Most Women Get The Type Of Man They Dress For - March 2014 Ensign

[Teancum]

So notice that the only comments which are quite negative about the article are from women.

 

Even canard makes it clear that he encourages modesty in his daughter.  What man here will stand up for immodest dress for his wife or daughter?  None!

 

Women are extremely naive about what goes on in men's minds when it comes to these matters.

 

Perhaps the article could have been more sensitive but the central message is correct.  Just notice the sex of the commenters in each comment and you will see a difference.

Well here you go. I agree with Mercyandgrace. The article is horrible. It is a throw back to the seventies and before and the awful way the church teaches chasity. The only good thing about it was it left out the third worst sin and better chaste than dead garbage to perhaps there is some progress. I recomend this commentary on the articles:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2014/02/morality-we-can-do-much-better-than-this.html

For me this article deserves to be tossed on the trash heel because trash it is. Nobody is standing up for immodesty and as a man I know my thoughts and actions are my responsibility no matter how a woman dresses. Shame on you for giving men a bad rap and acting like we are uncontrollable walking lust machines.

[Teancum]

I think you're drawing false assumptions about my OP. I'm pretty furious about the sexism in this article. I deeply object to the dual standards in this article. I will encourage all of my children to be modest in their appearance and behaviour for multiple reasons, mainly to encourage self-respect.

I will not, however, use false threats and guilt such as:

- You're walking porn

- You'll get, and deserve, the wrong type of partner

- You'll only get a "high quality" spouse if you're pure

All are very poor teaching tools, encourage negative self-image and give tacit endorsement to sexism and misogyny.

The article is terrible and quotes scripture that, in some cases, is taken from chapters that we otherwise reject wholesale.

Elder Callister, for example, selectively quotes from:

1 Tim 2:

Given Elder Callister claims to be delivering God's indisputable word on the matter, at what verse in the list above does Paul stop speaking God's doctrine and instead speaks his own opinion? V10? V11??

I find it somewhat ironic that in the opening paragraphs he sweeps aside the opinions of psychologists when the dominant view of morality is born less out of revealed doctrine and more out of Victorian prudishness. Attitudes which were, in part, influenced by the attitudes of psychologists of the era.

I find little doctrine in this article and instead personal opinion sprinkled with selective scripture.

(Does that help adjust the male:female balance mfbukowski?)

Amen, amen and amen!

[Svawd]

And another big amen!

[mfbukowski]

 Shame on you for giving men a bad rap and acting like we are uncontrollable walking lust machines.

[Tacenda]

Well here you go. I agree with Mercyandgrace. The article is horrible. It is a throw back to the seventies and before and the awful way the church teaches chasity. The only good thing about it was it left out the third worst sin and better chaste than dead garbage to perhaps there is some progress. I recomend this commentary on the articles:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2014/02/morality-we-can-do-much-better-than-this.html

For me this article deserves to be tossed on the trash heel because trash it is. Nobody is standing up for immodesty and as a man I know my thoughts and actions are my responsibility no matter how a woman dresses. Shame on you for giving men a bad rap and acting like we are uncontrollable walking lust machines.

Bravo, well said. That only gives men an excuse for their flipping behaviour/thoughts!

[Danzo]

Well here you go. I agree with Mercyandgrace. The article is horrible. It is a throw back to the seventies and before and the awful way the church teaches chasity. The only good thing about it was it left out the third worst sin and better chaste than dead garbage to perhaps there is some progress. I recomend this commentary on the articles:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2014/02/morality-we-can-do-much-better-than-this.html

For me this article deserves to be tossed on the trash heel because trash it is. Nobody is standing up for immodesty and as a man I know my thoughts and actions are my responsibility no matter how a woman dresses. Shame on you for giving men a bad rap and acting like we are uncontrollable walking lust machines.

 

Read the article.  It would seems she is committing the classical error in thinking that everyone is like her patients. I've seen that attitude in many therapists.  In essence, they see damaged people all day so they assume everyone is damaged.

 

I would speculate that most people who heard this talk came away undamaged.  A large majority of them might not remember what he even said.  The ones who were negatively effected were probably the ones who would have been negatively affected by anything anyone would have said.

 

From articles like this you would wonder how anyone has survived the past teachings of church leaders.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Danzo

[Deborah]

The ones who were negatively effected were probably the ones who would have been negatively affected by anything anyone would have said.

 

From articles like this you would wonder how anyone has survived the past teachings of church leaders.

 

Amen. I did not find anything blaming or accusatory in the article. I feel sorry for our GA's. They can't say even the most innocuous things anymore without causing a firestorm of criticism. Imagine if BY were alive today and speaking his mind. Oh, wait. He's been long dead but still receives the criticism.

[frank_jessop]

Amen. I did not find anything blaming or accusatory in the article. I feel sorry for our GA's. They can't say even the most innocuous things anymore without causing a firestorm of criticism. Imagine if BY were alive today and speaking his mind. Oh, wait. He's been long dead but still receives the criticism.

Unless you are joking; That you appeal to, what can reasonably be described as renounced teachings of Brigham Young, it really isn't surprising that you wouldn't see anything wrong with modesty being taught using fear and blame.

As someone pointed out in another thread, teaching with love and kindness is more effective. Modesty can be taught love and kindness and need not utilize fear or victim blaming.

For instance, I believe it was President Hinkley who taught the Priesthood bearers "Living Worthy of the Girl You Will Someday Marry" Why I bring up this talk is because I remember nothing about it, except the main message of living worthy, it is not accusatory or victim blaming.

Edited February 23, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Deborah]

you wouldn't see anything wrong with modesty being taught using fear and blame.

 

 

What are you talking about. Show me in this article which is the topic of the thread where there is fear or blame.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Deborah

[juliann]

 

 

I would speculate that most people who heard this talk came away undamaged.  A large majority of them might not remember what he even said.  The ones who were negatively effected were probably the ones who would have been negatively affected by anything anyone would have said.

 

From articles like this you would wonder how anyone has survived the past teachings of church leaders.

Of course they have "survived".  But the increase in this modesty talk....which reduces a woman to the sum of what she wears...is finally bringing out how unhelpful and even damaging this narrow rhetoric has been.  The talk above that tells boys how to be worthy of their mates treats the boy as a complete person, there are many areas in which they can succeed or fail. I still remember Elder Cook's talk, which had some very valuable and needed words for women, also reduced a girl to what was found in her purse.  I believe he said something to the effect that even said that he didn't even need to know the girl to know her character.  It is very sad to see so many essentially tell these women they are stupid or liars. No wonder so many see the church as not valuing women!

 

It is not a condemnation of modesty and those who are gathering piles of straw to build that strawman need to stop.  

[frank_jessop]

I do not know if it was covered already, but I thought the following from the Ensign was very insightful and helpful:

Unclean Thoughts

It has been said, “You can watch the birds fly by; just don’t let them build a nest on your head.” There is nothing wrong with noticing the pretty young lady or handsome young man as they walk by—that is normal.

But if those thoughts turn to lust, then the nest is being built.

We cannot avoid seeing every improper billboard or immodestly dressed person, but we can drive out the improper thought once it arises.

The sin is not in involuntarily seeing something improper; the sin is in entertaining the thought once it comes.

The scriptures tell us, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7)

[thesometimesaint]

It's a bit of both. Everyone is responsible for their own thoughts, and if you're not selling don't advertize.

[ERayR]

Well here you go. I agree with Mercyandgrace. The article is horrible. It is a throw back to the seventies and before and the awful way the church teaches chasity. The only good thing about it was it left out the third worst sin and better chaste than dead garbage to perhaps there is some progress. I recomend this commentary on the articles:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2014/02/morality-we-can-do-much-better-than-this.html

For me this article deserves to be tossed on the trash heel because trash it is. Nobody is standing up for immodesty and as a man I know my thoughts and actions are my responsibility no matter how a woman dresses. Shame on you for giving men a bad rap and acting like we are uncontrollable walking lust machines.

 

Ah come on don't hold back.  Tell us what you really think.

[frank_jessop]

It's a bit of both. Everyone is responsible for their own thoughts, and if you're not selling don't advertize.

And if Sammy thinks Jane is "advertizing", because Sammy's parents said 'A girl who does X, is advertizing.' And Sammy makes Jane a victim, you are saying Jane is partially at fault.

[Danzo]

And if Sammy thinks Jane is "advertizing", because Sammy's parents said 'A girl who does X, is advertizing.' And Sammy makes Jane a victim, you are saying Jane is partially at fault.

 

How quaint,

 

Back in the real world, Sammy doesn't listen to his parents  for his opinion on how women "advertise"

Edited February 24, 2014 by Danzo

[Danzo]

  It is very sad to see so many essentially tell these women they are stupid or liars. No wonder so many see the church as not valuing women!

 

Can you elaborate?

Who is calling who a liar?

Who is calling who stupid?

[BCSpace]

He should have kept his swash buckled.

 

I think it's the gold plated armor that does it for the ladies.  Emphasis on the gold...

 

[thesometimesaint]

And if Sammy thinks Jane is "advertizing", because Sammy's parents said 'A girl who does X, is advertizing.' And Sammy makes Jane a victim, you are saying Jane is partially at fault.

 

Men/Women advertize just by being men/women. Extremes in dress from Bikinis to loincloths, from Burkas to wearing a Morning Coat to your local Cracker Barrel are extreme.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Who is calling who a liar?

Women (my sister included) complain about how negatively the Callister type of modesty rhetoric of the church (not modesty rhetoric in general) has been for them. Some of this has been related in this thread.

Danzo says:

The ones who were negatively effected were probably the ones who would have been negatively affected by anything anyone would have said.

So my sister and others are lying about the fact that this kind of thing (out of all church teachings) negatively effects them. Can I read your statement another way?

Edited February 24, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Tacenda]

Yes, I remember my neighbor's daughter who was frantic because she didn't have a one peice to wear to the ward swimming party. She had the tankini or the very modest two piece and was primary age. That's just sad and seems legalistic.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Tacenda

[Danzo]

Women (my sister included) complain about how negatively the Callister type of modesty rhetoric of the church (not modesty rhetoric in general) has been for them. Some of this has been related in this thread.

Danzo says:

So my sister and others are lying about the fact that this kind of thing (out of all church teachings) negatively effects them. Can I read your statement another way?

 

I didn't say they were lying.  I suggest that people who are offended by Elder Callister's words are probably going to be living their lives in a constant state of offence.

 

I think it is interesting that you say in the same breath that women are not responsible for the way men think, but at the same time hold the men responsible for every feeling of "shame" and "guilt" that a woman feels.  

 

The remarks that he said were true.

They were made with the intent of helping people.

Could they have been said better? of course, but that could be said of almost any talk: how many of you, when you give a talk, vet everything you say to prevent the least feeling of offence possible?

 

If these woman are so offended by what they said, when no offence is intended, then they might have a problem.  

(I know that you are going to accuse me of blaming the victim, but hasn't half of this thread, and your arguments in particular, been devoted to the idea that women can't be held liable for the thoughts of men.  Can't you apply the same logic to the thoughts of women and men who say thing that they take wrong?)

[Danzo]

Yes, I remember my neighbor's daughter who was frantic because she didn't have a one peice to wear to the ward swimming party. She had the tankini or the very modest two piece and was primary age. That's just sad and seems legalistic.

 

Sounds like your neighbor's daughter was the one with the problem, not the rest of the people, or the church, sounds like she was the one being legalistic.

 

Went to a ward swimming party last Saturday, there were primary aged girls with two piece suites, no one seemed to have a problem.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I didn't say they were lying.  I suggest that people who are offended by Elder Callister's words are probably going to be living their lives in a constant state of offence.

 

Your exact words were:

 

The ones who were negatively effected were probably the ones who would have been negatively affected by anything anyone would have said.

 

 

Many women claim that teachings such as Elder Callister's "If it's too low, too high or too tight..." rhetoric have been damaging for them (who even says they are offended - many just want the rhetoric changed for their daughters).  Many therapists back them up. These same women and therapists also give many good examples of how modesty could be taught without causing harm. Danzo comes along and says these women can easily be dimissed because they "would have been negatively affected by anything anyone would have said." 

Edited February 24, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think it is interesting that you say in the same breath that women are not responsible for the way men think, but at the same time hold the men responsible for every feeling of "shame" and "guilt" that a woman feels.  

 

CFR that I said "men" should be held responsible for "every" feeling of shame and guilt "a woman" feels. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If these woman are so offended by what they said, when no offence is intended, then they might have a problem.  

(I know that you are going to accuse me of blaming the victim, but hasn't half of this thread, and your arguments in particular, been devoted to the idea that women can't be held liable for the thoughts of men.  Can't you apply the same logic to the thoughts of women and men who say thing that they take wrong?)

 

Anyone who wishes Elder Callister ill is responsible for their own sins.

 

Is it possible to express strong disagreement with a talk without being offended? Have you been offended by my posts? If I say something here or anywhere that causes real world pain and suffering, I certainly hope that they let me know - how else can I improve?