Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[InCognitus]

20 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I don't know about other men but I think viewing one's spouse as a "reward" is very demeaning. 

Definitely right about that.  

[cherryTreez]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Did he think they were serious or making a joke?

I have no idea. He said several of the elders worked harder after that. 

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I assume you mean here external beauty, appearance and something beyond being healthy, clean, and neat.

Could you specify the time period you are talking about....say have you heard/seen this being taught in the last 25 years?  50?  And if so, a specific comment if possible so I better understand what you see as beauty being a reward for male righteousness in more recent years.

I think that attitude (value of women is tied in part to appearance even in church settings, righteous men get high value women) has changed since my youth, but I may not be paying attention.

It seems to have been a common theme when I was growing up.

"Living Worthy of the Girl You Will Someday Marry," April 1998 priesthood session. President Hinckley:

"A week ago President Faust and the Young Women general presidency spoke to the young women of the Church in this tabernacle.

As I looked at that gathering of beautiful young women the question moved through my mind, “Are we rearing a generation of young men worthy of them?”

Those girls are so fresh and vibrant. They are beautiful. They are bright. They are able. They are faithful. They are virtuous. They are true. They are simply wonderful and delightful young women."

The talk has a bunch of good things in it, but also frames female beauty as a prominent feature, one of which makes should be worthy.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

All these beautiful, innocent LDS folks!

I love you all for your sweet lack of real worldliness and wish I had not taken such a big bite of that fruit. 😍

But it was so delicious and very desirable!

Or so it seemed

 I hope it is not until after you pass on that you fully understand why women are so far more blessed than men in the temple.

Edited October 26, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

All these beautiful, innocent LDS folks!

I love you all for your sweet lack of real worldliness and wish I had not taken such a big bite of that fruit. 😍

But it was so delicious and very desirable!

Or so it seemed

 I hope it is not until after you pass on that you fully understand why women are so far more blessed than men in the temple.

This is rather condescending. Are you saying that, because you, presumably before becoming converted, gratified your sexual desires with women who were presumably immodestly dressed that you have some special knowledge informing this subject? Sorry to be blunt, but that seems to be what you're saying. 

I'd prefer candor over your euphemisms, or don't use them at all.

Anyways, you have a pattern of going back to this vague reference to how the world really works and that if women understand it they'd be more grateful for the church's version of benevolent sexism. You speak as if women are not in "the world" and cannot see how it works. 

 

[mrmarklin]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Because all women think alike and have only one thing on their wee brains when they get dressed.

You said it, not me.😑

[mrmarklin]

14 hours ago, juliann said:

The expiration date on this excuse has long since passed.  Assumptions:

1. Men can't help themselves cause they their eyes see things.

2. Women can cause they don't see things.

 

Actually it hasn’t. What one wears, or doesn’t, sends a signal, want it or not  

Most of you are not seeing the big picture.  The gospel is as simple as this. God wants us to be happy. He wants us to live in Eternal family units, and return to Him. That’s all.  Anything that detracts from this idea is simply not living up to LDS standards. 

Think about it:  modesty is common sense for both men and women.  

There is an old saying that I believe is true. Clothes make the man. This is a short way of stating that people pre judge you by how you present yourself. That goes for women too, IMHO.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Actually it hasn’t. What one wears, or doesn’t, sends a signal, want it or not  

Most of you are not seeing the big picture.  The gospel is as simple as this. God wants us to be happy. He wants us to live in Eternal family units, and return to Him. That’s all.  Anything that detracts from this idea is simply not living up to LDS standards. 

Think about it:  modesty is common sense for both men and women.  

There is an old saying that I believe is true. Clothes make the man. This is a short way of stating that people pre judge you by how you present yourself. That goes for women too, IMHO.

None of that really has to do with what Juliann says though.

What does the above have to do with giving men a pass, partial or full, on controlling their own thoughts and behaviour because they get triggered visually?

What does the above have to do with ignoring that women are visually aroused as well?

Jesus commanded men not to lust after women to the point of using language about plucking out their eyes to avoid it.  There was no condition attached to that command along the lines "unless the woman is immodest or looks like pornography to you".

And even if he specifies lusting after a woman, I highly doubt that he means it is okay for women to lust after men.

Therefore the same rules that Jesus teaches should apply to men and women.  Treat yourself and others with respect and charity and avoid with your heart, mind, and body those things that arouse lust in yourself....and don't blame someone else for your thoughts because that is not how God describes his judgment. He is not telling us to go mar someone else's face or force them to coverup so they aren't attractive to us, he is telling us to control ourselves and if necessary separate ourselves from that which drives us to sin, which imo means controlling our inappropriate carnal desires that objectify others (lust isn't all forms of physical attraction, but desiring what we should not desire imo....thus it is adultery of the mind). You are condemned for looking with lust on another, not the other condemned for your own sin.

Quote

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

 

Edited October 26, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

You said it, not me.😑

I don't in any shape or form appear to believe though.  Can you say the same?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What one wears, or doesn’t, sends a signal, want it or not  

But what is sent isn't automatically what is received.  Signals get crossed.  People very often see what they want to see instead of what is really there. What some read as a sweet, white innocent dress gets translated by another as a "come hither" Lolita style.  Do you judge someone on their intent or how someone else perceives them?  And if you choose the latter, which perception do you place as the ultimate measure of Right?

Think of the difference between someone yelling fire when there is no fire in a crowded building with the intent to cause a stampede compared to someone who sees what they think is smoke and assumes there is a fire when there isn't and yells the same exact thing.  The first we would consider a criminal while the second not even though the people heard the same exact thing.  Intent matters.

And scripture tells us who it is who knows our hearts and minds and it isn't each other, so making assumptions about others' intent based on what we would do or other speculation probably isn't the most wise or spiritually appropriate choice.

A man fully focused on getting in his five miles on a hot day and so he takes off his shirt when he gets too hot...should he be judged in the same fashion as a man who runs shirtless focused on attracting the gazes of the coeds living in the apartments along his route?  They may look identical.  They may get identical reactions.  Which does Jesus say is going to get in trouble (someone who wants people to lust after them is, imo, lusting themselves)?  Maybe the first man is someone who doesn't care about others so it never occurs to him to think about how his appearance might affect them.  Or maybe he is a man that has learned to control his own thoughts and he gives others the benefit of the doubt believing they are capable and willing to do the same for him, so he doesn't concern himself with worry and judgment of others.  I think God probably judges these men differently as well as one ignores others while the second respects and trusts them.

The scriptures condemn those who cause the "little ones" who trust and believe in Christ to stumble, but I can't think of any that say we should be trying to protect people from their own tendencies to sin and in fact they talk about God allowing sin to ripen, people are given agency to demonstrate whether they choose sin or not.  God doesn't hide the things that tempt us, but rather places us in a world that gives us the chance to learn to control our thoughts.  And he certainly appears to have allowed us to experiment on what works to bring us each to him.

Quote

14 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Perhaps another verse could be one believeth all skin should be viewed, while another, who is weak, covereth all....or one man esteemeth suits over jeans and a jacket: another esteemeth all outfits alike.

If each gives thanks to the Lord (and listens to the Lord to the best of their ability), are we to judge one a greater or purer worth?

----

There is undoubtedly an ideal spot of concern for others and ourselves given the world is fallen balancing trust, but like most things of the heart and mind I think it best to think about one's own morality and accountability and let God worry about others.  There are other ways of approaching safety issues and even modesty than taking the view that the other is a sinner, imo.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Peacefully said:

This was probably 15+ years ago. 

OK. I thought this was a recent occurrence. The times I heard it were not in reference to rape, but that was in Sunday school..

Edited October 26, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

11 hours ago, juliann said:

What a coincidence that you leave when the documentation you were demanding for pages shows up. I think we are being trolled.

That’s really not fair Juliann.  Have I ever been known to troll or to lie to you in all the years I have posted here?  Why do you question my character now?

Actually, I just moved into a new house and am finishing the basement. There are probably 4 or 5 people waiting for a response that demand more than a quick post.  I like to give each post time and consideration, and it is really hard to type those kind of responses on a phone (my computer is not even set up yet - no space upstairs).  I also try not to waste my precious free time on these forums but have more time at work.

So yes, it is a coincidence.  If the CFR would have been answered any other time than Friday at the end of my work day, this would not be an issue.

Edited October 26, 2019 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This is rather condescending. Are you saying that, because you, presumably before becoming converted, gratified your sexual desires with women who were presumably immodestly dressed that you have some special knowledge informing this subject? Sorry to be blunt, but that seems to be what you're saying. 

I'd prefer candor over your euphemisms, or don't use them at all.

Anyways, you have a pattern of going back to this vague reference to how the world really works and that if women understand it they'd be more grateful for the church's version of benevolent sexism. You speak as if women are not in "the world" and cannot see how it works. 

 

Yes that's what I am saying. 

Is that direct enough for you?

Oh no, trust me on this one, you definitely prefer the euphemisms, and if you see condescension in avoiding descriptions of a world I hope you never see, a world of filth and degradation, addiction, the worst satan has to offer, then that is an odd definition of the word. 

Benevolent sexism?

Go to the temple with someone you love and then discuss it in the right context.

If that's not possible it's not possible, and I suppose you will continue to see it as benevolent sexism.

This is a world in which we all find our own way through the choices we have made over the course of a lifetime.

Edited October 26, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Jake Starkey]

 

Quote

 juliann said:

The expiration date on this excuse has long since passed.  Assumptions:

1. Men can't help themselves cause they their eyes see things.

2. Women can cause they don't see things.

 mr.marklin said:

Actually it hasn’t. What one wears, or doesn’t, sends a signal, want it or not  

Most of you are not seeing the big picture.  The gospel is as simple as this. God wants us to be happy. He wants us to live in Eternal family units, and return to Him. That’s all.  Anything that detracts from this idea is simply not living up to LDS standards. 

Think about it:  modesty is common sense for both men and women.  

There is an old saying that I believe is true. Clothes make the man. This is a short way of stating that people pre judge you by how you present yourself. That goes for women too, IMHO.

 

'Modesty' is not 'common sense'.  Modesty is a learned behavior that may be appropriate or not to a given situation.  To the receiver, be guided by Christian love not judgment.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[juliann]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That’s really not fair Juliann.  Have I ever been known to troll or to lie to you in all the years I have posted here?  Why do you question my character now?

Actually, I just moved into a new house and am finishing the basement. There are probably 4 or 5 people waiting for a response that demand more than a quick post.  I like to give each post time and consideration, and it is really hard to type those kind of responses on a phone (my computer is not even set up yet - no space upstairs).  I also try not to waste my precious free time on these forums but have more time at work.

So yes, it is a coincidence.  If the CFR would have been answered any other time than Friday at the end of my work day, this would not be an issue.

Pogi, I am not saying you intend to....but what you are doing in refusing to accept anything that has been presented without demanding more and more of the same, then not responding when the evidence is undeniable, is by definition trolling. You got the documentation you asked for. This conversation has been going on for pages. It doesn't take any study of it, it only takes acknowledgment that yes, what we have been saying isn't coming out of the blue and we aren't making it up. In essence, you are wrong that these things have not been happening. 

[juliann]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Benevolent sexism?

Go to the temple with someone you love and then discuss it in the right context.

 

Benevolent sexism is a well defined behavior. It isn't a relgious term. It doesn't require a temple visit or context. It doesn't mean it's practitioners are the devil strawman. Most of all, YOU don't get to define it. It already has an accepted definition.

It is a matter of this is a benevolent sexism behavior. This is an example of it ocurring within Mormonism. End of debate.

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

Benevolent sexism is a well defined behavior. It isn't a relgious term. It doesn't require a temple visit or context. It doesn't mean it's practitioners are the devil strawman. Most of all, YOU don't get to define it. It already has an accepted definition.

It is a matter of this is a benevolent sexism behavior. This is an example of it ocurring within Mormonism. End of debate.

Oh I doubt that.

An accepted definition? Are you serious? This world is run by Merriam-Webster?

In a world of human trafficking and prostitution, pornography, the bondage industry, S&M, shades of grey, all run by men, sex crimes serial murders and rapes all committed by men, against women, what many women have to do in order to Simply get their families across the border, you can speak of "benevolent sexism" as if it is something wrong?  

That's a little bit like what people know as a "First World" problem.

And yes at its core there is a spiritual solution.

Time to call your mod buddies, I guess because that's the only way the debate will be over.

Edited October 26, 2019 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, juliann said:

Pogi, I am not saying you intend to....but what you are doing in refusing to accept anything that has been presented without demanding more and more of the same, then not responding when the evidence is undeniable, is by definition trolling. You got the documentation you asked for. This conversation has been going on for pages. It doesn't take any study of it, it only takes acknowledgment that yes, what we have been saying isn't coming out of the blue and we aren't making it up. In essence, you are wrong that these things have not been happening. 

Actually I did indeed acknowledge and accept the quotes.  Thoughtful response - later.  Now please back off.  Give me a little space.  I have barely glossed over the quotes.  And you are indeed accusing me of intentionally trolling under the guise of “coincidence.  You are basically calling me a liar.

You clearly don’t trust me.  Whatever!  I will continue to respond to those who give me the benefit of the doubt.

It does indeed require study of it - context etc!  In case you weren’t aware, there are often many ways to read quotes and people are often misunderstood.  Just ask the apostle Paul.  The fact that some things were said that have been offensive to you has never been a question for me.  I never thought you were making it up, and never accused anyone of such.  I never doubted that sources would be provided. I expected it.

This will be my last post this weekend.

Edited October 26, 2019 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Actually I did indeed acknowledge and accept the quotes.  Thoughtful response - later.  Now please back off.  Give me a little space.  I have barely glossed over the quotes.  And you are indeed accusing me of intentionally trolling under the guise of “coincidence.  You are basically calling me a liar.

You clearly don’t trust me.  Whatever!  I will continue to respond to those who give me the benefit of the doubt.

It does indeed require study of it - context etc!  In case you weren’t aware, there are often many ways to read quotes and people are often misunderstood.  Just ask the apostle Paul.  The fact that some things were said that have been offensive has never been a question for me.  I never thought you were making it up, and never accused anyone of such.  

Sorry no thought is permitted. Only slogans and tired rhetoric.

The real question here is who is the troll?

Edited October 26, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes that's what I am saying. 

Is that direct enough for you?

Oh no, trust me on this one, you definitely prefer the euphemisms, and if you see condescension in avoiding descriptions of a world I hope you never see, a world of filth and degradation, addiction, the worst satan has to offer, then that is an odd definition of the word. 

Benevolent sexism?

Go to the temple with someone you love and then discuss it in the right context.

If that's not possible it's not possible, and I suppose you will continue to see it as benevolent sexism.

This is a world in which we all find our own way through the choices we have made over the course of a lifetime.

I guess you've attempted an argument-by-shock-value, but the most shocking part is your own naivete here. You seem to carry an assumption that blissful ignorance forms the basis of females' arguments against sexism. What I hear from many women are arguments against sexism which are also arguments against depravity, abuse, and misery. They are seeing the connections between systemic sexism and evil, very often rooted in personal observation and suffering.

Frankly it sounds like your argument boils down to this, "Trust me, sisters, the rules are there to protect you from men like me." This is unoriginal and unsupportable. 

[juliann]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

In a world of human trafficking and prostitution, pornography, the bondage industry, S&M, shades of grey, all run by men, sex crimes serial murders and rapes all committed by men, against women, what many women have to do in order to Simply get their families across the border, you can speak of "benevolent sexism" as if it is something wrong?  

 

Yes

Quote

That's a little bit like what people know as a "First World" problem.

No, it is a male privilege problem.

Quote

And yes at its core there is a spiritual solution.

There is also a secular solution. Getting called out each and every time until it stops. It is very encouraging over the years of hearing this same tripe on this board to see so many men step up and do exactly that.

Quote

Time to call your mod buddies, I guess because that's the only way the debate will be over.

I think you are the one who wants it ended. It's not so fun anymore, is it? Years ago, you guys used to swarm the few women who objected. We were chased off merely by being overwhelmed with this garbage and accusations. But now it's not as acceptable. You guys are now being overwhelmed and as outrageous as your comments about women are, seeing them in the minority now is the best indication of progress I have seen. 

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh I doubt that.

An accepted definition? Are you serious? This world is run by Merriam-Webster?

In a world of human trafficking and prostitution, pornography, the bondage industry, S&M, shades of grey, all run by men, sex crimes serial murders and rapes all committed by men, against women, what many women have to do in order to Simply get their families across the border, you can speak of "benevolent sexism" as if it is something wrong?  

That's a little bit like what people know as a "First World" problem.

And yes at its core there is a spiritual solution.

Time to call your mod buddies, I guess because that's the only way the debate will be over.

Benevolent sexism is one end of the same stick that perpetuates depravities everywhere. Women have enormous potential to help their sisters experiencing worse than "First World" problems. Listening to "First World" women and being willing to share power can help them help their sisters.

[juliann]

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00047/full   

Hostile sexism aims to preserve men's dominance over women by underlining men's power. It is expressed in a blatant and resentful way toward women who violate traditional roles. Women who don't comply with these traditional (gender) roles are perceived as a threat to men's dominant position. Hostile sexism overtly keeps women in a subordinate position and is even a precursor for sexual harassment and violence toward women (Begany and Milburn, 2002).

Benevolent sexism is a subtler form of sexism and is expressed in a seemingly positive way. It is expressed by emphasizing men's role to protect and provide for women by putting them on a pedestal in a chivalrous way. This protection and love is granted in exchange for women's compliance to traditional gender roles. This form of sexism is instigated through paternal and traditional beliefs that perceive women as beautiful and pure, yet delicate and precious, and therefore in need of protection provided by men (Connelly and Heesacker, 2012; Hayes and Swim, 2013; Cuddy et al., 2015; Vandenbossche et al., 2017; Cross and Overall, 2018). It is this seemingly positive character and the insistence on the complementarity of men and women that makes benevolent sexism a socially more accepted form of sexism. Consequently, it is also an inconspicuous mechanism that perpetuates gender inequality (Glick and Fiske, 2001b; Connelly and Heesacker, 2012). It has been shown that benevolent sexism encourages women to prioritize relationships (family, children, etc.) over pursuing educational or professional goals (see Chen et al., 2009; Montañés et al., 2013) and undermining women's perceptions of their competences and performances (see Dardenne et al., 2007).

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

"Trust me, sisters, the rules are there to protect you from men like me." This is unoriginal and unsupportable. 

LOL! 

This is hilarious! You two are quite a tag team.

Unoriginal? No, true enough 

It is supported by millions of years of evolution of men protecting women and their families.

One could not possibly get less original than that. But no problem. I can reverse Evolution. Give me till next Thursday.

And you want ME to prove that YOU need protection from "men like me" to support MY case?

Think about that a little bit.  

Now I understand why thought is not permitted.

But it IS great comedy, keep it coming!

J's turn

 

 

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00047/full   

Hostile sexism aims to preserve men's dominance over women by underlining men's power. It is expressed in a blatant and resentful way toward women who violate traditional roles. Women who don't comply with these traditional (gender) roles are perceived as a threat to men's dominant position. Hostile sexism overtly keeps women in a subordinate position and is even a precursor for sexual harassment and violence toward women (Begany and Milburn, 2002).

Benevolent sexism is a subtler form of sexism and is expressed in a seemingly positive way. It is expressed by emphasizing men's role to protect and provide for women by putting them on a pedestal in a chivalrous way. This protection and love is granted in exchange for women's compliance to traditional gender roles. This form of sexism is instigated through paternal and traditional beliefs that perceive women as beautiful and pure, yet delicate and precious, and therefore in need of protection provided by men (Connelly and Heesacker, 2012; Hayes and Swim, 2013; Cuddy et al., 2015; Vandenbossche et al., 2017; Cross and Overall, 2018). It is this seemingly positive character and the insistence on the complementarity of men and women that makes benevolent sexism a socially more accepted form of sexism. Consequently, it is also an inconspicuous mechanism that perpetuates gender inequality (Glick and Fiske, 2001b; Connelly and Heesacker, 2012). It has been shown that benevolent sexism encourages women to prioritize relationships (family, children, etc.) over pursuing educational or professional goals (see Chen et al., 2009; Montañés et al., 2013) and undermining women's perceptions of their competences and performances (see Dardenne et al., 2007).

Nice. Scientific. Quite impressive.

Now where's the part about the temple?

Or is this no longer an LDS board? Is political correctness the only topic we now discuss?