Has the "Bear vs. Man" conundrum made you reconsider your writings?

[BobbyBrandt]

When asked whether they would rather encounter a bear in the woods or a random man in the woods, most respondents (women and men), chose the bear.

I am embarrassed and disappointed to acknowledge that if I was making this choice for my wife or daughter, I would also rather they encounter the bear.

This almost universal lack of trust and fear of the human male is something that I am going to have to consider in some of the stories I am brainstorming.

What say you?

 

[Privates1stClass]

Depends on the size of the bear I suppose...

 

[MSM1969]

This is basically the narrative drive behind shows like The Walking Dead. People are worse than anything, and generally male people are the worst of the worst. There are certainly populations under both ends of that curve, of course.

But yeah. If you're aiming for any kind of realism, there's an undercurrent of fear in daily existence that many don't realize exists. And just because it doesn't exist for you in particular, or because you specifically don't try to engender that fear in others, it's still there. No one gets to control how anyone else reacts to something.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

To some extent, I suspect that the survey response might be skewed by most people never actually having seen a real bear 'up close and personal', never actually having been subjected to the very real danger such an encounter puts them in.

A wariness of a stranger who might pose a threat is normal, of course, and hardly unjustified, but I think the question itself is bit biased.

 

[MSM1969]

To some extent, I suspect that the survey response might be skewed by most people never actually seeing a real bear 'up close and personal', never actually appreciating the very real danger such an encounter puts them in.

A wariness of a stranger who might pose a threat is normal, of course, but I think the question itself is bit biased.

I have to say that I assumed a metaphorical bear. Because the couple of times have seen a bear in the wild, even at a considerable distance, I damn near shit myself and could not get gone fast enough.

 

[TheLobster]

Just because people's perception of risk and danger is completely out of whack these days doesn't mean I should reinforce it in my stories.

 

[KeithD]

I'd be a little partial to meeting a bare man.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Question - is the bear having a picnic?

I mean, the question is set up to make it sound from the get go like the bear and the man are equivalent things to choose and then people start to think about what darkness lie in the hearts of the worst of us and that banjo riff from Deliverance starts playing in your head.

Why are you in the woods in the first place? He's probably there for a similar reason.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

In response to my earlier post, I have received a thoughtful PM from an individual I both know and respect. Their point was that the man-vs-bear question wasn't really meant to be literal, that it was designed to help others - men in particular - understand why (some? many? all?) women feel nervous in the presence of men.

I get that and I respect that. There is no doubt that women, no matter where or who, face a non-zero threat from men. Got it. Paint my full agreement on the wall so we can all see it.

That said, I still have my doubts and concerns about this sort of question. Particularly for women who have been the victim of a traumatic assault, being alone with a man or group of men can certainly be a cause for nervousness - I think I said something like that in my original post. One cannot argue either the reality of that nervousness or the why of it.

I do think however that most men, even the most switched-on, female-sensitive, supportive men, are going to, deep down inside, resent being classified as worse than a wild animal. True, it's not a charge most men will consciously consider, but I think most men will subconsciously note it. It's not a question of 'all men aren't like that' (which is both true and irrelevant for this discussion); it's that once again we are embarking on an exercise in polarization, of splitting the entire world into just two categories - threats and threatened - based solely on a genetic coin toss happening nine months before anybody was even born.

It may be natural to think that way, but I don't see it as being all that helpful in the long run to present it like that. It is a false dichotomy, I think. Having personally been through some seriously stressful times and incidents, some of them actually dangerous and some of them involving close encounters with large critters, I am morally certain, would bet my last dollar, that when the chips are seriously down, very few people of either sex would not seek support and solace from another human being (KKK hoods, swastikas and somebody else's head worn as a trophy being obvious off-ramps) rather than a carnivore regarding every other being as Food.

Rant ends. I understand the intent of this... call it a thought exercise perhaps. I still disagree with its value or validity.

Sincere empathy for those who have been hurt.

tp

 

[djrip]

To some extent, I suspect that the survey response might be skewed by most people never actually having seen a real bear 'up close and personal', never actually having been subjected to the very real danger such an encounter puts them in.

A wariness of a stranger who might pose a threat is normal, of course, and hardly unjustified, but I think the question itself is bit biased.

I have to say that I assumed a metaphorical bear. Because the couple of times have seen a bear in the wild, even at a considerable distance, I damn near shit myself and could not get gone fast enough.

I find the concept ridiculous. Do we mean somewhere in the whole woods, or right in front of your face? The bear is obviously more dangerous in any situation where you actually engage. Your hope with the bear is that you don't actually end up close to it. Or that you have a high powered hunting weapon. Your hope with the man is that he's not one of the half a percent of men who might try to harm you, using human capabilities that you might be able to counter with other human capabilities like hiding better than he can track, or stabbing or shooting or beating him with a stick.

Disclaimer - I don't know anything about bears. But they're scary. But most instances I've heard about of running into other hikers on the trail have not been scary.

 

[PeytonMirabelle]

I think it's like a lot of things online, in that we see the worst, most outlandish responses condensed down to sound-bite form.

I suspect if those red-pill type channels asked a similar question--such as, "Would you rather be married to a woman or a bear?" I bet they could omit the common-sense or sarcastic answers and build a compliation of responses along the lines of, "At least the bear won't divorce me and take my money and kids." Both questions are basically ridiculous, and are generated to show the worst excesses of human fear-mongering and silliness and IMO, are designed just to generate clicks. This content lives and dies by the maxim of, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."

So short answer, no, it hasn't affected my writing thoughts.

 

[lustychimera]

When asked whether they would rather encounter a bear in the woods or a random man in the woods, most respondents (women and men), chose the bear.

Pretty sure they don't allow that on Lit...

I don't think I've ever written a righteous enough character where this was something to consider. Like, for them, there's bigger issues afoot.

 

[MSM1969]

I don't think this kind of question should influence your writing unless that's the kind of thing you're writing about. Is your character a woman who has reason to be fearful of a man or men or being alone or whatever? Or is your character a man who is either self-aware enough or isn't so to understand why he might be fear-inducing?

Or are you writing a fantasy where two folks hiking in the Blue Ridge Mountains (where there are bears, by the way) stumble upon each other and feel the desperate need to fuck?

That kind of question is fine for influencing your thinking either as a writer or as a normal human being, but for me, the art has to come from someplace true to my characters and my intent (though we all know about the fallacy of author intent), not because I might alienate some reader whose reactions I have no control over and who I probably wasn't writing for anyway. I could be as careful as possible in my depictions of anything and still get bad reactions. That's the business.

Now, if someone wants to write about a couple of hunky Bears finding each other naked and erect out in the woods, I'm down for that.

 

[MrHereWriting]

When asked whether they would rather encounter a bear in the woods or a random man in the woods, most respondents (women and men), chose the bear.

I am embarrassed and disappointed to acknowledge that if I was making this choice for my wife or daughter, I would also rather they encounter the bear.

This almost universal lack of trust and fear of the human male is something that I am going to have to consider in some of the stories I am brainstorming.

What say you?

I'd rather run into the bear than the people who refuse to play along with this question. The bear might make me laugh.

To seriously answer your question, the answer is 'no.'

 

[StillStunned]

I haven't written any stories set in the woods.

No, wait, one. The woman gets groped, shagged and stabbed, but not by the same man.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Zeb Rawlings: Do you remember the story Pa used to tell us about fightin' that grizzly bear?
Jeremiah Rawlings: Yeah.
Zeb Rawlings: And I asked him, I said, 'Now, why'd you get in such a fix? Do you like fightin' grizzlies?' He said, 'Well, not 'specially. I just wanted to go somewhere and the bear was there first.' I guess I just wanna go somewhere, too.

 

[SimonDoom]

I've done a lot of backpacking. I've seen bears. I've had bears steal food from my camp. I'm not afraid of bears, but I respect that they are wild, potentially dangerous animals, and I think you'd be crazy to pick an encounter with a random bear over an encounter with a random man. The reality is that if you are really in the woods, more than a mile away from cars, it's unlikely that you will encounter a dangerous person. Human predators generally don't hang out in the woods. They hang out in populated areas where they are likely to encounter victims and where they can make quick getaways. If you are miles from a trailhead, you can't make a quick getaway. People you encounter in the woods tend to be friendly, good people. A more pertinent question would be, would you rather encounter a random man on a deserted street in a city or a random man on a deserted trail in the woods? I think one would be smarter to pick the man in the woods.

 

[KeithD]

For a Literotica story, I'd most certainly pick the man. A bestiality story won't fly here.

 

[AnnieLit]

I guess most of those replying live in the cities and have never met a bear. Because in most places I would say I have much better chances with a human, doesn't matter if they are a man or a woman. If I see a man on a path in the woods, most likely he is a harmless hiker, we say "Hi" and go our separate ways. If I see a bear on my path in the woods, something is very wrong with that bear if it allowed himself to be seen and is not hurrying away from me.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Bears usually aren't out to get a human. But if a woman is on her period, it isn't a good time to be walking the woods. 'Tisn't a sexual thing, it's a food thing. Now, a man in the wooded area of a city might be a sexual or power thing. That's when it might be time for some mace, pepper spray, or run, baby run! Unless you've brought a gun to a knife fight. Then it's head, heart, nut sack, or cock shot.

I guess most of those replying live in the cities and have never met a bear. Because in most places I would say I have much better chances with a human, doesn't matter if they are a man or a woman. If I see a man on a path in the woods, most likely he is a harmless hiker, we say "Hi" and go our separate ways. If I see a bear on my path in the woods, something is very wrong with that bear if it allowed himself to be seen and is not hurrying away from me.

 

[SimonDoom]

I guess most of those replying live in the cities and have never met a bear.

I agree.

Whether you encounter a man or a bear in the woods, the odds are that nothing is going to happen. But the thing is this. It might, and if it does, you sure as hell want to be facing a human instead of a bear. You can take certain precautions to fend off a man with bad intent. But if the bear has bad intent, you're a goner. You can just forget about it. You aren't going to outrun a bear, and you aren't going to outfight a bear. If you're dealing with a black bear, you aren't going to be able to get away by climbing a tree. If the bear wants to eat you, the bear will eat you. Whether you carry pepper spray or a gun, it's going to work better against a human than against a bear.

 

[nice90sguy]

Bears eat people? I always thought they ate big jars of HUNNY, except for polar bears, which I guess eat frozen yogurt

(I was brought up in the city)

 

[SimonDoom]

Of course, what you REALLY want to avoid is ManBearPig. Half man, half bear, and half pig. I'm serial.

 

[nice90sguy]

BTW best thread in the AH. I'm learning a lot about my sexuality from it

 

[MSM1969]

Bears eat people? I always thought they ate big jars of HUNNY, except for polar bears, which I guess eat frozen yogurt

(I was brought up in the city)

At the bathhouse, a Bear ate my ass once (more than once).