Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Coito ergo sum]

[

Because you won't or don't read my replies, because you don't understand what I am saying you would rather assume I have nothing to say and no interest in saying it so I should just go do something else?

If you're going to discuss the topic, discuss it. I honestly don't care either way.

You also keep minimizing and discrediting and discounting what it means to be sexually assaulted. It is not an abstract thing after the fact.

This is all stuff that comes from you, not me. I haven't minimized or discredited or discounted what it means to be sexually assaulted. Not once. Not ever. Find me one, single quote where you think I did such a thing.

Not intended to be sarcastic at all--you? Really? Why the fondness for this after so many of your posts then?

You'll have to read the material immediately preceding it. I'm generally making a joke, and the snork thingy is designed to highlight that it is a joke, and not to be taken seriously.

What is being discussed here is exactly the same as the Watson thread.

It's not what I wanted to discuss in the OP. You may have discussed the same things, but what I wanted to talk about was what made women feel uncomfortable at atheist and skeptic events, not the more narrow issues of Elevatorgate and Dawkins' war on feminism.

I can't talk about this topic without it being personal to me---the fact that you can't understand that tells me a lot.

What's it tell you?

You want to know why a person might find some situations discomforting--I have been telling you.
We have articulated it. You aren't getting it.

No, I don't in the least want to know why a person might find "some situations" discomforting. I do want to know whether women are generally speaking uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events, and why. The fact that you can come up with some other situation in which you were assaulted really doesn't have anything to do with it, unless such assaults are big problem at those events.

Just fucking ignore me already.
I am not going to be told how to think or how to feel or what to say.

I've never told you how to think or how to feel or what to say. That must be something someone else did that you're imputing to this situation.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.stanford.edu/group/svab/myths.shtml

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/SexualAssaultStatistics.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/Violenceprevention/s ... index.html

http://www.turningpointservices.org/Sex ... istics.htm

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbNa ... ntID=32369

http://www.slc.edu/offices-services/sec ... stics.html


There is lots more.

What's your point?

[Hermit]

http://www.stanford.edu/group/svab/myths.shtml

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/SexualAssaultStatistics.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/Violenceprevention/s ... index.html

http://www.turningpointservices.org/Sex ... istics.htm

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbNa ... ntID=32369

http://www.slc.edu/offices-services/sec ... stics.html


There is lots more.

What's your point?

Perhaps it's in reply to this sort of thing:

This article is a fucking prime example of the bullshit that has arisen in relation to these matters, and I suspect it is driven by a combination of:

1. Shrill sensationalist media
2. Bad statistics
3. Radical misandrist feminists

[snip]

I seriously doubt if the percentage of rapists amongst males is as high as she declares.

When you look at the statistical likelihood for a woman to be sexually assaulted and the fact that the vast majority of the perpetrators are seemingly ordinary men rather than some psycho breaking into a woman's home or ambushing them from a dark side alley, it makes sense for women to feel like they may well be accosted at atheist events. That is what much of Schrödinger's Rapist is about.

[Cormac]

http://www.stanford.edu/group/svab/myths.shtml

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/SexualAssaultStatistics.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/Violenceprevention/s ... index.html

http://www.turningpointservices.org/Sex ... istics.htm

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbNa ... ntID=32369

http://www.slc.edu/offices-services/sec ... stics.html


There is lots more.

What's your point?

Perhaps it's in reply to this sort of thing:

This article is a fucking prime example of the bullshit that has arisen in relation to these matters, and I suspect it is driven by a combination of:

1. Shrill sensationalist media
2. Bad statistics
3. Radical misandrist feminists

[snip]

I seriously doubt if the percentage of rapists amongst males is as high as she declares.

When you look at the statistical likelihood for a woman to be sexually assaulted and the fact that the vast majority of the perpetrators are seemingly ordinary men rather than some psycho breaking into a woman's home or ambushing them from a dark side alley, it makes sense for women to feel like they may well be accosted at atheist events. That is what much of Schrödinger's Rapist is about.

Seraph,

With all due respect, if you're going to rely on those links as supporting the assertion that such a high proportion of men are guilty of sexual assault, it is for you to first quote them, explain how they're relevant to the argument, and then provide the link.

My issue with the claim is that it first requires a definition of sexual assault. For example, some people would define being asked for coffee as a sexual assault. It isn't enough to just quote bare statistics.

The word "Assault" itself in a legal sense is poorly understood. Assault is where someone is in fear that they are about to be imminently physically attacked. Battery is where someone is actually physically touched, usually violently. Similarly, Rape has occurred where unwanted specific physical contact is made.

Before a statistic such as those quoted in that article is used, the terms of reference should be supplied. Otherwise there is a risk of artificially creating controversy.

There is, I think, a difference between sexual assault and rape. (Both crimes, but the latter includes and compounds the first).

It is not that I don't have sympathy for a person who feels anxiety, fear, and distress. It is that I don't believe that these feelings are universally justified. I don't think the outlook on life as set out in that article is either fair or justified. I don't think we should radically alter the freedom of men, just because some men are criminal. To do so would be to bring "Thoughtcrime" right back into our society, when we've spent so long trying to remove it.

I am aware that some men have disgusting attitudes to women. These men are assholes. Humanity is replete with assholes.

Most men are probably not assholes, just like most women are probably not assholes. Most people are just trying to muddle along, and to find what comfort and enjoyment life can offer as they make their way through life.

Most people don't have nefarious intent.

I for one, (if I was single), would try to chat to women that I found interesting and attractive*, and I'd accept the risk of outright rejection as part of life.

The article claims that women are communicating all the time, and that men should understand this communication, and amend our behaviour as necessary. There are many problems with this selfish and irrational nonsense.

1. Human beings are communicating all sorts of messages all the time, and yet, all psychological studies show that both men and women are still utterly incompetent at understanding this communication. The article's author is therefore asking men of these times to achieve the impossible.
2. Women are equally incompetent at reading communication from men, and yet the author seems to imply that women are good communicators.
3. As human beings are incompetent observers and interpreters of human communication, women might be communicating constantly, but will also be incompetent at understanding how this communication is being interpreted.
4. By adhering to a belief that one's interpretations of behaviours is certain, we close down possibilities in life - therefore, a person could miss out on meeting a fantastic person - just because of an initial failure of communication.

The bottom line is that we are very bad at subtle and even overt communications, men and women alike.

Her view of the world seems very cruel, stunted, and mean-spirited. In a world in which both sexes are so bad at communication, how do we ever make friends, or find sexual partners? Does it all have to be done by database lookups of likes, dislikes, and values? Once we venture out into society, we have voluntarily accepted the fact that we will have to interact with other human beings. Interaction with other human beings automatically implies that we will suffer miscommunication. This is the price of human interaction. But most people aren't evil, and most people aren't constantly planning sexual crimes. Most people abhor sexual crimes.

I am passionate about this topic precisely because I believe in social equality of the sexes, and because I resent being labelled as a depraved criminal. I feel it is arbitrary and unfair to be presumed guilty. I've never and would never impose unwanted sexual attention on another human being**. If and when I have a daughter, I'll teach her about life, and I'll teach her that there are assholes and how to recognise them, and I'll teach her to deal with them. But I would hope that I don't instil in her anxiety and fears beyond those necessary to manage ordinary social interactions.

*Attractive for me primarily involves the mind and attitudes, although I also need a face and body that I like too
** Or for that matter, on anything else!

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.stanford.edu/group/svab/myths.shtml

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/SexualAssaultStatistics.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/Violenceprevention/s ... index.html

http://www.turningpointservices.org/Sex ... istics.htm

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbNa ... ntID=32369

http://www.slc.edu/offices-services/sec ... stics.html


There is lots more.

What's your point?

Perhaps it's in reply to this sort of thing:

This article is a fucking prime example of the bullshit that has arisen in relation to these matters, and I suspect it is driven by a combination of:

1. Shrill sensationalist media
2. Bad statistics
3. Radical misandrist feminists

[snip]

I seriously doubt if the percentage of rapists amongst males is as high as she declares.

When you look at the statistical likelihood for a woman to be sexually assaulted and the fact that the vast majority of the perpetrators are seemingly ordinary men rather than some psycho breaking into a woman's home or ambushing them from a dark side alley, it makes sense for women to feel like they may well be accosted at atheist events. That is what much of Schrödinger's Rapist is about.

So, women who don't go to atheist events don't do so because they fear being accosted there? The ones that go the events are in fear of being accosted there?

I find it a strange assumption, that they feel they may well be accosted at an atheist convention, full of left-leaning, predominantly politically liberal, pro-minority rights folks, and mostly egghead philosophers.... If what you say is true, it's a wonder women leave the house at all.

[Ronja]

... If and when I have a daughter, I'll teach her about life, and I'll teach her that there are assholes and how to recognise them, and I'll teach her to deal with them. But I would hope that I don't instil in her anxiety and fears beyond those necessary to manage ordinary social interactions.

Cormac, your wording sounds a bit as if you assume that nobody else will teach her about "assholes" and therefore she would not get in contact with information that would create "fears beyond those necessary". Yet, my experience of how girls/women and boys/men "in the know" (who also are decent human beings) behave indicates that people talk to each other about personal traumatic / scary experiences or such experiences that they have heard of. One gets warned about certain clubs and neighborhoods, and certain individuals and groups - "I would not go there alone, did you not hear what happened to..." ; "Make sure you tell them not to accept that invitation - X overheard Y and Z discussing lacing the punch with..." ; "His parties are dangerous - last time around it was bloody near that they would have started a fire, my brother had to get his hand seen to and it still hurts like hell..." ; "It was really embarrassing - she just happened to be there, and because the cops found weed, everyone was hauled to the station, and her mom screamed like a foghorn..."

And BTW, I grew up and have studied in neighborhoods / at campuses that would never have been considered really dangerous by the police or in official statistics - but there were wilder groups and less trustworthy individuals, and people warned each other. I hope you would not try to stop your daughter from participating in this kind of peer teaching of street smarts? And yet, at the same time, she could get quite scared, because hearing even one personal story about a sexual assault is pretty goddam horrible. I've listened to half a dozen women and a couple of men over these last 20 odd years (in ordinary life situations, not in any professional setting), most but not all assaulted, raped and/or molested by a male perpetrator, some as children and some as adults, and those stories were utterly terrible to hear. Most would not speak about it sober - some had to be very drunk to even mention it.

In light of those stories, and the anguish that these people clearly felt years, even decades afterwards (some had not spoken to anyone before they spoke to me - my having worked in a mental hospital seemed to be a part of what prompted these discussions) and the fact that not one of the alleged perpetrators had been reported or prosecuted, and some were with fairly high likelihood repeat offenders, has made me very, very wary and extremely aware of my surroundings at all times. I am especially wary of any individuals or groups who appear to be capable of outrunning or overpowering me, and there is an unfair biological imbalance at play there: about 30-40 % of all men that I meet qualify as individuals, whereas at most 10 % of women do, as I am tall and wear runnable shoes at all times. Therefore, I am statistically more likely to be wary of men than of women.

Quite frankly I do not give a flying fuck if an ordinary decent guy feels offended by my or any woman's (or man's) caution or us speaking or writing about our fears and our strategies. Why should I? If I have to choose between either my life / health being at risk or your feelings maybe getting offended, I will choose "selfishly" / "unkindly" every time and not think twice about it.

After all, I do not give a flying fuck about e.g. a Christian feeling offended by my or someone else's criticism of creotards or fundamentalists, and the argument is very similar: "But I am a Christian and I would never say / do that! Your prejudice offends me and all decent Christians, and only makes it more difficult for religious people and secularists to get along!" Well tough - that's life, too.

As for if there is real reason for women's suspicions, Nicholas Groth's "Men Who Rape" (part of my nursing course literature, psychiatry module) is a solid classic from 1979, and David Lisak et al. more recent research considering the undetected rapists is chilling, to put it mildly.

Pooling data from four samples in which 1,882 men were assessed for acts of interpersonal violence, we report on 120 men whose self-reported acts met legal definitions of rape or attempted rape, but who were never prosecuted by criminal justice authorities. A majority of these undetected rapists were repeat rapists, and a majority also committed other acts of interpersonal violence. The repeat rapists averaged 5.8 rapes each. The 120 rapists were responsible for 1,225 separate acts of interpersonal violence, including rape, battery, and child physical and sexual abuse. These findings mirror those from studies of incarcerated sex offenders (Abel, Becker, Mittelman, Cunningham-Rathner, Rouleau, & Murphy, 1987; Weinrott and Saylor, 1991), indicating high rates of both repeat rape and multiple types of offending. Implications for the investigation and prosecution of this so-called "hidden" rape are discussed.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/s ... 1/art00006

Researchers discovered that it was possible to gather accurate data from these men because they did not view
themselves as rapists. They shared the very widespread belief that rapists were knife-wielding men in ski masks who attacked strangers; since they did not fit that description, they were not rapists and their behavior was not rape. This has
allowed researchers to study the motivations, behaviors and background characteristics of these so-called “undetected rapists.”

http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cach ... 134841.pdf

These undetected rapists:
• are extremely adept at identifying “likely” victims, and testing prospective victims’ boundaries;
• plan and premeditate their attacks, using sophisticated strategies to groom their victims for attack, and to isolate them physically;
• use “instrumental” not gratuitous violence; they exhibit strong impulse control and use only as much violence as is needed to terrify and coerce their victims into submission;
• use psychological weapons – power, control, manipulation, and threats – backed up by physical force, and almost never resort to weapons such as knives or guns;
• use alcohol deliberately to render victims more vulnerable to attack, or completely unconscious.

http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/files ... _SHEET.pdf

There is nothing ordinary about the kind of social interaction that this type of a person has in store for those unlucky enough to cross their path, and they are good at hiding behind a mask of decency - awaking trust or creating some kind of dependency or knocking out defenses (often literally and/or chemically). So to be safe, women (and men) need to be wary also of people who seem to be OK on the surface. To be successful, this requires a certain amount of paranoia, and communicating with others similarly paranoid and thus learning about strategies and tactics. Not all such communication will be tailored to your personal taste.

Live with it.

[hadespussercats]

[Coito ergo sum]

[

Quite frankly I do not give a flying fuck if an ordinary decent guy feels offended by my or any woman's (or man's) caution or us speaking or writing about our fears and our strategies. Why should I? If I have to choose between either my life / health being at risk or your feelings maybe getting offended, I will choose "selfishly" / "unkindly" every time and not think twice about it.

You shouldn't in the less give a flying fuck about that. However, the ordinary decent guy also need not give a flying fuck about unreasonable fears. That is, if attendance at a atheist/skeptic events is one of these things that someone believes is a life/health/death choice or significant risk, then there's not much the normal ordinary, decent guy attending an atheist/skeptic event can do about, can he? I mean - when we talk about women being uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events, are we talking about rape? Because if we are, then there ought to be an investigation and massive crackdown on these events.

I was not aware that women were refraining from attending atheist/skeptic events because of the threat of rape, etc., and I had not known that women there were uncomfortable because of the prevalence of rape, etc., at these events. Is that really the concern relative to this particular issue?

After all, I do not give a flying fuck about e.g. a Christian feeling offended by my or someone else's criticism of creotards or fundamentalists, and the argument is very similar: "But I am a Christian and I would never say / do that! Your prejudice offends me and all decent Christians, and only makes it more difficult for religious people and secularists to get along!" Well tough - that's life, too.

I'm all for that. Flying fuck - no need to give one.

As for if there is real reason for women's suspicions, Nicholas Groth's "Men Who Rape" (part of my nursing course literature, psychiatry module) is a solid classic from 1979, and David Lisak et al. more recent research considering the undetected rapists is chilling, to put it mildly.

Can you connect this up, please? Men commit the crime of rape. Therefore, women are uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events? Really? Then is there ever a place where women are not at least a little uncomfortable around men? Being in a room full of men ipso facto leads to discomfort? Because Nicholas Griffith's book would appear to be equally applicable in any situation where there is a convention or get together.

Pooling data from four samples in which 1,882 men were assessed for acts of interpersonal violence, we report on 120 men whose self-reported acts met legal definitions of rape or attempted rape, but who were never prosecuted by criminal justice authorities. A majority of these undetected rapists were repeat rapists, and a majority also committed other acts of interpersonal violence. The repeat rapists averaged 5.8 rapes each. The 120 rapists were responsible for 1,225 separate acts of interpersonal violence, including rape, battery, and child physical and sexual abuse. These findings mirror those from studies of incarcerated sex offenders (Abel, Becker, Mittelman, Cunningham-Rathner, Rouleau, & Murphy, 1987; Weinrott and Saylor, 1991), indicating high rates of both repeat rape and multiple types of offending. Implications for the investigation and prosecution of this so-called "hidden" rape are discussed.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/s ... 1/art00006

Am I correct in interpreting that data that a very small number of men commit an alarmingly high number of rapes and attempted rapes?

Researchers discovered that it was possible to gather accurate data from these men because they did not view
themselves as rapists. They shared the very widespread belief that rapists were knife-wielding men in ski masks who attacked strangers; since they did not fit that description, they were not rapists and their behavior was not rape. This has
allowed researchers to study the motivations, behaviors and background characteristics of these so-called “undetected rapists.”

http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cach ... 134841.pdf

I wonder what those men define as rape, if not the nonconsensual act of sexual intercourse with a woman?

These undetected rapists:
• are extremely adept at identifying “likely” victims, and testing prospective victims’ boundaries;
• plan and premeditate their attacks, using sophisticated strategies to groom their victims for attack, and to isolate them physically;
• use “instrumental” not gratuitous violence; they exhibit strong impulse control and use only as much violence as is needed to terrify and coerce their victims into submission;
• use psychological weapons – power, control, manipulation, and threats – backed up by physical force, and almost never resort to weapons such as knives or guns;
• use alcohol deliberately to render victims more vulnerable to attack, or completely unconscious.

http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/files ... _SHEET.pdf

There is nothing ordinary about the kind of social interaction that this type of a person has in store for those unlucky enough to cross their path, and they are good at hiding behind a mask of decency - awaking trust or creating some kind of dependency or knocking out defenses (often literally and/or chemically). So to be safe, women (and men) need to be wary also of people who seem to be OK on the surface. To be successful, this requires a certain amount of paranoia, and communicating with others similarly paranoid and thus learning about strategies and tactics. Not all such communication will be tailored to your personal taste.

Live with it.

Living with it.

But, help me out here - can you connect this up with the issue in the OP? If it's a digression, fine, I can live with that too.

[Ronja]

Coito, does this help?

If I were a serial undetected rapist (the successful, seemingly decent = the most dangerous kind) I would be drawn like a shark to blood to all kinds of longer-than-one-day conferences, conventions, seminars, etc. - also atheist / skeptics happenings. There people are outside their normal environment (at least some therefore more vulnerable than usual), likely to be drinking and/or doing drugs (lowered awareness of risk, lowered inhibitions, "legitimate" reasons available why someone would pass out...) and at least some of the people attending will be unaccompanied and of my desired gender. Opportunity, opportunity, opportunity...

Therefore the kind of vigilance I describe is not specifically needed for *atheist* or *skeptic* events, but any situation where one's ordinary everyday safety routines are "broken" by non-familiar circumstances and/or (lots of) non-familiar people.

[Coito ergo sum]

Do women avoid all conventions or just some? If it's the latter, does that not indicate that something else must be at play besides the point you just mentioned?

And, to be clear - are you suggesting that women avoid going to longer-than-one-day conferences, etc., because they are afraid of male rapists?

My gut tells me that women don't go to atheist/skeptic/science/philosophy type conventions because by and large the people that are interested in these things are old men, and eggheads. It's the same reason women tend to be in the vast minority at Star Trek conventions - demographically, they tend not to like the subject matter.

I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that women are not attending these conferences out of a fear of rape, and general discomfort about being around men qua men. If your supposition is true - that women are always afraid of being raped in any group of men, well, then, I guess all I can say is that I really "don't get it." Maybe I never will. I'm trying to, though. At this point, though, I am not convinced that your argument holds water.

[Atheist-Lite]

Do women avoid all conventions or just some? If it's the latter, does that not indicate that something else must be at play besides the point you just mentioned?

And, to be clear - are you suggesting that women avoid going to longer-than-one-day conferences, etc., because they are afraid of male rapists?

My gut tells me that women don't go to atheist/skeptic/science/philosophy type conventions because by and large the people that are interested in these things are old men, and eggheads. It's the same reason women tend to be in the vast minority at Star Trek conventions - demographically, they tend not to like the subject matter.

I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that women are not attending these conferences out of a fear of rape, and general discomfort about being around men qua men. If your supposition is true - that women are always afraid of being raped in any group of men, well, then, I guess all I can say is that I really "don't get it." Maybe I never will. I'm trying to, though. At this point, though, I am not convinced that your argument holds water.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/pri ... of-sexism/

[klr]

Do women avoid all conventions or just some? If it's the latter, does that not indicate that something else must be at play besides the point you just mentioned?

And, to be clear - are you suggesting that women avoid going to longer-than-one-day conferences, etc., because they are afraid of male rapists?

My gut tells me that women don't go to atheist/skeptic/science/philosophy type conventions because by and large the people that are interested in these things are old men, and eggheads. It's the same reason women tend to be in the vast minority at Star Trek conventions - demographically, they tend not to like the subject matter.

I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that women are not attending these conferences out of a fear of rape, and general discomfort about being around men qua men. If your supposition is true - that women are always afraid of being raped in any group of men, well, then, I guess all I can say is that I really "don't get it." Maybe I never will. I'm trying to, though. At this point, though, I am not convinced that your argument holds water.

My gut tells me the same thing.

I'm not backing any particular horse in this race, but I just wanted to make that point.

[Gallstones]

http://www.stanford.edu/group/svab/myths.shtml

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/SexualAssaultStatistics.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/Violenceprevention/s ... index.html

http://www.turningpointservices.org/Sex ... istics.htm

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbNa ... ntID=32369

http://www.slc.edu/offices-services/sec ... stics.html


There is lots more.

What's your point?

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 14#p919214
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 27#p919627

Are you not reading the thread?

[Gallstones]

http://www.stanford.edu/group/svab/myths.shtml

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/SexualAssaultStatistics.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/Violenceprevention/s ... index.html

http://www.turningpointservices.org/Sex ... istics.htm

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbNa ... ntID=32369

http://www.slc.edu/offices-services/sec ... stics.html


There is lots more.

What's your point?

Perhaps it's in reply to this sort of thing:

This article is a fucking prime example of the bullshit that has arisen in relation to these matters, and I suspect it is driven by a combination of:

1. Shrill sensationalist media
2. Bad statistics
3. Radical misandrist feminists

[snip]

I seriously doubt if the percentage of rapists amongst males is as high as she declares.

When you look at the statistical likelihood for a woman to be sexually assaulted and the fact that the vast majority of the perpetrators are seemingly ordinary men rather than some psycho breaking into a woman's home or ambushing them from a dark side alley, it makes sense for women to feel like they may well be accosted at atheist events. That is what much of Schrödinger's Rapist is about.

Seraph,

With all due respect, if you're going to rely on those links as supporting the assertion that such a high proportion of men are guilty of sexual assault, it is for you to first quote them, explain how they're relevant to the argument, and then provide the link.

Whoa, that's quite a twisting of the meaning of the data.
It isn't saying that "a high proportion of men are guilty..", it is saying a high proportion of girls and women are victims.

Because women are assaulted at all, even in large numbers or small, does not mean that you are assumed to have done any of it. But from our POV, it is a factor of valid concern.

Most assaults are perpetrated by and acquaintance/friend/family member. So, a man approaching "out of interest" and asking for a woman's company would fit that profile in a perfunctory way. Any woman with any sense of self preservation would at least think about the possibility and be looking for other clues.

[Gallstones]

RE thread argument part one: Would I go to an atheist/skeptics event?
Yes

Alone?
Yes

Would I be uncomfortable?
No


Would I go to a science fiction or fantasy themed event?
No
I think they are lame.

The role playing and dressing up in costume = lame.


These are the events that interest me and the ones I do go to or would go to:
Gun shows
Reptile shows
Demolition derby
Art or fashion
Theater and concerts (anything with live music)

Sports

• Hockey
  Horse racing
  Rodeo
  Baseball

Would I go to any of these alone?
Yes

Would I be uncomfortable going alone?
No


Would I be uncomfortable engaging in conversation with men at any of these events?
No

Would I be uncomfortable exchanging phone numbers with a man I met at one of these events?
No

Would I be uncomfortable if a man I met at one of these events wanted to walk or drive me home*?
Yes.


*I walk by choice. I would not accept a ride.
Also, I don't want some guy I just met and don't know to know where I live.




There are many variables to these situations that could lead me to be more relaxed or more wary.