Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[TraneWreck]

Wow this got ugly...

[...]

I still think that this woman's philosophy is rooted in an illogical inference and would probally make more sense if it was either made more equitable and broadened in scope and application or else refined a great deal which is how most of the women (and people in general) I know deal with the possibility of being a victim.

What purpose is served by pretending both sides in the debate are being equally uncivil then complaining about their "canned" responses?

And then you just reiterate the silly point with which you began the thread with out bother to explain the "illogic." There is a real danger of sexual assault and the woman is (1) taking proportionate, reasoned measures to avoid that danger and (2) requesting that men stop being creepy ********.

It's funny that people are up in arms about the first one without ever dealing with her actual behavior. She doesn't want to talk to people on the bus. This is "illogical?"

[TraneWreck]

It is quite common in Thailand, it lead to expressions like "If I don't get home soon its too the Ducks for me" because apparently ducks often eat cut off penises.



link (http://boingboing.net/2010/08/12/castration-comics-fr.html)

100 times in the 70's is not "quite common."

By comparison, "Nearly one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. Approximately four million American women experience a serious assault by an intimate partner during a 12-month period."
http://www.findcounseling.com/journal/domestic-violence/domestic-violence-statistics.html

4 million a year vs. 100 forty years ago.

[HansMustermann]

The existence of a popular expression doesn't mean that something literally happens commonly or even at all. It's really metaphoric or allegoric language.

After all, we talk about some show jumping the shark, and actually there isn't any kind of fish involved. We talk about someone chewing your ear off, but that hardly ever literally happens. The last famous case was Mike Tyson, innit? We say stuff like "the boss has been riding my ass all morning", but actual sodomy is hardly a common management technique. We talk about grilling some suspect or about raking someone over coals, but that doesn't happen in the literal sense, does it?

Or for a more western equivalent of the ducks quip, we say things like, "I have to go home or the missus will bite my head off", although I think it's actually physically impossible. Unless you've married one of those critters from Alien, anyway.

Basically while those 100 cases are, of course, deplorable and I hope they have been tried and punished, the existence of a funky expression does not mean the literal version is a common occurrence. It just means it sounds memorable enough, really.

[AvalonXQ]

Yes it is.

Here are some more numbers from the bar association:

Do you know any men who have been victims of sexual abuse? Did any of them report it?
I know men who have been victims of sexual abuse. None of them reported it.
I know women victims who also failed to report. I know women who reported. I also know women who recanted, and women who were proven (at least to my satisfaction) to be lying about an assault.
Statistics in this area are skewed by severe underreporting for both men and women, combined with frequent false accusations by women. It would be wonderful if we could find some way to get around these problems and get accurate statistics, but I'm not aware of any. The area is too personal and too taboo.
It is unfortunate that an area so rife with deep impact and damage on victims, is also so subject to misinformation and misdirection. The crime is so commonly evidence-free, and relying on only the testimony of the accuser and the accused.

[TraneWreck]

Do you know any men who have been victims of sexual abuse? Did any of them report it?
I know men who have been victims of sexual abuse. None of them reported it.
I know women victims who also failed to report. I know women who reported. I also know women who recanted, and women who were proven (at least to my satisfaction) to be lying about an assault.

About 3/4 of abuse against men is perpetrated by men.


Statistics in this area are skewed by severe underreporting for both men and women, combined with frequent false accusations by women. It would be wonderful if we could find some way to get around these problems and get accurate statistics, but I'm not aware of any. The area is too personal and too taboo.
It is unfortunate that an area so rife with deep impact and damage on victims, is also so subject to misinformation and misdirection. The crime is so commonly evidence-free, and relying on only the testimony of the accuser and the accused.

So some doubt about the statistics means that we can assume women and men are abused at about the same rate?

There's no fudging of stats on murders. The victims don't really need to do any reporting. Those stats were posted, they show that the problem of men suffering at the hands of women is trivial in comparison to the reverse. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem and shouldn't be dealt with, but trying this infantile reverse sexism nonsense is a waste of time.

The number one leading cause of death among pregnant women is murder. And almost all of those are committed by domestic partners. Finding the exceptional cases of the opposite occurring has no bearing on the effect of domestic violence against women.

"Hey, you don't need to be afraid, little lady. Sure, 4 million women will be abused this year, but maybe a hundred thousand men will be abused by women. Sure, the abuse will be significantly less drastic and severe, but there are a few out there. So smile and flip your hair when I address you on a bus."

Male whining is not a good argument.

[AvalonXQ]

Don't you know that you can't further the rights of women without hating all men and wanting to cut off their penises all the time because feminists are really just ugly and hairy and are all just bitter we weren't prom queen?

The fact that it's possible to be an actual, real gender-equality advocate doesn't change the fact that a lot of feminists are in practice very anti-male. Our society is extremely gender conscious, and as a general rule feminists haven't escaped this; they've just tossed it in a different direction than some others.

[AvalonXQ]

About 3/4 of abuse against men is perpetrated by men.

What proportion of abuse by women against men goes unreported?
Or are your statistics based on rates of reporting?

[TraneWreck]

The fact that it's possible to be an actual, real gender-equality advocate doesn't change the fact that a lot of feminists are in practice very anti-male. Our society is extremely gender conscious, and as a general rule feminists haven't escaped this; they've just tossed it in a different direction than some others.

Show some citations. You're just making this up based on your biases.

If you interpret the words of other feminists as you've done with the article in the OP, you will undoubtedly arrive at a negative opinion of the women's movement. This is, however, your fault for making childish characterizations of their arguments.

I want to see some examples of these men-hating shrews. Extra credit if they're more than a random blogger with 20 people reading their page.

[AvalonXQ]

Wait, so you're honestly making the assertion that American feminists by and large have escaped the same gender biases that essentially color all daily interactions in the United States? Or are you asserting that those gender biases are imaginary?

[AvalonXQ]

And by the way: if you really don't see how "every man is Schroedinger's rapist" is an indication of sexism, I'm not sure that any evidence I would put forward would convince you.

[TraneWreck]

What proportion of abuse by women against men goes unreported?
Or are your statistics based on rates of reporting?

The bureau of justice puts the number of unreported abuse cases at about 1/4th:

http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2009/04/22/over-one-fourth-of-domestic-violence-incidents-go-unreported/

Here are the things we know:

1) Domestic violence is under-reported. This is true of both men and women.
2) Of the reported abuse, the VAST majority of cases involve men attacking women. Of the cases in which a male is a victim, the VAST majority of perpetrators are men.
3) Of reported cases of abuse, the type of abuse suffered by men at the hands of women is less severe and violent.
4) Of the cases that require no reporting, namely murder, women are the victims the VAST majority of the time. And again, when males are the victim, males are the perpetrators, more often then not.

But now you want to argue that somehow in the unreported population we will see a pattern of abuse of women against men sufficient enough to support your contention that women shouldn't be afraid of sexual assault because sometimes men are assaulted. The fact that, for example, about 70-80% of rape cases involving male victims also involve male perpetrators is irrelevant, I suppose (and by the way, I would bet a substantial number of the remaining 20-30% of female raping male cases are statutory rapes, not violent attacks).

Your position is silly and completely unsupported by the facts. Rates of reporting domestic abuse have sky-rocketed over the past few decades. With the increase in these reports, as well as mandatory reporting by officers, social workers, and other health professionals, the ration of female to male victims has barely changed.

You're just making a black-box style argument that, even if it was supported, fails to make your case as the existence of women beating up men does not mean that women have nothing to fear from strange males in vulnerable situations.

[TraneWreck]

And by the way: if you really don't see how "every man is Schroedinger's rapist" is an indication of sexism, I'm not sure that any evidence I would put forward would convince you.

Do you understand the reference to Shroedinger? You realize that in its very construction the author is representing uncertainty?

And once more, according to the OP, what does it mean to be treated like Shroedinger's rapist? It means she doesn't want to talk to you on public transit and asks that you not follow her around.

THE INJUSTICE!!!!!!

[AvalonXQ]

But now you want to argue that somehow in the unreported population we will see a pattern of abuse of women against men sufficient enough to support your contention that women shouldn't be afraid of sexual assault because sometimes men are assaulted.

I never made that argument.
What I would put forward is that women choosing to treat all men as rapists is misandrist and inappropriate, just as choosing to treat all black men as muggers is racist and inappropriate. There's a distinction between being cautious of a real threat (rape and robbery both being real threats, and both being greatly skewed toward one demographic over others) and using it as an excuse to mistreat others or excuse bad behavior.
And what I was specifically speaking out against in the first place was the inappropriateness of lumping all women in with rape victims and all men in with rapists in the discussion of experience. Partially because I absolutely do not believe that sexual assault by women against men is rare. And more importantly, because either way, the problem is a violence problem rather than a gender problem, and you don't have the right to demarcate these groups in a hostile way.

[Professor Yaffle]

From the British Crime Survey - based on interview rather than reporting to police - detailed breakdown of the figures can be found in tables in the report (HOSB 02/09) :

Overall, three in ten (30%) women and two in ten (20%) men had experienced any
domestic abuse since the age of 16 . These figures are equivalent
to an estimated 4.8 million female victims of any domestic abuse since the age of 16 and
3.2 million male victims.

[snip]

Approximately three per cent of women and less than one per cent of men had
experienced a sexual assault (including attempts) in the last year. The majority of this is
accounted for by less serious sexual assault. Less than one per cent of women and men
reported having experienced a serious sexual assault .

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs-publications.html

If we look at just serious sexual assaults, the prevalence for women (after the age of sixteen) was 5.3% compared to 0.6% for men. So one in 20 women will have suffered a serious sexual assault whereas 6 in a thousand men will have experienced the same.

[AvalonXQ]

And once more, according to the OP, what does it mean to be treated like Shroedinger's rapist? It means she doesn't want to talk to you on public transit and asks that you not follow her around.

If I write an article about Schroedinger's mugger, openly asking black people not to talk to me on the train because any one of them could take my wallet, you wouldn't accuse me of racism?
It's Schroedinger's mugger, mind you. There's uncertainty there. Clearly there's no prejudice involved.

[AvalonXQ]

From the British Crime Survey - based on interview rather than reporting to police:


http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs-publications.html

So do we believe that in Britain far more men are abused than in the States? Or do we believe that maybe there are systematic problems with our reporting process?

[HansMustermann]

And by the way: if you really don't see how "every man is Schroedinger's rapist" is an indication of sexism, I'm not sure that any evidence I would put forward would convince you.

Except what she actually says there is that there is a 1 in 60 chance that an unknown male might be a rapist. Supported by actual statistics too. And she doesn't know which of them it is until one actually tries to rape her.

That's all that "Schroedinger's Rapist" there is supposed to mean. Something that might or might not be actually a rapist. And it's quite clearly explained too.

If you have actually read and understood what she said and it's to you an indication of sexism...

[HansMustermann]

If I write an article about Schroedinger's mugger, openly asking black people not to talk to me on the train because any one of them could take my wallet, you wouldn't accuse me of racism?
It's Schroedinger's mugger, mind you. There's uncertainty there. Clearly there's no prejudice involved.

Ah, yes, the return of the same analogy which isn't actually analogous at all. And it's been only answered to death already. In the same thread too.

But, yeah, let's pretend it's somehow analogous to racism, so you can have your self-righteous fuss.

[SatanicSheep]

What purpose is served by pretending both sides in the debate are being equally uncivil then complaining about their "canned" responses?

Just trying to work around the irrelevant and derailing dogpiles you seem so eager to jump on.


And then you just reiterate the silly point with which you began the thread with out bother to explain the "illogic." There is a real danger of sexual assault and the woman is (1) taking proportionate, reasoned measures to avoid that danger and (2) requesting that men stop being creepy ********.

It's funny that people are up in arms about the first one without ever dealing with her actual behavior. She doesn't want to talk to people on the bus. This is "illogical?"

I guess I could type "inference fallacy" and "stereotype" one more time but if you didn't get it the first ten times I don't know why you would now.

[Sun Countess]

So do you think it would be less prejudiced and more rational if the author decided that any unknown person - male or female - was a potential rapist?

And for anybody who thinks it's somehow "antisocial" for somebody to not want to talk to you or sit right next to you on an otherwise empty bus, I'm just wondering why you think any stranger is obligated to entertain you. We're not talking about people behaving in an antisocial way while they're at work or out shopping in public. The author brings up specific situations where a woman may be more alert to the dangers at hand. When she's alone, at night, in enclosed settings where she may find it harder to escape if it comes to that.

I go through similar thought processes to this woman, and it's not a constant fear, and it's also not about being cruel or unfair to men in general. It's saying that if I'm alone on a street or on a bus, I'm allowed to be wary of a strange man who approaches me and ask him to leave me alone. Where is it written that every man has the right to have a strange woman entertain him or give him directions?

I have five brothers, a husband, and a son. I adore men. I love their company. But I'm still going to be distrustful of a strange man approaching me if I'm in a vulnerable situation. I'm not going to mace him or start screaming "RAPIST!!" but I'm going to make sure that I have an out. I'm going to be wary of certain strange women too (if they're much bigger than me or appear menacing in some other way), but the worry would be over getting mugged, and not about being raped.

eta: But yeah, go ahead and call me prejudiced because I only worry about men raping me and not women. And if a woman does happen to rape me, should I also ask for the morning after pill so as not to appear prejudiced against men? :rolleyes:

[Professor Yaffle]

One thing that does strike me is that the fear of unknown men could be said to be disproportionate compared to the fear of known men. For serious sexual assault and rape, the perpetrator is far more likely to be be someone you know. Less serious sexual assault (flashing, unwanted touching, sexual threat etc) is more likely to be by a stranger. And yet it is far more difficult to shake off the fear of an unknown man attacking you out of the blue than to be wary of all your friends and acquaintances. Of course the corollary is that the less serious sexual assault is also the far more likely thing to happen to you (eg about one in 5 women compared to about one in 20 women for the serious sexual assault).

[TraneWreck]

Just trying to work around the irrelevant and derailing dogpiles you seem so eager to jump on.

The way to do that is insult everyone involved? How high-minded of you.


I guess I could type "inference fallacy" and "stereotype" one more time but if you didn't get it the first ten times I don't know why you would now.

It's not the typing that would make your case, it's an actual argument. Neither an inference fallacy nor a stereotype are present, here.

Saying, "This person could sexually assault me, therefore I will take very mild precautions and request that strangers don't harrass me," is hardly fallacious or a destructive generalization.

Does anyone have any problem with her actual requests? That he personal space be respected in public and that men don't keep bothering her after she's shown no interest? Or are we just pissy about the "Schroedinger's Rapist" phrase?

[SatanicSheep]

Ah, yes, the return of the same analogy which isn't actually analogous at all. And it's been only answered to death already. In the same thread too.

But, yeah, let's pretend it's somehow analogous to racism, so you can have your self-righteous fuss.

Except that it's not just an analogy it happens to be central. Some 80% of convicted rapists are black, but it's wrong to inject race into a risk management scenario, but gender is ok?

[SatanicSheep]

So do you think it would be less prejudiced and more rational if the author decided that any unknown person - male or female - was a potential rapist? :

Yeah



eta: But yeah, go ahead and call me prejudiced because I only worry about men raping me and not women. And if a woman does happen to rape me, should I also ask for the morning after pill so as not to appear prejudiced against men? :rolleyes:

A woman could rape you. She couldn't get you pregnant...

[HansMustermann]

One thing that does strike me is that the fear of unknown men is in fact disproportionate compared to the fear of known men. For serious sexual assault and rape, the perpetrator is far more likely to be be someone you know. Less serious sexual assault (flashing, unwanted touching, sexual threat etc) is more likely to be by a stranger.

IMHO it's hard to reach a conclusion there, actually. We'll never see an actual apples to apples comparison. It could be that the lower rate of rape by strangers is precisely _because_ women are more cautious around strangers. If the standards were reversed, it's hard to say what would happen. It could be that the outcomes would also be reversed.

[TraneWreck]

Except that it's not just an analogy it happens to be central. Some 80% of convicted rapists are black, but it's wrong to inject race into a risk management scenario, but gender is ok?

Yeah, not even close. I can understand why these issues would be so confusing to you when you have such a slanted understanding of the world:

There were 194,270 white and 17,920 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2006. Out of the 194,270 cases involving white victims, 50.6% had white offenders and 16.7% had black offenders, while the 36,620 black victims had a figure of 43% black offenders, the remaining being of other or unreported race, with a negligible number of white offenders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States

So, many more white people are rapists.

[HansMustermann]

Except that it's not just an analogy it happens to be central. Some 80% of convicted rapists are black, but it's wrong to inject race into a risk management scenario, but gender is ok?

Because gender is a much greater actual factor there. If 20% of women were raped by other women, I'd see an analogy, and yes then I'd say they should be careful around both. But outside prison, woman on woman rape is virtually non-existent.

Basically you'd have an analogy with racial profiling if you could point out a crime where actually 99% of the perpetrators are black. And in that case you'd even be justified to be more cautious around blacks.

A woman could rape you. She couldn't get you pregnant...

And the sun could rise in the north-west tomorrow and stay up for 7 days and 4 nights. So what? You're not seriously preparing for that hypothetical possibility, are you?

You can't use a hypothetical "what could theoretically be" to override the real "what actually is."

[HansMustermann]

I guess I could type "inference fallacy" and "stereotype" one more time but if you didn't get it the first ten times I don't know why you would now.

But actually explaining what the actual inference is and where is the fallacy, could go a longer way than just repeating an unsubstantiated vague accusation.

[Augustine]

So many more white people are rapists.

Based on the racial demographics, it would be expected for the sheer number to be greater. However, if you look at the numbers in comparison to the racial composition of the US, a black male is more likely to be a rapist than a white male. Black male rapes are, at a minimum, 16% of rapes of white women and 43% of black women, when comparable racial demographics at the time are around 12%. White males rape white women at a minimum of 50% and black women at a negligible rate, at a time when racial demographics have whites above 60%. So, should a black female have no fear of being raped by a white male, and a white female have more caution around a black male who is statistically (based on demographics) more likely to rape her than the average white male (although she is more likely to be raped by a white male overall)?

[bynmdsue]

Edited for rule 12.

[seewhatflows]

And the sun could rise in the north-west tomorrow and stay up for 7 days and 4 nights. So what? You're not seriously preparing for that hypothetical possibility, are you?

You can't use a hypothetical "what could theoretically be" to override the real "what actually is."

I'm sorry, but this is not okay. Women rape other women all the time, not in the droves that men rape people, but enough so that comparing it to the sun staying up for seven days is total victim erasure.

[HansMustermann]

So basically assuming that the author is a white woman, we have a multiplier of 16/12 for black males vs 50/60 for white males, or 1.33 for black males vs 0.83 for white males. Basically taking a baseline probability of someone being a rapist, you can give it a 33% extra chance for a black guy, vs subtract a 17% chance for a white guy. I'm sorry, but that's basically still in the range where you'd be well advised to be cautious of both.

And it's hardly the 80-20 split that SatanicSheep was implying.

And, either way, it's still not exactly an analogy for male vs females perpetrators when raping a woman.

[HansMustermann]

I'm sorry, but this is not okay. Women rape other women all the time, not in the droves that men rape people, but enough so that comparing it to the sun staying up for seven days is total victim erasure.

Ok, then you give me the number for how many women were raped by other women outside of jail, and then we can scratch our heads and compare numbers and see if a woman should exercise great caution around other women too. I mean, it would be a shame if the author were missing a real threat, right? :)

[seewhatflows]

Ok, then you give me the number for how many women were raped by other women outside of jail, and then we can scratch our heads and compare numbers and see if a woman should exercise great caution around other women too. I mean, it would be a shame if the author were missing a real threat, right? :)

That's not what I'm saying. I called you out for being insensitive, not statistically inaccurate. You have to remember that we're talking about sexual abuse here, which, at least where I come from, is kind of a delicate topic.

[TraneWreck]

Based on the racial demographics, it would be expected for the sheer number to be greater. However, if you look at the numbers in comparison to the racial composition of the US, a black male is more likely to be a rapist than a white male. Black male rapes are, at a minimum, 16% of rapes of white women and 43% of black women, when comparable racial demographics at the time are around 12%. White males rape white women at a minimum of 50% and black women at a negligible rate, at a time when racial demographics have whites above 60%. So, should a black female have no fear of being raped by a white male, and a white female have more caution around a black male who is statistically (based on demographics) more likely to rape her than the average white male (although she is more likely to be raped by a white male overall)?

First, obviously the results are due to the population disparity. Notice the gentleperson I replied to claimed 80% of all rapists are black. I provided evidence to reject that absurd claim.

Second, we continue to slide farther away from the premise of the article in the OP. The author didn't say she was afraid of all men because 1 in 60 was a rapist. She said that in situations where she feels vulnerable, she will often not engage in conversation with strange men because of a continuum of annoyance that could potentially lead to sexual assault.

I would recommend that people re-read the article. Starting with attempting to strike up conversation despite the woman's clear indication that she's not interested, through following her off a bus, to creepy, e-mails, she is talking about how men move from strangers towards people that she is more and more afraid of.

This strawman, that somehow she's walking around in terror of all men, is really a poor interpretation of her point. She's saying that when she's in vulnerable settings, strange men begin with a 1 in 60 chance of being a sexual assailant. This leads her to behave cautiously. As men disresepect her decision to not engage socially, they move up the scale, first towards more annoying, then towards more terrifying.

I still cannot understand why people object to this. All she's asking is to not be harrassed.

[Sun Countess]

Yeah Okay, does it make you feel better now that I am just as concerned about being raped by an unknown woman as by an unknown man? Do you sleep better at night now, knowing that I'm not being prejudicial in my thought processes that have no actual impact on my interactions with over 99% of the people that I meet?

A woman could rape you. She couldn't get you pregnant... She probably won't also give me an STI. And given that I'm an average-sized woman, she's probably a lot closer to my size than most men are, so I have a better chance of fighting her off.

But yeah, I'll just continue to have an irrational fear that bigger, stronger men are more likely than women to rape me, and to think that the consequences of pregnancy and STIs are equally matched when it comes to men, women, and the elderly. (I don't fear elderly people on the bus either....is that being prejudiced? Or is that just being aware of where I have a physical edge?)

[seewhatflows]

First, obviously the results are due to the population disparity. Notice the gentleperson I replied to claimed 80% of all rapists are black. I provided evidence to reject that absurd claim.

Second, we continue to slide farther away from the premise of the article in the OP. The author didn't say she was afraid of all men because 1 in 60 was a rapist. She said that in situations where she feels vulnerable, she will often not engage in conversation with strange men because of a continuum of annoyance that could potentially lead to sexual assault.

I would recommend that people re-read the article. Starting with attempting to strike up conversation despite the woman's clear indication that she's not interested, through following her off a bus, to creepy, e-mails, she is talking about how men move from strangers towards people that she is more and more afraid of.

This strawman, that somehow she's walking around in terror of all men, is really a poor interpretation of her point. She's saying that when she's in vulnerable settings, strange men begin with a 1 in 60 chance of being a sexual assailant. This leads her to behave cautiously. As men disresepect her decision to not engage socially, they move up the scale, first towards more annoying, then towards more terrifying.

I still cannot understand why people object to this. All she's asking is to not be harrassed.

well said.

[Augustine]

So basically assuming that the author is a white woman, we have a multiplier of 16/12 for black males vs 50/60 for white males, or 1.33 for black males vs 0.83 for white males. Basically taking a baseline probability of someone being a rapist, you can give it a 33% extra chance for a black guy, vs subtract a 17% chance for a white guy. I'm sorry, but that's basically still in the range where you'd be well advised to be cautious of both.

And it's hardly the 80-20 split that SatanicSheep was implying.

And, either way, it's still not exactly an analogy for male vs females perpetrators when raping a woman.

Ok, say the odds any man is a rapist is 50%. The odds of any black male being a rapist for a white woman is 66.7%, and the odds of any individual white male being a rapist for a white woman is 41.7%. (In truth, the odds may actually be more divergent if we were to account for intimate partner violence and the number of interracial relationships, but whatever...) Now, regardless of whether, she would be "well advised to be cautious of both", would you agree if she said she was more cautious around black men? Wouldn't she be justified in doing so by the logic so far?

[Augustine]

First, obviously the results are due to the population disparity. Notice the gentleperson I replied to claimed 80% of all rapists are black. I provided evidence to reject that absurd claim.

Second, we continue to slide farther away from the premise of the article in the OP. The author didn't say she was afraid of all men because 1 in 60 was a rapist. She said that in situations where she feels vulnerable, she will often not engage in conversation with strange men because of a continuum of annoyance that could potentially lead to sexual assault.

I would recommend that people re-read the article. Starting with attempting to strike up conversation despite the woman's clear indication that she's not interested, through following her off a bus, to creepy, e-mails, she is talking about how men move from strangers towards people that she is more and more afraid of.

This strawman, that somehow she's walking around in terror of all men, is really a poor interpretation of her point. She's saying that when she's in vulnerable settings, strange men begin with a 1 in 60 chance of being a sexual assailant. This leads her to behave cautiously. As men disresepect her decision to not engage socially, they move up the scale, first towards more annoying, then towards more terrifying.

I still cannot understand why people object to this. All she's asking is to not be harrassed.

Why do you think I object to the original article or her behavior? I do not. I am merely asking if the odds that all strange men start with may also be broken down into odds for strange men of different ethnicities. Obviously it can be broken down into different odds based on body modification practices.

[TraneWreck]

Edited for quote of modded post.

People craving an actual example of irrational fear, here it is.

I notice that those television programs have very few videos of the cave-dwellers harming people in Omaha or Seattle.

4 million women will be abused this year. THroughout the 90's about 1500 women were murdered each year by their male domestic partners. That a 9-11 every other year.

[Furcifer]

Ok, then you give me the number for how many women were raped by other women outside of jail, and then we can scratch our heads and compare numbers and see if a woman should exercise great caution around other women too. I mean, it would be a shame if the author were missing a real threat, right? :)

Still ignoring the fact that 80% of rape victims are under the age of 30, and that:

"Contrary to widespread belief, rape outdoors is rare." - 3.6%

The authors threat assessment is nonsense. Some random guy on the bus isn't going to rape her. It just doesn't happen.

Her worry about a date, and the measures she takes to prevent that, and assuming the guy she is going out with is a "potential rapist", totally warranted. There's no where near the 1 in 6 chance, or the 1 in 60 chance she claims, but it is warranted.

[bookitty]

Still ignoring the fact that 80% of rape victims are under the age of 30, and that:

"Contrary to widespread belief, rape outdoors is rare." - 3.6%

The authors threat assessment is nonsense. Some random guy on the bus isn't going to rape her. It just doesn't happen.


Ok, great no rape. Whew! (Although rare doesn't equal none but we'll let that slide.) But what about groping, pawing or pressing up against her? Is that a possibility?

[Furcifer]

4 million women will be abused this year. THroughout the 90's about 1500 women were murdered each year by their male domestic partners. That a 9-11 every other year.

And 34000 people die each year in vehicle accidents.

Why is she on the bus full of rapists? :rolleyes:

[bookitty]

I still cannot understand why people object to this. All she's asking is to not be harrassed.

I find it odd that this paragraph has been ignored:
So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone. 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.

It is a concrete reason for women to react negatively to a stranger's advances. Yet there has been more focus on the practicality of a woman's concern.

[TraneWreck]

Why do you think I object to the original article or her behavior? I do not. I am merely asking if the odds that all strange men start with may also be broken down into odds for strange men of different ethnicities. Obviously it can be broken down into different odds based on body modification practices.

Yeah, sorry, didn't mean to direct that at just you.

You could certainly break down the odds, but my point was simply that there was more to her argument than just a cold calculation of statistics. There's a line of argumentation popping up that the rational/irrational nature of the OP article can be reduced, and I would say that leaves out quite a bit of what she actually wrote.

[TraneWreck]

And 34000 people die each year in vehicle accidents.

Why is she on the bus full of rapists? :rolleyes:

And thus it's a good idea to not drink and drive and wear seatbelts.

Rational precautions.

[Professor Yaffle]

Yes, more "minor" sexual assault is much more common and more likely to be perpetrated by a stranger. Plus there is not much you can do to avoid rape by a boyfriend etc unless you are never alone with them, which is a very drastic step to take.

[bookitty]

Yes, more "minor" sexual assault is much more common and more likely to be perpetrated by a stranger. Plus there is not much you can do to avoid rape by a boyfriend etc unless you are never alone with them, which is a very drastic step to take.

Admittedly, this could have been specifically addressed in the article. I can only surmise that the feeling of violation counts as rape, although people tend to take it less seriously. Perhaps the author was trying to keep it succinct and avoided degrees of sexual assault lumping it all under "rape."

[Furcifer]

Ok, great no rape. Whew! (Although rare doesn't equal none but we'll let that slide.) But what about groping, pawing or pressing up against her? Is that a possibility?

It certainly is.

But she said she's avoiding "rapists" not "groping jerks". That's where there seems to be some issue.

Like I said, if the article was "Schrodinger's Jerk" everyone, including almost every single man would have applauded her. There would be no issue, just some heading nodding in agreement.

Instead it's about calling everyone a potential rapist. It's deliberately inflammatory. Some people are going to take exception to it.

I honestly don't think the author is as irrational as she appears. Most of her reasoning is sound. Some of it however is simply wrong.

Is she allowed to think that? Of course, you can't make someone think something, especially because it most likely does help prevent rape. But it doesn't prevent her from being rape by a guy on the bus. If anything it might make her the target of some sicko she pissed off. I doubt she would be as blunt with someone as to say "I don't want to talk to you because you're possibly a rapist", but who knows what someone else might do?

[HansMustermann]

Still ignoring the fact that 80% of rape victims are under the age of 30, and that:

Given that that wasn't a factor at all in what I was talking about in the part you quoted... another strawman? Or just a red herring?

Yes, I also didn't factor in the precession of Mercury's orbit, the height of the Great Pyramid, the Mayan date, or the NASDAQ stock index for this year :p Because they aren't even vaguely relevant there.

"Contrary to widespread belief, rape outdoors is rare." - 3.6%

1. Still irrelevant to what you actually answer to.

2. Non-zero, so it still doesn't support a claim that she should ignore the threat. I mean, basically now from a 1 in 6 lifetime chance to be sexually assaulted, whop-de-do, it's only 1 in 180 lifetime chance to be sexually assaulted outdoors. I hope I can be excused if I still have some understanding for someone who chooses to exercise caution.

3. Again you're committing the fallacy of dismissing a defense as unnecessary, based on a number that includes the effects of that defense. Rape outdoors is less prevalent precisely _because_ women choose to minimize the time in vulnerable situations. If you had more women perfectly ok with striking conversations in dark alleys, you'd also have more women raped or mugged in dark alleys.

Basically it's like saying that no US tank was destroyed in the Gulf War, so the USA should stop spending so much on armour. I mean, what do they even need armour for anyway? It's not like there's something threatening them, if none were destroyed, right?

The authors threat assessment is nonsense. Some random guy on the bus isn't going to rape her. It just doesn't happen.

Actually even your numbers say that it does. Maybe not as often, but it does happen.

Plus, really exactly what is the problem anyway? If she doesn't want to talk to you on a bus, she's perfectly entitled to, regardless of why. _I_ wouldn't want to talk to you on a bus most of the time, even though I probably wouldn't particularly fear rape. (Using "you" in the sense of a random complete stranger who insists on disrupting my reading a book, playing with the PSP or listening to music.)

Her worry about a date, and the measures she takes to prevent that, and assuming the guy she is going out with is a "potential rapist", totally warranted. There's no where near the 1 in 6 chance, or the 1 in 60 chance she claims, but it is warranted.

Well, at least that's a good start.

[Furcifer]

And thus it's a good idea to not drink and drive and wear seatbelts.

Rational precautions.

Exactly, it's rational because there is a serious potential for injury.

Some of her examples however aren't as serious. And she acknowledges this, which is fine, but then she goes on to give this 1 in 6 figure.

There's nothing wrong with what she's doing or what she's saying, she just doesn't word it properly. Then her talking about guys with tattoos not approaching anyone, that seems a little odd???

She could have either worded it better, or used less inflammatory language. Without asking her to clarify the article a bit it's hard to say which.

The advice she's giving however is actually pretty good and I would pass it on to anyone young woman or girl I knew but with some corrections. As it is now it's a little too based in fear instead of knowledge.

[HansMustermann]

That's not what I'm saying. I called you out for being insensitive, not statistically inaccurate. You have to remember that we're talking about sexual abuse here, which, at least where I come from, is kind of a delicate topic.

Oh, I'm insensitive all right. I'm a bigger flaming a-hole than the winner of a redneck fart-lighting contest, and such an insensitive prick as you can only get otherwise with a novocaine condom ;)

Now that that's out of the way, though, the question that was being discussed was whether it's sexism if a woman is mostly trying to avoid male rapists instead of devoting equal brain time to female rapists. And I think there the exact numbers do matter. If it's, say, 50-50 or even 80-20, then she probably should be wary of other women too. If it's 99% males, then it's ok to focus on those as the possible (if improbable) threat.

It's not just a question of excluding something completely. I don't need female-on-female rapes to be exactly zero to make that point. The real question is how many.

So, really, if you have any actual numbers, it would be very much appreciated. And obviously you know something I don't, and I'm eager to learn and adjust my assessment if appropriate.

Not the least because, speaking of delicate topics, I kinda find it amusing how the possibility (mostly theoretical for most men) that a woman too could conceivably rape a man, becomes some kind of then making more ok the much more real and common opposite scenario. And, really, how little we advanced in that respect in 5000 years. You can look back all the way to the first written stuff ever, and find the rapist goddess Inanna, said to often drag male soldiers off to screw them... in such a deliciously blatant reversal of the less mythical case when an invading army would rape the local women. But obviously it becomes a lot more ok if some mythical goddess does the opposite version of it. Suddenly the guys are just doing too what the opposite gender does too, and then it's ok, right? You'd think we'd have become less silly in 5000 years, but obviously not.

[AvalonXQ]

Ah, yes, the return of the same analogy which isn't actually analogous at all.

It's actually a quite appropriate analogy.
So, would telling black people not to approach me on the bus because I'm apprehensive that they might mug me, strike you as racist or not? Would you be offended, or not? "Schroedinger's Mugger: A Person of Color's Guide for Talking to White Americans in Public." Totally reasonable, or not?

[bookitty]

It certainly is.

But she said she's avoiding "rapists" not "groping jerks". That's where there seems to be some issue.

Like I said, if the article was "Schrodinger's Jerk" everyone, including almost every single man would have applauded her. There would be no issue, just some heading nodding in agreement.

Instead it's about calling everyone a potential rapist. It's deliberately inflammatory. Some people are going to take exception to it.

I honestly don't think the author is as irrational as she appears. Most of her reasoning is sound. Some of it however is simply wrong.

Is she allowed to think that? Of course, you can't make someone think something, especially because it most likely does help prevent rape. But it doesn't prevent her from being rape by a guy on the bus. If anything it might make her the target of some sicko she pissed off. I doubt she would be as blunt with someone as to say "I don't want to talk to you because you're possibly a rapist", but who knows what someone else might do?

Yeah, it's really horrible when people call a "groping jerk" a rapist. Makes them feel like bad guys or something. We really need to be more careful with language.

As I said before, it is possible she used the word rape to cover sexual assault. While that won't satisfy some people (anything less than penetration means the woman got "lucky" this time) it makes sense in context. The context is concern and awareness of danger. Danger in this case is being assaulted by a man in a sexual manner. When you are being aware of potential harm, you don't worry about details, it all falls under a larger umbrella.

[AvalonXQ]

I'm a bigger flaming a-hole than the winner of a redneck fart-lighting contest,

Again with the blatant insults to a group you consider less sophisticated. Are these perjorative terms really appropriate?

[Furcifer]

Given that that wasn't a factor at all in what I was talking about in the part you quoted... another strawman? Or just a red herring?
Yes, I also didn't factor in the precession of Mercury's orbit, the height of the Great Pyramid, the Mayan date, or the NASDAQ stock index for this year :p Because they aren't even vaguely relevant there.

This isn't hard to understand, you dismissed the threat of a woman raping her because the probability is low, but you refuse to realize in the authors situation the probability is low. A woman is not going to get raped by a guy on a bus full of people going to work. (late at night, it's a totally different story. If you're alone on a bus with a girl at night, and you start bugging her you deserve to be kicked in the balls. That's just creepy.)

[Professor Yaffle]

And sexually assaulting someone is not just "being a jerk".

[AvalonXQ]

As I said before, it is possible she used the word rape to cover sexual assault. While that won't satisfy some people (anything less than penetration means the woman got "lucky" this time) it makes sense in context. The context is concern and awareness of danger. Danger in this case is being assaulted by a man in a sexual manner. When you are being aware of potential harm, you don't worry about details, it all falls under a larger umbrella.

Good point. In our article to "educate" people of color on how they make white people feel, we should use "Shroedinger's Killer" instead. No need to worry about details, or the lesser (but much, much more likely) harm.

[AvalonXQ]

And sexually assaulting someone is not just "being a jerk".

I think we all have enough experience to know that you can be a jerk in a lot of ways that don't involve sexually assaulting someone.
For example: you could tell men they're out of line wanting to talk to others in public because they're all potential rapists. That would be an example of being a jerk.

[bookitty]

The advice she's giving however is actually pretty good and I would pass it on to anyone young woman or girl I knew but with some corrections. As it is now it's a little too based in fear instead of knowledge.

So you would correct an article on how a woman feels, take out anything that you think is too fear based, and then pass it on to young women? When it is an article addressed to men?

Wow.

[bookitty]

I think we all have enough experience to know that you can be a jerk in a lot of ways that don't involve sexually assaulting someone.
For example: you could tell men they're out of line wanting to talk to others in public because they're all potential rapists. That would be an example of being a jerk.

She never says that men are out of line for wanting to talk to women. In fact she very clearly lays out ways in which men talking to women can recognize signals that indicate the woman is uncomfortable. Then she provides a basis for empathy so that a man who is rebuffed will have a chance to understand that it is not specifically him but rather the result of caution born of actual threat.

All she says is that you don't get to push the conversation if she indicates that she isn't interested. What is the problem with that?

[AvalonXQ]

You know, I'm wondering how some of the different views over these things may not be driven in part by geographic differences in culture.
My culture is based more on small-town conceptions of social relations, where striking up conversations with strangers is considered common courtesy, and ignoring people is considered rude.
In contrast, my understanding of the bigger cities is that approaching strangers is often violating a bit of the social contract by which people keep the illusion of privacy and personal space in otherwise very crowded situations.
Under these circumstances, the act of approaching a strange woman is already taking a presumption, and could be seen ascance. And suspecting someone who's essentially exhibiting discouraged behavior (rather than encouraged as it is where I live) would make a lot more sense.
Maybe I'm reading more into this than I should, but it certainly makes the article less... insulting from my point of view if this is accurate.

[Furcifer]

Yeah, it's really horrible when people call a "groping jerk" a rapist. Makes them feel like bad guys or something. We really need to be more careful with language.


Actually yes it is. You've once again managed to marginalize rape victims just like the author. I don't understand why anyone would do this. :confused:

[AvalonXQ]

She never says that men are out of line for wanting to talk to women. In fact she very clearly lays out ways in which men talking to women can recognize signals that indicate the woman is uncomfortable. Then she provides a basis for empathy so that a man who is rebuffed will have a chance to understand that it is not specifically him but rather the result of caution born of actual threat.

All she says is that you don't get to push the conversation if she indicates that she isn't interested. What is the problem with that?

When you put it that way, it makes sense.
...For goodness sake, why do you always have to be so reasonable anyway? :eye-poppi

[bookitty]

Actually yes it is. You've once again managed to marginalize rape victims just like the author. I don't understand why anyone would do this. :confused:

This gambit is so overplayed.

I am not marginalizing rape victims. Please read the entire post instead of cherry picking.

[AvalonXQ]

Actually yes it is. You've once again managed to marginalize rape victims just like the author. I don't understand why anyone would do this. :confused:

Because "rape" is a powerful word. Applying the brush as broadly as possible is a potent weapon against one's detractors -- and why care about what it does to cheapen victims?

[seewhatflows]

Oh, I'm insensitive all right. I'm a bigger flaming a-hole than the winner of a redneck fart-lighting contest, and such an insensitive prick as you can only get otherwise with a novocaine condom ;)

All winky-face jokes aside, if you're so self aware about how insensitive you are, maybe you should make more of a concerted effort to not be a dick when talking about rape since there's a pretty definite chance that some of the participants and readers of this thread have been victims of sexual abuse. That's really all I was saying. I hope I don't need to impress upon you how awful being a victim of sexual abuse is and the lasting effects it can have on a person. That's all. The only argument I was making is that the hyperbolic way you dismissed the possibility of rape by a woman is potentially extremely hurtful.

Now that that's out of the way, though, the question that was being discussed was whether it's sexism if a woman is mostly trying to avoid male rapists instead of devoting equal brain time to female rapists. And I think there the exact numbers do matter. If it's, say, 50-50 or even 80-20, then she probably should be wary of other women too. If it's 99% males, then it's ok to focus on those as the possible (if improbable) threat.

It's not just a question of excluding something completely. I don't need female-on-female rapes to be exactly zero to make that point. The real question is how many.

So, really, if you have any actual numbers, it would be very much appreciated.

I don't have the numbers on hand. Feel free to look them up. I'd assume that they reflect the fact that men are overwhelmingly more likely to commit a violent crime (especially against a stranger) than women are. Sexism doesn't enter into it until you start trying to explain the numbers with gender-based assumptions.

And obviously you know something I don't, and I'm eager to learn and adjust my assessment if appropriate.

I think all you need to adjust is your attitude. Your risk assessment seems accurate enough.

[TraneWreck]

You know, I'm wondering how some of the different views over these things may not be driven in part by geographic differences in culture.
My culture is based more on small-town conceptions of social relations, where striking up conversations with strangers is considered common courtesy, and ignoring people is considered rude.
In contrast, my understanding of the bigger cities is that approaching strangers is often violating a bit of the social contract by which people keep the illusion of privacy and personal space in otherwise very crowded situations.
Under these circumstances, the act of approaching a strange woman is already taking a presumption, and could be seen ascance. And suspecting someone who's essentially exhibiting discouraged behavior (rather than encouraged as it is where I live) would make a lot more sense.
Maybe I'm reading more into this than I should, but it certainly makes the article less... insulting from my point of view if this is accurate.

It's worth talking to women, especially women in cities, about this. If you're not the sort of person that would grope a woman on the subway or follow her from a bus stop to her apartment, it's difficult to imagine someone behaving that way.

I can say that EVERY woman I know has many stories that, at best, make you cringe, and at worst turn your stomach.

For every sexual assault there are countless instances when a woman is left wondering if something terrible is going to happen.

[HansMustermann]

Ok, say the odds any man is a rapist is 50%. The odds of any black male being a rapist for a white woman is 66.7%, and the odds of any individual white male being a rapist for a white woman is 41.7%. (In truth, the odds may actually be more divergent if we were to account for intimate partner violence and the number of interracial relationships, but whatever...) Now, regardless of whether, she would be "well advised to be cautious of both", would you agree if she said she was more cautious around black men? Wouldn't she be justified in doing so by the logic so far?

Actually, let's use the real numbers in a risk assessment.

The baseline of a guy being a rapist is 1/60.

Applying the above modifiers, for a black guy it becomes 1/60 x 16/12 = 1/45. For a white guy it becomes 1/60 x 50/60 = 1/72.

Both are frankly in a range where exercising caution is wise. Both are in a range where you shouldn't automatically trust either as far as you could throw them.

So, no, racism still wouldn't be justified with those numbers. Because automatically giving the other guy more trust is still the wrong assumption.

[Furcifer]

So you would correct an article on how a woman feels, take out anything that you think is too fear based, and then pass it on to young women? When it is an article addressed to men?

Wow.

I suppose I could tell my nephew to leave the full name and phone number of the girl he's taking out on a date just in case she rapes and kills him, but it seems useless.

YMMV :rolleyes:

[HansMustermann]

All winky-face jokes aside, if you're so self aware about how insensitive you are, maybe you should make more of a concerted effort to not be a dick when talking about rape since there's a pretty definite chance that some of the participants and readers of this thread have been victims of sexual abuse. That's really all I was saying. I hope I don't need to impress upon you how awful being a victim of sexual abuse is and the lasting effects it can have on a person. That's all. The only argument I was making is that the hyperbolic way you dismissed the possibility of rape by a woman is potentially extremely hurtful.

Except for the fact that it's still a non-sequitur for what I was trying to say there, and a mis-representation of what I was actually saying. I answered it with a joke at my own expense the first time, but ultimately I could have just called it a non-sequitur in the first place and moved on.

Basically, you do have my sympathy, but I still don't have to address a refutation of a point I wasn't actually making.

Still, sorry to hear about that.

I don't have the numbers on hand. Feel free to look them up. I'd assume that they reflect the fact that men are overwhelmingly more likely to commit a violent crime (especially against a stranger) than women are. Sexism doesn't enter into it until you start trying to explain the numbers with gender-based assumptions.

Except, again, that's not what I was doing.

I think all you need to adjust is your attitude. Your risk assessment seems accurate enough.

Except for the fact that a risk assessment was all I was doing.

[seewhatflows]

I called you out for being insensitive to rape victims in a thread about rape. ZOMG DERAIL

[/non-sequitur]

[Augustine]

Actually, let's use the real numbers in a risk assessment.

The baseline of a guy being a rapist is 1/60.

Applying the above modifiers, for a black guy it becomes 1/60 x 16/12 = 1/45. For a white guy it becomes 1/60 x 50/60 = 1/72.

Both are frankly in a range where exercising caution is wise. Both are in a range where you shouldn't automatically trust either as far as you could throw them.

So, no, racism still wouldn't be justified with those numbers. Because automatically giving the other guy more trust is still the wrong assumption.

Look at your own numbers. An average black guy has a 60% greater chance of being a rapist than a white guy. So, would you agree if she said she was more cautious around black men? Wouldn't she be justified in doing so by the logic so far?

"Racism still wouldn't be justified" and "automatically giving the other guy more trust" are semantic dodges. Answer the simple question of whether she could justify being more cautious around black men (as she certainly felt justified in being more cautious around face tattoos).

[HansMustermann]

Right. Out of all the brouhaha and people calling it man-hating and god knows what else if a woman even is aware that someone could possibly be a rapist, and 8 pages of my pleading for the woman's defense and against trying to legitimize rape, I'm relieved to know that I came across as the most deserving to be called out for insensitivity. No, really, it makes my day to know that I topped one guy's calling it "misandry" if the woman actively tries to avoid being raped, and another one calling her "anti-social" for the same risk avoidance, and another guy's calling it "bigotry, prejudicial and uncritical" based on a gross strawman of what the author was saying, and yet another one's apparently thinking there's any imaginable situation when it's the woman's fault if a man accosting her in a dark alley "needs" to get aggressive and shout at her more, and God knows what else, _I_ singlehandedly topped it all and deserved to get called insensitive for... saying her approach to avoidance is not sexist. Even though it matches even your assessment of risks. But me saying it? Man, that's topping the insensitivity scale.

Bah, humbug, why am I even trying?

[Furcifer]

Because "rape" is a powerful word. Applying the brush as broadly as possible is a potent weapon against one's detractors -- and why care about what it does to cheapen victims?

I'm thinking about writing an article on how 1 in 4 women suffer from a mental disorder and men should treat any woman they meet as unstable and a potential problem. They could possibly allow their mental disorder to confuse them, and since they already consider you a potential rapist, there's a possibility they could falsely accuse you of rape for just about anything.

Best to avoid them all together, I mean 1 in 4? You're playing with fire. :rolleyes:

[HansMustermann]

Look at your own numbers. An average black guy has a 60% greater chance of being a rapist than a white guy. So, would you agree if she said she was more cautious around black men? Wouldn't she be justified in doing so by the logic so far?

"Racism still wouldn't be justified" and "automatically giving the other guy more trust" are semantic dodges. Answer the simple question of whether she could justify being more cautious around black men (as she certainly felt justified in being more cautious around face tattoos).

I'm saying it's stupid to even pretend that a situation where group B is only 60% more likely to be dangerous than group A, and caution is advised for both, is even remotely equivalent to a situation where group Y is something like 100 _times_ more likely to be the danger than group X.

I get it that some people just need to pretend it's somehow equivalent to racism, but no banana.

[Augustine]

I'm saying it's stupid to even pretend that a situation where group B is only 60% more likely to be dangerous than group A, and caution is advised for both, is even remotely equivalent to a situation where group Y is something like 100 _times_ more likely to be the danger than group X.

I get it that some people just need to pretend it's somehow equivalent to racism, but no banana.

Clearly caution is scalable; it is not a switch that is either on or off. Consequently, as the author makes clear, there are situations or progressions that increase her caution. I am asking if the actual crime statistics based on ethnicity may be used to justify her increase in caution. You continue to dodge. You are also the only one who has mentioned racism thus far.

[HansMustermann]

BTW, just so people don't think I'm making it up: "An estimated 91% of victims of rape are female, 9% are male and 99% of offenders are male. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1999)" My emphasis.

Source, for example: http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html

[Sun Countess]

I think we all have enough experience to know that you can be a jerk in a lot of ways that don't involve sexually assaulting someone.
For example: you could tell men they're out of line wanting to talk to others in public because they're all potential rapists. That would be an example of being a jerk. First, nobody is saying don't talk to men in public. She outlines specific situations where a woman may be uncomfortable (alone, at night, without an easy exit) or when a woman is clearly uncomfortable with a man's advances. Nobody is suggesting that women start screaming "Potential rapist!"

So....what do you think about men telling women that they can't speak to them at church? Are they being jerks?
I can say that EVERY woman I know has many stories that, at best, make you cringe, and at worst turn your stomach.

For every sexual assault there are countless instances when a woman is left wondering if something terrible is going to happen. Every woman I know too. It's a part of life that you are going to be groped or approached in a lewd and creepy way. It happens even in daylight on busy roads, but it's always worse when you're in a more vulnerable state.

There's nothing wrong with what she's doing or what she's saying, she just doesn't word it properly. Then her talking about guys with tattoos not approaching anyone, that seems a little odd??? She's saying that some guys need to know that they may not be as appealing to a broader group of women. If you have poor hygiene habits, most women won't want to chat you up. If you're a guy with tattoos, it's probably okay to approach women who seem to be of a similar mindset. If you start hitting on older, more conservative women, they may be a little warier of you. Yes, most guys with tattoos are super nice guys, but it would make my antenna go up if one approached me for something.

[Beerina]

So, everybody's agreed then? Me trying to kiss Natalie Portman after, say, a very friendly lunch and a lingering handshake at the car, is perfectly acceptable?

As long as someone films it so we can laugh at the slap, followed by the beatdown by her bodyguard on YouTube.

[pitbone]

I don't see it that way at all. The author mentions all sorts of criteria she uses to assess the danger level: where are we, is it light or dark, who else is around, how is this man dressed, what is his demeanor. And she adjusts her level of caution accordingly. Much of the article is pointing out to men how these variables affect women's attitudes, fears, and receptiveness to being approached.

Yes, but her predication is still "This man is a threat." As opposed to "This man is likely not going to try to hurt me." Her conclusion doesn't exclusively follow from her premises. I'm not saying that it's necessarily any worse than my proposal, her's just isn't the only possible conclusion and I don't see that she's given convincing reasons to accept her viewpoint as the most reasonable.

I've come to realize that perhaps the most fallacious thing of all was ever treating this article as a cogent logical argument to begin with. There are far too many enthymemes to be able to ascertain whether or not she's being reasonable. I think it's incredibly difficult to defend her specific conclusion, logically over a less conservative approach or "The best way to avoid being raped by men is to cut off contact with men altogether. " (Or numerous others.) It's a matter of ideology and while any of these conclusions may be subjectively valid, they're far from being objectively true.


If you were only assessing the validity of the argument, that would be true. But you were also making consequence-based arguments, claiming that her attitude is bad because it is antisocial. "Antisocial" is not a logical flaw in an argument, it's an assessment of consequence. So I think you're moving the goalposts here, unless you'd like to state that you're not claiming any negative consequences.

It's definitely tangent from the OP. It wasn't my intention to use consequence-based arguments as support against the validity of her argument. You demanded, in several posts, what some potential consequences where and I said consequences were irrelevant to the validity of the argument, but attempted to give an answer anyway. As it's just conjecture and not really the issue anyway, I'm happy to drop it.

I've dealt with the racial analogies repeatedly in this thread. I don't find it a persuasive argument, mainly because it seems to rely on just citing the magic words "racism" and "discrimination" without giving thought to why we consider racial discrimination a bad thing, and whether or not those same considerations apply here.

I don't really feel as though you've 'dealt' with racial analogies. You've dismissed them and said they're not convincing, but you haven't shown they're fallacious.

Even if you don't agree with what I've said above I think that my contention that she's "judging the likelihood of an individual's actions based on the actions of a minority, some of whom belong to the same group as the individual." still stands. If it's acceptable to judge the potentiality of an individuals future actions based on actions which were committed by another person in the past, is there not a logical pathway to taking action against those future actions? Wouldn't that be removal of individual rights, and, ergo, discriminatory?

(I acknowledge that this is still on the 'consequences' side of the discussion.)

Should sex-separated bathrooms be banned? If your answer is "no," then does it follow that you support racially segregated bathrooms? I assume not.

Having sex-separated bathrooms is, in theory, due to physiological differences between the sexes. (Although, the sex-separation is largely a social tradition, there's no real objectively valid reason to have them, it's just for mental comfort.) The intention to rape, and therefore the threat to others, is a psychological one - an area where men and women are the same. The mental differences between men and women are not inherently significant, just as the differences between races are not inherently significant. ie. Men's brains and women's brains essentially function the same way; all human DNA is essentially the same. The comparison between sexual difference and racial difference for bathrooms isn't analogous to comparison between sexual discrimination and racial discrimination. For bathrooms, one is actual difference vs. perceived difference, whereas for discrimination, they're both perceived differences.

Saying that it's justifiable to see men greater threats than women doesn't stand to reason. Unless you're appealing to statistics, but then we get in to that whole thing again.

Fine, it's explicit. I wouldn't call it a fallacy; at most it's a claim. And if you want to insist that the author is claiming that every woman on the planet thinks the way that she does, then I will agree with you that it would be an inaccurate claim. But I think interpreting remarks that literally is taking things a little too far. When you write about rape or dating advice or any other gender-related topic, you either end up making some generalizations along the way, or making your article unreadable because you're constantly inserting disclaimers like "most" and "many" and "of course, this may not apply to you."

I would still call it a fallacy. I don't think it would render the article any less intelligible to have said "Because, for many women, it is." instead of "Because, for women, it is."

I also take what she's written literally because it's what she wrote. I'm not interested in conjecturing about how literal she was being. If she didn't mean it, she shouldn't have wrote it. I think good writers can be articulate and unambiguous without sacrificing entertainment value. (Another tangent, I'm really not trying to start an analysis of her writing style.)

"Increased" from what? From what you think is appropriate? Well, yes, for you that would be inadvisable. I'm not quite getting what your point is here. We all decide what precautions we feel are reasonable for ourselves, and there are subjective factors that affect that. This woman seems quite familiar with the relevant data, so it's not an issue of her being uninformed or ignorant.

Increased from the individuals normal, day to day, perception of threat. She says her threat level is lower when at church with her mother, (seems odd to me, but it's her prerogative,) than it is in a dark alley by herself. It seems, she's advocating making the increased "dark alley" state the baseline and then tempering it when appropriate. Why not make the "church with mom" state the baseline and increase it as necessary. Is there a logical reason to adopt one over the other?

I think we're back to semantics, because you seem to be interpreting "is a threat" with "is a rapist." A "threat" is something that has potential to harm you. From her point of view, every man has that potential. Every dog I see on the street is a threat to bite me. The vast majority are probably well-trained, well-behaved dogs, but while there may be clues, I can't tell for certain which. I personally might choose to stop and pet some of them (with their owner's permission), but someone else -- either because he doesn't like dogs as much as me, or considers a dog bite a more serious harm than I do -- might choose to give every dog a wide berth because they're all threats to bite, and I can't say that's faulty reasoning.


I agree, this is semantics. Unfortunately, it has repercussions on the validity of the argument. Even people on this thread who are on the "good article" side of the fence have difference perceptions of what she meant by 'threat'. How are we to know? Saying my criticism isn't valid because I'm not using a specific definition of 'threat' doesn't do anything to the integrity of my criticism, unless you can show unequivocally that your definition is correct.

With your dog analogy - which is your default stance? Do you automatically cross the street unless the dog looks especially docile, or is your default stance to assume the dog is probably safe unless you see evidence otherwise?

I don't get your point here. Some guys (claim to) misinterpret body language, and try to claim it as justification for rape, so therefore trying to interpret body language to decide whether and how to start a conversation with a woman is bad? That seems to be throwing an entire nursery of babies out with the bathwater. I'm sure you don't mean that, so I'll wait for you to clarify.

I'm saying she's suggesting that is possible to subjectively generate an objective interpretation of ambiguous behaviour. Just because a women is reading, doesn't mean she doesn't want to be disturbed. I've had times where I'm reading on transit, but would welcome an interruption. Just because a women is facing me and looking me up and down, doesn't mean she wants to talk to me. This happened to me three or four times coming home yesterday. They were likely looking at the large, irregularly shaped object I was carrying, but it took me a minute to realize it, as I carry it all the time and don't think of it as anything out of the ordinary. I'm offering the anecdotes only as examples of how signals could be misinterpreted.

And what's wrong with that? That's what considerate people in a society do. Those who don't are regarded as inconsiderate.

In this situation, there are a wide range of considerate actions that are available. The author is suggesting to extrapolate, based on subjective interpretation of ambiguous data, which one is correct, before any interaction begins. In the absence of convincing data, all men should assume that all women share her particular point of view.

If you replace "all" and "universal" with "many" and "general tendencies regarding" then I think that's probably accurate. She's making some claims about how women generally perceive and react in particular situations, and asking that men avoid putting women in fear.

That's a fairly moderate interpretation. I think if you take what she's said literally, the language is stronger than that and she's putting the responsibility of preventing women from being frightened on men.

Perhaps the generalizations bother you a lot more than they do me. Again, I defy you to write any article on this or a related subject that doesn't employ either the occasional express or implied generalization, or bogs down in disclaimers

What bothers me is that she presents the article as giving practical advices and then muddles the whole thing up by citing extreme examples of poor behaviour by men.

Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck

There’s a man with whom I went out on a single date—afternoon coffee, for one hour by the clock—on July 25th. In the two days after the date, he sent me about fifteen e-mails, scolding me for non-responsiveness. I e-mailed him back, saying, “Look, this is a disproportionate response to a single date. You are making me uncomfortable. Do not contact me again.” It is now October 7th. Does he still e-mail?

Yeah. He does. About every two weeks.

These, to me, are not indicative of the normal behaviour of otherwise balanced men and don't contribute anything to the supposedly informative natural of the piece. I certainly hope she doesn't actually think that the average man can't tell that these behaviours are unattractive to a [insert qualifier here] of women.

[Furcifer]

She's saying that some guys need to know that they may not be as appealing to a broader group of women. If you have poor hygiene habits, most women won't want to chat you up. If you're a guy with tattoos, it's probably okay to approach women who seem to be of a similar mindset. If you start hitting on older, more conservative women, they may be a little warier of you. Yes, most guys with tattoos are super nice guys, but it would make my antenna go up if one approached me for something.

Is this a problem? Nobody I know would ever try to talk to a girl if they weren't bringing their "A" game. And I've never seen a circus freak go after a super model you know what I mean. Men aren't oblivious to how things work.

This is the type of thing you see on TV. The punks get on a bus and start harassing an innocent woman, then Robo Cop shows up. "Hit on this citizen".

I'm not saying it doesn't happen or can't, but this is something you see all the time on TV or in movies. It's like she's talking to woman's fears and not reality.

[ThunderChunky]

Her 'advice' gives insight into one woman's perspective--that is all. It does not apply to men that want to approach women.

She cannot speak for all women, so to give a circumstance and say never approach is invalid. All you can say is that in some circumstances women will be less receptive to an approach. The bottom line for the man is that it doesn't really matter. If you are a rapist, that article means nothing. If you are not a rapist, you aren't going to rape...so don't worry about it. Focus on making yourself attractive.

[Dunstan]

Yes, but her predication is still "This man is a threat." As opposed to "This man is likely not going to try to hurt me."

Ok, I think we're going in circles, so rather than repeat myself I'm going to step out of this discussion now.

[TraneWreck]

Is this a problem? Nobody I know would ever try to talk to a girl if they weren't bringing their "A" game. And I've never seen a circus freak go after a super model you know what I mean. Men aren't oblivious to how things work.

This is the type of thing you see on TV. The punks get on a bus and start harassing an innocent woman, then Robo Cop shows up. "Hit on this citizen".

I'm not saying it doesn't happen or can't, but this is something you see all the time on TV or in movies. It's like she's talking to woman's fears and not reality.

This would be one of those situations where you need to actually listen to what women tell you. Once again, no woman I know who lives in a major city has less 15-20 stories of strange men approaching and harassing them in situations where they felt incredibly vulnerable.

I can't tell if you're still in a trolling mood or if you're legitimately incredulous about the testimony that the woman in the OP (as well as many, many who responded in the comment section) offered.

They passed laws in New York to keep groups of men from harassing women as they walk by construction sites. This was dismissed as just stopping the workers from whistling, but the abuse was much more intense and frightened a sizable number of women.

So now you're claiming that all of these women don't know what they're talking about because those sorts of scenarios seem unlikely to you. You don't have any evidence or anything substantial, just your personal doubt founded on pure ignorance.

And you're surprised that women would be insulted by that arrogant dismissal of their perspective?

[Furcifer]

This would be one of those situations where you need to actually listen to what women tell you. Once again, no woman I know who lives in a major city has less 15-20 stories of strange men approaching and harassing them in situations where they felt incredibly vulnerable.

I can't tell if you're still in a trolling mood or if you're legitimately incredulous about the testimony that the woman in the OP (as well as many, many who responded in the comment section) offered.

They passed laws in New York to keep groups of men from harassing women as they walk by construction sites. This was dismissed as just stopping the workers from whistling, but the abuse was much more intense and frightened a sizable number of women.

So now you're claiming that all of these women don't know what they're talking about because those sorts of scenarios seem unlikely to you. You don't have any evidence or anything substantial, just your personal doubt founded on pure ignorance.

And you're surprised that women would be insulted by that arrogant dismissal of their perspective?

No, were considering the actual statistics compiled over decades to come to the conclusion that rapists don't approach women on the bus.

What don't you understand?

ETA: I might add that you're the one trolling this tread. You came in late and have only derailed the real discussion. Perhaps you should read both threads and get a clue as to what is being discussed?

[bookitty]

No, were considering the actual statistics compiled over decades to come to the conclusion that rapists don't approach women on the bus.



This website, Holla Back New York (http://hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/) collects stories of women being harassed on the street, on the bus, on the subway to various degrees - Yelling, inappropriate touching, public masturbation, groping. Go read a few. There are hundreds to choose from.

Sure, very few end in penetrative rape but how is any woman who is approached by one of these creeps supposed to know that?

[HansMustermann]

@3bodyproblem: But if you think that no guy ever would approach a woman in less than perfect hygiene or manners or while wearing something offensive, then why is it such a crime if she tells people not to do those faux pas? I mean, if you think it doesn't happen, then nobody trips her alarms, and everyone is happy, right?

Although in reality, I only have to remember high school and college for some very public cases of guys who... well, I don't know if they intended to bring their D game or it was a fine example of Dunning-Kruger Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) and grossly overestimating how A-class their game is, but it was a heck of a lot less than A game in any case. And that's putting it mildly. Ditto if you don't think the local circus freak ever thought he's got not only a right to go after the prom queen, but some kind of entitlement.

Plus, really, if both she and a bunch of other women tell me that they have been accosted by people putting up something a lot less than A game, why would I distrust them?

And, sure, maybe it wouldn't be anyone you know. I mean, obviously you have well mannered and cultivated friends, and all that, and it's commendable that you keep such company. But the real world is a bit more diverse than that. The IQ curve does go both ways from the average, and the Hare Psychopathy Checklist scale does go all the way to 40, although the average guy from your friend list probably scores 2 or 3.

Even that factor alone, well, is enough for me not to doubt a priori than 1 in 60 can be a rapist. We're not all built the same, believe it or not. As I was saying, we're not clone troopers. About 1 in 30 guys is a sociopath, and 1 in 100 is a full blown psychopath. Even though the other 29 in 30 are likely nice and considerate people. (Not saints, mind you, but you get the idea.) That only 1 in 60 rape, well, it already means that half the sociopaths find other passtimes.

At any rate, we're talking outliers there, not something representative for every male that ever lived. You don't have to take it as being threatened by _you_ specifically. Some people are very different from you, and probably from most your friends. Is it that difficult to believe that some would actually do things you or your friends wouldn't?

[Furcifer]

This website, Holla Back New York (http://hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/) collects stories of women being harassed on the street, on the bus, on the subway to various degrees - Yelling, inappropriate touching, public masturbation, groping. Go read a few. There are hundreds to choose from.

Sure, very few end in penetrative rape but how is any woman who is approached by one of these creeps supposed to know that?

You obviously don't understand the difference between rape and inappropriate behaviour.

The author's premise is that women live in constant fear of being raped or killed, not the subject of lewd or inappropriate touching and comments.

Nobody has suggested this isn't a problem, but what has been suggested is that "RAPE" is an inflammatory word that isn't supported by the data.

If you are a 40 year old woman saying that for every 6 men that approach you 1 is a rapist you are wrong. You are absolutely wrong.

The author doesn't seem to believe that because she acknowledges their are situations where the probability drops, but she doesn't clarify to what extent.

That's what seems to bugging the OP about how the article is written. She doesn't give examples appropriate to the stats she cites. The examples she gives have a much much lower probability than 1 in 6.

If you don't understand what I'm telling you then so be it. I don't believe you have any intention of listening, you just want to push your agenda, and that's fine. But don't expect anyone to believe 1 in 6 men on the bus are potential rapists to the strangers they meet.

[Furcifer]

@3bodyproblem: But if you think that no guy ever would approach a woman in less than perfect hygiene or manners or while wearing something offensive, then why is it such a crime if she tells people not to do those faux pas? I mean, if you think it doesn't happen, then nobody trips her alarms, and everyone is happy, right?


I never said that. I said her fear that this man intends to RAPE her is unwarranted.

If a woman pulls out a gun and shoots a man intending to rape her, AFAIC, she is only engaging in self defense.

If a woman pulls out a gun and shoots a man because she doesn't like his tattoos she is a sadistic murderer.

Got it? Do you understand how the threat of rape differs from the threat of being approached by a man with less than perfect hygiene?

[Professor Yaffle]

Where on earth did anyone even so much as suggest that one man in six is a rapist? I thought it was a typo at first, but you repeated it several times in that post.

[bookitty]

You obviously don't understand the difference between rape and inappropriate behaviour.

And you don't understand that rape can start with inappropriate behavior.


If you don't understand what I'm telling you then so be it. I don't believe you have any intention of listening, you just want to push your agenda, and that's fine. But don't expect anyone to believe 1 in 6 men on the bus are potential rapists to the strangers they meet.

She says 1 in 60, not 1 in 6. 1 in 60 isn't bad odds for any kind of anti-social behavior. For women this includes sexual harassment and the possibility of sexual assault.

My agenda is the same is the OP's - to foster empathy. The article is not about being raped. It is about being aware of the possibility on daily basis and how that awareness can color your interactions with strangers. The article asks that men consider this awareness when approaching women. That they respect a woman's right to set her own risk tolerance. It asks that they back off if a woman does not seem interested.

[Furcifer]

Where on earth did anyone even so much as suggest that one man in six is a rapist? I thought it was a typo at first, but you repeated it several times in that post.

"While you may assume that none of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is. Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty. "

She is working from the basis that 1 in 6 men are rapists, then saying maybe a rapist commits 10 rapes.

If every rapist only commits 1 rape, thereby becoming a rapist 1 in 6 men are by her poor use of stats a rapist.

[TraneWreck]

No, were considering the actual statistics compiled over decades to come to the conclusion that rapists don't approach women on the bus.

What don't you understand?

Did you actually read the article? At no point did she ever even imply that. You're running off in bizarre directions that have nothing to do with anything.



ETA: I might add that you're the one trolling this tread. You came in late and have only derailed the real discussion. Perhaps you should read both threads and get a clue as to what is being discussed?

Nice try.

[TraneWreck]

"While you may assume that none of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is. Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty. "

She is working from the basis that 1 in 6 men are rapists, then saying maybe a rapist commits 10 rapes.

If every rapist only commits 1 rape, thereby becoming a rapist 1 in 6 men are by her poor use of stats a rapist.

Haha, nope. 1 in 6 women GET raped (and to be technical, it's actually sexually assaulted). The average rapist/offender commits 10 offenses, thus somewhere around 1 in 60 men are rapists. She makes this very clear. Of course, that's still a horrifying number.

Although given your history, only being off by a factor of 10 is pretty good.

[Professor Yaffle]

"While you may assume that none of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is. Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty. "

She is working from the basis that 1 in 6 men are rapists, then saying maybe a rapist commits 10 rapes.

If every rapist only commits 1 rape, thereby becoming a rapist 1 in 6 men are by her poor use of stats a rapist.

That makes absolutely NO sense at all. She starts from the proposition that one in every 6 women will be raped at some point in their life. She then says if that if each rapist commits 10 rapes (I assume she means rapes against 10 different women), on average, that makes approximately one man in every 60 a rapist.

[Furcifer]

And you don't understand that rape can start with inappropriate behavior.

The stupidest thing I've ever heard, there's no doubt rape has to start with inappropriate touching.



She says 1 in 60, not 1 in 6. 1 in 60 isn't bad odds for any kind of anti-social behavior. For women this includes sexual harassment and the possibility of sexual assault.

Her assumption is 1 in 6, you don't understand statistics. Otherwise you are saying if a man commits 9 rapes he isn't a rapist.


My agenda is the same is the OP's - to foster empathy. The article is not about being raped.

Really?

Really?

Then she's the dumbest author ever, to name her article not about rape "Schrodinger's Rapist"

[TraneWreck]

Her assumption is 1 in 6, you don't understand statistics. Otherwise you are saying if a man commits 9 rapes he isn't a rapist.

Stundie.

[vwgub]

I haven't read the entire thread (like most rape threads it's moving fast) but what I got from the OP and link is that she isn't just afraid that men might be rapists but that all men are rapists until proven otherwise. The problem I have with that is you have to prove that you are not a rapist. And how the hell do you do that?

[bookitty]

The stupidest thing I've ever heard, there's no doubt rape has to start with inappropriate touching.




Her assumption is 1 in 6, you don't understand statistics. Otherwise you are saying if a man commits 9 rapes he isn't a rapist.



Really?

Really?

Then she's the dumbest author ever, to name her article not about rape "Schrodinger's Rapist"


The article is about being aware that there is a possibility of rape. Perhaps you should try reading it in its entirety. Several comments you've made indicate a less than thorough understanding.

[Furcifer]

That makes absolutely NO sense at all. She starts from the proposition that one in every 6 women will be raped at some point in their life. She then says if that if each rapist commits 10 rapes (I assume she means rapes against 10 different women), on average, that makes approximately one man in every 60 a rapist.

What did she multiply by 10?


There's nothing to support her statement that a rapist commits 10 rapes. As far as I know a rapist only has to commit 1 rape to be considered a rapist. Short of the actual stat, her base line assumption is that 1 in 6 men are.

[Professor Yaffle]

Its a back of the envelope calculation to get from the rate of women who have been assaulted to the rate of men who are rapists. If all rapists only ever committed one rape, your 1 in 6 would be right. I don't know whether her figure of 10, on average is correct but I'm sure its in the right ballpark. I certainly don't think it is 1 and I don't think it is as high as 100. Without any reliable published statistics, I think she's somewhere in the right ballpark.

[Furcifer]

Stundie.

Wow, rape is now a conspiracy theory. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

[bookitty]

I haven't read the entire thread (like most rape threads it's moving fast) but what I got from the OP and link is that she isn't just afraid that men might be rapists but that all men are rapists until proven otherwise. The problem I have with that is you have to prove that you are not a rapist. And how the hell do you do that?

The article actually addresses that. Tips include respecting a woman's space, backing off when she indicates that she would rather not interact with you and being aware of what message your physical appearance might give.

Also, it isn't that all men are rapist until proven otherwise. It's more about the evaluation of potential harm when approached by a stranger. Everyone does this. For women, this evaluation also includes threat of sexual assault.

[vwgub]

The article actually addresses that. Tips include respecting a woman's space, backing off when she indicates that she would rather not interact with you and being aware of what message your physical appearance might give.

Also, it isn't that all men are rapist until proven otherwise. It's more about the evaluation of potential harm when approached by a stranger. Everyone does this. For women, this evaluation also includes threat of sexual assault.

Good to know. Thanks.

[vwgub]

This makes me wonder why are women so concerned about assault but men aren't? Statistically men are more likely to be physically assaulted than women are. In my personal experience I've been assaulted five times in my life and I'm not outside the norm for my social circle. But I don't worry about it.

[TraneWreck]

Wow, rape is now a conspiracy theory. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

Good lord, how much silliness can you pack in one thread.

Your nomination is for the irony of sanctimoniously lecturing others on understanding statistics while displaying an awesome failure of that type of reasoning.

If there are 100 hotdogs and the people in Group A eat an average of 10 per person, how many people are there in the group?

[TraneWreck]

There's nothing to support her statement that a rapist commits 10 rapes. As far as I know a rapist only has to commit 1 rape to be considered a rapist. Short of the actual stat, her base line assumption is that 1 in 6 men are.

Haha.

The AVERAGE rapist commits 10 offenses. Some commit 1, some commit 19, but the AVERAGE is 10/rapist.

It's not a statement about how "rapist" is defined.

[Furcifer]

Its a back of the envelope calculation to get from the rate of women who have been assaulted to the rate of men who are rapists. If all rapists only ever committed one rape, your 1 in 6 would be right. I don't know whether her figure of 10, on average is correct but I'm sure its in the right ballpark. I certainly don't think it is 1 and I don't think it is as high as 100.

No the basis for her assumption is that 1 in 6 are, she makes up a figure of 10 for which she has no evidence.

It's quite clear she "knows it's 1 in 6" then guesses "even if they commit 10 rapes".

Short of knowing the actual figure of how many rapes a rapist commits her assumption is based in the 1 in 6.

[vwgub]

Haha.

The AVERAGE rapist commits 10 offenses. Some commit 1, some commit 19, but the AVERAGE is 10/rapist.

It's not a statement about how "rapist" is defined.

To be slightly pedantic wouldn't it be the MEAN rapist not the AVERAGE rapist.

ETA: Never mind either would work. I just think MEAN rapist works better than AVERAGE rapist semantically.

[Furcifer]

Haha.

The AVERAGE rapist commits 10 offenses. Some commit 1, some commit 19, but the AVERAGE is 10/rapist.

It's not a statement about how "rapist" is defined.

Evidence? You constantly lie, professional hazard I suppose. :rolleyes:

[TraneWreck]

Evidence? You constantly lie, professional hazard I suppose. :rolleyes:

Two separate questions:

1) Is it the case that the average rapist commits 10 offenses?
2) What did the woman claim in her article?

You've accused the woman of saying that 1 in 6 men are rapists. This is false, she says 1 in 60 because, ACCORDING TO HER, the average rapist commits 10 offenses.

Now, that stat may be true or false, but you were completely wrong about her claims. If you want to question the statistic, that's one thing, you're welcome to challenge her numbers, but you couldn't even grasp the argument she presented (or you willfully tried to make it as weak and ridiculous as possible).

[Furcifer]

This makes me wonder why are women so concerned about assault but men aren't? Statistically men are more likely to be physically assaulted than women are. In my personal experience I've been assaulted five times in my life and I'm not outside the norm for my social circle. But I don't worry about it.

Exactly.

If men were telling you all the time you were going to be murdered you'd probably be a little more scared. The fact is you know it's pretty rare for a fight to end in someone dying.

This is why I said living in constant fear isn't necessarily warranted. When I was 19 we used to get into fights on a more regular basis. These days not such much. I don't have as much to worry about. It's about knowing the facts and avoiding situations.

Apparently even suggesting this to a woman is wrong because :"women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted"

Men don't know what it's like to not want to be killed or violently assaulted. That's unique to women.:rolleyes:

[bookitty]

This makes me wonder why are women so concerned about assault but men aren't? Statistically men are more likely to be physically assaulted than women are. In my personal experience I've been assaulted five times in my life and I'm not outside the norm for my social circle. But I don't worry about it.

I've often wondered that myself. Guys seem to be more comfortable in potentially dangerous situations. I have female friends in roller derby leagues, it's a very physical sport. These woman are strong, tough and cocky. Yet, they are uncomfortable taking the subway alone at night. Even my less physically imposing guy friends think nothing of it.

Maybe it's the constant repetition from childhood? Don't go here, don't do this, etc, etc. Or the ongoing low-grade harassment - all the stupid yelling from cars, lewd language when you walk by, the occasion grope, the guy who asks you for directions just so you'll see that he's got his penis out. Or the fact that every woman knows someone who has been assaulted?

I'm sorry, I really don't have any concrete answers.

[vwgub]

Men don't know what it's like to not want to be killed or violently assaulted.
Is this really what you meant to say? Take out the double negative and see how it reads. Also I wasn't making a statement I was asking a question.

[vwgub]

I've often wondered that myself. Guys seem to be more comfortable in potentially dangerous situations. I have female friends in roller derby leagues, it's a very physical sport. These woman are strong, tough and cocky. Yet, they are uncomfortable taking the subway alone at night. Even my less physically imposing guy friends think nothing of it.

Maybe it's the constant repetition from childhood? Don't go here, don't do this, etc, etc. Or the ongoing low-grade harassment - all the stupid yelling from cars, lewd language when you walk by, the occasion grope, the guy who asks you for directions just so you'll see that he's got his penis out. Or the fact that every woman knows someone who has been assaulted?

I'm sorry, I really don't have any concrete answers.

But this is all true of men as well. Actually I don't know a single man that I know who hasn't been assaulted at some point in their life. The only difference is it isn't sexual. Which maybe gives lie to the maxim that rape is about sex it's about power.

[Furcifer]

Two separate questions:

1) Is it the case that the average rapist commits 10 offenses?
2) What did the woman claim in her article?

You've accused the woman of saying that 1 in 6 men are rapists. This is false, she says 1 in 60 because, ACCORDING TO HER, the average rapist commits 10 offenses.

Now, that stat may be true or false, but you were completely wrong about her claims. If you want to question the statistic, that's one thing, you're welcome to challenge her numbers, but you couldn't even grasp the argument she presented (or you willfully tried to make it as weak and ridiculous as possible).

:words:


Evidence?


AFAIK a rapist is a person who commits 1 rape. She says "1 in 6 men are rapists, but let's say they commit 10 rapes each (I pulled that out of my arse, it's that shocking), then it's 1 in 60"

Don't the rapists go to jail in the US? Or are they all walking the streets looking for 34 year old feminists?

Apparently there are 11 that work out in her gym. This is where men and women differ, because if I knew that I'd call the cops. Or CHECK MY MATH. :rolleyes:

[TraneWreck]

:words:


Evidence?


AFAIK a rapist is a person who commits 1 rape. She says "1 in 6 men are rapists, but let's say they commit 10 rapes each (I pulled that out of my arse, it's that shocking), then it's 1 in 60"

Don't the rapists go to jail in the US? Or are they all walking the streets looking for 34 year old feminists?

Apparently there are 11 that work out in her gym. This is where men and women differ, because if I knew that I'd call the cops. Or CHECK MY MATH. :rolleyes:

First of all, this is more backpedaling to defend your ridiculous claim that the author said 1 in 6 men are rapists.

Here's the quote:

Do you think I’m overreacting? One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. I bet you don’t think you know any rapists, but consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur. These rapes are not all committed by Phillip Garrido, Brian David Mitchell, or other members of the Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion. While you may assume that none of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is. Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty. That means four in my graduating class in high school. One among my coworkers. One in the subway car at rush hour. Eleven who work out at my gym. How do I know that you, the nice guy who wants nothing more than companionship and True Love, are not this rapist?

That's called granting the opposing view a considerable assumption and still having your point stand.

She's saying that even if we assume that each rapist commits a high number of rapes, the numbers are still terrifying. She is correct. At no point does she say someone who commits one rape isn't a rapist. I can't imagine how you conjured that up.

The number is likely lower. 10 rapes is a huge number. That would mean significantly more than 1 in 60 have committed a sexual assault.

Please explain how this helps your case that women have nothing to worry about?

[Furcifer]

Is this really what you meant to say? Take out the double negative and see how it reads. Also I wasn't making a statement I was asking a question.

No it's correct, as ridiculous as it sounds. Apparently men don't know what it's like to not want to be killed or violently assaulted.

I'm of the opinion this isn't unique to women. Men don't want to be killed either. Maybe the author thinks because men traditionally go to war and frequently put the lives of others ahead of themselves they are used to the threat of dying.

Beats me but it sounds like a ridiculous premise for saying men are that much different then women.

[TraneWreck]

Exactly.

If men were telling you all the time you were going to be murdered you'd probably be a little more scared. The fact is you know it's pretty rare for a fight to end in someone dying.

This is why I said living in constant fear isn't necessarily warranted. When I was 19 we used to get into fights on a more regular basis. These days not such much. I don't have as much to worry about. It's about knowing the facts and avoiding situations.

Apparently even suggesting this to a woman is wrong because :"women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted"

Men don't know what it's like to not want to be killed or violently assaulted. That's unique to women.:rolleyes:

This is more egotistic nonsense.

Break down assaults against males economically and demographically. What do you find?

Income, location, and race will be the largest determinants of whether a male will be physically assaulted. And I can tell you from working in a legal clinic on the Southside of Chicago that men in that area are terrified.

The primary motivation for people joining gangs in those areas is fear and the need for protection.

I would be interested to see you take a trip to Cabrini Green and telling the inhabitants that their fear is irrational.

This is also relevant to the OP because the woman isn't talking about being terrified every moment of her life, she's describing situations that scare her. Any man who says they aren't ever scared or concerned in given situations is lying their ass off.

[Furcifer]

:words:


Please explain how this helps your case that women have nothing to worry about?


More lies from the lawyer. I never said that, ever.

You really can't ever make a case without lying can you? I have never seen you, not once restrain yourself from making things up.

So, stop lying and provide your evidence. Thanks!

[bookitty]

But this is all true of men as well. Actually I don't know a single man that I know who hasn't been assaulted at some point in their life. The only difference is it isn't sexual. Which maybe gives lie to the maxim that rape is about sex it's about power.

The maxim that rape is about power is a bit too simple. It will vary from case to case. There will always be an inherent power-play in any non-consensual act but it will not always be the predominant factor.

Sexual harassment is similar. A man yelling obscenities to a women on the street is not expecting a positive response from her. He is showing that he can casually abuse her at will. It is about power. There is no other reason to do it. A man who rubs up against a woman on the subway might only think of her as an object. There might not be an obvious connection to the power he has over her in that moment and the enjoyment he gets from abusing her.

[bookitty]

More lies from the lawyer. I never said that, ever.



That's true, you only said that women are safe once they hit the magical age of 35.

[Furcifer]

This is also relevant to the OP because the woman isn't talking about being terrified every moment of her life, she's describing situations that scare her. Any man who says they aren't ever scared or concerned in given situations is lying their ass off.

Wow, you've finally caught up to the rest of us. Nice.

She prefaces the article by saying that for women their daily routine is defined by not wanting to get violently assaulted or murdered, not just when they enter a war zone.

So you are wrong, she is talking about being terrified every moment of her life. That's why her saying everyone is a potential rapist might be a little over the top.

Of course you want to take the discussion somewhere else and make all kinds of silly claims because you just like to argue. Have fun with your strawmen, and remember "No means no!" ;)

[TraneWreck]

Wow, you've finally caught up to the rest of us. Nice.

She prefaces the article by saying that for women their daily routine is defined by not wanting to get violently assaulted or murdered, not just when they enter a war zone.

So you are wrong, she is talking about being terrified every moment of her life. That's why her saying everyone is a potential rapist might be a little over the top.

Of course you want to take the discussion somewhere else and make all kinds of silly claims because you just like to argue. Have fun with your strawmen, and remember "No means no!" ;)

Amazing. You just can't get past this bizarre anger that leads you to so totally twist the words of the article.

You've made comical error after comical error, then you decided to be as insulting as possible, and now you're just calling people liars.

It's infantile.

Oh no, what will you call me next?

[Furcifer]

That's true, you only said that women are safe once they hit the magical age of 35.

Yah on the bus during rush hour.:rolleyes:

You just don't understand the stats and instead want to foster an irrational fear of men in all women. It's obvious you have an agenda and some emotional involvement. You may want to admit this and remove yourself from the discussion because you're trying to take it in another direction instead of just considering the facts.

[TraneWreck]

More lies from the lawyer. I never said that, ever.

You really can't ever make a case without lying can you? I have never seen you, not once restrain yourself from making things up.

So, stop lying and provide your evidence. Thanks!

Evidence for what? You are conflating a defense of the statistic presented with an explanation of what the author claimed. You were wrong about what she claimed, amusingly so, and realizing your absolute failure on that level you're now challenging me to defend a point I never made.

The series of posts where you attempted to mock and humiliate another member of the forum were all removed. Everyone who read those can easily attest to your attempts to make fun of women for fearing sexual assault. your entire attitude on this thread has been condescending, arrogant, and wholly devoid of reasonable argument. You can try and cloak these shortcomings with scatter-shot vitriol, but you're only further humiliating yourself, whether you realize it or not.

And if you want to make lawyer jokes, at least spend some time on google so you can share some funny ones. Stammering pissy-ness has no value.

[vwgub]

The maxim that rape is about power is a bit too simple. It will vary from case to case. There will always be an inherent power-play in any non-consensual act but it will not always be the predominant factor.

Sexual harassment is similar. A man yelling obscenities to a women on the street is not expecting a positive response from her. He is showing that he can casually abuse her at will. It is about power. There is no other reason to do it. A man who rubs up against a woman on the subway might only think of her as an object. There might not be an obvious connection to the power he has over her in that moment and the enjoyment he gets from abusing her.

I was thinking about this while I was walking to the store for lunch. I think rape is generally about power through sex. Which is why it is more emotionally horrifying than simple physical assault.

I do have a problem understanding the problem a women might have with a man yelling obscenities at her. Not so much why should have a problem but why she would have a fear about it. This happens at my work all the time with men yelling at men. It's just what is, it sucks, but Oh well you either dwell on it or you move on.

ETA: Isn't this actually primate dominance display? While I've never seen the rubbing thing with men on men there are similar behaviors I have noticed.

[Furcifer]

Oh no, what will you call me next?

Obviously "troll". :D

And I'll call you a troll until you provide the evidence or admit you were lying.

You never provide evidence and it's time you realized you are simply the one trolling the thread. That's what they do, they lie about what people said and make things up.

Try to provide evidence before you hit "Submit Reply"next time, you can do it!

[TraneWreck]

Please explain how this helps your case that women have nothing to worry about?

:
More lies from the lawyer. I never said that, ever.


You just don't understand the stats and instead want to foster an irrational fear of men in all women.

Hilarious.

[TraneWreck]

And I'll call you a troll until you provide the evidence or admit you were lying.


I ask again, evidence for what?

[bookitty]

I was thinking about this while I was walking to the store for lunch. I think rape is generally about power through sex. Which is why it is more emotionally horrifying than simple physical assault.

I do have a problem understanding the problem a women might have with a man yelling obscenities at her. Not so much why should have a problem but why she would have a fear about it. This happens at my work all the time with men yelling at men. It's just what is, it sucks, but Oh well you either dwell on it or you move on.

I'm sorry that happens to you because you're right, it sucks. It's also frustrating because if it is part of that environment, you can't really say much about it without looking like the whiner. You have my empathy.

Of course I can't speak for all women, only those I've discussed this issue with. The yelling obscenities at you starts pretty young. Usually by the time you're 13, you've heard every descriptive term for every sexual act from strangers. At that age, you do nothing, you keep walking. It's incredibly frustrating and it never lets up. You do get used to it because it happens so often. But each time it's a bit startling, you're walking along minding your own business and suddenly there's this guy telling you which body parts he has noticed and/or what he would like to do to it. So you've got 10 minutes out of your day that's wrecked and for what?

[HansMustermann]

Exactly.

If men were telling you all the time you were going to be murdered you'd probably be a little more scared. The fact is you know it's pretty rare for a fight to end in someone dying.

This is why I said living in constant fear isn't necessarily warranted. When I was 19 we used to get into fights on a more regular basis. These days not such much. I don't have as much to worry about. It's about knowing the facts and avoiding situations.

Apparently even suggesting this to a woman is wrong because :"women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted"

Men don't know what it's like to not want to be killed or violently assaulted. That's unique to women.:rolleyes:

Except, again: she's not saying that she lives in constant fear, that's your own strawman.

Taking constant precautions doesn't mean living in constant fear. You probably look left and right every time you cross the street (or you should, anyway), but that doesn't mean you're living in terror of being run over by a car. You probably leave some space between you and the car in front for every single car that happens to be right in front of you, but that doesn't mean you're living your life in fear that one will slam the brakes. You probably check your gas level several times a day, but that doesn't mean you're living in fear of the day when you'll run out on the highway. If your job involves any kind of meetings or stuff happening at certain hours, you probably check the time several times as to not end up one hour late, but that doesn't mean it's a constant anxiety. Etc.

And trust me that when I check the inputs to every web form, it's just a reflex and discipline, rather than any kind of constant fear of some potential hacker. I mean, heck, other than a bit of reputation I don't even have anything to lose there.

Basically the whole construct that if she constantly avoids danger, it must mean living her life in fear, is your own big fat non-sequitur. If it bothers you so much, stop doing it.

[HansMustermann]

Wow, you've finally caught up to the rest of us. Nice.

She prefaces the article by saying that for women their daily routine is defined by not wanting to get violently assaulted or murdered, not just when they enter a war zone.

So you are wrong, she is talking about being terrified every moment of her life. That's why her saying everyone is a potential rapist might be a little over the top.

Of course you want to take the discussion somewhere else and make all kinds of silly claims because you just like to argue. Have fun with your strawmen, and remember "No means no!" ;)

Except for the part that it's you who've made all sorts of bizarre claims that aren't actually in the article.

[vwgub]

I'm sorry that happens to you because you're right, it sucks. It's also frustrating because if it is part of that environment, you can't really say much about it without looking like the whiner. You have my empathy.

Of course I can't speak for all women, only those I've discussed this issue with. The yelling obscenities at you starts pretty young. Usually by the time you're 13, you've heard every descriptive term for every sexual act from strangers. At that age, you do nothing, you keep walking. It's incredibly frustrating and it never lets up. You do get used to it because it happens so often. But each time it's a bit startling, you're walking along minding your own business and suddenly there's this guy telling you which body parts he has noticed and/or what he would like to do to it. So you've got 10 minutes out of your day that's wrecked and for what?

Actually I don't care if it happen to me. And maybe this is part of the difference I don't care because if it crosses my personal threshold I pull out a big can of whoopass. This actually has nothing to do with how much stronger or bigger the other person is but everything to do with my personal boundaries and other men understand this generally. I've also seen this work for women as well. If they are physically assertive men will generally treat them like another man.


ETA: I should have said equally not like another man

[bookitty]

Actually I don't care if it happen to me. And maybe this is part of the difference I don't care because if it crosses my personal threshold I pull out a big can of whoopass. This actually has nothing to do with how much stronger or bigger the other person is but everything to do with my personal boundaries and other men understand this generally. I've also seen this work for women as well. If they are physically assertive men will generally treat them like another man.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Since sexual assault and rape start with an invasion of personal space, trying to set boundaries can be moot. Men have the advantage when it comes to physical strength. If the aggressive action is about power, a woman who fights back is inviting escalation. If a man feels the need to prove his power over that woman, she will be hurt worse the more she fights back. If the man is a stranger, the woman has no way to judge how far he will take it.

One benefit to a woman acting aggressively is that it will draw the attention of other people nearby and they might come to her aid. If you've seen aggression work for women, your presence may have been part of the reason why it was effective. A woman alone with an aggressor is less likely to use this tactic.

[Sun Countess]

Beats me but it sounds like a ridiculous premise for saying men are that much different then women. No, we're really quite alike when it comes to physical and sexual assaults. Size-wise, most women are as big and strong as most men, and of course, we both have the fear of unwanted pregnancy. Not to mention, we both have penises that we can shove into people's mouth or other orifices against their will. Yup, mostly the same.

She prefaces the article by saying that for women their daily routine is defined by not wanting to get violently assaulted or murdered, not just when they enter a war zone. You know what? My daily routine is defined in some ways because of a fear of assault. I don't go out alone at night, I never go certain places alone, I watch where I park my car, when I use the ATM, etc. etc. I know that I take a hundred more precautions than my husband does, and I'd guess that I take more precautions than you do also. It doesn't mean my life is hardly worth living, or that I feel that I'm living in a war zone. I'm just aware that because of my size and gender, I could be a target in certain situations. So I avoid them. Every Day.
So you are wrong, she is talking about being terrified every moment of her life. That's why her saying everyone is a potential rapist might be a little over the top. No she's not. She's not talking about being terrified when she's at a mall or at church or at home. She's talking about specific situations where she might be vulnerable.

I do have a problem understanding the problem a women might have with a man yelling obscenities at her. Not so much why should have a problem but why she would have a fear about it. This happens at my work all the time with men yelling at men. It's just what is, it sucks, but Oh well you either dwell on it or you move on. What are the men yelling at other men? "Hey darling, I can smell you from here. Why don't you move that sweet *ss up here so I can get a better feel." "Whoa, baby, I've got a hard-on that you won't believe. You're not going to keep me hanging, are ya?" "Ooooh, baby, are those tits real? I'd bet they'd be real nice wrapped around my ****."

Those are the comments that women deal with, not every day, and not just when you're under 35. I don't dwell on it, but I can't stand that men like that are breathing the same public air as me.

Are all those guys rapists? Probably not, but I hope you can understand that it could give a rise of fear in a woman walking alone on a street.

ETA: Isn't this actually primate dominance display? While I've never seen the rubbing thing with men on men there are similar behaviors I have noticed.Funny though, that most men don't rub their groins against other men when they're standing on a train. For some reason, it's usually women who get that particular "pleasure." It's not rape, but it's an assault nonetheless.

[Cavemonster]

But this is all true of men as well. Actually I don't know a single man that I know who hasn't been assaulted at some point in their life. The only difference is it isn't sexual. Which maybe gives lie to the maxim that rape is about sex it's about power.

Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by assault. I've been mugged. One guy held my arms from behind and the other guy frisked me and took my wallet, then they threw me on the ground. Not much pain, not much risk of injury. What they wanted from me was my wallet, and there was no reason for them to hurt me, no reason for me to expect them to hurt me unless they were exceptionally crazy. In case they got caught, it would be highly disadvantageous for them to seriously hurt me.

In the case of rape however, what the rapist wants can't be taken with a minimum amount of violence, it IS a serious amount of violence to penetrate someone against their will.

As a dude, I'm not sure what sort of assaults you're talking about or how that lines up with evidence for the broader trend. (People in this thread aren't taking anecdotal evidence for the article's claim, yours should hold to the same standard) But yes, getting punched is less damaging and less traumatizing than being penetrated against your will.

And I feel pretty confident that very few people want to beat me up just for the hell of it, and frankly, if I'm in a place, at a time of day where that's a serious threat, yes I will be a bit afraid. I will likely take the precaution not to be somewhere skinheads or other gangs could be feeling territorial about late at night.

As a male (and a relatively skinny one) I'm still more likely to be able to overpower a random attacker than an average female.

I could go on with more reasons that a male is less at risk, but I'd like to see you back up and clarify your basic premise before I put more investment in this line of discussion.

[Soapy Sam]

Given about 20% of males at any given instant in a population are children incapable of rape, the actual range would seem to be 1/50 - 1/5.
I'd think by the time we reach 1/5, the definition of sexual assault would be so unforgiving that many of the men posting here would have to redefine themselves as rapists. As I have known several hundred men in my life, none of whom (AFAIK) has been charged with rape, I can't help feeling something is wrong with these numbers.

[bookitty]

I could go on with more reasons that a male is less at risk, but I'd like to see you back up and clarify your basic premise before I put more investment in this line of discussion.

Very good points. Also, women aren't exempt from non-sexual assault. They can still get mugged, robbed and murdered just like men. It's just that they also deal with a larger threat of sexual assault.

[Professor Yaffle]

Given about 20% of males at any given instant in a population are children incapable of rape, the actual range would seem to be 1/50 - 1/5.
I'd think by the time we reach 1/5, the definition of sexual assault would be so unforgiving that many of the men posting here would have to redefine themselves as rapists. As I have known several hundred men in my life, none of whom (AFAIK) has been charged with rape, I can't help feeling something is wrong with these numbers.

Just bolding a point where you may be making an error in your thinking.

[Soapy Sam]

I know what you mean , prof., but I still don't find these figures likely, even allowing for the low conviction rate. The high end (1/5) just seems incredible and even the 1 in 50 strikes me as improbable. Maybe I just know nice people, but they didn't all seem that nice. (Several have done time, but not for rape. Of course, they'd be unlikely to boast of it.)

[Furcifer]

You know what? My daily routine is defined in some ways because of a fear of assault. I don't go out alone at night, I never go certain places alone, I watch where I park my car, when I use the ATM, etc. etc. I know that I take a hundred more precautions than my husband does, and I'd guess that I take more precautions than you do also. It doesn't mean my life is hardly worth living, or that I feel that I'm living in a war zone. I'm just aware that because of my size and gender, I could be a target in certain situations. So I avoid them. Every Day.
No she's not. She's not talking about being terrified when she's at a mall or at church or at home. She's talking about specific situations where she might be vulnerable.


Hence the problem with using "Schrodinger's Rapist" instead of "Schrodinger's Jerk".

Perhaps you don't care if women call men potential rapists. I don't really care either, although I do think this type of thinking my lead to more false accusations. She's perhaps using the term a little casually and basing it on some faulty interpretation of the statistics.

Aside from that the article seems to be a decent way of explaining to men how women may perceive their advances.

[bookitty]

Aside from that the article seems to be a decent way of explaining to men how women may perceive their advances.

Great, maybe now you'll send it to your nephew?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Ah, this thread makes my statistics teacher cry :( .

I don't want to get involved with that, because I think that discussion is a red herring in the first place. I don't think anyone can offer a rational guideline for one's proper reactions to each percentage of probability. It is still very much subjective.

I think the author's point is a good one, just that the journey there got a tad sidetracked and melodramatic which turned off the male readers she wanted to target. I make that mistake a lot as well :p .

Not to be misunderstood, I'm not saying she's wrong in any meaningful way. I just think the delivery wasn't particularly skillful, like Dawkins (and there is nothing wrong with that :) ).

Though, personally, like always I must comment that she talked about "stranger danger" a bit too much for my tastes, but it is understandable since the article is about men approaching a woman.

[Soapy Sam]

You know what? My daily routine is defined in some ways because of a fear of assault. I don't go out alone at night, I never go certain places alone, I watch where I park my car, when I use the ATM, etc. etc. I know that I take a hundred more precautions than my husband does, and I'd guess that I take more precautions than you do also. It doesn't mean my life is hardly worth living, or that I feel that I'm living in a war zone. I'm just aware that because of my size and gender, I could be a target in certain situations. So I avoid them. Every Day.

FWIW this describes pretty well how I felt when I was 15-18 and going around alone a lot more than I did as a kid. I feared robbery and assault- albeit not sexual assault.

I think many women might be surprised to realise how afraid many men are , much of the time. The nature of the fear differs, but it's just as real. While men may fantasise that they can take care of themselves, they know their real limits. A teenager with a knife, any two guys , a man on his own has little real chance.

[Professor Yaffle]

I know what you mean , prof., but I still don't find these figures likely, even allowing for the low conviction rate. The high end (1/5) just seems incredible and even the 1 in 50 strikes me as improbable. Maybe I just know nice people, but they didn't all seem that nice. (Several have done time, but not for rape. Of course, they'd be unlikely to boast of it.)

I think you have to allow for low reporting rate, just as much as the low conviction rate. Also, you disregarded children earlier - what age cut off were you using? Because adolescents are not incapable of rape:

Myth:
"Youths do not commit sex offenses."

Fact:
Adolescents are responsible for a significant number of rape and child molestation cases each year.

Sexual assaults committed by youth are a growing concern in this country. Currently, it is estimated that adolescents (ages 13 to 17) account for up to one-fifth of all rapes and one-half of all cases of child molestation committed each year (Barbaree, Hudson, and Seto, 1993). In 1995, youth were involved in 15% of all forcible rapes cleared by arrest—approximately 18 adolescents per 100,000 were arrested for forcible rape. In the same year, approximately 16,100 adolescents were arrested for sexual offenses, excluding rape and prostitution (Sickmund, Snyder, Poe-Yamagata, 1997).

The majority of these incidents of sexual abuse involve adolescent male perpetrators. However, prepubescent youths also engage in sexually abusive behaviors.
http://www.helping-people.info/articles/myths_and_facts.htm


I was surprised by the numbers at first as a similar survey in the UK put the percentage of women who have been raped at closer to 1 in 20. The biggest difference between them was that the US one is including incidents that happened as children whereas the UK one only counted incidents that happened over the age of 16. If you look at only the adult rapes in the US survey, the figure is about 1 in 10 women which while much higher than the UK figure seems at least in a similar ballpark.

[Soapy Sam]

Cut off about twelve. I know there are exceptions, but there was some argument over what the OP meant. The 1:6 assault figure is a lifetime statistic. , but each decision a person has to make is at an instant, so it's the instant population makeup that counts.
Whatever the cut off, some males will be kids, so the relevant figure , whether 1/60 or 1/6 needs to be upped a bit.

I'm in no doubt official stats on rape are almost certainly too low, whether detection, charge or conviction.
By how much- no idea, but I would be deeply sceptical of any figures that suggested 1 man in 5 or 6 was an actual rapist.

I could be way off base, but I'd need to see some evidence. Which is, of course, the difficulty with what tends to be a very private crime.

[bookitty]

FWIW this describes pretty well how I felt when I was 15-18 and going around alone a lot more than I did as a kid. I feared robbery and assault- albeit not sexual assault.

I think many women might be surprised to realise how afraid many men are , much of the time. The nature of the fear differs, but it's just as real. While men may fantasise that they can take care of themselves, they know their real limits. A teenager with a knife, any two guys , a man on his own has little real chance.

Again, women have just as much to fear when it comes to robbery and non-sexual assault. But women also have a larger chance of experiencing sexual assault than a man.

[Soapy Sam]

Perfectly true. But fear is fear - an experience shared by both sexes. Men find it harder to admit to in public. That does not mean it does not affect their lives.

[vwgub]

Again, women have just as much to fear when it comes to robbery and non-sexual assault. But women also have a larger chance of experiencing sexual assault than a man.

So this is what I am still trying to figure out. Why is sexual assault scarier than any other physical assault? Note I am not trying to say it isn't scarier just trying to understand why it is.

[bookitty]

Perfectly true. But fear is fear - an experience shared by both sexes. Men find it harder to admit to in public. That does not mean it does not affect their lives.

True. And in a lot of ways the expectation on how men "should" deal with fear makes it harder to accept help. This really should be addressed. But I have to wonder why guys rarely start a separate thread about these things. Instead they wait for a thread that deals with a woman's issue and cram into that.

[vwgub]

Let me put it more bluntly. Why is getting a dick forcibly shoved up your **** more scary than getting a knife shoved through you heart?


ETA: **** is the bad word for vagina. Trying to be as blunt as possible.

[bookitty]

So this is what I am still trying to figure out. Why is sexual assault scarier than any other physical assault? Note I am not trying to say it isn't scarier just trying to understand why it is.

A few reasons. Sexual assault doesn't have to be penetrative to be a violation. Getting rubbed up against on the subway is a fairly mild physical act but the loathing and anger felt by the victim is huge. Because sexual assault is more likely to come from someone known to you, there are broken trust issues as well.

Look at it this way, would you rather have someone beat you up, take your wallet and leave, or have them beat you up and forcibly penetrate you?

[bookitty]

Let me put it more bluntly. Why is getting a dick forcibly shoved up your **** more scary than getting a knife shoved through you heart?


ETA: **** is the bad word for vagina. Trying to be as blunt as possible.

Because in the first case, you live.

[vwgub]

Now that I looked it up the statistics are way different for rape to murder so my previous question doesn't hold. It should be getting your face bashed in. Because even give the estimate of unreported rapes (75,000) that make a total of 165,000 rapes per year. There are 850,000 aggravate assault a year, so approximately 7 to 1. And now I've lost my train of thought so I'm going to shut up.

[vwgub]

A few reasons. Sexual assault doesn't have to be penetrative to be a violation. Getting rubbed up against on the subway is a fairly mild physical act but the loathing and anger felt by the victim is huge. Because sexual assault is more likely to come from someone known to you, there are broken trust issues as well.

Look at it this way, would you rather have someone beat you up, take your wallet and leave, or have them beat you up and forcibly penetrate you?

Well in the former case I would just give them my wallet. If they were intent on causing physical harm for a thrill I would make them pay for every inch.

[Furcifer]

Instead they wait for a thread that deals with a woman's issue and cram into that.

When it is an article addressed to men?


You keep moving the goal posts.

This thread was never about "woman's issues" per se. This thread was about a woman saying she was justified in treating men as potential rapists.

She made a rather false claim that men don't know what it's like to live in fear of being murdered or violently assaulted.

It's time you listen to men and accept the fact that we do. We are subject to violent assault and murder.

Nobody has suggested women aren't the victim of sexual assault to a much greater extent than men. The studies Professor Yaffle cited clearly show women are three times more likely to be sexually assaulted than men.

That certainly doesn't make sexual assault exclusive to women or a woman's issue.

[Sun Countess]

I'd rather be beat up than raped, and I'd rather be raped than killed.

I'd like to think that holds true for men as well. If you had to take your pick between being punched in the face or having a penis shoved up your rectum, which would you choose?

Getting beat up doesn't generally put somebody at risk for pregnancy or life-threatening STIs either.

Also, because sexual assault involves something so much more personal, an assault of that nature can really mess with somebody's mind. If somebody uses his penis as a weapon against me, it may make it more difficult to enjoy consensual relations with a more beloved penis - my husband's. Sexual assault distorts what is otherwise an enjoyable act for many people. I don't play "mug me" or "beat me" for fun with my husband (not that there's anything wrong with that).

[Cavemonster]

Let me put it more bluntly. Why is getting a dick forcibly shoved up your **** more scary than getting a knife shoved through you heart?


ETA: **** is the bad word for vagina. Trying to be as blunt as possible.

I would be very shocked if 1 out of 6 men had had a knife shoved through their heart.

There are very few people walking around thinking "Oooh, I just want to plunge this knife into someone" It happens, but it's pretty vanishingly rare. I'm betting that a far greater number of assaults are fights between people who know each other, and robberies gone wrong.

But again, for this to be a valid line of discussion, you really need to reply to this post.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6322332#post6322332

[bookitty]

Well in the former case I would just give them my wallet. If they were intent on causing physical harm for a thrill I would make them pay for every inch.

That isn't answering the question.

[7th sextile]

Preramble : First I want to affirm that I generally agree with the the substance of the article as I understand it .

That being said,I wonder if the author has inadvertently sown some unnecessary discord by inexactly - I would opine, incorrectly - adapting Schrodinger's original scenario for use in her article :

In the 1935 "Schrodinger's Cat",the existence of the titular feline is stipulated-the 'probability' of finding a cat in the box is 1.What is undetermined is the "state" of the cat-dead or alive.
In the author's scenario a "strange man" is stipulated,with the undetermined state being "threat/nonthreat".I would suggest her title should be ( some variant of) ' "'Schrodinger's' Stranger". IMO,the use of "Schrodinger's Rapist" gives the appearance of affirming the consequent ( Schrodinger's Dead Kitty)-albeit in the title only,not in her expanded explanation.
One problem,as we've seen in this thread,is that 'bout any "state" with a non-zero probability can be substituted for "Rapist" (jerk,d-bag,mugger,killer)-equally "valid" and equally tendentious.("You're Schrodinger's Rapist,remember?"."Oh yeah? well maybe yer "Schrodinger's crack sucking child abusing litterbug!") Too many can play.
[Speculation Alert] : I suspect that to some extent this may be an instance of something I can read and "understand" logically but might "hear" psychologically.i.e.-I can follow her logic and agree with the conclusions-but somehow when I "hear" the statement:
"You are [some modifier] rapist" I go to defcon NOWJUSTAMINUTE.

OK,the " and ( ) keys are getting hot to the touch,must be time for the

Postramble:I hope whatever fussiness w/r/t diction I ve displayed here doesn't give the impression that I disagree with the substance of the article.

[elipse]

Hey, did any one of you guys actually read the comments on that article? Because the women there answered every one of the arguments that's been brought up here. Every single one. In great detail.

In the comments:

a. the "this is just like racism" argument is covered, and in a different way than it's been covered here.
b. if any women post that they think the 1 in 6 women are rape victims stat is wrong, it is because, according to their own experience, it seems too LOW. None of them thinks it's incredible or even surprising. (And neither do I, fwiw.) Doesn't that give you pause at all? NONE of the women think 1 in 6 is surprising. Perhaps you think it can't possibly be true because women usually don't talk to men about having been raped...is that in the realm of possibility?
c. the "this is so mean and impolite and I'm just trying to be NICE" argument is covered.
d. the men, by and large, start out refusing to listen to the women trying to tell them about what it is like to be a woman living in the world. I'm willing to bet that gets old fast.
e. the links for where the 1-in-6 stats come from are provided, so all of you saying "yeah, but it might include this" or "yeah, but it might not include that" can actually find out for reals where the numbers come from.


If you do go read the comments, you might be uncomfortable with the way the comments are modded. You might feel that the mods are too quick to ban. I get the feeling that these women have heard these arguments over and over again, and in their own spaces (like their own blogs) they don't need to hear the same stuff AGAIN. So in order to have a safe space to discuss their own issues, they ban the people who come seeking to shame, humiliate, or threaten. They also ban those who refuse to listen, because it is their space and every woman alive has already put up with too much "what you think and feel is irrational and I will tell you why." I mention this because I originally felt they were too quick to ban, until I gave it a little more thought. Actually, I still think they were a LITTLE quick to ban, but I understand why they have such a strict policy.

So go read it, if you have questions or concerns about what you THINK this woman is saying. She and others address everything you've brought up. Comments are closed, which means I was forced to keep my mouth shut and just listen to what they had to say. (Forced to keep my fingers still and just read?)

My 2 cents, since this thread isn't closed: 1 in 6 women has been raped or sexully assaulted. I'm pretty sure that figure doesn't include childhood sexual abuse, either. So when you are approaching the pretty lady on the bus, there's a 1 in 6 chance that she's a survivor of sexual assault. Why do you think it's okay to assume that her risk assessment is irrational? Would you tell anyone else with PTSD that their risk assessment is irrational?

Oh, and one more thing, which is covered in the comments but which I think is too important not to mention here:

The risk assessment is not just "will this man rape me on this bus?" That's a strawman argument. Most rapes are committed by someone "known to" the victim. If you are ignoring her cues and refusing to acknowledge her boundaries, that's a good indication that she doesn't want to know you, not because you're gonna throw her down right that second, but because not respecting her boundaries is the kind of thing that might lead you to rape her later on, when you are "known to" her.

You start out an unknown entity, that's all. Then, by your actions, you make yourself more or less frightening.

[elipse]

Preramble : First I want to affirm that I generally agree with the the substance of the article as I understand it .



In the 1935 "Schrodinger's Cat",the existence of the titular feline is stipulated-the 'probability' of finding a cat in the box is 1.What is undetermined is the "state" of the cat-dead or alive.
In the author's scenario a "strange man" is stipulated,with the undetermined state being "threat/nonthreat".I would suggest her title should be ( some variant of) ' "'Schrodinger's' Stranger". IMO,the use of "Schrodinger's Rapist" gives the appearance of affirming the consequent ( Schrodinger's Dead Kitty)-albeit in the title only,not in her expanded explanation.
One problem,as we've seen in this thread,is that 'bout any "state" with a non-zero probability can be substituted for "Rapist" (jerk,d-bag,mugger,killer)-equally "valid" and equally tendentious.("You're Schrodinger's Rapist,remember?"."Oh yeah? well maybe yer "Schrodinger's crack sucking child abusing litterbug!") Too many can play.


I see your point re: the title not being neutral, but I think the author wants people to see that they are potential threats to others; to own that and change their behavior, so she deliberately picks a non-neutral title. One of the neat things about this deliberate use of a gut-reaction title is that it shocked others in the comment thread into realizing their own potential threat to others. A few women mentioned realizing that they were Schrodinger's Racist. I, too, realized I am Schrodinger's Racist: I work with minority kids, some of whom are wary of me at first. I have to remember that, to them, I'm an unknown entity of a type that has treated them poorly in the past. It's up to me to show I'm not going to do the same. So yes, everyone can play that game. That's the point, to make people realize how their behavior affects others. Putting it into a provocative form made me feel uneasy-- I don't want strangers to see me as a potential threat!--but I think that's the point.

Gah, I'm so tired and this post is not very coherent, but I found the comment thread for the original post fascinating and I wanted to share.

[HansMustermann]

Hence the problem with using "Schrodinger's Rapist" instead of "Schrodinger's Jerk".

Perhaps you don't care if women call men potential rapists. I don't really care either, although I do think this type of thinking my lead to more false accusations. She's perhaps using the term a little casually and basing it on some faulty interpretation of the statistics.

Aside from that the article seems to be a decent way of explaining to men how women may perceive their advances.

Except she isn't using any faulty interpretation of statistics, she's using a real one for that 1 in 60 figure, and makes it very clear what she means. It's just you who seem to have a problem that someone even consider that a stranger could, possibly, have a 1 in 60 chance of being a rapist. Because that's all that "potential" means.

And I still don't see you addressing that, you just do an act of repeating the same strawmen and non-sequiturs if that gives you some self-righteous soapbox from which to tell women what to think and how to live their lives.

I'd maybe even see a point if it were based on something she actually says. But doing your own slew of fallacies to accuse someone who doesn't of being illogical, is kinda funny. In a sad clown kinda way.

[HansMustermann]

Yah on the bus during rush hour.:rolleyes:

Except again that's your deliberate distortion of the problem. She's not saying that she expects the guy to rape her right there on the bus, she's saying she's not going to be picked up by and start a relationship with someone giving the signals that they might override her saying "no". She's saying you're not going to end up dating her, if you give this and that signal.

And letting oneself be picked up by someone like that actually moves it in the other risk category there, namely risk from someone she now knows. If she let you date her when you come across as a potential rapist, then it would no longer be in the bus or by a complete stranger when/if it happens.

Pretending that it's strictly about risk right there on the bus is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid. Or, I suppose, it could also be both.

You just don't understand the stats and instead want to foster an irrational fear of men in all women. It's obvious you have an agenda and some emotional involvement. You may want to admit this and remove yourself from the discussion because you're trying to take it in another direction instead of just considering the facts.

Oh, goodie, appeal to motive too, _and_ the troll trope of demanding that the other admits defeat. Going for the full set of fallacies, or what?

Again, for someone accusing others of being illogical, you sure make a show of using broken logic.

[HansMustermann]

AFAIK a rapist is a person who commits 1 rape. She says "1 in 6 men are rapists, but let's say they commit 10 rapes each (I pulled that out of my arse, it's that shocking), then it's 1 in 60"

Except that's not what she actually says. And yes, I've actually just re-read the article, looking for such a "1 in 6 men are rapists" and there is none. The calculation starts at, and this is the actual quote, "One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime" not at "1 in 6 men are rapists."

You accuse TraneWreck of being a liar, but there you flat out make up a lie as a quote to base your self-righteous BS on.

[HansMustermann]

Cut off about twelve. I know there are exceptions, but there was some argument over what the OP meant. The 1:6 assault figure is a lifetime statistic. , but each decision a person has to make is at an instant, so it's the instant population makeup that counts.
Whatever the cut off, some males will be kids, so the relevant figure , whether 1/60 or 1/6 needs to be upped a bit.

I'm in no doubt official stats on rape are almost certainly too low, whether detection, charge or conviction.
By how much- no idea, but I would be deeply sceptical of any figures that suggested 1 man in 5 or 6 was an actual rapist.

I could be way off base, but I'd need to see some evidence. Which is, of course, the difficulty with what tends to be a very private crime.

Actually, thing is, we do have some statistics. See, for example the link posted before by SOdhner: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/

In that survey about 6% of men basically self-identified as having committed or attempted rape at least once. That's a little over 1 in 16.

We're talking real rape too, not just flashing or groping someone. We're also not talking about something just maybe misjudged by the victim, as the perps themselves judged it as being use of force or threat of harm.

So while it's not the "1 in 6" strawman that sadly got picked along as the thread rolled by, but it's freaking 1 in 16. Even the author's 1 in 60 estimation, actually UNDERestimates the risk by almost 4 _times_.

[Cavemonster]

Preramble : First I want to affirm that I generally agree with the the substance of the article as I understand it .

That being said,I wonder if the author has inadvertently sown some unnecessary discord by inexactly - I would opine, incorrectly - adapting Schrodinger's original scenario for use in her article :

In the 1935 "Schrodinger's Cat",the existence of the titular feline is stipulated-the 'probability' of finding a cat in the box is 1.What is undetermined is the "state" of the cat-dead or alive.
In the author's scenario a "strange man" is stipulated,with the undetermined state being "threat/nonthreat".I would suggest her title should be ( some variant of) ' "'Schrodinger's' Stranger". IMO,the use of "Schrodinger's Rapist" gives the appearance of affirming the consequent ( Schrodinger's Dead Kitty)-albeit in the title only,not in her expanded explanation.
One problem,as we've seen in this thread,is that 'bout any "state" with a non-zero probability can be substituted for "Rapist" (jerk,d-bag,mugger,killer)-equally "valid" and equally tendentious.("You're Schrodinger's Rapist,remember?"."Oh yeah? well maybe yer "Schrodinger's crack sucking child abusing litterbug!") Too many can play.
[Speculation Alert] : I suspect that to some extent this may be an instance of something I can read and "understand" logically but might "hear" psychologically.i.e.-I can follow her logic and agree with the conclusions-but somehow when I "hear" the statement:
"You are [some modifier] rapist" I go to defcon NOWJUSTAMINUTE.

OK,the " and ( ) keys are getting hot to the touch,must be time for the

Postramble:I hope whatever fussiness w/r/t diction I ve displayed here doesn't give the impression that I disagree with the substance of the article.

Yep, I can see that the author didn't follow exactly the naming convention of the title's inspiration, and that the word rapist in this context can elicit such a response, regardless of the modifier. I think the word rapist is in some sense though, necessary there for the thrust of the article, to bring home the point that rape is the ugly specter thats looming over these interactions.

The very first words in the article are assuring the male reader that she knows that "You" far from being a rapist are a real nice guy with very good intentions. Anyone who can read through that and still feel as though she is calling them a rapist isn't really reading.

Yes, I absolutely see how this construction and word choice can turn off some male readers, but I think it's needed to make the point very clear. When you approach a strange woman and ignore her personal space, her clear cues about her desire for privacy etc. She's not just annoyed by what a jerk you are, you are a potential rapist/date rapist whatever. Skipping that word or making it much less prevalent in the article would disguise that fact and some guys might easily read it and say "Oh, some guys can be jerks and she doesn't want to talk to a Shrodinger's Jerk, but I'm a nice guy, so it's all ok"

Yeah, some of the audience will sail past the modifier and get offended, but I think a weaker version of the assertion would also cause a lot of men to miss the point. No piece of writing especially about anything approaching controversy, is going to have a perfect construction that will appeal to all readers. I think the author chose the more effective way overall.

[Professor Yaffle]

Thanks for that link - I knew I had read about that study a while back but couldn't find it when I was looking for the figures.

[Furcifer]

Except she isn't using any faulty interpretation of statistics, she's using a real one for that 1 in 60 figure, and makes it very clear what she means. It's just you who seem to have a problem that someone even consider that a stranger could, possibly, have a 1 in 60 chance of being a rapist. Because that's all that "potential" means.

And I still don't see you addressing that, you just do an act of repeating the same strawmen and non-sequiturs if that gives you some self-righteous soapbox from which to tell women what to think and how to live their lives.

I'd maybe even see a point if it were based on something she actually says. But doing your own slew of fallacies to accuse someone who doesn't of being illogical, is kinda funny. In a sad clown kinda way.

:words:

Do you have any evidence to support this each rapist commits 10 rapes nonsense? No, I didn't think so. Because she made it up and Tranwreck lied. I know this, it only takes 1 rape to make someone a rapist.

You can't use the 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted to formulate any number on the "concentration of rapists". Her baseline assumption that there is a direct relation between the number of sexual assaults reported in a survey and the number of rapists is faulty. "If" they commit 10, which we don't know there still isn't a 1 in 60 concentration. "If" they commit 1, which we do know there still isn't a 1 in 6 concentration of rapists.

Your defense of the author's poor use of stats is hilarious. The author doesn't even clarify if these 10 rapes she made up were against different women. She seems to be implying every rapist is a serial rapist, but you can't go on her use of statistics to determine this. I don't know if she realizes it's much more likely that multiple rapes occur by the same person on the same person.

[TraneWreck]

You start out an unknown entity, that's all. Then, by your actions, you make yourself more or less frightening.

I continue to be amazed that this is so difficult to understand.

[TraneWreck]

:words:

[...]

Your defense of the author's poor use of stats is hilarious. The author doesn't even clarify if these 10 rapes she made up were against different women. She seems to be implying every rapist is a serial rapist, but you can't go on her use of statistics to determine this. I don't know if she realizes it's much more likely that multiple rapes occur by the same person on the same person.

Your demand for specificity here is just a waste of time.

Here are the author's questionable assumptions:

1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted. There have been number of links to support this. Going from victims to assailants, however, assumes that there are an equal number of men and women. This isn't true, but the difference isn't significant.

Now the author, in order to establish the basis of her concern, grants an absurdly conservative estimate that the average perpetrator of rape commits 10 offenses. This would mean that a group of males that basically represents 1 out of every 60 men will be responsible for the number of sexual assaults.

There is literally no way that the average assailant commits 10 offenses, that's way high.

So even granting an absurdly high number, the risk is very real, and thus the author's point is made.

What do you think it will prove if a more specific number is arrived at? Do you have any reason to think it will change a single point she made?

[ThunderChunky]

The risk assessment is not just "will this man rape me on this bus?" That's a strawman argument. Most rapes are committed by someone "known to" the victim. If you are ignoring her cues and refusing to acknowledge her boundaries, that's a good indication that she doesn't want to know you,

That's nice, but she cannot speak for all women. There are some women who will give negative cues before you even say a single word but warm up to you when you've shown some personality. In fact, some women may appreciate the fact that you weren't scared away by a bitchy attitude in the first 5 seconds of the interaction and actually tried to get to know them.

[Furcifer]

Hey, did any one of you guys actually read the comments on that article? Because the women there answered every one of the arguments that's been brought up here. Every single one. In great detail.

In the comments:

a. the "this is just like racism" argument is covered, and in a different way than it's been covered here.
b. if any women post that they think the 1 in 6 women are rape victims stat is wrong, it is because, according to their own experience, it seems too LOW. None of them thinks it's incredible or even surprising. (And neither do I, fwiw.) Doesn't that give you pause at all? NONE of the women think 1 in 6 is surprising. Perhaps you think it can't possibly be true because women usually don't talk to men about having been raped...is that in the realm of possibility?
c. the "this is so mean and impolite and I'm just trying to be NICE" argument is covered.
d. the men, by and large, start out refusing to listen to the women trying to tell them about what it is like to be a woman living in the world. I'm willing to bet that gets old fast.
e. the links for where the 1-in-6 stats come from are provided, so all of you saying "yeah, but it might include this" or "yeah, but it might not include that" can actually find out for reals where the numbers come from.


If you do go read the comments, you might be uncomfortable with the way the comments are modded. You might feel that the mods are too quick to ban. I get the feeling that these women have heard these arguments over and over again, and in their own spaces (like their own blogs) they don't need to hear the same stuff AGAIN. So in order to have a safe space to discuss their own issues, they ban the people who come seeking to shame, humiliate, or threaten. They also ban those who refuse to listen, because it is their space and every woman alive has already put up with too much "what you think and feel is irrational and I will tell you why." I mention this because I originally felt they were too quick to ban, until I gave it a little more thought. Actually, I still think they were a LITTLE quick to ban, but I understand why they have such a strict policy.

So go read it, if you have questions or concerns about what you THINK this woman is saying. She and others address everything you've brought up. Comments are closed, which means I was forced to keep my mouth shut and just listen to what they had to say. (Forced to keep my fingers still and just read?)

My 2 cents, since this thread isn't closed: 1 in 6 women has been raped or sexully assaulted. I'm pretty sure that figure doesn't include childhood sexual abuse, either. So when you are approaching the pretty lady on the bus, there's a 1 in 6 chance that she's a survivor of sexual assault. Why do you think it's okay to assume that her risk assessment is irrational? Would you tell anyone else with PTSD that their risk assessment is irrational?

Oh, and one more thing, which is covered in the comments but which I think is too important not to mention here:

The risk assessment is not just "will this man rape me on this bus?" That's a strawman argument. Most rapes are committed by someone "known to" the victim. If you are ignoring her cues and refusing to acknowledge her boundaries, that's a good indication that she doesn't want to know you, not because you're gonna throw her down right that second, but because not respecting her boundaries is the kind of thing that might lead you to rape her later on, when you are "known to" her.

You start out an unknown entity, that's all. Then, by your actions, you make yourself more or less frightening.

I read a lot of the responses, not all of them though there were thousands.

That's exactly why I know the 1 in 6 men are rapists was being bantered about. The people defending the author here didn't really read much else is my only guess.

The article read very much like "Women live in constant fear because 1 in 6 men are potential rapists" The responses seem to support this.

Did the author say this? No not exactly, although you can easily see in the responses how it was misconstrued. Why? Because she says "Even if..."

There's no extra safety afforded in knowing 1 in 60 men commits a rape if they commit 10 of them. Think about it, if there are 60 men in her gym one of them is looking for 10 women to rape.

Is there anything wrong with the article beyond how she's used the stats somewhat improperly? Not really, other than that it's a pretty sincere explanation of how women see men that approach them. Is it a little overblown in the way it seems to say 1 in 6 men are rapists? Perhaps, but that's only a problem when it becomes a problem.

[HansMustermann]

:words:

Do you have any evidence to support this each rapist commits 10 rapes nonsense? No, I didn't think so. Because she made it up and Tranwreck lied. I know this, it only takes 1 rape to make someone a rapist.

You can't use the 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted to formulate any number on the "concentration of rapists". Her baseline assumption that there is a direct relation between the number of sexual assaults reported in a survey and the number of rapists is faulty. "If" they commit 10, which we don't know there still isn't a 1 in 60 concentration. "If" they commit 1, which we do know there still isn't a 1 in 6 concentration of rapists.

Your defense of the author's poor use of stats is hilarious. The author doesn't even clarify if these 10 rapes she made up were against different women. She seems to be implying every rapist is a serial rapist, but you can't go on her use of statistics to determine this. I don't know if she realizes it's much more likely that multiple rapes occur by the same person on the same person.

Actually, as I was saying, we do have some statistics, and a link has been posted at least twice. Here's a third time, maybe this time we'll actually read it: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/

120 in 1882 men self-identified as rapists in that survey. Do you understand? One in 1882/120, or 1 in 15.7 men is a self-assessed rapist.

ETA: and 4% of the men (1 in 25) actually averaged almost 6 rapes each. So really, when she looks around her, the correct number is not just that 1 in 16 men is a rapist, but also 1 in 25 is a repeat rapist. Do you see any reason why she shouldn't assume that 1 in 25, if she started dating them, would add a 7'th notch to their score?

So, yes, technically she calculates the wrong risk number. She UNDERestimates the risk by a whole 4 time. She's even more at risk than she thinks, actually. Four times more, to be precise.

You're just doing a red herring, basically. When the numbers not only support her risk assessment, but actually a 4 times higher risk, that's that. Trying to divert the discussion into irrelevant details as to exactly what is the average per man, is a red herring.

And since you challenge me to support assertions (which I just did,) then please do the same. If you want to argue risk to women, please do use the numbers supported by a study, instead of appeals to personal incredulity, strawmen and non-sequiturs.

And it's an even more... weird red herring when actually your assertions would not support your point, and actually make the risk to her even higher. If each rapist actually only commited 1 rape, like you seem to argue, that would make the number of rapists even higher than 1 in 6. Because some women are raped repeatedly, and incidence does not equal prevalence. So if it were so, actually she'd be even _more_ entitled to be cautious.

But at any rate, 1 in 6 being rapists is your own strawman. _You_ came up with that number, not she. If it bothers you, stop doing it. If _your_ maths end up in something ridiculous, it should be a sign that _you_ need to revise _your_ assumptions that went into it. Not a sign that you can blame her for your broken results.

Furthermore, it's stupid and/or dishonest to pretend to mis-understand what average numbers mean. She doesn't say that it takes 10 rapes to make you a rapist or anything. So arguing basically "she's wrong, it only takes one" is again you arguing with your own strawmen. That's again your own distortion, and fully irrelevant to her point too.

[Furcifer]

What do you think it will prove if a more specific number is arrived at? Do you have any reason to think it will change a single point she made?

A fair risk assessment that eliminates irrational fear of being attacked or raped.

Her point is well taken. I think however most men aren't stupid and realize women are at a much higher risk of becoming victims of sexual assault.

Pointing that out serves some purpose, but I can see the apprehension at being referred to as a rapist. It's one thing to approach a woman in a parking garage at 2am, another to approach her at the gym or on a bus at rush hour.

While she admits there's a sliding scale, and the risk assessment changes with a given situation, she doesn't go far enough to say what that risk assessment is only "it isn't 0, it's never 0"

Is it 50%? Or is it 0.001%, because 50% is irrational, 0.001% is. The way she leaves it hanging is somewhat questionable, but again,doesn't or shouldn't detract from her overall point, that their is always "some" risk assessment.

[HansMustermann]

*sigh* _Again_

1. Nowhere does she say irrational fear, that's your own non-sequitur.

2. Just because you don't know exactly how her risk assessment works, doesn't mean you can fill in with your own strawmen. Don't know means don't know.

[Furcifer]

Actually, as I was saying, we do have some statistics, and a link has been posted at least twice. Here's a third time, maybe this time we'll actually read it: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/


We already know college age women are at a much higher risk of date rape. It stand to reason it's because of college age men :rolleyes:

It's a serious issue and many schools have programs and information seminars to alert young women to the threat.

Now please tell me you aren't foolish enough to believe the survey of 1882 college age men is applicable to the general population at large. I don't think you have any clue how statistics work. :boggled:

[Furcifer]

*sigh* _Again_

1. Nowhere does she say irrational fear, that's your own non-sequitur.

2. Just because you don't know exactly how her risk assessment works, doesn't mean you can fill in with your own strawmen. Don't know means don't know.

You're just not good at reading comprehension are you?

She says woman's daily routine is defined by the constant threat of being violently assaulted or murdered and men don't understand because they aren't subject to the same threat.

That's irrational for two reasons, one because your daily routine need not be defined by the constant threat of being murdered or violently assaulted, and second it's irrational to assume men aren't afraid of dying or being violently assaulted. I can assure you men don't want that to happen to them as much as women don't want that to happen to them.

I can certainly question her risk assessment if it's based in incorrect or misconstrued data and leads to irrational risk assessment as defined by her nonsensical or deliberately inflammatory statements.

[HansMustermann]

So basically, you don't have better numbers, but you feel qualified to take a conclusion and dish out advice based on... what? Your own wild guesses? Personal incredulity?

But, really, what would your guess be? Let's even go that route.

Someone has to commit all those 1 in 6 women rapes, right? And they weren't women. Out of 8000 women in that survey less than 5 had been raped by other women. So that amounts for 99.94% of women being raped by men.

How many rapists do you estimate, and therefore what average of rapes per rapist? It's a simple inverse relationship. You push one down, the other goes up. You disagree to her guessed average of 10. Ok. What average do _you_ guess? I'll trust your superior intellect there.

1 rape per rapist, like you seemed to argue before? I already did the calculation of what that means, based on the current rape rates, in the other thread. Granted, that was for the wrong assumption that each woman would only be raped once, but the numbers end up pretty much the same. That would make 1 in 4 men a rapist.

Yes, that's actually more than the 1 in 6 women raped, because some experienced multiple rapes. As I was saying, incidence does not equal prevalence. If we're working back from incidence and assume only 1 rape per rapist ever, we end up with 1 in 4.

How would that support the assumption that she shouldn't be affraid? If actually it were only 1 rape per rapist, then each guy around her would have a lifetime chance of 1 in 4 to be or become a rapist. I'm pretty sure even _I_ would be freaking terrorized, if that many guys around me were a risk to assault me.

So I'm guessing you're not going to guess 1 rape per rapist either. What number do you guess?

[elipse]

I read a lot of the responses, not all of them though there were thousands.

That's exactly why I know the 1 in 6 men are rapists was being bantered about. The people defending the author here didn't really read much else is my only guess.

The article read very much like "Women live in constant fear because 1 in 6 men are potential rapists" The responses seem to support this.

Did the author say this? No not exactly, although you can easily see in the responses how it was misconstrued. Why? Because she says "Even if..."

There's no extra safety afforded in knowing 1 in 60 men commits a rape if they commit 10 of them. Think about it, if there are 60 men in her gym one of them is looking for 10 women to rape.

Is there anything wrong with the article beyond how she's used the stats somewhat improperly? Not really, other than that it's a pretty sincere explanation of how women see men that approach them. Is it a little overblown in the way it seems to say 1 in 6 men are rapists? Perhaps, but that's only a problem when it becomes a problem.

It does not "seem to say" 1 in 6 men are rapists. It says nothing of the kind. It MEANS nothing of the kind. It estimates 1 in 60. If you have a problem with that, show us why. The only person in the original comment thread claiming the "1 in 6 men are rapists" was, like you, misreading. It got corrected, over and over, both in the comments to that person who misread, and here, to you. You are also misunderstanding the way the math works here, even though it has been explained to you. You even seem to think that complaining that most men don't commit 10 rapes bolsters your argument that the number of men who are rapists is too high, when in fact the opposite is true. She is deliberately making the estimated number of average rapes high, in order to CONSERVATIVELY estimate the number of rapists. Do the math yourself; this is simple, so long as you start with the actual statistics she is using, not the ones you are pretending she is using.


Of course, you are missing the entire point of the article, but let's fix this problem before tackling that one.

[Furcifer]

Except that's not what she actually says. And yes, I've actually just re-read the article, looking for such a "1 in 6 men are rapists" and there is none. The calculation starts at, and this is the actual quote, "One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime" not at "1 in 6 men are rapists."

You accuse TraneWreck of being a liar, but there you flat out make up a lie as a quote to base your self-righteous BS on.

It amazes me how people can be deliberately dense to try and prove their argument.

In order to get from 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted she makes the incorrect assumption 1 in 6 men are rapists. She further confounds it by claiming erroneously rapists commit 10 rapes to arrive at 1 in 60. YOU CAN'T DO THIS.

Watch.

1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted. College women are 4 times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault. If every man commits 1 rape, 2/3 of the men in college are rapists. If you believe the 1 in 4 figure someone mentioned earlier, EVERY SINGLE MAN IN COLLEGE IS A RAPIST

This is a piss poor way of trying to legitimize calling every man you meet a "Schrodinger's Rapist". The most obvious of which is not every sexual assault is rape.

[bookitty]

It amazes me how people can be deliberately dense to try and prove their argument.

In order to get from 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted she makes the incorrect assumption 1 in 6 men are rapists. She further confounds it by claiming erroneously rapists commit 10 rapes to arrive at 1 in 60. YOU CAN'T DO THIS.

Watch.

1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted. College women are 4 times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault. If every man commits 1 rape, 2/3 of the men in college are rapists. If you believe the 1 in 4 figure someone mentioned earlier, EVERY SINGLE MAN IN COLLEGE IS A RAPIST

This is a piss poor way of trying to legitimize calling every man you meet a "Schrodinger's Rapist". The most obvious of which is not every sexual assault is rape.


Ok, simple question - What percentage of men do you think are rapists?

[TraneWreck]

It amazes me how people can be deliberately dense to try and prove their argument.

In order to get from 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted she makes the incorrect assumption 1 in 6 men are rapists. She further confounds it by claiming erroneously rapists commit 10 rapes to arrive at 1 in 60. YOU CAN'T DO THIS.

Watch.

1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted. College women are 4 times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault. If every man commits 1 rape, 2/3 of the men in college are rapists. If you believe the 1 in 4 figure someone mentioned earlier, EVERY SINGLE MAN IN COLLEGE IS A RAPIST

This is a piss poor way of trying to legitimize calling every man you meet a "Schrodinger's Rapist". The most obvious of which is not every sexual assault is rape.

Again, you're requiring a specificity that is useless to the point at issue. She is granting overly broad assumptions and still arrives at a highly disturbing number.

If 1 in 6 women are assaulted, who is committing the crime? We know about 99% of those acts are perpetrated by men, so if the population of men and women is about the same and every sexual assault is perpetrated by a different man, then 1 in 6 will be criminals.

But we know each assault isn't committed by a different person, so how many do each perform? Granting an insanely generous assumption that the average is 10/molester (we know it's lower) we still arrive at a scary number.

So again, if you want perfect numbers, go ahead and figure them out, but under what scenario would the basic premise be falsified?

What if your perfect numbers showed that 1 in 100 men were rapists? That's still way too much raping, and would be more than enough to justify the mild requests made in that article.

[Furcifer]

Ok, simple question - What percentage of men do you think are rapists?

Based on the statistics 0.23% of the US population of men. If we assume 60% go unreported, as the data suggests about 0.575% of men are rapists.

That's 1 in 174.

[Cavemonster]

she makes the incorrect assumption 1 in 6 men are rapists.

How many times have you been corrected on this?

[elipse]

Watch.

1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted. College women are 4 times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault. If every man commits 1 rape, 2/3 of the men in college are rapists. If you believe the 1 in 4 figure someone mentioned earlier, EVERY SINGLE MAN IN COLLEGE IS A RAPIST

This is a piss poor way of trying to legitimize calling every man you meet a "Schrodinger's Rapist". The most obvious of which is not every sexual assault is rape.

Wait...You believe that every man who commits rape does so once, to one woman, one time? That's why you keep insisting that " 1 out of 6 women raped" = "1 out of 6 men are rapists?"

I'm stunned. I'm floored. Please tell me that's not the logic you are using.
I wouldn't believe that it is, except that I can't see any other way your reasoning makes sense.

And, again, you're missing the entire point of the article. We can discuss that once this...error is taken care of.

[bookitty]

Based on the statistics 0.23% of the US population of men. If we assume 60% go unreported, as the data suggests about 0.575% of men are rapists.

That's 1 in 174.

Please show your work. What statistics?

[Furcifer]

So again, if you want perfect numbers, go ahead and figure them out, but under what scenario would the basic premise be falsified?

What if your perfect numbers showed that 1 in 100 men were rapists? That's still way too much raping, and we be more than enough to justify the mild requests made in that article.

It's about 1 in 174.

Even that's too much raping.

However, it's almost exactly the same as the crime rate 4.9%.

Thus caution is warranted whenever you meet someone, man or woman.

Her mild requests are certainly justified, but it's a fallacy to say it's something exclusive to women. It's a crazy world and everyone needs to be cautious, and not just because some men rape.

[Furcifer]

Please show your work. What statistics?
In 1995, 354670 women were the victims of a rape or sexual assault-
NationalCrime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.

I think the population is 51% female to 49% male, but there were roughly 150 000 000 males in America in 1995. 60% of incidents are alleged to go unreported based on several pages linked in this thread already.

That's assuming all sexual assault is rape. Obviously it isn't, but the figure already demonstrates the nonsense in the authors misinterpretation of stats.

[TraneWreck]

In 1995, 354670 women were the victims of a rape or sexual assault-
NationalCrime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.

I think the population is 51% female to 49% male, but there were roughly 150 000 000 males in America in 1995. 60% of incidents are alleged to go unreported based on several pages linked in this thread already.

That's assuming all sexual assault is rape. Obviously it isn't, but the figure already demonstrates the nonsense in the authors misinterpretation of stats.

Remember, though, we're talking over a lifetime. Most of those men that were alive in 1995 were alive in 1994 and 1996 and 2009. There's some overlap in crime, but those stats just show the percentage of men who rape in a given year.

[HansMustermann]

Based on the statistics 0.23% of the US population of men. If we assume 60% go unreported, as the data suggests about 0.575% of men are rapists.

That's 1 in 174.

1. Per year. That's a different number entirely from what she quotes. So your whole fuss was based on, what, not even understanding what she's talking about? Or are you trying to say that someone ceases being a rapist after a year?

2. You're still confusing incidence with prevalence, but, wth, let's play along.

3. Nope, actually the <insert-crime>-per-capita numbers actually are really per capita. That is, they include both men and women.

Once you work out that 99% of the perpetrators are men, you actually pretty much have to double that number.

I.e., even per year, you end up with one in 90 or so. Which actually isn't all that far off from her estimate of 1 in 60.

In fact, you actually end up with an even scarier number than hers, because again, they're different numbers. She was estimating 1 in 60 in a lifetime, while your number actually says about 1 in 90 have raped in the last year alone. And more importantly for her cautions: 1 in 90 will rape in the next year. The danger only becomes a lot more immediate, and actually supports her caution even more.

By _her_ estimates of 1 in 60 and 10 rapes per rapist, actually giving a rapist, dunno, 30 years interval before he calms down, that would make it more like 1 in 180 will actually rape in the next year. While your numbers say it's twice that. So... she should be even more careful, right?

[Furcifer]

Wait...You believe that every man who commits rape does so once, to one woman, one time? That's why you keep insisting that " 1 out of 6 women raped" = "1 out of 6 men are rapists?"


I don't, I'm saying it's the authors mistake and the misuse of the stats that leads to this conclusion.

She provides no evidence of her claim that RAPISTS DO 10 RAPES. All we know is it takes 1 rape to make a rapist.

You don't see the baseline she is using? That 1 in 6 men are rapists? She's obviously making a direct correlation from the number of assaulted women to the number of rapists, THEN GUESSING THEY COMMIT 10 RAPES.

You can't use statistics like this, what don't you understand? You can't, it's not correct, wrong, not right, no good, useless.

[Furcifer]

Once you work out that 99% of the perpetrators are men, you actually pretty much have to double that number.


Dude, time to admit you're not good at math.

[HansMustermann]

Dude, time to admit you're not good at math.

Dude, your being condescending doesn't make you right.

[HansMustermann]

I don't, I'm saying it's the authors mistake and the misuse of the stats that leads to this conclusion.

She provides no evidence of her claim that RAPISTS DO 10 RAPES. All we know is it takes 1 rape to make a rapist.

You don't see the baseline she is using? That 1 in 6 men are rapists? She's obviously making a direct correlation from the number of assaulted women to the number of rapists, THEN GUESSING THEY COMMIT 10 RAPES.

You can't use statistics like this, what don't you understand? You can't, it's not correct, wrong, not right, no good, useless.

And you're still chasing a red herring based on a strawman. Even after it's been pointed out to you repeatedly.

She doesn't say that 1 in 6 men are rapists. That's your own strawman. And repeating it like a broken record won't make it true.

In fact, since you accuse me of being bad at maths, just how bad or dishonest are _you_ if it even looks like there's any way that 1 in 6 men doing 10 rapes each would somehow equal her claim of 1 in 60 men. We're even moving out of the realm of bad maths, and into the freaking stupid.

[Furcifer]

Remember, though, we're talking over a lifetime. Most of those men that were alive in 1995 were alive in 1994 and 1996 and 2009. There's some overlap in crime, but those stats just show the percentage of men who rape in a given year.

YES! I know, but it's hard to determine. You can't work from 1in 6 to get it. You have to work from the known numbers, then assume some die and some are born every year.

As I clearly noted earlier, the number decreases with age. It's certainly more likely, based on the stats to say the number of high school and college age rapists is higher than 1 in 174. Then there's the molestation that usually occurs with older men and younger girls. That's sexual assault as well. But these creeps are usually exclusive to molesting younger girls and not raping older women. Not that it doesn't happen, but it's certainly more common to see them assaulting girls.

[Furcifer]

In fact, since you accuse me of being bad at maths, just how bad or dishonest are _you_ if it even looks like there's any way that 1 in 6 men doing 10 rapes each would somehow equal her claim of 1 in 60 men. We're even moving out of the realm of bad maths, and into the freaking stupid.

:dl:

What does it matter if 1 man is looking to do 10 rapes or 10 men looking to do one?

Math is not your strong suit.

[HansMustermann]

YES! I know, but it's hard to determine. You can't work from 1in 6 to get it. You have to work from the known numbers, then assume some die and some are born every year.

As I clearly noted earlier, the number decreases with age. It's certainly more likely, based on the stats to say the number of high school and college age rapists is higher than 1 in 174. Then there's the molestation that usually occurs with older men and younger girls. That's sexual assault as well. But these creeps are usually exclusive to molesting younger girls and not raping older women. Not that it doesn't happen, but it's certainly more common to see them assaulting girls.

But again you run into a problem: per capita numbers don't take only a certain range of young and able men as the capita number to divide by. They take the whole population, including the 100 year old geezer in a nursing home.

I.e., if you want to squeeze most of those in narrower age intervals for rapists, it would mean dividing it by a smaller number. Now from 1 in 90 it actually becomes even bigger, if she didn't meet a 6 year old or an octogenarian.

And if you take it as only applying to a narrower range of victims, again, that would make the incidence of an assault on her go up if she's in that range. It doesn't mean you have that 0.23 only in an interval and then zero, because averages don't work that way. To still have that 0.23 average, then one group gets more if another gets less. Because that's how averages work.

[HansMustermann]

:dl:

What does it matter if 1 man is looking to do 10 rapes or 10 men looking to do one?

Math is not your strong suit.

Dude, again, your being dismissive doesn't make you right. Support your claims or take a hike.

ETA: and I'm glad that you now admit that that splitting hairs doesn't make a difference. Given that you've used that as your red herring for the last few pages, does it mean you'll give that red herring a rest now?

[TraneWreck]

:dl:

What does it matter if 1 man is looking to do 10 rapes or 10 men looking to do one?

Math is not your strong suit.

It matters a great deal if you're trying to figure out how many men have committed rapes.

[elipse]

That's nice, but she cannot speak for all women. There are some women who will give negative cues before you even say a single word but warm up to you when you've shown some personality. In fact, some women may appreciate the fact that you weren't scared away by a bitchy attitude in the first 5 seconds of the interaction and actually tried to get to know them.

<sigh> Know how I said to read the comments, because every argument you could think of would be covered there?

Here's what I don't get. I assume you are a heterosexual male. Please correct me if I am wrong; everything follows from this assumption.

As (I assume) a heterosexual male, I would think that you are interested in what women think. How they view the world. What they think about you, as a heterosexual male. How you can make them feel good instead of bad. (I assume you do not want to make them feel bad, on the whole. If you do, well, that's a different problem.) What if I told you there's this place on the internet where women talk to each other about exactly these things, and you can go and sneak a peek about what they're talking about? Well, here's your chance. Over 1000 posts by women, talking about just this thing: you coming up to them as a stranger and initiating conversation. You could go and investigate what they really think!

But you don't. You read the article and automatically assume that THIS woman is crazy, THIS woman is unlike any woman you've encountered, and she hasn't thought about X, Y, or Z that makes YOU different. Why don't you go and find out? Read those 1000 posts by the gender that you are interested in; find out what they think?

I don't for a second think you'll do it, so I'll mention some things that are covered.

1. Context is everything.
a.Location, for instance. It's okay to hit on women at bars, clubs, etc. She knows that's one of the things that happen at those places.
b. Body language, for another. Over and over, the women talked about what their body language looked like for "willing to talk" versus "unwilling to talk." Guess which one is which?
*hunched over, earbuds in, reading book, looking out window
*Looking around, smiling, making eye contact
c. YOUR body language. Specifically, mentioning something in a way that ensures that if she doesn't want to continue the conversation, she doesn't have to. Examples? Complimenting her shoes on your way off the bus. Telling her you've read that book, too, and then turning away to read your own.

2. No, really, about that earbud and reading thing. <---- That means don't talk to her. None of the women wrote in to say "When I'm reading with headphones, I like people to interrupt me!" On the contrary, they talked about using it specifically as a way to tell people not to talk to them, but that people were always interrupting them anyway. One man wrote in to say that, wondering if this was true, he paid attention on the bus the next morning, and holy christ! it was true. A kid with Asperger's wrote in advising them that he did the same thing, and the only book he'd found that actually worked as a deterrent was the Bible. They honestly thanked him for the tip.

3. Over and over (I keep saying this, because you seem to think it's just this one woman, but really, the same things were said, over and over, by different women) the women talked about conflict avoidance and keeping the situation from escalating. You know how lots of 'em said they did that? By smiling and pretending to be interested, so that the man in question didn't get angry and start screaming at them. Men wrote in, saying "why can't you just be direct?" and they laughed at these men. Apparently men who will disrespect one boundary (body language) and then a second (polite reply and looking away) don't care much about screaming at them in public.

I know this is hard for you, because I really do think you want to make women feel good, not bad, but what if--what if-- some of those women you refer to, the ones who "warm up" when you don't pay attention to their signals, ie, them being "bitchy" (nice revealing use of the language, there--not talking to you = bitchy), were just trying to make sure you didn't follow them off the bus/scream obscenities/assault them?

What if? Assume for the moment that this is the case. How does that make you feel? Don't say "that can't possibly be it!"-- assume that what these women said is how they really feel. Take them at their word. How does it make you feel?

[Elizabeth I]

You don't see the baseline she is using? That 1 in 6 men are rapists?

Please give the exact quote in the article where the author says this. Don't say she says it. Show what she says and where she says it.

[bookitty]

<sigh> Know how I said to read the comments, because every argument you could think of would be covered there?

Here's what I don't get. I assume you are a heterosexual male. Please correct me if I am wrong; everything follows from this assumption.

As (I assume) a heterosexual male, I would think that you are interested in what women think. How they view the world. What they think about you, as a heterosexual male. How you can make them feel good instead of bad. (I assume you do not want to make them feel bad, on the whole. If you do, well, that's a different problem.) What if I told you there's this place on the internet where women talk to each other about exactly these things, and you can go and sneak a peek about what they're talking about? Well, here's your chance. Over 1000 posts by women, talking about just this thing: you coming up to them as a stranger and initiating conversation. You could go and investigate what they really think!

But you don't. You read the article and automatically assume that THIS woman is crazy, THIS woman is unlike any woman you've encountered, and she hasn't thought about X, Y, or Z that makes YOU different. Why don't you go and find out? Read those 1000 posts by the gender that you are interested in; find out what they think?

I don't for a second think you'll do it, so I'll mention some things that are covered.

1. Context is everything.
a.Location, for instance. It's okay to hit on women at bars, clubs, etc. She knows that's one of the things that happen at those places.
b. Body language, for another. Over and over, the women talked about what their body language looked like for "willing to talk" versus "unwilling to talk." Guess which one is which?
*hunched over, earbuds in, reading book, looking out window
*Looking around, smiling, making eye contact
c. YOUR body language. Specifically, mentioning something in a way that ensures that if she doesn't want to continue the conversation, she doesn't have to. Examples? Complimenting her shoes on your way off the bus. Telling her you've read that book, too, and then turning away to read your own.

2. No, really, about that earbud and reading thing. <---- That means don't talk to her. None of the women wrote in to say "When I'm reading with headphones, I like people to interrupt me!" On the contrary, they talked about using it specifically as a way to tell people not to talk to them, but that people were always interrupting them anyway. One man wrote in to say that, wondering if this was true, he paid attention on the bus the next morning, and holy christ! it was true. A kid with Asperger's wrote in advising them that he did the same thing, and the only book he'd found that actually worked as a deterrent was the Bible. They honestly thanked him for the tip.

3. Over and over (I keep saying this, because you seem to think it's just this one woman, but really, the same things were said, over and over, by different women) the women talked about conflict avoidance and keeping the situation from escalating. You know how lots of 'em said they did that? By smiling and pretending to be interested, so that the man in question didn't get angry and start screaming at them. Men wrote in, saying "why can't you just be direct?" and they laughed at these men. Apparently men who will disrespect one boundary (body language) and then a second (polite reply and looking away) don't care much about screaming at them in public.

I know this is hard for you, because I really do think you want to make women feel good, not bad, but what if--what if-- some of those women you refer to, the ones who "warm up" when you don't pay attention to their signals, ie, them being "bitchy" (nice revealing use of the language, there--not talking to you = bitchy), were just trying to make sure you didn't follow them off the bus/scream obscenities/assault them?

What if? Assume for the moment that this is the case. How does that make you feel? Don't say "that can't possibly be it!"-- assume that what these women said is how they really feel. Take them at their word. How does it make you feel?

This.

[elipse]

I don't, I'm saying it's the authors mistake and the misuse of the stats that leads to this conclusion.

She provides no evidence of her claim that RAPISTS DO 10 RAPES. All we know is it takes 1 rape to make a rapist.

You don't see the baseline she is using? That 1 in 6 men are rapists? She's obviously making a direct correlation from the number of assaulted women to the number of rapists, THEN GUESSING THEY COMMIT 10 RAPES.

You can't use statistics like this, what don't you understand? You can't, it's not correct, wrong, not right, no good, useless.

How can it be the author's mistake when SHE NEVER SAID IT??? She never said it. Only you have said it. SHE NEVER SAID IT!!!

In fact, if you give me an hour to get home from work, I will quote the reply she made to the other guy who misread her stats, telling him that she never said it. Or you could just admit she never said it...

[Furcifer]

But again you run into a problem: per capita numbers don't take only a certain range of young and able men as the capita number to divide by. They take the whole population, including the 100 year old geezer in a nursing home.

I.e., if you want to squeeze most of those in narrower age intervals for rapists, it would mean dividing it by a smaller number. Now from 1 in 90 it actually becomes even bigger, if she didn't meet a 6 year old or an octogenarian.

And if you take it as only applying to a narrower range of victims, again, that would make the incidence of an assault on her go up if she's in that range. It doesn't mean you have that 0.23 only in an interval and then zero, because averages don't work that way. To still have that 0.23 average, then one group gets more if another gets less. Because that's how averages work.

You know you've won the debate when your opponent begins to argue your position and doesn't even realize it :D

Do you know see the importance of identifying your demographic when reporting statistics? I said quite clearly before this diatribe started there's a difference between a girl in college and a 35 year woman on the bus. And you can't base your "rapist concentration" on the number of women assaulted and your fictitious number of rapes per rapist.

[Furcifer]

Please give the exact quote in the article where the author says this. Don't say she says it. Show what she says and where she says it.

Try to follow the thread, I already said she didn't say this in the article. It's implied by her misuse of statistics. You simply can't arrive at 1 in 60 rapists commit 10 rapes without assuming 1 in 6 men commit rape.

What do you think she's multiplying by 10? Just answer me that question. :D

Just so you know, 1 in 6 women are assaulted times 10 rapes per rapist doesn't equal 1 in 60 men are rapists. It doesn't work like this. You can't do it.

[Cavemonster]

Try to follow the thread, I already said she didn't say this in the article. It's implied by her misuse of statistics. You simply can't arrive at 1 in 60 rapists commit 10 rapes without assuming 1 in 6 men commit rape.


You can't arrive at 1/60 men are rapists and 1/6 men are rapists. That violates the identity rule of formal logic. This is such a basic mathematical concept that I can't imagine how you can so continually bork this up.

If X= 1/6
X cannot also equal 1/60

[HansMustermann]

@3bodyproblem: Dude, so basically you've already forgot your posts from half an hour ago? You don't see how I was just using your point to answer your previous objection?

Yes, I get it, you're mistakenly thinking that being dismissive is some kind of winning move. I'm still not impressed. Especially when that winning move actually consists of pretending to have some dysfunction that makes you unable to remember even posts on the same page.

Support your points adequately or take a hike.

[HansMustermann]

Try to follow the thread, I already said she didn't say this in the article. It's implied by her misuse of statistics. You simply can't arrive at 1 in 60 rapists commit 10 rapes without assuming 1 in 6 men commit rape.

What do you think she's multiplying by 10? Just answer me that question. :D

Just so you know, 1 in 6 women are assaulted times 10 rapes per rapist doesn't equal 1 in 60 men are rapists. It doesn't work like this. You can't do it.

1. It's a non-sequitur. Even if she said that 1 in 60 rapists commit 10 rapes each (which actually she didn't), it still doesn't mean 1 in 6 men are rapists. It's something that simply doesn't follow. Just because you have two numbers, it doesn't mean you can add or multiply or divide them in any arbitrary way you wish.

2. She doesn't actually say that 1 in 60 rapists commit 10 rapes each. That's yet another strawman of yours.

At any rate, support it with an actual quote.

[Furcifer]

It matters a great deal if you're trying to figure out how many men have committed rapes.

Yep, if it's 10, like the author suggests the percentage of men committing rape falls to 0.05% and falls around the same probability of someone pulling a gun on you a shooting you dead.

Not exactly the best alternative to being raped, but better and again, not specific to women.

[HansMustermann]

Yep, if it's 10, like the author suggests the percentage of men committing rape falls to 0.05% and falls around the same probability of someone pulling a gun on you a shooting you dead.

Not exactly the best alternative to being raped, but better and again, not specific to women.

You're still trying to equivocate between rape incidence per year and number of men who are rapists in a lifetime. She was talking about the latter.

Your number isn't even in the same units, for crying out loud. You're trying to present a number where the unit is "rapes per year" as a substitute for a number where the unit is "rapists". Even equivocating between rapes and rapists still leaves you with "per time unit" not accounted for. Briefly it's as silly as giving a length in miles per hour.

ETA: also, nowhere does she say "10 rapes per year", so dividing like that is just silly. In fact, the first sign you're doing it wrong should be that it gives you the wrong units for the result.

[Furcifer]

1. It's a non-sequitur. Even if she said that 1 in 60 rapists commit 10 rapes each (which actually she didn't), it still doesn't mean 1 in 6 men are rapists. It's something that simply doesn't follow. Just because you have two numbers, it doesn't mean you can add or multiply or divide them in any arbitrary way you wish.

2. She doesn't actually say that 1 in 60 rapists commit 10 rapes each. That's yet another strawman of yours.

At any rate, support it with an actual quote.

You might want to give up math altogether. :D

[Cavemonster]

Try to follow the thread, I already said she didn't say this in the article. It's implied by her misuse of statistics. You simply can't arrive at 1 in 60 rapists commit 10 rapes without assuming 1 in 6 men commit rape.



I just can't let this go, this is the silliest attempt at an argument since the guy screaming that potatoes didn't have an 'e' in it.

If I said that I couldn't arrive at 1 in 60 of your posts being utter lunacy without first assuming that one in 6 of your posts was utter lunacy, would you then understand your mistake here?

You can't say that arriving at a percentage of any group having quality X requires you to assume a different percentage of that group having quality X. Both percentages cannot be correct, much less one requiring the other.

I can't say that to arrive at a statistic that 20% of women have blond hair, I must assume that 70% of women have blond hair. Only one of those percentages can be accurate for a given definition of blond hair!

[HansMustermann]

You might want to give up math altogether. :D

You might want to take your own advice.

[Furcifer]

Your number isn't even in the same units, for crying out loud. You're trying to present a number where the unit is "rapes per year" as a substitute for a number where the unit is "rapists". Even equivocating between rapes and rapists still leaves you with "per time unit" not accounted for. Briefly it's as silly as giving a length in miles per hour.

Yah, that's the problem with jumping from 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime to 1 in 6 men are rapists. You can't do it. Keep up the good work, you could revolutionize statistics. ;)


ETA: also, nowhere does she say "10 rapes per year", so dividing like that is just silly. In fact, the first sign you're doing it wrong should be that it gives you the wrong units for the result.

I never said she did. I was saying the Tranewreck "if" they did then it falls into the same probability of being shot.

I think you're beginning to understand "1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted" means just that and you can't make up stuff to determine the "concentration of rapists" or how many you will meet in any given situation.

[Furcifer]

I just can't let this go, this is the silliest attempt at an argument since the guy screaming that potatoes didn't have an 'e' in it.

Or "i"'s but that's another story.


If I said that I couldn't arrive at 1 in 60 of your posts being utter lunacy without first assuming that one in 6 of your posts was utter lunacy, would you then understand your mistake here?

You can't say that arriving at a percentage of any group having quality X requires you to assume a different percentage of that group having quality X. Both percentages cannot be correct, much less one requiring the other.

I can't say that to arrive at a statistic that 20% of women have blond hair, I must assume that 70% of women have blond hair. Only one of those percentages can be accurate for a given definition of blond hair!

Um, er, what? :confused:

[ThunderChunky]

As (I assume) a heterosexual male, I would think that you are interested in what women think. How they view the world. What they think about you, as a heterosexual male. How you can make them feel good instead of bad. (I assume you do not want to make them feel bad, on the whole. If you do, well, that's a different problem.) What if I told you there's this place on the internet where women talk to each other about exactly these things, and you can go and sneak a peek about what they're talking about? Well, here's your chance. Over 1000 posts by women, talking about just this thing: you coming up to them as a stranger and initiating conversation. You could go and investigate what they really think!

1) Of course, I would try to make every interaction I have with a stranger a positive one, but I do not think the original article helps men do that. It simply discourages them from starting the interaction in the first place.

2) I have no reason to believe that the women posting comments on this particular article are representative of all women. However, it does provide insight into how some women think. Some, not all.

But you don't. You read the article and automatically assume that THIS woman is crazy, THIS woman is unlike any woman you've encountered, and she hasn't thought about X, Y, or Z that makes YOU different. Why don't you go and find out? Read those 1000 posts by the gender that you are interested in; find out what they think?

I skimmed through the first 10% or so before responding to your post. But I quoted the specific part of the post that I disagreed with and I provided a specific counter argument which you have ignored.

1. Context is everything.
a.Location, for instance. It's okay to hit on women at bars, clubs, etc. She knows that's one of the things that happen at those places.
b. Body language, for another. Over and over, the women talked about what their body language looked like for "willing to talk" versus "unwilling to talk." Guess which one is which?
*hunched over, earbuds in, reading book, looking out window
*Looking around, smiling, making eye contact

This I addressed in my previous post, but I love the qualifier of context is everything. Indeed that is the case, the other "thing" that is everything is the specific woman being approached.

c. YOUR body language. Specifically, mentioning something in a way that ensures that if she doesn't want to continue the conversation, she doesn't have to. Examples? Complimenting her shoes on your way off the bus. Telling her you've read that book, too, and then turning away to read your own.

I agree with that, specifically when your in a situation where the women have some obstacle in moving away from you (if she's seated).

2. No, really, about that earbud and reading thing. <---- That means don't talk to her. None of the women wrote in to say "When I'm reading with headphones, I like people to interrupt me!" On the contrary, they talked about using it specifically as a way to tell people not to talk to them, but that people were always interrupting them anyway. One man wrote in to say that, wondering if this was true, he paid attention on the bus the next morning, and holy christ! it was true. A kid with Asperger's wrote in advising them that he did the same thing, and the only book he'd found that actually worked as a deterrent was the Bible. They honestly thanked him for the tip.

If you asked them whether or not they would want Leonardo Dicarprio to interrupt them you might get a different response. Clearly what matters is who is interrupting them, how, why, and when. Like you said context.

3. Over and over (I keep saying this, because you seem to think it's just this one woman, but really, the same things were said, over and over, by different women) the women talked about conflict avoidance and keeping the situation from escalating. You know how lots of 'em said they did that? By smiling and pretending to be interested, so that the man in question didn't get angry and start screaming at them. Men wrote in, saying "why can't you just be direct?" and they laughed at these men. Apparently men who will disrespect one boundary (body language) and then a second (polite reply and looking away) don't care much about screaming at them in public.

I have met many women that are direct. So this, again proves that the author of the article and those posting on that website do not speak for all women (I did see a few posts actually where people said they were perfectly comfortable being direct, but yes, some weren't). Why should men assume all women are one way?

I know this is hard for you, because I really do think you want to make women feel good, not bad, but what if--what if-- some of those women you refer to, the ones who "warm up" when you don't pay attention to their signals, ie, them being "bitchy" (nice revealing use of the language, there--not talking to you = bitchy), were just trying to make sure you didn't follow them off the bus/scream obscenities/assault them?

Maybe because I became friends with them or later on in the evening they grabbed me out of a crowd to talk to me? The only bus I ever rode was a campus shuttle and it was obvious we were all students so it may go back to context, but I don't think I would worry too much on a regular bus either.

ETA: Just to clarify, not talking to me = cold. Bitchy = actually acting like a bitch/snob (like making joke at my expense or something like that) ... cold girls can warm up too. What did I reveal with my language? No insinuations, be specific, please.

What if? Assume for the moment that this is the case. How does that make you feel? Don't say "that can't possibly be it!"-- assume that what these women said is how they really feel. Take them at their word. How does it make you feel?

I would feel bad for the anxiety they carry. I know I would never intend to hurt someone or cause them pain. But lets say that is the case for 9/10 girls and the 1/10 actually likes me. Should I deny myself and the 1 the positive mutually beneficial interaction (that might lead to something great and long lasting) to save the 9 some temporary anxiety?

[Cavemonster]

Um, er, what? :confused:

We get it, you don't understand math or logic.

[Madalch]

Perhaps you should try reading....

I'm starting to think you're asking too much of the poor guy.

[Furcifer]

We get it, you don't understand math or logic.

Just your particular brand of logic. :D

It's amusing how everyone refuses to acknowledge what she multiplied by 10 to get her number.

"If you had ten times as many IQ points you'd have 100!"

"I don't have 10 IQ points" :(

"I never said you did, where'd I say that? You can't say I said that. You don't know math"

:D

[Furcifer]

I'm starting to think you're asking too much of the poor guy.

Shocking, we were just saying there is a shortage of trolls in this thread ;)

[bookitty]

I would feel bad for the anxiety they carry. I know I would never intend to hurt someone or cause them pain. But lets say that is the case for 9/10 girls and the 1/10 actually likes me. Should I deny myself and the 1 the positive mutually beneficial interaction (that might lead to something great and long lasting) to save the 9 some temporary anxiety?

You would feel bad...but...there's a potential 10 percent chance that she might like it, even if she said no at first.

Look, we both know you didn't mean it like that. At the same time, the article only says that you shouldn't talk to women who give you signs that they would like to be left alone. It seems strange that you would argue that point because there are times when everyone, male or female, would rather not deal with strangers.

[elipse]

1) Of course, I would try to make every interaction I have with a stranger a positive one, but I do not think the original article helps men do that. It simply discourages them from starting the interaction in the first place.

I just don't think you're engaging in an open or honest way with the article, or the comments.
Nowhere does it say you shouldn't open a conversation. You shouldn't open a conversation with a women who indicates she doesn't want conversation via her body language and /or replies, is what it says.

2) I have no reason to believe that the women posting comments on this particular article are representative of all women. However, it does provide insight into how some women think. Some, not all.

Yes. Some, not all. Had you bothered to do more than "skim" the comments you might have had an idea of what kind of percentage. But you didn't. Because you care so much about how women feel.



I skimmed through the first 10% or so before responding to your post. But I quoted the specific part of the post that I disagreed with and I provided a specific counter argument which you have ignored.

What are you talking about? I quoted your post in its entirety. I answered your post in its entirety. What do you think I ignored?


This I addressed in my previous post, but I love the qualifier of context is everything. Indeed that is the case, the other "thing" that is everything is the specific woman being approached.
Yes, that is very very true. In fact, she is an unknown entity until you talk to her. In fact, you could call her Schrodinger's Rape Survivor. Or Schrodinger's Lesbian. Or Schrodinger's Really-Wants-Just-To-Read-Her-Book. Maybe you should look for come clues, to tell you what it is she wants? Like the clues provided by the women whose opinions you keep discounting. Then maybe you could act with regard to those clues...



I agree with that, specifically when your in a situation where the women have some obstacle in moving away from you (if she's seated). What about the women who really WANT you to sit next to them and block the way? You know, the ones who appreciate it if you shove past their "bitchiness?"



If you asked them whether or not they would want Leonardo Dicarprio to interrupt them you might get a different response. Clearly what matters is who is interrupting them, how, why, and when. Like you said context.
:) no, I really don't think that all women would want Leonardo Dicaprio to interrupt them. Lesbians come to mind. Besides, who it is or how cute he is is moot. The point she's making is that she will judge how safe or sketchy a man is by if and how he pays attention to her boundaries. So let's assume, for the moment, that the woman is heterosexual and finds Leonardo Dicaprio attractive and is interested in having him talk to her. She will provide signals that she would like to continue the conversation, if that is the case. If at any point she indicates an unwillingness to continue (sorry, if she indicates "bitchiness") and he doesn't respect that, then he's going to seem sketchy. What's hard to understand? Do you think women cannot ever find an attractive man creepy?


I have met many women that are direct. So this, again proves that the author of the article and those posting on that website do not speak for all women (I did see a few posts actually where people said they were perfectly comfortable being direct, but yes, some weren't). Why should men assume all women are one way?
Yep, that's addressed in the comments as well. Some women are direct, and feel comfortable with that. Some women don't, and so they aren't. When a man came to say "well, all women should be direct, and there wouldn't be a problem", though, well, they didn't agree with him--even the ones who have no trouble being direct. So what's the take home lesson for the gents? Well, it's that women are different and you need to read her cues. Then you need to respect those cues. (sorry! respect her "bitchiness".)



Maybe because I became friends with them or later on in the evening they grabbed me out of a crowd to talk to me? The only bus I ever rode was a campus shuttle and it was obvious we were all students so it may go back to context, but I don't think I would worry too much on a regular bus either.
Well, your experience is clearly extensive enough to extrapolate to all women and justify dismissing out of hand the opinions some chose to share with you. No problem there.
ETA: Just to clarify, not talking to me = cold. Bitchy = actually acting like a bitch/snob (like making joke at my expense or something like that) ... cold girls can warm up too. What did I reveal with my language? No insinuations, be specific, please. Oh, so when the subtle cues (the coldness! burr! maybe she wouldn't have had to be cold if you had paid attention to her body language...just sayin') didn't work, and she tried another tactic, a more direct tactic, THAT was bitchy. Got it. It was bitchy for her to be rude to someone who was rudely intruding himself on her notice. Sure is good you extrapolated that to "many women will want me to push their boundaries."

I would feel bad for the anxiety they carry. I know I would never intend to hurt someone or cause them pain. But lets say that is the case for 9/10 girls and the 1/10 actually likes me. Should I deny myself and the 1 the positive mutually beneficial interaction (that might lead to something great and long lasting) to save the 9 some temporary anxiety?


You would feel bad for the anxiety THEY CARRY? Wow, way to assume no responsibility for your own actions. You are acting in a way that makes them uncomfortable, and that you now KNOW makes some women uncomfortable, but it's their fault they're uncomfortable? You are a gem.

You would never intend to hurt someone, but you'd take the risk of hurting nine women because it is IMPERATIVE that you connect with the tenth. Sweet.

Or you could take the advice in the article, and watch for clues, and attempt to hurt as few women as possible. Even if it denies you what you want. You could try respecting the wishes she's clearly sending out, because you recognize her as an autonomous human being, who has the right not to want to talk to you. You know, just for kicks. What would that mean? It would mean you wouldn't get to have a potential relationship with a women whose behavior you have already described as "bitchy". Lordy, the world might end.

One more thing to think about: Let's say a man on the bus is wearing something you really like, or is reading something you really like. A big guy. Lots of muscles. You mention the thing you like. He glares at you (so cold!) and continues to read. Would you even consider pushing past his "bitchiness?" Would you keep harassing him? If you did, what message would it send to him? Be honest.

[TraneWreck]

Just your particular brand of logic. :D

It's amusing how everyone refuses to acknowledge what she multiplied by 10 to get her number.

"If you had ten times as many IQ points you'd have 100!"

"I don't have 10 IQ points" :(

"I never said you did, where'd I say that? You can't say I said that. You don't know math"

:D

Since the male and female population is basically the same, if 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted, 1 in 6 men would be assailants only if they each attacked one woman.

No one remotely considers this a possibility, in the article or otherwise, so I'm not sure why you're fixated on this.

And it's all sort of a waste of time since the available numbers paint a more startling picture:

Based on such measures, conservative estimates suggest that at least 25 percent of American women have been sexually assaulted in adolescence or adulthood and that 18 percent have been raped. Furthermore, at least 20 percent of American men report having perpetrated sexual assault and 5 percent report having committed rape (Crowell and Burgess 1996; Spitzberg 1999; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). Due to their accessibility, college student surveys tend to employ the most thorough measures of sexual assault by including the largest number of behaviorally specific questions. These studies suggest that approximately 50 percent of college women have been sexually assaulted, and 27 percent have experienced rape or attempted rape; in contrast, 25 percent of college men have committed sexual assault, and 8 percent have committed rape or attempted rape (Crowell and Burgess 1996; Koss 1988; Spitzberg 1999).
http://www.athealth.com/Practitioner/ceduc/alc_assault.html

[ThunderChunky]

You would feel bad...but...there's a potential 10 percent chance that she might like it, even if she said no at first.

Look, we both know you didn't mean it like that.At the same time, the article only says that you shouldn't talk to women who give you signs that they would like to be left alone. It seems strange that you would argue that point because there are times when everyone, male or female, would rather not deal with strangers.

Why don't you address the argument that I presented rather than call the side of the argument that I am on strange? I never argued to keep talking to someone for ever when they clearly dont want to talk, I argued that there are no absolutes and that some people will warm up and enjoy the interaction. Do you disagree?

What harm is caused by asking someone with earplugs reading the bible what there favorite passage is? They were annoyed for a few seconds? For 1 min? Oh the horror, such behavior is the bane of society.

[Furcifer]

Since the male and female population is basically the same, if 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted, 1 in 6 men would be assailants only if they each attacked one woman.

No one remotely considers this a possibility, in the article or otherwise, so I'm not sure why you're fixated on this.

Because if there is any fault in the article it's her misuse of statistics to rationalize here considering men potential "rapists"

Is there any benefit of calling someone a potential rapist, when you really just consider them a potential threat?

Is it necessary to be specific and inflammatory and then use some poor interpretation of stats to get the exact same point across?

The answer is no, it isn't. It's just that using "rape" is bound to generate more attention through controversy.

It's more accurate to describe them as potential "abusers" than "rapists" (the term "jerk" was a little too lax, and "rapist" was a little too strong)

This thread has been entirely entertaining because as usual people don't want to discuss the issue, they want to paint you with a brush to try and discredit you. Try and make it about something it isn't.

The fact that she says 1 in 6 or 1 in 60 is wrong given the situations she describes. Just because she's wrong in applying the stats or possibly a little over dramatic in her wording doesn't take anything from the overall article. Nobody has said "She's wrong because she said this", it's a matter of "What she said here about the concentration of rapists and how she arrived at it is wrong".

There isn't a 1 in 60 chance there is a rapist on her bus, or in her gym or in her graduating class. The odds vary from situation to situation and don't even average out to 1 in 60. And especially not 1 in 6 "if" we assume each rapist commits 1 rape.

[TraneWreck]

Why don't you address the argument that I presented rather than call the side of the argument that I am on strange? I never argued to keep talking to someone for ever when they clearly dont want to talk, I argued that there are no absolutes and that some people will warm up and enjoy the interaction. Do you disagree?

What harm is caused by asking someone with earplugs reading the bible what there favorite passage is? They were annoyed for a few seconds? For 1 min? Oh the horror, such behavior is the bane of society.

In the article she quite directly says that if the woman smiles at you and engages, that means she's interested and there's not problem.

She's writing about people who ignore clear signs that the woman is not interested or just doesn't want to be bothered.

It's amazing how many of these "objections" are just spurious angst over positions no one has taken.

[TraneWreck]

Because if there is any fault in the article it's her misuse of statistics to rationalize here considering men potential "rapists"

[...]

There isn't a 1 in 60 chance there is a rapist on her bus, or in her gym or in her graduating class. The odds vary from situation to situation and don't even average out to 1 in 60. And especially not 1 in 6 "if" we assume each rapist commits 1 rape.

You're upset she didn't get specific with the numbers, even though the specific numbers make her case stronger than the generous assumptions she gave the opposing view, and you don't like the sensationalism of her words.

Send her an e-mail and maybe she'll consider your feelings before her next post.

[bookitty]

Why don't you address the argument that I presented rather than call the side of the argument that I am on strange? I never argued to keep talking to someone for ever when they clearly dont want to talk, I argued that there are no absolutes and that some people will warm up and enjoy the interaction. Do you disagree?

What harm is caused by asking someone with earplugs reading the bible what there favorite passage is? They were annoyed for a few seconds? For 1 min? Oh the horror, such behavior is the bane of society.

Yes, I do disagree. If anyone (male or female) is wearing earplugs and reading, then there's a good chance they are lost in thought and would rather not be bothered. You claim that annoying them is alright because there is a small chance they might enjoy it. They did not invite the interaction, in fact they sent obvious signals that they would rather avoid it. You choose to ignore these signals for potential benefit to yourself that outweighs the potential benefit to them.

[elipse]

Why don't you address the argument that I presented rather than call the side of the argument that I am on strange? I never argued to keep talking to someone for ever when they clearly dont want to talk, I argued that there are no absolutes and that some people will warm up and enjoy the interaction. Do you disagree?

What harm is caused by asking someone with earplugs reading the bible what there favorite passage is? They were annoyed for a few seconds? For 1 min? Oh the horror, such behavior is the bane of society.

What harm is caused by [making someone talk to me who clearly doesn't want to talk]?

Well, we've explained this. You are not listening to her cues. You are not respecting her right not to talk to you, and all for what? What is so drastic that you need to ask her what her favourite passage of the Bible is? Or, in other words, why would you set out to annoy a stranger?

[Madalch]

Yes, I do disagree. If anyone (male or female) is wearing earplugs and reading, then there's a good chance they are lost in thought and would rather not be bothered. You claim that annoying them is alright because there is a small chance they might enjoy it. They did not invite the interaction, in fact they sent obvious signals that they would rather avoid it. You choose to ignore these signals for potential benefit to yourself that outweighs the potential benefit to them.

Similarly, most people don't want to get emails telling them how to buy male-enhancing drugs. Someone might think that it won't hurt to send out one such email to hundreds of thousands of people, on the off chance that they might be interested, but the civilized world has some uncivilized things to say about such people.

[Furcifer]

You're upset she didn't get specific with the numbers, even though the specific numbers make her case stronger than the generous assumptions she gave the opposing view, and you don't like the sensationalism of her words.

Send her an e-mail and maybe she'll consider your feelings before her next post.

Me, upset, at that? Hardly.

I said right from the get go the article appears to be rational in it's message. It's a valid consideration for a woman to make when a man approaches her. I'm not sure a guys appearance has as much to do with whether or not he's going to rape her. And she doesn't really make it about rape in that case, she makes it about her to choice engage you or not. It's only slightly odd in the context of the article "Schrodinger's Rapist". I mean a Brad Pitt looking rapist is a Armani suit is still a rapist.

Anyhow, I'm not sure it's as deep an insight into the rational female mind as the author and the women making the responses seem to think. It's still a big jump from 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime to "That's why when you talk to me I think you may want to rape me".

[ThunderChunky]

I just don't think you're engaging in an open or honest way with the article, or the comments.
Nowhere does it say you shouldn't open a conversation. You shouldn't open a conversation with a women who indicates she doesn't want conversation via her body language and /or replies, is what it says.

And then it gives specific examples and attempts to make universal rules out of them. That's where I disagree, with the universal rules. If she had said this is USUALLY the case, I would not take issue, but she says this is ALWAYS the case.

Yes. Some, not all. Had you bothered to do more than "skim" the comments you might have had an idea of what kind of percentage. But you didn't. Because you care so much about how women feel.

Again you trying to present the article and comments as representative of all women.... As if they hadn't been selected by being on a specific article on specific website. I object to this. I also do not appreciate you telling me what I care how.

What are you talking about? I quoted your post in its entirety. I answered your post in its entirety. What do you think I ignored?

The point about women warming up--legitimately warming up. You only addressed that with the assumption that the warming up was a ruse, this is not sufficient because you should take me at my word for the sake of any open and honest discussion.

Yes, that is very very true. In fact, she is an unknown entity until you talk to her. In fact, you could call her Schrodinger's Rape Survivor. Or Schrodinger's Lesbian. Or Schrodinger's Really-Wants-Just-To-Read-Her-Book. Maybe you should look for come clues, to tell you what it is she wants? Like the clues provided by the women whose opinions you keep discounting. Then maybe you could act with regard to those clues...

I believe we are mostly in agreement. Perhaps our only difference in this regard is the emphasis given to those clues.

What about the women who really WANT you to sit next to them and block the way? You know, the ones who appreciate it if you shove past their "bitchiness?"[quote]

Like I said, I don't ride the bus, maybe that's my problem. The article was only about approaches on a bus, all women ride buses after all.

[quote]:) no, I really don't think that all women would want Leonardo Dicaprio to interrupt them. Lesbians come to mind. Besides, who it is or how cute he is is moot. The point she's making is that she will judge how safe or sketchy a man is by if and how he pays attention to her boundaries. So let's assume, for the moment, that the woman is heterosexual and finds Leonardo Dicaprio attractive and is interested in having him talk to her. She will provide signals that she would like to continue the conversation, if that is the case. If at any point she indicates an unwillingness to continue (sorry, if she indicates "bitchiness") and he doesn't respect that, then he's going to seem sketchy. What's hard to understand? Do you think women cannot ever find an attractive man creepy?

I brought up Leo in regard to YOUR point, not the authors. Specifically your point about the earphones. I think that many women would be happy if the real Leo approached them even if they had earplugs in (let's say they didn't see him and so did not take the plugs out). Not all women, but many would be happy. Thus, I was trying to disprove the absolute do not approach under any circumstances if they have earplugs in position I read you as taking.

At this point I want to say that I dont think you are really having a conversation with me, you are lecturing at me. I am actually interested in a discussion on this topic. If you are not, then we can end this.

Yep, that's addressed in the comments as well. Some women are direct, and feel comfortable with that. Some women don't, and so they aren't. When a man came to say "well, all women should be direct, and there wouldn't be a problem", though, well, they didn't agree with him--even the ones who have no trouble being direct. So what's the take home lesson for the gents? Well, it's that women are different and you need to read her cues. Then you need to respect those cues. (sorry! respect her "bitchiness".)

Well at least I finally got you to admit not all women are the same. So now can you admit that certain body language cues will be different among different women and for different reasons?

Well, your experience is clearly extensive enough to extrapolate to all women and justify dismissing out of hand the opinions some chose to share with you. No problem there.

I didn't dismiss anything out of hand, I only took it in context (in other words, not representing all women). But clearly, because you are a woman you can speak for all women right? No problem there.

Oh, so when the subtle cues (the coldness! burr! maybe she wouldn't have had to be cold if you had paid attention to her body language...just sayin') didn't work, and she tried another tactic, a more direct tactic, THAT was bitchy. Got it. It was bitchy for her to be rude to someone who was rudely intruding himself on her notice. Sure is good you extrapolated that to "many women will want me to push their boundaries."

Nah, in my experience it never goes cold to bitchy (and I would never call direct bitchy), but thanks for making huge assumptions about me, it helps this open and honest discussion. If a girls is bitchy it starts out that way. Let's give an example:
Me: Hi
Her: You're really skinny/fat/short/bald!! hahaha (Laughs with friend)
Me: Thanks :), (continues with a normal/fun interaction and everyone wins)

You would feel bad for the anxiety THEY CARRY? Wow, way to assume no responsibility for your own actions. You are acting in a way that makes them uncomfortable, and that you now KNOW makes some women uncomfortable, but it's their fault they're uncomfortable? You are a gem.

Criticizing woo makes people uncomfortable, but that's what JREF does. I am not harming someone by saying hi to them, even if they have earplugs in. You like gems, don't you? ;)

You would never intend to hurt someone, but you'd take the risk of hurting nine women because it is IMPERATIVE that you connect with the tenth. Sweet.

In this hypothetical scenario I risk annoying 9 women for a few minutes each, so that 1 woman can meet someone they like. It's not about only about me..it's also about that 1 girl. So that math is that 9 lose and 2 gain. Is the gain of the two worth the loss of the 9? I just made up the 9/10, but if 9/10 is too high, when does it become okay? 5/10, 1/10, 1/100? Never?

Or you could take the advice in the article, and watch for clues, and attempt to hurt as few women as possible. Even if it denies you what you want. You could try respecting the wishes she's clearly sending out, because you recognize her as an autonomous human being, who has the right not to want to talk to you. You know, just for kicks. What would that mean? It would mean you wouldn't get to have a potential relationship with a women whose behavior you have already described as "bitchy". Lordy, the world might end.

I like bitchy girls, because one they warm up to you they aren't bitchy anymore---not to you anyway. But apparently you and I have different definitions of bitchy even though you are trying to use it as my word.

One more thing to think about: Let's say a man on the bus is wearing something you really like, or is reading something you really like. A big guy. Lots of muscles. You mention the thing you like. He glares at you (so cold!) and continues to read. Would you even consider pushing past his "bitchiness?" Would you keep harassing him? If you did, what message would it send to him? Be honest.

Why are all these scenarios on buses? What's with your extensive use of the word "bitchiness" when I clearly explained how I used the term? Why are you giving me scenarios to think about when you haven't thought about what I have presented?

[elipse]

Hmmm...let's come at this from a slightly different angle.

Why would someone bring a book and ipod on the bus?
Potential answers:
Just in case they are unlucky enough not to meet someone as awesome as you to talk to

Because they are really interested in reading that book, and/or listening to that music

As a premeditated defense against having to talk to people

All of these are possible. How can you tell the difference? What might each of these look like?

1.Someone who would rather talk to you: might look up every time someone new boards the bus, make eye contact, smile, close the book as you sit down. Alternatively: when you speak, turns quickly to you, smiling, closes the book and takes out earbuds. Recommendation: Talk to this person!

2.Someone who really does want to read their book: Glances at you as you sit down and returns to reading. When you speak, looks distractedly at you with book still open, perhaps removes one earbud, holding it close to the ear to indicate: I'm gonna answer your question and then this sucker is going back in my ear. Recommendation: use as opening topic something that does not indicate long conversation. Comment, then pull out book/ipod/phone of your own.
Possibility! This person finds your opening remark so awesome as to decide you are better than the book. What does that look like? See 1. Recommendation: Talk to this person! Alternate possibility: This person does not. Puts earbud back in ear and returns to book. Recommendation: Leave this person the eff alone!

3. Someone who is using book/ipod as armour: Does not look up as you sit down. Possibly shifts slightly away from you. Does not "hear" you at first. Upon being made to hear you, turns to you with furrowed brow, possible frown. Does not remove earbuds. Reluctantly answers and turns back to book, or gives you fake, tight smile and turns back to book. Alternate: is reading the Bible. Recommendation: Leave this person the eff alone!

I really don't see how this is hard. You already know this; you practice it if the other person is a man--I would bet money on it. Why is it different if the person is a woman? Why does she HAVE to listen to you, HAVE to give you a chance, but another man doesn't?

[ThunderChunky]

Yes, I do disagree. If anyone (male or female) is wearing earplugs and reading, then there's a good chance they are lost in thought and would rather not be bothered. You claim that annoying them is alright because there is a small chance they might enjoy it. They did not invite the interaction, in fact they sent obvious signals that they would rather avoid it. You choose to ignore these signals for potential benefit to yourself that outweighs the potential benefit to them.

It's not that I advocate ignoring the signals entirely, it's just that I advocate not taking that at face value all of the time. If it turns out that the signal is true then it's over, and IMO minimal harm has been done. I would say it's less harm than a solicitor but more harm than someone asking for directions.

Thanks you, BTW. You are making a very good point here.

What harm is caused by [making someone talk to me who clearly doesn't want to talk]?

Well, we've explained this. You are not listening to her cues. You are not respecting her right not to talk to you, and all for what? What is so drastic that you need to ask her what her favourite passage of the Bible is? Or, in other words, why would you set out to annoy a stranger?

Why would I do it? Because I like meeting knew people and socializing. I am usually having a good time and like to share that. I am not oblivious to social cues, it's just that sometimes I am willing to test them a bit to see if they are for real. I know at times I used to be very closed off and aloof but I would have wanted to be laughing with all the gregarious people on the other side of the bar or maybe even the bus. I have found other people, men and women, who are like this.

[TraneWreck]

Anyhow, I'm not sure it's as deep an insight into the rational female mind as the author and the women making the responses seem to think. It's still a big jump from 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime to "That's why when you talk to me I think you may want to rape me".

Then it's a good thing she didn't say that.

[bookitty]

It's not that I advocate ignoring the signals entirely, it's just that I advocate not taking that at face value all of the time. If it turns out that the signal is true then it's over, and IMO minimal harm has been done. I would say it's less harm than a solicitor but more harm than someone asking for directions.

There is also another aspect, you are judging whether or not to ignore signals based on the fact that you have a reason to talk to this person. Since you have very few clues as to her personality, likes or interests, we'll say that it is because there is something about what you can see that you find attractive. It may be her looks, her style of dress, etc.

Chances are other men have also find these traits attractive. Chances are that other men have also interrupted her when she just wanted to read. Chances are that this happens all the time. So while your 1 minute interruption is no big deal, when it's added to all the other times, it gets even more annoying. This tends to make some women even less likely to want interaction with a stranger.


Thanks you, BTW. You are making a very good point here.

I don't think you're a bad guy at all. I just worry that you may have a bit of confirmation bias going on.

Also I'm a bibliophile and a bookworm. I read everywhere. I LOATHE being interrupted. Outwardly I am polite. "No, thank you." Inside I have fantasies that involve bloodshed. Because it happens all the time. (Keep in mind that I'm 45 and no raving beauty.) Sometimes it seems like reading a book in public is a challenge. "How dare she ignore ME! I must do something about this." I know that isn't the case, it's just what it feels like.

Why would I do it? Because I like meeting knew people and socializing. I am usually having a good time and like to share that. I am not oblivious to social cues, it's just that sometimes I am willing to test them a bit to see if they are for real. I know at times I used to be very closed off and aloof but I would have wanted to be laughing with all the gregarious people on the other side of the bar or maybe even the bus. I have found other people, men and women, who are like this.

There are so many ways that even shy women signal interest. Eye contact, moving the body towards you, a ton of small (possibly overlooked) signals. There's also the idea that this world is annoying enough, why make it even just 1 minute worse?

[elipse]

And then it gives specific examples and attempts to make universal rules out of them. That's where I disagree, with the universal rules. If she had said this is USUALLY the case, I would not take issue, but she says this is ALWAYS the case.

Yes, it is always the case that you should pay attention to the cues of those around you. That's always the case, and that's what the article says. Then she gives you examples. Of course those examples are not universal-they're specifically about public transportation! Also, she refines those examples in the comments, when people ask her questions.



Again you trying to present the article and comments as representative of all women.... As if they hadn't been selected by being on a specific article on specific website. I object to this. I also do not appreciate you telling me what I care how.
Okay, this was worded poorly. You had a chance to find out what many, many women thought. Not all of them. But there was surprising unity regarding polite behavior. You had a chance to find out what many, many women thought and rejected it because those women were not every woman? Were feminists? Why?



The point about women warming up--legitimately warming up. You only addressed that with the assumption that the warming up was a ruse, this is not sufficient because you should take me at my word for the sake of any open and honest discussion.

I didn't dismiss that possibility. I asked you to consider something you hadn't considered before, that SOME of those women MIGHT have been faking it.

Do you see the irony of telling me I should take you at your word about women warming up legitimately when you refuse to take the women on the other website at THEIR word?

Let's say that everyone in your sample has genuinely warmed up. What's your sample size? Is it large enough to allow you to dismiss what other women say about themselves?


Like I said, I don't ride the bus, maybe that's my problem. The article was only about approaches on a bus, all women ride buses after all. No, it's not because all women ride buses. It's an example of a time when many women who do ride public transportation would like to be left alone but find that many men won't leave them alone.



I brought up Leo in regard to YOUR point, not the authors. Specifically your point about the earphones. I think that many women would be happy if the real Leo approached them even if they had earplugs in (let's say they didn't see him and so did not take the plugs out). Not all women, but many would be happy. Thus, I was trying to disprove the absolute do not approach under any circumstances if they have earplugs in position I read you as taking. Yes, fine...and then, when you see the reaction to your intrusion, you have another choice to make. Yours has apparently been to keep talking to them, even when they indicate they don't want you to. That was the whole darned point of your post! My point is that that's rude, that lots of women think it's more than rude, and that now that you know lots of women think it's rude or even more than rude, what are you going to do in the future?

At this point I want to say that I dont think you are really having a conversation with me, you are lecturing at me. I am actually interested in a discussion on this topic. If you are not, then we can end this. Okay, I will try not to be lecturey. I'm lecturey because I am frustrated. Know why I'm frustrated? Because all this is covered in the 1000 comments, by the women themselves, and if you'd bothered to read it I wouldn't have to paraphrase or parse them for you.



Well at least I finally got you to admit not all women are the same. So now can you admit that certain body language cues will be different among different women and for different reasons? In some places nodding doesn't mean yes, and shaking your head doesn't mean no. Yet we use them in this country and expect to be generally understood. You are pretending that the existence of nuance means that you get to willfully misunderstand/ignore a woman's signals. Which, by the way, was also covered in the comments.


I didn't dismiss anything out of hand, I only took it in context (in other words, not representing all women). But clearly, because you are a woman you can speak for all women right? No problem there.
I am telling you the position of the majority of the women in the comments, because you wouldn't read them, and therefore I must be a woman?


Nah, in my experience it never goes cold to bitchy (and I would never call direct bitchy), but thanks for making huge assumptions about me, it helps this open and honest discussion. If a girls is bitchy it starts out that way. Let's give an example:
Me: Hi
Her: You're really skinny/fat/short/bald!! hahaha (Laughs with friend)
Me: Thanks :), (continues with a normal/fun interaction and everyone wins) Methinks you are moving the goalposts. In this scenario, she is clearly interacting. How is this anything like talking to a woman reading with earbuds in, not engaging with you? Also, perhaps it is not best to call hypothetical women "bitchy" when talking about women's issues. Are you talking about one real woman of your acquaintance who once said something "bitchy" but then talked and laughed with you? Or, as your original post implied, are you talking about a subsection of women who "warm up" after a man doesn't leave them alone because of "bitchiness"?


Criticizing woo makes people uncomfortable, but that's what JREF does. I am not harming someone by saying hi to them, even if they have earplugs in. You like gems, don't you? ;) The people who believe in woo who come here engage of their own free will and volition. They choose to engage. Your analogy doesn't work at all; what you are talking about is more like going to the church and interrupting silent prayer to ask people why they believe this stupid stuff, anyway? Or waiting outside and asking each one that question as they leave the church.

In this hypothetical scenario I risk annoying 9 women for a few minutes each, so that 1 woman can meet someone they like. It's not about only about me..it's also about that 1 girl. So that math is that 9 lose and 2 gain. Is the gain of the two worth the loss of the 9? I just made up the 9/10, but if 9/10 is too high, when does it become okay? 5/10, 1/10, 1/100? Never? No, in this hypothetical scenario you approach woman after woman, knowing that the vast majority don't want to talk to you, and that some percentage of these women are actually nervous of you, because your desire to connect is more important than their desire to be left alone. That one woman, the one woman in 10 who might want to talk to you, connect with you, and marry you? That's the one who's making eye contact and smiling. Why are you bothering the other nine, who aren't doing those things?



I like bitchy girls, because one they warm up to you they aren't bitchy anymore---not to you anyway. But apparently you and I have different definitions of bitchy even though you are trying to use it as my word. I think it's a word that's easy to use when you can't think of a better word, and the person you're talking about is a woman. But what does it mean? Nothing except "that woman did something I didn't like."



Why are all these scenarios on buses? What's with your extensive use of the word "bitchiness" when I clearly explained how I used the term? Why are you giving me scenarios to think about when you haven't thought about what I have presented?

The original example was on public transportation. I personally think that public transportation was originally used because it is a place where strangers gather, where they can't really get away from each other, and where the author had a lot of men try to hit on her who did not respect her body language, her answers, or her wishes.

Now tell me whether you would keep talking to the man who glared at you. The big one, with the muscles.

[bookitty]

Anyhow, I'm not sure it's as deep an insight into the rational female mind as the author and the women making the responses seem to think. It's still a big jump from 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime to "That's why when you talk to me I think you may want to rape me".

Just because a woman wrote it and women respond to it doesn't mean that's how women feel, right.

[ThunderChunky]

In the article she quite directly says that if the woman smiles at you and engages, that means she's interested and there's not problem.

She's writing about people who ignore clear signs that the woman is not interested or just doesn't want to be bothered.

It's amazing how many of these "objections" are just spurious angst over positions no one has taken.

I had specific objections and do not believe I have been fighting a strawman. However, think part of the disagreement was do to my failure to communicate clearly.

The article makes some absolute statements on whether interact at all, this is what I objected to:

This means that some men should never approach strange women in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a woman cold.

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.

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. Really.

[bookitty]

It's not that I advocate ignoring the signals entirely, it's just that I advocate not taking that at face value all of the time. If it turns out that the signal is true then it's over, and IMO minimal harm has been done. I would say it's less harm than a solicitor but more harm than someone asking for directions.

One quick thing. The person who is being annoying isn't the right one to judge how annoying it might be. They have no way to judge that. So in your opinion minimal harm is done. How do you know that is her opinion as well? What if she has been attacked in the past and gets panic attacks from being approached? What if her dog just died and she really wants to be left alone?

Of course these are extreme examples, but you have no way of knowing how the act of ignoring her stated wishes will affect her.

[elipse]

The article makes some absolute statements on whether interact at all, this is what I objected to:

Quote:
This means that some men should never approach strange women in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a woman cold.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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. Really.

I admit to being snarky in some of my past posts to you. In this one, I am not going to be snarky at all. It does help to have some indication of what you think is wrong with this article.

First quote: you know she's trying to introduce a little levity here, right? I'm guessing the only thing you really object to in this quote is the inclusion of the tattoos. She didn't say all tattoos, and she doesn't even really mean it about the cockroach tattoo--I'm sure that she is aware that some woman somewhere will find a head tattoo of cockroaches scurrying into your shirt collar charming. She's making a little gentle humour of the point that if you are, for whatever reason, more likely to startle strange women, that you should be aware of it and take it into consideration when thinking about approaching one. That's all. That's all this quote is saying. I know 'cause I read her explanation when other women said "hey, I like tattoos!" I'll even say that including tattoos muddies her point. Not so much as people here have implied, but yeah, it makes her point slightly muddy.

Second quote: will you actually think for a second about situations in which you would answer "yes" to that question? Really think about it. For myself: If I were dangerous, it would not be safe for a woman to be with me on a lonely street at night. If I were dangerous, it would not be safe for a woman to be with me in an empty stairwell. If I were dangerous, it would not be safe for a woman to be with me...well, mostly places that are empty, and at night. She is saying that those circumstances are not the right place to chat a woman up. Explained in these concrete terms, do you still think this is wrong?

The third quote is the one we've been arguing over. You see how she says "some certainty?" Not "absolute certainty." Meaning most women, not all, but most, can be trusted to be giving you the signals they look like they are giving you.

[ThunderChunky]

Elipse, I do not think we disagree as much as were are actually disagreeing here. Your previous post, the one before your quote by quote reply to mine (two posts by you ago--for which I appreciate the effort), I agree with. If you would like me to respond more, let me know and I will, but this will be my last post in this thread for the night.

One quick thing. The person who is being annoying isn't the right one to judge how annoying it might be. They have no way to judge that. So in your opinion minimal harm is done. How do you know that is her opinion as well? What if she has been attacked in the past and gets panic attacks from being approached? What if her dog just died and she really wants to be left alone?

Of course these are extreme examples, but you have no way of knowing how the act of ignoring her stated wishes will affect her.

Her wishes weren't stated though. The examples were specific nonverbal body language cues, which in my opinion can be either misleading or a facade. I agree, the annoying one cannot actually judge how annoying they will be. I estimated it based on pushiness to give relative (not absolute) values. If a salesmen is much more intrusive and pushy than me, I find it difficult to believe that I am causing more harm... but it is possible. Bottom line is that we can't know until after the interaction has started, and if we cannot know for sure until after the fact I don't think anyone should be making absolute judgments.

[Furcifer]

Just because a woman wrote it and women respond to it doesn't mean that's how women feel, right.

Wow, in every thread you feel the need to interject this little jem don't you?

It's written by a single 35 year old self described "humorless feminist", why would I even begin to believe this is how "women" feel?

ETA: whoops, she's not the self described humourless feminist, although she is a professional writer. My bad :(

There are several stories in the link you gave earlier at Holla Back? that are much more succinct and do a much better job at describing how women "feel" IMO. And they don't appear to be from professional writers like this author.

I'm sorry if you feel this is a brilliant insight or something. I don't. I don't think it presents much that most men don't already know, it's deliberately inflammatory and misleading in its interpretation of the statistics.

Again, the site you linked was much more informative on the issue of "street harassment". This author seems to talking to two separate issues and trying to tie them together under one moniker "Schrodinger's Rapist". It's just not very effective. So says me.

[Furcifer]

Then it's a good thing she didn't say that.

Yeah because: "So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?"

Is so much different than: "That's why when you talk to me I think you may want to rape me"

Glad you were here to clear that up! :rolleyes:

[elipse]

Yeah because: "So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?"

Is so much different than: "That's why when you talk to me I think you may want to rape me"

Glad you were here to clear that up! :rolleyes:

Actually, it is different. Take Schrodinger's Cat:

Is the cat dead?

is a different thought than

I think the cat might be dead.

Only the former is a question asked before any assumptions are made.

There seem to be two objections to the article. One, that the advice is bad or not what women really think. Two, that they may think this way, but it is irrational for them to do so.

Well, clearly some percentage of women do think this way, and I'm guessing it's higher than you are allowing for. I'm betting it at least corresponds with 1-in-6. Sure, not all women who have been raped feel this way, but I'm sure there are some women who haven't been raped who do feel this way. So I'm totally comfortable saying 1-in-6 women do this kind of risk assessment. I actually think it's higher, but let's say 1 in 6, and further, let's say that, of these, many are actual rape survivors. Don't you think it's worth taking into account if you are attempting to date/live with/ get along with women? Don't you think it's worth it to at least try to see where these women are coming from? To understand how they view the world? To be aware of your behavior so you don't trigger someone's flashbacks or alarm bells?

Which brings me to point two, that the women who think like this are irrational.

Let's take another group of people who routinely do risk assessment: highway patrol officers doing routine traffic stops. (I am purposely not including things like chases because that does not begin with a blank slate of information. An officer already has good indication to believe the person he or she is chasing might mean him or her harm.) The vast majority of people that a highway patrol officer pulls over for being in the carpool lane, or speeding, or talking on a cell phone, are not going to assault or kill an officer, just like the vast majority of men who talk to strange women aren't going to rape them (at least, not while they're still strangers.) Yet the highway patrol officer approaches each car in each routine stop viewing the occupant as Schrodinger's Cop Killer. Remember, this does not mean "I think the person in this car is going to kill me." It is approaching the car knowing that the person inside has the POTENTIAL to kill. Do you think this is irrational? Are you contemptuous of this officer for viewing motorists at Schrodinger's Cop Killer? Do you mutter to yourself, "I'm a motorist, and I've never killed an officer! This is absurd!" If you are pulled over, do you act in ways that could be perceived as threatening, or do you take into account Schrodinger's Cop Killer and modify your behavior to make sure the officer doesn't misinterpret that behavior?

I bet you're not contemptuous, and you are aware of your behavior. Because you know that SOME people (not you!) have some weird grudge or hangup against highway patrol officers, and that SOME small percentage of people (not you!) do in fact attack and kill them, and that the officer cannot know beforehand what camp you're in.

So why is the exact same risk assessment so stupid and irrational when a woman does it? Some people (not you) have a desire to hurt and rape women, and some percentage of them (not you) actually go out and do it. A woman can't know beforehand what camp you're in. Unlike highway patrol officers, women don't usually carry guns, can't call for backup, and aren't even always wearing clothes fit for running in. But it's crazy and irrational for them to view you as Schrodinger's Rapist and assess your behavior for risk?

Do you view the odds of an officer getting killed by a routine stop motorist as higher than a woman getting raped by a stranger? Or is it just that the officer might arrest or shoot you if your behavior triggers him to? That women have less chance of doing you harm, so their risk assessment can be discounted and ridiculed with impunity? I don't like that answer. I hope that's not it. I am not going to lie-- this comparison to law enforcement didn't occur to me until a female police officer mentioned it in that very long comments section, but it made me think about the highway patrol officers I know, and question how it's different, and I couldn't really come up with anything.

So, if you don't get your panties in a bunch over being Schrodinger's Cop Killer, why are you so upset about being Schrodinger's Rapist? The odds of each are low, and your chances of doing either are (I assume) the same, so why the outcry over one but not the other?

[HansMustermann]

Me, upset, at that? Hardly.

I said right from the get go the article appears to be rational in it's message. It's a valid consideration for a woman to make when a man approaches her. I'm not sure a guys appearance has as much to do with whether or not he's going to rape her. And she doesn't really make it about rape in that case, she makes it about her to choice engage you or not. It's only slightly odd in the context of the article "Schrodinger's Rapist". I mean a Brad Pitt looking rapist is a Armani suit is still a rapist.

Anyhow, I'm not sure it's as deep an insight into the rational female mind as the author and the women making the responses seem to think. It's still a big jump from 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime to "That's why when you talk to me I think you may want to rape me".

Except she's not even saying that. She's not saying you want to rape her right there and then, even if you were one of those 1 in 60.

The whole _point_ and _premise_ of the article, is "In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and loving sexual relationship with a woman. Unfortunately, you don’t yet know that woman—she isn’t working with you, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter her." Get it? It's about getting to be her lover.

And she's saying that you won't get promoted to that high risk (for her) position if from the start you show that you override her choices or disrespect her.

And I feel that's actually as objective and rational a decision as it gets. Because:

1. As she already hints, someone who's that convinced that he has some right to override her saying "no" to a conversation -- or as I get the vibe from some people, thinking basically that she doesn't know what she really wants and needs to be interrupted to see what she's missing -- then what other "no" choices will that guy override? Someone who thinks he has some God-given right to her time and to certain reactions, what other entitlement delusions does he have? Someone who thinks she can't possibly know what she wants and/or that it's up to him to show her what a good time she's missing... you do realize that that's also the #1 rationalization for rape, right? Etc.

We're not talking about judging someone solely based on, dunno, having big ears or even an Y chromosome. Judging people on their behaviour is actually ok and rational. Someone who's already shown disrespect or even just horribly bad judgment, it's ok and rational to adjust your probabilistic expectation towards, basically, expecting even more bad judgment from him/her.

For the next points, I'll use numbers from here: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf

2. The more relevant point isn't as much how many guys are rapists, if that bothers you so much that it's even mentioned, as what is the actual risk to _her_. That's risk management.

Already with those precautions in place, a grand total of 17.6% of women will get a forcible rape attempt, and 14.8% a completed forcible rape. We're not even talking about groping or flashing or "she was just drunk and making excuses". (Not that I'd excuse those either, mind you.) That survey deals only with penetration by force or threat of harm. The risk just is that high.

Even with her being that careful, there is a substantial chance that _someone_ out of those guys will rape her. As you hinted earlier, it doesn't actually matter that much how many rapists are and how many rapes each they do. What matters is that it's a significant risk to her.

Even granting that she's over 18, so now she falls in the "only" 58.9% victimized as adults, and all, we have a figure there for that. That's 7.7% of all women were raped by an intimate partner.

If you include physical assaults, though, as things you wouldn't want your new boyfriend to be into, that's 25.5% of women.

That's IMHO more than reason enough to think twice about who gets promoted to that category. Which, again, was the whole _point_ of that article.

3. But also don't think you completely escaped it at any age if you decide to get a rapist boyfriend or husband. Most of those who were raped under 18, were raped by a parent or guardian. I.e., once you also consider the risk he'll rape your children, you get the full number again.

4. Again, that's with those precautions in place. Being careless and giving every creep a chance would very likely make the risks higher.

5. Don't think we're talking one-off incidents either. In that survey, women who were raped in the last 12 months, actually averaged 2.9 rapes in that year. For every girl that ran straight to the police after the first incident, there'll be someone else who gets raped by her boyfriend every other month and doesn't.

As I was saying, prevalence is not incidence.

6. If rape itself doesn't sound horrible enough to anyone, also consider this:

"41.4 percent of
women and 33.9 percent of men who were raped
since age 18 were physically assaulted during
their most recent rape. The physical assaults included
slapping, hitting, kicking, biting, choking,
hitting with an object, beatings, and the use
of a gun or other weapon."

Also, just so someone doesn't think most of those aren't that serious:

"[i]31.5
percent of female rape victims, compared
with 16.1 percent of male rape victims,
reported being injured during their most
recent rape"

There is a serious risk that she won't only get a penis in some unwanted place, but that she'll _also_ get a beating as part of the deal. If that's not reason enough to take it seriously, I don't know what is.

7. But IMHO _the_ most important factor is actually this:

17.6% of women experienced an attempted or completed forcible rape, but 14.8% got the completed one. Only 2.8% got away (relatively speaking) with just an unsuccessful attempt.

Doing some simple maths, out of the women who experienced forcible rape attempts, 84.1% were actually successfully raped, while only 15.9% managed to escape or stop the attempt.

She _has_ to be that cautious long in advance, because basically that's the only thing that works. If she trusts any creep until he actually is in a position to start an attempt, chances are overwhelming that she can't stop it at that point.

She _has_ to not give anyone suspicious the chance to get in a position where they could start it.

[HansMustermann]

Yah, that's the problem with jumping from 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime to 1 in 6 men are rapists. You can't do it. Keep up the good work, you could revolutionize statistics. ;)

Except I'm not saying 1 in 6 men are rapists, and she doesn't say 1 in 6 men are rapists. That's your own strawman.

And, again, just repeating the same ridiculous strawman just one more time won't magically make it true. We're not in The Hunting Of The Snark.

I could even assume that you misread it the first time or something, but persisting in saying the same falsehood even after it's been pointed out repeatedly, has a name: lying. You know, since you were accusing others of lying.