• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

No, she doesn't. She never says that at any point she'll think "this guy is a rapist". She even says that she won't know unless someone actually tries to rape her. That's the whole _point_ in the Schrödinger's Rapist quip.

Now you're just arguing nonsense again. This is a blog piece, not a scientific study. Hardly anything is literal. She says:

"So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?"

If she didn't "think" this guy was a rapist, why the hell would she have to ask herself "Will this man rape me?" She has to think the guy is a rapist if she has to think will he rape me.

And that's her mistake, she doesn't HAVE to think anything, and especially not will he rape me. What she really wants to say is "Will this man harm me, is he capable of committing a violent act against me?" It's completely inflammatory to jump to "rape" like that.


She'll just adjust her risk assessment up or down, but there's no point where she says she'll call you a rapist even in her mind.

I'll be over here adjusting how much of an ass I think you are. I'm not saying you're an ass, I'm just adjusting how much of one I think you are.
:rolleyes:

But we do risk assessments anyway. E.g., try showing up at an airport with a strange metal box or a large bottle of strange liquid in your carry-on luggage, and you may see some over-the-top checks.

Nobody accused me of being an actual terrorist or bomber, but, yes, for a few minutes there, I was "Schrödinger's Bomber" so to speak. Which is a very different thing from being actually accused of being a real bomber.

I see your point, but don't forget this is policy. The airport treats everyone as a terrorist until they prove otherwise. They have a set of tests and if you pass them you are no longer considered a terrorist.

How exactly do you prove you aren't a rapist?

You're also confusing being accused and treated like a terrorist with being charged as a terrorist.
 
If she didn't "think" this guy was a POTENTIAL rapist, why the hell would she have to ask herself "Will this man rape me?" She has to think the guy is a POTENTIAL rapist if she has to think will he POTENTIALLY rape me.

[…]

The airport treats everyone as a POTENTIAL terrorist until they prove otherwise. They have a set of tests and if you pass them you are no longer considered HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO BE a terrorist.

I've made some super-subtle changes to your post. Do you distinguish between this and what you originally wrote or do you think they are the same thing? I see a big difference.
 
Last edited:
If you don't continue to press me in a conversation that I don't wish to engage in, I won't think anything of it. If you continue to press me, then I will be thinking that I may need to "escape" your attention in some way.
For me, it's not even about whether you're more likely to rape me or not. If you're annoying me and don't listen to my cues to quit annoying me, you've just become a hassle in my day that I didn't need.
That's why it has to go a step farther. If you see me looking out the window and you say hello, and I then make it clear I don't wish to engage in a conversation with a stranger, and you continue from that point, it's actually pretty simple. Somebody who engages somebody who has made it clear that they don't want to engage is somebody who doesn't respect boundaries.
Yes. Extremely annoying.
I'm not necessarily thinking rapist. The guy could be a simple creep or pervert, or possibly somebody who's just socially awkward.
That's good to hear. The article, unfortunately, comes across very differently, and that is with what I take issue.

She's probably not thinking that.
You're projecting. She tells us flat out what she's thinking. "So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?"

People seem to be spending a lot of effort telling us what they think this woman was saying and ignoring what she actually wrote.

No. It's based on a perception that comes from being in the lower quartile of physical strength. If a good 75% of the people you come across are capable of physically harming you, you make different risk assessments than somebody who's in the 90th percentile.
Yep. That's not what her article was about.

If she engaged in conversation with you, then she wasn't planning an escape route. I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.
As I said, the "conversation" was very short. It was just a few words. She was preoccupied choosing a soup. Or maybe like the women in the article, she was preoccupied planning how to get away from me. Because according to this article, I should never have said anything to this woman because she's asking herself if I'm going to rape her.

You can hem and haw all you want, but that's what the article says. According to her, I should have stood several feet behind her and waited in silence.

That's great. You had a mutually pleasant social interaction with a stranger. I have them too. Do I need to tell you a story or will you take me at my word? The author is talking about people who make it clear that they don't want to engage with a stranger.
According to the author, "When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist." She then goes on to say, "You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react?" She advises me to read the signals that she doesn't want to talk to me, and the author is telling me I can't even say Hi. C'mon, it's right there in the article. She set up the situation about saying Hi, not me.

As for why not? She tells me, "You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off." There's no back and forth exchange described there. She's telling me I can't say Hi to a woman if she's reading a book or working on her computer. It's right there in black and white.

I am utterly flabbergasted that people keep rewriting this woman's article for her.

I'd like to live in a world where a pleasant conversation with a stranger didn't turn into an expectation that the woman was now more likely to engage in sex with the man who initiated it.
You do live in such a world. Far more often than not, it doesn't turn into such an expectation. That's my point. Most conversations are innocuous. What you are doing is the same thing that racists do. They have a few run-ins with blacks, Mexicans, Asians, or whatever, so then it becomes, "I'd like to live in a world where I didn't have to worry that every time I see a Mexican walking down the street he's gonna steal my hubcaps."

We call people who make statements like that bigots. When somebody makes the same kind of statements about men being filthy pigs, we let it slide. Hell, lots of men cluck their tongues and say, "Yes, it is horrible, isn't it?"

She answered his question, that must mean that she now wants to go back to his place and take care of his erection, right?
If a woman asks me what kind of car I have, she's just fishing to see how much money I have so she can pretend to love me so I'll buy her things, right?

Oh, I get that you probably didn't say that to the lady at the restaurant, and you probably wouldn't say it to any lady on the bus. But speaking as the lady on the bus or the restaurant or the grocery line, I'm telling every man here and now that my pleasant exchange about the weather doesn't mean that the next topic should be your penis or my breasts.
And it's not, is it? You probably don't even realize how many innocuous conversations and brief exchanges you have every week with strangers or acquaintances. Keep some records and see for yourself how much confirmation bias is going on here.

And don't try to tell me the article is about guys who move straight from, "Is that an iPhone?" to "Are you wearing thong panties?" It's about guys saying Hi.

When that happens to you a few times, maybe you'll understand why some women don't like talking to strangers [black guys]. I would just like to live in a world where men [black guys] didn't ever do that. "Nice weather today." "Yes it is." "So you wanna give me head or what?" (<--- actual conversation stepping off a bus)
I altered your quote to reflect what I've heard other people say.

I have never been raped and I've never falsely accused anybody of rape or attempted rape. I've been hassled as described above on several occasions. Tell me what you think a more appropriate reaction should be, proportionate to the actual threat. Keep in mind that my physical stature is best described as "petite."
If you want to let the risk of some inappropriate comments keep you from having pleasant exchanges and meeting new and interesting people, that's your choice. It's also my choice to read that article and think that it's silly for a woman to think "rapist" every time a stranger approaches her and that I, the great guy she's seemingly addressing, should just keep my mouth shut.

Do you know what the end result is going to be if people like me listen to this woman? The only men who are going to talk to you are the perverts. Yeh, that's better.
 
Define "talking to me" in this context. The way I was brought up it is rude to insert yourself in someone's personal space (even if by necessity on a train) without at least saying something like "excuse me" or "good morning" or "How ya doin'?"

What I meant was that no one attempted to verbally communicate with me in any way, not even "excuse me" or "good morning". On second thought, though, this is not as useful as it could be, given that I only use public transportation rarely and frequently have someone else with me (so no one ends up having to ask for the seat next to mine, etc.).

I read that twice and still don't understand what you're trying to say.

... Sorry for the crappy phrasing, then. I'm inclined to just drop the point, as I'm not sure it's that important anyway, but I can try to reword it if you want.

Dealing with socially awkward people can be and is done without ever bringing up rape or escape routes. The fact is, based on very conservative estimates, that 1 in 150,000 stranger encounters results in a rape. She's obviously dealt with these "rude" people countless times without coming to harm. So have lots of other women.

The author, however, seems to be implicitly saying that men shouldn't do it because she (irrationally) perceives a serious risk (she plans escape routes on a bus). There's no mention of women doing it. Or children. What she does not say says a lot about what she does say. So, I dismiss the notion that this was some friendly lecture on picking up on social cues.

I get the impression, from your response, that you thought I was referring to a person dealing with socially awkward people. I was referring to a socially awkward person dealing with anyone.

Basically, I wanted your opinion on the following two premises and conclusion:
1) A socially awkward person, due to their reduced ability to interpret social cues, has less information available when making risk assessments.
2) It is usually better to err on the side of caution when making a risk assessment with incomplete or unreliable information.
Therefore a socially awkward person might justifiably make risk assessments that are far less forgiving towards others than normal.

A more general point might be that it's hard to generalize these judgments too much, since these risk assessments are inherently subjective, and two wildly different ones could theoretically be rational depending on the points of view.

So I realize that being scared sucks, but I also realize sometimes it's irrational. You really need to keep a clear head and evaluate the situation as it happens or let the fear take over you.

When I see a woman saying they live in fear and it defines their daily routine, what's wrong with saying "No, take control, evaluate your situation properly, don't let the fear define you".

Well, I view coming up with contingency plans and the like as a way of taking control. The author of the blog in question simply believes that a plan of action is necessary if the risk is higher than 0%, I guess... while that may seem excessive, what indications do we have that proves that she spends the same amount of time and effort on a plan for a 5% risk situation and a 75% risk situation? Or that she believes that the 5% plan has the same chance of getting used as the 75% plan? (I'm not trying to imply that there are no indications, I'm just curious where you get that impression, if that is the impression you're getting.)

In those situations I've been in where I started feeling worried, I always did come up with some type of plan (mostly "run like hell", along with some thought about the quickest way to a safe region). That wasn't necessarily because I believed the danger was serious, or because I thought I'd assuredly need the plan eventually. It was because I thought it'd be a nice thing to have if things did start going south and because it made me feel a little better.
 
Do you know what the end result is going to be if people like me listen to this woman? The only men who are going to talk to you are the perverts. Yeh, that's better.

You hear that, ladies? Be careful, or you'll be deprived of the small talk of UY. No soup advice for you! That'll teach you.
 
I'm not sure how that would qualify as rape under their questions if it didn't involve either. Over 60% of the yes results for women were for that first question which explicitly required one, the other, or both. (Again, accounting by itself for 1 in 10 women in the general population, as I already calculated in the other thread.) It hardly leaves a 60% where it's even possible to not have them, because, you know, you can't have 60% women raped _with_ force or threats, and 60% raped without, as it kinda goes above 100%.
I've read that several times and can't parse it. Don't assume I know what you mean by it or that or the other. Be explicit.

I explained my numbers already. Several times, in fact. Looking at the women who were raped as adults, 68% reported that the perpetrator did not "threaten to harm or kill." In that same group of adult rape victims, 57% reported that they did not "think she/he/someone close would be seriously harmed or killed."

The screening question separated "force" from "threat" using "or" in between. We covered this in the other thread. I wrote a lengthy response and you ignored it. If you want to address it, take it there. That's why I created the thread in the first place.

The only numbers I've ever seen you quote that would even vaguely support that, actually say that 43.1% of women (vs 21.3% of men) in the US DOJ report thought they or a relative are in danger of _serious_ injury or death. But even they don't say that everyone else was entirely free from any other threat or force.
Force has never been defined. See the other thread.

At any rate, I see nothing in either report, which would support such an assertion as that 60% (or so) of the rapes happened without any threat or force.
Good thing I never said that then, huh? My whole point is that force is not defined. It appears that 60% of the adult rapes involved force without a perceived threat of serious harm or an actual threat of [no modifier] harm. Like I said, I covered this in the other thread in direct response to you, so take it there.

So I really don't think you want to go down the road of now trying to argue which rapes were really rape-y enough when done against women, without ending up nuking the claim of most raped men in that redefinition too. And neither of us wants to do something that insensitive, right? ;)
Sometimes people go really far when building their straw men. Yours was huge. What I have explicitly said is that we don't know what was or was not reported for women when it comes to "force." As written, we don't know if coercion was included, for example. You keep wanting to me to make judgments about whether it should be or not when I explicitly stated that we should a) know what the data means and b) include this events so we get a more complete picture. Beyond that, we need to do the same for men, and the NVAWS blew it when it came to interviewing men. We know the data is not comparable.

PS: Also, oh, since you repeatedly seem bothered that the questions for men didn't include everything, they also reference another study where the question was so generic as whether they were ever forced to do anything sexual against their will. The numbers for that one were 22% of women and 2% of men. (See page 13.) So I think we can put that uncertainty to rest now.
Page 13 talks about "Rape Prevalence Among Minority Populations." Please try to be more careful. Second, what I think you are referencing is the NHSLS which asked about "being forced to do something sexual." There was no mention of will. And, of course, no definition of forced and "do" is ambiguous (if I allow myself to be fellated, did "do" something?). It leaves otu statutory rape. It's a terrible question.

It's disgusting to me how easily people are waving their hands and dismissing male rape. Some people seem to think that a man can't get an erection while being raped, so if he gets one, he wasn't raped. I wonder how many men believe that as well.

Just admit that the data for men is seriously flawed and quit making excuses.
 
Well, I view coming up with contingency plans and the like as a way of taking control. The author of the blog in question simply believes that a plan of action is necessary if the risk is higher than 0%, I guess... while that may seem excessive, what indications do we have that proves that she spends the same amount of time and effort on a plan for a 5% risk situation and a 75% risk situation? Or that she believes that the 5% plan has the same chance of getting used as the 75% plan? (I'm not trying to imply that there are no indications, I'm just curious where you get that impression, if that is the impression you're getting.)

If I've interpreted your question correctly, what I'm saying is why is she making the article about her 5% contingency plan, when she's really talking about the 75% contingency plan?

Her 5% plan is based on rape, the 75% plan is based on her being anywhere from uncomfortable to violently assaulted or murdered. She calls it "Schrodinger's Rapist" but it really is about "Schrodinger's Victim".

I'm telling you as a guy, a lot of guys are going to look at the article, see the title, read the first few lines and go "Oh God, another feminist going off about rape because some guy bugged her on the bus", and not finish reading the article.

I read the article a few times, I admit, she's not really saying all men are rapists out to take sexual liberties on any woman they see. I realize she's saying when women are approached by men they're evaluating what could happen if something goes wrong. I realize she saying there's a range of probabilities from 0 to 1 that something bad could happen. I realize that most of her article is rational and well meaning.

I'm just saying as a "general guide for men on how to approach strange women", making it about rape isn't necessary. Making up some number about the concentration of rapists isn't necessary. And making stuff up about how men don't have anything to worry about is a complete fallacy.

That's my general suggestion to the author from my male perspective after reading the article.
 
What I meant was that no one attempted to verbally communicate with me in any way, not even "excuse me" or "good morning". On second thought, though, this is not as useful as it could be, given that I only use public transportation rarely and frequently have someone else with me (so no one ends up having to ask for the seat next to mine, etc.).
Fair enough.

... Sorry for the crappy phrasing, then. I'm inclined to just drop the point, as I'm not sure it's that important anyway, but I can try to reword it if you want.
It's no big deal. I just didn't want you to think I ignored your point. I honestly gave it a shot. It could have been my perspective not your phrasing.

I get the impression, from your response, that you thought I was referring to a person dealing with socially awkward people. I was referring to a socially awkward person dealing with anyone.
You understood me correctly, and apparently I misunderstood you.

Basically, I wanted your opinion on the following two premises and conclusion:
1) A socially awkward person, due to their reduced ability to interpret social cues, has less information available when making risk assessments.
2) It is usually better to err on the side of caution when making a risk assessment with incomplete or unreliable information.
Therefore a socially awkward person might justifiably make risk assessments that are far less forgiving towards others than normal.
That's a loaded couple of questions. First, I have been arguing that most of the stranger encounters have incomplete and unreliable information when it comes to risk assessment, so it really doesn't matter if you have difficulties picking up social cues from others. If you're red-green color blind faced with a situation where red and green aren't gonna tell you squat anyway, it doesn't matter.

Second, it's not always "better" to err on the side of caution. One always has to weigh the risk levels and costs of making their decisions. I'm saying that stranger encounters leading to rape are exceedingly rare. Of course, if someone moves from stranger to acquaintance to friend to lover, the risk steadily increases. At the lover stage, the risk is orders of magnitude higher.

Third, and this is the real kicker, in my personal experience dealing with people who have difficulty with social cues (including those who have been diagnosed by clinicians in this regard), they rarely ever think their deficiency is the problem. It's like, "Yeh, I know, but I don't think that had anything to do with it. The other guy was being a jerk [whatever]. I didn't read it wrong." The more severe the diagnosis, the less likely I have found them to acknowledge their part in failed social interactions. Makes sense to me. Who wants to think they read a situation wrong? Who wants to think of themselves as handicapped in the head? So, I'm not convinced someone is likely to acknowledge such a weakness and actually do something about it the way you describe.

A more general point might be that it's hard to generalize these judgments too much, since these risk assessments are inherently subjective, and two wildly different ones could theoretically be rational depending on the points of view.
As I have said before, it's an ongoing process. The time you are most likely to see the biggest clues regarding danger are after you've become lovers. That seems to be the paradox, doesn't it? We're hearing from women about all these strategies for judging rapists on very little data, yet the vast majority of rapes are committed by intimate partners.
 
That's good to hear. The article, unfortunately, comes across very differently, and that is with what I take issue.

You're projecting. She tells us flat out what she's thinking. "So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?"

People seem to be spending a lot of effort telling us what they think this woman was saying and ignoring what she actually wrote.
Except that she didn't say that it was for every single exchange. She asks men to read women's body language and to be more careful when they're in situations (like an elevator or dark street at night) where a woman is in a more vulnerable position. It's about a man approaching a woman he's never met before, not about meeting somebody at work or through friends. You may think that I'm projecting some of my own thoughts onto the article, but you're saying that she's applying the same thought process every time a man approaches a woman. She's not.
As I said, the "conversation" was very short. It was just a few words. She was preoccupied choosing a soup. Or maybe like the women in the article, she was preoccupied planning how to get away from me. Because according to this article, I should never have said anything to this woman because she's asking herself if I'm going to rape her.
The article never said this. You were in a public place with other people there. That's not approaching a woman in a dark alley. You didn't continue to pursue a woman who made it clear that she didn't want to converse with you.
You can hem and haw all you want, but that's what the article says. According to her, I should have stood several feet behind her and waited in silence.
Except the article doesn't say that. She never says that a man should never ever ever speak to a woman he doesn't know. She asks you to be cognizant of the woman's body language upon approaching her, and her subsequent body language and verbal cues if you do initiate a conversation.
According to the author, "When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist." She then goes on to say, "You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react?" She advises me to read the signals that she doesn't want to talk to me, and the author is telling me I can't even say Hi. C'mon, it's right there in the article. She set up the situation about saying Hi, not me.
No. She said that if the woman smiles at you and sits with an open posture, it's okay to say hi. If she's sitting toward the window or with headphones on, and doesn't make any acknowledgement that you're taking the seat beside her, then it's probably a good idea to amuse yourself during your bus ride.

As for why not? She tells me, "You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off." There's no back and forth exchange described there. She's telling me I can't say Hi to a woman if she's reading a book or working on her computer. It's right there in black and white.
And why do you have a problem with that? If a woman is reading a book and doesn't look up to acknowledge you, why do you have to initiate a conversation with her?
You do live in such a world. Far more often than not, it doesn't turn into such an expectation. That's my point. Most conversations are innocuous. What you are doing is the same thing that racists do. They have a few run-ins with blacks, Mexicans, Asians, or whatever, so then it becomes, "I'd like to live in a world where I didn't have to worry that every time I see a Mexican walking down the street he's gonna steal my hubcaps."
Great. Now I'm a racist. Yes, most of my conversations with strange men are innocuous, but the few bad apples do spoil things when it comes to me wanting to make small talk with complete strangers. Why is this such a huge deal? So, I don't like talking to strangers, so what? Is it really any skin off your nose? I'm not outright rude to people; I just try to convey with my body language that I'm not interested in talking to somebody that I don't know. Again, we're not talking about meeting people in a social setting where conversation is expected (at a shop or restaurant, at work, hanging out after a lecture).
We call people who make statements like that bigots. When somebody makes the same kind of statements about men being filthy pigs, we let it slide. Hell, lots of men cluck their tongues and say, "Yes, it is horrible, isn't it?"
It's funny, though, that I've never had a woman ask me to blow her after I talked about the weather. This has happened with men at least a half dozen times. I don't care what their skin color is or even how old they are. I've said before that I really like men, but that doesn't mean I should trust every strange man who sits next to me on a bus and initiates conversation. If he's bigger and stronger than me, I'm going to be a little wary. It's not like I live my life in a bubble, but I do try to insulate myself from strangers in certain situations, depending on how I'm feeling that day. Some days I just don't want a hassle, even if the chance of it happening is small.
If a woman asks me what kind of car I have, she's just fishing to see how much money I have so she can pretend to love me so I'll buy her things, right?
Do women on the bus routinely ask you what kind of car you have? Does a simple conversation about the weather or local sports turn into her asking you to buy her gifts? I've had several seemingly innocent conversations with strange men that turned into requests for sexual favors. I would bet that most women could tell you similar stories. Do you understand why I could be a little nervous when that happens and that I have a reason to be wary that another unknown man may act in the same manner?
And it's not, is it? You probably don't even realize how many innocuous conversations and brief exchanges you have every week with strangers or acquaintances. Keep some records and see for yourself how much confirmation bias is going on here.
I know it's a rare occurence. But it's exceedingly unpleasant when it happens. There is absolutely no payoff for me having a conversation with a stranger. Chance of something really negative happening? Less than 1%. Chance of something really positive happening? Also less than 1%.
And don't try to tell me the article is about guys who move straight from, "Is that an iPhone?" to "Are you wearing thong panties?" It's about guys saying Hi.
And sometimes the reason a woman doesn't want to say "Hi" is because she doesn't know if the guy is going to get all creepy on her. She doesn't know him, and she doesn't owe him the pleasure of her company. If she doesn't want to talk to you, and makes it clear with her body language, why in the world would you pursue her?
If you want to let the risk of some inappropriate comments keep you from having pleasant exchanges and meeting new and interesting people, that's your choice.
Thank you. I don't find conversations with strangers pleasant in any circumstance. If you like having conversations with strangers, then have them with like-minded strangers. It's no hardship for you to avoid strangers who are avoiding you. The article is asking you to avoid making contact with strange people are clearly trying to avoid it.
It's also my choice to read that article and think that it's silly for a woman to think "rapist" every time a stranger approaches her and that I, the great guy she's seemingly addressing, should just keep my mouth shut.
It's your right to consider it silly. I don't have a problem with that. I do wish that more men could understand that women have reason to view the world with a different perspective than men. It's nothing to do with racism. I'm more at risk due to my size, and between the two of us, I'm the only one at risk of an unwanted pregnancy via rape.
Do you know what the end result is going to be if people like me listen to this woman? The only men who are going to talk to you are the perverts. Yeh, that's better.
No. The only men who are going to talk to me would be the ones who correctly read my signals that I'm open to talking to them, along with a handful of perverts. Why is it so hard to not talk to women who aren't in the mood to talk to strangers? From my experience, some men think it's a deliberate challenge to make them work a little harder at charming you. It's not.
 
So you know what he's talking about?

I sincerely have no idea what he means by saying I "bought" her article, and if you think I'm exaggerating about the insults, just go read what was put in the AAH from this thread.

:confused:

I said she's selling this article to women, not men. "Selling it", it's another figure of speech. Like when an actor does a really good job at conveying emotion to the audience, we say they are "selling it".

If they are "selling it" someone else is "buying it". If she's selling it to women, women are buying it. That's why I said "I don't understand why you "bought" it.

Unless you're a woman? In that case I can see why you're confused. My apologies. :blush:
 
:confused:

I said she's selling this article to women, not men. "Selling it", it's another figure of speech. Like when an actor does a really good job at conveying emotion to the audience, we say they are "selling it".

If they are "selling it" someone else is "buying it". If she's selling it to women, women are buying it. That's why I said "I don't understand why you "bought" it.

Unless you're a woman? In that case I can see why you're confused. My apologies. :blush:

Yeah, that doesn't help. I've been upfront about the weak parts of the article. I haven't "bought" all of it. There are parts I agree with. It's an identical technique to the 9-11 Truther gambit of, "You just bought the government's argument? Dude, you just believe what they say?"

It's an attempt to make someone feel ridiculous about a stance without actually dealing with the stance. If there's a point in the article you want to challenge, go for it. I hope you can do better than you've done this far, but your transparent BS gets more annoying with each post.

You're using that phrase to make it seem like I've been fooled or tricked, but that's just an attempt and wangling around the fact that your criticisms are spurious.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that doesn't help.

You said you didn't understand, I explained, you say it doesn't help. You're just trolling.

I've been upfront about the weak parts of the article. I haven't "bought" all of it. There are parts I agree with. It's an identical technique to the 9-11 Truther gambit of, "You just bought the government's argument? Dude, you just believe what they say?"

It's not a "gambit", you're over thinking this.

The author suggests this article is a guide for men on how to approach strange women and not get maced. I don't believe that for a second. You seem to believe it is. That's all I was suggesting in saying "you bought it".

It's an attempt to make someone feel ridiculous about a stance without actually dealing with the stance. If there's a point in the article you want to challenge, go for it. I hope you can do better than you've done this far, but your transparent BS gets more annoying with each post.

If you feel ridiculous it's of your own doing, not mine.

You're using that phrase to make it seem like I've been fooled or tricked, but that's just an attempt and wangling around the fact that your criticisms are spurious.

I'm not sure "spurious" is the word you're looking for here? I've criticized the author for claiming men don't worry about being violently assaulted or murdered. It's verifiable, hardly spurious. I've also claimed she can't determine the "rapist concentration" by reverse engineering the claim that 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime. It's not mathematically valid. I claimed it isn't written for men like the author suggests. That may be spurious. One can never really know what the authors true intentions were, but we can try to make some determination from how the article is written. I'm fairly confident it's an article by a feminist for feminists. YMMV.
 
Except that she didn't say that it was for every single exchange. She asks men to read women's body language and to be more careful when they're in situations (like an elevator or dark street at night) where a woman is in a more vulnerable position. It's about a man approaching a woman he's never met before, not about meeting somebody at work or through friends. You may think that I'm projecting some of my own thoughts onto the article, but you're saying that she's applying the same thought process every time a man approaches a woman. She's not.
Yes, she is. She put it all by itself in a one sentence paragraph so you couldn't miss it:

So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?


The article never said this. You were in a public place with other people there. That's not approaching a woman in a dark alley. You didn't continue to pursue a woman who made it clear that she didn't want to converse with you.
When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist.

When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm.

Look around. Are you in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a woman and try to strike up a conversation. The same applies if you are alone with a woman in most public places.

Except the article doesn't say that. She never says that a man should never ever ever speak to a woman he doesn't know. She asks you to be cognizant of the woman's body language upon approaching her, and her subsequent body language and verbal cues if you do initiate a conversation.
So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone.

Who isn't otherwise occupied in this world? We're always occupied, especially if you consider "looking out the window" as being occupied, the example keep putting up.

No. She said that if the woman smiles at you and sits with an open posture, it's okay to say hi.
The word "smile" appears once. It appears in the context of saying Hi to a cute girl who is looking out the window. She says not to expect a smile because "You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist." She's warning me off from even making the greeting.

If she's sitting toward the window or with headphones on, and doesn't make any acknowledgement that you're taking the seat beside her, then it's probably a good idea to amuse yourself during your bus ride.
(emphasis mine)
An innocent but poor choice of words in this thread. :p

She does say that if you speak and get some positive feedback, that's a green light. If you read it charitably, she might be giving tacit approval to initiating a conversation. Only her advice is not good advice if you think about it. Some people are just not comfortable rejecting other people in social situations. They feel like they have to be polite and smile. Lots of people take advantage of this all the time. Sales people do it. Panhandlers do it. And Ted Bundy style rapists do it.

And why do you have a problem with that? If a woman is reading a book and doesn't look up to acknowledge you, why do you have to initiate a conversation with her?
Do you define a friendly greeting as initiating a conversation? If so, then I do it when (say) finding myself through circumstances being in her what would normally be her personal space because I think that's the proper course of action. It says, "I acknowledge that you may be a uncomfortable as me, but I am showing that I am not a threat by acknowledging you as a fellow human being and offering a friendly gesture of greeting."

It's interesting how most women and lot of men don't get this. Do you ever see men nod at each other in passing? Total strangers do it because it's a way of showing respect. Stated another way, failing to acknowledge someone can be taken as a sign of disrespect. I've seen interviews with rough and ready, inner-city young men talk about this. It really bothers them when somebody walks by without even looking at them. "It's not like we're not even there. Like we're not even worthy of being looked at. Like we're some thing to be avoided."

Social interaction is complex like that. There's no "right" way to do it all the time.

Great. Now I'm a racist.
I never said you were a racist. What I pointed out is that if we substituted race for men, your comments would be taken very differently. Extremely differently. I think that should give you pause.

Yes, most of my conversations with strange [black] men are innocuous, but the few bad apples do spoil things when it comes to me wanting to make small talk with complete strangers [black men]. Why is this such a huge deal?
When you can understand why it would be a "big deal" if you said that about black men, you can understand why it might be a big deal about men in general. If I'm wrong, please explain to me how the thought process is any different. I'm willing to listen.

So, I don't like talking to strangers, so what? Is it really any skin off your nose?
You can do whatever you want. You brought yourself into the conversation by relating your personal experiences. If you're going to take it personally, then discuss things in the abstract. The reality is that I don't know you my opinion of what you do should mean nothing to you. And considering that I know little else about you besides what you've written, I haven't formed any opinions of you as a person. I don't view you as Schrodinger's Misandrist. That would be shallow and uncritical of me.

It's funny, though, that I've never had a woman ask me to blow her after I talked about the weather. This has happened with men at least a half dozen times.
I've never had a man brush his crotch up against me, but I've had literally a couple of dozen women intentionally rub their breasts and/or buttocks against me.

I don't care what their skin color is or even how old they are.
I know. The distinguishing characteristic is the penis. So the actions of six men out of a few billion on the planet have the strongest influence. At least the racists can point to things like how the incarceration rate for black people is so much higher than for whites.

I've said before that I really like men, but that doesn't mean I should trust every strange man who sits next to me on a bus and initiates conversation.
Good thing I never said you should trust them.

If he's bigger and stronger than me, I'm going to be a little wary. It's not like I live my life in a bubble, but I do try to insulate myself from strangers in certain situations, depending on how I'm feeling that day. Some days I just don't want a hassle, even if the chance of it happening is small.
That's fine by me, not that it matters. Personally, I think the guy who's gonna ask for a blow job is going to do it regardless. Then again, some guys get a little pissed when women refuse to acknowledge their presence. If you're going to treat every man you meet as Schrodinger's Rapist, it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not excusing anybody for saying such a rude thing, but if your goal is to avoid comments like that, I'm not convinced you're taking the best approach.

Seriously, in life if people treat you like you're an *******, there's a tendency to just act like one. It doesn't make it right, but it's real. Childish, yes, but real. I don't know the circumstances of your situations, but I don't think it's far fetched to thing that the reaction might be one of frustration. "You think I'm scum? Fine. I'll show you scum. It's not like I'll ever see you again."

Do women on the bus routinely ask you what kind of car you have? Does a simple conversation about the weather or local sports turn into her asking you to buy her gifts?
On a bus? I can't say. In a bar? Yep.

I've had several seemingly innocent conversations with strange men that turned into requests for sexual favors. I would bet that most women could tell you similar stories. Do you understand why I could be a little nervous when that happens and that I have a reason to be wary that another unknown man may act in the same manner?
I can understand it, but I don't have to agree with your level of response. It seems, however, that what you're telling me is that when you send signals to a man that you want to converse with him and have a pleasant conversation, he says something vulgar. Okay.

So, other than "has a penis" what observations have you made that might enable you to avoid those situations? That is critical thinking.

I know it's a rare occurence. But it's exceedingly unpleasant when it happens. There is absolutely no payoff for me having a conversation with a stranger.
So, you've never read "How We Met" stories? There's a lot of great people in the world, and 99.9999999% of them are strangers.

Chance of something really negative happening? Less than 1%. Chance of something really positive happening? Also less than 1%.
Define really negative.

And sometimes the reason a woman doesn't want to say "Hi" is because she doesn't know if the guy is going to get all creepy on her. She doesn't know him, and she doesn't owe him the pleasure of her company. If she doesn't want to talk to you, and makes it clear with her body language, why in the world would you pursue her?
Who said I wanted to pursue her? I'm not pursuing anyone. I like to talk to people. If they don't want to talk, that's fine with me. But I will offer that it kind of sucks when somebody doesn't want to talk to you because you are Schrodinger's Rapist.

Women don't see the other side of the coin. They don't get treated this way by men, so they don't know what it feels like. You want us to understand that an attempt at conversation might be viewed as a potential threat of harm. Fine. Have you ever thought that maybe men want women to think about how it feels to be a helluva nice guy in a loving relationship just wanting to have a little chat be viewed as a rapist because some ******* asked you to give him a blow job six months ago?

It's a two-way street.

Thank you. I don't find conversations with strangers pleasant in any circumstance. If you like having conversations with strangers, then have them with like-minded strangers. It's no hardship for you to avoid strangers who are avoiding you. The article is asking you to avoid making contact with strange people are clearly trying to avoid it.
We obviously disagree on what the article says.

It's your right to consider it silly. I don't have a problem with that. I do wish that more men could understand that women have reason to view the world with a different perspective than men. It's nothing to do with racism. I'm more at risk due to my size, and between the two of us, I'm the only one at risk of an unwanted pregnancy via rape.
I do wish more women could understand that it sucks to be considered Schrodinger's Rapist and being told "Don't rape." I do wish more women could understand that is sucks to be considered the gender that should do most of the initiating yet be told that our approaches are always considered in the context of harm.

I do wish more women could understand that it sucks watching a handsome man with a disarming smile wearing an expensive suit get all the "green light" signals from a woman who just moments before wouldn't even look at us, the ordinary looking guys in jeans and a clean shirt. It happens. All the time it happens. Sometimes we "know" that guy. He's a philanderer who disrespects and mistreats women.

Believe it or not, we guys are much better at pegging the type of men you want to avoid.

No. The only men who are going to talk to me would be the ones who correctly read my signals that I'm open to talking to them, along with a handful of perverts. Why is it so hard to not talk to women who aren't in the mood to talk to strangers? From my experience, some men think it's a deliberate challenge to make them work a little harder at charming you. It's not.
Why do you need to force this into a men vs women thing? Anybody who pursues a conversation with someone who doesn't want it is being rude. We don't need Schrodinger's Rapist to make that point.
 
Last edited:
creepy.png
 
When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist.

When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm.

Look around. Are you in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a woman and try to strike up a conversation. The same applies if you are alone with a woman in most public places.
Alone with a woman. Meaning the only two people there.
So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone.

Who isn't otherwise occupied in this world? We're always occupied, especially if you consider "looking out the window" as being occupied, the example keep putting up.
Do you suggest that I wear a sign that says "Don't speak to me?" It's okay to speak to somebody who's occupied if you need to ask a question, but why speak to somebody who's made it clear that they don't want to speak to you? If you start a conversation and they quickly and politely back out of it, it's wrong for someone to pursue it.
The word "smile" appears once. It appears in the context of saying Hi to a cute girl who is looking out the window. She says not to expect a smile because "You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist." She's warning me off from even making the greeting.
I didn't read that the same way. If a woman smiles at you, make conversation. If her shoulders are hunched up and she's looking out the window or at the floor, what do you get out of speaking to her?
(emphasis mine)
An innocent but poor choice of words in this thread. :p
Not so innocent. ;)
Do you define a friendly greeting as initiating a conversation? If so, then I do it when (say) finding myself through circumstances being in her what would normally be her personal space because I think that's the proper course of action. It says, "I acknowledge that you may be a uncomfortable as me, but I am showing that I am not a threat by acknowledging you as a fellow human being and offering a friendly gesture of greeting."
A quick nod or a hello is fine, and is not initiating a conversation.

It's interesting how most women and lot of men don't get this. Do you ever see men nod at each other in passing? Total strangers do it because it's a way of showing respect. Stated another way, failing to acknowledge someone can be taken as a sign of disrespect. I've seen interviews with rough and ready, inner-city young men talk about this. It really bothers them when somebody walks by without even looking at them. "It's not like we're not even there. Like we're not even worthy of being looked at. Like we're some thing to be avoided."
I do this too. I didn't take the article as making a quick nod when both people are uncomfortable. When she talks about "approaching" a woman and initiating conversations, that's clearly a different level. She's talking about seeing a girl that you may want to get to know, not talking about asking somebody if you can get the door for them when you see them overloaded with bags.

Social interaction is complex like that. There's no "right" way to do it all the time.
No. But there's no reason to bother people who do their best with their body language to indicate they don't wish to be bothered.
I never said you were a racist. What I pointed out is that if we substituted race for men, your comments would be taken very differently. Extremely differently. I think that should give you pause.
It doesn't give me pause at all, except to wonder why you think your analogy works at all. What are the differences between the races? The amount of melanin in somebody's skin? What does this have to do with actual differences between men and women, especially when we're talking about the potential for physical confrontations or sexual assaults? Are men and women evenly matched physically? Do men and women face the same risks when it comes to sexual assaults by either sex? We're not facing the same risks, and it's not "racist" or "sexist" to point out that I'm the only one who may get pregnant against my will. It's not sexist to point out that the average-size man could pummel the crap out of me if he chose to. Why do you ignore this?

When you can understand why it would be a "big deal" if you said that about black men, you can understand why it might be a big deal about men in general. If I'm wrong, please explain to me how the thought process is any different. I'm willing to listen.
Maybe you can explain how men and women are exactly the same when it comes to physical and sexual assaults. If you acknowledge that men and women face different risks, then you'll see that I'm not being sexist.
You can do whatever you want. You brought yourself into the conversation by relating your personal experiences. If you're going to take it personally, then discuss things in the abstract. The reality is that I don't know you my opinion of what you do should mean nothing to you. And considering that I know little else about you besides what you've written, I haven't formed any opinions of you as a person. I don't view you as Schrodinger's Misandrist. That would be shallow and uncritical of me.
I'm not a misandrist. I adore men. I grew up with my father and five brothers. I just don't like strangers. And I also don't immediately trust every and all men in my vicinity.
I've never had a man brush his crotch up against me, but I've had literally a couple of dozen women intentionally rub their breasts and/or buttocks against me.
Were you then fearful that you were outmatched if it came to a physical confrontation? If a guy weighs 100 pounds more than me, you're saying that it's somehow sexist of me to fear what he may do next.
I know. The distinguishing characteristic is the penis. So the actions of six men out of a few billion on the planet have the strongest influence. At least the racists can point to things like how the incarceration rate for black people is so much higher than for whites.
It's not just the penis, although it's often used as a weapon when it comes to men raping women. It's also size. Oh, and also the fact that most rapes are committed by men against women. Is it sexist of me to acknowledge that?
That's fine by me, not that it matters. Personally, I think the guy who's gonna ask for a blow job is going to do it regardless. Then again, some guys get a little pissed when women refuse to acknowledge their presence. If you're going to treat every man you meet as Schrodinger's Rapist, it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not excusing anybody for saying such a rude thing, but if your goal is to avoid comments like that, I'm not convinced you're taking the best approach.
So tell me what I should do, to be polite to all men even if they're going to get creepy, and to avoid an innocuous conversation suddenly turning vulgar. Maybe while you're at it, you can tell me the proper way to walk by construction sites so that the men don't call out crude things.
Seriously, in life if people treat you like you're an *******, there's a tendency to just act like one. It doesn't make it right, but it's real. Childish, yes, but real. I don't know the circumstances of your situations, but I don't think it's far fetched to thing that the reaction might be one of frustration. "You think I'm scum? Fine. I'll show you scum. It's not like I'll ever see you again."
Except I'm not treating people like they're scum. I've never been assaulted by somebody because I've treated them as scum. I've been assaulted by men that I've made the mistake of engaging in pleasant conversation. I've been assaulted by men because I made the mistake of dancing in their vicinity on the dancefloor.
On a bus? I can't say. In a bar? Yep.
I'm not complaining about how men treat me when I'm in a bar. I'm saying that I've had disgusting things said to me by men I've spoken to on a bus or on the street. I'm sure you'll tell me that it all happens equally to men as to women, and that the perpetrators are as likely to be women as men.
I can understand it, but I don't have to agree with your level of response. It seems, however, that what you're telling me is that when you send signals to a man that you want to converse with him and have a pleasant conversation, he says something vulgar. Okay.
Almost. I'm saying that there have been a number of times when I've responded to what I thought was a pleasant acknowledgement by a stranger to pass a few minutes with a discussion about good weather or poor performance by the Canucks that suddenly turned into a sexual come-on. Not at a bar, but on the bus and on the street.
So, other than "has a penis" what observations have you made that might enable you to avoid those situations? That is critical thinking.
Maybe you should tell me. From what I can see from my own experiences and similar experiences that my friends have had, the only common factor is that some men out there get a kick out of being absolute vugar pr*cks with random women they encounter.

The way I've tried to avoid those situations is by sending out clear signals that I don't want strangers to speak to me. Yet, I'm told that's also not critical thinking and overly responsive to the actual level of threat.

Can you think of a workable solution where I can be friendly to people in a way that ensures any given man won't suddenly decide to ask for sexual favors?
So, you've never read "How We Met" stories? There's a lot of great people in the world, and 99.9999999% of them are strangers.
I know. I meet them all the time. I find it best to meet strangers through shared interests in safe settings. School, work, mutual friends, there are plenty of ways to meet strangers that have nothing to do with accosting people on a public street.
Define really negative.
Asking questions about my genitalia. Telling me how awesome his genitalia is.
Who said I wanted to pursue her? I'm not pursuing anyone. I like to talk to people. If they don't want to talk, that's fine with me. But I will offer that it kind of sucks when somebody doesn't want to talk to you because you are Schrodinger's Rapist.
Does it really matter what reason a stranger has for not wanting to talk to you? You'll never know. Some people are like me and really don't like talking to people they don't know.

Women don't see the other side of the coin. They don't get treated this way by men, so they don't know what it feels like. You want us to understand that an attempt at conversation might be viewed as a potential threat of harm. Fine. Have you ever thought that maybe men want women to think about how it feels to be a helluva nice guy in a loving relationship just wanting to have a little chat be viewed as a rapist because some ******* asked you to give him a blow job six months ago?
So.....me not talking to strange men hurts their little feelings, is that what you're saying? Otherwise, I'm not getting this. I'm different than the author in that I'm not viewing random men as potential rapists, usually just people who are annoying me when I'd rather be left alone.

Why do you need to force this into a men vs women thing? Anybody who pursues a conversation with someone who doesn't want it is being rude. We don't need Schrodinger's Rapist to make that point.
We agree on the being rude part, and that goes for women as well as men. But if a man continues to pursue a conversation with a woman who doesn't want one, that does bring up a dynamic that isn't there when the roles are reversed. Like I said, if a woman continues to pursue you when you've made it clear you want to be alone, you know you'll be able to extricate yourself from the situation, and you know your chances of coming to physical harm are negligible. I don't have that luxury. It's not being racist, or sexist; it's just stating a physiological fact.
 
Last edited:

wow*
That's the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. And off the same blog, this Kate Harding is some piece of work. When did misandry start passing as feminism?

If anyone was questioning whether or not this article was published by a woman for men, or by a feminist for radical feminists here's your answer. I changed my mind, I don't think this author had good intentions. This is about driving a nail between the sexes. If it was actually trying to help men it wouldn't have been published on Kate Harding's blog.

@Tranewreck- I take it back, you were fooled. So was I. I bought it. I might not have believed the title was entirely sincere, that the article was written for men, but I did believe they were trying to be helpful. I see now this is just a clever piece of misandry. I was wondering how a professional author could make so many basic mistakes in writing a simple blog. :rolleyes:





*note to self, don't offer a woman a cigar, that's "perpetuating the rape culture".
 
In case anyone's unclear on the history: the "would it kill you to be civil" post discussing the xkcd comic that 3bp linked came first. The author made it clear in the comments that she didn't think the author of xkcd was intending to be sexist or promote rape culture or anything like that, and that's his work is generally pretty pro-feminism, but that this particular comic has unfortunate implications, i.e. that a woman who is facing away from you and typing on her computer on public transit actually secretly wants you to make a move on her.

There was extensive discussion in the comments section, in which the author of the "Schrodinger's Rapist" post introduced that term and gave a brief description of it. That led to the post that was linked in the OP of this thread.

I believe -- though I'm not entirely certain -- that this originally took place on a blog called Shapely [something-or-other] devoted to feminism and "fat acceptance." It was a group blog that I gather has since been discontinued, and the archives are hosted at kateharding.net, who was one of the original SA bloggers but not necessarily the author of any particular post unless it says otherwise.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom