Calm

Same here. It is just smart. I see it as comparable to teaching safety around stoves and knives and food in general when teaching cooking. Teaching awareness of potential issues with raw meat, for example (any meat has potential toxins/parasites) does not inherently imply one should erect barriers or avoid food. Or be overly anxious around it. In fact, the goal is to increase confidence and allow a person to have greater skill in engaging with it…similar to defensive driving. It is just teaching how to wisely treat potentially dangerous ingredients so one is less likely to get sick or kill someone accidentally. It is smart when one has a limited time to teach to spend more time on the more potentially dangerous aspects of cooking or begin with the most dangerous. That’s wisdom, not prejudice. Being completely clueless about the dangers of food may mean you have no anxiety, but it doesn’t protect you. And once you become familiar with getting food poisoning or sick in other ways or cut a finger or burn oneself, it makes more sense to learn the ways to protect yourself rather than just ignore the possibilities. The latter will more likely lead to greater anxiety and avoidance then actual preparation. Added: Will there be some that react to the teaching by becoming too anxious and start avoiding cooking, sure. But should that mean we stop emphasizing the necessity of food safety of the more potentially dangerous practices or items? That would be foolish.

If you are open to learning, perhaps you should spend more time asking and listening rather than defending your own POV. For example you could ask what women mean by the phrase and then discuss those ideas rather than latching on to a potential, but pretty much unproven, just assumed problem with it and then trying to prove it’s illogical or prejudicial (by using it in ways women here aren’t using).

Given that every woman I know has similar experiences to MustardSeed and myself (and most women don’t share them very often, my husband doesn’t know them all in my case), how do you know the chronic anxiety and hyper vigilance is not from experience, but rather the messaging?

Except that’s not what you accomplished and I am rather surprised you weren’t aware apparently that it wouldn’t do that as your argument is not a logical rebuttal of the point of view, it is just another restatement of your own POV that the presence of wrongdoing is not a reason to be cautious with everyone until there is sufficient reason not to be. If it didn’t work by pointing out not all men were perpetrators, why would it work be more reasonable to point out not lots of women are predators to? There are many women who may not feel threatened in the same way by other women, but there is a category difference with men that makes your point useless: women are not inherently stronger or faster or more aggressive than other women, there is therefore much less chance that one can be physically controlled by another woman while the chance is very high that almost every man a woman will encounter will be able to physically overpower them. Which is what most women are doing when they say “every man is a potential witness” so why are you arguing against it? No, I am not. You are simply going there even though I specifically say I do not. Since you seem to approve of Chat, this was its response when I asked it “what is the meaning of “every man is a potential rapist”? If you want to promote shared understanding, you need to pay attention to what others are saying and that doesn’t mean just their most recent post in the conversation. Which why I wonder why you claim I am not doing it to women and instead have a double standard? I have said over and over, including in that post that I believe was women (and men) should view anyone as a potential threat, Iow always be prepared. I mentioned earlier my most violent experience was with a woman (a near relative in fact). It appears you continue to make assumptions about what I believe and this misinterpret me. Maybe you should consider this is happening with other women in this context. Yes, there is a small segment of women who intentionally use this and other phrases to attack all men as inherently violent. I have no problem if you want to critique that particular usage, but to dismiss the phrase outright as problematic is inappropriate imo. Find out first how women are using it rather than critiquing it immediately. Then critique what they actually mean if that’s problematic. Just because you think it’s making women inappropriate hyper vigilante and interfering with forming decent attachments to men (as opposed to actual experiences of being assaulted by men) and creating inappropriate discrimination against men in general doesn’t mean it’s actually happening. I have seen benefit from teaching women to be aware that one can’t tell who will be violent just by looking at them, so I want to see evidencd the downside is higher than the benefits of helping people be better prepared and therefore safe before I start promoting the complete retirement of the phrase. As long as our culture emphasizes the woman’s role in preventing sexual violence and does not address effectively the man’s role, we will continue to get such maxims in our culture to help spread awareness among women. If we want to avoid violence, education is the best way. Ignoring the problem or downplaying it certainly hasn’t worked. I myself would not use the phrase “every man is a potential rapist” (it’s too close to becoming a cliche which are too easy to ignore, imo) when counseling others to adopt safety routines and increase awareness, but I won’t tell others not to use it unless I know they are doing it to ascribe blame to all men (have never talked to a woman who does that, btw). I would instead stress how even though there are red flags out there and we need to be aware of them, there is not guarantee when it comes to predicting who will be violent or where assaults will happen for individuals or their loved ones, so it’s best to be prepared. And I would give examples of the most ‘unlikely’ predators…and I would definitely include women and juveniles in those examples. I would also encourage rehearsing in one’s mind the worst scenarios and even perhaps role playing with one’s children what one should do when in a dangerous situation so we are less likely to freeze or be clueless about how to react.

You really need to stop and think why you felt the need to point to women doing wrong to defend against the idea that men can do wrong. This is a serious suggestion. All you did at most is justify women being viewed as potential rapists as well. Was that your intent? If not, then why did you do it? Because whatever purpose you had, it likely didn’t work and it should have been obvious it wouldn’t. And it would be useful to seriously think why that didn’t happen for you where it did happen with Nehor and has happened with others on the board in the past (and failed not only with you but other posters, so you are not an exception). My view: Boys (because they are also physically vulnerable being significantly smaller and slower until adulthood and some even then) and men should be getting the same lessons on safety as well even if in most cases for men with women, they can’t and aren’t physically forced because women are not stronger than they are…though women no doubt have used knives and guns and counted on surprise and being able to exit the situation quickly to grope a man (suspect most men will just freeze to begin with, but some could get violent in response). And juveniles are abused about a third of the time by other juveniles, so age may lower the risk, but does not remove it. Parents need to consider this when thinking about sleepovers, it’s not just the adults that are the issue. I know one therapist who never let his kids have sleepovers even with us because he had heard too many stories….turned out a distant relative of my husband every adult thought was great had been abusing kids for decades, mostly very young ones. Between the two of them, I am antisleepovers now as well because that would have been a case of I ‘knew better’, I would have felt secure in letting my kids sleep at that pervert’s house because his wife was fantastic and is fantastic. A lovely woman who was completely fooled by her husband, I am certain…because no one told her to look for red flags, but that her feelings of trust and love would be enough (she is 30 years older than me, so it’s understandable why she missed it as her generation never talked about it and emphasized loyalty and love and trust towards one’s spouse, so my guess is if she ever felt uncomfortable, she unwittingly suppressed it).. Lessons for all youth need to be about preparing oneself so one can be safer in the presence of other men and women as well. Smac, you have now have justified a world where everyone needs to be vigilant towards anyone else until they know better…and even then need to still remember stress and trauma may change people, so probably best never to think such is impossible to happen, but keep in mind somewhere an awareness of red flags. Guess we can end this conversation on this note: You, Smac, are quite right that women should not be thinking “every man is a potential rapist” as that is a potentially harmful belief. It should be “every person is a potential rapist” instead and not just women, but men as well. Welcome to reality. Good luck.

The dangerous situations I have been in were while I was trying to be nice and not let the guy think I didn’t see him as a friend. In these cases they restricted my movement, preventing me from leaving the situation (in one case the guy had even disabled my car, so after work I had to be alone with him in an almost empty parking lot, I had told him I didn’t want to go on dates with him any more because he made me uncomfortable, but I had been gentle in doing so and just said I didn’t want to waste his time as I didn’t see it going anywhere; he was attempting to persuade me otherwise by forcing me to listen to him, he even blocked me from closing the car door).

I can see some maybe willing after retirement, but this could develop into something that is equivalent to a bishop’s job if they cover a large number of wards, but without counselors and other supports to help out. Plus there may be no one trained in this field that should be used as a supervisor and this is not something that one should going in as a newbie and gaining experience on, but should start as fully trained. So they may need to get a nonmember, who is unlikely to volunteer. Consistency would be best as well, so being an employee rather than a volunteer seems the wisest course for having professionals advisors assisting bishops with this (though I see it as less assistance and more as a team effort since the pro should be able to overrule a bishop who doesn’t believe safety measures should be taken). It is ridiculous that so many bishops think they are prepared enough to work with offenders, that common sense and love is enough.

There are two descriptions of sifting. The usual biblical interpretation in my experience is the first step of threshing the wheat to remove the chaff and then sifting to remove debris. The technical description has sifting occurs after it’s milled, so I am wondering if the usual biblical interpretation is wrong or the meaning of sifting has changed over the years. (Checked with Chat, it says the modern version is due to change, sifting in the biblical sense is to remove impurities, which makes the idea of Satan sifting rather odd as even if somehow the good wheat got mixed n with chaff and dirt, why wouldn’t he try to corrupt that as well?) The sifting of wheat divides the various parts of the milled wheat into bran, germ, and flour (larger particles get milled again until the right size). Either description refers to sorting….What that has to do with flaxen cords and binding…you have lost me. Satan is binding everyone he can get, not sifting it seems to me in the scripture, even if he starts out gently and gradually ramps up his control. Mixed metaphors are confusing.

He would have hated me. Never even got a parking ticket, let alone a speeding one.

It is not surprising he was already familiar with the Church as there is enough info out there and if I was choosing to do a challenge on living like members of any religious community, I would research it deeply first so I didn’t look like an idiot. And being a YouTuber, if one is used to looking at one’s life for ideas to make videos whether or not one is motivated by money or just enjoy doing it, it’s hardly surprising that if one is considering a major life change to set it up in a way to interest others…thus the challenge. So either past research led to the interest and therefore likely baptism and that led to the challenge or past research led to the idea of the challenge and therefore led to more research and thus either primed him for baptism or he had already decided. The missionary discussions…would be interesting to know if he took them before. Were the discussions themselves recorded? It is good PR for the Church, another opportunity to educate others about what happens so I assume the elders would be happy to go along with it, just hope it wasn’t a fake for them, everyone pretending it was his first time IF he had done them before, especially if he had already decided to be baptized and was not just thinking it might be a possibility or wasn’t planning at all, but had a change of heart after actually doing the challenge (not assuming he did as there is a good chance he decided to do a challenge once he decided he would have the missionaries over or he decided to have the missionaries over because he needed content to make the 30 days more interesting). All the above makes me slightly uncomfortable probably just because I find it very strange to want to document one’s life so publicly, but obviously there are others who feel differently and as far as I know there is nothing inherently wrong with that (will be interesting to see what long term effects it will have on people as I can see lots of potential problems, it certainly adds complications and stress to one’s life but plenty of wonderful things do that too). Then there is my concern of the potential of the financial benefits being a major driver of behaviour rather than doing something purely because one is interested in it or see it as beneficial in non financial ways, but plenty of people make major decisions based on interest in money, such as what to take in college and what career to pursue (and unfortunately often end up not enjoying that part of their life), so that’s likely not that different than before, social media is just another, very accessible option…though I wonder how many actually make enough to balance their investment of time and effort. Hopefully most who are doing it primarily for money or stardom don’t invest money into the setup until they are making enough to cover those costs. It would be disappointing though if I found out he was going so far as expecting to become a popular speaker in the Church because then I worry that baptism is motivated by more than just being captivated by the Spirit and maybe loving the community. There are a lot of valid reasons to join a faith and looking for a place to belong is high up there, imo, but looking to get attention and changing behaviour based on that, I see it as setting oneself up for dissatisfaction later on, especially with our faith as it is high demand.

But every situation is potentially vulnerable until it’s not. You have the most violence against women in the home. Many times this occurs only after the couple has been together long enough the abuser feels in control of the other. Prior to that they may be the most charming of people. Behaviour may only occur after decades of living together when stress skyrockets like with the loss of a job or something else where the person feels devalued. Domestic abuse may not even show up until someone retires. being at church or interacting with clergy may be a vulnerable situation. Being in school may be a vulnerable situation. Being at the doctor’s may be a vulnerable situation. Being in a crowd may be a vulnerable situation (lots of gropers love crowds, even rapes can happen when it’s so crowded it’s hard to see around people…large man covering smaller woman from others’s sight). Being alone can be vulnerable (only person in a parking lot). Please share a location or situation where there will never be vulnerability of any significance?

Never mind about this…I lost track of where I was heading. Too many other conversations have taken place since then (grand girls over tonight).

Yep.

Except it’s not race that is the primary factor in stats and therefore it is wrong to use race primarily as the identifier. However, being male is the primary determinant (it doesn’t make a massive difference whether someone is black or white, it does make a massive difference if they are male or female…though again it happens often enough female it makes sense to be to be vigilant with females as well, not hyper vigilant, but vigilant).

Wait…they just started out to live like a “Mormon” without any intention of joining the Church? okay…watched the first video, he was going to go to church a couple of times during the month and reading the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible daily and praying, but said nothing about seeing the missionaries. Did he ever explain why he chose LDS to emulate? I got the impression he was just choosing us for our upright and disciplined image as he seemed to want to try more discipline in his life.

Yes, I think that is happening. I don’t see it as an accusation, it’s a matter of fact observation. I don’t think less or more of any individual. I just include that knowledge as part of my awareness/evaluation of individuals I engage with/encounter in much the same way I might take age into account and keep track of anything that is wise to keep track of in youth or the elderly. Stats for auto accidents are high enough insurance is required for every driver. But not every driver is going to cause a costly accident. Enough are though it becomes reasonable in enough people’s view to require it. Holding the possibility in mind is similar to taking out insurance. One prepares for the worst, hopes for the best…and is more likely to receive it or at least “the good” because one is prepared. I have no doubt that many use it as provocation. It has gotten old that so often the result of women being victimized is not any serious attempt to create fewer predators (male or female) in our cultures, but to tell women to avoid looking like a victim, to limit their freedom, etc.

Depending on the mental health specialist…suggesting someone who specializes in such, not just some random member who is a therapist. Might be a social worker. Thus having to hire someone. Hopefully a member so it would make it easier to visit the relevant wards, but wouldn’t have to be. Somewhere like Utah, probably a number of stakes could share this employee. Would depend on the workload.

Why would he need or want to? Why not just use them all? Seems like the more tares out there, the better it is for him.

I am sorry I made you feel embarrassed, made things awkward. I didn’t think of it that way. To me, it’s just like watching a dance (maybe not the best analogy right now, lol), just how we all interact in rhythms with each other, responding, giving and taking, advancing and retreating. Some dances look instinctual while others are very formal, maybe even awkward to others, but they are meaningful and possibly beautiful to those performing them. The only problem I have with dancing is when it’s not done with joy, but resentment (did a few of those in PE class, dance was not my thing, I wanted gymnastics). If people are happy with their lifestyle choice and not bitter, not feeling trapped, who am I to say it’s limiting and they should change it? (Referring here encouraging embarrassment or shame, to me that is different than presenting a different morality and saying I believe living this way can lead to greater joy and happiness.) As LDS, we have plenty of cultural behaviors that look odd and limiting to others that many of us find deeply meaningful and most probably are quite comfortable with them (garments under our clothing are probably the most obvious one for awkward conversations in my experience). I just have a hard time thinking of how using such a nonromantic, non expressive**** item like a pen would satisfy in even a small way the desire/need for physical contact and not simply aggravate the frustration. For me, I would prefer avoidance. But human communication is adaptable and perhaps it can work for some by not replacing, but making a small connection or expression of emotion, so provide some satisfaction. And then there is the whole flirtation languages….which completely escapes me, I could never do that (thankfully my husband is also straight forward in that sense). The variety of human behaviours fascinate me. I currently immersing myself in historical and fantasy shows of ‘ancient times’ of China and they have the very frequently used trope of violation of the no physical contact between sexes rule that is used so much to create conflict…as in they actually have debates in emergencies that it’s better to let a person die than be touched by the opposite sex to save their life (very inconsistently applied in nonemergency situations since it’s a modern audience) because whether the victim or the saviour, the woman’s reputation will be destroyed and she will have to marry the other or be an outcast (and yet that never actually happens in the show, it is pretty much forgotten once they move on to the next crisis in the plot). So your mention of the pen startled me a bit because it reminded me of some of the ways they depict youth bending the rules. Drinking from the same place on a cup your love drank from is ultimate romance, but sometimes they have them each holding the end of a sash or hair ribbon between them. I often think when watching these shows that they go overboard because the portrayal makes it look just so inconvenient (probably why they forget to keep the distance much of the time), but your example reminded me that it can and even does still happen even in places that don’t restrict women to only the family home. Humans make their own lives so much more complicated than they need to be. Sometimes I wonder if we are all a little insane. ***I started laughing after labeling a pen non expressive, but I am comparing it to a feather or ribbon in my head…the connotation of a pen itself (as opposed to what it produces) is very mundane, blah, common, cold often and hard, nothing I really associate with emotion.

So you don’t think women should be cautious with every man (or person if you prefer like I do) until proven otherwise? What determines in your view who they should be cautious with and who they shouldn’t be cautious with? I am trying to understand what you are seeing when you hear this so I can communicate my own position better, not challenging or nitpicking….just trying different questions in hopes of getting the details that help me understand. I am thinking you view suspicion in this case differently than I do…as the person is being negatively evaluated as bad as opposed to simply not making a decision they are safe and therefore staying prepared for both safety and danger. Do you take issue a problem with the phrase “every man is a potential non rapist”?

Training as needed, but on an ongoing basis they should evaluate the person and tell the bishop what safety measures should be in place in each case, which the bishop is required to follow, not just see as suggestions. And then the pro supervises (visits the ward or talks to members) to ensure their instructions are followed over time. And anyone with concerns can go to them as well as the bishop. The person being watched could also express concerns, both request for help or if they are being harassed or mistreated somehow and the bishop isn’t taking that seriously.

It’s not logical since the threat exists with all men. She is not being properly aware if she chooses to ignore potential threats from whites or others besides black men. To be safer, she needs to expand her caution to all men. I almost got wiped out by a wheelbarrow flying off a landscaping pickup on the freeway. I tend to be extra alert when I see landscape vehicles with wheelbarrows, but I still drive defensively with all cars. Just extrapolating to all black men would be like extrapolating to all red cars.

A mental health professional. I think the Church should hire professionals for this. Doesn’t have to be a full time job. Consulting would work probably.

I think you are making incorrect assumptions about what I and maybe others mean by being prepared for possible violence from any man (anyone for me…the most violent experience in my life was with a woman) or treating men as potential rapists/abusers. It does not mean the same as treating men as abusers/rapists.

No, reasonably based on stats she should be extrapolating them to all men.