How Google Maps Almost Got Me Killed

[Syne]

Jesus, Syne, are trying to make feel like shit for just being a woman?  I should be able to be butt ass naked and not have to worry about being attacked.

No, you're doing that all yourself. Unless in a specifically designated area, you would be arrested for indecent exposure...with repeated offenses qualifying you as a sex offender...even exposing yourself to an unwilling person in a private residence (in which case, you become the predator).

Go on any internet dating site. You'll find plenty of that, and much much worse, without any male audience.

I wouldn’t know. I’ve never been on a dating site.  Why would I, when I can just go to a gas station?

Then you obviously don't have adequate experience to be characterizing the motives of men in general...only misandry.

Bullshit stats from a source you conveniently can't cite for critique. Sounds like misandrist propaganda...just like the 1-in-4 women on college campus.  

Source
Source

Neither of those include the "stats" you claimed.

I should take a break because you're starting to annoy me...again.

It can get annoying when people aren't gullible enough to accept your bare assertions in lieu of facts.

[Secular Sanity]

It can get annoying when people aren't gullible enough to accept your bare assertions in lieu of facts.

I don’t know how accurate they are, but I have seen stats showing that 1-16 men are rapists and 1-3 would do it if they knew they could get away with it.  

Source

I’m not going to have a long drawn out rape debate with you.  It’s not worth it.  You never seem to learn anything. I was just trying to tell you what happened and what goes through our minds.  Our risk assessment and safety planning is way more in depth than yours, and why is that?  Because we’re weaker?  No, it’s because you are the most dangerous animal on the planet. No ifs, ands, or, buts, about it.

[Syne]

Source

I’m not going to have a long drawn out rape debate with you.  It’s not worth it.  You never seem to learn anything. I was just trying to tell you what happened and what goes through our minds.  Our risk assessment and safety planning is way more in depth than yours, and why is that?  Because we’re weaker?  No, it’s because you are the most dangerous animal on the planet. No ifs, ands, or, buts, about it.

No polling organization would ever be taken seriously if its sample size was 73, and neither should this ‘study’ on college rape

To fully comprehend just how bogus this “study” is, imagine the public and media reaction if a polling organization like Gallup, Rasmussen Reports or Pew Research ever tried to release survey results on presidential or Congressional approval or any other topic with a sample size of 73 and a sampling margin of error of +11.5% (instead of the typical random sample of around 1,000 that is necessary to achieve the standard +3% margin of error at the 95% confidence level)!

Bogus '1 in 3 Men Would Commit Rape' Study Discredits Itself in Opening Sentence, Goes Downhill From There

I'll get to the study's specifics shortly, but first want to note that the work, published in December, automatically discredited itself in its body's opening paragraph:

This "one in five" statistic was already discredited months before "Denying Rape but Endorsing Forceful Intercourse: Exploring Differences Among Responders" was published.

And what I'm I supposed to be learning from your bigoted misandry and faulty studies?

[Secular Sanity]

Yep, you’re right.  I shouldn’t have gone alone.  I shouldn’t have tried to use a rest area.  I shouldn’t have gone to an unmanned gas station and I shouldn’t have worn yoga pants.

Happy now?

[Syne]

No, I would have been happy to opine and be done....until you got to "Why don’t you guys...", as if individuals are responsible for their whole gender. If you can't see how things like "...by having enough balls..." are overtly antagonistic, I really can't help you. You always do something like that, and then you feign innocence when you're called for such bigoted misandry, hasty generalizations, and bad citations.

Like I first said, being armed would have made doing all that a much less frightful endeavor. As long as you can legally conceal a gun in your yoga pants, I wouldn't advise against any of it.

[stryder]

Escalation never ends well. Suggesting that women should have to become extreme and violent to put the fear in would be attackers just ends up escalating it further. I'd assume that some types of abusers get off on the thrill caused by such risks.

If such escalation should be pushed, I'd suggest sticking to non-lethal rounds, that way if you get it wrong you haven't killed someone and if you've got it right you don't end up hesitating to think about what happens if you get it wrong and kill someone.

Some of the arguments here remind me of how Orthodox Jews were caught throwing acid in the face of teenage girls on a bus that happened to wear sultry clothing. I don't think the teenage girls would of been allowed to carry protective weaponry, some would argue it was the fault of the parent's for letting them wear the clothing, but the real fault was with the dysfunctional thinking of those that defaced/disfigured them.

[RainbowUnicorn]

LOL! The yoga pants is probably the least detrimental part of a woman alone at night in the middle of nowhere.
And if you think yoga pants are comparable to any other pants, I can see why you might not have the best estimation of dangerous situations.  

Oh my god! Seriously?  

My yoga pants.

My hiking pants.

LOL! Make up your mind:

"Two guys were sitting on a retaining wall, and one said, "Hey, gorgeous."  Right then I thought, oh shit, I shouldn’t have worn the yoga pants."

So which is it? Seems you thought the yoga pants were an issue.  

And FYI, yes, the yoga pants would get more attention from guys. Maybe you don't know any straight guys?

The point is that you shouldn't have to be afraid to that extent. No one should. If more woman used guns to successfully defend themselves, fewer men would attempt such things. Just like well-armed cities have fewer home break-ins. They would adapt by learning to avoid behavior that could get them killed.

It's just a matter of if you want to have to adapt or if you'd rather be the pressure that forces others to adapt.

Had it had been only one guy sitting on the retaining wall, he probably wouldn’t have said anything to me, but it was two guys.  Who was he trying to impress?  Not me, that’s for damn sure.  

I have a better idea.  Why don’t you guys put the pressure on each other to adapt by having enough balls to tell your friends that it’s not cool to treat women like that.

That same guy would've likely said something, even if alone. It could just be a way to gauge your openness. Do you know the kinds of women who frequent rest areas at night and alone? Ever hear of a lot-lizard?

Good guys don't associate with potential rapists, so I'm not sure how you expect us to influence them. Certainly, if we know about it, we're quick to seriously beat their ass. But maybe you're just opposed to being spoken to by strangers? Would it have been less creepy for them to both silently watch you (kind of like the guy who pulled up next to your car)?   Is a guy that says "hey, gorgeous" a bad guy?  Is that an inherently harmful compliment or was it just the setting?

If it's the setting, you have to ask yourself whether going there was a good decision...and whether your avoidance is quite honed enough.  

i agree with you Syne on a few points.
though i think there shuld be no difference to someonen turning up nude.
the addition or subtraction of an item or items of clothing (& the type and/or nature of any clothing worn or not worn)should not be  legaly or morally defined as awaiver to personal rights.

the mere suggestion that wearing for example fishnet stockings makes you legally liable for rape is no different to saying any person seen going into a church or mosque becomes legally liable for rape.

as for the guys knowing about rapists thing Vs guys being friends with guys who make lude comments to women.
i have witnessed girls making lude comments to men & women also.
however, i think the key here is not the transaction of rights but the definition of culture by way of moral right.

[C C]

[...] though i think there shuld be no difference to someonen turning up nude. the addition or subtraction of an item or items of clothing (& the type and/or nature of any clothing worn or not worn)should not be  legaly or morally defined as awaiver to personal rights.

the mere suggestion that wearing for example fishnet stockings makes you legally liable for rape is no different to saying any person seen going into a church or mosque becomes legally liable for rape. [...]

In an abstract model of social properties and principles, I'd agree; and in same context a victim shouldn't ludicrously be conceived as accountable for causing an incident via being unintended bait which lured a malefactor.

But in the contingent, non-Platonic realm we actually have to deal with sense-wise, the latter concrete / varying circumstances can't be completely ignored for the sake of sacred universals.

An experienced or under-idealistic person wouldn't venture alone into a predator-dense jungle wearing odors and bright apparel, making sounds, engaging in behaviors, known to attract the attention of said beasts (if the lone adventurer wasn't a hunter themselves [etc], anyway). And communities slash authorities who mediate access to such jungles shouldn't be encouraging naive outsiders with "you have the right to be your usual self in there because the resident animals are obligated to respect your status as a bipedal, sentient organism with XYZ privileges and legal guarantees".

The fact that in the abstract model all people would generally qualify as rational / moral agents with XYZ rights and corresponding civil responsibilities doesn't render them so exaltedly human on a specific, individual basis. Whether that lack is due to substance and habit addictions, deprivation of basic needs, mental illness or pathological tendencies, a background of growing-up in abusive lifestyles and exposure to vulturous memes, or one's gender being inherently / historically prone to a higher percentage of aggression / violence when opportunistically feasible.

I might not like it that a cyborg of the future could walk into a contaminated building filled with toxic fumes and chemicals without having to the wear the heavy "spacesuit" that I had to shield myself with. But I still wouldn't go without such an inconvenience / burden on the grounds of being perceived as a traitor to celebrated egalitarian and independent abstractions, or my desiring to give "the world isn't fair" grunge of actuality a poke in the eye (i.e., the less than ideal conditions of the sensible realm).

[RainbowUnicorn]

[...] though i think there shuld be no difference to someonen turning up nude. the addition or subtraction of an item or items of clothing (& the type and/or nature of any clothing worn or not worn)should not be  legaly or morally defined as awaiver to personal rights.

the mere suggestion that wearing for example fishnet stockings makes you legally liable for rape is no different to saying any person seen going into a church or mosque becomes legally liable for rape. [...]

In an abstract model of social properties and principles, I'd agree; and in same context a victim shouldn't ludicrously be conceived as accountable for causing an incident via being unintended bait which lured a malefactor.

But in the contingent, non-Platonic realm we actually have to deal with sense-wise, the latter concrete / varying circumstances can't be completely ignored for the sake of sacred universals.

An experienced or under-idealistic person wouldn't venture alone into a predator-dense jungle wearing odors and bright apparel, making sounds, engaging in behaviors, known to attract the attention of said beasts (if the lone adventurer wasn't a hunter themselves [etc], anyway). And communities slash authorities who mediate access to such jungles shouldn't be encouraging naive outsiders with "you have the right to be your usual self in there because the resident animals are obligated to respect your status as a bipedal, sentient organism with XYZ privileges and legal guarantees".

The fact that in the abstract model all people would generally qualify as rational / moral agents with XYZ rights and corresponding civil responsibilities doesn't render them so exaltedly human on a specific, individual basis. Whether that lack is due to substance and habit addictions, deprivation of basic needs, mental illness or pathological tendencies, a background of growing-up in abusive lifestyles and exposure to vulturous memes, or one's gender being inherently / historically prone to a higher percentage of aggression / violence when opportunistically feasible.

I might not like it that a cyborg of the future could walk into a contaminated building filled with toxic fumes and chemicals without having to the wear the heavy "spacesuit" that I had to shield myself with. But I still wouldn't go without such an inconvenience / burden on the grounds of being perceived as a traitor to celebrated egalitarian and independent abstractions, or my desiring to give "the world isn't fair" grunge of actuality a poke in the eye (i.e., the less than ideal conditions of the sensible realm).

indeed.
why are vice squads not working in such areas ?
i am personally opposed on moral, spiritual & civic grounds to those who seek to impose their will on a community that they are not a part of.
recreational drug use(though i am not a participant) is accepted by the majority to be an acceptable part of society. however law enforcement by way of mite is right are used to attack such recreational users in a predatory fashion.
i am sure the vast majority of police wish to be spending their time preventing violence, domestic abuse & predatory assailants.
it does seem to fly in the face of the more american libitarianism that seems to be touted by a vast majority of those in power & those whom support them.
i do find that quite odd. much the same as making the transaction of sexual sevices illegal.
i note specific difference(for the uneducated reader) between regulation and criminality.
can we draw any common moral and intellectual commonality between those who oppose the science of climate change and those who oppose the scientific data that shows protection of women by legalisation & regulation of prostitution ?

[Syne]

Escalation never ends well. Suggesting that women should have to become extreme and violent to put the fear in would be attackers just ends up escalating it further. I'd assume that some types of abusers get off on the thrill caused by such risks.

If such escalation should be pushed, I'd suggest sticking to non-lethal rounds, that way if you get it wrong you haven't killed someone and if you've got it right you don't end up hesitating to think about what happens if you get it wrong and kill someone.

In most the US concealed carry is not "extreme" and only "violent" in justified defense. The point of concealed carry is that your would-be assailant doesn't know his risks are escalated, and the defender only makes people aware of that fact when absolutely necessary (otherwise it's the crime of brandishing a weapon).

Considering that even lethal ammunition may not stop an attacker before they do harm, non-lethal alternatives only increase that risk. In most self-defense cases, it is clear who poses an immediate threat.

Some of the arguments here remind me of how Orthodox Jews were caught throwing acid in the face of teenage girls on a bus that happened to wear sultry clothing. I don't think the teenage girls would of been allowed to carry protective weaponry, some would argue it was the fault of the parent's for letting them wear the clothing, but the real fault was with the dysfunctional thinking of those that defaced/disfigured them.

Of course the fault always lies with the aggressor. But there are neighborhoods that even as a guy I would face considerable risk entering. Everyone has to take some degree of responsibility for their own safety, especially against known/likely risks, even if only relying on situational awareness (which is probably the one area SS is to be commended).