DH has been sprayed with red dye!

[Mojit0]

This morning DH was running along the Thames towpath as he often does. He was running quite fast as he's training. There is an area where the path narrows a bit and he had caught up and was running behind a woman. He thought she moved to one side to let him pass, so he ran up behind her, at which point she screamed and suddenly sprayed him with a spray! Most of it got on his t-shirt but some of it also also got on his neck and lower face, though he didn't realise at the time. She screamed at him to get away from her and then ran back the other way. He was saying to her, "It's ok" etc, but he said she was so freaked out and looked so terrified he didn't try and follow her.
Now he has a zig-zag pattern of red up his neck and on the left side if his face and it really won't come off. He went into work and someone told him its probably a dye that the police use to mark criminals! I looked on google and it looks as if you can buy a red spray dye that won't wash off for 7 days! If it's this, it's a nightmare as he has to go to China on business tomorrow.
DH feels bad that she was so scared and her reaction actually scared him. He thinks maybe he should have held back, but he thought she was letting him overtake her. I think her reaction was a bit extreme though -AIBU? I run down that path frequently (although not at 6.30am) and I have never heard of anything like this.

She's committed 2 offences. Assault (battery) and criminal damage (if the dye got on his clothes)

Blistory- you're correct wrt not having to wait before being assaulted, pre emptive strikes are permitted under common law however if I was OIC for this job, I'd still be looking to have her charged, and she very likely would be. It'd be up to her to convince the court it was self defence, in the circumstances described in the OP there's no way this would stand up.

There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.

So Blistory on the basis of No, you don't fix anxiety by encouraging avoidance tactics. You fix it by removing or minimising the source of anxiety. Whereas there seems to be an expectation on this thread that we ignore why she may be anxious and simply put the responsibility on this woman to control her anxiety. If women weren't assaulted, she would have no need to be anxious. does this mean that all men need to be removed because some men are violent/sexual offenders? You realise that women can commit crimes as well?

I don't see why my DH or DF (or DS when he's older) should be treated with suspicion (or for it to be acceptable for them to be assaulted because of some perceived threat when they are minding their own business) because of what other men have done. You don't resolve issues of inequality for women, by creating inequality for men.

It would be lovely to live in a world where no-one ever attacked anyone else, but that's not human nature. We all have to take responsibility for our own safety and that doesn't mean attacking first.

I'm just guessing at the point of the spray. I'm not saying it's the best rape preventative ever. I don't make the stuff! it's one of a few options, it has it's pros and it has it's cons. I'm assuming the point is to aim for the face to temporarily blind/disorientate the attacker for at least a few seconds so you can push them in the canal knee them in the balls and run. There are, I'm sure, a million different scenarios that would mean it worked out differently in reality. But it's one of several products available that plays to the very valid female insecurity about being out alone in secluded places.

I really don't get this.

We all seem to think that it's entirely appropriate for men to cross the street to ensure that women aren't put in a state of fear. Men seem to think that as well.

But we're so reluctant to acknowledge that the reason men do this and that women are grateful for it, is the belief that any man is potentially a threat to women in certain circumstances and that the only way to reassure women is to actively take steps to demonstrate that they are not a threat, i.e. Men crossing the street at night. It doesn't mean that we believe every man to be a threat but simply recognises that we can't tell and therefore it's prudent to apply the risk theory across the board.

In order to give themselves the greatest chance of not being raped or sexually assaulted, the most logical thing for a woman to do is to treat all men as if they were a potential threat. Isn't that what we do when we refuse to let a friend get in an unlicensed taxi, or prevent them going home with a stranger, or teach our children not to talk to strangers ?

Why is okay to expect men to cross the street but it's not okay to talk about why they do this ?

It doesn't mean that we believe every man to be a threat but simply recognises that we can't tell

the most logical thing for a woman to do is to treat all men as if they were a potential threat.

So because I was raped by a man 10 years ago I should treat every man as a potential rapist?

How about the woman that assaulted me on a night out last year, should I now treat every woman as if they are a potential attacker?

Or how about people are innocent until given a reason to think otherwise and if they're just out in public minding their own business I treat them like any other human being, until they give me cause not to (and for the record, running past me on a tow path used by runners would not be cause to treat them as a threat, imminent or otherwise)

FWIW Blistory I know many men that won't cross the road etc and I don't think it is that common place, I think it is a bad message to get boys believing from a young age you have to do it because just by being yourself some will treat you as if you're a rapist or attacker, I think it can have a negative impact on boys/men and the way they view themselves and I do think the emotional troubles boys/ men face are swept under the carpet regarding mental health stats etc. I also think it's misguided because men are more likely to be attacked than women when walking home for example. You say it doesn't mean you think every man is a rapist etc but by acting so there's no difference, and I believe many underestimate what men say/ do about rape and sexual offences, but also what people expect the "good" men to do about it. It's not like rapists advertise they are such for example. But then I also have differing views to most re female on male violence with believing it's more widespread and whilst i acknowledge men can do a lot of harm, women also can as i think it's a false equivalency to say size = feel less pain and I believe female on male violence is under reported majorly due to prevailing perceptions that women don't attack men and it was a man that told me that statistically men are more likely to be taken away from the home and treated like criminal when reporting it, but that's a massive digression.

Essentially I don't treat any man/ woman with the preconception that they're a criminal and I don't believe it mentally healthy to do so beyond a certain point

Btw just brought my digressions up because it was semi related if we're talking about men being scummy rapists just a few thoughts I have on men I felt it was somewhat relevant maybe not, sorry if not sleep deprived!

TattyCat

Agreed, it seems likely that my DH could be attacked for no reason.

I feel that your personal safety is your responsibility. However it it's wrong to assume that every male is a threat.

There is no reason why she couldn't have taken the approach of "don't fire unless fired upon". She had the advantage of surprise during the event.

I would never expect a man to cross the street to make me feel safer. Is that really a common expectation?

Good job this isn't America, really. She could have been carrying a gun and killed him, rather than spraying him with red dye.
Women can't just be "trigger happy" with whatever method of defence they're carrying, which it appears this woman was. No one can.

so did the paint got removed or not?

I doubt you'll be able to get the paint off with anything. That's the whole point of it!

Some of the arguments on this thread are bonkers! He thought she moved out of the way so he could run past, he ran past and she attacked him with paint! She assaulted him!

She may be justified in being scared but he didn't DO anything to her! Shouting may have scared her more. In a state of fear she may have misunderstood him if he had shouted. Good job she didn't have a knife or a gun...

@steff13

I would never expect a man to cross the street to make me feel safer. Is that really a common expectation?

Only on MN.

I don't expect men to cross the road for me either. I didn't realise I was supposed to be teaching my ds's this.

I was also thinking that about the paint. The whole point of it is that it won't come off. It would be a bit crap to advertise it as the amazing security system that doesn't come off for 7 days (unless you give it a quick rub with a baby wipe).

God help my sons if this is the world we live in today.

Bat shit thread and bat shit posters.

OP I hope you dh is OK.

OP, you husband was assaulted and there is absolutely no justification for it whatsoever.

would of loved to read the responses if the thread was women jogged past man and was sprayed in face with unknown red dye . as a man who runs there are places i feel nervous about running in .an isolated cycle track near me ,but i use common sense by running else where rather than attacking people with sprays when they overtake me . hope she is tracked down and dealt with your poor dh . can u imagine been sprayed with god knows what ,could of triggered asthma or eye damage . i have previous been attack after a night out when i was walking home on my own, so understand nervousness but why would you go on a towpath at 6.30 on your own if you felt like that . he did nothing wrong

This thread highlights everything that is wrong about Mumsnet.

OP, your poor husband. I really hope he goes to the police.

I find it incredible that women are expected to seek out safe places, to modify their behaviour and to be careful not to offend.

How about a different expectation - that they don't do any of those things, but carry on with their lives without assuming every man they encounter is a rapist?

I find it incredible that women are expected to seek out safe places, to modify their behaviour and to be careful not to offend.

I find it incredible that men are expected to avoid running in the vicinity of a woman lest they be sprayed with paint.

Blistory, you say that it's OK that OP's husband has been sprayed with indelible paint, has to spend his time going to the police and seeking medical attention, and should have his professional plans put in jeopardy, because "other men rape. Because men benefit from the inequality that women experience.. Because men are going to have to give up some of their freedoms to ensure that women gain the freedoms they don't currently have".

What I don't understand there is how those propositions work together. OP's husband dealing with all of that, and indeed the use this spray, will do precisely nothing to ensure that women gain any freedoms. If anything, it damages women's cause by going back to the narrative that we are weak feeble beings who are entitled to act illogically, bless our feathery little brains. Inherently you are saying that anything including crime is justified in the cause of preventing rape, even if in fact there was nothing to prevent. And that just doesn't work as an argument.

I've only just come across this thread and can I just say that I cannot believe that the op rang the police without consulting her partner, if my husband rang the police about an incident involving me without asking me I'd be livid, I think that was quite an extreme reaction tbh and it should have been her husbands decision to make.

My point was that I believe it to be entirely rational for women to be afraid if alone on a footpath and they hear rapidly approaching footsteps. And that I don't think that the acceptable solution is for women to live their lives managing that anxiety instead of society working to remove the reasons why women may be anxious or afraid of men.

I'm all in favour of removing the reasons why women may be afraid of men, but the problem is that this is not the way to do it. If you are running in an area and at a time when it is common for runners to be out and about, it isn't rational to assume that the sound of someone running is anything more than someone doing precisely what you are doing. That doesn't mean you have to be blasé, but equally it doesn't mean that you are entitled to assault the person in question. It's really not clear that this women even knew that the person behind her was male.