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

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

If you want to communicate that "women cannot reliably know which men are dangerous," then why not just say that? 

Fair enough, and I do think that typically in a regular conversation, this is a language that I would use.

But to be honest, when I’m walking down the street and nobody else is around, and a man I don’t know is walking up behind me, the first thing I think is “ protect yourself from rape”.  
Also, when I am walking out to my car in a dark parking lot, and there are not many people around, I’m looking out for men. Any men. 
 

Also, under certain circumstances, I’m hyper aware of just about any man I know when I am alone with them. Not my biological brothers, not my husband, not my sons. But literally, everybody else. I’m not screaming in my head, “he’s a rapist!” But rather my awareness is heightened.  There’s only one reason that I am that way and that is because of potential.  It’s a sad reality but I’m very used to it.  I can see how that would be jarring for any man to read or hear- so I rarely say it out loud. EDITING TO SAY: I rarely say it out loud not because it doesn’t need to be said, but because it’s unpleasant to deal with the aftermath of saying it out loud. It would be nice to say it out loud and be met with curiosity, not the battle cry “Nonsense”. 

 

Edited Wednesday at 04:42 PM by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

I edited a few things in my previous post fyi. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Right now, I'm not convinced of its usefulness in terms of a rhetorical strategy. If you want to communicate that "women cannot reliably know which men are dangerous," then why not just say that? 

My opinion and experience is not enough young women take the cautioning seriously enough when it is phrased in less dramatic terms.  Stats demonstrate they need to be more cautious than they are.  

I had the usual cautionings taught me young and still there were several things I look back on and think how absolutely stupid I was   And I know I was light years more cautious than most of my friends.

Women didn’t come up with the phrase to crush men’s self esteem, but to save their own lives.

I do believe that if I had been exposed to this phrase back in my dating years, I would not have made several choices that led to me being alone with young men way too early in the relationship. Might not have prevented all of my stupid choices but quite a few.

I am not positive that even this phrase can do that given youths’ less developed brains, but I would want to see research that shows it’s not that helpful in teaching young women and women in general to raise their cautious before dispensing with it completely. 

In your opinion, if it leads to more women keeping closer eyes of drinks and perhaps choosing nonalcoholic ones, keeping a closer eye on their friends when out as a group, and other wise safety measures than the less emotional phrases would you see it as having enough value to stick around?

I am not saying it should be used in all contexts and if used, it should also be explained why it’s being used in spite of some men and women might find it offensive and to encourage people not to use it to attack men in general, but to remind themselves of the need for caution in any situation until one knows better…and in youth remember the “until one knows better” is probably a very few situations.

I just don’t think any tool of value should be thrown out when there aren’t that many effective ones available for the individual. 

I do want people to be more receptive in this discussion as that will more likely lead to change, but I also want young women and women to be safer and as long as our culture isn’t doing it as it should, we have to teach them to do it themselves and for each other.

And I have to add that I think the vast majority of women have been nice, have been concerned about men’s feelings for probably forever…most women have men they deeply care about and don’t want to hurt.

But here we are, still having to have this discussion after eons of sexual violence against women and children and men.  How much longer will it take being nice about it to get the needed changes?  If being calm and rational will lead to the needed changes, why are we still having this conversation?  Why are so many men still surprised when women open up about their actual experiences in detail?

Edited Wednesday at 05:50 PM by Calm

[Calm]

I am going to be open and say I don’t really understand why so often the first thought men have when they hear this phrase is “you think I am a rapist?” rather than “what horrible experiences has this woman had that she looks at men this way? what hurt her that much?”

This is not a criticism (people don’t have much control over the first thoughts that pop into their heads), this is me being mystified.

Edited Wednesday at 06:23 PM by Calm

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

Quote

Men probably shouldn’t be that upset if women push the potential rapist theme if that means eventually less assaults and harassment of women because the stats typically show a safer world for women is a safer world for men.  Rather than worrying about speculated emotional harm from occasionally encountering a phrase that might be taken in an offensive or diminishing way and complaining about women’s language, seems like it would be a better use of energy to invest in pushing for laws and education that lowers the number of incidents significantly. 

The argument that "men shouldn't be upset if it helps" depends on whether the phrase actually helps.

I think it is helpful that women are not being told that they ought not presume to tell men what they "should" or "should not" think about this or that topic.  Women can have opinions about such things.

That said, I too question on whether the "all men are potential rapists" theme "actually helps."  

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

My inclination would be to characterize it more along the lines of Elder Packer's comment about how "some things that are true are not very useful."

Right now, I'm not convinced of its usefulness in terms of a rhetorical strategy. If you want to communicate that "women cannot reliably know which men are dangerous," then why not just say that? 

I have been wondering the same thing.  I am very enthusiastic about promoting situational awareness and safety and mitigation measures.  I think we can do that without resorting to open misandry and prejudice, collective and indiscriminate guilt, and transmitting demoralizing and alienating messaging to young men.  There are some real costs that come with such things, to both men and women.

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

Because, even if that's the intended meaning, the phrase "all men are potential rapists" is often heard as a generalization about men's character, and when people feel unfairly characterized they tend to become defensive rather than receptive (as we've seen in this very thread).

That would, I think, be a reference to me.  I'll own that.  I resent being characterized - to my face - as a "potential rapist," particularly from fellow Latter-day Saints whom I otherwise have long admired and held in high regard.  I also dislike being compared to a dog or a "nasty parasite."

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

A message can draw attention to a problem while also alienating people who might otherwise support the cause.

I still "support the cause" of finding ways to increase and improve safety for women and girls.  The ugly misandry and prejudice that has been justified and endorsed in this thread will not dissuade me from that perspective.

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

I think it's reasonable to ask whether there are ways to communicate the same concern that generate more understanding and less resentment.

So, while I absolutely support efforts to reduce violence against women, I don't think this particular phrase does much to advance that goal.

I agree.  In fact, I find it counterproductive.  

The categorical suspicion comes with some real costs.  Treating all men as potential threats might feel protective, but it also:

• Risks creating chronic anxiety and hypervigilance {in women and girls};
• Makes it harder {for women and girls} to build healthy relationships with good men;
• Demoralizes and alienates men and boys; and
• Can lead to unfair prejudice (the same logic would be called sexist or bigoted if applied to other groups).

I completely agree women should be smart and cautious "in vulnerable situations."  Situational awareness is wise. But moving from “be careful” to “treat all men as potential rapists” feels like it goes too far and does real damage — both to women and to men who have never harmed anyone.

By the way, I very much appreciate your input.  You have done a far better job of articulating concerns about this theme than I have.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Wednesday at 07:28 PM by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am going to be open and say I don’t really understand why so often the first thought men have when they hear this phrase is “you think I am a rapist?” rather than “what horrible experiences has this woman had that she looks at men this way? what hurt her that much?”

This is not a criticism (people don’t have much control over the first thoughts that pop into their heads), this is me being mystified.

I appreciate you being open about your mystification — that helps.

I think the reason many men’s first reaction is “Are you saying I’m dangerous?” is because broad statements about “men” as a group often sound like they’re being treated as guilty by association. It’s similar to how most people would react to any sweeping negative generalization about a group they belong to.

For example, if someone said “I don’t trust Muslims because some are terrorists,” a lot of peaceful Muslims would probably feel defensive and say “You think I’m a terrorist?” rather than immediately asking what trauma led to that view. The same pattern shows up with many other groups. The instinctive pushback isn’t usually denial that bad actors exist — it’s rejection of being lumped in with them based only on shared identity.

Most men I know fully acknowledge that terrible things happen to women, and they condemn the conduct of them men who do such things. But they resist being viewed with baseline suspicion simply for being male. That defensive reflex is very human. It doesn’t mean they lack empathy for women’s pain — it means they want their individual character and actions judged, not their gender.

I think we can hold two things at once:

• Deep compassion for women who have been hurt by men.
• Resistance to framing men in general as the problem.

Does that help explain where the “you think I’m a rapist?” reaction comes from? I’m genuinely curious how you see it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  I resent being characterized - to my face - as a "potential rapist," particularly from fellow Latter-day Saints whom I otherwise have long admired and held in high regard.  I also dislike being compared to a dog or a "nasty parasite."

It’s so easy to take things the wrong way, as not intended when the subject is emotional.

I resent being groped, being yelled at, being trapped, being physically held when I didn’t ask or wanted to be and was so scared I was frozen and then made to feel guilty that I overreacted.  I resent being scared to be alone at night, having to keep keys or something else sharp in my hands while I walk to my car when I am forced to shop at night.

I am having to teach my daughters the same things I learned because everything that happened to me and much much worse is still happening.

I was nice to men for decades about this subject.  My fellow women are typically nice to men about this subject.  I am too tired and frustrated these days to put in the additional effort to control my emotions so much that I don’t trigger a man’s sensitive feelings.  I may apologize when it happens the first time, maybe even the second.  If they choose to take it the wrong way after it’s been explained multiple times to them, that’s on them.

Iow, if you want to believe we think of you like a dog that bites or a parasite, go for it.  I have no clue why you insist on going there, but after trying way too much to clarify so you wouldn’t misinterpret, I don’t care any more.  

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:02 PM by Calm

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

think the reason many men’s first reaction is “Are you saying I’m dangerous?” is because broad statements about “men” as a group often sound like they’re being treated as guilty by association. It’s similar to how most people would react to any sweeping negative generalization about a group they belong to.

My first thought to “no, my kids can’t sleep at your house because we don’t do sleepovers because I have heard too many abuse stories that happened at sleepovers” was not “how can you think I would abuse your kids, you have known me for years and your brother since you were born!”, but “wow, those stories must be awful!” And then, “yeah, I can see why it’s a blanket refusal because if you limit it to only those you feel absolutely safe with, then there will be those who will push and push with ‘but you let them sleep at their aunt’s, so you must think I am an abuser’.  Little did I know that there will be people who believe you are accusing them no matter what you say.

I also remembered a significant portion of people one think are safe are not, there is no way to guarantee no abuse except to remove the opportunity for it.  One has to make choices about what risk level is acceptable.

Edited Wednesday at 08:15 PM by Calm

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I resent being characterized - to my face - as a "potential rapist," particularly from fellow Latter-day Saints whom I otherwise have long admired and held in high regard.  I also dislike being compared to a dog or a "nasty parasite."

It’s so easy to take things the wrong way, as not intended when the subject is emotional.

Several posters have noted that labeling all men as "potential rapists" is intended to provoke and offend. 

Amulek provided the most astute assessment:

Quote

I'm not convinced of its usefulness in terms of a rhetorical strategy. If you want to communicate that "women cannot reliably know which men are dangerous," then why not just say that? 

"All men are potential rapists" is per se inflammatory and provocative and offensive.

"Women cannot reliably know which men are dangerous" is clinical and accurate.  I agree with it.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I resent being groped, being yelled at, being trapped, being physically held when I didn’t ask or wanted to be and was so scared I was frozen and then made to feel guilty that I overreacted.  

That's quite understandable.  I would resent these things as well.

I have a friend who was forcibly groped by a gay man in a very sexual way.  I think we all can and should condemn that behavior, but I don't think we should to so by publicly asserting that "All gay men are potential gropers."

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I resent being scared to be alone at night, having to keep keys or something else sharp in my hands while I walk to my car when I am forced to shop at night.

I appreciate and understand that sentiment.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am having to teach my daughters the same things I learned because everything that happened to me and much much worse is still happening.

Do you feel violent crime is trending up or down?  I just saw this (dated 05/20/2026) : 

Preliminary FBI data shows a sharp drop in violent crime

Quote

U.S. violent crime fell sharply in 2025, according to preliminary federal data, with murders dropping an estimated 18.1% — a decline that could push the national homicide rate to its lowest level on record if the figures hold.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program reported that overall violent crime fell an estimated 9.3% compared with 2024, alongside broad decreases across major categories. Robbery dropped 18.5%, aggravated assault fell 7.2% and reported rapes declined 7.6%. Property crime was down an estimated 12.4%. The FBI said the estimates, released last week, are based on data submitted by more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies covering about 96% of the U.S. population. 

Nevertheless, situational awareness and vigilance on the individual level, and law enforcement and educational efforts on a broader scale, will always be necessary.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was nice to men for decades about this subject.  My fellow women are typically nice to men about this subject.  I am too tired and frustrated these days to put in the additional effort to control my emotions so much that I don’t triggers a man’s feelings.  If they choose to take it the wrong way after it’s been explained multiple times to them, that’s on them.

Iow, if you want to believe we think of you like a dog that bites or a parasite, go for it.  I have no clue why you insist on going there, but after trying way too much to clarify so you wouldn’t misinterpret, I don’t care any more.  

I hear you, and I’m truly sorry for the experiences you’ve been through. Being groped, trapped, or made to feel afraid and powerless is wrong. No one should have to live with that kind of fear, especially not repeatedly. I can understand why you’re exhausted and frustrated, and why you’re teaching your daughters caution. Those feelings are valid.

What I reacted to was the specific framing you have presented (and endorsed) — referring to me and all other men as “potential rapists” simply because we are male, and not because of our individual actions and character. That lands as a generalization about me and other good men, and I find it both ugly and unfair, especially coming from fellow Latter-day Saints I respect.

I’m not asking you to walk on eggshells or constantly soften your words to protect men’s feelings. That’s exhausting for anyone. But I also don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss men’s legitimate discomfort with being lumped in with predators as “taking things the wrong way” or “their problem.” Most men I know fully support holding actual abusers accountable. What we resist is the idea that maleness itself justifies the unfair and provocative and demoralizing generalization under discussion here.

We both want the same thing: a world with far less fear, harm, and abuse. I believe we can acknowledge real trauma and pain that women carry without assigning collective guilt or suspicion to all men. That doesn’t erase your experiences — it just refuses to treat decent men as part of the problem by default.

I’m sorry this conversation has been painful on both sides. I still hold you in high regard and would rather not let this divide us. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

My first thought to “no, my kids can’t sleep at your house because we don’t do sleepovers because I have heard too many abuse stories that happened at sleepovers” was not “how can you think I would abuse your kids, you have known me for years and your brother since you were born!”, but “wow, those stories must be awful!” And then, “yeah, I can see why it’s a blanket refusal because if you limit it to only those you feel absolutely safe with, then there will be those who will push and push with ‘but you let them sleep at their aunt’s, so you must think I am an abuser’.  Little did I know that there will be people who believe you are accusing them no matter what you say.

I also remembered a significant portion of people one think are safe are not, there is no way to guarantee no abuse except to remove the opportunity for it.  One has to make choices about what risk level is acceptable.

I really appreciate you explaining your thinking. That helps.

I understand the instinct to protect your kids, especially after hearing so many awful abuse stories. Those stories are horrific, and it makes sense why you’d choose a blanket “no sleepovers” policy. Removing the opportunity for harm is a reasonable parental choice in a broken world. I don’t question your right to make that decision for your own family.  In fact, I had that same policy for my children.

Where I still struggle is with the broader cultural shift that seems to treat every adult male as a potential threat until proven otherwise. When someone says “We don’t do sleepovers” as a general rule, that’s one thing. But when it’s paired with language that frames all men (or all people outside the immediate family) as inherent risks, it can feel like good people who have lived honorably are still being viewed through a lens of suspicion by default.

I think part of why some men would react negatively to being told - especially by persons they know well and hold in high regard - that they are "potential rapists" is because even after years of trustworthy behavior, the default assumption in these conversations often still seems to be “better safe than sorry… from all of you.” It feels dehumanizing and alienating and demoralizing.

I agree we can’t guarantee safety — that’s why wise parents set boundaries. I just hope we can do that while still affirming that the vast majority of fathers, uncles, grandfathers, and family friends are safe, loving people who would never harm a child. Blanket suspicion can erode trust and relationships unnecessarily.

I’m glad we’re talking about it. Despite whatever hard feelings this thread may have engendered, I value your perspective and your desire to protect your kids. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Where I still struggle is with the broader cultural shift that seems to treat every adult male as a potential threat until proven otherwise.

It’s wise counsel. I would tell you to talk with women about why this is such good advice but you obviously don’t listen and prefer to argue. 

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

But when it’s paired with language that frames all men (or all people outside the immediate family) as inherent risks

Oh…it should be all men…family members are often the most dangerous. 

Edited Wednesday at 10:56 PM by bsjkki

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

everal posters have noted that labeling all men as "potential rapists" is intended to provoke and offend. 

By every woman who uses it even when they say they don’t mean it that way?  I was responding to your accusation that LDS women posters had compared you to a “dog” and a “nasty parasite”….meaning bluebell since she was the one who used these analogies and probably me since I supported her doing so by clarifying that she was comparing treatments, not man with animal.

Quote

 

"All men are potential rapists" is per se inflammatory and provocative and offensive

I don’t believe that.  Provocative, yes.  Inflammatory and intending to be offensive, depends on the context.  If one doesn’t provide context, best not to use it.  If one can and does, what is the problem if one clarifies it’s about pushing for awareness?

If ever I use it, it is only intended to be attention getting, not to signal to men or women for that matter that I think given the right circumstances every man would rape a woman, only that one can’t tell the difference between men who would and do rape and men who are disgusted by the thought and would beat another guy to a pulp if they saw an attempt and all over variations between.

That a portion of men take it as offensive when it’s not intended that way is understandable if context is not provided, but if they do even when context is provided, that’s on them for not listening or mindreading by insisting they know better than the women what they mean or that women are lying about what they really mean.

I have seen discussing it often as only using it for teaching caution or sharing their feelings of never feeling quite safe in almost all situations with other women, are they trying to offend the women by saying this about men who may never know it’s been said?

An analogy since those have worked so well in this thread….

I see two cars driving down a street, one car swerves and sideswipes the other.  Both cars stop and the drivers get out.  The driver who was hit says “there were no other cars around to avoid, you intentionally hit me, how could you!”  I speak up and say “I don’t think she was trying to hit you, a ball was lying in the street and there was a little kid stepping off the sidewalk running towards it, I think she was moving over to avoid her.”  The other driver says “yes, she’s right, I didn’t realize I was moving so far over I would hit you when I was avoiding the kid.”  The other driver continues to go on “how could you hit me.  That is so wrong.”  I say “but the kid…”.  “She hit me, there was no reason for it, she didn’t have to hit me!”

Swerving to not hit the kid can look exactly like swerving to hit a car…until you learn the kid was there.  Then it should look very different.

Edited Thursday at 12:35 AM by Calm

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

don't think we should to so by publicly asserting that "All gay men are potential gropers."

I don’t know the incident rate of gay men groping, but if it is as high as men (whether straight or gay or other) groping women, I don’t think it’s an issue if correct context is also given and someone is going to a gay bar or other event with a lot of gay men likely to be present.  If it’s out of the blue in general conversation and they just focus on gay men and not other high risk situations, then that is problematic.  

Edited Wednesday at 09:16 PM by Calm

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you feel violent crime is trending up or down?  I just saw this (dated 05/20/2026) : 

Preliminary FBI data shows a sharp drop in violent crime

Thankfully it is going down. Including sexual violence…at least in the US.  Iirc, the drop started in the 90s and while sexual violence hasn’t dropped as much as other violence, it’s still significant.  

Theories behind the drop include better education of young men and women in consent, the inappropriateness of violence, etc. However, another theory is the drop is caused by fewer young men around because fewer are being born since violence occurs at a higher rate with young men.  I really hope it’s the former because that means it’s been real change and not superficial.

However, the most effective form of education is Bystander Involvement and I wonder how well known that is.  We need to add it to the discussion along with the topic of Consent.

Since the drop mostly happened in the 90s, I wonder how much provocative language added strength to the drop.  The Me Too movement increased reporting and disclosure of sexual violence, which should help with enforcement in the long run, but likely temporarily inflate stats as more come forward.  The 1970s was probably when provocative language was added to the discussion, but it may have stayed pretty in-house until the later 80s or 90s. Of course the internet and social media has made these discussions much, much more common since 2000, so that likely has had an impact as well.  I haven’t studied it in depth enough though to get the timeline that detailed…if that is even possible.  

I don’t see the stats as demonstrating it’s safe enough to stop working hard in drawing people’s attention, especially young women, to the dangers of sexual violence or violence of any kind…especially given the massive increase in cyber bullying.  It makes me hopeful there are people listening, but I would like to see work on what is helping most and much, much greater focus on bystander involvement, which means we need more discussion, not less with everyone, not just women.

I assume you aren’t reading the stats’ drop as a signal this is no longer needing to be a major concern for women.  Let me know if I am wrong. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But I also don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss men’s legitimate discomfort with being lumped in with predators as “taking things the wrong way” or “their problem.”

Well tell me how I can tell my daughters and others how to know you are safe when they see you on the street or at church or at court when they have never heard of you before. 

[Rain]

 

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it is helpful that women are not being told that they ought not presume to tell men what they "should" or "should not" think about this or that topic.  Women can have opinions about such things.

That said, I too question on whether the "all men are potential rapists" theme "actually helps."  

I have been wondering the same thing.  I am very enthusiastic about promoting situational awareness and safety and mitigation measures.  I think we can do that without resorting to open misandry and prejudice, collective and indiscriminate guilt, and transmitting demoralizing and alienating messaging to young men.  There are some real costs that come with such things, to both men and women.

That would, I think, be a reference to me.  I'll own that.  I resent being characterized - to my face - as a "potential rapist," particularly from fellow Latter-day Saints whom I otherwise have long admired and held in high regard.

 

I finally realized why, when you started saying things like this, it flooded me with irritation.  It's because it is a form of "asking you to walk on eggshells or constantly soften your words to protect men’s feelings."  You may not mean it that way, but it comes across that way. 

You probably have a thousand ways to tell me I am wrong, but honestly, saying these kinds of things is what makes many women feel they can not speak up.  If nothing else, please listen to what I have said in this post and prayerfully consider it for a day or 2. I don't expect you to have respect for me, but please consider how this affects the women around you. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

  I also dislike being compared to a dog or a "nasty parasite."

I still "support the cause" of finding ways to increase and improve safety for women and girls.  The ugly misandry and prejudice that has been justified and endorsed in this thread will not dissuade me from that perspective.

I agree.  In fact, I find it counterproductive.  

The categorical suspicion comes with some real costs.  Treating all men as potential threats might feel protective, but it also:

• Risks creating chronic anxiety and hypervigilance {in women and girls};
• Makes it harder {for women and girls} to build healthy relationships with good men;
• Demoralizes and alienates men and boys; and
• Can lead to unfair prejudice (the same logic would be called sexist or bigoted if applied to other groups).

I completely agree women should be smart and cautious "in vulnerable situations."  Situational awareness is wise. But moving from “be careful” to “treat all men as potential rapists” feels like it goes too far and does real damage — both to women and to men who have never harmed anyone.

By the way, I very much appreciate your input.  You have done a far better job of articulating concerns about this theme than I have.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited Wednesday at 09:40 PM by Rain

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

But I also don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss men’s legitimate discomfort with being lumped in with predators as “taking things the wrong way” or “their problem.”

Well tell me how I can tell my daughters and others how to know you are safe when they see you on the street or at church or at court when they have never heard of you before. 

I appreciate you asking this directly — it’s a fair and practical question.

Teaching your daughters (and others) how to stay safe in a world with real dangers is important. No one should dismiss that. The challenge is figuring out how to do it without defaulting to “all men are potential rapists.”

Here’s how I think about it:

• Reasonable caution is wise. Pay attention to how someone behaves in the moment — Are they respectful of boundaries? Are they behaving in a calm, steady way, or are they pushy/aggressive?  Trust your gut if something feels off. Situational awareness (walking with purpose, staying aware of your surroundings, avoiding isolated areas at night, etc.) is smart for everyone, men and women.
• Character and community reputation matter. At church, court, or in social settings, people aren’t complete strangers. You can observe how someone treats others over time — their consistency, humility, self-control, and how they speak about women and children. Most decent men have a track record that becomes visible in a community.
• Blanket suspicion of all men creates its own problems. If the default teaching is “all men are potential rapists,” it becomes very hard for good men to build trust, even in safe settings like church. It also teaches young women to live in unnecessary fear of half the population, which can be paralyzing.

I’m not asking you to tell your daughters that every man is safe. I’m asking for balance: Teach them that most men are not predators, while still giving them tools to recognize actual red flags (entitlement, boundary-pushing, anger issues, etc.). The vast majority of men are not a threat — they’re fathers, brothers, husbands, and friends who want women and girls to be safe too.

The goal, I think, should be wise discernment, not generalized fear or distrust based only on gender. Does that make sense to you, or do you see it differently?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here’s how I think about it:

• Reasonable caution is wise. Pay attention to how someone behaves in the moment — Are they respectful of boundaries? Are they behaving in a calm, steady way, or are they pushy/aggressive?  Trust your gut if something feels off. Situational awareness (walking with purpose, staying aware of your surroundings, avoiding isolated areas at night, etc.) is smart for everyone, men and women.
• Character and community reputation matter. At church, court, or in social settings, people aren’t complete strangers. You can observe how someone treats others over time — their consistency, humility, self-control, and how they speak about women and children. Most decent men have a track record that becomes visible in a community.
• Blanket suspicion of all men creates its own problems. If the default teaching is “all men are potential rapists,” it becomes very hard for good men to build trust, even in safe settings like church. It also teaches young women to live in unnecessary fear of half the population, which can be paralyzing.

I'm really late to this thread, but holy cow are you out of touch. And privileged. 

 

"Character and community reputation matter. At church, court, or in social settings, people aren’t complete strangers. You can observe how someone treats others over time — their consistency, humility, self-control, and how they speak about women and children. Most decent men have a track record that becomes visible in a community."

No no no no no. The most violating assaults my wife suffered were both from respected trusted known individuals. Get over yourself. Stop making this about your fragile ego. LISTEN to the women you respect in this thread and just stop. 

 

"Blanket suspicion of all men creates its own problems. If the default teaching is “all men are potential rapists,” it becomes very hard for good men to build trust,"

Good. Men need to work very hard to create respect. They need to call out bad behavior. They need to at all times be aware of how they can impact the well being of those around them. 

"even in safe settings like church."

This from the church that teaches women they are responsible for being "Walking Pornography" for men.

"It also teaches young women to live in unnecessary fear of half the population, which can be paralyzing."

When this is a bigger problem than the harassment, I'm sure the women here will let us know.

[Senator]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Trust your gut if something feels off.

 

There you go ladies.  You finally got permission (from a man no less) to do what you've been saying needs to be done all along. 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Reasonable caution is wise. Pay attention to how someone behaves in the moment — Are they respectful of boundaries? Are they behaving in a calm, steady way, or are they pushy/aggressive?  Trust your gut if something feels off. Situational awareness (walking with purpose, staying aware of your surroundings, avoiding isolated areas at night, etc.) is smart for everyone, men and women.

I think this is the main difference.  You seem to think that calling "all men are potential rapists" is not "reasonable caution".  Why?  Why isn't it reasonable?  Because listening to the women here, it sounds like that is a very reasonable thing to do.  Because they could be with a man who is very nice to them and then he changes instantly and now the woman is in real trouble.  That is usually how most of the stories goes.  The guy is a nice guy until he isn't.

So, as a woman, when you know that the man you are interacting with could go from nice to angry really, really fast, and you have very little defense against it, that means "reasonable caution" is warranted in pretty much every situation when interacting with men.

Edited Wednesday at 10:57 PM by webbles

[california boy]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

The categorical suspicion comes with some real costs.  Treating all men as potential threats might feel protective, but it also:

• Risks creating chronic anxiety and hypervigilance {in women and girls};
• Makes it harder {for women and girls} to build healthy relationships with good men;
• Demoralizes and alienates men and boys; and
• Can lead to unfair prejudice (the same logic would be called sexist or bigoted if applied to other groups).

-Smac

I don't have much to say, but I do have a different perspective than you and some others.   There have been so many times when I have been in situations with just random people that I don't know.   I can sense this wall that women have learned to put up for their own protection because I have literally seen that wall dissolve  right away when I tell them that I am gay and especially when I am with my partner, I can literally see this tension and stress women carry disapper almost instantly.  It is so visible.  The dynamics totally change.  The fact that straight men don't even sense this protective barrier tells me they have no idea how women feel.  Over time, I think women have learned they can trust gay men in these kinds of social settings to not hit on them or grab them inappropriately. It is one of the reasons why straight women often go to gay clubs.  It is the one place where they can hang out with their women friends and for the night, not worry about being hit on.

And I hate to tell you that it is not some phrase that is driving women to have these walls of protection they feel they need, it is based on personal experiences in their lives and the statistics that are so alarming.  So many women have brought these two things up regularly on this thread, but it is like water on a ducks back.  Seems like their personal experience and statistics seem to have no meaning of importance to you.  You really think this tension is because of the catch phrase "all men are potential racists?

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I appreciate you asking this directly — it’s a fair and practical question.

Teaching your daughters (and others) how to stay safe in a world with real dangers is important. No one should dismiss that. The challenge is figuring out how to do it without defaulting to “all men are potential rapists.”

Here’s how I think about it:

• Reasonable caution is wise. Pay attention to how someone behaves in the moment — Are they respectful of boundaries? Are they behaving in a calm, steady way, or are they pushy/aggressive?  Trust your gut if something feels off. Situational awareness (walking with purpose, staying aware of your surroundings, avoiding isolated areas at night, etc.) is smart for everyone, men and women.
• Character and community reputation matter. At church, court, or in social settings, people aren’t complete strangers. You can observe how someone treats others over time — their consistency, humility, self-control, and how they speak about women and children. Most decent men have a track record that becomes visible in a community.
• Blanket suspicion of all men creates its own problems. If the default teaching is “all men are potential rapists,” it becomes very hard for good men to build trust, even in safe settings like church. It also teaches young women to live in unnecessary fear of half the population, which can be paralyzing.

I’m not asking you to tell your daughters that every man is safe. I’m asking for balance: Teach them that most men are not predators, while still giving them tools to recognize actual red flags (entitlement, boundary-pushing, anger issues, etc.). The vast majority of men are not a threat — they’re fathers, brothers, husbands, and friends who want women and girls to be safe too.

The goal, I think, should be wise discernment, not generalized fear or distrust based only on gender. Does that make sense to you, or do you see it differently?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You did not answer my question.  When my daughter and granddaughters ask me how they should tell who is a rapist, what identifier can I give them that is a guarantee that guy is the one they have to look out for and the others are therefore safe…or give me a set of red flags that will be sure to include every possible rapist.

Quote

Most decent men have a track record that becomes visible in a community.

So most indecent men don’t have those track records?  Having a track record is a guarantee of safety?

 

Edited Thursday at 12:43 AM by Calm

[ttribe]

Lamb is running to represent the district where I live. Unfortunately, he has a pretty good chance of winning. I've watched my district's voting patterns over the past 21 years and I can only conclude that the majority of CD5 voters vote based on tribalism rather than principle. Lamb would hardly be the first person elected from this district despite credible accusations of wrong doing.

[MustardSeed]

I am very grateful tonight. My husband and I have not had an easy road but the last few years have been worth all the work in our marriage.

We got to chatting tonight over dinner and I shared with him that I had been involved in this conversation online. I told him, which I’ve told him before, that I moved through the world a quiet, high alert state of mind.

 

He stopped me immediately and said “ oh- I am so sorry that you have to do that.”

And this is exactly why I feel safe with him. ❤️

Edited Thursday at 01:52 AM by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

Also I’d like to mention, that I’ve noticed through the years participating on this site that often when the conversation turns to women’s issues, a lot of men have disappeared in the conversation.

I’ve noticed, though on this many men showing up advocating for women’s experience and wanting things to be better for us. I want you to know that I notice and that it is very meaningful to me.  Thank you. It matters.