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

[matchgirl42.livejournal.com]

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.

Comments

Re: My perspective as a hippy broad

[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?

Re: My perspective as a hippy broad

[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)

Re: My perspective as a hippy broad

[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.