[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Leaving the name and phone number by the computer moniter, instead of just with a friend is where it started to get paranoid.

So leaving a name and phone number in a central location in one's home is "paranoid" whereas giving it directly to the friend who is performing the safe call is not? Pardon me for being dense, but I really don't understand why there's any meaningful distinction here.

Well, maybe one: Safe calls are standard practice in the kink community, but I've not yet done a formal one myself because during the time I was meeting new people in a one-on-one sort of setting, I did not know anybody that I was comfortable with revealing who I was dating, when I was dating them, and by implication what I was potentially contemplating doing as a part of these dates. Broadening the time scale -- "If I don't call you sometime tomorrow" -- and storing the address without revealing it sounds to me like an endeavor to protect one's privacy, not some sort of uber-cautious ninja trick.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not going to the store after night unless it's "densely-occupied" is also paranoid.

That isn't the same decision that I have made, but I understand why other people might. There is a certain eerie feeling about mostly-empty parking lots and stores where you and three people who look like tweakers are the only non-employees in it. If someone finds that eerie feeling enough to motivate them to go to the store during a more-populated hour, how is this such a profoundly limiting life decision that it warrants the title of "paranoia"?

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think going down to McDonald's Drive Thru at 7:00pm in most areas is something that most women "just don't do."

If I go down to Public Safety and pick up brochures about campus safety for women, it'll tell me to avoid poorly lit and unpopulated areas. If I search the Internet for safety advice for women, I see police officers giving out lists that include admonitions to avoid poorly lit and unpopulated areas. If a woman goes outside of poorly lit and unpopulated areas, half of this very forum will be up in arms about "what was she thinking, every woman with any sense knows not to do that."

The advice to remain in well-lit and populated areas is dog-standard advice for women. It is not necessarily advice that I follow, and I object (often rather strongly) to people who aim to impose this as the expected standard of behavior for everyone with a vagina -- but if some woman out there chooses to do what every Officer Friendly she's ever met tells her to do, I'm not seeing how this constitutes frankly irrational behavior on her part.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Later on, the article states that a man should not ever approach a woman in a crowded subway car. This is ridiculous.

You mean the part where the author states:

	You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb her.

followed by this:

	If you speak, and she responds in a monosyllabic way without looking at you, she’s saying, “I don’t want to be rude, but please leave me alone."

followed by this:

	On the other hand, if she is turned towards you, making eye contact, and she responds in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to her, you are getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting signals to back off.

....?

'Cause that's the only part of the article that references subways, and it doesn't say what you say it does.

Perhaps it is a cultural thing, but when I read that bit I went "Praise Baby Jesus, someone finally gave a concise description of what I have been trying to tell the entire planet since approximately the time I learned to read." Now yes, I know, how am I ever going to find me a good wife if I keep on not letting guys with neck tattoos chat me up on the RTD, but still: my preference in a lot of public transportation scenarios is to be left alone, and I signal this in exactly the manner described.

I strongly prefer not to have to say directly, "Please leave me alone," because it takes a person up short and they're likely to be hurt by it, so I really favor that they pick up on these signals and naturally end the conversation. Some people don't. There's a checker at my local grocery store who I don't go near anymore because he went past the businesslike demeanor and monosyllabic responses and continued to try and chat me up after I turned my back on him and hunched my shoulders, and then he followed me part of the way from the U-scan to the door. Should I have been more direct sooner? Sure. But it's hard for me, and I don't always do it right; maybe if that guy had happened to read that article my mistake wouldn't have ended up quite so awkward.

Also, I seem to have somehow missed the part about macing priests.

[Storm]

The crowded subway advice was here:

	If the public place is a closed area (a subway car, an elevator, a bus), even a crowded one, you may not realize that the woman’s ability to flee in case of threat is limited. Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach her.

The plain implicaiton is to not approach women in crowded subway cars.

I didn't think it was the note alone that made the woman paranoid. It was the accumlation of all she was doing. She didn't just leave a not, she didn't just let a friend know where is going to be. She does multiple things. Exact things isn't the point.

The entire air of the artilce is that women are justificably helpless victims. That women justifiably live in constant fear of being assaulted.

I think the entire attitude of society that this kind of fear and paranoia is perfectly reasonable is actually hurting the feminist cause.

Now, I do understand that women are physically weaker than most potential attackers, and thus, certain preventions are prudent that a man may not find necessary. But it's the height at which this level of precaution has been raised which is startling.

The truth is, most women are physically abused/raped/sexually assaulted by someone they know. Society is teaching women to be fearful of the man in the parking lot. But, not how to be assertative in relationships or leave ones that are bad. Of course, men need to better reared too.

The priest bit was a bit of my own hyperbole, but it was influenced by the writer's remarks that "even with a boy from church, I do not regard him is a 0 threat." Since, no one is truly ever a 0 threat, this kind of statement in an article such as this conveys the message that a man is not the normal kind of non-0 threat that everyone else possess. But a special kind of non-0 threat that needs extra, conscious considerations at all times.

[daydreamer]

"Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is. When I go on a date, I always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry. If she doesn’t hear from me by three or so, she’ll call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these?"

i understand this. i lived in an area like this in college. difficult to make friends living in such an environment. i feared for my safety any time from dusk on and each step further i took from high street (the main drag.) i remember looking out of the bars of my apartment window and seeing a native with a baby stroller as it was approaching dark one fall evening, and thinking, how odd, that she was safe enough to do that. but i'm sure she knew what she was doing, because she'd lived there much longer, had family there, knew other people. mostly what i knew was, the locals preyed on the students. students were a naive, transient population. but nothing was going to happen to me, because i was already inside.

granted, it was a ghetto, and there were racial issues as well. but the violence level was high, and largely unacknowledged by those who could make a difference. that feeling stayed with me when i moved to california, and it took a long time to shake. i'm still friends with some guys from college, and whenever i have brought up the violence, their comments had been something to the effect of, "well yeah, stuff happened, but nothing really bad ever happened to you, right? i mean, it wasn't that bad, was it?" no, not being able to feel safe in my apartment, not being able to come and go when i need to, no, being a prisoner like that for 6 years, nah, no sweat. it totally sucks.

maybe most women don't feel like that all the time, and maybe it is extreme, but a lot of women -- too many -- have felt that intensely for some part of their lives, and it has an effect on the rest.

[firebee]

About that "meeting a nice wife" thing...

I'm an introvert. Consistently introverted. 100% I. Certain kinds of social interaction strip my mental gears in short order. Have been this way as far back as I can remember, and have been hearing admonitions about the inadvisability of being very limited in the degree to which I am open to people for as long as I can remember. Hence, I have this strange psychic feeling that someone has itchy keyboard fingers to tell me that I shouldn't cut off that guy with the neck tattoos "before he even gets a chance" (actually, he's had one and has already lost it). That I should open my eyes, and et cetera.

Here is some reality for what the bus-encounter guy is up against:

I am a student in a notoriously challenging masters program who is struggling with managing her time and attention. I am currently dating two people, am making some degree of overtures to two or three more, and wouldn't be averse to interviewing a fourth or a fifth if I thought I had a snowball's chance in hell which I almost certainly don't. All seven of these people, as well as myself, are kinky. And not just fuzzy-handcuffs kinky, but leather titleholder, collar-wearing, universal precautions required sort of kinky. Four of these people, as well as myself, are women. These things constitute somewhat challenging factors as far as conducting a relationship with me goes -- hell, it's a bit of a challenge to be me -- and the reality is that men who are making overtures to women in places where the walls are not painted black are by and large not up for the full firebee.

Now, when a random guy performs the standard public approach, this is not something that I've never seen before. Actually I've seen it quite a lot, and it is obvious from the moment that the guy first lays eyes on me that he sees me as an attractive woman and wants to try his chances. It is also usually obvious from the moment the guy first lays eyes on me that his chances are nil. So. Am I going to explain to this guy that I've never seen before in my life that "Look, kid, I'm poly, bi, and kinky, and also very busy. You come across as weak, and I don't find you sexually attractive"? Not so much. I raise the book, instead. That's not me being ignorant of the advance or failing to give the dude the once-over, that's "failed the initial interview".

I'd say I'm sorry, but I'm not. Them's the breaks.

This issue is one of the major themes of that article: that regardless of what generic-you might think of what safety precautions you think I should be taking, or what sorts of social interaction you think I should find tolerable, or who you think I ought to be considering for dating purposes, you don't get to make those decisions, I do. Hence, as the author points out in the very article, it does not matter if I am signaling "go-away" because I am busy, because my dance card is full, or because I am frightened; the person who gets to make the decision has made it, and the only remaining question is whether the decision is going to be respected.

If it's not? If this guy is looking at a woman that he doesn't know and saying "Hey, I get to make decisions for you"? That's a problem. Depending on the circumstances, possibly a Problem sort of problem. Given this, why in the world would any person of good intent want to be "that guy" if they can avoid it?

---------- Post added 12-05-2009 at 03:14 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The plain implicaiton is to not approach women in crowded subway cars.

And yet, merely two sentences later, the author gives instructions (as quoted above) concerning how to accomplish just that. A curious conundrum, is it not? Possibly, one might come to the conclusion that there is a degree of subtlety involved and that the take-home point is to think about your surroundings with respect to the principle of...

	Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach her.

... rather than to take a rough enumeration as to areas which might not meet this criteria as some sort of stone-tablet law.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I didn't think it was the note alone that made the woman paranoid. It was the accumlation of all she was doing. She didn't just leave a not, she didn't just let a friend know where is going to be.

She followed a slightly less stringent method of managing her personal safety than that which is an expected standard in my community. She did something that would be considered entirely unremarkable and sensible if she was hiking or bouldering or otherwise going someplace where she could meet with misfortune in an area where she might not be readily found. Which, as it happens, was exactly what she was doing.

Which brings me to a certain itch that has been itching in my cranium for quite a lot of this thread: A lot of the things this woman is saying, if I framed them as "Because I'm an introvert" or "Because I want my friends to know where to send the search parties when I break my ankle" or "Because behavior like that demonstrates immense social ineptitude", they'd not raise an eyebrow. But put it in the context of a woman who is evaluating what a man that she doesn't know well is up to, and all of a sudden it's freaky weird and unreasonable. And that? I find freaky weird. Also unreasonable.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The entire air of the artilce is that women are justificably helpless victims.

I think that air was probably not put in the article by the practitioner of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and licensed private investigator who wrote it.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Now, I do understand that women are physically weaker than most potential attackers, and thus, certain preventions are prudent that a man may not find necessary. But it's the height at which this level of precaution has been raised which is startling.

From what I see, her level of precaution has been raised to the dizzying height of "using safe calls" and "not going certain places alone at night". In New York City. Personally, I don't find this particularly startling; many people I know, women and men, do pretty much exactly that. If these precautions are beyond what you consider prudent, what set of precautions would you find it acceptable for her to take?

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The truth is, most women are physically abused/raped/sexually assaulted by someone they know. Society is teaching women to be fearful of the man in the parking lot. But, not how to be assertative in relationships or leave ones that are bad.

Method of recognizing bad relationships: See if the person who is in the relationship listens to what you say and endeavors to respect your boundaries. To take an example that the author herself gave:

	If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.

Also, it should be noted that this article is not giving advice to women about what they should do, it is informing men what women do do. Not every woman is a confident badass with a black belt who thinks nothing of hanging around on a Colfax street corner because she is just that fucking awesome. Some women are terribly fearful people who use safe calls when they go out on dates. Some women have been raped and have PTSD from it, and boxing them into a corner is going to be about as well-received as throwing a string of Black Cats in front of someone who just got back from Iraq.

The article is about being polite, and "being polite" is not inclusive of the concept that people you don't know have to provide five-paragraph essays justifying how you're viewed in light of their personal history -- which in this scenario, is something that by definition you don't know.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Of course, men need to better reared too.

Such as by explaining to them that they need to listen to what women are telling them and respect their decisions about their comfort and personal safety? I agree.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Since, no one is truly ever a 0 threat, this kind of statement in an article such as this conveys the message that a man is not the normal kind of non-0 threat that everyone else possess.

You know what's funny here? You were just directly above talking about how women are at non-zero risk from men they know -- presumably, this includes their fellow church members, sons of their mother's friends, et cetera. Now, when the author says much the same thing, because of "the sort of article it is" (and what kind of article is it? the sort that contains "airs" that aren't readily supported by evidence and which are contradicted by the text of the article, evidently), that statement has all kinds of extra ominous implicationness about it.

Look, I do understand the impulse to /facepalm when the topic of women's self-defense comes up, or when someone presents the perceptions of some women who have gone through moderately-unusual extreme experiences as being typical of all women. In this case, though, I really think you're reading an article that bears little resemblance to the one that the author wrote, and I think that the article that the author wrote is a more useful article to read.

And I don't necessarily want to rip people's arms off and beat them in the head with it. At least mostly I don't. But it looks to me like something that is basically a call for civility is being made into a manifesto of man-hating because of a lot of extraneous stuff that floats around the topic of male-female relationships. So I'm sorry if I left your guts all over the floor, but I'm a nice person really...

[Titian]

The point of the article is quite simple. It is aimed at "nice" guys and it is giving them one specific instruction. They are informed to become more empathetic if they are not already. Because of this they are told about reading body language. They are asked to understand and be considerate of another person's feelings. They are asked to associate with another person's situation. They are asked to conform to what is identifiable as non-threatening. All of this is targeted at the guy an author would actually want to know and not at Schrödinger’s Rapist.

If you identify the reader as Schrödinger’s Rapist then it is not logical to wish for them to read the article. After all, if Schrödinger’s Rapist could read, understand, and conform to these expectations then the standards can no longer be used to differentiate him from Mr. Nice Guy.

I do not think the author really believed the article was likely to be read by anyone other than women and nice guys. So it probably has a dual purpose in delivering an identifiable "We have reasons to be cautious" message to women and a "You have reasons to be nice" message to men. Both of these instructions are common knowledge for the types of people intended to receive the message and the content is simply designed (whether perceived as occasionally dramatic or not) around detailing what are considered important distinctions.

This is ultimately no different than the stereotype expectations that some men expect from women. The guy and girl are told to be careful about appearance, behavior, and situation.

"Now that you’re aware that there’s a problem, you are going to go out of your way to fix it, and to make the women with whom you interact feel as safe as possible."

The rules are simple. The woman is in control. The woman will choose her mate by an evaluation process. The process will involve judging the man's appearance and it will involve judging his conformity to her social expectations. The woman is likely to signal interest and disinterest through body language and this communication is already final. Ignoring the communication or showing a lack of awareness of it will get an increasingly negative result. At last, ignoring the first rule is the worst possible action. Do not take control.

Now, I have been raped as I have mentioned before and the only rule that I know that applies to rape is the first one. The man who raped me as a child was married. He had already been evaluated as suitable by a woman. As far as I know he never raped his wife. He dressed nicely with clean clothes. He had a short and fairly stylish haircut. He did not have a beard. He gave a calm, reserved, respectful, and intelligent impression. He attended church and was a respected member of his community. He was wealthy. His favorite hobby was reading. He was also very good at reading body language and could make almost anyone feel at ease around him. I do not remember feeling threatened by anything about him prior to the rape. I do remember him being soothing, gentle, and inescapably strong. This happened in a home where I had felt safe. There is, in fact, only the smallest difference between this man and someone that I should enjoy dating according to the article.

The girl who raped me was unknown to me. I was at a party because of my band and I had gone somewhere to be alone for a while. Apparently I was followed by some girl who had attended the show. Some of my friends thought they had seen her around at the party but no one could provide enough information to catch her. I left a drink sitting on a table in the room where I was and went to the bathroom. While I was gone she had come into the room and drugged it. She apparently waited for me to pass out. A couple of my friends saw her leaving the room as they were looking for me and found me. When I woke up it was obvious that I'd had sex and I knew I hadn't chosen to do it. The various descriptions of the girl said she was reasonably attractive with normal clothes and basic longer straight hair. Someone who had spoken to her briefly said she seemed friendly and happy. This had happened in a high traffic public place. In other words she was also probably just the slightest off from someone that I might date.

I would have been wrong in both cases. I have not been wrong in picking guys to be friends with who are anti-social, have long hair, dress in eccentric fashion, have unusual beliefs, aren't always seen in the company of woman, or innocently will imagine they can casually be friendly with anyone. So between my experience and the author's advice there is only one consistency. You should be careful and considerate. In my opinion this goes both ways.

It honestly does not make any sense to approach someone who is not giving you decently clear signals of interest. You don't want to end up with someone who doesn't actually want you. You'd rather be with someone that likes you a lot. I also don't see any point in insulting and automatically rejecting someone who does show signs of liking you a lot. There can always be some really positive thing about someone that is just as hard to read as the really negative thing about someone else.

Unfortunately, the thing that you can be certain about is there is no perfect way to prevent rape or other violent crimes. The very best precautions will fail some of the time. So what is of utmost importance is being prepared to deal with having been hurt. Just like not running with scissors is great common sense there is also a great deal of sense to having the resources to heal cuts. This is what happens to most victims. They are surprised and unprepared. Whatever their habits were did not do enough. What was reasonable was not enough. This is true every time it happens whether rape happens to a bad girl, a good girl, a stupid girl, an extremely smart girl, a weak girl, or an extremely strong girl. You cannot guarantee that it doesn't happen. So if it is true "That possibility is never 0%." then the first priority is preparing for the result of that possibility because this makes the biggest difference in your life after it has happened.

[Sinequanon]

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

About that "meeting a nice wife" thing... I'm an introvert. Consistently introverted. 100% I. Certain kinds of social interaction strip my mental gears in short order. Have been this way as far back as I can remember, and have been hearing admonitions about the inadvisability of being very limited in the degree to which I am open to people for as long as I can remember. Hence, I have this strange psychic feeling that someone has itchy keyboard fingers to tell me that I shouldn't cut off that guy with the neck tattoos "before he even gets a chance" (actually, he's had one and has already lost it). That I should open my eyes, and et cetera.

It seems like most of this stuff, and the ensuing rhetorical passion, is rooted in your introversion and not in your gender, though. I could easily say the same thing whenever I'm on public transit, because I have my headphones on and am either intently playing a game and shutting the world out, or reading a book (yes, I do this with music on because LEAVE ME ALONE
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
).

There are dear, dear friends I wouldn't want to talk to when I'm traveling, and people who I know aren't threats (but who I know are stupid) who will not get my signals and continue to talk to me on the bus. I don't think this needs to be a gendered issue. If Megan Fox (or insert other typically attractive person) herself attempted to chat me up on the bus while I was trying to concentrate on regaining some energy in an annoying, public place, I'd be hard pressed to make the conversation happen.

You more come off as an introvert who values her space in public places than a woman who fears rape around every corner. The article comes across as the latter way more than the former.

---------- Post added 12-05-2009 at 08:59 AM ----------

I didn't realize you'd said this:

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

Which brings me to a certain itch that has been itching in my cranium for quite a lot of this thread: A lot of the things this woman is saying, if I framed them as "Because I'm an introvert" or "Because I want my friends to know where to send the search parties when I break my ankle" or "Because behavior like that demonstrates immense social ineptitude", they'd not raise an eyebrow. But put it in the context of a woman who is evaluating what a man that she doesn't know well is up to, and all of a sudden it's freaky weird and unreasonable. And that? I find freaky weird. Also unreasonable.

Probably because it's more reasonable to say "I take precaution necessary for each individual situation" or "I am an introvert and I know I have troubles with public interactions with people of just about every stripe" than it is to say "Every man I meet is a potential rapist"?

FTR, I do not think of every woman I meet as a potential sex object, and I know there are guys who do, and I think it's equally sad.

[Storm]

Firebee, my problem with the article really lies in its gender lines and it's idea that men must be careful around women because women are thinking of them as rapists. But the reverse dont' apply. If you take out this important bit of the article - it just becomes an article about being polite and reading body language in general. It is the gender lines which gives this article its spin.

The advice it gives isn't anything extraordinary or anything which doens't apply to every soul in a heavily urban population (I again think it's important to note that some of her behavior would be considered extremely rude in other settings).

Her advice is "If someone is sending the clear signals to back off, back off."

I think if the article was about "I am introvered, therefore don't talk to me," my reaction would be similar, or perhaps even more annoyed. Some people, when they are reading a book don't mind being interrupted. I, personally, even being an introvert, do not mind being interrupted in public when reading. Sometimes I don't want to be, and if I am, I tell the person so. Sometimes, though, I don't mind. I have met many interesting people in cafes and such when they interrupt me or I interrupt them because the book being read is interesting looking. Your personal preferences do not apply to the population at large. They do not even apply to the female to male population at large.

As Titaian said, being stand offish and expecting the world to conform to you, especially on sexist gender lines (can woman interrupt you while you're reading? The article implied this was only a man interrupting a woman scenario) will probably not decrease your chances of rape. Actually leaving with a man you don't know would increase them. Hanging out alone in an abandoned alley probably increases your chances. But, sometimes, like Titain, nothing helps. The world just kind of sucks that way.

I lock my car and don't leave it in bad neighborhoods. It still might get broken into (especially given where I live). That doesn't mean I need to freak out if anyone dares walks near it.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	(I again think it's important to note that some of her behavior would be considered extremely rude in other settings).

[citation needed]

Also, whether a behavior is rude or not is often largely determined by the setting; slapping someone on the ass with a riding crop is quite rude in many settings, but that does not mean that there is no occasion where a polite person may do that.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think if the article was about "I am introvered, therefore don't talk to me," my reaction would be similar, or perhaps even more annoyed.

Tough cookies. Introvert or woman, people get to choose who they interact with and where they engage in interaction. Also, does it strike you as just a little strange that your characterization of an article that consists mostly of advice of the sort "how to talk to me" is "therefore, don't talk to me"? Because it sure does seem odd to me.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	(can woman interrupt you while you're reading? The article implied this was only a man interrupting a woman scenario)

No, they can't either. Except when they can, as indicated by their initial approach being met by "look up from book, make eye contact for a beat, smile broadly" rather than "glance up from book, polite half-smile, return to reading." Just like with men, I really appreciate it when women get the message early and I don't have to deliver it in words. But for some reason, I predict subtly different behavior from women in the public space; I've never had a woman that I did not already know personally make sexual advances on me in public full stop, and I've certainly never had one persist in doing so to the point of creeping me out. Can't say that for guys.

[Storm]

I've had women insist on talking to me who I didn't want to talk to. I am shocked this has never happened to you.

The article is has then been reduced to a "how to appraoch people in public" by you. But that wasn't the entire tone. The tone was that aimed at men approaching women. Take it out of context and it's something else entirely.

As for the cultural difference. Where I live, if someone asks you a question, you don't act like a jerk toward them. You politely smile and look up and say "I'm so sorry, but I really need to concentrate on this book" or something to that effect. You don't get all offended that they made the small social mistake of misinterpreting your body language.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've had women insist on talking to me who I didn't want to talk to. I am shocked this has never happened to you.

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just like with men, I really appreciate it when women get the message early and I don't have to deliver it in words.

One might gather from this statement that I have at some point encountered potentially-talkative women who have done things that I appreciate. Also women that have not done things that I appreciate. This would be an accurate interpretation of what I said. Another interpretation of what I said is that while women have approached me in public, no woman has ever approached me in public with the clear intent of interacting with me as an attractive woman whom they would want to date. This is not a meaningless distinction, as "intent to date" somewhat raises the probability that the person will be more insistent than is comfortable, will do inappropriate things of a sexual nature, or will react to my electing out of the interaction with explicit offense.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The article is has then been reduced to a "how to appraoch people in public" by you. But that wasn't the entire tone. The tone was that aimed at men approaching women. Take it out of context and it's something else entirely.

I have reduced the article to "the particular subset of how to approach people in public that involves men approaching women". How is that not a reasonable characterization of the article?

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As for the cultural difference. Where I live, if someone asks you a question, you don't act like a jerk toward them. You politely smile and look up and say "I'm so sorry, but I really need to concentrate on this book" or something to that effect.

Where I live, the following:

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"glance up from book, polite half-smile, return to reading."

is a perfectly reasonable equivalent of that. So is what comes next, which is "Answer the question succinctly or give a brief polite acknowledgement token, in a tone which conveys the assumption that the exchange is now concluded". Likewise with the next action, which is "Whilst projecting 'nice': Indicate the distracting object, smile, and return to the distracting object." Likewise with the repeating of the above while projecting "Nice delivery of clue".

Once a person has missed or ignored all of those things, it starts to strike me as fairly likely that they're not going to react well to the 'splaining, either.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You don't get all offended that they made the small social mistake of misinterpreting your body language.

Most of the time, I am motivated not by offense but rather:

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I strongly prefer not to have to say directly, "Please leave me alone," because it takes a person up short and they're likely to be hurt by it, so I really favor that they pick up on these signals and naturally end the conversation.

Sometimes it is leavened by "Those four guys who were asking me where I lived and saying that they weren't going to let me walk home alone? We're not going to get off at the same stop, because I don't want to have to say 'Look, y'all are not going to know where I live' to their faces... but they are not going to know where I live."

When I get offended, the social mistake is not a small one.

And I still want to hear precisely what the author did that you consider to be "extremely" rude. Supported by quotes from the actual article. Please.

[cannotseethe]

I was abused as a child. I view all men as a threat (I'm a heterosexual man). I don't feel like I can help it. It's burned into my neurons.

I sit with my back to the wall in restaurants and prefer places with mirrored surfaces. I always know where all the exits from a room are and position myself so that I can reach one; I become nervous when the way out is blocked. I subconsciously take note of, and count, all the people in a room. I subconsciously assess the threat level of everyone. If one of them goes out of my sight, particularly one of the ones on the higher end of the threat spectrum, I become nervous. Violate my personal space without a good reason to do so, and I become nervous. If anything is near my head, anything at all, I become nervous.

When I become nervous about someone, the "what do I minimally have to do to disable this person" thinking begins.

Naturally, I appreciate being around people who do not make me nervous. If someone accidentally trips that circuit, I have to leave the situation. It takes me a half hour, minimum, to calm down. Usually an hour or more. I can look forward to nightmares that night. It's very costly, psychologically, to be there.

Over 20 years have passed, and yes I've had lots of therapy, but this is where I am now. Childhood trauma stays with you for a long time; you really do best thinking in terms of awareness and workarounds, not in terms of cures.

I don't think any of this is odd for someone who has been traumatized. The article resonates quite a lot with me at that level. I may be wrong, but I recognized it as written from a traumatized place. However hyperbolic the article may sound, the message that sang out from it was: you don't know where someone else is coming from, so avoid doing things that will make them nervous. I don't see anything wrong with that advice, given and taken at that level.

The staggering bit is that enough women have been traumatized enough by men that this article has an audience. The perplexing bit is how few men know that. Though I guess there's a relation between those two.

[Night Runner]

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents to show that not all advice given to guys by women is good. Sometimes, it can be quite detrimental...

	Originally Posted by schwartzie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	~Whistling is excellent. It's such a goofy thing, it communicates harmlessness, and lets the listener know exactly where you are without needing to look at you.

I'm a big guy. I have a scary accent. I like to wear leather jackets. I have no idea how to whistle. If I walk past you on the street and do my best to try and whistle a tune, I'll probably freak you out even more than I would have had I stayed silent. I'm not sure how people do things where you live, but hardly anybody ever whistles while walking in my part of the west coast. If anything, doing so will raise eyebrows and red flags...

	Originally Posted by schwartzie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	~When you are alone on a sidewalk at night, cross to the other side and give her space.

Would I absolutely have to do that every single time I happen to be on the same side of the street with a woman? Because that's quite a lot of crossing back and forth.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Besides, what do I do if there's another woman on the other side of the sidewalk? Should I be a gentleman and walk in the middle of the road?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by schwartzie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	~When you are in a small or enclosed space alone (like empty hallway) a quick, "how ya doin,'" with nothing in the voice but "I'm harmless". It gives the woman a socially acceptable reason to look at you, meet your eyes, see your uncomplicated, open, harmless expression and evaluate you "safe". (in the Midwest US this works, anyway; maybe not everywhere...)

See above. A big guy in a leather jacket with a scary accent (though some women find it attractive
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) says "how ya doin'" when "you are in a small or enclosed space alone." I'm pretty sure a lot of women would start reaching for their mace/Taser/Smith&Wesson. Thanks, but no thanks - I happen to like my kneecaps.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by cannotseethe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I was abused as a child. I view all men as a threat (I'm a heterosexual man). I don't feel like I can help it. It's burned into my neurons. [...] I don't think any of this is odd for someone who has been traumatized. The article resonates quite a lot with me at that level. I may be wrong, but I recognized it as written from a traumatized place. However hyperbolic the article may sound

You aren't suggesting that it's reasonable to expect men to presume women are suffering from a post-traumatic stress or generalized anxiety disorder and then take on a casual caretaking role, are you? I think it sounds hyperbolic because it is.

While a terrible crime is the responsibility of the criminal, it seems to me that dealing with lingering trauma is the responsibility of the traumatized. If they need help, it is up to them to seek it. If they require coping strategies, it is up to them to develop such strategies. Society at large needn't tiptoe across eggshells in the meantime. One may expect friends and (to a lesser extent) colleagues to do so, but "men" when dealing with "women"? I'm not so sure about that.

[Storm]

The name of the article is "How to approach a woman without being maced." Here's some of thea advice:

	You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb her.

No one where in the article does it say the woman's appropriate reaction, but given the title, it seems that if you approach such a woman when she didn't want to be approached, it's perfectly fine for her to mace you or scream at you or what have you.

I'm really not making that strong of a point. I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who are extremely sensitive about being approached at all. Or that there aren't people out there who are rude in their approach and need to learn some manners.

My problem was that the article, in its whole, painted a picture of the ENTIRE female population of as being terrified of all men at all times of day in all situations. That women are actively thinking about avoiding being raped at all times. I didn't like how it was written and how it's implied in between the lines that any sort of reaction by a woman (a macing) is entirely justified and is the man's fault for daring to say hello when she's reading a book. That women are fragile and hysterical and that men need to treat them extra carefully because women are justifiably scared little rabbits with their hands on the mace trigger.

Perhaps you didn't read it that way. It seems you read it as a "Guide to not being an Ass to Women" I read it as "WARNING: All women are ready to mace any man if he approaches them incorrectly." It really doesn't help the cause.

[cannotseethe]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You aren't suggesting that it's reasonable to expect men to presume women are suffering from a post-traumatic stress or generalized anxiety disorder and then take on a casual caretaking role, are you?

No. I think, though, that this article straddles the boundary between vigilance and hypervigilance. As I said, I may be wrong, not knowing the author, but I detect hypervigilance in some of what is written. That and the apportionment of responsibility aside, I think the article offers a caution that one should approach a stranger with the assumption that one's presence is at best neutral and at worst unwanted, unless there is reason to believe otherwise; and to break off contact as soon as "go away" is projected.

That last bit does not seem controversial. The rest (the author's tone) might be forgiven so that this part of the message is not lost.

[firebee]

I think a better lesson to take home from it is this:

Let's say that I come on to a mostly-empty bus, and I sit in the aisle seat next to a guy, and I decide he's kinda cute so I'm going to do my famous impression of a walrus, which everyone finds hilarious. He doesn't find it hilarious, though; he looks rather withdrawn and nervous. I therefore decide that he is a truly sad case who needs MORE WALRUS, to which he responds with further signs of discomfort, anxiety, and outright fear. At the first reasonable opportunity, he bolts from the bus.

It turns out that when he was five, his mother was eaten by a walrus in front of him. Obviously, I could not have predicted that, and being as the experience is quite uncommon it wouldn't be prudent to remove the W-word from my vocabulary entirely. However, it is within my power to do things that reduce the degree to which I avoid making unwelcome impositions on other people and potentially terrifying those who are carrying around unpleasant personal histories of which I know nothing: I can act with due consideration to the common reactions that we have as animals that do not like to be eaten (not blocking in, observing personal space bubble rules, et cetera) and endeavoring to observe and respond appropriately to signs that something that I am doing is bothering someone else even if I don't understand why.

Usually people don't lack for reasons why they react badly to certain things. Usually, I am not entitled to know or require that I approve of those reasons.

[Storm]

I agree with that.

I don't agree with the sentiment that all women who don't want to be approached are reacting in such a way because they are fearing rape. The man in your example bolted from the bus - this is acceptable. He could aslo have told you he didn't like your impression and to stop. Punching you would not have been okay.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No one where in the article does it say the woman's appropriate reaction,

... so it seems pretty reasonable to make up a hyperbolic one and attribute it to the author.

You stated that the some of the author's behavior would be considered extremely rude in other settings. This would lead one to believe that there is an example of something that the author has actually done -- not that you assume she's done (much as Slacker above assumed that it seemed reasonable that I might have delivered a crippling injury to a person directly outside a crowded restaurant for no particularly good reason and was willing to talk about it casually on the internets) and not something that you infer that she supports based on an eyecatching title -- but a concrete behavior that the author has actually described herself doing, which would be extremely rude.

I am beginning to think that you are finding it difficult to find such an example. Possibly there is a reason for this?

[daydreamer]

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

You aren't suggesting that it's reasonable to expect men to presume women are suffering from a post-traumatic stress or generalized anxiety disorder and then take on a casual caretaking role, are you? I think it sounds hyperbolic because it is. While a terrible crime is the responsibility of the criminal, it seems to me that dealing with lingering trauma is the responsibility of the traumatized. If they need help, it is up to them to seek it. If they require coping strategies, it is up to them to develop such strategies. Society at large needn't tiptoe across eggshells in the meantime. One may expect friends and (to a lesser extent) colleagues to do so, but "men" when dealing with "women"? I'm not so sure about that.

"men" dealing with "women" ? yes... there is a long and respectable tradition of teaching men how to treat the fairer sex. ironically, it's not fair. it's not fair for women to be weaker either. but it is the way it is.

a society that practices respect for those unfair differences, ie., teaching men that they have a special responsibility in the treatment of women by virtue of the fact that they are the stronger sex, is the better society imo than one that teaches a naive right to sameness where sameness does not exist.

[plotthickens]

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

Which brings me to a certain itch that has been itching in my cranium for quite a lot of this thread: A lot of the things this woman is saying, if I framed them as "Because I'm an introvert" or "Because I want my friends to know where to send the search parties when I break my ankle" or "Because behavior like that demonstrates immense social ineptitude", they'd not raise an eyebrow. But put it in the context of a woman who is evaluating what a man that she doesn't know well is up to, and all of a sudden it's freaky weird and unreasonable. And that? I find freaky weird. Also unreasonable.

THIS. Very much this.

You have the choice to determine who talks to you. What experiences you have had in the past determine your choice. If you don't want to talk to them, then they should respect that choice. It does not matter what that other person is thinking about -- both parties have to want to converse.

The complaints on this board seem to be "If I want to chat her up, she should let me!" It doesn't matter WHY she doesn't want to let you. If she doesn't want to, leave her alone. If you REALLY want a chance, the article lays out some things that will help. If you ignore the advice (your choice), your chance of chatting her up may be significantly decreased. Talk/type until your fingers fall off... you cannot argue anyone out of not wanting to talk to you. Ignoring the article's advice decreases your chance of sweet sweet lovin. Following the advice will make you more acceptable to ALL of the population. I really can't see the problem here.

Please note that a highly rude and inflammatory statement is hidden below.

( Show Spoiler )

Your dick getting hard does not give you the right to interrupt her or make her nervous. This is how to HELP YOU GET MACED. Ignore the article in favor of your wishes and/or hormones at your own risk.

Prefrontal Cortex. Helpful add-on to standard monkey issue. Helps with finding a willing partner. Give it a try.

[Zsych]

@plotthickens: I thought you were a woman
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Alright, my first reaction: This is a diseased way of thinking. I don't care if there are statistics to support it a little. Those statistics aren't really being understood in context. And I personally, would never want to be in a relationship with a woman who thought this way at all.

I have very low respect for people who let themselves be ruled by fear or who want to view themselves as victims. If you're concerned about safety, go learn martial arts, and if some guy actually does do something stupid, tear his arm off! break his nose, bite his flesh off!

Anyway, if 1 out of a 1000 women will get raped in the year, in the US as a whole, the chances of you being one of them aren't high to begin with. Then prison rapes, and rapes inside marriages (that I rather doubt are usually serious things.. could just be 'didn't feel like having sex at the time' as opposed to 'really desperately did not want to'), and overall rapes that occur in the less educated, lower income parts of society, are all being factored into that 1 / 1000.

Let's say if you were dating an educated INTJ. INTJs generally being less likely to commit crime than various other groups. Your chances of getting raped would be yet much lower.

There's a difference between a problem deserving mild concern and serious perpetual concern. You're twice as likely to be in a car accident in a year as you are to suffer any form of sexual assault (which could be something like some drunk guy at a bar kissing you). I doubt you're perpetually worried about being in a car accident when you go out driving. You likely don't even give it a second thought, and being in car accidents is probably a little less affected by cultural/circumstantial/etc matters (of course, if you're in New York, you may as well expect to get hit at some point... so I suppose those statistics are a little screwed there also)


Sexual assaults against men constitute ten percent of all assaults, or women are nine times more likely to get sexually assaulted. Which means that really if you're going to worry, men have a little less reason to be worried. But if women should be worried based on statistics then men should also be worried. Sorry, that's not a positive way of thinking.



Now, sexual assault I may not personally worry about, I have however been held up at gun point once. I admit that lets say I see a dirty looking black guy with his hands behind his back (holding who knows what) knocking at my door(no offense intended to our African American friends here, I'm just making it sound bad), I still open the door. Its disrespectful to that person to assume ill intent beforehand.
If someone asks me for a ride on the road, I admit I'll scan them for a second for obvious weaponry (which could be well hidden), and I'll give them a ride, where some others wouldn't. Because its a disgusting thing to be afraid of other people when they have not given you cause. You insult them, you insult yourself, and you promote a negative viewpoint that does not need to be spread any further.

Frankly, if a woman thinks like what you're suggesting, all of them are welcome to put up signs or wear some kind of indicator of their views, and we'll not bother talking to any of them at all. Seriously, we don't need these women, and our lives will be just as good without ever talking to them. Probably better.

[daydreamer]

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

@plotthickens: I thought you were a woman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Alright, my first reaction: This is a diseased way of thinking. I don't care if there are statistics to support it a little. Those statistics aren't really being understood in context. And I personally, would never want to be in a relationship with a woman who thought this way at all. I have very low respect for people who let themselves be ruled by fear or who want to view themselves as victims. If you're concerned about safety, go learn martial arts, and if some guy actually does do something stupid, tear his arm off! break his nose, bite his flesh off!

i'll agree thinking this way is not ideal. it's not the happiest place to be.

do you have a low level of respect for entire cultures who live this way? say... israel? the entire country has been on a heightened state of alert for generations because of a real threat. you know, there's an old joke that the difference between the usa and israel is that in the united states, people look at the contents of your bags as you leave the store, to see if you've stolen something, whereas in israel, they look at the contents of your bag as you come into a store to make sure you're not carrying a bomb. (the difference isn't as marked in recent years..)

i personally would never want to live in a country like that... but i don't blame them for understanding the risks, paying attention to their fears.

perhaps israelis just need to learn martial arts.

[Storm]

Firebee, I stated that the name of the article is "How not to get maced." Thus, the author is implying very strongly that the appropriate reaction from the woman is to mace a man who is making social blunders, such as saying "hi" when she doesn't him to. This is where the ridiculous comes in.

Also, being stand offish, which I have quoted above, is extremely rude. This does not mean (plotthickens) that I'm advocating that a woman should "let a man chat her up." It means, you firmly and politely move on.

Example: (Not from the article, but reasonably inferred)

A woman is at the grocery store. She is picking out some cheese. A man walks up to her and says something like "Geez! These cheeses look great. What kind are you getting? I like the chedder myself."

Rude: Giving the man a rude stare and completely ignores him.

Polite: "I always get the munster myself. Thanks, though. Well, I best be on my way." (followed by turning the body and walking away.)

The article implied, maybe you didn't think it implied this, that any sort of reaction from a woman is a-ok.

[MartinH]

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

Unfortunately, the thing that you can be certain about is there is no perfect way to prevent rape or other violent crimes. The very best precautions will fail some of the time. So what is of utmost importance is being prepared to deal with having been hurt. Just like not running with scissors is great common sense there is also a great deal of sense to having the resources to heal cuts. This is what happens to most victims. They are surprised and unprepared. Whatever their habits were did not do enough. What was reasonable was not enough. This is true every time it happens whether rape happens to a bad girl, a good girl, a stupid girl, an extremely smart girl, a weak girl, or an extremely strong girl. You cannot guarantee that it doesn't happen. So if it is true "That possibility is never 0%." then the first priority is preparing for the result of that possibility because this makes the biggest difference in your life after it has happened.

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

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

[Rudy]

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

You aren't suggesting that it's reasonable to expect men to presume women are suffering from a post-traumatic stress or generalized anxiety disorder and then take on a casual caretaking role, are you? I think it sounds hyperbolic because it is. While a terrible crime is the responsibility of the criminal, it seems to me that dealing with lingering trauma is the responsibility of the traumatized. If they need help, it is up to them to seek it. If they require coping strategies, it is up to them to develop such strategies. Society at large needn't tiptoe across eggshells in the meantime. One may expect friends and (to a lesser extent) colleagues to do so, but "men" when dealing with "women"? I'm not so sure about that.

This. While I'm sympathetic, and while a man might be advised to bear all of this in mind when actually approaching a woman to increase his chances of a successful reception, I fail to see what weight falls on him to modify his behavior when he is doing nothing wrong, and is not making any overtures.

Example: crossing the street when walking alone on a sidewalk with a woman. As far as I'm aware, women can cross streets too, so I do not see it as incumbent on me to modify my behavior to satisfy someone who is afraid of me, and am (just slightly) insulted by the implication that I should. I'm not insulted that she might be afraid of me (which is her right,) but by the idea it is my duty to alleviate this fear, even if I have no intention of dealing with this woman. If the woman crosses the street, then I'm obviously not going to follow her, but that's her decision, not mine.

In terms of leaving people alone when they clearly want to be left alone... well, yeah. I would have hoped that was obvious to anyone of either gender.