Phone Blogging – Schrodinger’s Rapist

This is a rewrite – Blogging from the phone was an experiment and a total failure. It’s impossible to actually re-read what you wrote and spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and the like abound (even more than usual)

I dislike schrodinger’s rapist but I understand why the concept exists.

You see people judge me by what I am a lot. I have suffered some pretty overt racism (I have been prevented from flying kind of racism. I have seen my aunt stripped because they didn’t believe she was on near permanent dialysis… Because we were brown. It hurt a lot. They couldn’t even tell the difference between a HINDU and a Muslim then why on earth are they indulging in stupid procedures like this. No little old lady with a metal hip was made to strip… just the brown one) I don’t like being judged and a lot of who I am today is based on being a stupid 18 year old me prone to ripping his shirt while screaming “I WILL SHOW YOU ALL!!!”. I was the kind of person who would wear a “It’s okay, I normally pay to be degraded and stripped by a man in uniform” T-Shirt through security because for a fair while after 9/11 I would have to take pants off and get felt up. For me it was fighting back. Schrodinger’s Terrorist. (I also had an “It’s Okay! I enjoy it!” and a “At least buy a boy a drink first!” t-shirt)

I really wish women didn’t feel like all men are rapists but they do feel threatened by us because of the behaviour of our gender. Now we may not be “rapey” but there are a few who are. For all the good people do it’s easy to poison the well by the behaviour of the few. You may not be the grope monster (I am the gentleman grope monster. I take permission first!) but you certainly look like one. And that is unfortunate. So women feel threatened by us.

The correct way of dealing with this is not for me to act in the way that the grope monster does.

To walk a mile in their shoes and to recognise that their fears (While IMHO are stupid because of my experiences as a person who was judged by the fears people have had.) are based on genuine human experiences. But that’s the thing, my experiences are also subjective. My treatment as schrodinger’s terrorist means that other such treatments make me uncomfortable. I fear such concepts and dislike them because they look the same. The experiences that we face build us up. And that’s precisely why this concept exists. Because there is no “rapist” look. The nice man opening the door for you may be one, the guy you think is creepy may not.

It is a symptom of the way things are in our society. The fever is a symptom of the bacteria, not the villain in the disease. In that way schrodinger’s rapist is the symptom of the pathogen that is rape and sexual harassment. The cure is to remove the pathogen. To create a world where women aren’t raped so women don’t see men as rapists. Now I have to fight that in a “For Fuck’s Sake Stop Raping” sort of way but you guys are lucky.

The best you got is “don’t take advantage of drunk women, don’t grab women without permission”. You can do more with that than I can. You are farther ahead on the ladder of progress towards an equal society.

Some rape culture can be blamed on women too. (WHAT!) Specifically what women are told by popular culture aimed at them. No means Yes is the WORST thing on earth and I have known women who have said that. No means Try Harder? No. No should mean No. Do not listen to Cosmo or Marie Claire or any other magazine of that sort. Women are straight up being taught how to play hard to get. That’s also encouraging rape culture because you cannot tell the difference between hard to get and no.

We will teach boys not to rape and we will teach girls to say No means No and stand by it.

But for now? I give you the advice that I gave my brother when he went on dates. No means No, Maybe means No. Yes means Yes. If maybe means yes then be pleasantly surprised but live your life with the notion that maybe means no.

It is my greatest wish to destroy the very concept of Schrodinger’s Rapist but to do that we have to create a world where men and women respect each other a lot more than they do now.

(BTW I wrote this as a comment and realised it would make a pretty decent blog post. And yes it is typed up using goddamn swype… So bear with me. And boy was I right. Phone blogging is great for twitter, not for an actual blog!) Once again I apologise to readers. I don’t really think this was a good piece. It shall however stay up as a demonstration of how crummy I can really write.


  1. says

    I know this conversation is old, but I have read through most of the comments. The arguments between Pitchguest and all the others was quite intriguing, and they seem to be speaking PAST one another.

    Pitchguest has a perfectly valid reason for being confused about SR, and calling it nonesense. I know I do. The author who wrote it, obviously had no idea what the original thought experiment of Schrodinger’s Cat was even about. Pitchguest is 100% correct about that: The original experiment, Schrodinger’s Cat, was about the concept of superposition in Quantum Mechanics. At the time, Schrodinger thought it was nonsense, because the cat cannot be both alive and dead at the same time. (Unfortunately, Schrodinger himself misunderstood quantum position! Quantum Mechanics only have to do with quantum-level particles. It doesn’t affect our everyday lives. Which is why a cat being both alive and dead at the same time IS nonsense. [Currently, there is a group building a quantum computer that uses the principal. Imagine a computer in which you don;t have to have gates, where it is either open or closed, or either a 1 or a 0. Imagine a computer that can be both at the same time. The pure computing power such a computer would have, would make our current computer systems look like 17th century technology in comparison!])

    Back to Schrodinger’s Rapist. The author completely misunderstands the original thought experiment that became her namesake advice. Anyone who knows anything about quantum mechanics, would find Schrodinger’s Rapist to be nonsensical, or satire, or both. From the explanations in the comment section, I now understand what the author was TRYING to get at. Without reading the explanations, I was left completely confused. It was like she was trying to say that a man can be both a rapist, and not a rapist at the same time, and being all serious about it. When the original thought experiment was trying to prove Quantum Mechanics to be nonsense. Another way I was looking at it, using Poe’s Law, I was also thinking that Schrodinger’s Rapist was supposed to be satire. I thought it was either satire, or someone trying to make a real point who doesn’t understand science.

    It should NOT have been called “Schrodinger’s Rapist.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>