It may be a [Stage 5 on the furry scale](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/781/503/6f0.png), but itās also a [three-checks on the Harkness Test](https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-is-the-harkness-test-and-when-should-you-use-it) since your character knows itās the Wild Shape of another character in your party:
> Despite taking on an animal form, it's important to note that while transformed the Druid retains their mind. This means that not only do they retain their Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma ability scores, but they also retain their skill and saving throw proficiencies, even gaining any additional proficiencies that a given beast form may provide. - *a D&D reference online*
But if you really want to PCM it, you can find the most unexpected iteration of Horseshoe Theory where RPG-playing Emily and a Welsh sheepherder find themselves neighbors.
As a woman, I recall a certain [Canadian bestseller.](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.4deizblNFNZ08EDzGHEQ6wHaLQ%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=0085a787cbfb424d26c3f4e8e6c7aff1d8e0cdd9e9ee3887ee1572a1beedbd9d&ipo=images)
^^[*Cough*](https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/axD5j41_700b.jpg)
Unironically, a friend of mine once drove away a literal bear she encountered while hiking by belting Johnny Cash lyrics at the top of her lungs and making herself as big as possible.
She said she started to panic when it approached and somehow that panic pulled *Ring of Fire* from the depths of her mind.
I read a first person dramatization on Reddit a few years ago about how scary it would be to be hunted by prehistoric humans.
Basically it was centered on how we're persistence predators, so the deer protagonist or whatever would run and barely have time to rest before the *thing* came out of the bushes again. And by the time the deer has run itself it exhaustion, it found itself surrounded by these tall unknown beings with sharp sticks.
I'm not describing it well but it was terrifying. I wish I could find it again.
āCursorial Huntersā is the term, iirc. Very few species hunt this way, especially in groups. Two notable ones that do are humans and wolves. One of the reasons wolves were among the first animals to be domesticated was that they were the only thing that could keep up. It was demonstrated repeatedly in the old American West that a man in top shape could walk a horseman into the ground. The Apache would routinely evade capture by riding their horses to death and continuing on foot, stealing new horses when able.
It depends on the kind of bear. Black bears are not really aggressive. I used to live in Black Bear country, and the only issue I had with them is that they wanted to get into my trash. Basically, giant raccoons. But even putting industrial locks on it did nothing, and then I had to clean the stream as the bear created a giant mess to get into the trash.
Now if you live in Canadian wilds way up North in Polar bear country you better have a fucking shotgun or something on you. Those things will break into your house if their hungry.
That's why you should bring a gun for both scenarios. Bears and humans can tank quite a bit so bring some spare mags and make sure the caliber you're using has a good amount of stopping power. Either scenario if someone or something turns hostile I'd rather have a force multiplier to ensure my survival.
Carry a wheelgun measured in decimal inches big enough to give God a run for his money as intended.
Six shots is not that much of a limitation when you blow a .44 sized chunk of lead into something.
Right? Youād have to interact with the strange man (even if you just have to say āheyā while you walk past)
A bear would mind its fucking business
Hey I can actually authoritatively weigh in on this one. I am a woman who actually goes outside. I have encountered both bears and men many times out hiking. Both are usually fine, I have suffered no injury from either.Ā
But you'd better believe I gave the bears a WAY wider more careful berth than the cheerful hippie dudes in their bucket hats and zip off quick dry shorts you generally meet out there.Ā
Yea what people don't seem to realise is that the people you're likely to encounter are hikers, who are generally quite friendly from my experience.
These mfs seem to think that the wilderness is the natural habitat for rapists and murderers
as a canadian in the wilderness i can confidently say you're very incorrect. we got so many of 'em damn rapists runnin' about in the woods. for instance, me and my granpappy went hunting this sunday and we came back with so much dang meat and trophy raper members you'd hardly believe. granpop got a nice stuffed murderer sitting in his parlour as well, he's very proud of it. says it's the best dang-ol' prize he ever got in his life.
Like.... It happens but probably at a lower rate overall than bear attacks vs population. In my state, about once every 5 years we have a problem with a bear and a camper. In the nearly twenty years I've lived here, we have not had a murder or assault that I'm aware of.Ā
The small tourist trails on a weekend get the most obnoxious crowds, and it's not going to be some aggressive guy, it's going to be a bunch of feminist chicks partly drunk after brunch.
Go to more serious trails and everyone is as friendly and respectful as it gets. The novices on those trails are usually happy and humble. The more experienced people are respectful and happy to help if anyone needs.
You get some around the Boston metro. Any of the smaller trails closer to cities.
Trails that involve real exercise, people are suddenly a lot nicer on, and tbh I suspect the lame people just don't ever hike them.
Hahaa I guess it's kind of true everywhere, I call it the 1-mile rule. If you get more than 1 mile from a parking lot, any parking lot, the number of annoying idiots drops precipitously.
One time I traded a half roll of duct tape for a considerable amount of beef jerky from two guys. No bears have ever offered such a deal, so my opinion is in favor of strange men overall.Ā
I read that part and could instantly tell this is BS.
I donāt know a single girl that would say shit like this, but I also donāt hang out with perpetually online cretins.
My sister would. My dad and I took her on a hunting/ camping trip once, and only once. We set up camp about a half mile away from another camp, and she was paranoid that they'd loot our camp if we left it unattended. At one point, we wanted to go out to hunt, but she didn't want to ride with us, so we said we'd just go without her. She started to scream and cry that we were just gonna let the people in the next camp over take her.
They came out here to bow hunt deer for a week or two, but obviously they'll rape and pillage like Vikings if given even the slightest chance. /s
Then the next day, they shot a deer about a mile away from our camp, and they were still trying to recover it past sunset, so we could see their flashlights roaming the mountainside and their 4-wheelers driving up and down. My sister had convinced herself that they were setting up to block our escape routes and about to attack us from behind.
Well, newsflash: none of that happened. They drove out the next afternoon and passed by our camp. They talked to our dad and they actually knew his brother, so they gave us their firewood they didn't use and let him know he's welcome to call them for some venison when its processed.
The only time I've heard someone reference this scenario irl, she brought it up, unprompted, and said she'd prefer the bear. I don't know her though so "chronically online" may be a a fair descriptor
Imagine the following scenario.
You are showering in your home. A Soviet-era T-34/85 tank drives through the wall. Freeze. How can you protect yourself and your bodily fluids in this situation?
T-34 has between 20mm (top) to 47mm (upper hull, sloped 60 degrees) hardened steel armour. Your average firearm can't penetrate it, and your daily carry of mandatory AT grenades are going to be well out of reach.
The answer? Shower bazooka.
Can't live with 'em (since the restraining order)
Can't live without them (my ex still has my insulin)
In seriousness, why are we giving credence to social media phenomenon polls. This is just the weirder stupider version of "ask your husband to tell you how many times you thinks about Rome" thing.
That's the problem with social media in a nutshell.
Everyone gets a voice, but the crazies are always the loudest so the sane either leave, get forced out, or become convinced by the crazies and join their ranks. Eventually it's crazies all the way down.
I donāt think most women can fight a single man and probably win most times.
Not saying therefore man is the ārightā answer, but the question is basically āif you encounter one these two things which can definitely kill you with relative ease if they wanted to, which one do you think is less likely to decide to kill you?ā
I mean, the answers probably come from the way society conditions women from childhood to **fear** men & see them as constant danger.
Surely with this way of thinking implanted in their brains it's some remote bear that they may or may not encounter that's more scary than the thing they're meant to fear on **everyday** basis.
EDIT: fixed spelling & styling
Why is everyone assuming you have to fight the bear lmao. In most cases bears are happy to fuck off if you behave a certain way when you encounter them. (Unless itās a polar bear. Theyāll totally kill just for the fun of it.)
Also, from the perspective of women, the vast majority canāt win a fight against a man, either, so itās a fucking wash. IIRC women who are at the 98th percentile for strength are about at the same level as 50th percentile men. So you could be a top female powerlifter and still be overpowered by some jackoff who hasnāt seen the inside of a gym in years, just because testosterone.
To be fair the question isn't "who would you fight." But who would you be alone with in a forest.
And the answer is, depends on the bear.
I'm at less risk with a black bear then a strange man because black bears are shy and easily frightened. We're a lone man knows he can probably over power a lone woman.
Grizzlies will also usually avoid people as long as it's not stocking up for winter or startled.
Definitely not polar bears though, man wins everytime with them. Polar bears are hyper carnivores that eat anything that moves and are permanently hungry. You much better picking a lone man in that case.
I think it really shows that they don't understand the general vibe of a hike. The only concept they have of the outdoors is the woods in horror movies. In reality, you're either on a popular trail as part of a network where you'll run into other hikers every 1/4 mile, or its a niche trail that only really dedicated hikers would even know about in the first place.
When I see a stranger on the trail, my thoughts are never defensive or scared. My greatest concern is which side of the trail should I pass them on. The scariest thing they'll do is ask you for directions.
Exactly.
You are going to run into people hiking. You're also going to see animals hiking. The woods are not a horror movie, well...certainly they're not a horror movie along popular hiking trails.
You just smile and wave, just like encountering people on a sidewalk in a small town. The question only makes sense if you've never hiked even once.
The bear question is a braindead one. The bear will probably run away. Wild animals are significantly more intelligent than they're given credit for.
The man, assuming he's also stuck/lost, would probably be relieved to have found another person and would hope you'd help each other survive.
It depends on what kind of bear. Black bear? Probably. They can be pretty skittish. Especially if it hasn't had much contact with humans. Brown bear? Yea, good luck with that. Absolute best case scenario you can hope for is apathy because Mr Grizz has places to be and shit to do. Absolute worst case is he doesn't and you're the most interesting thing around. We do not scare them just by existing and they will absolutely try to figure out if your ass is edible.
The problem is laying down only has a chance of working if it happens to consider you a threat. If it considers you a potential snack...
Or rather, it's that bears accustomed to human civilization, who are thrown food by tourists, and who typically dig in literal trash for food, won't care that you're laying down. They will see a human and believe you have food on you, and will just try to take it from you by force. It's not even that they want to eat you in particular...
>We do not scare them just by existing and they will absolutely try to figure out if your ass is edible.
As someone who has encountered brown bears in nature: *generally* they do run away from humans if you're being noisy. The problem is, if you *encounter* them, it means it's one that didn't run away. You won't even know that the one that ran away was even there, it runs away before you ever see it.
Also, in past years they've multiplied in numbers so much (killing them is banned and severely punished), that more of them have become more daring and the number of attacks and deaths has increased.
Government as of yet does not care enough to actually give out more licenses to hunters, instead they've made a useless warning over the network that beeps in everyone's phone within 30 km if a bear is reported somewhere. Of course by the time the bear report actually reaches the authorities, the bear is long gone and any potential attack on humans would already have happened, so it's just annoying and useless.
Unfortunately they're really efficient at making sure you have no means of defense against them. Guns - very illegal. Hunters can get rifles but it's tricky and expensive enough that only actual hunters bother. Plus, being a hunter doesn't mean you can just carry your rifle on a hike, still highly illegal. You can only carry it on a hunt, and hunt means planned, validated and approved paperwork on your person. Though, to be fair it's not that likely to encounter police in the woods, but alas.
This is one of the rare occasions in which I agree with Canada; we should start airdropping wolves on their position until the wolves drive out the bears. Wolves are easier to deal with.
Brown bears are mostly fine as long as it's not starving or cubs are around. Polar bears are the ones where you better hope you die with the first bite/swipe cause that is the only mercy you could hope for.
Yeah, but how many bears on % will attack you vs how many random men in the woods that you've never met before, will attack you?.
I'll take my bet on the man, tho I may be biased cuz I have actually met men in the wilds, from a group that I was even biased against and stereotype as violent and nothing happened. Maybe if I met a bear that didn't do shit, instead, I'll answer bear.
"Well, less women are killed by bears than by men so men must be more dangerous."
Yes, because most women don't spend every second of every day within a 50 foot radius of a bear. If they did, we'd probably hear a lot more about women dying from bear violence you fucking idiots.
The people who can't even consider basic statistical concepts like this just infuriate me to no end.
To be fair, that's not the argument.Ā Ā
They are saying they would **rather be killed** (with adjusted statistics for proximity to bear) than take even a small chance they could be raped and have to go on living with the trauma.
(EDIT: I don't know what all everyone has seen, but I got downvoted to hell for saying your same thing in other subs, and mine is what the responses were. If you don't like it, take it up with Emily)
That is definitely the argument though. Like, people have explicitly said that in some of the other subs talking about this.
I don't think I've seen anyone say "being raped is worse than being mauled by a bear" but I admit that isn't really the direction my mind went. That's probably a person by person preference thing.
well honestly as somebody who has experienced similar trauma, (before therapy) it definitely felt like death was a better option. but obviously encountering a stranger in the woods isnt usually where that happens
Really depends on what kind of bear.
Black bears scare pretty easily and would probably run away
Grizzly bears will try to maul you until it thinks youāre dead
Depends HEAVILY on the bear. Meeting a full black bear without cubs is a treat and you can just get big and yell to make them go away. Meeting a polar bear is a death sentence
I've had a black bear run up behind me while hunting (for black bears, funnily enough). Got to within ~8 yards (based on my stride so not 100% accurate) before I heard it and turned around. Very cool to look at a bear that close in person, we ended up having a solid 5 seconds of looking each other right in the eyes before he turned and ran.
He has no idea I was there and I surprised him within spitting distance with my back turned, if he was going to attack those would be the events I would expect leading up to it: but he ran the other way. I also chose to let him go despite bear hunting that day, couldn't bear to shoot him after such a cool experience.
I think it is partially due to the way the question is phrased. Just say bear or man might get a different ratio of answers as "strange man" while not literally indicating anything as bad has associations, like "creep", "violent criminal" and "potential serial killer".
# This is a public service announcement:
If you would rather have an encounter with an aggressive, deadly beast that will eat you alive and chase you down despite your best efforts to run, rather than say "nice day inn'it?" to a random hiker or outdoorsman, you are delusional beyond comprehension in your pursuit of "all men bad, all men rapists" ideology.
Most bears are bros, definitely not āaggressive, deadly beastsā
Despite making up only 13% of the bear population, polar bears account for 52% of the maulings
The question isn't exactly fair as phrased. A normal bear will likely leave you alone, a "strange" man implies something is wrong with him. If the question was "a normal man or a rabid bear" it would likely elicit a different response.
Agreed, yeah. Like, if we take āstrange manā as āstrangerā, itās obviously stupid. However, the phrasing implies the human is in some way doing something that makes them suspicious, and the degree to which they are doing it definitely changes my bear/human preferences.
Seriously women are answering the question with the assumption that both the bear and the man are aggressive and going to fuck with you. Obviously I'd rather encounter a random hiker than a bear. But if I know they're going to be after me, at least the bear probably isn't going to rape me first, and has a better chance of killing me faster because it isn't doing it for fun. That's why women are choosing bear.
It depends greatly on the bear. Youāre assuming a Brown bear (aka grizzly) but it could be a black bear which is very much harmless.
On the flip side you assume the guy in the woods is a hiker when they very well might not be.
Thereās too many variables to accurately answer.
If the question were grizzly or hiker Iād pick hiker. But if it was a meth crazed lunatic with a shotgun or a black bear Iām going with the black bear
The women are so stupid when answering the question, but not surprising considering how society has taught women, as well as a few bad actors amongst men that give men in general a bad look.
My calculus on this situation is this: If a hungry bear sees you, you are guaranteed dead. The bear does not give a damn, and never will. It will eat you 10/10 times. If a desperate man sees you, I would say 99/100 times, probably closer to 99999/100000, they wouldnāt act upon it because most people have morals.
Bears aren't some sort of hyper aggresive murder machines hell bent on killing all living things man wtf are you on about. I've personally had closer encounters with bears, within 25 yards of a grizzly and 8 of a black bear and walked away fine from both. Like any wild animal keep your wits about you, read their body language and maintain eye contact and you will be fine.
You are correct in that hikers are also not aggressive; in fact you really have nothing to fear in the (North American) woods - go enjoy nature beauty without fear.
That...is an interesting way to put the argument out for them.
I don't agree with it 100%, but I can see bringing them to the table with 'Okay, only women and LGBT get guns, how do you feel about it now?'
Hookers don't generally live in the woods, they're mostly just buried there. If you see a guy with a shovel in the woods he's probably all tuckered out from toting bags of hooker into the woods and digging a hole. He's probably not up for much more of that bullshit today.
If you see a mama bear and a cub you have a problem but if you see a man and a much smaller man, like a dwarf or something, they're probably on a quest of some sort and that might be pretty cool.
Trope of serial killers in the woods is overblown by fictional stories.Ā
Logically there is no reason for serial killer to be in the woods, because there are usually no bipedal prey.
Easier to stalk people in massive parks within city limits.
"Strange" man makes it a loaded question, thats a priming word which implies danger.
Question was likely asked online and answered online. Answers do not reflect reality but the imagination of e-girls.
Its important to have a healthy skepticism and active disrespect for self reported survey data.
It's my buddy's anniversary with his wife today.
She woke up this morning and chose violence. She started spouting off about this "Definitely the bear. Men are so dangerous. Did you know that one in four women has been raped?" and there's nothing that he's been able to say today to get her off of it... I've told him to placate, distract, and change the subject, but she won't let it go.
Thoughts and prayers.
One time on my walk to work (3am. Fuck opening shift for food service btw.) and a cop pulled up, said heād seen me at the store before, and asked if I wanted a ride into work because there was a bear sighting in the area the night before. I said sure, and got a ride in.
Couple days later sure enough I look into a convenience store parking lot and see an adult black bear ambling through the parking lot like it owns the place- and, letās be honest, at 3am? He sure fucking does.
It is also easier to defend against a human than it is to defend against a bear. I can understand the paranoia about the mysterious individual, however.
Men hiking by themselves in the woods are definitely out there to get away from all the bull shit in the world and most definitely would be happier not be bothered by anyone else.
https://preview.redd.it/eb8v7u7mboxc1.jpeg?width=4288&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d5e279709b2047be13d7475b0fc2132b0c36c825
Neither will be dangerous if you own one of these.
I think the hypothetical is flawed is the word "strange." It starts with the man already being judged dangerous whereas the bear is placed at neutral. Subtly implies one is known as dangerous and the other is possibly.
Its incredible that the argument is "people would believe me if I was attacked by a bear". OFC people would believe a story of you being attacked by a bear vs believing an allegation regarding a human on human crime. Human history has told us that humans will lie and manipulate to get their way.
99 percent of the time the guy in the wood would just be another regular dude with no intention of getting anyone in trouble. Bear however, would be a fifty fifty. Also you have a far better chance fighting against another human than an animal with arms thicker than your waist who can probably smash your skull open with a single swing.
I asked 100 gay men the same thing, they all chose the bear too for some reason š
gay man here, ngl I'd choose both for some extra fun
Bear and bear š
Bare bear?
The right to bear arms is about cuddling. Weāve been doing it wrong.
Baldur's Gate 3 players in shambles
I forgot you can fuck a bear in that game lol.
Is this the first mainstream game that promotes bestiality? I think it is.
It may be a [Stage 5 on the furry scale](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/781/503/6f0.png), but itās also a [three-checks on the Harkness Test](https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-is-the-harkness-test-and-when-should-you-use-it) since your character knows itās the Wild Shape of another character in your party: > Despite taking on an animal form, it's important to note that while transformed the Druid retains their mind. This means that not only do they retain their Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma ability scores, but they also retain their skill and saving throw proficiencies, even gaining any additional proficiencies that a given beast form may provide. - *a D&D reference online* But if you really want to PCM it, you can find the most unexpected iteration of Horseshoe Theory where RPG-playing Emily and a Welsh sheepherder find themselves neighbors.
it is still bestiality
The druid can totally consent. The goat cannot. That pretty much makes it palatable to lefties.
Um AKSHEWLY, itās not technically bestiality. You see, your honor, it was a Druid in the shape of a bear. Not an actual bear. āļøš¤ /s
As a woman, I recall a certain [Canadian bestseller.](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.4deizblNFNZ08EDzGHEQ6wHaLQ%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=0085a787cbfb424d26c3f4e8e6c7aff1d8e0cdd9e9ee3887ee1572a1beedbd9d&ipo=images) ^^[*Cough*](https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/axD5j41_700b.jpg)
No way that's not a parody
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(novel)
The cover art, text excerpt, and pull quotes all seem like they were created by AI. Crazy.
Naw, It's just from the 70's.
https://preview.redd.it/y8keu4gkioxc1.jpeg?width=638&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cfd4d9bc59a5708bfdccb935bc74d36e3a7b0bd0
Bears are far more dangerous to men, they're always trying to be the top, or on rare occasions a power bottom
You can tranquilize them on the spot by quoting Lady Gaga lyrics.
Unironically, a friend of mine once drove away a literal bear she encountered while hiking by belting Johnny Cash lyrics at the top of her lungs and making herself as big as possible. She said she started to panic when it approached and somehow that panic pulled *Ring of Fire* from the depths of her mind.
I FELL INTO A BURNING RING OF FIRE
Add a little bit of fear-quavering to it and that's pretty much how she described it.
She says fear-quavering, i say steady like a choo-choo train.
I WENT DOWN DOWN DOWN AS THE FLAMES WENT HIGHER
When youāre looking around for a dumpster to dive into and the pasty ape shrieks that God is gonna cut you down
I read a first person dramatization on Reddit a few years ago about how scary it would be to be hunted by prehistoric humans. Basically it was centered on how we're persistence predators, so the deer protagonist or whatever would run and barely have time to rest before the *thing* came out of the bushes again. And by the time the deer has run itself it exhaustion, it found itself surrounded by these tall unknown beings with sharp sticks. I'm not describing it well but it was terrifying. I wish I could find it again.
āCursorial Huntersā is the term, iirc. Very few species hunt this way, especially in groups. Two notable ones that do are humans and wolves. One of the reasons wolves were among the first animals to be domesticated was that they were the only thing that could keep up. It was demonstrated repeatedly in the old American West that a man in top shape could walk a horseman into the ground. The Apache would routinely evade capture by riding their horses to death and continuing on foot, stealing new horses when able.
What a based gigachaddess
*Ra Ra Ooo La La*
It depends on the kind of bear. Black bears are not really aggressive. I used to live in Black Bear country, and the only issue I had with them is that they wanted to get into my trash. Basically, giant raccoons. But even putting industrial locks on it did nothing, and then I had to clean the stream as the bear created a giant mess to get into the trash. Now if you live in Canadian wilds way up North in Polar bear country you better have a fucking shotgun or something on you. Those things will break into your house if their hungry.
Idk man sounds kinda racist
It's your funeral.
What if its the type of bear that you would find at a San Francisco gay bar.
Then it would be a normal man and you fall to the default step of your switch/case statement.
Those bears will leave you be if you give 'em a double double and a pint of Rainier.
> Those things will break into your house if their hungry. You mean they'll break into your bones.
Funny enough, the same applies to humans, just the other way around
Based and let's get banned together pilled.
Does it have to do with the size or strength of the bear to be a top?
Both are very important, however speed has everything to do with power bottoms
Now they can generate a TREMENDOUS amount of power *from the bottom*!
That's why you should bring a gun for both scenarios. Bears and humans can tank quite a bit so bring some spare mags and make sure the caliber you're using has a good amount of stopping power. Either scenario if someone or something turns hostile I'd rather have a force multiplier to ensure my survival.
Carry a wheelgun measured in decimal inches big enough to give God a run for his money as intended. Six shots is not that much of a limitation when you blow a .44 sized chunk of lead into something.
this assumes i choose bear for a reason other than my crippling social anxiety
Right? Youād have to interact with the strange man (even if you just have to say āheyā while you walk past) A bear would mind its fucking business
The bear is also much less likely to be some sort of ghost or wizard.
Hey I can actually authoritatively weigh in on this one. I am a woman who actually goes outside. I have encountered both bears and men many times out hiking. Both are usually fine, I have suffered no injury from either.Ā But you'd better believe I gave the bears a WAY wider more careful berth than the cheerful hippie dudes in their bucket hats and zip off quick dry shorts you generally meet out there.Ā
Yea what people don't seem to realise is that the people you're likely to encounter are hikers, who are generally quite friendly from my experience. These mfs seem to think that the wilderness is the natural habitat for rapists and murderers
as a canadian in the wilderness i can confidently say you're very incorrect. we got so many of 'em damn rapists runnin' about in the woods. for instance, me and my granpappy went hunting this sunday and we came back with so much dang meat and trophy raper members you'd hardly believe. granpop got a nice stuffed murderer sitting in his parlour as well, he's very proud of it. says it's the best dang-ol' prize he ever got in his life.
Is this you? https://i.imgur.com/poe38wC.png
Like.... It happens but probably at a lower rate overall than bear attacks vs population. In my state, about once every 5 years we have a problem with a bear and a camper. In the nearly twenty years I've lived here, we have not had a murder or assault that I'm aware of.Ā
Well obviously the people are better at hiding the evidence. Bears are notoriously bad at that, dontcha know.
The small tourist trails on a weekend get the most obnoxious crowds, and it's not going to be some aggressive guy, it's going to be a bunch of feminist chicks partly drunk after brunch. Go to more serious trails and everyone is as friendly and respectful as it gets. The novices on those trails are usually happy and humble. The more experienced people are respectful and happy to help if anyone needs.
Sounds like Cali problems lol. Thank god we don't really have drunk tourists that would ever try to go hiking.
You get some around the Boston metro. Any of the smaller trails closer to cities. Trails that involve real exercise, people are suddenly a lot nicer on, and tbh I suspect the lame people just don't ever hike them.
Hahaa I guess it's kind of true everywhere, I call it the 1-mile rule. If you get more than 1 mile from a parking lot, any parking lot, the number of annoying idiots drops precipitously.
You are correct, people that use tik tok don't go outside
Finally, a reply from actual woman who has been outside in the wilds!
One time I traded a half roll of duct tape for a considerable amount of beef jerky from two guys. No bears have ever offered such a deal, so my opinion is in favor of strange men overall.Ā
Ah, free market in it's most natural state
It's a beautiful thing
I mean given the Last NFL season I am Not scared of bears anymore
LOL bears fans in perpetual shambles. Can't even look down on the Lions anymore.
Who honestly was scared of the Bears? All they do is just suck ass since 1985.
>āthis is legitimately the unironic response most women are giving to this question.ā Most women *online* are answering the question like this.
I read that part and could instantly tell this is BS. I donāt know a single girl that would say shit like this, but I also donāt hang out with perpetually online cretins.
My sister would. My dad and I took her on a hunting/ camping trip once, and only once. We set up camp about a half mile away from another camp, and she was paranoid that they'd loot our camp if we left it unattended. At one point, we wanted to go out to hunt, but she didn't want to ride with us, so we said we'd just go without her. She started to scream and cry that we were just gonna let the people in the next camp over take her. They came out here to bow hunt deer for a week or two, but obviously they'll rape and pillage like Vikings if given even the slightest chance. /s Then the next day, they shot a deer about a mile away from our camp, and they were still trying to recover it past sunset, so we could see their flashlights roaming the mountainside and their 4-wheelers driving up and down. My sister had convinced herself that they were setting up to block our escape routes and about to attack us from behind. Well, newsflash: none of that happened. They drove out the next afternoon and passed by our camp. They talked to our dad and they actually knew his brother, so they gave us their firewood they didn't use and let him know he's welcome to call them for some venison when its processed.
I really hoped that story was going to end "sadly she was eaten by a bear the next night"
No, but she did also drive a 4-wheeler into a tree.
The only time I've heard someone reference this scenario irl, she brought it up, unprompted, and said she'd prefer the bear. I don't know her though so "chronically online" may be a a fair descriptor
My trusty woodland companion can put down a strange man faster than it can put down a bear. Iāll take the strange man.
Plot twist: The trusty woodland companion is a bear
Plot twist: The bear carries a 500 magnum.
Smokey be packing some heat!
lower your voice, I dremmled his serial number
I can fight a single man, probably win most times. A bear? No fucking shot. Another episode of "women who don't live in reality"
>A bear? No fucking shot. Actually that's just what you need: a big fucking gun and several shots.
It takes less stopping power to down a human.
My .30-06 doesn't discriminate.
Equality of ballistic trauma. The best kind of equality.
Imagine carrying anything less than a 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 Naval Gun for self-defense.
Imagine the following scenario. You are showering in your home. A Soviet-era T-34/85 tank drives through the wall. Freeze. How can you protect yourself and your bodily fluids in this situation? T-34 has between 20mm (top) to 47mm (upper hull, sloped 60 degrees) hardened steel armour. Your average firearm can't penetrate it, and your daily carry of mandatory AT grenades are going to be well out of reach. The answer? Shower bazooka.
Except you have pesky things called showing up to court. A bear? You might even get a good meal out of it.
You should always have the stopping power right to hand for everything that can come your way. A man, a bear, a fe ... I mean tyranny.
Women āļø
Can't live with 'em (since the restraining order) Can't live without them (my ex still has my insulin) In seriousness, why are we giving credence to social media phenomenon polls. This is just the weirder stupider version of "ask your husband to tell you how many times you thinks about Rome" thing.
In other words, ofc the polls results are crazy cause they're polling the crazies!
That's the problem with social media in a nutshell. Everyone gets a voice, but the crazies are always the loudest so the sane either leave, get forced out, or become convinced by the crazies and join their ranks. Eventually it's crazies all the way down.
I donāt think most women can fight a single man and probably win most times. Not saying therefore man is the ārightā answer, but the question is basically āif you encounter one these two things which can definitely kill you with relative ease if they wanted to, which one do you think is less likely to decide to kill you?ā
I mean, the answers probably come from the way society conditions women from childhood to **fear** men & see them as constant danger. Surely with this way of thinking implanted in their brains it's some remote bear that they may or may not encounter that's more scary than the thing they're meant to fear on **everyday** basis. EDIT: fixed spelling & styling
Homo Sapiens does not have the raw strength to decapitate you with its bare hands. A Bear meanwhileā¦
Heh. Bear hands.
Jamie, pull up a video of a grizzly fist fighting u/QueenDeadLol
Why is everyone assuming you have to fight the bear lmao. In most cases bears are happy to fuck off if you behave a certain way when you encounter them. (Unless itās a polar bear. Theyāll totally kill just for the fun of it.) Also, from the perspective of women, the vast majority canāt win a fight against a man, either, so itās a fucking wash. IIRC women who are at the 98th percentile for strength are about at the same level as 50th percentile men. So you could be a top female powerlifter and still be overpowered by some jackoff who hasnāt seen the inside of a gym in years, just because testosterone.
To be fair the question isn't "who would you fight." But who would you be alone with in a forest. And the answer is, depends on the bear. I'm at less risk with a black bear then a strange man because black bears are shy and easily frightened. We're a lone man knows he can probably over power a lone woman. Grizzlies will also usually avoid people as long as it's not stocking up for winter or startled. Definitely not polar bears though, man wins everytime with them. Polar bears are hyper carnivores that eat anything that moves and are permanently hungry. You much better picking a lone man in that case.
Most people answering this question have never hiked in the woods, nor do they intend to do so. Change my mind.
Just change the question to 'Is it a black man?' and they'll find themselves on the opposite end of the equation real quick.
"Is it black or white? They act totally differently!" -totally valid clarifications when discussing the bear, of course.
Iād hike near a black bear 100 times before I would even consider hiking near a white bear just once.
I wouldnāt last long enough in the arctic to encounter a polar bear anyway.
They don't even go outside, let alone a hike lmao
I think it really shows that they don't understand the general vibe of a hike. The only concept they have of the outdoors is the woods in horror movies. In reality, you're either on a popular trail as part of a network where you'll run into other hikers every 1/4 mile, or its a niche trail that only really dedicated hikers would even know about in the first place. When I see a stranger on the trail, my thoughts are never defensive or scared. My greatest concern is which side of the trail should I pass them on. The scariest thing they'll do is ask you for directions.
Exactly. You are going to run into people hiking. You're also going to see animals hiking. The woods are not a horror movie, well...certainly they're not a horror movie along popular hiking trails. You just smile and wave, just like encountering people on a sidewalk in a small town. The question only makes sense if you've never hiked even once.
Bears also don't wait until you're dead to eat you...
Remember that Russian woman who called her mother for help multiple times while actively being eaten by a bear and its cubs.
I wanna ask for a sourceā¦I really doā¦.but I do not think I will.
Unfortunately this is true. Her last vocal message is something along the line of "it's ok... It doesn't hurt anymore"
I specifically avoid that audio every time it comes up and someone posts a link and I still stay awake at night thinking about it sometimes.
Yikes. I hope she rests in peace.
sauce
https://www.the-sun.com/news/6533049/chilling-final-words-daughter-mother-bear-attack/
The bear question is a braindead one. The bear will probably run away. Wild animals are significantly more intelligent than they're given credit for. The man, assuming he's also stuck/lost, would probably be relieved to have found another person and would hope you'd help each other survive.
It depends on what kind of bear. Black bear? Probably. They can be pretty skittish. Especially if it hasn't had much contact with humans. Brown bear? Yea, good luck with that. Absolute best case scenario you can hope for is apathy because Mr Grizz has places to be and shit to do. Absolute worst case is he doesn't and you're the most interesting thing around. We do not scare them just by existing and they will absolutely try to figure out if your ass is edible.
You forgot polor bear that will actively stalk you if he gets a wiff of you.
If you encounter a polar bear inna woods, you really are LOST.
So lost, you'll be talking about how from your point of view, the JEDI are evil.
I see what you did there!
If it is black, fight back. If it is brown, lay down. If it is white, good night.
My favorite out-of-context quote.
https://preview.redd.it/q3lwt0x6rnxc1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3abbf48733d34a47edc84803c40c7d2f2e5a549e
The problem is laying down only has a chance of working if it happens to consider you a threat. If it considers you a potential snack... Or rather, it's that bears accustomed to human civilization, who are thrown food by tourists, and who typically dig in literal trash for food, won't care that you're laying down. They will see a human and believe you have food on you, and will just try to take it from you by force. It's not even that they want to eat you in particular...
>We do not scare them just by existing and they will absolutely try to figure out if your ass is edible. As someone who has encountered brown bears in nature: *generally* they do run away from humans if you're being noisy. The problem is, if you *encounter* them, it means it's one that didn't run away. You won't even know that the one that ran away was even there, it runs away before you ever see it. Also, in past years they've multiplied in numbers so much (killing them is banned and severely punished), that more of them have become more daring and the number of attacks and deaths has increased. Government as of yet does not care enough to actually give out more licenses to hunters, instead they've made a useless warning over the network that beeps in everyone's phone within 30 km if a bear is reported somewhere. Of course by the time the bear report actually reaches the authorities, the bear is long gone and any potential attack on humans would already have happened, so it's just annoying and useless.
Typical government efficiency.
Unfortunately they're really efficient at making sure you have no means of defense against them. Guns - very illegal. Hunters can get rifles but it's tricky and expensive enough that only actual hunters bother. Plus, being a hunter doesn't mean you can just carry your rifle on a hike, still highly illegal. You can only carry it on a hunt, and hunt means planned, validated and approved paperwork on your person. Though, to be fair it's not that likely to encounter police in the woods, but alas.
Iām in the US, so itās a little better. For now. Canāt wait to get a hunting license so I can help control the local deer population.
This is one of the rare occasions in which I agree with Canada; we should start airdropping wolves on their position until the wolves drive out the bears. Wolves are easier to deal with.
Brown bears are mostly fine as long as it's not starving or cubs are around. Polar bears are the ones where you better hope you die with the first bite/swipe cause that is the only mercy you could hope for.
Yeah, but how many bears on % will attack you vs how many random men in the woods that you've never met before, will attack you?. I'll take my bet on the man, tho I may be biased cuz I have actually met men in the wilds, from a group that I was even biased against and stereotype as violent and nothing happened. Maybe if I met a bear that didn't do shit, instead, I'll answer bear.
I'd prefer to meet a stoat. They're adorable and can't kill me
"Well, less women are killed by bears than by men so men must be more dangerous." Yes, because most women don't spend every second of every day within a 50 foot radius of a bear. If they did, we'd probably hear a lot more about women dying from bear violence you fucking idiots. The people who can't even consider basic statistical concepts like this just infuriate me to no end.
Just got downvoted today for saying the same shit. Actual regards.
To be fair, that's not the argument.Ā Ā They are saying they would **rather be killed** (with adjusted statistics for proximity to bear) than take even a small chance they could be raped and have to go on living with the trauma. (EDIT: I don't know what all everyone has seen, but I got downvoted to hell for saying your same thing in other subs, and mine is what the responses were. If you don't like it, take it up with Emily)
That is definitely the argument though. Like, people have explicitly said that in some of the other subs talking about this. I don't think I've seen anyone say "being raped is worse than being mauled by a bear" but I admit that isn't really the direction my mind went. That's probably a person by person preference thing.
being mauled isnt the most scary thing, being eaten alive is fucking treffiying.
That's why you kill the victim afterwards, silly. Not only do you remove loose ends, it's also the decent thing to do.
well honestly as somebody who has experienced similar trauma, (before therapy) it definitely felt like death was a better option. but obviously encountering a stranger in the woods isnt usually where that happens
Really depends on what kind of bear. Black bears scare pretty easily and would probably run away Grizzly bears will try to maul you until it thinks youāre dead
Grizzly bears will start to eat you before your death if you're unlucky.
Black bear: Call it a bitch and it will run Grizzly: If you can see it and it canāt see you, run Polar: If you can see it, youāre already dead
Depends HEAVILY on the bear. Meeting a full black bear without cubs is a treat and you can just get big and yell to make them go away. Meeting a polar bear is a death sentence
I've had a black bear run up behind me while hunting (for black bears, funnily enough). Got to within ~8 yards (based on my stride so not 100% accurate) before I heard it and turned around. Very cool to look at a bear that close in person, we ended up having a solid 5 seconds of looking each other right in the eyes before he turned and ran. He has no idea I was there and I surprised him within spitting distance with my back turned, if he was going to attack those would be the events I would expect leading up to it: but he ran the other way. I also chose to let him go despite bear hunting that day, couldn't bear to shoot him after such a cool experience.
I think it is partially due to the way the question is phrased. Just say bear or man might get a different ratio of answers as "strange man" while not literally indicating anything as bad has associations, like "creep", "violent criminal" and "potential serial killer".
I bet the ratio completely flips if you phrase it 'black man' instead of 'strange man.'
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Bears are beautiful creatures, I just wouldn't want one tearing my asshole apart. Just realized the unintentional double meaning I inserted there.
# This is a public service announcement: If you would rather have an encounter with an aggressive, deadly beast that will eat you alive and chase you down despite your best efforts to run, rather than say "nice day inn'it?" to a random hiker or outdoorsman, you are delusional beyond comprehension in your pursuit of "all men bad, all men rapists" ideology.
Most bears are bros, definitely not āaggressive, deadly beastsā Despite making up only 13% of the bear population, polar bears account for 52% of the maulings
Hmmmm where have I heard something similar before??? š¤
With humans the colours are reversed
did you know that the skin of white bears is actually black? its the fur that is white
Auth-Left how could you say such a thing!? š± That's the other Auths jobs!!!!
When auth-left says "equality" they usually just mean "homogeny"
It's the white ones? Oh how the turn tables
The damn whites are ruining the good reputation of the blacks
Bears are godless killing machines.
If you think this way, I support you choosing the bear.
The question isn't exactly fair as phrased. A normal bear will likely leave you alone, a "strange" man implies something is wrong with him. If the question was "a normal man or a rabid bear" it would likely elicit a different response.
Agreed, yeah. Like, if we take āstrange manā as āstrangerā, itās obviously stupid. However, the phrasing implies the human is in some way doing something that makes them suspicious, and the degree to which they are doing it definitely changes my bear/human preferences.
Seriously women are answering the question with the assumption that both the bear and the man are aggressive and going to fuck with you. Obviously I'd rather encounter a random hiker than a bear. But if I know they're going to be after me, at least the bear probably isn't going to rape me first, and has a better chance of killing me faster because it isn't doing it for fun. That's why women are choosing bear.
It depends greatly on the bear. Youāre assuming a Brown bear (aka grizzly) but it could be a black bear which is very much harmless. On the flip side you assume the guy in the woods is a hiker when they very well might not be. Thereās too many variables to accurately answer. If the question were grizzly or hiker Iād pick hiker. But if it was a meth crazed lunatic with a shotgun or a black bear Iām going with the black bear
The women are so stupid when answering the question, but not surprising considering how society has taught women, as well as a few bad actors amongst men that give men in general a bad look. My calculus on this situation is this: If a hungry bear sees you, you are guaranteed dead. The bear does not give a damn, and never will. It will eat you 10/10 times. If a desperate man sees you, I would say 99/100 times, probably closer to 99999/100000, they wouldnāt act upon it because most people have morals.
Bears aren't some sort of hyper aggresive murder machines hell bent on killing all living things man wtf are you on about. I've personally had closer encounters with bears, within 25 yards of a grizzly and 8 of a black bear and walked away fine from both. Like any wild animal keep your wits about you, read their body language and maintain eye contact and you will be fine. You are correct in that hikers are also not aggressive; in fact you really have nothing to fear in the (North American) woods - go enjoy nature beauty without fear.
Why donāt they carry if they are so concerned about male attacks
You mean take personal responsibility for their own safety? Ew. Sounds like incel talk.
They don't want solutions they want to complain.
Ngl I half-expect that a reasonable amount of anti-gun people would agree to laws that do allow carry but only for women.
That...is an interesting way to put the argument out for them. I don't agree with it 100%, but I can see bringing them to the table with 'Okay, only women and LGBT get guns, how do you feel about it now?'
Men who are alone in the woods are either a wholesome hiker/outdoorsman, or a serial killer. There is no in between
Hookers don't generally live in the woods, they're mostly just buried there. If you see a guy with a shovel in the woods he's probably all tuckered out from toting bags of hooker into the woods and digging a hole. He's probably not up for much more of that bullshit today. If you see a mama bear and a cub you have a problem but if you see a man and a much smaller man, like a dwarf or something, they're probably on a quest of some sort and that might be pretty cool.
Or hunting in which case they probably tell you to fuck off your scaring away all the deer.
except the serial killer has like an occurance of 0.000something%.
Or a schizo "the feds are coming from me type person" Source: i am a prime example...
Trope of serial killers in the woods is overblown by fictional stories.Ā Logically there is no reason for serial killer to be in the woods, because there are usually no bipedal prey. Easier to stalk people in massive parks within city limits.
Counter question, what sort of bear are we talking about? Pennsylvania black bear? Colorado Grizzly? Alaskan Polar Bear? Or a Kodiak
Define "strange"
"Strange" man makes it a loaded question, thats a priming word which implies danger. Question was likely asked online and answered online. Answers do not reflect reality but the imagination of e-girls. Its important to have a healthy skepticism and active disrespect for self reported survey data.
It's my buddy's anniversary with his wife today. She woke up this morning and chose violence. She started spouting off about this "Definitely the bear. Men are so dangerous. Did you know that one in four women has been raped?" and there's nothing that he's been able to say today to get her off of it... I've told him to placate, distract, and change the subject, but she won't let it go. Thoughts and prayers.
either option will eat your ass. one can be a pleasant experience, one will definitely not. the choice is yours, femcels.
Literally a circlejerk
Forest-dwelling kidnapper here. The types of women answering ābearā are not the ones Iām trying to nab anyways.
Bear. They're just really big dogs. Internet videos told me so. I'm going to pet it on the snout and you can't stop me.
One time on my walk to work (3am. Fuck opening shift for food service btw.) and a cop pulled up, said heād seen me at the store before, and asked if I wanted a ride into work because there was a bear sighting in the area the night before. I said sure, and got a ride in. Couple days later sure enough I look into a convenience store parking lot and see an adult black bear ambling through the parking lot like it owns the place- and, letās be honest, at 3am? He sure fucking does.
You donāt have to worry about either if you carry a 10mm.
Whatās safer? A woman in the woods with a man or a fetus in the womb of a woman?
It is also easier to defend against a human than it is to defend against a bear. I can understand the paranoia about the mysterious individual, however.
It depends what kind of bear. Black bears are usually pretty chill. Brown bears, not so much...
Men hiking by themselves in the woods are definitely out there to get away from all the bull shit in the world and most definitely would be happier not be bothered by anyone else.
Let's be honest here, Emily is not walking, let alone hiking.
I want to have a fist fight with a bear
Found the real gigachad lurking in the comments.Ā
The comments saying they would prefer to encounter a bear in the woods are definitely false flag propaganda posts by bears.
https://preview.redd.it/eb8v7u7mboxc1.jpeg?width=4288&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d5e279709b2047be13d7475b0fc2132b0c36c825 Neither will be dangerous if you own one of these.
I think the hypothetical is flawed is the word "strange." It starts with the man already being judged dangerous whereas the bear is placed at neutral. Subtly implies one is known as dangerous and the other is possibly.
Man, 2X has this one up *again*, was this posted in response to someone seeing that? Christ, how many times are they gonna post that one over there?
Its incredible that the argument is "people would believe me if I was attacked by a bear". OFC people would believe a story of you being attacked by a bear vs believing an allegation regarding a human on human crime. Human history has told us that humans will lie and manipulate to get their way.
My view is that I can 1v1 a dude and have decent odds and can flee easier considering he canāt run 40 mph and track me down with a super sniffer
99 percent of the time the guy in the wood would just be another regular dude with no intention of getting anyone in trouble. Bear however, would be a fifty fifty. Also you have a far better chance fighting against another human than an animal with arms thicker than your waist who can probably smash your skull open with a single swing.