Poll of the Day > Do you guys think using "implications" to get sex is rape?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Do you consider it freely giving away your stuff if you hand over your wallet because of the "implications" of a gang member cornering you in what you thought was a safe place? Of course not. You handed it over because you were afraid of what would happen if you didn't. You make this choice to part with your wallet "willingly" because it will reduce the chances of you being hurt or killed.

By the same token, if a woman has sex with you because she felt like she couldn't say no, that was rape. Period. The idea that a woman wouldn't go out on a boat with you unless they "wanted it" is absolute baloney. What it means is that they trusted you, and you took advantage of that trust. In that situation, many women will given in and pretend to have sex willingly because they have nowhere to run, and they're scared you will seriously hurt or kill them if they don't. That's not real consent any more than you willingly donated your wallet to the mob, or carrying a wallet around is begging for it to be stolen. Notice the double standard here?

The_tall_midget posted...

Did they lie? Who knows.

The number of false rape accusations are in the single digits. Accused men, on the other hand, very frequently lie and attack the victim in a strategy referred to as DARVO. Even Brock Turner, who was caught raping Emily Doe red-handed, tried to deny it was rape.

The_tall_midget posted...

But until they prove something actually happened, their allegation is false.

In a court of law, witness testimony is evidence that something actually happened. Most rapists aren't stupid enough to film it, though it does happen (like the guy who sent it to all his friends with the caption "When your first time was rape".) Even with this guy's confession and iron clad proof, the judge STILL questioned whether or not it was rape and blamed the victim for what happened. That's how screwed up attitudes are about rape.

The_tall_midget posted...

There is already an environment where actual victims can come forward. I am amused of people claiming otherwise. The majority of people who don't come forward are those who are full of s***, as it should.

You have absolutely NO clue what you are talking about. Older claims are actually more likely to be true than recent ones, because those who make up rape claims usually invent a recent incident in order to accomplish a specific agenda (usually getting out of trouble). Tawana Brawley, for example, was late getting home and scared of her abusive stepfather, so she used the story to get out of being abused.

https://www.livescience.com/56482-victims-sexual-assault-speak-out.html

https://www.kellymagazine.ca/blog/why-dont-sexual-assault-survivors-come-forward

Cause a woman making false rape allegations is a horrible f***ing thing. A lot of women have gone to prison for it as they well should have.

Fear of not being believed and not trusting the criminal justice system is one of the many reasons why women don't come forward. When you add the possibility of being prosecuted for lying if you aren't believed, it will silence a lot more women and enable even more rapists to get away with their crimes.

The_tall_midget posted...

Irrelevant. Both are crimes. Because one happens more often does not justify not pursuing the other.

The way you state that would indicate you believe that LYING is on par with RAPE. If that's what you meant to say, that is screwed up as hell. Police departments and DAs have finite resources. Suggesting that they should focus on people who lie/aren't believed about rape equally with people who are accused of rape is either incredibly ignorant or misogynistic.Statistically speaking, men are much more likely to be lying about rape than women. That's not saying it's impossible or there shouldn't be due process, but it's something to keep in mind when you start screaming about lying.
---

CTLM posted...

A person is deemed incapable of consent when he or she is: (a) less than seventeen years old; or (b) mentally disabled; or (c) mentally incapacitated; or (d) physically helpless; or (e) committed to the care and custody or supervision of the state department of corrections and community supervision or a hospital

So that's a no then. They are not willing.
---

To add to the first video, there are also these two videos...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPgn6zUAFc" data-time="

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ3hc8pJelk" data-time="
---

LeetCheet posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

I'm still not entirely sure I understand the question, but if it's a matter of "We're all alone out here and I could totally rape you if I wanted to, so you should just consent so we don't have to go through all that unpleasantness," then I'd definitely call that rapey, if not necessarily qualifying for rape charges. It's pretty clearly using the thinly-veiled threat of forcible rape to coerce the person into non-forcible sex, and coercing people into sex is also bad.

Bottom line: If you're wondering if a scheme to convince a girl to sleep with you is rape or not, ask yourself if she'd be willing to sleep with you without the scheme. If the answer is anything other than a definite "yes," you probably shouldn't do it. Stick to sex where you are certain you have consent.

And if the roles were reversed, it wouldn't be nearly as bad because apparently men can't get taped.

Nah, it'd be just as bad. Many people don't treat it as such, but women raping men is no better than men raping women. It just gets taken less seriously because of the idea that women are so much weaker than men that men should be able to overpower them (which is kind of silly given that the people advancing such sentiments tend to also be in favour of everyone having guns to put them on equal footing with more powerful assailants), as well as the idea that men are always supposed to want sex and the subsequent assumption that there's no way a woman wanted sex when a man didn't. Obviously, neither assumption is right, but those are the attitudes that need fixing.

Do you consider it freely giving away your stuff if you hand over your wallet because of the "implications" of a gang member cornering you in what you thought was a safe place? Of course not.

Correct. And even implying you have a gun; not outright saying it, showing it or possessing it causes the charges to increase very seriously

Depends on the "implications".

Threatening you, yes.

Offering you a possible reward, opportunity, no.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

Nah, it'd be just as bad. Many people don't treat it as such, but women raping men is no better than men raping women. It just gets taken less seriously because of the idea that women are so much weaker than men that men should be able to overpower them (which is kind of silly given that the people advancing such sentiments tend to also be in favour of everyone having guns to put them on equal footing with more powerful assailants), as well as the idea that men are always supposed to want sex and the subsequent assumption that there's no way a woman wanted sex when a man didn't. Obviously, neither assumption is right, but those are the attitudes that need fixing.

I think it's also because women raping men are such a small fraction of the statistics. A man is much more likely to be raped by another man than a woman, so there's much less attention being drawn to the subject. Not that this is a justification for failing to take these allegations seriously though, such as Jimmy Bennett accusing Asia Argento of sexual assault. We still have a long ways to go as a society on how we treat victims of both sexes.
---

What about if a girl does the Dee variation?
---

Lirishae posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

Nah, it'd be just as bad. Many people don't treat it as such, but women raping men is no better than men raping women. It just gets taken less seriously because of the idea that women are so much weaker than men that men should be able to overpower them (which is kind of silly given that the people advancing such sentiments tend to also be in favour of everyone having guns to put them on equal footing with more powerful assailants), as well as the idea that men are always supposed to want sex and the subsequent assumption that there's no way a woman wanted sex when a man didn't. Obviously, neither assumption is right, but those are the attitudes that need fixing.

I think it's also because women raping men are such a small fraction of the statistics. A man is much more likely to be raped by another man than a woman, so there's much less attention being drawn to the subject. Not that this is a justification for failing to take these allegations seriously though, such as Jimmy Bennett accusing Asia Argento of sexual assault. We still have a long ways to go as a society on how we treat victims of both sexes.

And, of course, there's a whole lot of homophobia-rooted shame associated with man-on-man rape (at least for straight victims), so that ends up being heavily under-reported as well.
---

In the scenario being referenced there is no actual threat. Just a situation and a setting created to induce the woman to make the threats in her own mind. To push her imagination in that direction so despite no threat ever being made she feels like if she doesn't something bad may happen. But that's all in her head. That's where she took it.

Its skeevy as fuck but since the threats are all imagined it isn't rape.

---

adjl posted...

And, of course, there's a whole lot of homophobia-rooted shame associated with man-on-man rape (at least for straight victims), so that ends up being heavily under-reported as well.

Yes, very true. Despite all the attention being drawn to male on female rape in the military, the majority of rapes are actually heterosexual men raping other heterosexual men. Especially in the past when DADT was in effect, men were afraid to come forward for fear of being labeled gay.

Bugmeat posted...

In the scenario being referenced there is no actual threat. Just a situation and a setting created to induce the woman to make the threats in her own mind. To push her imagination in that direction so despite no threat ever being made she feels like if she doesn't something bad may happen. But that's all in her head. That's where she took it.

Its skeevy as f*** but since the threats are all imagined it isn't rape.

So if a mobster creates a situation with the specific intent of making you feel intimidated, it's your fault for feeling threatened, he did nothing wrong, and surrendering your valuables wasn't theft.
---

"implication" IS a threat
---

I only tip waiters because of the implication that they'll fuck with my food if I don't.

I guess I've been robbed dozens of times.
---

yes
---

ninja_lootz posted...

I only tip waiters because of the implication that they'll fuck with my food if I don't.

I guess I've been robbed dozens of times.

You tip at the end though, not the beginning.
---

lihlih posted...

ninja_lootz posted...

I only tip waiters because of the implication that they'll fuck with my food if I don't.

I guess I've been robbed dozens of times.

You tip at the end though, not the beginning.

I mean like when you go back next time. Same with delivery drivers.
---

Lirishae posted...

Bugmeat posted...

In the scenario being referenced there is no actual threat. Just a situation and a setting created to induce the woman to make the threats in her own mind. To push her imagination in that direction so despite no threat ever being made she feels like if she doesn't something bad may happen. But that's all in her head. That's where she took it.

Its skeevy as f*** but since the threats are all imagined it isn't rape.

So if a mobster creates a situation with the specific intent of making you feel intimidated, it's your fault for feeling threatened, he did nothing wrong, and surrendering your valuables wasn't theft.

But if the situation is to mirror what Dennis describes in Always Sunny, then the mobster has done nothing to even show he is a mobster and has done absolutely nothing that is threatening. But you willingly went to a location with him and then became paranoid about the guy, despite him doing nothing threatening.

Honestly, the whole implications thing sorta reminds a bit like the Trayvon Martin situation (to me at least). He was shot because of implications. But was it Trayvons fault in the slightest? No. George Zimmerman acted on implications he created in his own head.
---

Oh here we go.
---

If I volunteer my valuables without a threat, or even being asked for them, then no, it is not theft. But you're not sticking within the confines of the scenario that is being referenced. The character is not a known rapist. Your scenario uses someone who is an actual threat by their very nature of being a "mobster".

Regardless, if you hand over your stuff without being told that you need to hand over your stuff then that's on you. They didn't steal your property if you just up and volunteer it without any actual coercion or at the very least without them asking for it.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the scene the topic is referencing? It was posted on the front page.


---

The Popo posted...

But if the situation is to mirror what Dennis describes in Always Sunny, then the mobster has done nothing to even show he is a mobster and has done absolutely nothing that is threatening. But you willingly went to a location with him and then became paranoid about the guy, despite him doing nothing threatening.

If I'm not mistaken, this is the original exchange:

Dennis: We gotta pop by the department store and get a mattress, I want a nice one too...
Mac: A what? A mattress? What do we need a mattress for?
Dennis: What do you mean, what do we need a mattress for? Why do you think we just spent all that money on a boat? The whole purpose of buying the boat in the first place was to get the ladies all nice and tipsy topside so we can take them to a nice comfortable place below deck, and, you know, they can't refuse. Because of the implication.
Mac: Oh, uh, OK. You had me going there for the first part. The second half kind of threw me.
Dennis: Dude, dude, think about it. She's out in the middle of nowhere with some dude she barely knows, she looks around, what does she see, nothing but open ocean. (Imitating female voice) "Oh, there's nowhere for me to run. What am I going to do? Say no?"
Mac: OK. That seems really dark.
Dennis: Nah, it's not dark. You're misunderstanding, bro.
Mac: I think I am.
Dennis: Yeah, you are. Because if the girl said no, the answer, obviously, is no. But the thing is she's not gonna say no. She would never say no. Because of the implication.

Dennis is very clearly trying to create a situation where girls will consent to sex because they feel that saying no is not an option. HE knows that he will respect their refusal, but he is choosing not to let the women know that. Someone deliberately creating a situation where you consent to giving them your wallet because you think saying no is not an option absolutely is a fair parallel. You would feel robbed, the girl would feel raped, and you would both be right. Analogies are meant to get points across, not be a 100% perfect parallel.

But if you prefer, we can change it to this: you visit a guy's house in a secluded area, and he gets you drunk. While you're there, you see his gun collection. While he makes no threats to you, you now know that he can overpower you at any time he chooses, just as the average man can overpower the average woman (and believe me, women are keenly aware of this). He then makes a suggestion you leave your wallet there. Because you are impaired, alone in an isolated location, and afraid of what might happen if you say no, you leave the wallet. The guy knows you feel this way, and chooses not to tell you that he will do nothing if you decide not to leave the wallet. So you leave the wallet, because you didn't feel you had a choice. The guy knew you didn't have a choice because of the implications. He wanted your wallet regardless of whether you wanted to give up your wallet, and he manipulated you into a situation where you didn't think saying no was an option.

Bugmeat posted...

If I volunteer my valuables without a threat, or even being asked for them, then no, it is not theft. But you're not sticking within the confines of the scenario that is being referenced. The character is not a known rapist. Your scenario uses someone who is an actual threat by their very nature of being a "mobster".

In your previous post, you described the scenario as "a setting created to induce the woman to make the threats in her own mind. To push her imagination in that direction so despite no threat ever being made she feels like if she doesn't something bad may happen." So we're talking about a situation where someone purposefully and knowingly makes you feel unsafe, takes advantage of that to get something they want, and tries to claim they did nothing wrong. See above for why your argument is flawed.
---

I feel like Always Sunny "Implications" topics are a weekly fixture here now.
---

dioxxys posted...

I dont know how about you ask yourselves the same question? You know since....Men are not the only ones in command of the english language?

does no one want to talk about this or yall just fixated on "Only mans can do dis"

Bugmeat posted...

In the scenario being referenced there is no actual threat. Just a situation and a setting created to induce the woman to make the threats in her own mind. To push her imagination in that direction so despite no threat ever being made she feels like if she doesn't something bad may happen. But that's all in her head. That's where she took it.

Its skeevy as fuck but since the threats are all imagined it isn't rape.

Instead of asking "is this rape?", ask "is this fully, properly consensual?" The former is a question for the courts. The latter is how you avoid ever ending up in that court.
---

For those that think it's rape, is it still rape if someone innocently invites someone onto their boat and then suggests sex without considering any implications? Said implications are still there, but they are unknown to the person with the boat.
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

For those that think it's rape, is it still rape if someone innocently invites someone onto their boat and then suggests sex without considering any implications? Said implications are still there, but they are unknown to the person with the boat.

There's not many details here to say for sure, but most likely. Suggesting sex out of the blue to someone you aren't dating or otherwise romantically involved with is creepy as hell. Especially when the girl cannot escape you if she turns you down. A lot of women would feel threatened in this situation, and justifiably so.
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

For those that think it's rape, is it still rape if someone innocently invites someone onto their boat and then suggests sex without considering any implications? Said implications are still there, but they are unknown to the person with the boat.

Depends on whether the guy is wearing any rape gear
---

LOLIAmAnAlt posted...

What about if a girl does the Dee variation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNVGWXBMol0" data-time="
---

LinkPizza posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ3hc8pJelk" data-time="

lmao
---

Lirishae posted...

Suggesting sex out of the blue to someone you aren't dating or otherwise romantically involved with is creepy as hell.

Idk if I really agree with this...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Lirishae posted...

Suggesting sex out of the blue to someone you aren't dating or otherwise romantically involved with is creepy as hell.

Idk if I really agree with this...

so you'd just ask random people for sex, and think that's normal?

"romantically involved" should be interpreted loosely though, I think (actively flirting with someone should count, e.g. at a bar/club)

LinkPizza posted...

Lirishae posted...

Suggesting sex out of the blue to someone you aren't dating or otherwise romantically involved with is creepy as hell.

Idk if I really agree with this...

I don't think it is at all. Context is important, of course. The person may be flattered like I was the one time it happened to me at work. But doing that to a nun at church might not go over so well

CTLM posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Lirishae posted...

Suggesting sex out of the blue to someone you aren't dating or otherwise romantically involved with is creepy as hell.

Idk if I really agree with this...

I don't think it is at all. Context is important, of course. The person may be flattered like I was the one time it happened to me at work. But doing that to a nun at church might not go over so well

I dunno Ive seen some footage of nuns doing some pretty scandalous things on certain websites
---

Fam_Fam posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Lirishae posted...

Suggesting sex out of the blue to someone you aren't dating or otherwise romantically involved with is creepy as hell.

Idk if I really agree with this...

so you'd just ask random people for sex, and think that's normal?

"romantically involved" should be interpreted loosely though, I think (actively flirting with someone should count, e.g. at a bar/club)

That's what tinder and grindr are.

This topic is still creepy and cringy btw.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEcRZFZERCg" data-time="
---

Fam_Fam posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Lirishae posted...

Suggesting sex out of the blue to someone you aren't dating or otherwise romantically involved with is creepy as hell.

Idk if I really agree with this...

so you'd just ask random people for sex, and think that's normal?

"romantically involved" should be interpreted loosely though, I think (actively flirting with someone should count, e.g. at a bar/club)

Exactly. I said it was creepy to proposition someone "out of the blue." If you've been flirting and building up to it, that's romantic involvement and not out of the blue. If anyone thinks you can randomly proposition girls out of the blue in an isolated place and have them not be creeped out, just try it for yourself and see what kind of reaction you get. Guys by and large don't seem to understand that women have to plan their lives around the risk of being assaulted, raped or killed.
---

Lirishae posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Lirishae posted...

Suggesting sex out of the blue to someone you aren't dating or otherwise romantically involved with is creepy as hell.

Idk if I really agree with this...

so you'd just ask random people for sex, and think that's normal?

"romantically involved" should be interpreted loosely though, I think (actively flirting with someone should count, e.g. at a bar/club)

Exactly. I said it was creepy to proposition someone "out of the blue." If you've been flirting and building up to it, that's romantic involvement and not out of the blue. If anyone thinks you can randomly proposition girls out of the blue in an isolated place and have them not be creeped out, just try it for yourself and see what kind of reaction you get.Guys by and large don't seem to understand that women have to plan their lives around the risk of being assaulted, raped or killed.

That's quite an assumption. I don't know where you live but last time I checked, our country wasn't that dangerous

Women have to plan their lives? That's one hell of stretch if I ever heard one

Lirishae posted...

Suggesting sex out of the blue to someone you aren't dating or otherwise romantically involved with is creepy as hell.

That's what people do at bars and clubs all the time though. How do you think one night stands happen?
---

CTLM posted...

That's quite an assumption. I don't know where you live but last time I checked, our country wasn't that dangerous

Women have to plan their lives? That's one hell of stretch if I ever heard one

Do you think it's a good idea for women to do the following?

A) go jogging early in the morning alone
B) run errands at night alone
C) walk across a dark parking lot alone
D) visit a male she doesn't know very well by herself
E) give a random guy on the bus her phone number

Most likely, you will say most of those are bad ideas. That's only common sense. But did you ever think about why it's common sense? Because women face a very real risk of being attacked, raped or killed. So women have to plan all these activities, from grocery shopping to jogging to social outings, in such a way as to minimize this risk, or simply not do them at all. If she plans around this risk, she's paranoid; if she doesn't and something bad happens to her, it's her fault. Have a crack at some statistics on violence toward women:

Worldwide stats on violence against women:
http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-and-figures

US stats on violence against women:
https://statusofwomendata.org/explore-the-data/violence-safety/
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

Lirishae posted...

Suggesting sex out of the blue to someone you aren't dating or otherwise romantically involved with is creepy as hell.

That's what people do at bars and clubs all the time though. How do you think one night stands happen?

If you're flirting with someone and you proposition them, that's not out of the blue. This has already been covered.
---

CTLM posted...

Lirishae posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Lirishae posted...

Suggesting sex out of the blue to someone you aren't dating or otherwise romantically involved with is creepy as hell.

Idk if I really agree with this...

so you'd just ask random people for sex, and think that's normal?

"romantically involved" should be interpreted loosely though, I think (actively flirting with someone should count, e.g. at a bar/club)

Exactly. I said it was creepy to proposition someone "out of the blue." If you've been flirting and building up to it, that's romantic involvement and not out of the blue. If anyone thinks you can randomly proposition girls out of the blue in an isolated place and have them not be creeped out, just try it for yourself and see what kind of reaction you get.Guys by and large don't seem to understand that women have to plan their lives around the risk of being assaulted, raped or killed.

That's quite an assumption. I don't know where you live but last time I checked, our country wasn't that dangerous

Women have to plan their lives? That's one hell of stretch if I ever heard one

they have to plan out when they go home, or if they uber rather than walk purely for safety reasons, or if they go alone somewhere. or who to go to a party or club with because its dangerous to go alone. or if they have their keys in their hands and don't wear headphones...just in case.

yes, they make these considerations. ask women and they will tell you this is true.

GanonsSpirit posted...

For those that think it's rape, is it still rape if someone innocently invites someone onto their boat and then suggests sex without considering any implications? Said implications are still there, but they are unknown to the person with the boat.

this is what happens in a lot of rape cases.

woman is uncomfortable. doesn't express it because she's scared. guy continues out either knowingly or unwittingly continuing on.

As a man I cant even safely grab a young womans genitals by surprise without being accused of being some kind of president
---

Lirishae posted...

Most likely, you will say most of those are bad ideas. That's only common sense

Well duh but that's not exclusive to women

Lirishae posted...

Because women face a very real risk of being attacked, raped or killed.

But more so men? I can pull up stat charts too, and most of them are saying that men at more often the targets of violent crime
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2018/51/fewer-women-than-men-fall-victim-to-violence

dioxxys posted...

But more so men? I can pull up stat charts too, and most of them are saying that men at more often the targets of violent crime
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2018/51/fewer-women-than-men-fall-victim-to-violence

...You do realize those statistics are from the Netherlands, right?

Edit:
dioxxys posted...

Well duh but that's not exclusive to women

Women are the overwhelming majority of victims when it comes to harassment, stalking, sexual assault, rape, and domestic partner violence. If you seriously think men face the same risk of sexual violence as women, I don't think there's anything I can say that will get through to you.
---

Wrong chart, I'll look into it later when I'm not tired.

But I've always heard that men are the targets of violent crime more often, maybe not sexual crime definitely the former.

dioxxys posted...

Wrong chart, I'll look into it later when I'm not tired.

But I've always heard that men are the targets of violent crime more often, maybe not sexual crime definitely the former.

It's true that there are more male homicides in the US than female homicides. But that doesn't tell the whole picture. Many of those men are killed in fights with other men. It does not lead men to change their behaviors the way that a fear of violence, especially sexual violence, affects women's daily lives. If a woman is murdered, her partner is usually the killer, or she was otherwise minding her own business.

According to the FBI, just over half of murders in which the precipitating circumstances were known were set off by what is called the other argument not a robbery, a love triangle, drugs, domestic violence or money, but simply the sense that someone had been dissed.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/08/income-inequality-murder-homicide-rates

Over half of the killings of American women are related to intimate partner violence, with the vast majority of the victims dying at the hands of a current or former romantic partner, according to a new report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention today.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/07/homicides-women/534306/
---

All that could mean is that women are far less likely to get involved in all the other stupid shit that men get murdered over. If they aren't involved in all the other stuff then of course their percentage of this sort of murder will be dramatically higher.

Normal, well adjusted women do not live their lives in fear. They do not spend their days wondering how they're going to avoid getting raped/murdered today.

TentacleDemon posted...

Normal, well adjusted women do not live their lives in fear. They do not spend their days wondering how they're going to avoid getting raped/murdered today.

That's not what I said. I said that women plan their lives around avoiding violence from men, and they do. Many women probably don't realize the degree to which they modify their behavior, because it's just "common sense" to them. Not every country has this problem, but the US certainly does. Instead of reacting with denial and disbelief, maybe you should actually try listening to women's experiences.
---

Lirishae posted...

TentacleDemon posted...

Normal, well adjusted women do not live their lives in fear. They do not spend their days wondering how they're going to avoid getting raped/murdered today.

That's not what I said. I said that women plan their lives around avoiding violence from men,

Same thing.

TentacleDemon posted...

All that could mean is that women are far less likely to get involved in all the other stupid shit that men get murdered over. If they aren't involved in all the other stuff then of course their percentage of this sort of murder will be dramatically higher.

Normal, well adjusted women do not live their lives in fear. They do not spend their days wondering how they're going to avoid getting raped/murdered today.

ask women if they are worried about being attacked, and what they do to avoid it.

they will tell you. stop saying that they don't just because you don't believe it.