Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hoo, boy.  Underneath his name there is a notation: "9.5K."  This is in reference to Teancum's approximately 9,500 posts on this board, the vast majority of which are taken up with criticizing and finding fault with the Church.  

I think Teancum gave the Church an attaboy for its announcement of starting a medical school at BYU.  That was a nice thing to see.  Overwhelmingly, though, the "there is much to criticize about the church" dictum (which you aptly describe as "take every opportunity to criticize the church wherever you can") is the order of the day. 

Abraham Maslow famously said: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."  If one's perspective on the Church is principally defined by implacable hostility and a desire to tear down and find fault (the "hammer"), then pretty much every story about the Church can be construed as a basis for criticism ("as if it were a nail").

And that's really too bad, because although the Church is not perfect.  it is, in my view and experience and estimation, overwhelmingly good in both motivations and behaviors/actions.  I love it a lot.  It deserves nowhere near the endless and relentless faultfinding that Teancum has spent nearly 10,000 posts heaping on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

You seem to be unable to not make this personal.  You seem to have a need to toss this dig at me periodically. You really must have pretty thin skin when it comes to the church. I could provide a negative summation of my opinion about you and your devotion to Mormonism. I have a lot of thoughts on it. But I won't and I don't. How about you try the same.

[Dario_M]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

We can start a thread about it if you want.

Good idea. Who's gonna make the topic? You or me?

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oh sure. Every opportunuity. I spend most my day out attacking and criticizing the church. My goal in life it to expose and destroy the church. Mwaaaaahahaaaahaahaaa! 😏🙄🤣

Yeah when you are on the board you love to spread poisen over the church it seems like Teancum. And that's unfortunate. The LDS community also has his good sides. The church has been an important part of my life and identity for the last couple of years. Especially in difficult times. I wish i had a Mormon family. I wish i had a kind-hearted brother (also mormon offcourse), instead of the mean sister i have who doesn't even want anything to do with me. Yeah...i wish i had a nice big loving Mormon family. Right now i have no family at all anymore. Thank God i have my sweet boyfriend though. Laugh a little while longer i would say. Lauging is healthy. At least that's what we dutchies believe. I'm gonna wish you a nice day. 

I'm going to bed. 🌌🌠

 

 

[Dario_M]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oh sure. Poor pitiful all of you believers.  But I had thousands of posts when I was a believer as well. I don't think that is in the total though. But yea I am out to destroy the church. Sure. My posts on this board, the only place I really post criticisms, is going to bring the church down.  😏You poor persecuted 

 

Why this reaction? 🤷‍♀️

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

 

I know that most of you know each other for a long time, and i'm just the newby. But you can also trust me. 

Yes but in this situation i choose to  agree with smac97 in this matter. 

You seem pretty thin skinned as well when it comes to criticism of the church.  This board is a discussion board and criticism is allowed.  Believers and non believers are welcome here. If criticisms upset you as much as the seem maybe you are in the wrong place for discussing Mormonism.  Why are you here? What are goals and desires from the board?  If you want to be here expect critics to comment here as well.  But your whining about my criticisms is getting old. I know you think I suck and am vile evil apostate intent on destroying testimonies wherever I can. You do not need to keep crying about it. We know how you feel. 

[california boy]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.

I am trying to understand your point of view by asking you questions:

What part of my position are you not clear on?

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you think Chloe's friends and family should encourage her in her pursuit of elective surgery that will render her paralyzed for the rest of her life? 

I answered this.  This is what I said.  "I think it is Chloe's life.  She has to decide how to live that life.  If she has the financial means to do the operation and support herself and can do this without forcing others to provide services to her, and her friends and family have all tried to convince her not to take those steps, then ultimately it is her choice to make."

 

I don't have any idea how Chloe's friends feel about her decision or if they want to contribute to her surgery.  I don't know if they understand her reasons why she wants to surgery or if they support those reasons.  Do you??  Reading a single article does not make me informed enough to say anything more than from what I read, I would not support her decision.

 

 

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Should Chloe's friends and family help her pay this surgeon for a procedure to permanently sever her nerves and render her paralyzed for the rest of her life?

See answer above.

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think you have answered these questions.  Of course, you are not obligated to.  But your unwillingness to answer them is, I think, indicative of the social and ideological pressures and influences that are affecting society's approaches to some pretty important topics.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You are kinda projecting there.  Have I not been clear enough in making the point that someone who knows absolutely nothing about what Chloe's condition is or her reasons for wanting the surgery, her financial situation, her options for long term care, her complete understanding of the expected results of the surgery and a myriad of other unanswered questions really shouldn't have a vote in the choices she makes.  If you are asking for my answers to those questions, I am not going to make pronouncements on what she should do with her life based on an article in the newspaper.  And neither should you.  

The biggest problem I have with your position is you seem to believe that every single situation is the same and there is only one solution for a child that is dealing with gender issues.  No room for other factors or nuances.  No place for parent input.  No doctors input.  Just a one answer for every case.  No reassignment surgery. Do I have your position wrong?  Or do you believe that there might possibly be some situations where a solid no without input might not be in the best interest of the child.

[Dario_M]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 Why are you here? 

It doesn't matter why i'm here. I don't owe you an explanation. 

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

  If you want to be here expect critics to comment here as well.  But your whining about my criticisms is getting old. I know you think I suck and am vile evil apostate intent on destroying testimonies wherever I can. You do not need to keep crying about it. We know how you feel. 

You have no idea how i feel on a daily basis. 

I'm going to bed. 

Edited October 9, 2024 by Dario_M

[Malc]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t require everyone or anyone to agree with me, ... 😛 

However, the smart ones generally do 😄

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Again, the question posed in the article: "Why, during a long and steep decline in the incidence of sexual violence in America, did academics, federal officials, and the #MeToo movement discover a new 'epidemic of sexual assault'”?

If there is evidence of some vast, nationwide, and undiscovered-prior-to-#MeToo "epidemic of sexual assault," I would like to see it.

If I've been following this argument correctly, Calm isn't denying that MeToo was about an epidemic of sexual assault and harassment. What she disagrees with is that it was about a new epidemic.

I guess I construed "new" in this context to mean "newly discovered."  It's not like #MeToo created the supposed "epidemic," but rather uncovered it.

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Her argument (and the argument of everyone else I've ever heard speak about it) is that the epidemic of sexual assault and harassment against women has existed for as long as history has been around to record it. 

A few thoughts:

First, you are conflating a supposed "epidemic of sexual assault" with an "epidemic of sexual {} harassment."  I am, on the other hand, only referring to the former (sexual assault).  I have not addressed whether sexual harassment has gone up or down in the last few decades (though I suspect it has gone down, perhaps by a lot).

Second, Calm's argument is not my argument, nor the argument advanced by the article's author, Tierney.  Tierney wasn't denying that these things  was speaking of a substantial decline in sexual assault.

Third, I think Tierney is objectively correct in his premise that we have been experiencing "a long and steep decline in the incidence of sexual violence in America."  See, e.g., here:

Rape rates in the U.S. per 1,000 people, 1973–2003

Curious about 2003 to present, and lacking time to do a deep dive, I asked ChatGPT: "Have rates of sexual assault in the United States gone up or down from 2003 to present?"

The response:

Quote

The rates of sexual assault in the United States have generally decreased over the past 20 years, though there have been some fluctuations. According to multiple sources, including the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the overall rate of sexual violence, including rape, has fallen by roughly 50% since the early 2000s. This trend reflects a significant decrease in violent crime, including sexual assault, between 2003 and 2022.

However, it's important to note that while the long-term trend shows a decline, there have been periods where sexual violence rates have fluctuated. For example, from 2018 to 2021, the rate of reported sexual assaults saw some increase, reflecting factors such as growing awareness and changes in reporting practices. Moreover, reports show that in recent years, some types of violent victimization, including sexual assault, have shown slight increases, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic years, though these fluctuations have not erased the overall downward trend since 2003.

Organizations such as RAINN and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) provide more detailed data, confirming that while the rates have fallen significantly over two decades, sexual assault remains a serious issue with about 734,630 people being raped or assaulted in 2018

"{T}he overall rate of sexual violence, including rape, has fallen by roughly 50% since the early 2000s."

Fourth, my observation remains: If there is evidence of some vast, nationwide, and undiscovered-prior-to-#MeToo "epidemic of sexual assault," I would like to see it.

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

MeToo simply highlighted and acknowledged it on a national scale for the first time.

"{H}ighlighted and acknowledged" what?  

Are you saying we have been experiencing an "epidemic of sexual assault" for time out of mind, but we just did not realize it, and that it took #MeToo to discovery it?

Nobody is disputing that sexual assault happens.  It's a terrible thing that we need to fight in every way.  As I see it, either

(A) we already knew that sexual assault existed prior to #MeToo, and its prevalence was going way down long before #MeToo (which, if so, tends to corroborate Tierney's point about "March of Dimes Syndrome"), or

(B) sexual assault existed in "epidemic" proportions, and we did not know this until #MeToo came along (a pretty dubious proposition, given that we have been tracking sexual assault statistics for a very long time), or 

(C) there is some sort of new or newly-discovered "epidemic of sexual assault" that we did not know about until #MeToo came along and uncovered it (if so, I sure would like to see evidence of this).

Thanks,

-Smac

(C) 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

So the phrase appears to have had some common use.

Facts not in evidence, counselor!

Um, I just provided numerous instances of its use.

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

What bluebell said about the critical “new” being the critical part of the criticism.

See my response to her.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

It doesn't matter why i'm here. I don't owe you an explanation. 

Ok.  But stop whining about criticisms. You come off as a bit of a cry baby.

18 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

You have no idea how i feel on a daily basis. 

Now you me but you label me based on how you think I feel.

18 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I'm going to bed. 

Sweet dreams. 😁

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

guess I construed "new" in this context to mean "newly discovered."  It's not like #MeToo created the supposed "epidemic," but rather uncovered it.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

“just provided numerous instances of its use.”

I have been clear all along quoting “new” what I meant. That you misread it and answered that misreading doesn’t mean you satisfied what I called for. I am rather surprised given your ability to dissect things that you consistently misread my request which was very clear.

As to the “newly discovered….”, you have got to be kidding me, seriously, smac.  I wish you were because this is so disappointing.

Are you seriously suggesting no one was aware of the horrendous stats before 2006, especially the women who were survivors and those who worked with them?  (No, I am not saying you said this, it’s just the implication of your comment)

That’s like saying the “I am a Mormon” campaign “newly discovered” or “uncovered” LDS as if LDS were in hiding and no one was aware of us, there were no demographics on the percentage of the population we were…

MeToo# was about making it obvious to everyone, not just those willing to pay attention, the fact that sexual assault affects women across every demographic to a massive extent. A fact already well know, but ignored or dismissed by too many.  It was about making it personal…so the women who survived would feel supported rather than isolated and so those who weren’t invested in stopping it would wake up and realize there was good reason to be…because it could too easily be someone they loved who was a victim, past or future. 
 

Just like “I am a Mormon” showed LDS could be your neighbors, so did MeToo# show sexual assaults occurred in your own neighborhood.

Edited October 9, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

What part of my position are you not clear on?

Whether you think Chloe's friends and family should encourage her in her pursuit of elective surgery that will render her paralyzed for the rest of her life.

Whether you think Chloe's friends and family should help her pay this surgeon for a procedure to permanently sever her nerves and render her paralyzed for the rest of her life.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

I answered this.  This is what I said.  "I think it is Chloe's life.  She has to decide how to live that life.  If she has the financial means to do the operation and support herself and can do this without forcing others to provide services to her, and her friends and family have all tried to convince her not to take those steps, then ultimately it is her choice to make."

I did not ask whether Chloe's life is hers, whether she has to decide how to live it, of what she should do.

Instead, I asked you what her friends and family should do.

Do you think Chloe's friends and family should encourage her in her pursuit of elective surgery that will render her paralyzed for the rest of her life? 

Should Chloe's friends and family help her pay this surgeon for a procedure to permanently sever her nerves and render her paralyzed for the rest of her life?

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't have any idea how Chloe's friends feel about her decision or if they want to contribute to her surgery.  

I did not ask you about how they feel.  I asked what you think they should do.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't know if they understand her reasons why she wants to surgery or if they support those reasons.  Do you??  

I cannot conceptualize any set of "reasons" (an interesting word choice) for a person to electively paralyze herself, particularly one who is clearly suffering from a severe mental health disorder.  "Reason" is not part of Chloe's thought processes.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Reading a single article does not make me informed enough to say anything more than from what I read, I would not support her decision.

"I would not support her decision."  Thank you for responding.  I would not support her either, for the reasons set forth above and below.

Why would you not support her decision?

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

I don't think you have answered these questions.  Of course, you are not obligated to.  But your unwillingness to answer them is, I think, indicative of the social and ideological pressures and influences that are affecting society's approaches to some pretty important topics.

You are kinda projecting there.  

Not really. 

Do you think Chloe's friends and family should encourage her in her pursuit of elective surgery that will render her paralyzed for the rest of her life? 

Smac: No.  I think electively paralyzing an otherwise healthy person is not an acceptable or ethical form of medical treatment.  I think her friends and family should not encourage her, and would instead do all they could to persuade her to seek help for her mental disorder.

Should Chloe's friends and family help her pay this surgeon for a procedure to permanently sever her nerves and render her paralyzed for the rest of her life?

Smac: No.  I think Chloe's friends and family should neither encourage or help pay for a medical procedure that electively paralyzes her for life.

I'm pretty clearly opposed to electively chopping off perfectly healthy body parts of a person suffering from a mental disorder, even if (especially if) that person really, really wants to cut off an leg, or render her paralyzed for life, or blind herself, or cut off her breasts, or cut off her penis, or undergo medical treatment that will render her or him sterile for life, etc.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

The biggest problem I have with your position is you seem to believe that every single situation is the same

No, I don not think that.

But feel free to elaborate.  What "situation" might exist that would justify a person in amputating a perfectly healthy leg?  Or in undergoing a surgical procedure to deliberately sever her nerves and paralyze her for life?

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

and there is only one solution for a child that is dealing with gender issues.  

I haven't said that either.

Do you think there are circumstances where a minor should have healthy body parts chopped off, or undergo medical treatment rendering her sterile for life?  If so, what are these circumstances?

The most common one I see floated is the "it's better than suicide" or the "let me have this surgery or else I'll kill myself" ultimatum.  Do you subscribe to this notion?

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

No room for other factors or nuances.  

I have not said this.  I disagree with it.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

No place for parent input.  No doctors input.  

I have not said this.  I disagree with it.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just a one answer for every case.  No reassignment surgery. Do I have your position wrong?  

Yes.  Big time.

Foreclosing one option for a minor (to undergo massively important, irreversible, life-altering, sterilizing medical procedures) does not mean there is only "one {other} answer" left.

Similarly, a person contemplating suicide has more than one alternative options.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Or do you believe that there might possibly be some situations where a solid no without input might not be in the best interest of the child.

As a public policy matter, and as regarding the elective procedures under discussion, no.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was a very well known epidemic of sexual assaults prior to MeToo#… which is why so many women came forward sharing their history of surviving such assaults, because they were part of it.  

Could you elaborate?

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

The history of those assaults was the very foundation of MeToo#.  

I would first like to see the evidence of "those assaults."

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

To claim it was claiming a “ new” or “undiscovered” in your view

It's Tierney's comment.  

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

is to create a caricature of the movement,

I don't think so.  Tierney contextualized his statement well: "Why, during a long and steep decline in the incidence of sexual violence in America, did academics, federal officials, and the #MeToo movement discover a new 'epidemic of sexual assault'”?

If there is evidence of some vast, nationwide, and undiscovered-prior-to-#MeToo "epidemic of sexual assault" ("assault," mind you), I would like to see it. 

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where is there any evidence of a MeToo# career activist making that claim?  Not just that there is an epidemic, but that there was a “new” one.

As I said a bit ago: I guess I construed "new" in this context to mean "newly discovered."  It's not like #MeToo created the supposed "epidemic," but rather uncovered it.

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do a search on “new epidemic of sexual assault”.   There are 9 hits I get from Google, one of them this thread.  All appear to be related to the March of Dimes Syndrome article since this is mentioned.

I do not understand your point.  Do you have evidence for an "epidemic of sexual assault" (new, old or otherwise) that #MeToo uncovered?  If so, let's see it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?

I would first like to see the evidence of "those assaults."

It's Tierney's comment.  

I don't think so.  Tierney contextualized his statement well: "Why, during a long and steep decline in the incidence of sexual violence in America, did academics, federal officials, and the #MeToo movement discover a new 'epidemic of sexual assault'”?

If there is evidence of some vast, nationwide, and undiscovered-prior-to-#MeToo "epidemic of sexual assault" ("assault," mind you), I would like to see it. 

As I said a bit ago: I guess I construed "new" in this context to mean "newly discovered."  It's not like #MeToo created the supposed "epidemic," but rather uncovered it.

I do not understand your point.  Do you have evidence for an "epidemic of sexual assault" (new, old or otherwise) that #MeToo uncovered?  If so, let's see it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Reread my post and if you don’t get why I am not going to respond to this, I really don’t care.

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

guess I construed "new" in this context to mean "newly discovered."  It's not like #MeToo created the supposed "epidemic," but rather uncovered it.

Right, because no one was aware of the horrendous stats before, especially the women who were survivors.  (No, I am not saying you said this, it’s just the implication of your comment)

I do not understand your statement, nor its apparent hostility.

Is there currently an "epidemic of sexual assault" in America?  Or was there on in the past, but has diminished significantly?  What are you saying?

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

MeToo# was about making it obvious to everyone, not just those willing to pay attention, the fact that sexual assault affects women across every demographic to a massive extent.

"To a massive extent"?  What does this mean?  What is the prevalence of sexual assault in America, such that it can be characterized as an "epidemic"?

Tierney: "Why, during a long and steep decline in the incidence of sexual violence in America, did academics, federal officials, and the #MeToo movement discover a new 'epidemic of sexual assault'”?

Do you dispute that we have been, for many, many years now, experiencing "a long and steep decline in the incidence of sexual violence in America"?  If not, then what "epidemic of sexual assault" do you think is being referenced here?

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

A fact already well know, but ignored or dismissed by too many.  

What "fact" are you referencing here?

Have incidents of sexual assault been going up, down or staying the same for the last many decades?

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

It was about making it personal…so the women who survived would feel supported rather than isolated and so those who weren’t invested in stopping it would wake up and realize there was good reason to be…because it could too easily be someone they loved who was a victim, past or future. 

What does any of this have to do with whether there is an "epidemic of sexual assault" in America?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Quote

I don't think so.  Tierney contextualized his statement well: "Why, during a long and steep decline in the incidence of sexual violence in America, did academics, federal officials, and the #MeToo movement discover a new 'epidemic of sexual assault'”?

If there is evidence of some vast, nationwide, and undiscovered-prior-to-#MeToo "epidemic of sexual assault" ("assault," mind you), I would like to see it. 

As I said a bit ago: I guess I construed "new" in this context to mean "newly discovered."  It's not like #MeToo created the supposed "epidemic," but rather uncovered it.

I do not understand your point.  Do you have evidence for an "epidemic of sexual assault" (new, old or otherwise) that #MeToo uncovered?  If so, let's see it.

Reread my post and if you don’t get why I am not going to respond to this, I really don’t care.

October 21 of this year will be my 20th anniversary of being admitted to the Utah State Bar.  I have spent those twenty years closely observing judges and lawyers examine difficult issues.  Some let emotions and biases and sentimentalities get in the way.  The better ones, however, set such things aside and do their jobs.  This does not mean they are indifferent to the plight of victims.  It means that they are trying to clinically evaluate important topics and events, using reasoned analysis, evidence, and well-honed principles of law.

I'm not interested in anecdotes or emotionalisms.  I get that this approach really bugs you at times, but resorting to and expressing high emotion about difficult and sensitive topics tends to be a serious impediment to evaluating those difficult and sensitive topics.  So I try to avoid this, even when doing so seemingly elicits "You don't care about the victims of sexual assault"-style contrivances and other mischaracterizations.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

October 21 of this year will be my 20th anniversary of being admitted to the Utah State Bar.  I have spent those twenty years closely observing judges and lawyers examine difficult issues.  Some let emotions and biases and sentimentalities get in the way.  The better ones, however, set such things aside and do their jobs.  This does not mean they are indifferent to the plight of victims.  It means that they are trying to clinically evaluate important topics and events, using reasoned analysis, evidence, and well-honed principles of law.

I'm not interested in anecdotes or emotionalisms.  I get that this approach really bugs you at times, but resorting to and expressing high emotion about difficult and sensitive topics tends to be a serious impediment to evaluating those difficult and sensitive topics.  So I try to avoid this, even when doing so seemingly elicits "You don't care about the victims of sexual assault"-style contrivances and other mischaracterizations.

Thanks,

-Smac

I must say it’s hilarious to me that you think Calm’s objection has to do with emotion while yours is a cold hard reading of the facts. You have yet to grasp Calm’s point. 

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess I construed "new" in this context to mean "newly discovered."  It's not like #MeToo created the supposed "epidemic," but rather uncovered it.

A few thoughts:

First, you are conflating a supposed "epidemic of sexual assault" with an "epidemic of sexual {} harassment."  I am, on the other hand, only referring to the former (sexual assault).  I have not addressed whether sexual harassment has gone up or down in the last few decades (though I suspect it has gone down, perhaps by a lot).

Second, Calm's argument is not my argument, nor the argument advanced by the article's author, Tierney.  Tierney wasn't denying that these things  was speaking of a substantial decline in sexual assault.

Third, I think Tierney is objectively correct in his premise that we have been experiencing "a long and steep decline in the incidence of sexual violence in America."  See, e.g., here:

Rape rates in the U.S. per 1,000 people, 1973–2003

Curious about 2003 to present, and lacking time to do a deep dive, I asked ChatGPT: "Have rates of sexual assault in the United States gone up or down from 2003 to present?"

The response:

"{T}he overall rate of sexual violence, including rape, has fallen by roughly 50% since the early 2000s."

Fourth, my observation remains: If there is evidence of some vast, nationwide, and undiscovered-prior-to-#MeToo "epidemic of sexual assault," I would like to see it.

"{H}ighlighted and acknowledged" what?  

Are you saying we have been experiencing an "epidemic of sexual assault" for time out of mind, but we just did not realize it, and that it took #MeToo to discovery it?

Nobody is disputing that sexual assault happens.  It's a terrible thing that we need to fight in every way.  As I see it, either

(A) we already knew that sexual assault existed prior to #MeToo, and its prevalence was going way down long before #MeToo (which, if so, tends to corroborate Tierney's point about "March of Dimes Syndrome"), or

(B) sexual assault existed in "epidemic" proportions, and we did not know this until #MeToo came along (a pretty dubious proposition, given that we have been tracking sexual assault statistics for a very long time), or 

(C) there is some sort of new or newly-discovered "epidemic of sexual assault" that we did not know about until #MeToo came along and uncovered it (if so, I sure would like to see evidence of this).

Thanks,

-Smac

(C) 

I think that it did uncover it for a lot of men, which was one of its biggest goals I think.  It also helped a lot of women feel safer speaking about their experiences than they had in the past, because the sheer number of them doing it made it acceptable in ways that it wasn't acceptable before.

But I do think it's important to realize that MeToo didn't uncover it for women.  We've always known about it, and we've always spoken about it, just not publicly to the extent that we saw during the MeToo era.   Many men knew about it as well, because they loved and supported and believed the women in their lives who had already shared their stories with them, but few were truly aware of the scope until social media became inundated with all of the stories.  And some just refused to believe it when they heard women talk about it, instead arguing that it wasn't true or was much of a problem anymore.

Chat gtp is an abysmal source for information in general, but I wouldn't be surprised if reported rape cases are currently trending down.  They hit their lowest in 2013 when the FBI redefined what forcible rape was, for example, skewing our ability to actually compare rates before that time.  But still, they drastically went up after 2013 and hit a high in 2018.  From there they have fluctuated yearly, but are slightly lower (as much as we can tell) than they were in 1990.  In 1990 41.2 out of every 100,000 women reported a forcible rape and in 2022 that number was 40 out of every 100,000.  But we have to remember that those numbers are measuring reported rapes.

According to statistics, 63% of rapes go unreported. 

Also, MeToo was not just about rape.  It was about sexual assault as well as harassment.  The rates of online sexual harassment have doubled since 2017, for example, and though some of those instances happened to men, women are still much more likely than men to be harassed online.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am rather surprised given your ability to dissect things

Respectfully SMAC’s dissecting of things more often misses the forest for the trees. It’s why engaging with him is pointless. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Respectfully SMAC’s dissecting of things more often misses the forest for the trees. It’s why engaging with him is pointless. 

He's a good lawyer (or at least he seems to be) and I think lawyers tend to excel at dissecting things that support their arguments (since the law is mostly about winning the argument and not about bringing up anything that might be a weakness in the argument so that both sides are considered equally). 

If you are the client, then engaging is a great experience.  If you are their adversary (or rather, support a position they are adversarial to), then yeah, it's not going to be a worthwhile use of time in my experience.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that it did uncover it for a lot of men, which was one of its biggest goals I think.  It also helped a lot of women feel safer speaking about their experiences than they had in the past, because the sheer number of them doing it made it acceptable in ways that it wasn't acceptable before.

But I do think it's important to realize that MeToo didn't uncover it for women.  We've always known about it, and we've always spoken about it, just not publicly to the extent that we saw during the MeToo era.   Many men knew about it as well, because they loved and supported and believed the women in their lives who had already shared their stories with them, but few were truly aware of the scope until social media became inundated with all of the stories.  And some just refused to believe it when they heard women talk about it, instead arguing that it wasn't true or was much of a problem anymore.

Chat gtp is an abysmal source for information in general, but I wouldn't be surprised if reported rape cases are currently trending down.  They hit their lowest in 2013 when the FBI redefined what forcible rape was, for example, skewing our ability to actually compare rates before that time.  But still, they drastically went up after 2013 and hit a high in 2018.  From there they have fluctuated yearly, but are slightly lower (as much as we can tell) than they were in 1990.  In 1990 41.2 out of every 100,000 women reported a forcible rape and in 2022 that number was 40 out of every 100,000.  But we have to remember that those numbers are measuring reported rapes.

Could you provide references for these statistics?

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

According to statistics, 63% of rapes go unreported. 

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He's a good lawyer (or at least he seems to be) and I think lawyers tend to excel at dissecting things that support their arguments (since the law is mostly about winning the argument and not about bringing up anything that might be a weakness in the argument so that both sides are considered equally). 

If you are the client, then engaging is a great experience.  If you are their adversary (or rather, support a position they are adversarial to), then yeah, it's not going to be a worthwhile use of time in my experience.

A good lawyer doesn’t care about which side is right or correct. They are an advocate for their client’s interest. That’s their job. And I agree SMAC does a good job of this. 

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

apparent hostility.

Frustration, Smac.  I view you as a friend.  I will never be hostile to you even if I come across that way.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He's a good lawyer (or at least he seems to be) and I think lawyers tend to excel at dissecting things that support their arguments (since the law is mostly about winning the argument and not about bringing up anything that might be a weakness in the argument so that both sides are considered equally). 

I also dissect things that don't support my arguments.

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you are the client, then engaging is a great experience.  If you are their adversary (or rather, support a position they are adversarial to), then yeah, it's not going to be a worthwhile use of time in my experience.

I try to evaluate both sides of disputed issues, and to do so in fairly clinical ways.  I don't do my clients any favors by shining them on and just telling them what they want to hear.  So coping with hard or uncomfortable truths can be, and often are, part of my repertoire.

Here, there aren't really "two sides" when it comes to sexual assault.  No decent person justifies such behaviors in any way.  Rather, the disputes seem to come down to matters such as prevalence, definitions, mitigating and remedial measures, criminal procedure and enforcement, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[let’s roll]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A good lawyer doesn’t care about which side is right or correct. They are an advocate for their client’s interest. That’s their job. And I agree SMAC does a good job of this. 

Seeking, the lawyers of the world, myself included, thank you for understanding and articulating the often misunderstood role and obligation of a lawyer.  Good lawyers are able to advocate for a plaintiff or defendant, the prosecution or the defense, with equal skill and fervor.