02 Aug 2012, 1:47 am
02 Aug 2012, 1:49 am
MXH
Veteran
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain
02 Aug 2012, 1:49 am
Kjas
Veteran
Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
02 Aug 2012, 1:50 am
02 Aug 2012, 1:52 am
02 Aug 2012, 1:54 am
02 Aug 2012, 1:54 am
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Kjas wrote:
That is why I was wondering before: Are they deciding these things on context? Or by other means?
The question is, would they allow a woman to approach them and talk to them in a dark alley? Or would they avoid them?
The question is, would they allow a woman to approach them and talk to them in a dark alley? Or would they avoid them?
according to all the posts so far that specify, it is based on the context and the behaviour, NOT on appearance. so i don't understand in the slightest where you and MXH are getting that bit of misinformation from. you're drawing conclusions about what other members think on this matter, and it is not based on what they have actually said.
it is rather similar to discrimination, really.
(a female rapist is easier to fight off than a male rapist, so for purely practical concerns it would make no sense to consider the threat to be equal)
i know i said i was done but this drew me in. Did you even read pages 7-10? I did, and constantly saw that they are discriminating on men for the sake of safety. To be fair theres a time and place to think of safety, like i said someone following you around ortrying to take you for a ride. But to do so just because they are men, or because of how they act without having interacted with you thats a whole nother deal. That is discrimination, because the person has done nothing to you.
Claiming that a female rapist is easier to fend off is just stupid. What makes it easier? Here, ill help you out. If a woman is out and is trying to rape somebody, but shes afraid shes just too scrawny and might get fended off she can just get a weapon. Last I saw guns arent weaker just because a woman is holding it. Drugs arent less effective because a woman put them in a drink. Knives arent less sharp because a woman is holding it. This is just silly.
once again, you are extrapolating and assuming based on absolutely nothing that they actually SAID. everyone has agreed that safety is paramount, yet you have decided that it must mean that certain women in this thread are treating men like creeps in other circumstances. you don't have any actual posts to base this assumption on, yet you persist in drawing this conclusion.
i still have a better chance fighting off a woman under all circumstances than a man (i believe this fact is fairly obvious
). that doesn't make it a good chance, but the chance is better.
but... if i assume someone is carrying a gun and react based on that, then i am discriminating against them, which you said we should not do. can't have it both ways. am i supposed to make judgements or not? you're contradicting yourself.
02 Aug 2012, 1:55 am
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Kjas wrote:
As per the threat being equal - you don't know, as you would not be able to tell. Carrying weapons (be it a knife or a gun) can change the circumstance dramatically, and you can't tell that by whether they are female or male.
i have way more chance of fighting off a female... with a gun... than a man. simply based on my own physique. just like i have more chance of reaching the bottom cupboard than the top one.
so essentially, are you saying that you would be wary of all men and women in that situation?
Thats just silly stereotyping for the sake of argument. Are women not allowed to work out and have muscle? Why are you all of a sudden making women seem like such pushovers to be able to portray men negatively
once again, you're making things up... this is a pattern
i said i'd have a better chance at fighting off a female compared to a male. do you think that females on average are as strong as males?
02 Aug 2012, 1:57 am
02 Aug 2012, 2:00 am
02 Aug 2012, 2:01 am
Kjas
Veteran
Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
02 Aug 2012, 2:01 am
hyperlexian wrote:
i didn't say who was more likely to win.... i'll try to make it clearer: all other things being equal, i stand a better chance against a female than a male. on average, men are stronger. this isn't really a mystery is it?
so, you would allow people to approach you in a dark alleyway if they ask for the time or some other innocent reason. do you suppose a rapist warns you ahead of time as to why they are approaching: "excuse me, miss. hold still while i come over and violate you."
so, you would allow people to approach you in a dark alleyway if they ask for the time or some other innocent reason. do you suppose a rapist warns you ahead of time as to why they are approaching: "excuse me, miss. hold still while i come over and violate you."
On average - yes.
What I choose to do is a person decision. Of course they wouldn't warn me, but if they don't leave after getting their answer, that is when I go on alert.
In my experience, it's not the randoms in alleways that you have to worry about - it's acquaintances that you know who are more likely to attempt that crap.
Tequila wrote:
Kjas wrote:
I don't have a problem with someone approaching me in a dark alley to ask directions or for the time, no.
You wouldn't be a bit worried if it was completely deserted and the guy was huge, with bad halitosis and a scary glint in his eye and a huge, menacing grin?
- the ones you describe are generally staggering from drinking too much and have a hard time keeping their balance. (just a joke)
Probably not - I rarely go into an alley by myself, usually there is a group of us on smoke break, I don't smoke, I just go with.
I do have a good amount of martial arts training (in other countries, you're allowed pepper spray - I think I would prefer it) so one person doesn't present a problem unless they have a weapon - that would make it more difficult and I would have less room for mistakes, but still doable. The problematic thing for me is if there were more than one guy - then I would be in trouble.
Last edited by Kjas on 02 Aug 2012, 2:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
02 Aug 2012, 2:02 am
MXH
Veteran
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain
02 Aug 2012, 2:02 am
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Kjas wrote:
That is why I was wondering before: Are they deciding these things on context? Or by other means?
The question is, would they allow a woman to approach them and talk to them in a dark alley? Or would they avoid them?
The question is, would they allow a woman to approach them and talk to them in a dark alley? Or would they avoid them?
according to all the posts so far that specify, it is based on the context and the behaviour, NOT on appearance. so i don't understand in the slightest where you and MXH are getting that bit of misinformation from. you're drawing conclusions about what other members think on this matter, and it is not based on what they have actually said.
it is rather similar to discrimination, really.
(a female rapist is easier to fight off than a male rapist, so for purely practical concerns it would make no sense to consider the threat to be equal)
i know i said i was done but this drew me in. Did you even read pages 7-10? I did, and constantly saw that they are discriminating on men for the sake of safety. To be fair theres a time and place to think of safety, like i said someone following you around ortrying to take you for a ride. But to do so just because they are men, or because of how they act without having interacted with you thats a whole nother deal. That is discrimination, because the person has done nothing to you.
Claiming that a female rapist is easier to fend off is just stupid. What makes it easier? Here, ill help you out. If a woman is out and is trying to rape somebody, but shes afraid shes just too scrawny and might get fended off she can just get a weapon. Last I saw guns arent weaker just because a woman is holding it. Drugs arent less effective because a woman put them in a drink. Knives arent less sharp because a woman is holding it. This is just silly.
once again, you are extrapolating and assuming based on absolutely nothing that they actually SAID. everyone has agreed that safety is paramount, yet you have decided that it must mean that certain women in this thread are treating men like creeps in other circumstances. you don't have any actual posts to base this assumption on, yet you persist in drawing this conclusion.
i still have a better chance fighting off a woman under all circumstances than a man (i believe this fact is fairly obvious
). that doesn't make it a good chance, but the chance is better. but... if i assume someone is carrying a gun and react based on that, then i am discriminating against them, which you said we should not do. can't have it both ways. am i supposed to make judgements or not? you're contradicting yourself.
because i have seen other posts by those same people in which they described things that were 'creepy' when in reality nothing wrong was done besides being there.
No, you dont have a better or worse chance. Its a perfectly equal chance. Thinking that it isnt is just trying to portray a sense of helpless victim and big bad man.
02 Aug 2012, 2:06 am
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Kjas wrote:
That is why I was wondering before: Are they deciding these things on context? Or by other means?
The question is, would they allow a woman to approach them and talk to them in a dark alley? Or would they avoid them?
The question is, would they allow a woman to approach them and talk to them in a dark alley? Or would they avoid them?
according to all the posts so far that specify, it is based on the context and the behaviour, NOT on appearance. so i don't understand in the slightest where you and MXH are getting that bit of misinformation from. you're drawing conclusions about what other members think on this matter, and it is not based on what they have actually said.
it is rather similar to discrimination, really.
(a female rapist is easier to fight off than a male rapist, so for purely practical concerns it would make no sense to consider the threat to be equal)
i know i said i was done but this drew me in. Did you even read pages 7-10? I did, and constantly saw that they are discriminating on men for the sake of safety. To be fair theres a time and place to think of safety, like i said someone following you around ortrying to take you for a ride. But to do so just because they are men, or because of how they act without having interacted with you thats a whole nother deal. That is discrimination, because the person has done nothing to you.
Claiming that a female rapist is easier to fend off is just stupid. What makes it easier? Here, ill help you out. If a woman is out and is trying to rape somebody, but shes afraid shes just too scrawny and might get fended off she can just get a weapon. Last I saw guns arent weaker just because a woman is holding it. Drugs arent less effective because a woman put them in a drink. Knives arent less sharp because a woman is holding it. This is just silly.
once again, you are extrapolating and assuming based on absolutely nothing that they actually SAID. everyone has agreed that safety is paramount, yet you have decided that it must mean that certain women in this thread are treating men like creeps in other circumstances. you don't have any actual posts to base this assumption on, yet you persist in drawing this conclusion.
i still have a better chance fighting off a woman under all circumstances than a man (i believe this fact is fairly obvious
). that doesn't make it a good chance, but the chance is better. but... if i assume someone is carrying a gun and react based on that, then i am discriminating against them, which you said we should not do. can't have it both ways. am i supposed to make judgements or not? you're contradicting yourself.
because i have seen other posts by those same people in which they described things that were 'creepy' when in reality nothing wrong was done besides being there.
No, you dont have a better or worse chance. Its a perfectly equal chance. Thinking that it isnt is just trying to portray a sense of helpless victim and big bad man.
actually no... it is a much greater chance if i am more likely to be just as strong. please stop adding your own subtext to my posts. i didn't say anything about big scary men, i am only referencing my level of strength against an average female.
if you are going to accuse members of advocating a certain action, it makes sense to back it up with actual quotes as opposed to making things up. otherwise it doesn't make sense.
02 Aug 2012, 2:13 am
