Women who play male characters (in games)

[HalfTangible]

An observation of your confrontational tone combined with your having just made an absolutist statement on behalf of everyone else in the thread, as well as implying that you judge everyone who isn't asexual, mostly.

You don't get to poke a cat in the eye and then complain when it hisses at you. I'm confrontational because you have outright stated that my intention was to start a fight when it was not, then to call me arrogant for little apparent reason.

SiuiS put it pretty well I thought, so without knowing what you're not getting specifically or why you really think what you said was not flawed, I can't really think of anything more to say to explain it to you at this point.

You and SiuiS do not appear to be arguing the same point to me.

You did, though, is the thing, and then it was pointed out to you and now here we are. You might not have intended to do so, but what you've said on the matter as far as defending yourself doesn't make it seem like that's really the case. :/

I'm defending myself from a point you made, therefore the point is true because I'm defending myself?

Considering that I'm not the only one who found what you said to be problematic, your conclusion is a little bit flawed here. Neither of us picked a fight, per se, but you definitely had some poor wording and are incredibly defensive of the decision even when it's been pointed out to you why it was poor.

Siuis is saying I was rude to walk into a bar, order a glass of milk, and tell the bartender I don't like beer. You are saying I walked into the bar, ordered milk, and then beaned the bartender with it.

Pointing out that asexual people exist was entirely measured and called for. Then you went and heavily implying that you judge everyone who isn't asexual as a continuation of that point. And followed it up by claiming that you intended no offense.

Except I didn't do that. Though the fact that you think that is something I should keep in mind for next time I actually have to explain that viewpoint...

How can you be surprised that you'd catch flak for going so far beyond what was called for?

I'm not, this isn't the first time I've had this conversation. What I'm surprised by is that you seem utterly convinced that my intent was to start a fight. That I was trolling you.

But I've said this like six times now and you're not getting it, so no point in continuing this line of discussion with you any further. Good day.

[Mauve Shirt]

Dude, we just want you to elaborate on why you think sex is evil. Which is to say, morally wrong.

[Ifni]

There is no opinion qualifier. You clearly state (whether intended or not) that sex itself is evil, making it a weighted moral act, and casting judgement on any person which includes sex in their life.

Regardless of what you meant or wanted to say, that is what your words right here mean. Coidzor took the fun, "I'm going to rib you like a friend" approach to saying you phrased that bad, Avilian took the "that's dumb" route and I tried to lay it out politely. But what you're doing now is getting mad at people for pointing out what amounts to a spelling mistake, and declaring that because you meant for it to come out right we're being jerks for trying to help.

You know, if I'd said, "Argh, allergies. Sorry, but free peanut brownies would not be a good idea for me. Peanuts are evil (no offense)" then somehow I think people would've correctly inferred my meaning as "I have trouble eating peanuts", not "anyone who eats peanuts is a bad person".

I'm going to guess you guys are reading it as loaded because there are still reasonably prevalent belief systems that say sex (outside marriage) is evil, but honestly - he's clarified what he meant (that sex is not a good thing for him personally), none of you have any argument with that, so perhaps just drop it? As a somewhat impartial observer it really looks like you're taking one sentence out of context and completely ignoring subsequent clarifications with "But what you SAID was..."

Also, couple of other things, re Laasanen as relayed by Frozen_Feet:

As such, women being afraid of them is downright comical: the fact that some men speak badly about them doesn't change the fact that women hold a choke-hold on sexual power and are greatly favored by the system.

Nearly one in five American women have been raped during their lifetime
(the number for men reported by the same study is 1-2%, which is also horrifying)

"Comical" is not the word I'd use for women being afraid of men.

This too should not come as a surprise, because it's practically the same attitude many women in this thread espouse towards men: instead of appreciating the attention they get, they see men who aspire for their attention as creepy and annoying and only after their looks.

How a guy reacted to being 'appreciated' (by men who thought he was a woman)

[Ibrinar]

You know, if I'd said, "Argh, allergies. Sorry, but free peanut brownies would not be a good idea for me. Peanuts are evil (no offense)" then somehow I think people would've correctly inferred my meaning as "I have trouble eating peanuts", not "anyone who eats peanuts is a bad person".

I would consider that a joke. But one question from a non native speaker, is evil commonly used as a signifier of personal dislike? I would assume that it's a moral statement (when it's not a joking overstatement), but maybe it has different connotations in english.

[Coidzor]

I would consider that a joke. But one question from a non native speaker, is evil commonly used as a signifier of personal dislike? I would assume that it's a moral statement (when it's not a joking overstatement), but maybe it has different connotations in english.

It's not commonly used to express a personal dislike to the best of my knowledge. I've run into such usages, but they've generally been odd or just plain off.

[HalfTangible]

HT, it's a purely semantic thing. The nature of the math behind language.

There is no opinion qualifier. You clearly state (whether intended or not) that sex itself is evil, making it a weighted moral act, and casting judgement on any person which includes sex in their life.

I've already said I made a mistake in not clarifying that, but I have to ask again why I need to add 'imo' to a phrase that is opinion by definition. If I say 'red is the best color' it's obvious that it's an opinion.

Regardless of what you meant or wanted to say, that is what your words right here mean. Coidzor took the fun, "I'm going to rib you like a friend" approach to saying you phrased that bad, Avilian took the "that's dumb" route and I tried to lay it out politely.

Coid's opinion appears to be that I attempted deliberately to start a fight because I have a superiority complex. You have a very strange definition of 'friend' >.>

But what you're doing now is getting mad at people for pointing out what amounts to a spelling mistake, and declaring that because you meant for it to come out right we're being jerks for trying to help.

'People'? I'm only mad at Coid, for saying I was trying to start a fight. And even that's more irritation than anger.

@HalfTangible:

It's not "either/or" state. Sexual harassment and rape are by definition about sex; that they're also about lack of power (sexual and otherwise), desire for power or whatever else does not change that.

Yes. I was responding to the implication that having positive sexual experiences would reduce such crimes. All this plan would do is institutionalize it =/

"Impossible" I freely admit to, because no real-world system is perfect; for "sexism", using my own phrasing, the two things I can myself catch are "with women" and "for men". Sure, that plan is sexist, because I said nothing of similar arrangements for women.

But if we phrase it your way: "positive sexual relationship for everyone"... then you'll have to come up with an actual argument for it being sexist.

...Fair point. It's not sexist if it applies to both sexes.

As for the "main problem"... that really depends on what you consider "the main problem". You can't say "misogyny is!" or "sexual harassment is!", because everything has causes, and what I wrote is precisely about tackling one of the causes - so you will have to specify a cause that you think is more important than lack of positive sexual relations.

Lack of proper agency and a sense of powerlessness, hence the need for control and dominance over another? It's really kind of amazing how many problems that causes.

Congratulations, you are the second person to not get what the word 'positive' means. If you can't enjoy or appreciate it, it isn't positive.

Then providing a positive experience for all is literally impossible because - as stated previously - not everyone enjoys or appreciates sex.

I don't disagree with you nearly as vehemently as you might think, but taken in itself, this statement is borderline absurd, as it implies reproduction is wrong. I say borderline, because I know cases can be made for asexual means of reproduction, as well as undesireability of life.

One of my favorite quotes of all time seems relevant to this: "A necessary evil is still evil." And sex is used recreationally so much more often than for reproduction it doesn't really matter that it's sometimes neccessary imo.

Just because TK-421 donates money to charity doesn't mean the Empire is a good thing.

I wouldn't worry about being offensive at this point; narrow down your viewpoint so you make sense first, then worry about people hating you.

I can explain the opinion as it stands but judging from the reaction to 'sex is evil' the thread would catch fire.

Dude, we just want you to elaborate on why you think sex is evil. Which is to say, morally wrong.

...Okay? Gimme a few minutes to type something up.

[Ibrinar]

Hmm since you brought the "opinion by definition" up again, something about an older post

'Evil' is subjective by definition, I am assigning no objective moral standard. My mistake, i thought 'imo' was not needed.

1)By definition subjective? No it isn't. If somebody is a moral objectivist declares something to be evil, that is probably meant as an objective moral statement. (Believing that there is no objective morality, which I do, doesn't change that.)
2)Subjective moral statements are still moral statements. Plenty people who think moral isn't objective still have moral systems. And constantly make moral judgements. Also unlike statements of personal taste it doesn't really matter whether someone adds an "imo". Moral judgements stay moral judgements even if the one who makes them considers their morals to be subjective.

[Scow2]

It's not commonly used to express a personal dislike to the best of my knowledge. I've run into such usages, but they've generally been odd or just plain off.

...It is used to express personal dislike, but usually in an offhand, comical way (Which, looking back, the terseness of the post indicated... but chat doesn't convey tone).

Sort of like my constant rants about how the "Great Outdoors" are Evil, and Chickens are Evil, and Dog Food is evil, and kittens are Evil (Though for kittens, it's more affectionate, like "Who's my little bloodthirsty psychopath! Yes you are!")

[Frozen_Feet]

@Ifni:

Last time I checked Finland's corresponding statistics, the most common types of rape has the following traits:

1. The people involved already know each other
2. The event happens in private, after both parties have already agreed to go to apartment of one.
3. Both are drunk out of their wits.
4. One party wants it, the other doesn't, or one party passes out, other proceeds nonetheless.

The reason why women being afraid of cat-callers is comical is because those people are not the ones likely to rape them. Their spouses, boyfriends and one-night-stands are. Minority of rapes are stranger-on-stranger.

Also, argument by online dating doesn't stand. Whatever you think of so-called real life, the world of online dating is much worse and lopsided against men in such quantity it ceases to be funny. (Also, I've done that "fake profile thing" too. I know both the quality and quantity of male messaging. It's still better than the chirping of crickets what female messaging tends to be.)

[Astrella]

The reason why women being afraid of cat-callers is comical is because those people are not the ones likely to rape them. Their spouses, boyfriends and one-night-stands are. Minority of rapes are stranger-on-stranger.

Catcallers can still get verbally abusive or worse, especially when you don't appreciate their catcalling. Catcalling by itself is not a fun experience, so being afraid of it makes sense. I don't like random people making lewd comments to me, and I'm even more scared that if they're realize I'm trans they'll turn aggressive.

[Coidzor]

...It is used to express personal dislike, but usually in an offhand, comical way (Which, looking back, the terseness of the post indicated... but chat doesn't convey tone).

Sort of like my constant rants about how the "Great Outdoors" are Evil, and Chickens are Evil, and Dog Food is evil, and kittens are Evil (Though for kittens, it's more affectionate, like "Who's my little bloodthirsty psychopath! Yes you are!")

Clearly we have very different experiences of meat space, then. I've only run into that sort of thing when the speaker was clearly being jocular and either not at all serious or only half-serious, which wouldn't really apply to this context anyway from what I can tell.

Coid's opinion appears to be that I attempted deliberately to start a fight because I have a superiority complex. You have a very strange definition of 'friend' >.>

'People'? I'm only mad at Coid, for saying I was trying to start a fight. And even that's more irritation than anger.

Well, see, I can't very well leave it alone and be done with it like you asked if you're going to get it wrong after you'd stated that you were done discussing it with me.

It would be much more accurate to say that I think you thought things through poorly with what you chose to say and how you said it.

[The Succubus]

How exactly did we get to here from "women who play male characters in games?"

[Frozen_Feet]

@HalfTangible:

Yes. I was responding to the implication that having positive sexual experiences would reduce such crimes. All this plan would do is institutionalize it =/

Basic psychology and Laasanen's theory of sexual economics strongly imply increase in positive sexual relations would decrease violent, sexual crime. What is your disagreement with the theory, or its application?

Also, why do you think it would institutionalize rape and harassment? Neither needs to be legalized for it. Either you are jumping to the conclusion that "arranged sexual relations are automatically rape and/or harassment", or you are engaging in a slippery-slope argument stating that increase in positive sexual relations leads to increase in rape and harassment. How do you back this up?

Lack of proper agency and a sense of powerlessness, hence the need for control and dominance over another? It's really kind of amazing how many problems that causes.

As noted in my paraphrasal of Laasanen's theory, this is a direct result of inability to meet women on positive terms. If men are allowed easier encounter with women in way that doesn't rely on them using punitive means for it, why do you think their feel of helplessness (and hence, their needs of control an domination) would increase?

Violence is often an act of desperation and/or form of altruistic punishment. It happens because a person feels they have no other means of control. If a situation is already controlled non-violently (or if non-violence is enforced by a threat of violence from a third party, ex: law-enforcement), why would men resort to violence?

[Mauve Shirt]

How exactly did we get to here from "women who play male characters in games?"

It's the expected trajectory of any thread with "Women" in the title.

[Frozen_Feet]

Catcallers can still get verbally abusive or worse, especially when you don't appreciate their catcalling. Catcalling by itself is not a fun experience, so being afraid of it makes sense. I don't like random people making lewd comments to me, and I'm even more scared that if they're realize I'm trans they'll turn aggressive.

As someone who has gone through years of verbal and physical abuse, I can both sympathize and still state that women are exaggerated in their fear, and hence, comical for it. (And before anyone says "but you're a man, and big and strong", I'll note this happened when I was one of the smallest, weakest person in class. That was, indeed, part of the reason for the abuse.)

Just because something is unfun, doesn't make it relevant or a threat. Being barked at by a strange dog isn't fun either, but if every time that happens causes a person a jumpscare, the problem is with that person.

Your personal case may be more justified due to additional layer of transphobia, but it also makes it less useful fro generalization.

[Scow2]

Trans is a whole different (And worse) problem than the ones facing Cisgendered people.

I for one await the day we invent cortical stacks, uploading, and resleeving. Then I'd be able to ditch this fugly monosexed hairless watermonkey body and finally be something that actually looks good.

[Astrella]

I feel like the usual advice given to women regarding rape tends to be very stranger rape focused though, which I feel explains the fear partially because rape is often made out to be only a thing done by strangers. If you're told all the time to mind how you dress, to avoid uncrowded and / or dark areas, etc... you are going to be on your guard a lot. Especially when if something does happen you often will get blamed for not being "careful" enough.

Trans is a whole different (And worse) problem than the ones facing Cisgendered people.

I for one await the day we invent cortical stacks, uploading, and resleeving. Then I'd be able to ditch this fugly monosexed hairless watermonkey body and finally be something that actually looks good.

I often get read as a cis woman by strangers, so I will just experience regular misogyny then if they chose to act misogynistic. The issues are not exclusives. (And a lot of transphobia has strong ties with misogyny.)

[HalfTangible]

@HalfTangible:

Basic psychology and Laasanen's theory of sexual economics strongly imply increase in positive sexual relations would decrease violent, sexual crime. What is your disagreement with the theory, or its application?

That sex crime is just as much about power as sex, thus the one positive sex experience would do little? Aren't you the one who said Laasanen was whiny and entitled?

Also, why do you think it would institutionalize rape and harassment? Neither needs to be legalized for it. Either you are jumping to the conclusion that "arranged sexual relations are automatically rape and/or harassment", or you are engaging in a slippery-slope argument stating that increase in positive sexual relations leads to increase in rape and harassment. How do you back this up?

I don't think it's a stretch to say that the experience isn't going to be positive every single time. Hence, institutionalized negative sexual experiences (rape, harrasment, etc etc)

As noted in my paraphrasal of Laasanen's theory, this is a direct result of inability to meet women on positive terms. If men are allowed easier encounter with women in way that doesn't rely on them using punitive means for it, why do you think their feel of helplessness (and hence, their needs of control an domination) would increase?

Because it's guaranteed, ie, there's no domination and it's all through someone else's control? Because feelings of helplessness comes from things besides sex? Because saying that sex is 'guaranteed' creates an entitlement mentality?

Violence is often an act of desperation and/or form of altruistic punishment. It happens because a person feels they have no other means of control. If a situation is already controlled non-violently (or if non-violence is enforced by a threat of violence from a third party, ex: law-enforcement), why would men resort to violence?

I don't know why men resort to violence to get sex in the first place. I get the appeal of a positive sexual encounter (in theory) but why would you want one where she fights you every step of the way?

[Scow2]

I don't know why men resort to violence to get sex in the first place. I get the appeal of a positive sexual encounter (in theory) but why would you want one where she fights you every step of the way?

"Proving" your power ("I can take what I want, when I want it!), the thrill of overcoming adversity... but something scary I noticed in a lot of testimonies is the people don't realize what they're doing is wrong. A sick, twisted application of the moral of Green Eggs and Ham. (Although... I do wonder how often the ancient pastime of "Drunk Love" traditionally 'enjoyed' by both sexes gets mistaken for "Drug-Assisted Date Rape". They are NOT the same thing)

[Frozen_Feet]

@HalfTangible:

Don't worry, Laasanen will continue to be a whiny brat regardless of what we say or do. Try to focus on the questions.

Overall, I don't think you have demonstrated the system posed would increase or institutionalize criminal behaviour; I can agree the system would likely have its negatives, but you have to tell me how they'd outweigh the positives.

Your argument essentially hinges on the idea that "one time is not enough". Okay, let's make it a month's lease - enough time for the people to actually get familiar with each other.

I don't really buy your concerns of entitlement after you said sex would become trivial like oxygen. To me, there's a clear contradiction there. The gist is emotional: wars don't get fought over resources that aren't scarce, and reducing scarcity of feminine love is what we're talking about.

I don't know why men resort to violence to get sex in the first place. I get the appeal of a positive sexual encounter (in theory) but why would you want one where she fights you every step of the way?

Because she doesn't want it any other way. Well, obviously she doesn't want it that way either. But you want it in some way, so...

Also, altruistic punishment, meaning punishing others for the group. It's one of the behaviours where something people do does not directly benefit either them or their target, but either makes or breaks group cohesion.

Yes, if you're not an altruistic person, the whole concept will fly over your head and you will be asking "but why?". The answer is, ironically, fairness, combined with all-or-nothing attitude: "if I can't have it, no-one else can either!".

[HalfTangible]

Your argument essentially hinges on the idea that "one time is not enough". Okay, let's make it a month's lease - enough time for the people to actually get familiar with each other.

One relationship is not enough.

I don't really buy your concerns of entitlement after you said sex would become trivial like oxygen. To me, there's a clear contradiction there. The gist is emotional: wars don't get fought over resources that aren't scarce, and reducing scarcity of feminine love is what we're talking about.

How is it a contradiction? Sex becomes trivial because someone is entitled to it =/

You can't force love, so we're back to 'this isn't even possible'.

"Proving" your power ("I can take what I want, when I want it!), the thrill of overcoming adversity... but something scary I noticed in a lot of testimonies is the people don't realize what they're doing is wrong. A sick, twisted application of the moral of Green Eggs and Ham. (Although... I do wonder how often the ancient pastime of "Drunk Love" traditionally 'enjoyed' by both sexes gets mistaken for "Drug-Assisted Date Rape". They are NOT the same thing)

Lemme rephrase. I know why, but I don't understand. Like, trying to build a tree out of a table. It's something that makes absolutely no sense to me =/

[Frozen_Feet]

But something scary I noticed in a lot of testimonies is the people don't realize what they're doing is wrong.

Let's talk about Japan a bit: not too long ago, historically speaking, there was enermous pressure for female fidelity. I'm too tired to remember the specifics, but a point the accepted way for a woman to show that yes, they really do want it, became vehemently resisting any attempts to actually do it. In linear relation: the more vehement the resistance, the more she wants it.

Some of this carries to even modern day, and causes all sorts of funny misunderstandings when Non-Japanase peruse Japanese erotic media.

So part of it is cultural habits that tie themselves into deadknots and squeeze any sense out from the process of human courtship.

The other part of it is the fact that a lot of rapists are drunk. It should not be a surprise at all if someone has faulty understanding of their actions while under influence of neural inhibitors.

[Frozen_Feet]

How is it a contradiction? Sex becomes trivial because someone is entitled to it =/

Trivial things aren't usually fought over. Like discussed priorly, rape and harassment are forms of punishment; when was the last time someone was punished over possession of air?

One relationship is not enough ...You can't force love, so we're back to 'this isn't even possible'.

So love is a requirement for a positive sexual relationship?

[HalfTangible]

Trivial things aren't usually fought over. Like discussed priorly, rape and harassment are forms of punishment; when was the last time someone was punished over possession of air?

Plenty of people are choked to death and (more pertinently) possession of air was never a problem, so it never entered human psychology in the first place

So love is a requirement for a positive sexual relationship?

No, but:

The gist is emotional: wars don't get fought over resources that aren't scarce, and reducing scarcity of feminine love is what we're talking about.

[Frozen_Feet]

Apologies for my slip of wording. "Feminine love" in this case means "positive intimate attention from women". Think of the question again, in term of economics: feminine love is analogous to possessions, rape and harassment are equivalent to various degrees of robbery. When a possession is easily acquirable via legal means, but robbery is heavily penalized, why would instances of robbery increase?

Another specific analogue we could use is water; in this case, we know people have fought and killed over it. We also know that in places where water is abundant and water-distribution systems work properly, these behaviours are negligible.

Beyond this, the question really becomes, what do you think would be a sufficiently long positive relationship? How long does it have to last, what does it have to include to be satisfying?

[HalfTangible]

Apologies for my slip of wording. "Feminine love" in this case means "positive intimate attention from women". Think of the question again, in term of economics: feminine love is analogous to possessions, rape and harassment are equivalent to various degrees of robbery. When a possession is easily acquirable via legal means, but robbery is heavily penalized, why would instances of robbery increase?

If the issue were a lack of positive attention, then rape/sexual harrasment would not be the crime to spawn from it because the attention there isn't even remotely positive. Kidnapping until the victim begins suffering from stockholm, maybe.

Another specific analogue we could use is water; in this case, we know people have fought and killed over it. We also know that in places where water is abundant and water-distribution systems work properly, these behaviours are negligible.

And if you go from an area where water is plentiful to where it's scarce (from guaranteed to not-guaranteed) you're not going to act as if you're in a water-plentiful area.

Now that I think about it, actually, we have real-world scenarios where sex is guaranteed (harems, prostitution, escorts) and for the most part it ain't pretty.

Beyond this, the question really becomes, what do you think would be a sufficiently long positive relationship? How long does it have to last, what does it have to include to be satisfying?

1) I'm an openly celibate virgin who has declared 'sex is evil', why are you asking me what would be healthy in a relationship?

2) The main question I have is how you would guarantee a positive relationship in the first place. On top of that, not everyone wants physical intimacy. On top of that, not everyone who wants it wants it in the same way. And on top of all of that one positive relationship isn't enough if it's guaranteed any more than one glass of water guarantees you won't die of dehydration.

[Frozen_Feet]

1) I'm an openly celibate virgin who has declared 'sex is evil', why are you asking me what would be healthy in a relationship?

Yes. If you are not willing to answer it, we're not going to get anywhere in this discussion.

As for prostitution and harems, they do not work even close to the way I'm suggesting. Theoretically, a form of prostitution could be used as part of it, but it'd be pretty different from what you imagine it to be. (For one, the primary consumer group of prostitutes is not frustrated single young men, it's frustrated middle-aged men who are already in a relationship. For two, as a direct consequence, prices for prostitutes tend to be artificially inflated, because what is pocket money to an established worker is a fortune to one just starting a career. This, before we even get to the complete mess that is legal regulation of prostitution.)

Harems, on the other hand, usually cater to the needs of one man only. It's like one guy hoarding all the water. Obviously it won't ease the problem, because it's the exact opposite of the solution we've been discussing.

As for dealing with variability, we have shrinks for that. In fact, we have several different services for deciding what choice is the best just for you in myriad different fields of human endeavour - why do you suppose we can't apply our accumulated experience from there to tackle this problem?

With sufficient money, all of this is simply a problem of engineering and logistics. I don't claim it's an easy problem, and you're not paying me enough to work it out, but once we ease our standards from "works for everyone" to something workable like "works for 9 out of 10", it's no longer mere fantasy. I've eaten medicine with worse odds of working.

If the issue were a lack of positive attention, then rape/sexual harrasment would not be the crime to spawn from it because the attention there isn't even remotely positive. Kidnapping until the victim begins suffering from stockholm, maybe.

You are misunderstanding the crucial bit: many men don't have the power to gain positive attention. They only have power to punish. Also, what you describe does happen, wife-stealing is a thing. Usually in concert with rape. Also also, by what regard kidnapping someone to be your wife or lovetoy doesn't count as sexual harassment?

[HalfTangible]

Yes. If you are not willing to answer it, we're not going to get anywhere in this discussion.

The question wasn't a yes or no, but okay. My definition of 'positive intimate attention' is 'none', and I am not one of the people whose problems you claim this will fix.

You are misunderstanding the crucial bit: many men don't have the power to gain positive attention. They only have power to punish.

So they'd know the positive attention is a lie and it wouldn't work?

Also, what you describe does happen, wife-stealing is a thing. Usually in concert with rape. Also also, by what regard kidnapping someone to be your wife or lovetoy doesn't count as sexual harassment?

Yes, I know, but it's not the issue you claim this solves.

The same regard that says murdering someone in their own house is trespassing (ie, technically true, but somewhat misses the point)

[MLai]

I feel like the usual advice given to women regarding rape tends to be very stranger rape focused though, which I feel explains the fear partially because rape is often made out to be only a thing done by strangers. If you're told all the time to mind how you dress, to avoid uncrowded and / or dark areas, etc... you are going to be on your guard a lot. Especially when if something does happen you often will get blamed for not being "careful" enough.

This is not a "woman" issue, it's a Darwin Award issue.
I may be a man but I grew up in New York City, and for many years I had to travel through bad parts of Manhattan. I was always conscious of urban survival basics.
If you choose to ignore basic survival, and cry "unfair" when assaulted (for money or for other reasons) when the situation was otherwise avoidable, it's... well it's not a "woman" issue. Just want to point that out.

[Astrella]

This is not a "woman" issue, it's a Darwin Award issue.
I may be a man but I grew up in New York City, and for many years I had to travel through bad parts of Manhattan. I was always conscious of urban survival basics.
If you choose to ignore basic survival, and cry "unfair" when assaulted (for money or for other reasons) when the situation was otherwise avoidable, it's... well it's not a "woman" issue. Just want to point that out.

Male on female rape is the most prevalent. Rape and sexual harassment is a gendered crime. And the point is that while stranger rape is the minority women are still constantly blamed for it. Well, women and rape victims in general are very often blamed for it.

And getting assaulted is unfair, getting robbed is unfair. Getting a crime inflicted on you is unfair, djeezes.