An informal poll about attitudes - REVISED

[unixronin]

Caution:  May be inflammatory.

Just for the sake of possibly-morbid curiosity:  I direct you to this article that perspicuity pointed out to me elsewhere.  Please go and read it.  Particularly the beginning.

Now, please answer only one poll.  First up, asking my readers of the feminine persuasion here:

[Poll #1472271]

For my chromosomally heterogeneous readers, I offer the following alternate poll with your own seven eight choices:

[Poll #1472272]

My personal feeling is that if you regard every male as a probable rapist lacking only the opportunity, I want some way to know in advance, because if the very first thought that goes through a woman's head is, "Is that man going to try to rape me?", I don't even want to start a conversation.  I find the whole attitude insulting, to say the least.  It's way too high a disadvantage to start out having to first of all convince someone that you're not planning to rape or murder them, and if I knew in advance that I was going to be up against that, I'd move on immediately to talk to someone saner.  I don't know how people who approach the world with that kind of level of fear every day can even function, but I do believe that it's not my responsibility to walk on eggshells everywhere I go, just to avoid triggering someone else's paranoia.

(Heh.  I just discovered I have to answer both polls to be able to see the results of my own poll.  Pretty obviously, so does everyone else.  Please note I am RESUBMITTING to add a "Just show me the results" entry to each poll.  If you already voted, this means your vote will be lost.  Feel free to vote again.  We apologize for the confusion.)

Comments

[attutle.livejournal.com]

I picked "Crazy alert! Crazy alert! Back away SLOWLY.", and I'll explain why.

The 1:6 statistic is for a lifetime. The odds of being raped on any particular day must be substantially lower, more like 1:100000 [assuming a life expectancy of at least 46 years]. This could put the odds for a single person on a particular day somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1:million [assuming you interact with at least 10 people that day].

"Schrödinger’s Rapist" suggests "50% safe" instead of "99.9999% safe".
Even if she knows it's not 50%, it seems a bit over the top to spend that much effort evaluating each interaction.

It seems like it would make more sense to look at that initial 1:6 lifetime statistic, and consider the implied 5:6 statistic for women who will not be sexually assaulted during their lifetime. I suspect she could arrange to be in the 5:6 group without obsessing quite so much.

[house-pundit.livejournal.com]

The guys who are "that guy" are disproportionate in the unattached dating pool to their percentage in society. Reason? Many other women see red flags from them or have a creeped out gut instinct about them and shoot them down in flames. Many others drop them like hot rocks.

No, I'm not saying if you're single and looking you're probably a rapist. I'm saying losers are disproportionately available in the pool because they have a tough time getting dates. This is not rocket science. Rapists are just one more variety of losers; they sometimes hide in the woodwork real well, so a chick who might date you does have to watch for signs that you just might be available for a damned good reason.