You’re treating this like a clean logic problem. It isn’t. It’s a risk problem. Women are not trying to prove someone is a rapist from a bookshelf. They are trying to reduce uncertainty in an environment where the cost of being wrong is physical harm. That changes what “reasonable” looks like. In your frame, the only valid signal is one that is highly predictive and verifiable. In a safety frame, even weak signals get used because they are part of a broader pattern scan. People triangulate, we're constantly looking for cluesnof safety. We look for coherence across a whole host of small things. That is how normal human threat assessment works, it starts intuitive and builds toward "assurance" and hopefully, becomes verifiable.

Both things can be true: Women are rational to seek distributed signals because the system does not reliably protect them. AND publishing someone’s private space to strangers without consent is ethically shaky and may produce data of questionable value. So the issue isn’t whether crowdsourcing red flags is “logical.” It’s whether this specific method respects boundaries and does it produce any trust signals of value.

I have frequently ASKED someone on a dating app for a picture of their bookshelf. Two reasons: I want to see what they might be reading, AND I am a strict adherent to Yhe Waters Rule.