Schrödinger Rapist, once again.

The Schrödinger rapist begins with the premise that all women fear that every new man they meet can rape them, so they have to be cautious and consider that everyman is a potential rapist until the man rapes them (he is a rapist) or not (he is not a rapist).

I think that the basic premise is flawed, not all the women and not even a majority of women live their lives thinking that all the unknown men can be rapists. And in any case this is the problem of the women who think that all the unknown men are potential rapist, not the men.

I think you may have misunderstood SR

The point is that every new man a woman meets could potentially be a rapist, so the woman being prudent takes steps to reduce her risk and hazard of being raped by not making the assumption that the man is not a rapist and that men could do the world a favour by taking steps to make those risk reductions easier.

Essentially, when walking down a dark street at night, don't walk 2 feet behind the woman on her own, walk on the other side of the road etc.

On the other forum I did some math on this based on rape statistics (victim surveys and convictions). The probability of getting raped outside or in public places by an unknown person in one's lifetime in the U.S is around 0.2%. Dividing that figure by some estimate how many strange people one meets in life-time, gives the approximate chance of getting raped in any particular encounter.

It's going to be pretty low.

Also, going by statistics, women should fear their husbands and friends the most. Those are the real Schrödinger rapists. Not unknown guys on the street.

The main problem, when you bring SR to a bunch of people that have a decent chance of understanding Schrödinger's Cat is going to be a huge misunderstanding. The Cat was a joke, a quantum entanglement joke, about how absurd it is to have simultaneous states of alive/dead. Dragging Schrödinger into a sarcastic essay about risk assessment means that the first interpretation runs somewhere along the lines of.."every man is simultaneously a rapist/non-rapist until they are observed not-raping or raping...hence 'every man is a potential rapist'"...just as the cat is both alive and dead until an observation is made. It is absurd.

Rename it Starling's Rapist then the physics can be left out and Schrödinger's name doesn't get misattributed nor will there be the initial misunderstanding with respect to "potential rapist".

Will even still be able to refer to it as SR.

Every time I wanted to discuss this further, I got stopped in my tracks. Either by claiming I misunderstood the intent of the article, or the concept itself, when I say that I object to being assumed a potential rapist. Apparently if you say the concept assumes men who approach women are 'potential rapists', that's a misunderstanding. Well, it's clearly not. The article clearly states that in her mind -- the author, Phaedra Starling -- and many other women, too, when a man approaches it's safer for them to assume the man could be a rapist. That is, quite literally, exactly assuming men who approach women are potential rapists. Exactly. So why is it a misunderstanding again? I don't get it.

Anyway, the concept to me, as someone who is familiar with the original experiment, Schrödinger's Cat, is strange and illconceived. Because the name to me invokes an experiment to disprove, or rather ridicule, quantum superposition (which theorises that molecules could be in two states or several simultaneously but when measured only give a result corresponding to only one of those states) by putting a cat in a box with a flask of poison, a radioactive isotope and a geiger counter, close the box, wait, if the monitor detects radioactivity the glass of the flask will shatter releasing the poison and after a while the cat would supposedly be dead and alive at the same time until the moment you observe to note which is which. The experiment was, according to Schrödinger, to point out how ridiculous this theory of quantum superposition was. The punchline is that the observation doesn't have to be from human eyes, but anything that has the ability to measure: like the geiger counter. In other words, where the cat is 100% alive and 100% dead is not reliant on human interaction.

So if we're to apply that to Schrödinger's Rapist, a man approaching a woman would be both a rapist and not a rapist - at the same time. Which is just ridiculous, and that's the point.

Therefore in my opinion, I suggest we give it another name. To call it Schrödinger's Rapist is just a misunderstanding of a different kind and I suspect the author may not have comprehended what the original experiment with the cat was supposed to entail. Pascal's Rapist, perhaps? It fits. If so many women fear the men approaching them should be would-be rapists, it's easier if you assume that they, in fact, are rapists than not to. It's also much more in tune with the concept the author writes about, that it's better to be safe than sorry. They don't have anything to lose by it, either. Well, perhaps the paranoia that comes with it, but I imagine that's a price they're willing to pay. And pay it gladly, apparently, since men are such sexual deviants they'd rape women on the street. In public. Furthermore, since my opinion on the concept should now be obvious to anyone reading me, it would also be appropriate to the para-religious approach it's taken within the sceptic community.

Pitchguest wrote:
Therefore in my opinion, I suggest we give it another name. To call it Schrödinger's Rapist is just a misunderstanding of a different kind and I suspect the author may not have comprehended what the original experiment with the cat was supposed to entail. Pascal's Rapist, perhaps? It fits...

With the Wager, yes, but I vote we leave all the scientists that had nothing to do with it out and attribute it to the author.

Diogenes wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:
Therefore in my opinion, I suggest we give it another name. To call it Schrödinger's Rapist is just a misunderstanding of a different kind and I suspect the author may not have comprehended what the original experiment with the cat was supposed to entail. Pascal's Rapist, perhaps? It fits...

With the Wager, yes, but I vote we leave all the scientists that had nothing to do with it out and attribute it to the author.

Agreed.

Also, seems we thought about the same thing.

Pitchguest wrote:
Also, seems we thought about the same thing.

I'm going to guess everyone that has been yelled-down for "not getting it" is probably on the same page we are.

Merged as is essentially the same thread - Cuduggan2K2
Yes, that's right - its dangerous to promote such a flawed concept to women, it promotes misconceptions about the danger of public places and misconceptions about strangers.

Shrodinger's Rapist in a nutshell is the idea that a woman cannot know whether or not any man she meets is not a rapist without any substantial information about that man. That's based on a description at the original a+ forum.

The description is very simple, and even has a nugget of truth - you can't know if a man is not a rapist. It's also true that a man cannot know if any man he meets is not a potential mugger. You can interchange the identity and the crime with any number of variables, and the basic concept remains equally true. I don't know if the black man I've just met could stab me or steal my car. I don't know if the woman I've just met could falsely accuse me of rape. I don't know if the Muslim I've just met could be a terrorist. And on, and on, and on, and any bigot could pick and choose statistics to justify the paranoia at the core of the concept.

The opposite of SR is also equally true. The person I've only just met could be totally awesome.

What practical use is Shrodinger's Rapist? The idea extends to adjusting behavior to make people feel safer or more comfortable. If you are in a dark street and it is just a man and a woman walking down it, the man should cross the street to make the woman feel safer. Interchange the identities again - a black man should cross the street to make a white man feel safer. That is of course incredibly racist. Shrodinger's Rapist is a sexist concept. This might be the point at which someone may say its not the same thing 'cause privilege. And to those people I'd say, bullshit. A white middle class woman has more privilege than a black man, and statistically men are much more at danger of random violent crimes than women, but SR still says the man should cross the street. Privilege as a term is very loaded and is deserving of closer examination, perhaps in a different thread. In short, as I see it, privilege can be a valid term, but is overused, and is used to dismiss the views of others, and is used to justify discriminatory beliefs and behaviors (such as SR).

SR demands that a woman looks at herself as a victim, or a victim-to-be, or a potential victim, and I don't see women that way at all. There is a problem at the original a+ and the proponents of a+, an unhealthy attitude of perpetually owning a victim-hood status. I am saddened by this because it doesn't make room for self-empowerment, or the ability to take charge of yourself. In fact, things that can be empowering, such as situational awareness, knowing which parts of town are dangerous, knowing self-defense, I have seen at the original a+ labelled as 'victim blaming'. But that may be going off into a different and equally complex topic that again could be its own thread.

I've yet to get to the meat of the issue. Why have I stated that the promotion of Shrodinger's Rapist is dangerous? Could holding the philosophy of SR actually increase your chances of being raped?

Shrodinger's Rapist promotes misconceptions. A woman is much more likely to be raped by someone she knows than by a stranger. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says that 26% of rapes are committed by a stranger, 56% of rapes are committed by someone who is either an acquaintance or an intimate acquaintance. 61% of rapes occur when at least one person has been drinking (which is why situational awareness is so important, but the a+ people think that would be victim blaming), while only 3.6% occur outdoors, 31% occur in the perpetrator's house, and 26% occur in the victim's home. You are significantly, MASSIVELY, less likely to be raped in a street than you are in your own home.

When you treat a stranger as Shrodinger's Rapist in a public place? In the street, in the library, in the grocery store, in the elevator, your paranoia is not justified. The potential threat is negligible. You are more likely to be struck by a car in public than raped. The man's appearance also doesn't make a bit of difference.

The most dangerous place statistically for a woman to be raped, is in the home of a man she already trust enough to enter. The second most likely place is her own home. Shrodinger's Rapist is flat out BAD advice, and it isn't based in reality, its not based on facts. It's not only impractical, and teaches you to put your guard up at the wrong times, its demeaning to men to place them within this SR box.



(Thanks to a blogger known as Shadow of a Doubt for first making me aware of the statistics I've cited here).

Personally, I've toyed with "Schrödinger's Bore", "Schrödinger's Jerk", "Schrödinger's Con", "Schrödinger's Leech" and "Schrödinger's Creep" as some of the less threatening and more prevalent subspecies of people whom I do not wish to waste any of my time on. I want to catch them early and block them as rudely as needed for permanent effect - none of them are worth one second of my time. Phone salespersons are the ones that get the fewest words out of me, for example.

And before anyone asks: yes I do realize that I will end up blocking some wonderful people by accident - but hey, I'm almost 50 years old and have a pretty full life, and that is pretty much enough for me right now.

That the men who fall into one or more of those^^ categories more often tend to approach women strangers in public places (store, underground, sidewalk, carwash...) and that the women more often tend to approach women acquaintances in shared/private places (kids' school, local library, health club, shared yard) makes the problematic women often harder to block fast and effectively, IME.

It may well be that my "merciless" and "selfish" attitude also takes care of the truly dangerous ones as a side effect. But I do have a physical safety routine for getting into the car at the underground parking at our mall - and a few extra touches if I'm in a parking lot that is unfamiliar. And if I need to move around alone and on foot downtown when it is dark, I always take along my big umbrella, and always wear shoes that I can run in. And I mean absolutely always. I'd much rather be ridiculed for my safety habits daily than hurt or dead just once (in other words: screw the statistics - I ain't plannin' on being one).

Eowyn wrote:...
That the men who fall into one or more of those^^ categories more often tend to approach women strangers in public places (store, underground, sidewalk, carwash...) and that the women more often tend to approach women acquaintances in shared/private places (kids' school, local library, health club, shared yard) makes the problematic women often harder to block fast and effectively, IME.

On a personal note I neither understand nor have I ever approached a female I didn't already have some acquaintance with in a way to initiate an attempt at a mating opportunity. Maybe there have been females that have assumed I was doing so if I held a door out or performed some other perfunctory courtesy that I might do for anyone...but I wasn't.

Eowyn wrote:
But I do have a physical safety routine for getting into the car at the underground parking at our mall - and a few extra touches if I'm in a parking lot that is unfamiliar. And if I need to move around alone and on foot downtown when it is dark, I always take along my big umbrella, and always wear shoes that I can run in. And I mean absolutely always. I'd much rather be ridiculed for my safety habits daily than hurt or dead just once (in other words: screw the statistics - I ain't plannin' on being one).

Everyone needs to have an "urban survival" strategy, though, that's only common sense. Me being 6' is meaningless if someone intends to mug me at gunpoint. On the other hand I can recognize that I'm not as appealing as a target for any kind of assault as someone smaller than me. If you got a CCW permit and packed a firearm that you know how to use without violating any carry laws I would still not attempt any invalidation of your personal safety strategy. (The people that carry guns that don't know how to use them proficiently are, in my opinion, creating more danger for themselves and others.)

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:I think you may have misunderstood SR

The point is that every new man a woman meets could potentially be a rapist, so the woman being prudent takes steps to reduce her risk and hazard of being raped by not making the assumption that the man is not a rapist and that men could do the world a favour by taking steps to make those risk reductions easier.

There are several problems to this explanation though.

1. The term "Schrödinger's Rapist" is a problem. It derives of course from Schrödinger's cat whereby the cat is presumed to be both alive and dead. In the context here the definition gives off the implication that an unknown man is both a rapist and not a rapist to a woman. If it really does not mean that then the term is inaccurate.

2. That women by in large view the world through these lens. There's really no reason believe significant numbers outside of A+ think this. I know from reading that a great deal of the active participants, the regulars are victims of sexual abuse, assault and rape and as a result view unknown men with suspicision. I would say they are entitled to their fear and would not condemn for their anxiety on this. The point is that this could be the same for any group of victims. Any victim of violent assault could have long-term paranoia of the outside world. The suggestion that people ought assume (in this case) that all women view strange men through the lens of SR is not helpful. It is not helpful for those who have the fear as it informs them that their fears are justified and rational.

3. I certainly understand, for the record that women do evaluate any strange man that talks to them. To assess briefly and subconsciously that they are safe to interact with. I do not decry women for doing that but it is important that such risk-observation is not an exclusive behaviour to women. We all do this. When a stranger approaches me I would subconsciously do the exact same thing. This is normal behaviour. Framing it in terms of SR is unhelpful and unfairly elevates any risk-taking that women do over other people. A woman is uneasy in an unpleasant neighbourhood? So am I. Sometimes also though it might just be my own problem. My own phobia. My own prejudice. The neighbourhood might be rundown or contain a large amount of ethnic or religious minorities or youths but it still may be safe. Worth pointing that out.

Essentially, when walking down a dark street at night, don't walk 2 feet behind the woman on her own, walk on the other side of the road etc.

See, I won't do this. That is the infantilisation of women. If I happen to be behind a woman on a street then I just happen to be there. I have every right to be there and I won't be told I am less of a social liberal or social justice advocate for not presuming fear.

NOTE: many posts came while I composed this. I'm posting anyway, as this took some effort to write. Hope I don't step on anyone.


I think Schrodinger's rapist can be criticized on several points. Overall, there is some good stuff in there.

The title implies that every man the woman meets is in a state of quantum superposition. That the man is both a rapist and not a rapist until a measurement is made. Of course, you cannot observe "not a rapist". So, basically, going off of the implication of the title, every man is both a rapist or not a rapist until the man rapes you. Perhaps a better title would have been Pascal's rapist.

Phaedra Starling begins by reassuring the male reader that he's a nice guy. Fair enough.

They then set up the notion that this nice guy reader may want to find someone to love. Fair enough.

They then point out that as a man, the reader probably does not constantly think about getting violently assaulted or killed like women apparently do. This bit seems to me to be presumptuous. First of all, many men do have concern for their personal safety. Some do persistently ponder their safety. Some have even been the victim's of violent assault. Next, not all women constantly ponder their safety. I think the author could have made the point more effectively without the inherent implication of male privilege. Many people are wary of strangers, and being aware of that could inform your actions for the better.

They then pile on with some of the precautions they take to help assure their safety. That would be fine, but the implication is that as a male, the reader doesn't suffer such concerns. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't, but it still comes off as preachy and presumptuous of a man's perspective.

A stranger may consider you a potential rapist. Some simple facts and figures are given to support this. Finally, we get to the title and its utter disregard for Schrodinger's Cat. To a stranger, you are Schrodinger's rapist.

"Fortunately, you’re a good guy. We’ve already established that. Now that you’re aware that there’s a problem, you are going to go out of your way to fix it, and to make the women with whom you interact feel as safe as possible."

No, I'm not going to go out of my way to fix it. I don't mind the basic point that someone who doesn't know you... doesn't know you and what you may do. I don't mind taking a few minor steps to perhaps reassure those who might be worried about me. I'm not going to do anything drastic though. I refuse to go through my life considering everyone else as Schrodinger's Rape Victim.

1. "I set my own risk tolerance."

People will assess the situation and their safety as they will. If you approach someone, they will respond as they respond... no matter how you may prefer them to respond. Accept that. Good point.

2. "you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment."

Don't approach a woman whose body language suggests they would not welcome such an advance. Great advice!

Your appearance, clothes, and behavior effect whether or not a woman would be open to your advances. The author doesn't express this with much tact, however. Still, a good point.

You should also be aware of the situation before you approach a woman. Even so, I will never follow the instructions and ask "If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?" No self respecting person would. That goes well beyond what the basic point here should be: consider how a person may view their current situation before making an advance towards them. If they are alone, it's probably not a good idea. If they are trapped without easy access to remove themselves from the situation, it's probably not a good idea.

3. "Learn to understand and respect women’s communication to you."

This part is quite excellent. Could have used more tact. Pay attention to what people communicate with body language. If someone clearly doesn't want to be disturbed, don't disturb them.

4. "If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem." Respecting what people tell you will go a long way in helping others be more comfortable with you. Failing to do so will go a long way in helping others conclude you are a creep and potentially a threat. Great point.

5. "Don’t rape. Nor should you commit these similar but less severe offenses: don’t assault. Don’t grope. Don’t constrain. Don’t brandish. Don’t expose yourself. Don’t threaten with physical violence. Don’t threaten with sexual violence." Of course.


That's my take on it anyway.

Sheesh, seems the notion that Pascal's Rapist is more appropriate than Schrodinger's rapist has reached critical mass as far as memes go.

Dar wrote:Sheesh, seems the notion that Pascal's Rapist is more appropriate than Schrodinger's rapist has reached critical mass as far as memes go.

I maintain we should go with "Starling's Rapist" rather than dragging scientists that had nothing to do with it into it...as well as proper authorial attribution and avoiding some kind of "appeal to authority" fallacy in the name.

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:I think you may have misunderstood SR
The point is that every new man a woman meets could potentially be a rapist, so the woman being prudent takes steps to reduce her risk and hazard of being raped by not making the assumption that the man is not a rapist and that men could do the world a favour by taking steps to make those risk reductions easier.

What, specifically in his post is not in tune with "schroedinger's rapist theory"? Where's the misunderstanding?

This is the criticism most commonly lobbed at people who object to this particularly vile and divisive piece of dogma. Somehow the fact that critics see it for what it is, namely painting/treating half of humanity as terrible criminals because some of them might be, is "not getting it". Somehow we're not supposed to consider it hysterical and overreacting, because, well, "rape is bad, dontchaknow". We're supposed to take this piece of vile misandry and accept it out of empathy and compassion for the women who are terrified at the prospect of rape.

I'm sorry, but your risk assesment failure doesn't require me to treat myself as a monster. If feminists are able to substaniate data supporting the theory that rape by unknown men in public places is a legitimate risk, I'll be more open to the idea, but as long as they ignore the uncomfortable data that shows that women can also be the rapists rather than just the victims, I don't see the need to comply with their paranoia and false sense of being at risk.

It used to be the case that atheists said "you don't have the right not to be offended". That same logic applies here. It's not our responsibility to go out of our way to accomodate the most paranoid and emotionally unstable members of society. There are bounds of reason when if comes to how far one has to go to accomodate other people, and treating yourself like a criminal because the other person is convinced that you might be, is patently absurd.

AliRadicali wrote:...treating yourself like a criminal because the other person is convinced that you might be, is patently absurd.

Especially when you can remove "men" substitute "black" or "Muslim" or whatever (or just add a racial term adjective to men), replace "rape" with "assault" and see the entire premise turn into a racist rant instantly.

Diogenes wrote:

Dar wrote:Sheesh, seems the notion that Pascal's Rapist is more appropriate than Schrodinger's rapist has reached critical mass as far as memes go.

I maintain we should go with "Starling's Rapist" rather than dragging scientists that had nothing to do with it into it...as well as proper authorial attribution and avoiding some kind of "appeal to authority" fallacy in the name.

I was never advocating for a name change. If the author wants to call it Schrodinger's Rapist, that's what its called. Maybe someone could come along and write a less problematic version with a less problematic name.

Furthermore, calling it Starling's Rapist fails to remove one of the problems. It implies the X, in X's Rapist, out to be a victim of rape.

Dar wrote:
Furthermore, calling it Starling's Rapist fails to remove one of the problems. It implies the X, in X's Rapist, out to be a victim of rape.

You know where the name "Phaedra" comes from, right? The author chose that pen name for a reason?

Diogenes wrote:

Dar wrote:
Furthermore, calling it Starling's Rapist fails to remove one of the problems. It implies the X, in X's Rapist, out to be a victim of rape.

You know where the name "Phaedra" comes from, right? The author chose that pen name for a reason?

Are you suggesting that Phaedra Starling brought about the death of a man that she loved, but who did not reciprocate, by telling her husband that he had raped her? Maybe it should have been called Schrodinger's False Rape Accuser!

Dar wrote:

They then point out that as a man, the reader probably does not constantly think about getting violently assaulted or killed like women apparently do. This bit seems to me to be presumptuous. First of all, many men do have concern for their personal safety. Some do persistently ponder their safety. Some have even been the victim's of violent assault. Next, not all women constantly ponder their safety. I think the author could have made the point more effectively without the inherent implication of male privilege. Many people are wary of strangers, and being aware of that could inform your actions for the better.

That is my point. How many women constantly think about getting violently assaulted or killed? I don't know any. Perhaps because I am incredibly privileged, or perhaps because I have never heard about rape culture before I begun to read american feminist websites. I don't think that there is a huge difference between the rape rate of USA and Spain, but in here I don't know a single woman that lives in constantly fear of getting raped. I have the feeling that Schrödinger rapist is an northamerican culture thing.

anima wrote:

Dar wrote:

They then point out that as a man, the reader probably does not constantly think about getting violently assaulted or killed like women apparently do. This bit seems to me to be presumptuous. First of all, many men do have concern for their personal safety. Some do persistently ponder their safety. Some have even been the victim's of violent assault. Next, not all women constantly ponder their safety. I think the author could have made the point more effectively without the inherent implication of male privilege. Many people are wary of strangers, and being aware of that could inform your actions for the better.

That is my point. How many women constantly think about getting violently assaulted or killed? I don't know any. Perhaps because I am incredibly privileged, or perhaps because I have never heard about rape culture before I begun to read american feminist websites. I don't think that there is a huge difference between the rape rate of USA and Spain, but in here I don't know a single woman that lives in constantly fear of getting raped. I have the feeling that Schrödinger rapist is an northamerican culture thing.

It is, actually. <--- linky

The origins of the phrase (<--- linky) comes from second-wave feminists of 1970 North American culture.

AliRadicali wrote:... this particularly vile and divisive piece of dogma ... painting/treating half of humanity as terrible criminals ... hysterical and overreacting ... vile misandry ... require me to treat myself as a monster ... their paranoia and false sense of being at risk ... the most paranoid and emotionally unstable ... treating yourself like a criminal ... patently absurd.

Schrödinger's Bore: presents nothing new

Schrödinger's Histrionic: ... and all of that in a shrill tone

Foe function to the resque

Dar wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Dar wrote:
Furthermore, calling it Starling's Rapist fails to remove one of the problems. It implies the X, in X's Rapist, out to be a victim of rape.

You know where the name "Phaedra" comes from, right? The author chose that pen name for a reason?

Are you suggesting that Phaedra Starling brought about the death of a man that she loved, but who did not reciprocate, by telling her husband that he had raped her? Maybe it should have been called Schrodinger's False Rape Accuser!

Okay. I clearly should have brushed up on my Greek, because knowing the circumstances around "Phaedra" now, it kind of makes me think it's a Poe.

I mean, it's advice to women about men who might be rapists with a name derived from a woman who falsely accused a man of rape because he did not requite her love. Wow.

As far as I can see, the actual Shrodinger's Rapist post isn't problematic at all in terms of content, and the title is certainly catchy.

The tone is a bit silly, going from condescending to preachy with a strange final reminder not to commit crimes, but the actual content is mundane. And I'd agree that risk assessment of strangers happens, that one should be aware that one is a potential threat in certain situations, and that the issue of sexual violence gives this process an added dimension when it comes to mixed gender situations.

What I do find problematic, though, and why I'm generally reluctant to enter into discussions centered on it, is that, like all questions of perceived risk with low statistical probability, it's extremely difficult to work out the appropriate response. We people are prone both to pretending there's no risk at all and to keeping one risk in mind so much that we ignore other risks. Our minds are very bad at processing probability. I simply don't know what the correct level of fear or 'taking into account' possibility of rape is for a woman, and, like all these topics, the perception of the threat also has a cost in itself. One can, for example, even look at the Shrodinger's Rapist argument as one asking that men help to reduce the psychological damage done by the fear of rape, and therefore make the case that it's this fear which is exaggerated.

I know that, and am uncomfortable with, the fact that conversations like this can alter people's perceptions of threat, and I've got no way to tell what the consequences of this are. In particular, when this topic is brought up in the context of gender politics I worry that this aspect hasn't been well thought through, especially when it appears that it's the high level of emotions which this topic elicits which seems to be the motivation for bringing it up in the first place.

I admit that I am uncomfortable with discussion of the issue of rape generally, because it's a disturbing feature about our species and my gender (male) in particular, and accept that this in itself is not a good reason for not discussing it. Especially as it seems likely that our reluctance to discuss it is making the problem worse by creating an environment not conducive to reporting of rape or the believing of victims. (In the UK at the moment there's a case in point involving a celebrity who we all thought was a bit odd, but was in fact a rapist). It does seem to me, though, that the conversations we most need to have are about how we can actually identify what has gone on in cases of real criminality, as opposed to ones about people's perceptions in situations where everyone has in fact acted innocently even if in a creepy fashion.