Hacker News Reader

Comment by jfengel | Hacker News Reader

And it sounds like men in São Paulo need to start doing what women have been doing since the beginning of dating: always letting somebody know where they are, always meeting first in a public place, never taking a drink from anybody except a bartender.

For men elsewhere, it's really good for them to know that women do this, and that this is why. You may know that you're not the man who does that, but they don't, and the consequences can be worse than losing your wallet. Practically every woman knows a woman who has been assaulted this way. Understanding that will help you plan your dates accordingly so that she can feel a lot more comfortable, and you'll both have a much better time.

View on HN

The reason this happens with men is what the article doesn't mention: most/all the victims are married men cheating on their partners. So, they arrange dates on empty or far away places, late night and don't communicate where they're going.

Just out of curiousity, where did you get this data from? could you share the link?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-27/why-brazi...

These love motels are usually in surrounding areas (as building codes restrict them being placed in central areas to avoid prostitution)

I don't see a link between that Bloomberg article and these kidnappings happening mostly to married men cheating. Nor is it the case that "love motels" are primarily used for cheating. We have plenty of those in Argentina. As the Bloomberg article indicates, they serve a social need because of the traditional multigenerational family homes people live in.

And hardly will find in other article due the fact that cheaters will lie to protect their identify if they ever come across a survey or interview. The "love motel" being used for cheating is a known thing across brazilians and still is not easy to find in writing. Also, BR motels are different from the Argentian ones (at least the ones that I saw in Buenos Aires).

the list was to give some sort of reference to the statement "they arrange dates on empty or far away places, late night and don't communicate where they're going" posted above

Still, non-sequitur.

I lived in Brazil. Many standard couples use those motels there; it is not directly associated with adultery but for sure it is also used for that.

It is a standard service in a country where it is usual for young single adults to still live with their parents well into their thirties, even when they are rich or upper middle class. It is awkward to bring a casual relationship to have sex in your room when you live with your parents.

But, even ignoring that, so you're implying that if people engage in extra-marital affairs it is ok for them to be kidnapped and robbed? Well, why not stoning those sinners too?

the post was to give some additional context to the statement "they arrange dates on empty or far away places, late night and don't communicate where they're going" posted above. That would make it easier to picture what those "empty or far away places" would be

Yeah, I mean, if you think about it - they're the best targets. Least likely to go to the police afterward.

Married men are also probably the richest marriage+sex classification. I can't imagine catfishing a bunch of single 18 - 22 year olds that dominates dating apps is super profitable.

It'd have to be a really abstract and evil scheme.

Like, get them addicted to cocaine, and make them play on a pro level Starcraft team.

There's a crazy Korean movie in that plotline somewhere, I'm sure of it...

Star-boy ... something like that

It would probably feature lots of young men crying. My wife would love it.

Sounds like we got a winner boys.

"For men elsewhere, it's really good for them to know that women do this, and that this is why. You may know that you're not the man who does that, but they don't, and the consequences can be worse than losing your wallet. Practically every woman knows a woman who has been assaulted this way. Understanding that will help you plan your dates accordingly so that she can feel a lot more comfortable, and you'll both have a much better time."

This is solid. Guys, do not take it personally when a woman who doesn't know you extremely well is taking these kinds of safety measures. It's because either we've personally had a bad experience with someone who seemed like a decent guy, or have been told about a bad experience someone else had. We're not refusing the drink you thoughtfully brought us from the bar because we're picky; we're doing it because we have an acquaintance who woke up in someone else's bed, unplanned.

Knowing what safety measures women normally take will help you avoid feeling slighted. It's not you, it's the bad behavior of enough of your fellow fellows, bad behavior you're unlikely to directly witness.

If we didn't think you were a decent guy, we probably wouldn't be going out with you in the first place (or were too scared to say no).

Not sure why this is being downvoted.

Used to be a bartender and there were several times I watched a woman get a drink and take a fake sip, and then wait until the gentlemen is away and ask for a different one. Like she was bought a rum and coke and then moseyed up to the bar and asked for a replacement one -- "I'm not sure I trust his drink" -- fair enough.

We also had a sign in the ladies room: "ask a bartender / waiter / bouncer if their friend Trudy is doing okay, that means you or someone with you is being creeped on and are concerned for safety". Only had that chat 2-3 times, but it did happen.

>And it sounds like men in São Paulo need to start doing what women have been doing since the beginning of dating: always letting somebody know where they are, always meeting first in a public place

Doesn't help when nobody knows or will find the attackers...

Comment about the victims being male. Response about how men can change their behavior for women.

The response is how to take basic steps to protect one's self. Steps that are already common among women. Basic safety steps are not victim blaming, for example, wearing bright clothing at night to reduce the chance of being injured by motor vehicle.

It seems you are implying that the comment is victim blaming, or if I take your statement less charitably it is flame bait implying that the comment above would cause outrage if the genders were swapped.

> Understanding that will help you plan your dates accordingly so that she can feel a lot more comfortable, and you'll both have a much better time.

All the points were valid, but when people talk about the invisibility of male victims...this is it.

This advice is literally exactly what every woman is told. It has nothing to do with male victims.

The article is about overwhelmingly male victims. It's not always about you!

Saagar is a male forename, but yes, reducing kidnapping to "losing your wallet" in an attempt at whataboutery is a bit tasteless.

You're right. I assumed the commenter was male. I'm just recalling how many times women in my life said that to me in response to me daring to bring up any male-centered concerns. Things like Me Too witch hunts of men later proven to be innocent.

I have been able to have constructive conversations about things like false rape accusations with women by engaging constructively and having specific, salient points about them.

When I have seen them go very badly, it is almost always because the man comes at the conversation as there is somehow some equivalence or at least relative importance. And there absolutely is not anything close to equivalence.

Sexual violence is so prevalent among women that I know several women who have been assaulted multiple times. I once was having a deep conversation with two female friends and one of them started to tell a story that was obviously hard to tell, and when she paused, the other friend said without emotion, “so, what’s this going to be, rape or no rape?” (It was rape)

So yes, sure “me too witch hunts” are a real bummer, but telling that to a woman who has a not-insignificant percent chance of having been assaulted for real seems tone deaf, to put it mildly.

And yet, TFA is about a completely separate phenomenon. Why are you seemingly incapable of staying on topic by discussing it?

This your definition of on-topic?

> I'm just recalling how many times women in my life said that to me in response to me daring to bring up any male-centered concerns. Things like Me Too witch hunts of men later proven to be innocent.

This is also in a larger thread correctly identifying that this is a situation that women have had to deal with for years - with no one saying it is acceptable.

Every single comment I've made in this thread was made with the intent of chiding those who are off topic.

"We didn't start the fire! Da nah nah nah nah nah"

It is then easier to understand a point when people are more nuanced I will give you that. Usually people comment on just one small part of the comment that is why you always have to try to interpret everything with good will. Saying "Men might have to do what women do" could also be interpreted as belittling what women go through.

São Paulo was a pretty dark place back in the days I hope it has gotten better because it was also one of the most friendly places I've visited. Those tips for women seemed prudent for me back then.

I am more worried about the problem with digital money. It's a lot easier to rob/assault someone if you do not have to drag them to an ATM.

That's a yikes from me bro

You'll come around.

HN is not a place for bitter men to come complain about women and make childish remarks such as "You'll come around."

Thank you for your input. Duly noted.

I too thought your criticizing was overaggressive, but I'll grant you one thing: the comment "You may know that you're not the man who does that, but they don't, and the consequences can be worse than losing your wallet." does give the impression that the worst thing male victims might suffer is a "lost wallet" when the article makes it clear that these attacks against men are violent and have included homicides

I'm not convinced that the commenter was intentionally trivializing the attacks on these men, but it's likely that the way it was phrased would have that effect.

> Basic safety steps are not victim blaming

I agree, but it's 100% called victim blaming when you apply it to women. "We shouldn't have to do anything differently", "teach men not to rape" etc etc.

I don't think anyone here disagrees, they're pointing out the double standard.

But women already get that advice of meeting in public / telling friends... If this is some kind of "gotcha", I think you're doing it wrong.

Go give women that advice, see what happens.

Again, it's solid advice. But you'll get torn apart if you publicly give "be safe first, be right second" advice to women.

You don't need to give that advice to women. They've already gotten it, almost certainly from other women.

Given how women are often treated by men, I totally understand why they would chafe at being given this sort of advice from a man. I would, too, if I were in their shoes.

Apparently there are a lot of men who haven't received this advice from anyone, though, even though it always applied to them as well.

> Given how women are often treated by other women, I totally understand why they would chafe at being given this sort of advice.

I think it is ad-hominem fallacy to say that an argument's provenance changes it in any significant way whether it comes from a man or a woman.

> I think it is ad-hominem fallacy to say that an argument's provenance changes

Advice isn't an argument.

sometimes it is

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, because "provenance" literally means "where it came from", so by definition it changes according to who is giving the advice.

I assume that you mean something more like "how good the advice is". And you're right. But that's not the point.

The point is that most women are constantly being told how they should or should not be by men, usually in a way that is treating them as if they were children. So when they are unnecessarily instructed by men about how to be safer in world where it's mostly men that makes it dangerous for them, I totally understand why that might be irritating.

No matter what the message is, who gives it is often the primary thing that determines how it will be received.

I am saying that it is ad-hominem fallacy to say that advice (aka arguments) are any less valid based on their provenance, or as you put it “where it came from” (and of course, who it came from).

Ok, then I understood you correctly. :)

> But you'll get torn apart if you publicly give "be safe first, be right second" advice to women.

Because it's patronizing to think they don't know that.

As if everybody knows and follows those rules?

Trying asking around the women you know and see what the data says.

Eat your vegetables.

We get that advice. We know that advice. We give that advice to one another.

What “women” typically object to is when the first response from someone after reporting an assault/harassment/attempted assault is to be immediately questioned, “what were you wearing?” “Did you lead him on?” “What time of night was it?” “You were drunk, weren’t you.”

That’s what pisses us off. The immediate move to blame the victim as if they asked for it (and in some parts of the world, rape is still framed that way. She asked for it.) and thus deserve this to happen.

I can assure you that every woman I have ever met over the age of 21 (I don’t know any girls who are in high school now, sorry) has been told her whole life to be careful and take precautions when meeting someone, especially someone from off the internet.

“Text us when you get there.” “Be sure to watch your drink.” “Meet in public first, just to be safe.” “If If you don’t text me by “X,” I’m going to blow up your phone.” “Be sure to take an Uber if you’re going home after X o’clock.” These are things we say to EACH OTHER. These are things our mother’s taught us.

We don’t get mad when reminded to be safe. We get mad when the instinct is to blame us for our own assaults. (And it isn’t just men that blame women. Women can blame women too. And women can blame themselves, even when they did absolutely nothing wrong.)

When I tell my wife about the time I get robbed when in Mexico, the first kind of questions are things like what time of night and did you go to the slums etc. If the answers are yes I'm called a dumbass and told not to do it again. [Yes I have been robbed or attempted robbed multiple times including at gunpoint and no I'm not offended by these questions]

I'm not saying being robbed is anywhere near as bad as getting sexually harassed or raped but I never thought the line of questioning was really unreasonable. Even if I've heard the advice being told it again by someone I know can be helpful because even if I'm told it constantly I still need to be reminded not to be a dumbass and go out at night dressing like I'm well off or whatever because someone will rob me and I have a bad memory with that kind of stuff.

Granted most people in general including women are probably less a dumbass about these things than I am.

> the first kind of questions are things like what time of night and did you go to the slums etc. If the answers are yes I'm called a dumbass and told not to do it again

Your wife can imply you are to blame because as far as you two are concerned the robbers are force of nature. It's good for preserving personal sanity, but not when this logic is applied in public or by authorities and can influence public opinion or policy. Are they force of nature? Or perhaps something we can or even should deal with? If you want robbers to go away, normalizing them is the worst thing you could do.

> I'm not saying being robbed is anywhere near as bad as getting sexually harassed or raped but I never thought the line of questioning was really unreasonable.

Then it is probably a good idea to listen instead of putting up a defensive front so that you can understand why these situations are different and why women in general feel the way they do.

>I'm not saying being robbed is anywhere near as bad as getting sexually harassed or raped but I never thought the line of questioning was really unreasonable. Even if I've heard the advice being told it again by someone I know can be helpful because even if I'm told it constantly I still need to be reminded not to be a dumbass and go out at night dressing like I'm well off or whatever because someone will rob me and I have a bad memory with that kind of stuff.

You still shouldn't be blamed for being robbed. You're right that depending on the area and the time of night, crime can be more likely (although plenty of crime can take place in broad daylight) and being aware of that in advance makes sense. But that still doesn't make the crime your fault and you still weren't asking for it. And assigning blame or calling you a dumbass for getting robbed still isn't OK.

But being robbed, even at gunpoint, is different than being sexually assaulted or raped. And most rapes don't happen in bad areas late at night by random strangers. Most rapes are people the victim knows. That's what makes questions about "what you were wearing" and "did you lead him on" even more offensive.

> I'm not saying being robbed is anywhere near as bad as getting sexually harassed or raped

That's... weird wording.

I would put "robbed at gunpoint" as worse than most kinds of sexual harassment.

Whether a statement is victim-blaming or not depends on the purpose behind it.

If the purpose behind it is to give helpful, relevant, useful advice for avoiding a bad situation, it's not victim blaming.

If the purpose behind it is to downplay and deflect and ignore the other causes of the bad situation, it is.

If someone isn't wearing a seatbelt, and dies in an auto accident, it's not victim blaming to remind people to wear seatbelts. It is victim blaming to use that reminder to divert attention away from the fact that the auto accident was caused by another drunk driver.

Either way, you're dead. Why is it wrong to point out things that could have been done to avoid that outcome?

For the same reason that there's a difference between giving constructive criticism, and being an asshole. Intent and tone matters.

It's especially easy to misread, misspeak, or misrepresent either one on the internet.

Honestly, my purpose was neither. This is, thus far, a localized matter, and it's unlikely to affect most men. The advice is sound, but that's not really the purpose. (And it was very much not intended to blame them.)

Rather, my purpose was to use the opportunity to give men perspective about women. And it's something they can use to their benefit: not to avoid being robbed, but to have more successful dates.

> it's 100% called victim blaming when you apply it to women

Yes, but only by some people. Many, maybe most, women would consider "don't walk down dark alleys at night alone" to be common sense. I suspect the subset of people who call that "victim blaming" only seem like a majority because that view happens to be popular with media personalities and Twitter loudmouths.

I'd also point out that it matters when the advice is given. There's a difference between "don't walk down any dark alleys alone tonight" and "this wouldn't have happened if you hadn't walked down that dark alley alone".

In any case, getting offended by good advice just because some other people get offended by good advice doesn't make sense.

There isnt a double standard - people say those things you quote when they are given basic safety tips as a response to being sexually assaulted, which is absurd and humiliating and very clearly puts the onus of responsibility on the victim.

Obviously no one should have to be so careful. We should aspire to have a society where all people are safe from crime. But this is the reality of the world right now, and it is helpful to suggest that men take a page from women's playbooks when it comes to personal safety.

You're absolutely right. Just as we should be teaching boys not to assault women, we should be teaching girls not to drug and rob men.

That doesn't seem to be as big a problem yet, but we should nip it in the bud before it spreads beyond São Paulo. Every parent should teach their daughters that robbing men is wrong. Just as every parent should be teaching their sons that raping women is wrong.

There is no excuse. Whether he's wearing a Rolex, or she's wearing a miniskirt, that's their choice to make. It is not an invitation, and you are not entitled to anything.

Rape is a crime, and robbery is a crime. We should prosecute both, and make sure our children get the message that it is unacceptable.

I appreciate your reminder that the criminal, not the victim, is to blame. It's unfortunate that people do have to protect themselves, but I hadn't intended my advice to suggest that that's the only change we should make. We already have laws and must enforce them.

don't forget the every woman is a robber in potential /s

Oh, we forgot to tell criminals to not be criminal. What a silly overight.

Unfortunately, this is a real problem for women. A lot of boys get the impression that women are "teasing" them and "deserve" to be assaulted. Every woman who files rape charges knows that she's going to have her sexual history questioned, and be asked what she was wearing, as if that made a difference to the legality.

You wouldn't think that "No means no" is a lesson we'd have to teach, but not only do we have to, but a lot of people will push back on it.

So I'm being a bit facetious in my reply, but I'm using the opportunity of the OP's self-pity to reiterate: this is a thing that women go through all the time.

> A lot of boys get the impression that women are "teasing" them and "deserve" to be assaulted.

I don't know which alternate universe you might be observing, but in this universe that is simply not true.

You don't think that a lot of men think that women who dress or behave a certain way are teases that deserve "what they get"? You're the one in a dream world, mate.

> You're the one in a dream world, mate.

The Grievance Industry and Woke Studies courses really try hard to make it seem that men are these evil brutes, but the vast, vast majority are conscientious people.

men are good and deserve a lot more praise

> vast majority are conscientious people.

Yes the vast majority are

But theres a minority that is not, and is that minority the one that drives these bad altercations and therefore bad outcomes like these are the ones that lead the risk assessment for women. And this will keep happening irregardless of how conscientious the majority is. Because this issue is not about the majority, but the minority

Why wash and rinse the normative majority's brains with this info then? They have no levers to pull and the minority of perpetrators won't mind these ramblings anyway.

> Why wash and rinse the normative majority's brains with this info then?

Because that minority group can be groomed from childhood to not behave in such a way via strong social norms, and therefore reduced in size to an even smaller minority. Likely will never disappear entirely, but achievable goals are better than idealistic perceptions never applied

A lot of men think that the people they rob or stab "deserve what they" get as well. Telling these people that robbing or stabbing people is wrong wont help, since that isn't the problem, the just say "deserve what you get" because they know what they are doing is wrong.

I hung out with...the wrong crowd... in high school. That attitude is very real.

I appreciate the candor, but you are just wrong

That crowd is quite widespread

One example: watch some 80s movies again. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom stands out. Indy forces a kiss on a woman and it is seen as romantic -- she says no but wants it. A lot of messaging like this is just accepted and we never think about it. But when you realize it, it happened a lot.

"A lot" might be anecdotal, but my observations of heteros doesn't really seem like the number of a lot. Maybe more than zero, because in an ideal world it would be zero.

There is no conversation, however, on the physical violence regularly suffered by men. Or the tells/behaviours that we adopt to avoid such things happening when we can. Men are the victims of the most crime, but because of a small subset of us we are also the perpetrators of most crime. Everyone focuses on the latter, ignoring the former.

This advice is given all the damn time. You've never seen an article about how to be safe on blind dates or such? A quick google search turns up several.

Is it that women's problems are invisible to you until men start having some of them?

Does that bother you, sir?

I can tell you that I'm not bothered by this at all.

Nah, we just gotta man up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com