Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[Professor Yaffle]

2%-16% of the male population should be convicted of a serious criminal act and put in prison for years at a time?

That sounds expensive.

Ee well maybe that makes it a good thing that most of the crimes don't get reported, eh Ivor? Can't be locking away people who commit serious crimes if, heaven forbid, it will cost money...

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ee well maybe that makes it a good thing that most of the crimes don't get reported, eh Ivor? Can't be locking away people who commit serious crimes if, heaven forbid, it wil cost money...

Actually I wouldn't mind paying to lock up so many dicks and womens' poor choices. It would skew the ratio of men-women so much I would have a much better bargaining position.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Actually I wouldn't mind paying to lock up so many dicks and womens' poor choices. It would skew the ratio of men-women so much I would have a much better bargaining position.

I wouldn't bet on it. Maybe if you kept your mouth shut?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Any stats on correlations between SES and rape?

 

[stilicho]

Suspicious.

Well, I'm convinced.

Here are broader statistics. The likelihood for college women is higher, and considering the greater amount of risky behavior college students engage in. So, what's the basis for your incredulity?

The statistics change:

1 in 8 college women is the victim of rape during her college years. 1 in 4 is the victim of attempted rape.
95% of these rape victims did not report the rape to officials.

Yet:

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

Those statistics are listed together yet they don't mean the same thing. One means that 37.5% are raped or the victim of attempted rape; the other means 25.0% are.

Considering that rapes per 100,000 in the US as a whole hovers around 32 (about 90,000 to 95,000 a year) we can do the arithmetic fairly easily. The female enrollment at US universities is around 9,500,000 so the source you use predicts well over 1.1 million rapes a year or about 12 times more than actually occur (or reported and distributed) throughout the entire population.

If universities are about as safe as elsewhere, that 1.1 million figure you've suggested would dwindle to about 3,000. 3,000 is a far more reasonable number than the one you've cited. It's still too high by any calculation but nowhere near the 1.1 million rapes expected.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I wouldn't bet on it. Maybe if you kept your mouth shut?

But then how would women learn to appreciate (and come to love) my unique points of view?

What are the reasons for so many men raping women? Is it just an expected result of a differential in sex drive, or is it more to do with environment and upbringing?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

2%-16% of the male population should be convicted of a serious criminal act and put in prison for years at a time?

That sounds expensive.

In addition to what the professor said, the underlying assumption there seems to be that more stringent applying the law would have no effect on the crime rate. That doesn't seem to be the case.

In fact, some would even argue that the probability of being caught is actually an even bigger factor than exactly how big the punishment is. And as an anecdotal example, see the middle ages and renaissance, where disproportionately higher punishments and a disproportionately higher probability to evade the law, well, meant a lot of crime. As we had an increasingly good police and justice system, it didn't end up meaning we put half the population in jail for theft and murder, but actually that the incidence and prevalence of those crimes dropped.

And even for rape, _something_ must be having an effect on incidence rates, since they dropped 65% since 1993 and 6 _times_ since 1980. (So, yes, if you took the same poll in 20 years, you'll probably get a lot less than 1 in 6 raped.) There is a compelling case for the existence of internet porn as a factor, as supposedly now a lot more people are doing that instead of thinking they must get real pussy at all cost, but at any rate the correlation between internet access and the drop in rape incidents reported is pretty hard to dismiss. But equally a case is being made by many for it basically being more reported these days, and society being less inclined to blame the victim (not I said "less" not "not at all"), so basically the potential perps feel less like they could get away with it.

So basically it seems to me like a more realistic expectation would be that _if_ we could somehow get better at it, the result wouldn't be putting 2-16% in jail, but rather maybe putting 1% in jail and 1-15% getting the idea to find something else to do. Of course, it's _hard_ to get better at it without erring on the other side, so I'm not particularly blaming the justice system or anything, but just saying.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

What are the reasons for so many men raping women? Is it just an expected result of a differential in sex drive, or is it more to do with environment and upbringing?

I don't think anyone will ever truly know.

I don't think anyone has such a high sex drive that it overrides their judgment entirely. Or in other words, I don't think men are really wired to think with their dick.

And again the rate has varied by 6 times since 1980, so it can't be IMHO something hard wired. Whatever makes a difference there, it wouldn't be that big if it had to go against some biological drive.

Plus, there are rapes around which clearly happen for reasons having nothing to do with some impulsive reaction based on sex drive. Or even with sex drive at all. E.g., the aberration known as "corrective rape" in which some lesbian is raped, supposedly to show her how much better it is with a Real Man and turn her hetero. (Well, ok, that's so stupid that maybe some _do_ think with their dick.) E.g., historically there have been a lot of women raped as a way to marry into money or get hanged for trying: because raping some wealthier guy's daughter made her harder to marry, and there _is_ some biblical encouragement to marry her to the rapist, it was essentially a way for the rapist to climb the social ladder. In both cases it's hard to argue some momentary lapse of reason, as a result of sex drive, as in that case the perp wouldn't have time to also determine on the spot if that's a lesbian or respectively her father's net worth. And since not all daughters of a moderately wealthier peasant would be supermodel, I'd assume in some cases there wouldn't even be much of a sexual attraction at all; think more like hard work to get her dowry, than sexual gratification.

 

[stilicho]

I don't know where you're pulling your data from, but the NVAWS breaks it down. The 12 to 17 age group is by far the most at risk:

Spouse (current/former): 20%
Live-in Partner (current/former): 4%
Date (current/former): 22%
Relative other than Spouse: 22%

Rape really is related to the family unit then. This isn't surprising. Men convicted of rape outside the family unit start at home and if it's unreported there then they become a menace to society as a whole.

Time to rethink the concept of "family"?

 

[SOdhner]

These 25 men by far pose the greatest risk to her, yet it seems to me this is the group of men that women are the least concerned about. By contrast a woman encounters countless strangers in her lifetime, and they represent the least amount of risk outside of relatives. This, it seems, is the group women are most concerned about.

That makes perfect sense, though. When you meet someone you are most on guard, and once they are past your defenses you are most vulnerable to them but since that situation exists BECAUSE you are now less suspicious of them...

Think of it like this: how do you think someone goes from stranger to acquaintance to intimate partner? It starts with saying hello to her on the bus, right? So if she sees some behavior that sends up a red flag... and then we're back to the point of the article.

 

[Furcifer]

Thats just not true. Whilst the highest age category for rape in adults is the 16-19 year old group, there are still significant numbers in the other age groups. And the change in numbers is probably at least partially due to the changes in numbers of women who are single, which changes the opportunities for date rape. So if you are still single in your twenties or early thirties you are still very much at risk.

It depends on how you define risk and "very much".

ETA: I see UY has posted some stats, probably better to work form those but too late. The numbers I use here are from the numerous reports cited in this thread and others. Back of the envelope.

If you break down the population statistics, the number of rapes, how they occur and who commits them, the scenarios described by the author ie; going out on a date with a guy or talking to them on the bus are extremely low.

There are approximately 300 000 rapes reported in the US. 450 000 unreported from the stats. 30% happen within the age group you mentioned or around 135 000. For sake of argument because the stats are hard to read, around 50% of those happen in a relationship or at a home (either way it suggests someone you "know" not just are acquainted with) that's around 67500. The population pyramid from the US survey is hard to read but about 11.4% of the female population or male are in the mentioned age group. That's 17.5 million women and men.

That's 0.38%,which is very close to the national average of 4000 in 100000. This works out to be around 1 in 265.

Now I'm not saying this is "better" or "acceptable", but it's not 1 in 60. You can't use this lifetime stat to formulate and accurate probability the guy you meet at the gym or on the bus is a "rapist".

When the author says "This is why women live in fear" and "Men don't worry about being violently assaulted or murdered because of this" and goes on to butcher a stat to prove it I don't see what the big problem is in pointing it out it's not exactly correct. Being correct shouldn't marginalize victims, it's still a problem for society whether it's 1 in 6 or 1 in 600.

 

[Furcifer]

Think of it like this: how do you think someone goes from stranger to acquaintance to intimate partner? It starts with saying hello to her on the bus, right? So if she sees some behavior that sends up a red flag... and then we're back to the point of the article.

So some hard working guy on the bus decides to approach you and because he's worked all day in the sun and sweats that's a red flag? Because he had garlic sauce on his submarine that's a red flag?

Obviously not, but the author seems to suggest it. "You know you stink but here's my number, call me for coffee, after you take a shower and have a tic-tac"

or "You are invading my personal space with your stank, your potential for being a rapist is increasing to the point of discomfort, I'm going to scream"

Is what the author claiming really about "Schrodinger's Rapist" or is it just about having some common sense and realizing a woman isn't interested in you?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Except again even that's not what the article actually says. That is, if you'd actually read the article instead of making up stuff to get preaching about. The actual phrase she uses is "if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness". So, really, I get it that you like making up strawmen that much, but how do you get from "truly unusual" to something common, and from "cleanliness" to "had some garlic in his sub"?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Applying a crude population statistic to an individual when there are probably more important factors to consider (e.g., age, socioeconomic status, drug and alcohol use, aggressiveness, etc.) is rather pointless. Basically all the woman who wrote the article has discovered is that (a minority of) men rape women. She has done no work to try to identify what other personal characteristics can be used to estimate the likelihood of a particular man being a (potential) rapist, other than reeling off a list of her biases against men's appearance.

 

[bookitty]

Applying a crude population statistic to an individual when there are probably more important factors to consider (e.g., age, socioeconomic status, drug and alcohol use, aggressiveness, etc.) is rather pointless. Basically all the woman who wrote the article has discovered is that (a minority of) men rape women. She has done no work to try to identify what other personal characteristics can be used to estimate the likelihood of a particular man being a (potential) rapist, other than reeling off a list of her biases against men's appearance.

Go read the article again.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Go read the article again.

Just done that. I still haven't seen her mention any personal characteristics in the article which would allow a women to more accurately estimate the likelihood of a particular man being a rapist. Perhaps you'd like to quote some of them and provide supporting evidence to justify their use?

I think the following section highlights the woman's level of neurosis:

Pay attention to the environment. Look around. Are you in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a woman and try to strike up a conversation. The same applies if you are alone with a woman in most public places. 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. Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach her.

I think her work as a PI has made her rather cynical and somewhat paranoid.

This is the same kind of crap which makes men think twice before approaching young children for fear of being thought of as a pedophile.

 

[Furcifer]

Except again even that's not what the article actually says. That is, if you'd actually read the article instead of making up stuff to get preaching about. The actual phrase she uses is "if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness". So, really, I get it that you like making up strawmen that much, but how do you get from "truly unusual" to something common, and from "cleanliness" to "had some garlic in his sub"?

Are you kidding me?

You're just being obtuse. I suppose it's a strawman to say she doesn't want a guy with a dismembered Virgin Mary tattooed on his face to approach her because WHAT SHE ACTUALLY SAID IS: "tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck"

Oh yah, and it's a strawman to say if you've got garlic breath and haven't brushed your teeth today that's OK because WHAT SHE ACTUALLY SAID IS: buffalo breath

We get it Hans, you read a list of fallacies and now it's your "word of the day". You lack of comprehension is appalling, please stop with your "If it isn't literal it's a strawman".

 

[bookitty]

Just done that. I still haven't seen her mention any personal characteristics in the article which would allow a women to more accurately estimate the likelihood of a particular man being a rapist. Perhaps you'd like to quote some of them and provide supporting evidence to justify their use?

Please reread the entire fourth point:

If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem.

As for this:

"Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach her."

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.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Please reread the entire fourth point:

Oh, I did. While I may agree with her that email stalker guy is engaging in behaviour which identifies him as being at a higher risk of progressing to a more serious offence, she then takes it to an absurd extreme with this:

So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.

I know a guy like this at work (I'm an engineer, so I've met my fair share of odd people). He will not shut up. Personally I think he's just not very good at picking up when people aren't interested in what he's saying rather than being a potential rapist.

As for this:


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.

Is she struggling with some heavy bags or a child in a push chair? How about "Can I help you with those/that?"

 

[bookitty]

It blows my mind how many guys want to argue that fourth point. Especially this:

It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.

"That doesn't mean you're a rapist! What if she and I are destined to date! It's not that bad! She's paranoid! She should just say jerk!"

So are you guys all butthurt about being called a potential rapist? Because it's either that or you find something fundamentally wrong with a woman who doesn't desire to speak with you.