No, to clarify, I mean just in public on the train or at a concert or a bar or whatever. The sorts of places where "mild" sexual assault of women by unfamiliar men is rather routine-- I'd posit much more common than assault of men by unfamiliar men in public restrooms, though I'm open to correction on that.

My underlying question being, at what point does looking put one in enough fear of touching that preemptive escalation to violence is warranted? Because from what I'm told by female friends, that fear is fairly commonplace in their lives, while violence is rather more rare.

I think I've adequately described the situation I'm referring to and the reason I feel violence is justified in that situation. Somehow you're ignoring all that. If you're in a bathroom, you're inherently close quarters, there's generally only one exit, there is an implied expectation of privacy, and witnesses are not plentiful. It's pretty obvious when looking has potential to turn to touching. That line exists right around the distance that touching is possible. If I can land a solid punch on someone's nose without taking a step, they're too close.

I'm trying to figure out what your agenda is; if you're trying to lead me into a trap. Are you trying to catch me saying that I don't hold the same standard to women? Because your "at a concert or on a train or in a bar" example misses the whole "nude" and "expectations of privacy" part of this story, not to mention the "trapped in a room with one exit and no witnesses".

Would I cross the room to punch someone? No. Would I use force to get them away from me? Well, isn't there a whole industry built up around women's self defense courses? I'm not answering your question because I don't feel comfortable with your intentions. I think you know the answer, I just don't know what you're trying to get me to say.

I feel like I was pretty honest in my last paragraph: My sense is that the sort of fear of sexual assault that you're describing is something women I know experience fairly often in public, fully clothed, with witnesses. (And their fear is reasonable, since sexual assault occurs in those same circumstances.) Their reactions vary, but never is preemptive violence on the table, for obvious reasons.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with extending your standard of self-defense to women who feel uncomfortable with the way men are behaving in public, but I also feel it would be hugely challenging to our social structure and I'm curious where you fall on the issue.

What I'm not comfortable with is saying "no, women shouldn't feel as frightened as I would" because the two situations are completely different. I'm not talking about how common these situations are, or how commonly violence is the outcome. I'm talking about how I would react in the very specific situation that is being outlined in this specific story.

I would urge everyone to reserve violence until it is absolutely necessary in your mind to prevent injury to yourself. But if it is necessary, I wouldn't blame anyone for it. Naked, vulnerable, cornered, and threatened has potential to bring out violence in anyone. It's basic fight or flight, except the flight option is taken out. I wouldn't punch someone on the train for staring at my clothed body and merely making me feel uncomfortable. I would punch someone on the train for staring at me and breathing heavily while keeping me from walking away.

Feeling uncomfortable isn't the line I'm trying to draw, feeling trapped and threatened is.

If I understand the scenario, and feel free to restate if I've got this wrong, you're talking about being at a public urinal and noticing another man staring lustfully at your junk. This places you in fear of imminent physical violence to which you feel justified responding in kind.

So, there's a general response from men here that this sounds like an absurd overreaction, but I'm not in that camp. If anything I'm trying to defend your point of view. It's just it sounds to me like you're describing a feeling of trapped, threatened vulnerability that is extreme and rare for men, but a daily occurrence for women, that goes something like this:

"Gosh, that man seems visibly interested in me as a sexual object despite the totally inappropriate context, and the fact that I haven't made any advances or invitations whatsoever. Well, I'm sure that's the hard limit of his disregard for social convention.

"Okay, he just told me to smile. Well, I'm sure that's the hard limit."

Now I'll distance myself from the herd here by saying I think men who act like that (a strict superset of men who might stare at your junk in the john) ought to experience some fear of physical violence themselves. My original question to you is whether you intend that to be an implication of your asserting your right to self-defense in this situation, where the consensus seems to be that it is unwarranted. Though perhaps I'm belaboring the point because it seems your answer is no, or at least no contest.

I can understand using force to prevent someone from touching you inappropriately. But that has the huge caveat that you must have reasonable evidence they are going to touch you inappropriately. Them standing and staring is not good enough.

Punching someone on the train for standing in your way is not reasonable either.

The problem with this discussion is trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all response to every possible situation. Life doesn't work that way.

It's all well and good for us to think about what we might do in a situation like that. In almost every case, that's not what happens when faced with that situation. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.

So let me be clear: it's extraordinarily hard to compare "what you would do" in a scenario when you have the luxury of thinking about it, considering the alternatives, and thinking about possible consequences. In the heat of the moment, when you've got seconds to react, you're likely to make a decision is widely different than the one you THINK you'd make.

Those of us who have faced violence in the past know this intimately. If you've never been held at the point of a gun (I have), then it's hard to comprehend the variety of emotions, positive and negative, that come to the surface when you're suddenly faced with that reality.

Even people who have trained their whole lives for violent encounters deal with this. I wouldn't get too worked up about not having all the answers at your fingertips.

That said, if I catch you taking a picture of my junk in the bathroom, it's not going to go well for you.

Consider this: if I bump you (even unintentionally), by the strictest reading of the law, I committed assault and battery. That's obviously ridiculous, so we use our common sense to keep society functioning. We consider intent, and the likelihood that someone would feel genuinely threatened by someone else's actions.

SO, to paraphrase your example: an average woman, who might lack the physical means to feel safe in the presence of someone who might be larger and looking at them in a sexual way, would be justified in feeling threatened.