LogFAQs > #980241223

Zareth posted...

Everyone assumes the bear will be docile and the man will be a predator.

Nobody assumes anything. It's a matter of predictability:

• Bears are dangerous, but generally only in specific situations that you can avoid to mitigate that danger. In addition, if you do find yourself in one of those situations, there are fairly reliable ways to deescalate or escape them and avoid harm
• People are dangerous less often than bears, and often less dangerous than bears when they are dangerous, but if they're dangerous it's because they've decided to be, for reasons known only to them. You can't mitigate that harm by avoiding certain situations (other than "don't be alone with them," which has already been defined as not being an option by the scenario) because you can't know what situations are going to be dangerous, and you can't really know the best way to deescalate those situations to avoid harm if you do get caught in one.

It's not a matter of assuming that the man is a predator, it's a matter of not being able to know that he's not. The bear, meanwhile, is a known variable: It's a bear. Choosing the bear is a matter of choosing a predictable hazard over an unpredictable element. Even if the unpredictable element is probably less dangerous overall, the fact that you have less control over the situation and less ability to proactively mitigate the threat makes it scarier.

Now, on the flip side, odds are the dude is going to be more helpful for becoming un-lost than the bear is, and personally I'd be inclined to consider that value enough to mitigate the associated risks (which are actually fairly low for any randomly-selected guy), but I also don't really have to worry about the whole sexual violence angle and that skews my assessment. I fully understand why so many women would rather stick with the devil they know than roll the dice on an unknown factor. Not being in control of the situation is scarier than risks you can reliably predict and mitigate.