All Activity

The observation that men size each other up is real, but it does not rescue the slogan. Men assessing other men for physical threat is ordinary, reciprocal, and situational. It is usually triggered by specific cues (size disparity, aggressive posture, intoxication, context) and it runs in both directions. A smaller man can be wary of a larger one; a larger man can still be wary of someone acting erratically. The assessment is about this person in this moment. It does not produce the standing claim that “all men are potential assailants,” nor does it treat half the population as a permanent suspect class. Men do not generally walk around declaring that every other man is a latent attacker until proven otherwise. The parallel breaks down further on the nature of the harm and the scope of the generalization. Male-on-male threat assessment is mostly about immediate physical dominance or fight risk. It is not a claim about sexual violence, and it is not applied as a default character judgment across ordinary social, professional, or familial interactions. Women’s safety concerns about sexual assault are legitimate and asymmetrically distributed. That fact supports context-specific caution. It does not require, or justify, the categorical statement that all men are potential rapists. Your examples actually illustrate the distinction. The karaoke-host stories describe men reacting to relative size and trying to establish non-threat status in a specific setting. That is situational awareness between individuals. It is not evidence that men embrace a blanket group accusation against themselves, nor that an equivalent blanket accusation against men by women is therefore unobjectionable. One can acknowledge real base-rate differences and the rationality of certain precautions without accepting a slogan that converts those differences into a standing indictment of an entire sex. If the claim is only that people of both sexes perform threat assessment and that women face a particular risk from men, that can be said plainly. The slogan goes beyond that. It is the extra step—from “certain situations warrant caution” to “all men are potential rapists”—that remains the problem. Thanks, -Smac

You've said this phrase "sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution" multiple times now and even said that it the "all men are potential rapists" could be rephrased as that. But I don't see how it can be. I was attempting some modicum of a benefit of the doubt. All women viewing all men everywhere in any and all circumstances as "potential rapists" is a terrible idea, but it's what is being advanced here. I had thought to impute some qualification ("certain situations"), but that's not what these folks mean. Per Bluebell, not only are all men "potential rapists," everyone everywhere is always supposed to "behav{e}" as if they are potential rapists. What a terrible, terrible idea. That takes us into paranoid territory. All men in all situations everywhere are "potential rapists?" Every man on the street. Every man in the grocery store. Every man sitting alone in the park. All of them, regardless of circumstance or behavior, are to be viewed as "potential rapists," and the person doing the viewing is, per Bluebell, "behav{e} as if all men are potential rapists." That is the objective. I can, but I guess the folks advancing the "all men are potential rapists" slogan cannot. In my world, a woman getting out of her car in a grocery store parking lot in broad daylight and walking into the store might pass a man or two in the process. If these men do not do anything at all, even if they are just walking from Point A to Point B, minding their own business all the while, without interacting with the woman in any way, then I think a woman can proceed without behaving as if these men are potential rapists. The vast majority of male-female interactions would fall into this category. In the minds of others, though, all men everywhere are "potential rapists," and all women everywhere are supposed to "behav{e}" as if that horrible accusation is presumptively correct. I find that wholly irrational and prejudiced and corrosive to society. Actually, I don't have to say that. I don't think all situations warrant extra caution. Except I don't believe that. I would be concerned about any woman going through day-to-day living in the U.S. under the apprehensive cloud of viewing half of humanity, always and everywhere, as "potential rapists" and conforming her behavior to be congruent with that assumption. That would not be good for her emotional and mental health. I have a friend who never married, despite fairly extensive efforts to find someone. He has some fairly caustic things to say about "women" as a category. I understand his frustration, but his denigrating all women everywhere in this way is not healthy or helpful or valid. No, I'm not okay with that phrase. Thanks, -Smac

I hope you'll forgive me for using your post as a jumping off point for some random musings. --------------------------------------------------------- All men are potential protectors. I think it's safe to say that most men (at least in the Western world) like embracing that generalization; but, somehow readily forget the generalization about who our mind instinctively imagines we are protecting, and who we are protecting them from. I doubt that when reading that statement that "all men are potential protectors," the default image men get is "men protecting men from women." Innately we know the lived experience that causes the generalization as we are also evolutionarily (and psychologically/socially) hardwired to assess whether someone else is a potential threat. I often work in bars (I am a karaoke host as a side gig), and I usually have to get there well before my official start time. It is an exhaustingly common experience as I'm sitting there waiting, for other men to be overly buddy-buddy with me. Wanting to know how much a can bench, or what I weigh, or if I played football, etc. Going out of their way to establish themselves as being "on my side" (which by default would put me on their side). It's something that has gotten more-and-more pronounced with each passing year of weight added. 100 pounds ago, it's not something I ever experienced. Just this last Saturday, a regular at one of the joints went on for a while about how intimidated he was of me, until he got to know me. Every day, many (most?) men are constantly assessing if another man is a threat; usually using the relative size/strength of the other person or some imagined body language predictor that we've imagined is meaningful, as a key indicator. Yet, when women do the same (since physiologically, it tends to be a percentage large enough to default to "all"), suddenly it's incomprehensible. Our threat assessment as men is justified, because it's based on our convincing ourselves that our narrow stereotyping (which is a point of privilege granted by the joys of androgens) is actually rational and logical. Meanwhile, the exact same threat assessment based on the exact same relative criteria suddenly becomes unfair, irrational, disparaging and impossible to understand when it is done by women because it hurts our feelings to be in their potential threat pool.

There is no mask. It’s my reality. Unfortunately.

Yes, until you understand and have been told multiple times that the end of the sentence is “ in a woman’s mind given a precarious scenario.” we’ve said this multiple times. You apparently overlooked Bluebell's recent post, in which she was quite explicit about how "all men are potential rapists" is intended to induce actions congruent with the idea that, well, all men are potential rapists. "{B}ehaving as if all men are potential rapists" is Bluebell's stated objective. Nothing in there about "precarious scenarios." Just "all men" and "potential rapists" and women "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" being "the whole entire point of the mind set." I appreciate her candor. Your emendation is late, and still doesn't resolve or avoid the patent prejudice in the phrase "all men are potential rapists." Actually, I think I understand what "all men are potential rapists" means. The various circumlocutions offered to re-characterize it as a coded phrase intended to say something like "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody" are late, implausible (if you want to convey the message "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody," then just say that rather than the ugly and prejudiced slogan), and increasingly looking ad hoc. Bluebell's recent comment let the mask slip. The purpose of publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" is to persuade people to act as if all men are potential rapists. "{B}ehaving as if all men are potential rapists" is "the whole entire point of the mind set." Thanks, -Smac

It was a joke. I’m learning that you are a very literal minded person. I will be mindful of that moving forward in anything that I write directed to you. That may help with our communication.

I’m sorry I did not know you were black I'm not. Hence the "Imagine saying that..." Thanks, -Smac

You've said this phrase "sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution" multiple times now and even said that it the "all men are potential rapists" could be rephrased as that. But I don't see how it can be. The "certain situations" is the problem. There have been lots of people who have pointed out in this thread and else where that there are "certain situations" means "all situations". You can't just say "certain situations warrant extra caution". You have to say "all situations warrant extra caution". So the phrase should really be "sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so all situations warrant extra caution". Are you ok with that phrase? And then wouldn't that convert to "All situations with men are potential rape situations"? Which can be simplified to "All men are potential rapists"?

Yes, until you understand and have been told multiple times that the end of the sentence is “ in a woman’s mind given a precarious scenario.” we’ve said this multiple times. And you choose to hold onto your own chosen understanding. I don’t think anybody should try to clarify this for you any further. It seems as though you are holding onto an original misunderstanding for whatever reason.

I guess you need to define what a virgin is. What do you think D&C 132 means when it says a virgin? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virgin has several definitions. I would think 3b is the definition ("an unmarried girl or woman") as I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that the men can only marry women who fit under definition 1a. But I could also see Joseph using the term "virgin" to just mean "woman" in general (since he was sealed to several women who were married).

I’m sorry I did not know you were black

"All men are potential rapists" is inherently accusatory. I've never had a drop of liquor in my life, but that doesn't matter. I'm still a "potential rapist" to you, Bluebell, Mustard, and so on. But you are going to call them "potential rapists" anyway. Same goes with teetotalers. We are all "potential rapists." No. Thanks, -Smac

Imagine saying that to a black men who has just been told, over and over by multiple people he's known online for years, that they view him as a "potential rapist." Person A: All men are potential rapists. Person B: I think that is a pretty terrible thing to say. If the intended message is something like “sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution," you and yours could just say that, and I would fully agree with it and endorse it. No need to denigrate all men everywhere. Person A: All men are potential rapists. Go ahead and choose to be offended. How unfortunate this is. Thanks, -Smac

The analogy highlights a real feature of risk (severity can matter even when the number of bad actors is small), but it does not justify treating an entire group as suspect. In the road example, you are reacting to a known, elevated hazard on that specific road: 20% of cars have already been in major accidents because of a handful of bad drivers. The rational response is caution toward the road and toward cars behaving dangerously on it—not the conclusion that every driver is a potential major-accident causer, or that you should treat every nearby car as if its driver is one of the handful of bad ones. You still distinguish between normal driving and erratic driving. You do not reclassify the entire population of drivers. The same distinction applies here. Sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, and the harm is serious. That supports situational caution in higher-risk contexts (isolated settings, ignored boundaries, impaired judgment, etc.). It does not support the claim that all men are potential rapists, any more than the accident rate supports the claim that all drivers are potential causes of major accidents. The analogy shows why severity can justify extra care; it does not show why a coarse group-level accusation is the right form of that care. If the point is simply “do not assume you are 100% safe with anybody, and adjust behavior when risk cues appear,” that can be said directly. The slogan goes further: it converts a limited, context-sensitive risk into a standing characterization of men. The road analogy does not require or justify that extra step. Thanks, -Smac

It actually is remedied by behaving as if all men are potential rapists Smac. Huh. Thank you for your candor. We've had pages and pages of circumlocutions about "all men are potential rapists," how it means something other than what the average person will take them to mean when put together in a sentence. For example, when Mustard says "all men are potential rapists," what she says she means is "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody." Now here you are, endorsing the public declaration that "all men are potential rapists" and confirming that it is intended to encourage women to "behav{e} as if all men are potential rapists." Again, I appreciate your candor. That's the whole entire point of the mind set, and it does work. I'm reminded of this quote from Thomas Sowell: Sowell was directing those three questions at people with whom he disagrees politically, but I think they can be applied in other contexts as well. Question No. 1: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work," my question is: Compared to what? Question No. 2: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work," my question is: At what cost? Question No. 3: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work," my question is: What evidence do you have? Thanks, -Smac

Ok.

Ok. Go ahead and choose to be offended.

This is getting tedious. I think you are conflating disagreement with misapprehension. My focus is on the phrase "all men are potential rapists" and the various circumlocutory justifications for its continued use instead of something straightforward but lacking that nasty misandrist barb. Again, I understand. She has explained her experiences that "have led to her using the phrase." Again, I disagree with the phrase. It is ugly and unfair and prejudiced. It is misandrist. It is utterly unnecessary. You are conflating the two. From a previous post: I understood and grasped this woman's description of her experiences with some Muslim men in Marseilles in the early 90s. I understood it and still found objectionable and problematic her across-the-board denigration of all Muslim men everywhere. Thanks, -Smac

And recognition that there are people who will do this, who hide their inclination except in the ‘perfect storm’ so to speak is not a claim it is hidden in every person. It is a recognition it is hidden in enough people that assault is a common occurrence for women (possibly 20% of women have experienced rape or attempted rape, around 80% of women have been sexually harassed in their lifetime). Alcohol consumption, especially drunkenness, can even lead people to do things that morally disgust them. Some stats put it at 60% consumed by the perpetrator with around a third being legally intoxicated. So there is a very good chance that a man doesn’t even realize he could commit rape if he was intoxicated enough because he wouldn’t under any other condition.*** So there are men that can’t even recognize themselves as an opportunist. ***Thankfully while rapists have likely drunk alcohol, not every man who drinks or is even drunk will act on an opportunity. Should that mean I should let a drunk man put his arm around me because most likely he is safe? (Disregarding the smell and general embarrassment of the situation)

I don't know what this means. Connect about what? That I am being told that I and every other man on the planet are "potential rapists," but that I am not supposed to take that horrible statement at face value, and that instead this is a coded phrase intended to say something like "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody," and that I should therefore not object to being publicly declared a "potential rapist?" I don't want to "connect" with you about that, because I disagree with cloaking a sensible sentiment in abjectly prejudiced wording. From one of my previous posts: I believe this and have suspected this for some time. If I were your therapist, I would say I invite you to be curious about that. I was curious, hence the questions about it. And if you were my therapist, I would ask that you not be coy and just explain what you mean about "an opportunity ... to connect." Again, "connect" about what? Bummer. Here I thought we had reached understanding. Apparently, you do not understand after all. I’m not sure how to say it more plainly. It seems other men understand what we are saying. I wonder why you do not? I think I have reached a point where I am done trying to explain it. Your continual mastication on this phrase, and a parent unwillingness to join on what has been described as the meaning of it, leads me to believe there must be something else going on with you that prevents any understanding. So I will cry Uncle on this. The feeling is more or less reciprocated. I am trying my best to be clear and explanatory. In contrast, I think "all men are potential rapists" is facially ugly and prejudiced, but folks want to justify it anyway, so we end up with vague circumlocutions around what those five words mean under their "plain and ordinary meaning" in favor of a more palatable, but less derogatory, slogan like "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody." I don't think you want to "connect" with me about the above assessment. So we're left to disagree. I made an attempt. Not really seeing it. "All men are potential rapists" sure does sound accusatory. And ugly. And prejudiced. But because it is low-cost to the speaker (you, Calm. Bluebell), high-impact on the target (me and all the other "potential rapists,") and because broad negative generalizations about men (especially in the context of sexual violence) are widely treated as acceptable or even insightful in many academic, media, and activist settings, while equivalent generalizations about other groups are not, and inasmuch as you and yours apparently intend to continue expressing this abjectly horrible statement (rather than something more apt but less inflammatory, like “Sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution." The purportedly circumlocutory "all men are potential rapists" slogan, dripping as it is with misandry, gets to proceed forward. We're not going to "connect" about that. That's what "all men are potential rapists" is. That is the meaning I think it is intended to convey. Not “Sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution." The best evidence for that is, well, you and yours could just say “Sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution," or something like it. And yet you persist in justifying and endorsing "all men are potential rapists." The circumlocution doesn't make sense, unless there is something else going on, in which case it makes a lot of sense. I don't see it that way. The "attempt to clarify" looks like an attempt to justify maintaining an abjectly prejudiced statement by saying we are not supposed to take it at face value, and that it is instead a coded phrase intended to convey the message that "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody." That you don't just say that, and that you instead persist in the "all men are potential rapists" slogan, is evidence, to me, that something else is going on. You: "If I had been told that I had a horrific characteristic lying within just waiting to erupt I TOO would be offended." Also you: "You are rejecting that opportunity and are holding on like a petulant child to an accusation that does not exist." Good luck squaring that circle. “All men are potential rapists” is inherently accusatory because it attributes a latent capacity and disposition for sexual violence to every man. In ordinary language, labeling a group as “potential X” (potential thieves, potential murderers, potential rapists) is a character judgment—it places the entire class under a presumption of concealed dangerousness rather than describing a risk or recommending caution. Advocates, such as yourself, appear to defend the slogan as merely a coded shorthand for situational awareness: “women should not assume they are 100% safe with anybody.” That reading, in my view, does not hold. The precise idea—that sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men and that certain situations therefore warrant extra caution—can be stated directly without accusing every man of being a potential rapist. The slogan is chosen instead of that clearer formulation. If the only intended message were ordinary prudence, the accusatory phrasing would be unnecessary. Its persistence indicates that it is doing additional work: it converts a limited risk observation into a standing charge against men as a class. That is what makes the statement accusatory even when offered under the banner of safety. Thanks, -Smac

Low numbers of actors combined with a high number of harmful occurrences plus a moderate rate of a very harmful outcome is very different from low number of actors committing low number of not that harmful of acts and a rare very damaging one. If you came to a road where 20% of the cars which had driven on it had been in major accidents because of a handful of very bad drivers, my guess is you would avoid the road if possible. But what if you had to drive on it to get to work? How would you treat another car if it got close to you?

It actually is remedied by behaving as if all men are potential rapists Smac. That's the whole entire point of the mind set, and it does work.

Respectfully, you don't understand what she is saying because your focus isn't on her post, it is on your feelings about her post. You understand her words but only as you can apply them to your opinions and arguments, not as they apply to hers. You admit that you are focused on your objections to a phrase she used, not on understanding why her experiences have led to her using the phrase. You don't understand her because you can't stare at yourself and see someone else. It doesn't work that way. When I said 'honestly answer' I was speaking about you honestly acknowledging where your focus is--her or you. I wasn't calling into question whether or not you are telling the truth as you believe it in your arguments or your personal opinions. Sorry that was confusing, I should have worded it better.

I believe this and have suspected this for some time. If I were your therapist, I would say I invite you to be curious about that. Bummer. Here I thought we had reached understanding. Apparently, you do not understand after all. I’m not sure how to say it more plainly. It seems other men understand what we are saying. I wonder why you do not? I think I have reached a point where I am done trying to explain it. Your continual mastication on this phrase, and a parent unwillingness to join on what has been described as the meaning of it, leads me to believe there must be something else going on with you that prevents any understanding. So I will cry Uncle on this. I made an attempt. I observed that perhaps you were hearing it as an accusation of a latent desire residing in every man. It wasn’t stated clearly before I will state it now. If I had been told that I had a horrific characteristic lying within just waiting to erupt I TOO would be offended. I can see why you are so upset. I have made an attempt to clarify so that you don’t have to carry that burden . You are rejecting that opportunity and are holding on like a petulant child to an accusation that does not exist. I do not know why you continue to do so. But that is your choice.

nvm…can’t keep up and surprisingly don’t want to…