Miami U flier: 'Top ten ways to get away with rape'

[eion]

I'm going to go off somewhere and hide for a while. Clearly I let my contrarian side get the better of me. If that seems like trolling, I'm sorry, it wasn't meant as such. It was not my intention to raise hackles just to raise hackles. I should have conceded about two pages ago and reframed my position, but I'm a stubborn ass.

I'm sure I've burned whatever small goodwill I had on this forum in this thread, and for absolutely no benefit. Sorry for all that too. I'm sure I must seem like a piece of slime to everyone whose read my posts in this thread, I hope if you were to meet me you would have a different opinion of me, but perhaps you'd just think that was a mask; I hope it isn't.

Until me meet again, Your most contrite poster,

Eion

[Dark Hellion]

No Eion, don't run away. That is just continuing the same type of immaturity that got you into this predicament in the first place. Instead, use this as an opportunity to ask real questions and to come to a better understanding of why the positions that you held were not as morally sound as you thought they are. This is an opportunity to ask a mature and experienced woman like Broomstick about what it is like to be a woman and to better understand how you can foster responsible attitudes towards woman in your life.

The most difficult part of upholding moral integrity is that you must constantly question your own preconceptions and ask if what you really think is right is truly right. You must accept the burden that you could be wrong and that you might have to change and when you find you are in the wrong you must then find out how to change yourself.

[The Yosemite Bear]

am I the onlyone finding Eion running off to a dark corner to hide in a thread about rape a bit tweaking of the irony meter?

[eion]

It's an entirely valid point, DH and a fine idea, but I just don't want to let my mouth run away at the moment. Maybe a day's cooling off will prevent that. At the moment, I'm sure people are a tad sick of me anyway.

And the fact that my first impulse when you labeled my behavior imature was to lash out at you tells me this is not a good time for searching and fearless moral inventory.

P.S. Bear, the irony is not lost on me. Take that as a victory if you like.

[Kojiro]

To some extent, yes. It certainly wouldn't hurt if they paid some attention to how people react to them. Part of living in a civilized society is having consideration for others. If you have a loud voice you should take some care to moderate it so as not to cause discomfort to others. You should shower/bathe often enough so as not to offend others with body odor. You should not stand so close others as to cause them discomfort. People who are very strong who have reason to take the hand of or help the frail should take care not to injure them. People who are tall enough their size can be physically intimidating should avoid doing things likely to make the shorter members of society uncomfortable, and I would say that applies equally well to larger women (who, while less common, can also do the same things) as to men. Of course, the very tall/large also have rights and should not be unduly restricted, either. The trick, as always, is finding a reasonable balance.

See I am one of those taller people. I am two meters tall and well built former bouncer. I notice all the time when people around me are uncomfortable, men as well as women, but women especially. I've had it suggested I not get into elevators with women alone because it would upset them, that I should cross the street if I find myself behind a woman walking home, even evaluate my position in a room (don't block exists) and in general go out of my way to make sure my presence doesn't cause undue stress.

Part of me absolutely hates this, because it's a perception thing. You could say all the same things to say, a black person because of some perceived notion they're dangerous. That black guy walking behind you could be wanting to mug you, just as the huge guy (me) could be wanting to rape you, and neither one of us can do anything about our physical characteristics. It feels like I'm being painted with a brush in very broad strokes.

But I also have met people much larger than me and as Broomstick pointed out, there's was this inherent fear caused by the immediate shift in the power dynamic. For me it's something that is so innate, so constant I didn't even realise it was there until it changed, and then suddenly you know how every woman on the planet feels and you feel like such an ass for not getting it sooner. I know it's probably more of a 'shock' to people like me who are used to being bigger and stronger than it is for a small woman, who is probably somewhat used to it but damn did I hate that feeling.

Back in my bouncing days I used to often go out back to have a quick break, and often as not I'd find other staff out there. Sometimes it was just a single female, alone in an alley next to a club that would drown out any noise or scream she could possibly make. Back then it never occurred to me how they must feel to be in that alley, essentially trapped. Of course I never had any intention of doing anything to any of them. I did once (well several times but with the same girl) find myself cornered, being pressured for sex in that alley. But unlike those women I was never trapped. I could and did just brush her off and go back to work. Now I would go out of my way to make it put anyone at ease- move away from the door and keep my distance for example.

Like I said, part of me hates that I have to be extra cautious so as not to cause undue stress because it feels like a special set of rules/requirements just for me. But given the choice of being where I am in the power dynamic or being in fear, I'll stay where I am thank you and remind myself that my considerations cause me relatively little discomfort compared to what they avoid. In short I agree with Broomstick- you have to think about how other people feel.

[Stark]

I'm a really tall guy, and meeting people taller than me definitely has this primitive reaction. If anything it's worse, because it's so uncommon for me.

[weemadando]

I'm a really tall guy, and meeting people taller than me definitely has this primitive reaction. If anything it's worse, because it's so uncommon for me.

Same, when I encounter someone taller I get a bit weirded out momentarily. Damn fucking monkey brains.

[Broomstick]

The other tricky part is that laws do vary from place to place. Thanas, that may well be how the law sees it in Germany, but what of other places?

I am very hard pressed to think of any jurisdiction where rape is not defined as "sex without consent of the victim" or some version thereof. Consent matters. The rest does not.

Within my own memory some states in the US did not recognize marital rape because, under their jurisdictions, a wife was not allowed to withdraw consent to sex after the marriage ceremony. She could not say "no" to her husband. That's the only example I can think of off hand, and it is now outmoded. Well, until recently the FBI did not recognize men as rape victims, a raped man was defined as a victim of "sexual assault", not rape, in their rulebook. On the one hand it was a pretty finicky point of law as the penalties for that level of assault were pretty much the same as for rape, on the other hand it does illustrate why official rates of raped males in the US are so hard to come by and would be an example of how some types of rape still aren't taken as seriously as they should be. Again, though, that is changing.

As far as intent being required for a person to be guilty of a crime - in the US if you unintentionally kill someone (with a motor vehicle, perhaps, on an unlit road on a dark night for a random example) you may not be tried for murder but you certainly could face charges of "involuntary manslaughter" - still a crime although the penalties are significantly less than for murder. The notion that you are still responsible if your actions harm someone, even if no harm was intended, isn't entirely absent from the law.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer and don't feel I could really take that argument any further than I have, and I certainly am no authority on any form of law, much less anything outside the US. I do wonder how much rape/sexual assault laws vary from place to place these days. Here in the west there may not be much variance anymore, but I expect outside that things could be very different.

[TheFeniX]

That is a fundamental difference that so many men just don't comprehend. A woman has to deal with this fear of assault every single day of her life. It does color how we act. Even when we are brave enough to go out in the world and do what we want and damn the jackasses we are still aware we are running a risk our male counterparts don't have to, don't think about, and are often completely oblivious to the threat's existence.

I don't turn my back to anyone if I can avoid it, preferring instead to expose only my side, even in a line at the gas station. I ask people standing to close "Can I help you?" I keep distance from strangers entering our business doors (because we aren't a service industry). I avoid blind corners and cutting through clusters of parked cars. I'm about 6'2" and male. I just spent 2 days in Corpus Christi and made damn sure to only take exactly what I needed outside at night and make sure my sight-lines were at least 10-yards while I was outside the hotel. The real kicker is that I'm considered paranoid even though this paranoia is what prevented me from being carjacked and possibly murdered in West Houston.

It's a given women have to worry about sexual assault much more than men, but no one can just ignore signs of danger and avoid consequences such as robbery or assault or even getting hit by a car while crossing the street. Based on your location description, I'll ask: Are you in Detroit?

Back in my bouncing days I used to often go out back to have a quick break, and often as not I'd find other staff out there. Sometimes it was just a single female, alone in an alley next to a club that would drown out any noise or scream she could possibly make. Back then it never occurred to me how they must feel to be in that alley, essentially trapped. Of course I never had any intention of doing anything to any of them. I did once (well several times but with the same girl) find myself cornered, being pressured for sex in that alley. But unlike those women I was never trapped. I could and did just brush her off and go back to work. Now I would go out of my way to make it put anyone at ease- move away from the door and keep my distance for example.

Or you could have introduced yourself as the guy they hired to handle the idiots and maybe ask "Is it cool if I hang out here with you?" Standing in the corner with a nervous look on your face probably won't inspire much confidence.

Like I said, part of me hates that I have to be extra cautious so as not to cause undue stress because it feels like a special set of rules/requirements just for me. But given the choice of being where I am in the power dynamic or being in fear, I'll stay where I am thank you and remind myself that my considerations cause me relatively little discomfort compared to what they avoid. In short I agree with Broomstick- you have to think about how other people feel.

5'0" 6'0" 7'0", man, woman, old, young, I have had words with anyone who, say, decided to stand close enough to me so I could taste what they had for breakfast. Focusing on someone's size as a criteria of threat is stupid normally, but can be even more lethal when you factor in knives and handguns. You're much better off focusing on body language and responses from simple questions.

You guys are weird about freaking out around tall people (or maybe I'm the weird one). I've never felt intimidated by someone taller than me (unless they are acting intimidating), even when I met my future brother-in-law (6'8" 350 lbs former NFL linebacker).

[Broomstick]

See I am one of those taller people. I am two meters tall and well built former bouncer. I notice all the time when people around me are uncomfortable, men as well as women, but women especially. I've had it suggested I not get into elevators with women alone because it would upset them, that I should cross the street if I find myself behind a woman walking home, even evaluate my position in a room (don't block exists) and in general go out of my way to make sure my presence doesn't cause undue stress.

Hm... That's probably more than you need to do for me, personally, but I'm probably much more confident around men than the average woman. As I've mentioned, a good rule of thumb is to stay beyond arm's reach of women you don't know or who are acting skittish, it makes it much clearer that you are not intending to make a grab for her. Not that women usually think that literally, but, you know, monkey brains.

Once in awhile when I encounter a male stranger (and more likely if it's at night) I'll find myself unconsciously taking a step backward. Most often, the man will also take a step backward, or say something reassuring, to make it clear he has no sinister intentions. Usually, having acknowledged our anxieties, conversation can then proceed on more friendly terms. As a general rule, the shorter/weaker person should be allowed to set the distance, and yes, that is usually the woman but for disparity in either male/male or female/female situations the same body language works. By ceding some control (such as the distance at which conversation will take place) the larger/stronger party is making it clear they're with the good guys.

Of course a true sociopath will be able to exploit that to his own ends, but one does what one can.

Part of me absolutely hates this, because it's a perception thing. You could say all the same things to say, a black person because of some perceived notion they're dangerous. That black guy walking behind you could be wanting to mug you, just as the huge guy (me) could be wanting to rape you, and neither one of us can do anything about our physical characteristics. It feels like I'm being painted with a brush in very broad strokes.

Well, to put it in crude terms, I absolutely hate that because I have tits and ass some members of humanity regard me solely as self-propelled sex toy without any other importance but, as you say, there isn't much we can do about certain physical characteristics.

But I also have met people much larger than me and as Broomstick pointed out, there's was this inherent fear caused by the immediate shift in the power dynamic. For me it's something that is so innate, so constant I didn't even realise it was there until it changed, and then suddenly you know how every woman on the planet feels and you feel like such an ass for not getting it sooner. I know it's probably more of a 'shock' to people like me who are used to being bigger and stronger than it is for a small woman, who is probably somewhat used to it but damn did I hate that feeling.

We shorties do learn to moderate that reaction to a considerable degree - we sort of have to in order to participate in public society. In return, women need to understand that not every large man is an inherent threat. Actually, some of them make damn good allies. I sometimes wonder if the tendency of very small women to seek out very large men as mates is connected to the idea of allying with someone much bigger and stronger as a form of protection. Again, this needn't be conscious, but we're still animals living in an ape society even if we aren't quite like the chimps and gorillas in detail.

Sometimes it was just a single female, alone in an alley next to a club that would drown out any noise or scream she could possibly make. Back then it never occurred to me how they must feel to be in that alley, essentially trapped.

A lot of it depends on the man in question. I've had coworkers that I would feel safer standing with in such and alley, and others I simply would never be alone with at all, ever, anywhere, if I could possibly avoid it. If she perceives you as a friend an ally she might well find your presence reassuring. If she barely knows you. or dislikes you, maybe not so much.

Is it fair that extremely tall people have to think about these things? No, it's not. It's not fair that women have to worry about rape on a daily basis, either. I think this is one of those things my dad meant when he'd tell me "life isn't fair".

[Broomstick]

It's a given women have to worry about sexual assault much more than men, but no one can just ignore signs of danger and avoid consequences such as robbery or assault or even getting hit by a car while crossing the street.

Overconfidence in their own safety might well be a factor in more men being victims of violent crime other than rape than women despite the fact women are more physically vulnerable. A level of personal security considered reasonable, or even minimal, by a woman might be considered paranoid in a man, but as you say, men are not immune to danger.

Based on your location description, I'll ask: Are you in Detroit?

Nope. I did grow up in the Detroit area. I've also lived in St. Louis, Chicago, and Gary, Indiana, all urban areas with noted dangers for anyone regardless of sex.

Focusing on someone's size as a criteria of threat is stupid normally, but can be even more lethal when you factor in knives and handguns.

Bullshit. Anyone half a meter taller (or more!) than me is going to have an advantage in any form of physical confrontation simply because they have a greater reach, different leverage, and more body weight. It's not the only factor, but yes it does matter.

You're much better off focusing on body language and responses from simple questions.

Again, multiple factors at work.

[amigocabal]

As far as intent being required for a person to be guilty of a crime - in the US if you unintentionally kill someone (with a motor vehicle, perhaps, on an unlit road on a dark night for a random example) you may not be tried for murder but you certainly could face charges of "involuntary manslaughter" - still a crime although the penalties are significantly less than for murder. The notion that you are still responsible if your actions harm someone, even if no harm was intended, isn't entirely absent from the law.

Even with manslaughter, some level of negligence is required. Merely being behind the wheel of a car that happened to strike someone dead is insufficient. In many jurisdictions, gross negligence is required.

[TheFeniX]

Bullshit. Anyone half a meter taller (or more!) than me is going to have an advantage in any form of physical confrontation simply because they have a greater reach, different leverage, and more body weight. It's not the only factor, but yes it does matter.

Any reasonably fit man is going to have a physical advantage over a woman of equal (and even greater size). That doesn't mean everyone with physical advantages should be treated as a potential threat merely because of that fact. And it damn sure shouldn't be a primary concern in that regard because you should be focusing on actual suspicious behavior. Even I've thought "how much damage could my line-backer brother-in-law do if he went Hulk Smash?™" That said, on any given day, my potential to do bodily harm is considerably greater than his, even though statistically I'm a non-threat to any law-abiding person.

Basically, your methodology is back-asswards. You shouldn't judge someone as a threat off their size, but it's a good idea to determine that they have the potential to be a greater threat due to that size. A person invading my personal space is a threat to me no matter what. It's after that when I start taking different factors into account of how much a threat they are. A larger person might register as a larger threat, but even I tend not to think that way and react the same in either situation: create distance, introduce myself and/or ask them to step back, judge reaction, and go from there. I've watched enough Boxing, MMA, and random street fights to know even a 135lbs man (or woman for that matter) can put you out with one punch or choke you unconscious in seconds if they get behind you.

Again, multiple factors at work.

That's not what he said. And that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing against the concept of viewing physically large (as in tall and/or muscular) people as potential threats because of that fact alone or that they should go above and beyond basic etiquette to make others feel better. If the actions of a "normal" size person is ok, but a larger person doing the same thing is "Threat:" that's on you, not the guy who was born tall/big.

[Broomstick]

Any reasonably fit man is going to have a physical advantage over a woman of equal (and even greater size). That doesn't mean everyone with physical advantages should be treated as a potential threat merely because of that fact.

When assessing risk size is ONE factor in the equation. Larger size means the shit is deeper if I'm wrong in my assessment of risk and underestimate risk. If I am threatened by a woman my own size my chances of extracting myself from a bad situation are much higher than if threatened by a woman larger than myself or a man of the same size as myself. Additional factors are age (people 20-35 have more potential for mayhem than, say, someone 80), body language, and whether or not they are carrying weapons or potential weapons. Among others. I'm sorry if you're offended by the notion that physical size is a factor when I make a risk assessment but that's the way it is. I'm a small woman nearly 50 years old. My ability to physically defend myself is only going to go downhill from here. Even if I chose to arm myself in an attempt to level the playing field (a debatable choice in any case) my reaction time and vision are not as good as they were 10 years ago and likewise will only get worse from here. My best defense is avoiding trouble and if my manner of doing so offends you I really don't give a damn.

Basically, your methodology is back-asswards. You shouldn't judge someone as a threat off their size, but it's a good idea to determine that they have the potential to be a greater threat due to that size.

Yes, that's what I've been saying, and if you weren't so determined to argue you'd realize that.

Here's a notion: if a three-year-old "invades" my personal space or even throws a punch or three at me he's not a threat. The size and strength disparity makes his aggression laughable. If I should decide to hurt him, however, he's in a world of shit.

Likewise, if a physically fit, two meter tall man "invades" my personal space and decides to have his way with me (whatever that may involve - be imaginative) I'm in a world of shit.

I can afford to be wrong about whether or not a three year old intends to hit me. I can not afford to be wrong about the "Hulk" as you put it.

I've watched enough Boxing, MMA, and random street fights to know even a 135lbs man (or woman for that matter) can put you out with one punch or choke you unconscious in seconds if they get behind you.

Yeah, sure. I know, at least in theory, how to take down another human being. Hell, I even disabled a wannabe rapist at one point, I know how to defend myself - but unlike most internet tough guys I also know that a big factor in my "win" was that he wasn't expecting me to fight back. I won with surprise, not overwhelming physical force, crazy fighting skills, or even being meaner than him.

If the actions of a "normal" size person is ok, but a larger person doing the same thing is "Threat:" that's on you, not the guy who was born tall/big.

Stop and think about that a minute. "Born" tall/big? No one is born tall and big, we're all born small squally bloody little things then grow up.

[TheFeniX]

When assessing risk size is ONE factor in the equation. Larger size means the shit is deeper if I'm wrong in my assessment of risk and underestimate risk. If I am threatened by a woman my own size my chances of extracting myself from a bad situation are much higher than if threatened by a woman larger than myself or a man of the same size as myself. Additional factors are age (people 20-35 have more potential for mayhem than, say, someone 80), body language, and whether or not they are carrying weapons or potential weapons. Among others. I'm sorry if you're offended by the notion that physical size is a factor when I make a risk assessment but that's the way it is. I'm a small woman nearly 50 years old. My ability to physically defend myself is only going to go downhill from here. Even if I chose to arm myself in an attempt to level the playing field (a debatable choice in any case) my reaction time and vision are not as good as they were 10 years ago and likewise will only get worse from here.

None of this does anything to show "being big" is a good criteria to judge if someone is likely to be violent. Once again, you're equating the capacity for greater violence as a greater chance to commit said violence. Other factors aren't relevant because I'm not arguing against them.

My best defense is avoiding trouble and if my manner of doing so offends you I really don't give a damn.

Yep, that's me: totally offended over here. Can we just drop that right now? I'm not mad at your argument, I'm just saying it's dumb. Not the avoiding trouble part mind you, that's spot on. I'm just saying one of your factors for avoiding it is dumb.

Yes, that's what I've been saying, and if you weren't so determined to argue you'd realize that.

No, you answered my response to another poster that was "don't judge people as violent solely based on their physical build" by saying "No, do so because they can do more damage."

Here's a notion: if a three-year-old "invades" my personal space or even throws a punch or three at me he's not a threat. The size and strength disparity makes his aggression laughable. If I should decide to hurt him, however, he's in a world of shit.

Likewise, if a physically fit, two meter tall man "invades" my personal space and decides to have his way with me (whatever that may involve - be imaginative) I'm in a world of shit.

I can afford to be wrong about whether or not a three year old intends to hit me. I can not afford to be wrong about the "Hulk" as you put it.

Going a bit on the extreme side are we? A 3-year-old vs a 6'8" man? Where do average sized men fit into your equation?

Yeah, sure. I know, at least in theory, how to take down another human being. Hell, I even disabled a wannabe rapist at one point, I know how to defend myself - but unlike most internet tough guys I also know that a big factor in my "win" was that he wasn't expecting me to fight back. I won with surprise, not overwhelming physical force, crazy fighting skills, or even being meaner than him.

I don't see how that invalidates my argument. You were able to successfully fight off a violent attacker who was (I assume) physically superior to you through tenacity and surprise. Kudos (seriously). On the other hand, it's been a while since I've been accused of being an ITG, so I'll just consider it a compliment and move on.

Stop and think about that a minute. "Born" tall/big? No one is born tall and big, we're all born small squally bloody little things then grow up.

Poor wording choice on my part, but you know what I fucking meant.

[Broomstick]

None of this does anything to show "being big" is a good criteria to judge if someone is likely to be violent. Once again, you're equating the capacity for greater violence as a greater chance to commit said violence. Other factors aren't relevant because I'm not arguing against them.

No, dumbass, bigger means that if I'm wrong in assessing a person the consequences can be more severe. Hence, the bigger they are the more conservative I am in my assessment. Or, if you prefer, paranoid. I don't think bigger people are more prone to violence, but if they are violent then they are capable of causing more damage.

Can we just drop that right now? I'm not mad at your argument, I'm just saying it's dumb.

No, because it is YOU who are being stupid. When a wrong decision will result in greater consequences the smart thing is to be more careful in your deciding.

Going a bit on the extreme side are we? A 3-year-old vs a 6'8" man? Where do average sized men fit into your equation?

Read what I fucking wrote instead of listening to the voices in your head. NEVER did I propose a 3 year old vs. a 6 foot 8 man. That is YOUR fucking misreading of what I wrote and I am tired of your willful bullshitting.

Oh, boo fucking hoo - someone suggests that maybe we should all be more aware of the viewpoint of others and you have a shitfit over how that will inconvenience you. Seriously, that's where the clueless young-dumb-and-full-of-cum assholes in this thread go off the rails. All they're worried about is how THEY are inconvenienced, about how unfair it is that THEY maybe should alter their behavior. Nevermind the millions billions of women in this world who live every fucking day having to alter THEIR behavior to keep themselves safe (maybe!) so little self-absorbed goat felchings such as yourself don't have to be "inconvenienced" by being a little more considerate of others.

Guess what little boy - there's more than just YOU living on this planet. If you can't "alter" your behavior sufficiently to live in a civilized society then do please go fucking live in the wilderness somewhere. Somewhere that others won't "inconvenience" you and we won't have to goddamned listen to your mewling about you have it so damned hard in life when you don't have to think EVERY GODDAMNED DAY about how to avoid being RAPED. Do you understand that the "normal" life of an adult women is to fear assault as an every-present background? Maybe not daily, but is something we worry about when we're alone in public, when we travel, hell, even in our own goddamned homes, in our own beds, at three in the morning when a noise outside wakes us up. Is that an intruder or robber? And if it is, will he rape as well as rob?

That is one of the most fundamental differences between men and women - women have to worry about this all the goddamned time, men do not (although men with wives and daughters often start to think about it). Women experience FAR more fear as part of their "normal" lives than a man does... and yet you have the unmitigated GALL to whine about how slightly altering your behavior to make the half of the human race that lives with this chronic fear just a little more comfortable?

Can you be more selfish?

You were able to successfully fight off a violent attacker who was (I assume) physically superior to you through tenacity and surprise. Kudos (seriously).

Again, you did not read what I wrote. I won because of surprise. That is all. There was no "tenacity" involved whatsoever.

Obviously you have NEVER been in a serious fight. It's not like the goddamned movies with people dancing around each other and sparring and trading witticisms and punches. A real, a serious fight, one where harm is truly intended towards another human being, is over very, very quickly. I didn't "fight off" my attacker, I managed to kick him ONCE. I happened to also be wearing heavy boots and hit him with enough force to break a bone, which pretty much prevented him from pursuing me as I ran like hell. As it was, I missed my intended target and was fortunate enough to still do sufficient damage to disable him.

Again, no "tenacity". No mad fighting skills (as I said, I screwed up and missed my intended target). Just one adrenalin fueled effort that paid off and me running for the hills immediately afterward. Why? Because I wasn't going to fucking stand around and let him get a second chance at me.

Now, either read and comprehend what I actually write or shut the fuck up, cumstain.

[weemadando]

I've trained and competed in a variety of martial arts, I judge and commentate for mma promotions - and real fights fucking terrify me.

One day you will end up in one and be desperately working to stay safe and alive however you can. And if you're lucky enough to see the first hit coming then maybe, MAYBE you'll have a chance to recover and escape. Not win. Not beat them. Just live.

That's how we can tell who's an Internet Tough Guy, because they or those they know haven't had such a traumatic and dangerous experience.

[LaCroix]

I've trained and competed in a variety of martial arts, I judge and commentate for mma promotions - and real fights fucking terrify me.

One day you will end up in one and be desperately working to stay safe and alive however you can. And if you're lucky enough to see the first hit coming then maybe, MAYBE you'll have a chance to recover and escape. Not win. Not beat them. Just live.

That's how we can tell who's an Internet Tough Guy, because they or those they know haven't had such a traumatic and dangerous experience.

This...
Ten years of martial arts didn't help me jack shit (except for not breaking my neck while falling) when some punk decided to kick me three flights of stairs down to the subway from behind and proceeded to boot me while I was down because of whatever reason he had for it. There's no fighting back or defense when you get hit first - in such a case, it's just about survival. And you'll develop a healthy dose of paranoia after such an experience, trust me.

Broomstick is absolutely right in her assessment of erring on the side of caution on people who are bigger than you. The stakes are higher, because you can't know how well someone can fight, and that doesn't matter, at all. And all that matters is "Would that person's first hit knock the wind out of me or not?" First hit means 95% chance to win.

She actually made me reconsider my behavior around smaller people. It never occurred to me that I might be intimidating someone because of my size, but it explains some encounters that I had.

[Lagmonster]

Part of me absolutely hates this, because it's a perception thing. You could say all the same things to say, a black person because of some perceived notion they're dangerous. That black guy walking behind you could be wanting to mug you, just as the huge guy (me) could be wanting to rape you, and neither one of us can do anything about our physical characteristics. It feels like I'm being painted with a brush in very broad strokes.

Well, to put it in crude terms, I absolutely hate that because I have tits and ass some members of humanity regard me solely as self-propelled sex toy without any other importance but, as you say, there isn't much we can do about certain physical characteristics.

This is the realization I was hoping would be made when I asked the question in the first place. I wanted to address what I saw as offering a solution to the fear of rape, versus a solution to the crime of rape (especially dat-rape, which I'd argue is bound to piss-poor social management of the male sex drive in addition to the various social problems cited). In general, I don't imagine that we as a society feel justified asking people to modify their behaviour based on characteristics over which they have no control.

[Losonti Tokash]

Are you sure about that? People offer plenty of tips to women on how to minimize their chances of being raped. That's definitely asking people to modify their behavior based on something they have no control over.

[Broomstick]

^ This.

Women are constantly asked to modify their behavior: Don't walk alone, ask for an escort to your car in the parking lot after dark, don't go to that place alone, don't dress this way or that way, change your posture to look more assertive, etc. etc. etc.

If she does not there are those who say she is being careless and "asking for trouble". Even if she DOES modify her behavior and is attacked anyway she'll hear those same phrases.

That's just in the west - in some places in the Middle East women are expected to never go outside their home without a male escort of some sort, making them virtual prisoners (either under house arrest or requiring a "guard").

WHY is it considered acceptable to ask 51% of humanity to restrict their behavior every single damn day but it's too "burdensome" to suggest (not require, just suggest) that tall men do something as simple as not come closer than arm's length (or just a bit further) of women they don't know until the women either moves closer of her own accord or otherwise indicates that she is comfortable with him being closer?

Seriously, HOW can you call the latter unreasonable yet expect women to do all the other things listed?

[Grumman]

WHY is it considered acceptable to ask 51% of humanity to restrict their behavior every single damn day but it's too "burdensome" to suggest (not require, just suggest) that tall men do something as simple as not come closer than arm's length (or just a bit further) of women they don't know until the women either moves closer of her own accord or otherwise indicates that she is comfortable with him being closer?

Rape is a known hazard that we cannot eradicate. Acknowledging that this hazard exists and trying to persuade someone to protect themselves from it is not the same as condoning it, any more than asking someone not to put their wallet in their back pocket means you side with the pickpockets. Women shouldn't have to go out of their way to protect themselves but that's a goal, not a method.

[TheFeniX]

No, dumbass, bigger means that if I'm wrong in assessing a person the consequences can be more severe.

Whatever your argument is now: that's not originally what you said. You responded to my comment of "you shouldn't view someone as a potential threat based on their size" with "Yes you should because they can do more damage." You equated the ability to do damage with an increase desire to do so. This is dumb because everything I've ever read on the subject shows that tall men are on average more successful in business and personal relationships, thus less likely to turn to crime/violence and it assumes that small people can't and don't compensate by using a weapon to commit a crime, even though they do this all the time.

Everything else you blew up about isn't relevant because I'm not arguing it. I however will respond (because I did so once already) to the idea that women have everything to fear outside their homes and men don't (or should worry less than women).

Men don't get a free pass on walking out of our doors

In 1995 the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting system (UCR) reported that females represented 23% of all known homicide victims in the United States. In single victim-single offender incidents, males are most often slain by males (89%). Similarly, 9 of every 10 female victims were murdered by males.

Women were also more likely than men to experience violent victimization by a relative. In contrast, men experience victimizations by friends, acquaintances, and strangers in greater numbers than women.

Total victimization seem to be nearly a 50/50 split between men and women. But men are twice to 4 times as likely to be murdered than women and twice as likely to be victimized by strangers than women. Here's something from 2005: Same basic conclusion.

Obviously you have NEVER been in a serious fight.

I couldn't be rolling my eyes harder at this comment, but I'm not going to get into this pissing match with you because it's juvenile and not relevant. But I find it hugely ironic that (provided it was true) me not being in a fight where I could have been killed and being called out on that "fact" makes me the tough guy.

[Ziggy Stardust]

You equated the ability to do damage with an increase desire to do so.

Um ... nobody ever said that. Nobody in this thread has said that tall people are automatically more violent, aggressive, whatever. That's a huge strawman.

Broomstick's only argument has been that larger/taller people are, perceptually, a greater threat. And there really is no arguing with that, it is a basic facet of human psychology that is pretty well documented: taller people are more physically threatening to our monkey brains. Nobody ever said they are inherently more dangerous, just that their is a greater perceived danger from them.

[TheFeniX]

You equated the ability to do damage with an increase desire to do so.

Um ... nobody ever said that. Nobody in this thread has said that tall people are automatically more violent, aggressive, whatever. That's a huge strawman.

Then by what justification do we ask them to act outside standard etiquette and be more aware of what they are than "normal" people? Because they have the potential for more mayhem?

Broomstick's only argument has been that larger/taller people are, perceptually, a greater threat. And there really is no arguing with that, it is a basic facet of human psychology that is pretty well documented: taller people are more physically threatening to our monkey brains. Nobody ever said they are inherently more dangerous, just that their is a greater perceived danger from them.

Perceived danger is bullshit. My monkey brain tells me to be wary of anyone different from me and getting over that is a large part of combating social ills like racism. I might understand why my Hispanic friends have to act differently than me in a given social situation because of public perception based on racism, but I'm not about to try and justify it.