Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[SatanicSheep]

A female friend sent me this and I'm a little unsure of how I feel about it.

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger’s-rapist-or-a-guy’s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

I think this is bigotry, prejudicial and uncritical, but I'm not sure I have a problem with it...

Is this a good example of weighing social incentives? If a guy is so socially awkward/unaware is it acceptable to treat him as a potential rapist?

Or is this borderline CTer delusion and dishonest use of a statistic? Populating the world with shadow agent boogeyman where every man is a possible rapist, every Arab is a terrorist and every homosexual is a disease vector?

[Ryokan]

Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is. When I go on a date, I always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry. If she doesn’t hear from me by three or so, she’ll call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me.

Paranoia? None of the women I know have never even hinted that this is how they feel.

[ravdin]

If a guy is so socially awkward/unaware is it acceptable to treat him as a potential rapist?

Yes. If you don't want to creep women out, then don't act creepy.

I was prepared for a man-bashing manifesto when I clicked the link. But the author's precautions seem very sensible to me. Unfortunately, there really are a lot of bad people in the world. Not all of them are men by the way- so if you're a man meeting strange women you ought to be careful as well.

[SatanicSheep]

Well yeah, but it's not simply acting creepy as some people will be creeped out by anything. Having a penis is creepy enough for some (as is wearing a turban etc. etc.)

I didn't think the article was bad either. It just makes me wonder when and where we should draw lines between reliable demograpics and worthless ecological fallacy.

[Dunstan]

I'm not seeing the "bigotry" or uncritical thinking you allude to in your OP. (I'm not sure about that "1 in 6" statistic, though.)

I suspect the author is a little more (for lack of a better term) cautious than the average woman, but not off the deep end or anything.

I'm a guy, but I have a similar though process when I'm approached by a stranger. Fortunately I don't really have to worry about sexual assault, but I do ask myself whether this person is going to be something less serious like an annoying sales person, an aggressive beggar, a bully spoiling for a fight, or something innocuous like a tourist asking for directions or someone I've met and forgotten.

[kerikiwi]

The 1 in 6 women being sexually assaulted is very suspect.
Paranoia.
I wonder how she copes with motor transport and ham sandwiches.

[GreNME]

I think this is bigotry, prejudicial and uncritical, but I'm not sure I have a problem with it...

Is this a good example of weighing social incentives? If a guy is so socially awkward/unaware is it acceptable to treat him as a potential rapist?

Or is this borderline CTer delusion and dishonest use of a statistic? Populating the world with shadow agent boogeyman where every man is a possible rapist, every Arab is a terrorist and every homosexual is a disease vector?

Welcome to the world of Male Privilege (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/). I see nothing bigoted or prejudicial about it. Here (http://www.rwu.edu/studentlife/studentservices/counselingcenter/sexualassault/rapemyths.htm) are some facts about date rape:
1 in 4 college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape.
84% of the women who are raped knew their assailants.
57% of the rapes occurred on a date.
Women ages 16-24 have 4 times higher risk of being raped than any other population group.
1 in 12 male students surveyed had committed acts that met the legal definition of rape.
16% of male students who had committed rape took part in episodes with more than one attacker's gang rape.
75% of male students and 55% of female students involved in date rape had been drunk or using drugs.
33% of males surveyed said that they would commit rape if they could escape detection.
25% of men surveyed believed that rape was acceptable if: the woman asks the man out; or the man pays for the date; or the woman goes back to the man's room after the date.


Citations are in the link.

So, do you really think that women are being paranoid? I don't, and instead am astonished at how much men are still able to get away with regarding sexual aggressiveness.

[Loss Leader]

I don't think her essay shows a lack of critical thinking skills. She seems to be very deliberate in her thinking - weighing danger against opportunity.

If she makes a mistake, it's that the algorhithm she's using is incorrect. She wildly overestimates the danger of being raped by a stranger. It's actually pretty low compared to "date" or "acquaintance" rape. The guy who tries to talk to her on the subway is far, far less of a threat than Jerry from accounting at the Christmas party.

She also suffers from living in New York. The forced physical closeness in that city makes everyone paranoid.

In need of a calming weekend at an upstate spa? Yes. Illogical? No.

[John Jones]

1 in 4 college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape.

Suspicious.

[GreNME]

Suspicious.

Well, I'm convinced. :rolleyes:

Here (http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf) are broader statistics. The likelihood for college women is higher, and considering the greater amount of risky behavior college students engage in. So, what's the basis for your incredulity?

[SatanicSheep]

I only wonder if it's bigoted or uncritical becuase of the possibility of ecologically fallacious stereotyping. Saying that because X percentage of a group does something that 100% of that group is suspect and should be treated as such.

I'm sure statistics could be dug up to paint a picture that black people are more prone to criminality than whites (which I don't believe, but an easy distortion could be made.) and therefore deserve to be treated with greater apprehension. Is there anyone who would not consider that prejudice?

[Loss Leader]

Well, I'm convinced. :rolleyes:

Here (http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf) are broader statistics. The likelihood for college women is higher, and considering the greater amount of risky behavior college students engage in. So, what's the basis for your incredulity?


The basis of *my* incredulity is the definition of attempted sexual assault. There's a great deal of difference between: 1) having a guy press his penis against you and only escaping because you dig your thumb into his eye; and 2) having a guy you're not into lean in for a kiss and you turning your head and him leaving.

I'm worried that the instruments used to develop some of these statistics are not measuring the correct thing. The question, 'Have you ever been subject to an unwanted sexual advance?" does not seem well-designed.

I'd like for all of the stats about sexual assault to start with a consistent definition of terms at the very least.

This is not to say that sexual assaults against women are not a real and persistent problem or that they are undeserving of public attention. All women have the right to feel and be physically safe at all times.*


*I would still lean in on Natalie Portman. She can turn her head and I'll leave, but dammit I'm gonna try.

[GreNME]

The basis of *my* incredulity is the definition of attempted sexual assault. There's a great deal of difference between: 1) having a guy press his penis against you and only escaping because you dig your thumb into his eye; and 2) having a guy you're not into lean in for a kiss and you turning your head and him leaving.

I think the majority of what would be considered "attempted" rape falls closer to the former than the latter in breakdowns I've seen describing the classification. I still don't see the reason for the incredulity, as if the default assumption is "does not happen" when over and over it's demonstrably happening quite often.

[Furcifer]

A female friend sent me this and I'm a little unsure of how I feel about it.

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger’s-rapist-or-a-guy’s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

I think this is bigotry, prejudicial and uncritical, but I'm not sure I have a problem with it...

Is this a good example of weighing social incentives? If a guy is so socially awkward/unaware is it acceptable to treat him as a potential rapist?

Or is this borderline CTer delusion and dishonest use of a statistic? Populating the world with shadow agent boogeyman where every man is a possible rapist, every Arab is a terrorist and every homosexual is a disease vector?

It seems a little inconsistent with what I've experienced in dating and then leans a little heavily on interpreting behaviour as "creepy". Some women enjoy the pursuit and some women like tattoos (although none seem to be impressed with Buffalo Breath)

I don't think most women feel the same way and certainly don't default to "he's a potential rapist if he deviates from my idea of how things should proceed".

If it works for her then it works for her. My guess is that it has a much higher probability of leading to missed opportunities in relationships than preventing a possible rape.

It seemed like a rational argument, but I had the feeling it bordered on paranoia as well. She seemed to be speaking about her own particular experience that wasn't necessarily par for the course. In that case prevention could easily be mistaken for paranoia.

It's a sad commentary on society when that type of thinking could be considered prevention though. It's not fair.

[Dunstan]

I only wonder if it's bigoted or uncritical becuase of the possibility of ecologically fallacious stereotyping. Saying that because X percentage of a group does something that 100% of that group is suspect and should be treated as such.

Premise 1: Some men are rapists.
Premise 2: It is impossible to tell from looking at a man with certainty whether or not he is a rapist.
Premise 3: X is a man.
Conclusion: X could be a rapist.

Where's the fallacy?

It seems to me that you're committing the fallacy, by insisting that women should ignore the possibility that a particular man is a rapist because you find it offensive.

I'm sure statistics could be dug up to paint a picture that black people are more prone to criminality than whites (which I don't believe, but an easy distortion could be made.) and therefore deserve to be treated with greater apprehension. Is there anyone who would not consider that prejudice?

If people were accurately assessing the hypothetical differences in crime rates, after adjusting for the locality, the age, dress, mannerisms, and other available evidence other than skin color, and this hypothetical difference was truly significant enough to justify acting differently, and wasn't being used to violate civil rights laws, then I'd have no problem with it. I consider that highly unlikely.

[Madalch]

I'll add my voice to those saying the article seems reasonable.

Although I, too, think the phrase "unwanted sexual advance" leaves a lot of grey area.

[Loss Leader]

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?

[GreNME]

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?

Unless she jams a thumb in your eye and runs away, I say go for it. ;)

[SatanicSheep]

Premise 1: Some men are rapists.
Premise 2: It is impossible to tell from looking at a man with certainty whether or not he is a rapist.
Premise 3: X is a man.
Conclusion: X could be a rapist.

Where's the fallacy?

It seems to me that you're committing the fallacy, by insisting that women should ignore the possibility that a particular man is a rapist because you find it offensive.


I'm not really insistant or offended by anything here. I wanted opinions on if this was an inference fallacy, because her conclusion and actions are a little more strongly worded than "X could be a rapist" and if this was logical. You seem to be of the opinion that there's a reasonable way to profile people and that this is an example of that.

I was curious if people considered this a logical or illogical inference. There's really no reason to "welcome me" to the world of male privelege or assume that I think this woman is paranoid/over reacting for prejudging individuals.

[johnny karate]

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?

Not to me it isn't.

I saw her first.

[Lyrandar]

I think some of what the blogger listed as "do not disturb" cues will depend a lot on the individual person. Obviously I may have some trouble speaking for how any woman is going to act, since I'm not one, but a lot of times when I do things like read a book or work on my computer in public, I'd actually be really happy if someone showed an interest in what I was doing.

Other than that, yeah. It's a bit depressing and certainly not right, but I feel like a fair number of my male friends don't understand how hurtful rape can be and how important it is to be very careful. Even worse, a few of them like to start blaming the victim when they hear stories about people that were raped. ("Friends", by the way, is being very, very loosely used here. "Acquaintances" might be better.)

[gnome]

I think that people are afraid of being considered among those statistics if they make an advance on someone and get rejected. That's really not what this would be about.

You pass into "creep" territory when the person you're approaching makes a clear expression that she would like to be left alone by you, and you persist in your advances. You pass into sexual assault territory when your persistence gets physical.

The lines are really not so hard to define, are they?

[pitbone]

Premise 1: Some men are rapists.
Premise 2: It is impossible to tell from looking at a man with certainty whether or not he is a rapist.
Premise 3: X is a man.
Conclusion: X could be a rapist.

Where's the fallacy?

"X could be a rapist" isn't really the conclusion the writer comes to. "I am justified in treating X as a potential rapist" is the conclusion. I read it as a non-sequitur, but inference fallacy is probably more apt.

According to the writers statistics and the additional data from GreNME, both of which are more than 10 years old, a women is not justified in believing an unknown male will sexually assault them. Based on the data they've provided I see three problems with the conclusion:

1) Statistically most women will not be raped.

87.5% of women, according to the writer's figure. How is this data skewed by women who are taking unnecessary risks? eg. Getting hammered then going home with a complete stranger. This type of behaviour no doubt increases the occurrence of rape compared to an society of sensible women.

Lest I be accused of being a rape apologist, I'm not even remotely insinuating that women deserve to get raped for getting drunk and going home with a stranger, or that any guy who takes advantage of such a situation is anything other than a morally bankrupt scumbag. It's deplorable that rape ever happens. I'm simply saying that such behaviour has been known to increase the chance of rape and in a society where no one engaged in said behaviour, the statistical occurrence of rape would likely be lower.

2) Statistically, the vast majority of men do not commit rape.

Treating all men as potential rapists can't necessarily be justified, seeing as the assumption will be wrong most of the time.

3) According to the source provided by GreNME, "Historically, females have been most often victimized by someone they knew."

This further invalidates using a blanket statistic against unknown men. Using a similar source (http://www.ccasa.org/statistics.cfm) as the blog author, this means 97% (give or take) of women won't be sexually assaulted by a stranger.


Given that the odds of dying from cancer are 1 in 7 (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050106_odds_of_dying.html), I have to wonder if the author is just as thorough in screening herself from every potential carcinogenic substance she comes in contact with. I point this out because the whole blog entry seemed a bit paranoid to me. If it were on a different subject, like cancer prevention, it strikes me that it would seem a bit hysterical.

I'd also like to present the following adaptation to the syllogism above:

Premise 1: Some Muslims are terrorists.
Premise 2: It is impossible to tell from looking at a Muslims with certainty whether or not he/she is a terrorist.
Premise 3: X is a Muslim.
Conclusion: X could be a terrorist.

Is this argument sound? Is a person justified is taking the conclusion as the default stance? If not, what changes the validity? (These aren't rhetorical, I have an opinion and am interested in what others think.)

One final beef, which is really nitpicky. I'm sure there was some amount of jest when selecting the title of "Schrödinger's Rapist," but it was used so verbosely throughout the article, it kind of got on my nerves. Making the Schrödinger reference, whether intentional or not, alludes to the involvement of random probability; that all women are equally likely to get raped and all men are equally likely to rape them. This is not the case.

[/criticism]

I do think there's some good advice in the article and would likely impart some similar points to my children before sending them off to college.

[Dunstan]

"X could be a rapist" isn't really the conclusion the writer comes to. "I am justified in treating X as a potential rapist" is the conclusion.

I'm not seeing the difference between those two statements.

I read it as a non-sequitur, but inference fallacy is probably more apt.

According to the writers statistics and the additional data from GreNME, both of which are more than 10 years old, a women is not justified in believing an unknown male will sexually assault them.

So what? The author's claim isn't that an unknown male will assault them, only that he could.

Based on the data they've provided I see three problems with the conclusion:

1) Statistically most women will not be raped.

87.5% of women, according to the writer's figure. How is this data skewed by women who are taking unnecessary risks? eg. Getting hammered then going home with a complete stranger. This type of behaviour no doubt increases the occurrence of rape compared to an society of sensible women.

Lest I be accused of being a rape apologist, I'm not even remotely insinuating that women deserve to get raped for getting drunk and going home with a stranger, or that any guy who takes advantage of such a situation is anything other than a morally bankrupt scumbag. It's deplorable that rape ever happens. I'm simply saying that such behaviour has been known to increase the chance of rape and in a society where no one engaged in said behaviour, the statistical occurrence of rape would likely be lower.

2) Statistically, the vast majority of men do not commit rape.

Treating all men as potential rapists can't necessarily be justified, seeing as the assumption will be wrong most of the time.

Non sequitur. You seem to be assuming that "this man is a potential rapist" is equivalent to "this man has a >50% likelihood of being a rapist."

Gun safety instructors will tell you that you should "treat every gun as if it was loaded." It doesn't matter if you personally unloaded the thing two seconds ago, you still don't wave it around or point it at anything you don't intend to kill. Is that a bad way to think simply because most of the time the gun you think is unloaded is, in fact, unloaded?

The author isn't saying that every time a strange man approaches her, she hits him with pepper spray, dials 911 and yells RAPE! She's saying (1) that she exercises caution; and (2) that men should consider when they approach women the fact that women have to worry about these things, and so a considerate man -- or simply one who wishes his advances to be received positively -- will do his best to be non-threatening.


3) According to the source provided by GreNME, "Historically, females have been most often victimized by someone they knew."

This further invalidates using a blanket statistic against unknown men. Using a similar source (http://www.ccasa.org/statistics.cfm) as the blog author, this means 97% (give or take) of women won't be sexually assaulted by a stranger.


Great. Most drunk drivers make it home safely. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Given that the odds of dying from cancer are 1 in 7 (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050106_odds_of_dying.html), I have to wonder if the author is just as thorough in screening herself from every potential carcinogenic substance she comes in contact with. I point this out because the whole blog entry seemed a bit paranoid to me. If it were on a different subject, like cancer prevention, it strikes me that it would seem a bit hysterical.

The part about not going out at night without her dogs strikes me as a little conservative, but let's put that aside. What did the author really say she does about her concerns? She doesn't say that she refuses to talk to any male strangers.

I'd also like to present the following adaptation to the syllogism above:

Premise 1: Some Muslims are terrorists.
Premise 2: It is impossible to tell from looking at a Muslims with certainty whether or not he/she is a terrorist.
Premise 3: X is a Muslim.
Conclusion: X could be a terrorist.

Is this argument sound?

Sure. Change "Muslim" to any other religion (or "atheist") and it would also be sound. The question is, what does the speaker propose to do about it?

Is a person justified is taking the conclusion as the default stance? If not, what changes the validity? (These aren't rhetorical, I have an opinion and am interested in what others think.)

If someone wants to argue that "therefore, we shouldn't let X on this plane," then I have a problem with it. But this author isn't doing the equivalent of that. She isn't demanding that the civil rights of men be curtailed in any way. She's not saying "men suck." She's just saying, hey guys, here's something that women generally worry about that guys generally don't, and you might want to take it into account in your dealings with women.

[Eric D]

"While you may assume that none of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is."

This is bogus. I call bull (sigh) pocky just because of that statement alone.

[Modified]

Suspicious.

Well, it sounds low to me. Maybe I went to the wrong college or knew the wrong sort of girls, and it was twenty years ago so maybe things have improved since then.

[bynmdsue]

Is it rape if she has one too many drinks and regrets it the next day?

[Eric D]

Is it rape if she has one too many drinks and regrets it the next day?

No.

[Puppycow]

Well, I'm convinced. :rolleyes:

Here (http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf) are broader statistics. The likelihood for college women is higher, and considering the greater amount of risky behavior college students engage in. So, what's the basis for your incredulity?

1 in 6? Don't about 1 in 6 people also report having been abducted by aliens?

Here's one reason to be suspicious (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=174195)

This link shows a conviction that the alleged victim, Biurny Peguero, admitted she made up to get some sympathy from her friends and as an excuse for ditching them.

If a person can falsely believe that they've been abducted by aliens, they could falsely believe that they've been raped. Or they might say it for attention or sympathy, like Biurny Peguero.

[Furcifer]

If a person can falsely believe that they've been abducted by aliens, they could falsely believe that they've been raped. Or they might say it for attention or sympathy, like Biurny Peguero.

I seem to recall there was a study done on this "Buyers remorse". There was a tendency for the women to report being sexually assaulted when they hadn't because it made them seem more pure to their friends.

It was only when there was no consequence to the claim, obviously not something they reported to the police, but something their were inclined to do in private.

[Eric D]

The author of this article claims that men, if their appearance is shabby, shouldn't approach women in public and try online dating? That's some real bullpocky.

Is there any evidence that men with poor hygiene and "cockroach tattoos" are more likely to be rapists, or is the author just extra creeped out by guys who aren't her type?

[Puppycow]

I seem to recall there was a study done on this "Buyers remorse". There was a tendency for the women to report being sexually assaulted when they hadn't because it made them seem more pure to their friends.

It was only when there was no consequence to the claim, obviously not something they reported to the police, but something their were inclined to do in private.Sounds plausible to me. Anyway, my main point is that you can't trust surveys. 1 in 6 believe that Obama is a muslim, 1 in 6 believe in UFOs, 1 in 6 think the sun goes around the earth, 1 in 6 think they have seen a ghost, etc.

The author of this article claims that men, if their appearance is shabby, shouldn't approach women in public and try online dating? That's some real bullpocky.

Is there any evidence that men with poor hygiene and "cockroach tattoos" are more likely to be rapists, or is the author just extra creeped out by guys who aren't her type?

Is any woman into men with poor hygiene?

[SOdhner]

How is this data skewed by women who are taking unnecessary risks? eg. Getting hammered then going home with a complete stranger. This type of behaviour no doubt increases the occurrence of rape compared to an society of sensible women.

[...]

such behaviour has been known to increase the chance of rape

That's my cue! I'll go ahead and avoid specifically calling you a rape apologist and stick with pointing out that you are victim blaming. Women should be able to get as drunk as they want and go wherever they want with whoever they want without you making comments about how they are not sensible and are increasing rape. You know what increases rape? Raping people.

Talking about "unnecessary risks" brings to mind things like chainsaw juggling. Instead, you mention something that men can do without any real concern. That's male privilege (and yes, I love it). We get to do things like get smashed around strangers without worrying that not only will we get raped but then people will blame it on us for not being sensible. It is BECAUSE of that that we need articles like this one to remind us that women don't have this luxury and we should keep that in mind when approaching them.

In other words, the article is for you.

[Eric D]

Is any woman into men with poor hygiene?

Most will say otherwise, but I suspect they are secretly turned on by a man's sweaty grossness.

[Furcifer]

That's my cue! I'll go ahead and avoid specifically calling you a rape apologist and stick with pointing out that you are victim blaming. Women should be able to get as drunk as they want and go wherever they want with whoever they want without you making comments about how they are not sensible and are increasing rape. You know what increases rape? Raping people.


Whoah, that's a little harsh.

People do things they don't remember doing when they get too drunk. It's entirely possible to get "black out drunk", do something "unsensible" or out of character and not recall doing it. It's also well known that alcohol reduces inhibitions. That's a dangerous combination.

I don't think anyone should get "as drunk as they want". Surely you don't mean that :confused:

[SatanicSheep]

Gun safety instructors will tell you that you should "treat every gun as if it was loaded." It doesn't matter if you personally unloaded the thing two seconds ago, you still don't wave it around or point it at anything you don't intend to kill. Is that a bad way to think simply because most of the time the gun you think is unloaded is, in fact, unloaded?


This is what I ask in the thread title. Maybe not bad but is it really being critical?

[Puppycow]

Most will say otherwise, but I suspect they are secretly turned on by a man's sweaty grossness.

:woowoo

[SatanicSheep]

Instead, you mention something that men can do without any real concern. That's male privilege (and yes, I love it). We get to do things like get smashed around strangers without worrying that not only will we get raped but then people will blame it on us for not being sensible. It is BECAUSE of that that we need articles like this one to remind us that women don't have this luxury and we should keep that in mind when approaching them.

In other words, the article is for you.

Men can and do in fact get raped. It's just much less likely that it would happen to a man.

For the author of the article it doesn't matter. Even when she admits the probality of being raped is much lower (being in church and knowing the guy's mother) she operates as if it hasn't changed. Is it unwise? Maybe not, but again; is it really thinking critically? Is it fair?

[Furcifer]

Sounds plausible to me. Anyway, my main point is that you can't trust surveys. 1 in 6 believe that Obama is a muslim, 1 in 6 believe in UFOs, 1 in 6 think the sun goes around the earth, 1 in 6 think they have seen a ghost, etc.


Agreed.

A quick check gives 0.301 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita) reported rapes per 1000 people in the US. I found a quote that say only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics)

(which is still disgustingly high)

A conservative estimate is 0.19% of women have been raped. That's considerably less than the 25% reported in the survey.

[Eric D]

Should women acknowledge that men are concerned with being wrongfully accused of rape, and thus be careful of how they approach men? Should I treat every woman I meet as a potential threat? After all, she could ruin my life.

[SOdhner]

It's entirely possible to get "black out drunk"

Drinking too much can cause lots of problems, including serious liver damage or even death. I would hope that you would understand that I am not encouraging people to drink so much that they black out, pass out, or otherwise cause their body to revolt against them. Duh.

Men can and do in fact get raped. It's just much less likely that it would happen to a man.

I'm aware of that, and stand by what I said. It's so unlikely that it falls below our threshold of concern, and so we don't worry about it at all during our normal lives. For me to start to worry about being raped it would need to be imminent.

Even when she admits the probality of being raped is much lower (being in church and knowing the guy's mother) she operates as if it hasn't changed. Is it unwise? Maybe not, but again; is it really thinking critically? Is it fair?

Eh. It's an exercise in risk assessment, and that's something that will involve some level of subjectivity. The concern shown in that article is probably a bit higher than average, but not abnormal. The real point isn't in determining if a woman is justified to feel concerned though - it's to be aware that many of them ARE concerned.

Let's re-frame this just to see if it makes a difference to anyone. I'm curious. Let's say this is instead a guide to the customs of a foreign country. When visiting Feministan, you should know that they have certain social and cultural rules that you may not be aware of. It is considered rude to attempt to continue a conversation with someone on a bus if they avoid eye contact or respond to your inquiries with closed-ended / monosyllabic comments. It is customary to tip 15-20 percent. It is rude to approach strangers in dark alleyways even just to ask directions. It is also considered rude to eat with your left hand. And so on.

Most people who travel make some attempt to be aware of any cultural differences in the area. It's polite and also avoids difficult situations. The problem here is that many, many men are unaware that even within the same country there are different standards for what is and is not okay. Hey guys? When you approach a woman you don't know, there is a VERY high chance that she will experience a level of discomfort. Try to avoid this.

[pitbone]

I'm not seeing the difference between those two statements.

I don't know if you're a knife wielding maniac or not, it's possible that you are. Am I justified in treating you as one though? I suppose it depends heavily on what 'treating you as one' means as to whether there's an actual difference between the two; as you point out later in your response, it's really the action that matters.

So what? The author's claim isn't that an unknown male will assault them, only that he could.

She's not just proposing the scenario as an epistemic exercise; she's drawing conclusions about how it's appropriate to act given the scenario. If her facts, or interpretation of the facts are incorrect, it's possible that her conclusions are also invalid.

Non sequitur. You seem to be assuming that "this man is a potential rapist" is equivalent to "this man has a >50% likelihood of being a rapist."

I phrased that badly. I should have just left it with "Treating all men as potential rapists can't necessarily be justified."

I wasn't assuming an equivalence at all. I was illustrating that, while "this man is a potential rapist" may technically be correct (although, given the statistics, it can be argued that she's making a hasty generalization), a more accurate statement would be "this man is a potential rapist, although it's extremely unlikely that he is."

...men should consider when they approach women the fact that women have to worry about these things...

That's my point though. Claiming that women have to 'worry about these' things is a trumped up charge. Yes, in some situations women need to be cautious, but she seems to be advocating a heightened level of caution as a norm and then letting it down when the conditions are especially safe.

Great. Most drunk drivers make it home safely. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

But you don't always assume that everyone else on the road is drunk until they've demonstrated that they're not.


Sure. Change "Muslim" to any other religion (or "atheist") and it would also be sound. The question is, what does the speaker propose to do about it?

If someone wants to argue that "therefore, we shouldn't let X on this plane," then I have a problem with it.

The argument can be adjusted to say anyone could be a member of any classification, so in itself, it's not a justification for anything. In order to make any kind of reasonable judgment, further evidence is required.

She isn't demanding that the civil rights of men be curtailed in any way. She's not saying "men suck." She's just saying, hey guys, here's something that women generally worry about that guys generally don't, and you might want to take it into account in your dealings with women.

She establishes in the first paragraph that she assumes her male audience is respectable and well-mannered, then proceeds to give advice on how they should be more respectable and well-mannered because there are guys out there who are depraved megalomaniac perverts. So, essentially, "I know you're nice and all, but I'm still thinking of you as a sexual predator." It strikes me as a horrible way to approach interacting with the opposite sex.

Because this is an issue that is so one sided, (ie. Rapists are always wrong, no matter what the situation.) I think criticisms of women speaking on the issue are often very timid. When it comes down to it, the author is promoting discrimination against 99% of men for the actions of the other 1%. If you inserted another demographic in to the argument, it would instantly be recognized as fallacious and unacceptable. Of course, the author is entitled to think and live however she likes, but her justification should be open to criticism no matter what the issue. In this case it's severely lacking.

I'm not saying women shouldn't take precautions to protect themselves. I think there's a better way to do it then to encourage women to stereotype all men as potential rapists.

[Furcifer]

Drinking too much can cause lots of problems, including serious liver damage or even death. I would hope that you would understand that I am not encouraging people to drink so much that they black out, pass out, or otherwise cause their body to revolt against them. Duh.


Oh, well that's sensible now isn't it :D

[Roboramma]

I don't know if its sensible or not, but if a woman was rude to me when I was trying to be friendly because she considered me a potential rapist, then, yeah, I'd be offended.

On the other hand, there are certainly some times when it does make sense for men to take into consideration the discomfort factor: if you approach a woman in a dark alley, she's in a vulnerable situation, so give her space and maybe even just leave her alone. etc.

This bit makes sense to me:
Let's say this is instead a guide to the customs of a foreign country. When visiting Feministan, you should know that they have certain social and cultural rules that you may not be aware of. It is considered rude to attempt to continue a conversation with someone on a bus if they avoid eye contact or respond to your inquiries with closed-ended / monosyllabic comments. It is customary to tip 15-20 percent. It is rude to approach strangers in dark alleyways even just to ask directions. It is also considered rude to eat with your left hand. And so on.

But one thing that I wonder is if the "discomfort" comes from a fear of being raped or is the same discomfort that I feel when someone I'm not interested in approaches me and tries to "hit on" me. Sometimes girls I'm not interested in give me unwanted attention and I don't particularly enjoy it, but I'm not afraid that they'll become violent. I think in most social circumstances (for instance, when chatting at a public place), women would generally feel the same, am I wrong? Do women worry about rape even in safe, public environments?

[Furcifer]

Do women worry about rape even in safe, public environments?

Apparently.

But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is. When I go on a date, I always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing.

The more I examined it the more I believe her caution may be rooted in some survey with potentially faulty methodology.

We've elected you to tell her though. :boxedin:

[pitbone]

That's my cue! I'll go ahead and avoid specifically calling you a rape apologist and stick with pointing out that you are victim blaming. Women should be able to get as drunk as they want and go wherever they want with whoever they want without you making comments about how they are not sensible and are increasing rape. You know what increases rape? Raping people.

Talking about "unnecessary risks" brings to mind things like chainsaw juggling. Instead, you mention something that men can do without any real concern. That's male privilege (and yes, I love it). We get to do things like get smashed around strangers without worrying that not only will we get raped but then people will blame it on us for not being sensible. It is BECAUSE of that that we need articles like this one to remind us that women don't have this luxury and we should keep that in mind when approaching them.

In other words, the article is for you.

Wow. Thanks for quote mining and clipping out the part of my post where I said the same thing you did in your reply:

I'm not even remotely insinuating that women deserve to get raped for getting drunk and going home with a stranger, or that any guy who takes advantage of such a situation is anything other than a morally bankrupt scumbag. It's deplorable that rape ever happens.

Given that the author of the article leaves the name and address of her dates beside her computer, I think she would agree that getting drunk and going home with a stranger is not a 'sensible' thing to do. (Incidentally, I don't think it's a sensible thing for a man to do. That you consider it to be of no real concern for men perhaps indicates you haven't really thought it through.)

[Merko]

Instead, you mention something that men can do without any real concern. That's male privilege (and yes, I love it). We get to do things like get smashed around strangers without worrying that not only will we get raped but then people will blame it on us for not being sensible.
This is just completely wrong. First, you should realize that pitbone is simply doing exactly the same as Starling here: offering advice for how women can avoid getting raped. The only difference is that pitbone's advice is much more sensible: avoid going home with unknown men when you're completely drunk, vs constantly suspect every man of being a rapist and never trust your judgement.

Second, no there's actually no 'male privilige' involved here. Yes, men don't get raped so often. They just get their head bashed in with a bottle, or a knife in the back, or someone stomping on their face. The likelihood of a man getting seriously injured by an unknown man is far greater than that of a woman getting raped by an unknown man. Yet, we do not consider it reasonable for men to constantly worry about this risk.

It is sensible for a woman (or man) to leave the address with a friend when going on a date with an unknown person, but it is also sensible to trust ones own sober judgement. It does not always work, but mostly it does. And in the end, we must accept that there is an inherent risk in living. We cannot control everything. Being constantly worried about a minor risk, like Starling suggests, is to ruin your life in the process of trying to preserve it.

[Furcifer]

redacted to the other thread

[seewhatflows]

Men can and do in fact get raped. It's just much less likely that it would happen to a man.


Unless he's in prison, in which case he's statistically more likely to suffer from sexual abuse than anyone outside of a correctional facility within the US. Maybe on par with homeless women? I don't have the numbers on hand.

Laura Kipnis covers some of this in her section on rape paranoia in The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Vulnerability.

[SatanicSheep]

I'm aware of that, and stand by what I said. It's so unlikely that it falls below our threshold of concern, and so we don't worry about it at all during our normal lives. For me to start to worry about being raped it would need to be imminent.


So you don't really agree with her posistion. The likelihood of rape doesn't seem to effect her threshold of concearn and she simply views interactions with men as a zero some game where the outcomes are A) violent sexual assault and B) nothing happens. The real chance of it happening isn't factored in.

I respect her right to feel that way, I just wonder if she's employing sound logic.

[Delvo]

The likelihood of a man getting seriously injured by an unknown man is far greater than that of a woman getting raped by an unknown man. Yet, we do not consider it reasonable for men to constantly worry about this risk.And sometimes a man who takes even the slightest precautions for it is berated for either being paranoid or "looking for a fight".

[Ysidro]

Hey look! A bunch of men telling women how to act!

Haven't seen this before!

[Richard Masters]

Should women acknowledge that men are concerned with being wrongfully accused of rape, and thus be careful of how they approach men? Should I treat every woman I meet as a potential threat? After all, she could ruin my life.

That's how I view the author, as a potential false rape accuser. I view every woman as a potential threat. For example, if I say hello, will she accuse me of raping her?

[ponderingturtle]

Suspicious.

It is fine. You just have to remember that to many people "OMG I was sooo drunk I slept with this guy I don't like last night" is rape.

You need to know how they define the terms.

[HansMustermann]

TBH, I really don't get exactly what rubs people the wrong way about the article. She never said she'll actually accuse you of being a rapist until you actually try, did she? She never said she'll mace you on sight, did she?

As someone who advocates personal responsibility and taking responsibility for one's well being and safety, I find her approach actually commendable. Do assess possible risks and try to minimize them.

It's not even limited to women. If some guy approached me in a dark alley (one of her scenarios) and insisted on trying to strike a conversation, I would at least consider the possibility he's a mugger. I'm not going to accuse him preemptively, but I would try to put myself in a safer position. And if he insists in making me feel vulnerable, it's not going to be the start of a great friendship.

If some guy is trying to basically make himself the boss of me and override my choices (another of her scenarios) -- be it to terminate the conversation, or insisting to come to his place, or even something as trivial and non-consequential as telling me on what dates I absolutely _have_ to come raiding on WoW -- I'm not going to like him much. And if he crosses into creepy obsessed stalker territory (like the guy sending her a barrage of emails), I might even consider him a potential threat.

Cornering someone on a bus is also something which can make even a man uncomfortable just as well. I _have_ been in situations where I felt cornered by some a-hole apparently thriving on that, and it was not exactly something that made me like him.

Etc.

But, really, risk management doesn't mean someone is personally accusing you of anything. It just means being aware what _could_ go wrong, and mitigating for it. It's preparing for the worst case scenario.

E.g., when I'm validating inputs on a web page, it doesn't mean I'm accusing _you_ personally of being an evil hacker. But I am nevertheless making my code able to withstand the case if you were. It's just basic precaution, not something personal. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst, and all that.

Ditto for the cases here. Being wary of being approached by a stranger in a dark alley doesn't mean you're actually accusing him of being an actual rapist or mugger or whatever. But you'd be wise to consider the possibility anyway, and try to minimize the risk.

Really, nobody is accusing you of being an actual rapist. Relax already.

[A Lurker]

Click the FAQ on that article, you will see that Kate Harding is the co-author of "Lessons From The Fat-o-Sphere", which wasn't all that relevant at first, but the FAQ did also list this exchange

Q. Don’t you think your message would reach more people if you didn’t swear so much?
A. Probably. *shrug*

Hmmm. Do a google image search for her name, and the second image is of her giving the midlde finger. Ahah, it's starting to become clearer now, she's from the Elisabeth Wutrzel school of feminism methinks.... you know the one, the incredibly arrogant, self obsessed type that doesn't think anything they say has to make any sense at all, or respond to anything but their own "Bitch and proud" narcissistic feelings, irrespective of what that means for the rest of their Sisters. Snap judgement? An unfair one? Maybe... but from the FAQ again;

Q. God, why are you all such bitches?
A. Long story (http://kateharding.net/2008/07/02/meta-why-im-such-a-bitch/).

Follow the link there, read, and so maybe not such a snap judgement at all.

Now I'm sort of on her side on the concept of allowing your own voice to be dominant sometimes, especially on your home turf as it were; the alternative is that the obsessive and excessively loud would just drown out everyone else out. Sometimes you need to be able to say "this is my place, but not yours, and I need it to get my voice heard." And after all, it's not as if the world lacks for testosterone fuelled ape-men and their hooting, really... getting them to quieten down so we can hear the Sisters, or even just their smarter, more respectful Brothers can be a noble aim indeed.

But... read that linked FAQ again. Now go back and read the Rapist article a second time. Notice there's no advice given about how to best protect yourself, by allowing a man to back down or away without feeling he needs to get aggressive and shout more? Notice there's no advice at all to women to be open minded and question their snap judgements and see if face-tattoo-bloke has actually got a beautiful mind? Of course, what if mystery approaching man is a "shapling" himself (her term for people not considered socially to be attractive), wouldn't your own ideology insist you don't judge him because of the 'Lessons from the Fat-o-sphere"...?

Notice we have essentially demands a monologue, not a space for a dialogue?

Believe me, it gets worse... I spent a few minutes skim reading some of her wider work, to see if there was any nuances in it which might indicate whether what she was writing in the Rapist article was just a bit of space for personal venting, or was really, truly the nature of her entire outlook. And I came across this article in the Guardian;

Cyberbullies don't deserve anonymity (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/kate-harding)

Her conclusion? "cowards who use a veil of anonymity, however flimsy and easily shredded, to launch attacks on their enemies, really ought to be silenced. Perhaps not by law, but by an online society that unequivocally rejects such behaviour as inappropriate, immature, and unwelcome"

I read a few more too. Her work on Broadsheet at Salon, where she feels free to express her absolute disgust for Roman Polanski. A bit of her wider blog. And nope, this is her entire oeuvre. So... it's a commentator from the above article that really sums up just why her article on "Online Bullying" and yes, the one on approaching women is just so, so rubbish;


Nice one. Politicians and media magnates will now be able to take us all to the cleaners. Tony Blair and Harriet Harman are now billionaires. Rupert Murdoch perhaps a trillionaire

And we're all on the streets.

The thing is this. Online I've been called:

1. A misogyst

2. A pervert

3. A "rapey"

Should I sue as well?

I trust now the double standard is achingly clear?

You have to dress well, conform to not only standards that society sets, but also to those of an individual you don't yet know, lest you get righteously declared a tattoo'd freak women should avoid, in public, by someone who has no obligation to even find out if that's true or not... and by god you'd better not complain about being labelled a beta male, or even a dangerous risk because there's nothing less sexy than complainers! Besides, we've got proof, because some other man raped some other innocent woman!

But we have the right to "rapist shame" and slander any man we feel like on the basis of our own immature "stabby feelings" (from the FAQ), and by god society had better also just accept we are fat and proud because you're not allowed to even think, let alone hold values which negatively impinge upon us at all. Not just because we're women, but most of all, because we're bitches!, which is a sort of turbo-charged, uber-woman, which you weak, thin women wouldn't understand.

Again... it's hardly a straw man, in fact I see whilst I've been cross checking my links, we've had a poster here even using the exact same argument;

Hey look! A bunch of men telling women how to act!

Haven't seen this before!

And why shouldn't they? Or are you only going to reserve that right to those who embrace a certain narrow interpretation of feminism, and it's claims as to what heteronormative men and women should act like? And it does make those claims for women too; Apparently all women must understand that "Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer" is in fact a sending a signal of "do not disturb", because no real woman would ever just be doing it because she just wants to read a book. Especially when the other options are "just stare out the window"; But if "being chatted up by a handsome man" was an option, would the choice change then...? Or maybe it won't. But she decides that, not you or any other woman who thinks they know the one true way to be a "woman".

If you want to understand just how much of a demand you are making, let me apply it to a particular sexual subculture; I accidentally found myself in a gay bar in Brighton the other weekend, just wanted a sea-front coffee with a friend, and to use the loo, and didn't know anything about that particular place. But a gay man started hitting on me by being exceptionally crude, and loud, shouting out about his "mangina" and his "flange" and constantly winking towards me... Was it pleasant? No, because he was crude, not because he was gay I hasten to add. I was rather flattered in general that he chose me, and his companions rather pissed that he was doing it. But did he stop when I indicated I wasn't interested? Yes. Do I have the right to demand he stop being a flamboyant, over the top gay man because I don't want that specific kind of attention? Hell no.. He doesn't have to go back in the closet for me at all...

So... Give people the right to be socially inept, losers, hairy, buffalo breath, and yes big fat "shaplings". Some people aren't for you, so what? Some people sadly aren't for anyone. Again, so what? But truly give them their space too. Which might overlap with yours occasionally. Some of them might learn from that overlapping. You might even learn what the true danger is, and where it's likely to come from, by not getting distracted by false assumptions.

[Sun Countess]

Weighing in to this a little late. I read the article last night and agreed with what the author was saying. Most men don't seem to recognize that women do live with a fear of being sexually assaulted. It's not constant paranoia to be vigilant about our own safety. We take the precautions that we must (which for me meant bringing friends along to dates with new men, not so they could sit at the same table, but so that they would be right there in the same bar/restaurant - this was in the days before cellphones). I don't go out alone at night, and even in the daytime, if there's a man walking lockstep behind me, I'll cross the street. I figure he just doesn't know that a lone woman doesn't like to feel like she's being followed. And that was the point of the article; to let men know that if a woman seems wary of a stranger approaching her, she's assessing the situation for danger. Don't talk to women in elevators and don't drive your car right up to a woman on the street to ask for directions. At least don't feel "weird" if she stays well away from the car and you can tell she's looking around to see if there are lights on at a neighbor's house, or if there's another path to safety.

I know that most men out there aren't really rapists, and most guys who stop to ask for directions really want directions. But on the off-chance that you're looking for something else, I'm going to be ready for it. If that means that I treat you in a way that feels rude to you, too bad. Get a GPS. :)

I don't know if its sensible or not, but if a woman was rude to me when I was trying to be friendly because she considered me a potential rapist, then, yeah, I'd be offended. I'd think it would depend on the type of rudeness and where it took place. If we're the only two people on the street, and I cross it to avoid having you walk behind me, then I'm okay with you thinking that I'm rude. I have no idea who you are, but on the off-chance that you are a rapist, I need to be able to get away. If you stay on your side of the street, I feel better. If you follow me over, you'd better believe I'll be running to safety, even if you were going to be crossing the street at that point anyway.

On the other hand, there are certainly some times when it does make sense for men to take into consideration the discomfort factor: if you approach a woman in a dark alley, she's in a vulnerable situation, so give her space and maybe even just leave her alone. etc. That was the main point I got from the article.

Trains, elevators, and dark alleys are not nightclubs, and the women there aren't looking to meet men.

But one thing that I wonder is if the "discomfort" comes from a fear of being raped or is the same discomfort that I feel when someone I'm not interested in approaches me and tries to "hit on" me. Sometimes girls I'm not interested in give me unwanted attention and I don't particularly enjoy it, but I'm not afraid that they'll become violent. I think in most social circumstances (for instance, when chatting at a public place), women would generally feel the same, am I wrong? Do women worry about rape even in safe, public environments? Sometimes. Again, it depends on how the man responds. If he's hitting on you and you make it clear you're not interested, then you may worry about what happens when it's time for you to leave the club. If some guy kept looking at me all night because I rejected him, you'd better believe I'd be getting an escort out to my car.

Second, no there's actually no 'male privilige' involved here. Yes, men don't get raped so often. They just get their head bashed in with a bottle, or a knife in the back, or someone stomping on their face. The likelihood of a man getting seriously injured by an unknown man is far greater than that of a woman getting raped by an unknown man. Yet, we do not consider it reasonable for men to constantly worry about this risk. If you're a man walking down the street alone, and you hear footsteps behind you, do you even consider that the man following may rob you or bash your head in with a bottle? Remember too that for women, it's not just the fear of a sexual assault, but also common assault and robbery. We're generally smaller than men so I think our fears are grounded in critical thought. If I notice it's an old man walking behind me, I'm not going to be afraid at all because I know I could take him in either a footrace or a wrestling match.

It's just being aware of your surroundings, and keeping track of your own physical safety. I don't carry pepper spray and I've never been assaulted in any way (except for sexual suggestions from strangers). It really isn't about living in constant fear, just being smart.

TBH, I really don't get exactly what rubs people the wrong way about the article. She never said she'll actually accuse you of being a rapist until you actually try, did she? She never said she'll mace you on sight, did she?

As someone who advocates personal responsibility and taking responsibility for one's well being and safety, I find her approach actually commendable. Do assess possible risks and try to minimize them.
Exactly. Thank you.

But, really, risk management doesn't mean someone is personally accusing you of anything. It just means being aware what _could_ go wrong, and mitigating for it. It's preparing for the worst case scenario. That's exactly what it is. It's not paranoia and it's not about actually thinking that any one man is going to want to rape you. If you don't know him, you need to be on alert, even if your reactions to a totally innocent request may come off as rude in the moment.
Really, nobody is accusing you of being an actual rapist. Relax already. That's exactly it again. Nobody is advocating that all women carry pepper spray and hold it up to the face of any man who approaches you. If the woman doesn't know you personally, don't take it personally. That's the whole point. She doesn't know you, and even if there's a 95% chance in her own mind that you're a safe guy, she's taking precaution in case you're really in that 5%.

[ponderingturtle]

Weighing in to this a little late. I read the article last night and agreed with what the author was saying. Most men don't seem to recognize that women do live with a fear of being sexually assaulted. It's not constant paranoia to be vigilant about our own safety. We take the precautions that we must (which for me meant bringing friends along to dates with new men, not so they could sit at the same table, but so that they would be right there in the same bar/restaurant - this was in the days before cellphones). I don't go out alone at night, and even in the daytime, if there's a man walking lockstep behind me, I'll cross the street. I figure he just doesn't know that a lone woman doesn't like to feel like she's being followed. And that was the point of the article; to let men know that if a woman seems wary of a stranger approaching her, she's assessing the situation for danger. Don't talk to women in elevators and don't drive your car right up to a woman on the street to ask for directions. At least don't feel "weird" if she stays well away from the car and you can tell she's looking around to see if there are lights on at a neighbor's house, or if there's another path to safety.

I am just wondering how this would come off if it targeted say the fear of being mugged and assaulted by African Americans. With all the same behaviors.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I don't see any male stranger as a rapist, but I am very aware of the dangers of sexual assault.

I've been sexually assaulted twice, one in which I was roughed up quite badly, but in both cases there were people who came and interceeding in the situation before I was actually raped. And there's been several other times in my life which a man has grabbed me in a club or at a party, or even out in the street, held me, and fondled me against my will. I don't know if these men were potential rapists or if sticking their hand up/down a woman's clothing is as far as they ever took things, I always just slapped them or yelled and ran off.

I'm kind of an easy target though, as I'm very petite (4'11", 100 lbs).

Despite my experiences, I certainly don't see every man as a potential rapist, I just do what I can to protect myself. I like to go to parties and clubs, but I'm not a big drinker, I rarely drink at all, and if I do, it's a drink or two. Even when I was in college and drank more than I do now, I was careful not to get so drunk that I wasn't in control of myself and wasn't aware of my surroundings. I wouldn't go anywhere alone with a man I had just met. I live in Boston, and I make a point to stay on major roads rather than cutting through side alleys. I also avoid cutting through parks at night unless they are in a well lit area and there are other people around. After a girl was snatched off of a major, busy street early in the evening near where I lived and gang raped, I started carrying hornet spray around with me in my purse(in place of mace). At night, I try and be aware of my surroundings...but it's not like I'm paranoid, expecting some rapist to jump out from behind a tree.

I'm a very social person, and I like making new friends, of both sexes. If a man I don't know starts talking to me, I DO often wonder, "Is this guy trying to hit on me or is he just being friendly?" But I don't think, "Is this guy a potential rapist?"

I don't EXPECT to be raped, and I don't view men as potential rapists...but I certainly take some precautions to protect myself in a general sense, not just against rape, but any attack, like a mugging.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

deleted: duplicate post

[HansMustermann]

@A Lurker: I'm very curious exactly what situation you have in mind, where it's somehow her fault if he ends up "needing" to get aggressive and shout more. I'm guessing you've spoted some scenario on that site where a 300 pound body builder woman corners the stereotypical pencil-thin chess-club nerd in a dark alley, or something. Can you provide a link please? Because it would be just freaking sad if someone actually thought it acceptable to get aggressive and shout more (or indeed at all) at a stranger, when they're the ones cornering the stranger.

[Dunstan]

This is what I ask in the thread title. Maybe not bad but is it really being critical?[/quote]

Sorry, you'll have to be more specific than that. What is "being critical," and how is the author not doing that?

There's nothing in this article that indicates to me that the author is misinterpreting evidence or using faulty logic. Nobody here denies that women do get raped. The question is one of risk management for women (and of male appreciation of this concern, but we'll get to that in a moment).

Risk management is about assessing not just the likelihood of the potential danger, but the costs and benefits (in terms of reduced risk) of taking preventative action.

What exactly is it that this author does that you object to? You keep throwing around vague phrases like she "treats all men as potential rapists" without explaining what that means. Is she hurting men's feelings by having these "negative" thoughts?

The only actions I can discern that she takes based on her concerns are (1) she's careful about going out at night; (2) she leaves information behind when she goes out on a date; and (3) (this one is implied) she isn't receptive to guys who approach her in a way that shows lack of respect for her privacy and security.

You or I might make different choices, even if we were women. Perhaps I really like the experience of a midnight stroll and am willing to run greater risks than this author. I don't have a problem with someone criticizing someone else's choices as excessively risk-averse. But this is a matter of opinion, not one of fact or critical thinking.

For the author of the article it doesn't matter. Even when she admits the probality of being raped is much lower (being in church and knowing the guy's mother) she operates as if it hasn't changed. Is it unwise? Maybe not, but again; is it really thinking critically? Is it fair?

Not true. Here's what she says about that: "On the other hand, if you are both at church accompanied by your mothers, who are lifelong best friends, the woman is as close as it comes to safe. That is to say, still not 100% safe. But the odds are pretty good."

What exactly is your beef with that statement? That it's "still not 100% safe"? Do you dispute that?

She's aware that the situation affects the risk; indeed, much of her advice to men is "Pay attention to the environment" and recognize when a woman is likely feeling less secure.

Should women acknowledge that men are concerned with being wrongfully accused of rape, and thus be careful of how they approach men?

Women should acknowledge that many men fear false rape accusations. I'm not sure how it should affect their approach to men, because I'm not sure how a woman could reassure a man on that point -- it's more an after-the-fact thing. The only thing I can think of is that a woman should be aware that if she's constantly talking about what jerks her ex-boyfriends were, how they all emotionally abused her and pressured her into things she didn't want to do, etc., that's going to send up red flags for a man, not just for false rape accusations but for a general predilection for drama. And really, that's sound advice for both genders -- people who complain about their exes or start pulling that "all men/women in this town are jerks" routine are not appealing.

Should I treat every woman I meet as a potential threat? After all, she could ruin my life.

Sure, go ahead and "treat" every woman that way. It's your right to manage your risk level. What that means in terms of behavior is up to you. That might mean not having sex with a woman who is drunk or arguably drunk, or getting to know her better and reassessing her personality before you take any such risks, etc.

Not every woman has an STD, but it's sensible to take precautions.

Claiming that women have to 'worry about these' things is a trumped up charge.

Statements like that make it really hard not to question your attitudes towards rape. In what way is it a "trumped up charge"? Women do get raped. It is a very traumatic experience, not to mention physically dangerous. Why wouldn't they worry about it?

Yes, in some situations women need to be cautious, but she seems to be advocating a heightened level of caution as a norm and then letting it down when the conditions are especially safe.

Adjusting your precautions to the riskiness of the situation seems rather sensible to me.

But you don't always assume that everyone else on the road is drunk until they've demonstrated that they're not.

I assume every other driver is potentially a dangerous idiot -- drunk, distracted by cell phones, or just plain incompetent.

She establishes in the first paragraph that she assumes her male audience is respectable and well-mannered, then proceeds to give advice on how they should be more respectable and well-mannered because there are guys out there who are depraved megalomaniac perverts. So, essentially, "I know you're nice and all, but I'm still thinking of you as a sexual predator." It strikes me as a horrible way to approach interacting with the opposite sex.

Well, first of all, that intro is a little bit of buttering up the reader and attempting to soothe the indignant "but I'm not a rapist! I'm a nice guy!" reaction. I doubt she really assumes that everyone reading it is in fact a nice guy. The whole point of the article is that, while there are clues (guys with rape jokes on their T-shirts), a woman can't tell with certainty who is a rapist and who isn't, so (1) women have to take that into account; and (2) men -- even nice guys who would never rape -- ought to consider this perspective and think of how they come across.

Because this is an issue that is so one sided, (ie. Rapists are always wrong, no matter what the situation.) I think criticisms of women speaking on the issue are often very timid. When it comes down to it, the author is promoting discrimination against 99% of men for the actions of the other 1%. If you inserted another demographic in to the argument, it would instantly be recognized as fallacious and unacceptable.

'Discrimination" isn't a magic word that wins you the argument. I'll ask it again:

WHAT, EXACTLY, IS THIS WOMAN DOING THAT IS HARMFUL TO ANYONE?

Is it that she isn't interested in dating strange men who totally miss or ignore her "leave me alone, please" cues? Is that the grave harm to society that we're talking about here?

Of course, the author is entitled to think and live however she likes, but her justification should be open to criticism no matter what the issue. In this case it's severely lacking.
I'm not saying women shouldn't take precautions to protect themselves. I think there's a better way to do it then to encourage women to stereotype all men as potential rapists.

Who said it's not "open to criticism"? Knock yourself out. But your criticism is open to criticism, too. And when your criticism appears to treat rape as "well, sure, it's a problem, but c'mon," while treating "stereotyping men as potential rapists" as some terrible harm even though you've never articulated the negative consequences of it, you're going to receive some criticism.

TBH, I really don't get exactly what rubs people the wrong way about the article. She never said she'll actually accuse you of being a rapist until you actually try, did she? She never said she'll mace you on sight, did she?

Yeah, I've been trying to find this out, too, but nobody seems to have an answer. Apparently just the possibility that she's having negative thoughts about you is a bad thing, but ironically, she's the one being accused of lacking critical thinking.

But, really, risk management doesn't mean someone is personally accusing you of anything. It just means being aware what _could_ go wrong, and mitigating for it. It's preparing for the worst case scenario.

E.g., when I'm validating inputs on a web page, it doesn't mean I'm accusing _you_ personally of being an evil hacker. But I am nevertheless making my code able to withstand the case if you were. It's just basic precaution, not something personal. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst, and all that.

Ditto for the cases here. Being wary of being approached by a stranger in a dark alley doesn't mean you're actually accusing him of being an actual rapist or mugger or whatever. But you'd be wise to consider the possibility anyway, and try to minimize the risk.

Really, nobody is accusing you of being an actual rapist. Relax already.

Exactly.

[HansMustermann]

I am just wondering how this would come off if it targeted say the fear of being mugged and assaulted by African Americans. With all the same behaviors.

I see your point, but that is a bad analogy. One is overt racism, the other is just mitigating an actual _potential_ danger. Woman-on-woman rape is practically non-existent (outside Japanese cartoons, that is;)), so being more worried about men isn't sexism, it's just realism.

IOW, if you lived in a city where 99.9% muggings have been committed by African Americans and caucasian-on-caucasian muggings were virtually non-existent, then you'd have an actual analogy. And in that case you'd also have a reasonable excuse, or I dare even say reason, to be more circumspect around African Americans.

[Dunstan]

I am just wondering how this would come off if it targeted say the fear of being mugged and assaulted by African Americans. With all the same behaviors.

If 15-25% of citizens were victims of muggings and assault, and 99% of those offenses were committed by African Americans, then I would be fine with the same advice. Which, I'll say again, is not "let's take away men's civil liberties, let's spray them with mace, you're all rapists," but "yeah, I'm a little more concerned about a man approaching me than a woman, and it would be nice if you took that into account."

[Dancing David]

The 1 in 6 women being sexually assaulted is very suspect.
Paranoia.
I wonder how she copes with motor transport and ham sandwiches.

I think arguments from incredulity are suspect, the statitics is 1/3, and most sexual assault occur at home, with family and friends of family.

[HansMustermann]

But you don't always assume that everyone else on the road is drunk until they've demonstrated that they're not.

Actually, you'd be well advised to drive as if expecting at least one driver around you to be drunk, distracted, an idiot, or a combination thereof.

It even has a name. That's what "defensive driving" is about. That's why you have the two second rule for example. You're giving yourself enough time to react, in case the guy in front of you slams the brakes for whatever reason. Including the case he's tripping balls and thought he's about to crash into a 10 ft purple Angelina Jolie, or an idiot who's making a point to brake for rabbits, or someone who was having breakfast and a teleconference in his car on the highway and just spilled his McD coffee on his balls.

And, generally, you'd be well advised to expect crap to happen. That way you won't be particularly surprised or short of time to react when the guy in the other lane is turning it into a race instead of letting you pass, or when the truck in the other lane suddenly starts switching lanes even if it involves shoving you off the road, or when the car in front of you suddenly starts swerving left and right, or whatever.

It doesn't mean actually accusing anyone of being drunk. (Which would be wrong.) It just means preparing for the worst. You should give yourself enough time to react in the case they were. Which isn't even remotely similar to actually accusing them of being.

[Dancing David]

It is fine. You just have to remember that to many people "OMG I was sooo drunk I slept with this guy I don't like last night" is rape.

Says who, where, when?
Data citations and evidence?
Prevalence?

[Delvo]

Hey look! A bunch of men telling women how to act!Where? Behind the purple buffalo on the other side of the chocolate river?

[Merko]

Weighing in to this a little late. I read the article last night and agreed with what the author was saying. Most men don't seem to recognize that women do live with a fear of being sexually assaulted. It's not constant paranoia to be vigilant about our own safety.

No, but you can take it too far. Mind you, my problem with the article is not that she's being unfair to men in general. My problem is that she seems to be propagating a mindset where women go around constantly being afraid for no good reason. It seems entirely plausible to me that the suffering caused by women needlessly worrying about getting raped surpasses the suffering by women who are actually raped.

Trains, elevators, and dark alleys are not nightclubs, and the women there aren't looking to meet men.
Again I think you're taking it a bit too far. I don't think I've ever tried to strike up a conversation with a woman in a dark alley, and I don't generally socialize in elevators unless solicited. But trains? Come on. Riding on a train alone can be quite boring.

If you're a man walking down the street alone, and you hear footsteps behind you, do you even consider that the man following may rob you or bash your head in with a bottle?
Of course, but not until I actually notice that person. I don't go around constantly worrying about that possibility.

Remember too that for women, it's not just the fear of a sexual assault, but also common assault and robbery.
Certainly, but unless I have my statistics mixed up, the risk of a woman getting raped or injured is much lower than that of a man. And I believe that is the case even discounting men who do something themselves to pick a fight.

[Merko]

Hey look! A bunch of men telling women how to act!

How ironic. This is actually a thread about a woman telling men how to act.

[C_Felix]

A female friend sent me this and I'm a little unsure of how I feel about it.

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger’s-rapist-or-a-guy’s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

I think this is bigotry, prejudicial and uncritical, but I'm not sure I have a problem with it...

Is this a good example of weighing social incentives? If a guy is so socially awkward/unaware is it acceptable to treat him as a potential rapist?

Or is this borderline CTer delusion and dishonest use of a statistic? Populating the world with shadow agent boogeyman where every man is a possible rapist, every Arab is a terrorist and every homosexual is a disease vector?


With respect to the bolded part…remember the guy (Hasan) who shot up the Fort Hood in Texas?
I remember hearing people say, “Well, wasn’t he showing signs? Why didn’t we do anything?”

I always asked, “What were we supposed to do? Let us assume that there were signs. That someone could’ve connected the dots before hand…what were we to do? Arrest him? Arrest him because we think he might do something? Offer counseling? Counseling because someone else connected the dots and they think he might do something bad? How could we intervene, either legally or morally, because of intuition?”

I tend not to get an answer at that point.

So…back to raping the cat. Wait…Uh…I can see where’s she’s coming from, and to be honest, I think it’s quite a good metaphor.

Is prejudice a concern here? Back to the classical definition of prejudice: Pre-judging. Is she pre-judging?

Its time for the slippery slope…back to the Hasan, do we approach every person who might fit his profile* as a possible “bad guy”? Do we intervene because of intuition?

If a tree falls in the forest, with nobody but her around, and the tree rapes her, do her cries make a sound?


* But! Be sure not to use race in the profile. That hurts some people’s feelings.
I'm not seeing the "bigotry" or uncritical thinking you allude to in your OP. (I'm not sure about that "1 in 6" statistic, though.)

I suspect the author is a little more (for lack of a better term) cautious than the average woman, but not off the deep end or anything.

I'm a guy, but I have a similar though process when I'm approached by a stranger. Fortunately I don't really have to worry about sexual assault, but I do ask myself whether this person is going to be something less serious like an annoying sales person, an aggressive beggar, a bully spoiling for a fight, or something innocuous like a tourist asking for directions or someone I've met and forgotten.

Dunstan...what about getting approached by Jim Lahey late at night. We all know how Lahey feels about Julian...Would you be worried about sexual assault then?

[aggle-rithm]

The 1 in 6 women being sexually assaulted is very suspect.


Maybe that includes statutory rape.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Merko
Second, no there's actually no 'male privilige' involved here. Yes, men don't get raped so often. They just get their head bashed in with a bottle, or a knife in the back, or someone stomping on their face. The likelihood of a man getting seriously injured by an unknown man is far greater than that of a woman getting raped by an unknown man. Yet, we do not consider it reasonable for men to constantly worry about this risk.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for men to be aware of situations in which anger is escalating and to try and prevent violence. Responsible men who I know do this already, just because you just aren't one doesn't mean they don't exist. So for instance, you're in a bar. You accidentally spill a drink on another man, a large, beligerent and drunk guy, who instantly becomes irrationally enraged at you spilling your drink on him. I think a responsible man recognizes the fact that this situation can escalate, and will try and diffuse the situation, rather than escalate it and becoming angry and aggressive back to the man they have unintentionally antagonized. Sometimes this doesn't work, and you get beat up, or even killed anyways. The same way a woman who takes precautions can still be raped. But I think it is nothing BUT reasonable for you to think, "Wow, this guy is angry, much larger than me, and could really hurt me. I should do what is in my ability to prevent that from happening, rather than insulting his mother and spitting in his face."

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Maybe that includes statutory rape.

Or it could just be a matter of how women define sexual assault in the survey, which is my guess.

For instance, I knew a girl in college who once had her breast grabbed briefly, over the shirt, by a stranger. She was so upset at this that she actually dropped out of college for the summer semester, and truly acted as if she was traumatized by the experience. I'm sure she personally would consider that one second boob grab "a sexual assault," even though most other women I know personally, myself included, would not. When I've had men grope me uninvited, it certainly annoyed me, but I wouldn't personally define it as an assault and I didn't experience any kind of emotional distress as a result.

I find the one in six figure possible, but I'm skeptical of it.

[John Jones]

ONe study I read a number of years ago (I'll see if I can find it again) surveyed college women, asking is they had been raped. If they were under the influence of alcohol and had consensual sex, the survey called it rape. If they were both drinking, it was considered rape againt her but not against him no matter who was providing the alcohol.

If they had sex when they weren't really in the mood, but did it to please their boyfriend, it was called rape.

If the women surveyed said it wasn't rape in those circumstances, the surveyors still called it rape.

That's why I'm suspicious of stats I see.

[HansMustermann]

How ironic. This is actually a thread about a woman telling men how to act.

... if they want to chat up a woman. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with that. She's not telling you how to live your life or anything. She's telling you how you can increase your chances of getting what you want. Of course, you're free to do something else, but then don't be surprised if you get a different result.

It's the same as telling someone, say, "if you want gas, take the second left and pull into the gas station there." You're not telling them what to do. You're telling them how to get a result they want. They're free to take the third right or pull into a drive-in movie theatre instead, if they don't want your advice, but then they shouldn't be particularly surprised if they don't get any gas there.

Same here. If you want something from someone -- be it sex or just some idle conversation in the train or a cup of flour because you feel like baking a cake on a Sunday -- essentially it helps to remember that nobody owes you anything at all. Not even the time of day. If you can convince them to, more power to you, but if you come across as not the kind of person they want to have anything to do with, congrats, you failed fair and square. She's just telling you how to increase your chances, but you can equally decide to come across as an unhinged a-hole and then whine about how unfair it is that those evil women won't even give you the time of day.

And, again, I don't even see anything really woman-specific there. If I wanted something from a Jewish male neighbour, I'd be well advised to not show up wearing an SS insignia and carrying a copy of Mein Kampf (the equivalent of showing up with a rape joke t-shirt at a date in her example), or he may decide to not even talk to me. If I want to be friendly with a neighbour who's an old ex GULAG victim from the USSR, I don't play the USSR anthem at volume 11. If I want something from a fundie neighbour, I don't show up in a t-shirt with the Slayer pentagram and ANTICHRIST written on it. If I want something from a Chinese co-worker I don't show up with the t-shirt from T-Shirt Hell that says "if Asians are so smart, why do they have small dicks?" nor use my superior size to make him feel threatened. Etc.

Of course, I could also rail against someone telling me to not do those things, and tell them to stop telling me what to do. But then I also shouldn't wonder if those people don't want to talk to me.

[HansMustermann]

ONe study I read a number of years ago (I'll see if I can find it again) surveyed college women, asking is they had been raped. If they were under the influence of alcohol and had consensual sex, the survey called it rape. If they were both drinking, it was considered rape againt her but not against him no matter who was providing the alcohol.

If they had sex when they weren't really in the mood, but did it to please their boyfriend, it was called rape.

If the women surveyed said it wasn't rape in those circumstances, the surveyors still called it rape.

That's why I'm suspicious of stats I see.

Damn, I got raped by my ex GF :p

More seriously, though, I think it actually doesn't matter much. Her case doesn't as much hinge on a particular number being raped or in what definition, but on the fact that women fear it. Basically even if that number was wrong, what matters is that she believes it.

And she's saying basically how to chat her up without basically tripping that potential danger signal.

[Merko]

... if they want to chat up a woman. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with that.
I don't see anything wrong with it either, I was just commenting on Ysidro's 'men should not try to advise women' comment.

[SOdhner]

Wow. Thanks for quote mining and clipping out the part of my post where I said the same thing you did in your reply:

I didn't quote mine, I quoted. I didn't include you saying "they don't deserve it" because it doesn't have any impact on what I was saying. It's one of those "I'm not racist, but…" things - putting a disclaimer on does not mean that I'm not allowed to talk about the implications of what you said around that disclaimer.

So you don't really agree with her posistion. The likelihood of rape doesn't seem to effect her threshold of concearn and she simply views interactions with men as a zero some game where the outcomes are A) violent sexual assault and B) nothing happens.

I'm wondering if we even read the same article.

Click the FAQ on that article, you will see that Kate Harding is the co-author of "Lessons From The Fat-o-Sphere", which wasn't all that relevant at first,

I still don't see how it would be relevant. Kate Harding isn't even who wrote the article in question, nor would we need to worry about whether or not there are pictures of her flipping the camera off in order to talk about the content of this piece.

[TubbaBlubba]

Or it could just be a matter of how women define sexual assault in the survey, which is my guess.

For instance, I knew a girl in college who once had her breast grabbed briefly, over the shirt, by a stranger. She was so upset at this that she actually dropped out of college for the summer semester, and truly acted as if she was traumatized by the experience. I'm sure she personally would consider that one second boob grab "a sexual assault," even though most other women I know personally, myself included, would not. When I've had men grope me uninvited, it certainly annoyed me, but I wouldn't personally define it as an assault and I didn't experience any kind of emotional distress as a result.

I find the one in six figure possible, but I'm skeptical of it.

Once in sixth grade, when I was standing in the doorframe, a girl in class squeezed through and the back of her hand ended up pushing against my groin.

Should I consider myself sexually assaulted?

[SOdhner]

That's why I'm suspicious of stats I see.

I don't know what study you are talking about but it certainly sounds awful. Here's an article (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/) about a far better study:

Thomas looks at a study of 1882 college students who were asked four questions to determine if they had ever raped (or attempted to rape) anyone:

1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?

2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?

3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?

4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Once in sixth grade, when I was standing in the doorframe, a girl in class squeezed through and the back of her hand ended up pushing against my groin.

Should I consider myself sexually assaulted?

You know, I know you're joking, but at the same time, that really is the problem with such surveys unless they clearly define what they mean by sexual assault. Otherwise, the term is so vague and open to interpretation that anyone could potentially classify just about ANYTHING as sexual assault.

The survey sod posted above, in which what is meant by sexual assault is clearly and reasonably defined, is much more useful statistically...though of course it still can't control for people lying, which any survey based on an interviewed respondant rather than hard data is subject to.

[Merko]

I think it's perfectly reasonable for men to be aware of situations in which anger is escalating and to try and prevent violence. Responsible men who I know do this already, just because you just aren't one doesn't mean they don't exist.
Seriously, a man not doing that is either a hermit, dead, or exceptionally lucky. I don't go out all that often and drink very little when I do, but I can't count the number of times I've had to avoid someone trying to pick a fight.

No, of course men have to do that. Just as it is sensible for women with a sense of self-preservation to avoid going home with strange men when they are stupidly drunk. Everyone knows that. Those who still don't do it are probably a bit self-destructive. Which is not to say they in any way deserve what may happen to them, but it does say that someone taking precautions needs to be aware that statistical averages over the entire population don't necessarily apply to them.

What I'm saying is simply this: to me, this article propagates a mindset where women are supposed to go around constantly being terrified about the in reality very unlikely possibility that they will be raped. It goes beyond taking reasonable precautions.

And that does not even start to address the issue of why it would really be such a life-changing disaster if they actually were raped. It happens to men too, and I can certainly imagine that it would be a traumatic experience if it happened to me, but clearly there is this idea shared by conservatives and some feminist strands that a rape is the absolutely worst thing that can ever happen to a woman.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

And that does not even start to address the issue of why it would really be such a life-changing disaster if they actually were raped. It happens to men too, and I can certainly imagine that it would be a traumatic experience if it happened to me, but clearly there is this idea shared by conservatives and some feminist strands that a rape is the absolutely worst thing that can ever happen to a woman.

You know, I actually have thought that myself to a certain degree. Of course, rape CAN be a life changing event for a woman, if she develops an STD, becomes pregnant, whatever. As you said, rape is certainly a traumatic experience, but I also find myself annoyed with how it is often depicted in the media as the worst thing that can possibly happen to you, that it "ruins you" essentially.

I can remember some time ago I was watching some stupid made for tv movie based on a best selling book in which a girl was date raped. Her brother later confronted her rapist and said to him, "You may as well have killed her!" And it just made me so mad...the idea that if you're raped, you might as well be dead because you can't ever recover from it. I have also heard it said often in media depictions of rape that a woman who is raped will NEVER recover from it, as if such a thing is impossible, and this also really bothers me.

I was sexually assaulted, badly roughed up, and very nearly raped. And yeah it sucked for a little while...but I got over it. I would classify it as a traumatizing event...but it didn't ruin my life, or even have a real lasting impact on my life as a whole. In a much more extreme case, my best friend was kidnapped from a parking lot, brought to a wooded area, and raped repeatedly. She was also afraid, given the circumstances, that she would be killed. She was very shook up for a time, but eventually, she really did get back to normal. She isn't weird about sex or men because of it. Her life and lifestyle hasn't changed because of it. Her personality didn't change because of it. She didn't even need counseling.

There are women who are permanently traumatized from rape, and I don't judge those women. Obviously the circumstances and the viciousness of the attack will have a lot to do with how traumatic it is for a person. But I have always really disliked how I often see rape depicted as something that will inevitably ruin your life forever. People react to trauma differently, and not every victims' life is irrevecably changed because of assault. I can't help but wonder if this mentality actually helps add to the trauma of some rape victims because it is so often depicted as how they SHOULD feel.

[HansMustermann]

It is fine. You just have to remember that to many people "OMG I was sooo drunk I slept with this guy I don't like last night" is rape.

You need to know how they define the terms.

I actually spent some time thinking about that and I still can't find a reason to _not_ call it rape. Sorry, I'm drawing blanks. It might be just my limited imagination, but it looks like rape to me.

You're not even describing a situation where she secretly liked a guy and just needed a pint to get over the inhibitions. (Though even then it wouldn't really hurt to let her sober up.) You're talking about someone ending up doing something they didn't even want, just because they were too intoxicated to really know what they're doing and/or to offer much resistance.

Would it be more acceptable if one slipped her another drug or a sleeping pill and screwed her unconscious body? I'm guessing no. Then why is it somehow ok if alcohol is the drug used there.

More importantly, why only sex the domain where it is somehow ok to take advantage of such an incapacitated state? If I took a terminally drunk guy from a bar and used his impaired judgment to make him run naked through the snow, I think I'd at the very least have his hospital bills to pay, and everyone would agree that I'm such a complete prick that someone could scalp me and call it a circumcision. If I took a terminally drunk guy from a bar and packed him in his car and got him to bet he can drive ten laps around the block, I'd be at least an accomplice in any manslaughter he does that way, and again pretty much everyone would agree that it's an a-hole thing to do. Heck, even sex. If I took a terminally drunk guy from a bar and used his impaired judgment to dare him to screw a cow, hardly anyone would think he had it coming or that it's a moral thing to do.

But somehow using a woman's being so intoxicated that Mr Douche can screw her even if she doesn't like or want him, is somehow just a matter of redefining terms and otherwise ok. Why?

Seriously, give me one good reason why I shouldn't think that's rape.

[Ferguson]

I actually spent some time thinking about that and I still can't find a reason to _not_ call it rape. Sorry, I'm drawing blanks. It might be just my limited imagination, but it looks like rape to me.

...

Seriously, give me one good reason why I shouldn't think that's rape.

How do you know the guy isn't saying the same thing? Were they both raped? Two people get drunk and have sex and regret it the next day, I'm sure happens dozens or hundreds of times in America every day. To you, automatically, the man is a rapist and the woman is a victim. It's not even conceivable to you that it's gone any other way. Limited imagination, indeed.

[HansMustermann]

You know, I know you're joking, but at the same time, that really is the problem with such surveys unless they clearly define what they mean by sexual assault. Otherwise, the term is so vague and open to interpretation that anyone could potentially classify just about ANYTHING as sexual assault.

The survey sod posted above, in which what is meant by sexual assault is clearly and reasonably defined, is much more useful statistically...though of course it still can't control for people lying, which any survey based on an interviewed respondant rather than hard data is subject to.

The existing knowledge of people's defining themselves in surveys IIRC is actually that people tend to mis-represent themselves as more socially acceptable. E.g., more people will tend to answer that they help neighbours with stuff or give to charity than actually do.

I.e., as the linked article hints, what you'd actually expect in a survey this explicit is a good dose of underreporting, rather than lying to fit in the rapist club. Apparently less so than when flat out asking "have you raped anyone", but you'd still expect some underreporting.

Plus, even reading the questions, as human capability for rationalization goes, it's easier to underreport by rationalizing those, than to overreport by including something as threat when it wasn't. Basically my take is that at least some people are more likely to rationalize something along the lines of "well, that was more like pressure than threat of force, really" or "well, hey, she could still walk with some support, so she can't have been _that_ drunk" than to go basically "well, I kinda pouted so she might have taken it as a threat" ;) So via another mechanism, but I'd still expect _some_ underreporting there.

[HansMustermann]

How do you know the guy isn't saying the same thing? Were they both raped? Two people get drunk and have sex and regret it the next day, I'm sure happens dozens or hundreds of times in America every day. To you, automatically, the man is a rapist and the woman is a victim. It's not even conceivable to you that it's gone any other way. Limited imagination, indeed.

Not really. If some guy got drunk by a woman so she can screw him, when he clearly didn't want her otherwise, I'd say he got raped all right.

I realized that that would go even more underreported, but I'm certainly not excusing it.

[Augustine]

I actually spent some time thinking about that and I still can't find a reason to _not_ call it rape. Sorry, I'm drawing blanks. It might be just my limited imagination, but it looks like rape to me.

Seriously, give me one good reason why I shouldn't think that's rape.

Why is the woman not responsible for her own decisions? Why is the man responsible for his own decisions plus ascertaining whether the woman is capable of making her own decisions or incapacitated regardless of whether he's incapacitated??

Your analogies are wrong. Try it this way: you and a buddy leave a bar and screw cows. You do it because you're drunk, and, well, you're also into bestiality. He does it because he's "terminally drunk". Why am I to assume that you knew he was not into bestiality and deliberately conspired to get him to screw a cow with you? How do I know that you did not just assume that he had similar desires as you, and wanted to screw a cow like you did? Why is he an unresponsible actor, and you bear responsibility for your actions as well as his?

[Merko]

I don't know what study you are talking about but it certainly sounds awful. Here's an article (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/) about a far better study:
Thanks, that article (and especially the linked study) are very much worth reading.
It would be very interesting to see this study repeated in various different populations and broken down in subgroups related to education level, income etc. I believe it is generally considered that such factors don't much affect sex crime (unlike other crimes) but at the same time, I find it very hard to square these numbers with my own complete lack of such experiences. I mean, I've known several women who were sexually abused as children, but never once have I heard so much as a rumour that someone I know, even remotely, may have raped a mutual friend.

[Merko]

How do you know the guy isn't saying the same thing? Were they both raped? Two people get drunk and have sex and regret it the next day, I'm sure happens dozens or hundreds of times in America every day. To you, automatically, the man is a rapist and the woman is a victim. It's not even conceivable to you that it's gone any other way. Limited imagination, indeed.
The studies SOdhner linked to above don't really depict that scenario though. They have asked people whether they deliberately got someone drunk in order to have sex, when that person would not otherwise agree.
Yes, of course sometimes people 'accidentally' have sex they regret whilst being drunk, but it is quite clear (and that should hardly be a surprise to anyone) that there are quite a lot of men who try to get women drunk on purpose. Now, this may be very hard to prove in a court of law in a single specific case, but that does not mean we should pretend that it does not happen.

[ponderingturtle]

I see your point, but that is a bad analogy. One is overt racism, the other is just mitigating an actual _potential_ danger. Woman-on-woman rape is practically non-existent (outside Japanese cartoons, that is;)), so being more worried about men isn't sexism, it's just realism.

IOW, if you lived in a city where 99.9% muggings have been committed by African Americans and caucasian-on-caucasian muggings were virtually non-existent, then you'd have an actual analogy. And in that case you'd also have a reasonable excuse, or I dare even say reason, to be more circumspect around African Americans.

At what percentage of muggings does it become reasonable? There is a disproportionate number of African Americans who commit crimes like mugging. What does that percentage need to be for it to be reasonable?

[ponderingturtle]

Says who, where, when?
Data citations and evidence?
Prevalence?

Mostly IRW experience.

[Merko]

In a much more extreme case, my best friend was kidnapped from a parking lot, brought to a wooded area, and raped repeatedly. She was also afraid, given the circumstances, that she would be killed. She was very shook up for a time, but eventually, she really did get back to normal. She isn't weird about sex or men because of it. Her life and lifestyle hasn't changed because of it. Her personality didn't change because of it. She didn't even need counseling.
I find that quite uplifting to hear, and I think a person like that should be treated like an ideal. Of course, we cannot expect everyone to be quite that strong, but I think that expectations matter. I doubt most women even heard such a story.

[ponderingturtle]

Or it could just be a matter of how women define sexual assault in the survey, which is my guess.

For instance, I knew a girl in college who once had her breast grabbed briefly, over the shirt, by a stranger. She was so upset at this that she actually dropped out of college for the summer semester, and truly acted as if she was traumatized by the experience. I'm sure she personally would consider that one second boob grab "a sexual assault," even though most other women I know personally, myself included, would not. When I've had men grope me uninvited, it certainly annoyed me, but I wouldn't personally define it as an assault and I didn't experience any kind of emotional distress as a result.

That would be legally assault. I am not sure if sexual assault is defined as any assault with a sexual component though.

[HansMustermann]

At what percentage of muggings does it become reasonable? There is a disproportionate number of African Americans who commit crimes like mugging. What does that percentage need to be for it to be reasonable?

As I was saying, if 99% of the muggings were an African American mugging a caucasian, and 1 in 6 caucasians had been mugged once, I'd very much understand it if someone felt uneasy around African Americans.

[Merko]

Your analogies are wrong. Try it this way: you and a buddy leave a bar and screw cows.
I think your analogies are wrong. We're not talking about a woman having had a drink which made her a little tipsy and horny. We're talking about guys having sex with women who are so drunk that they are completely unable to protest.
Somewhere there is, of course, a line to be drawn. Personally, I think that if a woman is too drunk to remove her own clothes (or mine), then she is definitely too drunk to have sex with. And she's probably too disgusting as well, but that's another matter.

[ponderingturtle]

I actually spent some time thinking about that and I still can't find a reason to _not_ call it rape. Sorry, I'm drawing blanks. It might be just my limited imagination, but it looks like rape to me.

Because we hold people who are intoxicated responsible for their own decisions and actions. "I was Drunk and so am not responsible for myself" doesn't work for drunk driving and shouldn't work here.

You're not even describing a situation where she secretly liked a guy and just needed a pint to get over the inhibitions. (Though even then it wouldn't really hurt to let her sober up.) You're talking about someone ending up doing something they didn't even want, just because they were too intoxicated to really know what they're doing and/or to offer much resistance.

I am talking about someone doing something that they regret doing when they sober up. You want another example, look at drunk dialing or what have you.

Would it be more acceptable if one slipped her another drug or a sleeping pill and screwed her unconscious body? I'm guessing no. Then why is it somehow ok if alcohol is the drug used there.

Because she chose to drink. If she chose to do other kinds of drugs then that would be the same. It is not about having sex with some passed out girl, that is rape. But about a drunk girl choosing to have sex with some guy, then regretting it in the morning, and retroactively making it rape. Why can't you make any sex you regret rape?

More importantly, why only sex the domain where it is somehow ok to take advantage of such an incapacitated state?

Incapacitated or impaired?

But somehow using a woman's being so intoxicated that Mr Douche can screw her even if she doesn't like or want him, is somehow just a matter of redefining terms and otherwise ok. Why?

No she is ok with it at the time, she just is not ok with it later.

[Sun Countess]

No, but you can take it too far. Mind you, my problem with the article is not that she's being unfair to men in general. My problem is that she seems to be propagating a mindset where women go around constantly being afraid for no good reason. It seems entirely plausible to me that the suffering caused by women needlessly worrying about getting raped surpasses the suffering by women who are actually raped. I don't think she is taking anything too far. It's not a constant state of paranoia, and it's not something I worry about at all when I'm at work, shopping in the daytime, or in busy public areas. Back when I went to clubs with my girlfriends, we wanted guys to talk to us. You have to be a bit more vigilant then, but you certainly weren't looking at every guy as a potential rapist. It's about being aware and assessing things.

It's really exactly like defensive driving. You should always be aware of your surroundings and who's sharing the road with you. Not every car is a drunk driver, but there are a lot of idiots out there and you have to give yourself an "out." If somebody acts in a particularly aggressive or negligent way (continually crossing the centre line, for instance), a smart defensive driver gets out of the way. I've pulled over plenty of times to let some idiot pass me, because I don't want to get entangled with them.
Again I think you're taking it a bit too far. I don't think I've ever tried to strike up a conversation with a woman in a dark alley, and I don't generally socialize in elevators unless solicited. But trains? Come on. Riding on a train alone can be quite boring. If I'm the only person on a train, I don't want anybody sitting next to me. I would never ride a train alone at night, so if this was during the daytime, believe it or not, I would get off at the next stop if a guy sat next to me or across from me and started talking to me. (Unless he was like 80 years old.)

Of course, but not until I actually notice that person. I don't go around constantly worrying about that possibility. And the vigilance isn't constant on my end either. If I'm in crowded places, I never think about it. If I'm the only one walking on a street in the daytime, I'm going to make sure I have an "out" if a car pulls up to talk to me, or if somebody else starts to walk right behind me. If that someone else is a woman or an old man, I'm not going to be as worried as if it's a younger, stronger man. That doesn't mean I think he's definitely a rapist, anymore than a random male driver next to me is drunk. But on the off-off-chance that he would resort to violence of any kind against me, I need to be prepared. So I generally cross the street and pretend to tie my shoe.

[ponderingturtle]

As I was saying, if 99% of the muggings were an African American mugging a caucasian, and 1 in 6 caucasians had been mugged once, I'd very much understand it if someone felt uneasy around African Americans.

BUt it would be wrong at 95%? 90%? 80%?

[TraneWreck]

I didn't see much to be upset about with the article in the OP (statistics aside--it's a difficult thing to measure, and even if she's off by a ton--say 1/12 assaults vs. 1/6--her position is still justified).

She's offering an explanation of why a woman may not respond to male advances in given situations and describing unwanted behavior that men often engage in.

The male perspective would be that it's difficult to approach women, at times, and cold reactions don't feel good.

Balancing the two, potential sexual assault and, in the least, persistant annoyance vs. a slight to the male ego, leads to the inescapable conclusion that being treated with suspicion is not that big of a deal. Men should deal with and move on.

Chances are that if you're a man running into cold reactions and annoyed rejections on a regular basis, there's something wrong with you.

[Merko]

I don't think she is taking anything too far. It's not a constant state of paranoia, and it's not something I worry about at all when I'm at work, shopping in the daytime, or in busy public areas.

Fair enough, I guess we're just interpreting the article differently.


If I'm the only person on a train, I don't want anybody sitting next to me. I would never ride a train alone at night, so if this was during the daytime, believe it or not, I would get off at the next stop if a guy sat next to me or across from me and started talking to me. (Unless he was like 80 years old.)

Sounds like a bad idea. If that guy really was a rapist, surely he'd seize the moment? A train station sounds like a much more plausible place for an assault rape than a train.
Now, I consider myself to have enough social skills to figure out when someone's not interested in talking, and if I did find myself in the situation you describe I might very well move to another seat if I can sense that the woman is uneasy.

[HansMustermann]

Why is the woman not responsible for her own decisions? Why is the man responsible for his own decisions plus ascertaining whether the woman is capable of making her own decisions or incapacitated regardless of whether he's incapacitated??

Your analogies are wrong. Try it this way: you and a buddy leave a bar and screw cows. You do it because you're drunk, and, well, you're also into bestiality. He does it because he's "terminally drunk". Why am I to assume that you knew he was not into bestiality and deliberately conspired to get him to screw a cow with you? How do I know that you did not just assume that he had similar desires as you, and wanted to screw a cow like you did? Why is he an unresponsible actor, and you bear responsibility for your actions as well as his?

I see a lot of defense revolving around the "both too drunk to know what they're doing", basically. While that raises a lot of philosophical questions, that's not the only case by far. You don't even need to research much to end up with advice to deliberately get someone drunk to screw her, and all the way to jokes, cartoons and t-shirts on the topic of "how to know when she's drunk enough." That's a decision taken while the one doing it is sober, not some spark of lust after both had the 6'th pint.

Basically I'll even grant a perp the drunk defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intoxication_defense), if it was indeed a bad decision taken while too intoxicated to think straight, but not if the premeditation part happened when sober and only during the execution he might or might not have been actually drunk.

Second, it's hard for me to take the, basically, "the bitch wanted it" defense seriously, when intoxication is often considered a mitigating factor even in criminal acts. Between someone who took a bad decision on an impulse while drunk, and someone who premeditated it while sober, I'm sorry, but I see no problem with giving the former more of an excuse than the latter.

Doubly so when in some cases we're talking someone who isn't just intoxicated enough to take a bad decision, but too intoxicated to defend themselves or even unconscious. That was actually the scenario explicitly asked in that survey quoted above. They didn't ask if they had sex with someone who was drunk enough to like them, but explicitly someone too intoxicated to defend themselves. I don't see how _that_ would count as her responsibility.

Also, the hypothetical scenario I was answering to, explicitly was talking about someone she doesn't like and about being "soo drunk". It's a bit harder to justify than someone needing a pint to shed some inhibitions and screw someone she does like.

Third, in your analogy, I can't stop that guy from screwing a cow too. I mean, I'm not his legal guardian or anything. But I can refrain from screwing a woman that I got drunk. Or for that matter from planning to get someone drunk or find a drunk chick to screw in the first place. It's not the same level of responsibility at all.

Fourth, a couple of of the guys in that survey essentially confessed to committing over 100 rapes. While I could imagine someone doing a bad deed once only because they too were too drunk to think straight, coming back the next day to do it again, and then again, and again, is where it starts looking more like a planned strategy than excusable lapse of judgment under influence.

To get back to the bestiality analogy: If a guy gets drunk once and screws a cow, well, ok, I'll laugh at him anyway, but I can believe that it was an accident and not representative of his normal behaviour. But if he goes back the next day, gets drunk again and screws a cow again, I might think maybe there's something to it after all. And if it happens to him a hundred times, I might think he's actually planning it.

[TragicMonkey]

Chances are that if you're a man running into cold reactions and annoyed rejections on a regular basis, there's something wrong with you.

Those threads are in Community.

[TraneWreck]

BUt it would be wrong at 95%? 90%? 80%?

If I'm walking by Cabrini Green late at night and I see a group of young black males, I'm justified in taking reasonable precautions. Incidentally, if I'm on a hike in the Appalations and stumble upon some guys in overalls with no shirt underneath, teethless grins and banjos, I'm justified in avoiding them, with reason.

If I deny the young men employment when they come into my office or scream, "I WILL NOT SQUEAL LIKE A PIGGY," at the mountain men, then I'm being an ass.

The way people behave in vulnerable situations reveals very little about their commitment to equality.

[HansMustermann]

BUt it would be wrong at 95%? 90%? 80%?

Considering that we're getting far from the actual percentage that is _her_ problem, why does it matter? If you take an analogy far enough from the thing it's supposed to represent, can you actually take any lessons back from it?

80%? Well, if 20% of rapes against women were comitted by other women, I'd probably see a point in debating such a far off case at all. And probably could come back from the analogy with the idea that she should be equally circumspect around women too. But since that's nowhere near the case, why does it matter if you can take your analogy that far off the mark?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

That would be legally assault. I am not sure if sexual assault is defined as any assault with a sexual component though.

I honestly don't know if that's legally sexual assault or not, it may very well be. But I was talking about how people personally define their experiences, which can differ from how such experiences are legally defined.

In any event, my main point is that "sexual assault" being such a broad term could play a part in the "1 in 6 number" being as high as it is, as sexual assault could potentially cover everything from being raped to having your bum grabbed.

[ponderingturtle]

I think your analogies are wrong. We're not talking about a woman having had a drink which made her a little tipsy and horny. We're talking about guys having sex with women who are so drunk that they are completely unable to protest.

But there are plenty of people who class both as rape.

[ponderingturtle]

I honestly don't know if that's legally sexual assault or not, it may very well be. But I was talking about how people personally define their experiences, which can differ from how such experiences are legally defined.

In any event, my main point is that "sexual assault" being such a broad term could play a part in the "1 in 6 number" being as high as it is, as sexual assault could potentially cover everything from being raped to having your bum grabbed.

That is true. And why I wouldn't be even remotely surprised if the 1/6 number is accurate. Like that woman in the GGW threads who was assaulted by her friend in a sexual manner.

[gnome]

Regarding drunk sex--I would say that the case where someone voluntarily had sex that they would have chosen not to while sober... there is responsibility to be had on both sides. For example, I know someone who got drunk and slept with her best friends' husband. Are we to absolve her of all responsibility? On the other hand, waiting for someone to be drunk and taking advantage of their poor judgment is creepy behavior--but I don't see that as rape. If the person is so drunk they are unable to object or physically resist (rather than simply exercising poor judgment) then that would qualify as rape, clearly.

[KingMerv00]

So if two people get drunk and have sex, who raped who? Did they both rape each other?

[TraneWreck]

So if two people get drunk and have sex, who raped who? Did they both rape each other?

It's like rock, paper, scissors, except the penis always loses.

[KingMerv00]

It's like rock, paper, scissors, except the penis always loses.

Notice I didn't state gender in my scenario. It could involve any combination of men and women.

[TraneWreck]

Notice I didn't state gender in my scenario. It could involve any combination of men and women.

Bad form. Don't step on my joke.

It would be interesting to look at same-sex cases and how responsibility was apportioned. My quick google peak didn't reveal any actual litigation on the issue. It's obviously an issue that would strongly dissuade people from coming forward. Not only would one's homosexuality be a major issue in a public case, but that same person would also be a rape victim.

I'm curious if anyone can find such a case.

[KingMerv00]

Bad form. Don't step on my joke.

Sorry, it was so small that I didn't notice it. :p

(Seriously though, I lol'd.)

[SOdhner]

So if two people get drunk and have sex, who raped who? Did they both rape each other?

It's not rape if they are both consenting. If one is consenting and one is not, it's rape. I won't bother getting into the logistics of both being smashed beyond the point of consent because while I can't picture that working out I wouldn't rule out the possibility - anyway, it's not rape.

But there are plenty of people who class both as rape.

I've never heard anyone say that, though I have heard many insist that there are "plenty" of people that do. Same thing with the frequent assertions that those evil wimmin are always out to get the men and falsely accuse them. I'm sure there is some example of someone falsely accusing someone else of rape and I'm sure that there is someone out there that counts consentual sex while slightly tipsy as rape. There are also plenty of people on these forums that say they are psychic, or deny that the holocaust happened, or think they've seen bigfoot. I don't know exactly how we would establish an objective standard or properly quantify what people do or don't believe, and I also don't know how we would establish proper numbers for rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault since even if we had perfect definitions the evidence suggests a large number of these events go unreported. So I don't have a great answer here. Still, there are some claims that I strongly believe are not fair representations of reality in general and I lump things like "lots of people think that's rape" and "women like this falsely accuse men all the time" right in there.

[Merko]

I've never heard anyone say that, though I have heard many insist that there are "plenty" of people that do.
Well, take the recent investigation of Wikileaks' Julian Assange. One of the women alleged to have been assaulted/raped has been quoted in the media as saying that Assange was neither violent nor threatening. Accounts of the encounters do not seem to involve any allegations of drugs or alcohol being involved. The counsel for the alleged victims, as well as the prosecutor, are still alleging possible rape. This does not appear to be because they dispute the claims of no violence, threats or drugs being involved - although there is of course a possibility that this has been grossly misreported and that they have for some reason been silent about that (this seems somewhat unlikely as the police investigation is leaking like a sieve, including tabloids receiving full transcripts of the alleged victims as well as Assange being questioned).

Now, I certainly reserve my final judgement on the case(s) until more information has become officially available (if that ever happens), but there is certainly no shortage of people here in the Swedish debate that appear to have no problem with a rape charge despite any occurance of violence, threats, drugs or otherwise uncapable victims.

I must add that I do not in any way question the motives of the alleged victims, they (allegedly) did not even bring any criminal charge of their own against Assange, rather this appears to be the prosecutors acting on their own accord. Anyway, the story is strange and appears to focus around a definition of rape that I have hitherto been unaware about, but which is found plausible not only by some extreme debater but also within the justice system.

[SatanicSheep]

@Dunstan

My "beef" goes as follows:

If you're going to use statistics and probality as the basis for an posistion then when those things change it would seem logical that the attitude would change as well, but she defends the idea that there's always a possibility of rape and that any level of risk is alway unacceptable to some (I was wrong, she doesn't say herself but "some women".) Like pitbone said the conclusion shouldn't always be "this man could rape me" but "this man could rape me, but the chances of him doing so are X."

Using your gun analogy, I don't see it as especially logical to treat a gun you just loaded and fired the same as one you just emptied and and cleaned. Like I said you can have that attitude and it's not stupid or wrong it doesn't strike me as logical.

[Dunstan]

@Dunstan

My "beef" goes as follows:

If you're going to use statistics and probality as the basis for an posistion then when those things change it would seem logical that the attitude would change as well,

and she said precisely that in the excerpt I quoted.

but she defends the idea that there's always a possibility of rape

Do you deny it? What line of "critical thinking" are you employing to suggest that one can absolutely rule out the possibility?

and that any level of risk is alway unacceptable to some (I was wrong, she doesn't say herself but "some women".)

What is an acceptable risk of rape? Is that something that different people can decide differently, or is there one objective answer? Is someone whose answer is different from yours "uncritical"?

Like pitbone said the conclusion shouldn't always be "this man could rape me" but "this man could rape me, but the chances of him doing so are X."

For the umpteenth time, WHAT'S THE *********** DIFFERENCE? How does her "attitude" injure you or any man on the planet?

I'm sorry, but I'm getting really frustrated at the posters in this thread who keep going on as if this woman's subjective thought process is some kind of thought-crime.

Note that you can't even claim that "this man could rape me" is wrong. It's not as specific as "the probability that this man is a rapist is [very small percentage]," but it's not wrong. And it doesn't reflect "uncritical thought" as you claimed in your original post.

Using your gun analogy, I don't see it as especially logical to treat a gun you just loaded and fired the same as one you just emptied and and cleaned. Like I said you can have that attitude and it's not stupid or wrong it doesn't strike me as logical.

The point isn't that you delude yourself into thinking that Pr(gun is loaded even though I just emptied and cleaned it) = Pr(gun I just loaded and fired).

The point is that your behavior remains the same in either case because the "cost" of being careful with the gun (in terms of inconvenience, extra effort, deprivation of the "fun" of jokingly pointing it at your friend) is so very, very small relative to the potential harm from not being careful (killing or maiming yourself or someone else) that it really doesn't matter whether you just cleaned the gun or just loaded it: for any Pr(gun is loaded) > 0, the sensible thing is to not point it at someone.

[dirtywick]

Really wasn't that different than a lot of "What do women want" articles out there, except in this case everything is "you may come off as a rapist" instead of "you may come off as a douche".

Further, I don't think her attitude is "uncritical thinking", it's understandable that women are aware of the possibility. In the same way that I always think "is this area safe from zombies should they attack", I think it's perfectly reasonable for a woman to keep something far more likely in the back of her mind. Like the author says, there's always a risk assessment in her mind, but when that risk assessment goes unreasonably high frequently is when it's not very rational anymore.

[thesyntaxera]

Unless she jams a thumb in your eye and runs away, I say go for it. ;)

Or, you could just wait for "Black Swan" to come out....just a thought...

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/black-swan/trailer

[Furcifer]

Do you deny it? What line of "critical thinking" are you employing to suggest that one can absolutely rule out the possibility?


Of course you can't rule out the possibility. The same way you can't rule out dying in a plane crash or getting hit by lightning.

It's a question of when it becomes irrational to default to the "I always worry about getting hit by lightning" setting.

Statistically, a 30 year old woman on a bus has almost zero chance of being raped by a guy asking her out on a date.

Considering everyone that approaches as a possible rapist in this case doesn't seem very effective at preventing a rape. Given the amount of time a person spends on the bus every day, this is an unnecessary amount of worrying for a person to do.

If she's truly bothered by the amount of worrying women do every day perhaps it's better to acknowledge the statistics and simply brush the person off as a harmless creep (like he most likely is) and focus instead on the instances where there is a serious possibility of being raped?

She presents the arguments and the statistics as rape being a worry for "women" on a daily basis. That worry has diminishing return after the age of 24 and shouldn't be a concern for women familiar with the actual statistics.

That being said there's nothing wrong with what she is saying as long as it isn't consuming and doesn't interfere with otherwise healthy relationships. But there's something in the back of my mind is telling me a woman can't have a healthy relationship with a man she secretly thinks could become a rapist at any time.

[SatanicSheep]

Do you deny it? What line of "critical thinking" are you employing to suggest that one can absolutely rule out the possibility?

No, but for a rational person the chance can become so small as to longer warrant the same level of concearn.



For the umpteenth time, WHAT'S THE *********** DIFFERENCE? How does her "attitude" injure you or any man on the planet?

I'm sorry, but I'm getting really frustrated at the posters in this thread who keep going on as if this woman's subjective thought process is some kind of thought-crime.

Note that you can't even claim that "this man could rape me" is wrong. It's not as specific as "the probability that this man is a rapist is [very small percentage]," but it's not wrong. And it doesn't reflect "uncritical thought" as you claimed in your original post.

You honestly don't see the difference in precision between those too statements? The Rapture could happen tomorrow. The sun could also rise tomorrow. Should I ignore the probability of either of these happening and prepare for them both with equal amounts of vigor?

You can save the thought crime and injury BS, becuase nobody is saying she's not allowed to feel the way she does. I only question her line of reasoning.

[pitbone]

...a woman can't tell with certainty who is a rapist and who isn't, so (1) women have to take that into account; and (2) men -- even nice guys who would never rape -- ought to consider this perspective and think of how they come across.

Who said it's not "open to criticism"? Knock yourself out. But your criticism is open to criticism, too. And when your criticism appears to treat rape as "well, sure, it's a problem, but c'mon," while treating "stereotyping men as potential rapists" as some terrible harm even though you've never articulated the negative consequences of it, you're going to receive some criticism.

I never made light of the problem of rape in society, not once. "well, sure, it's a problem, but c'mon" are your words, not mine. I've never implied that rape wasn't a problem, I don't think I even addressed the issue, since it's not what this thread is about. I'm happy to continue this discussion, as it's challenging and educational, but will quickly stop being so if you resort to strawmen.

I'm criticizing that she's adopting "potentially a rapist, pending further evidence" as the default position. I don't think it's reasonable, and I don't think she's presented good evidence or reasoning as to why it should be considered reasonable.

You concede that she is, in fact, stereotyping men then? What makes this stereotyping okay and others not okay? Are the consequences of stereotyping not well understood in a social context? Why do have to re-iterate them here? I'm criticizing her claim and you're asking me for evidence/reasoning that my criticism is valid; I ask, what's the evidence/reasoning that her claim is valid? You proposed a syllogism to summarize her argument and I showed it to be fallacious. Do you have a further assertion? You're also adopting an increasingly passive version of her argument with each post.

'Discrimination" isn't a magic word that wins you the argument. I'll ask it again:

WHAT, EXACTLY, IS THIS WOMAN DOING THAT IS HARMFUL TO ANYONE?

Is it that she isn't interested in dating strange men who totally miss or ignore her "leave me alone, please" cues? Is that the grave harm to society that we're talking about here?

Please don't type in all caps, it hurts peoples ears.

She's being antisocial. It's antisocial because it promotes division instead of unity. And yes, rape is also antisocial for the same reasons, as well as a whole slew of much worse ones. It's possible for them both to be wrong.

As I said in my original post that I found her advice to be largely good and reasonable. What I object to is it's attachment to the concept of "Schrodinger's Rapist"

[Dunstan]

I never made light of the problem of rape in society, not once.
"well, sure, it's a problem, but c'mon" are your words, not mine.

I thought that was obvious from the context -- I put your actual words in quote tags -- but I apologize if anyone was actually misled.

I've never implied that rape wasn't a problem, I don't think I even addressed the issue, since it's not what this thread is about. I'm happy to continue this discussion, as it's challenging and educational, but will quickly stop being so if you resort to strawmen.

It's not a strawman. In my opinion, your statements are dismissive of a woman's concerns about rape.

I'm criticizing that she's adopting "potentially a rapist, pending further evidence" as the default position. I don't think it's reasonable, and I don't think she's presented good evidence or reasoning as to why it should be considered reasonable.

Some men commit rape. There is no certain way to determine which men will do this. Therefore, every man is a potential rapist, pending further evidence. I assume that you don't really dispute this part, but instead that you believe that the probability is so low that it should be disregard. To which I say: (1) easy for you to say; and (2) that's a matter of opinion, not a matter of "uncritical thinking" as has been alleged. I'm a little tired of people here trotting out "woo" and "uncritical thinking" as criticisms of every view they disagree with.

You concede that she is, in fact, stereotyping men then?

No, I don't. That was my paraphrase of your description.

What makes this stereotyping okay and others not okay? Are the consequences of stereotyping not well understood in a social context? Why do have to re-iterate them here? I'm criticizing her claim and you're asking me for evidence/reasoning that my criticism is valid; I ask, what's the evidence/reasoning that her claim is valid?

Already provided.

You proposed a syllogism to summarize her argument and I showed it to be fallacious.

No, you haven't. You quibbled with the exact statistics, and then dragged out the tired "but what if we were talking about Muslims" analogy. You haven't identified any fallacy that the author or I have proposed, because both she and I have been talking about possibilities, not certainties. "Some men are rapists, X is a man, therefore X is a rapist" is a fallacy. "Some men are rapists, X is a man, therefore X could be a rapist" is not. Nobody has claimed the former.

Do you have a further assertion? You're also adopting an increasingly passive version of her argument with each post.

I have no idea what you're saying here. I suggest that, rather than quibble over my "version" of her argument, you quote precisely what piece of advice you disagree with.

Please don't type in all caps, it hurts peoples ears.

As I said, I'm getting frustrated with the evasions on this point.

She's being antisocial. It's antisocial because it promotes division instead of unity.

Like this evasion. How is she being antisocial? By not responding positively when strangers chat her up on the subway? How is she "promoting division instead of unity"? You're speaking in vague generalities.

And yes, rape is also antisocial for the same reasons, as well as a whole slew of much worse ones. It's possible for them both to be wrong.

As I said in my original post that I found her advice to be largely good and reasonable. What I object to is it's attachment to the concept of "Schrodinger's Rapist"

And I'm still trying to figure out why.

[HansMustermann]

Of course you can't rule out the possibility. The same way you can't rule out dying in a plane crash or getting hit by lightning.

It's a question of when it becomes irrational to default to the "I always worry about getting hit by lightning" setting.

Statistically, a 30 year old woman on a bus has almost zero chance of being raped by a guy asking her out on a date.

1. And equally statistically, the chances of the guy in front of you slamming the brakes on any given car trip is practically zero, but I hope you do obey the two second rule. Because there's nothing wrong with preparing for the case when someone will.

Statistically on any given sea cruise, the chances of drowning are practically zero, but they still include lifeboats and all. Because look at the Titanic for an example of what can happen when you don't have enough of those.

Statistically the chances of any given user of any given site I've programmed to be a malicious hacker are practically zero. Doubly so since the majority are B2B sites with major corporate customers as users. But I'd be still well advised to validate inputs and think twice about what could possibly go wrong if he were. Because it only takes one.

The chances of getting a lung cancer for any particular cigarette are zero. But people still give up smoking for just that reason. And you wouldn't tell someone he's stupid if he does.

2. Small individual probabilities can add up to large probabilities over a lifetime. All those individually practically zero probabilities add to 1 in 6 in the long term which is immense.

And here's the deal: tiny changes to such tiny individual probabilities also add up. If you can change one of those individual chances from, say, 0.001% to 0.0005%, you will also change your lifetime expectancy of it happening from, say, 1/6 to 1/12.

Basically dismissing the individual chance and missing the way it adds up is IMHO just gross misunderstanding of maths.

3. That 1 in 6 number is already with most women taking those great precautions. Without them, they'd probably be even higher.

Basically it's silly to dismiss a defense as superfluous because of a low risk, when the risk is low in the first place _because_ of the defense.

It's like saying "we haven't had our e-commerce site pwned in years, so we can stop checking inputs and throw those firewall appliances into the bin." Well, no, because those firewalls and checks are _why_ we weren't pwned in the first place. Or like a high security prison going "hey, we have so few successful escapes, so why are we worrying about it anyway? Let's fire those guards and save a bunch of money."

4. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. That's the way she thinks. If you want to approach her, it's only considerate to not trip her alarms.

And, wth, even without that fear, I can tell you first hand that among my collection of weird experiences, I have actually had a guy trying to pick me up. Granted, it was in my period of trolling by sending mixed or wrong signals, though I never thought I'd actually pass a gaydar test so to speak. (Heck, even that some people are actually gay was more of a theoretical thing for me at that point. I mean, I knew it existed, but, you know, somewhere else.) So I can't blame the guy much. But anyway, I'm reading a book in the park in a long pause between classes, and suddenly this guy just sits next to me although there are plenty of free benches and tries to chat me up. I mean, huh? WTH? Even without actually fearing a rape -- I must confess I even was a bit thick and very slow to get it that he actually wants sex -- it's a disruptive and worrying experience. There's someone getting into my personal space out of nowhere and interrupting what I'm doing, and you just have to consider all that could possibly go wrong there. It's the unexpected part that does it.

I see nothing wrong with telling people basically "avoid startling me if you want a good start", because, well, that's the same advice _I_ would give anyone.

[HansMustermann]

As I said in my original post that I found her advice to be largely good and reasonable. What I object to is it's attachment to the concept of "Schrodinger's Rapist"

Oh, geesh, it's just a phrase to express why she's asking you to be nice. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and if you don't object to what she's actually saying, then why does it matter so much what name she puts on it?

[Nanny Ogg]

Years ago, at University, this topic came up during a coffee break between classes. Six women and four men discussed the idea that 1 in six women would be raped/sexually assaulted. The women in the group staunchly insisted it was higher, the men said it was lower.

Afterwards, at some point each woman contacted me and told me her own story of how she had been sexually assaulted on campus. One was drunk in her room, and a "friend" had come in while she was passed out. The others were variations on the same theme.

It was six out of six.

Anecdotal, I know. Wish it wasn't. :(

[Unlike a Bull]

I took this article to heart. From now on, when I meet a woman, I'm going to ensure her right up front that I'm not going to rape her. I'll also assure her that I'm not lying. That way she can feel completely comfortable around me. In fact, I think my new pick up line is going to be "I'm not going to rape you. I'm not lying". That sounds like a good way of breaking the ice and getting her over those first couple "is he going to rape me" moments of conversation.

The reason this article had such an impact on me, is that I too have similar fears. Some women have been known to cut off a man's penis. Now, I know that most of you women out there would never cut off a man's penis, but I have no way of knowing which of you is which. So, cute girl at the bar giving me the eyes could very well be planning to cut my penis off. Or she could want to do other things with my penis. I simply don't know. And, as you might expect, having one's penis cut off is a rather traumatic experience, usually changing a man for the rest of his life. So men are taking on a lot of risk by interacting with a woman. And, frankly, I don't think women take this into account when they interact with a guy.

So, women, when you are talking to a man, there's several things you're going to want to do so as to let him know that you're not the kind of girl to cut his penis off.

1. Don't speak unless your spoken to: This lets me know that you're not the kind of girl to act impulsively. The kind of girl who can come up with ideas on her own is the same kind that can come up with the idea to cut my penis off.

2. Avert your gaze: Being stared at is intimidating. If I feel intimidated by you, I will also feel like my penis is in danger.

3. Don't smile: If you smile I'll see your teeth, then I'll be reminded of how much damage your teeth could potentially do to my penis. Believe it or not, this is a troubling thought to most men.

4. All in all, just act submissively: You want to act as submissive as possible so that I won't get any impression of aggression from you. Aggression sometimes leads to violence, which sometimes leads to penises getting cut off. If I see you act in any way aggressive, I might assume that you're maybe the type of girl who will get violent, which means that there's some chance that you might be a penis cutter, perhaps. No matter what that chance is, it's not zero. So it's perfectly logical for me to be wary of you.

Now, I know these may seem strange, but is it really so much to ask? After all, you are the one who could potentially cut my penis off. It's my penis that's at risk here. All I'm asking is that you follow these four little rules to set my mind at ease. And, any woman who doesn't respect a man enough to follow these little rules probably doesn't respect him enough to not cut his penis off.

Oh, and I almost forgot the most important rule of all: Don't cut penises off.

[AvalonXQ]

Incidentally, if I'm on a hike in the Appalations and stumble upon some guys in overalls with no shirt underneath, teethless grins and banjos, I'm justified in avoiding them, with reason.

What reason would that be?
Do you think "Deliverence" is an accurate representation of behavior among Appalachian communities, on par with the depiction of a group of young men at night in a bad neighborhood as having a propensity for violent crime?

[AvalonXQ]

I took this article to heart. From now on, when I meet a woman, I'm going to ensure her right up front that I'm not going to rape her. I'll also assure her that I'm not lying. That way she can feel completely comfortable around me. In fact, I think my new pick up line is going to be "I'm not going to rape you. I'm not lying". That sounds like a good way of breaking the ice and getting her over those first couple "is he going to rape me" moments of conversation.

The reason this article had such an impact on me, is that I too have similar fears. Some women have been known to cut off a man's penis. Now, I know that most of you women out there would never cut off a man's penis, but I have no way of knowing which of you is which. So, cute girl at the bar giving me the eyes could very well be planning to cut my penis off. Or she could want to do other things with my penis. I simply don't know. And, as you might expect, having one's penis cut off is a rather traumatic experience, usually changing a man for the rest of his life. So men are taking on a lot of risk by interacting with a woman. And, frankly, I don't think women take this into account when they interact with a guy.

So, women, when you are talking to a man, there's several things you're going to want to do so as to let him know that you're not the kind of girl to cut his penis off.

1. Don't speak unless your spoken to: This lets me know that you're not the kind of girl to act impulsively. The kind of girl who can come up with ideas on her own is the same kind that can come up with the idea to cut my penis off.

2. Avert your gaze: Being stared at is intimidating. If I feel intimidated by you, I will also feel like my penis is in danger.

3. Don't smile: If you smile I'll see your teeth, then I'll be reminded of how much damage your teeth could potentially do to my penis. Believe it or not, this is a troubling thought to most men.

4. All in all, just act submissively: You want to act as submissive as possible so that I won't get any impression of aggression from you. Aggression sometimes leads to violence, which sometimes leads to penises getting cut off. If I see you act in any way aggressive, I might assume that you're maybe the type of girl who will get violent, which means that there's some chance that you might be a penis cutter, perhaps. No matter what that chance is, it's not zero. So it's perfectly logical for me to be wary of you.

Now, I know these may seem strange, but is it really so much to ask? After all, you are the one who could potentially cut my penis off. It's my penis that's at risk here. All I'm asking is that you follow these four little rules to set my mind at ease. And, any woman who doesn't respect a man enough to follow these little rules probably doesn't respect him enough to not cut his penis off.

Oh, and I almost forgot the most important rule of all: Don't cut penises off.

I think this is my new favorite response to these misandrist articles. Well-said.

[SOdhner]

Some women have been known to cut off a man's penis.

Are you being a troll, or do you actually think that that's a fair comparison? I can't imagine that it's the latter.

I think this is my new favorite response to these misandrist articles. Well-said.

Really? You think the best way to respond to someone pointing out that many people are concerned about a specific situation is to mock them and be dismissive about it, implying that the thing they are worried about only happens as rare, isolated events? And how in the world was the article misandrist?

[Furcifer]

I see nothing wrong with telling people basically "avoid startling me if you want a good start", because, well, that's the same advice _I_ would give anyone.

Nor do I. I think everyone has expressed the same thought on the matter, there's nothing wrong with keeping your guard up.

But the author seems to legitimize constantly worrying where perhaps only caution is warranted. It's a rather extreme position to take, especially because she uses "rape" as the reason. Let's face it, "rape" is a very strong word. Certainly women don't want to be raped, but men don't want to be considered "rapists" either.

Someone in the comments section of the article said she might prefer the term "Schrodinger's Douche Bag". I think that's much more appropriate and less inflammatory while accomplishing the exact same thing.

[TraneWreck]

What reason would that be?
Do you think "Deliverence" is an accurate representation of behavior among Appalachian communities, on par with the depiction of a group of young men at night in a bad neighborhood as having a propensity for violent crime?

Maybe I didn't explain it well the first time through.

Once again, if one is alone and vulnerable in an area certain behavior is understandable that would be bigoted and insulting in other contexts. I highly doubt the odds of a toothless yokel lashing a person to a tree and raping them (or just perpetrating a lesser crime, like stealing your stuff) is very high. But it is understandable if someone feels uncomfortable and tries to avoid the situation.

If you meet those same people at a busy market on a Sunday afternoon and treat them poorly, then you're being an ass.

The point is that reactions like crossing a street when one is alone and a group of young black males is approaching, or on the topic of the OP, avoiding situations involving strange men, does not reveal any deep-seated bigotry. It's just a sort of natural survival instinct.

"Odds" are the wrong way to look at this. It's just about taking precautions to avoid worst-case scenarios. The analogy to driving is a good one. One should drive assuming that the people in other cars are inept. What are the odds that the person next to you is actually inept? Likely quite low, but given the stakes, it's reasonable to behave as though the unlikely scenario is true.

[Unlike a Bull]

Are you being a troll, or do you actually think that that's a fair comparison? I can't imagine that it's the latter.


Neither. I was pointing out the absurdity in treating the opposite sex as if they were evil because some of them are. And especially how ridiculous it is to tell someone how they should act to avoid coming across as evil. Especially if you're going to go so far as to tell someone with strange tattoos that they shouldn't try to talk to a girl in public, but should stick to online dating. Some people aren't good at taking a hint that you want them to get lost. Some people aren't good at reading body language. Some people like strange tattoos. Some people are rapists. Let's not go mixing them all together.

[TraneWreck]

Are you being a troll, or do you actually think that that's a fair comparison? I can't imagine that it's the latter.



Really? You think the best way to respond to someone pointing out that many people are concerned about a specific situation is to mock them and be dismissive about it, implying that the thing they are worried about only happens as rare, isolated events? And how in the world was the article misandrist?

This is the sort of idiotic response feminists have to deal with. It makes me glad I'm not a woman. It's just inchoate, unconsidered reaction to women expressing their view of the world.

And, of course, these two trolls are welcome to approach women as though each is likely to cut off their penis. They, of course, cannot and will not do so because they're just being childish contrarians. They're mocking actual fear and suffering.

The irony of the predictable example, of course, is that John Wayne Bobbit "sexually, physically, and emotionally abused (Lorena) during their marriage. She also stated that John flaunted his infidelities, and forced her to have an abortion." Bobbit denied the allegations, he was found innocent of raping her on the night she performed her infamous surgery, but his testimony concerning the other incidents conflicted with the facts and serveral witnesses confirmed Lorena's story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt

But that's a hilarious example of how women are just as dangerous as men.

In this America where we piss ourselves and change our laws because bearded men in caves thousands of miles away say their going to hurt us (despite lacking any means to do so), I find it ironic that people so casually dismiss the most vile, ancient form of terrorism: men dominating women. A large number of women actually live with the sort of stomach-churning fear representative of a terrorized population.

If you want to experience the same thing, hop on down to the South or West Side of Chicago and walk around at night.

[TraneWreck]

Neither. I was pointing out the absurdity in treating the opposite sex as if they were evil because some of them are. And especially how ridiculous it is to tell someone how they should act to avoid coming across as evil. Especially if you're going to go so far as to tell someone with strange tattoos that they shouldn't try to talk to a girl in public, but should stick to online dating. Some people aren't good at taking a hint that you want them to get lost. Some people aren't good at reading body language. Some people like strange tattoos. Some people are rapists. Let's not go mixing them all together.

It's amazing how completely you missed the point of the article. She explained why, if you had a bunch of tattoos, a woman may not respond to your advances. If she does, then it's not a problem.

Your characterization of the article either shows lack of reading comprehension or some intentional twisting of the words to feed a preexisting bias.

[Unlike a Bull]

Maybe I didn't explain it well the first time through.

Once again, if one is alone and vulnerable in an area certain behavior is understandable that would be bigoted and insulting in other contexts. I highly doubt the odds of a toothless yokel lashing a person to a tree and raping them (or just perpetrating a lesser crime, like stealing your stuff) is very high. But it is understandable if someone feels uncomfortable and tries to avoid the situation.

If you meet those same people at a busy market on a Sunday afternoon and treat them poorly, then you're being an ass.

The point is that reactions like crossing a street when one is alone and a group of young black males is approaching, or on the topic of the OP, avoiding situations involving strange men, does not reveal any deep-seated bigotry. It's just a sort of natural survival instinct.

"Odds" are the wrong way to look at this. It's just about taking precautions to avoid worst-case scenarios. The analogy to driving is a good one. One should drive assuming that the people in other cars are inept. What are the odds that the person next to you is actually inept? Likely quite low, but given the stakes, it's reasonable to behave as though the unlikely scenario is true.

I see your point, but I disagree with you. If you cross the street when you're alone and get approached by a group of people you're using your own judgment to try to avoid a bad situation. If you cross the street because you're approached by a group of black people, you're being prejudiced. If I always drive like the people around me are inept, I'm using my own judgment to try to avoid a bad situation. If I treat the drivers around me who are female as if they're inept, I'm being prejudiced.

[TraneWreck]

I see your point, but I disagree with you. If you cross the street when you're alone and get approached by a group of people you're using your own judgment to try to avoid a bad situation. If you cross the street because you're approached by a group of black people, you're being prejudiced. If I always drive like the people around me are inept, I'm using my own judgment to try to avoid a bad situation. If I treat the drivers around me who are female as if they're inept, I'm being prejudiced.

If you want to use pejoratives to describe that reaction, then fine. We all do it when we feel vulnerable. It means very little.

That, in fact, was one of the points in the OP: if you think a woman not wanting to stop and chat with you when she's by herself at night is bigoted and prejudiced and assumes you're a rapist, you're welcome to think that. Just don't continue harassing her.

[HansMustermann]

If you want to just have a generic insult, sure Schroedinger's Douchebag is just as good as any. But it fails to convey what she's trying to avoid there. She's not just trying to not meet a douchebag, she's trying to not get raped.

Plus, I still don't see the problem. She didn't say every guy _is_ a rapist, and even calculates a 1 in 60 number for actual rapists. So exactly what's the problem? Sure, I'm in a group where 1 in 60 might commit one particular criminal act. But I also know the fallacy of division. I don't have to form some kind of phalanx in defense of the kingdom of manhood when I can just say, "well, not me." Seems enough to me.

"Potential rapist" or in her expression "Schroedinger's Rapist" isn't even saying much. Sure, and she's a potential hooker, this bag of grapes I'm eating was a potential bottle of wine, and you're a potential hacker each time the site validates your login instead of just taking your word. And let's just say I threw away a perfectly good potential baby in that condom last night ;) Some modifiers are important. You can't just take one word out of it and get in a fuss over it.

And whether or not it's worth worrying, well, that's exactly where we disagree.

If a brand of cigarettes had a 1 in 6 (or even 1 in 10, or 1 in 20) chance to give an average smoker a cancer, not only everyone would understand why one would be worried, but the majority would actually try to get them banned. Even though the risk from one individual cigarette would be rather infinitesimal.

In fact, we understand people who quit out of fear of cancer even with existing cigarettes, although the last time I saw a calculated probability it was something like 1.72% over the lifetime of a smoker.

So exactly why would we think that a 1.72% risk is understandable to worry about, but a 15% (or even 10% or 5%) risk is irrational fear?

And generally, most of the supposed reasons not to worry I've seen in this thread boil down to essentially some variant of the Sorites Paradox or rather the related fallacy of the heap. Everyone is so focused on why an individual small grain of danger shouldn't even be given a second thought that they implicitly or explicitly deny the heap of danger that's accumulated even just from 16 to 24 years old, one grain at a time. It's that heap that worries her.

[I Am The Scum]

Neither. I was pointing out the absurdity in treating the opposite sex as if they were evil because some of them are. And especially how ridiculous it is to tell someone how they should act to avoid coming across as evil. Especially if you're going to go so far as to tell someone with strange tattoos that they shouldn't try to talk to a girl in public, but should stick to online dating. Some people aren't good at taking a hint that you want them to get lost. Some people aren't good at reading body language. Some people like strange tattoos. Some people are rapists. Let's not go mixing them all together.

The gist of the article is that when a woman is expressing a lack of interest in a man's advances (and she may do so subtly), then he should cease. Do you disagree?

Statistically, a 30 year old woman on a bus has almost zero chance of being raped by a guy asking her out on a date.

Considering everyone that approaches as a possible rapist in this case doesn't seem very effective at preventing a rape. Given the amount of time a person spends on the bus every day, this is an unnecessary amount of worrying for a person to do.

Any time I enter a vehicle that will be moving, I act as though that trip could potentially lead to a life-threatening injury. Thus, I wear my seat belt. The actual odds of any given trip resulting in serious harm are astoundingly small, but I still buckle up.

Am I behaving irrationally?

[Sun Countess]

I see your point, but I disagree with you. If you cross the street when you're alone and get approached by a group of people you're using your own judgment to try to avoid a bad situation. If you cross the street because you're approached by a group of black people, you're being prejudiced. If I always drive like the people around me are inept, I'm using my own judgment to try to avoid a bad situation. If I treat the drivers around me who are female as if they're inept, I'm being prejudiced.

So...are you saying that to avoid being seen as prejudiced against men, women should treat both unknown men and women as potential rapists?

[Light23]

Do you think I’m overreacting? One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

Surely this doesn't mean you have a 16.67% chance of being raped. There's probably a significant proportion of women who live in terrible areas where violence is common. I'm pretty sure if you don't go down dark alleys at 2AM etc. your chance of being raped is much much lower than 1 in 6.

[TraneWreck]

Surely this doesn't mean you have a 16.67% chance of being raped. There's probably a significant proportion of women who live in terrible areas where violence is common. I'm pretty sure if you don't go down dark alleys at 2AM etc. your chance of being raped is much much lower than 1 in 6.

Couple of problems:

1) "Rape" is not the only form of "sexual assault."

2) The statistic is for a lifetime. If you have a 1% chance of getting raped in any given alley at 2AM, the odds are low. If over 20 years you walk down 200 alleys at 2AM, it becomes incredibly likely (I realize that this, too, is an oversimplification).

[Furcifer]

The irony of the predictable example, of course, is that John Wayne Bobbit "sexually, physically, and emotionally abused (Lorena) during their marriage. She also stated that John flaunted his infidelities, and forced her to have an abortion." Bobbit denied the allegations, he was found innocent of raping her on the night she performed her infamous surgery, but his testimony concerning the other incidents conflicted with the facts and serveral witnesses confirmed Lorena's story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt

But that's a hilarious example of how women are just as dangerous as men.



Don't blame the victim, there's no excuse for butchering a person. :boxedin:

[bookitty]

Surely this doesn't mean you have a 16.67% chance of being raped. There's probably a significant proportion of women who live in terrible areas where violence is common. I'm pretty sure if you don't go down dark alleys at 2AM etc. your chance of being raped is much much lower than 1 in 6.

Actually, no. Not hanging out in dark alleys might decrease the chance that you'll be raped by a stranger but rape, like murder, is often personal. It's someone you know.

[TraneWreck]

Don't blame the victim, there's no excuse for butchering a person. :boxedin:

She was not found guilty, so yes, there was an excuse.

[bookitty]

Quick question: Why is it that any discussion of rape will eventually lead to a discussion of Lorena Bobbitt? If we take the 1 in 6 statistic to be true (and personally I think it's a bit low), rape happens frequently but dicks getting lopped off seems to be a one-time deal. Are guys really so insecure about this microscopic possibility that it trumps empathy? That doesn't seem likely. So what is it?

[Furcifer]

snip... It's that heap that worries her.

She prefaces the story by saying women live in constant fear and that's why it's perfectly legitimate to treat every man as a potential rapist.

Women don't have to live in constant fear if they are simply aware of the risks and take the proper measures to prevent them.

Like I said, I don't really care one way or the other, it's a personal choice and whatever works for you it the right thing to do. I'm sure this is an effective way of avoiding rape.

But you can't overlook the fact that this perpetuates the "constant fear" women live in. Even if it's rational and effective it's somewhat circular.

[Eric D]

I took this article to heart. From now on, when I meet a woman, I'm going to ensure her right up front that I'm not going to rape her. I'll also assure her that I'm not lying. That way she can feel completely comfortable around me. In fact, I think my new pick up line is going to be "I'm not going to rape you. I'm not lying". That sounds like a good way of breaking the ice and getting her over those first couple "is he going to rape me" moments of conversation.

The reason this article had such an impact on me, is that I too have similar fears. Some women have been known to cut off a man's penis. Now, I know that most of you women out there would never cut off a man's penis, but I have no way of knowing which of you is which. So, cute girl at the bar giving me the eyes could very well be planning to cut my penis off. Or she could want to do other things with my penis. I simply don't know. And, as you might expect, having one's penis cut off is a rather traumatic experience, usually changing a man for the rest of his life. So men are taking on a lot of risk by interacting with a woman. And, frankly, I don't think women take this into account when they interact with a guy.

So, women, when you are talking to a man, there's several things you're going to want to do so as to let him know that you're not the kind of girl to cut his penis off.

1. Don't speak unless your spoken to: This lets me know that you're not the kind of girl to act impulsively. The kind of girl who can come up with ideas on her own is the same kind that can come up with the idea to cut my penis off.

2. Avert your gaze: Being stared at is intimidating. If I feel intimidated by you, I will also feel like my penis is in danger.

3. Don't smile: If you smile I'll see your teeth, then I'll be reminded of how much damage your teeth could potentially do to my penis. Believe it or not, this is a troubling thought to most men.

4. All in all, just act submissively: You want to act as submissive as possible so that I won't get any impression of aggression from you. Aggression sometimes leads to violence, which sometimes leads to penises getting cut off. If I see you act in any way aggressive, I might assume that you're maybe the type of girl who will get violent, which means that there's some chance that you might be a penis cutter, perhaps. No matter what that chance is, it's not zero. So it's perfectly logical for me to be wary of you.

Now, I know these may seem strange, but is it really so much to ask? After all, you are the one who could potentially cut my penis off. It's my penis that's at risk here. All I'm asking is that you follow these four little rules to set my mind at ease. And, any woman who doesn't respect a man enough to follow these little rules probably doesn't respect him enough to not cut his penis off.

Oh, and I almost forgot the most important rule of all: Don't cut penises off.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaah! Beautiful!

[Furcifer]

Any time I enter a vehicle that will be moving, I act as though that trip could potentially lead to a life-threatening injury. Thus, I wear my seat belt. The actual odds of any given trip resulting in serious harm are astoundingly small, but I still buckle up.

Am I behaving irrationally?

Obviously not.

But like I said I think the back and forth people are having over this is her implying men don't know what it's like to live in constant fear of being raped. This begins to border on irrational. I think that's why the OP seems a little confused and I am as well. She presents are very rational argument, but you begin to wonder how far she's willing to take it. Especially when she describes some unusual events and you realize she's a 35 year old feminist.
Based on statistics, what might be entirely rational for a 17 year old girl isn't for a 65 year old woman. The same way wearing a seatbelt is rational, but wearing a full face helmet and installing a 5 point harness isn't.

[bookitty]

She prefaces the story by saying women live in constant fear and that's why it's perfectly legitimate to treat every man as a potential rapist.

Women don't have to live in constant fear if they are simply aware of the risks and take the proper measures to prevent them.

Like I said, I don't really care one way or the other, it's a personal choice and whatever works for you it the right thing to do. I'm sure this is an effective way of avoiding rape.

But you can't overlook the fact that this perpetuates the "constant fear" women live in. Even if it's rational and effective it's somewhat circular.

"Simply" aware of the risks? Could you be a little more condescending?

Women are aware of the risks and the article outlines some of the measures that women take to prevent them. Namely, not trusting strangers and being hyper-aware of clues that indicate danger.

If rape was only the stranger lurking in the dark alley, it would be easy to avoid. Unfortunately, that's not the case. It is more often a crime of opportunity. A man has noticed that a woman is vulnerable and takes advantage of it. This isn't something you can plan for except to make sure that you are never vulnerable. This means treating every man as a potential rapist. There is no "personal choice" in this matter.

Women don't live in "constant fear," but they do live in a state of heightened awareness. Most woman have either been raped or have a friend who has been raped. Most men know a woman who has been raped (although they might not always be aware of it, or have dismissed it.)

[Furcifer]

"Simply" aware of the risks? Could you be a little more condescending?

Yes.

I'm sure for women, reading a pamphlet on the dangers of rape and how to prevent them is a 2 year course at a community college :rolleyes:

It wasn't condescending, it's a common adjective used to suggest there is plenty of information that is easily made available to anyone interested. It's not the formula for new Coke. (that was condescending)

And I wasn't suggesting it's "simple" to avoid high risk situations either. But that getting the information to help you identify them is.

[pitbone]

As I said, I'm getting frustrated with the evasions on this point.

Like this evasion. How is she being antisocial? By not responding positively when strangers chat her up on the subway? How is she "promoting division instead of unity"? You're speaking in vague generalities.

I think you're being a bit dishonest here, calling responses 'evasions' when they're clearly not. You asked a question (What is she doing wrong?); I gave an answer (She's being antisocial.) Maybe it's an unsatisfactory answer, but it's not an evasion.

Society generally functions better when people work together and exhibit altruistic behaviour towards one another. Walking around predicating your interactions with every second person you meet with "What could this person do to harm me?" is in opposition to societal benefit. Obviously, it's a sliding scale based on the conditions and environment.

I question whether a good society is one where everyone is continuously thinking "That person could rape me. That person could rape me." Yes, I know that the most efficient way to deal with the problem is to get rid of the rapists. Note that this is being addressed in society, but isn't going to be accomplished by pessimistic speculation on what people could do, only by dealing with what they've actually done, or are likely to do.

you believe that the probability is so low that it should be disregard. To which I say: (1) easy for you to say

I didn't say disregard, I said things like 'reasonable precaution' and 'behave sensibly'.

Granted, it is much less likely that I, personally, will be raped than any given women, but it's possible. Should men also not talk to me in case I think they're rapists? Is the probability that I will be raped low enough to ignore? How does one objectively determine the acceptability of probability?

It's not easy for me to say. I have a wife and would be mortified if she were raped. As, I imagine, any loving husband would be.I also have a mother, a sister, a niece and many close female friends. I hope none of them are ever raped, or any other women for that matter. I encourage all of them to take reasonable precautions to prevent any situation where they could be assaulted. Living through the rape of a loved one is no doubt much less traumatic than actually being raped, but there are still painful consequences. You refer to me as though I live in a bubble where I'm completely separated from the realities of the world. Despite how you may have pictured me, I don't spend my entire life in front of the computer, eating Cheetos and playing WoW.

You haven't identified any fallacy that the author or I have proposed


Her words:

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. Even to say that you like her hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for women to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist.

i) Some men are rapists.
ii) Rapists are threats.
Therefore, all men are threats.

Fallacious. Men are threats simply for wanting to say 'hi' to a girl on the subway? Certainly a man shouldn't be labeled as a 'threat' just for wanting to say 'hi'. Maybe she's not sending signals, maybe she hasn't even noticed the guy. The women is not obligated to respond in any way whatsoever. She could ignore him, or say a polite "Thanks." and go back to reading, or, if social conventions aren't important to her, say, "Piss off, you maggot." Is the author suggesting we never talk to anyone unless we already have their complete, undivided attention? It certainly sounds that way.

On the other hand, if she is turned towards you, making eye contact...

If not, where's the line? How do we logically determine it? Or is she just asserting her opinion as fact?

[seewhatflows]

Yes.

I'm sure for women, reading a pamphlet on the dangers of rape and how to prevent them is a 2 year course at a community college :rolleyes:

It wasn't condescending, it's a common adjective used to suggest there is plenty of information that is easily made available to anyone interested. It's not the formula for new Coke. (that was condescending)

And I wasn't suggesting it's "simple" to avoid high risk situations either. But that getting the information to help you identify them is.

The methods to avoid being raped by a stranger are the same as those used to avoid any kind of attack by a stranger. As it has been noted several times before this, it is much more likely for a woman to be raped by her spouse/significant other, co-worker/boss, teacher, family member, friend or date than by a stranger.

Can you please advise me on avoiding potentially being raped by any of these people without having to dramatically alter my life?

One of the big problems with talking about ways to avoid being raped is that it inevitably leads to a certain amount of victim blaming. "Well, you shouldn't have been walking down that alley at 2 AM in that short skirt" is pretty familiar. But what about "Well maybe you shouldn't have gotten married/have a job/know any people at all/have such a vulnerable vagina/exist"?

And just a note to the mansplainers, when the conversation is about women's experience of rape and fear of rape, you are not the authority. If you want be helpful or just to gain some insight into these experiences, you just need to shut up and listen.

[AvalonXQ]

In this America where we piss ourselves and change our laws because bearded men in caves thousands of miles away say their going to hurt us (despite lacking any means to do so), I find it ironic that people so casually dismiss the most vile, ancient form of terrorism: men dominating women.

And despite the constant abuse meted out by members of both sexes on their partners, due to personal evil and dysfunctional relationships, it frustrates me that people still have the blinders on that this is primarily a unidirectional gender problem.
The facilitated, codified malice, the power plays, the general terror felt on a daily basis, occurs all over the country in men against women and other men, and in women against men and other women. The most common form of abuse in the U.S. is women against their children. But at least when a man abuses his wife, most people see it as deplorable, while men being abused by their wives are so often thought of as funny. Constant verbal and emotional attacks are acceptable, even expected. Women just can't be rapists or abusers.
This is not a gender relations problem, and couching it as one is sexist and offensive.

[AvalonXQ]

And just a note to the menz, when the conversation is about women's experience of rape and fear of rape, you are not the authority. If you want be helpful or just to gain some insight into these experiences, you just need to shut up and listen.

When a woman is relating her experience, how is any other woman more of an authority than any man is? Acting like your experience is unified with hers any more than anyone else's, you've already decided to divide people up into groups -- and, quite frankly, the wrong ones.
An appropriate distinction is between abusers and those who have been victims of abuse. Why does it offend your sensibilities so much that some men are in the latter group? Or that a man might very well relate to the experience as much as you do? How can you possibly claim to know if you're not he?

[seewhatflows]

When a woman is relating her experience, how is any other woman more of an authority than any man is? Acting like your experience is unified with hers any more than anyone else's, you've already decided to divide people up into groups -- and, quite frankly, the wrong ones.
An appropriate distinction is between abusers and those who have been victims of abuse. Why does it offend your sensibilities so much that some men are in the latter group? Or that a man might very well relate to the experience as much as you do? How can you possibly claim to know if you're not he?

Maybe it was this discussion on rape and maybe it was another one, but somewhere around here in the past few days I pointed out that a man in prison is more likely to be raped than any woman outside of a correctional facility. In my last post, I did not gender any of the potential attackers. Women rape other women, as well as men, all the time, not to mention the different configurations of trans bodies and gender identities, all of which have equal access to both sides of the rape coin. However, in this thread, the main topic of discussion is the rape, potential rape and cultural obsession surrounding the rape of cis-gendered women.

I apologize for erasing non-female experiences of sexual abuse, which are relevant, hugely important, and all too often ignored or shrugged off.

You may have noticed that I changed "the menz" to "mansplainers" right after I made the post. That statement was not directed at men in general and I apologize again for misspeaking.

[seewhatflows]

Also, trans women, who are statistically more likely to end up in prison than any other group of people, are victims of sexual abuse far more often than cis women.

[AvalonXQ]

I apologize for erasing non-female experiences of sexual abuse, which are relevant, hugely important, and all too often ignored or shrugged off.
You probably actually didn't do that; I just assumed you did because I have a chip on my shoulder about this stuff. I apologize for responding with hostility; you are clearly very aware of the issues surrounding this discussion that make me so emotional.
I should take a deep breath and go read some other threads.

[seewhatflows]

You probably actually didn't do that; I just assumed you did because I have a chip on my shoulder about this stuff. I apologize for responding with hostility; you are clearly very aware of the issues surrounding this discussion that make me so emotional.
I should take a deep breath and go read some other threads.

Intent isn't everything and I don't blame you for making that assumption. Mainstream feminism has a long way to go on these issues.

[Dunstan]

Quick question: Why is it that any discussion of rape will eventually lead to a discussion of Lorena Bobbitt? If we take the 1 in 6 statistic to be true (and personally I think it's a bit low), rape happens frequently but dicks getting lopped off seems to be a one-time deal. Are guys really so insecure about this microscopic possibility that it trumps empathy? That doesn't seem likely. So what is it?

I think it's the way that some women (and some men, I suppose) treat the Bobbitt thing as utterly hilarious and/or a totally justified if not praiseworthy ("you go, girl!") act. Although it may be incredibly rare, it's still horrific. If there was a news story about a man who sewed his wife's mouth shut, and men kept making jokes about "that's one way to stop her from nagging, amirite?," the fact that it's a rare act doesn't change the fact that it can still be offensive to make light of a horrific act.

Plus, in any discussion about gender issues, people will always ask counterfactuals that flip the genders. (Just as in a discussion about racism, people will ask "what if the races were reversed in this scenario?") But the "woman rapes a man" hypo always seems to lead to tiresome debates about whether that's physically possible, or jokes or dismissive attitudes that it's not the same because hey, men always want sex. So some people are going to reach for a notorious example of a violent sexual assault by a woman on a man as a way of making whatever point it is they have in mind.

[AvalonXQ]

Quick question: Why is it that any discussion of rape will eventually lead to a discussion of Lorena Bobbitt?

Because the absolutely terrifying reality of men being sexually abused by women is laughed off as unimportant by so many people. Hence the culture eliminates the ability of a direct comparison.

[seewhatflows]

But the "woman rapes a man" hypo always seems to lead to tiresome debates about whether that's physically possible...

Anyone with a bodily orifice can be raped. Penises are not the only things that are capable of penetration. Tiresome debate put to rest.

That is not to say that anal and oral penetration are the only ways one might rape a man, but they're certainly the easiest examples.

[TraneWreck]

And despite the constant abuse meted out by members of both sexes on their partners, due to personal evil and dysfunctional relationships, it frustrates me that people still have the blinders on that this is primarily a unidirectional gender problem.

It is not even close. This is not a case of symmetry. The leading cause of death among pregnant women in the United States is murder. Murder is number 2 for young women as a whole:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_pregnant_women

Here's another study that puts murder at #2:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/20316.php

The total numbers of assaults are very misleading. The type of violence is very different, for example:

In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims.

Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.


84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers

http://new.abanet.org/domesticviolence/Pages/Statistics.aspx

It's pure silliness to pretend like there's no difference.


The facilitated, codified malice, the power plays, the general terror felt on a daily basis, occurs all over the country in men against women and other men, and in women against men and other women. The most common form of abuse in the U.S. is women against their children. But at least when a man abuses his wife, most people see it as deplorable, while men being abused by their wives are so often thought of as funny. Constant verbal and emotional attacks are acceptable, even expected. Women just can't be rapists or abusers.
This is not a gender relations problem, and couching it as one is sexist and offensive.

The difference is quantitative and it's enormous.

[Delvo]

She prefaces the story by saying women live in constant fear and that's why it's perfectly legitimate to treat every man as a potential rapist.Not every man; it's even weirder than that: only men who show obvious signs of being a rapist such as having tattoos or an odor or an interest in a conversational topic she doesn't share.

[Furcifer]

The methods to avoid being raped by a stranger are the same as those used to avoid any kind of attack by a stranger. As it has been noted several times before this, it is much more likely for a woman to be raped by her spouse/significant other, co-worker/boss, teacher, family member, friend or date than by a stranger.

Can you please advise me on avoiding potentially being raped by any of these people without having to dramatically alter my life?



This is specifically the failing of the article, she's talking about calling strangers in public settings potential rapists, not the people she already knows. It's in that sense that some of the fear is misplaced.

And a slight correction, for the most part it isn't what you can do, it's what parents should be doing. A staggering percentage of the victims of sexual assault are minors.

[bookitty]

Yes.

I'm sure for women, reading a pamphlet on the dangers of rape and how to prevent them is a 2 year course at a community college :rolleyes:

It wasn't condescending, it's a common adjective used to suggest there is plenty of information that is easily made available to anyone interested. It's not the formula for new Coke. (that was condescending)

And I wasn't suggesting it's "simple" to avoid high risk situations either. But that getting the information to help you identify them is.

OK, great. Obviously, you have some deep insight that I was not yet privy to. So I'll avoid all the dark alleys, wear my skirts past my knees, not take car rides from strangers, lock my doors, etc, etc.

So now am I safe from rape? Can I let my guard down?

[Dunstan]

I think you're being a bit dishonest here, calling responses 'evasions' when they're clearly not. You asked a question (What is she doing wrong?); I gave an answer (She's being antisocial.) Maybe it's an unsatisfactory answer, but it's not an evasion.

I still think it's an evasion, because "antisocial" is really just another way of saying "wrong."

Society generally functions better when people work together and exhibit altruistic behaviour towards one another.

Society also functions better when people exercise caution. If everyone is trusting, then it's very easy (and therefore rewarding) to exploit others, so exploiters prosper.

Walking around predicating your interactions with every second person you meet with "What could this person do to harm me?" is in opposition to societal benefit. Obviously, it's a sliding scale based on the conditions and environment.
I question whether a good society is one where everyone is continuously thinking "That person could rape me. That person could rape me." Yes, I know that the most efficient way to deal with the problem is to get rid of the rapists. Note that this is being addressed in society, but isn't going to be accomplished by pessimistic speculation on what people could do, only by dealing with what they've actually done, or are likely to do.

But what's missing from your explanation is an identification of how this woman's personal assessment of risk and benefit affects anyone else. When I'm walking down the street, I don't know if the woman in front of me thinks like the author does, or like you do. I have no way of knowing. Either way, to paraphrase Jefferson, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. I don't believe in "bad vibes" or "negative energy" from another person's mere thoughts, and I trust you don't either.

What I'm waiting for you or anyone else to provide is a link between the thoughts and attitudes to which you object, and behavior that you claim has negative consequences. All this stuff about "societal benefit" is hopelessly vague. If your argument is "women should be pleasant and friendly when a stranger starts talking to them on a train. Continuing to read your book or asking to be left alone is rude," well, I would disagree with that, but at least I'd know where you were coming from. But as it is I have no idea what negative or antisocial behavior you think this incorrect attitude is causing.

Granted, it is much less likely that I, personally, will be raped than any given women, but it's possible. Should men also not talk to me in case I think they're rapists? Is the probability that I will be raped low enough to ignore? How does one objectively determine the acceptability of probability?

It's up to each person to decide what risks they're prepared to run. As to whether men should or shouldn't talk to you, bear in mind that the author was simply giving advice, not issuing orders. Her point was that, if you want to get a positive reaction from a woman, you should bear these considerations in mind. Of course, implicit in that advice is the claim that many women think as she does. If that's not correct, then I suppose one can disregard the advice as not being very applicable, just as I would disregard advice that said "never wear a blue shirt on a date; most women hate blue," because I'm pretty sure the claim is false and that while this particular women hates blue, she's not representative.

So, to answer your question, if most -- or even a significant number of -- men are concerned enough about rape to be uncomfortable with being approached in a particular situation or manner, then yes, the polite and prudent thing to do would be to avoid making such approaches. As I don't believe that to be the case -- and I don't think you would claim otherwise -- the advice is less applicable. (Much of it is still somewhat applicable: if you want a positive social interaction, you should be aware of the cues people are giving off and respect what it means. If I'm sitting beside you on an airplane, and I've got headphones on and am watching a movie or working on my laptop, it's really not a good time to try making small talk with me.)

Her words: 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. Even to say that you like her hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for women to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist.

i) Some men are rapists.
ii) Rapists are threats.
Therefore, all men are threats.

Fallacious. Men are threats simply for wanting to say 'hi' to a girl on the subway? Certainly a man shouldn't be labeled as a 'threat' just for wanting to say 'hi'.

I think you're misreading the quoted excerpt. I think it's pretty obvious from the context that the author is telling the reader that, from the perspective of the girl on the subway, he is a threat.

Maybe she's not sending signals, maybe she hasn't even noticed the guy. The women is not obligated to respond in any way whatsoever. She could ignore him, or say a polite "Thanks." and go back to reading, or, if social conventions aren't important to her, say, "Piss off, you maggot." Is the author suggesting we never talk to anyone unless we already have their complete, undivided attention? It certainly sounds that way.

Come on, surely you don't think that's what the author is suggesting. Geez, she even bolded the key points for you: "accept that I set my own risk tolerance," "be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment," "Learn to understand and respect women’s communication to you," and -- most applicable to your question -- "If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem."

So sure, you can chat up whoever you want, whenever you want. But just as you note above, there are social conventions. Saying "piss off, you maggot" is considered rude (unless there's considerable provocation, I suppose). "Don't disturb people who are making it clear that they don't want to be disturbed" is another social convention -- or, if it isn't, the author is arguing that it should be. If you missed those signals, well, mistakes happen, and some people are more perceptive than others (and some people's signals are less clear than others). And, like most social conventions, the only punishment or enforcement is that people will change how they think of you and how they act. You're free to dispute that this is or should be a social convention, but again, that has consequences if you're wrong.

If not, where's the line? How do we logically determine it? Or is she just asserting her opinion as fact?

I'm lost -- are you asking how we logically determine when someone is willing to be approached by a stranger? I'm not sure it's a matter of "logic," just of empathy and receptiveness to social cues.

[bookitty]

Because the absolutely terrifying reality of men being sexually abused by women is laughed off as unimportant by so many people. Hence the culture eliminates the ability of a direct comparison.

Now that is a buncha horse pucky right there. Sexual assault is horrific. It is not made less so by the gender of the victim. However, sexual abuse of men by women is far less common. Very few men consider rape to be a common threat in their every day lives.

The discussion of attitudes regarding the sexual assault of men is an important topic but it is one with different nuances. It needs a conversation of its own. To divert the focus to male victims in a conversation about how the more common threat of rape changes the way that women interact with people is to demean the threat of rape to women.

[Furcifer]

Maybe it was this discussion on rape and maybe it was another one, but somewhere around here in the past few days I pointed out that a man in prison is more likely to be raped than any woman outside of a correctional facility.

Oh then you are wrong and watch too much TV. 4-6% of male prisons have experienced sexual abuse while in custody.

"Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in the previous 6 months were highest for female inmates (212 per 1,000), more than four times higher than male rates (43 per 1,000)." - Sexual Violence Inside Prisons: Rates of Victimization

ETA- I cant find the study again but the national average is 2%

[Furcifer]

OK, great. Obviously, you have some deep insight that I was not yet privy to. So I'll avoid all the dark alleys, wear my skirts past my knees, not take car rides from strangers, lock my doors, etc, etc.

So now am I safe from rape? Can I let my guard down?

Are you over 35 years of age? Because if you are you can let your guard down. This issue affects young women to a much much greater extent.

[bookitty]

Are you over 35 years of age? Because if you are you can let your guard down. This issue affects young women to a much much greater extent.

Nice dodge.

[Eric D]

And just a note to the mansplainers, when the conversation is about women's experience of rape and fear of rape, you are not the authority. If you want be helpful or just to gain some insight into these experiences, you just need to shut up and listen.



I didn't just shut up and listen when that girl cried on youtube and falsely accused a man of rape, and I won't just shut up and listen now. It's a subject that involves both men and women. A man has every right to form his own opinion on it, and his opinion just might be helpful and insightful.

[seewhatflows]

I didn't just shut up and listen when that girl cried on youtube and falsely accused a man of rape, and I won't just shut up and listen now. It's a subject that involves both men and women. A man has every right to form his own opinion on it, and his opinion just might be helpful and insightful.

A mainsplainer is a man who tells a woman what her experience is without listening to or caring what she has to say. If I meant all men, I would have just said men.

[bookitty]

I didn't just shut up and listen when that girl cried on youtube and falsely accused a man of rape, and I won't just shut up and listen now. It's a subject that involves both men and women. A man has every right to form his own opinion on it, and his opinion just might be helpful and insightful.

Yes, pity the poor mens.

A discussion about womens fear of rape must include false rape accusations against men, men getting raped by women, and men getting raped in jail. Just like discussion of female genital mutilation must include some crying over a long lost foreskin.

It's really silly how us girls think we're so important.

[TraneWreck]

Now that is a buncha horse pucky right there. Sexual assault is horrific. It is not made less so by the gender of the victim. However, sexual abuse of men by women is far less common. Very few men consider rape to be a common threat in their every day lives.

Yes it is.

Here are some more numbers from the bar association:

Women are more likely to be victims of sexual violence than men: 78% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are women and 22% are men.

Most perpetrators of sexual violence are men. Among acts of sexual violence committed against women since the age of 18, 100% of rapes, 92% of physical assaults, and 97% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men. Sexual violence against men is also mainly male violence: 70% of rapes, 86% of physical assaults, and 65% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men.

In 8 out of 10 rape cases, the victim knows the perpetrator. Of people who report sexual violence, 64% of women and 16% of men were raped, physically assaulted, or stalked by an intimate partner. This includes a current or former spouse, cohabitating partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, or date.
http://new.abanet.org/domesticviolence/Pages/Statistics.aspx

[SOdhner]

i) Some men are rapists.
ii) Rapists are threats.
Therefore, all men are threats.

You left out a word. "Potential". All men are potential threats. That's why she used the "Shrodinger's" thing - she was referring to an unknown, a potential state. I think that was pretty clear.

Nice dodge.

No, no - it wasn't a dodge, it was another super-helpful tip: stop being under 35. Duh.

I didn't just shut up and listen when that girl cried on youtube and falsely accused a man of rape, and I won't just shut up and listen now.

You're right. Your anecdotal evidence has shown me the light! Attention women of the world: your opinions and feelings are invalid, please stand by to be assigned a more rational and critical mindset. You're welcome.

[bookitty]

No, no - it wasn't a dodge, it was another super-helpful tip: stop being under 35. Duh.


But wait, what if I'm 40 but I look 35? Do I need to false grey my hair? Do I need to keep my ID on a chain around my neck just in case? "Sorry, casual acquaintance who happens to be attacking me, my rape-age has expired. Please see state issued card."

[seewhatflows]

But wait, what if I'm 40 but I look 35? Do I need to false grey my hair? Do I need to keep my ID on a chain around my neck just in case? "Sorry, casual acquaintance who happens to be attacking me, my rape-age has expired. Please see state issued card."

Is your hand going to start blinking like in Logan's Run?

[Eric D]

A mainsplainer is a man who tells a woman what her experience is without listening to or caring what she has to say. If I meant all men, I would have just said men.


My bad. But who are these mansplainers?

[bookitty]

Is your hand going to start blinking like in Logan's Run?

Hand?

[bookitty]

My bad. But who are these mansplainers?

Have you got a mirror?

[Eric D]

Have you got a mirror?

Show me where I told a woman what her experience was without caring or listening to what she had to say.

[bookitty]

Show me where I told a woman what her experience was without caring or listening to what she had to say.

Claiming that a youtube video of a single false accusation is in any way comparable to the threat of rape that women face is a bit callous.

[SOdhner]

But wait, what if I'm 40 but I look 35? Do I need to false grey my hair? Do I need to keep my ID on a chain around my neck just in case? "Sorry, casual acquaintance who happens to be attacking me, my rape-age has expired. Please see state issued card."

It's not my job to answer those questions. It is your responsibility to reduce the odds of getting raped. MY job is to get offended at your attempt to reduce those odds and call you irrational. Get with the program.

[pitbone]

I still think it's an evasion, because "antisocial" is really just another way of saying "wrong."

That just makes a bad answer though, which is why I clarified in the last post.

Society also functions better when people exercise caution. If everyone is trusting, then it's very easy (and therefore rewarding) to exploit others, so exploiters prosper.

There's a big difference between being primarily altruistic, yet cautious and seeing every stranger as a threat. Hopefully, as we grow up, we gain more psychological tools to distinguish between good and bad strangers. The author seems to be advocating a very child-like way of social interaction.

But what's missing from your explanation is an identification of how this woman's personal assessment of risk and benefit affects anyone else. When I'm walking down the street, I don't know if the woman in front of me thinks like the author does, or like you do. I have no way of knowing. Either way, to paraphrase Jefferson, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. I don't believe in "bad vibes" or "negative energy" from another person's mere thoughts, and I trust you don't either.


When judging the validity of an argument, it doesn't need to have consequences, it just needs to be valid.

What I'm waiting for you or anyone else to provide is a link between the thoughts and attitudes to which you object, and behavior that you claim has negative consequences. All this stuff about "societal benefit" is hopelessly vague. If your argument is "women should be pleasant and friendly when a stranger starts talking to them on a train. Continuing to read your book or asking to be left alone is rude," well, I would disagree with that, but at least I'd know where you were coming from. But as it is I have no idea what negative or antisocial behavior you think this incorrect attitude is causing.

The same mind frame applied to an ethnic group would be called racial profiling. 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. I'm not aware of any phrase which describes it for this situation.

Her point was that, if you want to get a positive reaction from a woman, you should bear these considerations in mind. Of course, implicit in that advice is the claim that many women think as she does.

It's not just implicit, she actually says it:

Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is.

This is another fallacious remark. She is explicitly claiming that her prevalent fear of violent assault is shared by all women. I don't know what it's called, but she's doing the opposite of a subjectivist fallacy - claiming her subjective truth is an objective reality.

So, to answer your question, if most -- or even a significant number of -- men are concerned enough about rape to be uncomfortable with being approached in a particular situation or manner, then yes, the polite and prudent thing to do would be to avoid making such approaches. As I don't believe that to be the case -- and I don't think you would claim otherwise -- the advice is less applicable. (Much of it is still somewhat applicable: if you want a positive social interaction, you should be aware of the cues people are giving off and respect what it means. If I'm sitting beside you on an airplane, and I've got headphones on and am watching a movie or working on my laptop, it's really not a good time to try making small talk with me.)

This is why I went on the statistics rant at the beginning. Clearly, she feels that the male concern of rape is below the threshold of worry. The statistics show that most women don't get raped by people they don't know. So on a day to day basis, it seems a bit unreasonable to constantly worry about it. When there's a potentially dangerous situation, increased concern is advisable. Is it still advisable to have an increased concern on a normal day to day basis?

I think you're misreading the quoted excerpt. I think it's pretty obvious from the context that the author is telling the reader that, from the perspective of the girl on the subway, he is a threat.

But wouldn't the girl on the subway still have to be using the same faulty reasoning to justify her perception that he's a threat?

Come on, surely you don't think that's what the author is suggesting. Geez, she even bolded the key points for you: "accept that I set my own risk tolerance," "be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment," "Learn to understand and respect women’s communication to you," and -- most applicable to your question -- "If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem."

I don't actually think she meant to say that, but with all the restrictions put forward, I find myself having a hard time finding an alternative.

I don't disagree with most of the points you've quoted there - they are indicative of a person processing common sense. "Learn to understand and respect women's communication to you" is tenuous. Does this count implicit physical gesturing? The "she was asking for it" defense men give for rape is often based on implicit physical gesturing. Obviously we don't accept that as valid, so how can we assign value to implicit physical gesturing such as arms crossed = bad or facing you = good?

So sure, you can chat up whoever you want, whenever you want.

That's not what she says though.

This means that some men should never approach strange women in public.

She implies that men are supposed to evaluate themselves from the subjective perception of the woman and act appropriately.

But just as you note above, there are social conventions. Saying "piss off, you maggot" is considered rude (unless there's considerable provocation, I suppose). "Don't disturb people who are making it clear that they don't want to be disturbed" is another social convention -- or, if it isn't, the author is arguing that it should be. If you missed those signals, well, mistakes happen, and some people are more perceptive than others (and some people's signals are less clear than others). And, like most social conventions, the only punishment or enforcement is that people will change how they think of you and how they act. You're free to dispute that this is or should be a social convention, but again, that has consequences if you're wrong.

Agreed. It seems the whole paranoid diatribe in between what you quoted could have been replaced with: Men, use common sense and don't be creepy.

I don't see that what she said in between the bullet points was any more useful than that. (Plus the logical fallacies.)

I'm lost -- are you asking how we logically determine when someone is willing to be approached by a stranger? I'm not sure it's a matter of "logic," just of empathy and receptiveness to social cues.

I think I got carried away with my own rhetoric here. It seems to me like she's implying that all women have some universal acceptable-mate-identification heuristic which determines who should approach them and when it's appropriate and that men need to also learn this heuristic so we don't frighten them.

[HansMustermann]

She prefaces the story by saying women live in constant fear

Except for the fact that she never actually even uses the word "fear". Hit CTRL-F in your browser and see if it even appears once in the whole darned article. But I'll get back to this in a bit.

But either way, I dunno, man, if I had a 1 in 6 chance of being assaulted in my life, I'd very much have the risk in head all the time.

Not to mention the fact that, again, according to statistics 1 in 60 guys around her _is_ a rapist. There's probably one of them on a full bus, and several on a train station platform. At that point I'd think it's well beyond what you can paint as irrational fear, and is reason enough to actually devote some thinking on how to protect oneself.

Even picking on individual chances as too tiny to bother, is silly. They're only tiny because she doesn't give them enough of a chance in the first place. In reality, the guy insisting on cornering her on the bus or approaching her in a dark alley has not a tiny chance to be a rapist, but a 1 in 60 chance. That's well within the realm where I'd guard my rear too.

and that's why it's perfectly legitimate to treat every man as a potential rapist.

And again, I dunno what definition of "potential" you use, but "potential rapist" doesn't mean you're actually guilty of anything.

I mean, we've already been over such constructs in, dunno, every single thread about abortion. There are modifiers which make the whole construct mean a whole different thing. An "unborn baby" isn't an actual baby yet, and may never be. An "unbaked bread" isn't an actual bread and you'd be well advised to not eat it; it might just be a bag of flour. An "unfinished painting" isn't yet and may never be more than a piece of canvas, etc. Likewise "potential rapist" doesn't mean you actually raped anyone, nor that you ever will, nor that you intend to.

Yes, you _are_ a potential rapist, and a potential mugger, and a potential murderer and simultaneously a potential nice guy. And I am too. Because that's all that "potential" really means. It means you might or might not be.

Proposing that she excludes men from "potential rapist" -- which seems the gist of what half the guys here ask -- is in end effect asking her to assume that no men ever could possibly commit a rape. You're asking her to choose a priori "he's definitely not". You're asking no less than that she stops considering it even possible that a guy could ever rape her. Which is more unreasonable than anything she wrote.

I'm sorry, but asking a perfect stranger to assume that you're absolutely incapable of being a threat -- because, again, that's what it means if you're not a _potential_ threat -- is asking for a level of trust that even I wouldn't give you. And I'm a guy. That's the kind of trust that definitely has to be earned, not expected a priori. I'd have to actually know you pretty well before you get promoted to "this guy couldn't possibly ever harm me."

Women don't have to live in constant fear if they are simply aware of the risks and take the proper measures to prevent them.

Then I have to wonder what your problem is. Because, again, she doesn't actually say she lives in fear. The word "fear" doesn't even appear even once in the article, the first instance is in the comments.

She's exactly saying that she is constantly aware of the risks and keeps taking measures to avoid them.

You've just told me that you're actually ok with what she actually wrote, but are strongly against... something which she didn't say at all. So, perhaps unintentionally, but you're doing this whole fuss over your own (perhaps unintentional) strawman. As I always say, if it bothers you so much, stop building that strawman :p

[gnome]

The way I see it, whether her opinion is misguided or not, her article is a fair assessment of how she and women who feel the same way are likely to respond to certain behavior. One need not endorse the sentiment to use it to predict the behavior of someone that does.

[Eric D]

Claiming that a youtube video of a single false accusation is in any way comparable to the threat of rape that women face is a bit callous.

When did I say it was comparable? I brought it up because the subject was women's fear and traumatic experience and I formed an opinion on it that I believe would match most people's opinion. What does my gender have to do with how I feel about a subject?

I'm in no way claiming that I know what it's like to be a woman in fear of being raped, but does that mean I should just shut up and listen even if her fear is irrational?

[bookitty]

When did I say it was comparable? I brought it up because the subject was women's fear and traumatic experience and I formed an opinion on it that I believe would match most people's opinion. What does my gender have to do with how I feel about a subject?

I'm in no way claiming that I know what it's like to be a woman in fear of being raped, but does that mean I should just shut up and listen even if her fear is irrational?

Well, perhaps you could start by explaining why her fear is irrational before dismissing it.

[SOdhner]

Show me where I told a woman what her experience was without caring or listening to what she had to say.
I'm in no way claiming that I know what it's like to be a woman in fear of being raped, but does that mean I should just shut up and listen even if her fear is irrational?

DING! We have a winner!

"I don't know what it's like, but I don't have to listen because she is irrational."

Full points!

[dirtywick]

The way I see it, whether her opinion is misguided or not, her article is a fair assessment of how she and women who feel the same way are likely to respond to certain behavior. One need not endorse the sentiment to use it to predict the behavior of someone that does.

Which is why the whole thing is kind of useless. If this article were rewritten minimally and instead of potential rapist was potential douchebag and put in Maxim magazine I'd wager it'd be skimmed through and forgotten. Of course it's not because being made aware that women you approach may think you've got some rape about you is somewhat unsettling.

[Eric D]

Yes, pity the poor mens.

A discussion about womens fear of rape must include false rape accusations against men,

It does. If a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, she's relying heavily on the fears of other women to get the man convicted.

Furthermore, if your fear of rape affects how you behave towards men, then it involves us and we have every right to speak up about it.

[jiggeryqua]

It does. If a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, she's relying heavily on the fears of other women to get the man convicted.

Furthermore, if your fear of rape affects how you behave towards men, then it involves us and we have every right to speak up about it.

Yes, pity the poor mens.

It's really silly how us boys think we're so important.

[Eric D]

DING! We have a winner!

"I don't know what it's like, but I don't have to listen because she is irrational."

Full points!

I don't have to just "shut up and listen" especially if she's being irrational.

Hypothetical situation, if a woman wants to lock herself away in her house for the rest of her life because a traumatic experience is making her afraid to function normally, that means I should just shut up and listen to whatever she has to say because I didn't experience the same thing?

[Furcifer]

But wait, what if I'm 40 but I look 35? Do I need to false grey my hair? Do I need to keep my ID on a chain around my neck just in case? "Sorry, casual acquaintance who happens to be attacking me, my rape-age has expired. Please see state issued card."


I'm sorry you feel marginalized by the facts, but 35 year old women that think they look 22 still don't have as much to worry about as a 22 year old.

If you want to argue, you might want to suggest this is because 35 year old women are wiser and know better how to avoid situations.

Instead you want to make it about "looks". Go figure. :rolleyes:

(and they say it's men that objectify women)

[TraneWreck]

I'm sorry you feel marginalized by the facts, but 35 year old women that think they look 22 still don't have as much to worry about as a 22 year old.

If you want to argue, you might want to suggest this is because 35 year old women are wiser and know better how to avoid situations.

Instead you want to make it about "looks". Go figure. :rolleyes:

(and they say it's men that objectify women)

I thought you only trolled global warming threads.

[bookitty]

I'm sorry you feel marginalized by the facts, but 35 year old women that think they look 22 still don't have as much to worry about as a 22 year old.

If you want to argue, you might want to suggest this is because 35 year old women are wiser and know better how to avoid situations.

Instead you want to make it about "looks". Go figure. :rolleyes:

(and they say it's men that objectify women)

It was a completely unsubstantiated statement, I can interpret it however I like. I went for flippant.

If you want to pretend that you are serious, you might want to back up that silliness with something factual. If you're going to go way out on the "more college-age women get raped" limb, you've still got some explaining to do. There's a whole lot of room between college-age and 35.

And, as I may have mentioned before, it was a very nice dodge.

[Furcifer]

Except for the fact that she never actually even uses the word "fear". Hit CTRL-F in your browser and see if it even appears once in the whole darned article. But I'll get back to this in a bit.

Semantics.


But either way, I dunno, man, if I had a 1 in 6 chance of being assaulted in my life, I'd very much have the risk in head all the time.

Not to mention the fact that, again, according to statistics 1 in 60 guys around her _is_ a rapist. There's probably one of them on a full bus, and several on a train station platform. At that point I'd think it's well beyond what you can paint as irrational fear, and is reason enough to actually devote some thinking on how to protect oneself.

The statistics say otherwise. That's what the issue is about. Do you think your grandmother in a nursing home has a 1 in 6 chance of being raped? Is 1 in 60 men at the home a rapist.


Even picking on individual chances as too tiny to bother, is silly. They're only tiny because she doesn't give them enough of a chance in the first place. In reality, the guy insisting on cornering her on the bus or approaching her in a dark alley has not a tiny chance to be a rapist, but a 1 in 60 chance. That's well within the realm where I'd guard my rear too.

Except that's not what the statistics are saying. I'm not sure if you really understand statistics, perhaps it's a way they are worded that's confusing you? A 21 year old girl drunk at a frat party needs to worry more than a 45 year old at a wine tasting despite the fact that 1 in 6 women are sexually abused.


And again, I dunno what definition of "potential" you use, but "potential rapist" doesn't mean you're actually guilty of anything.

Do you think anyone that buys a lottery ticket is a potential winner? I'm sorry but the lottery, despite the fact you may be a potential winner is still a sucker bet.



Proposing that she excludes men from "potential rapist" -- which seems the gist of what half the guys here ask -- is in end effect asking her to assume that no men ever could possibly commit a rape. You're asking her to choose a priori "he's definitely not". You're asking no less than that she stops considering it even possible that a guy could ever rape her. Which is more unreasonable than anything she wrote.

This is a strawman. I never said this, please limit your argument to what I've actually said. I said quite clearly she can label people potential rapists and it may be very effective at preventing rape.


I'm sorry, but asking a perfect stranger to assume that you're absolutely incapable of being a threat -- because, again, that's what it means if you're not a _potential_ threat -- is asking for a level of trust that even I wouldn't give you. And I'm a guy.

I never did. I think you're referring to someone else.


Then I have to wonder what your problem is. Because, again, she doesn't actually say she lives in fear. The word "fear" doesn't even appear even once in the article, the first instance is in the comments.

First i said she was implying it, second it's an issue of semantics. You may want to read the first three paragraphs again.


You've just told me that you're actually ok with what she actually wrote, but are strongly against... something which she didn't say at all. So, perhaps unintentionally, but you're doing this whole fuss over your own (perhaps unintentional) strawman. As I always say, if it bothers you so much, stop building that strawman :p

What am I strongly against? Just your strawman :rolleyes:

[bookitty]

I don't have to just "shut up and listen" especially if she's being irrational.

Hypothetical situation, if a woman wants to lock herself away in her house for the rest of her life because a traumatic experience is making her afraid to function normally, that means I should just shut up and listen to whatever she has to say because I didn't experience the same thing?

And this happens to what degree? Oh that's right, hardly ever. So where is the actual, non-hypothetical irrationality?

[bookitty]

The statistics say otherwise. That's what the issue is about. Do you think your grandmother in a nursing home has a 1 in 6 chance of being raped? Is 1 in 60 men at the home a rapist.


30 seconds of google:
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Features/4-07-12sexoffenders.htm

[bookitty]

As an aside: The number of men in this thread who have been supportive and empathetic outnumber those who respond dismissively or defensively. This has been noticed and appreciated.

[Furcifer]

If you want to pretend that you are serious, you might want to back up that silliness with something factual. If you're going to go way out on the "more college-age women get raped" limb, you've still got some explaining to do. There's a whole lot of room between college-age and 35.


Why don't you try reading the thread first? The statistics were already given.

That's why the article and the authors reasoning are being questioned. The examples she gives aren't anywhere near 1 in 6. Even if she wasn't 35.

There is almost no chance of her being approached on the bus by a stranger and being raped, yet she cites a 1 in 60 chance. The actual chance is closer to 1 in a million, possibly even more given her age.

Now the chance of her being approached by a douche bag? Much higher.

Forgive me if I feel twisting a statistic to legitimize implying men are all potential rapists is a bit over the top.

[Furcifer]

30 seconds of google:
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Features/4-07-12sexoffenders.htm

And that addresses the question how exactly? :confused:

I'm going to explain this very simply, if 90% of rapes happen to women under the age of 35, 65 year old women don't have the same chance of becoming victims. (even if they look 16) You can't change the facts.

Obviously you can try. Have fun :p

[Dunstan]

There's a big difference between being primarily altruistic, yet cautious and seeing every stranger as a threat. Hopefully, as we grow up, we gain more psychological tools to distinguish between good and bad strangers. The author seems to be advocating a very child-like way of social interaction.

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.

When judging the validity of an argument, it doesn't need to have consequences, it just needs to be valid.

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.

The same mind frame applied to an ethnic group would be called racial profiling. 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. I'm not aware of any phrase which describes it for this situation.

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.

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

It's not just implicit, she actually says it:



This is another fallacious remark. She is explicitly claiming that her prevalent fear of violent assault is shared by all women. I don't know what it's called, but she's doing the opposite of a subjectivist fallacy - claiming her subjective truth is an objective reality.

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."

This is why I went on the statistics rant at the beginning. Clearly, she feels that the male concern of rape is below the threshold of worry. The statistics show that most women don't get raped by people they don't know. So on a day to day basis, it seems a bit unreasonable to constantly worry about it. When there's a potentially dangerous situation, increased concern is advisable. Is it still advisable to have an increased concern on a normal day to day basis?

"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.

But wouldn't the girl on the subway still have to be using the same faulty reasoning to justify her perception that he's a threat?

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 don't actually think she meant to say that, but with all the restrictions put forward, I find myself having a hard time finding an alternative.

I don't disagree with most of the points you've quoted there - they are indicative of a person processing common sense. "Learn to understand and respect women's communication to you" is tenuous. Does this count implicit physical gesturing? The "she was asking for it" defense men give for rape is often based on implicit physical gesturing. Obviously we don't accept that as valid, so how can we assign value to implicit physical gesturing such as arms crossed = bad or facing you = good?

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.

She implies that men are supposed to evaluate themselves from the subjective perception of the woman and act appropriately.

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

The whole point of the article is giving advice to men on how women [many, most, those who think like the author, choose your own qualifier] perceive the approaches of strange men. Someone who doesn't care about the subjective impressions of women, or thinks he doesn't need any advice on that point, shouldn't have bothered reading the article in the first place. Someone who thinks that this woman speaks only for a paranoid fringe of unreasonable women is free to disregard the advice on the sensible grounds that you don't have a duty to avoid hurting the feelings of unreasonably paranoid people.

I think I got carried away with my own rhetoric here. It seems to me like she's implying that all women have some universal acceptable-mate-identification heuristic which determines who should approach them and when it's appropriate and that men need to also learn this heuristic so we don't frighten them.

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.

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, turning a simple piece of advice like:

"men, if you've just come from the gym, please take a shower before going on a date"

into "men, if you've just come from the gym, you should probably take a shower before going on a date, because many women do not appreciate the smell of stale sweat. Of course, some women do, in which case you should make sure to cultivate your stench. And perhaps you are one of the rare men who doesn't smell after a workout, in which case this advice is inapplicable to you. Oh, and if you're gay, substitute 'man' for each instance of 'woman' in the preceding sentences."

(I'm not saying that's what you're demanding, merely illustrating a point.)

[HansMustermann]

Which is why the whole thing is kind of useless. If this article were rewritten minimally and instead of potential rapist was potential douchebag and put in Maxim magazine I'd wager it'd be skimmed through and forgotten. Of course it's not because being made aware that women you approach may think you've got some rape about you is somewhat unsettling.

Except that's not what it says. She doesn't say that every guy actually has "got some rape about him."

That's really what I don't get about the reaction to it.

She goes out of the way to go at length about how the guy is probably a good guy. She's aware that only 1 in 60 will actually ever commit rape. Etc.

But even being aware that it's even possible that any man, under any circumstances, ever, could commit a rape, is enought to rile some people majorly. Avalon calls it nothing less than misandry, i.e., the fancy word for being a man-hater. The OP calls it "uncritical thinking". In fact nothing short of "bigotry, prejudicial and uncritical." Etc.

WTH? Seriously.

I don't think anyone here would flat-out make a claim that 100% of the guys that ever lived, all the billions of them, never ever committed a rape. But if that woman comes and even suggests that there's any non-zero probability or risk at all that a random stranger might (or might not) be one, everyone is up in arms. Seriously, wth? Asking her to not think there's such a non-zero probability and risk is essentially asking her to assume a zero risk and and that basically zero guys ever did that. But anything else is some kind of man-hating, apparently.

I'm guessing some people just didn't really think it through. Because asking someone to automatically trust every stranger to be a zero risk, is frankly irresponsible. It's asking them to be a gullible, defenseless, available victim.

And I really don't see why for some people even being aware that 1 in 60 guys will commit a criminal act, becomes some kind of accusation against every man that ever lived. Last I checked we weren't some kind of Borg collective where everyone thinks and does the exact same things. I don't see how being aware that _some_ guys out there rape, becomes some kind of accusation against every single one, like we're some kind of clone troopers.

Even rape itself, when talking about an article talking explicitly about rape, I see the repeated suggestion to not call a rapist a "rapist", let's call him something as vague and ultimately non-criminal as a "douchebag". I'm sorry, but the two aren't even remotely equivalent. I see no need to legitimize a rapist by calling him an euphemism which basically just says he might be more or less not nice, to some non-specified degree.

Comitting a rape is not just being a douchebag. Avoiding being raped isn't anywhere near some kind of just avoiding douchebags. It's avoiding a criminal assault.

Avoiding douchebags sounds like you're just, you know, avoiding some people who aren't much fun to talk to. Maybe too self-centered, maybe a bit too inconsiderate, maybe a bit too manipulative, or, dunno, maybe something else. Avoiding rape is about avoiding an assault on one's person.

The two simply aren't interchangeable.

[bookitty]

And that addresses the question how exactly? :confused:

I'm going to explain this very simply, if 90% of rapes happen to women under the age of 35, 65 year old women don't have the same chance of becoming victims. (even if they look 16) You can't change the facts.

Obviously you can try. Have fun :p

I asked you a while back if "simply" the right precautions meant that I could let my guard down. You told me that I was safe as long as I was over 35 years of age. According to that link, I will not be completely safe even in a nursing home.

So when can I let my guard down?

[bookitty]

And that addresses the question how exactly? :confused:

I'm going to explain this very simply, if 90% of rapes happen to women under the age of 35, 65 year old women don't have the same chance of becoming victims. (even if they look 16) You can't change the facts.

Obviously you can try. Have fun :p

"Women ages 16-24 have 4 times higher risk of being raped than any other population group." does not equal 90%

[dirtywick]

Except that's not what it says. She doesn't say that every guy actually has "got some rape about him."

I guess you could get that interpretation from my post if you skip over the word "may". I think you just misunderstood my post as a whole. I certainly wasn't trying to interchange douchebag and rapist.

Of course I pretty much agree with what you wrote. Some men find it unsettling that some women will view them as a potential rape-risk. That's not a nice feeling, could almost be offensive to some who simply would never rape a woman, so reading a piece that explains that probably will evoke an emotionally negative reaction. That's not to say women aren't justified in being cautious and things that have been iterated and reiterated in this thread, because they should be and probably have to be. The reaction is understandable on both sides.

Of course this particlar article really just boils down to pick-up advice from a narrow point of view, it's nothing you haven't read in Maxim or whatever, just with a different label for how women will think of you if you break the author's rules on talking to women. You've really never seen these tips before in like every dating article ever?

[Professor Yaffle]

I once had to educate a man about how a situation might have looked from a woman's point of view. He related a tale about going to a concert, but was unsure about where the venue was. he spotted a girl wearing a T-shirt of the band that was playing, so assumed she was going there. So he decided to follow her. It was a quiet street at night with nobody else around. When she crossed the road, he crossed too. He became a little confused when she crossed the same road several times and then ran really fast into the nearest pub.

Of course me and my friend couldn't believe he hadn't realised what the woman's behaviour meant - ie that she was just a bit scared at this strange guy following her down a dark street... and soon pointed it out to him.

[John Jones]

As an aside: The number of men in this thread who have been supportive and empathetic outnumber those who respond dismissively or defensively. This has been noticed and appreciated.

For the record, I'm opposed to rape, but I'm not necessarily supporting your position.

Don't take your bows yet. I'm still reading.

[bookitty]

For the record, I'm opposed to rape. I'm not necessarily supporting your position.

Don't take your bows yet. I'm still reading.

No bows. I do not feel that I changed anyone's mind or contributed to any empathy. In a thread which starts with the idea that all men are potential rapists, it seemed only fair to recognize those guys who weren't totally creeping me out.

[John Jones]

I once had to educate a man about how a situation might have looked from a woman's point of view. He related a tale about going to a concert, but was unsure about where the venue was. he spotted a girl wearing a T-shirt of the band that was playing, so assumed she was going there. So he decided to follow her. It was a quiet street at night with nobody else around. When she crossed the road, he crossed too. He became a little confused when she crossed the same road several times and then ran really fast into the nearest pub.

Of course me and my friend couldn't believe he hadn't realised what the woman's behaviour meant - ie that she was just a bit scared at this strange guy following her down a dark street... and soon pointed it out to him.

Ya know what? Men and women don't understand each other. Most men will admit this readily. You and your friend seem to think they know men better than they know themselves.


Anyway . . . Men and women seem to come together in their thinking when they hit their 40's and upwards.

[John Jones]

No bows. I do not feel that I changed anyone's mind or contributed to any empathy. In a thread which starts with the idea that all men are potential rapists, it seemed only fair to recognize those guys who weren't totally creeping me out.

You have failed to sufficiently denounce sexism in all its forms.

[bookitty]

You have failed to sufficiently denounce sexism in all its forms.

Sexism (in all forms)
I denounce thee!
I denounce thee!
I denounce thee!

and then I throw dog poop all over its shoes.

[Eric D]

As an aside: The number of men in this thread who have been supportive and empathetic outnumber those who respond dismissively or defensively. This has been noticed and appreciated.

Even though they have no idea what a woman's fear of rape is? And their allowed to form an opinion?

I forgot, their opinions match your own, so it's okay.

[TraneWreck]

No bows. I do not feel that I changed anyone's mind or contributed to any empathy. In a thread which starts with the idea that all men are potential rapists, it seemed only fair to recognize those guys who weren't totally creeping me out.

One of the more amusing aspects to people's negative reactions to the article is that at its base, it's a woman (whose opinion is supported by a large number of other women in the comments) explaining how she feels when men approach her in certain circumstances.

Non-defensive, insecure men should read that and think, "ah, now I understand why the cute girl on the bus didn't smile at me. It might not have been my Ed Hardy tee-shirt. I will take this information and use it to make myself more appealing to women." Or, "Now I understand why she found my e-mails kind of creepy when I intended them to be funny. I will change my approach in the future."

It's funny that men became so offended by an article that basically said, "Here's what i don't like, here's the wrong way to approach and pursue me, and here's why." If you enjoy the company of women, you should probably take that to heart.

Now, of course, we will get the "Girls love me, I have no problem hooking up, ever," from the goofball crew.

[bookitty]

Even though they have no idea what a woman's fear of rape is? And their allowed to form an opinion?

I forgot, their opinions match your own, so it's okay.

The opinion that fear of rape is rational? Maybe and maybe that's the case. Now if you could just make the case that fear of rape is irrational, we would have something to discuss. Otherwise, stop pouting.

[John Jones]

Sexism (in all forms)
I denounce thee!
I denounce thee!
I denounce thee!

and then I throw dog poop all over its shoes.

Feminism is the most influential form of institutionalized sexism going.

You were so close.

[Eric D]

And this happens to what degree? Oh that's right, hardly ever. So where is the actual, non-hypothetical irrationality?

That's one possible example of how someone who doesn't have the same fear as someone else can have a better opinion on their situation than they do.

If someone was afraid of flying it's okay to let them panic on an airplane because you don't have the same fear?

[bookitty]

Feminism is the most influential form of institutionalized sexism going.

You were so close.

Ahhh...so now I am supposed to say that I'm no true feminist because I like men, don't think all of them are rapists, and would like to continue to play in the sandbox, please.

Feminism is just the idea that the world is co-ed and that both sexes should have the same opportunities. That's all. It's not really scary enough to need defending.

[Eric D]

The opinion that fear of rape is rational? Maybe and maybe that's the case. Now if you could just make the case that fear of rape is irrational, we would have something to discuss. Otherwise, stop pouting.


I never said that fear of rape is irrational. The fear varies from woman to woman.

[TraneWreck]

That's one possible example of how someone who doesn't have the same fear as someone else can have a better opinion on their situation than they do.

If someone was afraid of flying it's okay to let them panic on an airplane because you don't have the same fear?

This line of argument is so bizarre. What does the writer's "fear" of rape lead her to do? Stay at home? Hire a bodyguard? Preemptively slice off men's penises in case they're the rapey tipe?

Nope. She just won't smile at you warmly when you talk to her on a bus and requests that you don't follow her around and send her weird e-mails.

Her prescriptive behavior in response to the small chance that she's facing a sex-criminal is perfectly proportionate.

[bookitty]

I never said that fear of rape is irrational. The fear varies from woman to woman.

I'm in no way claiming that I know what it's like to be a woman in fear of being raped, but does that mean I should just shut up and listen even if her fear is irrational?

:confused:

[Eric D]

This line of argument is so bizarre. What does the writer's "fear" of rape lead her to do? Stay at home? Hire a bodyguard? Preemptively slice off men's penises in case they're the rapey tipe?

Nope. She just won't smile at you warmly when you talk to her on a bus and requests that you don't follow her around and send her weird e-mails.

Her prescriptive behavior in response to the small chance that she's facing a sex-criminal is perfectly proportionate.


I'm not talking about the writer of the article. If you go back and read the thread, I was responding to another persson's statement that all "mansplainers" just need to keep their mouth shut when the subject is a woman's fear because they're not an authority on the subject. However that poster later explained that she didn't mean all men when she said mansplainers. Fair enough. Then book itty started it up again, labeling me a mansplainer.

Why am I a mansplainer? Apparently because I dismiss a woman's fear without caring about or listening to what she has to say.

[Eric D]

The key word is IF her fear is irrational. I never said all fear of rape is irrational. Some women are less afraid than others, do you disagree? As I have said, the fear varies from woman to woman.

[TraneWreck]

I'm not talking about the writer of the article. If you go back and read the thread, I was responding to another persson's statement that all "mansplainers" just need to keep their mouth shut when the subject is a woman's fear because they're not an authority on the subject. However that poster later explained that she didn't mean all men when she said mansplainers. Fair enough. Then book itty started it up again, labeling me a mansplainer.

Why am I a mansplainer? Apparently because I dismiss a woman's fear without caring about or listening to what she has to say.

And yet you have so much to say about the rationality of fearing rape. Trying to evaluate the fear without considering the actions taken in response to that fear is a worthless endeavor. No woman, either on this thread or in the OP's article, have remotely suggested an irrational response to that fear.

Thus, you simply calling the fear itself irrational, though you've never experienced yourself, is incredibly arrogant and lacking in empathy. These two characteristics, I'd imagine, lie at the very root of "mansplaining."

It should also be pointed out that the weight of the statistical evidence makes the case for women carrying a very rational fear of sexual assault.

[John Jones]

Ahhh...so now I am supposed to say that I'm no true feminist because I like men

Strawman.



[QUOTE=bookitty;6316457] Feminism is just the idea that the world is co-ed and that both sexes should have the same opportunities. That's all. It's not really scary enough to need defending.

Feminism cares nothing about equal protection under the law without regard to sex.

Mainstream feminism is all about more for women. Full Stop.

Were you trying to imply otherwise?

[Eric D]

And yet you have so much to say about the rationality of fearing rape. Trying to evaluate the fear without considering the actions taken in response to that fear is a worthless endeavor. No woman, either on this thread or in the OP's article, have remotely suggested an irrational response to that fear.

That's where you an I differ in opinion. It's my opinion that her (author of the article) response to her fear is irrational. Labeling all men as a threat to me is antisocial.

Thus, you simply calling the fear itself irrational, though you've never experienced yourself, is incredibly arrogant and lacking in empathy. These two characteristics, I'd imagine, lie at the very root of "mansplaining."

So if someone is diagnosed as having a phobia (irrational fear by definition) and the person making the diagnosis doesn't have a similar fear he is lacking empathy and arrogant. The only way someone can make that judgement is if they experienced the fear themselves. Gotcha.

It should also be pointed out that the weight of the statistical evidence makes the case for women carrying a very rational fear of sexual assault.

In what situation? How much fear are we talking about? Does their fear warrant antisocial behavior and them labeling all men they meet as threats?

[Lyrandar]

Let's see... I see two points I'd like to respond to.

Feminism cares nothing about equal protection under the law without regard to sex.

Mainstream feminism is all about more for women. Full Stop.

Were you trying to imply otherwise?

Funny point here: when one side's been discriminated against, they are going to need more than they've had in the past to gain equality. So yes, they are trying to get more. However, this is not a problem unless it goes too far, and I don't think it has yet.

Also, I get the impression that you're saying that this whole thing about rights and consideration is a zero-sum game. I disagree with that as well.

That's where you an I differ in opinion. It's my opinion that her (author of the article) response to her fear is irrational. Labeling all men as a threat to me is antisocial.

So if someone who is diagnosed as having a phobia (irrational fear by definition) and the person making the diagnosis doesn't have the same phobia he is lacking empathy and arrogant. The only way someone can make that judgement is if they experienced the fear themselves. Gotcha.

Not quite, but I'd think that in a lot of cases they'd need some amount of empathy and understanding. And whether or not the fear is irrational, you are not going to be able to show any amount of either if you are dismissing the fear out of hand without listening to anything.

In fact, if the fear is irrational, that's even more reason to shut up and listen carefully. If you intend to try and help that person recover from that irrational fear, you're going to need to know how they think and why they think that way, since it's not going to match what you expect. Simply dismissing the fear as irrational isn't going to help.

[TraneWreck]

That's where you an I differ in opinion. It's my opinion that her (author of the article) response to her fear is irrational. Labeling all men as a threat to me is antisocial.

Ok, so what? I really don't think she would care if you call her such, she just doesn't want creepy douches harassing her. She even talks about this explicitly in the article.

So if someone who is diagnosed as having a phobia (irrational fear by definition) and the person making the diagnosis doesn't have the same phobia he is lacking empathy and arrogant. The only way someone can make that judgement is if they experienced the fear themselves. Gotcha.

THis is honestly a pathetic argument. Surely you can see the circularity. A phobia is an irrational fear, so is telling someone with a clinically diagnosed irrational fear that their fear is irrational arrogant and lacking empathy? Silliness.

Notice that a diagnosis of a phobia depends on a person's reaction to a given situation. Once again, the fear cannot be separated from the behavior.

It's very, very rational to be afraid of heights and take precautions to avoid falling. The only behavioral responses to the fear of rape have been akin to putting a guard rail on a balcony. What are the odds that you're going to trip walking out the door and plummet a hundred feet to your death? About zero.

Putting up a guard rail is a rational response to the fear. Crawling under a bed and weeping would be irrational. The object to be feared and the likelihood of it occurring is the same in both cases.

So yes, it would be arrogant and lacking in empathy (probably bad words for this scenario, lame and ridiculous are better) to chastise someone for putting a guard rail up around their balcony.


In what situation? How much fear are we talking about? Does their fear warrant antisocial behavior and them labeling all they meet men as threats?

What is the anti-social behavior? Not responding to your come-ons? Sometimes people like to be left alone. Not respecting the boundaries of others would be the anti-social behavior.

Notice that it's context sensitive as well. She describes situations in which social communications are welcome and also describes situations that make her uncomfortable. It's really not that complicated and your protestations come off like whining, more than anything.

[Eric D]

Not quite, but I'd think that in a lot of cases they'd need some amount of empathy and understanding. And whether or not the fear is irrational, you are not going to be able to show any amount of either if you are dismissing the fear out of hand without listening to anything.

In fact, if the fear is irrational, that's even more reason to shut up and listen carefully. If you intend to try and help that person recover from that irrational fear, you're going to need to know how they think and why they think that way, since it's not going to match what you expect. Simply dismissing the fear as irrational isn't going to help.

I'm not dismissing anything, but I can recognize a specific fear as irrational, can't I? To be dismissive would be for me to not listen at all, but I never indicated that I'm unwilling to listen.
I guess whoever coined virginitiphobic was just being dismissive, unless it was a woman.

[Eric D]

What is the anti-social behavior? Not responding to your come-ons? Sometimes people like to be left alone. Not respecting the boundaries of others would be the anti-social behavior.



All women so far respond positively to my come-ons. :cool:

The antisocial behavior is not when she exercises caution, but things like when she's more cautious of the man with tattoos and says that person, based on his appearance, should limit his dating experience to the internet. That's irrational behavior to me. It doesn't matter how afraid you are of guys with tattoos, you're a jerk if you consider them more of a threat than the next guy.

[TraneWreck]

All women so far respond positively to my come-ons. :cool:

I'm SHOCKED that you would say that, on the internet, no less.


The antisocial behavior is not when she exercises caution, but things like when she's more cautious of the man with tattoos and says that person, based on his appearance, should limit his dating experience to the internet. That's irrational behavior to me. It doesn't matter how afraid you are of guys with tattoos, you're a jerk if you consider them more of a threat than the next guy.

This is a deep and important point you've shared with us. Women everywhere shall henceforth change their opinions to fall more in line with your understanding of reality.

[Lyrandar]

I'm not dismissing anything, but I can recognize a specific fear as irrational, can't I? To be dismissive would be for me to not listen at all, but I never indicated that I'm unwilling to listen.
I guess whoever coined virginitiphobic was just being dismissive, unless it was a woman.

I'll grant that one - I don't know very much about how dismissive you'd be in real life.

That said, the general tone I've been getting hasn't been good. Even if you say that you are willing to listen, I wonder how open to understanding you can be when you seem to be focusing so much on whether or not the fear is irrational. Being understanding and willing to listen without prejudice is sensible whether the fear is irrational or not, and tossing around words like "irrational", given the negative connotations, isn't a good way to appear understanding.

[Eric D]

It's really not that complicated and your protestations come off like whining, more than anything.

Her protestations of strangers saying "hi" to her on a subway come off as paranoid. I'm not whining, I simply disagree with her behavior.

[bookitty]

Strawman.

[QUOTE=bookitty;6316457]



Feminism cares nothing about equal protection under the law without regard to sex.

Mainstream feminism is all about more for women. Full Stop.

Were you trying to imply otherwise?

No, I consider myself a feminist because I work toward giving women equal protection under the law. I don't think women should get more than men just for being women, that would be unfair. It's very difficult to have equality between the sexes if someone is being treated unfairly.

[Eric D]

I'll grant that one - I don't know very much about how dismissive you'd be in real life.

That said, the general tone I've been getting hasn't been good. Even if you say that you are willing to listen, I wonder how open to understanding you can be when you seem to be focusing so much on whether or not the fear is irrational. Being understanding and willing to listen without prejudice is sensible whether the fear is irrational or not, and tossing around words like "irrational", given the negative connotations, isn't a good way to appear understanding.


It's not yours to grant.

I'm not focusing a lot on whether a woman's fear is irrational, I'm just having to defend my statement over and over again on this forum.

What I'm actually taking issue with is the fact some people seem to think my opinion is worthless because I'm a man and I don't share similar experiences. I can shut up, and I can listen, and after that it's my call on how I feel about a situation. Insensitive? Well so is labeling every man you meet a threat.

[Eric D]

I'm SHOCKED that you would say that, on the internet, no less.



This is a deep and important point you've shared with us. Women everywhere shall henceforth change their opinions to fall more in line with your understanding of reality.

I'm not asking them to change their opinions. I'm simply expressing my opinion, which is that she lives in fear and it causes her to act like a jerk.

[bookitty]

Her protestations of strangers saying "hi" to her on a subway come off as paranoid. I'm not whining, I simply disagree with her behavior.

Have you ever been on the subway and attracted the notice of someone who is both larger and stronger than you? Have they hit on you? Have you politely expressed that you were not interested only to have them hit on you again? When you then switched to a less polite expression of disinterest, did they become offended? Did they then curse you out, call you a lesbian, a stuck-up c**t or tell you that you were not worth their time, anyway?

Does this happen every other time you ride the subway? Have these people who became angry at you for not responding to their advances ever gotten off at the same stop? Have they ever followed you for a few blocks?

This has happened to me more times than I can count. I know that many times (maybe even most) it was just his stop and he would have left the subway and been walking in that direction even if I wasn't there. But how do you know for sure when it's dangerous? How do you know if the guy on the subway isn't hitting on you just to see how you react? Maybe some women are easier to cow, easier to follow home. Maybe guys on the subway are just bad news. How do you know?

Keep in mind, this is just the times where nothing happened outside of a vague feeling of threat. This doesn't count the gropers, the grabbers, and the frotagers.

[TraneWreck]

I'm not asking them to change their opinions. I'm simply expressing my opinion, which is that she lives in fear and it causes her to act like a jerk.

You should be proud. No one has ever tried the, "hey, baby, don't be so uptight," argument before. You've broken new ground.

[Lyrandar]

It's not yours to grant.

... I was just trying to be polite and admit when you'd made a good point. Did that come off the wrong way?

I'm not focusing a lot on whether a woman's fear is irrational, I'm just having to defend my statement over and over again.

What I'm actually taking issue with is the fact some people seem to think my opinion is worthless because I'm a man and I don't share similar experiences. I can shut up, and I can listen, and after that it's my call on how I feel about a situation. Insensitive? Well so is labeling every man you meet a threat.

That first bit isn't the impression I've been getting from you. And that leads me to another point - wrong or not, people's perceptions of you matter quite a bit, and the perception I'm getting from you makes me feel like you're worried more about making a point and applying the proper labels to other people rather than making an effort to be helpful and understanding.

Your last bit there didn't help either. Assuming you succeed in convincing me that the blogger is insensitive, then that boils down to little more than flaunting insensitivity. Even if I still think the blogger is fine, it still shows me you don't care, which isn't much better.

[Xephyr]

I think this thread is confusing two very different words and their meanings :

Caution

and

Fear

[Furcifer]

I think this thread is confusing two very different words and their meanings :

Caution

and

Fear

Exactly. I want my own mom to be cautious, but I don't want her living in fear.

"snip...you need to understand is that 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."

Because men are ready to deal with being killed or otherwise violently assaulted every time we walk out of the house. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but if a buddy said to me "I'm not prepared to die" every time we went to the bar I'd say they've gone beyond being cautious and entered the realm of living in fear.

Obviously this wouldn't be the same if we were going sky diving.

[seewhatflows]

No, I consider myself a feminist because I work toward giving women equal protection under the law. I don't think women should get more than men just for being women, that would be unfair. It's very difficult to have equality between the sexes if someone is being treated unfairly.

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? Like how all persons of color who want equal treatment are "reverse racists".

[Professor Yaffle]

Ya know what? Men and women don't understand each other. Most men will admit this readily. You and your friend seem to think they know men better than they know themselves.



What on earth gives you this impression?

[SatanicSheep]

Wow this got ugly...

I'd like the feminist/anti-feminist crowd to note that I wasn't really asking for a debate on the merits of feminism. I simply wanted opinions about her line of reasoning. I for one smelled an inference fallacy (some of you agreed and others didn't) but like I stated I don't really have a problem with the motivation or practice, just if sound logic was used to get from A to B.

Hopefully the feminists/(masculinists?) got their canned responses to each other's points out of their systems and this conversation can go in a fresher direction sans all the childish gender based insults.

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.

[HansMustermann]

Please explain what about her inference is illogical. Then we can take it from there.

[ponderingturtle]

Quick question: Why is it that any discussion of rape will eventually lead to a discussion of Lorena Bobbitt? If we take the 1 in 6 statistic to be true (and personally I think it's a bit low), rape happens frequently but dicks getting lopped off seems to be a one-time deal. Are guys really so insecure about this microscopic possibility that it trumps empathy? That doesn't seem likely. So what is it?

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.

My last book, Bonk, has a chapter about penis transplants and reattachments. It includes the story of an epidemic of penile dismemberments in Thailand during the 1970s. In the wake of a well-publicized case, more than 100 angry Thai women hacked off the penises of their adulterous husbands while they slept. Often the women threw the severed organs out the window in disgust, attracting the attention of the livestock that hang out in the shade beneath the elevated homes of rural Thailand. (Oddly, it was ducks, not pigs, that went after the penises -- often enough that there's a saying in Thailand now: "I better get home, or the ducks will have something to eat.")

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