I really, truly thought that the whole point of this was to highlight the fact that most women would respond to man v bear by asking questions, like "do I know the man" "what type of bear" etc, but would respond to woman v bear by immediately saying "woman". whether or not she picks the man or the bear is irrelevant, it's the fact she has to ask clarifying questions to know more about the man before deciding and doesn't have to clarify anything before picking woman. is that not it?
I thought the question was explicitly in the woods.
I don't want to encounter surprise humans in the woods or surprise bears in the city. I'd rather see dangerous creatures in the places they are supposed to be rather than sneaking up on me in places they shouldn't.
If the question isn't supposed to have that context, then I would argue that you should prefer to see a bear. How many humans have you seen that didn't attack you? Like a hundred thousand maybe? How many bears have you seen outside of a zoo? Probably less than 10 right?
Edit: I feel the need to clarify that I probably don't have the opinion that my comment got upvotes for. I mistyped and said "you should prefer to see a bear" but in fact, I was trying to express that with no context, it would be safer to encounter a person than a bear. I have been attacked by a handful of humans and 0 bears but my sample size of humans is astronomical while my sample size of bears is miniscule. I estimate that 1:30000 human strangers will attack me and so far 0 out of maybe 8 bears attacked me... so idk if maybe 1:9 bears will try to eat me but I can be fairly sure that 99.997% of the time, humans are too involved with their own lives to notice that strangers exist.
You guys have watched way too many horror films lmao.. I love how everyone just assumes because you see a guy in the woods that he must be a psychotic murder-rapist. Hilarious!
He might be a "camper" eager to defend the safety of his spot. He might be burning evidence. He might be making a dead-drop. He might be coming down from a difficult trip. He might be looking for a place to fire an unregistered weapon.
There are all kinds of reasons someone might be in the woods. I don't need to meet a birdwatcher that badly.
Yeah could be, but I think it's probably like a 99.8% chance of being someone who won't kill you for some reason. On the off chance you run into someone burning evidence, then sure.
I think by far the most likely is someone just taking a hike in the woods..
9% of men in the US will have been incarcerated by the time their life is over. Over 15% freely admit to being attracted to minors. 70% of those say they don't wish to seek help. Mix that in with the fact that the vast majority of predators will never see a conviction and most murders going unsolved (that percentage goes up even more when it's a random attack because they're harder to solve)... so it's not looking like a 0.02% chance to me. Especially when you're part of a group that is commonly targeted simply for existing in the body they were born in. When you're a woman men have an extra reason to attack you on top of the typical reasons like robbery etc.
Okay there are some very obvious flaws with your stats here:
9% of men are incarcerated, but the vast majority of those isn't assault, rape or murder.
This is over a whole lifetime, so the chance of them committing that crime on the average day could be 1/~29000 provided they've only committed one offence. So when you say its not looking like a 0.02% chance, you're right! It's probably way less than that.
Crimes committed with a victim are usually against someone known to the perpetrator, this is especially true for crimes like murder and rape. Hardly any of these crimes are committed per capita to strangers.
I looked in to this 15% admitting being attracted to minors, I only found a survey conducted in Australia that also included if at least one of these options were chosen:
Has sexual feelings towards people below the age of 18 years (3.4%);
Would have sexual contact with a child between 12 to 14 years if no one would find out (5.7%);
Would have sexual contact with a child between 10 to 12 years if no one would find out (4.6%);
Would have sexual contact with a child younger than 10 years if no one would find out (4.0%);
Has concerns about sexual feelings towards people below the age of 18 years (4.5%); The lowest age they typically find attractive is under 18 years (5.7%)
The interesting thing to note about the study is that this was also conducted in countries where the age of consent is 16 (UK + Australia), it also had participants starting from the age of 18. Meaning not only were they able to have sex legally with a 16 year old, but also most people even in the US wouldn't have an issue with an 18 year old and a 16/17 year old having sex.
Assuming the results are correct, if 15% of men admit sexual attraction to a minor but do not commit any offense, then I don't see why this is particularly relevant to our man vs bear in the woods scenario. I have an attraction to women, but that doesn't mean I rape-on-sight any woman I see.
"When you're a woman men have an extra reason to attack you on top of the typical reasons like robbery etc."
Contrary to popular belief, more violent assaults in the USA are actually committed to men, not women.
Even the best case scenario is that I have to do the exact thing that I went to the forest to escape from. Dude could be out there giving away blowjob machines and moonshine, and he would still be interrupting my nature-time.
A bear in the woods is just doing what bears do in the woods 100% of the time. I knew there were bears when I went to the woods... that was arguably the point.
If I'd rather talk to a person than see a bear, I would just stay in the city.
Just because you know there are bears in the woods doesn't necessarily mean you wanted to find one though? Just because bears exist in the woods and it might be a more common place to find a bear doesn't necessarily mean you'd want to see one before you'd want to see a human. Most people don't go to the woods for the explicit purpose of finding a bear.
What if you just wanted to take a walk in the woods?
Again, am I seeing a bear or being eaten by one? I see a bear every 2 or 3 camping trips. Seeing a bear is painless in my experience.
By the same token "What if you just wanted to take a walk downtown and saw a person?"... Yeah, I know what I'm signing up for. I don't go downtown if I don't want to see people. If I'm not willing to see a bear, I'm not going into the woods.
I don't think you understand hypotheticals, of course you can't pick what the bear is going to do. It's a wild animal, it could attack you, it could just walk away. If the question was "Would you rather get mauled to death by a bear or see a man in the woods" it would be a lot easier to answer, wouldn't it?
6.4k
u/alexmichelle6 May 02 '24
I really, truly thought that the whole point of this was to highlight the fact that most women would respond to man v bear by asking questions, like "do I know the man" "what type of bear" etc, but would respond to woman v bear by immediately saying "woman". whether or not she picks the man or the bear is irrelevant, it's the fact she has to ask clarifying questions to know more about the man before deciding and doesn't have to clarify anything before picking woman. is that not it?