Controversy Over Utah Pastor's Tweet Re: Woman Posting Pics of Themselves in Revealing Clothing

[James 1 5]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Limiting “modesty” to how many inches of skin is showing is very limiting IMO and perhaps where you are making an error. The first definition from Oxford per google: “the quality or state of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one's abilities.”

I think Jacob captured it well here: ““Because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they”

I don't limit modesty to how many inches of skin are showing.  How much skin a person reveals is only an indicator of how much modesty a person is showing, at best.  A modest amount is in the medium or midrange, not too much and not too little

[MiserereNobis]

56 minutes ago, James 1 5 said:

No.  That was not me.

Previously you've tried to make the distinction between yourself as a person and Ahab as an avatar as a way to justify your evasion of bans.

So let's try this:

Is the person typing the words for James 1 5 the same person who typed the words for Ahab?

[James 1 5]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Previously you've tried to make the distinction between yourself as a person and Ahab as an avatar as a way to justify your evasion of bans.

So let's try this:

Is the person typing the words for James 1 5 the same person who typed the words for Ahab?

No.  I am now going to ignore any more talk about Ahab. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

CFR please, that it's true that women can both increase and decrease their likelihood of being sexually assaulted based solely on what they are wearing.  In this discussion, it'll be helpful to read the data and studies for ourselves I think.

 

It's such a touchy subject, it seems almost impossible for people to understand each other.   After being misquoted by Calm, now I'm misquoted by bluebell.

What @bluebell says I said: "it's true that women can both increase and decrease their likelihood of being sexually assaulted based solely on what they are wearing."
What I actually said: "Women can increase or decrease their risk of being sexually assaulted, in certain situations, by how they choose to dress."

She misses (like Calm missed) the phrase "in certain situations", and adds the phrase "based solely on".  I don't recognize the claim she's attributing to me, and see no reason to defend a claim I'm not making.

 

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Let me see the data.  I and bluebell posted evidence that attire does not affect risk.

Unless you are suggesting wearing more modest clothing increases the risk of assault (given the only 4.4% of rapes involving provocative clothing, I suppose you could claim that).

 

Another small but significant issue to point out - that would be 4.4% of reported assaults, correct?  It's a big problem, when figuring out what's what with sexual assault - it hides in the shadows and feeds on shame to stay secret.  Another oft-quoted statistic is how much sexual assaults go unreported.  RAINN estimates only 31% get reported to the police in the first place.    The Brennan Center cites a 2016 USDOJ report that says only 20% get reported, and has a good article with plenty of sources on the low reporting rate.  There's a percentage of victims who commit suicide, no way to tell how many reported first vs never reported.  Throw in inconsistent definitions of rape & sexual assault, differing standards for categorizing sexual assaults, different ways statistics are gathered and reported, and there's simply no reliable data to be had.  Anonymous surveys and data from places like Colorado's Safe2Tell can give a slightly clearer picture, but they are problematic as well, suffering from self-selection and the occasional revenge reporting.  Sorry I can't provide a handy link to a well-footnoted article containing unambiguous and conclusive data.  All I have, is what I've gathered from my past associations with various rape crisis centers, the endless stories I've heard from victims, perpetrators, and cops, and my understanding of human nature.    

I'll try a third time.   Here's my claim:  "Women can increase or decrease their risk of being sexually assaulted, in certain situations, by how they choose to dress."  I think perhaps the key phrase here, which people keep missing, is "in certain situations".  (There, I did the holy trifecta of bolding, italicizing, and underlining - perhaps that will get it the proper attention.)   I'm not talking places where most of us spend most of our time.  When thinking about the visible world most of us spend our lives in, then no, how victims were dressed clearly have pretty much zero impact.  That includes bars, wild drunken frat parties, and the like.

The certain situations to which I refer, are places where loosened inhibitions, a lawless area, a culture of predation, and low to nonexistent odds of discovery combine.  You need all four for the situation to occur.  Miss one, and the usual rules we all know, apply just fine.  Fortunately, humans like their civilizations, so these situations are pretty rare.   Rare, but still in existence, and something folks can wander into through inattention or ignorance.  Anyway, although the situations are rare, and the data on reported cases paints a different picture, you can find stories from these situations in rape crisis centers all over the world.

 

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

That should not be the case.

I wholeheartedly agree.  It should not be the case.  But it is.  As a parent, it was on me to communicate the reality for these certain situations to my daughters.  Fortunately, just keeping some situational awareness around you is usually enough to avoid these situations in the first place. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The certain situations to which I refer, are places where loosened inhibitions, a lawless area, a culture of predation, and low to nonexistent odds of discovery combine.  You need all four for the situation to occur.  Miss one, and the usual rules we all know, apply just fine.  Fortunately, humans like their civilizations, so these situations are pretty rare.   Rare, but still in existence, and something folks can wander into through inattention or ignorance. 

Where is the data and not just theory?  

Edited February 11, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I know you think it is, but it's not and this is why (some of these are from this article):

1) Every time this topic comes up you find a way to talk about how men have it bad too,

I was actually trying to empathize, not say "men have it bad too."  To communicate the idea that I am beginning to better understand how women resent to being categorically caricatured as sexually licentious.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

and that really isn't any different than Wilcox discussing the priesthood ban by outlining why white people had to wait to. 

I think it's pretty different, but I respect your opinion and will ruminate on it.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Just like talking about the priesthood ban for Blacks is not the correct time bring up a "hardship" for whites, talking about sexist behavior and sexual assault is not the time to bring up the "hardships" that men also face.  It's completely tone deaf.

With respect, I disagree.  I think arguing by analogy is within the bounds of reasoned and civil discourse.  And I reject the notion that a discussion of gender-specific generalizations must only speak of how they impact women.

Moreover, with genuine respect to you, this is my thread.  I started it.  I get to decide its scope and parameters.  I want to discuss gender-specific generalizations, both as to women and men.  It's not a contest between the two.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

2) Women already know that it's not all men. 

But a lot of the messaging doesn't convey that.  Whatever women know or don't know in their minds, publishing generalizations as to all men are going to be construed by many men as being directed at . . . all men.

As regarding generalizations of women, the pastor under discussion also seems to know that "it's not all {women}."  He wasn't speaking of "all {women}," yet he's being disparaged as if he was.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Everyone already knows that it's not all men.

But then why can't that same defense be cited by the pastor.  "Everyone already knows that it's not all women who . . ."

I am in favor of giving the benefit of the doubt when it comes to broad generalizations as to men.  That facially troubling concepts like #TeachMenNotToRape is impliedly not directed at "all men."  That's reasonable.  But then why not grant the same benefit of the doubt as to the pastor?

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You already know that everyone knows that it's not all men. So clearly you aren't saying it to provide information.

Please don't presume to tell me what I know, or what my motives are.

Candidly, I think there are people out there who do, in fact, project appalling generalizations onto "all men."  From our conversation back in 2017, you said:

Quote

I've dealt with sexual harassment in public since i was 11.  Eleven.  Always by high schoolers or grown men.  In school, it was a constant since the 5th grade when I, like most of the other girls, started wearing a bra.  That seems to be the delineation mark.  It was an every day occurrence happening in halls and classrooms, and something that happened so frequently and to so many of us girls that after awhile it stops even registering.  It just is what it is and you deal with it or you don't leave your home. 

And most men don't understand why it's terrifying because most men don't understand what it feels like to be vulnerable to half of the population.  All things being equal (meaning neither person is armed), there is a basic difference between when a woman says something sexual to a man in passing and when a man says something sexual to a woman in passing that men don't often realize.  The difference is that if the man decides he wants to actually do those things he's saying to the girl or woman, he can.

He has the strength and ability to attack and harm, and to take whatever he wants, and the woman won't be able to do much to stop him.  In many instances, the only thing that protects us women are the good graces of the men we come in contact with, and that is terrifying and infuriating because not only can't we tell by looking at you guys which ones are dangerous and which ones aren't, but it also means that we exist and are safe only with male permission.  

That's why us women want men to stop, not just the assaults but the words, the gestures, the tone, the uncomfortable staring and pointing, the lewd whispers and touching.  It all causes significant harm, even without actually being assaulted.

I responded:

Quote

As a husband to a wonderful woman and a father to two wonderful daughters, I am appalled that this sort of thing happens.

That said, I am bewildered at the sentiment here.  Because I am male I have more muscle mass than most women.  Because I have more muscle mass than most women, I have "the strength and ability to attack and harm, and to take whatever {I} want, and the woman won't be able to do much to stop {me}."  And because I have this strength, I "{can} actually do those things."  And because I "{can} actually do those things," ("to attack and harm {women}"), I - based on nothing more than existing and breathing, am "terrifying" to some women.  What conclusion am I supposed to draw, except that some women are "terrified" of me because they think of me - and all men - as potential/inchoate rapists?

Terrorists murder people by shooting them with guns and, more recently, mowing them down with vehicles.  I have a handgun, and I have a car.  Does that make me an inchoate terrorist?  Because I can do horrible things, I am presumed to be a horrible person?

Isn't that where the rubber hits the road?  That's where the "terror" lies, in the implicit notion that all men are rapists?  That they "can" do something bad, so they should be feared for nothing more than that capacity?  Hence statements like "In many instances, the only thing that protects us women are the good graces of the men we come in contact with."  Huh?  So not only am I an inchoate rapist (by virtue of . . . Breathing While Male), but the only thing that keeps me from acting out on my rapist propensities is . . . "the good graces" of other men?  Say what?

And it doesn't even stop there.  Even then good and decent men who keep the rapists at bay are "terrifying and infuriating" to some women because . . . women "can't tell" the rapists apart from the good guys.  So the good guys end up being part of the problem ("terrifying and infuriating") as well ("it also means that we exist and are safe only with male permission").

What on earth am I reading here?  How are men supposed to function if they are, simply by existing, presumed to be "terrifying," barely-constrained rapists on the prowl?

I think I'll log off for a while.  My wife and daughters love me.  They do not think of me in such a horrible, horrible way.  I am, frankly, disturbed to read that my fellow Latter-day Saints think of me this way.  I am "terrifying" to them.  I am an inchoate rapist to them.

You responded:

Quote

Quote

What conclusion am I supposed to draw, except that some women are "terrified" of me because they think of me - and all men - as potential/inchoate rapists?

That's probably a good conclusion to draw.  No one is saying that it's fair.  It's not fair what women have to go through either.  Hopefully our society can change so that women can stop being afraid whenever they are vulnerable in the presence of a guy and good men can stop being feared.

You thereafter ridiculed me as "making {my}self the victim."  Juliann then added her bits of ridicule as well.

Women viewing all men as "potential/inchoate rapists" was, in your view, "probably a good conclusion to draw."

I think that is a pretty bad generalization.  I don't think it's healthy.  Or good.  Or reasonable.  

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

3), It's a defensive statement.   "When people get defensive they aren't listening to the other person; they’re busy thinking of ways to defend themselves."  That's not useful to this conversation.

Oh, brother.  I started the thread.  I asked for input.  So accusing me of not listening falls flat.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

4)  It's not useful because it sidetracks the conversation. "The discussion isn’t about the men who aren’t a problem."  Why do you want to make the conversation about men who aren't the problem when men who are the problem exist?  

I reject the notion that gender-based generalizations must only include comments about how it impacts women, and that we cannot also discuss how such things impact men.

I started the thread.  I get to decide its scope.  Gender-based generalizations about men are part of this topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

The reality is women have to be wary of all men. So it may not be ‘all men’ but women do have to take safety precautions men don’t think about. Until someone is in the ‘trusted’ category, they should not be trusted. And even then, you have to make sure they should be trusted and be aware of grooming tactics. 

Being a woman is exhausting. 
 

 

Edited February 11, 2022 by bsjkki

[James 1 5]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

,,,

Candidly, I think there are people out there who do, in fact, project appalling generalizations onto "all men."  From our conversation back in 2017, you said:

...

That's why us women want men to stop, not just the assaults but the words, the gestures, the tone, the uncomfortable staring and pointing, the lewd whispers and touching.  It all causes significant harm, even without actually being assaulted.

I'm impressed that you keep notes like you do going back to 2017.  And I'm sad that you two haven't resolved this yet.  Maybe we can all work this out right now.

@bluebell, which words would you like men to stop using, which gestures, what tone?  What type of staring and pointing do you think is uncomfortable to women?  I do not condone any type of lewd behavior so I think I can understand why women don't either. 

I suppose I also understand why women would not want any man staring at them, but I see a difference between staring and being so mesmerized by true beauty that a man really can not look away, also unaware that his gaze is being interpreted as staring.

I'm pretty much at the point where I really don't look at anyone in public anymore.  No hello. No wave.  No "how are you doing?"  I'm pretty much just looking at where I am going while trying to move out of the way of other people going wherever they are going, with me buying whatever I need and going back home to my family.  I do look at people in movies and "TV" shows but those people are likely clueless if I am looking at them.

[James 1 5]

23 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The reality is women have to be wary of all men. So it may not be ‘all men’ but women do have to take safety precautions men don’t think about. Until someone is in the ‘trusted’ category, they should not be trusted. And even then, you have to make sure they should be trusted and be aware of grooming tactics. 

Being a women is exhausting. 

As a man I do not worry that a woman might want to rape me because I could probably fight one off of me if one tried, but I am still on guard that someone may want to rob or assault me.  Maybe we're all worried about being attacked, just for different reasons.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

"Women can increase or decrease their risk of being sexually assaulted, in certain situations, by how they choose to dress." 

This is why women end up in burqas. I am interpreting your argument as saying that because of a very small chance your clothing could contribute to  being raped, you should all cover up all the time everywhere. Do you see why this is not really very helpful? I find it interesting rape is a huge problem in the part of the world that requires strict modesty. Interesting, isn't it.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Previously you've tried to make the distinction between yourself as a person and Ahab as an avatar as a way to justify your evasion of bans.

So let's try this:

Is the person typing the words for James 1 5 the same person who typed the words for Ahab?

Yeah...that's Ahab. He can't admit it without risking getting thrown off the board again.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yeah...that's Ahab. He can't admit it without risking getting thrown off the board again.

There is a level of coherency in the posts that wasn’t there previously.  I have my doubts that Ahab could get it close but not identical, leave out some of the key quirks of his style. The idiosyncratic definition of words.  It is much easier to see James’ points.  Now maybe Ahab was a better writer after all, but his clones in the past didn’t show it.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Calm

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is a level of coherency in the posts that wasn’t there previously.  I have my doubts that Ahab could get it close but not identical, leave out some of the key quirks of his style. The idiosyncratic definition of words.  It is much easier to see James’ points.  Now maybe Ahab was a better writer after all, but his clones in the past didn’t show it.

Perhaps...

[Kenngo1969]

23 hours ago, Paloma said:

... And at least part of my haste was because I'm preoccupied with family health issues here at home. ...

I hope those "family health issues" are resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.  All the best.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

... Being a women is exhausting. [sic] ...

 

Really?   How many of you are there?   Do you contain multitudes ?   Are you legion ?

(Sorry!  Couldn't resist!   We now return you to your regularly scheduled, on topic programming! )

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Really?   How many of you are there?   Do you contain multitudes ?   Are you legion ?

(Sorry!  Couldn't resist!   We now return you to your regularly scheduled, on topic programming! )

Fixed.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There is a level of coherency in the posts that wasn’t there previously.  I have my doubts that Ahab could get it close but not identical, leave out some of the key quirks of his style. The idiosyncratic definition of words.  It is much easier to see James’ points.  Now maybe Ahab was a better writer after all, but his clones in the past didn’t show it.

I don't think he's Ahab.  He makes too much sense usually.  Maybe he's gotten better, but I'll proceed as if it's not him and give him the benefit of the doubt.

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think unsolicited advice from strangers about modesty/sex can certainly be creepy.

There is a corollary issue that men encounter: unsolicited commentary and directives from women pertaining to physical violence.  I generally do not attribute this to "sexism," though, because I think we generally believe that male-on-female physical violence is more prevalent and more serious, such that commentary critical of such violence is, it would seem, properly directed at men.

As it happens, though, it seems like female-on-male physical violence is also a pretty serious problem.  See, e.g., here ("IPV" = "Initmate Partner Violence") :

First, I agree with a lot that BB and Bsjkki have already responded to this. But I'd also like to point out something specific with IPV's. There are reasons why male violence is usually highlighted. For one, the violence perpetrated by men tends to be more physically damaging (as in more likely to cause serious bodily injury and/or death). IPV also does not always measure context, which also broadly differs from male to female. I'll give you a personal example because it's easier. I perpetrated an IPV once while single...so I would fit into that stat of women perps. Here is the context: The man I was interested in came over and was somewhat intoxicated, which I wasn't fully aware of at first. He then proceeded to touch me in a way I didn't want to be touched. I said no and proceeded to block him multiple times. When it became clear that in a small enclosed space that he wouldn't stop, I reactively slapped him in the face. In other words it was protective against potential sexual assault. Many of the women I've worked with who would also fit into the IPV categories are also often pushed to a point of feeling either physically or emotionally trapped in receiving either prolonged coercive or abusive behavior from their partner. This is not the same general pattern for the few times I've had hints of male partner violence. Theirs tend to be to try and control the situation (aka their partner). There is overlap for both gender's source of IPV....usually tied to violence that come from having unresolved trauma or two unhealthy people coming together to create and even more unhealthy environment. But more often there's a distinctive difference in motive and method and though I take all cases of IPV's seriously, I'm usually more concerned by male ones for the underlying patterns of abusive control it usually points to. Male violence is usually more proactive, females more reactive. 

 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is it possible, then, that there is more commentary about female "modesty" issues because there is a generalized perception - which may well be incorrect - that revealing/sexualized clothing/photographs are issues substantially more prevalent among women (just as there is a generalized perception - also potentially inaccurate - that IPV is an issue substantially more prevalent among men)?

I'm having a hard time writing this as a parallel. Violence against another person is by no means in the same arena as this man harking on modesty among women. The effect of one is far more consequential on the well being of others and is a direct assault on another. "Modesty issues" are usually a subjective cultural judgment call on how someone is wearing clothes (not talking about actually scriptural definition of it). 9 times out of 10 the person assuming someone is being immodest are reading into them their own sexual arousal/discomfort to being attracted to someone they don't want to be and putting it on the woman. Most women are not trying to seduce all male-kind when they put on their bikini for the beach/pool, post a pic of the weight loss journeys, or post new mama baby pics. It's simply apples and oranges. Maybe closer to apples and celery...I'm not even sure we're still talking the same general topic of problems. 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can see how that could cause offense.  That said, a few thoughts come to mind:

First, he didnt "describe women this way and proclaim them 'your enemy.'"  He described some women this way.  He was not generalizing as to all women.  He was referencing some women who behave in a particular way.  I think that's a fairly important distinction.

I don't for at least 2 reasons. 

I'm putting this in contextually. The man made a post calling out women putting up innocuos posts with newborn pics, weight loss photos, and bikinis with and absolute hard "no" to all of these because they're immodest in his eyes. So basically anyone who refuses (like me) and puts up any photo that he deems immodest fits into this enemy territory. he doesn't make significant distinctions between a new mom proudly birthing her child and breastfeeding the first time and someone posting porn. Which means "some women" is a substantial chunk of women, including women he deems as not living up to his version of christianity. "some women" include many many women who have no urge or thought about being sexual temptation to some rando they could give 2 flips about.

I have worked with many people in my career. Including people who have sexually assaulted/coerced women. Including people who've been emotionally and physically abusive. Including a couple who've killed people. I have never ever ever ever considered any of them my enemy or even an enemy period. They are people. They are often quite lost and broken people. They're people who need accountability and boundaries. They're people who ideally need to change. But I never lose track of their humanity. This man has. He doesn't see individual women, he sees their breasts, butts, and "immodest" outfits. He sees through the lens of his or other male's arousal/attraction to them. It's gross. 

  

 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Second, when I sent my 17-year-old daughter to Italy to spend her senior year there as an exchange student, I and my wife had a few discussions with her beforehand about keeping herself safe, both physically (from unwanted attentions/behaviors) and morally (keeping the Law of Chastity).  We gave her some counsel about how some men may lack a general respect for women, or may have inaccurate ideas about how women communicate, or may feel like aggressive romantic posturing may be cool and effective, or that alcohol may impair their judgment, and so on.  We gave her this advice without me feeling at all like I was "judging" men categorically because, well, we weren't doing that.  We were saying that some men behave badly toward women, and saying this about some men is a far cry from saying it about all men.

As it turns out, the advice . . . worked.  She had a few (very few, fortunately) instances of unwanted attention from a few men.  She never drank, so her cognitive abilities and judgment were never impaired.  She stayed with friends and in "plain view" public areas, she did not stay out late, and so on.  In an ideal world, we could have sent her there without such constraints because she would be perfectly safe.  But we don't live in that world.  We instead live in a world where some men - some men - behave toward women in ways that are opportunistic, untoward, predatory, etc.  She apparently encountered a (very) few such persons, but never in circumstances that compromised her safety.

I'm glad your daughter had an enjoyable time in Italy.  I mentioned earlier, but I'll strongly reiterate, that I wonder what would happen if we spent less time coaching girls how to manage boys/men and taught said males how to call out, monitor, and stop inappropriate male behavior. I get that we don't live in an ideal world...but it would certainly be closer to me if we spent time on the true source of the problem (ie. cultural and social cues that enable coercive sexual patterns, harassment, and sense of needing women to behave a certain way so men can control themselves)

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think we made "men" out to be a categorical "enemy."  We instead cautioned her against some men - men who behave in a particular way - as potentially dangerous.  Is it possible that the pastor was intending something similar?  That he was not generalizing as to all women, but instead was specifying women who behave in a particular way?

 

Again, it doesn't matter to me if it was all or some. He's making women, who are not proactively being provocative, enemies to men, because they were simply showing more skin than he deems appropriate. There is no parallel between this and the guys who would proactively try to be aggressive, harass, or coerce your daughter into things she didn't want to do.  

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I can see how that is offensive.  I feel the same way about stuff like the #TeachMenNotToRape hashtag.  Attributing sexual licentiousness to women as a generalization is offensive to women, sort of like how attributing physical or sexual violence to men as a generalization is offensive to men.

Yeah no. I think you miss the point of that hashtag

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

"The posts I've read" is a reference to posts from this pastor?

Yes. Several of the most recent ones where he appears to double down and go into defense mode to some of the replies he got from the og tweet. 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the Law of Chastity is important for both sexes, as is the general principle of modesty.  But boy, unsolicited online directives about such things can sure go awry pretty quickly.

Thanks,

-Smac

Especially when they're more culturally sexist messages wrapped up in christian language. Usually ain't gonna fly well. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Fixed.

Oh, I'm so relieved!  It would have been a sleepless night!  

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, James 1 5 said:

No.  I am now going to ignore any more talk about Ahab. 

Instead of asking “Who is Ahab?”

White whale off the port bow!

[LoudmouthMormon]

20 hours ago, bsjkki said:

22 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

"Women can increase or decrease their risk of being sexually assaulted, in certain situations, by how they choose to dress." 

This is why women end up in burqas. I am interpreting your argument as saying that because of a very small chance your clothing could contribute to  being raped, you should all cover up all the time everywhere. Do you see why this is not really very helpful? I find it interesting rape is a huge problem in the part of the world that requires strict modesty. Interesting, isn't it.

You are interpreting my statement incorrectly.  I'm not making an argument, I'm making a statement.  I find it fascinating that a simple statement of fact can be so wildly misunderstood, misquoted, misrepresented, and misinterpreted by so many people.  

If you'd like to interact with my actual statement, I'm willing.  But adding crap to it, so you can point and laugh at the crap, well, you brought up things that are not really very helpful?

Edited February 12, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

You are interpreting my argument incorrectly.  I find it fascinating that a simple statement of fact can be so wildly misunderstood, misquoted, misrepresented, and misinterpreted by so many people.  

If you'd like to interact with my actual statement, I'm willing.  But adding crap to it, so you can point and laugh at the crap, well, you brought up things that are not really very helpful?

Well, I think it fair to ask what you think women should do about this? Is that a fair question?

You added so many qualifiers that it is hard to understand what the point of your statement is.

Edited February 12, 2022 by bsjkki

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

You are interpreting my statement incorrectly.  I'm not making an argument, I'm making a statement.  I find it fascinating that a simple statement of fact can be so wildly misunderstood, misquoted, misrepresented, and misinterpreted by so many people.  

If you'd like to interact with my actual statement, I'm willing.  But adding crap to it, so you can point and laugh at the crap, well, you brought up things that are not really very helpful?

Perhaps you could provide a couple of concrete examples for your “simple statement of fact” as well as evidence pertaining to said examples?

[LoudmouthMormon]

23 hours ago, bsjkki said:

The reality is women have to be wary of all men. So it may not be ‘all men’ but women do have to take safety precautions men don’t think about. Until someone is in the ‘trusted’ category, they should not be trusted. And even then, you have to make sure they should be trusted and be aware of grooming tactics. 

Totally agree.

In general, I think it's a good idea for everyone to carry a certain level of wariness (basically a lack of trust), with them, wherever they go.  Healthy folk have healthy ways to allow folks to gain trust.  But yes, absolutely, girls and women need to be aware of grooming tactics, and how to evaluate people and situations.

 

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I think it fair to ask what you think women should do about this?

Basically, the above.  Practice situational awareness, do what is smart to keep your personal level of risk low.  Be aware of the truth about humanity, in that in any town/city/etc of people, there will be a percentage (hopefully a tiny one) of people, willing to hurt or kill you for what you have.  It's a general concept, applicable to men and women.  Massive walls of denial about such things get folks in trouble.

Dressing provocatively may occasionally, in some areas, at some times of the day, around some types of people, increase your personal risk of something bad happening.  Similar to how flashing cash, or ostentatious displays of wealth, or walking around oblivious to your surroundings, will sometimes increase your personal risk of something bad happening.  

Should that really be that much of a trigger notion?

Edited February 12, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Dressing provocatively may occasionally, in some areas, at some times of the day, around some types of people, increase your personal risk of something bad happening.  Similar to how flashing cash, or ostentatious displays of wealth, or walking around oblivious to your surroundings, will sometimes increase your personal risk of something bad happening.  

Should that really be that much of a trigger notion?

It seems like the use of the word 'may' here changes the meaning of your previous statement, which was that women can decrease the risk of being sexually assaulted using only clothes.

"May" implies that the women might be able to impact their chances of rape through their choice of clothing, while "can" implies that women will be able to impact their chance of rape through their choice of clothing.   The difference is in the amount of control the woman has in the situation. 

If she "may" be able to do something then the idea that she cannot completely control the outcome remains intact.  If she "can" to something, then it implies that the outcome is under her control. 

I have no problem with the "may" statement.  It's the "can" statement that I don't agree with and find harmful.