All Activity

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…

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 don't think you want to "connect" with me about the above assessment. So we're left to disagree. Sounds good. As long as "all men are potential rapists" is being advanced as a slogan, and endorsed and justified, I will continue to speak against it. Thanks, -Smac

Even then, framing the issue as "all men are potential rapists" is, in my view, not the way to go. I'm not sure how that is in conflict with the statement I endorse: “Sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution." For my part, and for some years now, I have maintained a "Pence Rule"-style restraint on being alone with a woman or a child, both for the comfort of the woman, the comfort of the child's parents, and to avoid not just the risk of impropriety, but even the appearance of that risk. I acknowledge that reality, and I agree that we can do that and also not "regard all men as {potential} rapists." I agree. "All men are potential rapists" seems to assign guilt, albeit prospectively and qualifiedly, to all men. And yet folks here are not even saying "most men are potential rapists." The slogan here is worse: that "all men are potential rapists." I have never suggested women should feel obligated in this way. I think most people do as a matter of default and necessity. Imagine the exhaustion of walking down the street and viewing every single male in view as a "potential rapist." Ours is, or has been, a "high trust" society. That is, ours has been "a culture or nation where people generally believe that strangers and institutions are honest, reliable, and fair." This is not derived from obligation, but from the nature of the culture. I think we are gradually devolving toward a "low trust" society, "a community or nation where people generally do not trust strangers or institutions, and shared ethical or moral values are weak." There are a number of ways we are doing this, one of which is sexual licentiousness and the abandonment of stringent behavioral norms and expectations. Another way we are doing this is through factionalization, which creates a low-trust society by dividing a population into rigid, competing groups that view one another as adversaries rather than fellow citizens. I'm not sure how much more "adversarial" folks like Calm and Bluebell can be than to go around publicly declaring to half the population: "Hey, you are a potential rapist." A terrible circumstance, to be sure. But it's not remedied by declaring half the population to be "potential rapists." I was in the local Wal-Mart a few weeks ago and, while looking for Gatorade powder, I noticed an older women about 15 feet away who was struggling to reach an item on a high shelf. In the past, I would have immediately turned to her and offered to help in the very small way in which she needed. However, in the moment I thought about the various and vigorous efforts by folks like Calm and Bluebell to not only justify, but ratify and endorse as essential the sentiment that "all men are potential rapists." This gave me pause. Just as folks on this board point to non-zero risks women face, the "all men are potential rapists" slogan creates, in my view, a non-zero risk when it comes to interacting with women in public venues. So in the moment, I intentionally ignored the woman reaching for the can. If she, like Calm and Bluebell, views me as a "potential rapist," then I am doing her a favor by staying away from her and not interacting with her. I am also reducing or eliminating the non-zero risk to me. So I kept looking for the Gatorade, but then something happened: she clocked me. I saw out of the corner of my eye that she was looking at me in a sort of expectant way. I kept looking for the Gatorade. Then, after a few more seconds, she clocked me again. I then turned to her and said "Ma'am, would you like me to help you grab that can?" She immediately smiled and said "Yes, thank you very much." I reached up, retrieved the can, and gave it to her. She thanked me again. But for the delay in me locating the Gatorade, and but for the woman specifically looking at me twice, I would not have helped this woman. I would have done so in a minute in times past, but that was before Calm and Bluebell and others came along to advance, stridently and repeatedly and emphatically, the "all men are potential rapists" slogan. I find it a horrible thing. A prejudiced thing. A harmful-to-the-fabric-of-society thing. And most of all, a wholly unnecessary thing. Thanks, -Smac

This is disappointing. This was an opportunity for us to connect. Im glad at least you claim to understand me. If that’s as far as we go I’ll take it.

This requires further clarification: what are the thoughts concerning St. Paul's discourse on the Three Degrees of Glory? In order of increasing GLORY: 1- of the stars (telestial, of the unjust); 2- of the moon (terrestrial, not so valiant in the testimony of Jesus); 3- of the sun (Celestial, they will inherit ALL that the Father hath).

I think you're drawing too sharp a distinction between situational awareness and the possibility that someone you trust might make a choice that violates that trust. Not every risk comes with obvious warning signs. Sometimes the person who poses a risk is someone you know, someone who has given you no particular reason to be suspicious, and someone you would ordinarily trust. People make choices, and not all of those choices are predictable from their prior behavior. A person doesn't necessarily have to be a habitual predator, or someone who goes out of his way to victimize women, to make a very different choice when he perceives an opportunity and believes there will be no consequences. That's part of what makes sexual violence difficult to guard against. You can't always identify a specific person or situation in advance and simply avoid it. Sometimes the relevant risk is the possibility that someone will choose to take advantage of circumstances in which he believes he can get away with it. I don't think acknowledging that reality requires us to regard all men as rapists, any more than acknowledging that anyone is capable of theft means we regard everyone as a thief. There's a difference between assigning guilt to an entire group and recognizing that you cannot reliably determine an individual's intentions simply because you know him, like him, or have trusted him in the past. The question isn't whether most men commit sexual violence. Obviously, they don't. The question is whether the fact that most men don't commit it means women should feel obligated to treat the men they encounter as presumptively safe until they have specific reasons to believe otherwise. Those are two very different propositions. Situational awareness is useful, but it has limits. Sometimes the risk isn't apparent until someone makes a choice. And sometimes the very thing that makes a situation feel safe is the trust we've developed in the person who ultimately violates it.

I suppose us oldies will be relieved of walking across the house and when we get to where we were going; it seems like we should remember why we were going there?

There is a list. There are seven attributes of the resurrected bodies of the just. The unjust have only the first three attributes. 1) Identity, "Resurrected bodies will retain their original identity; we will be essentially the same persons as before we died." 2) Integrity, "Resurrected bodies will retain all of the parts of their old bodies – resurrected bodies will be complete. This property or condition is called integrity." 3) Quality, "Our bodies will be youthful and will retain our original gender, a condition called quality." 4) Impassibility, "We will be immune from death and pain, a condition called impassibility." 5) Subtlety, "Our bodies will be free from restraint by matter, yet palpable. This is a property called subtlety. To St. Thomas, subtlety means perfect subjection of the body to the soul." 6) Agility, "We will have complete freedom of movement, our souls will direct our bodies without hindrance." 7) Clarity, "The glory of our souls will be visible in our bodies. We will be beautiful and radiant, a property called clarity." ---copied from the following website: https://thoughtfulcatholic.com/on-the-resurrection-of-the-body/ #4 is obvious to all. #'s 5 and 6 might seem similar. #5 One would not be hindered from passing through solid objects. But because such a body would be palpable, made out of matter, the soul would also be able use matter in the way we are accustomed at this time. I don't think we know how this operation of subtlety would work. Will the just have some kind of control over matter, or will it consist in control of one's body? #6 Movement could be instantaneous, or at least light speed perhaps! It seems like instantaneous. I say that because of someone who might like to explore the physical heavens. If it were only e at light speed it would seem to take almost forever to finish seeing things. Of course, time doesn't exist anymore. There are so many more questions that these proposals raise. It can be edifying to ponder any of them. Each are so full of mystery, and prompt questions to wonder about. This seems like an inkling of what would be in store, but it is revealed that it hasn't entered our thoughts or hearts what God has really prepared for those who love Him. Which is the greater motivation for behaving ourselves before God? Would it be the fear of being one of the unjust, or the desire of being among the just. I know belief in both hell and heaven continue to be factors in making me try to be better. How often do I put these things out of mind? Often. Daily. Praise God for His mercy and love towards us. The list above was written by a webmaster who took them from St. Thomas Aquinas. If you don't know, in the articles of the Summa Theologica, Thomas tries to avoid straw men by first listing some reasons why his eventual proposition might be in error. It can be pretty dry reading. There are good summaries of the Summa that are more accessible to the ordinary faithful. Obviously, non-Catholics will not necessarily accept any or all of these. But one should at least be able to recognize and respect the intellectual rigor which he poured into his entire works. When at the end of his life, he called his writings straw, we do not think he was saying his work was erroneous, but rather was acknowledging how that it lacked the brilliance of a single glimpse of what heaven is really like.

She has it: I have to wonder why, if you mean "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody," you don't just say that. I have some surmises about why. And here: I both understand and agree with this underlying sentiment. What I find objectionable and problematic is framing it in the abjectly prejudiced and circumlocutory "all men are potential rapists" slogan. Respectfully, we are each free to post as we like, within the confines of the board rules. I understand what she is saying. I am objecting to cloaking it in "all men are potential rapists." I don't think I have been dishonest in my prior posts. Thanks, -Smac