Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[SOdhner]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[pitbone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Furcifer]

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

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

 

[Roboramma]

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

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

This bit makes sense to me:

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

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

 

[Furcifer]

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

Apparently.

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

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

We've elected you to tell her though.

 

[pitbone]

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

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

In other words, the article is for you.

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

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

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

 

[Merko]

Instead, you mention something that men can do without any real concern. That's male privilege (and yes, I love it). We get to do things like get smashed around strangers without worrying that not only will we get raped but then people will blame it on us for not being sensible.

This is just completely wrong. First, you should realize that pitbone is simply doing exactly the same as Starling here: offering advice for how women can avoid getting raped. The only difference is that pitbone's advice is much more sensible: avoid going home with unknown men when you're completely drunk, vs constantly suspect every man of being a rapist and never trust your judgement.

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

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

 

[Furcifer]

redacted to the other thread

 

[seewhatflows]

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

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

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

 

[SatanicSheep]

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

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

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

 

[Delvo]

The likelihood of a man getting seriously injured by an unknown man is far greater than that of a woman getting raped by an unknown man. Yet, we do not consider it reasonable for men to constantly worry about this risk.

And sometimes a man who takes even the slightest precautions for it is berated for either being paranoid or "looking for a fight".

 

[Ysidro]

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

Haven't seen this before!

 

[Richard Masters]

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

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

 

[ponderingturtle]

Suspicious.

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

You need to know how they define the terms.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

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

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

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

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

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

Etc.

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

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

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

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

 

[A Lurker]

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

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

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

Q. God, why are you all such bitches?
A. Long story.

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

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

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

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

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

Cyberbullies don't deserve anonymity

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

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

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

And we're all on the streets.

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

1. A misogyst

2. A pervert

3. A "rapey"

Should I sue as well?

I trust now the double standard is achingly clear?

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

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

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

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

Haven't seen this before!

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

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

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

 

[Sun Countess]

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

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

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

I'd think it would depend on the type of rudeness and where it took place. If we're the only two people on the street, and I cross it to avoid having you walk behind me, then I'm okay with you thinking that I'm rude. I have no idea who you are, but on the off-chance that you are a rapist, I need to be able to get away. If you stay on your side of the street, I feel better. If you follow me over, you'd better believe I'll be running to safety, even if you were going to be crossing the street at that point anyway.

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

That was the main point I got from the article.

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

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

Sometimes. Again, it depends on how the man responds. If he's hitting on you and you make it clear you're not interested, then you may worry about what happens when it's time for you to leave the club. If some guy kept looking at me all night because I rejected him, you'd better believe I'd be getting an escort out to my car.

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

If you're a man walking down the street alone, and you hear footsteps behind you, do you even consider that the man following may rob you or bash your head in with a bottle? Remember too that for women, it's not just the fear of a sexual assault, but also common assault and robbery. We're generally smaller than men so I think our fears are grounded in critical thought. If I notice it's an old man walking behind me, I'm not going to be afraid at all because I know I could take him in either a footrace or a wrestling match.

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

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

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

Exactly. Thank you.

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

That's exactly what it is. It's not paranoia and it's not about actually thinking that any one man is going to want to rape you. If you don't know him, you need to be on alert, even if your reactions to a totally innocent request may come off as rude in the moment.

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

That's exactly it again. Nobody is advocating that all women carry pepper spray and hold it up to the face of any man who approaches you. If the woman doesn't know you personally, don't take it personally. That's the whole point. She doesn't know you, and even if there's a 95% chance in her own mind that you're a safe guy, she's taking precaution in case you're really in that 5%.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

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

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

deleted: duplicate post