A short anecdote to set the scene. On the way home from voluntary today I had the unfortunate experience of having a panic attack.

Oh noes Xem not again, what was the trigger this time, you ask?

…a bunch of 16-ish year olds at the bus stop.

edit: I'm not blaming the 'fucking 16 year old feminazi sluts!!!' for the impact SR had on me today. It's the other way around. I don't feel I'd have embarrassed myself in front of 16 year olds were it not for 'toxic' beliefs such as literal SR.

It was about 9pm and the city had gone dark so it was understandable, but the reaction indicates a general attitude that everyone seems to have in a world of 'rape culture'. A youngish girl (attractive, for sure) was just chilling on her phone. She glanced over nervously at me. I don't know why, I'm just as afraid of her as she is of me.

I, being the 'gentleman' that I am (and y'know, scared of people with vajayjay) sat a full 3 seats away from her. There's a reason for this; I don't want no false rape accusation.

Well, guess what. Her friends came and felt they needed to cockblock me, so they, all 5 of them, sat around her as if to bar me. Even though I was deliberately giving her space so as to put her at ease because I sympathise with how a young woman might feel being approached by a strange man at night, even though it has affected my emotional health as was the point of this post. Not only that, butI was holding 3 bags including a carton of milk, some new boxers and Kingsman (little HMV spree!) So, not playing Fuckeroo tonight love. At best I may have attempted a friendly conversation. (I'd tried this with some of the cashiers and a girl on the bus stop, who may or may not have been giving me IoIs, hard to tell, non-MGTOW incels see IoIs in everything, aspies can't always read body language. People say I have a cute/handsome face I s'pose.)

I assume they thought I was going to rape her or at least make an unwanted advance. This notion upset me. I am not a rapist! I am just an adult male.

At this point I had one of my mini breakdowns. I don't know if you've ever seen a grown 6' man autistic man have a mini breakdown but it can be a bit odd. Like the opposite of the cocky dominant 'Alpha' persona. Mine involve shifty eyes. Room goes dizzy. Movements jerking everywhere. Hunched up. Leering. In this case I got bad chest cramps. Tears welled up somewhere in there. I recently realised that I freeze and get exhausted quickly because I don't like being outside for too long, and my tapping as if air drumming is actually [stimming from nerves.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimming)

They laughed. I could hear them teasing and glancing over in my direction in embarrassment.

OK, so much waffle.

The concept of Schrodinger's Rapist is imo a damaging construct. It has hindered my capacity to socialise with women, given the risk I may be an offending party, and I'm sure I'm not the first.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate…of course I would resent having to act in this way, think in this way.

What pisses me off about this is that just today I have had a conversation with 2 bluepillers about RP concepts and AWALT in particular being dehumanising. The double standard is real.

However, to rub salt in the wound, you know that shitty 'treat all guns as loaded' comeback reds make all the time to explain AWALT better? It was a feminist trope first.

It continually astounds me how many people don’t seem to understand the basics of the Schrodinger’s Rapist analogy. Being that my blog has been getting some traffic from people who don’t get it, I thought I’d take a stab at elucidating the idea. If you haven’t read the original post, go there now, and I’ll wait here while you finish.

Okay, good. Now, the Not-Really-Getting-It responses to this analogy are generally along the lines of:

You think all men are rapists! (incorrect)

You think all men are potential rapists! (correct or incorrect, depending on what you actually mean)

The “all men are potential rapists” bit is not saying what many people seem to think. It’s not saying that you in particular, Dear Reader Who Would Never Rape Anyone, might rape someone. It’s saying that an unknown person in public that you have no information about could potentially be a rapist. That is what you, Dear Reader, are when you approach a stranger in a public place. To that stranger, you’re an unknown. You know yourself out to ten significant figures, but a random stranger can guess out to one or two at best.

Imagine a friend asks you to play a game of Russian roulette. Serious Russian roulette, with a six-shooter and a single bullet. If you say no because you don’t want to die, is it appropriate for your friend to object by arguing, “What, do you think all of the chambers are loaded?” Of course not, because that’s not the point, is it? The point is that one of them is loaded, so each turn of the game you play could potentially kill you.

In this Russian roulette scenario, you, Reader Who Would Never Rape Anyone, are an empty bullet chamber. But not all of the chambers are empty, and on a given turn, the people playing the game have no idea whether the chamber that’s lined up to fire is you or one with a bullet in it. Until the gun is fired, Schrodinger’s Bullet. This is analogous to the type of situation Schrodinger’s Rapist is describing.

If you still think the most reasonable response to Schrodinger’s Rapist is that it’s ridiculous because not all men are rapists, I have made a list of other arguments you ought to be comfortable making, to illustrate the point.

  1. You’re about to have sex with a new partner. That partner asks you to get tested for STIs beforehand. You respond with, “What the hell? Not everyone has an STI, you know!”
  1. You get bitten by a wild animal. Your friend suggests you get rabies shots just to be safe. You respond with, “What the fuck? Not all wild animals have rabies, you know!”
  1. Your friend advises you to wear a seatbelt. You respond with, “What the shit? It’s not like you’re going to get in a crash every time you drive, you know!”
  1. You want to have sex with a new partner, they want birth control to be used. You respond with, “Seriously, do you think women get pregnant every time they have sex?!”
  1. Your friend suggests you get a flu shot. You respond with, “Jesus, do you think everyone gets the flu every year?!”

Does it make sense now? Schrodinger’s Rapist is not an argument of personal accusation, it’s an argument of statistics and precautionary measures. It’s an argument from trying to make the safest decision while not having all of the information that would be ideal to have. Not everyone has an STI, but a new partner could potentially have an STI, which is why people get tested. Not every wild animal has rabies, but the one that bit you is potentially a carrier of rabies, and it’s better safe than dead. Not every car trip ends in a crash, but every car trip could potentially end in a crash, which is why you wear a seatbelt. Not everyone gets the flu every season, but there is a chance that you could get it, so you get inoculated.

*If everyone could see a random stranger on the street and just know, “Oh, that one’s not a rapist”, then the whole analogy would break down. The same way Russian roulette wouldn’t make sense if you could look inside the gun before pulling the trigger. Obviously in the real world, though, we don’t magically know who’s who. A random stranger cannot magically tell that you, Dear Reader, are not dangerous, the same as they cannot tell which chamber has the bullet, which animals have rabies, which car trip will end in a crash, etc, etc. In short, the salient point is that just because you know you’re not a rapist doesn’t mean everyone else does.**

Now, this blogger entreats you, implores you, can we at least move on to criticisms that actually demonstrate an understanding of what they’re arguing against? They don’t even have to be good ones, I promise, I just want them to be a nonzero level of relevant.

For a discussion of the claim that Schrödinger’s Rapist doesn’t make sense because most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows, or because rape isn’t common enough to justify this type of risk assessment, see the follow-up to this post, For Those Who Don’t Understand Schrodinger’s Rapist, Part Two.

For those who think that the racism analogy is appropriate: You should read these links (Shuffling feet: a black man’s view on Schroedinger’s Rapist, Being Cautious of Men Versus Being Cautious of Blacks, relevant Reddit conversation), and then you should acquaint yourselves with the relevant statistics: crime statistics by race, sexual assault statistics by Stop Street Harassment, sexual assault research by Hollaback.

Replace this title, 'For Those Who Don't Understand Schrodinger's Rapist' with 'For Those Who Don't Understand AWALT'. in the above 'Rapist/s' with 'Woman' or 'Women'. 'All Men Are Rapists' with "All Woman Are Like That'. 'You, Dear Reader Who Would Never Rape Anyone' 'You, Dear Woman Who Would Never Hurt Anyone.'

What exactly is the difference? As I called out the Nice Guy hypocrisy, so I'm calling out a double standard with regards to these very similar heuristics.

And, before you say AWALT is not analogous to SR because SR applies to strangers, AWALT applies to your long-term SO; true. I agree with the BP notion that RP have trust issues. However, let's not forget a lot of RP deals with hookup culture. AWALT=a woman you've just hooked up with could the next day file a false rape accusation at you, for example. I might also say that in a culture where gynocentrism is sold as the norm to people, it'd be easy for a woman to rationalise exploiting the corrupt divorce laws should she ever become unhappy with the setup. There, AWALT is not even a case of 'stache-twirling bitchez plotting out their hypergamy plans to fuck us all over once she's annoyed by our lowly beta SMV, it never has been; it is the cognitive dissonance in dealing with a man that she still feels platonic affection towards, but no longer is sexually attracted to.

edit: In fact, Geek Feminism Wiki justifies SR being an ongoing heuristic applicable to engaging with men in LTRs.

Unlike the cat-in-poison-box thought experiment however, the Schrödinger's Rapist is a prolonged situation, since one rape-free encounter with a given man does not prove anything about his potential of raping later on. This even more true for the experience of women who know that the majority of rapes occur between people who know each other, and those aware of rapists employing grooming and similar tactics to gain social leverage against their victims.

Can we re-read that?

one rape-free encounter with a given man does not prove anything about his potential of raping later on

!!!

People call TRP paranoid for believing in AWALT with regards to wives, but GFW just told women to never 100% trust a man in a relationship, because most rapists are partners and abusers groom and manipulate!

So, if we embrace it, does it not follow that AWALT can be justified in LTRs too?

tl;dr Feminist blogger literally uses Treat all guns as loaded (when playing Russian Roulette) as analogy justify Schrodinger's Rapist heuristic, yet somehow I imagine she like so many bluepillers would vim at the concept of AWALT. How does that work peeps?

As always, pill-poppers; have fun mulling this over below!