dragoncon_lj_archive | I thought this might be a useful article for a few con-goers

matchgirl42.livejournal.com posting in

I could go on and on with an explanation, but I'll just link the column with the caveat: this is not me saying *anything* about your average con-goer. Please read the article through before reacting. Ktnx.

Guest blogger Starling: Schrodinger's rapist, or a guy's guide to approaching strange women without being maced.

Current Mood: cheerful

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

dijitao.livejournal.com

When I read the title of the article I thought that the author must be absolutely paranoid. It implies that all men are simultaneously rapist and not rapist until observed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat) The first couple of paragraphs did nothing but reinforce this initial thought, until the author points out that one in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. I first reacted to this statistic with skepticism and disbelief but as I thought of the women I've known in my life who have been close enough to me to talk to me about such things, one in six becomes a very plausible number. Once you accept that, paranoia is replaced with justifiable caution, and that is a very sickening revelation to me. I always just figured that the reason women don't like it when guys come up to them and try to start up a conversation is the same reason that I don't like it when a women comes up to me and tries to start a conversation. That is to say that if you don't know me and you start talking to me, the only possible thing you could know about me is my outward appearance and if your the kind of person who wants to get to know someone based solely on outward appearance, then changes are your not the kind of person I want to get to know. That's a bit different then, "I wonder if this girl is going to try to rape me".

On a possibly related side notes, I have noticed since I've been married that the number of women who ask me trivial questions such as what time it is, or directions to some location has increased. Are you seriously looking for a guy with a wedding ring on before asking this kind of stuff because he's far less likely to interpret it as anything other then asking a question?

From:

mirana.livejournal.com

I'm glad that you ultimately believed the article, b/c it's 100% true. Ask ANY woman. There's not a day that my friends or family members or myself walk out of our homes and assess the danger of every single man around us. At cons it's even worse.

About the ring thing? Yes. Absolutely that's the reason. Got kids? Because a man with children is the top of that safety scale. ;) (Well, at least kids that aren't screaming, "You're not my daddy!")

From:

beatrizwench.livejournal.com

I must be the exception that proves the rule, because I *rarely* assess the potential danger of the men near me-- even at ren faire where I'm displaying more than an ample amount of boobage and there are men who've consumed more than an ample amount of beer.

~shrugs~ YMMV.

From:

mirana.livejournal.com

As I've said, every single female friend, co-worker and family member I've had has discussed this topic with me before and agreed. Most carry mace or knives. I'm glad you see the world in that way. Hopefully we'll all get to be at that place some day.

From:

glasscannon.livejournal.com

I hadn't thought about it this way until I read the article, but yes that's totally how I've been subconsciously looking at things since puberty at least. And my contribution to the 1-in-6 statistic is a boyfriend that was not very nice, so I don't even have a particular reason to fear strangers. (In fact, I think the statistics are something like, 2/3rds of rapes and sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim knows.)

But I actually feel much more comfortable at cons and ren faires and particularly at DragonCon than I do in most mundane situations, like a parking lot, say. Having my husband with me at cons helps a lot, but even if I was alone (and drunk, and dressed sexy) I'm not nearly as on-guard as I am at a bar.

I think the difference is that I feel like I'm with "my people" at con. As long as I don't go someplace alone with someone I don't know, I feel like if someone was pushing the line, wouldn't get out of my face, wouldn't take no for an answer, etc... Well then there are lots of people around I can make eye contact with, lots of people who would come to my aid if I needed help.

In fact, I was hanging out in High Velocity one night at D*C this year, talking with some very nice -- but very drunk -- lawyer guys who had come over to enjoy the insanity of DragonCon. My husband was nearby, but I definitely had one of the lawyers leaning a bit closer than I would have liked while we talked. Not a big deal, I didn't feel threatened, given the situation, but from across the bar a woman I had never met kept catching my eye, and at one point she mouthed at me "Are you okay?" I nodded back and smiled, but it felt nice to know that someone else had noticed the situation and taken the time to make sure I was alright.

From:

mirana.livejournal.com

Mm, well I work at cons (have for years) so my experience as a decently attractive gal in a costume who's working a booth is a bit different than just being a girl enjoying the con. It's something about "Oh hey, you're here to SERVICE me!" that makes otherwise normal looking guys say and do the stupidest things.

I didn't work D*C as I usually do. I didn't dress up. That didn't keep one guy who was old enough to be my dad from hitting on me in extremely inappropriate ways (not just regular hitting on me which is fine), not leaving me alone, and then showing up at an event the next day JUST to see me (I was wearing a ribbon, so he knew I'd be there). Yeah. Not fucking cool.

I think men (and some women) read this article and think that the assessing threat level is at the forefront of a person's mind, running in high gear. Thus, "paranoia." No. It's more like a function of living. It's like breathing or walking...it's just autopilot. You don't notice until someone talks about it.

From:

kseuss.livejournal.com

Your first instinct was right. The author is paranoid. To put the 'statistics' into perspective, look into how many of those assaults were by family members. The one in six is not referring to women attacked and assaulted by strangers or people they have just met. I am well aware that *some* women are assaulted by strangers, just as some women are raped by other women and some men are raped.
(Numbers vary but as an example, The National Center for Victims of Crime state that 73% of reports are assaulted by people they knew. Another source http://www.womanabuseprevention.com/html/sexual_assault.html reports 69%)
I am not saying that female and male alike should not take simple precautions. I am also not saying that anyone has the right to push themselves on another person who is clearly not interested. The problem is that neither men nor women are nearly as good at communication as they think they are and what one person thinks is a pretty obvious sign, isn't.
To regard all men as potential rapists until *proven* otherwise? That is just paranoid. The shoe too easily fits on the other foot.

From:

jarissa.livejournal.com

Others' methods may vary.

When I'm making that "potential rapist" calculation, it's only one of several simultaneous calculations -- not the primary one, not the loudest one, just one in a blend. I'm also thinking of other possible ulterior motives: I'm in a city/airport/subway/mall; am I being set up for pickpocketing? is of equal weight, and has nothing to do with my gender or his gender as much as it has to do with any human's self-responsibility to be aware of their surroundings. What's he selling? is almost always in there, and it may not be "selling" in terms of "think of me favorably and then buy my bumper stickers!" -- sometimes he's planning to stump his religion, or his politics, or some other sort of philosophy. I don't give off the kind of aura that attracts random pharmaceutical salesmen, but I do tend to attract the beggars.

Do I have time for this? is always part of my calculation cloud. Am I due someplace? Are my ankles thinking about going on strike if I relax my current momentum? Is stopping here for a chat going to impede the general flow of traffic? Am I within paragraphs of figuring out who the real murderer is? Is the storyteller good enough that I want to know before my lunch is completed?

Do I have any clue who this is? I have a lousy memory for faces and names. It seems like a zillion people know one of my husbands, and remember seeing me with them. Not to mention my lone female friend, who is very polite to past acquaintances even when she would be just as happy if that particular acquaintance were to perish in a conflagration. My male friends (with two exceptions) give excellent body language flags that communicate "this person has 15 seconds to go away without losing face", but if they're not present, my chances of remembering that THIS guy got The Brushoff Alarm are not high ... about the same as my chances of remembering that this guy got The Okay Sign.

Am I being approached for some sort of nonmonetary assistance? Along with everything else, I do a quick scan for signs of anxiety, injury, befuddlement, clashing cultural behavior.

What, specifically, is he looking at? Few men ever stare at my T or my A, as there're much more interesting specimens on display all around. If I do catch that rare guy staring at my chest, he's probably reading my shirt, so I check for reading motions in the eyes. Of course, I'll also note jittery eye motions that might mean "hopped up" or "preparing for physical contact", but the eyes half the time don't give intentions away.

There's a lot going on in my head when a strange guy approaches me. One piece of it has to do with this Schroedinger's Rapist theory, but it's not like I'm looking at you primarily as a potential rapist. Or a potential beggar. Or a potential Bible-thumper.

To regard all men as potential rapists until *proven* otherwise? That is just paranoid. The shoe too easily fits on the other foot.

It is absolutely true that there are women rapists with male victims, adult AND juvenile. This is just as terrible as the more stereotypical way around, and I have a distinct loathing for the women who do this. I like men, and I am even furious on behalf of those men who are treated as if they should be racing to do any service to an abuser in the hope that she might let him use his penis.
However, I disagree with the implication that it happens equally as often, among strangers, that a woman approaches a man with the intention of violating his control over his sexual aspect, either by direct physical force or by chemical application or even by social manipulation. The evidence doesn't agree.

{more}

From:

jarissa.livejournal.com

If I misread, and what you meant was simply that it is too easily possible that all men are *not* potential rapists until proven otherwise:
All parrots are potentially sweethearts, cuddly and affectionate to every human being that comes along. I'm still going to observe them cautiously, and check with knowledgeable sources about this particular bird (i.e., the person who feeds him and pets him most often), before I get my fingers anywhere near that beak. I will walk in a circle around the bird, of no less than my own body-length in radius, rather than get close enough to get bit without a chance to defend myself. If the strange bird insists on approaching me for friendship or handouts or anything at all, I'm going to get ready to drive it away; if it refuses to be driven away when I'm gentle about it, I'm going to tell its human to get it RIGHT NOW, and then I'm going to upgrade my efforts until it is no longer anywhere near me.

This isn't paranoia. This is common sense.

Men are more versatile and intelligent than parrots. Probably stronger than I am, too; I'm a physical weakling, and I have a low pain threshold. Why would I treat a strange man with less caution than I would a strange parrot?

From:

kseuss.livejournal.com

Your method of calculating risk is responsible. There is nothing wrong with taking the precaution of staying aware of your surroundings and acting accordingly.
My specific problems with this piece are comments like
"When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me."

and

"You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb her. Really. Even to say that you like her hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for women to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off."

This is the primary view of the article. The idea that all women immediately assume that a man will rape them because the man made the mistake of initiating verbal contact is a communications nightmare that does not need propagating. It encourages a model of fear over reasonable/ rational consideration. It takes actual thought out of the equation.

As far as your view:
"However, I disagree with the implication that it happens equally as often, among strangers, that a woman approaches a man with the intention of violating his control over his sexual aspect, either by direct physical force or by chemical application or even by social manipulation."

I would say that due to old social conventions which cause a lot of women to still feel that they should not be the ones to initiate contact, (conventions which are changing daily as more women assert themselves) it is true that more men approach women. I *would* assert though that percentage wise the approacher seeks sexual control over the approachee fairly equally between women and men. (With more men being the approacher and therefore higher total numbers)

From:

mirana.livejournal.com

"This is the primary view of the article. The idea that all women immediately assume that a man will rape them because the man made the mistake of initiating verbal contact is a communications nightmare that does not need propagating. It encourages a model of fear over reasonable/ rational consideration. It takes actual thought out of the equation."

I don't think you understand what the article is trying to say about how women think of strange men. It's not "YOU ARE A RAPIST" it is "He COULD be a rapist, or violent, or a thief, or a sexist douchebag..." There is quite a bit of thought put into the "equation." Jarissa tried to clarify it further by offering examples a man might relate to, IE "This person could try to rob me." It's not necessarily fear, so much as taking the first step of protection, especially in a culture where such things are prevalent, no matter what statics you want to quote.

The essay is trying to help men understand a woman's world and how he might approach a potential new date without tripping those alarms. If you want to argue that they're incorrect (it's ultimately not a matter of statistics, it's a matter of perception), then you miss the point and hopefully do not, or will not, need the advice in the future.