Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Given that most rapes occur in domestic settings, it seems the answer is, "never."

Additionally, the article implies that by respecting women and their decisions, you can easily move yourself out of the "potential rapist" stack. It directly says that approaching women in safe settings will eliminate that background fear.

Your consternation over these triffling matters is bizarre. I think you're trying as hard as you can to have a problem with a very reasonable stance.

Not really.

The stats indicate a woman is far more likely to be raped by an intimate partner than a new acquaintance.

So shouldn't the advice be for a woman to become more wary after she's started having sex with a man because of the greater probability he'll one day rape her?

 

[Augustine]

At what point in a relationship should a woman stop thinking a man is a potential rapist?

Probably around the time she would like her partner to stop thinking of her as a potential ***** bitch.

 

[Baylor]

So shouldn't the advice be for a woman to become more wary after she's started having sex with a man because of the greater probability he'll one day rape her?

No, that wouldn't be as fun. Gotta pick on the Travis's of the world. Kick 'em while they're down.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So shouldn't the advice be for a woman to become more wary after she's started having sex with a man because of the greater probability he'll one day rape her?

Well, yes, that would be reasonable. But this article isn't about what's reasonable; it's about how the author feels. It's also about the author trying to justify how she feels with statistics.

 

[TraneWreck]

Please show me where she mentions following her home or waiting at bus stops.

What she does say is, "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."

Yeah, it wasn't in the article. It was in one of the comments. They blurred together in my mind:

How I wish I could have handed this out to some of the guys on the bus back in the day. I had to change buses for a month to get away from this one guy who would get off at my stop and follow me. Hey, maybe he was just looking to cheat on his wife and I wasn’t giving him a fair shake and thus hurt a poor widdle adulterer’s feelings. Maybe he was the sugar daddy of my dreams and I ruined my one chance to live a life of luxury. Certainly he was creepier than all get out though, and I was tired of having to look over my shoulder for him! Thirty days of going home later than usual was better than living in fear.

These are common stories. What are the odds that guy was a rapist? I have no idea, but that woman was right to be scared of him.

Shortly after that she says, "So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?" As further evidence she's talking about attacks, she says, "If the public place is a closed area (a subway car, an elevator, a bus), even a crowded one, you may not realize that the woman’s ability to flee in case of threat is limited."

[...]

Look, I think the article was poorly written, not grounded in fact, and not particularly useful. You seem to be reading a different article than I am.

I'll agree it was poorly written and not grounded in fact. The factual criticisms, as I've said before, don't necessarily get to the heart of the matter. She's close enough to justify her mild request.

It's an article by a woman venting about all the creeps she deals with on a regular basis and a perhaps flawed conceit that expresses her worst fears about those people.

Strangers start out as an unknown quantity. Notice she's not concerned with strangers who sit on the bus and don't bother her. The article is directed at men who confront and pursue women aggressively, at awkward times, and ignore negative responses.

If you're not one of those men, the article isn't about you.

 

[Furcifer]

I realize that. It's one of the many things that makes you wrong. Are you arguing there's zero danger from people who follow women home from bus stops?

Nobody is arguing that, although I would say telling a guy on the bus you think he's a potential rapist and you don't want to talk to him is probably not as good as just saying "Thanks for complimenting my shoes, but as you can see I'm a little busy right now".

If you put a rail on any floor but the ground floor for the purpose of avoiding the small chance of falling, it's a reasonable action.

Yes, because notice you used the right words here "falling", not "dying".

That's the real issue, are you going to try and rationalize falling or dying? Is it rape or is it just being bothered my some jerk?

Nobody is faulting her for determining the risk in any given situation. We all do this every day. Some people have different levels of acceptable risk. But you can't deny the fact that someone who estimates the risk of dying every time they get in a car at 75% is being irrational.

I know a few people that won't go on the freeway because they fear the speed and seriously think they will die if they do. I'm sorry but that's irrational as well.

 

[TraneWreck]

Nobody is arguing that, although I would say telling a guy on the bus you think he's a potential rapist and you don't want to talk to him is probably not as good as just saying "Thanks for complimenting my shoes, but as you can see I'm a little busy right now".

[...]

I know a few people that won't go on the freeway because they fear the speed and seriously think they will die if they do. I'm sorry but that's irrational as well.

Sometimes it seems like you're determined to have no one take you seriously.

At what point did anyone suggest telling people on buses that they're rapists?

 

[Uncayimmy]

... Any particular reason why you didn't address what I said about motive? I think a lot of the reason that some of the things the article mentions are considered risk factors is because of the motives behind them, as best as they can be determined by someone else. I don't call either of yours risk factors for rape because of the motives I've been able to determine, and I wonder whether the author of that blog post would call them risk factors either.

I thought I did address motive. You seem to get what I was trying to do. Others don't. I've seen it on this board where I've shared very similar stories and been accused of chest beating and all manner of untoward things. To you I come across as a dad watching out for not only his kids but those around him. To others I was just spoiling for a fight and in sharing that story, I was really just bragging about my aggressive nature, further evidence of just how aggressive I am.

The only problem I have with this is that, given the limitations you admit to, the only sound policies I can think of involve exercising less caution. A decision has to be made about whether to treat these people with more or less caution, and the impression I'm getting is that you're calling a lot of the "more caution" options "unsound paranoia". I think that'd result in more unacceptable consequences for those people that used it.

You say "less caution" because you believe the factors you are looking at provide some value. I'm telling you that you don't know what, if any, value they offer.

Take the guy who tries several times to start up a conversation. Is he an extravert, someone who is gregarious and assertive? If so, he's less likely to be a rapist. Or is he trying to override your wishes? If so, he's more likely to be a rapist.

How about the guy who sits next to you but doesn't try to start up a conversation. Good guy who read the article? Maybe not. Rapists tend not to be all that talkative and find initiating conversations difficult. Statistically, he may be more likely to be a rapist.

If a guy gives you the heebie-jeebies, by all means follow your heeby-jeeby detector. If he doesn't, well, understand that it doesn't mean all that much. The evaluation process never stops. It's complicated and vague. The best thing is to avoid certain situations and be more on guard for clues the more intimate you become with someone. I would argue that the longer you go without seeing clues, the less likely it's going to come up out of the blue.

However, if the "rape clues" follow a similar time line as burping, farting, drinking from the milk carton, and leaving the toilet seat up, it's going to be a while before you see underneath.

 

[Uncayimmy]

But she switches from "sexual assault" to "rape" and then pretends they are the same thing.

"One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. I bet you don’t think you know any rapists, but consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur."

Rape assumes vaginal penetration with the penis by force. "Sexual assault" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. There is no metric for it. Hell, I've been "sexually assaulted" dozens of times. If there is no metric then the data are no good. Come on, this blog isn't trying to protect women from sexual assault, she wants to antagonize men and pander to her readers--women who are frustrated and bitter at men.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the National Violence Against Women Survey says that one in six women have have been raped. And by "says that" I mean, "One of every six women has been raped at some time."

NVAWS says, "...rape was defined as an event that occurred without the victim's consent that involved the use or threat of force in vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse." And by intercourse they include tongues, fingers and objects in the vagina and/or anus.

One big problem is that even though they surveyed 8,000 women and 8,000 men, the questions as asked excluded several events related to men. For example, a woman could not rape a man. Likewise, if someone performed oral sex on a woman by force, that was rape. If a someone performed oral sex on a boy/man, it was not. Same goes for stimulation by hand. Also, if a boy/man was forced to enter someone's anus with his penis, that was not counted. And by not counted I mean the screening questions not only didn't ask but gave definitions that did not include those acts. See page 10.

Also the definition of force was not defined. And the questions shifted around a regarding force and threats:
* by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you?
* by using force or threat of force?
* by using force or threat of harm?
* against your will or by using force or threats?
* attempted to make you...?

So, it's tough to get a handle on what happened in the 60% or so rapes that didn't involve either a threat of harm or a perceived threat of harm.

 

[Lyrandar]

I thought I did address motive. You seem to get what I was trying to do. Others don't. I've seen it on this board where I've shared very similar stories and been accused of chest beating and all manner of untoward things. To you I come across as a dad watching out for not only his kids but those around him. To others I was just spoiling for a fight and in sharing that story, I was really just bragging about my aggressive nature, further evidence of just how aggressive I am.

... Yeah, that's a good point, and I do tend to see more good than bad in most people. I can see how some would take it differently (although I still would disagree with them).

You say "less caution" because you believe the factors you are looking at provide some value. I'm telling you that you don't know what, if any, value they offer.

Take the guy who tries several times to start up a conversation. Is he an extravert, someone who is gregarious and assertive? If so, he's less likely to be a rapist. Or is he trying to override your wishes? If so, he's more likely to be a rapist.

How about the guy who sits next to you but doesn't try to start up a conversation. Good guy who read the article? Maybe not. Rapists tend not to be all that talkative and find initiating conversations difficult. Statistically, he may be more likely to be a rapist.

If a guy gives you the heebie-jeebies, by all means follow your heeby-jeeby detector. If he doesn't, well, understand that it doesn't mean all that much. The evaluation process never stops. It's complicated and vague. The best thing is to avoid certain situations and be more on guard for clues the more intimate you become with someone. I would argue that the longer you go without seeing clues, the less likely it's going to come up out of the blue.

Well, I would define all of this as more caution, not less. You're right that it can be very hard for me to assign any particular meaning to any of these factors, but I see that as a good reason to be more cautious and suspicious. In fact, your last paragraph makes me think that you're saying much the same thing.

That's one of the reasons I don't have all that much problem with that blog post, because I think that it has that among its fundamental points - that many women are going to be more careful, not less, and that this is entirely reasonable. It is expressed in inflammatory language, and the author is probably above average in terms of her level of caution, but I'm willing to ignore that and focus on other points.

And knowing that your judgment isn't going to be perfect shouldn't stop anyone from making a preliminary judgment based on your best interpretation at the time. This is only a problem if that "best effort" is completely divorced from reality and/or if you refuse to admit that your judgment might be wrong.

However, if the "rape clues" follow a similar time line as burping, farting, drinking from the milk carton, and leaving the toilet seat up, it's going to be a while before you see underneath.

True. It is possible to be too cautious, and end up at the point where you can't properly judge others or easily interact with others. The author may be close, but I don't think she's over that line to the point where she's being irrational. Also, I'm pretty sure no one, the author included, went quite as far as you just did (although I didn't read the comments on the blog so I can't be sure).

 

[Uncayimmy]

Well, I would define all of this as more caution, not less. You're right that it can be very hard for me to assign any particular meaning to any of these factors, but I see that as a good reason to be more cautious and suspicious. In fact, your last paragraph makes me think that you're saying much the same thing.

I think we're on the same page. Note everything, and the further away the behavior is away from sex, the less weight you should give it individually. Thus a guy who is a little pushy on the bus, one thing among many to consider. The boyfriend who is already inside when you wake up but you're cool with it because, ya know, "we were going at it like bunnies that night and I was really horny anyway," red flag.

That's one of the reasons I don't have all that much problem with that blog post, because I think that it has that among its fundamental points - that many women are going to be more careful, not less, and that this is entirely reasonable. It is expressed in inflammatory language, and the author is probably above average in terms of her level of caution, but I'm willing to ignore that and focus on other points.

Honestly, more than anything else her style of writing was too chaotic for me. Louie Louie was easier to follow. I found her off-putting, and I don't think she gave any solid advice for how a guy should read a woman. As the subject of this thread says, it was uncritical, and the subject matter shouldn't give her a free pass from critical analysis.

 

[Furcifer]

Sometimes it seems like you're determined to have no one take you seriously.

At what point did anyone suggest telling people on buses that they're rapists?

Perhaps you missed the entire point of the article? The author is saying "Listen guys, you really want to know why women are blowing you off? Because we're evaluating you as a potential rapist"

She's telling every man on a bus everywhere that this is what their rapists, rapists of varying degrees, but rapists none the less.

I don't believe for a second you lack the comprehension skills to figure this out without me.

The same way I don't believe you wouldn't mind a woman telling her friends you're a high potential rapist just because you might have forgot to brush your teeth and bumped into her on a bus.

I know this because when a jerk moves into a neighborhood nobody blinks, but when a sex offender moves in people go bonkers. It doesn't matter if his probability of re-offending it 1% or 99% or if he was simply caught hanging a leak behind the pub.

 

[FattyCatty]

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?

I'm new to this forum and to skepticism and I hope I'm following the proper procedures. I've read this whole thread and have found some posters extremely helpful (HansMustermann, Dunstan, and Professor Yaffle) in my attempt to understand the article and decide how to respond to the OP.

Note that many posters have forgotten that the article is

a guy's guide to approaching strange women without getting maced

They treat it as if it were a tutorial for women.

Response to the OP:

I do not think that the article is bigoted or prejudicial. I'm not sure how you're using "uncritical" here. I do think the article does a good job of telling men how women weigh risks in some specific situations.

I'm not sure what you mean by "social incentives" being weighed. I do think it is acceptable to treat the "guy" as a potential rapist.

I disagree with your last paragraph.

Assumptions for response:

I don't think the article was paranoid or illogical, or that it adopted unsound policies, as many state or imply in this thread. The author, it seems to me, lays things out quite sensibly as a guide for men approaching strange women. She begins by assuming you are a

good sort of person

who wants

to become acquainted with a women you see in public.

She lets you know that

women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man

and that preventing assault or murder are part of a women's daily routine. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is the most important thought going through her mind at all times, just that is a part of her conciousness. She goes on to say that

you may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won't know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me.

She then explains, to the men who might approach her, the risk assessment process she uses.

1. She sets her own risk tolerance level. As is her right
2. Be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment (she will pay close attention to your appearance and behavior and match those signs to her idea of a threat. I think most people do this
3. Learn to understand and respect women's communication to you.
a. Initial cues (e.g., body turned away from you)
b. Negative response (e.g., monosyllabic, without looking at you)
c. Positive reponse (e.g., answering in a friendly and talkative manner, body turned toward you, making eye contact)
4. Failure to respect what women say (including non-verbal cues, as in #3) labels you a problem.
a.

A man who ignores a women's NO in a non-sexual setting is more likely to ignore NO in a sexual setting, as well.

b. You believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights. why would she wish to become further acquainted with such a man?
5. Don't rape.

Shouldn't this go without saying? Of course it should. Sadly, that's not the world I live in.

This seemed offensive to many posters. If you're not planning on raping anyone, can't you just ignore it?

Several posters also seemed offended by the idea that all men were considered potential rapists. 3bodyproblem, on page 4, post 133, said:

Certainly women don't want to be raped, but men don't want to be considered "rapists" either.

I understand his point of view, but I believe her effort to be safe overrides his feelings.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The writing is sloppy, but it only requires two assumptions to be read charitably:

1) That there are about as many women as men.

2) That multiple men aren't sexually assaulting the same women to hide their numbers.

The first one is basically true, and the error in the second one runs in favor of the argument that there are fewer rapists in relation to the general population.

Fewer than what? Obviously you're applying some sort of comparison if you're arguing that it's fewer, right?

As for #2, it's poorly written. I think I know what you're trying to say, but you booted it as bad as she did.

That's the point: she made conservative assumptions. They were likely wrong, but each mistake weakens her case, and thus, they're not really that big of a deal.

I don't follow what you're trying to say there...

I don't know that she made conservative assumptions at all. I know she made some bad assumptions and propped them up like they were meaningful and insightful. If she arrived at a number that conservatively estimates the number of rapists in the male population, that was just dumb luck. It's your subjective judgment that she made a "conservative" estimate. It's my judgment that she had no idea how to estimate the number of rapists and pulled numbers out of her ass. I also get the impression that she had no clue that the women raped in the last 12 months were raped an average of 2.9 times, and about 80% were raped by the same individual. If she did, she wouldn't have said anything about men averaging 10 rapes like she did.

 

[TraneWreck]

Fewer than what? Obviously you're applying some sort of comparison if you're arguing that it's fewer, right?

As for #2, it's poorly written. I think I know what you're trying to say, but you booted it as bad as she did.

Please. It's not a complicated prospect. If we assume that each rape victim has a unique attacker, and each attacker has a unique victim, as the author in the OP did, then there will be fewer rapists in the overall male population than if we make other available assumptions.

If we assume that multiple males are abusing the same victims, than an area with 1 in 6 female victims could have a population of assailants of 1 in 4 or 1 in 3.

Thus, it was an assumption that ran contrary to the goal of her piece. She then went even further and assumed that the average rapist has 10 unique victims to get to the 1 in 60 number.

It's simple, it's clear, you can complain all you want, but if rapists have multiple, overlapping victims (which they do in the real world) then for every woman assaulted there could be more than one assailant, and therefore there could be a larger percentage of male rapists to the general population.

I don't follow what you're trying to say there...

If I want to make an argument that medication X is deadly, and I tell you, "1 out of 1,000 people will become ill and die after taking medication X, so the FDA should take it off the market." You telling me, "Your stats are way off. It's actually 1 in 500," doesn't hurt my case even if I was wrong on the facts.

She overestimated the number of rapists in the general male population. Perhaps she should have revised her stats for "stranger rapes," but once again, she was talking about a subset of males, not every male stranger, so those stats aren't perfect either.

I don't know that she made conservative assumptions at all. I know she made some bad assumptions and propped them up like they were meaningful and insightful. If she arrived at a number that conservatively estimates the number of rapists in the male population, that was just dumb luck. It's your subjective judgment that she made a "conservative" estimate. It's my judgment that she had no idea how to estimate the number of rapists and pulled numbers out of her ass. I also get the impression that she had no clue that the women raped in the last 12 months were raped an average of 2.9 times, and about 80% were raped by the same individual. If she did, she wouldn't have said anything about men averaging 10 rapes like she did.

If we're trying to figure out the ratio of rapists in the general male population, an assailant raping the same victim multiple times doesn't really help us.

It's your subjective judgment that it was dumb luck, so what? There's a basic assumption of charity when interpreting someone's argument. I tried to interpret her stats in the best possible light. They're still flawed and riddled with errors, but those errors aren't fatal to her argument.

 

[TraneWreck]

Perhaps you missed the entire point of the article? The author is saying "Listen guys, you really want to know why women are blowing you off? Because we're evaluating you as a potential rapist"

[...]

I know this because when a jerk moves into a neighborhood nobody blinks, but when a sex offender moves in people go bonkers. It doesn't matter if his probability of re-offending it 1% or 99% or if he was simply caught hanging a leak behind the pub.

Haha. Wow.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Please. It's not a complicated prospect. If we assume that each rape victim has a unique attacker, and each attacker has a unique victim, as the author in the OP did, then there will be fewer rapists in the overall male population than if we make other available assumptions.

1) By author, do you mean the lady who wrote the article or the member who made the opening post?

2) If we assume each victim as having a rapist who raped nobody else, which is what I think you are trying to say, then that assumption gives us the highest possible number of rapists unless we assume multiple rapists per victim. It seems to me you booted it again because you wrote that this number will be lower than for any other assumptions. That's backwards. This number will be higher and any other assumptions will be lower, such as her malformed statement about 10 rapes per rapist. Your post is not a model for clarity.

This is because 1 in 6 female victims will have a roughly equal number of male assailants.

This is what 3B was arguing the author believed.

If we assume that multiple males are abusing the same victims, than an area with 1 in 6 female victims could have a population of assailants of 1 in 4 or 1 in 3.

Yes.

Thus, it was an assumption that ran contrary to the goal of her piece. She then went even further and assumed that the average rapist has 10 unique victims to get to the 1 in 60 number.

That's what I said about 20 posts back, but apparently people can't let sleeping dogs lie.

It's simple, it's clear, you can complain all you want, but if rapists have multiple, overlapping victims (which they do in the real world) then for every woman assaulted there could be more than one assailant, and therefore there could be a larger percentage of male rapists to the general population.

Well, once again you are using the term a comparison and not identifying to what you are comparing it. I assume you mean the 1 in 60 number.

As for me "complaining" the thread title is "when is uncritical thought ok?" If this article were instead a post about psi by Rodney, we'd be ripping it to shreds. Being "right" for the wrong reasons doesn't cut it in my book. The reality is that her 1 in 60 number is not "right" anyway, and I'm under no obligation to be "charitable" when evaluating her article.

I hold her and the subject matter up to the same standards as I do anything else. I've run into you before on this forum. Several times, in fact. I've never seen you be "charitable" towards arguments. In fact, I've found that you often rip apart arguments using techniques that remind me of a lawyer trying to confuse a witness and/or jury rather than arrive at an understanding. I've seen you deliberately (in my opinion) construe an argument in the harshest manner possible when it was clear to me what the other person was saying.

So, I wonder about your comments in this thread. It seems almost paternalistic to be talking about charity and making assumptions on the author's behalf.

If we're trying to figure out the ratio of rapists in the general male population, an assailant raping the same victim multiple times doesn't really help us.

Right. But that's not what the article as about, was it? I addressed this already. Looking at rapist density (for lack of a better term) is not particularly useful by itself. There's a time factor involved (the 1 in 6 number is lifetime) as well as an age factor (rapists of adult females are typically not under 14 years old, and most of the intimate partner ones are not going to be under 18). What's important is identifying a person who will rape you (meaning the author, other women) and under what situations it's most likely.

It's your subjective judgment that it was dumb luck, so what? There's a basic assumption of charity when making an argument. I tried to interpret her stats in the best possible light. They're still flawed and riddled with errors, but those errors aren't fatal to her argument.

I don't even know what her argument is.

 

[TraneWreck]

1) By author, do you mean the lady who wrote the article or the member who made the opening post?

The woman who wrote the article.

2) If we assume each victim as having a rapist who raped nobody else, which is what I think you are trying to say, then that assumption gives us the highest possible number of rapists unless we assume multiple rapists per victim. It seems to me you booted it again because you wrote that this number will be lower than for any other assumptions. That's backwards. This number will be higher and any other assumptions will be lower, such as her malformed statement about 10 rapes per rapist. Your post is not a model for clarity.

I said fewer rapists with respect to the general population. This is not backwards.

You're trying as hard as you can to not understand:

"If we assume that each rape victim has a unique attacker, and each attacker has a unique victim, as the author in the OP did, then there will be fewer rapists in the overall male population than if we make other available assumptions."

That's not complex, it's clear, and it's correct.

That's what I said about 20 posts back, but apparently people can't let sleeping dogs lie.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. I've now repeated this to various posters about 50 times. It's only moot when you step in and make a statement?

You can't simultaneously complain things are unclear and then complain about repetition. I have no idea what you're having trouble with, so I have to be comprehensive.

Well, once again you are using the term a comparison and not identifying to what you are comparing it. I assume you mean the 1 in 60 number.

There are a range of possible assumptions. As I explicitly stated in the last post, the comparisons are between these available assumptions.

As for me "complaining" the thread title is "when is uncritical thought ok?" If this article were instead a post about psi by Rodney, we'd be ripping it to shreds. Being "right" for the wrong reasons doesn't cut it in my book. The reality is that her 1 in 60 number is not "right" anyway, and I'm under no obligation to be "charitable" when evaluating her article.

No one said you were obligated, it's just a principle of decent argumentation.

I've now also said that she's wrong on the stats about 50 times. Being wrong on the stats doesn't affect her argument. This is something that happens from time to time.

I hold her and the subject matter up to the same standards as I do anything else. I've run into you before on this forum. Several times, in fact. I've never seen you be "charitable" towards arguments. In fact, I've found that you often rip apart arguments using techniques that remind me of a lawyer trying to confuse a witness and/or jury rather than arrive at an understanding. I've seen you deliberately (in my opinion) construe an argument in the harshest manner possible when it was clear to me what the other person was saying.

If you think I'm being uncharitable, you're welcome to point it out.

So, I wonder about your comments in this thread. It seems almost paternalistic to be talking about charity and making assumptions on the author's behalf.

Haha, and the relentless urge to personalize everything and engage in needless sanctimony is the hallmark of your history here. Why did you even bring this up? It has no bearing on the discussion. Do you just want to try and launch empty barbs like 3body?

Right. But that's not what the article as about, was it? I addressed this already. Looking at rapist density (for lack of a better term) is not particularly useful by itself. There's a time factor involved (the 1 in 6 number is lifetime) as well as an age factor (rapists of adult females are typically not under 14 years old, and most of the intimate partner ones are not going to be under 18). What's important is identifying a person who will rape you (meaning the author, other women) and under what situations it's most likely.

What I find amusing is that you want to restrict conditions on the general stat when it suits your argument, but don't attempt to deal with restrictions that more closely match the situations discussed in the article.. A lot of surveys that have been linked in this thread put the number of self-identified rapists at about 1 in 20. Let's say it's twice that for the purpose of this argument, 1 in 40.

You argue that this is the wrong number because we're discussing stranger encounters on public transit. The number should be much lower.

But the stranger numbers aren't appropriate either. First, most of the rape statistics include "other acquaintances" as separate from strangers. Once again, this could mean the guy that rides the bus with you every morning. It's simply an answer to the question, "did you know your rapist?"

Secondly, the article is not aimed at the general population of strangers. It's a subset of strangers who approach women and then ignore their desire to be left alone. There are no statistics available to indicate whether this increases the chance of rape or not or how significant that change happens to be.

Additionally, women who are raped later in life are often sexually abused when they're younger, as your stats show. I don't know why you think this negates the argument that women are in danger. People who were assaulted when younger also ride public transit.

The fact of the matter is that there are no decent statistics to give an accurate risk assessment of a woman dealing with a man she recognizes who is harassing her against her wishes.

I don't even know what her argument is.

That would be a problem.

 

[INRM]

Strikes me as overreactive

 

[Uncayimmy]

TI said fewer rapists with respect to the general population. This is not backwards.

You're trying as hard as you can to not understand:

"If we assume that each rape victim has a unique attacker, and each attacker has a unique victim, as the author in the OP did, then there will be fewer rapists in the overall male population than if we make other available assumptions."

That's not complex, it's clear, and it's correct.

I am trying to understand. You made a simple If X then Y statement.

X: Assume 1 rapist per 1 victim.

Y: "there will be fewer rapists in the overall male population than [with other assumptions]"

If the population is 10,000 and the 1 in 6 women are raped, that means 1 in 6 men are rapists. That's 1,660. Right?

X: 1,660/10,000

Any other assumption, which I take to mean rapists having more than one unique victim, results in a fewer than 1,660.. Right? She said 10.

Y: 166/10,000

X > Y but you said X < Y

Sorry, but I'm just not parsing your sentence as you intend. I'm trying.

No one said you were obligated, it's just a principle of decent argumentation.

LOL! Okay, I'm going to remember that for future reference.

Haha, and the relentless urge to personalize everything and engage in needless sanctimony is the hallmark of your history here. Why did you even bring this up? It has no bearing on the discussion. Do you just want to try and launch empty barbs like 3body?

I'm expressing my surprise at you being "charitable" towards someone who misuses statistics to arrive at a number that is wrong and wondering if the subject matter has an effect. It seems to twist a lot of people into knots.

What I find amusing is that you first want to restrict conditions on the general stat. A lot of surveys that have been linked in this thread put the number of self-identified rapists at about 1 in 20. Let's say it's twice that for the purpose of this argument, 1 in 40.

A lot of surveys? Nope. A couple of limited use, yes. I agree that would be a good start for arriving at the number.

You argue that this is the wrong number because we're discussing stranger encounters on public transit. The number should be much lower.

Now you're not being charitable with me. I went into great detail about what women should be looking at. Rapist density is way down the list.

But the stranger numbers aren't appropriate either. First, most of the rape statistics include "other acquaintances" as separate from strangers. Once again, this could mean the guy that rides the bus with you every morning. It's simply an answer to the question, "did you know your rapist?"

You're not being charitable with me again. I have already established that the acquaintance and stranger pools (those men a woman encounters) are huge compared to the intimate partner pool - a couple orders of magnitude, actually. In terms of perpetrators, the two groups combined make a smaller percentage than intimate partners.

Secondly, the article is not aimed at the general population of strangers. It's a subset of strangers who approach women and then ignore their desire to be left alone. There are no statistics available to indicate whether this increases the chance of rape or not or how significant that change happens to be.

I disagree with your assessment. It's aimed at all men who even consider talking to a strange woman. Did you not recall the church example?

Additionally, women who are raped later in life are often sexually abused when they're younger, as your stats show. I don't know why you think this negates the argument that women are in danger. People who were assaulted when younger also ride public transit.

Sorry, but that's not what I or the stats say. The stats show that women who were raped as minors are twice as likely to be raped as adults.

The fact of the matter is that there are no decent statistics to give an accurate risk assessment of a woman dealing with a man she recognizes who is harassing her against her wishes.

True.

That would be a problem.

With her writing, yes. It's crap.