Now That Trump Has Won...

[Phoenix_person]

41 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

True, but with a massive caveat. If you are unpleasant, abrasive, rude and nasty, you have no right to wonder why you are unpopular and lonely. 

My understanding about online dating apps from the woman's perspective is that it's a lot of pictures of eggplants, if you get me. I had one lovely date with a very lovely woman who later told me she only agreed to the date because she had a personal policy of always giving a guy a shot no matter what if he can go 48 hours without talking about... eggplants. We've been dating for over a year. But THAT'S where the bar is right now for a lot of women. And they're still struggling to find ANY matches.

I was hearing about the harm of pornography twice a year before I knew what pornography was. The Church was warning about it BEFORE we all had pocket-sized devices with instant access to endless terrabytes of smut. They were practically screaming it by the time my family could afford dialup internet. The Bretheren and I have our differences, but I have to hand it to them on this one. An entire generation of young men has learned everything they know about interacting with women from limitless access to pornography. Today's men need help, that's for sure.

39 minutes ago, Vort said:

I recognize that a life of suffering hatred, contempt, and vilification will naturally tend to encourage "unpleasant, abrasive, rude and nasty" behavior.

People of privilege have a real talent for internalizing generic criticism of their privileged demographics. And this isn't a knock on anyone here. I used to struggle with it a bit too. I'm a cishet white man. The only way I could be MORE privileged is if I were a Protestant Christian. And outside of an *actual* war, my religious preference is the ONLY demographic trait that I feel has ever brought any kind of prejudice against me personally. People who feel personally attacked when privilege is called out fail to account for the deep distrust and even fear women have of men, or black people for white people, queer people for cishet folks, etc. The amount of harm caused to those populations by people who look like me shouldn't be diminished or dismissed out of hand just because *I* never hurt anyone. And so I try my best to live my life in a way that let's people know I'm safe to be around. That means more than virtue-signalling with dumb social media posts and friendship bracelets. It takes WORK. We expect a lot of work from marginalized communities to assimilate with us. Learn English. ALWAYS demand that the first date is somewhere public. You can be gay but don't BEEEE gay. Keep your hands visible at all times, smile and be polite, say "yes officer" or "no officer". How many of us ever struggled with any of these? I never did. Heck, my military/vet ID gives me an extra layer of privilege if I get pulled over by the police. We expect work from others, but how often do we ask ourselves what little things *we* can do to help our queer, female, and BIPOC friends feel welcome in our presence?

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

My understanding about online dating apps from the woman's perspective is that it's a lot of pictures of eggplants, if you get me. I had one lovely date with a very lovely woman who later told me she only agreed to the date because she had a personal policy of always giving a guy a shot no matter what if he can go 48 hours without talking about... eggplants. We've been dating for over a year. But THAT'S where the bar is right now for a lot of women. And they're still struggling to find ANY matches.

I was hearing about the harm of pornography twice a year before I knew what pornography was. The Church was warning about it BEFORE we all had pocket-sized devices with instant access to endless terrabytes of smut. They were practically screaming it by the time my family could afford dialup internet. The Bretheren and I have our differences, but I have to hand it to them on this one. An entire generation of young men has learned everything they know about interacting with women from limitless access to pornography. Today's men need help, that's for sure.

I understand, to the best of my ability. Amazingly Melissa would rather I not use dating apps. She’s so mean sometimes. 

[Phoenix_person]

 

17 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

It's not just religion, but society as a whole. 

I mean, go to your local Wal-Mart and look at how often you see "The Future Is Female" slapped on everything from notebooks to t-shirts. 

Now put yourself into the shoes of a guy who is already dealing with some issues and who sees messages like that on a constant basis. 

Hi! I'm one of those guys! I don't feel that men are or ever have been underrepresented in our society. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'd love to see more women running things.

14 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Yup, true. Sad. However I know several guys like that who don’t let their mental illness stop them. They push back and live happy and fulfilled lives. 

 

Agree 1000%. 

AWWWWW, you think I'm happy and fulfilled? 🥹😜

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

AWWWWW, you think I'm happy and fulfilled

Only when the Ravens win. 

[Phoenix_person]

I watched a movie recently called Woman of the Hour. @Ironhold may be familiar with it. I've had a bit of a celebrity crush on Anna Kendrick ever since my ex wife dragged me to all of the Twilight movies in theaters, so I was very interested to see how her debut as a director turned out. I'm not exaggerating when I say it might be the best movie I watched this year. Definitely top 3. It flawlessly portrays the general distrust that women had for men in the 1970s, as well as behaviors that would cause such distrust. All of this was juxtaposed on top of a true story about a man who uses kindness to prey on women. It's rated R for vulgar language and some pretty unsettling violence. But it's worth a watch, because a lot men haven't actually overcome the misogyny of past generations. They just got better at hiding it.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Melissa is “Mashed Potatoes” on my phone. Even though neither one us like mashed potatoes! 

Upgraded from Mistress #4 ?

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

. . . a lot men haven't actually overcome the misogyny of past generations. They just got better at hiding it.

I haven’t seen the movie you cite and I suspect you and I would notice and tend to perseverate on different applications/manifestations of this principle; but I think it’s a staggeringly true general principle.

IMHO a lot of (certainly not all) “patriarchy” was men recognizing other men’s baser natures and implementing structures that would protect physically-weaker women from exploitation by the worst sort of men.  And a lot of the deconstruction of “patriarchy” entails making women more available for the same kind of exploitation by the worst sort of men, but also convincing women (at least in the short term) that the exploitation is actually harmless and pleasurable and empowering. 

[Phoenix_person]

26 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

IMHO a lot of (certainly not all) “patriarchy” was men recognizing other men’s baser natures and implementing structures that would protect physically-weaker women from exploitation by the worst sort of men.  And a lot of the deconstruction of “patriarchy” entails making women more available for the same kind of exploitation by the worst sort of men, but also convincing women (at least in the short term) that the exploitation is actually harmless and pleasurable and empowering. 

What kind of protective structures are we talking about here? BSA (not women, but minors)? Churches? I went to high school with an LDS girl who grew up to have her life turned upside down after her LDS husband, a school teacher, was arrested for sexually assaulting a 12 year-old girl. The Catholic Church and several Southern Baptist ministries have crisis levels of SA cases against their clergy, many of them involving children. I think predators are gonna predator wherever they see fit. That doesn't mean we can't take precautions, of course. But it's naive to think that places like churches and schools are safe places for women and minors. They SHOULD be, 1000%. But they're not.

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

Upgraded from Mistress #4 ?

Sidechick, not mistress. 

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

But it's naive to think that places like churches and schools are safe places for women and minors. They SHOULD be, 1000%. But they're not.

Oh boy, did you kick up a hornets nest with this one. Be prepared. You are, sadly, right though.  

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

What kind of protective structures are we talking about here? BSA (not women, but minors)? Churches? I went to high school with an LDS girl who grew up to have her life turned upside down after her LDS husband, a school teacher, was arrested for sexually assaulting a 12 year-old girl. The Catholic Church and several Southern Baptist ministries have crisis levels of SA cases against their clergy, many of them involving children. I think predators are gonna predator wherever they see fit. That doesn't mean we can't take precautions, of course. But it's naive to think that places like churches and schools are safe places for women and minors. They SHOULD be, 1000%. But they're not.

So this is apparently the logic of the Left:

"There are pedophiles who are not drag queens. Therefore, we can see that there is nothing wrong with openly teaching and normalizing transgenderism. Because duh."

[JohnsonJones]

Going back a notch or two in the conversation, or back a page or two, I noticed someone accused an individual that because they were not necessarily religious, or participated in a set religion, they could not possibly be moral.

I would counter, if the Only reason you are moral is because you have religion (and thus are in fear of eternal punishment if you broke the rules), you may not be as moral as you think. 

It is true, that there are many who fear punishment (which is one reason why there are punishments for those who break the laws of the land) and that is why they do not commit a crime, but there are many other reasons why people follow the law.

Some do it because it is the right thing to do.  Some do it because they have a morality that is not just based on fear, or because they were taught that a Deity or pantheon would be angry if they were not, but because they have personal morality based upon a respect for themselves and life itself.

I deal with many students at the university.  There are those that are extremely religious, and those that are not.  If we are talking about morals, I have those who claim to be part of a religion that have no qualms about trying to cheat.  I have those who claim to be atheist or agnostic that are straight as an arrow and could be trusted with the answers in front of them and they would not look at those answers to cheat on a test. 

Why would those who have no religion be so honest, while those who have religion be dishonest?  (and to be clear, there are those who are religions that Are honest, and those who do not have religion who are dishonest as well, but we are looking at a certain dichotomy here).  I would say that it is due to whatever moral compass we have in ourselves already.

It does not take a religious person to understand that there are things we can do that will hurt other people, or to cause harm.  An individual can feel that it is wrong to hurt others, just as it would be wrong for others to hurt them.  They can have a moral code in and of itself that has no religious influence because they know right from wrong.

In fact, as members of the church we have been taught that every person has the Light of Christ within them.  It is this that enables everyone, no matter whether they are religious or not, to recognize good from evil.  If one builds a moral code upon the realization that there is good, and there is evil, even without religion, than it may be that this is just as moral as someone who has been taught morality by their religion.

If we go a step further, with those students that are religious but would cheat, I would say that their moral code isn't quite up to snuff.  They will act as they think others will want them to when observed, but in secret do as they wish.  They act out of fear, rather than love.

Now, fear can be a first step in our track to trying to be righteous, but even for a Christian, it is not the best reason to be moral.  When we are truly followers of the Lord, we do it because we Love the Lord.  We don't follow him because of fear, but because we have the same morals as he does.  If, we suddenly no longer had him in our life to guide us, it would not change our character, because our character would still remain.  We would Still be moral because that is who we are.  It is that character which draws us closer to the Lord.  We do not follow him because we have to, but because we Want to. 

In otherwords, we are not religious or moral because we have religion at that point, we are moral because that is our character to be so.  If we are to be more like the Lord, than morality is not something that is dictated to us, but that which comes naturally.  The more like the Lord we become, the more we are in how we act and treat others as it is the natural way for us to be. 

Hence, though we can grow in morality that way, we are not moral because we are religious, we are religious because we are moral and our particular morals dictate we act in a certain way (for example, honoring and respecting the Lord).

In that same way, though they may not have a morality that guides them to respect the Lord or any other form of religious practice, someone who is an Atheist or Agnostic can have a sense of morality without being in fear or retribution.  One of the most common is how I noted it above, a respect of others and a desire for others to respect them.

In that light, adultery would be a horrible thing to do.  It hurts another person terribly.  In committing adultery, one member of a marriage takes the deepest trust one can have in them and betrays it.  That is a horrible wounding to someone.  An individual who was an Atheist could say this is an evil that should not be done, and extremely immoral.  They would be against it because it harms another person.

I can't speak for @Phoenix_person morality or morals, but I have a sense they have a sense of morality.  I can say that I have had students that are atheist or agnostic who have had a great deal of morality that they've practiced on their own (as well as those who have not).  In that same light, I've had many students that are religious that also have had a great sense of morality, but those who have the best morality among them would be moral regardless of whether they had religion or not, because they are of a moral character that is not dependent on religion, but instead that moral character is why they are religious in the first place. 

Edited December 7, 2024 by JohnsonJones

[Just_A_Guy]

18 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

What kind of protective structures are we talking about here? BSA (not women, but minors)? Churches? I went to high school with an LDS girl who grew up to have her life turned upside down after her LDS husband, a school teacher, was arrested for sexually assaulting a 12 year-old girl. The Catholic Church and several Southern Baptist ministries have crisis levels of SA cases against their clergy, many of them involving children. I think predators are gonna predator wherever they see fit. That doesn't mean we can't take precautions, of course. But it's naive to think that places like churches and schools are safe places for women and minors. They SHOULD be, 1000%. But they're not.

But that’s just it.  They *should be*, because—outliers aside—they were *intended to be*.

Churches have traditionally advanced ethical frameworks around, inter alia, marriage and sexuality; which tended to prevent women from being used for transactionalized sex, empowered them to turn down undesireable suitors, disincentivized husbands who might otherwise later be tempted to abandon their wives, reinforced family ties that designated the father as the primary protector of the women in his household against physical and sexual and economic abuse, and stigmatized men who failed to live up to their obligations under this system.  The fact that some—perhaps even many—men abused their various roles within these structures, doesn’t make the structure inferior to the calculatedly systematic exploitation of women and children (or the just-plain-anarchy) that prevailed in various earlier societies.

(And, let’s be honest here:  your average Reddit guy may gloat in feigned horror over the SBC sex scandal—but in his heart of hearts, he’s really just remembering all those church girls who wouldn’t get drunk and sleep with him and other guys whose motivations matched his own.  These girls, statistically, are a much larger sample than those who were unfortunately victimized by their own ecclesiastical leaders.  Our Reddit guy knows that for all their problems, these churches have actually deterred the exploitation of their female members that he would have committed if he could. That’s why he hates them so much.  You’ll note that our Reddit guy doesn’t hate or talk about the mainline liberal churches who also have occasional bad guys in the pastoral ranks but who were already openly telling their youth that sexual promiscuity was part of normal adolescence/ is inoffensive to God/ is not something for which one ought to have any degree of accountability). 

Schools, too, are theoretically supposed to (among other things) empower kids with knowledge that makes them more resistant to exploitation by charlatans and schemers.  Whether they acruelly accomplish that, is certainly a fair question.  But then, it’s overwhelmingly not conservatives who are administering and staffing the public schools these days; it’s not conservatives who are forcing kids to attend those schools with the threat of imprisoning their parents if they don’t; and it’s not conservatives offering the schools full legal immunity for any outrages perpetrated by their staffs or on their campuses.  If leftists want to pooh-pooh public education as sort of a child grooming operation, I guess I won’t push back too hard so long—so long as I’m allowed to point out that the “groomers” here are overwhelmingly their allies, not mine.

Edited December 7, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

@Just_A_Guy-I agree with you. I’d trust my child at a church more I’d trust my child at a Boy Scout camp. 
 

However, it’s trust but verify. I’d never leave my child alone with a priest or bishop. It‘s not personal, it’s not anti-religious, it’s that I’ve heard one too many horror stories and it‘s not worth the risk. 
 

 

Edited December 7, 2024 by LDSGator

[Just_A_Guy]

17 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

@Just_A_Guy-I agree with you. I’d trust my child at a church more I’d trust my child at a Boy Scout camp. 
 

However, it’s trust but verify. I’d never leave my child alone with a priest or bishop. It‘s not personal, it’s not anti-religious, it’s that I’ve heard one too many horror stories and it‘s not worth the risk. 
 

 

I generally agree with you here; though I would note that in a LDS context “bishops” are often people we’ve known for 10-20+ years before they became bishops and who we trust, in large part, because of that previous association.

I would ask, though:  Would you leave your child alone with a teacher or a psychologist or an LCSW?  What about (assuming you were a widow or divorced) a romantic partner?

I’m all on board with “trust but verify”.  What I’m not on board with, is the notion that church leaders (especially LDS ones, who have not actively sought the positions they hold) are particularly suspect compared to other trusted adults in a child’s orbit.  A staggering proportion of child sex abuse is perpetrated by a parent’s new flame.  My parents are teachers; so other teachers were a big part of our family’s social circle.  And as you know, I work with psychologists and counselor/therapists and LCSWs multiple times per week (and MDs several times per month) and have gotten to know quite a few of them reputationally and personally.  “Education” and “certification” don’t necessarily translate as “trustworthiness” or even “general decency” or “good intent”.  Not-uncommonly, the reverse is actually true.

Again, I’ll reiterate my support for “trust, but verify”.  But I will also unabashedly say that if we are unable to verify and must resort to comparing the traits of “trustworthiness”, “general decency”, and “good intention” (and heck, I’ll also throw in “sexual restraint”) as between a random professional and a random LDS bishop—I’d pick the random LDS bishop every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Edited December 7, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would ask, though:  Would you leave your child alone with a teacher or a psychologist or an LCSW?  What about (assuming you were a widow or divorced) a romantic partner?

Romantic partner? Absolutely not, unless it’s someone like my wife who I have known since 1998. Therapist? Maybe, case by case basis. 

The awkward truth is that we tend to view members of “our tribe” as more virtuous than strangers. Which is totally understandable. We think we know them, we see ourselves in them, etc. So while I understand why you would feel comfortable leaving your kid alone with a bishop, I still would choose not to do so.  

[LDSGator]

To understand my thought about this it would help to remember that I grew up uber Catholic in New England, where the Catholic SA scandal exploded. While I don’t know any priests who got busted, I know and have been to parishes where they were assigned to. 
 

*I did know two priests who were whispered about in regards to SA, but nothing was proven 

[LDSGator]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

would counter, if the Only reason you are moral is because you have religion (and thus are in fear of eternal punishment if you broke the rules), you may not be as moral as you think. 

While I sort of agree with you, aren’t motives irrelevant? If the only thing keeping you from assaulting me is fear of what God will do to you, that’s fine with me. I don’t care why you don’t assault me in the end. 
 

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

To understand my thought about this it would help to remember that I grew up uber Catholic in New England, where the Catholic SA scandal exploded. While I don’t know any priests who got busted, I know and have been to parishes where they were assigned to. 
 

*I did know two priests who were whispered about in regards to SA, but nothing was proven 

I appreciate your experience and hope I’m not seen as dismissing the experience of the victims or excusing anyone within the church who deliberately put suspected predators into positions where they could predate again.

At the same time, based on my understanding of the statistical percentage of predators amongst US Catholic clerics versus that amongst US public schoolteachers:  it might be a closer call, but I still think I’d pick the Catholics.  If for no other reason than that public schools have sovereign immunity, whereas my local diocese doesn’t.

Edited December 7, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

39 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

appreciate your experience and hope I’m not seen as dismissing the experience of the victims or excusing anyone within the church who deliberately put suspected predators into positions where they could predate again.

Oh, you aren’t in the least. And let me be clear: by the grace of God (not blasphemy, how I feel) I never experienced SA. And I was an altar boy. 

 

39 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

statistical percentage of predators amongst US Catholic clerics versus that amongst US public schoolteachers:  it might be a closer call, but I still think I’d pick the Catholics.  If for no other reason than that public schools have sovereign immunity, whereas my local diocese doesn’t

I’ve heard that too, but simply put, I don’t believe it. I think Catholic SA is underreported and/or dismissed or not believed  

Edited December 7, 2024 by LDSGator

[Just_A_Guy]

58 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’ve heard that too, but simply put, I don’t believe it. I think Catholic SA is underreported and/or dismissed or not believed  

Most SA is; and I have no reason to believe the schools are any better.  😞

[LDSGator]

25 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Most SA is; and I have no reason to believe the schools are any better.  😞

Absolutely tragic. 😞  

[Phoenix_person]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What I’m not on board with, is the notion that church leaders (especially LDS ones, who have not actively sought the positions they hold) are particularly suspect compared to other trusted adults in a child’s orbit.  

To be clear, we're on the same page here. And fwiw, as far as clergy goes, I trust LDS more than most. I highlighted clergy because while monsters can be found in just about every walk of life, it's important to recognize the monsters in your own circles. The LGBTQ community is aware of the abhorrent MAP "movement" trying to infiltrate their ranks, and they're doing their best to suffocate it. And I know there are plenty of good Christians out there doing similar work. 

[Ironhold]

On 12/6/2024 at 3:35 PM, Phoenix_person said:

What kind of protective structures are we talking about here?

In all seriousness?

Even before "Me Too", a large number of "male feminist ally" types had been outed as con artists and predators. 

You see, what happened was that a number of the more militant self-declared "feminist" groups had developed such an extreme "us versus them" mindset that they had ironically become vulnerable to infiltration by bad actors of both genders. If a person said the right things at the right time and did the right things as appropriate, they would be immediately accepted as part of the movement. These bad actors - a mix of con artists, clout-seekers, and even predators - studied these groups, figured out what they had to do to be accepted, and did it. 

A lot of the old-school "patriarchy" type guys were observant enough to see these wolves among the sheep, but when they tried to sound the alarm the feminist groups they were trying to protect actually circled the wagons *around* these bad actors, believing that anyone of the old-school "patriarchy" persuasion couldn't be trusted because they were the "enemy". 

As a result, some of these individuals preyed on the various feminist groups for months or even years, and in one extreme instance someone was killed because of it. A guy falsely claimed to have been a special forces veteran dealing with PTSD as his explanation for his experimenting with various substances, and one night he murdered his lover in a substance-induced paranoid rage. 

The thing is that... rather than recognize their mindset had left them vulnerable, a lot of these groups responded by pushing further to the extremes and using these incidents to justify misandrist sentiment. 

[LDSGator]

7 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

Even before "Me Too", a large number of "male feminist ally" types had been outed as con artists and predators. 

Boom! 

In college most male feminists were trying to show off how sensitive and down with the cause they were so they could get female attention that evening. Right after they talked about their love for Tori Amos.