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

[ERayR]

Great points...and I'll add mine...boobies were meant to feed babies!! People who look at women's bodies sexually have a problem within themselves!! It's all in how we present the human body. Sadly, people exploit it for their own purposes.

 

But then there is those pernicious little facts that human beings are now and ever have been sexual beings. 

[Yirgacheffe]

But then there is those pernicious little facts that human beings are now and ever have been sexual beings. 

What does humans being sexual beings have to do with "boobies" being meant to feed babies?  From what I understand not every culture is as breast focused as the US culture.

[mercyngrace]

If a nuclear apocalypse touches off and government collapses and I fall in love with a survivor and we are alone and want to marry I will just set up some kind of ceremony and expect God to accept it (for life anyways).

 

Well, we recognize common law marriages for the purpose of temple work...

[Senator]

Here's an interesting take on the article:

 

Morality? We can do much better than this…

 

Between this article and his talk on the New Testament "Template" last January, Elder Callister is not exactly presenting himself as one of the deepest thinkers at the COB.

Wow! That article gave  a lot to think about.

[bluebell]

I simply noted that social norms determine what we consider illicit, and that's not always been the same as "out of wedlock". In some cultures, it's not the same today. I didn't add a "therefore". Nor did I infer anything about sinfulness.

Given the topic (how sins impact us) I thought that you were noting the social norms as they pertained to that discussion.

I wasn't trying to repeat exactly what you said but merely repeat how I read it because I was pretty sure I wasn't understanding your point.

Thanks for clarifying.

[mfbukowski]

You're right bud, I added the therefore. I made the conclusion and read an undertone. Maybe there was no intention to send that message.

I don't think Elder Callister is a bad man. I'm sure he's a very good man who is trying to do the best he can with the perspectives he has been raised with. I'm sure he's trying to teach positive and uplifting principles to help people lead better, more Christlike lives. I just wish he'd made better communication choices. I wish this talk wasn't no encased in the credibility that the Ensign cover lends it.

Fair enough!

[mercyngrace]

Given the topic (how sins impact us) I thought that you were noting the social norms as they pertained to that discussion.

I wasn't trying to repeat exactly what you said but merely repeat how I read it because I was pretty sure I wasn't understanding your point.

Thanks for clarifying.

No problem.

 

If we go far enough back, we're all likely going to find plenty of out of wedlock forebears. That's all I was getting at. It's funny that we draw lines in the sand about how to live right here and say that consequences are inevitable but then turn right around and baptize, ordain, and seal known scoundrels. Once they're dead.  

 

I guess I just take a very long view on some things. LOL.

 

I'm much less concerned with whether we define something as a sin than with whether it causes harm or injury to the individual involved or to his fellowmen. We can gain knowledge and repent. It's the suffering in the process which makes me weep. 

[MorningStar]

I would say that quote means if you dress to be objectified, you will attract a man who objectifies women.

[The Nehor]

Great points...and I'll add mine...boobies were meant to feed babies!! People who look at women's bodies sexually have a problem within themselves!! It's all in how we present the human body. Sadly, people exploit it for their own purposes.

 

Welp, I have a problem and most heterosexual males and lesbian females I know have the same problem.

[Calm]

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/02/young-adults/discipleship-and-dating?lang=eng

Anyone have a problem with this Ensign article about male/female interaction?

Edited February 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[slamarwi]

So teach both men and women to not letch. Teach them to notice and not stare.

Don't teach our daughters that they are "walking porn."

And teach the beauty of the atonement. Stop making people second class citizens if they have past transgressions.

 

Agreed both men and women need to keep their eyes to themselves.

 

However, The way men and women perceive and process visual stimuli is very different. Of course we don't want our daughters to be walking porn, and without some good direction from their parents this is very possible. This is not to say that young men (and older men) don't have a responsibility to also remain unspotted from the world, but the message a young lady sends via her appearance may very well be misinterpreted.

 

This has nothing to do with past transgressions but certainly with future events.

 

The following information elucidates the differences of visual stimuli on men and women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/

[Tacenda]

Welp, I have a problem and most heterosexual males and lesbian females I know have the same problem.

Well, maybe with your significnt other. But according to scripture and Jimmy Carter, you've sinned if you lust after someone other than that person.

[mfbukowski]

The following information elucidates the differences of visual stimuli on men and women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/

There you have it- empirical evidence for what we already know as men. Edited February 18, 2014 by mfbukowski

[canard78]

Man, I wish Nibley was still alive and kickin' and publishing in the Church magazines. /fanboy

These are simply amazing quotes. Is there any chance you could go back as add the sources if you have them? I'd love to save and reuse them.

Edited February 18, 2014 by canard78

[canard78]

Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, sin can be repented of. People make mistakes, but through the atonement they can be as clean as if the sin had never been committed. And no woman deserves to be abused, and men are in the end responsible for their own actions and thoughts. As the lawyers say, this things can be stipulated and agreed upon.

But let's say your worthy, generally good son of marriageable age and situation was dating two young ladies, both active in the church, as far as you know, both would make a great spouse and future mother to your grandkids. But one seems not to have a problem showing up for dates in short shorts and a spaghetti strap tank, while the other wears more modest clothing. You have a pool in your backyard, and your son invites each one over to swim. The first shows up in a very revealing bikini style, while the other young lady wore a flattering but much less revealing one piece suit.

All other things being roughly equal, which of those two young ladies are you hoping he chooses? (Yes, I know the women have a say in it as well, but you know what I mean). 

 

This is a great example of distorted logic around dress standards.

 

It it OK for a woman to show her shoulders, arms and legs to your son or not? Under any circumstance?

 

The first girl, wearing "short shorts and a spaghetti strap tank" for the date would have less skin on show than when the second girl come to the pool in a "flattering but much less revealing one piece suit."

 

If a woman wore the clothing equivalent of a one piece swimming suit on a date to the cinema, church standards would call her immodest and Elder Callister might say she is going to get the type of man she is dressing for. If that date is on the beach or at the pool, suddenly she becomes the modest one.

 

Why is OK for your son to see a woman with full leg, arms and shoulders exposed at the beach/pool but not OK elsewhere? How does he manage to control his sexual nature at the pool but can't be expected to away from it?

[Danzo]

Women aren't responsible for the thoughts of men.

 

If they are in the business of marketing, they are responsible for the thoughts of men (and women).

 

People who think images don't influence other peoples thoughts better have an explanation for the existence of commercial television and the marketing industry in general. 

[The Nehor]

Well, maybe with your significnt other. But according to scripture and Jimmy Carter, you've sinned if you lust after someone other than that person.

 

Desire, even sexual desire, is not necessarily lust.

[bluebell]

If we go far enough back, we're all likely going to find plenty of out of wedlock forebears. That's all I was getting at. It's funny that we draw lines in the sand about how to live right here and say that consequences are inevitable but then turn right around and baptize, ordain, and seal known scoundrels. Once they're dead.

 

Very true.

Of course, we also believe that before they have access to the blessings and promises of those ordinances, they must be taught the gospel, have faith in Christ, and repent of their sins.

So we aren't really drawing any lines in the sand.  We are all held to the same standards of justice and allowed the same level of mercy, even if not all in the same time frame. 

 

I'm much less concerned with whether we define something as a sin than with whether it causes harm or injury to the individual involved or to his fellowmen. We can gain knowledge and repent. It's the suffering in the process which makes me weep.

 

 

I would imagine that Elder Callister is concerned with the exact same things (I think most of us are), and that he sincerely believes that what he is teaching in this talk will lessen the suffering of the children of God, as well as the harm or injury that may come to them.

 

We just don't all agree on the best way to do those things.  

[thesometimesaint]

I think this all depends on the definition of sin because I don't see this as paradox, but that is a subject for another thread.  What Adam and Eve did was not really sin, and perhaps one day we will understand why the law they transgressed was even put in place in the first place since it had to be broken.

 

Sin: The deliberate knowledgeable violation of Gods' law.

Transgression: The innocent violation of Gods' law.

 

It didn't HAVE to be broken. Eve chose to follow Lucifer, and Adam chose to follow Eve.

[Gray]

I'd like to see a quote for where I said that.

 

You mentioned something about women being naive about what goes on in men's minds. How is that the concern of women?

[Gray]

But then there is those pernicious little facts that human beings are now and ever have been sexual beings. 

 

Were it not so the human race would have died out before it began. 

[jkwilliams]

What I wonder is what the equivalent counsel is for young men. Whenever I hear about modest clothing, it's always aimed at the young women. The unspoken assumption, it seems to me, is that when young women wear revealing clothing, they are causing arousal in the young men; I don't see any reciprocal assumption at all.

 

Thus, it really does seem that it's about not provoking lustful thoughts in young men, meaning that young women are partly responsible for the thoughts of young men. That would explain the various weird articles and statements about modesty I've seen coming from the church over the last few years, such as the Friend article about how a 4 year old is immodest for wearing a sleeveless top. That's just bizarre.

 

If my neighbor has a tennis-shoe fetish, is it immodest for my daughters to wear tennis shoes? I don't have a problem with standards of modesty, but I seriously dislike this attitude about young women taking responsibility for young men making them into visual objects of lust.

[Buzzard]

What I wonder is what the equivalent counsel is for young men. Whenever I hear about modest clothing, it's always aimed at the young women. The unspoken assumption, it seems to me, is that when young women wear revealing clothing, they are causing arousal in the young men; I don't see any reciprocal assumption at all.

 

Thus, it really does seem that it's about not provoking lustful thoughts in young men, meaning that young women are partly responsible for the thoughts of young men. That would explain the various weird articles and statements about modesty I've seen coming from the church over the last few years, such as the Friend article about how a 4 year old is immodest for wearing a sleeveless top. That's just bizarre.

 

If my neighbor has a tennis-shoe fetish, is it immodest for my daughters to wear tennis shoes? I don't have a problem with standards of modesty, but I seriously dislike this attitude about young women taking responsibility for young men making them into visual objects of lust.

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/dress-and-appearance?lang=eng

 

While the guidelines are more specific for the young women, modesty in dress and appearance for young men is addressed.

[jkwilliams]

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/dress-and-appearance?lang=eng

 

While the guidelines are more specific for the young women, modesty in dress and appearance for young men is addressed.

 

Here's what they say:

 

"Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance."

 

That's it. Specifics for young women, nothing for young men. Like I said, it's focused on young women, as it always has been. I get the feeling that whoever writes this stuff doesn't think young women are attracted to young men's appearance. Why, I don't know.

[Gray]

What I wonder is what the equivalent counsel is for young men. Whenever I hear about modest clothing, it's always aimed at the young women. The unspoken assumption, it seems to me, is that when young women wear revealing clothing, they are causing arousal in the young men; I don't see any reciprocal assumption at all.

 

Thus, it really does seem that it's about not provoking lustful thoughts in young men, meaning that young women are partly responsible for the thoughts of young men. That would explain the various weird articles and statements about modesty I've seen coming from the church over the last few years, such as the Friend article about how a 4 year old is immodest for wearing a sleeveless top. That's just bizarre.

 

If my neighbor has a tennis-shoe fetish, is it immodest for my daughters to wear tennis shoes? I don't have a problem with standards of modesty, but I seriously dislike this attitude about young women taking responsibility for young men making them into visual objects of lust.

 

Well stated, thanks