Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[Lyrandar]

Well, if you're just looking out the window, you haven't made anything clear except that you're looking out the window. If you think that's a clear indicator that you're unwilling to talk, I think you should reconsider that notion. There world's far more complex than that.

You say that the world is more complex than that, yet in my experience I don't get any strangers talking to me when I sit and stare out the window of the subway, ignoring everything around me.

You're right that it's not a 100% clear indicator that that person doesn't want to talk, but that doesn't mean it doesn't indicate anything at all about how open that person wants to be.

Do you believe that anyone needed to be told that? Now, apparently what I needed to be told is that at least one woman plans escape routes on a crowded bus or subway car. I didn't know that. My advice up to now to any woman in peril is to flee towards a crowd, not away from one. I also had no idea that when I'm standing in line at the grocery store and say, "Is that the Android? How do you like it?" that the woman is thinking, "Are you going to rape me?"

That said, I think her risk assessment is based on a warped perception of reality.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that overreactions to minor risk factors are going to or should happen. I think we're focusing more on the "problem" part of such behavior that demonstrates that risk as opposed to the "minor". I don't think that's necessarily wrong either, since part of the point is to fix these problems, and not just the major ones.

That's the world I want to live in, not one where every innocuous comment carries with it the baggage of sexual or physical assault or one where every person who struggles with social cues is rated on the Rapist Scale. Sure, I recognize that I'm in the 90th percentile for men when it comes to weight and height, and that I'm a chest beating, chili-dog eating, friendly greeting, kindly treating, bully defeating, never retreating, rock and roll man who's kind to children and dogs, but I still understand how others view risk differently.

... this is probably not as important or relevant as I think it is, but I would like to ask - what about those people that have more trouble reading and/or sending social cues? They're going to have a harder time being certain what baggage any innocuous comment carries, I would think. Should they be less cautious, and deal with what to them is a higher risk (since they aren't as certain what's being implied or left unsaid, or what they might inadvertently send) or should they be more cautious in light of having less reliable information? If they choose the latter, are they wrong to do so?

I don't think the author of the blog is a person of that type who has trouble reading others, but I do think it matters at least a little, since it'll affect the risk assessments that seem to be the point here.

 

[Furcifer]

Amazing, just amazing.

Flattery will get you no where. Randi's house, he's the only allowed to be "amazing". But thanks

It's hard to accurately explain all the things that are wrong with your posts.

Listen, we all know you're having trouble explaining things you don't have to make excuses. You'll get the hang of it eventually.

First, we're discussing whether adding a modifier to a word can change the meaning.

Ah, no we haven't. We've been saying how using "Schrodinger" in front of a word doesn't make the word itself disappear. It doesn't get lost in a probability cloud like you are suggesting.

This is silly and absurd. "Acquitted murderer" does not mean "murderer."

This is another strawman. Nobody said that. What I said is there are ramifications to using such an inflammatory word. Even more so in the criminal context rather than just "thinking it". It's important to be careful when we use words with so much meaning attached to them.

Instead of dealing with that point, that a modifier changes the meaning, you make an astonishingly dumb point and say that an acquitted murderer might have a difficult time finding employment.

Yes, or being a counselor, or a coach, or a volunteer, or even traveling to strange and exotic places.

What does that have to do with anything? Somehow a kid misunderstands a phrase and that means something? If a kid accused someone of being a "Schrodinger's Rapist," adults should get together, understand what the phrase means, and behave accordingly.

Again you miss the point. People are liable to over look some dead guy's name and focus instead on the inflammatory word "rapist" That's what the whole thread is about.

A kid can mistake anything, so what?

So we are careful to chose our words around children. We're careful to chose our words around anyone. Unless you're a trucker or a sailor

Again, this is just silly. How is someone misunderstanding a phrase and starting a rumor relevant? They can do that with any phrase.

Because dealing with the rumour you've got the worst breath or poor fashion sense isn't the same as being most likely to rape someone. There's no room for misunderstanding if we make precise statements of fact when dealing with a serious issue.

And once more, at no point has anyone advised calling people "Schrodinger's rapist." This is your fantasy.

Just the author:

"When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist."

Are you sure you read the right article?

I understand the phrase. I'm asking what you think I "bought."

The article, we're talking about the article "Schrodinger's Rapist". This thread is about the article. You're playing the fool again and it just doesn't suit you. I know we've been going back and forth and taunting each other, but you're intelligent enough to know what you "bought" was the article. You're not kidding anyone. I've got to tell you, when you do this "What? I don't get it? What?" I can't help but think you're Rodney Dangerfield. He always played that "What? What? I don't know what's going on around here?" lovable fool type character. It makes me laugh every time, thanks

 

[Furcifer]

You say that the world is more complex than that, yet in my experience I don't get any strangers talking to me when I sit and stare out the window of the subway, ignoring everything around me.

From what we've read, being ignorant of everything around you is more likely to make you a victim.

This might be effective for you, but the stats seem to suggest being aware of who and what is around you at all times is the best method of preventing an assault. For all intents and purposes rapists are predators looking for an easy victim.

 

[TraneWreck]

This is another strawman. Nobody said that. What I said is there are ramifications to using such an inflammatory word. Even more so in the criminal context rather than just "thinking it". It's important to be careful when we use words with so much meaning attached to them.

Yes, or being a counselor, or a coach, or a volunteer, or even traveling to strange and exotic places.

The problem is not the word, it's the status of the applicant. Yo

Again you miss the point. People are liable to over look some dead guy's name and focus instead on the inflammatory word "rapist" That's what the whole thread is about.

I see, so we shouldn't use words that dumb people can't understand because they might mistake it for something else.

The word, "niggardly," shall now be banned.

So we are careful to chose our words around children. We're careful to chose our words around anyone. Unless you're a trucker or a sailor

Uh, ok. That doesn't mean adults can't use the word.

Because dealing with the rumour you've got the worst breath or poor fashion sense isn't the same as being most likely to rape someone. There's no room for misunderstanding if we make precise statements of fact when dealing with a serious issue.

But you can just start a rumor that someone is a rapist whether you employ the Schrodinger modifier or not. This is just pure insanity from you.

Just the author:

"When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist."

Are you sure you read the right article?

Oh god. Find the part where it says, "When I'm on the bus I am going to point at random strangers and call them Schrodinger's Rapist."

This is another strawman. Nobody said that. What I said is there are ramifications to using such an inflammatory word. Even more so in the criminal context rather than just "thinking it". It's important to be careful when we use words with so much meaning attached to them.

Yes, or being a counselor, or a coach, or a volunteer, or even traveling to strange and exotic places.

The problem is not the word, it's the status of the applicant. If you are, in fact, an acquitted murderer, then you might have difficulty finding a job. Changing the phrase won't do much to affect that.

But you're basic argument is that the phrase "Schrodinger's Rapist" can't be used because people won't be able to understand it.

That's the author's fault?

Again you miss the point. People are liable to over look some dead guy's name and focus instead on the inflammatory word "rapist" That's what the whole thread is about.

I see, so we shouldn't use words that dumb people can't understand because they might mistake it for something else.

The word, "niggardly," shall now be banned.

So we are careful to chose our words around children. We're careful to chose our words around anyone. Unless you're a trucker or a sailor

Uh, ok. That doesn't mean adults can't use those words and phrases with one another.

Although it is funny that you've now descended to the, "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" phase of your horse-****.

The article, we're talking about the article "Schrodinger's Rapist". This thread is about the article. You're playing the fool again and it just doesn't suit you. I know we've been going back and forth and taunting each other, but you're intelligent enough to know what you "bought" was the article. You're not kidding anyone. I've got to tell you, when you do this "What? I don't get it? What?" I can't help but think you're Rodney Dangerfield. He always played that "What? What? I don't know what's going on around here?" lovable fool type character. It makes me laugh every time, thanks

I bought the article. The hell does that mean? There are parts I agree with, others I don't. I've been clear about each.

This is distinguished from your approach, which is to make up bizarre, absurd hypotheticals and pretend like they're relevant to the quality of the article.

Are Stephen Hawking and Einstein at fault because theists don't understand their poetic use of the word, "God?" Should they be restricted from using that type of phrasing because idiots will misconstrue the point?

This is just childish nonsense. The point is clear, you're just whining about nothing in particular.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Casual sexual harassment does seem to be more prevalent in cities because there is more anonymity. If everyone is known in a village, the chance that a woman would recognize the man are much higher.

It's not just a case of people knowing everyone. In the nearby town I know virtually no-one and yet the few cases of indecent exposure or other unwanted sexual advance make the headlines of the local news. Obviously it's likely some will not be reported, but I think if you asked the majority of people in this area most would look at you like you had flown in from the moon.

In other posts I have made here [in this thread} I have specifically mentioned male victim rape. I'm aware that it happens and I think it is just as shameful and deserving of condemnation as any other form of violence against a person. I think it should be prosecuted just as vigorously.

However, I'm also aware that a man's ability to get and sustain an erection can be strongly influenced by his emotional state. I would think fear would not conduce. I understand there are drugs that could overcome that fear. I even mentioned that that could be a possible way of forcing a man to penetrate someone else.

If you want to inform me that a man scared ******** is likely to get a hard-on, I'll take it under consideration but I will still be doubtful.

Statutory rape is indeed a different category that I hadn't thought of and you are correct there.

Wow. The ignorance here is what I would love to call astounding, but frankly, I've seen it before on this very forum by Skeptic Ginger.

Male on Female rape is by far and away the biggest type of rape out there (assuming we aren't including statutory rape which is possibly even higher, although I've not seen any stats) but to claim that a man can't get an erection when he's scared boggles the mind. All the penis needs in the majority of cases is physical stimulation. That's it. Sometimes obviously this won't suffice, all men are different and all situations unique, but honestly, if it all works ok and it's not a painful or overly aggressive stimulation, the guy WILL get an erection.

It's therefore quite simple for a woman who has in some way coerced a man, be it by any number of means, drugs, blackmail, physically overpowering him and so forth to be able to stimulate a man who does not want to have sex with her, and indeed does not find her sexually attractive at all to the point at which she can mount and rape him by making him penetrate her vagina or anus.

Similarly as Uncayimmy stated, when a man is anally penetrated this often results in arousal even if the situation is not remotely pleasant for him. The main male erogenous zone often refered to as the male g-spot is located near the prostate gland in the anus, thus penetrating a man with a dildo, or other.....object (an episode of Law and Order SVU I watched had a guy use a piece of metal piping) can lead him to be hard enough to rape as above, or can be the sole method of rape.

Equally ridiculous and in a similar vein is the assertion that women cannot and do not get aroused during rape. It happens. A lot. Why would it be any different for men? Why would the act of a woman stroking, fondling or sucking on a man's penis be any less likely to produce a reaction than a man raping a woman?

 

[Lyrandar]

From what we've read, being ignorant of everything around you is more likely to make you a victim.

This might be effective for you, but the stats seem to suggest being aware of who and what is around you at all times is the best method of preventing an assault. For all intents and purposes rapists are predators looking for an easy victim.

Ah, well, I should probably specify that I don't have to worry about rape, at least not from your average guy...

And I do keep a higher level of situational awareness when I feel threatened. That's usually when I'm in an unfamiliar area of a city, though - the only time I've felt threatened by someone else's presence in an area I knew was when some delinquent on a subway took occasional glances in his direction as a cue to strike up a conversation with me. I was quite afraid I would provoke a fight somehow (which I assuredly would have lost).

 

[Uncayimmy]

You say that the world is more complex than that, yet in my experience I don't get any strangers talking to me when I sit and stare out the window of the subway, ignoring everything around me.

Define "talking to me" in this context. The way I was brought up it is rude to insert yourself in someone's personal space (even if by necessity on a train) without at least saying something like "excuse me" or "good morning" or "How ya doin'?"

You're right that it's not a 100% clear indicator that that person doesn't want to talk, but that doesn't mean it doesn't indicate anything at all about how open that person wants to be.

Fortunately for us nobody ever said it meant nothing.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that overreactions to minor risk factors are going to or should happen. I think we're focusing more on the "problem" part of such behavior that demonstrates that risk as opposed to the "minor". I don't think that's necessarily wrong either, since part of the point is to fix these problems, and not just the major ones.

I read that twice and still don't understand what you're trying to say.

... this is probably not as important or relevant as I think it is, but I would like to ask - what about those people that have more trouble reading and/or sending social cues? They're going to have a harder time being certain what baggage any innocuous comment carries, I would think. Should they be less cautious, and deal with what to them is a higher risk (since they aren't as certain what's being implied or left unsaid, or what they might inadvertently send) or should they be more cautious in light of having less reliable information? If they choose the latter, are they wrong to do so?

Dealing with socially awkward people can be and is done without ever bringing up rape or escape routes. The fact is, based on very conservative estimates, that 1 in 150,000 stranger encounters results in a rape. She's obviously dealt with these "rude" people countless times without coming to harm. So have lots of other women.

The author, however, seems to be implicitly saying that men shouldn't do it because she (irrationally) perceives a serious risk (she plans escape routes on a bus). There's no mention of women doing it. Or children. What she does not say says a lot about what she does say. So, I dismiss the notion that this was some friendly lecture on picking up on social cues.

I don't think the author of the blog is a person of that type who has trouble reading others, but I do think it matters at least a little, since it'll affect the risk assessments that seem to be the point here.

I think she has lots of trouble reading others. She plans escape routes while on public transportation. When she goes on dates, she leaves the man's name and address by her computer and requires a friend to check in on her the next day.

 

[Furcifer]

Ah, well, I should probably specify that I don't have to worry about rape, at least not from your average guy...

We don't need to know why to know that's a good thing.

And I do keep a higher level of situational awareness when I feel threatened. That's usually when I'm in an unfamiliar area of a city, though - the only time I've felt threatened by someone else's presence in an area I knew was when some delinquent on a subway took occasional glances in his direction as a cue to strike up a conversation with me. I was quite afraid I would provoke a fight somehow (which I assuredly would have lost).

Everyone does, that's just instinct. Men do this as well, and I can say from the few times I've seen it most men will get defensive if we see another being an obnoxious jerk, at another man and especially if it's at a woman.

I can't say for sure, but the guys the author seems to be warning against are probably the most likely to help if a woman was approached on a bus or in an intimate situation by a rapist. Guys that are aggressive towards women in public are usually aggressive towards everyone. That's just an observation on my part.

Unfortunately there aren't always people around and I realize that. I can assure you it isn't just women that get anxious when they are alone, men do to. I just went out a few hours ago and passed a few guys on the street that looked like they were doing a drug deal. One guy happened to notice me and started yelling "What are you looking at?". I was by myself, there were 4 guys, it was the middle of the day, literally 3 blocks from the police station, and I was still frightened. As I walked away the one guy kept shouting and I just ignored him. I wasn't even in danger, I was just being victimized by some low life. It sucks.

I wasn't in danger of dying or being raped, it was a busy street and there were tons of people around. That didn't even factor in to how I felt though, i was scared like my life was in danger even though it wasn't.

So I realize that being scared sucks, but I also realize sometimes it's irrational. You really need to keep a clear head and evaluate the situation as it happens or let the fear take over you.

When I see a woman saying they live in fear and it defines their daily routine, what's wrong with saying "No, take control, evaluate your situation properly, don't let the fear define you"

This author seems to be relying on the fear to make her argument for her. That's not always the best thing.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I understand the phrase. I'm asking what you think I "bought." Your statement made no sense, like most of what you produce.

This is your MO. We're about two posts away from you just being directly obscene.

You told me, "If you think I'm being uncharitable, you're welcome to point it out." I do and I am.

 

[TraneWreck]

You told me, "If you think I'm being uncharitable, you're welcome to point it out." I do and I am.

So you know what he's talking about?

I sincerely have no idea what he means by saying I "bought" her article, and if you think I'm exaggerating about the insults, just go read what was put in the AAH from this thread.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You'd crap your pants if it was a couple cops arresting you on a 5% probability.

You'd lose your mind if your 8 year old niece telling her teacher you were a "Schrodinger's Rapist" because you brushed up against her and wouldn't leave her alone when she was listening to her iPod.

You'd be freaking out if it was a female co-worker telling your boss.

Hmm? You're still trying to equivocate between "Schrödinger's Rapist" and actual rapist, and quite in the bogus circular logic way too.

If a cop actually arrested you for something, you're already implying that it is an accusation of criminal misconduct. Whereas the article made no such implication. A cop would not arrest you just because you happen to be a guy and have a 5% chance of being a rapist, or a 95% chance not to. A cop would would need a clear accusation of doing something illegal. In presuming that it's something a cop would do anything about, you're already assuming it's that kind of an accusation, when that's exactly what's being disputed in the first place.

In the girl example, again, the girl would complain about some actual wrong behaviours, and the accusation of being basically "maybe a rapist, maybe not, and nobody knows" would be a nonsense anyway. You're already implying it's something that would warrant a complaint, much less freaking about.

And if a female co-worker told a boss that basically that I might be a rapist or not, and she has no indication either way, as was basically the whole claim in the article, I'd laugh and tell them that probabilistically I might also be woman (no less than 51% of the population is, after all), or pregnant (almost 5% of women world-wide are at any given time, so that would make it about 2.5% of the total population), or I may already be a winner, and they can call me again when they have more evidence. Not that it would get that far anyway, because any boss would ask for any actual mis-conduct rather than just a general 1/60 probability.

But that's the whole problem actually. All three are supposed to illustrate why it's actually a serious accusation, but they only work that way if you're already assuming that it's a serious accusation. It's a textbook case of begging the question, AKA circular logic.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

One might speculate that men's behaviour is at least partly determined by what aspects of it women reward and reinforce. I.e., if women didn't **** men who behave like macho ****heads then there would be a less men who behaved in that way.

While unfortunately there is a seed of truth there too, at least according to some studies, the thing is: it's not the whole story either. It's not like we have some circuit that accepts positive feedback only from women, or anything. A guy can just as well do dumb things to get the approval of other guys, or respectively a woman can do dumb things to gain the approval of other women. Or just about anyone can do some dumb thing just because they can rationalize it to themselves as the right thing. Etc.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

It isn't simultaneous. If they commit 10 it's 1 in 60, if they commit 11 it's 1 in 66 if they commit 14 it's 1 in 84 if they commit 1 it's 1 in 6. It's a conditional statement.

This is sheer nonsense, time to give it up.

Except it doesn't work that way. Yes, you're spewing sheer nonsense.

For a start, if 1 in 6 men were rapists (which she doesn't say or use anywhere, but just for the sake of addressing your numbers), then 1 in 6 men were rapists. That's it. Committing 1 or 10 or 11 or 14 rapes each would still leave you with 1 in 6 being rapists.

If I say that 1 in 6 chickens in my coup are roosters, then that's it. It doesn't matter if they crow 1 or 10 or 14 times per fortnight, it's still the same number of roosters. What they do and how often, doesn't change their number or percentage of total chickens.

If 1 in 6 people in this company are programmers, then 1 in 6 are programmers and that's that. It doesn't matter if they wrote 1 program each or 10 programs each or 14 programs each. It's still the same number of programmers either way.

It's illogical to say anyone needs to believe 1/6 are programmers to get 1/60 are programmers. If the company has 600 people, you can believe that there are 10 programmers (1/60) or 100 programmers (1/6), but not both. Because only one can be true. Much less require believing the latter to believe the former.

Same for the article. For her to believe that 1/60 of men are rapists, she can't also believe that 1/6 are rapists. One or the other. Either you have basically 25 million rapists in the USA or 2.5 million. You can't believe both at the same time, much less have one be a pre-requisite for the other.

Second, again, the maths doesn't work that way.

If you actually assume 1/6 rapists/men and 10 rapes/rapist and multiply, you get 10/6 rapes/men, not 1/60. To get 1/60 you'd have to divide, in which case you end up with the units being something as stupid as rapists squared per men per rape.

The only maths that actually make sense is to assume, yes, 1/60 rapists/men and multiply by 10 rapes/rapist, giving 1/6 rapes/men ("men" as in, total male population), which is her 1/6 input data after she assumed basically that each woman is only raped once and the male/female ratio is 1 (or close enough for government work.)

Not only she doesn't need your bogus assumption for her maths to work, but actually it would make her maths no longer work at all if she did.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

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.

I'm not sure how that would qualify as rape under their questions if it didn't involve either. Over 60% of the yes results for women were for that first question which explicitly required one, the other, or both. (Again, accounting by itself for 1 in 10 women in the general population, as I already calculated in the other thread.) It hardly leaves a 60% where it's even possible to not have them, because, you know, you can't have 60% women raped _with_ force or threats, and 60% raped without, as it kinda goes above 100%.

Even in the questions about the last rape event, some 41.4% of women were outright physically assaulted in the process. That leaves 58.6% where just those where the actual physical assault is missing in that one attempt. Promoting that wholesale to also basically knowing that there was no other kind of force _or_ threat for that category, is a bit too big a taking a leap of faith. The actual study doesn't say that.

The only numbers I've ever seen you quote that would even vaguely support that, actually say that 43.1% of women (vs 21.3% of men) in the US DOJ report thought they or a relative are in danger of _serious_ injury or death. But even they don't say that everyone else was entirely free from any other threat or force.

At any rate, I see nothing in either report, which would support such an assertion as that 60% (or so) of the rapes happened without any threat or force.

Second, I think then that same objection would apply to the raped men too, and actually even more so. If you see rape as some kind of dichotomy where either there was a physical assault or there was no threat or force at all, which is kinda required for the idea that 60% of those rapes were that way, then the same number for raped men is over 66%. (As only 33.9% were assaulted during their last rape.) And the severity of assaults on women was also higher, with 7 to 14 _times_ more women than men finding themselves on the wrong end of a knife or gun in an assault. (See page 27.) And in the US DOJ report, the number who _didn't_ expect serious harm or death for raped men raises as high as 78.7%. (Only 21.3% were apparently expecting that.)

So I really don't think you want to go down the road of now trying to argue which rapes were really rape-y enough when done against women, without ending up nuking the claim of most raped men in that redefinition too. And neither of us wants to do something that insensitive, right?

PS: Also, oh, since you repeatedly seem bothered that the questions for men didn't include everything, they also reference another study where the question was so generic as whether they were ever forced to do anything sexual against their will. The numbers for that one were 22% of women and 2% of men. (See page 13.) So I think we can put that uncertainty to rest now.

 

[Furcifer]

Except it doesn't work that way. Yes, you're spewing sheer nonsense.

For a start, if 1 in 6 men were rapists (which she doesn't say or use anywhere, but just for the sake of addressing your numbers), then 1 in 6 men were rapists. That's it. Committing 1 or 10 or 11 or 14 rapes each would still leave you with 1 in 6 being rapists.

If I say that 1 in 6 chickens in my coup are roosters, then that's it. It doesn't matter if they crow 1 or 10 or 14 times per fortnight, it's still the same number of roosters. What they do and how often, doesn't change their number or percentage of total chickens.

If 1 in 6 people in this company are programmers, then 1 in 6 are programmers and that's that. It doesn't matter if they wrote 1 program each or 10 programs each or 14 programs each. It's still the same number of programmers either way.

It's illogical to say anyone needs to believe 1/6 are programmers to get 1/60 are programmers. If the company has 600 people, you can believe that there are 10 programmers (1/60) or 100 programmers (1/6), but not both. Because only one can be true. Much less require believing the latter to believe the former.

Same for the article. For her to believe that 1/60 of men are rapists, she can't also believe that 1/6 are rapists. One or the other. Either you have basically 25 million rapists in the USA or 2.5 million. You can't believe both at the same time, much less have one be a pre-requisite for the other.

Second, again, the maths doesn't work that way.

If you actually assume 1/6 rapists/men and 10 rapes/rapist and multiply, you get 10/6 rapes/men, not 1/60. To get 1/60 you'd have to divide, in which case you end up with the units being something as stupid as rapists squared per men per rape.

The only maths that actually make sense is to assume, yes, 1/60 rapists/men and multiply by 10 rapes/rapist, giving 1/6 rapes/men ("men" as in, total male population), which is her 1/6 input data after she assumed basically that each woman is only raped once and the male/female ratio is 1 (or close enough for government work.)

Not only she doesn't need your bogus assumption for her maths to work, but actually it would make her maths no longer work at all if she did.

You've turned this red herring into a white whale haven't you?

It's perfectly clear what she did, she said 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted and then assumed 1 in 6 men are rapists, she then assumed each rapist commits 10 rapes and arrived at her guesstimate of 1 in 60 men are rapists.

Now please, quit playing ignorant. As if it's some coincidence she states 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted and then by magic guesses a rapist commits 10 rapes and ends up with 1 in 60 men are rapists. If she didn't assume that why didn't she end up with 1 in 80? or 1 in 55? It's a multiple of 1 in 6 for a very specific reason and you know it.

This is by far the most bizarre derail I've ever seen. I can't believe you are defending someone who uses the number of sexual assaults over a woman's lifetime to determine the rapist concentration.

 

[Furcifer]

But that's the whole problem actually. All three are supposed to illustrate why it's actually a serious accusation, but they only work that way if you're already assuming that it's a serious accusation. It's a textbook case of begging the question, AKA circular logic.

No, you missed the point entirely.

Tranwreck said he would laugh if anyone called him a "Schrodinger Rapist". Granted the term is somewhat amusing, but we're talking about the consequences of how we think and rationalize treating other people based on assumptions.

It's a very simple concept. If you don't like someone because they rub you the wrong way you don't go around calling them a "rapist".

I realize the author doesn't do this exactly. But she's trying to rationalize thinking this way. We don't define any other group by the extremists within the group, why would we do that with men and rapists?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You've turned this red herring into a white whale haven't you?

It's perfectly clear what she did, she said 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted and then assumed 1 in 6 men are rapists, she then assumed each rapist commits 10 rapes and arrived at her guesstimate of 1 in 60 men are rapists.

Now please, quit playing ignorant. As if it's some coincidence she states 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted and then by magic guesses a rapist commits 10 rapes and ends up with 1 in 60 men are rapists. If she didn't assume that why didn't she end up with 1 in 80? or 1 in 55? It's a multiple of 1 in 6 for a very specific reason and you know it.

No, you just prove again that you don't understand simple English and elementary arithmetic.

This is by far the most bizarre derail I've ever seen. I can't believe you are defending someone who uses the number of sexual assaults over a woman's lifetime to determine the rapist concentration.

But that's an entirely different objection than your "1 in 6 men are rapists" strawman, innit?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

No, you missed the point entirely.

Tranwreck said he would laugh if anyone called him a "Schrodinger Rapist". Granted the term is somewhat amusing, but we're talking about the consequences of how we think and rationalize treating other people based on assumptions.

Actually, assuming they explained it meant she has no way of knowing if I'm a rapist or not, I'd think she's actually a smart woman. I like smart women, actually.

And, really, I see her point. I know who I am[1], she doesn't. For her I'm just some random stranger guy. It's not as much about "me" as about that stranger she's never seen before. Taking a risk assessment is actually the smart thing to do. If nothing else, because next time it won't be me.

Footnote:

[1] And actually even that is actually false. In studies people have repeatedly proven that they're the worst possible judges of their own abilities, humour or character. Just think of all the "I'm not a racist, but <insert horribly racist thing>" or "I'm not sexist, but <insert why the bitch should be in the kitchen instead of having her own job>". Those people genuinely don't see themselves as racists or sexists, yet they are. And in polls it's pretty much a given that any asking people to describe themselves will result in them describing a much better and more acceptable version of themselves, than they really are. And I won't pretend my crap doesn't stink. I'm also the worst possible judge of how good or funny I am, and it's possible to rub someone the wrong way, or be a worst choice than I think. I should hope not in the rape department, but, really, I'm the least qualified to judge that about myself either way. I can't blame someone for taking her own assessment instead of taking my word about something I'm not qualified to judge.

It's a very simple concept. If you don't like someone because they rub you the wrong way you don't go around calling them a "rapist".

Which she doesn't. She says she's not taking you home, not that she'll call you a rapist.

I realize the author doesn't do this exactly.

But if that's not what she says, then the previous quoted paragraph is really at best a red herring and at worst a strawman.

But she's trying to rationalize thinking this way.

No, she doesn't. She never says that at any point she'll think "this guy is a rapist". She even says that she won't know unless someone actually tries to rape her. That's the whole _point_ in the Schrödinger's Rapist quip.

She'll just adjust her risk assessment up or down, but there's no point where she says she'll call you a rapist even in her mind.

We don't define any other group by the extremists within the group, why would we do that with men and rapists?

But we do risk assessments anyway. E.g., try showing up at an airport with a strange metal box or a large bottle of strange liquid in your carry-on luggage, and you may see some over-the-top checks.

I've seen them twice get into overdrive checking just me because of that. First time was a large old camera which, due to the angle, looked even more like something really strange on the X-Ray, and the second time with an all-metal US-Robotics modem. You'd think that by 1990 they'd have heard about a modem, but for the airport cops a big metal box with LEDs and buttons was something to x-ray and test for smelling like any known explosive. (I assume that's what that big vacuum-cleaner machine was doing, anyway.)

Nobody accused me of being an actual terrorist or bomber, but, yes, for a few minutes there, I was "Schrödinger's Bomber" so to speak. Which is a very different thing from being actually accused of being a real bomber.

I didn't mind it much, actually.

 

[Sun Countess]

So, I sit down on the seat next to you and say, "Good morning." According to this woman I have violated you in some way by disrespecting your wishes. If I didn't know before this article what I was doing, I certainly do now, right? Are you, like this author, now planning your escape route should you need to flee?

If you don't continue to press me in a conversation that I don't wish to engage in, I won't think anything of it. If you continue to press me, then I will be thinking that I may need to "escape" your attention in some way.

According to the references Professor Yaffle provided, I might be more likely to be a rapist because they don't respect boundaries like that. Then again, I might be less likely to be a rapist because rapists score lower on the exravert scale, meaning they are less likely to be gregarious or assertive socially.

For me, it's not even about whether you're more likely to rape me or not. If you're annoying me and don't listen to my cues to quit annoying me, you've just become a hassle in my day that I didn't need.

Well, if you're just looking out the window, you haven't made anything clear except that you're looking out the window. If you think that's a clear indicator that you're unwilling to talk, I think you should reconsider that notion. There world's far more complex than that.

That's why it has to go a step farther. If you see me looking out the window and you say hello, and I then make it clear I don't wish to engage in a conversation with a stranger, and you continue from that point, it's actually pretty simple. Somebody who engages somebody who has made it clear that they don't want to engage is somebody who doesn't respect boundaries.

If you continue as you describe, you're sending a clearer message that you're not interested in conversation. Guys do this as well, only most of the men I know don't get all freaked out when somebody, male or female, persists. Some people just don't get social cues, and it's annoying.

Yes. Extremely annoying.

Are you thinking "rapist" when this happens to you? Are you looking for escape routes?

I'm not necessarily thinking rapist. The guy could be a simple creep or pervert, or possibly somebody who's just socially awkward.

Do you believe that anyone needed to be told that? Now, apparently what I needed to be told is that at least one woman plans escape routes on a crowded bus or subway car. I didn't know that. My advice up to now to any woman in peril is to flee towards a crowd, not away from one. I also had no idea that when I'm standing in line at the grocery store and say, "Is that the Android? How do you like it?" that the woman is thinking, "Are you going to rape me?"

She's probably not thinking that. I know I'm not. I'm not against engaging in small talk in a public setting. A grocery store is reasonably safe and people make small talk all the time. I thought the author made it very clear that she was talking about situations where a woman would be vulnerable if you werea dangerous person.

That said, I think her risk assessment is based on a warped perception of reality.

No. It's based on a perception that comes from being in the lower quartile of physical strength. If a good 75% of the people you come across are capable of physically harming you, you make different risk assessments than somebody who's in the 90th percentile.

Be careful. When I said the same thing about myself, I was accused of "chest beating" and repeated choruses of "I'm glad I'm a man."

The reality is that large, physically strong men are not at the same risk as a woman who is much smaller. I don't think it's wrong to recognize that. What was construed as chest-beating was the (paraphrase) "I'm a big huge strong guy and I don't feel this way. Do women really have different challenges than I do?"

I'm an extravert. I strike up conversations all over the place. The other day I was at Souper Salad with my two sons. Some older person was "obviously occupied" choosing a soup. I was waiting behind her. I said, "You gotta try the clam chowder. I'm on my fourth bowl." A very short "conversation" ensued, which must mean that she wasn't interested in talking to me, right? She must have been planning her escape route out of the restaurant.

If she engaged in conversation with you, then she wasn't planning an escape route. I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.

Funny thing, though, next time she got up she stopped at my table to tell me that yes, indeed, that clam chowder was excellent and that she was going to get more. She then told me how cute and well behaved my boys were and chatted with them. I, of course, had my boys say, "Nice to meet you" and give their names.

That's great. You had a mutually pleasant social interaction with a stranger. I have them too. Do I need to tell you a story or will you take me at my word? The author is talking about people who make it clear that they don't want to engage with a stranger.

That's the world I want to live in, not one where every innocuous comment carries with it the baggage of sexual or physical assault or one where every person who struggles with social cues is rated on the Rapist Scale. Sure, I recognize that I'm in the 90th percentile for men when it comes to weight and height, and that I'm a chest beating, chili-dog eating, friendly greeting, kindly treating, bully defeating, never retreating, rock and roll man who's kind to children and dogs, but I still understand how others view risk differently,

I'd like to live in a world where 1 in 6 women weren't raped.

I'd like to live in a world where somebody who's in the 10th percentile when it comes to size and strength could walk around with the exact same risk-free lifestyle as those in the 90th percentile.

I'd like to live in a world where a pleasant conversation with a stranger didn't turn into an expectation that the woman was now more likely to engage in sex with the man who initiated it. She answered his question, that must mean that she now wants to go back to his place and take care of his erection, right? Oh, I get that you probably didn't say that to the lady at the restaurant, and you probably wouldn't say it to any lady on the bus. But speaking as the lady on the bus or the restaurant or the grocery line, I'm telling every man here and now that my pleasant exchange about the weather doesn't mean that the next topic should be your penis or my breasts.

When that happens to you a few times, maybe you'll understand why some women don't like talking to strangers. I would just like to live in a world where men didn't ever do that. "Nice weather today." "Yes it is." "So you wanna give me head or what?" (<--- actual conversation stepping off a bus)

About 1 in 60 adult women will be raped by a stranger in their lifetime. If we very conservatively estimate one stranger encounter per week, that's 2,500 in a 50 year adult lifetime (another conservative number). That means 1 in 150,000 stranger encounters results in a rape. So, I do consider planning escape routes on a subway car to be a disproportional reaction to that threat.

I have never been raped and I've never falsely accused anybody of rape or attempted rape. I've been hassled as described above on several occasions. Tell me what you think a more appropriate reaction should be, proportionate to the actual threat. Keep in mind that my physical stature is best described as "petite."

 

[Furcifer]

No, you just prove again that you don't understand simple English and elementary arithmetic.

Yes, somehow I managed to get a degree and a diploma in science, but I don't understand elementary arithmetic.

Do you see how irrational your arguments are? You're kidding no one but yourself here. There isn't a single person on this forum that doesn't understand arithmetic, and yet you're making the claim here. It's complete nonsense.