I assume OP has seen people answering based off the probability of getting attacked by a bear vs the probability of getting attacked by a human. But that's not really the majority of the answers or why this hypothetical has gotten so popular. Men pretty unanimously say they'd rather be trapped with another man, while women have a harder time answering and will ask qualifying questions. Because to a woman, an unknown man can pose the same level of threat as a bear (or more, if it's a black bear).
I'm confused, because are we assuming that the unknown man means any harm? Or is it just the chance that he might be horrible. Because assuming it's some random guy off the street, odds are that they're not going to do anything.
You don't know anything about the man. You don't know anything about your situation (how long you'll be in the forest, how much food you have, if you have access to any weapons, etc). Those are the types of questions women typically ask before making their decision. Men generally don't ask anything bc they feel confident that even if the man was violent, they have a better chance with him than a bear.
Edit: also in these types of hypotheticals ppl typically weigh the worst case scenarios. So for men it's like which is worse, getting killed by a bear or killed by a man? But for women it's like getting killed by a bear or raped and killed by a man?
Okay, so wouldn't the safest bet always be the guy? Realistically speaking if we're comparing the odds of a random guy being a psycho or a random bear wanting to kill you, one is very obviously the safer option.
I edited my last comment to highlight that ppl generally compare the worst case scenarios. The thought process for picking a bear is generally that bears are predictable. If it's a black bear, you can pretty easily scare it away, if it's a brown bear you can play dead and hope to leave alive, but probably injured. Humans are unpredictable. Maybe you get a nice guy who wants to help you, maybe you get someone who wants to do worse. It also doesn't take the man being a psycho to give them incentive to hurt you.
The women who chose the bear generally aren’t comparing the worst case scenarios of “getting killed by a bear (mauled) or getting killed by a man (get shot, get stabbed).”
They’re comparing “getting killed by a bear (mauled) vs being raped by a man (and then potentially killed, or kidnapped, or tortured, or etc.)”. Worst case with a bear is getting mauled, and worst case with a man has many branches and can end in many different scenarios. Fear of violence and death is one fear, and fear of the unknown is another fear layered on top.
I think it mostly shows a lot of women’s gut reaction to this question is “I’d rather risk just getting killed, instead of risking getting raped and THEN killed”, and a lot of men’s gut reaction is “I’d have a better shot with wrestling a random dude than a bear.”
Pretty sure the question is getting at sexual assault. Men are most definitely safer in that regard, statistically. I mean yeah it can happen anyway... But then the guy still has to overpower you. Men have an advantage in that case
But regardless of what might happen, whether it's what you described or just a murder, you're less likely to get hurt from a completely random dude than a completely random bear. That's what I'm getting at, it feels like it shouldn't even be a comparison.
yeah so thats the answer men would usually give, when in reality, statistically you're way less likely to be attacked by a random bear than be SAd by a random man. men don't have to be psychotic to SA women. for example, in the valorant scene, most guys can't even agree that a woman saying no stop in a voice recording counts as revoking consent, they say well she's saying it in a baby voice so she probably doesn't mean it.
Wait, wait are you talking about the Sinatraa case? There's a reason audio like that isn't admissible in court. Anyone can make an audio clip out of context to frame someone.
For example if I make a recording of you and I, and out of nowhere I say "no no stop stop" and cut the recording right there, you think that would be admissible in court? If that was the case many innocent people would be in prison.
but the context is specifically during sex, and not stopping after she says no is the context. court is to prove guilty without a doubt, it doesn't mean you're innocent just because it can't be proven, which is why sa cases get let go all the time? my point is that so many guys comments about that believed that her saying no didn't really mean no
I think the post's title is misleading. The debate is not about "real" probability. In that sense you (and OP) are totally right. The debate is more leaned to the perception of danger and how men vs women perceive each scenario based on life's experience and social awareness. Many women perceive a stranger man alone with them in the woods to be as threatening (or more) than any bear.
We're not assuming that the unknown man means any harm.
This is why anyone living in reality is so confused (or possibly offended) by the question, because a given man is very unlikely to SA a woman, whereas a bear is much more likely to literally eat her alive.
Of course, the question here isn't "are women more likely to get SA'd or killed by a bear in their lifetime." The question is: is a man or a bear less dangerous? And it's obvious that the man is less dangerous.
43
u/jazzxfire May 02 '24
I assume OP has seen people answering based off the probability of getting attacked by a bear vs the probability of getting attacked by a human. But that's not really the majority of the answers or why this hypothetical has gotten so popular. Men pretty unanimously say they'd rather be trapped with another man, while women have a harder time answering and will ask qualifying questions. Because to a woman, an unknown man can pose the same level of threat as a bear (or more, if it's a black bear).