Nah, but watching people suck themselves off to prove how righteous they are sorta bugs me.

Fear assumes the worst will happen with no information to back it up (hearing a noise a night, making you assume there is a slasher in the bushes, for instance), it also tends to be self-perpetuating. Caution, on the other hand, prepares you react based on evolving information.

I thought we were working for equality here? No. Oh, wait, this is about making exceptions so one group feels better, and another group is automatically assumed to be guilty. I stand corrected. Carry on.

Aside from the utter wrongness of the concept of "obviously gay" (seriously?) the reasons for the fear are irrational. Just because he is male does not mean he is an aggressor. A compliment is not a threat. Being drunk at work is dubious, I'll give you that, but there is no context for the why of it. And as for…

No, I'm realistic and don't assume guilt from merely existing.

"Basically forcing himself on her." Right there, we no longer have anything to discuss.

I do.

What was the rational reasons for her fear? He was male. He was drunk. He complimented her. His positioning.

You don't know what's going to happen...but imagining the worst possible outcome does you no favors, and it assumes guilt and malice aforethought.

Do you know what the difference between fear and caution is?

Careful, you scrub that halo too hard you'll end up bending it.

How is asking you to react to the situation at hand, what is ACTUALLY happening, as opposed to what MIGHT happen, victim blaming, exactly?

Some women, apparently, are just afraid of men. And I can say that she's apparently one of them. The whole going to the bathroom, afraid of being cornered thing...it seems a bit much.

And least she acknowledges that irrational fear has negative social consequences.

I prefer a parfait. Parfait's got layers, too!

If he dropped the top, I'd give it a thumbs up. Then again, I guess I'd say that if Quiet did it, too...

Now that's equality!

That's an ignorant ass statement. Whether she's a lesbian or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that this article makes me slightly more stupid for having read it. As I said, this is the third article on this subject in a week, which tells me that it's a) SUPER IMPORTANT (which I know isn't true, because…

Well, it would be nice if there were some quasi-decent theorycrafting (other people have done it, and better) but there's really not much in the way of content here, and nothing that isn't blatantly obvious. That said, since we have only the vaguest of information, most of this boils down to pointless, (generally)…

Yellow journalism at its finest.

A subject with Kotaku and anything remotely having to do with sex? BEAT THAT SHIT BLOODY, YO!

People who have never been affected by these things—and with the breadth of subjects mentioned, that's maybe...2% of the population?—are going to be few and far between. For most people, I imagine there will even be some overlap. Unless your post was directed at hypothetical non-people, instead of at the detractors…

And just for the record, I'd never dream of telling you to shut up. It's only by opening your mouth you show the breadth of your ignorance. Rather, what I am telling you is that you are useless; a societal vestigial organ. You are speaking for people who have voices, and trying to "defend" your righteous…