Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[Furcifer]

Except she isn't using any faulty interpretation of statistics, she's using a real one for that 1 in 60 figure, and makes it very clear what she means. It's just you who seem to have a problem that someone even consider that a stranger could, possibly, have a 1 in 60 chance of being a rapist. Because that's all that "potential" means.

And I still don't see you addressing that, you just do an act of repeating the same strawmen and non-sequiturs if that gives you some self-righteous soapbox from which to tell women what to think and how to live their lives.

I'd maybe even see a point if it were based on something she actually says. But doing your own slew of fallacies to accuse someone who doesn't of being illogical, is kinda funny. In a sad clown kinda way.

Do you have any evidence to support this each rapist commits 10 rapes nonsense? No, I didn't think so. Because she made it up and Tranwreck lied. I know this, it only takes 1 rape to make someone a rapist.

You can't use the 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted to formulate any number on the "concentration of rapists". Her baseline assumption that there is a direct relation between the number of sexual assaults reported in a survey and the number of rapists is faulty. "If" they commit 10, which we don't know there still isn't a 1 in 60 concentration. "If" they commit 1, which we do know there still isn't a 1 in 6 concentration of rapists.

Your defense of the author's poor use of stats is hilarious. The author doesn't even clarify if these 10 rapes she made up were against different women. She seems to be implying every rapist is a serial rapist, but you can't go on her use of statistics to determine this. I don't know if she realizes it's much more likely that multiple rapes occur by the same person on the same person.

 

[TraneWreck]

You start out an unknown entity, that's all. Then, by your actions, you make yourself more or less frightening.

I continue to be amazed that this is so difficult to understand.

 

[TraneWreck]

[...]

Your defense of the author's poor use of stats is hilarious. The author doesn't even clarify if these 10 rapes she made up were against different women. She seems to be implying every rapist is a serial rapist, but you can't go on her use of statistics to determine this. I don't know if she realizes it's much more likely that multiple rapes occur by the same person on the same person.

Your demand for specificity here is just a waste of time.

Here are the author's questionable assumptions:

1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted. There have been number of links to support this. Going from victims to assailants, however, assumes that there are an equal number of men and women. This isn't true, but the difference isn't significant.

Now the author, in order to establish the basis of her concern, grants an absurdly conservative estimate that the average perpetrator of rape commits 10 offenses. This would mean that a group of males that basically represents 1 out of every 60 men will be responsible for the number of sexual assaults.

There is literally no way that the average assailant commits 10 offenses, that's way high.

So even granting an absurdly high number, the risk is very real, and thus the author's point is made.

What do you think it will prove if a more specific number is arrived at? Do you have any reason to think it will change a single point she made?

 

[ThunderChunky]

The risk assessment is not just "will this man rape me on this bus?" That's a strawman argument. Most rapes are committed by someone "known to" the victim. If you are ignoring her cues and refusing to acknowledge her boundaries, that's a good indication that she doesn't want to know you,

That's nice, but she cannot speak for all women. There are some women who will give negative cues before you even say a single word but warm up to you when you've shown some personality. In fact, some women may appreciate the fact that you weren't scared away by a bitchy attitude in the first 5 seconds of the interaction and actually tried to get to know them.

 

[Furcifer]

Hey, did any one of you guys actually read the comments on that article? Because the women there answered every one of the arguments that's been brought up here. Every single one. In great detail.

In the comments:

a. the "this is just like racism" argument is covered, and in a different way than it's been covered here.
b. if any women post that they think the 1 in 6 women are rape victims stat is wrong, it is because, according to their own experience, it seems too LOW. None of them thinks it's incredible or even surprising. (And neither do I, fwiw.) Doesn't that give you pause at all? NONE of the women think 1 in 6 is surprising. Perhaps you think it can't possibly be true because women usually don't talk to men about having been raped...is that in the realm of possibility?
c. the "this is so mean and impolite and I'm just trying to be NICE" argument is covered.
d. the men, by and large, start out refusing to listen to the women trying to tell them about what it is like to be a woman living in the world. I'm willing to bet that gets old fast.
e. the links for where the 1-in-6 stats come from are provided, so all of you saying "yeah, but it might include this" or "yeah, but it might not include that" can actually find out for reals where the numbers come from.


If you do go read the comments, you might be uncomfortable with the way the comments are modded. You might feel that the mods are too quick to ban. I get the feeling that these women have heard these arguments over and over again, and in their own spaces (like their own blogs) they don't need to hear the same stuff AGAIN. So in order to have a safe space to discuss their own issues, they ban the people who come seeking to shame, humiliate, or threaten. They also ban those who refuse to listen, because it is their space and every woman alive has already put up with too much "what you think and feel is irrational and I will tell you why." I mention this because I originally felt they were too quick to ban, until I gave it a little more thought. Actually, I still think they were a LITTLE quick to ban, but I understand why they have such a strict policy.

So go read it, if you have questions or concerns about what you THINK this woman is saying. She and others address everything you've brought up. Comments are closed, which means I was forced to keep my mouth shut and just listen to what they had to say. (Forced to keep my fingers still and just read?)

My 2 cents, since this thread isn't closed: 1 in 6 women has been raped or sexully assaulted. I'm pretty sure that figure doesn't include childhood sexual abuse, either. So when you are approaching the pretty lady on the bus, there's a 1 in 6 chance that she's a survivor of sexual assault. Why do you think it's okay to assume that her risk assessment is irrational? Would you tell anyone else with PTSD that their risk assessment is irrational?

Oh, and one more thing, which is covered in the comments but which I think is too important not to mention here:

The risk assessment is not just "will this man rape me on this bus?" That's a strawman argument. Most rapes are committed by someone "known to" the victim. If you are ignoring her cues and refusing to acknowledge her boundaries, that's a good indication that she doesn't want to know you, not because you're gonna throw her down right that second, but because not respecting her boundaries is the kind of thing that might lead you to rape her later on, when you are "known to" her.

You start out an unknown entity, that's all. Then, by your actions, you make yourself more or less frightening.

I read a lot of the responses, not all of them though there were thousands.

That's exactly why I know the 1 in 6 men are rapists was being bantered about. The people defending the author here didn't really read much else is my only guess.

The article read very much like "Women live in constant fear because 1 in 6 men are potential rapists" The responses seem to support this.

Did the author say this? No not exactly, although you can easily see in the responses how it was misconstrued. Why? Because she says "Even if..."

There's no extra safety afforded in knowing 1 in 60 men commits a rape if they commit 10 of them. Think about it, if there are 60 men in her gym one of them is looking for 10 women to rape.

Is there anything wrong with the article beyond how she's used the stats somewhat improperly? Not really, other than that it's a pretty sincere explanation of how women see men that approach them. Is it a little overblown in the way it seems to say 1 in 6 men are rapists? Perhaps, but that's only a problem when it becomes a problem.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Do you have any evidence to support this each rapist commits 10 rapes nonsense? No, I didn't think so. Because she made it up and Tranwreck lied. I know this, it only takes 1 rape to make someone a rapist.

You can't use the 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted to formulate any number on the "concentration of rapists". Her baseline assumption that there is a direct relation between the number of sexual assaults reported in a survey and the number of rapists is faulty. "If" they commit 10, which we don't know there still isn't a 1 in 60 concentration. "If" they commit 1, which we do know there still isn't a 1 in 6 concentration of rapists.

Your defense of the author's poor use of stats is hilarious. The author doesn't even clarify if these 10 rapes she made up were against different women. She seems to be implying every rapist is a serial rapist, but you can't go on her use of statistics to determine this. I don't know if she realizes it's much more likely that multiple rapes occur by the same person on the same person.

Actually, as I was saying, we do have some statistics, and a link has been posted at least twice. Here's a third time, maybe this time we'll actually read it: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/

120 in 1882 men self-identified as rapists in that survey. Do you understand? One in 1882/120, or 1 in 15.7 men is a self-assessed rapist.

ETA: and 4% of the men (1 in 25) actually averaged almost 6 rapes each. So really, when she looks around her, the correct number is not just that 1 in 16 men is a rapist, but also 1 in 25 is a repeat rapist. Do you see any reason why she shouldn't assume that 1 in 25, if she started dating them, would add a 7'th notch to their score?

So, yes, technically she calculates the wrong risk number. She UNDERestimates the risk by a whole 4 time. She's even more at risk than she thinks, actually. Four times more, to be precise.

You're just doing a red herring, basically. When the numbers not only support her risk assessment, but actually a 4 times higher risk, that's that. Trying to divert the discussion into irrelevant details as to exactly what is the average per man, is a red herring.

And since you challenge me to support assertions (which I just did,) then please do the same. If you want to argue risk to women, please do use the numbers supported by a study, instead of appeals to personal incredulity, strawmen and non-sequiturs.

And it's an even more... weird red herring when actually your assertions would not support your point, and actually make the risk to her even higher. If each rapist actually only commited 1 rape, like you seem to argue, that would make the number of rapists even higher than 1 in 6. Because some women are raped repeatedly, and incidence does not equal prevalence. So if it were so, actually she'd be even _more_ entitled to be cautious.

But at any rate, 1 in 6 being rapists is your own strawman. _You_ came up with that number, not she. If it bothers you, stop doing it. If _your_ maths end up in something ridiculous, it should be a sign that _you_ need to revise _your_ assumptions that went into it. Not a sign that you can blame her for your broken results.

Furthermore, it's stupid and/or dishonest to pretend to mis-understand what average numbers mean. She doesn't say that it takes 10 rapes to make you a rapist or anything. So arguing basically "she's wrong, it only takes one" is again you arguing with your own strawmen. That's again your own distortion, and fully irrelevant to her point too.

 

[Furcifer]

What do you think it will prove if a more specific number is arrived at? Do you have any reason to think it will change a single point she made?

A fair risk assessment that eliminates irrational fear of being attacked or raped.

Her point is well taken. I think however most men aren't stupid and realize women are at a much higher risk of becoming victims of sexual assault.

Pointing that out serves some purpose, but I can see the apprehension at being referred to as a rapist. It's one thing to approach a woman in a parking garage at 2am, another to approach her at the gym or on a bus at rush hour.

While she admits there's a sliding scale, and the risk assessment changes with a given situation, she doesn't go far enough to say what that risk assessment is only "it isn't 0, it's never 0"

Is it 50%? Or is it 0.001%, because 50% is irrational, 0.001% is. The way she leaves it hanging is somewhat questionable, but again,doesn't or shouldn't detract from her overall point, that their is always "some" risk assessment.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

*sigh* _Again_

1. Nowhere does she say irrational fear, that's your own non-sequitur.

2. Just because you don't know exactly how her risk assessment works, doesn't mean you can fill in with your own strawmen. Don't know means don't know.

 

[Furcifer]

Actually, as I was saying, we do have some statistics, and a link has been posted at least twice. Here's a third time, maybe this time we'll actually read it: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/

We already know college age women are at a much higher risk of date rape. It stand to reason it's because of college age men

It's a serious issue and many schools have programs and information seminars to alert young women to the threat.

Now please tell me you aren't foolish enough to believe the survey of 1882 college age men is applicable to the general population at large. I don't think you have any clue how statistics work.

 

[Furcifer]

*sigh* _Again_

1. Nowhere does she say irrational fear, that's your own non-sequitur.

2. Just because you don't know exactly how her risk assessment works, doesn't mean you can fill in with your own strawmen. Don't know means don't know.

You're just not good at reading comprehension are you?

She says woman's daily routine is defined by the constant threat of being violently assaulted or murdered and men don't understand because they aren't subject to the same threat.

That's irrational for two reasons, one because your daily routine need not be defined by the constant threat of being murdered or violently assaulted, and second it's irrational to assume men aren't afraid of dying or being violently assaulted. I can assure you men don't want that to happen to them as much as women don't want that to happen to them.

I can certainly question her risk assessment if it's based in incorrect or misconstrued data and leads to irrational risk assessment as defined by her nonsensical or deliberately inflammatory statements.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

So basically, you don't have better numbers, but you feel qualified to take a conclusion and dish out advice based on... what? Your own wild guesses? Personal incredulity?

But, really, what would your guess be? Let's even go that route.

Someone has to commit all those 1 in 6 women rapes, right? And they weren't women. Out of 8000 women in that survey less than 5 had been raped by other women. So that amounts for 99.94% of women being raped by men.

How many rapists do you estimate, and therefore what average of rapes per rapist? It's a simple inverse relationship. You push one down, the other goes up. You disagree to her guessed average of 10. Ok. What average do _you_ guess? I'll trust your superior intellect there.

1 rape per rapist, like you seemed to argue before? I already did the calculation of what that means, based on the current rape rates, in the other thread. Granted, that was for the wrong assumption that each woman would only be raped once, but the numbers end up pretty much the same. That would make 1 in 4 men a rapist.

Yes, that's actually more than the 1 in 6 women raped, because some experienced multiple rapes. As I was saying, incidence does not equal prevalence. If we're working back from incidence and assume only 1 rape per rapist ever, we end up with 1 in 4.

How would that support the assumption that she shouldn't be affraid? If actually it were only 1 rape per rapist, then each guy around her would have a lifetime chance of 1 in 4 to be or become a rapist. I'm pretty sure even _I_ would be freaking terrorized, if that many guys around me were a risk to assault me.

So I'm guessing you're not going to guess 1 rape per rapist either. What number do you guess?

 

[elipse]

I read a lot of the responses, not all of them though there were thousands.

That's exactly why I know the 1 in 6 men are rapists was being bantered about. The people defending the author here didn't really read much else is my only guess.

The article read very much like "Women live in constant fear because 1 in 6 men are potential rapists" The responses seem to support this.

Did the author say this? No not exactly, although you can easily see in the responses how it was misconstrued. Why? Because she says "Even if..."

There's no extra safety afforded in knowing 1 in 60 men commits a rape if they commit 10 of them. Think about it, if there are 60 men in her gym one of them is looking for 10 women to rape.

Is there anything wrong with the article beyond how she's used the stats somewhat improperly? Not really, other than that it's a pretty sincere explanation of how women see men that approach them. Is it a little overblown in the way it seems to say 1 in 6 men are rapists? Perhaps, but that's only a problem when it becomes a problem.

It does not "seem to say" 1 in 6 men are rapists. It says nothing of the kind. It MEANS nothing of the kind. It estimates 1 in 60. If you have a problem with that, show us why. The only person in the original comment thread claiming the "1 in 6 men are rapists" was, like you, misreading. It got corrected, over and over, both in the comments to that person who misread, and here, to you. You are also misunderstanding the way the math works here, even though it has been explained to you. You even seem to think that complaining that most men don't commit 10 rapes bolsters your argument that the number of men who are rapists is too high, when in fact the opposite is true. She is deliberately making the estimated number of average rapes high, in order to CONSERVATIVELY estimate the number of rapists. Do the math yourself; this is simple, so long as you start with the actual statistics she is using, not the ones you are pretending she is using.


Of course, you are missing the entire point of the article, but let's fix this problem before tackling that one.

 

[Furcifer]

Except that's not what she actually says. And yes, I've actually just re-read the article, looking for such a "1 in 6 men are rapists" and there is none. The calculation starts at, and this is the actual quote, "One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime" not at "1 in 6 men are rapists."

You accuse TraneWreck of being a liar, but there you flat out make up a lie as a quote to base your self-righteous BS on.

It amazes me how people can be deliberately dense to try and prove their argument.

In order to get from 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted she makes the incorrect assumption 1 in 6 men are rapists. She further confounds it by claiming erroneously rapists commit 10 rapes to arrive at 1 in 60. YOU CAN'T DO THIS.

Watch.

1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted. College women are 4 times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault. If every man commits 1 rape, 2/3 of the men in college are rapists. If you believe the 1 in 4 figure someone mentioned earlier, EVERY SINGLE MAN IN COLLEGE IS A RAPIST

This is a piss poor way of trying to legitimize calling every man you meet a "Schrodinger's Rapist". The most obvious of which is not every sexual assault is rape.

 

[bookitty]

It amazes me how people can be deliberately dense to try and prove their argument.

In order to get from 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted she makes the incorrect assumption 1 in 6 men are rapists. She further confounds it by claiming erroneously rapists commit 10 rapes to arrive at 1 in 60. YOU CAN'T DO THIS.

Watch.

1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted. College women are 4 times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault. If every man commits 1 rape, 2/3 of the men in college are rapists. If you believe the 1 in 4 figure someone mentioned earlier, EVERY SINGLE MAN IN COLLEGE IS A RAPIST

This is a piss poor way of trying to legitimize calling every man you meet a "Schrodinger's Rapist". The most obvious of which is not every sexual assault is rape.

Ok, simple question - What percentage of men do you think are rapists?

 

[TraneWreck]

It amazes me how people can be deliberately dense to try and prove their argument.

In order to get from 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted she makes the incorrect assumption 1 in 6 men are rapists. She further confounds it by claiming erroneously rapists commit 10 rapes to arrive at 1 in 60. YOU CAN'T DO THIS.

Watch.

1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted. College women are 4 times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault. If every man commits 1 rape, 2/3 of the men in college are rapists. If you believe the 1 in 4 figure someone mentioned earlier, EVERY SINGLE MAN IN COLLEGE IS A RAPIST

This is a piss poor way of trying to legitimize calling every man you meet a "Schrodinger's Rapist". The most obvious of which is not every sexual assault is rape.

Again, you're requiring a specificity that is useless to the point at issue. She is granting overly broad assumptions and still arrives at a highly disturbing number.

If 1 in 6 women are assaulted, who is committing the crime? We know about 99% of those acts are perpetrated by men, so if the population of men and women is about the same and every sexual assault is perpetrated by a different man, then 1 in 6 will be criminals.

But we know each assault isn't committed by a different person, so how many do each perform? Granting an insanely generous assumption that the average is 10/molester (we know it's lower) we still arrive at a scary number.

So again, if you want perfect numbers, go ahead and figure them out, but under what scenario would the basic premise be falsified?

What if your perfect numbers showed that 1 in 100 men were rapists? That's still way too much raping, and would be more than enough to justify the mild requests made in that article.

 

[Furcifer]

Ok, simple question - What percentage of men do you think are rapists?

Based on the statistics 0.23% of the US population of men. If we assume 60% go unreported, as the data suggests about 0.575% of men are rapists.

That's 1 in 174.

 

[Cavemonster]

she makes the incorrect assumption 1 in 6 men are rapists.

How many times have you been corrected on this?

 

[elipse]

Watch.

1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted. College women are 4 times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault. If every man commits 1 rape, 2/3 of the men in college are rapists. If you believe the 1 in 4 figure someone mentioned earlier, EVERY SINGLE MAN IN COLLEGE IS A RAPIST

This is a piss poor way of trying to legitimize calling every man you meet a "Schrodinger's Rapist". The most obvious of which is not every sexual assault is rape.

Wait...You believe that every man who commits rape does so once, to one woman, one time? That's why you keep insisting that " 1 out of 6 women raped" = "1 out of 6 men are rapists?"

I'm stunned. I'm floored. Please tell me that's not the logic you are using.
I wouldn't believe that it is, except that I can't see any other way your reasoning makes sense.

And, again, you're missing the entire point of the article. We can discuss that once this...error is taken care of.

 

[bookitty]

Based on the statistics 0.23% of the US population of men. If we assume 60% go unreported, as the data suggests about 0.575% of men are rapists.

That's 1 in 174.

Please show your work. What statistics?

 

[Furcifer]

So again, if you want perfect numbers, go ahead and figure them out, but under what scenario would the basic premise be falsified?

What if your perfect numbers showed that 1 in 100 men were rapists? That's still way too much raping, and we be more than enough to justify the mild requests made in that article.

It's about 1 in 174.

Even that's too much raping.

However, it's almost exactly the same as the crime rate 4.9%.

Thus caution is warranted whenever you meet someone, man or woman.

Her mild requests are certainly justified, but it's a fallacy to say it's something exclusive to women. It's a crazy world and everyone needs to be cautious, and not just because some men rape.