Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 21:08:00 GMT -5
If you don't see the wider context of things, where women often face rape and assault from these oh so lovely and not at all creepy guys who make it clear that they know where you live but you have no idea what they look like so they could surprise you at any time because you have been judged as sexually desirable to them and that's the most important thing about you, that's your business. It's a completely messed up power dynamic. There is a point when the wider context has no merit, and this is one of this times. No, the rape and sexual assault statistics have no basis for what is happening here. At all. And again, why is it considered creepy for this guy to leave a note? It's not out of the ordinary, as people like me did come into the thread thinking it was an accident, where you tend to leave a note on someone's car. Also, the whole passing notes thing from school. And another thing is that she never met him. She didn't even bother telling him she made the report, and even told police to not tell him she did this. She only has the note, a note that said he thought she looked cute and gave some contact information about him. How is that creepy or threatening to anyone? I know what you're saying, but gender is most definitely an issue here. We can't judge actions in a cultural vacuum (though I'd love for them to be). It's not creepy or threatening though, I agree, which is why charges weren't pressed. She just wanted a record kept on the off-chance something came of it.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 23, 2013 21:08:22 GMT -5
There is a lot of gray area between innocent dude and murderous psychopath. I can't count the number of times I've read about instances in which women DIDN'T report things to the police when things escalated and it came back to bite them in the ass when they've been victimized. The amount of times a guy's life has been adversely affected by someone keeping a record of leaving a note? Likely zero. Again. If she pressed charges or took any kind of action, I'd agree she were over reacting. This is just a case of her not wanting the cops any reason to brush her off if things do escalate - even if its not to the stalker/murderer level. Putting it in the complaint that she was worried that he would become violent could be an issue in the future, and it's in the record now. But I think the difference here is that things hadn't escalated according to the story. If they had, then I'd agree that she should call. But he left one note and she called the police. If he'd left more than one after she didn't respond, then I don't think there'd be an argument against it, but doing it at first attempt at contact, and saying you're worried about him becoming violent? Maybe she has a history of abuse, maybe she lives in a bad area, I don't know, but just based on those two facts that are in the story makes it a different type of situation to me.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Oct 23, 2013 21:10:24 GMT -5
Maybe it's because I've been watching too much anime lately, but I thought leaving a girl that's never met you a note telling her you like her was standard practice.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Oct 23, 2013 21:10:51 GMT -5
There is a point when the wider context has no merit, and this is one of this times. No, the rape and sexual assault statistics have no basis for what is happening here. At all? Because...reasons? Because they didn't even meet in the first place. It's like getting buried in cancer statistics every time you look at a cigarette, or sex education taking place in Pre-K. Yeah, there is a point to what the info is, but there is a point where it really is not valid to pull out, and this is one such occasion. The problem with the "lets look from the other perspective" issue is, just like in other aspects, it's not something that is open for discussion, it might be something that has two perspectives, but still has a wrong and right side. Remember, this is HER account. The info is from the case study she filed, and it's a weak argument right out of the gate.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,992
|
Post by Sparkybob on Oct 23, 2013 21:12:47 GMT -5
Well that's a faulty example. The case you presented is more of a factual base one not opinion based like this one. If a historian tells me what year Columbus found America I can't argue with that since it's a fact, but we can argue whether he was a good man or not since that's an opinionated argument just like this one is. We are stating our opinions not what the facts presented. I hope you see what your basically saying. Your premise is if I have never done/experience it I can't comment on it. I will never be in political power so I can't criticize the President, I've never experience being a commentator so I can't comment on Jerry Lawler's attitude. That's a really shitty line of reasoning. I'll never be a pregnant lady so I can't give an opinion on a women who decided to drink alcohol when she's pregnant. What do I know right? What it's saying is that people often spout off about things they have no idea about because they have no idea of how society actually works from any other point of view and they're not willing to put in the slightest bit of research. There are so many sources where you can actually find out why people do find certain modes of behaviour to be big red warning lights, why things you might never have thought of are actually huge points of contention. It's not that you can never have an opinion, but that people take their opinion as more important even when they know nothing! That was the point of the analogy, that because I know nothing about quantum physics, no matter how important I think my voice on it is, it's essentially worthless to someone who knows what they're talking about. It's not quite the same because there's all kinds of issues when it comes to areas of oppression that just aren't there in quantum physics, but I hope you get the picture. How much do I need to read to get an informed opinion? Is there a long list of readings I have to do in order to be qualified to give an informed opinion on this topic? I believe I know enough about all those terms people on your sides are using in this thread and properly understand the other side. Or is it the case that since I have a different opinion then I'm automatically uninformed? That's the problem. There is no officially degree that you need to achieve to give an opinion on this case. So that why i disagree with your logic, people can have their own personal perspectives on how 1 human reacted to a incident without needing to do a college class load of readings.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Oct 23, 2013 21:13:25 GMT -5
I really wish threads with women as the focus didn't explode as often as they do on this board. A little too much zeal coming from both sides of the argument. If FAN indeed has a 'gender problem', it's because society as a whole does, of which FAN and its members exist and live within society. As such, our conversation is limited to but one problem to the exclusion of the other (FinalBeyond's reference to intersectionality notwithstanding). Such a 'problem' becomes argumentative in three ways. 1) Saying that X phenomenon is a real thing, to which some people agree and other people don't. Sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism, in a sad sort of way take your pick since the list isn't exhaustive. Some people think these are real things in the world, others don't. Because they don't know about it? Which is to say that they haven't experienced it? But we can certainly think about things, we can know certain things exist, without having actually experienced them. 2) X phenomenon is a real thing, but it is not in itself a problem. Some people posit that sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism are problems because they are excluded, discriminated against, experience threats of violence, experience actual violence, and so on. Often these problems exist between individual identity and a wider community participation and interaction. Some people don't see sexism, racism, homophobia, and ableism as problems because they aren't affected by them, they will never be affected by it, they don't know that they exist (if they in fact end up agreeing that they exist), that they might know that it exists that but they don't know what it is, and so on. 3) The level of discourse (the quality and content of argument) we use to discuss a problem with respect to what constitutes facts, knowledges, and experiences which instantiate problems and from which problems are instantiated. Debates about the use of the word 'bitch' of 'mansplaining' from this thread are instances of this. The problem here is that some people suggest that words are dynamic, that they're historical, that they're socially situated and practiced, that they're political, that they have a material effect, that they are not neutral, etc. Other people suggest that words mean what they mean and that is it, to the point that some words mean nothing at all because what they reference is not a real thing because such a real thing, for the very reason that it supposedly does not exist, is essentially meaningless. All three of these process converge in such a way that communication itself results almost as an impossibility when people otherwise cannot agree much on anything at all. As it were, groupings of people form according to what they share amongst the three points I've suggested. Fundamentally, the issue at hand is not about the extremes of either side of an issue, but rather that the difference between epistemology and epiphenomena (between which occurs the datum of the phenomenon) cannot be reconciled with that which possibly negates it (assuming, of course, that an issue or an argument could only have two sides or points of view).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 21:13:35 GMT -5
There is a lot of gray area between innocent dude and murderous psychopath. I can't count the number of times I've read about instances in which women DIDN'T report things to the police when things escalated and it came back to bite them in the ass when they've been victimized. The amount of times a guy's life has been adversely affected by someone keeping a record of leaving a note? Likely zero. Again. If she pressed charges or took any kind of action, I'd agree she were over reacting. This is just a case of her not wanting the cops any reason to brush her off if things do escalate - even if its not to the stalker/murderer level. Putting it in the complaint that she was worried that he would become violent could be an issue in the future, and it's in the record now. But I think the difference here is that things hadn't escalated according to the story. If they had, then I'd agree that she should call. But he left one note and she called the police. If he'd left more than one after she didn't respond, then I don't think there'd be an argument against it, but doing it at first attempt at contact, and saying you're worried about him becoming violent? Maybe she has a history of abuse, maybe she lives in a bad area, I don't know, but just based on those two facts that are in the story makes it a different type of situation to me. Hmm, well, I can see your point, but things can escalate quicker than we think at times. Police always say you should report things and they always point out that people didn't when things go sideways. If the guy isn't violent, then no problem. All he has to do is continue not being/threatening violence and he's good to go. Better safe and paranoid, than sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Oct 23, 2013 21:14:45 GMT -5
There is a point when the wider context has no merit, and this is one of this times. No, the rape and sexual assault statistics have no basis for what is happening here. At all. And again, why is it considered creepy for this guy to leave a note? It's not out of the ordinary, as people like me did come into the thread thinking it was an accident, where you tend to leave a note on someone's car. Also, the whole passing notes thing from school. And another thing is that she never met him. She didn't even bother telling him she made the report, and even told police to not tell him she did this. She only has the note, a note that said he thought she looked cute and gave some contact information about him. How is that creepy or threatening to anyone? I know what you're saying, but gender is most definitely an issue here. We can't judge actions in a cultural vacuum (though I'd love for them to be). It's not creepy or threatening though, I agree, which is why charges weren't pressed. She just wanted a record kept on the off-chance something came of it. Except she said herself if the same thing occurs, or if the guy tries to contact her, she will file to have him arrested. No, it's not harmless. And it's not able to be excused as some cultural difference, especially when it's still wrong.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,436
|
Post by FinalGwen on Oct 23, 2013 21:16:21 GMT -5
What it's saying is that people often spout off about things they have no idea about because they have no idea of how society actually works from any other point of view and they're not willing to put in the slightest bit of research. There are so many sources where you can actually find out why people do find certain modes of behaviour to be big red warning lights, why things you might never have thought of are actually huge points of contention. It's not that you can never have an opinion, but that people take their opinion as more important even when they know nothing! That was the point of the analogy, that because I know nothing about quantum physics, no matter how important I think my voice on it is, it's essentially worthless to someone who knows what they're talking about. It's not quite the same because there's all kinds of issues when it comes to areas of oppression that just aren't there in quantum physics, but I hope you get the picture. How much do I need to read to get an informed opinion? Is there a long list of readings I have to do in order to be qualified to give an informed opinion on this topic? I believe I know enough about all those terms people on your sides are using in this thread and properly understand the other side. Or is it the case that since I have a different opinion then I'm automatically uninformed? That's the problem. There is no officially degree that you need to achieve to give an opinion on this case. So that why i disagree with your logic, people can have their own personal perspectives on how 1 human reacted to a incident without needing to do a college class load of readings. So are you objecting to the use of concepts like 'mansplaining' in general, or just in this particular case? (In either case, I think that to say that there's nothing remotely iffy in how the guy acted does require ignoring various societal issues that do absolutely exist.)
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Oct 23, 2013 21:21:54 GMT -5
(In either case, I think that to say that there's nothing remotely iffy in how the guy acted does require ignoring various societal issues that do absolutely exist.) Then name one. Name one thing that could possibly justify calling the police over an attempt to meet someone.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 23, 2013 21:22:56 GMT -5
Putting it in the complaint that she was worried that he would become violent could be an issue in the future, and it's in the record now. But I think the difference here is that things hadn't escalated according to the story. If they had, then I'd agree that she should call. But he left one note and she called the police. If he'd left more than one after she didn't respond, then I don't think there'd be an argument against it, but doing it at first attempt at contact, and saying you're worried about him becoming violent? Maybe she has a history of abuse, maybe she lives in a bad area, I don't know, but just based on those two facts that are in the story makes it a different type of situation to me. Hmm, well, I can see your point, but things can escalate quicker than we think at times. Police always say you should report things and they always point out that people didn't when things go sideways. If the guy isn't violent, then no problem. All he has to do is continue not being/threatening violence and he's good to go. Better safe and paranoid, than sorry. They can escalate quickly, sure, but unless he was mentally unstable in the first place, they're probably not going to just jump from "left a note on your car saying I had a crush" to "I'm going to force my way into your apartment" in one step. This situation is like she jumped from step A to step C, and a guy who probably was completely fine gets treated as a creeper and badmouthed on the internet just because he didn't know how she'd react.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,992
|
Post by Sparkybob on Oct 23, 2013 21:25:31 GMT -5
How much do I need to read to get an informed opinion? Is there a long list of readings I have to do in order to be qualified to give an informed opinion on this topic? I believe I know enough about all those terms people on your sides are using in this thread and properly understand the other side. Or is it the case that since I have a different opinion then I'm automatically uninformed? That's the problem. There is no officially degree that you need to achieve to give an opinion on this case. So that why i disagree with your logic, people can have their own personal perspectives on how 1 human reacted to a incident without needing to do a college class load of readings. So are you objecting to the use of concepts like 'mansplaining' in general, or just in this particular case? (In either case, I think that to say that there's nothing remotely iffy in how the guy acted does require ignoring various societal issues that do absolutely exist.) The logic behind 'mansplaining' is very faulty which causes me not to take the term seriously. I think she could have handled the situation better. I'm looking at it without gender I feel there where a couple of things she could have done differently.If she was scared she should have called on a payphone or something far away from her home and talk to him and determine if he is really a creep. Obviously this won't apply to everyone so instead she could have held the note and ignored until he might have done something else. I'm just saying both sides are making uninformed opinions in this case so I don't think it's right to criticize another side for being un knowledgeable.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,436
|
Post by FinalGwen on Oct 23, 2013 21:30:22 GMT -5
(In either case, I think that to say that there's nothing remotely iffy in how the guy acted does require ignoring various societal issues that do absolutely exist.) Then name one. Name one thing that could possibly justify calling the police over an attempt to meet someone. 1) She doesn't know anything about this man, because he didn't give her any info about himself, bar a phone number. The inclusion of even a photograph would at least let her know who he is, and if needs be, allow her to avoid him. As it is, she has no idea. Anyone she passes on the street could be him. So instantly he's in even more of a position of power. 2) The only thing she knows is that he has judged her as sexually attractive. Like it or not, women are far more likely than men to be made victims of rape/sexual assault/etc. and regardless of whether you think it's paranoid, it's something people have to be aware of. There's plenty of perfectly innocent-seeming people out there who do horrible things. That's like a big red light flashing 'danger'. 3) If anything did happen, the way our society is set up, she'd probably be blamed, accused of leading him on, etc. Do the slightest hint of research, and you'll see hundreds if not thousands of cases. Society is more willing to look kindly on the rapist than someone who has been raped. This way, she has it in stone right from the beginning that she did not appreciate this attention and that it was not welcomed. If nothing else happens, great, no problems for either of them. If something does happen, that's something that can help with the wider problems in the legal system and the court of public opinion. So are you objecting to the use of concepts like 'mansplaining' in general, or just in this particular case? (In either case, I think that to say that there's nothing remotely iffy in how the guy acted does require ignoring various societal issues that do absolutely exist.) The logic behind 'mansplaining' is very faulty which causes me not to take the term seriously. I think she could have handled the situation better. I'm looking at it without gender I feel there where a couple of things she could have done differently.If she was scared she should have called on a payphone or something far away from her home and talk to him and determine if he is really a creep. Obviously this won't apply to everyone so instead she could have held the note and ignored until he might have done something else. I'm just saying both sides are making uninformed opinions in this case so I don't think it's right to criticize another side for being un knowledgeable. See, the thing is, when you say "I'm looking at it without gender", that's an immediate thing that makes me question 'why', when it's such an obvious part of the story, and this is something that happens a lot. Ignoring gender doesn't make it go away. And I have to wonder why that doesn't seem obvious.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 23, 2013 21:32:02 GMT -5
Because they didn't even meet in the first place. It's like getting buried in cancer statistics every time you look at a cigarette, or sex education taking place in Pre-K. Yeah, there is a point to what the info is, but there is a point where it really is not valid to pull out, and this is one such occasion. The problem with the "lets look from the other perspective" issue is, just like in other aspects, it's not something that is open for discussion, it might be something that has two perspectives, but still has a wrong and right side. Remember, this is HER account. The info is from the case study she filed, and it's a weak argument right out of the gate. Saying "they didn't meet" actually kind of makes her case for her, though. She feels uncomfortable about a message from a stranger that communicates desire for her; she's uncomfortable because she knows that a small percentage (though sadly large number) of guys might be a threat to her well-being, and getting a message that says, albeit in a benign way, "I know where you live" could easily be taken as a potential threat. Obviously she didn't take it as an overt threat, as she only reported it to the police, and didn't file something more severe (which she'd likely have no grounds for); however, she probably feels that if it happens again, then it DOES become a threat, since the repeating of the action is what could begin to constitute stalking. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, and the guy just made a misguided decision, no big deal. Had she reported him as a stalker or rapist, then there's a case to be made that she's taken paranoia too far. As it is, the news account depicts this as a precautionary action. Maybe the news account doesn't cover everything, but it's all we've got, so that's what we're analyzing. Anything else is conjecture. I do think the bigger discussion to be had here is why an anonymous letter could be construed as a potential threat by some people. It was mentioned before: leaving somebody a note like that may seem cute, but after about 6th grade or so it has the capacity to feel like an invasion of privacy. It's not an inherently bad act, in my opinion, but the issue is that it takes the other person's agency out of the equation; they get to receive the note, but they have no way to show if they even wanted it in the first place. At least when people speak face-to-face then we have a situation where people are on more equal footing, both being present, both being able to communicate either verbally or non-verbally how comfortable they are with the situation. As said many times before, I doubt the man in this story has bad intentions; however, it's still worth a discussion to get into why it's tough for another person to know what his intentions are, given the indirect way he went about things.
|
|
wisdomwizard
King Koopa
Too Salty
Watching you.
Posts: 11,087
|
Post by wisdomwizard on Oct 23, 2013 21:33:49 GMT -5
HA HA, it was Ohio this time! Better luck next time, Florida bashers!
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Oct 23, 2013 21:35:24 GMT -5
HA HA, it was Ohio this time! Better luck next time, Florida bashers! Hall Of Fame post
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 23, 2013 21:37:24 GMT -5
Hmm, well, I can see your point, but things can escalate quicker than we think at times. Police always say you should report things and they always point out that people didn't when things go sideways. If the guy isn't violent, then no problem. All he has to do is continue not being/threatening violence and he's good to go. Better safe and paranoid, than sorry. They can escalate quickly, sure, but unless he was mentally unstable in the first place, they're probably not going to just jump from "left a note on your car saying I had a crush" to "I'm going to force my way into your apartment" in one step. This situation is like she jumped from step A to step C, and a guy who probably was completely fine gets treated as a creeper and badmouthed on the internet just because he didn't know how she'd react. I think the issue is that you're leaving out any middle ground. I don't think the woman necessarily thought "OMG MUST BE A RAPIST"...frankly, we don't know exactly what she thought, beyond saying she wanted to be careful in case the guy was prone to bursts of violence or anger...but many people who commit rape/sexual assault aren't "climbin' in yo' windows" types, and unfortunately even seemingly innocent overtures sometimes come with more sinister implications. Again, view it from the woman's perspective: a strange man you've never seen (to your knowledge) has left you a note like this; you don't have to think "he automatically has to be a rapist/stalker/whatever" to still think "I'm going to take the safe route here". To repeat, it wouldn't shock me if the guy had no ill intentions...but his action was still pretty creepy. That alone is reason enough to be cautious.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Oct 23, 2013 21:41:25 GMT -5
Then name one. Name one thing that could possibly justify calling the police over an attempt to meet someone. 1) She doesn't know anything about this man, because he didn't give her any info about himself, bar a phone number. The inclusion of even a photograph would at least let her know who he is, and if needs be, allow her to avoid him. As it is, she has no idea. Anyone she passes on the street could be him. So instantly he's in even more of a position of power. 2) The only thing she knows is that he has judged her as sexually attractive. Like it or not, women are far more likely than men to be made victims of rape/sexual assault/etc. and regardless of whether you think it's paranoid, it's something people have to be aware of. There's plenty of perfectly innocent-seeming people out there who do horrible things. That's like a big red light flashing 'danger'. 3) If anything did happen, the way our society is set up, she'd probably be blamed, accused of leading him on, etc. Do the slightest hint of research, and you'll see hundreds if not thousands of cases. Society is more willing to look kindly on the rapist than someone who has been raped. This way, she has it in stone right from the beginning that she did not appreciate this attention and that it was not welcomed. If nothing else happens, great, no problems for either of them. If something does happen, that's something that can help with the wider problems in the legal system and the court of public opinion. 1) A phone number, his name, and the fact he lived in the building, probably more, but contact information seems a bit . And, if she acted like an adult, she could have asked around her friends if they knew anything, or her landlord or super of the building. 2) " Like it or not, women are far more likely than men to be made victims of rape/sexual assault/etc.". No they're not. and... 3) Irrelevant. You're already going 5 or 6 steps ahead of the situation. Again, they haven't even met yet, and already you're accusing the person of being a potential rapist and how it much blame gets thrown out to the woman after a rape that never occurred. just cause there are rapists out there doesn't mean you try to swipe at anyone that even can be construed as that, to "be safe". That's paranoia.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,992
|
Post by Sparkybob on Oct 23, 2013 21:45:25 GMT -5
The logic behind 'mansplaining' is very faulty which causes me not to take the term seriously. I think she could have handled the situation better. I'm looking at it without gender I feel there where a couple of things she could have done differently.If she was scared she should have called on a payphone or something far away from her home and talk to him and determine if he is really a creep. Obviously this won't apply to everyone so instead she could have held the note and ignored until he might have done something else. I'm just saying both sides are making uninformed opinions in this case so I don't think it's right to criticize another side for being un knowledgeable. See, the thing is, when you say "I'm looking at it without gender", that's an immediate thing that makes me question 'why', when it's such an obvious part of the story, and this is something that happens a lot. Ignoring gender doesn't make it go away. And I have to wonder why that doesn't seem obvious. Because this probably has also happen if the Gender's were reverse? And in that scenario that women could also be some psycho-killing person as well. So I took an objective view of the scenario of what will be the best case of action gender neutral. I know you are going to come back with the rape culture idea and it's applications here. I don't use that in individual cases with almost no background information like the OP's one since I don't agree with the logic behind it in these type of cases.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Oct 23, 2013 21:45:55 GMT -5
Because they didn't even meet in the first place. It's like getting buried in cancer statistics every time you look at a cigarette, or sex education taking place in Pre-K. Yeah, there is a point to what the info is, but there is a point where it really is not valid to pull out, and this is one such occasion. The problem with the "lets look from the other perspective" issue is, just like in other aspects, it's not something that is open for discussion, it might be something that has two perspectives, but still has a wrong and right side. Remember, this is HER account. The info is from the case study she filed, and it's a weak argument right out of the gate. Saying "they didn't meet" actually kind of makes her case for her, though. She feels uncomfortable about a message from a stranger that communicates desire for her; she's uncomfortable because she knows that a small percentage (though sadly large number) of guys might be a threat to her well-being, and getting a message that says, albeit in a benign way, "I know where you live" could easily be taken as a potential threat. Obviously she didn't take it as an overt threat, as she only reported it to the police, and didn't file something more severe (which she'd likely have no grounds for); however, she probably feels that if it happens again, then it DOES become a threat, since the repeating of the action is what could begin to constitute stalking. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, and the guy just made a misguided decision, no big deal. Had she reported him as a stalker or rapist, then there's a case to be made that she's taken paranoia too far. As it is, the news account depicts this as a precautionary action. Maybe the news account doesn't cover everything, but it's all we've got, so that's what we're analyzing. Anything else is conjecture. I do think the bigger discussion to be had here is why an anonymous letter could be construed as a potential threat by some people. It was mentioned before: leaving somebody a note like that may seem cute, but after about 6th grade or so it has the capacity to feel like an invasion of privacy. It's not an inherently bad act, in my opinion, but the issue is that it takes the other person's agency out of the equation; they get to receive the note, but they have no way to show if they even wanted it in the first place. At least when people speak face-to-face then we have a situation where people are on more equal footing, both being present, both being able to communicate either verbally or non-verbally how comfortable they are with the situation. As said many times before, I doubt the man in this story has bad intentions; however, it's still worth a discussion to get into why it's tough for another person to know what his intentions are, given the indirect way he went about things. Worth a discussion, not an attempt to rid the world of him. Again, do you mean to tell me this was at all justified, that this was the first, last and only defense for her? She couldn't have, I don't know, asked around the building from other places, or maybe have met him, but be joined by a group of her friends so she wouldn't be alone in case he was some psycho who likes kidnapping women and wearing their skin? She couldn't have at least done the common courtesy to actually talk to the person before passing judgement, as you and the rest of the crowd are doing, labeling him as some creepy would be rapist that needs to involve the police?! Really!?
|
|