If you are going to use warped logic, then go all the way…
Almost all strange men are potential _______?
Why almost all? By your logic, wouldn’t ALL strange men be potential… whatever you want to claim them to be? By your logic, it should be all. Which strange men, by your logic, aren’t potential rapists, thieves, stock brokers, Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Just trying to UNDERSTAND your logic… It certainly isn’t that I am refusing to. Although for some odd reason, perhaps arrogance, you seem to think that if we understand your point of view, we will all of a sudden agree with it. I understand where you are coming from, I just don’t agree with you. Why can’t you “grasp” that?
One never knows, does one? How do you know the nature of anyone, or anything? You judge based on experience. If this person was too afraid to lay her head down because there was going to be a strange man in the room, why not respect both the fear and the supposition?
She doesn’t know. YOU don’t know. I don’t know. And, since this is the Pit, fuck that “gender-biased lines” here. As someone who was molested by a male adult- one in a position of authority over me, fuck that shit sideways.
IF YOU DON’T TRUST STRANGERS, YOU’RE SMART. Why do the boys have a rough time wrapping their head around that idea???
I wonder if men resentful of the “total strangers might be rapists” concept also take personal offense at being asked to wear a condom. After all, statistically speaking they’re probably not HIV+ … :rolleyes:
It is truly bizarre how a relatively straightforward rant has been perverted into this nit-picking “You women are automatically accusing all men of being rapists!” debate.
If you read the OP (a couple of pages ago), AotL did NOT make sweeping generalizations about mankind. She expressed the fact that she was pissed off about her roommate inviting an older boyfriend whom she (the roomie) had never met to come visit, and possibly stay over in the room. My interpretation of her rant was “Geez, you’ve never even met this guy. For all you know, he could be a rapist. Sure, he’s probably not, but you don’t have the right to impose the risk on me by inviting him to stay in MY room.”
The first few posts were supportive of her situation, offering sympathy and suggestions. She even went as far as to explicitly state in her second post:
Then the snowball that begat the avalanche was thrown when iampunha, who had been in the situation of being ane internet boyfriend, seemed to have taken her rant personally, as if it were an attack on internet boyfriends. Again, if you read the OP, as well as her later response to this post, she specifically stated that she didn’t have a problem with internet boyfriends; her problem was that her roommate had no right to impose the risk of allowing a stranger to stay in HER room.
This was then followed by:
But if you go back to the OP, she didn’t accuse him of being a rapist. She said:
Read the whole damned paragraph, folks, and stop picking and choosing a few inflammatory words from it to change the intent. The thesis statment was “I don’t want this guy in our dorm room.” The text elaborates on her reasoning for that, stating that she didn’t know the guy, didn’t trust the guy, that it was selfish of the roomie to inflict the risk on her. Yes, the term rape is used within the explanatory text, but read the concluding statement: “I know, he probably isn’t a rapist, but, if he is, and you invite him in here, you’re inflicting him on another person.” The whole rape discussion is NOT an accusation. It is a part of an explanation of why she didn’t want the guy in there, and why she was so pissed at her roommate.
This was a RANT, folks. Hyperbole and over-the-top imagery is not only acceptable, it is expected here. Nobody’s accusing all men of being rapists, OK?
[ ]Mods: It appears that the posters in this thread have forgotten which forum we’re in here. This thread has been infested by “Great Debatish” behavior of nitpicking out individual quotes and trampling them into the ground, sullying the purity of the Pit rant. Can someone please move this to a more appropriate forum?[/ ]
This is the most absurd thing I’ve ever witnessed. Thank you Cartoon, and YWalker, and the rest for being some voices of sanity.
OK, let me ask the rest of you guys this.
Would you be comfortable if your girlfriend/mother/sister/grandmother took a ride from an unfamiliar man? If a man sees her walking down the street, and offers her a ride. She should take up the offer, right? Because statistics prove that the odds of this random, unfamiliar man doing any harm to her are slim. Or, let’s say that an unfamiliar man needs a place to crash, and asks your girlfriend/mother/sister if they can sleep at her place. Is this acceptable? Are you comfortable with this scenario? And if not, why not? Surely you are not suggesting that there is any chance this man could mean her any harm. I mean, you don’t KNOW this man - how dare you suggest, or even think that he could mean any harm? How can you think that there is any potential for this strange man to do anything unsavory? That’s ACCUSING him of something terrible. And after all, the statistics show that he probably won’t do her any harm.
So - yes or no. Would you encourage, or be comfortable with your girlfriend/mother/wife/sister being put in this situation? YES or NO?
No, apparently it’s the “take people’s statements out of context and nitpick them” forum. I was contrasting a simplified version of what the Pit is with the absurd vision that custard dragon seems to have. Within that context, it was rather clear that I was referencing the true nature of the Pit only to compare it to a false conception, not to actually explain it in its entirety. And notice I said referencing, not stating. Do I have to give the entire multi-paragraph exposition of what, exactly, the rules for Pit behavior are if I am to argue against someone else’s misconception of it?
Sauron:
Perhaps if you were to provide appropiate quotes I would know what you were talking about. Or you could just continue making random accusations. You certainly would be in good company.
yosemite:
That question has been answered ad nauseum.
What, exactly, is “it” that you think that you are explaining? You certainly aren’t answering the question referenced in the quote that preceded this rant.
As for your last post, if you had actually read my previous posts, you would have seen me address this “argument”, and would have seen the term “straw man” used quite frequently.
I really don’t see why you so enjoy asking questions that have already been answered over and over again.
Cartooniverse:
Just what makes you think that they don’t?
YWalker:
Perhaps she didn’t intend to offend men, but she did.
And just who appointed you arbiter-of-what-is-acceptable? If I say that I do not accept disparaging remarks about men, am I simply not allowed to hold that position?
:: looks at who’s posting this “rebuttal”. Laughs out loud ::
**
Evidently, since John Corrado thought your comment was…wrong…enough that he went on for several more paragraphs emphasizing my correction of your wildly innacurate statement.
If it had been answered coherently, I wouldn’t be asking, would I? I TRULY HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOUR QUIBBLE IS. If it’s not about women being cautious around strangers, what is it then?
We are obviously not on the same page. I have been (from the beginning) talking about being cautious around strangers when in a vulnerable position. You (apparently) want to make this into something quite incomprehensively different. No matter how many times I explain my position, you won’t budge. Fine, whatever.
See above. I truly have NO CLUE what the hell you are talking about. Apparently my words seem to be clear enough to Cartoon, and many other folks. But if you want to nitpick my words, or the OP’s words to death, I guess that’s what you’re going to do. But don’t expect me to have a CLUE what the hell your quibble is about, because I don’t.
Well, since you don’t really answer them…I really am lost. Someone - anyone? Could you explain it to me? I AM LOST.
No, not “men”. SOME men. SOME men. Not all, as Cartoon and Fenris (and others, I am sure) can testify. Some of you are determined to find a reason to be offended. Well, go ahead and be offended, then. Knock yourself out.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. I found that to be the supreme irony.
And I’d like to take the opportunity to once again ask the question: Since statistics dictate that the chances of any unfamiliar man off the street NOT being a rapist (or violent in any way) why shouldn’t women take rides from strangers, or have them stay overnight? I mean, to not do so would be ACCUSING them of something, wouldn’t it? Same goes for any gender - why can’t anyone just give rides to any random stranger, or let them stay overnight? And, no need to wear condoms, and Cajo brought up. Are you offended by the concept of wearing condoms as a form of protection from STDs? Since apparently the fear or apprehension (or “assumption” of the worst) is SO offensive to some of you…
I mean, I truly don’t understand what the big deal is here. And just huffily giving me a dismissive “I’ve already told you” isn’t going to cut it. I DON’T UNDERSTAND.
You do know that condoms serve more than one purpose, right? That in addition to preventing the spread of STDs, they also prevent pregnancies? And I’m willing to bet that most men, statistically speaking, have sperm.
Oh give me a break. Sure, condoms have been around for a while, for birth control. But so have a lot of other forms of birth control - the Pill, the sponge, etc. Before AIDS became a problem, there wasn’t the big push to MAKE SURE everyone used condoms, specifically condoms. We all know condoms are useful for the protection from STDs. Do you really think that when some women INSIST a condom is used, it’s always exclusively for birth control reasons? Get real.
And the use of condoms in addition to the Pill is more effective than either one alone would be, correct? A woman using the Pill would be protected even better if she insisted her lover use a condom, right? In case one fails, you still have the other.
No, of course not. First, I think that making sweeping statements (“always”? “exclusively”? C’mon.) about a large group of people is a bad thing. I try not to do that. Secondly, the post I was responding to implied that protection from HIV was the only reason why condoms are used. Cajo said, “After all, statistically speaking they’re probably not HIV+”, ignoring the other reasons that women ask for a condom to be used. I then pointed out, since it was one of the worst analogies I can remember on this board that didn’t have The Ryan to the left of it, that there are multiple reasons why condoms are useful, and that it would be stupid to assume, when one is asked to put one on, that it was being done solely out of fear of contracting HIV. If you’ll look again at my post, you will note that I said “condoms serve more than one purpose.” Also, while I don’t have any data, I would think that, just by picking some guy at random, the likelihood that he would be capable of getting a woman pregnant would be much larger than the likelihood that he would be capable of giving her HIV, simply because the group of men with significant enough sperm counts to cause pregnancy is much bigger than the group of men who are HIV+. Hence, the danger of unwanted pregnancy, while it does not have as dire consequences as contracting HIV does, is much more likely to occur, and therefore probably more prevalent on the mind of someone about to have sex. And all of this doesn’t even get into the other STDs besides AIDS that condoms protect from, another benefit that was not mentioned by Cajo’s post.
I’m not really sure what it was in my post that gave you the impression that I was saying that condoms are useful exclusively as a method of birth control, as I certainly did not mean to suggest that. I was merely saying that condoms are not used exclusively as a method of protection from HIV.
The reason Cajo brought up the HIV/condom concept was that preventing HIV is one of the big reasons people insist on condom use. Don’t you know that there was a big media push to use condoms after we all became aware of the dangers of AIDS? Maybe you’re too young to remember, I don’t know. But that’s what I remember. Condoms took on a whole new significance and importance after AIDS hit. Gay males were encouraged (and are still encouraged) to use condoms. Certainly no worries about pregnancy there, eh?
Sure, pregnancy is a fear too, but if a woman is already on birth control, she sort of has it “covered”. She could even use two different forms of birth control (neither being a condom) and she’d be “double” protected, right? Or the man could have a vasectomy, be sterile, etc. etc. And still it is continually being hammered into us that we MUST use condoms, EVERY time, in any uncommited relationship.
So when someone insists on a condom being used, specifically a condom, there’s a pretty good chance that birth control isn’t the sole fear. After all - do you really think all committed/married couples INSIST on condom use, every time? Some do, but we all know many don’t. Because they are already using the Pill (or whatever) and they know and trust each other.
Now that I’ve rambled on about that, I’ll reiterate: Cajo’s question was - why aren’t men offended by this? Shouldn’t they be trusted? Isn’t a woman who insists a condom be used “accusing” them? After all, statistics dictate that they probably aren’t HIV+.
I wasn’t ignoring the other reasons a woman might ask her lover to wear a condom. My hypothetical woman’s reason for condom use was reducing the risk of AIDS – that’s why I mentioned HIV and nothing else. I’m sorry this wasn’t as clear to you as it was to yosemitebabe and me.
BTW, thank you for explaining my rationale in more detail, yosemitebabe.
I, a pretty helpless looking girl of 18, usually don’t walk around the city alone at night.
Not to mince words, do I think that all men walking along the street, in the not-best neighborhood at 11pm-2am are potential rapists? Sorry, but yes. Maybe it’s total paranoia, but it’s a paranoia that hurts no one and keeps me safe.
I think the whole “potential rapist” thing has to do with acceptable risk. I am totally comfortable being alone in a room with, say, Jaime, a male friend of mine. Or passing him on the street in the middle of the night. Why? Because I know him and trust him.
Would I stay alone in a room with a man I didn’t know, had just picked up off the street? No. Maybe there’s only a 1% chance he’s a rapist, but I don’t think that’s a chance I need to take.
Call me prejudiced about men if you want, but the current strategy of society for protecting women against rape is by making us paranoid and overly cautious.
AotL made the decision that weighing the happiness and convenience of this man staying in her room (ie, none) was not worth the chance that she was taking. It was not an acceptable risk. That’s all.
The words in brackets would make your statement accurate.
Explain what? Explain why you’ve deliberately deleted part of a quote in order to support your ridiculous accusation? No, I can’t explain that. But hey, this looks like fun.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sauron *
I must’ve hit… the OP… and then… accusing this guy of being a rapist…,…a…t…e…people
[quote]
Care to explain your violence towards the OP and your cannibalism (which you admitted to in your own words)? And just what right do you have to accuse this guy of rape?
Ah, the good old “make allusions to alleged misdeeds without providing any support” trick.
That’s strange. I never saw the words “Ryan’s comment was wrong” let alone “wildly inaccurate” in John’s post. In fact, he said that he rather responding to your post; he never mentioned mine. You said that it is possible to get banned for things said in the Pit, and that I was irresponsible, or ignorant, or something, for failing to mention that fact. John agreed with your first point, but I never saw him agreeing with your second. If he wishes to take me to task for not taking it upon myself to give a full explication of the intricacies of this board, I am sure that he is capable of doing so himself, and does not need you to put words in his mouth.
Yosemitebabe, I have tried and tried to explain and to listen to your explanations. Yet you jump from issue from issue, refuse to answer my questions, ask me questions I have already answered, and keep using the same straw man over and over again. But this isn’t going to go anywhere without one of us trying to actually understand and explain. So I’m going to go through your post, and every time I see a phrase ending in a question mark, no matter how silly it is or how many times it has been answered, I’m going to answer it one more time. I expect (and I use the term loosely) you to reciprocate, to answer my questions and most of all, to stop asking these questions over and over again. I really am trying to be reasonable here, and I really don’t see you acting similarly. So consider this your final chance. If you care.
Clearly, the answer to that question is “yes”.
Here are just a few of times that I have answered that:
Yes, that is true. And you seem to be going out of your way to stay on a different page.
What is this supposed to mean? Are you saying that once you have explained your position regarding being cautious around strangers a sufficient number of times, you expect everyone else to not discuss any other issue at all? I really do not understand what it is that you
a) don’t think I’m budging from
b) think I should be budging to
See above.
[/quote]
This is a rather ambiguous statement. Are you saying that you have tried to explain that you think this is about women acting cautious around strangers? If so, what makes you think that we do not understand that?
What, exactly, is it that you do not understand?
All I want is for to give a reasonable explanation of your position. You have refused to do so.
Yes, I did.
So if anyone gets offended by something someone else says, it’s the offendee that is at fault?
Why? Why do you insist on asking it again? You didn’t listen the last time it was answered. Why do expect to learn anything this time? Or do you not expect to learn anything, and are just asking this over and over again just to annoy people? Because that’s really what it looks like.
As much as I dislike giving positive reinforcement to trollish behavior, I did promise to answer all of your questions, so here goes: women are justified in refusing rides from strangers and not letting them stay overnight because it poses significant risks.
No. Why would it?
Anyone can, but it is not wise.
No.
What do you expect? Do you expect people to fall all over themselves to go over the same old ground that they’re sick and tired of? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the reason that you don’t understand is because you are refusing to understand?
All right. I’ve answered every question that I saw. If there was a question I missed, point it out to me and I’ll answer it. Now, are you going to just go back to your usual and ignore what I said, or are you actually going to discuss this like a mature adult?
]Mods: It appears that the posters in this thread have forgotten which forum we’re in here. This thread has been infested by “Great Debatish” behavior of nitpicking out individual quotes and trampling them into the ground, sullying the purity of the Pit rant. Can someone please move this to a more appropriate forum?[/ 
Explain what? Explain why you’ve deliberately deleted part of a quote in order to support your ridiculous accusation? No, I can’t explain that. But hey, this looks like fun.