18-2009, 06:27 PM

Just curious what you women who relate to the article think of racial profiling? Not trying to bait you into anything here, just wondering since the concepts seem similar to me.

It's interesting you bring this up; I mentioned earlier an event where I was approached by a person in a manner that made me quite uncomfortable, enough so that I was impelled to flee...? Well, a few minutes before that, I was approached by a young black man...

I was waiting for my date outside a restaurant, on a city street at night, and I saw this black guy in his mid-20s come down the sidewalk. He was wearing very new-looking sports-themed clothes featuring baggy pants, and was walking in a loose-limbed sort of way. The expression on his face was not the aggressive-front-hiding-timidity that you see sometimes; he looked like he belonged and was conducting his business with seriousness. He did not look twitchy or otherwise "off". He looked at me casually from a long distance (which piqued my curiosity) and approached me obliquely (which piqued it further). When he got to a distance that was not really engaged (actually, it was right at a range that I consider comfortable, which was interesting)...

(And I'll interject at this point that I found him puzzling in a positive sense, along the lines of "Hmm, what possible business could he have with me?" rather than "Shit. What the hell is he up to and in which direction can I escape?")

... he asked me whether I was "bored". Aha. Puzzle solved. So I, the paranoid, hysterical woman who might at any moment flip out and kill some dude for being a scary scary man... said "Naah, I'm fine," and the guy continued on.

Lesson? Here, the guy's demeanor, in combination with his personal characteristics inclusive of gender and race, caused me to understand what his purpose was and that it was basically aligned with my own (i.e. that each of us wanted to do what we were there for without the occurrence of untoward events).

The older white woman who came by a little while later...? She conveyed something rather different, and what she conveyed was probably innocently misaligned with her actual intentions. She came at me with strong intent in her eyes, and she did so by approaching to within my personal space bubble as a pedestrian, then suddenly turning and engaging with me, and something in her face did not look good. Her demeanor, in combination with her personal characteristics inclusive of gender and race, caused me to at first think that she was an immediate threat and then to decide that her purpose, while not appearing immediately malicious, was nothing that I wanted to continue being around.

At this level of functioning, all kinds of judgments of race, socioeconomic class, gender, psychological and physical condition come into play that are quite stereotyped and probably not things that my higher brain would commit to as an acceptably fair description of the people with those characteristics. The question is "What type of person is this, and are they worthy of notice?" It's much the same as when I'm driving; I expect midsize SUVs to pick a good traveling speed and stick to it, for small, battered older pickups to have difficulty reaching 55 miles per hour, and fancy sports cars to weave. It's information that figures into my planning -- and quite a different thing from concluding that the battered pickup is probably stuffed full of illegals and therefore pulling it over.

Be rude to strangers if need be, but don't let these statistics completely override your judgement.

And just to reiterate this point: In certain situations, I will be quite thoroughly rude to strangers and lose exactly no sleep over it. Politeness is a great tool, but sometimes it is a tool to get people someplace where they most decidedly do not want to be.

Elfrun

12-19-2009, 12:14 AM

The author of that article strikes me as being overly paranoid and suffering from a severe case of a victim mentality.

I read it as exaggerated, to make a clear point for those, namely men, who would not have considered this before, not paranoid.

Seriously, ladies, do you really worry 24/7 that someone is going to come and rape you? Do you really size up every guy that crosses your path in case he might rape you?

It's not about worrying 24/7 it's about being aware that there are predators out there and unless you have the skills to defend yourself against an attacker should that ever occur, then it's about making sure you keep yourself safe.

I suspect the only women who would worry 24/7 about being attacked or raped are women who have gone through a traumatic experience where they were attacked and raped.

Predators are generally cowards who will back down at the first sign of resistance.

O rly? What do you base that on?

Seriously, even if you are right that is not enough to give comfort here, maybe the person coming towards you that does have bad intentions is a coward, or maybe they're hell bent on hurting you regardless of any resistance you put up, maybe they have a weapon, maybe resistance will make them angrier and more volatile, maybe they're stoned out of their brains and won't read your resistance correctly, there are any number of circumstantial factors that you cannot know and having in your mind that resistance will deter an attacker is dangerous.

Just curious what you women who relate to the article think of racial profiling?

Firebee explains this well.

Race on its own isn't enough to warrant any more or less attention for me, it's the situation I'm in, how safe I feel in my surroundings, how they present themselves, what I know of the area and that particular race in that specific area ie there are some areas where I live that have a problem with Asian gangs or Sudanese gangs, in those areas if there was a group of young men of one of those ethnic groups I would be more concerned than a group of mixed races.

By all means, please be safe and responsible. Be rude to strangers if need be, but don't let these statistics completely override your judgement. Be careful in the way you translate this general outlook to individuals.

True. It's not an individual thing, it's not about labelling an individual as a rapist, or potential rapist, it's about being aware that anyone could be and unless you have the strength and no-how to defend yourself it's better to be aware and prepared and leave a situation looking slightly stupid then to end up another statistic.

Women are trained to be respectful to men, we're trained to be polite in our general dealings with them and to not embarrass them if we don't have to, but don't take it from me: RAPE VICTIM UNION URGES WOMEN TO TRUST THEIR INSTINCTS (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Gabrielle Union was 19 when she was raped at gunpoint while she was trying to close up the mall store she worked at - and now she just wishes she had run when her gut told her to. She says, "When the man who raped me came into the store, my heart said run, but I was raised to be polite and not make others uncomfortable. Women are constantly second-guessing our instincts but you know your body, and your body is telling you something is wrong... We are given instincts for a reason."

Morale is, if you feel uncomfortable listen to your instincts and to hell with social conditioning, it's better to unfairly judge someone in your mind than to be uneasy but adhere to social conditioning and ignore your intuition.

Zodd

12-19-2009, 01:43 PM

Night Runner

12-19-2009, 01:59 PM

Tasers don't work against spiked drinks - and they're rather large to carry on you at all times. In the perfect world, each woman would have a Taser glued to her hand 24/7. Alas, our world is imperfect. :rolleyes:

Zodd

12-19-2009, 02:09 PM

Ugh, when you think you can't get lower then being a rapist you've got "spiked drink rapists"...

But a taser is safer then without a having a taser, that knife that shoots gas on impact is better probably.

Night Runner

12-19-2009, 02:18 PM

And a fully automatic submachine gun is safer than a knife that shoots gas on impact. :rolleyes:

Zodd

12-19-2009, 02:44 PM

And a fully automatic submachine gun is safer than a knife that shoots gas on impact. :rolleyes:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Elfrun

12-19-2009, 05:29 PM

Agressive, hard, fast, with full force, immediatly, with anger:

*Eyegouging, breaking his fingers, biting, knee/kick to the balls, grabbing their nose and ears, headbutting, elbows, breaking his balls with your hand.

*Using hard objects in your reach

*Be first to strike

*Screaming

But why not just have a taser at hand?

That's neither the answer nor the question.

Firstly, tasers/knives/firearms are not legal to own/carry everywhere, I couldn't without breaking the law.

Secondly, the blog post isn't about fighting back, or even initiating violence, it's simply showing how a woman may think in a situation where she feels uncomfortable or on edge, this is different to a situation that actually turns into an attack.

The post is about giving insight to something that most men would not have had to think about, not answers. I know it's a T thing to try to give solutions when there's a problem but in this example it's not asking for solutions as the problem is simply being aware of potential danger.

Zodd

12-20-2009, 03:17 AM

When thinking about my own or a friends safety I don't care about the law.

Woman knowing what to do in these situations couldn't be spammed to much I think.

Serpent

05-30-2010, 09:09 AM

I was not raised that way. I was raised to respect all females, no matter what age (mine or hers) and to act accordingly. When a woman says 'no' she does not mean 'maybe' or 'ask me again'...she means 'NO', period. This was reenforced in the Marine Corps and Officers School.
My mother is the one who taught me this...is sounds as if it is no longer being taught...why?

Exactly the same as with me. I follow this rule all the time, with everything (I am 18, male).

Once I was speaking to a friend of mine (female) at school:

Me: "May I ask you question?"
Her: "No." Apparently she was joking and said this only because she "knew" I would ask the question anyway. Being a very formal and straight arrow person people constantly try to get a rise out of me, or try to get me to "fail".
Me: "Oh. Sorry." *Begins to leave*
Her: Starts laughing at me and telling me to loosen up and stop being such a robot. The usual INTJ insults. -.-

In her defense it was (in hindsight) apparent in the context that she was teasing me, but it doesn't matter to me. I always follow my protocols and "No means no" is one of them. I would treat a male the same way. It's really not that hard.

Also about the essay I am really happy to be made aware of this. It's not like I didn't assume it was like this anyway being a very paranoid person myself. I don't, and have never, approached strangers in public unnecessarily, because; why would they trust me? Why wouldn't they assume I'm a super-villain? I will make contact with people only if it seems appropriate and if they brush me off I will be gone before they can wonder why I approached them. Sometimes people laugh like in the example above, other times they come running after me because it somehow impressed them. I don't care either way and I urge everyone else to follow this protocol. It seems it would save many people a lot of stress if we all did this.

AtheneNoctua

05-30-2010, 01:29 PM

I don't consider myself overly paranoid, but I do get slightly nervous when I'm walking alone and a car pulls up beside (especially if it's a van...). At these times I tend to make sure I have my keys (sharpest object I have) and my mobile (so I can call the police straight away) to hand.
If there are threatening looking men walking towards me or, even worse, behind me, I'll cross the road.

It does seem a tiny bit excessive, but it's become second nature. I've never really thought about not having to worry about it.

elegantmachine

05-30-2010, 01:58 PM

I'm a woman and I sense the male's intentions. Someone who is very forward and self-confident (in the same time) turns me off, and I almost get sick. I litterally hear warning-signals in my head. And if the intruder does not back off, when I answer him in a short or almost rude manner, I call someone I know and tell them that I feel threatened (so loud that the intruder hears me, and back off).
If they don't, I try to follow another group of people, until I am in a safe spot.

OhTheHumanity

05-30-2010, 04:57 PM

This is great, this article. It is the stuff that goes through my head (subconsciously and actively) every day I go out. EVERY DAY.

My mother was raped, my best friend was raped... I've been stalked. And I'm just some regular chick here. The sheer number of ass-grabs I've had these two months are astounding.

Man, if a guy could only walk in a women's shoes for maybe a few days... It's so limiting sometimes. I am tired of hearing stories of my classmates' flats getting broken into and assaulted. (2 cases in my school in the last 2 years) The police never catch the guys. There is very little justice. Needless to say I am getting a gun when I live on my own, so I can have the satisfaction of blowing the guy's head off when he breaks in. Inner city living sucks for women, pretty much.

Jarem Asyder

05-30-2010, 07:33 PM

Not only is there this part of it, but the entire culture is built around making the woman the victim of the rape. Not to mention the huge amount of spousal rape and date rape that goes unpunished or even unreported. As a male it's something I can't even fathom, I simply don't have to worry that someone will jump me on the street (well, worry less) or that someone would spike my drink at a club.

Though I do have a friend who comes from a very sheltered catholic school and family who was raped, and she's convinced that women need to just "shut up and deal with it." I have absolutely no idea why she thinks that way but somehow she's been convinced against her own self interests, and I'm sure she's not alone in thinking that way, which is scary.

zimtgeschmack

06-03-2010, 03:49 PM

Women like the author of that article are a huge reason why I cannot stand other women.

Sounds so sadly like...the same old internalized sexism. Here you can see the power of sexist indoctrination- first hand: women hating other women so they don't have to face the complex issues about being female in this society and can feel superior to those other 'silly chicks'. So sad. Quite unreasonable, too- this is not helping to make the world a safer place for women.

Could you ever imagine men hating other men ? No way- they, at least know how to cooperate within in their old boys clubs...

Axel

06-03-2010, 04:52 PM

Reading that article makes my blood boil. Women should not have to experience that kind of fear. The information was very useful though, I'm glad this thread got "bumped". I had no idea women actually had to deal with this. I usually tell my female friends to be careful at night, but I never suspected it to be at this level.

Moondyn

06-07-2010, 02:53 PM

Is that what women think and really feel?

Well obviously not all of us. For me at least I can tell if something is a threat or not. And threats come in all shapes and forms.

Deliberator

06-07-2010, 03:43 PM

Well, no, I wouldn't say this is altogether accurate. Most men I see as regular people. It is the man who initiates conversation with me that immediately must be oh-so gently put under surveillance. No, even then I don't usually think "this man is a potential rapist". But the analysis about the pushiness being a sign that the man will be pushy in all other respects... that smacks of truth.

Yesterday I went on a modeling shoot. Although the photographer had references, and had photoes on the internet showing what kind of pictures he took, he was still a non-professional photographer, and male. Any such character must be treated with utmost respect, but not fully trusted. I will admit, while I was waiting for him to show up I thought "what if he's really plotting to abduct me? Some white van will show up with a bunch of men and I'll just be thrown in?" I mean, we were in a public place so I figured I'd be OK, so I eased up, and everything turned out fine. But it does suck to have to deal with those occasional horrifying thoughts.

LarryL

06-10-2010, 12:06 PM

My wife has a job that takes her out in the community most days. From time to time she tells me about potential threats and it's been an eye-opener to say the least. She deals with occasional situations that I've never had to deal with. So I've been sensitized to that and have paid more attention to potential trouble. I got her pepper spray last year and she's come close to using it already. I just got her a stun gun as well. She has started taking walks for exercise and she keeps it in her hand (it's really small) while walking around town. (Her own idea.)
Locally there have been rapes and muggings along bike and walking trails the last couple of years, so this puts her more at ease. She feels better equipped to deal with any situation that may arise.
As for me, because of the increasing percieved danger from men in general, I just don't speak to people that I don't already know. Women scurry away if I say anything. I make people uncomfortable. So I don't waste my time trying to be friendly or sociable. The default assumption is that I'm dangerous.
If I were single right now, I'd remain single the rest of my life.

blatant

06-10-2010, 07:50 PM

LOL. Just remember also: if someone is raped, people are usually quick to not only offer no support, but to also blame the victim.

I don't see why it would be any other way other than to judge people with strict scrutiny to protect yourself. The only issue with the article is that it's more for strangers. Most rape cases are committed by people you know. That's a comforting thought!

gabnelson

10-30-2010, 09:04 AM

This is an interesting thread because as a woman, watching out for yourself is a natural part of life. What's interesting is that men seemingly have no clue that this is necessary for us. If women were as physically strong as men this precaution may not be necessary, but maybe not. And we women KNOW that not all men are bad. Unfortunately, we have to wonder whether each man is bad at first to avoid being attacked or hurt in some way because woman are hunted by men for sex.

As a woman who used to live alone, I allowed people to assume that I was married and living with my husand so as to avoid anyone coming to break into my home. I am nearly 6ft tall and often feel that I could take a lot of little dudes, but a man reminded me once that my height or size really don't matter faced with a gun. Yes, I do watch my back when out at night, especially in parking garages or secluded places. I limit where I go at night and never leave without my cell. I quit drinking alcohol years ago, but I still watch my drink to this day because I had a man slip something in my drink that caused me to black out for half a day. Thank God my parents came and got me before this man was able to take me home with him. I was out with my brother at the time and my brother couldn't drive and the man in question was insisting he give me a ride home. On another occasion, I had a man drive me home after a night out drinking and force his hands between my legs three times before I was able to push him off and run inside. When I was in third grade my gym teacher used to slip his hand down the back of my shirt and rub my bare back. I remember standing in line while he did it feeling it was wrong but not sure what to do. We woman are the hunted in society so it amazes me that men could not anticipate this protective behavior by females. This is just part of life.

Attention good guys: We woman are trying to find you and wish to be with you. It's the bad apples that spoil the bunch. Some guys do not take no for an answer and when you get one on your trail it is a nightmare. Some men are still under an old skool perception that women were created as property for men to be done with as they like. Can you imagine waking up in some pervert's underground dungeon being schooled on how you'll spend the rest of your life as his sex slave after deciding to lighten up on dudes for just one night? NOT gonna happen to me!!!! I'd rather be alone forever than live with the nightmare of being raped. I don't think a lot of men realize that rape is a bad thing. My ex once jokingly said if world war III struck and things got bad enough he may have to grab a woman and rip all her clothes off and rape her just to get by. His friends laughed in agreement. My insides turned cold :-(

NoMicro

10-30-2010, 11:55 AM

Hmm, I found that an interesting read, and will surely take it into consideration in further encounters. I haven't noticed any of this, as I think I'm quite good at realizing cues.

I have a need for a larger amount of personal space as well, so when approaching a woman, they have ample room, and some even choose to close the space in to create a more 1on1 atmosphere. Then I'm the one that has to take the step back.

Ricardo Diaz

10-30-2010, 12:58 PM

Wow, so how do women expect to be approached? And why don't they make the first move more often?

Vogue

10-30-2010, 01:44 PM

I, like some others, haven't read through all sixteen pages of this thread, but I have found this article to be super informative. I am a female, and I feel like my wariness has all been written down- and like I should share this with the male world.

I do, for the most part, trust people to a degree. I don't assume every guy is a rapist, but if I'm walking alone at night... every guy becomes a potential rapist. I walk with my keys between my fingers so I have something sharp and stabby. I also have taken self defense classes so if someone grabs me I know how to increase my odds of getting away.

When I go out, I watch my drink. Carefully.

The amount people might worry about rape depends on where they grew up, or where they live now to some degree. This is a real thought in our (my?) minds though. "Is this going to be the guy that rapes me?"

Ricardo Diaz

10-30-2010, 02:00 PM

I walk with my keys between my fingers so I have something sharp and stabby.

That's hilarious! :laugh:

A pattern of thinking seems evident:

You take rape very seriously, even if you weren't killed. (Okay, granted.)
This level of fear is paranoia. Strong narcissism as well!
Hostility to males; by accepting that females are physically weaker (true) and imagining that guys are hornier (not always true). Also you are implying that a guy can't afford a prostitute/chooses to risk all the consequences if busted for rape. I can only suggest that you move in better circles and learn to draw a pistol quickly. I'm pretty paranoid myself but this is bordering on schizophrenia; to think everyone might be a potential attacker.

BlackMita

10-30-2010, 02:55 PM

This thread basically confirms that people should only date within their tribe (friends of RL friends) and networks where everyone knows each others schedules and addresses.

Even though I'm a guy (with a meek appearance) I do all these precautions as well (except watch my drink -- never go to bars anyway) since there's no way of knowing weather guys are targeted for rape just as often.

Dru

10-30-2010, 03:31 PM

BlackMita, there is absolutely nothing in your post that i am in agreement with. it seems like just sweeping generalizations based on your personal fears.

however, i wholeheartedly agree with the OP. a woman would be naive to think (most) men would give her attention for any other reason than sexual interest. its an unfortunate reality for women who don't get along as easily with other women to face; it's very rare for a man and a woman to "just be friends". if you want to go out to a bar or a club, prepare yourself for the onslaught up pick-up tactics.

it's unfortunate that women have to be that way to protect themselves, but it's better than being taken advantage of.

vampyroteuthis

10-30-2010, 03:41 PM

[snip misogynist rant with no reference to fact]

Look up some actual statistics on rape and sexual assault sometime before...

Also you are implying that a guy can't afford a prostitute/chooses to risk all the consequences if busted for rape. I can only suggest that you move in better circles
...you fault women for poor risk-assessment and give men too much credit for it.

Dru

10-30-2010, 03:43 PM

That's hilarious! :laugh:

A pattern of thinking seems evident:

You take rape very seriously, even if you weren't killed. (Okay, granted.)
This level of fear is paranoia. Strong narcissism as well!
Hostility to males; by accepting that females are physically weaker (true) and imagining that guys are hornier (not always true). Also you are implying that a guy can't afford a prostitute/chooses to risk all the consequences if busted for rape. I can only suggest that you move in better circles and learn to draw a pistol quickly. I'm pretty paranoid myself but this is bordering on schizophrenia; to think everyone might be a potential attacker.

you've said yourself, women are weaker. women can't afford to live by the policy "innocent until proven guilty". if they do, they open themselves up to a greater potential for harmful situations.

i'd like to add, since the common-sense part of your brain assessing this doesn't seem to be picking it up that women aren't born this way, they learn to be this way - for a reason. learning is an environmentally responsive process.

nowt

10-30-2010, 03:51 PM

Strangest how-to guide ever.

Dru

10-30-2010, 04:03 PM

unfortunately, the article doesn't allow for this. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

my guess is that most men who commit rape are also looking for red flags in their environment. they make an effort to appear "friendly", and once they're in the "safe zone" they have the opportunity to take advantage.

they may know where the woman lives, her phone number, her work hours, whether she lives alone or when she is likely to be alone, or they may just be misinterpreting casual interaction as flirting - however that doesn't make it any less of a rape, nor is it the victim's fault. he committed the rape, not her.

drake2

10-30-2010, 04:46 PM

This is one of the sadest threads I have read.

I have been the vicitim of rape/ sexual assault in the past. A long way in my past I might add. However, now that I am longer in the tooth and live in a different environment, I have none of the fear I might have had as a younger female.

I do not view all men as potential attackers. The most dangerous men I have known have been the ones I have known well - not strangers. The behaviour is the odd thing and what would trigger it even odder. I still haven't worked that one out. Maybe some of you men can help me understand what goes on in your minds there?

However, I did actually physically damage my last attacker quite considerably and perhaps this was the turning point that switched my view from the "victim mentality" you are describing.

Therefore I disagree with your view that all women feel this way. Perhaps those who are young and have not a great deal of life experience of people may feel besieged in this way - particularly "I" types as ourselves who have to deal with "E" types invading our personal space constantly.....

In any case, I do believe women need to believe in their own personal power more. Do not buy into this victim belief that you are always the weak one. Do some self defence training and know how much damage you can do. The confidence you gain will then open you to viewing men in a more open and equal footing.

Your attacker is far more likely to be someone you know well than the poor boy on the subway or the man who is trying to help you with your groceries.

Dru

10-30-2010, 04:51 PM

there is a distinct difference between a "victim mentality" and a guarded one.

i think your case is more atypical than the OP's post - not all women who have their guard up have been raped, and being raped does not mean automatically that you will develop a "victim mentality". read my post. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) it is my opinion that what the OP's post accounts for is the process women use to try to keep dangerous men out of their lives.

Eridal

10-30-2010, 05:06 PM

All that article says to me is that someone has been watching too much TV and reading too many faulty statistics. Rape and domestic violence statistics are notoriously inaccurate and used misleadingly by womens groups. On top of that statistics are rarely used for female-female rape or female-male rape which further casts doubt on such statistics.

Part of the problem to me at least is that the news medias and the activist groups tend to be very misleading with the data they collect and utilize. This in turn makes things look far worse than they really are and creates fear where there doesn't need to be as much. Rape happens yes but the vast majority of it is by someone you know and trust not a random stranger or someone you just met.

But hey if you want to live your life as a paranoid individual that's your right and more power to you. Considering I trust no one myself and treat everyone as a potential threat who am I to talk. :p

Just don't expect me to give a damn about your personal issues when speaking to me because I couldn't care less if you're a sexist paranoid individual who sees me as a potential rapist because I'll see you as an idiot not worthy of my time and will quickly move on to someone hopefully more interesting.

P.S. Not a reply to anyone specifically as I didn't read the whole thread only the OP and the link :p

Dru

10-30-2010, 05:16 PM

yes, i agree that rape statistics are off... more than half of the women i know and at least 1/3 of the men i know have been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. everyone i know IRL tells me the same thing about the people they know... statistics only account for a fraction of that.

heartland

10-30-2010, 05:21 PM

I don't think a lot of men realize that rape is a bad thing. My ex once jokingly said if world war III struck and things got bad enough he may have to grab a woman and rip all her clothes off and rape her just to get by. His friends laughed in agreement. My insides turned cold :-(

Well I've never raped anyone and hopefully none of my friends have either. I have to admit though, I have heard rape jokes in male company and laughed at them, certainly not proud of it. For example, on a drinking night with a few of the guys a few years back, an acquaintance - incidentally a guy who is quite successful with women - made a quip about rape being a "victimless crime" and the place just erupted.

BlackMita

10-30-2010, 09:37 PM

BlackMita, there is absolutely nothing in your post that i am in agreement with. it seems like just sweeping generalizations based on your personal fears.

"Men are stronger than women" is a not sweeping generalization based on personal fears?

Being empirically weaker does not get you targeted; appearing weak does. And on an individual basis, looking weak is not exclusive to women.

Granted my first post was probably mistaken when I recall people raped by those they know really well but don't report so as not to rock the boat in their communities, jobs, whatever...

TenochAcampicht

10-30-2010, 09:56 PM

It's an interesting read, however, most rapes occur not by strangers, but generally by people close to you such as family and friends of family. That said I can imagine women could be freaked out by some guy wearing a rape joke shirt and tattoos sure. Similarly, 50 emails post 1 date is ludicrous, I am amazed people have the time to write so many emails anyway.

Muse

10-30-2010, 11:29 PM

I do something very similar to every woman i consider returning or initiating interested/romantic interaction with. That is, i consider the likely-hood that they will cheat on me, financially use me, or emotionally abuse me. I usually consider the chance to be three out of five. In that context, i completely understand the cautious tendencies of a past/potential victim.

But i still keep in mind that it is important to uphold the ideal of innocent until guilty. Condemning someone for the probability of a future crime is way too thought police like to be healthy, and so not a single woman near me knows i consider such things, why burden them.

My worry? That 'dangerous' guy, or that 'unproven' girl, might be a good catch.

My solution? Carry mace and give someone a little more trust till further notice. and don't let on that you think hes dangerous.. Preferably, try not to obsess over it.

Despite being a good guy i probably wouldn't date the author of this article. Knowing id be treated like a criminal AND that theres in 3/5 chance that shel do something fked up to me is just too much. Id rather weld, she can go fiddle with her 6 locks or something.

Ricardo Diaz

10-31-2010, 01:02 AM

Look up some actual statistics on rape and sexual assault sometime before...

...you fault women for poor risk-assessment and give men too much credit for it.

Feminists need to stop screaming misogynist at everything that doesn't glorify women or portray them as victims... Grow out of this "us vs them" mentality, geeze.

And statistics are bullshit. You do know how they are generated, don't you? Whenever you see something like "40% of americans who eat oranges get cancer by age 50"- it just means that out of a group of 100 people in an experiment 40 got cancer. Only a very weak and impressionable mind would judge people & live life based on statistics.

vampyroteuthis

10-31-2010, 01:14 AM

Feminists need to stop screaming misogynist at everything that doesn't glorify women or portray them as victims... Grow out of this "us vs them" mentality, geeze.
The problem with calling women "narcissistic" for fearing rape goes well beyond a failure to "glorify". You might want to reflect a bit more on the implications of your wording.

And statistics are bullshit. You do know how they are generated, don't you? Whenever you see something like "40% of americans who eat oranges get cancer by age 50"- it just means that out of a group of 100 people in an experiment 40 got cancer.
Statistics are fallible and contain a margin of error; that doesn't make them devoid of content. Especially when they're generated from self-reporting and work done by rape and abuse crisis centres. I'll add the caveat that methodology is important, if it pleases you -- I suppose I take for granted enough to not feel the need to make it explicit.

Only a very weak and impressionable mind would judge people & live life based on statistics.
Does it take someone with a strong mind to make blanket judgments about women's risk-assessment with no personal experience of being one and no reference to any known facts about rape and sexual assault?

Ricardo Diaz

10-31-2010, 01:22 AM

The problem with calling women "narcissistic" for fearing rape goes well beyond a failure to "glorify". You might want to reflect a bit more on the implications of your wording.

This irrational level of fear (that every male is an attacker) is indicative of paranoia & narcissism.

Statistics are fallible and contain a margin of error; that doesn't make them devoid of content. Especially when they're generated from self-reporting and work done by rape and abuse crisis centres. I'll add the caveat that methodology is important, if it pleases you -- I suppose I take for granted enough to not feel the need to make it explicit.
Not just a margin of error, but a high likelihood of being false.

Does it take someone with a strong mind to make blanket judgments about women's risk-assessment with no personal experience of being one and no reference to any known facts about rape and sexual assault?
It wasn't a blanket judgement. You misquoted my post by using only part of the sentence. Women who are so paranoid (hopefully a minority) would obviously be more comfortable if they learnt to draw a pistol quickly.

SVR

10-31-2010, 01:34 AM

This irrational level of fear (that every male is an attacker) is indicative of paranoia & narcissism.

No, we dont think every male is an attacker. We think that every male can be a probable attacker. We just dont know enough. So untill proven otherwise, we shall be on our guard & act accordingly.

And thats not paranoia/narcissism....just common sense

vampyroteuthis

10-31-2010, 01:42 AM

This irrational level of fear (that every male is an attacker) is indicative of paranoia & narcissism.
"Paranoid" is a value judgement that you are making with no knowledge of the circumstances of women who stop to consider the prospect that strangers approaching her may not be benign. Has she been raped/sexually assaulted by a relative stranger? Does she live in a neighbourhood or culture where sexual assault is common? All of these can affect whether it's reasonable to be suspicious of strange men approaching you.

Not just a margin of error, but a high likelihood of being false.
Come again? How so? Do you believe there are criteria that can be used to garner fairly reliable data? What would you consider good information?

It wasn't a blanket judgement. You misquoted my post by using only part of the sentence.
I went back and re-read your response to Vogue. It seemed like you were calling her concerns "paranoid" with no knowledge of her situation beyond what she's provided here, and then using this to paint women who fear rape/assault as "paranoid" and "narcissistic" based on a misrepresentation of the argument made by the article in the OP. Straw woman, as it were. My apologies if I've misunderstood. Perhaps you could clarify?

Women who are so paranoid (hopefully a minority) would obviously be more comfortable if they learnt to draw a pistol quickly.
Women who feel and are unsafe would be more comfortable in a safer environment, and/or with some means of protecting themselves. "Moving in better circles", as you put it, isn't an option for a lot of people. It's not all on them, is what I'm saying.

Still not seeing where you see the "paranoia", "narcissism", or the belief that every man is a rapist. I'm glad we're having this discussion, and you seem to be concerned about not being misread, so I'm hoping you'll reconsider your interpretation of the article in the OP, and give it credit for being more nuanced than what you've portrayed here.

TenochAcampicht

10-31-2010, 01:49 AM

Paranoia and Narcissism do not neccesarily go hand in hand.
If these women were narcissists they'd want to go out and rape people to gain power/control over them, this is in fact the motivation behind most rapists, to gain power/control and small wonder alot of rapists tend to be narcissists.

As to the white knight of the net argument, showed a man who would be considered as less than ideal based on his looks, is in itself indictive of shallow lability...also a trait found in narcissism, I'd google hypocracy.

Women have often been raped, have a higher risk of being raped and due to misogyny have a higher rate of repressing the trauma. But you know this...right?

Ricardo Diaz

10-31-2010, 01:49 AM

Well, the OP makes some sweeping generalizations. That whole post is in the tone of speaking for all women, and calling all men potential rapists. The entire "reasoning" behind that is paranoia and the statistics just add to the ignorance. If anyone has a specific problem or history of being abused then that's an individual issue obviously.

Indeed, there are empirically verifiable sources of data for statistics about rape victims. But using them to calculate aggregate percentages is a very ignorant generalization.

"Paranoid" is a value judgement that you are making with no knowledge of the circumstances of women who stop to consider the prospect that strangers approaching her may not be benign. Has she been raped/sexually assaulted by a relative stranger? Does she live in a neighbourhood or culture where sexual assault is common? All of these can affect whether it's reasonable to be suspicious of strange men approaching you.

Come again? How so? Do you believe there are criteria that can be used to garner fairly reliable data? What would you consider good information?

I went back and re-read your response to Vogue. It seemed like you were calling her concerns "paranoid" with no knowledge of her situation beyond what she's provided here, and then using this to paint women who fear rape/assault as "paranoid" and "narcissistic" based on a misrepresentation of the argument made by the article in the OP. Straw woman, as it were. My apologies if I've misunderstood. Perhaps you could clarify?

Women who feel and are unsafe would be more comfortable in a safer environment, and/or with some means of protecting themselves. "Moving in better circles", as you put it, isn't an option for a lot of people. It's not all on them, is what I'm saying.

Still not seeing where you see the "paranoia", "narcissism", or the belief that every man is a rapist. I'm glad we're having this discussion, and you seem to be concerned about not being misread, so I'm hoping you'll reconsider your interpretation of the article in the OP, and give it credit for being more nuanced than what you've portrayed here.

vampyroteuthis

10-31-2010, 01:52 AM

Ricardo Diaz

10-31-2010, 01:54 AM

I'm still not seeing "paranoia" or "ignorant generalization" beyond your misrepresentation of the argument in the OP. Your position on statistics isn't clear either. Who was talking about "aggregate percentages"?

Read the title of the blog post :rolleyes:

A guy's guide to approaching strange women without being maced

Muse

10-31-2010, 02:28 AM

A guy's guide to approaching strange women without being maced

is "strange woman" the target topic of the article? or woman? if woman, why is strange there?

SVR

10-31-2010, 04:55 AM

A guy's guide to approaching strange women without being maced

is "strange woman" the target topic of the article? or woman? if woman, why is strange there?

The blog post addresses what a woman thinks when she is approached by a man she doesnt know ie a stranger. Because when she is out alone she is thinking very differently from what a man does, dictating her reactions to the strange man approaching her.

The post so is alert a man on what he needs to keep in mind while approaching a strange woman!

We let down our guard only when a guy is as thoroughly assessed as possible & the acquaintance progresses based on that assessment :)

Wtfpeople

10-31-2010, 05:37 AM

I used to wonder why I would get the eye from women if I did something "nice" for them. I used to just think "chivalry is dead" but apparently INTJdeathstare + GentlemanandaScholar = rapist.

I was dead from the start...

stasis

10-31-2010, 08:19 AM

We let down our guard only when a guy is as thoroughly assessed as possible & the acquaintance progresses based on that assessment
And that's when the rape happens. I wonder how useful this kind of feminine vetting really is.

Vogue

10-31-2010, 08:35 AM

I went back and re-read your response to Vogue. It seemed like you were calling her concerns "paranoid" with no knowledge of her situation beyond what she's provided here, and then using this to paint women who fear rape/assault as "paranoid" and "narcissistic" based on a misrepresentation of the argument made by the article in the OP. Straw woman, as it were. My apologies if I've misunderstood. Perhaps you could clarify?

Yeah, that caught me particularly off guard. As I hardly think it's inappropriate to walk down the street with a weapon handy, at night, in a city. It doesn't only have to do with rape mind you, I am just against being attacked in general. It's hardly "paranoid" or "narcissistic" to be concerned about personal safety. Especially narcissistic, that doesn't seem even relevant to the argument.

The fact is all men are potential rapists, but all women are potential rapists too. Most women would find it easier to fend off another woman's physical assaults though. (You know, provided there's no gun/weapon involved.) I'm a little person, if a large man attacked me I could be in trouble. Plus, there are smaller numbers of female rapists, so male rapists get all the attention. (That and female rapists have a pretty defined pattern of raping people they know, and while men do this too it's more prominent with females.)

And that's when the rape happens. I wonder how useful this kind of feminine vetting really is.

Well, to be fair, are women just never supposed to make friends with men ever? Although an initial screening might not be foolproof, it might serve some purpose.

stasis

10-31-2010, 08:50 AM

Well, to be fair, are women just never supposed to make friends with men ever? Although an initial screening might not be foolproof, it might serve some purpose.
If most rapes are committed by people that've already gone through this screening process, people that are well known and make regularly innocuous appearances as opposed to the strange person on the street, which seems to be the case, we might say that the screening is well beyond failing to be foolproof.

One important consequence of that conclusion could be the further examining of the cultural substance of the screening. Is it simple prudence, a functional practicality, or does it have more to do with feminine gender roles which regard femininity as something that exists to be taken by a more powerful party; womanhood as a mere component or subset of the sexuality of others, which by now should be a familiar and reprehensible refrain. And if the latter is salient, if this significantly fruitless hypervigilance in turn causes distress, injects stresses into the lives of women as a matter of course, then we might go on to question its place in contemporary feminist thinking.

IotaNull

10-31-2010, 10:19 AM

stasis

10-31-2010, 10:26 AM

In fairness, the fact that many women employ this screening process around strange people may be at least partially responsible for the fact that most rapes do not take place around strange people.
Since rape is a foisting of self upon other, a bypassing of socio-cultural and personal bounds through blunt force or chemical means, I find this unlikely. A screening process consists of negotiation, which is essentially what's disregarded by the rapist during the act of rape.

SVR

10-31-2010, 10:26 AM

If most rapes are committed by people that've already gone through this screening process, people that are well known and make regularly innocuous appearances as opposed to the strange person on the street, which seems to be the case, we might say that the screening is well beyond failing to be foolproof.

One important consequence of that conclusion could be the further examining of the cultural substance of the screening. Is it simple prudence, a functional practicality, or does it have more to do with feminine gender roles which regard femininity as something that exists to be taken by a more powerful party; womanhood as a mere component or subset of the sexuality of others, which by now should be a familiar and reprehensible refrain. And if the latter is salient, if this significantly fruitless hypervigilance in turn causes distress, injects stresses into the lives of women as a matter of course, then we might go on to question its place in contemporary feminist thinking.

You are presuming that these reported rapes are the sum total of those happen...and thus our precautions are of no use.

Who knows how many rapes have been averted because a woman has decided to keep away from a particular man because of his 'creepiness' (for the lack of any other description) perceived in the screening process?
Or because a woman is doubly careful of her surroundings & the men around. Or because she carries a can of Mace when out alone at night?

I know I have an elder relative whose behaviour is not all above board & so I generally keep out of his way.

The rapes that do happen are because we have been sadly proven wrong in our judgement...of the man or our surroundings.

stasis

10-31-2010, 10:29 AM

Who knows how many rapes have been averted because a woman has decided to keep away from a particular man because of his 'creepiness' (for the lack of any other description) perceived in the screening process?
It is true that I am presuming to know only what I know, if only because the appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy. We can't really do anything with "who knows".

Seriously

10-31-2010, 10:38 AM

It is true that I am presuming to know only what I know, if only because the appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy. We can't really do anything with "who knows".

I've never been raped. Maybe I'm just lucky. Maybe it's because I take precautions. Either way I'm good. I prefer the reality of not having been raped to the "who knows" had I not taken the precautions.

Vogue

10-31-2010, 10:40 AM

You are presuming that these reported rapes are the sum total of those happen...and thus our precautions are of no use.

Who knows how many rapes have been averted because a woman has decided to keep away from a particular man because of his 'creepiness' (for the lack of any other description) perceived in the screening process?
Or because a woman is doubly careful of her surroundings & the men around. Or because she carries a can of Mace when out alone at night?

This was the point I was making. We are probably preventing getting to know someone who might rape us. If a guy touches me, even after I ask him not to, it suggests that getting to know him is not a good idea.

Frankly, I'm not exactly willing to find out if my chances of rape are increased by not treating "creepy" men as a potential rapists.

Since rape is a foisting of self upon other, a bypassing of socio-cultural and personal bounds through blunt force or chemical means, I find this unlikely

Can you explain how this doesn't agree with what has been said? By being wary around strange people, we avoid a chemical being slipped into our drinks. If I was with my best friend I wouldn't be watching for him to slip me something.

stasis

10-31-2010, 10:46 AM

I've never been raped. Maybe I'm just lucky. Maybe it's because I take precautions. Either way I'm good. I prefer the reality of not having been raped to the "who knows" had I not taken the precautions.
Wouldn't you prefer to not have to worry about being raped and not be raped? Since we're appealing to the blank check of a boundless whatever, and maybe, who knows how gender roles which hold femininity and female sexuality in particular as a passive, derivative platform upon which male sexuality manifests itself - when the guard is down, when women submit - might contribute to the incidence of rape as fulfillment of these roles. Who knows how female identity as a possession or material artifact of male sexuality might contribute to the incidence of domestic violence, depressed rates of feminine achievement, murder, suicide and the sort. I mean, who knows, you know, if your assumption is a consequence-free appeal to safety.

Whatever, I guess.

Seriously

10-31-2010, 10:49 AM

Of course I would prefer to not have to worry about being raped and not be raped? What world do you expect that to happen in though?

stasis

10-31-2010, 10:51 AM

A world whose population does not consist of up to fifty percent by volume of violent sexual criminals.

Storm

10-31-2010, 10:54 AM

It is true that I am presuming to know only what I know, if only because the appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy. We can't really do anything with "who knows".

I have read reports of rapists being repelled by mace, and then raping another, unarmed woman a few blocks away.

I'd say we can't say either way whether or not precautions significantly lower the rape rate.

Seriously

10-31-2010, 10:57 AM

Even if only 1 in a hundred women were raped I would not want to be that woman so I would take precautions. Even if only 1 in a thousand women were raped I would not want to be that woman so I would take precautions. Are my precautions unreasonable? Not to me.

Can you guarantee me if I leave my drink unattended no one will drug me? Can you guarantee me if I walk alone paying no attention to my surroundings and don't cross to a lighted area when I see a strange man I won't get assaulted? Can you guarantee me if I l open my door to a man I don't know but is needing directions he won't overpower me?

There are no guarantees in life all you can do is try and minimize your risks.

Attheveryend

10-31-2010, 11:13 AM

Once you put it that way, it makes a bit more sense. However, I cannot fathom walking around on eggshells like that...

Imagine you're living in Nazi land, only except for jews, they seem to have some sort of beef with men...one out of six of them, in fact...

chills

10-31-2010, 11:38 AM

what, what? I, too, disagree with that article.
Perhaps that is cause in the society I live in rape is considered as the ultimate disgrace to the rapist and it happens kinda rarely, at least if we're talking about strangers. I have no doubt that it wouldn't happen by someones husband at home.
You get all kind of shouting and whistling of course, but very very few womans think that they could get raped or assaulted by these men as far as I know.

As for myself I've always felt little scared when I'm seeing any people when walking in dark alleys etc but that implies both sexes. Of course granny in the dark alley is a lot less threatening than a man with huge muscles but I've always trusted myself for being able to handle those situations. Maybe then i'm just not mature enought to grasp that someone could hurt me.
But that kind of paranoia feels just wrong unless someone really threatened to do something or did something to you. No offense, I just feel that that's really overreacted.

Muse

10-31-2010, 11:51 AM

A world whose population does not consist of up to fifty percent by volume of violent sexual criminals.
are you implying this statement refers to earth? If so id love to see where you got that idea

stasis

10-31-2010, 12:19 PM

Can you guarantee me if I leave my drink unattended no one will drug me? Can you guarantee me if I walk alone paying no attention to my surroundings and don't cross to a lighted area when I see a strange man I won't get assaulted? Can you guarantee me if I l open my door to a man I don't know but is needing directions he won't overpower me?
Obviously I cannot manage your anxieties. Only you can do that. Which, conveniently, is an important observation to make in this thread. The OP's opinion piece appears to demand that men perform that management for you whenever you interact. Given the context, it's just the strangest argument.

There are no guarantees in life all you can do is try and minimize your risks.
How passive. What a passive, defensive idea. I disagree.

I think the popular mythos of virtuous feminine vulnerability, albeit stripped in modern times of most of its romanticism (think "grrl power") and maintained as it may be a number of amendable ladies, is resolutely patriarchal in character and significance. I shudder to think that there's really nothing to be done but accept and perpetuate that power structure.

are you implying this statement refers to earth?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Dru

10-31-2010, 12:49 PM

nacht

10-31-2010, 01:06 PM

Even if only 1 in a hundred women were raped I would not want to be that woman so I would take precautions. Even if only 1 in a thousand women were raped I would not want to be that woman so I would take precautions. Are my precautions unreasonable? Not to me.

Depends on the opportunity cost of those precautions and whether those particular precautions are themselves effective.

In short: are your precautions cost-effective and do they do what you think they do?

For example, it is pure silliness to say "I will protect little Johnny from sexual abuse by watching him like a hawk on the playground" if you then immediately leave him alone with the gardner of 10 years or leave Uncle Bob as a babysitter without double checking. Or if you ignore little Johnny's reports or punish him for them because there's no way kind old Uncle Bob could do such a thing and you trust that gardner.

There are no guarantees in life all you can do is try and minimize your risks.

Do you drive or get in a car driven by friends instead of taking public transport? Do you never eat food you have not yourself prepared? Do you never leave your house except for small, necessary, trips?

Life is about calculated risks (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), not minimizing risk.

stasis

10-31-2010, 01:10 PM

perhaps the number of familiars committing rape is higher because the process works to keep at bay a large portion of those who would prefer to rape someone they don't know? sort of Darwinian, don't you think? the criminals who mask their nature most effectively are those with the greatest chances for success.
Or, perhaps the number of familiars committing rape is something best regarded as "merely" a reported number. It may be that shame or social isolation, or hopelessness about locating and convicting a random dark-alley rapist creates a negative pressure upon the reporting of random rapes by strangers, those rapes being far more numerous in reality.

Then again, the number of familiars committing rape may be higher because sexual vigilance is easy to confuse with vulnerability, which, to a predatory type of fellow, could be as attractive as the wearing of a "victim here" sign.

Alternatively, the disproportionate number of familiars committing rape might be down to familiarity meaning repetitive contact and therefore prolonged consideration of the act, until such a time that ethics yield to insidious masculine temptation and restraint is abandoned in appeal to some sort of frustrated lizard entitlement.

But! it's also conceivable that the number of familiars committing rape is higher because the serial or cannibalistic rapist who seeks primarily to destroy a victim by the act is relatively rare in comparison to another class of rapist.

Or, or, or...

And?

Seriously

10-31-2010, 01:19 PM

In short: are your precautions cost-effective and do they do what you think they do?

Yes.

Do you drive or get in a car driven by friends instead of taking public transport? Do you never eat food you have not yourself prepared? Do you never leave your house except for small, necessary, trips?

Life is about calculated risks (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), not minimizing risk.

I minimize my risk by calculating it.

---------- Post added 10-31-2010 at 03:21 PM ----------

Obviously I cannot manage your anxieties. Only you can do that. Which, conveniently, is an important observation to make in this thread. The OP's opinion piece appears to demand that men perform that management for you whenever you interact. Given the context, it's just the strangest argument.

How passive. What a passive, defensive idea. I disagree.

I think the popular mythos of virtuous feminine vulnerability, albeit stripped in modern times of most of its romanticism (think "grrl power") and maintained as it may be a number of amendable ladies, is resolutely patriarchal in character and significance. I shudder to think that there's really nothing to be done but accept and perpetuate that power structure.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't ask that you manage my anxiety. It was rhetorical to get you to try and understand my point.

I don't get how risk management is passive but ok.

Lordan

10-31-2010, 01:30 PM

Haven't read the whole thread, but this to me seems way exaggerated. The numbers alone are so huge, that they are hardly imaginable. Just considering the supposed impact on the victim, even if half would recover, there would be 1 psychically completely devastated woman in 12. That doesn't seem likely, as vast majority of women I see aren't much different from the rest.

I am normal polite person, but for the fun of discussion: There are two things.

Imagine situation, man will be in elevator with a woman. When the elevator reaches desired floor. The woman runs out shouting Rapist!, not only the man could be put in danger if she would be taken seriously and some people are that dumb, by the immediate reaction(violent) of other people. But if the rumor about this would spread he could lose job, suffer social consequences and even be charged of the rape itself. Yes, there is seemingly no motive, but it could happen. Well the rape is the same, isn't it? Logically there is no reason, it is easier to get the money and pay for it.

Second, all people can kill you, if unexpected striking with knife isn't that hard. Some will never think of it, majority will think of it, few will plan it and still most of them won't do it because of the consequences. Odds are that you will die of heart attack, respiratory issues or cancer sooner anyway. From what I've read in the original link, if you will invest the same effort and time spend wondering about this, into caring about your healthy way of living, you will do better (in terms of prolonging your life).

ZincLysine

10-31-2010, 01:45 PM

if someone's a creep, they're gonna rape you regardless. better to live life free.

i remember always being concerned about head wear one of my girls used to have. she'd have her earphones in and a hat that covers the side views of her eyesight. i pointed out once how easy it would be for her to get attacked like that. especially if she had her handbag in one are and carrying something else.

mieu

10-31-2010, 01:47 PM

I'm arriving late, so I have not read through the prior 17 or so pages. I did read the article, and much of it rings true. While the thought 'Is this man going to rape me?' isn't always the first thing that goes through my mind, it really depends on the situation.

The situation can also really color your experience when you feel like you're being completely honest and trying to strike up a friendly conversation, help or even request help from a woman.

I was at a gas station, broad daylight, on my way home from work. It was rush hour, and I was not the only person at the pumps. I'm approached by a guy my age, looks relatively harmless, he asks me for a ride. I decline, he doesn't go away. He's obviously in a situation where hes stranded, hes trying to find out where the nearest onramp to <highway>. I still decline, and somehow don't have the heart to tell him that I simply don't care. Looking back, yeah it probably sucked to be him if he were honestly asking for help, but seriously, did he really need to approach the most vulnerable person out of all of the people at that station? It wasn't like I was the closest person, and he certainly didn't ask anyone else while walking up to my car. If that guy went on the internet later that night asking on a forum 'Man, whats wrong with women?!' then I'd have no sympathy.

In another situation, I recently (er, a year ago) began working in my field of study. My job is somewhat business-oriented. I was networking a lot with co-workers, figuring out who people were. Most guys my age were completely platonic in how they acted towards me, I love it. Then I met one guy who seemed to be the same way. We conversed once or twice, corresponded via inter-office messages, nothing flirtatious. I mentioned I was in a relationship, as I always do. One day he asked if I wanted to grab some coffee down the road (something most of us do on our breaks) after work. Apparently it was a very bad idea, and I never felt so uncomfortable since working there. To make matters worse, I found out later that he was married, and that I wasn't the first female employee he'd given the same treatment--which chilled me to the bone recalling how he kept trying to convince me to get into his car (e.g. saying that I left my umbrella there, when it was actually in my purse). How many other girls got in, and what happened?

If we can't safely generalize that men are harmless (even in a dating context--assuming they won't turn into something different once they somehow lure us away from public places) then our other option is to generalize that they could potentially do harm. If we can't be open and inviting without the chance of giving someone 'the wrong idea,' then logically it is safer to be reserved when approached by a male stranger. It doesn't always have to be about a fear of rape, it can be a desire to not be placed in an uncomfortable situation, receiving attention from someone that we genuinely don't want it from.

vampyroteuthis

10-31-2010, 01:48 PM

Wouldn't you prefer to not have to worry about being raped and not be raped? Since we're appealing to the blank check of a boundless whatever, and maybe, who knows how gender roles which hold femininity and female sexuality in particular as a passive, derivative platform upon which male sexuality manifests itself - when the guard is down, when women submit - might contribute to the incidence of rape as fulfillment of these roles. Who knows how female identity as a possession or material artifact of male sexuality might contribute to the incidence of domestic violence, depressed rates of feminine achievement, murder, suicide and the sort. I mean, who knows, you know, if your assumption is a consequence-free appeal to safety.

Whatever, I guess.

Based on ad hoc comparison of the two countries in which I've spent the most time, I think there's something to this idea. Where I grew up, women are considered the provenance of men, to the point that even so-called "liberals" can grasp the idea of same-sex male desire but not female, women not being understood as desiring subjects. Dowry deaths, honour killings, bride burnings, etc., continue. So do (gang)rapes in broad daylight, usually at least twice a week in my city if the papers are to be believed, and women walking alone being abducted by groups of men in cars. A crowded bus or marketplace means you will be groped no matter how many men you elbow, kick, and yell at. Wearing a short skirt would be madness.

Some of these things are starting to change in the big city where I grew up, mostly through a combination of increased exposure to and contact between genders, and a series of campaigns by women's groups to take to the streets en masse and publicly shame the roadside Romeos.

What is the appropriate response? I don't know. Should I end up having to schlep myself back to what is called the "Dodge City" of my country, as a woman living alone, I will learn to use a gun and I will ensure that I am seen doing target practice in public. When I lived there, I took all the necessary precautions, never travelled alone at night, etc. It's oppressive and I wish I hadn't felt the need. I do believe that I was able to prevent public sexual assault (beyond being felt up) because I screamed and ran when necessary. And yes, none of this did anything to prevent it in the private sphere.

In the US, on the other hand, the last place I lived, the risk was of being mugged, or of walking by a gunfight after a certain hour, but sexual assault by strangers was a far more unlikely prospect. I did the keys-in-hand thing walking home after 2:00 a.m., but didn't bother much beyond that. If I'm mugged, I have no problem handing everything over.

Re. the "consequence-free appeal to safety", maybe one of the problems is that we don't always have good ways of assessing risks, so we work from information that's imparted culturally. I don't know how many people look at statistics on violent crime in their cities and neighbourhoods -- it's something I tend to inform myself about every time I've move house. I've always had a much lower perception of risk in the US than at home, and am surprised by women who are afraid to walk around most parts of New York city late at night, but my risk-assessment and consequent confidence is based on a comparison of patterns of harassment and levels of misogyny, and some knowledge of statistics on forcible rape.

Obviously I cannot manage your anxieties. Only you can do that. Which, conveniently, is an important observation to make in this thread. The OP's opinion piece appears to demand that men perform that management for you whenever you interact. Given the context, it's just the strangest argument.

How passive. What a passive, defensive idea. I disagree.

I think the popular mythos of virtuous feminine vulnerability, albeit stripped in modern times of most of its romanticism (think "grrl power") and maintained as it may be a number of amendable ladies, is resolutely patriarchal in character and significance. I shudder to think that there's really nothing to be done but accept and perpetuate that power structure.

I do think there is more to be done, but I'm wary of placing the onus upon women who have reason to believe that they are at risk. Opinion formation is usually rational, but based on information available. Disaggregated information, about risks would be a start. There are several projects I know of that attempt to do community-based interventions and talk about sexual norms. Some colleges are starting up similar initiatives, campuses being a common site of date-rape.

I don't think that the onus of building confidence falls entirely or even primarily on Women Afraid of Rape. And, depending on where you live and what hours you keep, forcible rape at the hands of a stranger continues to be a real risk, and I'm not sure where to draw the line between taking precautions to ensure my safety, and perpetuating patriarchal myths.

Feral

10-31-2010, 01:50 PM

Damn, I wish I'd caught this thread earlier. I'm not going to go through the last 18 pages.
That article was pretty spot on (I wish I could somehow tattoo #2 to my forehead, but then people would have to look at me to read it). I'd never really thought much about it before, but it's pretty much all true. Threats are everywhere, and when you're not fit to handle large physical threats, you have to be constantly aware of your surroundings, like a deer in cougar country.

nacht

10-31-2010, 02:35 PM

Yes.

Forgive me my skepticism.

I minimize my risk by calculating it.

This statement is nonsensical. Calculating risk is a requirement to be able to evaluate it. Once you have that information though, it says nothing further about your risk preference.

Dru

10-31-2010, 02:37 PM

i'd like to point out, since this discussion seems to be dealing mainly with rape, which is something that was only made "reference" to... not only do women not want to be raped, they don't want to become a one-night stand, emotionally manipulated, get an STD, suffer a verbally abusive boyfriend... the "undesirables" women try to keep out of their lives extend beyond violent criminals. the main concern isn't really whether or not you'll be raped or murdered - or both - it's keeping out anyone who would seek to take advantage of or mistreat you in any way.

everyone does it in one way or another, but statistically, not to mention common-sensically, women are more often targeted for sexual and domestic crimes, including but not excluded to rape and attempted rape.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Young women, low-income women and some minorities are disproportionately victims of domestic violence and rape. Women ages 20-24 are at greatest risk of nonfatal domestic violence, and women age 24 and under suffer from the highest rates of rape. The Justice Department estimates that one in five women will experience rape or attempted rape during their college years, and that less than five percent of these rapes will be reported. Income is also a factor: the poorer the household, the higher the rate of domestic violence -- with women in the lowest income category experiencing more than six times the rate of nonfatal intimate partner violence as compared to women in the highest income category. When we consider race, we see that African-American women face higher rates of domestic violence than white women, and American-Indian women are victimized at a rate more than double that of women of other races.

it is also estimated that less than half of all crimes that occur are reported to the police. now, tell me that the average woman has no reason to be a little more anxious about her safety than the average man.

---------- Post added 10-31-2010 at 05:48 PM ----------

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Seriously

10-31-2010, 02:55 PM

Forgive me my skepticism.

No I don't think I will.

astrolite

10-31-2010, 03:26 PM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

leave the keys at home

I joke, but wouldn't that solve this problem right away as opposed to some sort of societal utopian evolution that won't happen any time soon? They probably can make some really nice kevlar ones too.

Ricardo Diaz

10-31-2010, 03:43 PM

Learn to draw a pistol quickly... quickest fix for your paranoid fears.

vampyroteuthis

10-31-2010, 03:46 PM

Learn to draw a pistol quickly... quickest fix for your paranoid fears.

Oh god, not this again.

Look, if you believe that risk-assessment is impossible because all statistics are useless, then you have no grounds for determining what is or isn't "paranoid".

Sorry, but one of your blanket statements has got to give.

Ricardo Diaz

10-31-2010, 03:48 PM

Oh god, not this again.

Look, if you believe that risk-assessment is impossible because all statistics are useless, then you have no grounds for determining what is or isn't "paranoid".

Sorry, but one of your blanket statements has got to give.

I'm just suggesting a fix :rolleyes:

Booko

10-31-2010, 04:07 PM

If we can't be open and inviting without the chance of giving someone 'the wrong idea,' then logically it is safer to be reserved when approached by a male stranger. It doesn't always have to be about a fear of rape, it can be a desire to not be placed in an uncomfortable situation, receiving attention from someone that we genuinely don't want it from.

You just nailed why I don't gas up my car at the station near my house after dark. I don't fear the clientele, but in the culture where they grew up a woman on her own doesn't mean the same thing as it does here. Even at my age I get hit on (geez...how desperate do you have to be?) and I find that annoying as hell, so I just don't bother.

Zsych

10-31-2010, 04:25 PM

Speaking as a guy... there are plenty of people around who can rough you up. Some who might even want to. There are plenty of people running around that look dangerous.

I've never found that trusting those people to actually lead to problems.

Some people are victimized because they think and act like victims.
... I'm slightly reminded of a girl I recently met. We were asking her to come with us when we were going out and she was refusing... it was awkwardly funny... and her attitude was just such that it was hard not to pick on her and make her uncomfortable. Eventually I told her that we were picking on her because she was letting us and because she was just not handling the situation right.

Anyway, there are probably some places that are more dangerous than others. And yes most sexual assault seems to occur from people you know. Perhaps because you make them feel that they have the power or perhaps because you hurt them and they want to retaliate.
(I've noticed that some women tend to not realize that they need to give anything back in a relationship... that may be a lot of anger and debt you might be building in some cases. And also obviously people are not limited to physical assault in terms of means to retaliate against those who they perceive as having treated them badly... that's pretty primitive)

mieu

10-31-2010, 04:46 PM

Anyway, there are probably some places that are more dangerous than others. And yes most sexual assault seems to occur from people you know. Perhaps because you make them feel that they have the power or perhaps because you hurt them and they want to retaliate.
(I've noticed that some women tend to not realize that they need to give anything back in a relationship... that may be a lot of anger and debt you might be building in some cases. And also obviously people are not limited to physical assault in terms of means to retaliate against those who they perceive as having treated them badly... that's pretty primitive)

I know you're going to catch some heat for these statements (it could be read that you are implying that the female somehow provoked or deserved such treatment, which justifies the actions of her aggressor) but I'm curious. I also might be misreading it.

If you've noticed that women 'tend to not realize they need to give anything back in a relationship,' define the word 'relationship,' please. If you are in a 'we're dating' relationship, and there is all 'give' and no return, its still difficult to envision a context wherein rape might occur--unless the aggressor were sufficiently disturbed enough that they forsake any feelings of tenderness for the female that was cultivated during the relationship. Also, if they're in a sexual relationship...I just don't know. That would appear to take the form of domestic abuse ('You didn't do the dishes/you never say 'I love you/you're such a pain in the ass now I'm going to rape you.') which still isn't right. If you're talking about a non-sexual relationship, I can't comment because I don't have sufficient experience in relationships that are non-sexual. If you're talking about a non-romantic relationship (a close friendship, a flirtatious friendship) then what exactly are you implying that the female be obligated to 'give' in return? In return for what?

Women can be manipulative, women can be mean. Women can make you feel awful when they reject you. Does that mean rape is an acceptable response? Obviously not. Just as murder isn't an acceptable response when the roles are reversed. We are human, but being animal is no excuse to falling victim to your baser lusts (which you mentioned in closing, hence why I'm confused) :laugh:

cannotseethe

10-31-2010, 05:17 PM

Eventually I told her that we were picking on her because she was letting us and because she was just not handling the situation right.

Somebody should have raped her. Sounds like she was asking for it.

Yardy

10-31-2010, 05:19 PM

Well, great thread. Lets just do everything we can to increase the "them and us" mentality between the sexes.

plotthickens

10-31-2010, 06:09 PM

Well, great thread. Lets just do everything we can to increase the "them and us" mentality between the sexes.

Yes, caution is the source of 'them and us' dichotomy... not rape qua rape. Ignoring it will make it go away, right?

Gee, why isn't that working with our bills?

Yardy

10-31-2010, 06:26 PM

Yes, caution is the source of 'them and us' dichotomy... not rape qua rape. Ignoring it will make it go away, right?

Gee, why isn't that working with our bills?

Rape isn't a hidden evil lurking behind every shadow. It's an act just like any other act, only in this case, most people in our society don't approve of it. It's the natural instict of every man to club a pretty woman that he sees and drag her back to his cave, but that doesn't make every man a rapist. To become a rapist you have to rape, and every man will not commit rape.

Defend yourself. Quit pretending that this is anything more than an issue about emotion versus reason and don't demonize men or make women out to be helpless. As mammals, both sexes share basic needs and desires in common. Don't pretend we're so different.

Barry Allen

10-31-2010, 06:35 PM

lol, this thread is hilarious

I never knew women were so helpless, weak and paranoid

for the sake of your gender, show some fucking balls, ladies.

you're really making yourselves look bad, I'm kinda shocked

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Vogue

10-31-2010, 06:43 PM

Defend yourself. Quit pretending that this is anything more than an issue about emotion versus reason and don't demonize men or make women out to be helpless.

I'm sorry, I thought we were defending ourselves by not conversing with the strange man that approached us at a bar and started chatting us up (and usually touching us.) Or by carrying our keys like weapons, or by carrying mace.

I see a lot of reason in the whole "taking precautions" thing. You know, that reason being, I don't want to be attacked.

Arcanist

10-31-2010, 07:05 PM

I give people like this exactly what they want: I ignore them completely.

Barry Allen

10-31-2010, 07:08 PM

I give people like this exactly what they want: I ignore them completely.

pretty much

thankfully I have never met any of these super paranoid women, most of the females I know are comfortable with their surroundings and know how to handle themselves in the presence of strange men

Yardy

10-31-2010, 07:52 PM

I'm sorry, I thought we were defending ourselves by not conversing with the strange man that approached us at a bar and started chatting us up (and usually touching us.) Or by carrying our keys like weapons, or by carrying mace.

I see a lot of reason in the whole "taking precautions" thing. You know, that reason being, I don't want to be attacked.

I don't disagree with you at all. The way you presented your stance is perfectly realistic and rational. The tone of the essay wasn't. Then the majority of the posts here want to make more of the topic than it is, which is a simple issue of biology versus society.

plotthickens

10-31-2010, 08:46 PM

Then the majority of the posts here want to make more of the topic than it is, which is a simple issue of biology versus society.

It's not all that simple when his fist is in your hair and you're screaming from the pain, and later you have to show the courtroom the scars from his teeth. Stop dismissing that of which you know nothing.

Yardy

10-31-2010, 09:02 PM

It's not all that simple when his fist is in your hair and you're screaming from the pain, and later you have to show the courtroom the scars from his teeth. Stop dismissing that of which you know nothing.

Don't over-dramatize what's already sufficiently serious. There's a difference between having a bad experience and moving on, rather than letting it control your life. Rape can't be justified, it is unacceptable, but there is no evil presence around it. Rape itself isn't a person, it isn't out to get you. It doesn't define who you are as a person when and if you're a victim. There's more to life to consider.

plotthickens

10-31-2010, 09:14 PM

Don't over-dramatize what's already sufficiently serious. There's a difference between having a bad experience and moving on, rather than letting it control your life. Rape can't be justified, it is unacceptable, but there is no evil presence around it. Rape itself isn't a person, it isn't out to get you. It doesn't define who you are as a person when and if you're a victim. There's more to life to consider.

I find your lack of empathy concurrent with your matter-of-fact 'tough love' hard talk, both which are typically footed in ignorance and inexperience. I was raped, that was my experience, I worked with rape victims. Hardly over-dramatized as I needed over thirty stitches, and my story was not the worst by far.

Have you had experience or training which leads you to advise me to 'move on'? Because what you say is exactly opposite of everything trained professionals and accepted treatments reccommend.

Ben1220

10-31-2010, 09:23 PM

it's very rare for a man and a woman to "just be friends".

What??
Dru,
I see your statement of fact and raise you a counter example

...More like 20 counter examples.

vampyroteuthis

10-31-2010, 09:25 PM

Don't over-dramatize what's already sufficiently serious.

Don't over-simplify what's already sufficiently complex and devastating by reducing it to an unspecified interaction between two abstractions so vague as to encompass or describe anything you want them to and nothing at all.

---------- Post added 11-01-2010 at 12:27 AM ----------

I give people like this exactly what they want: I ignore them completely.

O, would that more people followed this. I thank you.

Yardy

10-31-2010, 10:50 PM

I find your lack of empathy concurrent with your matter-of-fact 'tough love' hard talk, both which are typically footed in ignorance and inexperience. I was raped, that was my experience, I worked with rape victims. Hardly over-dramatized as I needed over thirty stitches, and my story was not the worst by far.

Have you had experience or training which leads you to advise me to 'move on'? Because what you say is exactly opposite of everything trained professionals and accepted treatments reccommend.

If you mean by "treatment" to be the integrating of experiences into yourself and accepting them as fact, that's totally apart and away from the school of thought that believes we should minimize the effects of traumatic events in our lives by reducing the importance of them. Counseling and psychoanalysis aren't true sciences. As you are, in a way, a patient, I would with all of the best intentions suggest that you couldn't settle for a great enough diversity of opinions when learning for yourself how to cope.

If a person asks why they were victimized, however callous it may sound, the answer ultimately reduces to some form of "Well, you were there, and so was he." There is no ominous force guiding what happens to you. There was no purpose to it if you were attacked; it's just what happened and it doesn't reflect anything about your own worth or character.

Muse

10-31-2010, 10:59 PM

my intj friend and i thought of an awesome movie idea regarding this article.

It starts off with a woman that begins to kill random men more and more violently to reduce their chance-to-rape percentage to zero. She slowly becomes more disconnected from reality by categorizing all law enforcement agents that are after her as 'intent to rape' and flees the USA for Paris, with the intent to blow up the Eiffel tower, a "structure that subconsciously motivates rape due to its phallic nature." Theres a side story where she kills a little girl, thinking her father is using her as "bait to lure me in, for rape." After successfully blowing up the eiffel tower, she is wounded while fleeing the international authorities. In a final atempt to win the war against rape, she writes this article, and with her last ounce of strength, epicly uploads it to the internet.

Losing large amounts of blood, she becomes visually impaired. As she sits in the corner of an abandoned warehouse hiding out in her final moments, she unknowingly bumps a table with her leg and a flashlight falls and rolls in between her legs. She looks down and suddenly thinks it is her own penis, and dies believing she had become the monster she fought against; in some strange twist of fate.

Lordan

10-31-2010, 11:09 PM

While you have to love the Schrödinger reference it is used wrong. The cat is in alive and dead until you take a look, not until she dies lol. Therefore the statement, "When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me. " is logically wrong.

Arcanist

11-01-2010, 08:43 AM

O, would that more people followed this. I thank you.

Of course. It works out wonderfully since I have no patience for seething hostile and bitter people who assume I'm sort of monster until proven otherwise.

vampyroteuthis

11-01-2010, 09:24 AM

Of course. It works out wonderfully since I have no patience for seething hostile and bitter people who assume I'm sort of monster until proven otherwise.

And how well you ignore them through repeated posts.

Dru

11-01-2010, 11:51 AM

What??
Dru,
I see your statement of fact and raise you a counter example

...More like 20 counter examples.

a platonic friendship requires that both parties be "free from sensual desire", which between any given man and any given women is the less likely occurrence. you can certainly both be friends, but it's highly unlikely that either or both parties doesn't harbor an unspoken attraction for the other, which negates the one qualifying rule.

plotthickens

11-01-2010, 12:55 PM

If you mean by "treatment" to be the integrating of experiences into yourself and accepting them as fact, that's totally apart and away from the school of thought that believes we should minimize the effects of traumatic events in our lives by reducing the importance of them. Counseling and psychoanalysis aren't true sciences. As you are, in a way, a patient, I would with all of the best intentions suggest that you couldn't settle for a great enough diversity of opinions when learning for yourself how to cope.

If a person asks why they were victimized, however callous it may sound, the answer ultimately reduces to some form of "Well, you were there, and so was he." There is no ominous force guiding what happens to you. There was no purpose to it if you were attacked; it's just what happened and it doesn't reflect anything about your own worth or character.

So... you're not trained, not a therapist, have no experience in this or any other mental health field, and haven't had any experience with rape or sexual abuse.

Yep, I'm writing down your helpful suggestions right now.

nacht

11-01-2010, 01:18 PM

Have you had experience or training which leads you to advise me to 'move on'? Because what you say is exactly opposite of everything trained professionals and accepted treatments reccommend.

It isn't, really, unless you are using a different definition of "move on" than Yardy appears to be using.

A lot of therapy is built around learning to integrate the experience and accept it as fact and then become functional through that experience. Essentially, to move on from it. To not dwell on it, to not let it control your life. We also see it in the Buddhist teachings that became foundational to a lot of modern therapy modalities.

Examples are most of the CBT group (schema therapy, DBT, ACT, etc).

blatant

11-01-2010, 03:58 PM

Actually, the arming yourself thing does seem pretty spot-on at times.

"Are we going to be honest or political? I don't know any women who if given a choice would prefer "not sexy" over "sexy." If I have a daughter, I would want her to be in control of her sexuality, not under the control of it (in other words, the opposite of me.) I want her to be smart and sexy. I just want her to be her.

No. No, the problem isn't my daughter becomes a slut; it's that she gets beaten by some whacko who wants her to be. Or doesn't want her to be. Or does, but only when...

The real problem for the women of our society isn't a lack of self-esteem. It's a lack of weapons.

And no, I'm not kidding. "

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Wtfpeople

11-01-2010, 08:47 PM

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in the 20 pages... but...

I dont think all "rape" is created equal, but we use the term like it is. I think this article is about "violent rape" when not all rapes are violent. I would even dare to say that sexual assault is different from rape, but rape can occur during a sexual assault.

I dont see how this article applies to "drunk/drug rape" or "trust rape". I'm not sure if any of the statistics mentioned separate all the different types.

EDIT: And to clarify, I make no claims of a "greater" or "lesser" rape, only that not all rapes happen the same way or under the same circumstance. I just think its important that "forced rape", "drugged rape" and "trust rape" should be separated.

As an example, I dont think young girls think they're getting "raped" when they are actually raped by doing what they were told to do by people they trust, and people who become drugged probably wouldnt become drugged if they knew they were going to be drugged and raped.

stasis

11-01-2010, 10:47 PM

I don't think that the onus of building confidence falls entirely or even primarily on Women Afraid of Rape.
In making the argument one risks generating airs of "blaming the victim"; it is dissenting instead of supportive of the cultural vaunting of that rape-receptacle of a default role. It does not play along. But I'm not as much meaning to place the onus on anyone in particular as I am attempting to deal with what appears to be the patriarchal character of the dialogue on the subject.

Mostly that dialogue (immediate thread included) reads like a ritualization of sexual tension and fear. We have masturbation of the maidenly mortal dread flanked by an oscillating "at your service, m'lady" and "make me a sammich". Nothing other than the classical roles one and two. Pants and Skirts like it's 1888. A clear recollection of play like this is what has me cringing whenever I read users blithely report upon feminism - that end-stage, tweaking for the optimum now school of thought - having more or less completed its primary task in the west. Oh just what is that brute fellow intending when he looks at me with those black, Darwinian eyes of his? It's terrifying. And gasp, and scurry.

The dialogue has become a billboard advertisement about the shucking of corsets, installed by dutiful corsetters and financed by those nevertheless bolstered by fishbones. Strictly about, then, and not actually for - no matter the aesthetics of the language. Down with foot-binding in the orient; say it loudly, and with indignation from atop wobbly shoes. Clad in business formal versions of the same old abbreviated mobility, cloth tube entry point contraptions around the legs - crossed means maybe, open means yes.

It's all fucked up. The cultural framework for the thinking on the subject is fucked up. OP's opinion piece is badly fucked up.

I think feminism does well to provide a dialectical means for women to (self)identify and exercise their own power, to the end of establishing non-dysfunctional gender roles as equal amongst persons. But it seems to me that women are still popularly divided, identities actually opposed, while the whole thing has become passé or even taboo to talk about. As long as we see popular opinion wallowing in the terror of _ while putting out for people who chivalrously enshrine feminine vulnerability to the masculine, we will probably find levels of terror and rape that approach obscenity. Or, at the very least, hard failure of the feminine screening ritual as a security measure.

Marlowe221

11-02-2010, 11:38 AM

I have read this entire thread.

Standard Disclaimers: I am a man. I am NOT a rape apologist. I do NOT think that rape is the victim's fault. I work in the criminal justice system.

HOWEVER...

I have to agree with those who point out that the overwhelming majority of women in the USA have not been/will not be raped.

To me this article smacks of hyperbole. Yes, sexual assault is a real problem. Yes, women must be mindful of their surroundings (as should we all). But, the overall tone of this essay seems to indicate that women do (or should) live in a constant state of fear/ultra-vigilance of being sexually assaulted in some way - and that most (if not all) women think and feel this way.

About statistics: I believe that we should think very critically about statistics on ANY subject. If some of the statistics related here are true then it would be virtually impossible for any of us to NOT know someone who has been raped.

I am sorry that some of the members of this message board have been the victims of sexual assault. It's a terrible thing that should never happen to anyone. But the vast majority of men never sexually assault anyone - thinking and behaving as if the opposite were true is neither healthy nor appropriate.

Also, even if you eliminate rape and just go with annoyance factor, as some have argued in this thread, the article still pretty much assumes that the guilty party in every social gaffe between the sexes is the male. That sound unfair to anyone else?

Muse

11-02-2010, 02:48 PM

i have shown this article to 5 female friends, two of whom were victims of rape. only one of them thinks this article is true for all woman, and thats the rape victim that also struggles with being bipolar.(3 minutes later she told me shes not saying the article is completely true, so i guess half of her doesn't agree)

The other four think the article is BS and on the same level as paranoia. Two of them wanted to post on the article, but comments are blocked. Furthermore id like to point out that the article is tagged as feminism as its catagory.

Dunno bout the rest of you but i consider it debunked, and woulnt be posting further.

Wtfpeople

11-02-2010, 11:38 PM

I am sorry that some of the members of this message board have been the victims of sexual assault. It's a terrible thing that should never happen to anyone. But the vast majority of men never sexually assault anyone - thinking and behaving as if the opposite were true is neither healthy nor appropriate.

I'm not so sure this is true, because the definition of "rape" can mean so many things. In my other post, I talked about different types of rape. I agree that most men will not club a girl over the head, tear off her clothes and rape her; or molest their daughter. I do not agree that most men will in their life times stop immediately when a girl says "no", or when a girl is in a state of mind that she shouldnt be allowed to make a decision.

For example, having sex with a drunk girl could technically be rape. If this girl claims that she was raped and participated in the survey, it could really throw conclusions off. Sure, it could be rape but, IMO, it isnt the same as clubbing a girl over a head and wearing a ski mask. Even the "law" thinks so.

Also, even if you eliminate rape and just go with annoyance factor, as some have argued in this thread, the article still pretty much assumes that the guilty party in every social gaffe between the sexes is the male. That sound unfair to anyone else?

Yeah, it's unfair. It's also the same with domestic violence (as a LEO you probably seen it yourself) and other crimes where one person is female and the other is male.

There will always be this problem, of who is really to blame. I think people just need to be smarter. "Victims" are too often "negligent", such as a girl being drugged at a party, can be completely avoided unlike the same girl who could be ambushed in the street.

"date rape" is avoidable in almost 100% of all the situations ive heard of. The solution isnt to "not go" but simply to "be smart". For example, to avoid ever being drugged at a party, all you have to do is always open your own drinks and never put your drink down. Simple.