Public Interaction with Women (Warning: Rape References)

[plotthickens]

It's comforting to think that some dissenting opinions completely invalidate an uncomfortable subject, isn't it?

[Marlowe221]

You could look in the mirror and say the same thing based on what I've read here.

[plotthickens]

"I know you are, but what am I"? Really?

[Wtfpeople]

@Wtfpeople - So you think MOST American men HAVE committed sexual assault?!? I would love to see your evidence for that assertion. Also what I know about domestic violence is that things are rarely simple in those situations - the man is not always the aggressor. My comment about fairness was directed to the tone of the article linked in the OP that strongly implied that any social mistake was the fault of the man. I mean no more, no less.

Yes. I think most men have committed sexual assault to the extent where charges could be filed against them.

Hypothetically speaking:

-If I grabbed my GF's ass while shes sleeping, that's sexual assault.
-If I pulled down her underwear and penetrated her with my finger while shes sleeping, that's rape.
-If I had sex with her when I was 18 and she was 16, that's rape.
-If I had sex with her when she was a little too drunk, that's rape.


Half of people in high school (14-18) have had sex by the time they graduate. If the age of consent in your area is 16, there is lots of rape going on. Something like 10% of teens have sex before high school. Pretty much, any sex that happens before high school is automatically rape in most parts of the world.

That's only a small portion of the argument, these damned "rapist" teenagers.

[Yardy]

Thank you so much, gentlemen, for coming up with these excellent ways to make rape not happen. Now that the info's out, I'm sure women will never be assaulted again.

You can't blame people of something just because it sounds good. There's nothing anywhere within the sincere posters' opinions that made or even appeared contrived to make rape "not happen".

There's several posters here with nothing useful to say one way or the other. But there's also a few here ignoring the disease and attempting to form dialogue.

If something I say, for example, comes off as insensitive or callous, that's something to talk about, but as for the handful of people posting here that take this topic seriously, nobody's trying to insult you or hurt your feelings or wish away the facts of life. Perspective is what these posts are stressing.

You can't just accuse them of something totally opposite of what they're trying to do because you want them to feel uncomfortable.

[plotthickens]

You can't just accuse them of something totally opposite of what they're trying to do because you want them to feel uncomfortable.

It was sarcasm, darling. I'll get you the definition if you'd like.

Seems like men find myriad ways for women to defend themselves against rape. This is bassackwards. The only way to end rape is to stop rapists.

It's not the victim's responsibility to be nicer, harder, stronger, softer, skilled, pretty, ugly, vicious, quick, aware, invisible or anything else I've read. It's up to society and potential attackers to NOT RAPE.

That's it.

[Yardy]

Can't help but agree with you there. Though both sides should do something. Women shouldn't be in stasis while men are battling their impulses, and women shouldn't be arming themselves while men run amok.

[plotthickens]

Can't help but agree with you there. Though both sides should do something. Women shouldn't be in stasis while men are battling their impulses, and women shouldn't be arming themselves while men run amok.

No. The victim 'should' not do anything. The victim needs not to be assaulted. Holding the victim responsible for some measure of resistance always backfires with "she didn't fight so she really wanted it" or some version thereof. Every rape victim I've met, including myself, reviles themself for not fighting hard enough, asking themselves if we really wanted to be attacked? Were we asking for it? Because we didn't fight back like we 'should' have. There is no 'should' for victims. Bad shit happens sometimes.

The only way to end rape is to stop rapists.

[Yardy]

It's a question of animals with superior upper-body strength taking advantage of a less physically apt sex. How do you propose to stop rapists? With carpet boming or phasers?

The only thing that can be done is social reform. But that doesn't happen overnight, or overyear, or overdecade. You can't allow yourself to be victimized on the grounds of a principle. If someone attacks you, defend yourself. Announcing that you shouldn't have to won't change anything.

[Wtfpeople]

Seems like men find myriad ways for women to defend themselves against rape. This is bassackwards. The only way to end rape is to stop rapists.

I'm not trying to find ways for you to defend yourself against rape. I'm saying that you're an idiot to think that 100% of men and women will behave themselves in situations of "opportunity" and therefore should calculate your risks accordingly.

If your like heroin and vodka, you might want to enjoy those things at home where you're safe. Once you take those things into a night club where you end up passing out on the steps with your legs spread, you cant exactly say that you expected people to behave themselves.

It's not the victim's responsibility to be nicer, harder, stronger, softer, skilled, pretty, ugly, vicious, quick, aware, invisible or anything else I've read. It's up to society and potential attackers to NOT RAPE.

That's it.

You're exactly right. It's not their responsibility. The criminal justice system protects victims whether they are smart or stupid. All im suggesting to you is that you be smart. If you're one of the stupid victims, you cant expect people not to say "I told you so".

But wait, what is "due diligence" and why is there an "age of majority"? Oh, right, because those things have everything to do with legal responsibility.

As you can see, there is a double standard in society. In "touchy-feely" crimes like rape and hate crimes, there is an absolute victim, where they cant have any blame. In non touchy-feely crimes like civil cases, one has to prove victimization.

You idea of society believes that there are absolute victims. My idea of society believes that everyone is responsible for their own due diligence and acceptance of their title as "legal majority". See, if you cant handle the responsibility of being 18 years old, you shouldnt be automatically granted it. Once you accept, any automatic assumption of "i'm a helpless victim" shouldnt be granted. If would be up to you to prove that you've taken reasonable precautions and not assumed.

[Marlowe221]

"I know you are, but what am I"? Really?

Well, given such an amazingly detailed and well reasoned response as:

It's comforting to think that some dissenting opinions completely invalidate an uncomfortable subject, isn't it?

then.... yes.

But you're being intellectually dishonest if you really don't see that:
It's comforting to think that some dissenting opinions completely invalidate an uncomfortable subject, isn't it?

is EXACTLY what you are doing yourself and have been doing this entire thread.

Edit: Your responses since my last post in this thread are further proof of this. I am sorry that this is such an emotional issue for you. I really do wish you all the best. But I will not continue to participate in this discussion since it seems as though you are unwilling to even give serious consideration to any point of view that differs from your own.

/salute!

[catzmeow]

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

Because if we make the first move, are we telling you that we're sexually easy and making it more likely that we will be victimized? Trust me, the thought has crossed my mind before.

---------- Post added 11-04-2010 at 03:51 PM ----------

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

The problem is that it's not an IRRATIONAL level of fear. YOU consider it to be irrational because you consider the odds that you might be raped to be low. I consider it a normal level of fear that most women live with because the odds that we might be raped are considerably higher (1 in 6, 1 in 3, 1 in 2, depending on where we're at and our age).

The other thing that your response is not taking into consideration is that almost all women have had what we consider to be near-misses.

I was out of town at a conference a few years ago, and I sat around with a group of guys that I've known for years until the wee hours in the morning talking and laughing. I am scrupulous about NEVER attaching myself to a man at this sort of event, at the time, I was married, but also, men are horrible gossips. Anyway, when I finally said goodnight, and headed to the elevator to go to my room alone, two men from the bar followed me into the elevator (of my hotel) and asked where my room was. The intimation was that I'd somehow invited them up by being in the bar. Fortunately, there was a 3rd man in the elevator who told them to leave me alone, and escorted me safely to my room.

He later told me that there had been similar problems at the previous year's conference, and so the women (who were heavily outnumbered) had been assigned anonymous protectors. He was mine. He never told me that he was there to look out for me, but if he hadn't been there, I strongly believe I'd have been attacked, and possibly raped.

Did I mention that this was a law enforcement conference, and ALL OF THESE MEN WERE COPS.

You know, if there is one place on earth that you should feel safe, it's surrounded by 600 cops, right?

But I wasn't.

Every woman you know, unless she is seriously ass-ugly, and possibly even then, has been subjected to unwanted sexual attention. Every woman you know has been hit on by men who didn't gracefully take no for an answer. Every woman you know has had at least one really scary close encounter with the possibility of rape.

As one of my former lieutenants told me, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you."

Please take the time to consider that your experiences have been vastly different than the average woman's.

[mieu]

You idea of society believes that there are absolute victims. My idea of society believes that everyone is responsible for their own due diligence and acceptance of their title as "legal majority". See, if you cant handle the responsibility of being 18 years old, you shouldnt be automatically granted it. Once you accept, any automatic assumption of "i'm a helpless victim" shouldnt be granted. If would be up to you to prove that you've taken reasonable precautions and not assumed.

I'm slightly confused, and I realized that this is addressed to someone else, but I'm curious.

I agree it is wrong to automatically assume the stance of victim. I agree that there are victims who were smart and who were stupid. I disagree that rape cases are not an instance where the victim should always have to prove their victimization. In the vein of 'absolute vs. not,' there are simply some cases where the victim is undeniably innocent in that she did not engage in risky behavior. If a girl who takes the bus home is stalked by a complete stranger, who invades her home one night and rapes her, then in my opinion she is an absolute victim in that her actions did not inadvertently bring this misfortune upon her (like, she didn't make the mistake of acquainting herself with her aggressor or otherwise increase contact with him). Speaking technically, she has already proven her victimization biologically--rape kit. Is this what you mean when you say that all rape victims have to prove their victimization? (i.e. you literally can't just arbitrarily convince a court you were raped with no physical evidence)

If so, I see what you mean, I just wasn't sure how to interpret it.

[catzmeow]

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


I would suggest that you don't know if you've met a super paranoid woman, because mostly, we don't talk about our fears. I work in a heavily male-dominated field, my best friends are men, and I am extremely comfortable in the company of men. I'm almost better than
most at managing my surroundings and never putting myself unnecessarily at risk. I still understand that it is a practical reality.

That doesn't mean that I wrap myself in bubble wrap and hole up like a hermit (far from it, I travel extensively for work, spend time in strange cities alone, and spent years doing street level gang intervention with a mostly male population of clients). It just means that it's always something I think about. ALWAYS.

I don't park my car in hotel garages. I always valet. If I'm in a hotel and a man is on the elevator with me, I'm extremely cautious. If he gets off on my floor, I watch him constantly. If I'm in public, I'm extremely cognizant of my surroundings.

No, we don't talk about it much. I doubt the guys I know in real life can even imagine me thinking like this. But, I do. I do it all day, every single day of my life.

I was on a trip last week, and one of my good guy friends was very uncomfortably hit on by a gay man at the hotel bar (while he was trying, in return, to hit on a hot chick). The guy put his hand on his back, rubbed down his back, and in general, made my friend extremely uncomfortable. Then, when my friend explained that he's hetero, and was not interested in his advances, the guy got extremely nasty and made a scene.

My friend was kind of shook up, to be honest (and that's kind of funny, because he's really a badass in real life). I laughed. He said, "what?" I said, "Dude...that's exactly what it feels like to be a woman."

I think he was seriously startled. I don't think that most men have any grasp, whatsoever, of what it is like to be an attractive woman, and to have to deal with how ENTITLED some men feel to your body.

[Seriously]

You are a lot more articulate than I am catz. :) I think I got frustrated on this thread because I couldn't figure out how to get my point/idea across. Some of the men on here seem to think because we think about these things we are living our lives in a vaccum or constantly in fear. That's not the case. I was trying to think of a good way to illustrate it...lets see if this works..

I'm teaching my daughter to drive and in the process I realized that there are a lot of things I do unconsciously for driver safety. Not only am I focusing on where I'm going and what I'm doing but I'm constantly scanning for what other drivers are doing....thinking about what might be around the curve...calculating if I can make it through the light or if I should start slowing down...you look in front of you, behind you to the side...is the road slick or is there construction.... It's all automatic to me, I don't even have to think about it most of the time I just do it. It doesn't hinder me, doesn't keep me from driving it's just something I do to keep myself and people around me safe.

That is what I do as a woman. It usually happens so fast in my head I'm not really consicious of it. It doesn't keep me from enjoying my life or meeting and interacting with people anymore than being careful in my car keeps me from driving. I think, I look, I calculate and I make adjustments quickly based on my perceptions and environment.

Dunno if that makes sense or not but I figured I would give it a try.

[Wtfpeople]

I'm slightly confused, and I realized that this is addressed to someone else, but I'm curious.

I agree it is wrong to automatically assume the stance of victim. I agree that there are victims who were smart and who were stupid. I disagree that rape cases are not an instance where the victim should always have to prove their victimization. In the vein of 'absolute vs. not,' there are simply some cases where the victim is undeniably innocent in that she did not engage in risky behavior. If a girl who takes the bus home is stalked by a complete stranger, who invades her home one night and rapes her, then in my opinion she is an absolute victim in that her actions did not inadvertently bring this misfortune upon her (like, she didn't make the mistake of acquainting herself with her aggressor or otherwise increase contact with him). Speaking technically, she has already proven her victimization biologically--rape kit. Is this what you mean when you say that all rape victims have to prove their victimization? (i.e. you literally can't just arbitrarily convince a court you were raped with no physical evidence)

If so, I see what you mean, I just wasn't sure how to interpret it.

Yep.

Basically, i'm tired of seeing adults act like they're defenseless little children, and whats even worse, when adults approve of other adults acting like babies because its socially unacceptable to do otherwise.

Another example I was going to make is how speed and alcohol are always blamed for accidents. Yes, speed and alcohol can cause accidents, but it's irritating that people always assume that the presence of one of those automatically makes that party guilty.

Car licenses are given out to practically everyone who applies. This should be the first flag that something is wrong and that the main problem arnt speeders and drinkers. For example, if I were to get legally drunk (which is really does not take that much alcohol) i'd bet that id beat my grandma in time trails around a track, that id be safer, and that I could do it with only one hand on the wheel.

Let's say we were on the road and we crashed into each other.

It would be socially unacceptable to say something like "age and manual dexterity were factors" but, it's completely ok to automatically place the blame by saying "speed and alcohol were factors".



This is another example of how "super victims" have it easier because society says it's the way it should be.




TL ; DR

10 year old kid gets raped by parent

=/=

drunk, irresponsible, drug user, slut, whore, wearing sign that says "I will pass out soon, rape me please", too lazy to call police after said rape only to fill out a survey later on saying she was raped but didnt report it because shes a helpless victim who eventually forms a non-prof after applying for grant money blaming the system then becomes a lesbian whos survey eventually appears on the internet.

[Seriously]

drunk, irresponsible, drug user, slut, whore, wearing sign that says "I will pass out soon, rape me please", too lazy to call police after said rape only to fill out a survey later on saying she was raped but didnt report it because shes a helpless victim who eventually forms a non-prof after applying for grant money blaming the system then becomes a lesbian whos survey eventually appears on the internet.

slut whore, eh? The languages says a lot about you. Dunno maybe it's just me but even if I see a guy dead drunk with his wallet laying open and dollar bills spilling out I don't feel the need to rob him. And then beat him up. So why does a guy feel that all of the sudden it's ok to rape a woman? Oh wait...because she is obviously a slut and a whore, right?

I am all for personal accountabilty which is why I MINIMIZE MY OWN RISK which ironically other men are having an issue with. lol we are caught between a rock and hard place aren't we? Try and protect ourselves by being proactive and we have a victim mentality...don't try and protect ourselves we are asking for it.

Crazy world we live in.

[Wtfpeople]

slut whore, eh? The languages says a lot about you. Dunno maybe it's just me but even if I see a guy dead drunk with his wallet laying open and dollar bills spilling out I don't feel the need to rob him. And then beat him up. So why does a guy feel that all of the sudden it's ok to rape a woman? Oh wait...because she is obviously a slut and a whore, right?

I am all for personal accountabilty which is why I MINIMIZE MY OWN RISK which ironically other men are having an issue with. lol we are caught between a rock and hard place aren't we? Try and protect ourselves by being proactive and we have a victim mentality...don't try and protect ourselves we are asking for it.

Crazy world we live in.

I'm not saying that every woman who gets raped is a whore......... or that the reason women are raped is because they're whores... /sigh

I agree that I wouldnt take that guys wallet either, but you have to be an idiot to be that guy and expect that everyone would do the same. My example, was basically your "drunk guy" in your example. No one has an "excuse" to rape, but you cant expect that you can be a drunk guy in the street or a passed out slutwhore and expect everyone to behave.

Personally accountability is all I ask.

I only posted here because im tired of hearing about how every person that gets raped is somehow always an innocent victim. This isnt to say that every person who gets raped is irresponsible. It's to say that not all rapes are created equal.

I said it before and ill say it again...

A 10 year old child being raped by a family member...

=/=

Drunk drug user slutwhore passed out on the side of the street with legs spread after a hard night of partying.



People seem to be reading only what they want to read.

[SelfMadeBum]

you cant expect that you can be a drunk guy in the street or a passed out slutwhore and expect everyone to behave.Yes you most certainly can. Last time I checked, there weren't laws for "slutwhores" and different ones for the general population. Rape is rape, whether the victim is a slutwhore or a nun.

People seem to be reading only what they want to read.And comprehending only what they want to comprehend.

[Seriously]

Then why call her a whore? I don't get the reasoning on that.

The thing is both those people in your example ARE victims. One might have been able to do things to prevent what happened to her yes but she still didn't deserve to be raped for being drunk and laying on the pavement. Anymore than the guy deserves to be robbed. Did they do something stupid? Sure. Did they increase the probability of being a victim by their own actions? Sure. But being stupid doesn't give someone else the right to take advantage of you.

I take the precautions I do because I know there are people out there who look for these types of opportunities and I don't want to be the person they take advantage of and hurt. But if I slip up. If I make a mistake one night that doesn't mean it's my fault that they took advantage of me. The bottom line is they shouldn't be doing these things to other people. I pay the price for my mistake by having my person assualted. I don't need anyone to add to that by telling my I'm partially to blame because for once I forgot to watch my drink when I went to the bathroom. Or because, yea, I decided to party to much with people I trusted and turns out I was wrong.

[Wtfpeople]

Then why call her a whore? I don't get the reasoning on that.

Because it was an extreme example. That's all it was meant to mean.

The thing is both those people in your example ARE victims. One might have been able to do things to prevent what happened to her yes but she still didn't deserve to be raped for being drunk and laying on the pavement. Anymore than the guy deserves to be robbed. Did they do something stupid? Sure. Did they increase the probability of being a victim by their own actions? Sure. But being stupid doesn't give someone else the right to take advantage of you.

They are both "victims" yes, but the concept (which I bought up earlier) is that society has this idea of an "absolute victim". In one of my other examples, I talked about how people blame speed and alcohol as the major factors in car accidents. While it is true that speed and alcohol can be a factor, so I can old age or people who are just uncoordinated in general. But. It's not socially acceptable to blame old people, just like how its not socially acceptable to blame women rape victims (at least sometimes).

Them being stupid does indeed not give others the right to take advantage of stupids. No, Bernie Madolf did not have the right to steal all that money from people.

-We're those people dumb? Yes.
-Could have have shown more due diligence. Yes.
-Was it a crime? Yes.
-Were they victims? Yes.


I take the precautions I do because I know there are people out there who look for these types of opportunities and I don't want to be the person they take advantage of and hurt. But if I slip up. If I make a mistake one night that doesn't mean it's my fault that they took advantage of me. The bottom line is they shouldn't be doing these things to other people. I pay the price for my mistake by having my person assualted. I don't need anyone to add to that by telling my I'm partially to blame because for once I forgot to watch my drink when I went to the bathroom. Or because, yea, I decided to party to much with people I trusted and turns out I was wrong.

The bottom line is that you cant trust everyone else in the world to make the good decision. All you can do is protect yourself the best you can so that you can minimize the risk. If, for example, one of your 'friends' does drug you, there really isnt much you could have done about it. However, if you got drugged at a night club because you didnt protect your drink in the presence of 100's of strangers, id say you had it coming.





I think the reason why this whole thread blew up is because it seems that we're assuming that there are only two types of people posting:

Women are Innocent Victims 100% of the time
Women are Dumb and Cause Themselves to be raped 100% of the time

I nothing could be further from the truth. I think we're all in the middle, somewhere, we're just not seeing it.

[Seriously]

However, if you got drugged at a night club because you didnt protect your drink in the presence of 100's of strangers, id say you had it coming.

And again with this? Had it coming? Because I turned my back on my drink I would "have it coming to me to get raped"?

See that kind of statement is what tends to piss women in these threads off. No I do not "HAVE IT COMING TO ME". Do I increase my risk. Yes. But I don't deserve to be raped for taking my eyes off my drink for 5 minutes. I think being raped for lack of "due diligence" is punishment enough without jackasses saying I "HAD IT COMING".

Do you even see how inflamatory that is? How insulting?

Anyway I agree that assumptions tend to be made. Like I said I got the feeling some of the men on here think I bolt myself into a little room and when I do come out I don't interact with any men because i'm paranoid. No dudes I just exercise care. It doesn't hinder how I live my life, trust me.

[Wtfpeople]

And again with this? Had it coming? Because I turned my back on my drink I would "have it coming to me to get raped"?

See that kind of statement is what tends to piss women in these threads off. No I do not "HAVE IT COMING TO ME". Do I increase my risk. Yes. But I don't deserve to be raped for taking my eyes off my drink for 5 minutes. I think being raped for lack of "due diligence" is punishment enough without jackasses saying I "HAD IT COMING".

Do you even see how inflamatory that is? How insulting?

Anyway I agree that assumptions tend to be made. Like I said I got the feeling some of the men on here think I bolt myself into a little room and when I do come out I don't interact with any men because i'm paranoid. No dudes I just exercise care. It doesn't hinder how I live my life, trust me.

No, I really dont see the difference. I guess that's my problem and every other person who is saying the same thing that I am.

If you engage in unprotected sex with strangers... you have it coming
If you drive drunk... you have it coming
If you do drugs... you have it coming

To me, the word usage "you have it coming" mean the same thing. Do they "deserve" it? No. Do they have it coming? Yes.



EDIT: And, maybe I am an asshole for thinking it, but nothing I can say here can keep you safe from rape. If anything is accomplished here, more women will become more self-aware which could help make rape less of a risk. Making laws against rape wont stop it. If there is anything that is the biggest factor for preventing rape, it's you.

[Seriously]

No, I really dont see the difference. I guess that's my problem and every other person who is saying the same thing that I am.

If you engage in unprotected sex with strangers... you have it coming
If you drive drunk... you have it coming
If you do drugs... you have it coming

To me, the word usage "you have it coming" mean the same thing. Do they "deserve" it? No. Do they have it coming? Yes.

For me the words "have it coming" means you deserve it. What exactly does it mean to you? More like "don't be surprised if X happens"? As in "If you leave your drink unattended don't be surprised if someone drugs it and you"?

[Booko]

The only thing that can be done is social reform. But that doesn't happen overnight, or overyear, or overdecade. You can't allow yourself to be victimized on the grounds of a principle. If someone attacks you, defend yourself. Announcing that you shouldn't have to won't change anything.

Inquiring minds want to know how a 6-year old is supposed to defend herself.

The assumption here that victims of rape/sexual harassment all have the means to defend themselves is frankly, rather silly.

Even those who are technically adults oftentimes find themselves so stunned they pretty much freeze up and find themselves unable to react. (This is what happened to my roomie. Fortunately my ex-military boyfriend stumbled in and handled the situation for her. She's hardly unusual.)

[Wtfpeople]

For me the words "have it coming" means you deserve it. What exactly does it mean to you? More like "don't be surprised if X happens"? As in "If you leave your drink unattended don't be surprised if someone drugs it and you"?

It's "dont be surprised" and if you're surprised then its "how can you be surprised"?

I just dont want women to feel like all they have/can do is trust in the law to keep them safe. The law is decent at bringing you justice, but it's absolutely terrible at keeping you safe. You have to keep yourself safe and trust the law to deliver justice. Most people have it ass-backwards and trust to law to keep them safe and trust themselves to dispense justice.

[SagPhilosopher]

Thinking about this is like watching a train wreck... a portion of you is repulsed and doesn't want to, but another piece of you can't stop your eyes. I will be the first to admit that there is occasion when I probably stare too long or too intently at a woman, and it is usually on the subway or the bus. Mostly it's because I am curious and always wonder what people are thinking and how their life is totally different than mine even though at that moment we are travelling physically in the same direction.

I will definitely be conscious of this and stop doing it when I catch myself. Yikes... I had no idea. I grew up in a rural part of the country and I am always aware of my surroundings now that I live in the city, but it is because of the speed and chaos of movement, not due to fear of assault.

Thanks for the post... you definitely opened my eyes... and they will be kept open.

[Booko]

Because if we make the first move, are we telling you that we're sexually easy and making it more likely that we will be victimized? Trust me, the thought has crossed my mind before.

And I would add, sometimes if women approach men, men take that as a woman being desperate and that's a turnoff. Even in these times, there's something to be said for "playing hard to get."

The problem is that it's not an IRRATIONAL level of fear. YOU consider it to be irrational because you consider the odds that you might be raped to be low. I consider it a normal level of fear that most women live with because the odds that we might be raped are considerably higher (1 in 6, 1 in 3, 1 in 2, depending on where we're at and our age).


Hm, of all my close friends, every single one of us has been raped. It tooks years of knowing each other before we'd bring the subject up. Still, if every one of my close friends has been raped (and me as well) does that seem like an "irrational" fear?

No more than it's "irrational" for me to expect to be treated differently by car mechanics because I have boobs. I've learned that by years of experience and from comparing notes with other women, my experience is hardly unusual. It's just a part of life that women learn to work around.

He later told me that there had been similar problems at the previous year's conference, and so the women (who were heavily outnumbered) had been assigned anonymous protectors. He was mine. He never told me that he was there to look out for me, but if he hadn't been there, I strongly believe I'd have been attacked, and possibly raped.


Wow, that was awesome that the men realized this was a problem and took action to prevent problems.

Every woman you know, unless she is seriously ass-ugly, and possibly even then, has been subjected to unwanted sexual attention. Every woman you know has been hit on by men who didn't gracefully take no for an answer. Every woman you know has had at least one really scary close encounter with the possibility of rape.


Hell, I get hit on now if I dare to put gas in my car in the wrong place. (I'm in my 50s and am overweight? Srsly? OK, so I have really long blonde hair and dye the grey bits to match..but still...ass ugly is probably not that far off. :thinking: But I'm told that in some cultures men value "experience"...uh yeah ok) I take pains not to put myself in that position, because while the vast majority of those guys show no inclination to force themselves on me, it only takes one.

[mindstate]

I thought this was apt:

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

This argument is dialectical by nature. Relax, and try loving each other while some hope for that still exists. Give people the benefit of the doubt, they deserve it as much as you do.

[lhenry]

When you are truly observant you can see by a woman's reaction if you have offended her.

[catzmeow]

Then why call her a whore?

She's only a whore if she didn't have sex with you.

---------- Post added 11-05-2010 at 03:06 PM ----------


f you engage in unprotected sex with strangers... you have it coming
If you drive drunk... you have it coming
If you do drugs... you have it coming


In your world, me having a glass of wine is an invitation for rape? And then other guys wonder why women are paranoid.

/thread

---------- Post added 11-05-2010 at 03:12 PM ----------

And I would add, sometimes if women approach men, men take that as a woman being desperate and that's a turnoff. Even in these times, there's something to be said for "playing hard to get."

There are multiple reasons we do it. Some of them are related to safety.

Hm, of all my close friends, every single one of us has been raped. It tooks years of knowing each other before we'd bring the subject up. Still, if every one of my close friends has been raped (and me as well) does that seem like an "irrational" fear?

That's it, exactly. If I'm working in a city with an inordinate level of carjackings, is it "irrational" for me to lock the doors of my car and be particularly observant of my surroudings? No. It's RATIONAL.

It's just a part of life that women learn to work around.

That's what I was explaining to my friend who was hit on so uncomfortably by another man. We've almost all had these experiences where men felt entitled to our bodies. If we haven't been raped (and I've been extremely lucky in this regard), we've had close calls. As a result, we adopt certain protective stances.

Wow, that was awesome that the men realized this was a problem and took action to prevent problems.

I seriously love these men (which is why I was with them, talking and laughing, until the wee hours). They are good, good guys. And, they realize that not every guy is a good guy.

Hell, I get hit on now if I dare to put gas in my car in the wrong place. (I'm in my 50s and am overweight? Srsly?

I'm 44, and I get hit on at the grocery store, gas stations, the hardware store, at stoplights in my car, at restaurants...I'm a middle-aged mom with two kids. Trust me, I can relate.

[Wtfpeople]

In your world, me having a glass of wine is an invitation for rape? And then other guys wonder why women are paranoid.

/thread

No, but statements like this demonstrate the false dichotomy that is this thread.

This thread isnt a god damn "you're either passed out" or "100% sober" thread. This is a "there is a difference in being passed out drunk and being 100% sober thread." Yes, there is such a thing as in between. For the sake of discussion, we use both extremes so its clearer to distinguish someone who is being diligent vs. someone who is carelessly negligent.

You do not have to be either or;
Being in the somewhere in the middle does not automatically place you in either extreme.



FWIW, I dont "wonder why women are paranoid" at all.

[mindstate]

FWIW, I dont "wonder why [some] women are paranoid" at all.

Fixed.

[mieu]

So Wtfpeople, I think people are losing sight to what you're saying. They think that you are disagreeing with rape being a 'big deal' but in reality you agree with the original post's article in that women need to be vigilant at all times (even coming across as psycho bitches and causing men to lament loudly and in public that women are too difficult) so that they, in effect, are doing their due diligence in avoiding rape.

[plotthickens]

So Wtfpeople, I think people are losing sight to what you're saying.

you have it coming
you have it coming
you have it coming


We got it the first five times.

[Zsych]

I'm going to go with... the kind of person you are - your personality - controls how people deal with you most of the time, and some people act in ways that cause problems for them.

That said, an attitude of fear is almost definitely not good for you. Being aware and mature in dealing with relationships - is good for both men and women.

And yes - certain behavior invites violence. Just like some women who will push a guy's buttons despite having been beaten the last ten times for the same behavior. Either both, or neither of these people are retarded.
... I suspect that both of these idiots are acting like normal humans and that both are probably more comfortable with their own emotions than a lot of us more high minded people.

[mindstate]

Phaedra profits from pessimism propagation as a means of peddling paranoia porn. Disingenuous demonstrations of decadent disunity by demonizing dialectical diatribes deceive. Harmony gentrified falling ever downward can be ascertained.

To say that all people of X class think Y thoughts about people of Z class and that all people of Z class should be or are suspected perpetrators of crime C is a logically and morally indefensible position. Tit for tat, this for that, let it go, just breath and relax.

[Vogue]

To say that all people of X class think Y thoughts about people of Z class and that all people of Z class should be or are suspected perpetrators of crime C is a logically and morally indefensible position. Tit for tat, this for that, let it go, just breath and relax.

"Let it go, just breath and relax." What does that even mean? Many of us women are never going to just 'relax,' because a few men tell us to do so. Just because there are some good men doesn't mean they all are, and most of us will not just trust all men on the basis of you thinking our actions are 'indefensible' or 'illogical.' To us it's perfectly logical, we're cautious because we don't want to be raped.

When women just 'breath and relax' rape is a serious issue. You probably have a woman in your life that has been raped at some point. Tell it to her face that she needs to "let it go, just breath and relax." I'm sure she doesn't want to live everyday thinking about it, yes, but I'm sure that she would also tell other women to be aware of their surroundings.

And, yes, you do probably know at least one woman that has been raped. Even if none have told you.

[Zsych]

I still think that going after women with this crazy attitude is a waste of time. This whole group needs to be ignored as possible relationship material in any case.

[Booko]

Hey mindstate, if you're ever around ATL way, drop by and I'll show you the part of town where the drug gangs roam. I can drop you off on foot at night and tell you to just relax.

Sound like a plan?

[Zsych]

Anyone is in danger in a suitably bad neighborhood.

[Booko]

Anyone is in danger in a suitably bad neighborhood.

True.

And for women, any neighborhood at all might be suitably bad when it comes to subjects like rape and sexual harassment.

I can't (and won't) live in a state of paranoia, but I don't imagine there's some sort of dichotomy where my only other option is to throw all caution to the winds either.

[mindstate]

Hey mindstate, if you're ever around ATL way, drop by and I'll show you the part of town where the drug gangs roam. I can drop you off on foot at night and tell you to just relax.

Sound like a plan?

i'm game. when we doing this?

[plotthickens]

Second highest murder rate in the US -- if you come by Oaklandish, let me know and we'll go visit the Acorn, dude. Saturday night, maybe? Bring your Yoga pants to help you breathe better.

ETA: We can swing by the old 'hood. I was an armed guard there. Women's shelter. Three ADW incidents -- the last one blew the 'secret' location of the shelter. They packed up and moved, I turned in my CAAG licence. Want to see where he was when he called me a fucking slut and shot at me?

Sorry for being so inappropriately paranoid. It's unseemly in a woman, I understand. I'll just go make some sandwiches.

EETA: If you're as white as your profile pic looks, at least try to bring some dark clothes.

[nacht]

Second highest murder rate in the US -- if you come by Oaklandish, let me know and we'll go visit the Acorn, dude. Saturday night, maybe? Bring your Yoga pants to help you breathe better.


I grew up in New Orleans (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). What's the point of this dick measuring contest again?


Sorry for being so inappropriately paranoid. It's unseemly in a woman, I understand. I'll just go make some sandwiches.


I'd like to note real quick that if you are working at a safe house your probability curve is somewhat different and for reasons that have nothing to do with your gender presentation.

[plotthickens]

I grew up in New Orleans (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). What's the point of this dick measuring contest again?

I'd like to note real quick that if you are working at a safe house your probability curve is somewhat different and for reasons that have nothing to do with your gender presentation.

The purpose of the 'whip it out' contest is that the most current responders are confusing unnecessary paranoia with actual physical assault. Rape and assault are not boogeymen constructed by paranoid women*. The safe house was in the hood for a reason -- those abused women weren't trucked in from Canada. Perhaps now the discussion can move past this ludicrous stumbling-block.



*thanks to V for the paraphrase from the genius quote here. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[nacht]

The purpose of the 'whip it out' contest is that the most current responders are confusing unnecessary paranoia with actual physical assault. Rape and assault are not boogeymen constructed by paranoid women*. Perhaps now the discussion can move past this ludicrous stumbling-block.


Last I checked women are more likely to be raped, men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime.

Just because something is a possibility doesn't mean that the precautions being taken aren't paranoid. Risk analysis is about evaluating probability and having proportionate responses.

[vampyroteuthis]

Last I checked women are more likely to be raped, men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime.

Just because something is a possibility doesn't mean that the precautions being taken aren't paranoid. Risk analysis is about evaluating probability and having proportionate responses.

The problem is, how to evaluate risk accurately, and what responses are proportionate? I guess the second question rests on the first. I'm just not seeing on what grounds Ricardo Diaz and other posters here are dismissing women who worry about rape as "paranoid".

[Nonsuch]

I think if I were a woman I would also be very concerned about rape/assault, but I have experienced problems with women who overreact in some situations.

One time when I was 18 I was coming out of a shopping mall at noon time, heading out to my car. A woman about 6 feet in front of me was doing the same. As luck would have it, her car turned out to be 2 cars over from mine in the same row within the immense parking lot. This necessitated that I follow behind her all the to her car. Me being naive and 18, I didn't think anything of it until she stopped at her car, reached into handbag, and then swung towards me. Her body language suggested that she was holding some weapon pointed at me. The expression on her face was tense. I froze, taking all this in. Then I continued very slowly to my car, which as I explained was 2 cars over. As I drove away, I looked at her again. She was still standing there watching me, with a look of triumph on her face. She was obviously quite satisfied with herself.

My point is that while it is fine and good for a woman to watch out for herself, some come to the wrong conclusion and put innocent peoples' lives in danger. Which can make them a threat to the rest of us.

[Wtfpeople]

The problem is, how to evaluate risk accurately, and what responses are proportionate? I guess the second question rests on the first. I'm just not seeing on what grounds Ricardo Diaz and other posters here are dismissing women who worry about rape as "paranoid".

But, when women think the only way to stop rape is to stop rapists, they're unwilling to assume any responsibility. It's not your fault you got raped. Fact. We agree on this. What we do not agree on is your ability to understand that despite any wishful thinking you may have of a hypothetical Utopian society, rapists aint gonna stop raping because you would like to put the focus on them instead of women. Rapists are going to rape as long there is a free society. No, im not blaming women. I'm saying quit focusing on rapists because you cant control them. You can control yourself. Therefore, logically, you should work on improving yourself, not trying to wishfully think that rapists will disappear of the face of the earth.

I hate it when women like plotthickens play "helpless victim" because instead of empowering women to stand up against rape, they dis-empower them by saying every woman in a helpless victim. True, some women are. But, classifying every woman as a complete and utter helpless victim is dis empowering.

I'm sorry your got raped.
No, its not your fault.
Quit insisting the only thing that can be done about rape is to stop rapists.

---------- Post added 11-05-2010 at 10:25 PM ----------

My point is that while it is fine and good for a woman to watch out for herself, some come to the wrong conclusion and put innocent peoples' lives in danger. Which can make them a threat to the rest of us.

Agree 100%

I believe that its perfectly fine to assume that every stranger you see on the street could potentially be a rapist, but that dosent mean that every person on the street should be treated like they are a rapist.

[vampyroteuthis]

But, when women think the only way to stop rape is to stop rapists, they're unwilling to assume any responsibility. It's not your fault you got raped. Fact. We agree on this. What we do not agree on is your ability to understand that despite any wishful thinking you may have of a hypothetical Utopian society, rapists aint gonna stop raping because you would like to put the focus on them instead of women. Rapists are going to rape as long there is a free society. No, im not blaming women. I'm saying quit focusing on rapists because you cant control them. You can control yourself. Therefore, logically, you should work on improving yourself, not trying to wishfully think that rapists will disappear of the face of the earth.

I hate it when women like plotthickens play "helpless victim" because instead of empowering women to stand up against rape, they dis-empower them by saying every woman in a helpless victim. True, some women are. But, classifying every woman as a complete and utter helpless victim is dis empowering.

I'm sorry your got raped.
No, its not your fault.
Quit insisting the only thing that can be done about rape is to stop rapists.

I think you're confusing me with plotthickens here. Who are you apologising to?

Regardless, your "apology" appears manifestly insincere when you accuse someone who described being violently assaulted and raped of "playing helpless victim". Would you talk to someone in this condescending and hypocritical way if you met them in real life, or does the privacy of the internet afford a safe space from which to engage in victim-blaming?

It is one thing to suggest that women take preventive measures. It is entirely another to argue that anyone "had it coming", as you have done. Inability to tell the difference, as well as execrable ex post facto justifications like this, are the hallmark of the Pick-Up Artist and date rapist.

[Wtfpeople]

Regardless, your "apology" appears manifestly insincere when you accuse someone who described being violently assaulted and raped of "playing helpless victim".

You got me. You're exactly right. Everything i've said so far has only been said because she's a rape victim. If fact, the only thing that matters to me is that she was raped. All im doing is looking for victims to put down, to hurt more, just for my own entertainment. Her being a victim of rape is the only thing that matters to me because I wouldnt have posted in this thread if she wasnt raped.

Would you talk to someone in this condescending and hypocritical way if you met them in real life, or does the privacy of the internet afford a safe space from which to engage in victim-blaming?

Nope. I wouldnt do this IRL. I am only doing it because I want to hurt her and only if I can hurt her through the anonymity of the internet.

It is one thing to suggest that women take preventive measures. It is entirely another to argue that anyone "had it coming", as you have done. Inability to tell the difference, as well as execrable ex post facto justifications like this, are the hallmark of the Pick-Up Artist and date rapist.

You're right. I did in fact quote myself saying that she deserved to be raped and that is exactly what I mean and isnt to be misunderstood. I am unable to differentiate between the empowering of women to stand up against rape and telling women that they deserve to be raped because they're women.

And yes, I am in fact a rapist IRL, and I make it my business to scour the internet to spread lies to make my job (as a rapist) easier as well as the rapist community.




Seems like I cant say anything else in this thread w/o being misunderstood.

[firebee]

I believe that its perfectly fine to assume that every stranger you see on the street could potentially be a rapist, but that dosent mean that every person on the street should be treated like they are a rapist.

The lady in question wasn't shown to treat every person on the street as if they are a rapist; she treated one young man who was to all appearances following her to her car in a large parking lot as if he might be a threat. Which, you know, he did kinda have that appearance.

It seems to me that she was doing exactly as you suggest above -- taking responsibility for her own self-protection, rather than trusting in the law to do so.

What I notice here, though, as a general theme is that there seems to be some sort of substantial air of offense. A person might support in the abstract women taking steps to increase their safety, but when the possibility comes into play that they themselves might be viewed with something less than infinite assumption of good faith suddenly the noses go in the air. "I say! A woman might look at me -- me! -- with an eye towards evaluating me as a threat? How dare she! Doesn't she know who I am?"

Well, no. She doesn't know who you are. And it strikes me as seeming massively entitled to expect that she would.

---------- Post added 11-06-2010 at 11:10 AM ----------


Seems like I cant say anything else in this thread w/o being misunderstood.

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

[Wtfpeople]

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

Oh, it's definitely not a QQ. It's an example if I tell people what they want to hear in the words they want to hear it in, they can easily accept it. If I tell people what they want to hear in words they dont want to hear it in, they cant accept it, because they cant hear it the way they want to hear it.

I dont feel like my communication was unclear. I feel like they didnt try hard enough to understand because they didnt hear it the way they wanted to hear it. If we had more women being vigilant then.... wait....

[nacht]

The problem is, how to evaluate risk accurately, and what responses are proportionate? I guess the second question rests on the first. I'm just not seeing on what grounds Ricardo Diaz and other posters here are dismissing women who worry about rape as "paranoid".

It is worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of rapes in the US aren't stranger rapes (73% of the time the rapist knows the attacker, 28% of the time they are already intimate), they also don't happen in random parking lots (3.4% of stranger rapes happen in parking lots, 50% of all rapes happen within a mile of home).

It really is a bit like worrying about little Johnny on the playground and watching him like a hawk there, but not worrying about Uncle Bob or the gardener.

This doesn't mean that you get blasé about priors (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): If you believe you are being followed, then you should act accordingly (I've been in a dangerous neighborhood and crossed into a lit area to avoid a large group of people before). On the other hand, it also means that random person you see wandering down the street is probably not a rapist and the probability that they are out to rape you specifically is very low.

[vampyroteuthis]

It is worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of rapes in the US aren't stranger rapes (73% of the time the rapist knows the attacker, 28% of the time they are already intimate), they also don't happen in random parking lots (3.4% of stranger rapes happen in parking lots, 50% of all rapes happen within a mile of home).

It really is a bit like worrying about little Johnny on the playground and watching him like a hawk there, but not worrying about Uncle Bob or the gardener.

Yes, but this is how I read the article in the OP, too; not as saying that the guy who chats you up on the subway and doesn't listen when you say 'no' is all that likely to follow you home and jump you. It's that his inability to say no is a sign that he doesn't respect boundaries, i.e. reason not to let him into your life, because given the opportunity he might decide that you "had it coming". It's a PSA for men who believe that persistence is a good strategy in the face of polite rejection.

And I've had that, at least, happen enough times to know it's true. At the very best, that sort of persistence results in an awkward social situation in which I feel hounded or put upon. More typically, some form of sexual harassment or assault. I grew up in a culture where we were told that men are all naturally assertive; discerning the difference between someone who is confident and someone who tramples upon boundaries was something I had to learn how to parse, but I do think it has served me well.

This doesn't mean that you get blasé about priors (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): If you believe you are being followed, then you should act accordingly (I've been in a dangerous neighborhood and crossed into a lit area to avoid a large group of people before). On the other hand, it also means that random person you see wandering down the street is probably not a rapist and the probability that they are out to rape you specifically is very low.
That's highly context-specific. Where I grew up, the probability was anything but low.

[nacht]

That's highly context-specific. Where I grew up, the probability was anything but low.

Unless you grew up in a country other than the US (specifically, some place such as South Africa), then the probability was very low.

[vampyroteuthis]

Unless you grew up in a country other than the US (specifically, south Africa), then the probability was very low.

I did, though not in South Africa.

Added:
The probability of being raped by a stranger was still statistically lower than that of being raped by an acquaintance, most likely a family friend. That doesn't change the fact that the probability was extremely high in either case. I don't want what I'm saying to be misconstrued as an argument for fearing rape by strangers over rape by acquaintances. Both are pernicious possibilities. I can relate to Booko's account of how she and all her female friends have been raped or assaulted, and in my and my friend's cases the assaults often came from acquaintances, and many times when we were children, left with trusted family friends who our families didn't wish to offend. So yes, I'm well aware of the risks from known people as well. That said, I think there's some merit to assessing people based on their proclivity for disrespecting boundaries.

I'm really not following how advocating for certain precautions turned into "women are paranoid". I'm still stuck on that one.

The other thing about risk-assessment being context-specific is that the statistics don't show all the variation or necessarily highlight high-risk areas. Certain streets, certain areas at night, etc. Possible to overestimate, of course, but when rape by strangers recurs in a particular, highly localised area, you learn to avoid it or be wary.

[astrolite]

I read the article again, after looking at some of the heated discussion here. One thing still sticks out to me:

Why is it that, according to the article, men are seen as a threat even before their body language / actions are observed?

I think the reality is that these sort of scenarios are far too dynamic and situational to really have some sort of common formula of "risk avoidance". There is a big difference between a man approaching a woman walking home vs. in a club. I can't imagine the same thought process is used for both encounters.

[nacht]

I did, though not in South Africa.


Then you should also recognize that your probability curve is different than most of the people you will talk with on the forum.


The probability of being raped by a stranger was still statistically lower than that of being raped by an acquaintance, most likely a family friend. That doesn't change the fact that the probability was extremely high in either case.


Only if your definition of "extremely high" is "very low." 14.8% of women in the US are the victims of a successful rape in their lifetimes. Applying the previous numbers (using naïve independence assumptions and doing a bit of handwaving, which will probably get us in the neighborhood but shouldn't be taken as completely accurate), that means ~4% of women will be raped in their lifetimes by someone they don't know. That's in their lifetimes, not in a given year or moment of time, and is roughly equivalent to the number of men who get raped.

So unless you are going to say that the probability of a male being raped is "extremely high" you can't really say that the probability of being raped by a stranger is "extremely high" for women in the US.


I'm really not following how advocating for certain precautions turned into "women are paranoid". I'm still stuck on that one.


You'll note I have refrained from making this generalization.


The other thing about risk-assessment being context-specific is that the statistics don't show all the variation or necessarily highlight high-risk areas. Certain streets, certain areas at night, etc. Possible to overestimate, of course, but when rape by strangers recurs in a particular, highly localised area, you learn to avoid it or be wary.

Naturally, also not controversial. Again, however, there is a difference between this approach and the "Schrödinger's Rapist" method advocated in the article posted by the OP. I do not ask every time I see a stranger approach me "will this man rape me." I might do a comparative risk analysis given my environment, body posture, etc but that's true in all circumstances, everywhere, and has nothing specific to do with rape.

This approach, that "When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape" is, simply, paranoid and nonsensical--especially if any part of that thought is conscious rather than subconscious. The better question is "what kind of realistic risk do you represent."

Not "will they rape me" but "what does the probability curve actually look like, given the information I can gather from this situation." So a couple of guys hanging out suspiciously and for no apparent reason in a parking lot are probably a greater risk than a guy who seems to be walking purposefully to a destination down the street or the guy at a bus stop or in a coffee shop.

[Vogue]

This approach, that "When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape" is, simply, paranoid and nonsensical--especially if any part of that thought is conscious rather than subconscious. The better question is "what kind of realistic risk do you represent."


I think for many women this is mostly subconscious.

If a man approaches a woman in a coffee shop because she's reading Nobakov, and he starts talking about his own love of Nobakov, she probably will already start shifting him from 'potential rapist' to 'potential good guy.' Of course, she might be wary and want to walk to her car alone, and might just give out an email (if anything), but she has probably already said 'he might be okay.'

If a woman is alone in a subway stop except for a man there might be more concern. After hearing about that woman who was raped in the New York subway this one particularly gets me, in Boston they don't even employees around in most stops (unlike that one- which had an employee no matter how ineffective if he was.) If a woman is in a club, or walking down the street at night, there is more concern.

Believe it or not, women do manage to gauge the potential risk of the situation very quickly. The problem is, it's not always accurate, and many of us like to over-estimate the risk. Just in case.

It's not selfish, egotistical, paranoid, or nonsensical for us to want to protect ourselves. Especially because not all rape ends with the victim living. No woman wants to be the woman who disappears. Women will not automatically treat you like a nice guy, that is our way of taking responsibility for our bodies, and it's not fool proof (obviously), but it's the best we've got.

We can't afford not to take care of our bodies, because until we can stop rapists (and good luck with that) the risk exists.

[vampyroteuthis]

Then you should also recognize that your probability curve is different than most of the people you will talk with on the forum.
Does that affect the validity of my context and experience for debunking the claim that all women who think like this are paranoid?

Only if your definition of "extremely high" is "very low." 14.8% of women in the US are the victims of a successful rape in their lifetimes. Applying the previous numbers (using naïve independence assumptions and doing a bit of handwaving, which will probably get us in the neighborhood but shouldn't be taken as completely accurate), that means ~4% of women will be raped in their lifetimes by someone they don't know. That's in their lifetimes, not in a given year or moment of time, and is roughly equivalent to the number of men who get raped.
I don't see how the US statistic is relevant to my non-US-based experience.

So unless you are going to say that the probability of a male being raped is "extremely high" you can't really say that the probability of being raped by a stranger is "extremely high" for women in the US.
I didn't. I very much resent the assumption that conversations about sociology on this forum have to be centred upon the US.

You'll note I have refrained from making this generalization.
Yes, I'm aware of it and I very much appreciate it. What I'm trying to point out is that my original point about risk assessment was speaking to those who make this generalization, to argue that no, not all women who think like this are paranoid.

Naturally, also not controversial. Again, however, there is a difference between this approach and the "Schrödinger's Rapist" method advocated in the article posted by the OP. I do not ask every time I see a stranger approach me "will this man rape me." I might do a comparative risk analysis given my environment, body posture, etc but that's true in all circumstances, everywhere, and has nothing specific to do with rape.

This approach, that "When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape" is, simply, paranoid and nonsensical--especially if any part of that thought is conscious rather than subconscious. The better question is "what kind of realistic risk do you represent."
I do think it's more of an unconscious process of risk assessment, and ideally it would take into account factors more than just, "I am being approached in public by a man". However, coming from a context where "I am being approached in public by a man", if it's on a public bus or in a crowded marketplace, frequently involves having my ass grabbed, or strange hands aiming for my crotch, I don't think it's paranoid that I prepare myself for, at the very least, kicking someone really hard. Perhaps the language of 'rape' is what's throwing this conversation off; I think it would be more accurate to include 'sexual assault' in there. The former is a slim chance on the crowded bus, the latter an everyday event. Of course, I'm not talking about the US here. But I don't think that makes my risk-assessment any less valid a topic of discussion, or any less important for debunking the claim that such thinking is "paranoid" or "nonsensical".

Not "will they rape me" but "what does the probability curve actually look like, given the information I can gather from this situation." So a couple of guys hanging out suspiciously and for no apparent reason in a parking lot are probably a greater risk than a guy who seems to be walking purposefully to a destination down the street or the guy at a bus stop or in a coffee shop.
Agreed.

[catzmeow]

Just because something is a possibility doesn't mean that the precautions being taken aren't paranoid. Risk analysis is about evaluating probability and having proportionate responses.

Words of wisdom from my lieutenant: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.

Have I ever been overly cautious? Probably. However, how would you know if you were being OVERLY cautious if those actions were effective in preventing raped? We only know that we're being UNDERcautious (she had it coming) if we actually get raped.

And, if the worst case scenario happens, then we get to hear from people like WTF that we had it coming.

It's really kind of a zero sum game for women. If we're cautious, we're frigid unfriendly bitches. If we're insufficiently cautious, we're sluts who had it coming.

---------- Post added 11-06-2010 at 11:52 PM ----------

just dont want women to feel like all they have/can do is trust in the law to keep them safe. The law is decent at bringing you justice, but it's absolutely terrible at keeping you safe. You have to keep yourself safe and trust the law to deliver justice. Most people have it ass-backwards and trust to law to keep them safe and trust themselves to dispense justice.

Actually, in my book, prevention is the best rule of thumb, which is why I'm so careful. Now, do I treat my good friends and my boyfriend with suspicion? OF course not. But, if they started acting oddly and I caught a weird vibe that pinged a hinky feeling in my gut, I might.

I don't believe, in a million years, that the majority of men would rape a woman. The problem is that rapists don't do a very good job of labeling themselves as rapists. Most rapists DON'T wear rapist glasses and trenchcoats, they look exactly like other non-raping men. SO, I'm going to continue to err on the side of caution.

---------- Post added 11-06-2010 at 11:58 PM ----------

I hate it when women like plotthickens play "helpless victim" because instead of empowering women to stand up against rape

Almost all women who are raped are taken by surprise. They don't have access to a weapon immediately at hand. The rapist, on the other hand, is usually prepared. He has a plan. He's larger, stronger, and probably has a weapon. Exactly what are your suggestions about "standing up for rape"? Is it your contention that women simply submit to rape as passive victims? That simply isn't accurate.

The best thing I can do, as a woman, to prevent being raped is to be very cognizant of my surroundings, not become overly intoxicated in a setting where I'm likely to be vulnerable, and pay attention to my gut.

My gut may very well be inaccurate, and I may end up offending some innocent man who had no intention of wrong-doing. Alas, I'm okay with that. I'd rather he be offended than that I be attacked.

[Wtfpeople]

Actually, in my book, prevention is the best rule of thumb, which is why I'm so careful. Now, do I treat my good friends and my boyfriend with suspicion? OF course not. But, if they started acting oddly and I caught a weird vibe that pinged a hinky feeling in my gut, I might.

Of course id suspect a suspicious stranger over a friend, I dont think anyone would disagree. I think people who assume that their friends would never do it are wrong. There is very good reason for the "just because you're dating doesnt mean its not rape" type of commercials.

I don't believe, in a million years, that the majority of men would rape a woman. The problem is that rapists don't do a very good job of labeling themselves as rapists. Most rapists DON'T wear rapist glasses and trenchcoats, they look exactly like other non-raping men. SO, I'm going to continue to err on the side of caution.

I never said that. I only said that every man could possibly be a rapist (you can insert anything here, really). There is no excuse to treat every man as a rapist, but there isnt an excuse to believe that he will never rape you or anyone else.

Almost all women who are raped are taken by surprise. They don't have access to a weapon immediately at hand. The rapist, on the other hand, is usually prepared. He has a plan. He's larger, stronger, and probably has a weapon. Exactly what are your suggestions about "standing up for rape"? Is it your contention that women simply submit to rape as passive victims? That simply isn't accurate.

I made no suggestion of how women could actually defend themselves against an actual rape. The only "suggestion" that I made was that women should try to be "as aware as possible" and that any women who says "I should expect not to be raped" is wrong only because expecting not to be raped does not protect ones self against rape.

I dont know if I agree with "most women are taken by surprise" and "rapists are usually prepared and go out looking to rape".

I can definitely see "rapes of opportunity" and "trust rapes" being examples of how, in some cases, those types of rape would argue against ones ability to be prepared. As I have said before, I dont think some women can be prepared (in specific), because sometimes there is no way to be prepared (for specific). However, that doesnt mean its not possible to be prepared (in general). Because there is no practical way to be safe from rape 100% of the time, I can see no reason to ever believe its a womans fault for being raped, or to blame a woman for being raped. I think this is the point that most people are missing.

I have, however, said that there are some women who are stupid for being raped, because they are negligent. Because they may be stupid in those circumstances, that doesnt mean they're at fault.

The best thing I can do, as a woman, to prevent being raped is to be very cognizant of my surroundings, not become overly intoxicated in a setting where I'm likely to be vulnerable, and pay attention to my gut.

Agree, 100%.

My gut may very well be inaccurate, and I may end up offending some innocent man who had no intention of wrong-doing. Alas, I'm okay with that. I'd rather he be offended than that I be attacked.

I can see this. I have been "offended" by women like you before, and I only shrug it off because I can understand that I may look like a criminal (with the "deathstare" and all). The only time I would have any issue with this, is if you were to have me arrested (or something) or if you forced anything on me because you're simply "scared". (Assuming that i've done nothing other than "being there")

But, also I expect you to not be offended if you get called a "crazy bitch" from time to time.

I think it works both ways.

[plotthickens]

But, also I expect you to not be offended if you get called a "crazy bitch" from time to time.

Verbal abuse from strangers is acceptable in your world?

[Zsych]

Assuming the worst from others with not even the slightest proof of ill intent is acceptable in yours?

If you're going to assume that everyone is a potential rapist then you should also assume that they are potential murderers, thieves and generally just out to take advantage of you in any number of possible ways.

[Wtfpeople]

Verbal abuse from strangers is acceptable in your world?

If the reasoning for something can possibly be misunderstood, you can expect to be called crazy from time to time.


You underestimate me. Try harder.

---------- Post added 11-07-2010 at 05:29 AM ----------

Assuming the worst from others with not even the slightest proof of ill intent is acceptable in yours?

Assuming that the worst is not a possibility without any prior knowledge while knowing that the risk of injury is greater than feelings in general is acceptable in yours?


If you're going to assume that everyone is a potential rapist then you should also assume that they are potential murderers, thieves and generally just out to take advantage of you in any number of possible ways.

I do.

[plotthickens]

Assuming the worst from others with not even the slightest proof of ill intent is acceptable in yours?

If you're going to assume that everyone is a potential rapist then you should also assume that they are potential murderers, thieves and generally just out to take advantage of you in any number of possible ways.

I've been stolen from, beaten, ADW'd three times, raped, knifed, and shot. This evidence shows me that there is significant risk in humans. Murderers, thieves and bad peeps. You're saying I should not be wary of potential assailants? That's ridiculous.

Waiting for another's proof of intent (benign or malign) is a good idea in every situation. so is trying to diffuse potentially explosive situations. But not being wary is sheer stupidity.


If the reasoning for something can possibly be misunderstood, you can expect to be called crazy from time to time.

I don't care what others think of me (or anyone else). Random verbal abuse is not acceptable. If I think someone's an ugly hunk of shit, do I yell it at them on the street? No. And neither does one yell "crazy bitch!" at a woman who is trying to defend herself.

Hey, WTF, you may want to go take a gun course. Pref licensed by the state. You've made some rather egregious assumptions about dangerous situations that, if rectified, would help your understanding of Risk Assessment, Awareness, and Use of Force.


Generally addressed:

Just cuz we don't act like all potential sex partners are desirable on first sight ("A man! Oh, yes, hot dickings from you please!") doesn't mean we're crazy bitches. As my gay friend said about someone who was stalking him one night: "Dude, your dick can't be that good." Stop being all butt-hurt, gentlemen, occasionally good things take effort.

[Wtfpeople]

I don't care what others think of me (or anyone else). Random verbal abuse is not acceptable. If I think someone's an ugly hunk of shit, do I yell it at them on the street? No. And neither does one yell "crazy bitch!" at a woman who is trying to defend herself.

Not really "random" if someone is trying to "defend themselves". Yelling at someone because you think they're ugly, and yelling at someone because you felt wrongfully accused of rape are two different things.

You know you tried to bate me into going down another path and now have to resort to trying to defend this one.

I cant believe you're even trying to say that I gave you the impression that "men should just go down the street calling women bitches because we feel like were entitled to insult people without provocation".

If you believe in never speaking ill of another person, fine. Just dont tell me im wrong for calling someone crazy because (IMO) they accused me of a crime that I didnt commit nor did I ever intend to commit. (And no, i've never called any woman a crazy bitch. In fact, i've never even called anyone who I felt like they were "nervous" of my presence anything either.)

You can bet that if I open a door for a lady and she jumps back and says "omg get away you rapist", busts our her cellphone and calls 911 (or something) I probably would.

Hey, WTF, you may want to go take a gun course. Pref licensed by the state. You've made some rather egregious assumptions about dangerous situations that, if rectified, would help your understanding of Risk Assessment, Awareness, and Use of Force.

"Take a gun course", lol, really?

So, maybe you were shot, raped, have Navy SEAL training, got burned by acid and have been set on fire, and appeal to authority much, but if you would like to have a discussion, you might want to be a little more specific about how im "so wrong".

If you must know, im very well qualified to fire many different types of weapons. I live in a state that has some of the most strict gun laws in the country and requires that you be knowledgeable about these laws should you ever want/have to use deadly force.

Generally addressed:

Just cuz we don't act like all potential sex partners are desirable on first sight ("A man! Oh, yes, hot dickings [B]from you please!") doesn't mean we're crazy bitches. As my gay friend said about someone who was stalking him one night: "Dude, your dick can't be that good." Stop being all butt-hurt, gentlemen, occasionally good things take effort.

/rolleyes

[plotthickens]

Not really "random" if someone is trying to "defend themselves". Yelling at someone because you think they're ugly, and yelling at someone because you felt wrongfully accused of rape are two different things.

Okay, let's say they're a little different. Does that make one OK?


I cant believe you're even trying to say that I gave you the impression that "men should just go down the street calling women bitches because we feel like were entitled to insult people without provocation".

You can bet that if I open a door for a lady and she jumps back and says "omg get away you rapist", busts our her cellphone and calls 911 (or something) I probably would.

You know you tried to bate me into going down another path and now have to resort to trying to defend this one.


"Take a gun course", lol, really?

So, maybe you were shot, raped, have Navy SEAL training, got burned by acid and have been set on fire, and appeal to authority much,
but if you would like to have a discussion, you might want to be a little more specific about how im "so wrong".

Actually that was to Zsych, not you. And it was about what I, particularly me and me alone, would 'assume'. So 1)it's not an appeal to authority and 2) it's not always about you.


If you must know, im very well qualified to fire many different types of weapons. I live in a state that has some of the most strict gun laws in the country and requires that you be knowledgeable about these laws should you ever want/have to use deadly force.

*coughappeal to authoritycough*

If you've taken any gun course (I'm generalizing, I've only taken them in 3 states, but I'm pretty sure it's standard), you'd know that those courses are not about how to shoot. They're mostly concerned with when you can use force... and what kind of force can be used. When someone comes at you with a toothpick, you can't shoot them and expect to be blameless. Equal force. This is why it's not cool to yell "CRAZY BITCH!" at someone acting defensively towards you. Diffusing the situation is much more effective.

By the way, I find it fascinating that you've come to the "CRAZY BITCH!" scenario even when it's never happened to you. Dwelling on exaggerated situations is one of the things I was taught not to do -- in therapy, weapons class, and the dojo -- because it creates unnecessary overreactions in real life situations.

[astrolite]

I've been stolen from, beaten, ADW'd three times, raped, knifed, and shot. This evidence shows me that there is significant risk in humans. Murderers, thieves and bad peeps. You're saying I should not be wary of potential assailants? That's ridiculous.

Where did you live when these events happened to you and did you know any of the attackers?

[Wtfpeople]

Okay, let's say they're a little different. Does that make one OK?

To me? Yeah. The difference makes all the difference.

Actually that was to Zsych, not you. And it was about what I, particularly me and me alone, would 'assume'. So 1)it's not an appeal to authority and 2) it's not always about you.

If you dont want things said in a public thread to be discussed in an open discussion forum you might want to post it privately. I'm not eavesdropping on your conversation while you sit a few seats down from me in a cafe.

Public discussion has occurred in public discussion thread.

*coughappeal to authoritycough*

Nonononononono.

Its not an appeal to authority if I gave my experiences after you have made an incorrect assumption about my lack of experience. I didnt use my "credentials" to add weight to my argument. I gave my credentials because you implied that I had none, which is incorrect.


Unless, you're trying to say that you made no such assumption and you were actually saying "you should take a gun course" [again], in which case you're getting kinda desperate.

If you've taken any gun course (I'm generalizing, I've only taken them in 3 states, but I'm pretty sure it's standard), you'd know that those courses are not about how to shoot. They're mostly concerned with when you can use force... and what kind of force can be used. When someone comes at you with a toothpick, you can't shoot them and expect to be blameless. Equal force. This is why it's not cool to yell "CRAZY BITCH!" at someone acting defensively towards you. Diffusing the situation is much more effective.

The ones i've taken were about how to shoot. They were tactical courses. Of course, they teach basic gun safety and basic gun laws, but none of them have ever played lawyer with me.

As an example, I had to learn about castle doctrine on my own. They didnt teach it in "how to render ineffective a home invader" school.

When I say "get called a crazy bitch" im talking about extremes. If I open a door for you and you screamed "Get back you rapist!" and pulled your rape alarm, id probably say something. My little colorful commentary applies to anything, really, not just rape.

By the way, I find it fascinating that you've come to the "CRAZY BITCH!" scenario even when it's never happened to you. Dwelling on exaggerated situations is one of the things I was taught not to do -- in therapy, weapons class, and the dojo -- because it creates unnecessary overreactions in real life situations.

I know ive made some women feel uncomfortable simply by opening doors for them. I havnt called any of those women crazy bitches. I have been in a few close calls where a woman driver almost kill me (or someone else) then speeds off looking at my (or that other person) like they're at fault and not her. I have called those women crazy bitches.

I wouldnt say my hypothetical situations would be "exaggerated" more like "not your usual experience, but realistic enough given human nature".

I all meant to say was that if you are one of those women who pull your rape alarm at the first sign of desire by someone else, dont be offended if they call you a crazy bitch. You're well within your right to pull that alarm and scream, but dont expect everyone to understand, and of those who dont understand, maybe a few of them would have some choice words for you.

[Dru]

Assuming the worst from others with not even the slightest proof of ill intent is acceptable in yours?

If you're going to assume that everyone is a potential rapist then you should also assume that they are potential murderers, thieves and generally just out to take advantage of you in any number of possible ways.

"prepare for the worst but hope for the best".

[firebee]

stuff

The thing I don't get, here, is why I am meant to particularly care if a rotating impeller wantonly flinging about malodorous vaguely-misogynistic memes calls me a "crazy bitch". In fact, provided that they are kind enough to depart from my life afterwards, I can't see why I should consider this event to be anything other than the identification and subsequent removal of an undesired element.

I'm not convinced that any of these hypothetical dudes who are proposed, who so cruelly deprive purportedly-paranoid women of their undesirable company or mark themselves by crude behavior, are anything resembling a catch.

Hence, not only do I not care about such a turn of events, one might essentially say that I anti-care.

[plotthickens]

Where did you live when these events happened to you and did you know any of the attackers?

Oakland. Yes, some.


Assuming the worst from others with not even the slightest proof of ill intent is acceptable in yours?

If you're going to assume that everyone is a potential rapist then you should also assume that they are potential murderers, thieves and generally just out to take advantage of you in any number of possible ways.
I've been stolen from, beaten, ADW'd three times, raped, knifed, and shot. This evidence shows me that there is significant risk in humans. Murderers, thieves and bad peeps. You're saying I should not be wary of potential assailants? That's ridiculous.
So, maybe you were shot, raped, have Navy SEAL training, got burned by acid and have been set on fire, and appeal to authority much, but if you would like to have a discussion, you might want to be a little more specific about how im "so wrong".
Actually that was to Zsych, not you. And it was about what I, particularly me and me alone, would 'assume'. So 1)it's not an appeal to authority and 2) it's not always about you.
If you dont want things said in a public thread to be discussed in an open discussion forum you might want to post it privately. I'm not eavesdropping on your conversation while you sit a few seats down from me in a cafe.

Public discussion has occurred in public discussion thread.

Losing your grasp of the discussion's threads does not make you right.
It's still not an appeal to authority.
It's still not about you.

Nonononononono.

Its not an appeal to authority if I gave my experiences after you have made an incorrect assumption about my lack of experience. I didnt use my "credentials" to add weight to my argument. I gave my credentials because you implied that I had none, which is incorrect.

Unless, you're trying to say that you made no such assumption and you were actually saying "you should take a gun course" [again], in which case you're getting kinda desperate.

The ones i've taken were about how to shoot. They were tactical courses. Of course, they teach basic gun safety and basic gun laws, but none of them have ever played lawyer with me.


Losing the thread of the discussion does not make you right. I was reccommending a course because you didn't know about Equal Force, which I explained and you ignored:

If you've taken any gun course (I'm generalizing, I've only taken them in 3 states, but I'm pretty sure it's standard), you'd know that those courses are not about how to shoot. They're mostly concerned with when you can use force... and what kind of force can be used. When someone comes at you with a toothpick, you can't shoot them and expect to be blameless. Equal force. This is why it's not cool to yell "CRAZY BITCH!" at someone acting defensively towards you. Diffusing the situation is much more effective.

Since you've taken courses but not been exposed to this, I reccommend either Judo, Kendo, or Jujitsu which will show you how to turn energy away without wasting it (equal force, re-ordered) or an Armed Guard course, which will more western-ized talk bout Equal Force.


When I say "get called a crazy bitch" im talking about extremes. If I open a door for you and you screamed "Get back you rapist!" and pulled your rape alarm, id probably say something. My little colorful commentary applies to anything, really, not just rape.
I all meant to say was that if you are one of those women who pull your rape alarm at the first sign of desire by someone else, dont be offended if they call you a crazy bitch. You're well within your right to pull that alarm and scream, but dont expect everyone to understand, and of those who dont understand, maybe a few of them would have some choice words for you.

When has this happened, beside in your imagination?


Hence, not only do I not care about such a turn of events, one might essentially say that I anti-care.

I like the lowriders with the windows down and rap music playing at very, very, very loud volumes. They're Idiot Alerts.

[Wtfpeople]

When has this happened, beside in your imagination?

One time I was at a lookout. I saw the cops rolling up, and it was "that time" again where they tell everyone to leave. I decided to extend some courtesy to my "next door neighbors" and tell them they should probably leave before the cops make their way up the line.

-I approached from the front of the car thinking that I didnt want to startle anyone.
-I could see both the driver (male) and the passenger (female) so I knew they werent in the back seat doing anything.
-As soon as I made eye contact with the passenger, she screamed.
-Before I could really do anything else, the guy turns on the car, puts it in reverse and made a little scene as they drove off.
-Well, the cops that were "doing their thing" saw this and pulled them over like 20m-30m from where we were to ask them what the problem was.
-The girl said I snuck up on them and tried to open the door cause she heard me pull on the door handle.
-I heard her say this so I knew that the best thing to do at that point was not to leave and wait till one of the cops came over to talk to me. I explained myself and what I was trying to do and denied the whole thing about sneaking up on them and trying to get inside their car. I said shes probably making this bullshit up because she thought they were going to get a ticket or something.
-The cops talked to me friends and they backed me up.
-The lady then says she must have been mistaken about the sound and that she was sorry.
-The end.

Yep, crazy bitch. Maybe, I shouldnt have tried to be friendly and let them know. That still doesnt defeat the fact that she either straight up lied about the whole "trying to get into the car" story or something like the wind blowing made both of them freak out.

I like the lowriders with the windows down and rap music playing at very, very, very loud volumes. They're Idiot Alerts.

:(

Hataz gone hate! lol

[catzmeow]

Of course id suspect a suspicious stranger over a friend, I dont think anyone would disagree. I think people who assume that their friends would never do it are wrong. There is very good reason for the "just because you're dating doesnt mean its not rape" type of commercials.

I've been physically beaten and abused in the past by both boyfriends and my ex-husband. I would never assume that a significant other wouldn't do these things. I do, however, have a considerable degree of trust that my current boyfriend wouldn't, mainly because I've dealt with my propensity to attract and be attracted to dirtbags.

I never said that. I only said that every man could possibly be a rapist (you can insert anything here, really). There is no excuse to treat every man as a rapist, but there isnt an excuse to believe that he will never rape you or anyone else.
I don't treat men as rapists. I treat them as potential rapists since rapists have a disconcerting tendency to look like everyone else. I don't see that I have much of a choice. In other words, I adjust my behavior in order to protect myself from threats, both perceived and possible.

If you're a man and you're riding alone with a woman on a hotel elevator late at night, you shouldn't be offended if I take proper precautions. If you are, that's really your choice.

I made no suggestion of how women could actually defend themselves against an actual rape. The only "suggestion" that I made was that women should try to be "as aware as possible" and that any women who says "I should expect not to be raped" is wrong only because expecting not to be raped does not protect ones self against rape.
I hope not to be raped, but I think that the possibility is real enough to warrant reasonable precuations.

I dont know if I agree with "most women are taken by surprise" and "rapists are usually prepared and go out looking to rape".
Really. You think that women aren't surprised to be violently sexually attacked?
I can definitely see "rapes of opportunity" and "trust rapes" being examples of how, in some cases, those types of rape would argue against ones ability to be prepared
The guy may not have packed his own pair of handcuffs, but I guarantee that he's considered the possibility of rape prior to the event and has visualized how it might go down. Women who haven't considered at least the possiblity of this occurring make good victims.
I have, however, said that there are some women who are stupid for being raped, because they are negligent. Because they may be stupid in those circumstances, that doesnt mean they're at fault.
I do believe that some humans make choices that make it more likely that they will be a victim of a violent crime. For instance, a member of a street gang is MUCH more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than someone who isn't a gang member. A woman who does not monitor her alcohol consumption may miss warning signs that would have tipped her off, were she less intoxicated.
I can see this. I have been "offended" by women like you before, and I only shrug it off because I can understand that I may look like a criminal (with the "deathstare" and all). The only time I would have any issue with this, is if you were to have me arrested (or something) or if you forced anything on me because you're simply "scared". (Assuming that i've done nothing other than "being there")
I work with criminals for a living. They don't have a particular "look." It's only the circumstances that may cause me to treat you with coldness or to fear your intentions.

I've probably been rude to men in bars before because I don't enjoy being hit on. There are some men who view your presence there as an invitation, and in my case, they're mistaken in that belief.
But, also I expect you to not be offended if you get called a "crazy bitch" from time to time.
It's not being a "crazy bitch" to logically and rationally deal with perceived threats to my safety. Try to deal with the fact that not all women are going to be welcoming simply because we perceive your actions or behaviors to be suspect.

[Wtfpeople]

Really. You think that women aren't surprised to be violently sexually attacked?

The guy may not have packed his own pair of handcuffs, but I guarantee that he's considered the possibility of rape prior to the event and has visualized how it might go down. Women who haven't considered at least the possiblity of this occurring make good victims.

I think we're in agreement and understanding for everything in your post. This section here I have pulled out so that I can explain what I mean. I dont think you'll disagree with my explanation.

I think women are "surprised to be violently attacked".

I do not think "most women are taken by surprise", meaning that the rapists doesnt always surprise its victims. I think cases like date rape and child rape are examples where surprise really wasnt a factor. There was "surprise", sure, but its usually after the fact. When I read what you wrote, I was under the impression that you were saying most rapes happen with a guy jumping out of a tree, or something.



For the second part, I think "premeditation" and "fantasizing of a crime" before a crime happens are two very different things. I also think that sometimes rape happens because a certain opportunity arises and there is little fear of being caught. As counter examples, I dont think its fair to say that everyone who watches rape porn is a practicing rapist, or every child who steals a cookie from a cookie jar does it because they planned it. It could be that most people who watch rape porn like the idea of rape, but have enough control to not actually rape, and most kids who steal from the cookie jar are doing it because daddy is taking a nap.

[Seriously]

I think cases like date rape and child rape are examples where surprise really wasnt a factor.

Because people expect their dates and family members to rape them???

[Wtfpeople]

Because people expect their dates and family members to rape them???

No. Children dont know any better so they're surprised later, after the fact, that what was happening to them was actually rape, but at the time nothing seemed wrong with it.

No. Date rape doesnt always happen from people you know. It's not really a "surprise attack" if you drink something that someone else has poisoned and pass out. You just wake up later "surprised" that you've been raped. If you fall asleep and wake up later having been raped, I dont know if that counts as a surprise attack.

[I just read this over and over trying to find a clearer way of saying what I mean. I'm too tired to think of a solution. I'll try to fix this later to be more clear.]


I'm just saying (as per catzmeows post) that not all rape victims are "taken by surprise", but that rape victims are "surprised they've been raped". To me, those mean two very different things, as her other post also talks about premeditation, which implies "taking a person by surprise" would be part of a premeditated plan. A victim who is "surprised to have been raped" does not necessarily imply that the rape was premeditated.

[Seriously]

No. Children dont know any better so they're surprised later, after the fact, that what was happening to them was actually rape, but at the time nothing seemed wrong with it.

Really? Because the people that I know who were abused as children knew it wasn't right. They didn't expect this from people they trusted. Same with women I know. They were surprised when the man they trusted all of the sudden wouldn't take no for an answer.

But I don't see where it really matters regardless. Intent or not, premedicated or not those people still ended up being abused. So what is your point?

[catzmeow]

No. Children dont know any better so they're surprised later, after the fact, that what was happening to them was actually rape, but at the time nothing seemed wrong with it.

Victims of child molestation frequently realize something wrong is happening to them.

No. Date rape doesnt always happen from people you know. It's not really a "surprise attack" if you drink something that someone else has poisoned and pass out. You just wake up later "surprised" that you've been raped. If you fall asleep and wake up later having been raped, I dont know if that counts as a surprise attack.


Unexpected may be a word that will help you understand my comments.

[firebee]

Yep, crazy bitch. Maybe, I shouldnt have tried to be friendly and let them know. That still doesnt defeat the fact that she either straight up lied about the whole "trying to get into the car" story or something like the wind blowing made both of them freak out.


Both of them "freaked out" -- the male driver of the car was the one, in fact, who took precipitous action -- and yet the female passenger is the one who rated the description of "crazy bitch".

I see.

I'd suggest that you turn that perceptive ability that you've been using thus far to explaining how it is that women get themselves raped to the purpose of explaining how it is that you get yourself so consistently misunderstood. This should, if anything, be an easier task since you have access to much more information about your own nature than you do about the natures of hypothetical whoresluts and crazy bitches.

[Seriously]

Both of them "freaked out" -- the male driver of the car was the one, in fact, who took precipitous action -- and yet the female passenger is the one who rated the description of "crazy bitch".

I see.

I'd suggest that you turn that perceptive ability that you've been using thus far to explaining how it is that women get themselves raped to the purpose of explaining how it is that you get yourself so consistently misunderstood. This should, if anything, be an easier task since you have access to much more information about your own nature than you do about the natures of hypothetical whoresluts and crazy bitches.

Well now firebee surely you can see that the crazy bitch influenced the poor man to do what he did. Ultimately everything is the woman's fault.

I blame Eve.

[SirJamesIII]

I'm no expert, but aren't most rapes not in public? It's not like some guy is gonna whip it out on a subway train and go to town. I think it it must be an illusion that is created concerning the fact that you feel less comfortable when you are confronted by someone in public than with someone you know in private. If you know the guy, he should still be Schrödinger’s rapist. I'd even bet the odds go up of being raped when you know the person. These feelings of paranoia (what else should I call it?) are more of a result of instinct rather than logic IMO.

I don't have any problems with what was said in the essay. I always do my best to respect another's space.

[firebee]

I'm no expert, but aren't most rapes not in public? It's not like some guy is gonna whip it out on a subway train and go to town. I think it it must be an illusion that is created concerning the fact that you feel less comfortable when you are confronted by someone in public than with someone you know in private. If you know the guy, he should still be Schrödinger’s rapist. I'd even bet the odds go up of being raped when you know the person. These feelings of paranoia (what else should I call it?) are more of a result of instinct rather than logic IMO.

This, among other things, is true.

However, one might consider the connection with this:

I don't have any problems with what was said in the essay. I always do my best to respect another's space.

If people who don't respect my space get Removed, they never end up knowing me. One might draw a conclusion about the benefits of that practice, given the aforementioned point regarding how rape is generally implemented.

[Wtfpeople]

Both of them "freaked out" -- the male driver of the car was the one, in fact, who took precipitous action -- and yet the female passenger is the one who rated the description of "crazy bitch".

Right, because in a situation like that, it's worth the wrath of your significant other over a stranger. She screamed. She started it. Apparently, I missed the memo where every time a woman is approached by a man, its like totally appropriate to scream, starting a chain reaction that ends up in false accusations with police involvement.

Get real.



I'd suggest that you turn that perceptive ability that you've been using thus far to explaining how it is that women get themselves raped to the purpose of explaining how it is that you get yourself so consistently misunderstood. This should, if anything, be an easier task since you have access to much more information about your own nature than you do about the natures of hypothetical whoresluts and crazy bitches.

For fucks sake.

(I think it's about that time)

I'd suggest that you turn that straw man ability that you've been using thus far to explaining how it is that men who feel like women can prevent themselves from being raped are only looking to place the blame on women to the purpose of explaining how it is that you get yourself so consistently misunderstood and raped. This should, if anything, be an easier task since you have access to much more information about your own nature than you do about the natures of hypothetical chauvinists and super rapists.

Well now firebee surely you can see that the crazy bitch influenced the poor man to do what he did. Ultimately everything is the woman's fault.

I blame Eve.

Well now Seriously surely you can see that the potential rapist influenced the poor lady to do what she did. Ultimately everything is the mans fault.

I blame Steve.



From the beginning, you guys have been confusing the statements

"You have to be prepared"

with

"It's your fault"

I have never said it's ever a womans fault she gets raped. In fact, i've clarified it multiple times, saying specifically that it's never a womans fault she gets raped. What continues to baffle me is that how this keeps being misrepresented into "Obviously man blames women for rape happening" which to me implies that women seem to think they're defenseless.

Women are not defenseless, but doesnt mean they can actually prevent rape from happening.
Women can be negligent, but doesnt mean they're actually at fault.

Why cant you see that it doesnt have to be one or the other?
Why cant you see that there exists a concept where there is a middle ground, despite what the parties involved believe in?
Why cant you see that I am able to see that middle ground while you (apparently) cannot?

[gecko]

From the beginning, you guys have been confusing the statements

"You have to be prepared"

with

"It's your fault"

I have never said it's ever a womans fault she gets raped. In fact, i've clarified it multiple times, saying specifically that it's never a womans fault she gets raped. What continues to baffle me is that how this keeps being misrepresented into "Obviously man blames women for rape happening" which to me implies that women seem to think they're defenseless.

Women are not defenseless, but doesnt mean they can actually prevent rape from happening.
Women can be negligent, but doesnt mean they're actually at fault.

Why cant you see that it doesnt have to be one or the other?
Why cant you see that there exists a concept where there is a middle ground, despite what the parties involved believe in?
Why cant you see that I am able to see that middle ground while you (apparently) cannot?

For someone who laments people who "play the victim", you certainly trumpet your own misunderstood-ness loudly and repetitively. Are you being intentionally ironic?

Maybe I see where you and plotthickens diverged. plotthickens said that only rapists can stop rape, an ambiguous statement in itself. However when plotthickens explained that its purpose is to remove the sense of guilt from rape victims, it makes more sense.

[Wtfpeople]

Maybe I see where you and plotthickens diverged. plotthickens said that only rapists can stop rape, an ambiguous statement in itself. However when plotthickens explained that its purpose is to remove the sense of guilt from rape victims, it makes more sense.

You know... I think we're just both being stubborn. I've been questioning whether or not my continual posts in this thread are being constructive, or if its my own stubbornness which is fueling me.

I cant speak for her.

[firebee]

Why cant you see that I am able to see that middle ground while you (apparently) cannot?

Because the way you present your position does not exactly lend itself to an impression of even-handedness.

Also, it must be noted that the middle ground between "crazy" and "sane" is "crazy" -- and similarly we can discern that the middle ground between "crazy" and "other crazy" is often apt to be "really crazy". Solomon wasn't actually proposing to saw the baby in half, you know.

Finally, I'm not convinced that, even when one factors out all the yelling, that the position you present is actually located at any useful "middle ground". However, that is rather a difficult matter to discern given the amazingly fuzzy and reactive nature of the reasoning you've put forth.

I don't live in fear of rape, or of violent crime generally, and I do not think that concern which does not lead to productive action is useful (even if I do respect the means by which people come by such concern). And while in a sense I do think that everyone that I have contact with has the potential to assault me, rape me, run me over while I'm riding my bicycle, or whatnot, generally the thought is not present in my mind unless something in particular is going on that raises that possibility.

However, in the case that I do feel at risk of something bad, the motto that I apply to dealing with such matters is "Dignity is optional." All other things being equal, I do have some preference to avoid looking like a fool. When all other things are not equal, though, I'm quite willing to throw my dignity under the bus in the pursuit of some larger goal -- and averting a threat to my person certainly qualifies. If that means being rude, then I'll be rude. If that means seeming paranoid, then I will seem paranoid. So be it.

Evocative descriptions of rape as a negative experience? Not relevant. Mockery and butthurt? Also not relevant. There's your middle ground for ya.

[Wtfpeople]

Because the way you present your position does not exactly lend itself to an impression of even-handedness.

What's funny is that I believe my ability to be "even-handed" is what causes these types of mess, both IRL and online.

Also, it must be noted that the middle ground between "crazy" and "sane" is "crazy" -- and similarly we can discern that the middle ground between "crazy" and "other crazy" is often apt to be "really crazy". Solomon wasn't actually proposing to saw the baby in half, you know.

True, but, if I were involved in this argument I would clearly entertain the idea of sawing the baby in half because I am not immediately biased towards it being wrong because its a baby, and because sawing it in half kills it, and because I understand people are willing to put their own desire for the baby, even if resolution ultimately kills the baby itself.

Contrasted to the first quote and quote response, I think im really fair. You think im not fair, because a judgment I could make could possibly kill the baby, or "miss the point".

I think what you're trying to say is that im "too fair" because, to me, sawing the baby in half as it relates to that argument could be replaced with a loaf of bread and cutting that in half. After we determine who should get what (because this is about the parties in dispute, not the baby yet) then any issues about sawing a baby in half (or a load of bread) as a means of even disbursement should be considered.

What Solomon suggested was that "ima pretend to saw a baby in half lols so I dont have to listen to these ladies argue anymore cause its clear they're more interested in themselves than the baby".

That's not only stupid, but unfair.

Finally, I'm not convinced that, even when one factors out all the yelling, that the position you present is actually located at any useful "middle ground". However, that is rather a difficult matter to discern given the amazingly fuzzy and reactive nature of the reasoning you've put forth.

Acceptable. This is why we have discussion. It's not to make you agree, necessarily.

I don't live in fear of rape, or of violent crime generally, and I do not think that concern which does not lead to productive action is useful (even if I do respect the means by which people come by such concern). And while in a sense I do think that everyone that I have contact with has the potential to assault me, rape me, run me over while I'm riding my bicycle, or whatnot, generally the thought is not present in my mind unless something in particular is going on that raises that possibility.

I'm not sure how that applies to me or things I said? Maybe I missed it.

However, in the case that I do feel at risk of something bad, the motto that I apply to dealing with such matters is "Dignity is optional." All other things being equal, I do have some preference to avoid looking like a fool. When all other things are not equal, though, I'm quite willing to throw my dignity under the bus in the pursuit of some larger goal -- and averting a threat to my person certainly qualifies. If that means being rude, then I'll be rude. If that means seeming paranoid, then I will seem paranoid. So be it.

Sure. I dont pass judgment against you. I will respond to it if it happens to me. Im sure people will respond to it if it happens to them. As i've said before, dont be surprised if this happens.

You have said you accept the fact that some people may react negatively and that the negative reaction is acceptable to you (and I agree). Statements like "dont be surprised" are direct at the women who are unable to accept that not every other person on the planet is going to be welcomed to the idea of being "a potential rapist" by you.

Evocative descriptions of rape as a negative experience? Not relevant. Mockery and butthurt? Also not relevant. There's your middle ground for ya.

1/2

[plotthickens]

From the beginning, you guys have been confusing the statements

"You have to be prepared"

with

"It's your fault"

No. We have been trying to reconcile
you had it coming.
with
it's never a womans fault she gets raped.

The two are diametrically opposed. The first rule of logic says a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. Please explain how those two statements are logically OK to hold at the same time.

[Wtfpeople]

The two are diametrically opposed. The first rule of logic says a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. Please explain how those two statements are logically OK to hold at the same time.

I had to step back for a bit because I wasnt sure how I should respond to this.


I refuse to accept this. Any attempt at accepting this challenge will require that I acknowledge that "those two statements" are on like terms, something which I have adamantly refused this whole time.

Those two statements are not in any way affiliated with one another.

(you had it coming.)
(it's never a womans fault she gets raped.)

Is correct.

~(you had it coming.) > (it's never a womans fault she gets raped.)
(you had it coming.) > ~(it's never a womans fault she gets raped.)
(you had it coming.) = (it's never a womans fault she gets raped.)
~(you had it coming.) = (it's never a womans fault she gets raped.)
(you had it coming.) = ~(it's never a womans fault she gets raped.)
~((you had it coming.) ^ ~(it's never a womans fault she gets raped.))

ect.

Is not correct. As I have been firm that those two things are not actions or results of the other. They may both occur, they may both not, or it may be on or the other. They are not dependent on each other. They are independent events.

[vampyroteuthis]

...I have been firm that those two things are not actions or results of the other. They may both occur, they may both not, or it may be on or the other. They are not dependent on each other. They are independent events.

How?

Please to explain for us wimminz who think saying that "she had it coming" implies that someone was raped as a result of their actions and decisions and/or that some people deserve or invite rape more than others. This, in turn implies that if someone "had it coming" then it is, at least to some extent, her fault. Yes? No? Fish?

[Zsych]

Assuming that the worst is not a possibility without any prior knowledge while knowing that the risk of injury is greater than feelings in general is acceptable in yours?


It can be about the same, piss off the wrong person and you will suffer in any number of ways. Physical injury is a minor thing.

But anyway, its more a matter of way of life and what kind of society you're contributing to. Promoting a viewpoint of lack of faith in others is damaging to society and helps maintain not just the darker expectations but also for perpetrators of crimes, the idea that what they do is normal and expected.


If you're going to assume that everyone is a potential rapist then you should also assume that they are potential murderers, thieves and generally just out to take advantage of you in any number of possible ways.
I do.

That is a perversion.

I've been stolen from, beaten, ADW'd three times, raped, knifed, and shot. This evidence shows me that there is significant risk in humans. Murderers, thieves and bad peeps. You're saying I should not be wary of potential assailants? That's ridiculous.


You might want to move to a place where the people aren't animals.


Waiting for another's proof of intent (benign or malign) is a good idea in every situation. so is trying to diffuse potentially explosive situations. But not being wary is sheer stupidity.


I'll agree that being wary isn't a bad idea. But there's a difference between being wary and acting on assumed guilt of the other person.

Lets say I'm giving someone a ride in my car. Is it possible that they have a weapon or might be able to overpower or harm me? Sure. Does that stop me from giving them a ride? No.

Incidentally, I may not have been shot, but I have been held at gun point, and physically attacked by people. It makes little difference. I haven't been attacked in years - in part because I choose to hang out with decent people.


I don't care what others think of me (or anyone else). Random verbal abuse is not acceptable. If I think someone's an ugly hunk of shit, do I yell it at them on the street? No. And neither does one yell "crazy bitch!" at a woman who is trying to defend herself.


Defend herself from a real problem: that's cool. Defend herself from phantoms in her mind: that's not good.


Just cuz we don't act like all potential sex partners are desirable on first sight ("A man! Oh, yes, hot dickings from you please!") doesn't mean we're crazy bitches. As my gay friend said about someone who was stalking him one night: "Dude, your dick can't be that good." Stop being all butt-hurt, gentlemen, occasionally good things take effort.

A highly negative viewpoint in a person makes them not a 'good thing'. You want good will from people not suspicion and looking for excuses so they can judge that you aren't a decent human being... These people just aren't worth the effort of being friends with (and I'm not even talking about relationships - I'm saying friends)

[Ibian]

This guy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) seems to have it together.

I'm a guy so i can't speak for the rape section specifically, but everything else on that site has kept me safe when i travel alone around the world. Might be worth giving it a look, if nothing else for another angle on the topic.

[Anreader]

Originally Posted by Wtfpeople View Post

Originally Posted by Zsych

If you're going to assume that everyone is a potential rapist then you should also assume that they are potential murderers, thieves and generally just out to take advantage of you in any number of possible ways.

I do.

That is a perversion.

I do, too. I never stop to think exactly why I think that strange man walking toward me in the parking garage is a threat. I just think he is one. I've never been assaulted, or domestically abused. The weird kid who stalked me in HS lost interest in a month, and never actually did anything to me other than creep me out. But, when I go anywhere after dark, I am aware of the possibility I could be harmed and the likelihood that were that to happen the perpetrator would most likely be male. I am severely intolerant to men in weird situations because of this fact. I am rarely alone with men I do not know well, and even then I am only 75% comfortable. This is actually an improvement for me. I was not alone in a room with a man I wasn't related to until I was 17. I can still count the number of men I've been alone with on both hands, and 2 of them were gay. And yes I worry about gay men too.

[plotthickens]

You might want to move to a place where the people aren't animals.

Throw-away remark is cute, but does not address the fact that humans are humans everywhere.


I'll agree that being wary isn't a bad idea. But there's a difference between being wary and acting on assumed guilt of the other person.

Lets say I'm giving someone a ride in my car. Is it possible that they have a weapon or might be able to overpower or harm me? Sure. Does that stop me from giving them a ride? No.

So you're locating the line between being wary and acting to defend oneself. You're assuming you know where I draw the line, and trying to convince me that that line needs to be moved farther away from acting. Is that correct?


Incidentally, I may not have been shot, but I have been held at gun point, and physically attacked by people. It makes little difference. I haven't been attacked in years - in part because I choose to hang out with decent people.

Also, you aren't in a position to be raped by an aquaintaince, and bad things happen to young, poor people in dire straits more often than to those who are not.


Defend herself from a real problem: that's cool. Defend herself from phantoms in her mind: that's not good.

WTF posited an hypothetical situation based upon a real-life incident. That incident, which did not include him being verbally abusive as he so often trumpeted, is exceptionally suspect for this and many other reasons. If you cannot come up with something a little more substantial either, I'm left to wonder: why are ya'all making up boogeymen? Isn't that what you're arguing against?

[Eridal]

The problem is that it's not an IRRATIONAL level of fear. YOU consider it to be irrational because you consider the odds that you might be raped to be low. I consider it a normal level of fear that most women live with because the odds that we might be raped are considerably higher (1 in 6, 1 in 3, 1 in 2, depending on where we're at and our age).

Please try to use real sources of information for you statistics as those are horribly exaggerated and suffer from massive errors in procedure and methodology.
It annoys me to no end when I see people stupidly and blindly believing them just because some women's group put them out. Here's a bit of advice for people DO NOT BELIEVE ANY GROUP THAT HAS AN AGENDA. They will always lie to you and use whatever means they can to make things look worse than they are. An example of that is the rape statistic and the domestic violence ones which for rape for women is closer to 1 in 20 and domestic violence is 50/50 with women more likely to commit the act of domestic violence than men if only a single partner is involved. And I'm not even going to get into the fact that statistics are not even accounting for or measuring, in most cases, for female-female, female-male, or male-male rape.

Now this isn't to say that rape isn't a horrible crime it is to say that it doesn't happen as much as people think. It is still more common in the USA than it should be and it should never be acceptable. But the other reality of it is if you allow fear of being raped to control your every interaction with men then in my opinion you are not only stupid but are going to miss out on a lot in life.

Certain measures should be taken to protect yourself regardless of your gender this is just simple sound judgement. Reality is that everyone is out for themselves and it will always be that way. Some are more likely than others to commit violent acts and are most likely to attack targets of opportunity so by not making it easy to rape you that alone significantly reduces your chances of being raped. This isn't to blame the victim because they didn't take precautions but it's just to say that it might not have happened if they did. In an ideal world you might say something like "Well she should never have had to worry about that" and all I say to that is grow up and get rid of your idealism because reality can and will slap you in the face one day. Reality is and never will be ideal it sucks but that is truth.

Having a victim mentality does nobody any real good especially the person with that mentality all it does is make you paranoid and hampers your interactions with others. And for those who's been raped I'm sorry that happened to you but if you allow it to control your lives guess what the rapist won and you will never be free of them. And even sorrier to say THAT IS YOUR FAULT. You can choose to let it go and move on I am not saying that is easy nor am I saying the person who raped you shouldn't be punished I am say that you need to let it go and move on with your life because if you don't it will destroy you needlessly. That sounds very harsh I'm sure but that is reality you can't expect someone else to do everything for you sometimes you have to take control of yourself and your experiences and make a decision to not allow one person one event to control your entire life.

[Dru]

i don't get why you people keep making the jump from "taking precautions" to "living in a constant state of fear/paranoia". where were those words mentioned AT ALL by anyone but yourselves, i'd like to know?

[Ibian]

Reading between the lines is easy when the gap is bigger than the actual lines.

[Eridal]

It's an assumption based on a person's "precautions" as viewed by another. Basically what is one person's precautions is another's paranoia. And example of that is people assuming everyone man that approaches them might rape them some might view that as a perfectly reasonable precaution while others view that as paranoia and a constant state of fear.

[plotthickens]

Interesting that the two groups seem to also self-segregate by gender.

[Muumeh]

Speaking about the essay, I think it has holds some truth to it, but I'd replace the word rape with a word harm. If I start to think my actions and thoughts when encountering people, I am a bit more reserved and cautious when a male stranger approaches me than I am when a stranger female approaches me. I'm not consciously thinking all people out there are to harm me, but given that stereotypically males seem to be more prone to physical violence whereas women prefer mental one, I'm more wary of males when it comes to protecting myself from physical harm. It's not rational or logical fear or suspicion either, but rather instinctual one. Like I'd been programmed to be more vary of males to begin with. (Note that I haven't been raped, or been in a situation where I'd been under threat to become raped. I have been threatened or attacked with violence few times though, by both genders, this hasn't changed my initial instinct of being more wary with males)

Maybe this behaviour is developed because females are generally the physically weaker gender, so if faced in a situation where things go wrong, she has less chance to walk out victorious. Very roughly sketched, it is like females are herbivores, whose response to threat is to flee (and be on guard in order to spot potential attacks all times) whereas males are carnivores whose response to threat is more likely to try counter-attack, and don't need to be on guard into same extent, due having fewer natural enemies.

[plotthickens]

Very roughly sketched, it is like females are herbivores, whose response to threat is to flee (and be on guard in order to spot potential attacks all times) whereas males are carnivores whose response to threat is more likely to try counter-attack, and don't need to be on guard into same extent, due having fewer natural enemies.

Women are herbivore-prey? Please. Men are more aggressive. It's called "testosterone". Worth research.

[ya lyublyu tebya]

Eh? What? I don't think like that at all. Maybe it's because I don't like men that way; maybe it's because I'm confident that my 22 years of pent-up rage nearly guarantees that I could beat the crap out of anyone who would try to bother me. I don't go out much, so unless someone's going to corner me in the grocery store, it's unlikely, I hope. Oh, make my day, potential rapists. You'll be missing teeth and perhaps have some broken bones, when I'm through with ya.

[Zsych]

Throw-away remark is cute, but does not address the fact that humans are humans everywhere.


Not really. There are places where you are more likely to come to harm and places where you are not. People who are recognizably dangerous, those that aren't... and people you yourself have pissed off to the point that they want to harm you.

But anyway, hang with more civilized people in general, and you're safe enough.


So you're locating the line between being wary and acting to defend oneself. You're assuming you know where I draw the line, and trying to convince me that that line needs to be moved farther away from acting. Is that correct?


Farther away from acting until an obvious threat exists (although you shouldn't live in a place where the crime rate is high and you have legitimate cause for worry). Farther away from feeling that there is a high chance that you have to protect yourself that way. You shouldn't have to live that way, and you shouldn't be assuming that people around you aren't trustworthy.


Also, you aren't in a position to be raped by an aquaintaince, and bad things happen to young, poor people in dire straits more often than to those who are not.


I doubt you're likely in general to get raped by an acquaintance. Just because something tragic happened once doesn't mean that it'll happen again (although considering the number of things you mention happening to you, I wonder at how and where you live your life).



WTF posited an hypothetical situation based upon a real-life incident. That incident, which did not include him being verbally abusive as he so often trumpeted, is exceptionally suspect for this and many other reasons. If you cannot come up with something a little more substantial either, I'm left to wonder: why are ya'all making up boogeymen? Isn't that what you're arguing against?

I've also seen women act suspiciously or with outright distrust where there was no logical reason for it. I've heard them talk and found that they imagine the most bizarre and retarded explanations for what are obviously decent actions. The underlying logic often seems like "If I assume that he is an absolutely ill intentioned person, what would his actions mean?"

This is not with respect to you, but rather with women I've met in my life and IMO if someone is too dumb to understand things on their own, I'd prefer they be raised to believe positive things about other people rather than negative. To me, those negative beliefs make many of these women a disease corrupting society.

[Anreader]

Speaking about the essay, I think it has holds some truth to it, but I'd replace the word rape with a word harm...I'm more wary of males when it comes to protecting myself from physical harm. It's not rational or logical fear or suspicion either, but rather instinctual one. Like I'd been programmed to be more vary of males to begin with.

I agree. I never think, "That guy with the piercings leaning on the wall in that alley over there could possibly rape me." I think, "Red Alert! Possible threat this side of the street. Oh no, he's walking toward me! What can I do? Think think. GREAT! He was just getting a newspaper! Why am I so silly?"

Maybe we are predetermined to fear males. I seem to.

[Eridal]

Women are herbivore-prey? Please. Men are more aggressive. It's called "testosterone". Worth research.

Actually that's not true women are physically just as aggressive as men in relationships. Just men are stronger on average than women so they tend to do more damage whenever it comes to a physical confrontation.