Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[stilicho]

I fail to see how that is paranoid. You're walking down an enclosed staircase, no one else is around. You pass a woman going up the stairs, you turn and follow her in order to talk to her. What do you think her reaction is going to be?

Her reaction is most likely to be concern. She is trapped in that moment, there is no outside help available and you have superior strength. Before you've said a word, you have created an uncomfortable situation. What can you possibly say that will be worth it to the woman? Nothing. So why bother.

How many sexual assaults progress from a stranger passing a stranger to turning to follow to striking up a conversation? Given that the mass of sexual assaults and rapes occur in the family, I would guess the number is extremely low.

That said, unless it was something such as "here, you've dropped your wallet, lady", I can't think of a single reason to turn to follow a woman through a confined space just to say something meaningless. Or a man for that matter.

 

[stevea]

OK - I haven't read all 13 pages of posts - mea culpa.

How much of this stats interpretation is based on dubious definitions ?

Statutory rape seems to be included in the DOJ stats and age of consent varies from 16-18 in various jurisdictions. So for example when we see recent stats that 46% of high school females have had intercourse (ignoring that oral sex may be more common) and that California has an age of consent of 18 - then can we conclude that about half of all female California HS seniors has been raped ? Is that really what we mean by rape ? Volition isn't germane to statutory rape, but I'm not sure we want to lump a pair of 17yo humping in a closet or exchanging oral sex with involuntary penetration.

The definition of "sexual abuse" is even more foggy. One paper off the DOJ website includes unsolicited exposure to porn as "sexual abuse". If that's the definition then I've been sexually assaulted by google_images several times in the past 24 hours.

One of the papers that an early poster found convincing stated that 1 of 6 males has been victim to sexual abuse. That doesn't pass the sniff test unless the definition is quite expansive.

There are a lot of interesting stats - that a large fraction of female victim rape involves husbands, ex-husbands (and an even larger fraction of violent sexual abuse), that there are socio-economic variations, the stats for alcohol involvement (perp and victim) and variation with race are interesting too. Why is Canada's per capita rate of rape about 2X the US ? Cultural or a reporting difference ?

I think we'd want to see a clearer definition of terms and a clearer explanation of the basis for the DoJ extrapolations before making any decisions. But that is exactly what is needed. The paper on self-reported college students is shocking, but can't be taken at face value nor extrapolated to the general population. Stilicho points to glaring errors in various reports.

==

I do not mean to diminish a very real problem. I can fully understand why females, especially in the higher risk categories should take the issue seriously, act very cautiously, and be prepared w/ self-defense, avoid situations as the stats (poorly) outline. The OPs link paper seems to me to be at the brink of media induced hysteria. That there is so much dissonance between the cited papers and common experience, and also the high variation in stats produced by various methods indicates that something is amiss.

To the original point -

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

It's not bigoted to think that some men are rapists or that some Muslims are terrorists. It is however gross prejudice to treat all males as potential rapists or all Muslims as potential bomb throwers.

It's no breach of rational thought to use solid statistical evidence, tho' imperfect, to assess the risks. Since the downside cost is so high it's rational to try to collect evidence and assess risks in any suspect case. Of course the social risk is that we may tentatively categorize a harmless socially inept person who won't stop emailing after a single date as a potential rapist, and we may tentatively categorize some Muslim from who studied at some madrassa or holds some political view as a potential terrorist.

In law there is a requirement of demonstrating "reasonable suspicion" to an independent judge before issuing a warrant to collect more evidence. The reasonable suspicion requirement generally means a lot less than proof beyond reasonable doubt, but more than generalized categorical suspicion. There must be some specific evidence and articulable reasoning to probabilify the suspicion.

I'm not suggesting that anyone must follow any particular reasoning when choosing personal relationships. If you want to live your personal life with a bunker mentality and presume that every male is a rapist looking for an opportunity, and every Muslim is ready to blow up a plane - then you are welcome to do so. We live in an era of extreme political polarization where equally broad-brushed evaluations are made by both sides - openly. Why not extend this lack of reason to personal relation ships too ?

Still I think a reasonable person wants some intermediate categories between "some males rape, and you are a male ...", to "has prior convictions for rape".

 

[Furcifer]

Schrodinger's ****

I know what your'e saying ladies "I'm not a ******" but let's face it 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted and they are carrying around baggage from that. I know it's not you, you're a nice lady, friendly and fun to be around but some women use it as a defense and who can blame them?

But let's face it, I don't know you. And even if I do how well do I really know you? When you combine that with the fact that 1 in 4 women have mental health issues, plus the fact that between periods and menopause your hormones are totally out of whack for a good portion of your life, odds are you're quite the bitch.

So when I'm talking to you I'm thinking "Sure, you're pleasant now, but in a split second you could turn into a raging bitch". So don't blame me if I'm not listening or get easily distracted. It's not you, it's the fact that at any minute you could turn into a raving loon, or a psycho bitch from hell and I'd rather imagine myself in pleasant situations. I have to wander off in my mind, it's in my best interest.

Here's a hint ladies, if you want to keep a man interested in you don't get fat. Some guys like chubbies, but most men would prefer you looked like Kate Moss on a meth bender. That doesn't mean we don't love you any less, just that we would love you even more if you were that hot. If you can't keep your body in shape it's a sure sign your mind is about to go as well. Exercise keeps more than just your body in shape, it keeps your mind in shape. Plus the time you spend exercising we can spend away from you and sometimes we need our alone time too.

Listen. Listen to us when we say "This isn't anything to get worked up about" "You're over reacting" . Mostly likely it's because your hormones are off or you forgot to take your Zoloft this morning. If it's "No Big Deal" it isn't, and we mean it. Acting like a complete **** over something that isn't a big deal isn't very endearing.

If we decide to not tell you, or perhaps lie, it's because we realize you are a potential ****. We're not certain what will or won't set you off. Ignorance can indeed be bliss. Remember that.

Please don't expect us to listen to you about your day. You work with 6 other women, chances are on any given day at least 2 of them are being total *****. Those 2 think it's another 2, and the other 2 think it's you and the girl that sits across from you, you know the one that shows up to work covered in bruises every other Monday. Between the 6 of you there is a constant cat fight over something, please don't make us decide which one of you is being the **** every day, you won't always like the answer.

Violate any one of these tenants and you set off the alarms, "Potential ****, Danger!". This goes for just about every woman, wife or girlfriend. I'm sorry but my own mental health is important to me and I really don't want a **** in my life.

 

[bookitty]

Schrodinger's ****

I know what your'e saying ladies "I'm not a ******" but let's face it 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted and they are carrying around baggage from that. I know it's not you, you're a nice lady, friendly and fun to be around but some women use it as a defense and who can blame them?

But let's face it, I don't know you. And even if I do how well do I really know you? When you combine that with the fact that 1 in 4 women have mental health issues, plus the fact that between periods and menopause your hormones are totally out of whack for a good portion of your life, odds are you're quite the bitch.

So when I'm talking to you I'm thinking "Sure, you're pleasant now, but in a split second you could turn into a raging bitch". So don't blame me if I'm not listening or get easily distracted. It's not you, it's the fact that at any minute you could turn into a raving loon, or a psycho bitch from hell and I'd rather imagine myself in pleasant situations. I have to wander off in my mind, it's in my best interest.

Here's a hint ladies, if you want to keep a man interested in you don't get fat. Some guys like chubbies, but most men would prefer you looked like Kate Moss on a meth bender. That doesn't mean we don't love you any less, just that we would love you even more if you were that hot. If you can't keep your body in shape it's a sure sign your mind is about to go as well. Exercise keeps more than just your body in shape, it keeps your mind in shape. Plus the time you spend exercising we can spend away from you and sometimes we need our alone time too.

Listen. Listen to us when we say "This isn't anything to get worked up about" "You're over reacting" . Mostly likely it's because your hormones are off or you forgot to take your Zoloft this morning. If it's "No Big Deal" it isn't, and we mean it. Acting like a complete **** over something that isn't a big deal isn't very endearing.

If we decide to not tell you, or perhaps lie, it's because we realize you are a potential ****. We're not certain what will or won't set you off. Ignorance can indeed be bliss. Remember that.

Please don't expect us to listen to you about your day. You work with 6 other women, chances are on any given day at least 2 of them are being total *****. Those 2 think it's another 2, and the other 2 think it's you and the girl that sits across from you, you know the one that shows up to work covered in bruises every other Monday. Between the 6 of you there is a constant cat fight over something, please don't make us decide which one of you is being the **** every day, you won't always like the answer.

Violate any one of these tenants and you set off the alarms, "Potential ****, Danger!". This goes for just about every woman, wife or girlfriend. I'm sorry but my own mental health is important to me and I really don't want a **** in my life.

So you believe that being a bitch is as damaging to a man as sexual assault is to a woman.

In that case I could give you some tips on how to avoid making a woman be bitchy towards you. Unfortunately, they all involve treating a woman with respect. So sorry, not much help there.

 

[Furcifer]

One of the papers that an early poster found convincing stated that 1 of 6 males has been victim to sexual abuse. That doesn't pass the sniff test unless the definition is quite expansive.

Just a note on this because I happened to think about it today. I'm not sure how many men have been "hazed" as part of a team or club here. I was lucky enough to to avoid most of the hazing as I was part of a newer Catholic high school and hazing was beginning to be discouraged.

However, the public high schools and hockey teams and baseball teams all had their own various forms of hazing.

Based on what I know happened, what I saw and what I heard, I can safely say just about every male that played organized sports at any serious level had been subject to involuntary actions of a sexual nature. Actions that if men were to force upon women would certainly meet the definition of "sexual assault".

I'd say just about every man at some point has been subject to or witnessed events that could easily be considered sexual assault by someone. It's just that we don't see it the same way and I doubt if it would be reported as such unless it was worded the right way.

Just a thought.

 

[Furcifer]

So you believe that being a bitch is as damaging to a man as sexual assault is to a woman.

No, you missed the point, allow me to explain.

I think calling a woman a "potential ****" is just as inflammatory as calling a man a "potential rapist".

You can be fairly sincere, have a point, and as you have demonstrate, have the reader totally miss the point because you are using the wrong words.

If a man walked around talking about how every woman was a "potential ****" we would call him a "woman hater" and say he was paranoid. Apparently a woman walking around calling every man a "potential rapist" we should call "insightful"

 

[Lyrandar]

No, you missed the point, allow me to explain.

I think calling a woman a "potential ****" is just as inflammatory as calling a man a "potential rapist".

You can be fairly sincere, have a point, and as you have demonstrate, have the reader totally miss the point because you are using the wrong words.

If a man walked around talking about how every woman was a "potential ****" we would call him a "woman hater" and say he was paranoid. Apparently a woman walking around calling every man a "potential rapist" we should call "insightful"

And if any of the advice offered in that first absolutely disgusting post was valid, you might even have a point.

As it is? That was simply wrong. Half of your "advice" there basically boiled down to "we know what's going on about yourselves better than you do, so shut up and go away". I could care less what terms you used; even if you used a less inflammatory term to describe women, it'd still be absolutely vile.

Your attempt at analogy (or parody) is completely unhelpful, since you change other things about your example besides the gender of the target then wonder why we're treating it differently.

 

[Furcifer]

And if any of the advice offered in that first absolutely disgusting post was valid, you might even have a point.

As it is? That was simply wrong. Half of your "advice" there basically boiled down to "we know what's going on about yourselves better than you do, so shut up and go away". I could care less what terms you used; even if you used a less inflammatory term to describe women, it'd still be absolutely vile.

Your attempt at analogy (or parody) is completely unhelpful, since you change other things about your example besides the gender of the target then wonder why we're treating it differently.

If a woman you don't know gets emotional easy and 1 in 4 women have mental health issues it's only right to assume they are crazy *****.

What's wrong with a man not allowing himself to be subject to mental abuse?

 

[Elizabeth I]

plus the fact that between periods and menopause your hormones are totally out of whack for a good portion of your life

That may be the case, but you know what? Our body parts don't jump around completely out of our control five or six times a day. Talk about hormonal - geeze.

What's wrong with a man not allowing himself to be subject to mental abuse?

Well, first you'd have to prove you have something to be "mentally" abused.

And then, if you could demonstrate any mentality, perhaps you would explain how a woman's being a bitch is in any way analogous to a woman's getting raped.

Sorry that you fit the profile from the OP so well - I'm sure it was a shock to you.

 

[SatanicSheep]

3body didn't make a perfect analogy, but I still think I heard a penny drop.

Who would be receptive to a discussion that starts with "Just so you know you might be a [vile label]? You're probally not so don't get "butt hurt," just letting you know there's a chance." It's called tact. Men are supposed to have an abundance of it, according to the article, and yet she displays very little. Can anyone see why somebody would be a little hesitant to take advice about social interactions from someone who seems pretty inept at them?

 

[Lyrandar]

If a woman you don't know gets emotional easy and 1 in 4 women have mental health issues it's only right to assume they are crazy *****.

What's wrong with a man not allowing himself to be subject to mental abuse?

The blog post initially up for debate stated that there was no way for the woman to know and offers advice for men that are not rapists to help them ensure the image they portray to women matches the reality (that they are not rapists). Presumably most men wish to ensure that they are not viewed as rapists and are capable of being polite.

Your... parody for lack of a better word... seems to assume every woman is a bitch and offers advice which a significant majority of them would have trouble following through no fault of their own. That "advice" solves problems which can just as easily be mitigated by the guy being a bit more honest, polite, and caring.

While I'm sure you're going to want to say that the women in the blog could fix any problems by being more trusting, this increases their risk of ending up in a very bad situation. And guys fixing the problems in your parody requires nothing more then being able to tolerate listening to someone in a bad mood every once in a while.

 

[SatanicSheep]

And then, if you could demonstrate any mentality, perhaps you would explain how a woman's being a bitch is in any way analogous to a woman's getting raped.

It's not. I also think being called a possible bitch isn't as bad as being called a possible violent sexual predator, but it still seems to have irritated people.

 

[TraneWreck]

You have every right to stay away from women displaying the behavior types you dislike. If they follow you around and force these characteristics on you, you're welcome to take out a restraining order.

Remember, the OP article is about men pursuing women in an unwanted fashion and ignoring their request to be alone.

My guess is that most of the people who think that ridiculous analogy is clever will have not trouble separating themselves from women.

(and now we get to hear the unrestrained boasting about how these douche-nozzles can take women whenever they want, so powerful is their allure).

 

[Furcifer]

Well, first you'd have to prove you have something to be "mentally" abused.

Scandalous.

"Well first you'd have to prove you have something to rape"

Is this really where you want to take the discussion

 

[SatanicSheep]

(and now we get to hear the unrestrained boasting about how these douche-nozzles can take women whenever they want, so powerful is their allure).

Nope. It hasn't happened since you predicted it the last time. I see you are still not reluctant to jump on the childish assumption that anybody who questions the article has problems interacting with women.

 

[Uncayimmy]

And as to your previous post, it is precisely the acquaintances, friends, partners etc that the OP is concerned about. It's about not letting someone into your social circle who shows signs that they don't totally respect your boundaries.

By the OP I assume you mean the linked article. I think the article was poorly written - it's all over the place. I don't find myself able to succinctly state what I was supposed to get out of it. Some of what she wrote comes across as wrong-headed.

She starts out writing it towards men. Specifically, men who have not met their partner through acquaintances and mutual friends and must look further afield. Thus, she's addressing men looking to meet strangers.

She specifically says that when she meets a stranger, she has to worry if he's going to rape her. She says, "This means that some men should never approach strange women in public." About 15% of rapes happen in public settings. The stranger group is the least likely outside of relatives to rape a woman. The number of strangers one encounters in a lifetime is large. Consider it to be 50 per year for 50 years of adulthood. That's 2,500, which is 100X the size of the group that is 3X more likely to rape her.

So, I have no qualms saying that I believe she has her priorities reversed. You can argue that she should have some concern about strangers and she should. But the fact is right after saying she has to worry about a stranger raping her she throws out the one in six number apparently not realizing that the overwhelming majority were rapes in that study were by intimate partners in private settings not involving a threat of violence or physical injury.

Her later arguments are built on unproven premises (men who ignore "no" in a non-sexual setting are more likely to do so in a sexual setting). Seems reasonable, but it's unsupported. From there she says that speaking to a woman that is "otherwise occupied" is not respecting boundaries. From this we go down the slippery slope of rape.

All in all, I found the article to be a piece of crap sitting on some fine china. Sure, there's some good stuff to see, but no way to do want to clean my plate to see it.

 

[Furcifer]

You have every right to stay away from women displaying the behavior types you dislike. If they follow you around and force these characteristics on you, you're welcome to take out a restraining order.

Remember, the OP article is about men pursuing women in an unwanted fashion and ignoring their request to be alone.

Right. And this is about women pursuing relationships with men in an unwanted fashion.

You're free to get a divorce or break up with a man or not even date him, just don't be a ****.

Kinda cuts when you say it, doesn't it?

 

[TraneWreck]

Nope. It hasn't happened since you predicted it the last time. I see you are still not reluctant to jump on the childish assumption that anybody who questions the article has problems interacting with women.

Wrong.

All women so far respond positively to my come-ons.

You can go back and read. He wasn't being sarcastic.

Also not that my warning was meant to stop the douche-crew from piping up with that nonsense. It didn't work the first time, let's see if the desire to prove me wrong is more powerful that the need to vent insecure masculinity on the internet.

 

[SatanicSheep]

Wrong. You can go back and read. He wasn't being sarcastic.

Also not that my warning was meant to stop the douche-crew from piping up with that nonsense. It didn't work the first time, let's see if the desire to prove me wrong is more powerful that the need to vent insecure masculinity on the internet.

Ok I was wrong. One guy did say it. I'm still right about the second part and you're still a troll of the highest order.

 

[Lyrandar]

Her later arguments are built on unproven premises (men who ignore "no" in a non-sexual setting are more likely to do so in a sexual setting). Seems reasonable, but it's unsupported. From there she says that speaking to a woman that is "otherwise occupied" is not respecting boundaries. From this we go down the slippery slope of rape.

... how else is this woman supposed to judge how any of these strangers she meets are likely to act in a sexual setting?