Washing before dinner; more from yesterday

[vvalkyri]

From today's Washington Post,an article that's technically about lunch, but still.

I like the idea of sinks in restaurant seating areas. It's apparently prevalent in India.In other news, yesterday's post about Good Guys influencing More Guys continues to eat my brain; there are a couple of followups that I've got bookmarked for later: On

Comments

[badmagic]

You haven't escaped that world. You're in the same world. You just don't see the dangers.

That's party because those dangers are not as prevalent as advertised. The response to that post are full of stories about people who did $FOO_ReallyDangerousThing and were fine.

You tend to evaluate risk based primarily on the likelihood of something happening. Others tend to focus more on the consequences (i.e. "there's only a 10% chance" vs. "I don't want there to be any chance of that happening at all!")

[vvalkyri]

Hm. yes and no. Vidi LASIK - 1% chance of complications, and my response is 'hell, no - i'm fine with glasses and contacts

[badmagic]

Hm. yes and no. Vidi LASIK - 1% chance of complications, and my response is 'hell, no - i'm fine with glasses and contacts.'

True, and a good point. But I've seen you walk into traffic, back into candles...maybe you're just not looking for potential dangers.

the post is also full of people who did $foo_shouldn't_be_dangerous and the guy did something Bad.

Also true, but I still don't think a woman walking alone at night is likely to be attacked. That doesn't make it safe, just not as dangerous as commonly assumed.

Another thing I'm noticing is posts where the situation was such that if it were not A Good Guy advantage (or worse) could have been taken. And I muse about whether I assume Good Guy or I select for Good Guy or what.

Hmm. Intereting question.

that alterd mindstates affect capacity for consent

That's a notion I object to. I've never liked it when anyone tried to excuse themselves with "I was drunk."

But also I have many men I trust, and I don't think that trust is misguided. And that seems to not always be the

[vvalkyri]

Sadly, I'm probably not looking as much for potential dangers, at least not consciously. Remember how miffed I was when I felt the self defense class was trying to teach me fear?

There's also levels of drunk. A societal meme where one recognizes that drunk means suspect consent has merit. Starting with a meme that it is Not Acceptable to fsck the person passed out on the couch would be a step. "I was drunk" shouldn't be an excuse either, though. Hrm. See the bits about Philadelphia Story in the media role models post.

But if you don't trust people, you won't get close enough to them so that you have a large number of people who'll look out for you.

One of the repeated themes in the comments is Good Guys who stepped in to help complete strangers.

[shadeofnight]

I have heard the arguments about "all men are Potential Rapists" many times, and I have to say not having those arguments around me for the last decade have been amazingly nice

[vvalkyri]

One thing that took a while for me to get, in reading all the cerata comments

[truthspeaker]

"Any unknown man can not be assumed not to be a threat."

I had to stop a moment and realize that that was indeed what "all men are potential rapists" meant (though perhaps with the word "unknown" stricken). I believe that the idea is valid, though the phrasing is poor and easily misunderstood.

Unfortunately, this is a topic where good ideas can be easily misinterpreted.

[he_who_wanders]

>I find that claim the same as the women claim with more or less hurt on both sides.

Ok if you want to claim that pre-judgments hurt regardless of who makes them there is an argument there. However I think you have to look at the reason as much as the pre-judgment itself.

Women who believe/say that seem to be of the opinion that the consequence of not thinking that is:

1) They are much more likely to get raped/assaulted/killed
2) When said thing happens they will be told they had bad judgment for trusting the person or wearing that outfit or going to that place.

There really isn't any comparison between your two examples in terms of consequence of not holding the pre-judgment.

[cz_unit]

Oh brother, another "where the fuck are you, nice boys!"

I used to get a rise out of this one. These days, it's like a siren call saying "I'm a complete idiot".

Yeah yeah, all men are rapists, ya da ya da ya. What an attention whore.

CZ

[vvalkyri]

Did you follow the links? That's actually not what she seemed to be saying

[cz_unit]

Yes, I did.

Unfortunately remember my situation: Narcissist who has dated paranoids. I smell this sort of thing out far, and I say WELL the hell away from them. Not because I am a nice guy or not, but because I know trying to negotiate, deal with, or engage a paranoid is a recipe for disaster. It doesn't work, it so doesn't work. It's like trying to talk to an endless series of mirrors, reflections on reflections.

So BTDT.

No, I as a "good guy" will not go around trumpeting that to make some paranoid more happy. I will simply do what I do, and let that speak for itself. If you can't hear it, well then that's that.

I'm sure there are women who don't have men in their life that they can trust. That's sad, but why is that? Why would anyone possibly trust me based on what I say? That goes into the "trust isn't earned" rant which is another one for another day.

Oddly enough I don't post because I do the right thing. I post because I do what I do. It just... is.

CZ

[vvalkyri]

Agh. I'm not managing to get it across. Something about having read entirely too many of the comments there.

Perhaps I misread you, but I see you as a guy who would intercede, or tell someone else he's being a dick, or tell a group they're being asses.

Some of the discussion did go toward media representation of what is good and normal, but some of it also went toward the fact that there are indeed a whole lot of Good Guys out there.

Gah. Work I need to do, and I'm not managing. :sigh:

[papertigers]

to quote my girlfriend (out of context), "your friends are appalling." I wish I could say I was surprised.

[vvalkyri]

Unfortunately I think there's a certain amount of training necessary to 'get it', and I differ from a lot of people in that I do not think that not 'getting it' initially (say, by derailing, or saying that both sides just have hurt feelings) means the person is awful to the core. Nellorat's spent some time on that (the rerailing post above)

I have insufficient training myself to even attempt to explain, and I've certainly not got the time for it today. It's frustrating, 'cause especially with the second bit about "don't prejudge us all" it's all been covered to hell and back in the Mammoth Post, and I can't possibly manage to recap.

FWIW, all three of the first commenters I would (and in some cases have) trusted with my life.

[papertigers]

there's a difference between "I don't get this" and "I categorically refuse to entertain the idea that this is true or meaningful," especially when what's under discussion involves real life experiences and people's assessments of those experiences. I won't get into a discussion of the quality and worth of your friends, but I can tell you that every mother in our church would have trusted the pastor with her children. my mother did, which is why my sister, brother, and I were living in his house for the six months he molested me and physically abused all three of us.

[marmota]

It's an interesting thread that hopefully I'll have more time to look at later, but my first thought is, "All *people* are capable of {action}", out of the best or worst intentions. The answer, as with most things is to Communicate. What needs to be overcome are the cultural barriers afffecting all genders on clearly getting across hopes and expectations