Log in

bear by san

March 2017



Powered by LiveJournal.com
bear by san

Hey, Harlan?

This is so not okay.



As it happens, when you say that a particular behavior may increase the risk of you getting hurt, and it also may decrease that risk, it is incorrect to say that it increases that risk, or even simply that it often increases that risk, if you have no information about whether it increases the risk more often than it decreases the risk.

Either way, though, I'd be wary of extrapolating information about all rapists, and even moreso all gropers, from a book about serial rapists. Especially if it was mostly about the kind of serial rapists who get the most press, who are not the people who commit most rapes.
Do you know any sources about the motives of serial rapists vs. the motives of nonserial rapists? I do know, for instance, that the motives of one-time killers are very, very different from the motives of seral killers, but I'd not read anything about it one way or the other with rapists. Actually, the categories of rapist motivation (and which ones are accelerated vs. hindered by violence) are from Mark Douglas, and some quick research indicates it may have been all rapists, not just serial.

I already said I was commenting about something not necessarily even linked to the nonviolent act Ellison allegedly did. (Well, since he's apologized, maybe I can drop the "allegedly.") I just think that if violence is out there, and one is thinking of possible responses, one ought to know the facts.

Along this line, while you're right about "increase risk" in one sense, I'm right in about the term in another sense. I can see where some would be more concerned about overall chances, and others would be more concerned with the worst that could happen. I thought my comment could let either kind of person make a more informed decision.