An update: (read at your own discretion)
It includes reporting of the ex-husband’s testimony. This caught my attention: “One is not born a pervert, one becomes a pervert,” Pélicot told judges”.
It’s hard to believe he only faces 20 years in prison if convicted. At 71 yrs old it’s something, but it still seems unbelievable to me.
A key difference is this, like most sexual assaults, did not occur with a random stranger while walking in the woods. It occurred in her home and involved her husband. Some studies have estimated that as many as 90% of sexual assaults occur with known acquaintances. The most common location of sexual assaults is the victim’s home, often with husband/boyfriend or family member. Most colleges also have a high rate of sexual assaults and also might be considered a high risk location, compared to the woods. However, I expect many would answer differently, if asked whether they would rather come across a known male acquaintance or bear on a college campus.
Regarding the specific news story, quite a few similar events have been reported in the past. Some persons get turned on by seeing their partner be sexually assaulted. The Rotten Mango true crime podcast goes in to detail about several similar stories, as well as the recent one discussed above. I stopped listening after hearing the Sandra Dia episode (fraternity pledge torture death, unrelated to thread), concluding the podcast is too dark for me.
The literally dozens of men who raped Gisèle Pélicot were total strangers to her. They were just random men recruited from nearby who were eager to participate in the husband’s rape scheme.
Hmmm, I’m still choosing the bear…
They also weren’t random strangers she came across in the woods. The husband was one of the rapists. The husband also found, recruited, and invited others in to their home to participate. The sexual assaults wouldn’t have happened, if the husband didn’t create the situation in their home.
If people you are supposed to be able to count on and trust are harmful…it doesn’t really make the random men in the woods seem like better odds, frankly …
No but the point is that every single one of them was capable of rape–I mean, c’mon, it wasn’t hard to find them. The fact is that any one of them could easily be the guy in the woods. It’s just not hard to find lots of guys like them, and any one of them is a danger in the woods.
I spend a lot of time hiking in the woods. I plan to go on a full day hike in the mountains with my dog later this week You can’t lump all male hikers as having the same rape risk as people the husband found on a criminal Internet forum called “Without Her Consent.”
72 rapists in a 6 mile radius (3 of whom lived in that 5,000 people village). Only 3men refused but didn’t warn the police.
People were shocked when one man was late because he’d taken his son to school. Some are well educated with highly skilled professions, some are firefighters and other helping professions. It’s a shock in France because they are smart, decent, normal people… who turned out to be totally fine raping a woman. Over and over pundits and TV discussions say “they look so normal”.
When some of them walked out of the courthouse - some of them are out on bail- some women here to support Gisele chanted “Shame, shame”… One of the guys turned around and shouted “keep that going and I’ll go rape your mom”. The guys around him laughed. One lawyer said “That’s a rape threat” Reply by one of the defense attorneys “Come on, that was a joke”.
What percentage of bears have this same problem? Do you have data on that?
Don’t worry, @Data10 --we know, we get it-- “not all men.”
Just too freaking many, and a much higher percentage than you are willing to acknowledge.
Yep. How many men frequented this “Without Her Consent” internet forum? At least 72 from just a 6 mile radius it seems.
I wonder what the men who hang out on a “Without Her Consent” internet forum would do to a woman alone in the woods?
Gosh, I wonder why I keep choosing the bear?
My posts did not list or imply a percentage. What I disagree with is assuming persons that hang out on an Internet forum related to rape are comparable to hikers, are likely to be hikers, or are likely to generally spend time in the woods. I disagree with lumping it all together or assuming that other groups are the same as persons in the news story, with same risk of sexual assault.
Re-reading the news story, the forum was called “Without Her Knowledge” rather than ‘consent’ as I listed earlier. It’s not a forum related hanging out in the woods to find people to sexually assault. I expect the forum instead involves discussion of sexually assaulting drugged/unconscious women, without their knowledge that the incident occurred… essentially a forum for persons interested in incidents like the recent news story.
While I am not familiar with the “Without Her Knowledge” forum, I am more knowledgeable about the Sammyboy forum, from a similar incident discussed on Rotten Mango. A section of the Sammyboy forum related to discussing wife sharing fantasies. Some persons with such fantasies found each other online and created their own small bubble where they could discuss fantasies the general population would not approve of. Some forum members shared sexually explicit pictures/videos of their unconscious wives. A small group pushed the fantasies further, giving their wives drugs rendering them unconscious, then encouraged some of their forum friends to rape their unconscious wives while the husbands filmed.
While these are horrific incidents, I’d be surprised if there is a large overlap between members of either forum and hikers, nor would I assume members of such forums are going to assault random conscious woman they crossed had they gone hiking. For some members, wife sharing was a fantasy and nothing more. I’d expect others would not participate in the real life event, without the invitation from their forum friend. I would not be surprised if some would rape their wife/girlfriend/date after having too much to drink, but I see no reason to assume they are hikers and/or raping conscious strangers in the woods.
How many men frequented this “Without Her Consent” internet forum? At least 72 from just a 6 mile radius it seems.
More detail will be released about the other men during the trials, but based on what has been reported so far, I don’t think 6 mile radius is accurate.
I just don’t understand how people keep missing the point! It’s not about hiking!! It could be a dark ally, an empty stairway, a subway train station. Most women would rather come across a bear than a man at any of these locations.
Just today a man tried to engage with my daughter on a city street. When she tried to walk away, he yelled at her while following “what? Do I annoy you!”
It’s that some men (of course not all) feel that they have a right to our bodies and would hurt us if given the chance. Bears not so much
Intrigued by the efforts to parse, compare, and distinguish the data about the various flavors of predatory/harmful men.
As fiftyfifty1 pointed out - there are just not that many nuanced types of harm the bears would pose.
The key difference - you know the threat when seeing a bear - when alone in a deserted area with a man he could be any flavor of ‘great guy just minding his business’ to someone on one of those horrific podcasts/websites or that persistent guy who gets angry/reactive when rebuffed.
Interesting that the bear/man scenario elicits so many defensive attempts at sophisticated analysis to minimize the existence of potential threats to women.
10 square kilometers is the official number for the 51, the 21 others could be from a bit farther away but haven’t been arrested (yet) so we don’t know.
Some of these men could be hunters or hikers btw. There’s no way to know.
The town’s mayor said what happened wasn’t so bad since no children were involved and no one was killed, which would hopefully prompt seizing his computer.
Or a parking garage…
Hmm. So much to unpack here.
I originally posted the news story concerning Gisèle Pélicot. I posted it in this thread because the “bear/man hiking in the woods question” had to do with threat perception.
“Threat perception is the belief that something or someone is dangerous, whether that belief is conscious or unconscious. It can also refer to a feeling of vulnerability that is negative, out of one’s control, and likely to result in loss.” *AI Overview
I understand that male hikers may be offended when many women try to explain why they feel the way that they feel…but this isn’t about you! It’s a hypothetical that’s directed toward women and illustrates serious, valid concerns most women have.
To use statistics and parse out situational elements in order to discuss the perceived “illogical” choice of the bear is frankly a bit insulting and condescending.
“Negating someone else’s feelings is also known as emotional invalidation, which is when someone’s feelings or thoughts are dismissed, denied, or rejected. It can make someone feel like their emotions are wrong, inaccurate, or unacceptable, which can lead to feelings of self-doubt, guilt, and low self-esteem.” *AI Overview
Women are not going to be silenced. Speaking up should not be characterized as an attack.
Here’s an example: The Telegraph ran a headline that was offensive concerning Gisèle Pélicot and the following article addresses it.
The video linked a few posts up says 3 in the small town where Pelicot lived and many (not all) in nearby areas. Other sources list similar.
I was replying to a post directed at me on a public forum that offended me by implying that hikers (a group of which I am part of) have similar odds of being rapists as men in the news stories found on an Internet forum related to rape.
The recent posts did not discuss the original question posed in the title of this thread of whether one should choose a bear vs man in the woods or say that choosing the bear was “illogical.” Unless you are referring to stating studies found the overwhelming majority of sexual assaults occur with known acquaintances and home + college being more common locations for assault occur, like the news story.
It was not my intention to silence women, offend women, or tell women how they should feel. If I have offended you or others, I apologize for that.
I think the point many here were, and have been, making is that men as a whole are the apex predators they worry about rather than bears.
When any one man tries to make that ‘personal’ and explain the all too common “not all men” viewpoint - it really does prove what women are saying. It’s not on women to do the work to figure out who is safe and who isn’t, especially with the very real risks involved.
If you aren’t one of the predators women need to worry about - why can’t you listen to womens’ real, rational worries and say, “I’m sorry that’s your lived experience, you shouldn’t have to live under those kind of conditions”.
If that is too much to do - silence is always an option. Sometimes the best thing any of us can do is listen to someone else’s lived experience without any comments or ‘discussion/push back’ at all.