# Women, Sexual Assault, and the Fear of Men **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 15, 2016, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-sexual-assault-and-the-fear-of-men/768611 "2016-10-15T16:55:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 74
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2016, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-sexual-assault-and-the-fear-of-men/768611/74 "2016-10-17T13:49:29Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …we aren’t in a debate forum. This is MPSIMS. I am free to make irrelevant observations. Isn’t that the point of this particular forum? Isn’t an irrelevant observation about as mundane and pointless as you can get? Yes. But by the very same logic, I am free to comment on your irrelevant observations. Right? > [@](#): > > Every perception is equally valid. We’ll agree to disagree. > [@](#): > > Perception of your posts can also be based on your posting history. I remember one time you posted a thread that purported to be about the morality of prostitution. But it wasn’t really about the [morality of prostitution](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=350115). As deduced by other members, it was about something else entirely. I wasted my time contributing to that thread because you had no intention of actually debating its premise. Your memory is faulty. As I explained very clearly [in this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6915680&postcount=214) in that thread, I was offered a topic for debate, and was swayed by the arguments made. Indeed, several people initially shared the view that I was somehow arguing something different… but not all of them continued holding that view as the thread progressed: > [@Prostitution is immoral and therefore should be outlawed](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/221): > > Also, i’d like to apologise to Bricker - in this thread and it’s pit thread, i’ve been somewhat snarky to him in my posts. My excuse is that i’m used to Bricker offering a decent, logical argument, and it seemed to me his initial OP and some posts after it were irrational - it was very surprising. It now seems he’s willing to concede points and agree with others - so sorry, mate. _nonexistant apologetic smiley_ > [@](#): > > So is it wrong for me to view your post in the context of our previous interactions? That you may or may not be pulling a similar stunt again? It was inaccurate. I think “wrong” carries a stigma of some moral flaw. You were simply in error. > [@](#): > > Which post was that? [This one.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19703589&postcount=268) > [@Banquet Bear](#): > > Thats a wishy washy answer. Or to be precise, a very lawyerly answer. I think you are saying “no it isn’t problematic.” Because you didn’t actually say anything that could actually be problematic. What parts of what I said do you find problematic again? To review, you asked, “Is it problematic for women, in a thread called ‘Women: share your stories of having your crotch grabbed (when you didn’t want it)’ for women to actually share their stories of having your crotch grabbed (when you didn’t want it)? Is it problematic that the people participating in that thread didn’t want it hijacked by people determined to talk about something else?” And I answered your question and went on to explain my view of what constitutes hijacking and how a subject develops organically in a thread… > [@](#): > > Why would that be? Why are you opposed to voluntary “safe spaces” in a private forum? Our “rights” are already abridged here. I can’t call you a bad name. I have to follow the rules. Why is it not important to you that you can’t call me a bad name, but you will work diligently to stop rules to make “assertions to go unchallenged?” Because the overall mission of the site is the fight against ignorance, and that fight is crippled in a medium that isolates assertions from challenge. I approve of the mission and want to work against a change. Calling another poster – even me – a bad name is an example of a logical fallacy. It, too, hampers the fight against ignorance. > [@](#): > > And I wouldn’t expect anything else from the Dope’s resident legal expert. I hope you didn’t take that response as hostile. That wasn’t my intent. No matter what your perception. OK. Noted. > [@](#): > > Well obviously I don’t live in the United States. It has no relevance to me as the basis of free speech laws that don’t surround me and animates none of the legal framework in which I operate. I’m sure you could nit-pick my answer. But we are in MPSIMS: and I’m really not interested in a debate about something that has so little significance in my real life. You say “obviously,” but in fact I didn’t know until now. So when you chimed in, discussing the phrase “…this country…” as being a place without a guaranteed safe space, to which country were you alluding? --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-sexual-assault-and-the-fear-of-men/768611)._