Question for men: you are in a forest...

[We Are The Witches]

This is an obvious modification on some "thought" experiment that was popular some weeks/months ago, probably created to push an agenda and create divisiveness, so let's do it again! No, it's just my curiosity.

You can "meme" with your answer if you want, but honesty is preferred.

The title specifies that is only for men, simply for statistical purposes, but no one is stopping you from participating you in any way with this, regardless of sex/gender. You are encouraged to post why you chose that option.

---

So you are about to be deployed in the middle of a forest, miles away from any nearby roads or hints of a civilization or human activity, making a certainty that cooperation with another human will significantly raise your survival chance in this particular environment (for several reasons I won't enumerate, as it's tangential), and you have to choose if you want to do so alongside a man, or a woman.

Whoever you choose, means that the counterpart will also be deployed, but alongisde a brown bear, and somewhat far away from your deployment point. I.e: if you choose the man, you will be set free in that forest with him to get your way out, while some distance away, the woman will be set free alongisde the bear. And viceversa if you choose the woman; I should also mention that you don't know anything about the mental/physical state of the man/woman/bear.

* The reason for this is so that you know for sure there's a bear in the forest, it's just somewhat away; they could eventually find you if you take too long to get away from there. And the reason why the counterpart (man/woman) is also deployed with the bear is due to me covering certain "thinking outside the box" issues you don't have to worry about.

So, who do you choose and why?

 

[KittyGremlin]

Well, no matter what I choose the man/woman who is left with the bear will die for sure so the weight on my conscience is equal in both options.

Now, if it's an *extreme* survival situation where extra physical force is relevant then I'm going with another man. If it's in a mild forest with plenty of mushrooms and berries to scavenge then I might as well flip a coin who I'm going with, it probably won't make a huge difference.

Again, RIP to the bozo with the bear.

 

[888Flux]

 

[break these cuffs]

tl;dr - I'd like to choose the bear as it removes a huge unkown variable, otherwise it'd be a coinflip. Too much unknown.

I'm going to need a lot more specifics. What kind of bear? Why can't I choose to be with the bear? The overwhelming number of bears in my country are easily frightened and I'd probably want to be alone tbh. I have varying levels of experience with hunting, fishing, foraging, land navigation, hiking, primitive shelter construction, etc. I'm under no illusion that I'd die, but imo most people who'd come along would be a detriment. You need to find double the calories, find/construct larger makeshit shelters, there's twice the risk someone will get injured, etc.

With a healthly man who will take direction I have the best chance of survival. I guess at worst I'd have to leave him behind if he was crazy or a cripple or something. A reasonable worst case scenerio with the woman is we can at least bang a bunch before we starve to death. I don't think I could bring myself to kill and eat someone even in a survival scenario.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

Tbh there's no guarantee the bear would actually do something to that person. In fact I'd guess it's more likely the bear would just wander away, especially outside of any established personal territory.

Therefore it might be wiser to pick the woman as your companion, because they are women and therefore are helpless on their own; on the other hand, if the man gets put with the bear there's a very good chance the bear will go off with no conflict, and the man will survive long enough that you can hopefully run into each other down the line and then you'll have 3 people you can rely on to escape. You also don't have to have a woman death on your conscience.

Basically the bear person is effectively just forced to survive on their own for a little while, so you'd want to keep woman with you.

View attachment 6678628
View attachment 6678635

We're stuck in the forest now's not the time for drinking 40s and firing off your little green machine.

 

[The Early 2000s]

Do I know the identity of the people beforehand? If not, then not taking the man as your survival partner is stupid, strictly due to being biologically stronger (unless you end up with a wimpy nerd but the chances in the man's favor); assuming the bear is eating the woman a bit aways at that moment, it at least buys time for me and the other guy to prepare some rudimentary weapon/traps. If I do know, it depends on their usefulness/experiences.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

Uh, is it a fat chick?

 

[We Are The Witches]

A reasonable worst case scenerio with the woman is we can at least bang a bunch before we starve to death. I don't think I could bring myself to kill and eat someone even in a survival scenario.

I don't think people, men or women, in such scenario are generally up for sex with a complete rando (unless they're retards), and at best you'll get accused of rape afterwards. But you do you.

You also don't get detailed info, as stated.

Do I know the identity of the people beforehand?

Uh, is it a fat chick?

As mentioned, you don't know the mental/physical state of the man/woman/bear. You're just given this option, now you are basically forced to choose.

because they are women and therefore are helpless on their own;

Well, that's not very progressive on you.

 

[Flagstaff AZ]

I have nothing but respect for women. Survivability aside, their lives and wombs are worth more. Plus, less competition, right? Worth the risk. Though I'm no expert, biologically speaking, males are the inferior, disposable sex. I think it's funny how primates seem to be one of the few who manage to defy reality somewhat with their sexual dimorphism and even then one could argue their males are expendable.

I'd do anything to have a dommy mommy wife and lots of children...

 

[break these cuffs]

I don't think people, men or women, in such scenario are generally up for sex with a complete rando (unless they're retards), and at best you'll get accused of rape afterwards. But you do you.

How am I going to get accused of rape when nobody is ever finding the bodies? We're just two random people plucked out of existence. We're missing persons cases. Are we getting magically transported out before we die or something? Am I going to get accused by the people running it just because I chose the woman?

 

[One Winged Pear Farmer]

Woman so I can outrun them when the bear finishes with the other guy

 

[Gog & Magog]

 

[dick brain]

Well first of all, I don't need any help surviving alone in a forest nor traveling "miles" on foot through one, I've done it before, in bear country for that matter. In either case the other party is likely to be a hindrance and I'd rather just go it alone.

Even that aside, there are very few scenarios I can imagine in which I wouldn't say fuck you to whoever is presenting this dilemma. You want to impose these conditions on me and others, you can lick my balls, I carry at least one firearm at all times and I'll just shoot the psychopath trying to put several into a situation that is likely to result in the death of a nonconsenting party.

But in the interest of humoring your hypothetical: I let the woman decide. Either she's a reasonable woman (rare) and thus of higher than average value, or Darwinism does its thing.

In short, your hypothetical sucks.

 

[We Are The Witches]

How am I going to get accused of rape when nobody is ever finding the bodies? We're just two random people plucked out of existence. We're missing persons cases. Are we getting magically transported out before we die or something? Am I going to get accused by the people running it just because I chose the woman?

Seems like you've already given up.

If you get out of there, then that's what's happening.

In short, your hypothetical sucks.

Of course it does, that's >90% of hypotheticals.

The trolley-problem also sucks.

I have nothing but respect for women. Survivability aside, their lives and wombs are worth more. Plus, less competition, right? Worth the risk. Though I'm no expert, biologically speaking, males are the inferior, disposable sex. I think it's funny how primates seem to be one of the few who manage to defy reality somewhat with their sexual dimorphism and even then one could argue their males are expendable.

I'd do anything to have a dommy mommy wife and lots of children...

You will be welcomed in the Lolcow Salon, as long as you know your place.

To me, the life of a man and a woman without knowing anything else from them, is exactly equal. I will refuse to consider a "utilitarian" approach, if you can even call it that here, as none of you 3 will have any impact on the survivability of the species, I'd do so on the value I place on the individuals, equal on this case. So if I'm answering my own question, I'd do so after a coin-toss/similar.

For the same reason that if you told me that the woman was irreparably sterile, it would not change anything in the balance. In such case, under your criteria, the man then may be of more value than the woman, since he can be involved in reproduction while the woman does not.

 

[Jarl Varg]

 

[Londo]

Woman goes to the bear. The BP fags on here scream about how the bear is safer than any man; let's test that theory...

 

[break these cuffs]

Seems like you've already given up.

If you get out of there, then that's what's happening.

I hate to break it to you, but the scenario you present is a death sentence 99.9999999999999% of the time. It's pretty sexist to assume a woman is 100% going to accuse someone of rape just because they had consensual sex.

 

[We Are The Witches]

I hate to break it to you, but the scenario you present is a death sentence 99.9999999999999% of the time. It's pretty sexist to assume a woman is 100% going to accuse someone of rape just because they had consensual sex.

Not really, it should be high, but not practically impossible like you're putting it to be. But anyways, we can disagree.

It's not going to be consensual when in such scenario, arguably not, and honestly, most likely. That's because of the stress you're both under, so upon getting out of there and looking back, what's a reasonable thought?
That the one mentioning having sex in such scenario (you, the one who did) was someone taking advantage of their vulnerability.

Kind of impressed I'd get "have sex" so fast even on this thread.

 

[BirdUp]

I have nothing but respect for women.

You have clearly not spoken to many of them.

 

[dick brain]

Backwards somersault, pry off the womans jaw and use it as a boomerang to take out the man. He falls, grizzly goes straight for the easier meal.