bluebell

I thought it was fine too, just funny at the same time.

It is a little humorous to use AI to summarize a message about AI usage in the church. 😁

They were all active serving members in the cases I’m aware of. I think the plaques serve the same purpose as the missionary ones. In these same wards we would send Christmas cards to the service members as well as the missionaries. The plaques helped us remember everyone who was serving.

In a couple of my previous wards that had quite a few young men serving, they would put a plaque up with their military picture, information, and favorite scripture and display them along with the other missionary plaques.

I hope no one has implied that all evangelicals are anti-Mormon. I didn’t say that because I don’t believe it’s true. But what is true is that most of my personal anti-Mormon experiences have been at the hands of people who identify themselves as evangelical.

https://www.kylebeshears.com/p/what-constitutes-evangelical-anti This guy does a good job of calling out anti-Mormon rhetoric in evangelical circles

My anti-Mormon experiences were mostly with baptists but foursquare church attendees were usually meaner about it. Faith Evangelical in Billings Montana worked tirelessly to stop the temple from being built, for example, and protested people trying to attend after it was finished.

That's a good distinction that some on here might not have realized or wanted to consider: we are not saying that every man has a rapist inside of him that he could decide to let out at any minute. We aren't saying that men's natures are evil and that's why they can't be trusted.

It goes without saying that when a woman says something to the effect of “all men are potential rapists“ the “and also potential murderers” part is assumed. So is stuff like “all men are potential stalkers“ and“ all men are potential abusive spouses“ and “all men are potential kidnappers” and “all men are potential sexual molesters“. Etc, etc. Because when a woman says “all men are potential rapists“ it’s just shorthand for “all men are potentially dangerous”. So any way that a man could be dangerous to a woman, just assume from now on that that is included in the anxiety that drives the sentiment.

I think that you are probably a 100% right. And honestly, in a lot of ways it makes all of this so much worse. Because what you are essentially pointing out is that the victims of violence and sexual misconduct at the hands of men cannot expect the majority of men to want to help stop that violence unless they first treat those men in a very specific, male-centric, way. They must use the correct language. They must make sure the the men don't feel unfairly treated. They must not impugn the male character. Drawing attention to the problem is acceptable but only if it is done very carefully, with a focus on the male perspective, using male-approved language. Because a woman who has been sexually assaulted and harassed (more than once throughout the course of her life, likely starting while she was still prepubescent) cannot expect a nice guy to hear 'all men are potential rapists' and realize that she means 'women cannot reliably know which men are dangerous'. That is too much to ask of the 'safe' men around her. (I'm sorry if the anger in this post feels directed at you Amulek because it's not. You are just the messenger. It's the fact that the message is so horribly on point that is the bitter pill to swallow)

Teach Men Not to Rape "I observed the inner workings of “guy code” as a captain of my college’s basketball team. In the locker room, we’d assert ourselves by nonchalantly referencing girls we had slept with. I heard more than once: “If we couldn’t have sex with girls, we’d never talk to them.” I participated in the bravado, even if begrudgingly. Guy code didn’t come easy to me, something that had a lot to do with my upbringing. I was 12 years old when my father died in a car accident, turning my family’s lives upside down. In the wake of his death, my mother became the picture of strength. My coming of age was spent helping my mom, who taught me (whether inadvertently or not) that only a gender-equal, open-minded perspective could lead to happiness. Naturally, I was excited when I stumbled on a campus group called Male Athletes Against Violence. There I learned that stereotypical masculine attitudes and hierarchy can play a huge role in why sexual assaults happen on campus — men are rewarded for displays of sexuality and women are shamed for them: “Boys will be boys” while some women are “asking for it.” When I tried to convey this line of thinking to my peers, I spoke of deconstructing sexist norms and the importance of feminism. As you might expect, I didn’t meet with much success. Male-oriented approaches to sexual assault on campus often take a more conservative stance, essentially sending the message that men should be concerned about sexual assault because they could risk jail time or be kicked off a team....." The bolded part is how the discussion in this thread has felt. That it's really about making sure the men feel safe and comfortable and are being treated fairly more than it's about keeping women safe.

Men could also do some research themselves, to understand why it was said and what supports it rather than focusing on trying to refute it. Putting the onus on the woman to teach the man, especially when some men naturally come at the conversation from a place of pushback rather than leaning in, is emotionally exhausting.

I saw a thing online (not sure if it is true) that said that there is so much AI stuff out there now that AI ends up using AI as sources for its content, making it even less accurate than it used to be. This would not surprise me.

Yes thank you for clarifying for me. It never entered my mind that someone would think I was comparing men to parasites. 😂 But I probably should have, given Smac’s previous posts about the kind of a person he believes I am.

Women bear the consequences of Eve’s fall.

I’m not senator but it seems like Adam and Eve and the Fall is a good example of the difference between collective guilt and collective consequences.

I do agree with your comment about being situationally aware and not categorically distrustful. I know that I've said that context matters more than once in this thread and I've not been the only women poster to do so. It's just that the application of your comment looks different for women than how you want it (or demand, if we aren't racist apostate Christians) to look. Webbles explained the disconnect that you seem to be having perfectly when he said: "From what I've read from the other women, they seem to agree with [being situationally aware and not categorically distrustful]. The difference is that they see every situation as something they have to be aware. There is rarely a safe situation. Standing in line in a convenience store in the middle of the day seems like a safe place, yet it wasn't. So women are being situationally aware, it is just that most situations require distrust." The only thing that made that situation at the convenience store dangerous to me was that there was a man in close proximity to me. So, reason and experience (not prejudice) say that any time there is a man in close proximity to me, I need to behave as if he is a potential threat until I know that he's not.

I think this sums up the discussion well. It is an uncomfortable topic, both for men and for women. Women are forced to sit in the discomfort because there is no way to escape it but for men it's a choice. Some men are willing and some men aren't, probably for a few different reasons. I personally struggle most with the men who refuse to sit in the discomfort because they believe it is unfair to men to be asked to do so.

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 Yes, thank you for making my point. Men’s biology makes them more dangerous to women in general. I appreciate you summing it up so clearly. i’m unsure what to do about your point of what if we lived in a fantasy world where none of this was true and the opposite was real. I suppose in that world then women would be a potential threat to men.

🙌🏼

Perfectly put.

That's a great way to rephrase what I've meant on this thread. Thank you.

Prejudice is an opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. I don't know of any women who view all men as a potential threat who do so without valid reasons and actual harmful experiences (multiple) at the hands of men (multiple).

I'm going to post a link to a great article that you might not decide to read but hopefully others will who are interested in this topic. https://nupoliticalreview.org/2024/11/05/not-all-men-but-enough-men/ "Yes—not every man would willingly engage in sexual violence or gender-related crimes. However, when there are multiple countries stating that gender-based violence is becoming a national emergency and an influx of extremely graphic sexual crimes are regularly reaching the headlines, it is becoming abundantly clear that while it may not be all men, it is enough men. Gender-based violence is not the result of isolated incidents but rather a pervasive, systemic issue fueled by deep-rooted misogyny that spans across global societies. The increasing frequency and severity of gender-related crimes in our so-called “modern world” highlights the urgent need to hold not just individual perpetrators accountable, but to address the cultural, legal, and governmental structures that enable and perpetuate violence against women and girls worldwide." Finally, to the problems with bringing up violent women statistics in this discussion is multidimensional so I'm going to let chatgpt summarize: Arguments about female offenders often fall flat in discussions about women's safety around men because they conflate individual violent acts with systemic, pervasive threats. While women are entirely capable of committing crimes, the core of the women's safety debate centers on statistical risk, power dynamics, and public intimidation. [1 (https://xyonline.net/content/male-bashing), 2 (https://nupoliticalreview.org/2024/11/05/not-all-men-but-enough-men/), 3 (https://www.facebook.com/psychologytoday/posts/the-idea-of-a-woman-sexually-abusing-her-own-son-is-unthinkable-to-many-which-is/10158348780758845/), 4 (https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2026/01/07/why-utah-still-cant-confront-violence-against-women/), 5 (https://thediplomaticinsight.com/how-anti-gender-backlash-is-reshaping-feminist-activism-in-pak/)] Here is why these comparisons miss the mark in broader safety conversations: Disproportionate Scale: Statistically, the vast majority of violent crime, sexual assault, and harassment globally is perpetrated by men. Focusing on female offenders statistically minimizes the overwhelming, daily reality of the threat women face from male violence. [1 (https://nomas.org/lies-fathers-rights-groups/), 2 (https://medicamondiale.org/en/violence-against-women/causes-and-consequences), 3 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/18902138.2026.2657755), 4 (https://wilcunningham.medium.com/all-men-are-dangerous-b3894b15d915)] Power Dynamics and Fear: Conversations about women's safety are deeply tied to the physical intimidation and structural vulnerability women experience. A woman walking alone at night is generally not fearing a random violent attack from another woman; she is navigating the pervasive threat of male physical dominance. Intimate Partner Violence: While women do commit domestic abuse, the severity and lethality of injuries heavily skew towards male perpetrators. The context and fear associated with male-perpetrated domestic violence carry uniquely systemic patterns of control and danger. [1 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00328855221079258), 2 (https://ijsi.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/18.02.005.20251002.pdf), 3 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10849105_Gender_and_role-based_perceptions_of_domestic_abuse_Does_sexual_orientation_matter)] The "Whataboutism" Effect: Bringing up female offenders in a conversation meant to address male violence is often perceived as derailing the issue. Instead of addressing the specific systemic behaviors that restrict women's freedom (like street harassment or workplace safety), it shifts the focus away from the primary demographic responsible for the vast majority of these offenses.

Thank you. This was so validating and lifted my heart. It brought tears to my eyes to be so understood. We need more men who are more concerned with changing things so that women can feel safer just living their lives.