Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There isn't a precise answer, it's why I didn't bother to answer it.
It's unknowable at the end of the day. It's hard to tell when some guy is a creep if he's a true anti-social personality type.
What do you really expect as an answer?????
Dang skippy it is. We believe we know a person better after dating for 3 months than 3 hours, but there are only a billion stories attesting to the fact that we often do NOT. Because they are putting on a really good show.
We go on instinct, at the end of it all, whether it's 3 hours or three months.
Quote:
Use caution and do the best you can is all you can do. Don't accept drinks from men you don't know is about the best you can do..
At what point do we know a man well enough to accept a beverage from him?
Dang skippy it is. We believe we know a person better after dating for 3 months than 3 hours, but there are only a billion stories attesting to the fact that we often do NOT. Because they are putting on a really good show.
We go on instinct, at the end of it all, whether it's 3 hours or three months.
At what point do we know a man well enough to accept a beverage from him?
You and I both know that it's an unknown.
My take on this subject really isn't linking up with the exact verbiage in the OP. I was coming at it from a hundred foot perspective.
You drill down into the details and of course you never really know at first. At some point you can probably safetly assume a guy isn't a serial murdered, but even then you probably never really know.
Mrs. Chow jokes around that even after 25 yrs together she wonders if I'm going to drop some hammer on her like I'm not who I am. It's a joke but you probably never really can know for sure.
Unknowingness makes us uncomfortable. It's why I try to not over-think things....
My take on this subject really isn't linking up with the exact verbiage in the OP. I was coming at it from a hundred foot perspective.
You drill down into the details and of course you never really know at first. At some point you can probably safetly assume a guy isn't a serial murdered, but even then you probably never really know.
Mrs. Chow jokes around that even after 25 yrs together she wonders if I'm going to drop some hammer on her like I'm not who I am. It's a joke but you probably never really can know for sure.
Unknowingness makes us uncomfortable. It's why I try to not over-think things....
I apologize if I came off rudely to you.
No problem. I'm trying to drill down into the concept of the top post, and you felt caught in my cross-hairs.
There are so many parts of it that are wrong, not the least of which 'stranger rape' is the very most rare form of rape. It is, the vast majority of the time, someone we know.
Statistically speaking, a woman going home with a stranger is actually the least likely action to make one a victim of rape.
That seems counter-intuitive, but it is a fact. So telling us to avoid these supposedly 'more risky' activities is really backwards.
If we really want to help women avoid rape as much as possible, women have to be made aware of a disgusting reality that it isn't the boogyman in the bushes we need to worry over happening. (or a predator in a bar), It's our co-workers, friends, etc.
I'd like to know the precise line where this is drawn.
Having just met: wrong, and putting at an obvious risk
So then he gets her number, and date number one this happens.
Date Two.
Date Three
Date Four
Date Five
So on and so forth, at what point is a woman no longer at fault if she is drugged and raped by a date?
I think this is really the best type of response to the "be responsible, smart, etc." comments. I don't disagree that everyone should "be smart" or whatever else you want to call it, in daily life in general. It's not a crazy concept, and I find myself being cautious all the time. I'm a cautious person by nature. I'm well aware of many risks and try not to let my guard down. BUT the question is, for those who either believe women are partially responsible for their assaults or those who think that being cautious really can prevent rapes, where do you draw the line? Because it's a damn arbitrary line. Like you say, is it only really dumb/maybe your fault/whatever anyone wants to argue, by this logic, to go home with a guy when you're drunk and when the guy's a total stranger? What about if he's an acquaintance, or friend of a friend? Or an actual friend, and she's going to his house for the first time? Going even further, what if it's her own boyfriend who she let her guard down in front of and he took advantage? There are so many scenarios where we can judge with the same argument and logic.
Also, in reality, we're all human. Even if we know we should be responsible, cautious, smart, etc. every day, especially when going out drinking or whatever, reality is, we aren't ALWAYS. Because we make mistakes, we take things too far (drink more than we should, for example). The reality is that there will ALWAYS be someone out there who can be and maybe even will be victimized. In reality we cannot actually be on guard 24/7, limiting or at least really watching what we do at all times to ensure we're at the least possible risk to be raped or whatever, doing whatever we can to try to avoid it. It's unrealistic. It's easy to preach about it but less easy in practice.
What if a man is a sex addict and is subjected to seeing a woman with a skirt above knee length--can he claim his addiction made him do it and she played a part too?👎
I guess we ought to hold banking institutions responsible if they are robbed. If they didn't have all that money in there, they wouldn't be such a target for robbery.
Then let's discuss all those who put money INTO those tempting targets ......
I guess we ought to hold banking institutions responsible if they are robbed. If they didn't have all that money in there, they wouldn't be such a target for robbery.
Then let's discuss all those who put money INTO those tempting targets ......
Yes, and anyone who drives is just asking to have a drunk driver crash into him, and people who let their kids play at a friends house shouldn't whine if they end up being molested by someone there, and anyone who walks in a neighborhood is also responsible if they get attacked by a neighbors large dog who wasn't fenced in etc -- oh brother this is getting redundant- hopefully more people see the flawed logic here
Location: Stuck on the East Coast, hoping to head West
4,641 posts, read 11,941,823 times
Reputation: 9887
Yes, I do think women should take responsibility for personal safety. I take my personal safety seriously and I find it empowering.
I reckon it to getting hit by a car while in a crosswalk with the light. Is the driver of the car at fault for hitting me? Heck yeah, but that's not much consolation to me while I'm bleeding out in the street. I'm certainly going to take the precaution of making sure all vehicles are stopped before stepping off the curb.
Could a speeding car come out of nowhere and kill me? Maybe. But I've done what I could to minimize that from happening.
I think nowadays people lack common sense and an utter lack of the ability to predict consequences. If I go to a bar, drink alcohol, go back to a stranger's house, and drink an unknown drink with him....am I expecting to make a lifelong friend??? I mean, come on. If I lack self control and restraint, I would never rely on a stranger to keep me safe.
I also think people do show you who they are. In the OP's example, a guy is drinking at a bar, picks up a woman and takes her back to his place. Again, are his motives that hard to predict? What does the girl think is going to happen at his place?
I also don't think the bad guys are nearly as hard to see as some seem to think. To continue to believe that puts your personal safety, and maybe those around you, at risk.
Plenty of women (if not most women) regret a night and don't call it rape. But at the same time, taking advantage of someone who is so impaired that she can't make informed decisions doesn't make him much of a stand-up guy.
Was he impaired, too? Too impaired people having sex isn't rape one way or the other in my book, so long as no one is denying consent. The rational is that you can't give consent if you're impaired, but if you're both impaired, then no one was capable of consent and there is no rape, etc.
I think nowadays people lack common sense and an utter lack of the ability to predict consequences. If I go to a bar, drink alcohol, go back to a stranger's house, and drink an unknown drink with him....am I expecting to make a lifelong friend??? I mean, come on. If I lack self control and restraint, I would never rely on a stranger to keep me safe.
.
Well by this standard the stranger also lacks common sense if he's in the same bar drinking alcohol. In this scenario, he's upped the ante by giving someone a laced drink ... I believe that's called malicious poisoning. That is not just bad behavior, that's criminal behavior. I don't think we should be excusing criminal behavior.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
