bsjkki

That logic falls apart quickly. We don’t say: “Not all Black men, but enough…” → therefore treat all Black men as potential criminals. “Not all Muslims, but enough…” → therefore treat all Muslims as potential terrorists. We rightly reject those as unfair stereotypes, even when troubling statistics exist within those groups. The same principle should apply to sex. Painting half the human population with the brush of “potential predator” based on the worst actors is prejudicial and corrosive to human relationships. The healthier approach is to judge individuals by their character and behavior, while still acknowledging real patterns and taking reasonable precautions and mitigation efforts (e.g., don’t be alone in vulnerable situations with anyone you don’t know well, pass and vigorously enforce laws, etc.). Blanket suspicion of an entire sex is not wisdom. It is generalized prejudice. And I think it is beneath Latter-day Saints to participate in it. The “enough men do it” framing is often used to justify fear and lowered standards of evidence toward men as a class. If we flipped the genders, most people would immediately recognize it as unfair. That double standard is worth examining. Men have higher overall rates of violent victimization (except for sexual assault). Men commit the overwhelming majority of violent crimes (typically 80–90% for serious violence). Per this study (kind of old, in 2000) (see also here, here, here) : Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression against their heterosexual partner (effect size d = -0.05, meaning a small female advantage in any aggression). Women also used such acts more frequently in some measures. However, men were significantly more likely to inflict injuries (d = +0.15). Overall, 62% of those injured by a partner were women. In short: When measuring any physical aggression (pushing, slapping, throwing objects, etc.), women perpetrate at rates equal to or slightly higher than men in intimate relationships. When measuring severe outcomes (injuries requiring medical attention), men are clearly more violent. The persistent large gap in serious violent offending (homicide, aggravated assault, robbery) is best explained by a combination of: Physical capacity (strength, size, testosterone-driven aggression) — men are far more capable of successfully committing physically dominant violence. Behavioral tendencies rooted in biology (greater male variability in aggression, evolutionary pressures around status and competition). When physical differences are reduced (e.g., domestic settings, weapons, or non-physical coercion), female perpetration rates rise substantially. This supports the idea that ability/capacity is a major factor. Thus, many women engage in violence. But men’s greater physical capacity and aggression-related biology make them disproportionately responsible for the most damaging and lethal forms of violence. This explains, I think, why overall violent crime statistics show men as ~85%+ of serious violent offenders, even while female perpetration is far from negligible in certain contexts. This article also merits some attention: The 1 % of the population accountable for 63 % of all violent crime convictions And this one: The Case for Incarceration Some excerpts: To sum up: When physical differences are reduced — such as in domestic settings, through the use of weapons, or via non-physical coercion — female perpetration of violence does rise substantially. Studies like Archer’s 2000 meta-analysis show that in intimate relationships, women perpetrate physical aggression at rates equal to or slightly higher than men for minor-to-moderate acts (slapping, pushing, throwing objects). CDC data on “made to penetrate” similarly shows women committing the large majority of those incidents against male victims. However, this does not mean women would commit serious violence at rates comparable to men if they had equal physical capacity. Even in contexts where strength gaps are narrowed, men still cause the overwhelming majority of serious injuries and homicides. Men’s greater average upper-body strength (roughly 50-60% more), higher testosterone levels, and greater variability in aggression-related traits give them a significant biological "advantage" in inflicting severe harm. Men go to war, enter the police force, fight fires, participate in violent sports, etc. more that women do because they are, broadly, better at such things than women. This is neither praise nor condemnation. It's just a statement of reality. The Cicero Institute’s analysis reinforces a related point: crime is highly concentrated among a small group of high-rate offenders. While women do commit violence (especially in intimate or low-physical-demand contexts), they represent a much smaller share of chronic, high-volume, serious violent offenders — the group responsible for the bulk of societal harm. This pattern holds across decades of data and is not easily explained away by socialization alone. In short: Plenty of women resort to violence, particularly when physical barriers are lower. But men’s biology makes them far more effective at causing serious injury and death. This explains why men account for roughly 85%+ of serious violent offenders in official statistics, while female perpetration becomes more visible in settings where raw strength matters less. This reality supports treating individuals based on behavior rather than blanket generalizations about either sex. Thanks, -Smac You are missing the point. You are not listening.

Awful. He needs to stop his campaign. Voters won't go for this from a lying deceiving LDS man. The church does not announce excommunications usually, correct? So, he would have to be asked. Someone needs to ask him. Sad his Bishop and Stake President got 'deer in the headlights.' Prominent member and friend...just shows how much it takes to have proper action taken in a timely way. Did they call the hotline right away at least? Did they get the answer this was between adults...these were serious accusations of infidelity and very improper behavior for a member of the church. In my case when a home teacher harassed my daughter through Facebook through a fake profile, the church did nothing. It wasn't sexual but they did nothing at all and we had to switch wards. The ward did nothing to warn unsuspecting families about this disturbed individual who made many, many people feel very uncomfortable. Bishops would let him latch onto the next family until they figured out something was not right about him...like asking to take their 11-year-old on a road trip and texting their teen daughter privately. It was crazy.

My husband came home from work and scrolled on his phone and ranted for 10 minutes about how dumb these names are. 😳

I think it good to have ‘names’ again but this is an irritant of mine. They have renamed youth organizations too often. It’s annoying. The primary groups are particularly annoying. Edit to add newsroom link. New Young Women Age‑Group Names Emphasize Faith, Hope, and Light

I was so disappointed realizing we have to wait until September for this change. I am ready now.

To add to the mix, BYU Idaho released this video about a mom choosing to work and share her talents. Interesting…I watched it and now the video is set to private.

Full post.

It’s crazy to me how much controversy erupted on social media over this post by the church. I see no issue.

This will be great for those of us with ADHD. 😂😂

As people attend their asylum hearings and are denied asylum, do you believe they then need to leave the country? Most have not committed crimes and even under Biden, only 40% of claims were approved. Currently it’s at 26% which with the huge influx of claims makes sense. People had learned to say the words but don’t have the evidence to support their claims and come from safe countries. So, if we surge judges, it means more people must leave even sooner. Actual asylum hearings have never been a rubber stamp. The 5th circuit ruling yesterday (will still head to Supreme Court) also changes things dramatically. No bond and in detention until legal process plays out instead of being released with court date. Many would prefer to just go back in those circumstances.

So there is a dip and the border is now closed. Isn’t this wise since the system was overwhelmed? Even when Biden increased judges from 400 to 700 the backlog increased enormously due to the change in border policies that increased asylum claims.

Well, at least now it is decreasing.

The backlog is due to Biden breaking the asylum process. See backlog chart. Can we agree that these 25000 listed should have been handed over and the 33,000 in California prisons should be handed over upon release? https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/02/05/murderers-sex-offenders-and-drug-traffickers-released-jails-directly-california https://www.dhs.gov/wow I don’t under why you want convicted criminals to stay. Plus over a million have final removal orders.

No, I just think the foreigner with no legal status should be deported for being in the country illegally. It's a separate crime from the initial crime. Are we required to not ever deport anyone once they cross the border?

Legally, the remedy is the same.