Emphasis on Modesty=Rape Culture in Utah

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think BD is saying don't help at all given her choice of professional career.  I read her as saying changing her clothes won't in her experience change the guy's problem because the clothes aren't the real problem even if it appears that way to someone else.  She can correct me if I am wrong and I hope she will.  And changing her clothes thus would actually prevent seeing what the problem was clearly and diminish the person's ability to master his own impulses.

I'm cool.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Just to be sure we are talking about the same comments, could you quote enough of the post to identify it (blast the loss of the post numbers).

On September 22, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Compare the women's Olympic beach and court v-ball uniforms with the men's. Really. It's plain to see which hand has the chocolate.That's been a main issue of this discussion.

From this article

“The athletes are allowed to wear long sleeves, they’re allowed to wear shorts, tank tops,” Calabro said. “But we’ve gotten a lot of athletes on record saying they prefer to wear a two-piece because there are less places for sand to hide. They don’t view it as swim wear or anything like a fashion statement. For them, that’s their uniform.”

It's their option. Most choose a bikini style uniform for practicality. 

Court v-ball honestly doesn't look all that different to me. Slightly shorter and tighter shorts for the women, but not by much, and they look comfier in my mind and not what I'd call sexualized. 

That some of us see them as sexualized, probably still says more about us than the sport.

I understood "us" to mean "Bernard Gui." I think that is obvious. This is how it started on ZLMB... the discussion was about modesty and I mentioned my participation in a task force to create school uniforms. Why? They asked. Because it would stop the nonsense with the modesty issues (as well as gangs, drug messages, etc.)  What nonsense modesty issues? Well, the ones we deal with every day. What specifically bothers you? The usual things, exposure, etc. You must have some twisted view of kids. What? Which eventually led to the comment that what I was doing said more about me than about the kids. I denied that and took exception to that assessment of my motives. Seeing thst they had struck a nerve because I was objecting so much, they proceeded to conclude that was evidence I was a child molester. That's when I lost it. I have tried to avoid similar situations since then. The comment that "some of us see sexualized uniforms says more about us tha about the sport" was the red flag, trigger... Dog whistle, if you will. A few others started to ratchet it up. It's what I thought might happen if I brought up the issue again, and it is what happened. I saw the writing on the wall and wanted to cut it short before it got out of hand, but responded contentiously to a number of people, for which I apologized. Given the longevity of the thread and many disparate opinions, it was probably inevitable anyway. Lesson learned. Two burns..ok. I get it.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. Well, you've got me pegged! I'm going to poke a little fun in a rather dreary thread. Yes, I guess being 70 would make me somewhat old school, unsure of my masculinity, rigid, hung up, whatever. Or maybe not. But I haven't always been this way. Once I was cool and hip, loose and lively, live life to the fullest, seize the day, had hair. Sadly, all that is gone now. My teaching and life style is anything but rigid, regimented, structured, in fact it got me a lot of criticism from administrators, but I believe I was an responsible, effective, and compassionate teacher. I would prefer we had some sit-down serious conversations where we could actually try to understand each other correctly before making these conclusions, but this is entertaining. Maybe sometime in the future we could have some counseling sessions. Send me the bill.  

I agree with your assessment of Avengers. I have seen and enjoyed every Avenger movie. Looks like you are a devoted fan. I loved Ant Man, the best Marvel movie ever. I think their treatment of costuming is pretty tame. The Lord of the Ring franchise treated women with great respect. I read all the books to my kids and now they are reading them to there kids. We saw the first one as a complete family of adults... the Guis and their 7 kids. After the first minute we looked at each other and said, "Oh, this is gonna be good!" Not so much with the way he treated The Hobbit. I took my orchestra to the opening day of the second movie... at the Imax in Seattle. Our kids are doing the same with Harry Potter. As their kids get older, they let them see the movies. Again, I think that series was, modesty speaking, exemplary. Some others, not so much. So, I'm not totally out of touch yet. Getting there, though.

 There are plenty of  examples of my description the men and women costume/behavior in the adventure/fantasy /monster genre that make my point valid, too. I agree that women are sexualized more than men in pop culture. It trades on women for money. I think that is deplorable. This comes not from being a bitter rigid old school guy who used to hold the door open for women at the store, but from some sense of compassion, not condescension, and sadness that I think Heavenly Father feels when he sees how men (and other women) treat women (and men).

 For the first 7 years of our marriage we chose not to have a TV and we could not afford to go to movies. Amazing how many old TVs showed up anonymously on our porch. Between the full-time and 5 part time jobs I had (teaching at a junior college was poverty level), I had no time for pop culture or entertainment, and Sister Gui was busy changing diapers and wasn't interested anyway. We were pretty much out of the loop, although we heard people talk about their favorite shows. Our two oldest boys got old enough to notice our prudery and they started to ask to play at friends' houses where the hip parents let their kids watch TV. So, to keep some kind of lid on things, as repressive parents like to do, we joined the hip crowd and bought the TV, but tried to put on some restrictions. We were overwhelmed by what we saw. It was so far removed from our sheltered life. Those were really wonderful years, though, now that I reflect on them. I think we are closer to the kids who had those years without TV than our kids who had TV. Our kids and we are desensitized now, and things that shocked us then seem like good family fare today. I am encouraged that 3 of our kids have cut the cable for their families. Maybe we did something right after all. I suppose you can read a lot of dysfunction into that statement. Just kidding!!! I use a lot of hyperbole in my writing, and sometimes in my speech. I have since grade school. I'm sure that's a fault I should correct.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Just to clarify I was only analyzing here for rigid, not necessarily your school persona. I'd have no clue who you were as a teacher by what you've mentioned here. The only thing I'd assume is that you probably liked what you did and took pride in it. 

The other 2 points I'm in agreement. I don't like sexual objectification much. I don't mind if sexuality is shown as a part of a complex and fleshed out character or script. But that's not super common in media.

I grew up with 6 bro's and have 8 bro's all together. Plus, I deal with serious stuff all day, why would I want to be entertained by more serious stuff. So I end up watching more sci-fi and comic book movies and anything really with a lot of special effects (visual junkie). Never got into Star Wars (though I did like the newest movie) or lord of the rings...but I love Star Trek. My bro's and I do watch a few shows that are risqué ...it's how we chill. I do feel like TV and particularly video games have sucked some of the souls out of my bro's. I had TV growing up, but we didn't have video games for a long time. I'll probably be a lower-tech mom, because I blame them for how little my brothers can do outside of tech for their interests and academics. 

oddly if you were cable free now it would make you more like the younger gen. A lot of us don't have it. I haven't had a working tv in my house for 2 years...one with cable in 3. Doesn't mean I don't watch shows though, I just pick and choose from Netflix, Hulu (once I subscribe), and now VidAngel where I'm currently binging on R-rated movies that I always wanted to watch but wouldn't because of the excess violence, cussing, or some graphic sex (in that order of what bothers me). I do have a higher tolerance for certain things, but post-mission certain shows were automatically out that I used to watch or tried starting. I know others who are ok watching it and others who are less ok than I for what I'm ok with. I assume to each their own. So no, no dysfunction read in there. or I'm also dysfunctional (completely possible) 

 

with luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

Calm and anyone else interested in what cultural influences can make rape-free or rape-pron societies, /I couldn't fid exacty what I remember having but did find 2 great quotes, both from academic sources. One is from Sanday, who is also quoted in a text book that I;ll summarize the basic findings here:

Rape free (virtually no rape)

Shared power/authority in the community

Contribute equally to welfare of the community

Both genders taught to Value nurturance

Do not value or promote violence or aggression

Rape prone societies

Tolerate and/or glorify male violence

Encourage men to be aggressive ad competitive

The view physical force as natural

Men have greater economic and political power than women

Remain aloof to “women’s work”such as child rearing and household duties\

Here is the Sanday quote...I found it on a bit of an odd site quoting from a legit one. As I mentioned the research is quoted in other books, this was just the easiest place to find it:

Quote

The Minangkabau are the largest and most modern matrilineal society in the world today. Women play an undisputed role in Minangkabau symbol system and daily life, especially in the villages…This research demonstrated that women are the mainstays of village life. The all important family rice fields are inherited through the female line. Husbands live in their wives houses. It is believed that this is the way it should be, because otherwise in the event of a divorce women and children would be left destitute. The main reason given for the matrilineal inheritance of property is that since women bear the infant and raise the child it is in keeping with the laws of nature to give women control of the ancestral property so that they will have the wherewithal to house and nurture the young.

Missing from the Minangkabau conception of sexuality is any show of interest in sex for the sake of sex alone. Sex is neither a commodity nor a notch in the male belt in this society. A man's sense of himself is not predicated by his sexual functioning. Although aggression is present, it is not linked to sex nor is it deemed a manly trait. The Minangkabau have yet to discover sex as a commodity or turn it into a fetish....

THis one I got off of a pdf that I now cant find the link to but was called "Rape: how women, the community, and the health sector respond":

 

Quote

No rape free societies exist today [personal insert: the range of rape can be drastically different though…and there are ethnic groups where it’s basically unheard of]. Sexual violence remains the least researched form of gender-based violence. For the perpetrator and the society he represents, sexual violence serves multiple functions including its use as a socially sanctioned strategy to punish women; a tactic to assert masculinity and maintain a patriarchal social order; a method to ‘resolve’ domestic conflicts; and a male behaviour to take sexual pleasure. Sexual violence is maintained through socio cultural beliefs about what constitutes rape and what elements reduce the likelihood of women defining forced sex as rape, rape myths that result in victim blaming and social stigmatization of victims and various cultural and religious beliefs that perpetuate rape prone societies. Other negative social reactions include disbelief, distraction responses or simplistic advice to ‘move on’, as well as controlling reactions by the person to whom the victim has disclosed. Stigmatization confers a discredited identity on the victim who is disgraced, dishonoured and tainted by the sexual violence perpetrated against her and is most pronounced in male dominated societies that stress female chastity and purity and make these characteristics synonymous with a woman’s worth as a human being. Societies that view rape as an affront to male/family ‘honour’ adopt strategies to erase the shame of this stain on honour such as coercing the victim to marry the rapist. Family and social rejection of victims is also commonplace in war and conflict situations. 

It's often quoted that the U.S, has the highest incident of rape in the western world. You can probably pick out the factors that are very much prevalent in our society based off of these. To be fair, I think the church doctrine has a lot of potential to reduce rape. But we have some cultural baggage as well as gospel focus and some doctrines such as HM and Woman's authority in the church that are underdeveloped to fully get there.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 24, 2016 by BlueDreams

[mrmarklin]

I haven't read all the previous posts, but is there a rape culture in Utah?  Statistically, UT is in the average category as to rape, nationally.

i went to high school over 50 years ago and the cheerleaders were allowed to wear their uniforms on game days, the senior boys wore shorts on Fridays and the athletes wore coat and ties on game days too.  Girls wore skirts at all times. 

I don't recall any of this leading to any rapes in my high school which BTW had a student body of ca. 3,500.

How does talking about modesty lead to a rape culture?..........I will say this:  Hookers wear certain clothes for a reason.

 

Edited September 24, 2016 by mrmarklin

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

From this article

“The athletes are allowed to wear long sleeves, they’re allowed to wear shorts, tank tops,” Calabro said. “But we’ve gotten a lot of athletes on record saying they prefer to wear a two-piece because there are less places for sand to hide. They don’t view it as swim wear or anything like a fashion statement. For them, that’s their uniform.”

It's their option. Most choose a bikini style uniform for practicality. 

Court v-ball honestly doesn't look all that different to me. Slightly shorter and tighter shorts for the women, but not by much, and they look comfier in my mind and not what I'd call sexualized. 

That some of us see them as sexualized, probably still says more about us than the sport.

I understood "us" to mean "Bernard Gui." I think that is obvious. This is how it started on ZLMB... the discussion was about modesty and I mentioned my participation in a task force to create school uniforms. Why? They asked. Because it would stop the nonsense with the modesty issues (as well as gangs, drug messages, etc.)  What nonsense modesty issues? Well, the ones we deal with every day. What specifically bothers you? The usual things, exposure, etc. You must have some twisted view of kids. What? Which eventually led to the comment that what I was doing said more about me than about the kids. I denied that and took exception to that assessment of my motives. Seeing thst they had struck a nerve because I was objecting so much, they proceeded to conclude that was evidence I was a child molester. That's when I lost it. I have tried to avoid similar situations since then. The comment that "some of us see sexualized uniforms says more about us tha about the sport" was the red flag, trigger... Dog whistle, if you will. A few others started tipi ratchet it up. It's what I thought might happen if I brought up the issue again, and it is what happened. I saw the writing on the wall and wanted to cut it short before it got out of hand, but responded contentiously to a number of people, for which I apologized. Given the longevity of the thread and many disparate opinions, it was probably inevitable anyway. Lesson learned. Two burns..ok. I get it.

As I mentioned, and to be absolutely clear. By us I meant us. Including myself at times. I meant society. I meant our hyperfocus on skin and bare women or men as sexual objects. Or our tendency to view modesty in more strict terms (sleeve or pant/skirt length, what's visible, 1 piece v 2 piece swimsuits, etc). It was in no way meant to be code for you, BG. I'm just not that passive aggressive and I don't like jumping to accusatory assumptions about how you view children, women, etc. I know you apologized, but I want to be 100% clear to lay whaever concerns you still may have.

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the information. I guess I didn't make plain the professional obligations and legal jeopardy implicit in those experiences, though I tried. I'm sure that is not important. Yes, wearing a bra was part of the dress code. I didn't make the code. Not a Mormon school. I have acknowledged several times that guys can have "impure thoughts" even without modest dress. Of course they can. And it's their responsibility to keep them in check, not the woman's. 

 I have to disagree about wanting to her our brothers (and sisters) with this issue. I think it's something we all should do it. I think it is the real key to preventing abuse, rape, molestation, sizing people up sexually. We promised to do it. I don't recall any restrictions or exceptions. Everyone is at different stages of self-mastery. Let's help each other in any way we can. Some day I hope we can all be like our Heavenly Parents and look on everyone with great compassion, virtuous thoughts, charity, understanding, forgiveness. That would put an end to all this stuff we struggle with. I believe we struggle for a reason though, and that is to be schooled and refined by God. I rely on his mercy to compensate for my shortcomings. 

Sorry you had those experiences. They are awful and you did not deserve to have them. No woman should. You handled them very well, I think.

no, I didn't catch that as much. I did like some of saemo's ideas. THanks for the later explanation. as to the code you would have. I also didn't catch that she was literally showing genitals that would also change my response. I probably would have called her to the office with a note explaining the incident or whatever protocol usually entails for that. for the boys I still would have asked for attention and if it continued then make a bigger deal or call them aside to talk for a second while the others played a piece or warmed up or something, to give them an idea of the gravity of what they're doing (as sexual harassment) I would have not called attention to the girl as much as possible. She was probably already self-conscious and embarrassed. I still don't know if I would have done much with the women. Even if it had changed to men.

As for helping our brothers and sisters Calm nailed my perspective. I don't view it as helping I view it as enabling now. I thought I'd add a story that I read on bycommonconsent that I feel illustrates this. It's a long article, so I'll just quote and highlight the parts that I particularly like.

Quote

. I told my companion that it really bothered me seeing so many women in various states of undress. It was hard to focus and I felt weak and powerless around them. How were we to be strong and stay faithful? I had prayed and fasted about it constantly, and felt little strength in return. And I began to despise many of the women I encountered for “making” me feel that way (I knew plenty of other missionaries who felt the same in the face of these hellish sirens). I then turned my frustration on him, wondering how he could possibly be so calm and seemingly indifferent to it all. Was he just pretending? Maybe he was on the edge of sanity, barely holding it together, putting up a brave though false front.

In response he told me that he spent several years in Hawaii when he was younger. He was on the beach daily, surrounded all day every day by girls in various styles of swimwear, from more or less “modest” to skimpy, and everything in between. His friends’ mothers often wore bikinis to the beach; he was used to seeing every girl he knew like that. Some eventually became girlfriends, while others remained simply good friends. He was used to it; it really didn’t bother him.

It made sense, I thought. I told him that you can become accustomed to anything, and eventually you’ll be desensitized, even to evil and temptation. But how can you look at someone like the woman we just encountered without having sexual feelings? Justifiably, he wasn’t happy with my response. He told me that becoming accustomed and desensitization were not the same. He still thought women were desirable, no different from any other heterosexual man, it was just that he didn’t experience anxiety and powerlessness according to what a woman chose to wear. He didn’t have to sing a hymn or think about watching baseball or look at the ground. He felt free and unperturbed. Sure, he sometimes felt the urge to self-gratification or wanted to get more intimate with girls than was appropriate, but he viewed these as issues common to human beings generally and felt that virtuous living and basic human decency ensured that there would be appropriate boundaries that it was ok to occasionally struggle with. In other words, his normal sexual desire was disassociated from crippling anxiety and the feeling of losing control, of being everywhere surrounded by harm and threat. He loved girls, he said, and had always wanted to be with them regularly. But he didn’t obsess over girls or think of them as sexual objects designed for his own titillation, to constantly flee from until you hopefully found the safe haven of marriage at some point in the future. He didn’t think girls could directly and irrevocably cause inappropriate thoughts, but that such thoughts were just part of becoming an adult human being, and needed to be acknowledged and managed accordingly. He said he felt free. And that he was sorry for me that I apparently didn’t.

Frankly, I was devastated. And embarrassed. And envious. I felt constant anxiety and powerlessness when a girl “not dressed to standards” came into my line of view. And I felt victorious when I could somehow “banish” her from my presence or my thoughts (which wasn’t nearly as often as I would have liked), and that I had won a battle against Satan. Which, of course, made these immodest girls quite literally agents of Satan, testing my virtue and faithfulness, and, symbolically, the virtue and faithfulness of every man. It wasn’t fair, I thought, that my companion never appeared to fight any battles, that he didn’t even seem to know there was a war going on. He wasn’t sexually promiscuous, but neither was he a eunuch. He was a man, it seemed to me, truly and positively empowered.

In my work and with my bros and whatever else, that's the type of help I aim for. I want them to stop feeling reigned by sexual urges and scantily dressed women and more the master of their bodies. Keeping them away from clothes that they feel doesn't help them, it hinders.

Also, thanks for the apology. They are terrible, but I think it's important to realize that they are sadly common place in our society. Unwanted touch, comments, etc are a common experience that mot women that I've talked to have experienced at least once or twice in their life. I think that's important to remember. These are isolated event but an endemic problem.

With luv,

BD

Edited September 24, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

When the US is rated as highest, does this take into account variable definition of rape (I believe there still may be some countries that do to defined forced sex by a husband as rape for example) or the variable reporting rate (Sweden shot up to top place in some stats due to high report rates iirc as well as counting each incidence of rape in an encounter as a rape while many other countries would count multiple rapes in a day or over a period of days as one rape)?

"Statistics on rape and other sexual assaults are commonly available in industrialized countries, and are becoming more common throughout the world. Inconsistent definitions of rape, different rates of reporting, recording, prosecution and conviction for rape create controversial statistical disparities, and lead to accusations that many rape statistics are unreliable or misleading.[1][2] In some jurisdictions, male-female rape is the only form of rape counted in the statistics.[2] Countries may or may not criminalize marital rape.

Rape is a severely under-reported crime with surveys showing dark figures of up to 91.6%.[3][4] Prevalence of reasons for not reporting rape differ across countries. They may include fear of retaliation, uncertainty about whether a crime was committed or if the offender intended harm, not wanting others to know about the rape, not wanting the offender to get in trouble, fear of prosecution (e.g. due to laws against premarital sex), and doubt in local law enforcement.[5][6]

A United Nations statistical report compiled from government sources showed that more than 250,000 cases of rape or attempted rape were recorded by police annually. The reported data covered 65 countries.[7]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

Edited September 24, 2016 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

43 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I haven't read all the previous posts, but is there a rape culture in Utah?  Statistically, UT is in the average category as to rape, nationally.

i went to high school over 50 years ago and the cheerleaders were allowed to wear their uniforms on game days, the senior boys wore shorts on Fridays and the athletes wore coat and ties on game days too.  Girls wore skirts at all times. 

I don't recall any of this leading to any rapes in my high school which BTW had a student body of ca. 3,500.

How does talking about modesty lead to a rape culture?..........I will say this:  Hookers wear certain clothes for a reason.

 

I just wrote a post stating that all of he U.S. has rape culture, See the post right above yours for a more indepth look.

Modesty, in an of itself(particularly with the actual scriptural definition) isn't bad. Imposing modesty to control another person's thoughts is the questionable area.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

To be fair, I think the church doctrine has a lot of potential to reduce rape. But we have some cultural baggage as well as gospel focus and some doctrines such as HM and Woman's authority in the church that are underdeveloped to fully get there.

Interesting. I'm not a sociologist, so I may not ask the right questions. This thread started because individuals and the media claimed that the supposed extreme emphasis on modesty among Utah/Mormons foster a pervasive "rape culture." Would it not follow then that the highest occurrence of abuses in Utah and the Mormon church would be among the most extreme Mormon believers, i.e., temple -recommend-holding Mormom men in high authoritative positions? Would it not be more likely to occur more frequently among pious active adolescent males who aspire to the more repressive life-style of the endowed men? And far less prevalent among inactive or ex-Mormon men and boys? Is there evidence for this?

Edited September 24, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting. I'm not a sociologist, so I may not ask the right questions. This thread started because individuals and the media claims that the supposed extreme emphasis on modesty among Utah/Mormons foster a pervasive "rape culture." Would it not follow then that the highest occurrence of rape in Utah and other Mormon communities would be among the most extreme Mormon believers, i.e., temple -recommend-holding Mormom men? Would it not be more likely to occur more frequently among pious active adolescent males who aspire to the more repressive life-style of the endowed men? And far less prevalent among inactive or ex-Mormon men and boys? 

I don't believe so. I'll never forget when a representative from a local women's shelter came to speak at a Relief Society meeting. She told us that abuse isn't outside of our area but happening right in our neighborhoods, but it is kept hidden.

You don't know BG how many women might be raped by their own husbands and keep quiet. And I see enough in the news to know that a lot of LDS men can cause harm.

But all in all I think your line of thinking is probably a good one.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

As I mentioned, and to be absolutely clear. By us I meant us. Including myself at times. I meant society. I meant our hyperfocus on skin and bare women or men as sexual objects. Or our tendency to view modesty in more strict terms (sleeve or pant/skirt length, what's visible, 1 piece v 2 piece swimsuits, etc). It was in no way meant to be code for you, BG. I'm just not that passive aggressive and I don't like jumping to accusatory assumptions about how you view children, women, etc. I know you apologized, but I want to be 100% clear to lay whaever concerns you still may have.

With luv,

BD

Thanks for the clarification. Not knowing another person's story can often lead to misunderstandings. I had no idea how passive/aggressive or vindictive you were or what your true intentions might be. I understand and believe your explanation, but I still see no validation of my reaction to your statement given the traumatic background story I told. After all, it was heated and bitter, the ladies wouldn't recant. I had real fears that my name could be associated with child molestation on Internet searches and the difficulties that could cause when taken out of context. But even more so that vehement denials can be construed as evidence of guilt. 

Edited September 24, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

I haven't read all the previous posts, but is there a rape culture in Utah?  Statistically, UT is in the average category as to rape, nationally.

i went to high school over 50 years ago and the cheerleaders were allowed to wear their uniforms on game days, the senior boys wore shorts on Fridays and the athletes wore coat and ties on game days too.  Girls wore skirts at all times. 

I don't recall any of this leading to any rapes in my high school which BTW had a student body of ca. 3,500.

How does talking about modesty lead to a rape culture?..........I will say this:  Hookers wear certain clothes for a reason.

 

The thread arose from news stories in which various people in the media asserted that a young man's struggle to have virtuous thoughts was evidence of and caused by a  pervasive "rape culture" fostered and upheld by a Mormon obsession with female modesty. In other words, "For the Strength of Youth" and Boyd Packer caused him to do it (my hyperbolic sarcastic take).

Edited September 24, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

It's often quoted that the U.S, has the highest incident of rape in the western world. You can probably pick out the factors that are very much prevalent in our society based off of these. To be fair, I think the church doctrine has a lot of potential to reduce rape. But we have some cultural baggage as well as gospel focus and some doctrines such as HM and Woman's authority in the church that are underdeveloped to fully get there.

What demographic groups in the US contribute to that high incidence? Lower than war-like extremist Islamicists groups in Africa? Not that I'm thrilled we're not that awful?

Edited September 24, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

https://bycommonconsent.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/blakesley.pdf

“A Style of Our Own”: Modesty and Mormon Women, 1951–2008 Katie Clark 

This is an interesting article. A lot of older talks centered on how a woman should not wear curlers out or wear grubby clothes, along with modesty. Many times what the leaders have told LDS women, comes across almost Stepfordy, slang taken from "The Stepford Wives" movie. 

Maybe that's why at one time I heard someone say that Salt Lake City had some of the most beautiful women walking it's streets. Everyone wears make-up around here, lol. Or has to look their best. Could feed into the reason we have so many plastic surgeons in Utah, but maybe not.

I just hate the mentale I hear sometimes in our social circles of bashing overweight people. I wish more people would concentrate more on the inside of a person, praise less on the outward appearance, though I understand that it is healthier not to be overweight. 

It's time we focus on more than just an outward appearance. The Kimball talk, when he was Elder Kimball, started a situation called Kimballizing women's clothing. Some BYU coeds mention that they had their dresses all picked out for an upcoming dance that had straps instead of sleeves. After that talk they ran out and bought jackets to go along with it. 

My mother went to BYU and I saw a photo of her in a gown that had straps and no sleeves on a dance date. Pretty funny how one talk can change things overnight. Or an accumulation of them. I guess they didn't have porn shoulders back then, sorry, couldn't help it.

Pres. Kimball's statement from the link is the reason I say porn shoulders... "Elder Kimball specifically denounced “immodest dresses that are worn by our young women, and their mothers” as contributors to the breakdown of moral values in America and declared that “immodest clothes lead to sin.”

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

no, I didn't catch that as much. I did like some of saemo's ideas. THanks for the later explanation. as to the code you would have. I also didn't catch that she was literally showing genitals that would also change my response. I probably would have called her to the office with a note explaining the incident or whatever protocol usually entails for that. for the boys I still would have asked for attention and if it continued then make a bigger deal or call them aside to talk for a second while the others played a piece or warmed up or something, to give them an idea of the gravity of what they're doing (as sexual harassment) I would have not called attention to the girl as much as possible. She was probably already self-conscious and embarrassed. I still don't know if I would have done much with the women. Even if it had changed to men.

As for helping our brothers and sisters Calm nailed my perspective. I don't view it as helping I view it as enabling now. I thought I'd add a story that I read on bycommonconsent that I feel illustrates this. It's a long article, so I'll just quote and highlight the parts that I particularly like.

In my work and with my bros and whatever else, that's the type of help I aim for. I want them to stop feeling reigned by sexual urges and scantily dressed women and more the master of their bodies. Keeping them away from clothes that they feel doesn't help them, it hinders.

Also, thanks for the apology. They are terrible, but I think it's important to realize that they are sadly common place in our society. Unwanted touch, comments, etc are a common experience that mot women that I've talked to have experienced at least once or twice in their life. I think that's important to remember. These are isolated event but an endemic problem.

With luv,

BD

I share agreement most of what you say, but you need to understand that a teacher cannot witness abuse or harassment (examples are depicted, normal behavior is described) and decide to handle it privately and not report it. Much of this is driven by law suits, plus rising awareness of the problem. I provided the applicable law. There are more regulations about the timing of the report, to whom it goes, whether law enforcement must be notified, confidentiality, how it was obtained by hearsay, overheard or eye witnessed, penalties, etc. Administrators decide on what, if any, actions should be taken. I won't pursue this any more.

To clarify, as I mentioned earlier, I was not in a position to see exactly what the young man was seeing. The look on his face and her checking his reaction was sufficient to figure out what was happening. Do you think she "caused" him to have impure thoughts? Should he have exercised a more mature self-control and looked away? It would have been suicide had I maneuvered myself into a position to see it for myself and I knew that instinctively at the time, n'est-se pas? I'm a bit surprised it matters whether it was explicit or not. Given all we have discussed, would (not should) a young man have been viewed differently if he were doing this to a girl? I think he would because male exhibitionism seems to be considered more egregious than female. I don't think this was what might be called normal behavior, male or female, in a school setting.

My son Epucissimo served his mission in Colorado. In Boulder the elders were not allowed to knock doors near the university because on several occasions coeds opened their doors and flashed them just for jollies. Were they trying to "cause" the elders to have "impure thoughts?" Is that even possible? If the elders did have impure thoughts or struggled to forget what they saw, would the onus be on them to be more mature? Kate Kelly seems to think so.

Quote

Boys at Timpview High School who are preparing to become missionaries for the Mormon Church at age 18, Kelly adds, "are in a way being warned against the (make-believe) advances of these girls in order to maintain their purity." 

I'm interested in your answers, but then I'm through with these school,things. It's quite unpleasant, but I have continued in order to defend what I perceived as an attack on my character.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

59 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://bycommonconsent.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/blakesley.pdf

“A Style of Our Own”: Modesty and Mormon Women, 1951–2008 Katie Clark 

This is an interesting article. A lot of older talks centered on how a woman should not wear curlers out or wear grubby clothes, along with modesty. Many times what the leaders have told LDS women, comes across almost Stepfordy, slang taken from "The Stepford Wives" movie. 

Maybe that's why at one time I heard someone say that Salt Lake City had some of the most beautiful women walking it's streets. Everyone wears make-up around here, lol. Or has to look their best. Could feed into the reason we have so many plastic surgeons in Utah, but maybe not.

I just hate the mentale I hear sometimes in our social circles of bashing overweight people. I wish more people would concentrate more on the inside of a person, praise less on the outward appearance, though I understand that it is healthier not to be overweight. 

It's time we focus on more than just an outward appearance. The Kimball talk, when he was Elder Kimball, started a situation called Kimballizing women's clothing. Some BYU coeds mention that they had their dresses all picked out for an upcoming dance that had straps instead of sleeves. After that talk they ran out and bought jackets to go along with it. 

My mother went to BYU and I saw a photo of her in a gown that had straps and no sleeves on a dance date. Pretty funny how one talk can change things overnight. Or an accumulation of them. I guess they didn't have porn shoulders back then, sorry, couldn't help it.

Pres. Kimball's statement from the link is the reason I say porn shoulders... "Elder Kimball specifically denounced “immodest dresses that are worn by our young women, and their mothers” as contributors to the breakdown of moral values in America and declared that “immodest clothes lead to sin.”

In fairness, many of those things were part of the general American culture of the times, and probably of other countries, too. I grew up during those years, and I don't remember us Mormons standing out in any particular way regarding modesty. My Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Black, Latino, or Native American friends were not much different than me. It was more the Word of Wisdom and mockery of our polygamous past that made me stick out.

I think similar sentiments could be found among other black and white non-LDS church and political leaders. As our culture has become more libertine, we have become more tolerant of things that were not acceptable then to the point of even insisting they are desirable and virtuous.

The Church and a few other institutions have pushed back, but we/they are rapidly being isolated, shamed, and marginalized into conforming with evolving standards. A lot of that comes from our own members. Rather than impute vile sexism and misogyny on the part President Kimball and others, perhaps it could be considered that they were reacting to the overall decline in and attacks on what they believed were high moral standards. They did not come to life in a culture anywhere similar to ours today.

In my opinion, this is just an example of presentism. Of course we have to deal with things as they are now. We play the hand we are dealt. 

Edited September 24, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

I find it curious that no one (as far as I remember) has replied to my pointing out these scriptures several times which are the basis, IMHO, for all the hoopla surrounding the MMM (Mormon Modesty Miasma). Are these irrelevant? Are they misinterpreted or misapplied? Nobody noticed them? Are the antiquated and out of touch? Not really His teachings? They seem to put the responsibility directly and exclusively on the beholder, but just for men, not women? Just suggestions? How to put them into practice? Anything?

Quote

Behold, it is written by them of old time, that thou shalt not commit adultery; But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart. Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart; For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.

Quote

And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out..... And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear.

 

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting. I'm not a sociologist, so I may not ask the right questions. This thread started because individuals and the media claimed that the supposed extreme emphasis on modesty among Utah/Mormons foster a pervasive "rape culture." Would it not follow then that the highest occurrence of abuses in Utah and the Mormon church would be among the most extreme Mormon believers, i.e., temple -recommend-holding Mormom men in high authoritative positions? Would it not be more likely to occur more frequently among pious active adolescent males who aspire to the more repressive life-style of the endowed men? And far less prevalent among inactive or ex-Mormon men and boys? Is there evidence for this?

No, not exactly. It's more about demeanor. Plus rape and sexual assualt, etc, can be a way for people who feel generally inadequate to feel powerful or in control. It would matter more about attitude and what type of "active" they are in the church. I'm not worried about those who put the gospel at heart and have worked diligently to be as "peaceful as doves" who work to be compassionate, loving, nurturing to their family, respect women as equal and needed voices/partners in their lives (both personally, in church, and professionally), who seek understanding, are meek/humble/patient/long-suffering, etc. Following the example of Christ would naturally lead one to be the antithesis of someone who takes advantage of another sexually. And there are plenty of men like that in the church who are active. There are attributes that I've seen in a few inactive/ex-mormon men (this is not to be a generalization, I've known plenty who also don't fit) that would fall under the trappings of rape-prone cultures that active men may not. Such as having sex for sex sake/self-oriented sexual activities, objectifying women, placing self interest before family and community interests, etc.  And there are plenty of active men who are nightmares at home. Often these "active" men, are often check-list oriented in their faith, doing what's expected of them without much internal change. I think our biggest problem as those who are active and earnest in it, entails victim-blaming, lack of open discussion, demonizing perpetrators, placing excess accountability on women for male actions, how power and authority are divided in the church and how that can leak into the home, benign sexist ideals that place women on pedastals (went to a lecture that showed research with that being tied with victim-blaming with rape), etc. They may not be the perps, but they may inadvertently support the perpetrators not being disciplined, not being seen, or victims getting disciplined. 

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I share agreement most of what you say, but you need to understand that a teacher cannot witness abuse or harassment (examples are depicted, normal behavior is described) and decide to handle it privately and not report it. Much of this is driven by law suits, plus rising awareness of the problem. I provided the applicable law. There are more regulations about the timing of the report, to whom it goes, whether law enforcement must be notified, confidentiality, how it was obtained by hearsay, overheard or eye witnessed, penalties, etc. Administrators decide on what, if any, actions should be taken. I won't pursue this any more.

To clarify, as I mentioned earlier, I was not in a position to see exactly what the young man was seeing. The look on his face and her checking his reaction was sufficient to figure out what was happening. Do you think she "caused" him to have impure thoughts? Should he have exercised a more mature self-control and looked away? It would have been suicide had I maneuvered myself into a position to see it for myself and I knew that instinctively at the time, n'est-se pas? I'm a bit surprised it matters whether it was explicit or not. Given all we have discussed, would (not should) a young man have been viewed differently if he were doing this to a girl? I think he would because male exhibitionism seems to be considered more egregious than female. I don't think this was what might be called normal behavior, male or female, in a school setting.

My son Epucissimo served his mission in Colorado. In Boulder the elders were not allowed to knock doors near the university because on several occasions coeds opened their doors and flashed them just for jollies. Were they trying to "cause" the elders to have "impure thoughts?" Is that even possible? If the elders did have impure thoughts or struggled to forget what they saw, would the onus be on them to be more mature? Kate Kelly seems to think so.

I'm interested in your answers, but then I'm through with these school,things. It's quite unpleasant, but I have continued in order to defend what I perceived as an attack on my character.

I'm really ok moving on. I'm not a school admin or staff. Nor do I care enough to continue. So I'll say my piece and let it be. If it's needed then, report and even if the parents have a fit, it's not likely to go far or lead to a big burn, IMHO. And yes, I do think it would matter if it was more explicit or not. There's a difference in moving suggestively to flirt v. exhibitionism. Male or female, I would have a big problem with it. I do realize one of the differences to me to this example and the incident in the OP, is that this could be sexual harassment (it depends if they were dating, flirting, or it really was a kid she was just sexually taunting....I can't tell their relationship from the description) and is definitely intentionally inappropriate. The cheerleader(s) weren't trying to be provocative. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 24, 2016 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the clarification. Not knowing another person's story can often lead to misunderstandings. I had no idea how passive/aggressive or vindictive you were or what your true intentions might be. I understand and believe your explanation, but I still see no validation of my reaction to your statement given the traumatic background story I told. After all, it was heated and bitter, the ladies wouldn't recant. I had real fears that my name could be associated with child molestation on Internet searches and the difficulties that could cause when taken out of context. But even more so that vehement denials can be construed as evidence of guilt. 

I understand that. I guess I have a hard time with this because I've had situations that are triggering and I work really hard to give new people the benefit of the doubt. I have to. If I expected validation for my feelings or traumatic experiences and interacted with people like they were going to do it again, I would have some serious problems. It's easy for me to get into an angry spot if I think too much about the invalidations, traumatic experiences, and microagressions (used non-ironically). In a way, maybe that's a reaction because so many people come down hard on the "victim-mentality" that it doesn't feel worthwhile to push for validation. I'm not talking about the sexual harassment (alone, at least). But on other issues of being a minority, having a complex family, etc in general as well. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I find it curious that no one (as far as I remember) has replied to my pointing out these scriptures several times which are the basis, IMHO, for all the hoopla surrounding the MMM (Mormon Modesty Miasma). Are these irrelevant? Are they misinterpreted or misapplied? Nobody noticed them? Are the antiquated and out of touch? Not really His teachings? They seem to put the responsibility directly and exclusively on the beholder, but just for men, not women? Just suggestions? How to put them into practice? Anything?

 

I see this scripture leaning in my favor. Don't look in lust, simple as that.

[BlueDreams]

30 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I find it curious that no one (as far as I remember) has replied to my pointing out these scriptures several times which are the basis, IMHO, for all the hoopla surrounding the MMM (Mormon Modesty Miasma). Are these irrelevant? Are they misinterpreted or misapplied? Nobody noticed them? Are the antiquated and out of touch? Not really His teachings? They seem to put the responsibility directly and exclusively on the beholder, but just for men, not women? Just suggestions? How to put them into practice? Anything?

 

I think someone did before. But like Tacenda stated, I think the imperative is the phrase "To lust," You can look at a woman, find her attractive/sexually attractive, and it still not be lust...at least the way I see it used in scriptures. I'd recommend looking at lust in all it's uses in the scriputures. Just like modesty, it's oversimplified and over-focused on sexual/physical imagery when that's not really it. It's focusing on what you desire at the expense of losing sight of God and His desires for us. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Bernard Gui]

Yesterday, Sister Gui was standing outside her kindergarten class after school when a teacher new to the school this year came up to her and started a conversation. "I can tell you are a Mormon," she said. "What? How can you tell?" "By the way you dress, of course," was the reply. Sister Gui is mystified. Most teachers in the school (only 2 are male) are pretty casual in their dress, but she chooses to be more "professional," if I am allowed to use that term and it does not necessarily have to do with modesty, although that is a criteria she uses to select all her clothing. 

She asked again how the lady could tell, and the response was, "I just know."

Curious.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

No, not exactly. It's more about demeanor. Plus rape and sexual assualt, etc, can be a way for people who feel generally inadequate to feel powerful or in control. It would matter more about attitude and what type of "active" they are in the church. I'm not worried about those who put the gospel at heart and have worked diligently to be as "peaceful as doves" who work to be compassionate, loving, nurturing to their family, respect women as equal and needed voices/partners in their lives (both personally, in church, and professionally), who seek understanding, are meek/humble/patient/long-suffering, etc. Following the example of Christ would naturally lead one to be the antithesis of someone who takes advantage of another sexually. And there are plenty of men like that in the church who are active. There are attributes that I've seen in a few inactive/ex-mormon men (this is not to be a generalization, I've known plenty who also don't fit) that would fall under the trappings of rape-prone cultures that active men may not. Such as having sex for sex sake/self-oriented sexual activities, objectifying women, placing self interest before family and community interests, etc.  And there are plenty of active men who are nightmares at home. Often these "active" men, are often check-list oriented in their faith, doing what's expected of them without much internal change. I think our biggest problem as those who are active and earnest in it, entails victim-blaming, lack of open discussion, demonizing perpetrators, placing excess accountability on women for male actions, how power and authority are divided in the church and how that can leak into the home, benign sexist ideals that place women on pedastals (went to a lecture that showed research with that being tied with victim-blaming with rape), etc. They may not be the perps, but they may inadvertently support the perpetrators not being disciplined, not being seen, or victims getting disciplined. 

We agree then, that true and accurate understanding of Mormon values cannot lead to the conclusion that the Church fosters a rape culture. Those active men who exhibit the behaviors you describe clearly have not come to a full understanding or commitment? The fault lies not in the ideals, but in the human striving to achieve them. 

Not to appear contentious nor wanting to perpetuate this discussion, but to be frank, your answers were incomplete, and you still have some misunderstandings of the situation and my response, but time to move on. Thanks for everything.

 

Edited September 24, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I see this scripture leaning in my favor. Don't look in lust, simple as that.

Simple as that? That pretty much sums it up. Thanks for the response.

Quote

The temple shows Adam and Eve facing up to conditions, not theories. If we do not face the problem of knowing God and his wishes and knowing why we should keep his commandments, and then if we do not keep them, we stand in our own light and choke the channels of communication with him. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/harold-glen-clark_know-save-lord-commanded/

I believe the Savior's words quoted above and the endowment covenants set a clear standard of modesty for Latter-day Saints. Observing both with honor and integrity would be the best solution to the problems discussed here. Even if we can't force others to accept them, we can advocate for them and stand as an example. As Adam was told when he was asked why he offered sacrifices and he said he didn't know, except that the Lord had commanded him, embracing these higher standards even if we don't understand them completely or find them difficult or inconvenient would result in good for everyone. That's our responsibility.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Bernard Gui