Surely I am not the only woman who would chose the man, not the bear?

[Idpicktheman]

You know that, would you rather meet a man or a bear in the woods thing?

I would choose the man.

I've hiked in the Rockies where there are bears. If you come across a bear, you have surprised and startled it. All the stories I heard of people being attacked in the Rockies were of people who have surprised bears with their appearance. I blew a whistle every couple of minutes when I hiked to make sure a bear was not surprised by my appearance. Therefore I think if I met a bear in the woods, there is a good likelihood it would attack me.

I also walk in the woods a lot in the UK as I live in a semi-rural area. I regularly come across men and they either ignore me or say hello as they pass and carry on walking their dog/ cycling/ or mountain biking.

So whilst there is a chance a man would attack me, I think the probability is that they would not.

But whilst there is a chance the bear would amble off and leave me alone, the probability is that it would attack me.

So I would chose the man.

( I realise the point of this though experiment is to show that women think this through, because both can be dangerous to them, whereas men instantly say' well, I'd chose the woman obviously' because women are not a danger to them : but I have seen a lot of women instantly saying ' the bear!' but, being literalistic about the actual answer, in all honestly, the bear is more likely to attack you than the man.)

I explain it really clearly, in detail, in my OP. Please feel free to read this again if you are genuinely interested in the answer.

Not sure a bear has google maps

I did read your op.

and you blew a whistle. If a man was there and was going to attack you. A whistle being blown every few minutes would attract that man. Not reduce the likelihood of an attack.

Most encounters with men don’t end in attack. Most encounters with bears dont end in attack.

So my point, if you are genuinely interested, is that you have neither being attacked by a man or bear in the woods so it makes no sense to assume the man is safer. Neither have ever attacked you in the woods. Most people have never been attacked by either. So the risk in the same. So the answer would be ‘either or there’s no immediate risk from either’, in my opinion.

ah so google maps means the man would help a child and not sexually assault them or sexually assault them kill them?

If that’s all there is to it, then all we can reduce all sexual assaults committed by men by making sure they have Google maps, surely?

Not naive at all. The vast majority of men are not predators. All bears are

I think most women have been attacked/assaulted/harassed in some way by a man.

Ok. Do nothing then, even though you think it’s your dog that is keeping you safe.
I had questioned your post as you mentioned that you meet multiple men hiding/ crouching while out walking because I frankly have my doubts about this.

Thats a silly argument. But that aside. I would feel relief if i saw a man and would seek him out.

Yes they have. But Op is talking risk.

She hasn’t been attacked by either bear or man in the woods so would pick a man.

I am saying if she is basing it on risk and her past experience it wouldn’t be the man. It would be either.

She doesn’t see the man as a big risk. And can mitigate any interest bears may have in her and reduce the risk to such a small amount she will still go in the woods.

So Op must feel there’s very little risk to either. So why the man, why not ‘it doesn’t matter to me’.

That poster wasn’t attacked by anyone, so stop moving the goal posts. It’s sad when you are expected to believe everything you read online without hesitation.

It’s not. The comment said that if a man found a young woman or child in the woods they would help them.

I said that’s not a guarantee. And it’s not. Look up women attacked in woods. It’s absolutely not a guarantee if you come across a man in the woods, he won’t harm you.

You came back with ‘a bear doesn’t have google maps’. Having google maps also doesn’t guarantee a man will help someone.

You might seek out a man. That doesn’t mean the man will definitely help you. Having google maps doesn’t change that:

That doesn’t make sense.

People were saying earlier that if women are attacked by bears, people would at least believe them.

a woman says that the woods near here have led to many encounters with strange men and been told, on this thread, that people don’t believe them.

No one has said they don’t believe the women, on this thread, who have had a scary or unnerving encounters with bears.

I believe that’s the Ops point.

I’d also question people if they claimed that they had come across or been attacked by multiple bears.

Well exactly - typical you'd have doubts. Down to the woman to "prove" it as ever.
What do you expect would happen and who would you report it to, out of interest?

Let's face it, you would only question the women.

No. And let’s be honest. It would most likely be men claiming to have survived a bear attack.

If attacked, the likelihood that I could physically overcome a man is low, but the likelihood that I could physically overcome a bear is nonexistent, so I would choose the man.

But the question is not about being attacked by a bear.

I agree with you. Being attacked by a stranger is very, very unlikely.

However, most people here don't have enough experience of bears to make an informed choice.

Why? People live in places where they encounter many bears.

The Op didn't claim she was attacked by those men.

You really question the women if women have been made u comftable or attacked by more than one man?

I didn’t question the OP, I questioned another poster’s allegations.

I actually meant PP. Not Op it was a typo.

The PP didn't claim to have been atta ked by all those men.

And you are saying g you wokd question anyone who was attacked by multiple men, is that correct? Just like you would question anyone e who encountered or was attacked by more that one bear?

Either your comprehension is genuinely poor or you haven’t read the post. I even helped you out by clarifying, again, the question I was asking. You are retorting to a question I never asked.

Threads move on.

You posed the question and answered that you would pick a man. The more you posts the more it’s clear that bears or men aren’t, in your opinion, posing a risk to you.

It’s Related to the original question and going off the additional information you posted.

You believe neither poses a credible risk to you. So I am simply asking why you would still pick the man, rather than either.

Being in the same woods as bears isn't a big risk, but once you meet a bear the risk profile has changed dramatically, because you will have surprised them (otherwise you'd never meet them) and a surprised bear is a dangerous bear.