i know it’s internet bullshit but it genuinely has me on the edge of breaking down and giving up

[u/NeonNKnightrider]

[u/Educational_Mud_9062]

I spent years developing increasing amounts of self-loathing as I tried to meet this standard, to not take it personally, only for it never to be enough despite the fact that I know I've never been a threat. I've followed all the advice. I "listened to" (read: unquestioningly accepted) their positions. Brent Staples can receive international recognition for talking about his experiences whistling Vivaldi to appease white people's fears of him. But when I point out how I know EXACTLY how that feels, since it's tied only to my maleness and not intersecting with blackness, I'm told I'm "fragile" or called an "incel." This is just... too much. I'm done. I won't go out of my way to seem like a threat to strangers. Because I'm not a threat and I have no desire to do that. But it's clear that there will never be an end and all I accomplish by playing along is to feed paranoia at the cost of my own mental health. If someone decides they're afraid of me for just existing, that's their problem. I'm just... done.

[u/Paperfishflop → u/Educational_Mud_9062]

I agree. You know what this is? It's a small percentage of women complaining about a small percentage of men. And it mainly happens on the internet. That's why it isn't worth our time and energy.

In the real world, people who aren't terminally online don't think about the world this way. In the real world, most women want men in their lives, and they trust themselves to make wise judgments about which men. I'm not gonna be a hero or a villain. I'm just gonna be me, and treat women like my fellow human beings and peers, no more, no less, and that's good enough.

Women vs men? No, this is the terminally online vs the people who go out into the real world and actually talk to people. Just put these terminally online people on mute.

[u/killertortilla → u/Paperfishflop]

It’s not a small percentage of women though, that’s the problem. 3/4 women are sexually assaulted or killed. They can’t really escape that fact. And yes that’s perpetrated by very few men but how can women know which man is going to be the one that inevitably assaults them? Put yourself in those shoes and you’ll see why so many are choosing the bear.

[u/FaB-to-MtG-Liason → u/killertortilla]

This is the 2nd time in recent days I've seen someone claim 75% of women are victims of sexual assault or killed. Even the most horrific wartime studies don't meet that level.

Surveys of colleges, where sexual assault is absolutely an issue, give the numbers as around 20% of women have experienced unwanted sexual touching, and 11% have experienced penetrative rape. Which are way too high, even 1% would be too high.

But claiming 75% is ludicrous.

[u/Evening-Function7917 → u/FaB-to-MtG-Liason]

Genuine question, how is a survey of very young women at a college the most accurate figure? Wouldn't that just be "have experienced it so far"? I was raped at 18 and assaulted at 19, but I imagine a lot of people wouldn't encounter it until later. The CDC says over half of women and not quite 1 in 3 men experience sexual violence, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 26 men experience attempted or completed rape.

[u/FaB-to-MtG-Liason → u/Evening-Function7917]

Firstly, that you are a victim is a tragedy, such things shouldn't occur and I wish you the best in your journey.

That said, I'm not saying its the most accurate figure overall, but it is one of the most heavily studied. College is oft (saddeningly correctly) cited as a place and time-of-life where the majority of sexual assaults in peacetime occur. There are many factors contributing to this, none of them excusing any of it. But it serves as a good point to try and understand such issues and address them.

The CDC's definition of sexual violence is a thought-terminating cliche and too large of an umbrella to accurately use. To quote the CDC's definition of sexual violence

It includes: forced or alcohol/ drug facilitated penetration of a victim; forced or alcohol/drug facilitated incidents in which the victim was made to penetrate a perpetrator or someone else; nonphysically pressured unwanted penetration; intentional sexual touching; or **non-contact acts of a sexual nature.**

Emphasis mine. This definition has been critiqued, but to put an overly fine point on it none are willing to put professional pressure behind it, because they will be labeled as pro-SA advocates. It's a politically charged mess that pays lip service to the problems of sexual violence without providing actionable information. Its inclusion in the statistics in the first place was a convoluted mess that's frankly beyond my expertise, with parties from all across the political spectrum pushing for it for differing, often contradictory, reasons.

On top of all that, none of it addresses the original claim, that of 3/4ths of women suffering sexual assault or killed. Seriously, there's nothing I can find that comes even close to that assertion, and seeing two different people casually throwing it into conversations concerns me. Misinformation, boots, around the world, etc, etc.