Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[TraneWreck]

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

[...]

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

If 1 in 60 men are rapists, the number of rapists is lower with respect to the general population than if 1 in 6 men are rapists.

In the first case, in a population of 600 men, 10 will be rapists, in the second case, 100 will be rapists. The first case has fewer rapists.

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

Right, but that's just one half of the modification.

It's acquaintance plus a certain pattern of behavior, namely ignoring women's decisions.

Take the commenter talking about the man who followed her home from the bus. What are the odds that he's a rapist?

There's really no good way to tell, and this is the population of people that the article is frustrated with and most of the comments are directed at.

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

The article is aimed at all men. The fear and concern is saved for men who behave in a certain way. The entire point is that not behaving in those ways would make women more comfortable.

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

I fail to see how that's any different that what I said:

"women who are raped later in life are often sexually abused when they're younger, as your stats show."

 

[Furcifer]

Haha. Wow.

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your news letter

 

[TraneWreck]

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your news letter

I'm flattered by your interest, but I'm not sure you'd get much out of the letter. It's in English and we deal with a lot of basic arithmetic, so it's probably a little challenging for you.

You might want to try something more your speed, like a tv station that only shows one color or Time magazine.

 

[Elizabeth I]

And no man is ever asked if he is forced to insert his penis in a vagina or anus.

Unfair though this may be, don't you think perhaps it's due to the relative rarity of the occurrence, and the fact that physiological considerations would make it, while perhaps not impossible, difficult to force a man to do any such thing? I guess you could force-feed someone Viagra, but under any other circumstances, such an act seems to me to verge on the improbable.

 

[Furcifer]

If 1 in 60 men are rapists, the number of rapists is lower with respect to the general population than if 1 in 6 men are rapists.

In the first case, in a population of 600 men, 10 will be rapists, in the second case, 100 will be rapists. The first case has fewer rapists.

Fewer serial rapists. You don't seem to know the difference between a rapist that commits a single rape and a predator that commits multiple rapes and how that affects the statistics. You're not kidding anyone, you suck at math. Just saying.

 

[Furcifer]

Unfair though this may be, don't you think perhaps it's due to the relative rarity of the occurrence, and the fact that physiological considerations would make it, while perhaps not impossible, difficult to force a man to do any such thing? I guess you could force-feed someone Viagra, but under any other circumstances, such an act seems to me to verge on the improbable.

So says you, you don't know young males obviously. Forced or coerced, try to make that distinction then we'll talk.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Unfair though this may be, don't you think perhaps it's due to the relative rarity of the occurrence, and the fact that physiological considerations would make it, while perhaps not impossible, difficult to force a man to do any such thing? I guess you could force-feed someone Viagra, but under any other circumstances, such an act seems to me to verge on the improbable.

There's some circular logic there. We don't ask about men being forced to perform a sex act because we somehow already know that it's rare?

Women can respond physically to rape and some even orgasm. Why do you automatically assume that the same cannot happen for men? If a man is forced to allow himself to be fellated, do you believe he will not respond? The reality is that a man can be physically aroused and raped. Do you understand that men sometimes have erections during a prostate exam? I would say that all victims are subject to feeling guilt about their bodies responding.

What about male prostitutes that are expected to give rather than receive? Do you think these young men are sexually aroused by some fat, hairy old man with bad breath?

I wouldn't say that I have been raped, but I have managed to have sex with a woman when I did not want to have sex and was suffering a very bad migraine headache (we were trying to conceive). Once I achieved an erection the stimulation kept me from losing it despite my poor attitude towards it and terrible pain in my head. I was physically but not emotionally aroused. Hell, gay men manage to have sex with their wives for years.

Even if a man is not aroused, do you understand that there are devices that can be used to create and/or maintain an erection? A vacuum pump and restrictive device is all that's needed (not that it's necessarily needed at all). The simple reality is that the body can respond physically to stimulation.

A woman in Russia was convicted of raping 10 men using drugs, so that avenue (for lack of a better term) for rape is open to both genders. Drunk men can be taken advantage of just like drunk women.

But as I noted several times, "force" is undefined. Many people believe that "consent" given due to psychological and emotional blackmail is not consent at all, and a woman who has sex under those conditions would be considered as being raped. Do you not think the same thing is applicable to men? Can we not be coerced? Emotionally blackmailed?

What about a man who is stimulated in his sleep? If he wakes up with a woman on top of him, is he not being raped in the same way as a woman who wakes up with a man inside her? It happens. What about a man who doesn't want to go "all the way" and the woman coerces him or physically forces herself on him? If a man does that, we call it rape, but we don't even ask men if a woman has ever done that to him?

The majority of rape victims are minors. We consider it statutory rape when the partner is an adult (laws vary, of course). A 12 year old boy presumably cannot consent, can he? Yet the NVAWS doesn't even ask about it.

The NVAWS was severely flawed in gathering information about male victims of rape. I also believe it was flawed in capturing data for female victims. I'm not sure at all whether rapes committed through coercion or drugs/alcohol were included. I believe they should have been.

I also believe our language needs to differentiate the various "types" of rapes to give all of us a better picture of what actually happens. I'm not saying any one "type" is worse or better than another. However, the circumstances surrounding (say) stranger abductions, threats of violence, consensual sex acts gone bad, waking up to being violated, being violated while willingly intoxicated, being violated while unwillingly intoxicated, coercion through emotional blackmail, and statutory rape have about as many differences as they do similarities. Each "type" represents different situations and different relationships (if any) with the perpetrator, and we do ourselves a disservice by lumping them all together. The result is articles like the one referenced in the OP where the woman seems preoccupied with the danger of strangers and seemingly oblivious to the far greater dangers she faces in a relationship.

 

[Furcifer]

If you don't feel that the message is valid because you don't like the delivery, that's fine.

I don't think a single person has suggested her message is invalid. Not one. It's her reasoning that's faulty.

Her message is clear, women are cautious because there are far too many that have been assaulted, or will be assaulted in their lifetime.

It's saying that they are cautious because 1 in 60 men they meet are rapists that's faulty.

It's her saying some men should NEVER approach women that's faulty.

Don't drink and drive is a valid message, don't drink and drive because you might spill your drink is still a valid message, but the reasoning is faulty.

 

[Baylor]

Unfair though this may be, don't you think perhaps it's due to the relative rarity of the occurrence, and the fact that physiological considerations would make it, while perhaps not impossible, difficult to force a man to do any such thing? I guess you could force-feed someone Viagra, but under any other circumstances, such an act seems to me to verge on the improbable.

It most certainly does happen. Just recently in Spain, a male sex-slave ring--where men were forced fed Viagra--was busted.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2010/09/02/black.spain.prostitution.ring.cnn?hpt=T2

 

[Elizabeth I]

Unfair though this may be, don't you think perhaps it's due to the relative rarity of the occurrence, and the fact that physiological considerations would make it, while perhaps not impossible, difficult to force a man to do any such thing? I guess you could force-feed someone Viagra, but under any other circumstances, such an act seems to me to verge on the improbable.

There's some circular logic there. We don't ask about men being forced to perform a sex act because we somehow already know that it's rare?

Women can respond physically to rape and some even orgasm. Why do you automatically assume that the same cannot happen for men? If a man is forced to allow himself to be fellated, do you believe he will not respond? The reality is that a man can be physically aroused and raped. Do you understand that men sometimes have erections during a prostate exam? I would say that all victims are subject to feeling guilt about their bodies responding.

What about male prostitutes that are expected to give rather than receive? Do you think these young men are sexually aroused by some fat, hairy old man with bad breath?

I wouldn't say that I have been raped, but I have managed to have sex with a woman when I did not want to have sex and was suffering a very bad migraine headache (we were trying to conceive). Once I achieved an erection the stimulation kept me from losing it despite my poor attitude towards it and terrible pain in my head. I was physically but not emotionally aroused. Hell, gay men manage to have sex with their wives for years.

Even if a man is not aroused, do you understand that there are devices that can be used to create and/or maintain an erection? A vacuum pump and restrictive device is all that's needed (not that it's necessarily needed at all). The simple reality is that the body can respond physically to stimulation.

A woman in Russia was convicted of raping 10 men using drugs, so that avenue (for lack of a better term) for rape is open to both genders. Drunk men can be taken advantage of just like drunk women.

But as I noted several times, "force" is undefined. Many people believe that "consent" given due to psychological and emotional blackmail is not consent at all, and a woman who has sex under those conditions would be considered as being raped. Do you not think the same thing is applicable to men? Can we not be coerced? Emotionally blackmailed?

What about a man who is stimulated in his sleep? If he wakes up with a woman on top of him, is he not being raped in the same way as a woman who wakes up with a man inside her? It happens. What about a man who doesn't want to go "all the way" and the woman coerces him or physically forces herself on him? If a man does that, we call it rape, but we don't even ask men if a woman has ever done that to him?

The majority of rape victims are minors. We consider it statutory rape when the partner is an adult (laws vary, of course). A 12 year old boy presumably cannot consent, can he? Yet the NVAWS doesn't even ask about it.

The NVAWS was severely flawed in gathering information about male victims of rape. I also believe it was flawed in capturing data for female victims. I'm not sure at all whether rapes committed through coercion or drugs/alcohol were included. I believe they should have been.

I also believe our language needs to differentiate the various "types" of rapes to give all of us a better picture of what actually happens. I'm not saying any one "type" is worse or better than another. However, the circumstances surrounding (say) stranger abductions, threats of violence, consensual sex acts gone bad, waking up to being violated, being violated while willingly intoxicated, being violated while unwillingly intoxicated, coercion through emotional blackmail, and statutory rape have about as many differences as they do similarities. Each "type" represents different situations and different relationships (if any) with the perpetrator, and we do ourselves a disservice by lumping them all together. The result is articles like the one referenced in the OP where the woman seems preoccupied with the danger of strangers and seemingly oblivious to the far greater dangers she faces in a relationship.

You know, you took a whole lot of words to say exactly what I said in one paragraph. It can happen, drugs can be used to make it happen, and in my opinion it's still probably less likely than other forms of rape. Did I say men can't be raped? No. And none of what you said above is new to me.

And if you still think the woman who wrote the blog is obsessing about the likelihood of stranger rape, perhaps you really need to reread her item v-e-r-r-r-r-y slowly.

 

[Dipayan]

Yes, if pursuasion was her intent she radically underestimated male sensitivity. I'm surprised at how easily feelings were hurt. .

It was simply supposed to be dating advice, I would think. Speaking for myself, I don't think my feelings are hurt.

Of course the article was more of a venting of frustration than anything. The complaint about tone and civility strikes me as quite similar in construction to theist whining over the mean, nasty New Atheists. Sometimes it's necessary to just call ******** ********.

'Venting of frustration' is not what I get from the article. What I do get is what she herself makes clear in the article - that this piece is on how a decent, regular person can strike up a conversation with a woman without setting off a woman's 'rape radar'.

Which is why I took no offense. That article wasn't directed at me. It was directed at the endless dirtballs, scumbags, douche-knozzles, and, at worst, sexual assailants that women have to deal with on a dialy basis in a way that few, if any, hetero-sexual men ever encounter.

I think the reason why this discussion is getting so heated is because some people, such as yourself, feel that others are taking offence. I have no problem with being called a Schrodinger's Rapist. In fact, I find that term quite clever, which is what made me explore this thread in the first place. My position is based only on the fact that while the general foundation (namely, the bolded statements) are reasonable, the specifics are not. There are truths in the article, sure, but the overall article is not that good.

For example, saying that a 'man who overrides a woman's personal choices can more likely be a rapist' seems quite reasonable, but then to claim that saying 'Hi' to a woman on a subway who is looking out of a window is 'overriding her personal choices' is a big reach.

If you read that article and come away thinking you're being called a rapist, you're either insecure on an astonishing level or really bad at reading.

Do you think one can be critical of this article without assuming that the authoress is calling one a rapist? If you do, then we can definitely have a fruitful discussion

 

[Dipayan]

The writer of this article wasn't writing for skeptics or a large audience, she was guest hosting a blog. It is far from perfect. But the basic message "Please don't do these things, it's disrespectful and it creeps women out." is valid.

Talking to a woman in a subway when she is looking out of the window is 'disrespectful and creeps her out'? Talking to a woman if you have tattoos on your face is 'disrespectful and creeps her out'? Talking to a woman in an elevator (enclosed area) is 'disrespectful and creeps her out'?

The basic message being valid does not take away from the fact that the specific messages are muddled and incorrect. So why can I not agree with the basic message while still being critical of the article?

The OP asks 'When is uncritical thought ok?'. Apparently the answer is 'When we are talking about rape'.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Of course I can't speak for all women, only those I've discussed this issue with. The yelling obscenities at you starts pretty young. Usually by the time you're 13, you've heard every descriptive term for every sexual act from strangers. At that age, you do nothing, you keep walking. It's incredibly frustrating and it never lets up. You do get used to it because it happens so often. But each time it's a bit startling, you're walking along minding your own business and suddenly there's this guy telling you which body parts he has noticed and/or what he would like to do to it. So you've got 10 minutes out of your day that's wrecked and for what?

It's worth talking to women, especially women in cities, about this. If you're not the sort of person that would grope a woman on the subway or follow her from a bus stop to her apartment, it's difficult to imagine someone behaving that way.

I can say that EVERY woman I know has many stories that, at best, make you cringe, and at worst turn your stomach.

For every sexual assault there are countless instances when a woman is left wondering if something terrible is going to happen.

First, nobody is saying don't talk to men in public. She outlines specific situations where a woman may be uncomfortable (alone, at night, without an easy exit) or when a woman is clearly uncomfortable with a man's advances. Nobody is suggesting that women start screaming "Potential rapist!"

So....what do you think about men telling women that they can't speak to them at church? Are they being jerks?
Every woman I know too. It's a part of life that you are going to be groped or approached in a lewd and creepy way. It happens even in daylight on busy roads, but it's always worse when you're in a more vulnerable state.

She's saying that some guys need to know that they may not be as appealing to a broader group of women. If you have poor hygiene habits, most women won't want to chat you up. If you're a guy with tattoos, it's probably okay to approach women who seem to be of a similar mindset. If you start hitting on older, more conservative women, they may be a little warier of you. Yes, most guys with tattoos are super nice guys, but it would make my antenna go up if one approached me for something.

Jesus Christ people where the hell do you live?

I knew I was a little sheltered living where I am but this is the kind of talk that would make me never want to leave my village! What the hell is wrong with the places you guys are from?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Jesus Christ people where the hell do you live?

I knew I was a little sheltered living where I am but this is the kind of talk that would make me never want to leave my village! What the hell is wrong with the places you guys are from?

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.

 

[Cavemonster]

One thing I've noticed, and I haven't read the entire comments section on the article, so correct me if I'm wrong.

1) This is a descriptive article about how women view risk, it is prescriptive towards men in how to read those cues. Most posters here acknowledge that.

2) I have not yet seen a single woman disagree with this as a basic description of the behavior of women in general. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. I have not seen a single woman speak out and say "No, when I'm reading a book with my headphones on I would hate to miss the opportunity to meet you! If you follow me into an empty stairwell late at night I am very likely to be charmedby you!"

At the end of the day, risk benefit assessment for personal harm is a subjective, cultural phenomenon. Whatever the numbers are, there is no objective way to decide how much possibility of rape to tolerate for what possible benefits. Never leaving your house would be pretty extreme, but the range we're talking about, how much you talk to strangers, any judgement on that comes down to a subjective value.

And every evidence from the discussion is that women in these threads, a small sample to be sure, agree with the author's assessment of their behavior.

 

[Dipayan]

if women didn't **** men who behave like macho ****heads then there would be a less men who behaved in that way.

Careful now. When you say something like this you are automatically going to be called up for blaming the victim.

 

[Cavemonster]

Jesus Christ people where the hell do you live?

I knew I was a little sheltered living where I am but this is the kind of talk that would make me never want to leave my village! What the hell is wrong with the places you guys are from?

Mark, have you considered the possibilty, that women don't always share these stories with men, that many women in your life may have experiences you're unaware of?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Mark, have you considered the possibilty, that women don't always share these stories with men, that many women in your life may have experiences you're unaware of?

It's entirely possible, although a number of the women I do know are open about that kind of thing (although I know one woman who has) but I've never seen it happen to anyone I've seen in the street either. I mean, I understand that it's less likely to happen in a crowded area and so on, but I've literally never seen it. I've not seen it in daylight or, when I felt scared myself, wandering around London late at night. It's something that I know does happen, but not to the scale whereby every woman will have it happen, and on such a regular basis. I swear, it must be that I'm blind or something. I've heard some cat-calling, but I've never seen or heard of men exposing themselves (deliberately) or groping on public transport, and it's the kind of thing that WOULD get reported around here in the very prim and proper shires.

 

[TraneWreck]

I think the reason why this discussion is getting so heated is because some people, such as yourself, feel that others are taking offence. I have no problem with being called a Schrodinger's Rapist. In fact, I find that term quite clever, which is what made me explore this thread in the first place. My position is based only on the fact that while the general foundation (namely, the bolded statements) are reasonable, the specifics are not. There are truths in the article, sure, but the overall article is not that good.

Do you think one can be critical of this article without assuming that the authoress is calling one a rapist? If you do, then we can definitely have a fruitful discussion

Look, I appreciate you aren't offended, but clearly there are people in this thread who are. They've said so quite explicitly. If my statement doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply, but it's odd to pretend like I made it up from whole cloth when you can find ample examples of exactly what I'm talking about:

"Third, you really need to brush up on your fallacies. She uses "Schrodinger" in front of rapist and now you magically believe because she's calling men a "Schrodinger's rapist" she's not calling you a rapist or treating you like one. It isn't a strawman. She's advocating treating every stranger you meet as a rapist of varying degrees."

 

[Dipayan]

1) This is a descriptive article about how women view risk, it is prescriptive towards men in how to read those cues.

I have an issue with that. This is actually a descriptive article about how one woman views risk.

2) I have not yet seen a single woman disagree with this as a basic description of the behavior of women in general.

Having joined these forums recently, I am not sure who among the posters are female. However, what I have got out of the discussion till now is that most posters are not critiquing the article. They are only looking the thought behind the article, and since that is an admirable one, they are ignoring the obvious generalizations and poor logic.

I have not seen a single woman speak out and say "No, when I'm reading a book with my headphones on I would hate to miss the opportunity to meet you! If you follow me into an empty stairwell late at night I am very likely to be charmedby you!"

What if the woman is merely looking out of the window in a subway? What if the woman is in an elevator? In both these cases, if you say hi to a woman, according to the article, you are 'overriding the woman's personal choice'.

At the end of the day, risk benefit assessment for personal harm is a subjective, cultural phenomenon.

Yes, subjective, cultural phenomenon. Which is why Ms. Starling's generalizations leave a lot to be desired.

And every evidence from the discussion is that women in these threads, a small sample to be sure, agree with the author's assessment of their behavior.

I would suggest that this is because, again, the main focus does not seem to be on the article as a whole, but the intent behind the article. I highly doubt that if any of the women on this forum was in an elevator at her workplace, and a man in a business suit came in, smiled at her and said 'Good morning' she would think 'This man is overriding my personal choice'.