It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How much should a woman trust a random man?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
If you're going to be suspicious of people you don't know, just be suspicious of everyone. There, paranoia totally covered, no sexism needed.

Broad-brushing to this extent is a pathetic thing to A.) teach kids, B.) teach women, and leads to C.) Unfair tarring & loathing of an entire gender because of the actions of a few. Remember, not all Catholic priests are pedos, not all Muslims are terrorists, not all black people & Hispanics are murderous criminals. This applies to men, too. Not all men are rapists just because a minority is.




posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Profusion

The answer is obviously no, because that's an insane and stupid position to take. Considering probably about 80% of all interactions people have outside of work or their homes are with complete strangers.

A 10% of ANYTHING Is a poor reason to make any decision.

~Tenth


As I wrote in the original post:

"The house edge in a double-zero game of roulette is 5.26%. In that circumstance, if you keep playing roulette long enough, you'll eventually lose all your money no matter what. I see the position women are in as being essentially identical to that."

If anyone thinks that's "insane", I would challenge them to take up roulette.


originally posted by: AMPTAH
There are lots of women around who no man would rape.


Man rapes 90-year-old woman

There are lots of cases such as the one linked to directly above.


originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: Profusion

With your logic 4.8% to 10% of men on ATS are rapists.


If the studies in the original post are credible then they are based on a sample of the entire population that's being studied. This forum does not represent a sample of the entire population of any area. I would be surprised if 0.5% of the men on this forum are rapists.


originally posted by: DeepImpactX
Whether you're raped, blackmailed or otherwise screwed with in a very bad fashion (welcome to the world of aids kiddo)....remember.....nothing in your life happens without your participation.


Rape happens without the participation of the person being raped. There is a lot of randomness in life. People find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time (due to randomness) every day. You didn't answer the question.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It is when you imply that women should be scared of all men based on those results. Plus I said it is treading a line between it. I'm not flat out calling this misandry, but you aren't far away from making that leap.


This is one reason why I love this place. When I was perceived to be taking an anti-feminist stance (although I wasn't) some people called me misogynist. Now, I'm taking a stance that's quite common among feminists and you're claiming that I sound somewhat mysandrist. If anyone wants to know, I'm pro-feminist and I'm not mysandrist or misogynist.

"You imply that women should be scared of all men", that statement is false. I never implied any emotion should be involved.

I'm talking about making a decision based on statistics, in the same way a professional gambler does. Anyone who has any substantial experienced gambling knows that emotion should never be involved. My stance is that emotions should not be involved in how women view men who are strangers. Allowing emotions to be involved would be very dangerous and possibly disastrous.


originally posted by: Nyiah
Broad-brushing to this extent is a pathetic thing to A.) teach kids, B.) teach women, and leads to C.) Unfair tarring & loathing of an entire gender because of the actions of a few.


Around 5-10% is not "a few." We're talking about 1/20 to 1/10. That means if you're in a college classroom with a hundred male students, chances are five to ten of them are rapists. How can people ignore that? You didn't answer the question.
edit on 27-6-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Profusion

You know what?

When you get born to this earth, no one asks you if you want to go there. No one takes your little baby soul aside and says:

"Look little dude or dudette, this thing that is about to happen to you, this life thing for which you are utterly unprepared at this point. I need to talk to you about it. Things are going to happen out there that you probably aren't going to like.


Actually, I suspect that is EXACTLY what happens. You don't come down here unless you want to. And you know what is going to happen beforehand. It's just that you won't remember it until you get back up there.

IMO.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
This is one reason why I love this place. When I was perceived to be taking an anti-feminist stance (although I wasn't) some people called me misogynist. Now, I'm taking a stance that's quite common among feminists and you're claiming that I sound somewhat mysandrist. If anyone wants to know, I'm pro-feminist and I'm not mysandrist or misogynist.

I don't care about your posting history. I care about what I read in front of me. Though, for the record, your history is what is holding me back from flat out calling you a man hater. So please understand that I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm unemotionally just critiquing what I'm reading. Even people with the best of intentions can make harmful mistakes.


"You imply that women should be scared of all men", that statement is false. I never implied any emotion should be involved.

Distrust shows worry. It's a symptom of distrust. One cannot exist without the other.


I'm talking about making a decision based on statistics, in the same way a professional gambler does. Anyone who has any substantial experienced gambling knows that emotion should never be involved. My stance is that emotions should not be involved in how women view men who are strangers. Allowing emotions to be involved would be very dangerous and possibly disastrous.

Statistically speaking (according to your posted statistics at least) you have a 9 in 10 chance of meeting a man who wouldn't lie to a woman about raping her or having committed rape. Yet you are trying to suggest that 1 in 10 being an asshole rapist should raise doubts on the other 9 men. Your statistics are painting a different picture than your presented conclusion, but you appear to be spinning the statistics in your favor anyways. That is where the misandry is coming from.
edit on 27-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

a woman should trust a random man based on her perception and intuition, if she only thinks inward she will be taken advantage of, and not just physically, emotionally, and monetarily, and intellectually.

men must do the same as to avoid the exact same consequences

so it seems you just asking how much people should trust each other



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Profusion

You know what?

When you get born to this earth, no one asks you if you want to go there. No one takes your little baby soul aside and says:

"Look little dude or dudette, this thing that is about to happen to you, this life thing for which you are utterly unprepared at this point. I need to talk to you about it. Things are going to happen out there that you probably aren't going to like.


Actually, I suspect that is EXACTLY what happens. You don't come down here unless you want to. And you know what is going to happen beforehand. It's just that you won't remember it until you get back up there.

IMO.


I hope TrueBrit explains how he knows, "When you get born to this earth, no one asks you if you want to go there." It's an issue I've contemplated for my entire life.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Your statistics are painting a different picture than your presented conclusion, but you appear to be spinning the statistics in your favor anyways. That is where the misandry is coming from.


Now I understand where your "mysandrist" claim came from. I asked a simple question, "How much should a woman trust a random man?" I used the example of the advice that I gave my ex-wife because it reveals my opinion. Again, I'm making an inference based on statistics. Misandry is an emotion. There is no emotion involved in my view on this matter. It is simply based on mathematics.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t

"You imply that women should be scared of all men", that statement is false. I never implied any emotion should be involved.

Distrust shows worry. It's a symptom of distrust. One cannot exist without the other.


Trust isn't tied to any emotion for me outside of love. If I love someone, I'll generally ignore all the red flags that I shouldn't trust them. Outside of that, trust for me is based on what another person has earned.

I'm sure you've heard that trust must be earned? Perhaps you don't agree with that. I agree with it. If trust is truly earned then emotions would play no part in whether you give someone your trust or not. In other words, I don't see where emotions come into play as far as whether someone has earned something or not. Earning something should be based on an objective examination of a situation. If emotions are involved in that, I think that's a huge mistake (possibly even for me concerning love).

In my view, distrust is the default position until someone has earned trust (with the exception of love for me). There is no emotion involved in that default position for me (worry or otherwise).



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
You give a lot of information about what has happened to you that was not needed to be known by others. Perhaps it would be better to sort your feeling about your exwife and your divorce somewhere other than here. I hope you do get to talk to people who can help. Be safe



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
Now I understand where your "mysandrist" claim came from. I asked a simple question, "How much should a woman trust a random man?" I used the example of the advice that I gave my ex-wife because it reveals my opinion. Again, I'm making an inference based on statistics. Misandry is an emotion. There is no emotion involved in my view on this matter. It is simply based on mathematics.

Well yea. That's why I said you are only treading the line. You really don't have to keep explaining yourself on this matter. I understand and for the third time I'm NOT trying to insult you here.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Trust isn't tied to any emotion for me outside of love. If I love someone, I'll generally ignore all the red flags that I shouldn't trust them. Outside of that, trust for me is based on what another person has earned.

I'm sure you've heard that trust must be earned? Perhaps you don't agree with that. I agree with it. If trust is truly earned then emotions would play no part in whether you give someone your trust or not. In other words, I don't see where emotions come into play as far as whether someone has earned something or not. Earning something should be based on an objective examination of a situation. If emotions are involved in that, I think that's a huge mistake (possibly even for me concerning love).

In my view, distrust is the default position until someone has earned trust (with the exception of love for me). There is no emotion involved in that default position for me (worry or otherwise).

You are right that trust is earned, but at the same time distrust is also earned. There is no reason to straight up distrust someone upon meeting them outside of preconceived notions about the person based on biases or rumors. Therefore, I think the default is neither distrust or trust. Upon meeting someone for the first time, there is no reason to trust or distrust them. It is after getting to know the person and how they act that you can start forming the opinion on if you should trust them or not.

Though what I think you are getting here is wariness. You want to be wary of strangers lest they are actually dishonest and take advantage of your generosity or catch you overexposing your weaknesses. Though I don't exactly consider that distrust. You're still liable to do things with someone you are wary of that you wouldn't do with someone you flat out distrust.

As for how wary one should be upon meeting a stranger. Well that is up to the person and how willing they are to play the odds that the person is dishonest.
edit on 27-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion


originally posted by: Nyiah
Broad-brushing to this extent is a pathetic thing to A.) teach kids, B.) teach women, and leads to C.) Unfair tarring & loathing of an entire gender because of the actions of a few.


Around 5-10% is not "a few." We're talking about 1/20 to 1/10. That means if you're in a college classroom with a hundred male students, chances are five to ten of them are rapists. How can people ignore that? You didn't answer the question.

5 or 10 out of 100? That's called a minority amount. "Actions of the few" still applies.
And I answered your pearl-clutcher question, I said just be suspicious of everyone, not only men. Fear everyone, problem solved. What's the matter, you don't like taking broad-brushing THAT far? If you want to get nit-picky, then you should trust a random man as much as any random woman. There is no difference with malevolent people, hence just fear everyone.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: imod02
You give a lot of information about what has happened to you that was not needed to be known by others. Perhaps it would be better to sort your feeling about your exwife and your divorce somewhere other than here. I hope you do get to talk to people who can help. Be safe


I didn't give "a lot of information." A few sentences in the entire thread is nothing in my opinion.

If I didn't phrase the original post the way I did, this thread would have probably ended up in the trash bin. Was the information "needed to be known by others"? I'm not going to sit here and rewrite my original post a hundred times to make it palatable.

Although, come to think of it, I could have just referred to a feminist saying what I wrote and I bet no one would have called it "mysandrist" in any way (because calling a feminist "mysandrist" is probably politically incorrect).

Why are you nitpicking my posts and giving me advice about what's necessary for me to write? I wanted to use the example I used because it's very important to me and it describes my thinking on this issue and the reasons for it. It's not just about me; it's about helping others.

Nice ad hominem and red herring. What's your answer to the question?


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Though what I think you are getting here is wariness. You want to be wary of strangers lest they are actually dishonest and take advantage of your generosity or catch you overexposing your weaknesses. Though I don't exactly consider that distrust. You're still liable to do things with someone you are wary of that you wouldn't do with someone you flat out distrust.

As for how wary one should be upon meeting a stranger. Well that is up to the person and how willing they are to play the odds that the person is dishonest.


According to Merriam-Webster, "wary" is defined as:


not having or showing complete trust in someone or something that could be dangerous or cause trouble
www.merriam-webster.com...


My distrust of people has nothing to do with that. I put people into two categories (those I trust, those I don't trust). I don't expect that people "could be dangerous or cause trouble" unless they prove that they could. I'm actually indifferent about distrust, there is no thought put into it on my part. There's no wariness or any other such thing and there is no emotion attached to it either. We just simply see the world differently on this issue in my opinion.

a reply to: Nyiah

"Pearl-clutcher question"? I think it's quite controversial and for good reasons.

"Actions of the few" still applies.

That is true. However, it's different from most instances where that phrase is used. For instance, criminals tend to join together in gangs. Everyone knows to stay out of certain places in Los Angeles for that reason. However, when it comes to rapists, you have no idea where or who they are. There are no identifying characteristics (such as the tattoos gang members tend to have, etc.) and they could be anywhere at anytime. Therefore, "actions of the few" is true but that phrase (and the truth that it expresses) hardly helps women to defend themselves.
edit on 27-6-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion
You long and defencive post says very much, once again too much. Anyway take care and be safe, I wish you no ill will



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I don't trust anyone until I feel in my gut they are worth my trust.

Man or woman.

There aren't too many people on that list either...

I was raped by someone I never thought could do something so cruel to another person so, I'm beyond cautious about letting people near my comfort zone.

It's hard to truly know anyone. If you find yourself lucky enough to really know who another person is....consider yourself blessed.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Hi my name is Random



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Some contexts are worse than others.

i.e. even some bars are worse sources of men than others.

Some churches are worse than others.

I think any woman worth her salt with any significant amount of self-worth . . . with a minimum of RAD . . . should be able to watch a man's eyes, facial expressions, tone of voice and body language and know who is safe and who is not.

If a woman is unskilled on such scores, she ought not be alone with a man, period, unless he's a proven well known friend, family member.

And certainly not with a stranger type man.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: imod02
You give a lot of information about what has happened to you that was not needed to be known by others. Perhaps it would be better to sort your feeling about your exwife and your divorce somewhere other than here. I hope you do get to talk to people who can help. Be safe


It is the relationships forum. I think the OP provided what they felt was necessary for the context of the original post.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Women, and men, simply need to exercise some common sense when it comes to relationships, and other situations. We cannot avoid all crime, but we can be sensible, and not deliberately place ourselves into a dangerous situation.

As for those stats, I don't buy that. Yes, there are some creeps around, but the average guy isn't that sort of danger. Knew plenty of guys in my single days, and was alone with some, with no worries at all. Even interested guys, who knew how to take no for an answer. If a guy is the type to push things, there should be some signs. Common sense and paying attention are always wise, but there isn't a need to live in fear.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

My position on that, is that if we were asked before hand, there would only be the maniacs, because all the reasonable folks would have elected to do pretty much any other damn thing than come down here to this thrice damned nuthouse.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

seems only females with rich fathers and weopons are the ogels and nes feeling safe with strangers... i trust in the heavenly and saints to be a guide for those without parenting...it is u warned your ex about seeing other males...it helps for a female to have some school and edjucation plus occupations in high titles like management to feel safe and not depending on emotianl stability from men or finacial support...this is why i believe in the contract of marriage being clear for both parties... some creeps keep women at home and cheat and other stuff....what do you think that sort of thing is..healthy living or non healthy?



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: peppycat
some creeps keep women at home and cheat and other stuff....what do you think that sort of thing is..healthy living or non healthy?


Of course that's not healthy. Cheating on your partner is always terrible in a relationship. "Keeping women at home" is horrible if the women want to work. I have heard of men doing that before. I think it's rare in Western countries these days.

You like asking me easy questions. Like, is the sky blue? Let me check.


Thanks for taking it easy on me.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I met guys over the Internet. My last fiance too... even left my life in Finnland to be with him in Bulgaria. It was love on first sight... everything was perfect. I felt safe and free with him... him being younger wasn't a problem. Problem came when i moved to his apartment. .. with his roommates and so on. Pther ppl getting into his mind trieng to split us up. Then his personality changed. .. till he broke up with me leaving me all alone. .. in the end he always been a stranger to me...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join