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

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 10/25/2026 at 4:43 AM, smac97 said:

t's interesting that "all men are potential rapists" is, in the minds of some, distinguishable from "all gay men are potential pedophiles," "all Muslims are potential terrorists," "all black men are potential rapists," and so on.

If you weren’t so emotionally wound up around the wording here it would be obvious. Here are just a few of the experiences (with some details slightly modified) of just one woman I know:

• As a teenager, was followed repeatedly by man driving car while walking dog around her neighborhood
• Older brother of roommate at BYU (was RM and AP on his mission) repeated cornered and one time pinned her down while expressing interest in her.
• Study abroad in Europe host dad (from conservative family who had hosted women before) sexually assaulted her
• Man pretending to be Uber driver asks her to get in car
• while in hot tub at business conference with several female friends, was groped under the water by strange man
• While at a different business conference man broke into her hotel room while she was sleeping
• Attending concert random stranger grabbed her butt
• At family reunion trusted family member spied on her in shower

I could go on and on. This is just one woman and just some of her many many traumatic experience experiences with men. The men might be strangers. They might be friends. They might’ve been known for years. It really is traumatic. 
 

Now it’s your turn  please provide the shared traumatic experience that would lead you to say all gay men are potential pedophiles. I’ll wait.

 

[smac97]

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you weren’t so emotionally wound up around the wording here it would be obvious.

My objection to prejudice is that it is inherently irrational, and that this particular expression of prejudice is unfair and damaging to society.  That is a reasoned critique, not an emotional one.

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Here are just a few of the experiences (with some details slightly modified) of just one woman I know:

• As a teenager, was followed repeatedly by man driving car while walking dog around her neighborhood
• Older brother of roommate at BYU (was RM and AP on his mission) repeated cornered and one time pinned her down while expressing interest in her.
• Study abroad in Europe host dad (from conservative family who had hosted women before) sexually assaulted her
• Man pretending to be Uber driver asks her to get in car
• while in hot tub at business conference with several female friends, was groped under the water by strange man
• While at a different business conference man broke into her hotel room while she was sleeping
• Attending concert random stranger grabbed her butt
• At family reunion trusted family member spied on her in shower

I could go on and on.

And none of the "go{ing} on and on" would justify the plainly prejudiced statement that "all men are potential rapists."

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is just one woman and just some of her many many traumatic experience experiences with men.

With some men.  The vast majority of men do not commit rape.

From earlier in the thread:

Quote

While at BYU I dated a woman who had served her mission in Marseilles.  She told me that she harbored a strong and pervasive distrust and dislike of all Muslim men because she had had numerous unpleasant experiences with some Muslim men while serving as a missionary.

I appreciated the impact of her - as you call it - "lived experiences and exposure to" some Muslim men in Marseille in the early 90s, but I don't think she was justified in harboring prejudiced sentiments against the entire category of all Muslim men everywhere.

Different lived experiences and base-rate information are worth discussing. The difficulty is when that discussion collapses into a collective characterization of “all men” as potential rapists. That framing is not simply a heightened individual caution based on evidence about particular people or situations; it is a group-level presumption. Treating an entire demographic as inherently risky on the basis of sex is the same structure of stereotyping that is recognized as prejudiced in other contexts. Statistics about sexual assault, false reports, underreporting, or post-incident behavior can and should be examined carefully; they do not require or justify assigning potential criminality to every member of a sex.

Thoughts?

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The men might be strangers. They might be friends. They might’ve been known for years. It really is traumatic. 

I believe that.  But I don't think you would say this if the topic were "all black men are potential rapists," and then justified this categorical statement by pointing to a woman of your acquaintance who had endured improper behavior by a few black men.  And I think you would not say this because, in the end, characterizing all black men everywhere as "potential rapists" is plain prejudice.  Same goes if someone came along and presented a litany of abusive experiences at the hands of a few gay men.  I don't think you would go along with "all gay men are potential rapists."

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Now it’s your turn  please provide the shared traumatic experience that would lead you to say all gay men are potential pedophiles. I’ll wait.

You will be waiting a while.  I would never make such a deplorable, abjectly prejudiced statement like "all gay men are potential pedophiles."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Tuesday at 03:40 PM by smac97

[smac97]

Back to Jane Doe's allegations.

A Grok summary:

Quote

The discussion centers on a Title IX investigation and related criminal case (apparently the “Cornell 7” matter) involving allegations of sexual misconduct.

Evidence issues (Chapter 1)

The complainant accused two young men of using ketamine off her body. During the investigation, both men denied it and submitted to hair follicle tests, which can detect ketamine use retrospectively for months. The tests conclusively showed the claim was false. The speakers note this exculpatory evidence was not available to the prosecutor who declined charges.

I am curious as to how you folks feel about this seemingly exculpatory evidence.  Does it alter your assessment of the case?  Why or why not?

Quote

Political bias and ethics (Chapter 2)

The speakers criticize New York Attorney General Letitia (“Tish”) James, appointed by Governor Kathy Hochul, for publicly siding with the “victim” before reviewing the files. They cite ethical rules barring prosecutions influenced by political considerations and argue her statements create an appearance of impropriety. They discuss a motion to disqualify her and strategic concerns about that approach.

Competence of the AG’s office (Chapter 3)

One speaker recounts a similar California case in which the Attorney General’s office proved inept at handling sexual assault prosecutions. He argues the New York AG’s office lacks the specialized experience and competence to successfully prosecute this case, particularly under the required evidentiary standard.

Seeking independent counsel (Chapter 4)

James is reportedly shopping for an outside independent prosecutor because her office cannot effectively handle the matter. The speakers discuss whether an independent sex-crimes prosecutor would be preferable and the risk that a more aggressive outside counsel might still file charges.

So the case was taken away from the original prosecutor and assigned to Letitia James, who proceeded to make an ethical muck of things, and who may be "shopping for an outside independent prosecutor."  This does not look good.

Quote

Ethical and strategic concerns / Prosecutorial evaluation (Chapters 5–7)

They emphasize that prosecutors must file only when evidence supports charges beyond political pressure.

I agree with this sentiment.

I wonder if any of you feel there is "political pressure" in this case, particularly given public statements by Gov. Hochul and Ms. James.

Quote

They note the investigation was unusually thorough (texts, interviews with corrections allowed, victim advocate present). Common reasons prosecutors decline sexual assault cases include insufficient corroboration and possible ulterior motives (e.g., civil litigation or naming the wrong person). The speakers argue the volume of investigation here exceeded that of most cases, and that declining charges can be appropriate even when the conduct appears serious if the second prong (provability) is not met.

Overall, the speakers contend the case was properly declined on evidentiary grounds, that James’s involvement is politically driven and ethically problematic, and that her office lacks the specialized competence to prosecute it successfully.

I agree with the evidentiary assessment.  I have less to say about James.

The two attorneys in this clip (from Grok) :

Quote

Mark Geragos and Matt Murphy are the hosts of the true-crime/legal analysis podcast/show In The Well (on the MK True Crime network associated with Megyn Kelly). They are former courtroom adversaries in California who became friends and now analyze high-profile cases together from defense and prosecution perspectives.

Mark Geragos

• High-profile Los Angeles criminal defense attorney and managing partner of Geragos & Geragos.
• Known for representing celebrity and high-visibility clients including Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, Winona Ryder, Chris Brown, Susan McDougal (Whitewater), the Menendez brothers (later efforts), Colin Kaepernick, and others.
• Also involved in major civil matters (e.g., Armenian Genocide-related insurance class actions) and media commentary.
• Longtime fixture in high-profile criminal defense and cable-news legal analysis.

Matt Murphy

• Former longtime Orange County (California) Deputy District Attorney.
• Spent roughly 26 years as a prosecutor, including about 17 years in the Homicide Unit (and earlier time in the Sexual Assault Unit).
• Tried well over 100 jury trials (including dozens of murder cases) and was known for never losing a homicide trial during his career; also worked cold cases and served on the Special Circumstances Committee.
• After leaving the DA’s office, he entered private practice (Matt Murphy Law), handles some defense and victim-related matters, serves as a legal analyst (including for ABC News and others), and authored the 2024 book The Book of Murder: A Prosecutor’s Journey Through Love and Death.

They previously opposed each other in California courtrooms and now co-host In The Well, discussing cases, prosecutorial/defense strategy, evidence, ethics, and current legal news. The clip you summarized is from one of their episodes.

Matt Murphy's take is more persuasive to me overall.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My objection to prejudice is that it is inherently irrational, and that this particular expression of prejudice is unfair and damaging to society.  That is a reasoned critique, not an emotional one.

And none of the "go{ing} on and on" would justify the plainly prejudiced statement that "all men are potential rapists."

With some men.  The vast majority of men do not commit rape.

From earlier in the thread:

Thoughts?

I believe that.  But I don't think you would say this if the topic were "all black men are potential rapists," and then justified this categorical statement by pointing to a woman of your acquaintance who had endured improper behavior by a few black men.  And I think you would not say this because, in the end, characterizing all black men everywhere as "potential rapists" is plain prejudice.  Same goes if someone came along and presented a litany of abusive experiences at the hands of a few gay men.  I don't think you would go along with "all gay men are potential rapists."

You will be waiting a while.  I would never make such a deplorable, abjectly prejudiced statement like "all gay men are potential pedophiles."

Thanks,

-Smac

A response that completely misses the single coherent point of my post (again!). If you actually understand the point that I, Calm, Mustard, Bluebell etc are making, please let us know. Please explain why we feel it's valid for woman to say "all men are potential rapists" but not ok to say "all gay men are potential pedophiles". You don't have to agree with the sentiment. But please explain why we feel one is ok, but not the other. Steel man the opposite side. I dare you. Because this post here shows you don't have a clue:

 

Edited Tuesday at 04:24 PM by SeekingUnderstanding

[MustardSeed]

On 10/25/2026 at 11:41 AM, bluebell said:

Mustard is asking for understanding not agreement (and certainly not a counter-argument, as we see here).  Are you interested in understanding what she is saying or are you only interested in countering what she is saying?  I think if you could honestly answer that question it would be very helpful.

Thank you

[smac97]

On 10/25/2026 at 9:04 PM, Calm said:

The guilt thing.  Should we be impartial in every day life?

I think we should refrain from prejudice in everyday life.

I also think we should regularly utilize common sense and situational awareness, but I don't think that requires us to view half the population of the planet as latent rapists.

On 10/25/2026 at 9:04 PM, Calm said:

Say you hear a parent of your kid’s friend was arrested, but released for child molestation and you hear it’s because of not sufficient evidence to prosecute.  Would you be okay with your kid still playing at their friend’s house or make the judgment to never allow that parent to be around your child without your supervision?

The latter.  This decision is not based on abject prejudice against all men everywhere, but is instead based on a calculated assessment of a specific situation.  A police arrest must be based on "probable cause," meaning that a reasonable person would believe—based on specific, objective facts and circumstances—that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or that evidence of a crime is located in a specific place.

Situational awareness is about managing real, context-specific risks without converting statistical rarity into a character judgment about an entire sex.  “All men are potential rapists” is a character judgment. Noting that a small percentage of men commit sexual violence and that certain environments or behaviors raise risk is ordinary prudence. The first treats men as a suspect class; the second treats particular situations and particular people as warranting caution—the same way we treat countless other low-probability but high-cost risks.

Telling your kids to be cautious around a neighbor who has been arrested for child sexual abuse is ordinary prudence directed at a specific and known and evidence-based risk. The first collapses individuals into a suspect class; the second treats a concrete piece of information the way any responsible parent would, regardless of the neighbor’s sex.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A response that completely misses the single coherent point of my post (again!).

I think you are conflating disagreement with misapprehension.

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you actually understand the point that I, Calm, Mustard, Bluebell etc are making, please let us know.

I do.  I disagree with expressing it using the "all men are potential rapists" slogan.

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Please explain why we feel it's valid for woman to say "all men are potential rapists" but not ok to say "all gay men are potential pedophiles".

I'll let you explain yourselves. 

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You don't have to agree with the sentiment.

I'm glad to hear that.  

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But please explain why we feel one is ok, but not the other. Steel man the opposite side. I dare you.

Well, I'll give it a go.

The strongest version of the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment is to not take it at face value, not as a literal claim that every man will commit rape or that most men are one bad day away from doing so. It is a risk-management and pattern-recognition argument that runs roughly as follows:

Women (and girls) face a non-trivial, asymmetric risk of sexual violence from some men. The large majority of sexual assaults are committed by men; the large majority of victims are women or girls. Because the cost of being wrong about a particular man is high (physical harm, trauma, long-term consequences) and the benefit of being maximally trusting is comparatively low, a rational person in a high-stakes environment will treat unknown men as carrying elevated risk until specific information reduces that risk.

In this framing, “potential” does not carry its normative meaning, such as “likely” or “predisposed.”  Rather, it means “capable, and the base rate is high enough, relative to the severity of the harm, that default caution is warranted.” The same logic appears in other domains: we treat unknown packages as potential bombs in certain settings, unknown dogs as potential biters, or unknown drivers as potential threats on the road—not because we believe most of them will cause harm, but because the downside of misplaced trust is severe and the information needed to rule the risk out is not yet available.

Proponents often add that ordinary social cues and self-presentation are unreliable filters. Many men who commit sexual assault are not obvious outliers in everyday interaction; they can appear normal, charming, or low-risk until they are not. Therefore, individualized assessment is frequently unavailable in the moment, and a coarse, sex-based prior becomes a practical substitute for missing information. The claim is defended as descriptive of a precautionary heuristic rather than as a moral indictment of male nature.

In short, the steelmanned position treats the statement as a shorthand for “the combination of base rates, severity of harm, and limited real-time information makes default caution toward unknown men a rational strategy for personal safety," or, more succinctly, “sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution," and not as a claim that all or most men are latent rapists.

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Because this post here shows you don't have a clue:

Again, you seem to be conflating disagreement with misapprehension.

My surmise is that you are okay with expressing abjectly prejudiced things about men as a category, but not with expressing abjectly prejudiced things about gay or black or Muslim men as a category.  This despite the fact that both statements are abjectly prejudiced.

It would be interesting to see if you could reciprocate the "steelman" effort.  The above steelman improves on the crude slogan by recasting it as a precautionary heuristic grounded in base rates, severity of harm, and limited information. Even in that stronger form, though, several problems remain.

1. It still overstates the base rate relative to the language used.

Sexual assault by men is real and asymmetrically distributed, but it is not common enough that treating every unknown man as a meaningful threat is a well-calibrated prior. Most men never commit sexual assault. A heuristic that is useful in narrow, high-uncertainty settings (walking alone at night, accepting a ride from a stranger, being alone with someone who has already ignored boundaries) becomes misleading when generalized to ordinary social and professional life. The steelman keeps the original phrasing’s implication of broad applicability while the actual risk numbers support only limited, context-specific caution.

2. “Potential” does more work than the steelman admits.

In ordinary language, saying someone is a “potential X” (potential murderer, potential thief, potential terrorist) is understood as a warning about latent disposition, not merely “capable in the abstract.” The steelman tries to deflate this to pure probability, but the original claim retains the stronger connotation. If the intended meaning is only “the base rate is non-zero and the cost of error is high,” clearer and less inflammatory and prejudicial language exists (“sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution”). The slogan is chosen because it conveys more than the steelman can justify.

3. The analogy to other risk heuristics is incomplete.

In ordinary life we do not treat unknown packages as potential bombs, unknown dogs as potential biters, or unknown drivers as potential threats. We apply those heuristics in elevated-risk contexts or after specific cues. Extending a sex-based prior to men as a class, across most interactions, is a much broader generalization than the analogies support. It also ignores that women commit sexual offenses at non-zero rates and that many assaults occur in settings (home, party, acquaintance) where the “unknown man” prior is less relevant.

4. It underweights the costs of the heuristic itself.

Treating an entire sex as carrying elevated default risk imposes real costs: social distrust, chilled ordinary interactions, reputational harm to men who have done nothing wrong, and the reinforcement of the very essentialist thinking the steelman claims to avoid. These costs are not symmetrical to the risk being managed. A heuristic can be directionally correct about relative risk and still be a poor policy once its collateral effects are counted. The steelman largely ignores this side of the ledger.

5. Better alternatives exist that capture the valid core without the overreach.

The legitimate insight—base rates differ by sex, information is often incomplete, and the downside of error is high—can be expressed through ordinary situational awareness and individualized precautions without a group-level character claim. Examples include heightened caution in specific environments, attention to boundary-testing behavior, and targeted responses to concrete information (an arrest, a pattern of conduct, ignored refusals). These preserve the protective function while avoiding the false implication that men as a class are latent threats.

In short, the steelman converts an inaccurate and prejudicial slogan into a more defensible risk argument, but it still stretches the data, retains misleading connotations, applies the heuristic more broadly than the analogies allow, and neglects the costs of treating half the population as a suspect class. The valid precautionary point can be made more precisely without those defects.

--

Why do you think proponents of "all men are potential rapists" don't go with the less inflammatory and more directly descriptive sentiment along the lines of “sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution?" Is it possibly because "all men are potential rapists" is a form of socially acceptable prejudice?

The more precise formulation—“sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution”—is accurate, actionable, and hard to object to on factual grounds. The fact that many proponents prefer the stronger slogan suggests the slogan is doing additional work beyond risk communication.  Several overlapping motives may be in play:

1. It functions as a moral and status claim, not merely a safety heuristic.

“All men are potential rapists” places men, as a class, under a cloud of suspicion and moral defectiveness. That is a different speech act from “base rates differ; adjust behavior in specific contexts.” The stronger version expresses condemnation and asserts a kind of group accountability and culpability. In environments where expressing negative generalizations about men carries little social cost (and can even signal virtue or solidarity), the inflammatory phrasing is available and attractive.

2. It is more useful for intra-group signaling and boundary enforcement.

The less-inflammatory slogan (“sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution") efficiently communicates allegiance, seriousness about the issue, and willingness to reject “both-sides” or individualizing caveats. Softer, more accurate language can be read as insufficiently committed or as apologetics. Once a framing becomes a marker of in-group status, accuracy is often subordinated to the signaling function.

3. It lowers the evidentiary bar for suspicion and reduces the need for individualized judgment.

If every man is already a potential rapist, then ordinary caution, discomfort, or an accusation requires less additional justification. Boy, we are really seeing this in reactions to the Cornell story.  No need to maintain the presumption of innocence.  No need to dispassionately examine all the evidence.

The precise version of the sentiment still requires the listener to distinguish situations, look for actual behavioral cues, and treat most men as low-risk. The slogan collapses that distinction and makes default distrust (and dislike?) easier to maintain and defend.

4. Social permission is asymmetrical.

Broad negative generalizations about men (especially in the context of sexual violence) are widely treated as acceptable or even insightful in many academic, media, and activist settings, while equivalent generalizations about other groups are not. This asymmetry creates an incentive to use the stronger language: it is low-cost to the speaker, high-impact on the target, and rarely punished. That is the operational definition of a socially tolerated prejudice.  And I think it has been on display in this thread.

5. Precision can be rhetorically inconvenient.

The accurate statement (“sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution") invites follow-up questions (How disproportionate? In which situations? What about female perpetrators? What is the actual prevalence?) and allows for disagreement about the proper scope of caution. The "all men are potential rapists" slogan short-circuits those questions. It is harder to engage without appearing to minimize the problem, which is strategically useful if the goal is moral pressure rather than calibrated risk reduction.

So the preference is not primarily about better describing the risk. The readily-available and more precise version (“sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution") already does that. The "all men are potential rapists" slogan persists because it also serves as a vehicle for group-level moral judgment, in-group signaling, and the normalization of a form of prejudice that currently faces little social resistance.

If the intended message is something like “sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution," you and yours could just say that, and I would fully agree with it and endorse it.  That you don't, and that you instead go with the obviously intentionally provocative and inflammatory "all men are potential rapists" suggests, to me that there is something else in play.

That's my take, anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Tuesday at 05:16 PM by smac97

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 not as a claim that all or most men are latent rapists.

This is essentially word for word what I said. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

not as a claim that all or most men are latent rapists.

This is essentially word for word what I said. 

I acknowledge that.  What you are quoting is from my effort to "steelman" your position, not to express mine.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Vanguard]

19 hours ago, ttribe said:

Are you a mind reader? Cool! What am I thinking, right now?

? : (

[smac97]

On 10/25/2026 at 12:41 PM, bluebell said:

Mustard is asking for understanding not agreement

She has it:

Quote

Quote

Try to listen to this statement(”all men”) again with a different point of view: situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody.

I have to wonder why, if you mean "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody," you don't just say that.

I have some surmises about why.

And here:

Quote

If the intended message is something like “sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution," you and yours could just say that, and I would fully agree with it and endorse it. 

I both understand and agree with this underlying sentiment.  What I find objectionable and problematic is framing it in the abjectly prejudiced and circumlocutory "all men are potential rapists" slogan.

On 10/25/2026 at 12:41 PM, bluebell said:

(and certainly not a counter-argument, as we see here). 

Respectfully, we are each free to post as we like, within the confines of the board rules.

On 10/25/2026 at 12:41 PM, bluebell said:

Are you interested in understanding what she is saying or are you only interested in countering what she is saying? 

I understand what she is saying.  I am objecting to cloaking it in "all men are potential rapists."

On 10/25/2026 at 12:41 PM, bluebell said:

I think if you could honestly answer that question it would be very helpful.

I don't think I have been dishonest in my prior posts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Tuesday at 06:58 PM by smac97

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think we should refrain from prejudice in everyday life.

I also think we should regularly utilize common sense and situational awareness, but I don't think that requires us to view half the population of the planet as latent rapists.

The latter.  This decision is not based on abject prejudice against all men everywhere, but is instead based on a calculated assessment of a specific situation.  A police arrest must be based on "probable cause," meaning that a reasonable person would believe—based on specific, objective facts and circumstances—that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or that evidence of a crime is located in a specific place.

Situational awareness is about managing real, context-specific risks without converting statistical rarity into a character judgment about an entire sex.  “All men are potential rapists” is a character judgment. Noting that a small percentage of men commit sexual violence and that certain environments or behaviors raise risk is ordinary prudence. The first treats men as a suspect class; the second treats particular situations and particular people as warranting caution—the same way we treat countless other low-probability but high-cost risks.

Telling your kids to be cautious around a neighbor who has been arrested for child sexual abuse is ordinary prudence directed at a specific and known and evidence-based risk. The first collapses individuals into a suspect class; the second treats a concrete piece of information the way any responsible parent would, regardless of the neighbor’s sex.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you're drawing too sharp a distinction between situational awareness and the possibility that someone you trust might make a choice that violates that trust.

Not every risk comes with obvious warning signs. Sometimes the person who poses a risk is someone you know, someone who has given you no particular reason to be suspicious, and someone you would ordinarily trust. People make choices, and not all of those choices are predictable from their prior behavior. A person doesn't necessarily have to be a habitual predator, or someone who goes out of his way to victimize women, to make a very different choice when he perceives an opportunity and believes there will be no consequences.

That's part of what makes sexual violence difficult to guard against. You can't always identify a specific person or situation in advance and simply avoid it. Sometimes the relevant risk is the possibility that someone will choose to take advantage of circumstances in which he believes he can get away with it.

I don't think acknowledging that reality requires us to regard all men as rapists, any more than acknowledging that anyone is capable of theft means we regard everyone as a thief. There's a difference between assigning guilt to an entire group and recognizing that you cannot reliably determine an individual's intentions simply because you know him, like him, or have trusted him in the past.

The question isn't whether most men commit sexual violence. Obviously, they don't. The question is whether the fact that most men don't commit it means women should feel obligated to treat the men they encounter as presumptively safe until they have specific reasons to believe otherwise. Those are two very different propositions.

Situational awareness is useful, but it has limits. Sometimes the risk isn't apparent until someone makes a choice. And sometimes the very thing that makes a situation feel safe is the trust we've developed in the person who ultimately violates it.

 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

She has it:

And here:

I both understand and agree with this underlying sentiment.  What I find objectionable and problematic is framing it in the abjectly prejudiced and circumlocutory "all men are potential rapists" slogan.

Respectfully, we are each free to post as we like, within the confines of the board rules.

I understand what she is saying.  I am objecting to cloaking it in "all men are potential rapists."

I don't think I have been dishonest in my prior posts.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is disappointing. This was an opportunity for us to connect. 
Im glad at least you claim to understand me.  If that’s as far as we go I’ll take it.  

[smac97]

Just now, Amulek said:

I think you're drawing too sharp a distinction between situational awareness and the possibility that someone you trust might make a choice that violates that trust.

Even then, framing the issue as "all men are potential rapists" is, in my view, not the way to go.

Just now, Amulek said:

Not every risk comes with obvious warning signs. Sometimes the person who poses a risk is someone you know, someone who has given you no particular reason to be suspicious, and someone you would ordinarily trust. People make choices, and not all of those choices are predictable from their prior behavior. A person doesn't necessarily have to be a habitual predator, or someone who goes out of his way to victimize women, to make a very different choice when he perceives an opportunity and believes there will be no consequences.

That's part of what makes sexual violence difficult to guard against. You can't always identify a specific person or situation in advance and simply avoid it. Sometimes the relevant risk is the possibility that someone will choose to take advantage of circumstances in which he believes he can get away with it.

I'm not sure how that is in conflict with the statement I endorse: “Sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution."

For my part, and for some years now, I have maintained a "Pence Rule"-style restraint on being alone with a woman or a child, both for the comfort of the woman, the comfort of the child's parents, and to avoid not just the risk of impropriety, but even the appearance of that risk.

Just now, Amulek said:

I don't think acknowledging that reality requires us to regard all men as rapists, any more than acknowledging that anyone is capable of theft means we regard everyone as a thief.

I acknowledge that reality, and I agree that we can do that and also not "regard all men as {potential} rapists."

Just now, Amulek said:

There's a difference between assigning guilt to an entire group and recognizing that you cannot reliably determine an individual's intentions simply because you know him, like him, or have trusted him in the past.

I agree.  "All men are potential rapists" seems to assign guilt, albeit prospectively and qualifiedly, to all men.

Just now, Amulek said:

The question isn't whether most men commit sexual violence. Obviously, they don't.

And yet folks here are not even saying "most men are potential rapists."  The slogan here is worse: that "all men are potential rapists."

Just now, Amulek said:

The question is whether the fact that most men don't commit it means women should feel obligated to treat the men they encounter as presumptively safe until they have specific reasons to believe otherwise. Those are two very different propositions.

I have never suggested women should feel obligated in this way.  I think most people do as a matter of default and necessity.  Imagine the exhaustion of walking down the street and viewing every single male in view as a "potential rapist."

Ours is, or has been, a "high trust" society.  That is, ours has been "a culture or nation where people generally believe that strangers and institutions are honest, reliable, and fair."  This is not derived from obligation, but from the nature of the culture.  I think we are gradually devolving toward a "low trust" society, "a community or nation where people generally do not trust strangers or institutions, and shared ethical or moral values are weak."  There are a number of ways we are doing this, one of which is sexual licentiousness and the abandonment of stringent behavioral norms and expectations.  Another way we are doing this is through factionalization, which creates a low-trust society by dividing a population into rigid, competing groups that view one another as adversaries rather than fellow citizens.

I'm not sure how much more "adversarial" folks like Calm and Bluebell can be than to go around publicly declaring to half the population: "Hey, you are a potential rapist."

Just now, Amulek said:

Situational awareness is useful, but it has limits. Sometimes the risk isn't apparent until someone makes a choice. And sometimes the very thing that makes a situation feel safe is the trust we've developed in the person who ultimately violates it.

A terrible circumstance, to be sure.  But it's not remedied by declaring half the population to be "potential rapists."

I was in the local Wal-Mart a few weeks ago and, while looking for Gatorade powder, I noticed an older women about 15 feet away who was struggling to reach an item on a high shelf.  In the past, I would have immediately turned to her and offered to help in the very small way in which she needed.  However, in the moment I thought about the various and vigorous efforts by folks like Calm and Bluebell to not only justify, but ratify and endorse as essential the sentiment that "all men are potential rapists."  This gave me pause.  Just as folks on this board point to non-zero risks women face, the "all men are potential rapists" slogan creates, in my view, a non-zero risk when it comes to interacting with women in public venues.  

So in the moment, I intentionally ignored the woman reaching for the can.  If she, like Calm and Bluebell, views me as a "potential rapist," then I am doing her a favor by staying away from her and not interacting with her.  I am also reducing or eliminating the non-zero risk to me.  

So I kept looking for the Gatorade, but then something happened: she clocked me.  I saw out of the corner of my eye that she was looking at me in a sort of expectant way.  I kept looking for the Gatorade.  Then, after a few more seconds, she clocked me again.  I then turned to her and said "Ma'am, would you like me to help you grab that can?"  She immediately smiled and said "Yes, thank you very much."  I reached up, retrieved the can, and gave it to her.  She thanked me again.

But for the delay in me locating the Gatorade, and but for the woman specifically looking at me twice, I would not have helped this woman.  I would have done so in a minute in times past, but that was before Calm and Bluebell and others came along to advance, stridently and repeatedly and emphatically, the "all men are potential rapists" slogan.  I find it a horrible thing.  A prejudiced thing.  A harmful-to-the-fabric-of-society thing.  And most of all, a wholly unnecessary thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

This is disappointing. This was an opportunity for us to connect. 

I don't know what this means.  Connect about what?  That I am being told that I and every other man on the planet are "potential rapists," but that I am not supposed to take that horrible statement at face value, and that instead this is a coded phrase intended to say something like "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody," and that I should therefore not object to being publicly declared a "potential rapist?"  

I don't want to "connect" with you about that, because I disagree with cloaking a sensible sentiment in abjectly prejudiced wording.  From one of my previous posts:

Quote

Broad negative generalizations about men (especially in the context of sexual violence) are widely treated as acceptable or even insightful in many academic, media, and activist settings, while equivalent generalizations about other groups are not. This asymmetry creates an incentive to use the stronger language: it is low-cost to the speaker, high-impact on the target, and rarely punished. That is the operational definition of a socially tolerated prejudice.  And I think it has been on display in this thread.

I don't think you want to "connect" with me about the above assessment.  So we're left to disagree.

54 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Im glad at least you claim to understand me.  If that’s as far as we go I’ll take it.  

Sounds good.

As long as "all men are potential rapists" is being advanced as a slogan, and endorsed and justified, I will continue to speak against it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Tuesday at 08:14 PM by smac97

[Calm]

nvm…can’t keep up and surprisingly don’t want to…

Edited Tuesday at 08:13 PM by Calm

[MustardSeed]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

don't know what this means

I believe this and have suspected this for some time. If I were your therapist, I would say I invite you to be curious about that.

 

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That I am being told that I and every other man on the planet are "potential rapists," but that I am not supposed to take it at face value, and that instead this is a coded phrase intended to say something like "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody," and that I should therefore not object to being publicly declared a "potential rapist?

Bummer.  Here I thought we had reached understanding. Apparently, you do not understand after all. I’m not sure how to say it more plainly.  It seems other men understand what we are saying. I wonder why you do not? I think I have reached a point where I am done trying to explain it. Your continual mastication on this phrase, and a parent unwillingness to join on what has been described as the meaning of it, leads me to believe there must be something else going on with you that prevents any understanding. So I will cry Uncle on this.
 

 

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

don't think you want to "connect" with me about the above assessment

I made an attempt. I observed that perhaps you were hearing it as an accusation of a latent desire residing in every man. It wasn’t stated clearly before I will state it now.  If I had been told that I had a horrific  characteristic lying within just waiting to erupt I TOO would be offended.  I can see why you are so upset. I have made an attempt to clarify so that you don’t have to carry that burden . You are rejecting that opportunity and are holding on like a petulant child to an accusation that does not exist. I do not know why you continue to do so. But that is your choice.

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She has it:

And here:

I both understand and agree with this underlying sentiment.  What I find objectionable and problematic is framing it in the abjectly prejudiced and circumlocutory "all men are potential rapists" slogan.

Respectfully, we are each free to post as we like, within the confines of the board rules.

I understand what she is saying.  I am objecting to cloaking it in "all men are potential rapists."

Respectfully, you don't understand what she is saying because your focus isn't on her post, it is on your feelings about her post.  You understand her words but only as you can apply them to your opinions and arguments, not as they apply to hers.  You admit that you are focused on your objections to a phrase she used, not on understanding why her experiences have led to her using the phrase.

You don't understand her because you can't stare at yourself and see someone else.  It doesn't work that way.

 

Quote

 

I don't think I have been dishonest in my prior posts.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

When I said 'honestly answer' I was speaking about you honestly acknowledging where your focus is--her or you.  I wasn't calling into question whether or not you are telling the truth as you believe it in your arguments or your personal opinions. Sorry that was confusing, I should have worded it better.  

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

A terrible circumstance, to be sure.  But it's not remedied by declaring half the population to be "potential rapists."

 

It actually is remedied by behaving as if all men are potential rapists Smac. That's the whole entire point of the mind set, and it does work.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

it is not common enough that treating every unknown man as a meaningful threat is a well-calibrated prior.

Low numbers of actors combined with a high number of harmful occurrences plus a moderate rate of a very harmful outcome is very different from low number of actors committing low number of not that harmful of acts and a rare very damaging one.

If you came to a road where 20% of the cars which had driven on it had been in major accidents because of a handful of very bad drivers, my guess is you would avoid the road if possible.  But what if you had to drive on it to get to work?  How would you treat another car if it got close to you?  

Edited Tuesday at 08:31 PM by Calm

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

Quote

This is disappointing. This was an opportunity for us to connect. 

I don't know what this means.  Connect about what?  That I am being told that I and every other man on the planet are "potential rapists," but that I am not supposed to take that horrible statement at face value, and that instead this is a coded phrase intended to say something like "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody," and that I should therefore not object to being publicly declared a "potential rapist?"  

I don't want to "connect" with you about that, because I disagree with cloaking a sensible sentiment in abjectly prejudiced wording.  From one of my previous posts:

I believe this and have suspected this for some time. If I were your therapist, I would say I invite you to be curious about that.

I was curious, hence the questions about it.  And if you were my therapist, I would ask that you not be coy and just explain what you mean about "an opportunity ... to connect."  Again, "connect" about what?  

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

That I am being told that I and every other man on the planet are "potential rapists," but that I am not supposed to take it at face value, and that instead this is a coded phrase intended to say something like "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody," and that I should therefore not object to being publicly declared a "potential rapist?

Bummer.  Here I thought we had reached understanding. Apparently, you do not understand after all. I’m not sure how to say it more plainly.  It seems other men understand what we are saying. I wonder why you do not? I think I have reached a point where I am done trying to explain it. Your continual mastication on this phrase, and a parent unwillingness to join on what has been described as the meaning of it, leads me to believe there must be something else going on with you that prevents any understanding. So I will cry Uncle on this.

The feeling is more or less reciprocated.  I am trying my best to be clear and explanatory.  In contrast, I think "all men are potential rapists" is facially ugly and prejudiced, but folks want to justify it anyway, so we end up with vague circumlocutions around what those five words mean under their "plain and ordinary meaning" in favor of a more palatable, but less derogatory, slogan like "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody."

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

Quote

Broad negative generalizations about men (especially in the context of sexual violence) are widely treated as acceptable or even insightful in many academic, media, and activist settings, while equivalent generalizations about other groups are not. This asymmetry creates an incentive to use the stronger language: it is low-cost to the speaker, high-impact on the target, and rarely punished. That is the operational definition of a socially tolerated prejudice.  And I think it has been on display in this thread.

I don't think you want to "connect" with me about the above assessment.  So we're left to disagree.

I made an attempt.

Not really seeing it.

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I observed that perhaps you were hearing it as an accusation of a latent desire residing in every man.

"All men are potential rapists" sure does sound accusatory.  And ugly.  And prejudiced.  But because it is low-cost to the speaker (you, Calm. Bluebell), high-impact on the target (me and all the other "potential rapists,") and because broad negative generalizations about men (especially in the context of sexual violence) are widely treated as acceptable or even insightful in many academic, media, and activist settings, while equivalent generalizations about other groups are not, and inasmuch as you and yours apparently intend to continue expressing this abjectly horrible statement (rather than something more apt but less inflammatory, like “Sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution."

The purportedly circumlocutory "all men are potential rapists" slogan, dripping as it is with misandry, gets to proceed forward.  We're not going to "connect" about that.

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It wasn’t stated clearly before I will state it now.  If I had been told that I had a horrific  characteristic lying within just waiting to erupt I TOO would be offended.  

That's what "all men are potential rapists" is.  That is the meaning I think it is intended to convey.  Not “Sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution."  The best evidence for that is, well, you and yours could just say “Sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution," or something like it.  And yet you persist in justifying and endorsing "all men are potential rapists."  The circumlocution doesn't make sense, unless there is something else going on, in which case it makes a lot of sense.

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I can see why you are so upset.  I have made an attempt to clarify so that you don’t have to carry that burden.

I don't see it that way.  The "attempt to clarify" looks like an attempt to justify maintaining an abjectly prejudiced statement by saying we are not supposed to take it at face value, and that it is instead a coded phrase intended to convey the message that "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody."  That you don't just say that, and that you instead persist in the "all men are potential rapists" slogan, is evidence, to me, that something else is going on.

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

You are rejecting that opportunity and are holding on like a petulant child to an accusation that does not exist. I do not know why you continue to do so. But that is your choice.

You: "If I had been told that I had a horrific characteristic lying within just waiting to erupt I TOO would be offended."

Also you: "You are rejecting that opportunity and are holding on like a petulant child to an accusation that does not exist."

Good luck squaring that circle.

“All men are potential rapists” is inherently accusatory because it attributes a latent capacity and disposition for sexual violence to every man. In ordinary language, labeling a group as “potential X” (potential thieves, potential murderers, potential rapists) is a character judgment—it places the entire class under a presumption of concealed dangerousness rather than describing a risk or recommending caution.

Advocates, such as yourself, appear to defend the slogan as merely a coded shorthand for situational awareness: “women should not assume they are 100% safe with anybody.” That reading, in my view, does not hold. The precise idea—that sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men and that certain situations therefore warrant extra caution—can be stated directly without accusing every man of being a potential rapist. The slogan is chosen instead of that clearer formulation.

If the only intended message were ordinary prudence, the accusatory phrasing would be unnecessary. Its persistence indicates that it is doing additional work: it converts a limited risk observation into a standing charge against men as a class. That is what makes the statement accusatory even when offered under the banner of safety.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

person doesn't necessarily have to be a habitual predator, or someone who goes out of his way to victimize women, to make a very different choice when he perceives an opportunity and believes there will be no consequences.

 

And recognition that there are people who will do this, who hide their inclination except in the ‘perfect storm’ so to speak is not a claim it is hidden in every person.  It is a recognition it is hidden in enough people that assault is a common occurrence for women (possibly 20% of women have experienced rape or attempted rape, around 80% of women have been sexually harassed in their lifetime).

Alcohol consumption, especially drunkenness, can even lead people to do things that morally disgust them.  Some stats put it at 60% consumed by the perpetrator with around a third being legally intoxicated.  So there is a very good chance that a man doesn’t even realize he could commit rape if he was intoxicated enough because he wouldn’t under any other condition.*** So there are men that can’t even recognize themselves as an opportunist.

***Thankfully while rapists have likely drunk alcohol, not every man who drinks or is even drunk will act on an opportunity.  Should that mean I should let a drunk man put his arm around me because most likely he is safe? (Disregarding the smell and general embarrassment of the situation)

Edited Tuesday at 09:01 PM by Calm

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Respectfully, you don't understand what she is saying

This is getting tedious.  I think you are conflating disagreement with misapprehension.

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

because your focus isn't on her post, it is on your feelings about her post. 

My focus is on the phrase "all men are potential rapists" and the various circumlocutory justifications for its continued use instead of something straightforward but lacking that nasty misandrist barb.

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You understand her words but only as you can apply them to your opinions and arguments, not as they apply to hers. You admit that you are focused on your objections to a phrase she used, not on understanding why her experiences have led to her using the phrase.

Again, I understand.  She has explained her experiences that "have led to her using the phrase."  

Again, I disagree with the phrase.  It is ugly and unfair and prejudiced.  It is misandrist.  It is utterly unnecessary.  

You are conflating the two.

From a previous post:

Quote

While at BYU I dated a woman who had served her mission in Marseilles.  She told me that she harbored a strong and pervasive distrust and dislike of all Muslim men because she had had numerous unpleasant experiences with some Muslim men while serving as a missionary.

I appreciated the impact of her - as you call it - "lived experiences and exposure to" some Muslim men in Marseille in the early 90s, but I don't think she was justified in harboring prejudiced sentiments against the entire category of all Muslim men everywhere.

Different lived experiences and base-rate information are worth discussing. The difficulty is when that discussion collapses into a collective characterization of “all men” as potential rapists. That framing is not simply a heightened individual caution based on evidence about particular people or situations; it is a group-level presumption. Treating an entire demographic as inherently risky on the basis of sex is the same structure of stereotyping that is recognized as prejudiced in other contexts. Statistics about sexual assault, false reports, underreporting, or post-incident behavior can and should be examined carefully; they do not require or justify assigning potential criminality to every member of a sex.

I understood and grasped this woman's description of her experiences with some Muslim men in Marseilles in the early 90s.  I understood it and still found objectionable and problematic her across-the-board denigration of all Muslim men everywhere.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was curious, hence the questions about it.  And if you were my therapist, I would ask that you not be coy and just explain what you mean about "an opportunity ... to connect."  Again, "connect" about what?  

The feeling is more or less reciprocated.  I am trying my best to be clear and explanatory.  In contrast, I think "all men are potential rapists" is facially ugly and prejudiced, but folks want to justify it anyway, so we end up with vague circumlocutions around what those five words mean under their "plain and ordinary meaning" in favor of a more palatable, but less derogatory, slogan like "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody."

Not really seeing it.

"All men are potential rapists" sure does sound accusatory.  And ugly.  And prejudiced.  But because it is low-cost to the speaker (you, Calm. Bluebell), high-impact on the target (me and all the other "potential rapists,") and because broad negative generalizations about men (especially in the context of sexual violence) are widely treated as acceptable or even insightful in many academic, media, and activist settings, while equivalent generalizations about other groups are not, and inasmuch as you and yours apparently intend to continue expressing this abjectly horrible statement (rather than something more apt but less inflammatory, like “Sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution."

The purportedly circumlocutory "all men are potential rapists" slogan, dripping as it is with misandry, gets to proceed forward.  We're not going to "connect" about that.

That's what "all men are potential rapists" is.  That is the meaning I think it is intended to convey.  Not “Sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution."  The best evidence for that is, well, you and yours could just say “Sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution," or something like it.  And yet you persist in justifying and endorsing "all men are potential rapists."  The circumlocution doesn't make sense, unless there is something else going on, in which case it makes a lot of sense.

I don't see it that way.  The "attempt to clarify" looks like an attempt to justify maintaining an abjectly prejudiced statement by saying we are not supposed to take it at face value, and that it is instead a coded phrase intended to convey the message that "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody."  That you don't just say that, and that you instead persist in the "all men are potential rapists" slogan, is evidence, to me, that something else is going on.

You: "If I had been told that I had a horrific characteristic lying within just waiting to erupt I TOO would be offended."

Also you: "You are rejecting that opportunity and are holding on like a petulant child to an accusation that does not exist."

Good luck squaring that circle.

“All men are potential rapists” is inherently accusatory because it attributes a latent capacity and disposition for sexual violence to every man. In ordinary language, labeling a group as “potential X” (potential thieves, potential murderers, potential rapists) is a character judgment—it places the entire class under a presumption of concealed dangerousness rather than describing a risk or recommending caution.

Advocates, such as yourself, appear to defend the slogan as merely a coded shorthand for situational awareness: “women should not assume they are 100% safe with anybody.” That reading, in my view, does not hold. The precise idea—that sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men and that certain situations therefore warrant extra caution—can be stated directly without accusing every man of being a potential rapist. The slogan is chosen instead of that clearer formulation.

If the only intended message were ordinary prudence, the accusatory phrasing would be unnecessary. Its persistence indicates that it is doing additional work: it converts a limited risk observation into a standing charge against men as a class. That is what makes the statement accusatory even when offered under the banner of safety.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok. Go ahead and choose to be offended. 

[MustardSeed]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really seeing it.

Ok.