All Activity

The intimacy of sharing? I think we all have probably experienced and enjoyed that. But I have never heard it expressed in such a plain way. It reminds me of a mysterious passage in the last book of the New Testament: "To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone, which no one knows except him who receives it." ---Rev. 2:17b It sounds like a secret that the just shares with our dear Lord alone. I like your idea a lot. It seems very fitting.

Fine, "all white, black, brown, red, green, purple, yellow, pink, etc men are potentially dangerous to women". I agree with that statement. I disagree with "all black men are dangerous to women" because it is singling out black men. Black men are just as dangerous as white men.

I said replace my phrase with yours in my argument. You didn't seem to do that. I get you don't like my phrase but the only reason your phrase is different from my phrase is because you think women can have places they don't need to be aware. So, if a man decided to sit right next to her, she wouldn't start to worry? Or if a man stood behind her? Those men are minding their own business and not doing anything. Just being close to her. If a boy next to your daughters, who she doesn't know, moved their hands that brushed their thighs or head or some part of the body, would your daughters think nothing of it? The boy is completely innocent and not doing anything. I don't know why you see it as ugly prejudice. I find it intelligent behavior. It doesn't make a standing character judgement. When I hear the phrase "all men are potential rapist", it doesn't tell me that I'm a rapist. It tells me that if someone doesn't know me, they should treat me as a potential danger. Because they don't know what I will do. I know that I will not be raping them, but they don't. So they should act accordingly.

I don't have the answers. It seems like there are degrees of glory for sure. I would only suggest that every soul of the just is unique and has glory that pertains to him or her alone in different qualities and quantities. I am only speculating. I hold that there is more that is unrevealed than revealed. We seem to be required to accept mysteries. Heh, longview. Thanks for the reply. But I don't think my Church has been told the answers. That is why I cautiously "suggest". All the best longview. I appreciate your questions.

Isn’t an argument that rape is not of God an argument that some of us shouldn’t exist by the same type of reasoning? Because some people are born because their mother was raped by their sperm donor (even donor sounds wrong there)? Serious question, if I am wrong please point out where because I am not following your logic.

"A man is stronger than a woman" therefore "he is potentially dangerous to women". Yes, I accept that. But toss "Black" in there to identify just Black men, and no. Sorry, but that's untenable. You say "yes" to the idea that all men are "potentially dangerous to women," and ipso facto you have conceded that all black men - a subset of all men - are necessarily "potentially dangerous to women." It's your reasoning. Please explain how you can affirm that "all men are potential rapists" and then disaffirm that "all black men are potential rapists." The former necessarily includes the latter. Thanks, -Smac

It is not the same. it is entirely different. Again: 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. In the U.S.? In 2026? Yes, there are situations where a woman can feel reasonably safe. Ok, name them. Because women on this forum, this thread, and else where have basically said that in pretty much any situation with a man, they need to be aware. My wife is currently sitting in a library in Salt Lake County. I just spoke with her by phone. She is writing. She is not viewing all the men around her as "potential rapists" and taking "extra caution" in reliance on that assumption. She is writing. She is not worrying about sexual assault. My daughters are currently at a movie with their brothers. I suspect they are enjoying the move. I think they are not looking around the theater and thinking "Wow, lots of potential rapists here. I need to use 'extra caution' in case one of them wants to sexually assault me." That some women want to go through life with this ugly prejudice, and its attendant stresses and alienations and divisions, is pretty sad. It's quite unnecessary. There is no need to view half of humanity as "potential rapists." There is no need to "behav{e} as if all men everywhere are potential rapists. So, why is "all men are potentially rapists" not stating directly that "women should maintain baselines awareness of male strength and of the disproportionate commission of sexual assault". Is the only reason because you believe that there are situations that are free of risk? Because that is what I feel is where the difference lies. You think that there are situations where a woman doesn't need to be on guard. And yet lots of women say the exact opposite. You are asserting a statement but it doesn't seem to be an actual fact. “All men are potential rapists” does not simply restate “maintain baseline awareness of male strength and disproportionate risk.” It converts a statistical and situational fact into a standing character judgment about every individual man on the planet. The first is a claim about patterns and average differences; the second is a claim that the proper default posture toward any given man is that he may rape you. The difference is not merely whether any situation is completely free of risk. No environment is free of all possible harm. The difference is whether risk is treated as continuous and cue-dependent, or as a fixed property of an entire sex that must be managed in every interaction. Baseline awareness already exists: people notice proximity, behavior, isolation, and other signals. The slogan goes beyond that by insisting the relevant signal is membership in the group itself. Many women describe heightened caution in various settings. That is consistent with acknowledging real base-rate differences and personal experience. It does not establish that the accurate or necessary formulation of that caution is a categorical statement that all men are potential rapists. The latter remains an additional claim, one that treats an average capacity and an average offense rate as grounds for a permanent presumption applied to every man. That step is what the slogan adds, and it is the step that remains contested. Thanks, -Smac

"A man is stronger than a woman" therefore "he is potentially dangerous to women". Yes, I accept that. But toss "Black" in there to identify just Black men, and no. Because it isn't the color that is the danger. It is the gender. We have 2 genders (I think you agree with that). One gender is generally stronger, bigger, etc than the other. It makes perfect sense to act on that behavior. It is practically built into our genetic code. To try and compare this to skin color makes no sense because they aren't in the same realm.

Mistype on my part. I meant to quote your phrase. Just replace my phrase with yours and the argument is still the same. Ok, name them. Because women on this forum, this thread, and else where have basically said that in pretty much any situation with a man, they need to be aware. So, why is "all men are potentially rapists" not stating directly that "women should maintain baselines awareness of male strength and of the disproportionate commission of sexual assault". Is the only reason because you believe that there are situations that are free of risk? Because that is what I feel is where the difference lies. You think that there are situations where a woman doesn't need to be on guard. And yet lots of women say the exact opposite. You are asserting a statement but it doesn't seem to be an actual fact.

"All men are potential rapists." I understand those five words. I'm fairly provision in English. I read and write for a living. Again, there are five words in play. I understand what they mean when put together in a sentence. 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

Oh yeah, I am…and going to giggle in malicious delight every time I do, because even if I said I don’t, Smac says I do and he knows me so much better than I know myself. You: You: You: You: I am not denigrating all men or harboring prejudicial views by describing them as potential rapists anymore than I am denigrating a crowd of men by saying I can’t tell who is and isn’t a rapist among them and certainly can’t tell who might be a potential rapist among them and for all I know every one of them could be a rapist or none of them now or sometime if the future. You: If so, why have a problem with women saying all men are potential rapists which is about evaluating every man’s behaviour and not assuming there are safe types out there from whom we can ignore warning signs. I won't presume to presume to speak about what you think. I have been critiquing what you have said. Thanks, -Smac

He's (@theplains) quote mining. It's his specialty.

Certainly, polygyny in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a complicated topic. That said, I wish more people understood that, essentially, an argument that it is not of God is an argument that some of us shouldn't exist. Should I, quite literally, be willing to fall on my sword to assuage your squeamishness? I hope you'll forgive me if I'm at least a little bit reluctant to do that.

Bluebell seems to be advancing a "take this statement, that 'all men are potential rapists,' at face value, and behave as if it is valid." This comes after all sorts of circumlocutions about what "all men are potential rapists" is supposed to mean, the idea it is supposed to convey, such as Mustard's "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody." Frankly, I've not really bought into these various explanations. They seem pretextual and ad hoc. Bluebell said the quiet part out loud. I admire her candor on that point. 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? What is the "better" solution you think may exist? Better than labeling all men everywhere "potential rapists?" I agree that there are much better ways to "crack an egg" than to declare that "all men are potential rapists." I have been saying that for quite a while now. That some nevertheless want to retain and endorse and advance the less-effective and inflammatory and divisive "all men are potential rapists" slogan therefore suggests, to me, that something else is going on. I do not "misunderstand" the meaning of the five-word statement that "all men are potential rapists." I think my understanding meshes quite cleanly with Bluebell's statement. So...the ends justify the means. Bluebell: "{B}ehaving as if all men are potential rapists ... {is} the whole entire point of the mind set, and it does work." You: "I am aware though that there may be cases where this phrase is useful as an opener..." Boy, this is an illuminating discussion. I think "all men are potential rapists" is horrible. It is antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is prejudice, straight up. It is collective guilt. It is guilt not based on actus reus or mens rea, but merely based on group identity. It is harmful to women, some (many?) of whom will look at it, take it at face value, and, as Bluebell has so candidly and enthusiastically noted, start "behaving as if all men are potential rapists." Even assuming this ugliness "works," it does so compared to what? At what cost? What evidence do you have? Thanks, -Smac

I guess we'll need to agree to disagree. That is not my phrase. It is yours: I responded: 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. I hope that clears things up. In the U.S.? In 2026? Yes, there are situations where a woman can feel reasonably safe. Again, I reject this. You seem to be imputing to me a sentiment I do not hold. I think it is precisely that. "All men are potential rapists" is an accusation against a large group. "All black men are potential rapists" is an accusation against a smaller group. Broadly, yes, the bell curve shows that. There are some exceptions. I do not accept this. "A {black} man is stronger than a woman," therefore "he is dangerous to women." Do you accept that? The argument that “there isn’t a difference, therefore the slogan is valid” simply restates the original claim rather than defending it. The fact that sexual assault is possible in many settings does not erase differences in probability, opportunity, or behavioral cues. Those differences are what make calibrated caution possible. Treating every setting as requiring the same elevated caution collapses ordinary risk assessment into a standing group presumption. That is the move being contested, not the existence of risk. The strength point does not carry the weight placed on it. Men are, on average, physically stronger than women. That fact is relevant to certain forms of physical vulnerability and helps explain why sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men. It does not, however, establish that every individual man is a "potential rapist," any more than average differences in any other trait establish that every member of a group shares the extreme of that trait. Strength increases the capacity for certain harms; it does not make the commission of those harms the default expectation for the group. The comparison to racial generalizations is imperfect, but the structural problem with the slogan remains. A generalization that attaches a standing accusation of sexual violence to an entire sex, on the basis of average physical differences and base rates of crime, still functions as a group-level character claim. The fact that the trait (sex) correlates with strength does not make the leap from “disproportionately committed by men” to “all men are potential rapists” logically tighter. One can acknowledge average differences and real risk without converting them into a categorical presumption that applies to every man in every ordinary situation. If the position is that women should maintain baseline awareness of male strength and of the disproportionate commission of sexual assault, that can be stated directly. The slogan adds the further claim that every man should be treated as a potential rapist because no situation is free of risk. That further claim is what remains unsupported. Thanks, -Smac

Rather he would have been in Paradise / Abraham's Bosom awaiting Resurrection to either reenter Earth with Jesus like others that day or entered his Glory in the Celestial Kingdom.

Again (tediously so) you did not understand what I was saying and have no idea that you didn’t understand it because your narrow focus keeps you blind.

My guess is he is not using “virgin” for “woman” in general, but for a pure woman, meaning righteous. Her soul is pure rather than her hymen is intact as some seem to define purity in women.

Oh yeah, I am…and going to giggle in malicious delight every time I do, because even if I said I don’t, Smac says I do and he knows me so much better than I know myself.

I suspect she may respond, but not going to wait to,find out. Here is where it is easy to see your bias in play in your interpretation of others. Not only do you jump on it, you act like it was a mistake, a miscalculation, exposing the real her…implying she is being intentionally deceptive (the mask slipped). How odd given her tone and presentation suggests nothing of sort. I base this on my own reaction and everyone else who has been responding to her in the thread. She said it worked (it does). She did not said it was the best solution or should be used instead of something else if it is equally or more effective. A hammer works to crack an egg. Doesn’t mean one wants to use it every time. I do not endorse a hammer for cracking eggs when I say a hammer works for cracking eggs. A car works to get to the school down the street, but it uses less gas and is healthier to walk, so while a parent knows it works to use their car to take the kids to school, they will likely reserve it for limited circumstances….maybe it’s pouring rain and the kids would be drenched by the time they got there. Or maybe a kid broke their leg and they are not used to using crutches yet. The car is useful because it works, but not necessary…except on occasion. I personally don’t want to use the phrase “potential rapists” because it isn’t as precise as I like declarations to be to avoid misunderstandings, especially when comprehension is of prime importance. And I haven’t had to use it when I have led the discussion (which I admit are few). I also have always been able to discuss things with enough time to be sure people understand what I am suggesting as best practice for safety….except in those cases where people refuse to accept that I mean what I say and insist I mean what they say I mean. And at that point it’s not a discussion, but a lecture and I usually just try to end it as fast as I can. Thankfully that has been rare for me. I am aware though that there may be cases where this phrase is useful as an opener for the conversation as it gets to the point quickly and it attention grabbing…say in a bunch of young people among whom there are likely many who have inattentive ADHD or something similar and the speaker only has a few minutes to get the need for situational awareness and preparation drilled into their heads….. like maybe right before they walk into a college frat party where alcohol is being served. So using this phrase first to grab attention and then clarifying that it means you can’t tell the ones who won’t assault you from the ones who will if the opportunity presents itself could be useful (I do think studies should be done for what can impact lots in short presentations in positive ways with minimal negatives, but keeping people safe while the research is going on is also important and this is effective from what I have seen, even though there might be costs to it). Bystander intervention and self defense classes are for when there is more time and attention and should be very high priority. The “potential rapists” is at best a stopgap measure, imo, for when teaching safety. I think it can also be useful if you are interacting with a male or males who appear to be introspective and making an effort at empathy and the purpose of the conversation is to teach them perspectives women hold to improve communication, help a relationship, etc. I would suggest using it then not to teach situational awareness and preparation, but instead ask the males why they think a woman might see things that way. And if they start protesting it’s false, etc, remind them you aren’t asking if she is wrong or right to feel that way, you are asking why she does. Hopefully there is more than just “she swallowed the propaganda”, but even if that is the response, then a follow-up question could be ‘why do you think she found it believable?’

Yes, you are correct that it collapses the distinction. That's the whole reason why the phrase "every man is a potential rapist" is valid. Because there isn't a difference. That's why I think your phrase "sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so all situations warrant extra caution" is invalid because you seem to think there are situations where a woman should use extra caution and a situation where she doesn't need extra caution and so doesn't need to worry about sexual assault. But if every situation requires extra caution (and thus is the base default), then that would turn the phrase into "sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so all situations require caution" or "all men are potential rapists". Unless you can show situations where a woman doesn't need to worry about sexual assault from men, then "all men are potential rapists". And this isn't a group-level accusation similar to "all black men are rapists". A man, by virtue of being a man, is stronger than a woman. He is dangerous to women. A black man, by virtue of being black, is not stronger than women. His blackness has no impact on his dangerous ability. The "all X" in the two statements are not the same category.

I agree with this and feel it needs more than a thumbs up. He is impressive.

Most situations do not warrant "extra" caution. The claim that “sexual assault can happen, therefore extra caution is always warranted” collapses the distinction between possible and probable, and between ordinary awareness and treating every man as a threat. If every circumstance requires "extra caution," then there is no "extra." Yes, sexual assault has occurred in grocery lines, homes, crowded daylight settings, and social gatherings. That is true of virtually every crime and every location. It does not follow that every situation warrants the same elevated or "extra" caution, or that the proper form of caution is a standing presumption about all men as being "potential rapists." Ordinary life already includes baseline awareness: you notice who is near you, you react to someone who is staring, following, ignoring boundaries, or behaving aggressively. That is not the same as treating every man in the grocery line, every husband at home, every stranger in a crowd, or every man in a mixed hot tub as a potential rapist who must be specially managed. The latter is the categorical claim. The former is normal situational awareness that people of both sexes already practice toward many risks. If the standard is “has this ever happened here?”, then no situation escapes, and the advice becomes “treat all men as threats at all times.” That is not a calibrated safety heuristic; it is the original slogan restated. Calibrated and reasoned caution looks different: heightened attention in isolated or high-risk settings, responsiveness to actual behavioral cues, and ordinary social trust in low-risk, everyday contexts. The fact that rare events can occur anywhere does not erase those differences or justify the group-level accusation. Thanks, -Smac

Ok, name a situation that doesn't warrant extra caution. Here's some that have already come up in this chat: Standing in line at a grocery story - sexual assault happens so extra caution is warranted At home with husband - sexual assault happens so extra caution is warranted Walking in broad daylight in a crowd - sexual assault happens so extra caution is warranted In a hot tub with other women as well as men - sexual assault happens so extra caution is warranted

Online text-based discussions can be a difficult venue for conveying dry humor. A literal thinker is a person who processes spoken or written language based on its strict, exact, and surface-level meaning rather than its implied, metaphorical, or social subtext. I am not one or the other of this. Okay. Thanks, -Smac