I am not qualified to debate journalistic ethics of essays or crowd-sourced lists and what have you. But I know a little bit about norms. There is no norm that doesn't unfairly tarnish some people. That's literally what they do.

Our culture decided that adults having sex with children was deviant. And, every year some people are perhaps unfairly labeled a child abuser. But we decide that risk is worth the benefit the norm provides us.

You will not concoct a norm that increases the freedom of women to work and live with less risk of sexual assault that does not tarnish some "good" men. Won't happen. It's not a thing.

The question is, is it worth it? Is the increased freedom and human rights and dignity of women worth the risk to some men of being designed assaulters?

And, I have got to tell you, when we require a perfect victimless norm before we will consider the possibility of the improved lives of women we are making an affirmative case about our values.

I mean, I can feel sorry for people but still think a society would be better if we renegotiated the risk of interactions to be more favorable to women.

Norms require calculated self-interest on the part of people to work. Maybe the fear of being unfairly accused increases men's participation in renegotiating sexual assault.

And when people adopt guerrilla tactics of shaming or naming it is usually because they cannot do much else that will resonate with people who insist on a perfect norm. /fini