All Activity

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

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"?