|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
3rd December 2012, 09:03 PM | #481 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
It might indicate such, depending on what it is. Assuming it's dangerous because it's abnormal isN'T always adaptive, but assuming it's not dangerous because it's abnormal is frequently maladaptive.
So we have to do the hard thing and think. EDIT: Fixed left out 'n't'. |
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
3rd December 2012, 09:05 PM | #482 |
Scholar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
|
|
3rd December 2012, 09:36 PM | #483 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
|
3rd December 2012, 09:41 PM | #484 |
Scholar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
|
Okay, then I fail to see how she is likely to fall under your previous all-the-witnesses-had-an-axe-to-grind thing. The original parents/child *might* have. And I'm sure there have been articles since that outright demonize the transwoman. But I'm basing my assessment on at least a seemingly reasonable witness.
|
3rd December 2012, 10:32 PM | #485 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
|
4th December 2012, 04:07 AM | #486 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
|
4th December 2012, 04:39 AM | #487 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
I don't think a reasonable person would conclude that there is an imminent danger of sexual assault when a man uses a woman's locker room, assuming that the locker room is well occupied during normal hours of use. If there are quite a few people going in and out, and nearby that could hear any screaming, the immediate safety isn't a concern.
What I have been talking about is an underlying level of anxiety related to the fear of sexual assault. I'll illustrate the difference with a hypothetical. Suppose an average woman is sitting in a waiting room at a therapists office with another patient. Male. She has no knowledge of him whatsoever, but he happens to be reading a pornographic magazine. Something like "Barely Legal". (For the record, I don't know if that's an actual publication, but I think it is.) She can't see anything but the cover, which just has a pretty girl on it, and perhaps some text promising what one might see inside. Would she be nervous? Should she be nervous? My opinion is that she ought to be nervous. There's no real danger of imminent sexual assault, but something about that situation would, and should, set off alarm bells. She's in a perfectly safe environment, and he's causing no harm at all, but I think every woman would have an issue, and I'll bet that if they happened to be leaving at the same time, they might decide to find some excuse not to share the same elevator or be alone in the same stairwell. I think that's a normal reaction. It's that sort of anxiety that I'm talking about. So it is with a man in the locker room. There's no imminent harm, but alarm bells will, and should, be going off all through the heads of any post-pubescent woman who is about to take off her clothes in that locker room. If she subsequently learns that the man self identifies as a woman, the anxiety level might go down, although if she subsequently learns that the man self identifies as a lesbian, all that anxiety would return, double strength. As noted before, she would be standing naked next to a big, strong, person who has a penis and would like to shag her. That's going to produce some anxiety in a normal woman. A decent person would recognize that, and do whatever could be done to not provoke that anxiety. For example, if offered a private changing room, a decent person would accept. Colleen didn't accept. She told the swim team that they could move instead. That makes me think that "she" is not a decent person. I find her scary. I would not want an eight year old girl naked in "her" presence. |
4th December 2012, 04:54 AM | #488 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
What you're advocating is typically called "Schroedinger rapist" in feminist circles, and no, that fear IS unfounded and its a fear that is aided and supported by fearmongering that most men are violent sexual abusers to such an extent that we need to fear all men by default. Even in rape statistics "stranger rape" is minority and unlikely. Womans levels of fear are disproportionate to the level of risk. We can profile black men for the same reason except we have much more of a reason to do so, since most convicts are black men. But we would consider such things to be absurd and racist yet for some reason we seem to think profiling men in general in this way against women is reasonable. Also, men have far more reason to be fearful of other men from violent crime and murder than women do. But men in general are also more unconcerned of their risks and have less fear despite being more likely to experience violence, even if they have been victimised in the past. Women on the other hand are being left to believe they are far more likely to be victimised than they are. Its the same kind of scaremongering that has led us to believe that we should think twice about leaving children around men compared to women. Im really not surprised you think this way considering you already said that men are "inherently violent" and we need to force ourselves to overcome these compulsions. And btw, your scenario is absurd not only because of the above, not only because of how unlikely it would be that someone would be looking at hardcore porn in public, but also because it assumes that we should fear men more if they look at and enjoy porn.
|
4th December 2012, 05:53 AM | #489 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
|
4th December 2012, 05:55 AM | #490 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
The article is fear mongering at its finest. There is absolutely no way to justify it. Its written by someone that wants to justify their extreme paranoia toward all men as reasonable no matter what. This is a writer that is so disturbed that she says when she goes on a date she "always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor... so the cops can find my body if I go missing" and presents this is normal reasonable behaviour for women.
|
4th December 2012, 06:02 AM | #491 |
Poisoned Waffles
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
|
So it's male sexuality that is threatening to women. I see.
If he'd been reading a gay porn mag, would that still be threatening to women? They'd be less likely targets of his horrible sexual desire, but they'd still know that he, a male, possessed sexual desire, and therefore is terrifying. |
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
4th December 2012, 06:09 AM | #492 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
I fully agree ( on SR being paranoid )
The only reason I raised it was because Colleen was a women's studies student and had to be aware of it. It was the reason I described her behavior as odd. I'm not trying to suggest Colleen had even the remotest intention of committing any sort of assault nor do I think the presence of children had much of anything to do with "the display" but Colleen had to know that a significant percentage of her intended audience would view her actions as, at least, creepy. |
4th December 2012, 06:42 AM | #493 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
|
4th December 2012, 07:05 AM | #494 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
IMO Meadmaker's arguments are all within the realm of possibility. We have no way of knowing how some people would react given the situation and my perusal of feminist/social justice issues leads me to believe that there are enough survivors of sexual assault out there who may just be triggered by seeing "the equipment", unexpectedly.
I'm no social justice advocate but IMO Colleen made this all about Colleen in full face of the knowledge of the possible outcome(s) of her actions. Was she hoping to find a sexual partner, or hoping to deliver an education ? We have no way of knowing but I'd guess that committing an assault wasn't one of them. |
4th December 2012, 07:10 AM | #495 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
|
4th December 2012, 08:00 AM | #496 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
|
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
4th December 2012, 09:10 AM | #497 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
I would say the anxiety yclept "Schrodinger's Rapist" by some is not necessarily motivated by fear of rape in a particular situation. The "fear" might be simply of being trapped in an awkward or squicky situation. Take the waiting room scenario mentioned above with the guy reading pornography. The woman who makes an excuse not to follow the guy out into the elevator isn't necessarily afraid of being raped or assaulted; she might simply want to avoid standing right next to the guy while he adjusts the erection the magazine gave him, or (being in an aroused state of mind) attempts to start a sexually-charged or suggestive but otherwise completely friendly and benign conversation with her. It's not the fact that men have penises or sexuality that bothers her - she'd have gotten in the elevator with the same person any other time, despite knowing that he's a man and that pornography exists in the world - it's the reading of the pornography in front of her, the engaging in such an overt sexual act that the woman has no interest in participating in, is what makes her anxious and motivates her to extricate herself from that person's presence. And yes, I think the consumption of pornography reasonably counts as an overt sexual act, even when done fully dressed and with no immediate intention of frigging the rigging, as it were.
|
4th December 2012, 09:14 AM | #498 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Checkmite you did not read the actual article or you selectively read it. It certainly is entirely about justifying her extreme paranoia toward men. I even pointed out a quote to demonstrate this.
|
4th December 2012, 09:23 AM | #499 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
He's not talking about the article. He's talking about meadmaker's scenario, which you have incorrectly characterized as a Schroedinger's Rapist scenario. It's not. So men do things like that. It's not so absurd that a dude with sexual issues would be consuming porn in an inappropriate place. I've seen it on planes, in cars, and in other public spaces. When a guy is so out of societal norms as to consume pornography in a doctor's office, women are being reasonable in avoiding further contact with them.
|
4th December 2012, 09:47 AM | #500 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Yes he is, thats why he said the writer of SR is not written by someone necessarily motivated by fear of rape in a particular situation, but rather the fear is being made to feel awkward, which is certainly not what the writer is talking about. Being raped and/or murdered is what the fear is connected to and you know this because thats what is specifically written in the article and why its called Schrodinger's Rapist in the first place .
Quote:
Quote:
This: Is just as much a warped view of reality as SR is. |
4th December 2012, 10:05 AM | #501 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
Agreed. I clearly recall one time being at the public library on one of their sign-up internet terminals working on a paper for one of my classes, and was taking a sit-back-rest-my-fingers break when I noticed the computer next to me (whose user wasn't at it right that moment) had it's browser open on a porn site. While I did my best to simply ignore the fact at first, once I noticed that a man returning from the restroom with a somewhat ruddy face turned out to be the user who sat down to continue browsing, it was just too much "squick" and I quickly saved all my work, got up, and quietly moved to a computer bank on the other side of the floor.
Now I'm a man and he was looking at straight (or perhaps lesbian?) pornography; so it's not like I was afraid the man would turn around and "assault" or "rape" me. But the situation nevertheless made me extremely uncomfortable - enough to extricate myself from the situation, even though I had every right to sit there and use that computer no matter what he was doing next to me, to say nothing of what he may or may not have been doing in the restroom between porn browsings. Now notice: I didn't turn to the guy and say anything. I didn't go up to the library staff and inform them of what he was doing or demand they stop it so that I could go back and use "my" computer. I got up, and moved to another one. My attitude is readily discernible: do what you do, but I'm not going to lend my presence to the proceedings if what you're doing is that. I'm simply not interested in being a witness, and I can't sit there and pretend I don't know it's happening, either. |
4th December 2012, 10:21 AM | #502 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
That's not what I said. I didn't say anything about any writer of any article. I said:
Meadmaker, the writer of the doctor's-office-porn scenario, did not call the situational anxiety "Schrodinger's Rapist"; you did:
Quote:
|
4th December 2012, 10:35 AM | #503 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Ok, then maybe I can just blame your extremely poorly worded sentence.
Edit: Although we're talking about fear of "violence" not awkwardness, so you're still wrong there.
Quote:
Quote:
Secondly, if someone would so openly act like that then there is reason to think they have a mental issue that stops them from knowing how to act appropriately in social situations. For that reason there is a reason to suspect that they may have a behavioural disorder, which may possibly also include violence, but not necessarily. Im sorry Checkmite but Meadmaker has already told us all what he thinks about men, so there's no possible way for you or him recharacterize his position as being something more reasonable now. Men are inherently violent because they are men and so women are justified at being afraid around all men. That is what he has said. |
4th December 2012, 10:54 AM | #504 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
Unless "naked man in women's locker room" or "man with porn in therapist waiting room" are "all men," then I haven't seen Meadmaker say what you characterize him as saying. I guess I must have missed it.
|
4th December 2012, 11:13 AM | #505 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Yes, you did miss it.
It all started with him saying testicles were "inherently violent" (hence why I keep putting that in quotes) which is why it is reasonable for women to fear men because men are "inherently violent" by the very nature of them being men, saying that we as men are able to suppress our "inherently violent" impulses. I already said I have no idea how you'd really deal with the issue of transsexuals in a single sex dressing room, its a tough and complex subject. What I object to is Meadmaker's reasoning for justifying womans fear towards men. |
4th December 2012, 11:25 AM | #506 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
Of course it's abnormal - that's the entire point. We're arguing that it's reasonable, for a woman who would normally not care about getting into an elevator with a person, to suddenly be anxious about doing so when confronted with an abnormal scenario. Right! It might possibly involve violence, and it might not - but either way you don't want to be nearby, so you extricate yourself. You make an excuse to change computers or not go in the elevator with him. Right? Fine; forget his position and focus on mine. Given my reasoning, do you think it could be understandable for a person (by happenstance a woman) to experience anxiety in a situation involving another person (by happenstance a man) who is behaving in a sexually-odd manner? |
4th December 2012, 11:27 AM | #507 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
I went back and read the exchange. Not my argument, I guess.
|
4th December 2012, 11:36 AM | #508 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
There is no reason for the scenario as I dont see it as comparable to the scenario in the OP. In fact as far as I know we dont know what the exactly happened is in the OP, the extremity of it differs considerably depending on what actually happened.
Quote:
We can see it expressed in this extremely weird paragraph when he describes the hypothetical thought process: EDIT: This kind of thing is what sounds just like Schrodinger's Rapist. The man isnt creepy or scary because he is doing something creepy such as looking at hardcore porn openly in public, he is just there and by the very nature of him being a man she should be fearful of him. The fact that he makes the comparison at all shows you something about how he sees men in general. Add to that how we already know he sees men as inherently violent and how we need to overcome our violent compulsions tells us what he really means when he says all this. He tries to use an extreme scenario as a comparison but it fails because it is based on the idea that the man did something to make the fear/concern reasonable. This is then claimed to be the same as a man in a locker room with a women, but even as he described it, it comes down to the women being fearful of the man because he is a man regardless of whether the he did anything to justify that fear or not.
Quote:
|
4th December 2012, 02:51 PM | #509 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
Just out of curiosity, since more seems to have arisen as to what happened. Was she naked in the sauna that was attached to the locker room, or was she naked in the locker room? If she was in the sauna and the kids were in the locker room, I see less of an issue. A lot of sauna's only have a small observation window that allow you to see if anyone is in there, often made of a frosted glass. If she was in such a sauna alone, I'd say that a lot of the issues, and allegations of "loitering" are completely unfounded.
Now having said that, I would still suggest that it is a poor idea to be naked in a public sauna, even if you weren't a TG with the opposite lower half than would be expected, but this is quite a different senario to sitting naked, legs open, in the public locker room area itself. Perhaps the best solution for this would be to institute a "swim wear only" policy for the saunas. |
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) Last edited by PhantomWolf; 4th December 2012 at 03:09 PM. Reason: found the missing "n't" floating under my desk where I must have dropped it. |
|
4th December 2012, 02:57 PM | #510 |
Indescribable
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,366
|
I've skipped over the last few pages, but here is what I think happened based on the links I have seen:
Colleen has gone through the process to be known as a woman. Even though she sees herself as a female, she has decided to not go through with the genital reassignment surgery in order to skip the possibility that she could never enjoy sex again. She goes to a gym, in which I am not sure of the frequency of nakedness in the sauna (other people. Is it a regular thing?) but I am going to assume it is for the sake of argument. Colleen, being legally known as a woman, uses the women's sauna. People use saunas without clothes, it happens. A teenage girl sees a person in the sauna without clothes. She happens to notice that this person has a penis. Being a teenager, she automatically assumes the person is a man (due to misunderstanding the circumstances) and goes to tell the coach that there is a man in the locker room. The coach, not having seen or met the person in question, takes the girl at her word and action is then taken. The girl didn't say that the "man" tried to touch her or that he was aroused- nothing that would cause anyone to believe that the person was doing anything other than sitting. The person was doing what any other woman would do in a sauna. She just happened to have a penis, also. I have seen nothing to show that the girl understood that Colleen was transgendered or that the girl even knew what that meant. I have seen nothing to show that Colleen had any malicious intent. I have seen nothing to show that Colleen is a sexual predator. If you have proof of any of this, please show me. |
__________________
"I'm a soundwave tsunami, vocal origami, hijack the mic and it's not like anyone could stop me." -mc chris "I've seen so much death" <("<) (>")> <("<) (>")> <("<) (>")> -Nathan Fillion |
|
4th December 2012, 03:23 PM | #511 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
People come up with weird ideas sometimes.
For example, speaking of "Schrodinger's rapist" Edx characterizes the article as "its a fear that is aided and supported by fearmongering that most men are violent sexual abusers to such an extent that we need to fear all men by default." In fact, in the original article, "most men" was actually 1 man out of 60, although that was viewed as a lower bound. The upper bound was given as 1 man out of 6. Even if it were one man in 6, it would not be "most men", and would be off by at least a factor of 3. The rest of Edx' analysis is of equal quality. I have attributed the situational anxiety that women experience when naked around men as arising from a fear of sexual assault. I am not saying that this fear is calculated or even conscious. Since it is often has a subconscious source, I cannot truly say that most of it is really from a fear of sexual assault. That seems plausible as a source, but it could be something else. What I know for sure is that it is visceral, primal, and perfectly natural. Saying, "Don't worry about my penis. I'm a woman." isn't going to make the anxiety go away. In fact, it may very well increase the problem. If you add, "and a lesbian", .......... you figure it out. |
4th December 2012, 03:40 PM | #512 |
Scholar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
|
|
4th December 2012, 03:42 PM | #513 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
|
4th December 2012, 06:20 PM | #514 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
11th December 2012, 06:15 PM | #515 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
How did I miss this?
You're wrong for various reasons. This is how we are presented with this information above. So she calls it a horrifying number and also proceeds to tell us how she sees the world when she leaves the house. She looks around and sees potential rapists everywhere, at her school, at work, at the gym and even the "nice guy who [appears to] want nothing more than companionship and True Love". We know that she is paranoid because she describes her behaviour as if this is normal. No, it is not normal behaviour to assume you are at such a high risk of getting raped and murdered and your body dumped somewhere by a man that you do this when going on a date... The article also starts out addressing men specifically, they are the claimed intended audience of the article. (They arent really, they are other feminists, but lets go with it. ) This is how the article starts: Later on it again makes sure to say we're a "good guy"... But here's the interesting part, at the end the writers feels the need to tell us that we must not rape. This is an unconscious admission that she sees all men as potential rapists, men that would rape if they had the opportunity. And you know this because she's already directed the article toward the "good men", she's referring to everyone that isnt a rapist, that she still thinks is a potential rapist thats why she has to remind them not to. So either she didnt really mean that any man is genuinely good, and all men are potential rapists, or she has to concede that you can be a good person and also commit rape.
Quote:
You gave an example of a man reading porn in public in order to say this is the same thing as a women being afraid of a man in a lockerroom, in order to show there is a reason for the women to be fearful. But as I said in my last post, your comparison files utterly because you then compared it to a situation where the only thing the man does to give the women a reason to be fearful is BE a man.
Quote:
|
11th December 2012, 07:20 PM | #516 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
She actually thinks what she actually wrote.
And she's right. So, I'll defend the article. Now, why is it that I will lose, then? You seem to think it has something to do with the fact that she actually believes what she wrote. Well, yes. That's why she wrote it. An awful lot of people who read that article seem to have magnified the fear that she discussed, creating a caricature of what she wrote. You seem to be one of those people. Nevertheless, what she actually wrote makes a great deal of sense. You seem to greatly exaggerate her paranoia. It's particularly obvious when discussing her habit of leaving an address next to a computer when she goes on a date. Let's think about this. She's willing to get into a locked car with a guy she doesn't know very well. She sometimes knows that something will keep her from phoning her friend until late in the day the next day, from which I infer that she sometimes sleeps with these guys. That doesn't sound paranoid to me. Oh. She tells her best friend that she'll be out on a date, and she leaves the guy's name and address next to the computer. That doesn't sound paranoid to me, either. Have you ever read adivce to people who use dating sites? (or are you old enough to remember the print variety?) They all say make your first date somewhere in public, during the daytime. Coffee is the standard. Are those sites, which exist to bring people together for romance, paranoid? Why do you suppose they give that advice? It's because there really are rapists and murderers in the world. Of course you aren't likely to meet one, but somebody is going to meet them, so just to be sure, exercise common sense precautions. And yes. It's just common sense. ETA: And let's not forget that you said the article was about "most men", when in fact it was about 1 man in 6, or less. ETA2: And your most recent post also contains several statements that are statements of fact, and the facts behind them can be verified, and your statements are just plain wrong. |
11th December 2012, 07:21 PM | #517 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
Your fear of this article seems disproportionate to reality.
|
11th December 2012, 07:41 PM | #518 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
I can see exactly what she wrote, you're the one that wants to ignore what she actually says.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When you are meeting someone off the internet that you dont know they could be anyone, hence the reason for the advice. Her entire argument is NOT that she should be fearful because she doesn't know them like on a dating website, that is not what she said. She has already argued that you could seem like the nicest person but you could still be a rapist (and murderer apparently). In fact, you could be a "good person" and "respect women" and have never raped a women, but she considers you so likely to rape her that she has to tell you not to rape anyway because in her mind all men are simply rapists that havent been in the right circumstances to allow that to come out, otherwise there's no reason to say it.
Quote:
If I tell a mother; look I know you're a good person, but please remember not to molest your children, then not only should she be insulted but I clearly dont really believe she's a good person, or I have one helleva messed up understanding of "good person". To repeat myself again: even if they seem nice, even if they have been your friend for years, even if they are your father or your uncle, even if they seem to respect women and are a good person it doesnt matter, rape is so common that even the "good men" are so likely to rape we need to remind them not to.
Quote:
|
11th December 2012, 07:57 PM | #519 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
Ok. Let's get specific.
She's talking about leaving a name and contact information next to her computer, so obviously she isn't "only talking about stranger rape". If I were to detail all the similar examples where your statements were just plain wrong, I would spend far too much time typing. |
11th December 2012, 08:11 PM | #520 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
You didn't read the comment I refered to didja?
Here's the comment. Another commenter writes... Going on a date with someone you dont know/being approached by someone you dont know is a stranger, compared with someone you already know such as your husband/friend/boyfriend/immediate family. So if the level of fear and behavior expressed in Schrodingers Rapist directed to a demographic of men that only accounts for a 1/4 of all rapes is reasonable, then what do you think is the appropriate level of fear that should be directed to the demographic of men that accounts for 3/4 of the men most likely to rape you, like your husband/friend/boyfriend/immediate family? Also while her article mentions going on a date this was only to give an example of how fearful women are, the claimed purpose of the article at the start was to talk about how a man can approach a women they dont know, ie. strangers. And for the nth time again, you dont tell "good men" to "not rape" unless you either think they arent really good men, or that you think you can be a good person and still be a rapist. Either way the message is clear, all men are rapists, even the ones that seem good. Here's another comment I noticed. I also love how rape is also to "“convince” their partners to have sex they do not want. " Not threats of violence or something else heinous mind you, just "convince". And thats exactly what happened with this guy who had been convinced by feminists like this that he had raped his past girlfriends because of something so terrible as foreplay and acting at all upset or disappointed that she didnt want sex. Thats rape now too, apparently.
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|