Yirgacheffe Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: He has a right to attend that school free of distractions I do not agree he has a right to attend school free of distractions. No one has a right to be free of distractions anywhere. 3
Tacenda Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 Stargazer, I know you don't believe this, but what of all the rapes or prostitutes out there. They dress scantily, but certainly don't deserve to be touched or raped if they don't want it. What about the women in National Geographic with their bosoms exposed, I'm sure no one thinks that's sexy. Because they usually know breasts are for feeding their babies. How come it's different in the office?
Storm Rider Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 6 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Stargazer, I know you don't believe this, but what of all the rapes or prostitutes out there. They dress scantily, but certainly don't deserve to be touched or raped if they don't want it. What about the women in National Geographic with their bosoms exposed, I'm sure no one thinks that's sexy. Because they usually know breasts are for feeding their babies. How come it's different in the office? So a prostitute advertises her trade by wearing almost nothing or highly revealing clothing - this we agree on, yes? Then we have other women who wear scantily clad clothing, but they are not advertising anything at all. And you wonder why young men might be confused or that some young men will act aggressively toward young women who wear very little or, at least, wear very revealing clothing? Why is this difficult to understand? Why should we tell a young woman to be modest in her dress at the same time we are telling young men to be modest in their attire and to respect young women? These types of conversations, in the name of feminism, always seem to demand that everyone - especially men - put away common sense. It makes no sense and certainly isn't very intelligent. I fully support "No" means No. However, there is this concept of contributory negligence; that each has an expectation for both parties to act prudently and if either party does not act prudently they share in the injury which they have suffered. Somehow we have moved beyond common sense to the world of "Rape Culture" where Aquarius has risen and no one is allowed to consider having responsibility for any of their actions. Just so you understand, I favor castration of any individual that rapes a woman. If you did it then society demands, on behalf of the lady, that the perpetrator never rapes another person ever again. At the same time, I support the concept of being modest by all parties regardless of gender. Why am I wrong or how is it that I am a misogynist?
Calm Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 7 hours ago, Gray said: I'm sorry, but you don't get to CFR me because you want a source for a picture. CFRs are to back up claims. You are mistaken. They are just as much to provide sources for seeing actual context of quote or other material though this may not be clear in the guidelines. Anything that is not your original product can be cfred.
Stargazer Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 7 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Stargazer, I know you don't believe this, but what of all the rapes or prostitutes out there. They dress scantily, but certainly don't deserve to be touched or raped if they don't want it. What about the women in National Geographic with their bosoms exposed, I'm sure no one thinks that's sexy. Because they usually know breasts are for feeding their babies. How come it's different in the office? I did not write what you imply that I wrote. I specifically said that they didn't deserve to be touched just because they expose themselves. Did you not read what I wrote? I never even suggested that a woman deserved or should expect to be touched just because she wasn't wearing a burka. You see how it works, Tacenda? It's called a straw man, and I knew that this would be one of the first tools to be called upon. You can't refute an argument by substituting in its place an argument that was not made, refute that, and then claim that you won the point. Well, you can claim it, but it would be a false claim. I'm sorry to have to call you out on that. About the women in National Geographic... So you're sure that no one thinks that's sexy. Why? Because you're not attracted to bosoms? Why would you be? You can't procreate with another woman, so you're not wired to find bosoms attractive. It is a fact that young boys just coming into puberty will find those photos of women pretty darned interesting, even if they are tribeswomen out in the bush. And unless they have already been told about the birds and the bees, they won't know why they find this interesting. This was one of the cues that my father had when he knew that it was time for me to hear about ornithology and apiculture. Once when I was around 11 or 12, I went grocery shopping with him, and he noticed me staring at a woman who was quite shapely. He asked me why I found her interesting, and I couldn't tell him. A few days later he gave me the word. So, it seems that you DO believe that a man can just turn it off, if he wants to. Now, the men that live constantly with those women out in the bush are a bit of an exception, because they are around it all the time. For them, and for them alone, an enlarged bosom is a sign that a woman is capable of bearing and suckling a child, and that might be pretty much it. However, not even those men feel it's their right to touch those bosoms without permission. If you want that men in our culture should be able to turn off their bosom fascination, I know a way. But you wouldn't like it. I'm sure you can guess what that way is.
Calm Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 56 minutes ago, Stargazer said: In Western culture men keep their hands to themselves. Not really, though not as socially acceptable as it once was in most arenas, though still way too common in some. For example, warnings were given out at conventions where Isaac Asimov showed up among the women to never get on an elevator with him as apparently he felt he had a right to grope women and it was fondly accepted by the producers of these things and in fact when one a man complained about Asimov groping his girlfriend, he got kicked out. And the tradition lives on: http://io9.gizmodo.com/dont-look-away-fighting-sexual-harassment-in-the-scifi-1785704207 On the conference talk, I do not believe it is appropriate to tell young women in the Church that they may be pornography for the young men. As much as I admire Elder Oaks, I think he went too far and too wide in that talk in his attempt to make an impact. He did not specify the level of immodesty that makes a young woman porn (in other words comparable to a woman who gets paid to be naked or have sex publicly for the purpose of creating arousal), a slightly too short skirt or an exposed midriff (since many define that as immodest) could be interpreted as porn from his statement as wearing S&M explicit sexual displaying clothing. And the fact that he went to purchasing porn for the young men definitely takes the context to that level for the next sentence to the young women. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/pornography?lang=eng&_r=1 "Finally, do not patronize pornography. Do not use your purchasing power to support moral degradation. And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you." 2
Yirgacheffe Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Just so you understand, I favor castration of any individual that rapes a woman. If you did it then society demands, on behalf of the lady, that the perpetrator never rapes another person ever again. At the same time, I support the concept of being modest by all parties regardless of gender. Why am I wrong or how is it that I am a misogynist? But if she is scantily dressed and said no what then, you seem to imply that she shares in the outcome here by not being modest like she should and thus acting imprudently. Edited September 21, 2016 by Yirgacheffe
Thinking Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 37 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: At the same time, I support the concept of being modest by all parties regardless of gender. Modest means different things to different people and cultures. I believe that there are some cultures that would consider LDS modesty to be immodest.
Stargazer Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Calm said: Not really, though not as socially acceptable as it once was in most arenas, though still way too common in some. For example, warnings were given out at conventions where Isaac Asimov showed up among the women to never get on an elevator with him as apparently he felt he had a right to grope women and it was fondly accepted by the producers of these things and in fact when one a man complained about Asimov groping his girlfriend, he got kicked out. And the tradition lives on: http://io9.gizmodo.com/dont-look-away-fighting-sexual-harassment-in-the-scifi-1785704207 On the conference talk, I do not believe it is appropriate to tell young women in the Church that they may be pornography for the young men. As much as I admire Elder Oaks, I think he went too far and too wide in that talk in his attempt to make an impact. He did not specify the level of immodesty that makes a young woman porn (in other words comparable to a woman who gets paid to be naked or have sex publicly for the purpose of creating arousal), a slightly too short skirt or an exposed midriff (since many define that as immodest) could be interpreted as porn from his statement as wearing S&M explicit sexual displaying clothing. And the fact that he went to purchasing porn for the young men definitely takes the context to that level for the next sentence to the young women. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/pornography?lang=eng&_r=1 "Finally, do not patronize pornography. Do not use your purchasing power to support moral degradation. And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you." Uh, yes, really. You can't use exceptions to disprove the rule. Asimov and these other luminaries are or were "permitted" because of their stature in the community. Bill Clinton got away with what was reputed to have done along these lines because of his "power". If Stargazer had groped some woman in an elevator, well, I'd be posting this from jail. I know darned good and well, that I am to look and not touch, unless permission is given. And that I must be careful how I look. Everyone I know knows this, too. Yes, Elder Oaks could definitely have expressed this with more sensitivity. But if he had done so, I suspect that he would still have gotten a lot of flak about it. What if he would have said: "if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by making it too easy for inappropriate thoughts to come to some of the men who see you." Is that better? I don't think it would have made it different. In that case, the outrage would have been along the lines of "it's YOUR problem if inappropriate thoughts come to you! Pervert!" Edited September 21, 2016 by Stargazer
Calm Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 SG, what is spoken out against and what actually happens are two different things. If one in five women are being sexually assaulted sometime in their lives and 1 in 33 men are rape or attempted rape victims, then some men and likely some women are not keeping their hands to themselves no matter how much the public voice is telling them to. There is a significant difference between using the words "inappropriate" and "immodest" and "pornography". I find it highly unlikely the level of criticism would have been as high. I asked my husband who is quite conservative and laid back and thinks things get blown out of proportion all the time (I do as well, but not as often as he does) what he would think if someone said _____ across the pulpit and then I quoted Elder Oaks without saying it was him. And he said that person was an idiot and he didn't change his mind once I told him who it was though he did say he was certain Elder Oaks didn't mean it that way. I don't hold it against Elder Oaks for making that mistake, but it was a wrong choice just like all the rest of us make from time to time and I am not going to pretend it didn't matter how he phrased it. 3
Calm Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 PS:. Respectable claims are that 35-40 % of sexual assaults and rapes go unreported, so if you did happen to grope a woman in the elevator (I am happy to say I find such a thought quite ridiculous) most likely you would not be investigated at all, let alone serving jail time. This states 5-20% of sexual assaults (as opposed to stats including rape if I understand it correctly) are reported: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/09/the-truth-about-a-viral-graphic-on-rape-statistics/
Calm Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 "Is that better? I don't think it would have made it different. In that case, the outrage would have been along the lines of "it's YOUR problem if inappropriate thoughts" You are responding to a post I made where I stated that Elder Oaks was wrong to say young women by dressing immodestly may become pronography to men. I am the one giving him a lot of flak. Perhaps whether or not you think I would be calling no him a pervert should be taken into account by you in your projections.
Stargazer Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Calm said: SG, what is spoken out against and what actually happens are two different things. If one in five women are being sexually assaulted sometime in their lives and 1 in 33 men are rape or attempted rape victims, then some men and likely some women are not keeping their hands to themselves no matter how much the public voice is telling them to. There is a significant difference between using the words "inappropriate" and "immodest" and "pornography". I find it highly unlikely the level of criticism would have been as high. I asked my husband who is quite conservative and laid back and thinks things get blown out of proportion all the time (I do as well, but not as often as he does) what he would think if someone said _____ across the pulpit and then I quoted Elder Oaks without saying it was him. And he said that person was an idiot and he didn't change his mind once I told him who it was though he did say he was certain Elder Oaks didn't mean it that way. I don't hold it against Elder Oaks for making that mistake, but it was a wrong choice just like all the rest of us make from time to time and I am not going to pretend it didn't matter how he phrased it. I was about to launch myself into a huge involved discussion in response to your posts, but stopped myself in time. The sole point I was trying to address in responding to Tacenda, and now you, was the apparent unwillingness in some quarters to recognize that women wearing immodest and inappropriate clothing can make it difficult for men, young or old, to keep their thoughts pure and clean. And I tried to explain that men are easily visually stimulated -- and that it isn't their fault! They were wired that way. And while it's up to them to learn to control it, some do it better than others. If our cultural norm was for everyone to wander around sans culottes then we would not have this problem, since we'd all be pretty much inoculated against impure thoughts resulting from excessive exposure. Adam and Eve didn't even realize they were naked until they were told to cover up. But our cultural norm is to keep our bodies hidden, so seeing skin can be titillating. Especially skin that we seldom see, especially that which has a sexual connotation. Both you and Tacenda are trying to branch out into arguing with me that immodesty does not give excuse for assault. But I never said that it did. Edited September 21, 2016 by Stargazer
Bernard Gui Posted September 21, 2016 Author Posted September 21, 2016 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: I hope this isn't current but an old video that was thrown in a trash can. ETA: If this isn't rape culture, I don't know what is. It's threatening women that if they show too much they'll get touched. This seminary video and the church authorizing it's existence is a party to possible rapes. Shame on the church. Bernard, if I were an attorney, I'd show this video in a court of law and call it evidence, that male students in the church's seminary program are possibly affected, in fact, not even possibly. Here's a more reasonable response... The one made by the person who shut down the discussion on this ridiculous meme... Quote While I believe this post should remain to demonstrate that faithful Latter-Day Saints find this equally as deplorable as those outside our faith, I don't believe this is leading to any fatih-positive discussion, and it seems the intention of the post is exploitation, to "stir up anger." There have been plenty of posts about modesty in the past, this is contributing nothing. I'm locking it. If anyone knows the actual OP, it should be reported.
Bernard Gui Posted September 21, 2016 Author Posted September 21, 2016 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: Maybe God wants him used as an example. Much like how Laban being be-headed saved a nation. This boy's attitude toward immodesty causing him impure thoughts and it being the cheerleaders' faults must be stopped. And I'm sure he'll realize it and he and others will hopefully learn from it. Stopped by what? Public humiliation and betrayal of trust? I don't think so. 1
Bernard Gui Posted September 21, 2016 Author Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: I think the video is flawed, but there is a principle that needs to be addressed. Men are highly subject to visual cues when it comes to sexual attraction. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, then they are delusional. The idea that if a woman shows off something a man should feel free to touch it is utter and absolute baloney. Except possibly in a Muslim tradition. In Western culture men keep their hands to themselves. But what about their brains? I can no more shut off my sexuality than I can stop thinking of elephants, after being told not to think of elephants. I'm not always thinking about sex (despite what that old research seemed to claim about men), and when I do not have visual stimuli of that nature in my sight, I am not frequently bothered by those thoughts. When I was young and my raging hormones were new to me, well, then I might have gone off my rocker independently of any stimuli, but not today. Well, since I am recently newly remarried, I'm somewhat back in the occasional self-initiation phase again, but still... I remember the General Conference when a speaker admonished the young women to dress more modestly so as not to incite the young men. And I remember the furore this caused. "My daughter can wear anything she darn pleases!" Also that some women were laying the problem at the feet of men in general. "Its not my daughter's fault if a young man starts having sexual thoughts by seeing her dressed like a two-bit lady of the night!" The problem is, those objecting to the call for modesty in dress seem to be in full-on denial concerning the nature of male sexuality. And they want those pesky men to just turn it off! As if there were a switch somewhere that could enable this. Well, there may be exceptions, but virtually no heterosexual and non-blind man upon the planet can any more turn it off than he can not think of elephants when someone commands him to not think of elephants. Some of us are just better at making it look like we're not affected, that's all. If you're an exception, by the way, and you CAN turn it off, please tell me how you do it, because I want to know how. It's not that as soon as I see some cleavage I am immediately having to hold myself back from thinking of ravishing the woman showing it. Not at all. It is just that it is highly distracting. There was a woman at one of my former places of employment who was pretty and well-endowed, and she invariably wore a low-cut blouse to work, every day. She literally never wore anything that came all the way up to her neck. I could have ignored her, but her job required that I occasionally come to her to interact for one reason or another. It was a challenge to keep my eyes off that gorgeous cleavage! I didn't want to gawk; yet I still did occasionally. I noticed that she noticed that I would occasionally glance that way, and believe it or not she didn't like it! OK, I will admit that it was my failing that I sometimes failed to keep my eyes away. But dammit, what was the point of her showing off her mammaries, if she didn't want men to look at them? What if I showed up to work wearing a codpiece? How ridiculous would I sound if I complained that the women were looking at it? I am much better at seeming to ignore immodest or exhibitionist dress these days. But I wish I wasn't getting challenged from time to time by the way some women feel they must put themselves on display, as if they had to somehow PROVE that they are a woman. Speaking the words that none dare speak at the peril of their lives. You swim in the deep, deep waters, brother. Watch for the sharks as they will surely want to eat you alive. Dare I say this is the reason for modesty rules in dress codes? No. I dare not say it. I think it was Elder Packer, he of the thankless conference talks, who said something like, "You can't keep the birds from circling around your head, but you can keep them from nesting in your hair." Constant vigilance Is mandatory. Edited September 21, 2016 by Bernard Gui
Honorentheos Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) Self discipline. He should have been told he was responsible for his thoughts and if he can't be, he has a problem that needs resolved for which he is responsible. If the argument is that his parent culture provides an excuse to deflect his own responsibility for what he does with his own thoughts, that cultural behaviour would be part of the problem as well. Edited September 21, 2016 by Honorentheos
Stargazer Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 38 minutes ago, Calm said: "Is that better? I don't think it would have made it different. In that case, the outrage would have been along the lines of "it's YOUR problem if inappropriate thoughts" You are responding to a post I made where I stated that Elder Oaks was wrong to say young women by dressing immodestly may become pronography to men. I am the one giving him a lot of flak. Perhaps whether or not you think I would be calling no him a pervert should be taken into account by you in your projections. I don't think you read my post very closely. Your third sentence included verbiage that was very nearly verbatim to what *I* said the response would be: 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: In that case, the outrage would have been along the lines of "it's YOUR problem if inappropriate thoughts come to you! Pervert!" This sentence: "Perhaps whether or not you think I would be calling no him a pervert should be taken into account by you in your projections." is unintelligible to me. By which I mean, I can't figure out what you're trying to say. But, just on the hunch that you thought the term "pervert" was being attributed as something you would say about someone -- Nope. My little dialog fragment was intended to represent what someone who was outraged might say to the complaint that dressing too immodestly caused inappropriate thoughts to arise. By calling the one with the inappropriate thoughts a pervert because the immodesty caused inappropriate thoughts. As if a healthy heterosexual male can be called a complete reprobate and dirty old man because viewing a scantily clad woman makes him blush.
Honorentheos Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) One of the other issues embedded in this is that the young man in question is being told any kind of normal sexual feeling is potentially devastating to his immortal soul. There's no normal position on the spectrum where he is getting good guidance on what is appropriate or not. It's all bad, and that is a problem in what it does to a person's ability to have normal healthy reactions and relationships with people of the opposite sex. The modesty question is irrelevant compared to how one develops healthy normal patterns of thought and action. Edited September 21, 2016 by Honorentheos 2
Bernard Gui Posted September 21, 2016 Author Posted September 21, 2016 9 hours ago, BlueDreams said: I don't know if misapplying terms is a great way to combat the misapplication of terms..... I don't mind having dress codes, as long as they're fair and equally applied (often they're not and women may get the brunt of it)..... .... workers should never critique or question what patrons are wearing when entering the House of the Lord. Ever. It's emphasized and reemphasized and beyond the endowment session itself, reemphasized again as to not reduce the patron's experience. I figure applying such a thing outside the temple wouldn't be such a bad thing. The cheerleaders felt they got some microagression. The boy got some macro aggression. It's tricky to figure out a workable unisex dress code. That's beautiful about the temple. I wonder if that approach would work in a high school.
Bernard Gui Posted September 21, 2016 Author Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) Sorry. Double post. Edited September 21, 2016 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted September 21, 2016 Author Posted September 21, 2016 3 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said: I do not agree he has a right to attend school free of distractions. No one has a right to be free of distractions anywhere. An expectation, then? Organizations set dress and behavior codes for the purpose of minimizing distractions.
Bernard Gui Posted September 21, 2016 Author Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: Stargazer, I know you don't believe this, but what of all the rapes or prostitutes out there. They dress scantily, but certainly don't deserve to be touched or raped if they don't want it. What about the women in National Geographic with their bosoms exposed, I'm sure no one thinks that's sexy. Because they usually know breasts are for feeding their babies. How come it's different in the office? Do you have brothers or sons? An adolescent boy (and perhaps the occasional adult male) might have a hard time distinguishing the subtle differences between the the status or ethnicity of the various states of undress, n'est-ce pas? Edited September 21, 2016 by Bernard Gui
Stargazer Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 Why is it so bloody hard to get across the notion that a normally-interested, sexually aware, human male is easily made interested in sexually mature females? Why is there so much outrage over the request that you sexually mature females cover yourself up a bit more than perhaps you are wont to do, so as to not make it harder for the the poor male who is trying to follow the Lord's admonition, to not look upon a woman to lust after her, to be comfortable to be in your presence? Are you completely oblivious to the fact that one of the precursors to sexual activity is the removal of clothing and exposure of the body? And that when clothing is coyly pulled back to bare just enough skin so as to almost but not quite uncover sexually interesting portions, it is extremely enticing? That's what the Lord was talking about when he said to put out your eyes if they offend you. Not asking for you ladies to wear a burka. I just don't think it's unreasonable to request that you avoid showing off too much of your cleavage, and make your dress come down to perhaps a bit below mid-thigh so I don't have to desperately look elsewhere to avoid viewing your netherparts if you happen to bend over. Someone is bound to be outraged about this post of mine. I can't wait. Come on, tell me all about it.
Recommended Posts