Unintended consequence of ***some*** modesty teachings is distrust of men and other insights

[Calm]

Wanted to emphasize some in the title and couldn’t, so used the stars to draw attention to it….meaning I am not nor is the video saying all modesty teachings make men look untrustworthy/dangerous.

I started watching another Saints Unscripted video after the one linked in another thread and the opening attention getter got my attention and reminded me of past discussions here, including one where some men interpreted some of the women’s comments as more or less saying that women typically view all men as rapists (though it is more accurate to say potential rapists) and they were unhappy with that.  I am assuming they believe the innocent till proven guilty should apply here. (My memory is no doubt highly simplifying the exchanges and where it isn’t, my description is because I don’t want to spend a lot of space on it).

Not intending to debate whether that female view is a reasonable response to male behaviour over time (because of course it is ), but rather what is dropped in the video at the beginning….by teaching women they need to dress to control men’s reactions to them, this teaches us that men can’t control themselves and therefore it creates a distrust of men.  
 

My responses:  This idea of women needing to help men control their thoughts, therefore, could be a major cause of why women often have the default assumption that unfamiliar men should be responded to with the caution one would use with someone willing to rape you if the opportunity arises. 
 

So for the men who get disturbed by thinking many women are on some level evaluating your behaviour by comparing it to a checklist of likely rapist behaviours or that a woman could be consciously or unconsciously positioning herself to defend herself against you or to run or is just bracing herself to take another risk that could lead to her death by talking to you, maybe you should think of how you can best discuss modesty ideals (assuming you even have to do so) in a way that does not shift responsibility for men’s or boys’ thoughts to females.

The other point I found interesting is the emphasis on modesty as personal choice, including consciously wearing clothing to fit in with the group one chooses to belong to as well as with sexuality.  One chooses to wear what is termed as modest clothing for one’s culture because one recognizes what messages their culture attaches to types of clothing (and this is not just sexuality, but wealth, subgroups, personality, etc)**** and especially because one is consciously choosing to share or not share one’s body with others (the last is the new idea for me).  The analogy of saving a beautiful dress for special occasions is emphasizing its value to the individual is used, one reserves one’s body because one values it, not because one is ashamed of it.

Overall, I felt it achieved a good balance between avoiding shaming and being reasonably cautious in choosing one’s attire based on culture standards.

****This probably goes without saying these days, but so no one feels obligated to discuss…

Not to imply any clothing choice actually gives the message “it is okay to sexually assault me” or that the victim is somehow responsible for someone else receiving that message (they aren’t, the wannabe rapists are projecting their desires on the others and seeing what they want to see as becomes obvious when one looks at the exhibitions of the clothing actual rape victims were wearing when assaulted).  Just in case anyone wonders—btw, I do not doubt that those who post here regularly get this, there have been a few random posters in the past who I have wondered about their social skills—there is a massive difference between the message “I might be sexually available to you” and “I want to be assaulted” or even “I want to be touched in sexual ways”, which is why everyone should actually ask for consent and never assume it is given nonverbally first.  The only case where nonverbal cues should be considered enough is in long term relationships that have developed their own nonverbal language, though a very good idea to discuss ahead of time what one means rather than just assuming one is on the same page and revisit it from time to time.

PS:  for those who can’t last through a whole podcast, playback speed at double is still understandable 

Edited February 8 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

Well she’s so influential right now.  JFF is hot ticket stuff.  I’ll return and listen after work. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Always an important topic.  So much harm coming from ham-fisted "used kleenex" or "don't get yourself raped" stories.    Here's how we addressed this sensitive issue with our daughters: 

- As soon as they could talk, we'd look through the magazines at the doctor's office and played the "modest/immodest" game.  I'd point to a picture and ask "is that modest or immodest?"  They caught on immediately.  Just applying the value-judgment-neutral labels.  Nobody was good or bad, just displaying this or that appearance.

- Through their lives, they learned how our actions and appearances can influence those around us.  Driving like a jerk gets people angry at Dad.  Smiling and complimenting something about someone is a good way to break the ice and start a friendship.  When your niece ran naked down the street when she was 2 1/2, she brought all the mommies out of their houses. 

- We had inside the house rules, and outside the house rules.  As they grew, we had more and more discussions about such things.

- I want to stress the principle wasn't about dressing modestly.  The principle was "your actions and appearances influence those around you, so what sort of attention are you looking for?"  We talked mostly about situational awareness, how we don't flash cash in public, how we don't walk down the street in an iphone oblivious coma.  And we also people watched, and saw how folks would dress, and watch how people reacted to them.  My wife (who is better at such things) often took our kids up to people dressed in extreme ways (bikers, piercings and hair color, people screaming a message through appearance), and she'd ask them about their bikes, their style, their message.  Lots of friendly conversations.  Then wife and kids would talk about what was said, what do you think about this or that claim, do you think you want to do that when you grow up, etc.

- Moment of granularity: One day we were driving home from church, and the girls were in the back seat giggling and lifting themselves up so they could show their underwear to the cars driving by.  They were having a great time.  I just said in a fun and friendly way "no, no, you don't show the undies to the cars. Show your undies to your hubbies."  The car exploded with fun screams and laughter.  They started planning their wedding nights and married lives right then.  "Look hubbies, undies!" became a thing I heard for the next 4 years.  

A main summary of our efforts was that we didn't judge harshly, we loved everyone, and we reserved the right to disagree privately for whatever reasons seemed valid to them.  

 

We've had no shortage of issues with our kiddos, but immodesty or self-esteem problems about causing their own abuse through their dress aren't two of them.

[telnetd]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

My responses:  This idea of women needing to help men control their thoughts, therefore, could be a major cause of why women often have the default assumption that unfamiliar men should be responded to with the caution one would use with someone willing to rape you if the opportunity arises. 

Take a look at Islam.   The men take the initiative and separate women from men in their
mosques and force the women to cover their bodies, even their eyes, because they cannot
control their sexual desires.   It doesn't work - just looking at their beautiful eyes drive the
men bonkers so they are forced to cover them too in some countries.

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Take a look at Islam.   The men take the initiative and separate women from men in their
mosques and force the women to cover their bodies, even their eyes, because they cannot
control their sexual desires.   It doesn't work - just looking at their beautiful eyes drive the
men bonkers so they are forced to cover them too in some countries.

You are talking about a specific subset of Islam and not Islam in general. There are Christian and Jewish subsets with similar practices.

[The Nehor]

It is worth noting that historically in Europe women have been seen as sexually eager lustbunnies who can’t control themselves. These are social constructs.

In many ways we still believe that:

https://going-medieval.com/2022/06/10/on-conflating-drag-and-femininity-with-sexuality/#more-5090

[Tacenda]

All I know is that the judgement goes far against women wearing inappropriate (for whom, haha) clothing. And how the judgement almost feels worse than the person that getting the judgement. I think some girls or young women and even older women, just want to be loved or accepted. Or get some attention that may be lacking strongly in their lives and they haven't been able to feel like their intellect or personality is enough. They may have grown up with a father that didn't give her the attention needed. She may have been sexually abused and learned that it is the way to feel loved. Or she may just be proud of her body and the work outs that led to it. 

It's our jobs to not just go by their poor decision but look beyond it. And not let someone's clothing choice cause a reaction of disgust for them, we need to love them instead. 

I remember going out to dinner after the temple, which we did for my in-law's birthdays every year. It was during Halloween and a woman walked by with an outfit that showed her cleavage. Well my MIL had a fit, and was even a little loud with her disgust of the woman. I was embarrassed by my MIL's reactions and hoped the woman didn't see it. 

We all need to get a grip on it, and look in to the soul of the person behind the lack of clothing. There's most likely something lurking and would answer to the why. 

 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

There's most likely something lurking

The lurking is often in the one who judges.  Look up reaction formation as a common defense mechanism.  
sometimes we get very angry with other people when they do things we do not allow ourselves to do. (even if we do them anyway, but we just judge ourselves, harshly for doing)

[smac97]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

I started watching another Saints Unscripted video after the one linked in another thread and the opening attention getter got my attention and reminded me of past discussions here, including one where some men interpreted some of the women’s comments as more or less saying that women typically view all men as rapists (though it is more accurate to say potential rapists) and they were unhappy with that.

Yes, I am one of those guys.  

A while back, during a discussion with my teenage daughter, she flat-out said that she and most of her friends view all teen and adult males as "potential rapists and child molesters" (yes, that very phrase).  All of them.

I asked her something like this: "Do you think it would be okay for you and your friends to view all black men as 'potential rapists and child molesters'?", and she responded "Of course not."  I asked why not, and she said "Because that would be prejudiced."  I responded with something like this: "I agree.  To hold that view would be to literally 'pre-judge' that group.  That's what 'prejudice' means.  It means to have a preconceived judgment or opinion, usually a negative one, without just grounds or facts on which to base such a judgment.  So if it it wrong to hold such a prejudiced view of black men as a category, wouldn't it also be wrong to hold this prejudiced view of all men as a category?"  

23 hours ago, Calm said:

I am assuming they believe the innocent till proven guilty should apply here. (My memory is no doubt highly simplifying the exchanges and where it isn’t, my description is because I don’t want to spend a lot of space on it).

I think Category A ought not hold prejudicial views of Category B.  Just as there are ugly stereotypes of men, there are also ugly stereotypes of women.  Neither is appropriate.  

That some men are rapists and child molesters is not, in my view, a reasonable basis to view all men as "potential" rapists and child molesters.  Similarly, that some women are gold-diggers and promiscuous is not a reasonable basis to view all women as "potential" gold-diggers and sexually profligate.  Both views take terrible attributes from a subset of a category of persons and project them onto everyone in that category.  But are ugly and unfair and unhealthy perspectives.

I don't think adding a caveat like "Hey, I only think that all men are potential rapists and child molesters" resolves the issue (just as if a man were to say "Hey, I only think that all women are potential gold-diggers and tramps" doesn't justify that perspective).

23 hours ago, Calm said:

Not intending to debate whether that female view is a reasonable response to male behaviour over time (because of course it is ),

As this "view" is apparently a common thing, and it's potentially a damaging view, I think it merits discussion.

23 hours ago, Calm said:

but rather what is dropped in the video at the beginning….by teaching women they need to dress to control men’s reactions to them, this teaches us that men can’t control themselves and therefore it creates a distrust of men.  

From the automated transcript (capitalization and punctuation added) :

Quote

{S}o there's 2:27 great things about modesty we we tend to 2:30 get upset about it though because we've 2:32 tended to focus on women as kind of the 2:36 gatekeepers and the managers of men's 2:39 sexuality through the way they dress.  {A}nd 2:41 many of us have grown up learning that 2:44 those ideas, you know, that you have to 2:45 help men be chased by covering up.  And so 2:49 that sort of misplacement of 2:50 responsibility, or at least the 2:52 distortion in that 2:54 responsibility, has made it confusing and 2:57 sometimes has caused women to feel 2:59 ashamed of their sexuality or to feel 3:01 that they are a temptation or a problem 3:03 or they're partly responsible if they're 3:05 violated in some way.  {S}o there's a lot of 3:07 problematic meanings that come from the 3:10 ways that we have tended to teach and 3:12 talk about 3:14 modesty I see thank you and all of that 3:17 really comes culturally that's not 3:19 really said anywhere in the scriptures.
...
First I think in teaching 6:35 young men or teaching sons right is that 6:38 sexuality is a wonderful part of life 6:41 and you're going to have a lot of 6:42 feelings starting around age 12.  {A}nd 6:45 they're going to feel kind of out of 6:46 control, and you're going to feel like 6:48 you're not fully yourself, and nothing's 6:51 going wrong.  {T}hat doesn't make you bad it 6:53 doesn't make you less spiritual. 6:56 {I}t just means that a process is 6:59 happening that's meant to happen and 7:01 it's it's going to feel unruly sometimes. 7:04 {Y}our goal is to learn how with time to 7:08 basically accept this gift of 7:10 your sexuality and be kind to yourself 7:13 and respectful of others with it.  {Y}ou 7:15 always always are going to be the one 7:17 responsible for how you handle your 7:19 sexual feelings, and that's true 7:21 unmarried and in marriage.

"{Women and girls are not} the gatekeepers and the managers of men's sexuality through the way they {women and girls} dress."

"You always always are going to be the one responsible for how you handle your sexual feelings."

Good stuff, this.

I think the issue is that most decent men don't want to be catching eyefuls in a nonconsensual way.  I commented on this back in 2017:

Quote

Quote

I'm not sure I truly understand the "Be modest so others have clean thoughts" as a reason for modesty.

 

The human body can cause sexual arousal.

Many forms of "revealing" clothing can facilitate that arousal.

...

I previously taught at a local university for several years.  During that time I had hundreds of students, a very few of which ... chose to wear rather revealing clothing.  Lots of cleavage.  Lots.  It was distracting.  It was discomfiting when they sat at the front of the class and I was standing (as necessary to use the computer, projector, etc.), thus giving me a copious view of . . . things I did not want to be seeing.

Yes, I am (or should be) the master of my own thoughts.  But I am not always the master of my own environment.  I interact with other people.  And through those interactions I can have an effect on those people.  I can say and do and wear things that are provocative.  Or offensive.  Or discomfiting.  I can also be affected by others and their words and actions.

Quote

I've always understood modesty standards to be able respecting the temple that is our body and not sexualizing it, not to have any effect on others but so that we don't objectify ourselves. 

It would seem that a person who "objectifies" himself/herself is often going to involve other people in that effort (that is, potentially having an "effect on others").

The Church also teaches us to moderate our language.  I think this is intended to both help us not pollute ourselves with profane words, and also not to adversely affect others.

Clothing can be a form of speech.  It can affect what others think and say and do.  Hence we get things like this advice from the University of Colorado:

Quote

How to Dress For a Public Speech

Your message is always the most important part of a public speech; however, everything else about your speech will affect how your audience perceives you & your message. Your voice, your gestures, your grammar, your movements, your mannerisms, your clothes, and your style all create the impression you leave on the audience & how much of your message they hear and subsequently, remember.

"Your voice, your gestures, your grammar, your movements, your mannerisms, your clothes, and your style all create the impression you leave on the audience..."

This advice from the University of Colorado is not based on a moral code.  It's just . . . common sense.  

...

While in law school I never heard anyone caution men against wearing "inappropriately revealing" clothing (they were cautioned against other types of clothing, but not that).  Women, on the other hand, were cautioned against this sort of clothing.  And the people doing the cautioning were almost always other women.  So I don't think it's a matter of sexism.

So yes, modesty as a principle applies to both men and women.  But I think women tend to hear about it more because they have many, many more options of what to wear as compared to men, some of which can be "inappropriately revealing" in some contexts.

I think the "clothing as speech" metaphor may be worth some emphasis.

23 hours ago, Calm said:

So for the men who get disturbed by thinking many women are on some level evaluating your behaviour by comparing it to a checklist of likely rapist behaviours

If it acts like a duck, talks like a duck, walks like a duck, if its behaviors are demonstrably "duck-like," then it is reasonable for an observer to view it as a duck.  Otherwise...

I don't think you are accurately stating the average man's concern here.  I have no problem with a woman evaluating my behavior.  The problem arises when a women, regardless of my behavior, and with no factual or reasonable basis, nevertheless deems me to be a potential rapist or child molester, I am troubled by that.

I am genuinely curious about how prevalent this perspective is.  Genuinely viewing all men as "potential" or inchoate rapists and child molesters must be emotionally and psychologically exhausting.  If genuine, it is the definition of "paranoia" ("unjustified suspicion and mistrust of other people or their actions" or "the unwarranted or delusional belief that one is being persecuted, harassed, or betrayed by others").

So is this a real thing?  Or is something more along the lines of rhetorical hyperbole?  Are there really women who view all men as potential rapists (and/or child molesters)?

23 hours ago, Calm said:

or that a woman could be consciously or unconsciously positioning herself to defend herself against you or to run or is just bracing herself to take another risk that could lead to her death by talking to you,

I have a hard accepting that there are appreciable numbers of otherwise normal, rational women out there who harbor such an irrational and exhausting suspicions about all men everywhere.  I asked my wife about what you have said here and she was flabbergasted at it.

It would be rational and reasonable for a woman (or, for that matter, a man) to be on guard when, say, walking alone at night in a neighborhood known for muggings.  It is an entirely separate proposition to go about life and, on a daily and regular basis, viewing all men everywhere as rapists and child molesters (or potentially so).

23 hours ago, Calm said:

maybe you should think of how you can best discuss modesty ideals (assuming you even have to do so) in a way that does not shift responsibility for men’s or boys’ thoughts to females.

First, I don't see how the one thing (women viewing all men everywhere as potential rapists) and the other (discussions of modesty that purport to "shift responsibility for men's or boys' thoughts to females") are related.  Could you elaborate?

Second, I think most folks don't have much occasion to "discuss modesty ideals" to strangers.  I quite agree that where such discussions are appropriate, there should not be an attempt to "shift responsibility" for anything.

Third, I don't think that acknowledging the reasonably foreseeable reactions of Person B to the words or actions of Person A is necessarily an exercise in shifting responsibility.  The Church regularly includes in its counsel to us some exhortation that we give consideration to how we affect and influence other people.  Such exhortations are not about shifting responsibility.

23 hours ago, Calm said:

Not to imply any clothing choice actually gives the message “it is okay to sexually assault me”

I don't think those who encourage modesty are suggesting such a thing.  

There are, of course, clothing choices that are intended to be sexually titillating or provocative, while not "giv{ing} the message 'it is okay to sexually assault me.'"

23 hours ago, Calm said:

Just in case anyone wonders—btw, I do not doubt that those who post here regularly get this, there have been a few random posters in the past who I have wondered about their social skills—there is a massive difference between the message “I might be sexually available to you” and “I want to be assaulted” or even “I want to be touched in sexual ways”, which is why everyone should actually ask for consent and never assume it is given nonverbally first.

I agree.

I also think the Church's teachings about modesty are not predicated on the notion that immodest clothing conveys an “I want to be assaulted” message.

Rather, I think the Church's teachings are more about demonstrating respect, both for the individual and others, and decorum and propriety.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 9 by smac97

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

The lurking is often in the one who judges.  Look up reaction formation as a common defense mechanism.  
sometimes we get very angry with other people when they do things we do not allow ourselves to do. (even if we do them anyway, but we just judge ourselves, harshly for doing)

Yep, this is why intense homophobia often comes from the closeted, why the quietly prideful often hate people who peacock, and why those who would be good but aren’t spew hatred at those who do choose it.

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I am one of those guys.  

A while back, during a discussion with my teenage daughter, she flat-out said that she and most of her friends view all teen and adult males as "potential rapists and child molesters" (yes, that very phrase).  All of them.

I asked her something like this: "Do you think it would be okay for you and your friends to view all black men as 'potential rapists and child molesters'?", and she responded "Of course not."  I asked why not, and she said "Because that would be prejudiced."  I responded with something like this: "I agree.  To hold that view would be to literally 'pre-judge' that group.  That's what 'prejudice' means.  It means to have a preconceived judgment or opinion, usually a negative one, without just grounds or facts on which to base such a judgment.  So if it it wrong to hold such a prejudiced view of black men as a category, wouldn't it also be wrong to hold this prejudiced view of all men as a category?"  

I am on your daughter’s side. Note that it is not that they are all rapists. Just potential rapists.

Depending on what source you use about half or just under half of women in the United States experience sexual assault or sexual violence at least once. This doesn’t mean all men are dangerous. They aren’t but enough are that you have to be on guard and factor in and try to figure out if the guy you are with is one. About a quarter of all men do too.

You didn’t say at the end whether your daughter accepted your weird argument. I hope not. Being defensive and wary is so important.

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think Category A ought not hold prejudicial views of Category B.  Just as there are ugly stereotypes of men, there are also ugly stereotypes of women.  Neither is appropriate.  

That some men are rapists and child molesters is not, in my view, a reasonable basis to view all men as "potential" rapists and child molesters.  Similarly, that some women are gold-diggers and promiscuous is not a reasonable basis to view all women as "potential" gold-diggers and sexually profligate.  Both views take terrible attributes from a subset of a category of persons and project them onto everyone in that category.  But are ugly and unfair and unhealthy perspectives.

I don't think adding a caveat like "Hey, I only think that all men are potential rapists and child molesters" resolves the issue (just as if a man were to say "Hey, I only think that all women are potential gold-diggers and tramps" doesn't justify that perspective).

Interesting that you equate men being violent and predatory with women wanting a wealthy partner or enjoying sex. You do realize the vast divide in those problems and how threatening and predatory they are right? And does thinking women are “tramps” (UGH) mean men have to be on the defensive around them?

Men worry that the women they date will laugh at or humiliate them. Women worry the men they date might rape or kill them.

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think you are accurately stating the average man's concern here.  I have no problem with a woman evaluating my behavior.  The problem arises when a women, regardless of my behavior, and with no factual or reasonable basis, nevertheless deems me to be a potential rapist or child molester, I am troubled by that.

And to stop this is why feminism is desperately trying to get men to confront and deal with “rape culture”. It is interesting that you see this as a woman’s problem. You seem to argue women shouldn’t worry that men are potential rapists just because their odds of getting assaulted by men is pretty high. Instead of trying to police how women view men internally in general maybe we should make it so sexual assault is rare enough that women don’t have to think like that? You know, deal with the problem (women being assaulted) and not the secondary effect (men feeling bad and like they are unjustly judged because women don’t immediately trust them). Surely the first problem is MUCH more important but that is what you fixate on. You want women to assume that men are good when many are bad because it is hurtful to you that women have to worry that you are bad.

This isn’t a new thing either. There is poetry about it in the Victorian Age. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44996/goblin-market

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am genuinely curious about how prevalent this perspective is.  Genuinely viewing all men as "potential" or inchoate rapists and child molesters must be emotionally and psychologically exhausting.  If genuine, it is the definition of "paranoia" ("unjustified suspicion and mistrust of other people or their actions" or "the unwarranted or delusional belief that one is being persecuted, harassed, or betrayed by others").

So is this a real thing?  Or is something more along the lines of rhetorical hyperbole?  Are there really women who view all men as potential rapists (and/or child molesters)?

Emotionally and psychologically exhausting? Yes, it definitely is. And no, it is not paranoia. Paranoia is, as you said “unjustified”.

Yeah, it is a real thing. It is not an unhealthy mindset. It is pragmatic. Many women have been assaulted. Those who haven’t have friends who have been.

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have a hard accepting that there are appreciable numbers of otherwise normal, rational women out there who harbor such an irrational and exhausting suspicions about all men everywhere.  I asked my wife about what you have said here and she was flabbergasted at it.

It would be rational and reasonable for a woman (or, for that matter, a man) to be on guard when, say, walking alone at night in a neighborhood known for muggings.  It is an entirely separate proposition to go about life and, on a daily and regular basis, viewing all men everywhere as rapists and child molesters (or potentially so).

What a delightfully loaded statement. They are otherwise normal and rational but suddenly they are all lunatics for being suspicious of the most common physical and sexual threat women face in their lives. All set up so that any woman who does feel that way is told she is unbalanced or unhealthy or deranged or hysterical or whatever. You want to know why no women will open up and talk with you about this problem? This attitude is why.

I love how you lean into the stereotype of the innocent woman walking through a dimly lit neighborhood jumping at shadows with all the baggage usually loaded into that stereotype.

Most sexual assaults occur near or in the victim’s home. The assailant is almost always known to them and is often a lover or family member or coworker. The sex pest coworker who invades personal space and goes for the grope is more likely than a man wielding a knife in an alley. The lover who decides “no” doesn’t mean “no” is more likely than a creep jumping you when you are passing through a park. Both are likely to be explained away by the assailant and often by other men. Even when they do believe it happened they often leap to find reasons the woman is partially responsible. Did she lead the guy on? Was she dressed provocatively? Did she resist how I personally think she should have? If she froze up in fear couldn’t that mean she was okay with it and if she didn’t push back maybe he thought it was okay?

So of course women are on guard a lot.

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also think the Church's teachings about modesty are predicated on the notion that immodest clothing conveys an “I want to be assaulted” message.

That is a bold and courageous stance.

Or a typo.

[Calm]

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First, I don't see how the one thing (women viewing all men everywhere as potential rapists) and the other (discussions of modesty that purport to "shift responsibility for men's or boys' thoughts to females") are related.  Could you elaborate?

What do you think distrust of men by women if women accept the idea that men can’t control their sexual thoughts about women leads women to think?

I am curious.

Edited February 8 by Calm

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And to stop this is why feminism is desperately trying to get men to confront and deal with “rape culture”. It is interesting that you see this as a woman’s problem. You seem to argue women shouldn’t worry that men are potential rapists just because their odds of getting assaulted by men is pretty high. Instead of trying to police how women view men internally in general maybe we should make it so sexual assault is rare enough that women don’t have to think like that? You know, deal with the problem (women being assaulted) and not the secondary effect (men feeling bad and like they are unjustly judged because women don’t immediately trust them). Surely the first problem is MUCH more important but that is what you fixate on. You want women to assume that men are good when many are bad because it is hurtful to you that women have to worry that you are bad.

Thank you, well stated.

Smac, in this case Nehor presents my position well enough (not that surprising as it has been articulated enough by many women in the past) throughout his post, but especially this part that I don’t feel the need to restate it….though I reserve the right to do so it something in addition occurs.

Like I am glad rape is so far from your mind that you can’t imagine that this common view held by women is healthy….and it probably isn’t, except for what the result might be if we weren’t alert to potentially dangerous situations.

Quote

The lover who decides “no” doesn’t mean “no”

In my experience, this was a young man who decided to maneuver me into intimidating and highly dangerous positions to put intense pressure on me to agree to date him (I went out with him once and said no thank you).  In both cases (once was during our date and the other was later on when he ambushed me after work and had stranded me in an dark and empty parking lot where all the surrounding buildings, offices and shops, were also dark except the presence of the police station that was maybe close enough a good scream might have been heard….if I could have belted out one which is highly unlikely as Imsuspect I am the ‘froze in fear’ type.  I am extremely grateful for the presence of that police station.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am on your daughter’s side. Note that it is not that they are all rapists. Just potential rapists.

"All black men are potential rapists."

"All Muslim men are potential rapists."

These seem like patently prejudicial statements.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Depending on what source you use about half or just under half of women in the United States experience sexual assault or sexual violence at least once.

Plenty of men do as well, but I don't think it helps for men to extrapolate that out to all women as "potential" rapists.

As for "half or just under half" and "sexual assault or sexual violence," there seems to be some loose terminology being thrown around and together.  See, e.g., here: 

The CDC’s Rape Numbers Are Misleading

Some excerpts:

Quote

“CDC: Nearly 1 in 5 Women Raped.” “One in Five U.S. Women Has Been Raped: CDC Survey.”

"1 in 5" would be around 20%.  You are claiming, without citation, a figure of around 50%.

Quote

These alarming headlines were typical of the coverage of last week’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report on sexual and intimate violence in the United States. The CDC study—the second in two years—seems to support a radical feminist narrative that has been gaining mainstream attention recently: that modern America is a “rape culture” saturated with misogynistic violence. But a closer look at the data, obtained from telephone surveys done in 2011, yields a far more complex picture and raises some surprising question about gender, victimization, and bias.

It can be a risky thing to actually scrutinize data regarding this topic, as doing so runs the risk of triggering accusations of misogyny and such.  The article above was written by a woman, so I guess that helps.  A little.

Quote

Both critics and supporters of the CDC’s methodology note the striking disparity between CDC figures and the Justice Department’s crime statistics based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (which includes crimes unreported to the police). While the CDC estimates that nearly 2 million adult American women were raped in 2011 and nearly 6.7 million suffered some other form of sexual violence, the NCVS estimate for that year was 238,000 rapes and sexual assaults.

CDC Numbers: 8.2 million victims.

NCVS Numbers: 238,000 victims.

Why would CDC's numbers be more than 34 times the NCVS numbers?

Quote

New Republic reporter Claire Groden points out that while the NCVS focuses on criminal acts, the CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey asks about instances of forced sex which respondents may or may not regard as crimes. Yet it is worth noting that in the early 1990s, the NCVS was redesigned to elicit more reports of sexual and domestic violence that may not fit the conventional mold of criminal attacks. In addition to being asked directly about rape, attempted rape or sexual assault, respondents now get a follow-up question about “forced or unwanted sexual acts” committed by a stranger, a casual acquaintance, or someone they know well.

The CDC study goes much further in asking about specific unwanted acts. But there are other important differences. For one, CDC survey respondents are not asked whether anyone has used physical force or threats to make them engage in a sexual activity, but “how many” people have done this (in their lifetime and in the past year). This wording removes the extra hurdle of admitting that such a violation has happened, and thus encourages more reporting. But could it also create “false positives” by nudging people toward the assumption that the default answer is affirmative—especially when preceded by a battery of other questions and statements about sexually coercive behavior?

That's a fair question.

Quote

A much bigger problem is the wording of the question measuring “incapacitated rape” (which accounted for nearly two-thirds of the CDC’s estimate of rapes that occurred in the past year). Respondents were asked about sexual acts that happened when they were “drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.” This seems to imply that “unable to consent” is only one of the variables and to include situations in which a person is intoxicated—perhaps enough to have impaired judgment—but not incapacitated as the legal definition of rape requires.

A CDC spokesperson told The New Republic that “being unable to consent is key to the CDC’s definition of rape.” Presumably, this is conveyed by the introduction to the question about alcohol- and drug-enabled rape: “Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications.” However, in a telephone survey, some people may focus only on the question itself and let the introduction slide by.

Hmm.  Is "Yes, I had sex while I was drunk/high/stoned" is being conflated with sex while incapacitated, then that is indeed a "much bigger problem," particularly given that this conflated category accounts "for nearly two-thirds of the CDC's estate of rapes").

Quote

Moreover, the introductory message ends with an advisory that may create more confusion: “Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault.” Obviously, the intended point is that even if you got drunk, you’re not to blame for being raped. But this vaguely phrased reminder could also be taken to mean that it’s not your fault if you do something stupid while drunk or on drugs. At no point are respondents given any instructions that could result in fewer reports of alleged victimization: for instance, that they should not include instances in which they had voluntary sex while drunk but not incapacitated.

Tough issues, these.

Quote

For many feminists, questioning claims of rampant sexual violence in our society amounts to misogynist “rape denial.” However, if the CDC figures are to be taken at face value, then we must also conclude that, far from being a product of patriarchal violence against women, “rape culture” is a two-way street, with plenty of female perpetrators and male victims.

A fair point.

Quote

How could that be? After all, very few men in the CDC study were classified as victims of rape: 1.7 percent in their lifetime, and too few for a reliable estimate in the past year. But these numbers refer only to men who have been forced into **** sex or made to perform oral sex on another male. Nearly 7 percent of men, however, reported that at some point in their lives, they were “made to penetrate” another person—usually in reference to vaginal intercourse, receiving oral sex, or performing oral sex on a woman. This was not classified as rape, but as “other sexual violence.”

And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

Men as victims of sexual violence is a topic that deserves more attention and discussion.

Quote

In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.

"{W}omen rape men as often as men rape women."

If so, are men justified in viewing all women as potential rapists?

Quote

The CDC also reports that men account for over a third of those experiencing another form of sexual violence—“sexual coercion.” That was defined as being pressured into sexual activity by psychological means: lies or false promises, threats to end a relationship or spread negative gossip, or “making repeated requests” for sex and expressing unhappiness at being turned down.

Should we, then, regard sexual violence as a reciprocal problem? Getting away from the simplistic and adversarial “war against women” model is undoubtedly a positive step, as is admitting that women are human beings with the capacity for aggression and wrongdoing—including sexual assault. On the other hand, most of us would agree that to equate a victim of violent rape and a man who engages in a drunken sexual act he wouldn’t have chosen when sober is to trivialize a terrible crime. It is safe to assume that the vast majority of the CDC’s male respondents who were “made to penetrate” someone would not call themselves rape victims—and with good reason.

But if that’s the case, it is just as misleading to equate a woman’s experience of alcohol-addled sex with the experience of a rape victim who is either physically overpowered or attacked when genuinely incapacitated.

Solid points, these.

Quote

For purely biological reasons, there is little doubt that adult victims of such crimes are mostly female—though male children and adolescents are at fairly high risk: as criminologists Richard Felson and Patrick Cundiff report in a fascinating recent analysis, a 15-year-old male is considerably more likely to be sexually assaulted than a woman over 40.  The CDC reports that 12.3 percent of female victims were 10 or younger at the time of their first completed rape victimization; for male victims, that number is 27.8 percent.

We must either start treating sexual assault as a gender-neutral issue or stop using the CDC’s inflated statistics. Few would deny that sex crimes in America are a real, serious, and tragic problem. But studies of sexual violence should use accurate and clear definitions of rape and sexual assault, rather than lump these criminal acts together with a wide range of unsavory but non-criminal scenarios of men—and women—behaving badly.

Well?  Are CDC's statistics "inflated"?

Should we "use accurate and clear definitions of rape and sexual assault, rather than lump these criminal acts together with a wide range of unsavory but non-criminal scenarios of men - and women - behaving badly"?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

This doesn’t mean all men are dangerous. They aren’t but enough are that you have to be on guard and factor in and try to figure out if the guy you are with is one. About a quarter of all men do too.

"This doesn’t mean all {black} men are dangerous. They aren’t but enough {black men} are {dangerous} that you have to be on guard {against all black men} and factor in and try to figure out if the guy you are with is one {and you do this by assuming, without a scintilla of evidence, and based solely on him being a black man, that he is a potential rapist}."

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I think Category A ought not hold prejudicial views of Category B.  Just as there are ugly stereotypes of men, there are also ugly stereotypes of women.  Neither is appropriate.  

That some men are rapists and child molesters is not, in my view, a reasonable basis to view all men as "potential" rapists and child molesters.  Similarly, that some women are gold-diggers and promiscuous is not a reasonable basis to view all women as "potential" gold-diggers and sexually profligate.  Both views take terrible attributes from a subset of a category of persons and project them onto everyone in that category.  But are ugly and unfair and unhealthy perspectives.

I don't think adding a caveat like "Hey, I only think that all men are potential rapists and child molesters" resolves the issue (just as if a man were to say "Hey, I only think that all women are potential gold-diggers and tramps" doesn't justify that perspective).

Interesting that you equate men being violent and predatory with women wanting a wealthy partner or enjoying sex.

I did nothing of the sort.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I don't think you are accurately stating the average man's concern here.  I have no problem with a woman evaluating my behavior.  The problem arises when a women, regardless of my behavior, and with no factual or reasonable basis, nevertheless deems me to be a potential rapist or child molester, I am troubled by that.

It is interesting that you see this as a woman’s problem.

We are discussing "this" as "a woman's problem."  As I noted above, men can also resort to harboring ugly presuppositions about "all" women.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You seem to argue women shouldn’t worry that men are potential rapists just because their odds of getting assaulted by men is pretty high.

I have said nothing of the sort.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Instead of trying to police how women view men internally in general maybe we should make it so sexual assault is rare enough that women don’t have to think like that?

"Instead of trying to police how women view {all black} men internally in general maybe we should make it so sexual assault is rare enough that women don’t have to think like that {about all black men}?"

There is nothing compulsory going on here ("have to think like that").  Prejudice is a choice.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You know, deal with the problem (women being assaulted) and not the secondary effect (men feeling bad and like they are unjustly judged because women don’t immediately trust them).

"You know, deal with the problem (women being assaulted) and not the secondary effect ({black} men feeling bad and like they are unjustly judged because women don’t immediately trust them {solely and preemptively because they are black men})."

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Surely the first problem is MUCH more important but that is what you fixate on.

Here you are resorting to the "Fallacy of Relative Privation," or "Appeal to Worse Problems."  See here:

Quote

Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy.

Yeah.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You want women to assume that men are good when many are bad because it is hurtful to you that women have to worry that you are bad.

I want women to not assume that all men are potential rapists and child molesters.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Emotionally and psychologically exhausting? Yes, it definitely is. And no, it is not paranoia. Paranoia is, as you said “unjustified”.

Yes, it is "unjustified."  That's how prejudice works.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, it is a real thing. It is not an unhealthy mindset. It is pragmatic. Many women have been assaulted. Those who haven’t have friends who have been.

"Yeah, it is a real thing {to view all black men as potential rapists}. It is not an unhealthy mindset. It is pragmatic {to view all black men as potential rapists}. Many women have been assaulted {by black men}. Those who haven’t have friends who have been."

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

 

I have a hard accepting that there are appreciable numbers of otherwise normal, rational women out there who harbor such an irrational and exhausting suspicions about all men everywhere.  I asked my wife about what you have said here and she was flabbergasted at it.

It would be rational and reasonable for a woman (or, for that matter, a man) to be on guard when, say, walking alone at night in a neighborhood known for muggings.  It is an entirely separate proposition to go about life and, on a daily and regular basis, viewing all men everywhere as rapists and child molesters (or potentially so).

 

What a delightfully loaded statement.

Malarky.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

They are otherwise normal and rational but suddenly they are all lunatics for being suspicious of the most common physical and sexual threat women face in their lives.

All men are a "physical and sexual threat"?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Most sexual assaults occur near or in the victim’s home. The assailant is almost always known to them and is often a lover or family member or coworker. The sex pest coworker who invades personal space and goes for the grope is more likely than a man wielding a knife in an alley. The lover who decides “no” doesn’t mean “no” is more likely than a creep jumping you when you are passing through a park. Both are likely to be explained away by the assailant and often by other men. Even when they do believe it happened they often leap to find reasons the woman is partially responsible. Did she lead the guy on? Was she dressed provocatively? Did she resist how I personally think she should have? If she froze up in fear couldn’t that mean she was okay with it and if she didn’t push back maybe he thought it was okay?

None of this has much to do with harboring prejudicial views of the whole based on the horrific misconduct of a considerably smaller subset.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 9 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"All black men are potential rapists."

"All Muslim men are potential rapists."

These seem like patently prejudicial statements.

Maybe because the skin color and religion is patently prejudicial? There is nothing about being Muslim or black that makes a man extra likely to be a rapist. What a horrid argument. 

Edited February 9 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Rain]

My guess is there are an awful lot of victims who were raped by guys who they evaluated as safe. If that is the case then it makes sense for some women to see all men as potential rapists. After all, if the safe guys are not safe then why would the unsafe guys be safe?

 

[Rain]

This evaluating idea tells victims of "nice" guys, "You did not do a good enough job evaluating him.  If you had you would have seen reasonable signs that he was a rapist."

-----

For those who have been assaulted by someone who felt safe I mourn with you. I know you naturally go into overdrive with evaluations now, but it was not your fault.  Sometimes those guys just don't show those signs as much as we wish they did. 

[MustardSeed]

Well anecdotally I do unfortunately see every man who is walking in a sidewalk towards me or behind me as a potential rapist.  

That’s because a thing happened this one time- in Provo.  

So everyone is a potential threat if they are male.   Unfortunately. 
 

So many women have so many stories that it’s just a fact, we end up sounding sexist but in reality we are traumatized. 

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Thank you, well stated.

Smac, in this case Nehor presents my position well enough (not that surprising as it has been articulated enough by many women in the past) throughout his post, but especially this part that I don’t feel the need to restate it….though I reserve the right to do so it something in addition occurs.

Like I am glad rape is so far from your mind that you can’t imagine that this common view held by women is healthy….and it probably isn’t, except for what the result might be if we weren’t alert to potentially dangerous situations.

In my experience, this was a young man who decided to maneuver me into intimidating and highly dangerous positions to put intense pressure on me to agree to date him (I went out with him once and said no thank you).  In both cases (once was during our date and the other was later on when he ambushed me after work and had stranded me in an dark and empty parking lot where all the surrounding buildings, offices and shops, were also dark except the presence of the police station that was maybe close enough a good scream might have been heard….if I could have belted out one which is highly unlikely as Imsuspect I am the ‘froze in fear’ type.  I am extremely grateful for the presence of that police station.

Spot on and so glad you made it out of that horrible situation. 😔

I'll bet most every woman has encountered these situations. I had some myself but I'll just mention one here.

When living as a single adult on my own I started receiving phone calls from a man who said horrible things nearly every day until finally I got the phone company to make it stop. Now I don't remember how. Then after being dropped off after a date I noticed a ladder propped up outside my window. Maybe the person had been trying to look in my window. I called my date who turned around to check it out and maybe that helped stop the situation. I still don't know who it was but think they got my address and phone number from a list on the wall at the cash register of a gas station grocery store I worked at part time. 

Throughout my life I've feared rape, even in my old age. 

Edited February 9 by Tacenda

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

These seem like patently prejudicial statements.

Right, because it isn’t religion or race that makes a high percentage of men be predators of women.  Culture does play a part, but sexual assault by men is pretty consistently high in all areas of the world that I am aware of.   To single out religion or is therefore prejudicial.

Quote

Roughly one third of male university students who took part in a study would rape a woman if there were no consequences, according to a new scientific study.

The research, published in the scientific journal Violence and Gender, presented mostly white male American participants a questionnaire on how they would act in certain sexual situations.

Amongst other questions they were asked how they would act in a situation where they could have sexual intercourse with a woman against her will “if nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences”.

That a group of not that unusual of men were willing to even entertain the possibility that they would rape a woman if they could get away with it…iow, the desire was there even if held in check by fear of consequences (thank goodness for fear in this case)…should be eye opening.  What kind of culture allows this desire to be so nourished?

Date rape drugs are likely used by men who believe they have found a way to avoid having anyone know and there being no consequences.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-third-of-male-university-students-say-they-would-rape-a-woman-if-there-no-were-no-consequences-9978052.html

Edited February 9 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

We are discussing "this" as "a woman's problem."

Right, because saying women do not control men’s thoughts and they are not accountable makes it a woman’s problem that guys don’t want to be looked at potential rapists/sexual abusers.

And lest you think throwing out accusations against women as rapists proves your point, all it does if true is show the world might have been stupid about women as predators and that needs to change and if men were smart, they would learn to protect themselves like women who like myself approached the world like you want us to and end up raped or dangerously close to it.  My naivety had me walking into an empty building at night with this guy, at which point he turned off the lights and put his arms around me.  Ha, ha.  So funny.  Stop kidding around.  I didn’t move one muscle but my mouth.  Took me awhile to realize his ego had been hurt by my reaction because the date quickly ended after that.  I am so grateful that probably turned him off rather than pushed him on, but it didn’t stop him from trying again and boy, did he play the poor victim who wasn’t getting a fair shot.  Took me five years to realize how wrong it was for him to trap me in a nonfunctional car instead of feeling sorry for him I wasn’t interested and thought less of myself because I blamed my dad for not letting me date a nonmember rather than telling him outright I wasn’t comfortable around him.  I think my instinct worked for me there….mentioning a guy was involved in my life, a highly protective one.  And it probably was another ten years to realize he walked a dangerous line with his entitlement to create situations where he could physically restrain me.  I really wonder how far he went in college (he was a senior in high school) once he got a little alcohol in him or access to date rape drugs.  And while he was the worst, out of the five guys who expressed interest in me, three did very inappropriate, manipulative and even threatening behaviour, including one member who was on his mission at the time….and in each case I felt sorry for them I wasn’t interested….in part because the my church leaders had taught to trust men because that was being kind and they were trustworthy and to take responsibility for their feelings.

I thought my husband who refused to sit and talk in the car with me after a date was being silly, but he was a breath of fresh air.

I think it’s great that men in general are nice and trustworthy and therefore you don’t need to worry about your safety is not the lesson your daughter learned and I hope you don’t shame her into thinking she is a bigot if she feels that way.

Edited February 9 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"All black men are potential rapists."

"All Muslim men are potential rapists."

These seem like patently prejudicial statements.

Plenty of men do as well, but I don't think it helps for men to extrapolate that out to all women as "potential" rapists.

As for "half or just under half" and "sexual assault or sexual violence," there seems to be some loose terminology being thrown around and together.  See, e.g., here: 

The CDC’s Rape Numbers Are Misleading

Some excerpts:

"1 in 5" would be around 20%.  You are claiming, without citation, a figure of around 50%.

And you are using rape statistics to try to shoot down my sexual assault and sexual violence statistics. Those are two separate things. Not off to a great start here.

Rates of sexual assault on men are way too high. Oh, and SURPRISE! Most of those assaults are committed by men. Often men targeting underaged boys. So there is little need for men to treat every woman they meet as a potential rapist. There are women who assault and rape men (and women) but they are pretty rare. If sexual assault by men was that low I would agree with you that women seeing all men as potential rapists would be paranoid. Sadly that is not the world we live in.

In my wild days when I was dating other men I learned quickly that I had to factor in the potential for being attacked and/or raped. I even had guys try to assault me twice. I stopped them but women are at a big disadvantage compared to me in warding off that kind of attack. I was naive. I learned. Thankfully I learned before I really got hurt.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It can be a risky thing to actually scrutinize data regarding this topic, as doing so runs the risk of triggering accusations of misogyny and such.  The article above was written by a woman, so I guess that helps.  A little.

CDC Numbers: 8.2 million victims.

NCVS Numbers: 238,000 victims.

Why would CDC's numbers be more than 34 times the NCVS numbers?

That's a fair question.

Hmm.  Is "Yes, I had sex while I was drunk/high/stoned" is being conflated with sex while incapacitated, then that is indeed a "much bigger problem," particularly given that this conflated category accounts "for nearly two-thirds of the CDC's estate of rapes").

Tough issues, these.

A fair point.

Men as victims of sexual violence is a topic that deserves more attention and discussion.

"{W}omen rape men as often as men rape women."

If so, are men justified in viewing all women as potential rapists?

Solid points, these.

Well?  Are CDC's statistics "inflated"?

Oh great, you are quoting Cathy Young. Fantastic. The well-known opponent of campus anti-rape activism. The woman who suggested that Gamergate was a kinda sort-of justified backlash against excessive feminism.

Have this lovely tidbit from Cathy Young:

"It’s an extremely circular argument, and it reminds me a little bit of arguments that were being made during the Salem Witch Hunts. The idea was that if you denied the existence of witchcraft, that inherently made you a suspect. Because, you know, why would anyone deny the existence of witchcraft unless they were with the witches and wanted to help them get away with it? So it is really a very similar argument. I know that we can all say that, well, rape really exists. And we know today that witches did not exist, but rape does. To which I would say yeah, absolutely, rape exists. But I don’t think “rape culture” in modern Western society is any more real than witchcraft was in Salem."

That is false in how the Salem witch trials went and why did she use the comparison? Rape is real. Demonic witchcraft isn't. How are they comparable? She has an agenda to push. I don't trust her not to fiddle with statistics. I'm gonna believe the CDC over one activist writer.

This whole thing though is way off the point.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Should we "use accurate and clear definitions of rape and sexual assault, rather than lump these criminal acts together with a wide range of unsavory but non-criminal scenarios of men - and women - behaving badly"?

"This doesn’t mean all {black} men are dangerous. They aren’t but enough {black men} are {dangerous} that you have to be on guard {against all black men} and factor in and try to figure out if the guy you are with is one {and you do this by assuming, without a scintilla of evidence, and based solely on him being a black man, that he is a potential rapist}."

I did nothing of the sort.

We are discussing "this" as "a woman's problem."  As I noted above, men can also resort to harboring ugly presuppositions about "all" women.

I have said nothing of the sort.

"Instead of trying to police how women view {all black} men internally in general maybe we should make it so sexual assault is rare enough that women don’t have to think like that {about all black men}?"

There is nothing compulsory going on here ("have to think like that").  Prejudice is a choice.

"You know, deal with the problem (women being assaulted) and not the secondary effect ({black} men feeling bad and like they are unjustly judged because women don’t immediately trust them {solely and preemptively because they are black men})."

Here you are resorting to the "Fallacy of Relative Privation," or "Appeal to Worse Problems."  See here:

Yeah.

I want women to not assume that all men are potential rapists and child molesters.

Yes, it is "unjustified."  That's how prejudice works.

"Yeah, it is a real thing {to view all black men as potential rapists}. It is not an unhealthy mindset. It is pragmatic {to view all black men as potential rapists}. Many women have been assaulted {by black men}. Those who haven’t have friends who have been."

Malarky.

All men are a "physical and sexual threat"?

None of this has much to do with harboring prejudicial views of the whole based on the horrific misconduct of a considerably smaller subset.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh, you are doing that thing you do where you make it difficult to respond by just throwing out one liners. Lovely.

Stop inserting random racism as if you are making a valid point. You aren't. Couldn't you at least pick some ethnicity that is not a stereotype created by slaveholders to justify keeping people enslaved for the social good? Maybe talk about how Belgian men are all potential rapists instead of defaulting to and perpetuating the stereotype. Or was that an emotional appeal and not a logical one?

Of course men can harbor ugly presuppositions about "all" women. Incels for example. Many of whom believe rape shouldn't be illegal. More generally the idea that women are inherently and primarily sexual in a way men are not which is a big part of why society in general is screwed up.

You also ignore that treating everyone as a potential threat is not assuming that all men are a threat and conflate the two. It is not prejudice to factor in potential harm and treating all men as someone who could harm you until shown otherwise. You are not being violated in some way by women doing this. They aren't assuming you are inherently evil. They are factoring in the possibility that you might be. This seems deeply offensive to you for some reason and it is baffling to me why you take this so personally.

The Fallacy of Relative Privation isn't about two linked situations. Also I don't see women being wary of men as a problem. It is a defensive tactic. A wise one. If you want that tactic to go away you need to solve the situation that is causing women to adopt that tactic out of necessity. That is an actual problem and not just a mental state you don't like because it makes you feel bad. I don't like women choosing to be wary around me until they get to know me either but when I learned why they did it I understood. You want to take away the wariness and leave women more vulnerable because you are worried about what women are thinking about you. That is selfish and weird.

All men are a potential "physical and sexual threat". Note the difference.

When feminists and queer people talk about destroying the patriarchy and things of that nature this is what they are talking about. It is also one of the many ways the patriarchy hurts men too. They want to deconstruct the false narratives that many men use to justify assault and rape, instill universal respect, get rid of toxic masculinity and its hypermasculine garbage, and a lot more. They want a society where women don't have to be on the defensive around men. That would be genuine progress. Your approach if it could be implemented will just have many women blissfully ignorant until reality shows up. 

Actually rebuilding our concepts of gender and fighting their toxic elements is hard though. Much easier to argue about statistics based on one article or tell women that being on their guard around men is actually very racist for some bonkers reason. Why is it that you clumsily throw around the words of social justice when you feel men are being mistreated but argue statistics to minimize what women go through? Then even when doing that minimizing you take a short break in the middle of your statistical musings whenever men being victimized comes up and break off and suggest that this is significant and even talk about how we need to talk more about men being victimized. Then back to minimizing. Do you even realize you are doing this? I am genuinely interested to know whether this is conscious or reflexive behavior.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

When living as a single adult on my own I started receiving phone calls from a man who spoke of the horrible things he was going to do with me nearly every day until finally I got the phone company to make it stop.

Oh my gosh, Tacenda.  I am so, so sorry that happened to you. 
 

And MustardSeed, whatever it was, the same.

 

Someday it will be nice that such experience won’t have to be revisited because some won’t accept that so many women have very good personal reasons to view all men as potential sexual predators and other women learning from the experiences vicariously are wise enough to adopt similar cautious attitudes.  I am not claiming it is a healthy attitude, I am claiming it is healthier than what a woman has to go through after being sexually assaulted.

Edited February 9 by Calm

[Okrahomer]

Apologies if this BYU study has already been discussed.  It shows how women walking home alone at night experience the world in a very different way than men — it has everything to do with the fear of predation.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Apologies if this BYU study has already been discussed.  It shows how women walking home alone at night experience the world in a very different way than men — it has everything to do with the fear of predation.

Quote

Why can't we live in a world where women don't have to think about these things? It's heartbreaking to hear of things women close to me have dealt with," Chaney said. "It would be nice to work towards a world where there is no difference between the heat maps in these sets of images. That is the hope of the public health discipline."

Good find.