Troubling Allegations Against Former Sheriff in Pinal County, AZ (Church mbr)

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I'm open to learning.  

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).

Edited Friday at 03:27 AM by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, none of you is promoting the idea of going and telling young women "You are, each and every one of you, a potential child molester and sexual predator, until and unless you affirmatively demonstrate that you are not."  That would, in my mind, constitute misogyny, and is also quite a bad idea.

I don't think the women here are saying that we need to go and tell young men that "You are, each and every one of you, a potential child molester and sexual predator, until and unless you affirmatively demonstrate that you are not".  That's not what I read from their statements.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Some women are sexual predators, but nobody is saying "Ah, then all women are potential sexual predators."

Umm, I do.  I treat everyone I deal with as a potential threat, whether that is sexual threat or some other threat.  I don't know why I do that because I've never gone through what many women have gone through but I want to be safe.  So anyone I interact with, I have to attempt to validate whether or not I'm safe around them.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am sorry that you feel that way.  That blows past open prejudice and misandry and dives headlong into misanthropy against the children of God.  I don't think that's how the Lord wants us to view each other.

I am grateful my sons have not read what you and Bluebell have said in this thread.  I hope that they do not encounter the messaging you are advocating.  That this ugliness is coming from Latter-day Saint women I have admired and respected in virtually all other respects is quite troubling.

I feel like you and the others are actually agreeing just in an odd way.

You said that "I think the healthier mindset is: Be situationally aware, not categorically distrustful."  From what I've read from the other women, they seem to agree with that.  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.

I don't think the women are saying "Every man is a potential rapist" but that "Every person who can physically harm me is a potential rapist".  And for the vast majority of women, most men can physically harm them.  There are very few women who can physically out-class a man.  It isn't "the person has an x-chromosome" that is the potential rapist but "the person who is taller and has more muscle mass" is the the potential rapist.  I'm guessing the women would agree that a smaller woman around a much larger woman would also need to be situationally aware.  Similar to a smaller man being around a much larger man.  Having an x-chromosome does make a person larger and stronger but it isn't specifically the x-chromosome that is the problem, but the larger and stronger part.  I also think that is why trying to bring up race or religion doesn't make sense.  Neither of those have any impact on strength or size.

That's what I'm seeing from this conversation.  The point of difference isn't the statement "all men are rapists" but what are the situations when you can stop being distrustful.

Edited Friday at 03:28 AM by webbles

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, webbles said:

From what I've read from the other women, they seem to agree with that.  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.

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

[Calm]

17 hours ago, webbles said:

Umm, I do.  I treat everyone I deal with as a potential threat, whether that is sexual threat or some other threat.  I don't know why I do that because I've never gone through what many women have gone through but I want to be safe.  So anyone I interact with, I have to attempt to validate whether or not I'm safe around them.

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.  

Edited Friday at 08:44 PM by Calm

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

I understand the impulse behind “Not all men, but enough men” — male-perpetrated sexual violence is a serious problem and the numbers are higher overall. But we have to be consistent.

We now have a documented list of over 300 female teachers (mostly in the U.S.) who have been accused or convicted of sexually abusing minor students. That’s just one narrow category (female educators) over a relatively short time period. There are many more cases outside of schools. Female-perpetrated sexual abuse is real, especially against boys and male teens.

So if we apply the same logic:

“Not all women, but enough women do it… therefore women should treat all men as potential threats” — Why wouldn’t the same standard mean men should treat all women as potential sexual predators?

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

Quote

Population-based studies on violent crime and background factors may provide an understanding of the relationships between susceptibility factors and crime. We aimed to determine the distribution of violent crime convictions in the Swedish population 1973–2004 and to identify criminal, academic, parental, and psychiatric risk factors for persistence in violent crime.
...
A total of 93,642 individuals (3.9 %) had at least one violent conviction. The distribution of convictions was highly skewed; 24,342 persistent violent offenders (1.0 % of the total population) accounted for 63.2 % of all convictions. Persistence in violence was associated with male sex (OR 2.5), personality disorder (OR 2.3), violent crime conviction before age 19 (OR 2.0), drug-related offenses (OR 1.9), nonviolent criminality (OR 1.9), substance use disorder (OR 1.9), and major mental disorder (OR 1.3).

 

Conclusions

The majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by a small number of persistent violent offenders, typically males, characterized by early onset of violent criminality, substance abuse, personality disorders, and nonviolent criminality.

And this one: The Case for Incarceration

Some excerpts:

Quote

There are four essential findings that policymakers and the public must know:

• Most crime is committed by a small percentage of people.
• A small percentage of criminals account for almost all crime.
• There is no such thing as a “non-violent” or “low-level” offender. A property offender is statistically more likely to commit a new violent offense than a violent offender.
• Incarceration works by preventing criminals from continuing to victimize their communities, and is a proven strategy in reducing overall crime rates.

Policies must be enacted that adopt automatic persistent-offender enhancements and hold prosecutors and judges accountable for failing to uphold the law.
...
 

John MacDonald, Ph.D., Professor of Criminology and Sociology at University of Pennsylvania, wrote a treatise in Vital City on the role criminology research should play in developing public safety policy, lamenting the lack of applied research findings to most reformers’ ideologically-driven approaches. Dr. MacDonald highlighted what he called “seven indisputable facts about crime and offenders” derived from decades of criminology research.

These seven indisputable facts are the following:

1. Crime is highly concentrated by place. As little as 3% of addresses and 5% of street blocks account for more than 50% of crimes reported by citizens to the police.^[1]
2. Crime is also concentrated by times of day, days of the week, and months. Summers, nights, and weekends are peak times for violence.^[2]
3. Crime is highly concentrated among active offenders. Most of the criminal offending in the population is generated by a small fraction of chronic offenders, such that the incapacitation of one high-volume offender abates an estimated 9.4 felony offenses.^[3]
4. Just as crimes are highly concentrated among places and people, so are the social costs of crime.^[4]
5. Among criminal offenders, the rate of offending peaks in early adulthood, consistent with the “age-crime curve.”^[5]
6. Offenders do not specialize in specific offense patterns. Rather, active offenders tend to engage in what could be called a “cafeteria style” of offending. While some offenders show repeat behaviors, even the most optimistic approaches to estimating offense specialization can only find some modest evidence of offending preferences.^[6]
7. Criminal offending occurs within social networks, and the most active offenders tend to be clustered within dense criminal networks.^[7]

Dr. MacDonald writes that “evidence-based crime policy should be guided by programs that confront these basic facts.”^[8]

This review is focused on the utility of incapacitating high-rate offenders. The reality of a small set of offenders committing the clear majority of crimes requires a carceral response to keep communities safe.

High-Rate Offenders

It should be no surprise that five of MacDonald’s “seven indisputable facts” are related to the concentration of crime. Criminology research has long recognized that a select few offenders account for almost all crime commission.

This split, between the offending population and the nonoffending population, is crucial for actors in the criminal justice system responsible for public safety to recognize and accept.

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

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We now have a documented list of over 300 female teachers (mostly in the U.S.) who have been accused or convicted of sexually abusing minor students. That’s just one narrow category (female educators) over a relatively short time period. There are many more cases outside of schools. Female-perpetrated sexual abuse is real, especially against boys and male teens.

 

Are you suggesting people aren’t having discussions about teacher abuse?  There has been a discussion about it as long as I have had kids and grandkids in school in my experience.   And it’s not just or primarily about male teachers. 
 

Not only that, but extensive measures have been put in place.  Mandatory reporting includes reporting of other teachers, for example. There are ongoing discussions of how to improve child safety.  I don’t believe I have ever seen someone use the argument ‘but look, mothers assault their kids too, why aren’t you talking about them’ when someone says we need safety measures for all teachers, not just some.

Edited Friday at 03:57 AM by Calm

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

n 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.

And if the point of teaching caution if to avoid harm, then doesn’t it make sense to spend the most time on talking about what causes the most harm and being prepared for it?

Quote

This reality supports treating individuals based on behavior rather than blanket generalizations about either sex.

And the reality is 

Quote

men’s biology makes them far more effective at causing serious injury and death.

 

Edited Friday at 04:02 AM by Calm

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

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?

The "messaging" being what?  If not "all men are potential rapists," then what messaging do you have in mind?  

Is this messaging the cause of "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance"?  The effect?  Both?  Can messaging which demonizes men as a category exacerbate chronic anxiety and hypervigilance?  I think so.

"Chronic anxiety" is a persistent state of excessive worry or dread that lasts for months, often out of proportion to actual events.  That's how I see it, anyway.

Hypervigilance:

Quote

Hypervigilance, a symptom often seen in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety disorders, is an intense state of alertness that can make everyday life feel dangerous.1 This exaggerated fear response keeps individuals constantly on guard, scanning for threats, which can be exhausting and disrupt daily routines. Understanding hypervigilance is crucial as it significantly impacts personal well-being and interpersonal relationships .

I would like to better understand where you are coming from here.  There are undoubtedly cultures in the world in which women face real and substantial risks on a day-to-day basis, such that chronic anxiety and hypervigilance are based on actual circumstances and experience.

I hear you, and I’m not dismissing the real experiences you and MustardSeed (and many other women) have had. Bad experiences with men — harassment, assault, betrayal, etc. — are painful and leave scars. I get why that would create anxiety and hypervigilance. No one should minimize that.  There are certainly places and circumstances times of day where women should keep their head on a swivel.  

That said, I think we have to be careful about scaling personal and shared experiences into a general rule that “all men are potential threats” or that chronic anxiety/hypervigilance is the rational baseline response for women in America.

Most men are not predators. The vast majority of men go through their entire lives without committing sexual violence. Painting them as “potential rapists” until proven otherwise (as Bluebell and others seem to do) requires treating millions of decent men as guilty until proven innocent.

I’m not saying women should be naive or ignore red flags. Reasonable caution is smart for everyone — men and women alike. But there’s a big difference between healthy situational awareness and chronic anxiety and hypervigilance applied to half the population as a default setting. The latter can become self-reinforcing and make normal, healthy interactions between men and women more difficult. 

Experiences matter. Trauma is real. But so does proportion and context. There are huge swaths of America where crime levels are low.  Living in such a place in America while maintaining a level of fear as if it were 1980s South Africa or parts of modern Afghanistan seems like it may be more influenced by cultural messaging, social media echo chambers, and shared storytelling than by the actual statistical risk in a woman's daily environment.

That said, I want to listen to what you have to say.  What generalized circumstances exist in the U.S. which compel/create "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting people aren’t having discussions about teacher abuse?  

No.  I am suggesting that such discussions do not typically involve categorical denunciations of all women everywhere as "potential sexual predators."

Some are.  Most are not.  Safety and mitigation measures should be developed and deployed and maintained.  Laws need to be enforced.  We can do that without vilifying all women because of the actions of some few of them.

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

There has been a discussion about it as long as I have had kids and grandkids in school in my experience.   And it’s not just or primarily about male teachers. 

I am glad this topic is being addressed.

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not only that, but extensive measures have been put in place.  Mandatory reporting includes reporting of other teachers, for example. There are ongoing discussions of how to improve child safety.  I don’t believe I have ever seen someone use the argument ‘but look, mothers assault their kids too, why aren’t you talking about them’ when someone says we need safety measures for all teachers, not just some.

I was not speaking of the category of "women teachers," or even "teachers."  I was, instead, speaking of the category of women.

Most women are not predators.  The vast majority of them go through their entire lives without committing sexual violence. Painting them as “potential rapists” until proven otherwise requires treating millions of decent women as guilty until proven innocent.  The thing is, though, is that I have not seen people going around advocating for this sort of thing.  

Again: Most men are not predators. The vast majority of men go through their entire lives without committing sexual violence. Painting them as “potential rapists” until proven otherwise (as Bluebell and others seem to do) requires treating millions of decent men as guilty until proven innocent.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That said, I want to listen to what you have to say.  What generalized circumstances exist in the U.S. which compel/create "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance"?

Why does there need to be a "generalized circumstance"?  If an individual woman has bad interactions with those that are larger than her, why isn't it ok for her to have "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance"?  And what would be wrong with her telling her friends to also have "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance"?

[Rain]

42 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't think the women here are saying that we need to go and tell young men that "You are, each and every one of you, a potential child molester and sexual predator, until and unless you affirmatively demonstrate that you are not".  That's not what I read from their statements.

Umm, I do.  I treat everyone I deal with as a potential threat, whether that is sexual threat or some other threat.  I don't know why I do that because I've never gone through what many women have gone through but I want to be safe.  So anyone I interact with, I have to attempt to validate whether or not I'm safe around them.

I feel like you and the others are actually agreeing just in an odd way.

You said that "I think the healthier mindset is: Be situationally aware, not categorically distrustful."  From what I've read from the other women, they seem to agree with that.  The difference is that they see every situation as something they have to be aware. 

42 minutes ago, webbles said:

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.

When I was on my mission we went to teach an 85 year old, short old man. We didn't think anything of it - he's old! At one point I turned to use the phone.  When I turned around he had his arms tight around my comanion and was kissing her and it was obvious she did not like it! I tried to remove his arms from around her, but he was much stronger than I was.  I learned quickly that being old did not make someone I could trust.

42 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't think the women are saying "Every man is a potential rapist" but that "Every person who can physically harm me is a potential rapist".  And for the vast majority of women, most men can physically harm them.  There are very few women who can physically out-class a man.  It isn't "the person has an x-chromosome" that is the potential rapist but "the person who is taller and has more muscle mass" is the the potential rapist.  I'm guessing the women would agree that a smaller woman around a much larger woman would also need to be situationally aware.  Similar to a smaller man being around a much larger man.  Having an x-chromosome does make a person larger and stronger but it isn't specifically the x-chromosome that is the problem, but the larger and stronger part.  I also think that is why trying to bring up race or religion doesn't make sense.  Neither of those have any impact on strength or size.

Yes.

 

42 minutes ago, webbles said:

That's what I'm seeing from this conversation.  The point of difference isn't the statement "all men are rapists" but what are the situations when you can stop being distrustful.

 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Experiences matter. Trauma is real. But so does proportion and context. There are huge swaths of America where crime levels are low.  Living in such a place in America while maintaining a level of fear Ning. as if it were 1980s South Africa or parts of modern Afghanistan seems like it may be more influenced by cultural messaging, social media echo chambers, and shared storytelling than by the actual statistical risk in a woman's daily environment.

This is not listening.  This is having a conversation with yourself.  Maybe try again reading what I and others said and responding to that instead of your own personal focus?

If you want another example of listening, try webbles’ posts.

Edited Friday at 04:32 AM by Calm

[smac97]

1 minute ago, webbles said:

Quote

That said, I want to listen to what you have to say.  What generalized circumstances exist in the U.S. which compel/create "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance"?

Why does there need to be a "generalized circumstance"? 

Because we are speaking in generalizations.  A woman living in modern-day Afghanistan may well experience "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance" because she is living in a culture and system of laws in which violence against women is generally condoned and endemic/systematic.

If there are particularized circumstances in the U.S. which compel/create "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance," I'd like to better understand those as well.  But generalizations may also be worth considering.

1 minute ago, webbles said:

If an individual woman has bad interactions with those that are larger than her, why isn't it ok for her to have "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance"? 

I think it’s completely understandable for any individual woman who has had bad or scary experiences with larger/stronger men to feel heightened caution around certain situations or people. That’s normal self-protection. No one should dismiss real trauma or pretend it doesn’t affect someone.

The question is where we draw the line between healthy caution and chronic anxiety + hypervigilance as a default way of moving through the world.

If a woman has had multiple bad experiences, it makes sense that she might be more guarded. But applying chronic hypervigilance toward all men (or most men she doesn’t know) has real downsides:

• It can become exhausting and anxiety-inducing for her over time.
• It makes normal, healthy interactions with good men much harder (including friendships, dating, working with male colleagues, etc.).
• It risks turning personal pain into a broad generalization about half the population — the same kind of generalization we rightly criticize when it’s applied to other groups (“all Black men are dangerous,” “all Muslims are threats,” etc.).

Most men are not a threat. The statistical reality is that the substantial majority of men will never commit serious violence against a woman. Reasonable situational awareness (“I’m not going to walk alone at 2 a.m. with a stranger”) is smart. Living in a constant state of fear and suspicion toward men as a category, especially in a relatively safe place in the U.S., can cross over from protective into counterproductive.

Personal experience should inform our caution, but it shouldn’t completely override broader evidence about actual risk levels in our environment. Trauma is real, but so is the cost of letting it define how we see all men.

What do you think is the right balance here? I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from.

1 minute ago, webbles said:

And what would be wrong with her telling her friends to also have "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance"?

There’s nothing wrong with women warning each other about real risks and sharing safety tips. That’s responsible.  What is problematic, IMO, is encouraging “chronic anxiety and hypervigilance” as a default way of living — treating most men as potential threats until proven otherwise.

That mindset:

• Fuels unnecessary fear and anxiety (which is already very common).
• Makes healthy relationships and interactions with good men harder.
• Turns personal caution into a broad prejudice against half the population.

Reasonable vigilance is smart. Chronic suspicion of men as a category, especially in areas where women are generally pretty safe, is neither accurate nor helpful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Experiences matter. Trauma is real. But so does proportion and context. There are huge swaths of America where crime levels are low.  Living in such a place in America while maintaining a level of fear Ning. as if it were 1980s South Africa or parts of modern Afghanistan seems like it may be more influenced by cultural messaging, social media echo chambers, and shared storytelling than by the actual statistical risk in a woman's daily environment.

This is not listening.  

Yes, it is.  You are speaking, and I am listening.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is having a conversation with yourself.  

This is me saying what I think, in response to what you are saying.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe try again reading what I and others said and responding to that instead of your own personal focus?

I'll just bow out.  I don't think this discussion is productive.  I will leave the last word to you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If there are particularized circumstances in the U.S. which compel/create "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance," I'd like to better understand those as well.  But generalizations may also be worth considering.

Well, considering that a high percentage of women have had bad interactions with men, I think that is a good indication that there is a "general issue".  Just because US women don't have Afghan style interactions with men doesn't mean that their interactions should be discounted.  Being groped while standing on the bus is a much less crime than being raped or sold into sexual slavery, but it is still a horrible thing to have happen and it seems to occur pretty frequently in the US.  You don't even need a lot of men to be the gropers.  One man can easily grope 100s of women.

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it’s completely understandable for any individual woman who has had bad or scary experiences with larger/stronger men to feel heightened caution around certain situations or people. That’s normal self-protection. No one should dismiss real trauma or pretend it doesn’t affect someone.

The question is where we draw the line between healthy caution and chronic anxiety + hypervigilance as a default way of moving through the world.

How do you draw a line when you don't even know where the line should be?  How do you tell that man A is going to be nice to and man B is not going to be nice to you.  They both could be upstanding members of your community.  They both could have a wife and children.  They could have 100% identical outgoing features.  But that one day the woman is alone in a room with man B, he gropes her.  If man A and man B look the same, what line can you draw?  I get that it would be nice to have a line, but there is no visible sign on a man that he will be a predator.

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If a woman has had multiple bad experiences, it makes sense that she might be more guarded. But applying chronic hypervigilance toward all men (or most men she doesn’t know) has real downsides:

• It can become exhausting and anxiety-inducing for her over time.
• It makes normal, healthy interactions with good men much harder (including friendships, dating, working with male colleagues, etc.).
• It risks turning personal pain into a broad generalization about half the population — the same kind of generalization we rightly criticize when it’s applied to other groups (“all Black men are dangerous,” “all Muslims are threats,” etc.).

I would say we need to teach men to be more aware of how they impact women.  I remember going to an EFY session.  The speaker had a young man come up on stage.  The speaker put a microphone on the boy's chest so we could all hear his heart beat.  Then the speaker asked a young women to come up on the stage and walk towards the boy.  His heartbeat went up noticeably.  The speaker used that as an example of why women need to be aware of how they impact men.  I think we should have similar discussions with men.  They need to be aware that women are worried about their safety around men.  And men should act accordingly.  We (men) should take responsibility that the natural fact of our larger body frames causes women to be guarded.

And I don't think this generalization ("men are potential predators") is anything like "all Black men are dangerous" or "all Muslims are threats".  Bringing that up is a red-herring to me.  Because if I'm in a room with a 350lb person who is 7' and can bench press 400lbs, I'm going to react with caution.  That person can easily overpower me.  Men are naturally stronger than women.  Black men aren't naturally dangerous.  Muslims aren't naturally threats.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it is.  You are speaking, and I am listening.

Alright.  I will rephrase my belief as accurately as I can without excessive detail. You are not processing what I am saying/meaning, but likely focusing on what you are thinking/meaning in response to what you assume I will be saying because otherwise it seems to me you wouldn’t be repeating certain irrelevant points.

I suspect there are some of your comments I am not getting as well.

Quote

don't think this discussion is productive.

I agree.

PS:  just want to be clear I don’t believe your misunderstanding my points and I suspect others’ comments is malicious or anything, but a strong focus on your understandable concern, which I believe is demonstrated in your response to bluebell that started the subtopic on the phrase (you brought it up expressing your opinion—as I interpreted it—that it showed inappropriate chronic anxiety and hyper vigilance in your acquaintance) in response to bluebell’s comment about a study that showed men typically struggled to believe accusations about other men because they relate—understandably so—to other men. 

 It was your third point in disagreeing with the study (or at least her memory of it) about how men being concerned with being falsely accused might make them reluctant to accept accusations of  others that led to the further discussion…though now I think about it, that kind of goes along with the study as the men are putting themselves in the place of the accused in the sense of their own worry about being falsely accused, not being correctly accused…what if it happened to them?  They would of course hope that someone would not assume they were guilty because they wouldn’t be guilty.

It’s very understandable why any man would be concerned about being falsely accused by a woman even if the stats on false accusations are much, much lower than the stats on women being assaulted by men.

And it’s not uncommon to misunderstand what others say because of a preoccupation with an appropriate concern.  Pretty much has happened to everyone I know where I have been able to observe both sides of a conversation.

 

Edited Friday at 07:05 AM by Calm

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, webbles said:

Well, considering that a high percentage of women have had bad interactions with men, I think that is a good indication that there is a "general issue".  Just because US women don't have Afghan style interactions with men doesn't mean that their interactions should be discounted.  Being groped while standing on the bus is a much less crime than being raped or sold into sexual slavery, but it is still a horrible thing to have happen and it seems to occur pretty frequently in the US.  You don't even need a lot of men to be the gropers.  One man can easily grope 100s of women.

How do you draw a line when you don't even know where the line should be?  How do you tell that man A is going to be nice to and man B is not going to be nice to you.  They both could be upstanding members of your community.  They both could have a wife and children.  They could have 100% identical outgoing features.  But that one day the woman is alone in a room with man B, he gropes her.  If man A and man B look the same, what line can you draw?  I get that it would be nice to have a line, but there is no visible sign on a man that he will be a predator.

I would say we need to teach men to be more aware of how they impact women.  I remember going to an EFY session.  The speaker had a young man come up on stage.  The speaker put a microphone on the boy's chest so we could all hear his heart beat.  Then the speaker asked a young women to come up on the stage and walk towards the boy.  His heartbeat went up noticeably.  The speaker used that as an example of why women need to be aware of how they impact men.  I think we should have similar discussions with men.  They need to be aware that women are worried about their safety around men.  And men should act accordingly.  We (men) should take responsibility that the natural fact of our larger body frames causes women to be guarded.

And I don't think this generalization ("men are potential predators") is anything like "all Black men are dangerous" or "all Muslims are threats".  Bringing that up is a red-herring to me.  Because if I'm in a room with a 350lb person who is 7' and can bench press 400lbs, I'm going to react with caution.  That person can easily overpower me.  Men are naturally stronger than women.  Black men aren't naturally dangerous.  Muslims aren't naturally threats.

Thank you.

[Calm]

Since the discussion on how women should prepare themselves to be around men went not too far, how about we change the discussion to focus on men’s POV.

Men here….what do you think you can do personally to help women feel safer so that ideas like “every man is a potential rapist” become ancient history and how would you change the general conversation among men in our cultures to create an overall safer environment?

Iow, what do men believe men can and should do about violence, including sexual violence in our cultures?

Edited Friday at 05:15 AM by Calm

[MustardSeed]

Let me make this clarification since smac seems personally attacked. 
 

If smac was on a secluded trail walking toward me, and i knew  somehow it was smac from  mormondialogue, id have no concerns for my safety.  Same scenario, if i  didnt  know it was  him at all, id be on  high alert. 
 

i believe most people understand this without spelling it out , but just in case-

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I understand the impulse behind “Not all men, but enough men” — male-perpetrated sexual violence is a serious problem and the numbers are higher overall. But we have to be consistent.

We now have a documented list of over 300 female teachers (mostly in the U.S.) who have been accused or convicted of sexually abusing minor students. That’s just one narrow category (female educators) over a relatively short time period. There are many more cases outside of schools. Female-perpetrated sexual abuse is real, especially against boys and male teens.

Okay, how many male teachers? Can you do a comprehensive list like you did for female teachers?

Or would that break the discussion board and require a whole thread of posts to list them all.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

So if we apply the same logic:

“Not all women, but enough women do it… therefore women should treat all men as potential threats” — Why wouldn’t the same standard mean men should treat all women as potential sexual predators?

That is not the same logic. It is not even close.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Uhhhh….actually lots of people say that. They are wrong to do so but acting like we are above that is ridiculous but this is a meaningless tangent where you are trying to suggest women that don’t trust men are somehow the equivalent of racists which is messed up.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

How about we fix the actual problem and have less sex crimes and sexual harassment?

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Oh, and now you are sayin that women who live defensively around men are bad Church members. Racists and potential apostates! Can accusations of anti-semitism be far behind? Stay tuned and find out.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

And here we go. Again you can only see this from the viewpoint of men. Your concern is that all this sexual criming by men against women might lower the standard of evidence and threaten men. Can you please focus on the victims and not the imagined potential danger to men that gets brought up regularly to justify inaction?

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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).

You are showing how violent men in our culture are to suggest that women shouldn’t be cautious around men? That is an interesting strategy.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Okay, so your argument is that it is not men’s fault that they have a physical advantage and therefore…..what? And you are arguing that women might be equally dangerous or violent towards men if they had a strength advantage.

Well……yeah. This is like the argument that those that are marginalized minorities in a society now might oppress those who are in power if their positions were reversed. And yeah, probably. If Africans had been colonialists and marginalized and oppressed other people it would probably be just as bad the other way. Saying otherwise is probably racist. People are people.

What does this hypothetical establish though? Women might oppress and threaten and use violence against men if they had the advantages men have in terms of physical strength and all their social and cultural advantage so therefore because of this what men do is just normal and fine and we should ignore it?

How about we tear down those social and cultural advantages and try to become more civilized and not create the cultural and social systems that lead to these abuses? When you are defending the status quo you are letting those problems continue.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

No, it really doesn’t and your old data that isn’t in line with a lot of broader conclusions is clearly picked solely because you imagine it supports your viewpoint. We were talking about sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. Most men aren’t victimizing other men in this way nor are there a lot of women victimizing women or men in this way. It is overwhelmingly a men assaulting and harassing women problem. It is not even a tiny minority of men. It is a disturbingly large percentage and an even greater percentage defend the men who are predatory. You are ducking the problem by trying to generalize in a way that isn’t helpful or relevant. 

When women tell you their lived experience and the lived experience of the other women they know and love and the measure they take that have been passed down and adapted by women to keep themselves safe talking about the relatively rare violent women to somehow even the playing field is unhelpful and irrelevant.

LISTEN TO THEM. Stop trying to explain everything away or make it about you. It is an uncomfortable topic but you have to sit in this discomfort for a while if you actually want to fix it.

Edited Friday at 11:01 AM by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

Also in the relatively rare cases when female teachers assault male students our culture doesn’t help them either. Fixing the screwed up culture that creates sexual predators would help boys who suffer abuse too. Right now we tend to tell them that it wasn’t that bad since guys always want sex and….yeah:

 

[MustardSeed]

Honestly Smac some folks just love to argue.  I’d like to excuse myself now.  This is ridiculous. 

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Let me make this clarification since smac seems personally attacked. 
 

If smac was on a secluded trail walking toward me, and i knew  somehow it was smac from  mormondialogue, id have no concerns for my safety.  Same scenario, if i  didnt  know it was  him at all, id be on  high alert. 
 

i believe most people understand this without spelling it out , but just in case-

Perfectly put. 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, webbles said:

Well, considering that a high percentage of women have had bad interactions with men, I think that is a good indication that there is a "general issue".  Just because US women don't have Afghan style interactions with men doesn't mean that their interactions should be discounted.  Being groped while standing on the bus is a much less crime than being raped or sold into sexual slavery, but it is still a horrible thing to have happen and it seems to occur pretty frequently in the US.  You don't even need a lot of men to be the gropers.  One man can easily grope 100s of women.

How do you draw a line when you don't even know where the line should be?  How do you tell that man A is going to be nice to and man B is not going to be nice to you.  They both could be upstanding members of your community.  They both could have a wife and children.  They could have 100% identical outgoing features.  But that one day the woman is alone in a room with man B, he gropes her.  If man A and man B look the same, what line can you draw?  I get that it would be nice to have a line, but there is no visible sign on a man that he will be a predator.

I would say we need to teach men to be more aware of how they impact women.  I remember going to an EFY session.  The speaker had a young man come up on stage.  The speaker put a microphone on the boy's chest so we could all hear his heart beat.  Then the speaker asked a young women to come up on the stage and walk towards the boy.  His heartbeat went up noticeably.  The speaker used that as an example of why women need to be aware of how they impact men.  I think we should have similar discussions with men.  They need to be aware that women are worried about their safety around men.  And men should act accordingly.  We (men) should take responsibility that the natural fact of our larger body frames causes women to be guarded.

And I don't think this generalization ("men are potential predators") is anything like "all Black men are dangerous" or "all Muslims are threats".  Bringing that up is a red-herring to me.  Because if I'm in a room with a 350lb person who is 7' and can bench press 400lbs, I'm going to react with caution.  That person can easily overpower me.  Men are naturally stronger than women.  Black men aren't naturally dangerous.  Muslims aren't naturally threats.

🙌🏼

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I understand the impulse behind “Not all men, but enough men” — male-perpetrated sexual violence is a serious problem and the numbers are higher overall. But we have to be consistent.

We now have a documented list of over 300 female teachers (mostly in the U.S.) who have been accused or convicted of sexually abusing minor students. That’s just one narrow category (female educators) over a relatively short time period. There are many more cases outside of schools. Female-perpetrated sexual abuse is real, especially against boys and male teens.

So if we apply the same logic:

“Not all women, but enough women do it… therefore women should treat all men as potential threats” — Why wouldn’t the same standard mean men should treat all women as potential sexual predators?

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. 

Edited Friday at 02:44 PM by bluebell