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

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, manol said:

Don't take it personally.  Sexual assault is real and it happens often enough, and without warning enough, that women and girls have every right to err on the side of caution.  You would too if you were in their shoes. 

 

You are more than welcome to call me a potential sexual predator.   I won't take it personally because I know I'm not and have never been one. 

It doesn't seem you are that interested in engaging, so you live your life and I'll live mine.  Hope you have a nice day. 

[MustardSeed]

49 minutes ago, Danzo said:

"all men are potential rapists" is a blanket statement. 

Personal safety is highly situational, humans just don't have the capacity to be hyper vigilant at all times.  They must pick and choose, by their circumstances when to be cautious.  Even the examples you give are highly distorted, you view public places as dangerous, when the vast, overwhelming majority of rapes occur in the home.   You say that for some, the home is a high risk area, and there's the rub,  its always situational.

If one views all men as predators and potential rapist's, then one has the danger of interpreting all actions of men through that lens.  Was I being clumsy in that crowded room or was It assault?, was that smile friendly? or was it something else? 

Sexual assault is always about intent and  often depends on the context.  When I was a Firefighter EMT, I did a lot of touching that in other circumstances would be called sexual assault.  When I was a young father, changing a diaper involved a whole lot more touching than sexual assault.  Due to the "all men are potential rapists" trope, as a man I hesitate to help mothers with their children.  My boys can't gain childcare experience by being babysitters (like I did when I was a youth). I have often been on crowed busses where there is now choice but to be in everybody else's personal space, and the only real way to avoid touching people is to put your hand in your pockets (which is a good way to make sure you fall into someone's lap when the bus takes a sharp corner).

A few months ago our neighbor, who was a young mother, that I didn't know, came to my house and was panicking when her toddler had a fever when her husband was away (my wife was out of town).  I was able to help calm her toddler down by picking him up and singing to him while the medicine was taking effect.  Everything worked out and the mother was grateful, but because the "every man is a rapist" mentality, I was a bit apprehensive to help.  This mothers need seemed to be more important than my apprehension at the time and the help I gave was appreciated.  If the mother had the "every man is a rapist" mentality, she might not have had the courage to seek assistance when she needed it.   

 

 

 

I understand.  I promise I will never say “ Danzo I think you have a potential to be a sexual predator” I would be completely out of bounds. I can commit to never saying that to you. Nor will I ever say that to anybody nor have I.

It’s really unfortunate that you have to be so careful.

What I hear you saying is that you resent having to be so careful due to women’s outrageous anxiety.  
 

what I want you to say is that you resent having to be so careful due to the fact that so many women on the daily have to deal with inappropriate behavior from men, and that there is no way for us to know when we are completely safe and so we have to be extra cautious. And it’s not fair to you. 
 

Because honestly, it’s not. It’s not fair to you. It’s not fair to so many good men. I hate that for you. Assuming you are a good man. I’m sure you have many women that reflect your goodness. And I’m sure that it is painful to have to consider all who do not know you and do not trust you because of not knowing you, and their real live experience.

 

[manol]

39 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It doesn't seem you are that interested in engaging, so you live your life and I'll live mine.  Hope you have a nice day. 

I'm more than happy to engage with you.

Women have absolutely valid reasons to err on the side of caution when it comes to the possibility of being sexually assaulted, and here you are whining over their choice of words. 

You are not the victim.  Stop trying to portray women as the perpetrators of unfairness against you. 

You're a man, and the actions of other men affect how we are seen by women, especially women to whom we are strangers, whether we like it or not.  Let's man up and not take it personally.

Edited Monday at 06:58 PM by manol

[MustardSeed]

12 minutes ago, manol said:

I'm more than happy to engage with you.

Women have absolutely valid reasons to err on the side of caution when it comes to the possibility of being sexually assaulted, and here you are whining over their choice of words. 

You are not the victim.  Stop trying to portray women as the perpetrators of unfairness against you. 

You're a man, and the actions of other men affect how we are seen by women, especially women to whom we are strangers, whether we like it or not.  Let's man up and not take it personally.

Wow.  Thank you. I feel seen . 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

I think you just listed some of the behaviors

I’m confused.

The reason that so many women consider all men potential sexual predators is to keep ourselves safe from the ones that actually are. Are you admitting it’s not possible for women to tell sexual predators from non-sexual predators but it doesn’t matter. We should move through life in a way that is fair to men rather than in a way that is protective of ourselves?

[Danzo]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m confused.

The reason that so many women consider all men potential sexual predators is to keep ourselves safe from the ones that actually are. Are you admitting it’s not possible for women to tell sexual predators from non-sexual predators but it doesn’t matter. We should move through life in a way that is fair to men rather than in a way that is protective of ourselves?

 

In my experience people are treated a lot differently when they are considered a potential sexual predator. 

There are people that I have know that I thought were potential sexual predators and I treated them a lot different than I treated other men and women. These behaviors included me calling the police, threatening them and keeping a very watchful eye on them.  Our children were not allowed to visit or go near them,  and even, in church assigning people to keep an eye on them and telling one brother in the church that he was uninvited to ever come to church again.  

I don't treat all people that way

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

 

In my experience people are treated a lot differently when they are considered a potential sexual predator. 

There are people that I have know that I thought were potential sexual predators and I treated them a lot different than I treated other men and women. These behaviors included me calling the police, threatening them and keeping a very watchful eye on them.  Our children were not allowed to visit or go near them,  and even, in church assigning people to keep an eye on them and telling one brother in the church that he was uninvited to ever come to church again.  

I don't treat all people that way

Yes.  100%

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

 

In my experience people are treated a lot differently when they are considered a potential sexual predator. 

There are people that I have know that I thought were potential sexual predators and I treated them a lot different than I treated other men and women. These behaviors included me calling the police, threatening them and keeping a very watchful eye on them.  Our children were not allowed to visit or go near them,  and even, in church assigning people to keep an eye on them and telling one brother in the church that he was uninvited to ever come to church again.  

I don't treat all people that way

I think that would be more a situation where this person was more of a “probable” or “almost definitely” sexual predator and not merely a potential one. 

[MustardSeed]

I once heard it said that biologically, when we come across a stranger, our brain is assessing two things. Is this person dangerous, and also is it a potential sexual partner. We’re talking on a very basic cellular level here, of course.  
 

Personal history, headline news, other people’s experiences are all going to shape that meter for each of us. 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

 

In my experience people are treated a lot differently when they are considered a potential sexual predator. 

There are people that I have know that I thought were potential sexual predators and I treated them a lot different than I treated other men and women. These behaviors included me calling the police, threatening them and keeping a very watchful eye on them.  Our children were not allowed to visit or go near them,  and even, in church assigning people to keep an eye on them and telling one brother in the church that he was uninvited to ever come to church again.  

I don't treat all people that way

Some of our disconnect maybe be coming from your use of the phrase 'potential sexual predator' and the way that women use the term (or idea, because most women don't use the term, but rather exist within the idea that it conveys). Like Nehor said, you seem to be using it to mean 'probable' but when women use it we generally mean 'possible', and those two words are very different and require very different actions.

If I thought a man was probably a sexual predator I would stay completely away from him and warn other women about him.  It I thought a man was a possible sexual predator I would interact with him and be friends with him, but never be alone with him, for example.  If I thought a man was probably going to grope me I would get back in my car when I saw him at the store.  If I thought that a man was possibly going to grope me, I would make sure I was always more than arms length away from him if we were in closer proximity to each other, for another example.

Believing that all men are possible sexual predators doesn't hurt them in any way.  But it does protect women from the ones with bad intentions, when there is no way to tell the difference until after a woman has been harmed.  I really don't see the down side and am confused by men who do.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Danzo said:

Even the examples you give are highly distorted, you view public places as dangerous, when the vast, overwhelming majority of rapes occur in the home.

You missed my point.  I have been explaining not that every place is inherently dangerous, but that no place could be identified as 100% safe so when entering there one should be able to completely shut off every thread of awareness or caution given the data on where assaults occur.  

Not known to be safe is not equivalent to known to be dangerous.  Even known to be not safe is not equivalent to known to be dangerous though everything known to be dangerous is included in the category of not safe.  Safe means low or no risk, not safe means there is some level of risk, but dangerous means high risk. Add to that it being unknown whether it is safe or not, how can you conclude I am claiming all these spaces are dangeroust?  Being only known to be safe sometimes does mean known to be dangerous all the times.

I still don’t understand why you are always taking it to the extreme, such as assuming I am saying every place is dangerous rather than reasonable  caution is always wise until we have enough data to make judgments. I and others are speaking of appropriate levels of vigilance, but you go to describing us as promoting a constant state of hyper vigilance.  Why are you reading comments as extreme when they are not?

Viewing all men as potential predators is not equivalent to viewing all men as predators.  Viewing men as potential predators is not judging them by behaviours they haven’t committed, but withholding judgment until one has sufficient data about their actual behaviour rather than starting out by giving the benefit of the doubt, which is also judging men not by their own behaviours.  
 

Viewing men as potential predators is a realistic neutral position imo because it counteracts the tendency in women in our culture to judge men as safe when there is no solid reason to do so besides statistics that cannot provide identifiers for when not to trust the minority of men who are not safe. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:00 AM by Calm

[Calm]

This is how I am reading the thread.  Feel free to correct any misinterpretations I might have, but please consider why I might have that misinterpretation given I believe everyone participating here sincerely abhors violence against women and wants to prevent it.

 

I see Smac and Danzo essentially wanting women (and others) not to judge men as unsafe until they have seen unsafe behavior from them.

Myself and I believe several others are wanting women and others not to judge men as safe until it’s more likely than just statistical probability.

Both of us are asking judgement to not be made prematurely. 
 

It does seem to me though that Smac and Danzo are assuming the only way to not judge a man as unsafe is to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is safe rather than to just withhold any judgment….because otherwise I don’t see why they are so offended by my stance that caution should be the first response, that we teach awareness there may be danger (not that there is), the person may be a predator (not that they are) as an initial response. 
 

In no way have I ever suggested women should treat all men as rapists prior to actual knowledge.  I have been saying don’t give the benefit of the doubt, don’t trust until there are signs to trust.  Do not make unfounded assumptions based on hopes and a desire to see everyone as good.  That in no way means we should be seeing people as bad.  That does not mean withhold respect or courtesy.  That only means no labels of good or bad until there are solid reasons to label.

There is a middle ground between trust and mistrust that is neither of the two, but a wait and see approach.  That is what I want taught to women as the starting point.  

Edited Tuesday at 01:57 PM by Calm

[Calm]

Would love to get some feedback from Danzo and Smac so I know if I am on the right track or not.  I have no doubt this subject is going to come up again and I hate the idea we might have to start from square one again and therefore never come to a clear understanding of what the other is actually thinking.

[smac97]

On 6/23/2026 at 12:16 AM, Calm said:

This is how I am reading the thread.  Feel free to correct any misinterpretations I might have, but please consider why I might have that misinterpretation given I believe everyone participating here sincerely abhors violence against women and wants to prevent it.

I see Smac and Danzo essentially wanting women (and others) not to judge men as unsafe until they have seen unsafe behavior from them.

I have repeatedly A) strongly endorsed common sense safety measures and situational awareness, and B) expressed concerns about the  characterizing all men everywhere as "potential rapists."  I don't think the former requires the latter denigration, and in fact the latter can do some real damage.

On 6/23/2026 at 12:16 AM, Calm said:

Both of us are asking judgement to not be made prematurely. 

I would like to better understand how "All men are potential rapists" avoids being inherently "premature."

On 6/23/2026 at 12:16 AM, Calm said:

It does seem to me though that Smac and Danzo are assuming the only way to not judge a man as unsafe is to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is safe rather than to just withhold any judgment….because otherwise I don’t see why they are so offended by my stance that caution should be the first response, that we teach awareness there may be danger (not that there is), the person may be a predator (not that they are) as an initial response. 

No, that is not my assumption.

On 6/23/2026 at 12:16 AM, Calm said:

In no way have I ever suggested women should treat all men as rapists prior to actual knowledge.  

So women should not treat men as "potential rapists," but they can and should tell them that they think of all men in this way?

Could you clarify how this works?  I would really like to understand it.

On 6/23/2026 at 12:16 AM, Calm said:

I have been saying don’t give the benefit of the doubt, don’t trust until there are signs to trust.  

That would seem to align with generalized notions of common sense safety measures and situational awareness.  I think such measures can be had without telling men that they are viewed "potential rapists," as that is prejudiced and demoralizing and alienating and damaging to both the men and, potentially, to those who profess such sentiments.

On 6/23/2026 at 12:16 AM, Calm said:

Do not make unfounded assumptions based on hopes and a desire to see everyone as good.  That in no way means we should be seeing people as bad.  

"All men are potential rapists" is not an example of "seeing people as bad"?

On 6/23/2026 at 12:16 AM, Calm said:

That does not mean withhold respect or courtesy.  

Telling men that they are all seen as "potential rapists" is an expression of "respect and courtesy"?

On 6/23/2026 at 12:16 AM, Calm said:

That only means no labels of good or bad until there are solid reasons to label.

I think that can be done through common sense safety measures and situational awareness, and does not require the vilification of all men everywhere as "potential rapists."

On 6/23/2026 at 12:16 AM, Calm said:

There is a middle ground between trust and mistrust that is neither of the two, but a wait and see approach.  That is what I want taught to women as the starting point.  

Okay.  I still do not see why "the starting point" needs to include something as patently prejudiced and ugly and and demoralizing and alienating as public declarations that "all men are potential rapists."

I anticipate that the foregoing comment will invite a cavalcade of "Hey, stop making this about you"-style acerbities.  It seems, though, that I am not alone in feeling that I, being in the category targeted by the prejudiced statements under discussion here, have some right to commentate on public characterizations of me as a "potential rapist."  Those statements are, after all, "about" me (and my sons, and my brothers, and my father, and the many other good men of my acquaintance, all of whom are likewise being painted as "potential rapists").

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 5 hours ago by smac97

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

would like to better understand how "All men are potential rapists" avoids being inherently "premature."

If you read the rest of my post, it explains.

[manol]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would like to better understand how "All men are potential rapists" avoids being inherently "premature."

There is no part of me that feels attacked by the statement "all men are potential rapists".  

And to answer your question, here is why it is not “premature”: It is prudent for women to err on the side of caution. You would too if you were in their shoes.

You are making women into “offenders for a word” when they are justifiably concerned about being sexually assaulted. Those two concerns are not remotely on the same level. 

You are a man. What other men have done to women and girls against their will, and quite often without any “warning signs” being manifest in advance, affects how women see us. Particularly when we are strangers to them. You would do the same in their shoes, whether or not you would go to the trouble to find wording that no one could find an excuse to take offense at.

Stop finding excuses to take offense. Man up. 

Edited 5 hours ago by manol

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you read the rest of my post, it explains.

I did read it.  I still don't understand.  

You state: "Both of us are asking judgement to not be made prematurely."

How is "All men are potential rapists" not inherently premature?  It is a declaration of literal prejudice (that is, an opinion or adverse judgment formed before having actual knowledge or experience, leading to the modern definition of bias or unfair preconception).

I agree with the idea that we should not judge individual men as unsafe based only on statistical probability or worst-case possibilities. That makes a lot of sense to me — people deserve to be evaluated on their own character and actions, not pre-judged by group statistics. Premature negative judgments about people feel unfair and damaging.

Consequently, I’m genuinely confused by the tension with the statement “all men are potential rapists” as compared to "Both of us are asking judgement to not be made prematurely."  To me, that feels like it is a broad, premature negative judgment applied to every man simply because he is a man. It seems to treat maleness itself as inherently suspicious or risky until proven otherwise.

Help me understand how those two ideas fit together for you. I’m really trying to avoid argument, and instead seek understanding about your point of view. I would like to hear how you navigate that tension (or, if you feel there is no tension, how you reach that conclusion). Thanks for being willing to talk about hard things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, manol said:

There is no part of me that feels attacked by the statement "all men are potential rapists".  

Okay.  I think some men do feel that "all men are potential rapists" is inherently prejudiced and unfair and irrational.

If someone said "All black men are potential rapists," and if you were black, would you "feel attacked"?

6 minutes ago, manol said:

And to answer your question, here is why it is not “premature”: It is prudent for women to err on the side of caution. You would too if you were in their shoes.

I guess I still don't see the nexus between "err{ing} on the side of caution" (which aligns with common sense safety measures and situational awareness, which I have repeatedly and strongly endorsed) and announcing to all men everywhere that they are "potential rapists."

6 minutes ago, manol said:

You are making women into “offenders for a word” when they are justifiably concerned about being sexually assaulted.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I want to be careful not to mischaracterize what you’re saying, so let me respond thoughtfully.

"Offender for a word" comes from Isaiah 29:21: 

Quote

18 ¶ And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.
19 The meek also shall increase their joy in the Lord, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.
20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:
21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

When you said that my concern about the phrase “all men are potential rapists” is turning women into “offenders for a word,” I looked up the phrase from Isaiah 29:21. In context, it refers to people who lay traps for others by twisting their words or punishing them for innocent speech — essentially making someone an “offender” over a mere word or technicality rather than a real wrong.

I don’t believe I’m doing that here. I’m not trying to “catch” you or women in a verbal trap. I’m genuinely concerned that the statement “all men are potential rapists” casts all men in a negative light by default — treating an entire group as inherently suspect based on the actions of some. That feels like a broad generalization that prejudges individuals. My point isn’t to police language or make women the offenders; it’s to point out what appears to be an internal tension in the position.

I agree that we should protect women and be vigilant against real harm. At the same time, I worry that statements like this can unintentionally foster suspicion toward good men who have done nothing wrong. I’m trying to hold both concerns — protecting the vulnerable and treating individuals fairly — without letting one cancel out the other.

I’d value hearing how you see it. Am I misunderstanding the intent behind the phrase, or how it fits with not judging men prematurely?

6 minutes ago, manol said:

You are a man.

And, ipso facto, a "potential rapist" in the eyes of some.

6 minutes ago, manol said:

What other men have done to women and girls against their will, and quite often without any “warning signs” being manifest in advance, affects how women see us.

The point under discussion, then, is whether "all men are potential rapists" is fair and reasonable and appropriate, or whether it is prejudiced and ugly and alienating and demoralizing and unfair.

6 minutes ago, manol said:

Particularly when we are strangers to them.

Oddly, though, much (most?) of such violence is enacted by persons known to the victim.

6 minutes ago, manol said:

You would do the same in their shoes, whether or not you would go to the trouble to find wording that no one could take find an excuse to take offense at.

Again, I have strongly endorsed common sense safety measures, situational awareness, passage and enforcement of laws, etc.

The issue here is not, in my mind, about merely "tak{ing} offense."  I think the adverse effects of "all men are potential rapists" are more substantial than that.

6 minutes ago, manol said:

Stop finding excuses to take offense. Man up. 

That's an interesting perspective.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I think some men do feel that "all men are potential rapists" is inherently prejudiced and unfair and irrational.

Except it is not.

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If someone said "All black men are potential rapists," and if you were black, would you "feel attacked"?

I think the most common response from a black guy would be something like, “Oh, it must be a day of the week that ends in a ‘y’.” This isn’t some absurd hypothetical. It is a lived reality and it is often much more than “potential”. It is more often “probable” or even “certainly”. That you don’t seem to realize how offensive and weird this is is unsurprising after you seemed surprised/shocked that women regularly have to take care around men. It doesn’t impact you so you don’t know about it.

This is what you don’t get. The “men are potential rapists” bit isn’t an aggressive statement that hurts or marginalizes men. Women are not weaponizing this to hurt men. The phrase “all black men are potential rapists” was and is regularly and actively weaponized to harm the innocent. One of the precipitating incidents of the Civil Rights Movement kicking off in earnest was that a black man was murdered because a white woman said he had whistled at her in a suggestive manner. On her death bed she recanted. The murderers got off without punishment despite overwhelming evidence. This was not an isolated incident and still is not. There was a quasi-joke on social media a while back about if you are a minority man and you see a white woman crying at a party to leave immediately leave and buy something traceable with a credit card on the way home as an alibi that you left and keep that receipt.

Do you see how vile this comparison is based on historical and current realities? 

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess I still don't see the nexus between "err{ing} on the side of caution" (which aligns with common sense safety measures and situational awareness, which I have repeatedly and strongly endorsed) and announcing to all men everywhere that they are "potential rapists."

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I want to be careful not to mischaracterize what you’re saying, so let me respond thoughtfully.

"Offender for a word" comes from Isaiah 29:21: 

When you said that my concern about the phrase “all men are potential rapists” is turning women into “offenders for a word,” I looked up the phrase from Isaiah 29:21. In context, it refers to people who lay traps for others by twisting their words or punishing them for innocent speech — essentially making someone an “offender” over a mere word or technicality rather than a real wrong.

I don’t believe I’m doing that here. I’m not trying to “catch” you or women in a verbal trap. I’m genuinely concerned that the statement “all men are potential rapists” casts all men in a negative light by default — treating an entire group as inherently suspect based on the actions of some. That feels like a broad generalization that prejudges individuals. My point isn’t to police language or make women the offenders; it’s to point out what appears to be an internal tension in the position.

I agree that we should protect women and be vigilant against real harm. At the same time, I worry that statements like this can unintentionally foster suspicion toward good men who have done nothing wrong. I’m trying to hold both concerns — protecting the vulnerable and treating individuals fairly — without letting one cancel out the other.

Okay, brass tacks here. Do you feel that women’s attempts to defend themselves against potential harm are aggressive? In other words do they have a negative impact on men? Your reasoning in this thread suggests that it doesn’t beyond some vague ‘hurting their feelings’ or something like that and a peripheral concern that living like that is probably not emotionally healthy for women.

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The point under discussion, then, is whether "all men are potential rapists" is fair and reasonable and appropriate, or whether it is prejudiced and ugly and alienating and demoralizing and unfair.

Again, how are men victimized by this? You were surprised to learn women think this way so it clearly wasn’t actively hurting you was it? So where is the harm?

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oddly, though, much (most?) of such violence is enacted by persons known to the victim.

Which is why women have to be careful around men they know fairly well too. Also while they do usually know the victim this includes acquaintances and friends of friends and the like. There is a lot of space between stranger attacking at random and close friend you have known for years and have a lot of trust towards.

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I have strongly endorsed common sense safety measures, situational awareness, passage and enforcement of laws, etc.

The issue here is not, in my mind, about merely "tak{ing} offense."  I think the adverse effects of "all men are potential rapists" are more substantial than that.

Such as what? Again, the adverse effects don’t seem to have impacted you since you didn’t even know about this.

[manol]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

If someone said "All black men are potential rapists," and if you were black, would you "feel attacked"?

The topic is not race. I request that you not try to steer it in that direction in order to make a point.

Edit:  I like @The Nehor's reply better than mine. 

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I guess I still don't see the nexus between "err{ing} on the side of caution" (which aligns with common sense safety measures and situational awareness, which I have repeatedly and strongly endorsed) and announcing to all men everywhere that they are "potential rapists."

How many women and girls would need to be the victims of sexual assault before you could see the precautionary view that “all men are potential rapists” as justifiable and prudent?

A 2025 study published by the CDC came up with 45% as the number of females in the US who have been or would be sexually assaulted at some point during their lifetimes.  That number shocked me.  In view of that number, how much tip-toeing around the feelings of easily-put-on-the-defensive men should women be doing? 

The above were both rhetorical questions, and perhaps rather edgy ones, so I don't really expect you to respond to them.  But this question is serious:

Can you propose an alternative precautionary view that would be just as protective of women and girls and not be offensive to men with your viewpoint?

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I want to be careful not to mischaracterize what you’re saying, so let me respond thoughtfully.

"Offender for a word" comes from Isaiah 29:21: 

When you said that my concern about the phrase “all men are potential rapists” is turning women into “offenders for a word,” I looked up the phrase from Isaiah 29:21. In context, it refers to people who lay traps for others by twisting their words or punishing them for innocent speech — essentially making someone an “offender” over a mere word or technicality rather than a real wrong.

I don’t believe I’m doing that here. I’m not trying to “catch” you or women in a verbal trap. I’m genuinely concerned that the statement “all men are potential rapists” casts all men in a negative light by default — treating an entire group as inherently suspect based on the actions of some. That feels like a broad generalization that prejudges individuals. My point isn’t to police language or make women the offenders; it’s to point out what appears to be an internal tension in the position.

I agree that we should protect women and be vigilant against real harm. At the same time, I worry that statements like this can unintentionally foster suspicion toward good men who have done nothing wrong. I’m trying to hold both concerns — protecting the vulnerable and treating individuals fairly — without letting one cancel out the other.

I’d value hearing how you see it. Am I misunderstanding the intent behind the phrase, or how it fits with not judging men prematurely?

What I'm saying is, don't portray yourself as a victim and women as the perpetrators of unfairness over the words used. You are not a victim.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The point under discussion, then, is whether "all men are potential rapists" is fair and reasonable and appropriate, or whether it is prejudiced and ugly and alienating and demoralizing and unfair.

I have no control over how much offense you choose to take over the statement that “all men are potential rapists”. I choose to take none.

Repeating my earlier serious question:  Can you propose an alternative precautionary view that would be just as protective of women and girls and not be offensive to men with your viewpoint?  If you can come up with something that meets these apparently contradictory requirements, I think that would be worthwhile progress.

Edited 2 hours ago by manol

[smac97]

1 hour ago, manol said:

The topic is not race. I request that you not try to steer it in that direction in order to make a point.

Edit:  I like @The Nehor's reply better than mine. 

How many women and girls would need to be the victims of sexual assault before you could see the precautionary view that “all men are potential rapists” as justifiable and prudent?

A 2025 study published by the CDC came up with 45% as the number of females in the US who have been or would be sexually assaulted at some point during their lifetimes.  That number shocked me.  In view of that number, how much tip-toeing around the feelings of easily-put-on-the-defensive men should women be doing? 

The above were both rhetorical questions, and perhaps rather edgy ones, so I don't really expect you to respond to them.  But this question is serious:

Can you propose an alternative precautionary view that would be just as protective of women and girls and not be offensive to men with your viewpoint?

What I'm saying is, don't portray yourself as a victim and women as the perpetrators of unfairness over the words used. You are not a victim.

I have no control over how much offense you choose to take over the statement that “all men are potential rapists”. I choose to take none.

Repeating my earlier serious question:  Can you propose an alternative precautionary view that would be just as protective of women and girls and not be offensive to men with your viewpoint?  If you can come up with something that meets these apparently contradictory requirements, I think that would be worthwhile progress.

Perhaps our conversation has run its course.

Thanks,

-Smac