She Would Rather Screw A Bear Than You
Planted May 4, 2024
Would you rather be stuck in a forest with a man or a bear?
You’ve seen the Man vs Bear debate. Lots of people break this down into women being irrational, or not understanding per capita, or being spiteful, man-hating feminists, and all of those are probably true but definitely missing the point. I saw a perfect example of this dialogue playing out in the following form:
Of course women would pick the bear!
If you were at a mostly empty zoo, overlooking the bear exhibit, and a strange man started approaching, would you jump into the bear cage?
What?? No, of course not!!
Ok, ok, QED, women are dumb, hahaha. Here’s what every woman is computing when she answers this question: “Would I rather be raped and killed, or just killed?” The correct answer is always the second, so she says bear. (If you don’t believe me, I will prove it) There’s no chance the bear is going to ravage her sexually, and the man might just kill her when he’s done with her anyways! And yes, of course this is dumb. She can probably avoid a man in the woods better than a bear. I’m pretty sure bears have a better sense of smell than men, not to mention that she can probably hurt a man enough to make him quit (try a big stick or a rock) if he can find her at all in the dark woods. Just imagine if the random man she happens to be trapped in the woods with is a beta! Surely a girlboss could whoop Caleb from HR’s ass! I know you first thought of a shirtless viking dude frothing at the mouth for female flesh, but there’s a better chance of the random man being a scrawny nerd who likes Nintendo. Or he’s fat and old, or he’s just a wimp. I have met orders of magnitude more of these types of men than the hulk you imagined. Surely she’s got a better chance with them than the bear!
But why does she assume that the unknown man wants to rape her in the first place? (I’ll prove it’s about rape, be patient…) If I were trapped in a dark forest overnight, I would be much more concerned with my own survival! “What if there’s a bear around?” Not to mention that I wouldn’t rape! I don’t want to! And every man reading this doesn’t want to rape either[1], and even if he did, he wouldn’t have the stones to do it. Raping a stranger in the woods is messy, bloody, painful: she’s crying and screaming, hitting and biting. Any man that wants that should be castrated, and if he thinks he could do it, he’s a psychopath and probably a killer. This is why most rapes have a social power imbalance or drugs/alcohol so she just takes it.
The midwit explanation of why the woman answering this question assumes rape is because the question primes her for violence. What part of “dark forest,” “trapped,” and “bear” doesn’t scream danger at her! So she assumes the most dangerous man and the worst case outcomes and does the math. Bear is better. But this doesn’t fully explain her conclusion.
Let’s change up the scenario a bit: imagine four girlfriends chatting at the coffee shop, lattes and handbags. The conversation follows:
If you were trapped in a dark forest overnight, would you rather face a man or a bear?
I don’t know, Stacy, I don’t go to dark forests.
Come on, which one?
Hmm, is he hot?
This scenario isn’t dangerous, just sort of humorous. In fact, it’s really difficult to imagine this conversation happening at all. These what-if games are guy conversation. I mean, how many Starbucks blondes have spent time debating the horse sized duck or 100 duck sized horses? Women don’t have this instinct, instead they have the instinct to avoid strangers in forests and bears and wrong parts of town, so the question is meaningless. And it’s a hypothetical. Extra meaningless. But you, a man, approaching her to demand an answer—”Who’s scarier? Men or bears?”—she recognizes the game you’re playing and she’s not impressed.
(The only time a woman is going into a dark forest is specifically if she’s with a man, specifically a man she trusts, extra specifically not you. Because you asked her this question.)
Who is scarier? Men or bears? “Great question”, she thinks. “If I say bears, he gets me to agree that whatever a man wants to do to a woman in the forest is less scary than a bear. If I say men, he gets me to agree that men are scarier than bears, but at least I can play up how repulsed I am by what a man would do to me in the forest.” Interesting. What if the question the man asked her was “would you rather be alone in the forest with a bear or with me?” Now things are getting really interesting! “If I pick the bear, I’m agreeing he’s dangerous, yet I didn’t run away when he approached me to ask this question. If I pick him, I’m saying he could do whatever he wants to me in the forest.” The only choice remaining is to pick the man and call his bluff by saying he’s not enough of a man to rape her/he’s unattractive. If she’s really not interested, she still says bear. If she wants to play this game, she’ll call your bluff.
My point is that this is the question you’re really asking, while covering your ass. This is like asking her hypothetically if she would date a guy who’s kind of like you. When you take yourself out of the question and substitute in men in general or some other hypothetical man, she can’t bluff you. She has all of the exposure in this game and you have none, and she doesn’t appreciate that. No matter what, she isn’t going to let you win.
Let’s consider how this interaction works without the question’s content. As a third party observer, what would you see from a distance? Young man approaches attractive young woman (she’s always attractive, right? nobody cares what a 300lb 3.5/10 would do in the forest) and asks her a question. Everybody knows its impolite to cold approach a woman, so you can reasonably bet that he’s a) a salesman, b) a Mormon, c) asking for her number. Every question he can ask is really either “buy it?” “Jesus?” or “date me?”; there is no fourth option.
This is also (finally) my proof for why she knows it’s about rape: because you asking the question is a sexual advance, and the premise is violent. Again, it’s totally uninteresting and not at all rapey if its a girl asking a girl, or a guy asking a guy (ridiculous, right?), or if she’s unattractive. She applies your sexual advance, asking the question, to the hypothetical guy in the forest, whom you substituted for yourself. She doesn’t want the advance now, and she especially doesn’t want it in the dark forest, ergo rape. QED. If you put yourself back in the question, she then gets to answer the question “would you lay me in a dark forest?”, which is not rape.
So, that’s what this interaction is: an overcomplicated sexual advance. You could be asking any question (“what’s your favorite kind of meat?”) and this is still the interaction you’re having. She knows. She’s used to it. She’s had this interaction since she was 13 and she’ll have it until the wall. When she chooses to play the game, she knows what’s happening: it’s flirting.
But wait, I missed something in my zoom out description. It isn’t just man and woman, there’s a camera too! After all, you only saw this interaction because someone videoed it. This interaction is three people, the man, the woman, and an audience. Where I saw this interaction, on culture wars Twitter, the audience was all saying the same thing. Bears are more dangerous than men, ergo she’s a stupid feminist, and women are all idiots who don’t understand per capita, and the west is dying because of AWFLs. That’s an interesting take about a young man and a young woman flirting over a hypothetical. In fact, this is an extra interesting take when most gender wars fighting happens over statistics, hypergamy Tinder criticisms, and Onlyfans hoes on the execrable whatever podcast. What is it about attractive young people flirting that would create such vitriol?
As I already said, the guy taking himself out of the hypothetical is why it annoys her. This is why women will extra ferociously state their preference to be mauled by a bear and then feel justified in their feminism. You’re a weak, loser man who put a condom on the conversation because he couldn’t face rejection, so then she feels justified in hating you. (Note: cause and effect.) Similarly, the audience imagines themselves in the place of the guy and gets offended that she rejects them. Then, they go to Twitter and rant about statistics and how women are so dumb, and then feel justified as anti-feminists. (Same cause and effect) This is what the gender war is.
Shockingly, it turns out that these videos are pornography that you use to masturbate by blackpilling over the state of women and that women use to masturbate by resenting men. When you ask the question putting yourself back in, acknowledging that you’re only really asking “date me?”, and when there is no camera and no audience, this is healthy intercourse. But the camera makes the interaction pornography, draining the audience’s attention from doing normal things—like going out and flirting with girls!—and redirecting it to hating each other, actually creating the gender war. You spend your free time misogynistically poasting on Twitter instead of going out and getting girls, because of your fear of rejection!
The man, the woman, and you the audience all go home alone and nobody has sex.
[1] “When is it ok to rape a woman?” https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/03/when_is_it_okay_to_rape_a_woma.html