Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

My honest opinion is legalizing and then re-instituting polygamy.

Which would accomplish what?  If having available sex partners does not have an impact on whether or not someone will attempt to rape, not sure that having multiple sex partners would decrease lustful thoughts.  Do you have evidence of such? (Assuming that is your argument, if not please clarify)

Plus polygamy would have no impact on lust rates among teenagers, I would hope (teens shouldn't be getting married in polygamous arrangements.

And do you mean polygamy as in both men and women having multiple partners or just polygyny?

Edited October 27, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am just not following how your point ties into the modesty/accountability discussion.  

Just to clarify why I have a hard time seeing a discussion about differences based on the endowment in your earlier posts, here is your first post in this thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72357-womens-dress-and-mens-thoughts/?do=findComment&comment=1209938975

Quote

Why do women buy shoes with 6 inch heels?

And when a number of women stated because they wanted to and some like me added we liked being taller, you then posted:

Quote

Uh huh. I am also sure that's why I models who are 6ft tall wear them.

Pardon me for apparently hitting a sore spot, which as usual will remain henceforth unmentioned.

You starting there took me in a completely different direction than the temple.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Calm

[nuclearfuels]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which would accomplish what?  If having available sex partners does not have an impact on whether or not someone will attempt to rape, not sure that having multiple sex partners would decrease lustful thoughts.  Do you have evidence of such? (Assuming that is your argument, if not please clarify)

Plus polygamy would have no impact on lust rates among teenagers, I would hope (teens shouldn't be getting married in polygamous arrangements.

And do you mean polygamy as in both men and women having multiple partners or just polygyny?

Thanks for asking, Calm.

I imagine the legalization piece (based on biology only (12-17X) or the claim of biology only, like in Obergefell) will come in the form of polyamory, with the incorporating laws on the books of states being used for custody, inheritance, alimony, etc. 

Of course, that type of judicial activism rarely occurs in the direction of traditional/ancient family orders.  Immigration, to Europe and the US, will likely see this happen though - and not through Congress. So, here's to hoping.

After that legalization (and I'm open to the Leaders of the Church rei-instituting polygamy in countries where it's already legal), re-institution would come from the Prophet, an even bigger lift than legalization.

Anyway, since males have 12 to 17 times as much sex drive as women, probably to ensure our species survival, having more than one female partner would ideally:

- reduce the conflict married couples have about...frequency

- reduce abortions

- reduce adultery

- reducy divorce rates

- increase posterity of children born in the covenant of eternal marriage in the Temple (as the world becomes more and more wicked, seems natural that conversions would keep pace, suggesting other approaches (polygamy) to increasing total number of members of the Church, their children, etc.)

- remove the paid off local policiticians, police, etc. in existing polygamous communities, as the practice would no longer be chased "underground"

[Calm]

1 minute ago, nuclearfuels said:

 

Anyway, since males have 12 to 17 times as much sex drive as women, probably to ensure our species survival, having more than one female partner would ideally:

- reduce the conflict married couples have about...frequency

- reduce abortions

- reduce adultery

- reducy divorce rates

- increase posterity of children born in the covenant of eternal marriage in the Temple (as the world becomes more and more wicked, seems natural that conversions would keep pace, suggesting other approaches (polygamy) to increasing total number of members of the Church, their children, etc.)

- remove the paid off local policiticians, police, etc. in existing polygamous communities, as the practice would no longer be chased "underground"

Okay, but what does that have to do with women being told to dress modestly so men won't have lustful thoughts or view them as pornography?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Why men think differently isn’t the topic. The topic is women’s responsibility in influencing men’s thoughts. 

Read the OP

The only appearance of the word "responsibility" occurs in a quote.  The rest is about how men and women see this differently

But still I do still not have any answers about why we are taught these principles in the temple.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/23/2019 at 2:35 PM, cinepro said:

There seems to be some sensitivity to the rules and guidelines in the Church about how women dress, especially when these rules are implicitly (and sometimes overtly) tied to how men think. 

The most famous quote on this subject is obviously from Elder Oaks, who said this:
 

In my recent thread about the stricter dress guidelines in my daughter's mission (they must wear sweaters or jackets when at the Church in the presence of Elders), this was said:
 

So I need someone to answer this question:

If it turned out that the ways women dress does have an influence on men's thoughts and they way they see them, why would it be wrong to tell women that?

With that question in mind (and assuming that simply telling girls and women how the world works isn't a bad thing), what is the problem with letting women know, or reminding them, that dressing in certain ways does affect men's thoughts (and in ways they might not appreciate)?

First, if anyone wants to argue that it isn't the case, they are welcome to do so.  I believe it is the case that the way women dress affect men's minds, so I'll proceed on that assumption.  Here's one example of the science on that:

Second, I will note that I do recognize the idea that it would be great if this weren't the case.  And I suspect Oaks would agree.  If the Church had a magic wand or rock that it could wave and get all teenage boys to stop being affected by how women dress, I think they would use it. 

Third, there appears to be an argument that by somehow mentioning this to women, it is giving license to or encouraging men to have those thoughts (or somehow creating those thoughts).  I do not see how that is the case.  Especially in the Church, boys are pleaded with to not have those kinds of thoughts.

I suppose we could argue about whether or not those ideas are genetics vs. environment.  As with most things, it's probably a bit of both.  But at the end of the day, I'm willing to bet that any 15yo heterosexual boy is going to physically react to a pretty woman in a bikini the same way, regardless of the society or culture they were brought up (their feelings about how they reacted will probably vary, of course).

When people got the vapors about Oaks' comment, one thing that no one seemed to point out was, that for all the hubbub, he was right.  I think that's what upset people the most. It's like at some point society decided that if we just pretended this wasn't the case, men would change and women would be empowered. 

I think we can all agree that we wish this was the case, but at the end of the day, what's the honest, rational and scientific thing to tell women about the way they dress?

 

Just for reference the OP

Since everyone knows that blue is for boys, I will highlight the points about if and how women's dress influence men in blue,   and do NOT imply that women have responsibility for the man's problem.

The obviously place where Cinepro hit the nail on the head- which he often does even if I just as often disagree with him- is here- his main question which he highlighted

"If it turned out that the ways women dress does have an influence on men's thoughts and they way they see them, why would it be wrong to tell women that?"

In the context of this thread that becomes totally hilarious.

We do know that it IS wrong to tell women that but still have not figured out why.   He knew about starting firestorms.  Heck he lives in LA county and was probably bored since all the news talks about is the fires.   Justifiably, of course, but if you have not deliberately chosen to live in their paths, one simply wonders why anyone actually does.

Edited October 27, 2019 by mfbukowski

[nuclearfuels]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Okay, but what does that have to do with women being told to dress modestly so men won't have lustful thoughts or view them as pornography?

Modesty isn't new, in our faith or other faiths, ancient or modern.

Reasons for it vary. Suggested solutions (such as the suggestion by the OP's daughter's mission president) vary, and don't really address the issue (biology) since we can't have mission presidents advocating the reutrn of polygamy.

Male biology is a reason for modesty, not the reason. See: Paul - the body is a Temple.

In general, we are unbalanced due to this biology.

12-17X

1,200 to 1,700%

My sister loved this book about modesty: https://www.amazon.com/Return-Modesty-Discovering-Lost-Virtue/dp/1476756651?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-brave-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1476756651

 

 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Read the OP

The only appearance of the word "responsibility" occurs in a quote.  The rest is about how men and women see this differently

But still I do still not have any answers about why we are taught these principles in the temple.

The entire thread has been about women’s influence over men, and what level of responsibility they bear for that influence. 

[ttribe]

Just now, bluebell said:

The entire thread has been about women’s influence over men, and what level of responsibility they bear for that influence. 

Now, now, silly woman.  Not only does mfb know better than you what is taught in the Temple and why it condemns your complaints about the patriarchy, but he knows better than you what you have been talking about this entire thread.  Now, just shush and let that brilliant man do all the talking.  He'll straighten you out.  [/sarcasm]

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Now, now, silly woman.  Not only does mfb know better than you what is taught in the Temple and why it condemns your complaints about the patriarchy, but he knows better than you what you have been talking about this entire thread.  Now, just shush and let that brilliant man do all the talking.  He'll straighten you out.  [/sarcasm]

You really should run for office

No one can twist a phrase like you can.  Matthew 23:27

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You really should run for office

No one can twist a phrase like you can.  Matthew 23:27

[Peacefully]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just for reference the OP

Since everyone knows that blue is for boys, I will highlight the points about if and how women's dress influence men in blue,   and do NOT imply that women have responsibility for the man's problem.

The obviously place where Cinepro hit the nail on the head- which he often does even if I just as often disagree with him- is here- his main question which he highlighted

"If it turned out that the ways women dress does have an influence on men's thoughts and they way they see them, why would it be wrong to tell women that?"

In the context of this thread that becomes totally hilarious.

We do know that it IS wrong to tell women that but still have not figured out why.   He knew about starting firestorms.  Heck he lives in LA county and was probably bored since all the news talks about is the fires.   Justifiably, of course, but if you have not deliberately chosen to live in their paths, one simply wonders why anyone actually does.

I’m still confused because I think we have been over, ad nauseum, why it is wrong. Please tell me why you think it is wrong, since I am obviously missing something very important. 

[ttribe]

48 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Thanks for asking, Calm.

I imagine the legalization piece (based on biology only (12-17X) or the claim of biology only, like in Obergefell) will come in the form of polyamory, with the incorporating laws on the books of states being used for custody, inheritance, alimony, etc. 

Of course, that type of judicial activism rarely occurs in the direction of traditional/ancient family orders.  Immigration, to Europe and the US, will likely see this happen though - and not through Congress. So, here's to hoping.

After that legalization (and I'm open to the Leaders of the Church rei-instituting polygamy in countries where it's already legal), re-institution would come from the Prophet, an even bigger lift than legalization.

Anyway, since males have 12 to 17 times as much sex drive as women, probably to ensure our species survival, having more than one female partner would ideally:

- reduce the conflict married couples have about...frequency

- reduce abortions

- reduce adultery

- reducy divorce rates

- increase posterity of children born in the covenant of eternal marriage in the Temple (as the world becomes more and more wicked, seems natural that conversions would keep pace, suggesting other approaches (polygamy) to increasing total number of members of the Church, their children, etc.)

- remove the paid off local policiticians, police, etc. in existing polygamous communities, as the practice would no longer be chased "underground"

Where is your evidence that the legalization and practice of polygamy would have any of the alleged positive outcomes you have listed here?

Edited October 27, 2019 by ttribe

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But still I do still not have any answers about why we are taught these principles in the temple.

You mean you don't have answers or you haven't been given answers by other posters?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Evidence of what position?  How does the endowment show men have different sexual arousal patterns than women (they do, but that doesn't mean women don't get aroused due to visual stimuli) and therefore women are in part accountable for how men see them as sexual objects (when they do)?

I am just not following how your point ties into the modesty/accountability discussion.  Could you connect the dots for me, please?

Seriously?

You think I am saying that the endowment shows that men have different sexual arousal patterns than women or has anything to do with that?

Oh my.

Accountability?  Where have I even mentioned the word?   I don't care about any stupid human judging anyone's "accountability" much less blaming women for the muck that comes out of the male brain.  Why are there no female serial killers of men who kill for the thrill and hatred of the opposite sex, and the need for violence?   Can you really not see the difference?  Why does the mass media love sensational stories about rape and murder of- whom?- women of course- that show after show is about "Special Victims Unit" and "CSI" and even the shows that used to be about news are now dedicated to murder stories- mostly with women victims?   One can't even turn on tv without running into this....  merde.

How in God's name could one hold women accountable for what happens in men's minds?

And so I took on Cinepro's challenging question in the OP

 

Quote

 

So I need someone to answer this question:

If it turned out that the ways women dress does have an influence on men's thoughts and they way they see them, why would it be wrong to tell women that?

With that question in mind (and assuming that simply telling girls and women how the world works isn't a bad thing), what is the problem with letting women know, or reminding them, that dressing in certain ways does affect men's thoughts (and in ways they might not appreciate)?

First, if anyone wants to argue that it isn't the case, they are welcome to do so.  I believe it is the case that the way women dress affect men's minds, so I'll proceed on that assumption.  Here's one example of the science on that:

 

It is obvious that he was right- that this topic cannot even be discussed!

I am grieving that women are so naive that they do not understand the depravity of men while in fact, Father knows how precious his daughters are, and shows us how spiritually superior they are to men by giving them higher blessings immediately in the temple, "for free" - for just being his precious daughter- while men need a lot more symbolic work and symbolic cleansing to become "equal"

He shows us how it was EVE not ADAM who "got" the plan of salvation while Adam robotically was thinking "Gotta do what God said, Gotta do what God said" to the point where he could not even see where Eve was going when she understood fully the contradiction in "what God said".

And WHY does God tell us these symbolic stories showing the Mother of All Living being way out in front of her rather thick husband?   To show the spiritual superiority of women.  But now that has become unpopular

But of course in this age of "Feminism" we cannot even acknowledge any idea which is not politically correct.   I escaped Communism because of Chairman Mao's demands for political correctness once I understood them and now here I am again in the new collective tyranny.

I suppose now those thoughts are so far from the world that they seem ridiculous, while just a few years ago, they were predominant ideas in the church.  I always thought that the church was kind of quaint but the members really got it.  Well at least some did.

It is so sad that we have gotten this low. Blech.

I need a shower.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

You mean you don't have answers or you haven't been given answers by other posters?

Oh I have MY answers all right

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Can't be that

My sweetheart tells me I don't even have one.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Why are there no female serial killers of men who kill for the thrill and hatred of the opposite sex, and the need for violence? 

Just as an FYI....

https://www.amazon.com/Women-Who-Kill-Psychopathic-Pleasure/dp/1537687484

This is nonfiction.

Women do tend to kill more for selfdefenisive reasons, but there are women who kill for profit and/or pleasure and hate.

https://www.insidehook.com/article/crime/notorious-female-serial-killers

Edited October 27, 2019 by Calm

[mrmarklin]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

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

The idea that women are somehow unconscious of the way they dress is ludicrous on its face.

At least having three sisters, a wife and a daughter has taught me that much. 😎

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

The idea that women are somehow unconscious of the way they dress is ludicrous on its face.

At least having three sisters, a wife and a daughter has taught me that much. 😎

This does not follow from your other post.

I am very conscious of the way I dress.  I dress for comfort.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am grieving that women are so naive that they do not understand the depravity of men while in fact, Father knows how precious his daughters are, and shows us how spiritually superior they are to men by giving them higher blessings immediately in the temple, "for free" - for just being his precious daughter- while men need a lot more symbolic work and symbolic cleansing to become "equal"

 I think it is unfortunate you think so poorly of men.  It comes across as almost Calvinist to me.

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I’m still confused because I think we have been over, ad nauseum, why it is wrong. Please tell me why you think it is wrong, since I am obviously missing something very important. 

I don't think it IS wrong to point out someone's naivete or they will never think things through.

Telling women about their effect on men is not assigning them responsibility- a distinction that seems to have been lost.   The only reason I have seen that it is allegedly "wrong" to tell a woman about the depravity of males has been flipped around to imply the woman's responsibility for what men are thinking

That's like calling God responsible for evil because of our agency.  Absurd reasoning.

So what has been discussed ad nauseum is NOT the "reason" it is wrong - it is the reason it is right to tell the naive about what they do not know.

So now bring on the mansplaining arguments.   I know them all and they are all just based on politically correct garbage.   

Where did I learn about women's naivete? 

From women who get it, and there are plenty who are wise enough not to post on these threads.

Sorry about all the confusion- welcome to the board.

I obviously need to learn to be more peaceful myself, and I keep saying that.   But doing and saying are not the same

Still no comments back about the temple and why I am wrong about that incidentally.  I cannot even imagine a reasonable argument against my position there.

God seems to have gone out of his way to show that the Mother of All Living AS the mother of all humanity had a lot more on the ball spiritually than her rather thick husband.  But acknowledge that ??   All the Feminists appear to be against the idea of women being better than men.  Go figure.

And so it is today.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Still no comments back about the temple and why I am wrong about that incidentally.  I cannot even imagine a reasonable argument against my position there.

It ever occurred to you that Eve was chosen for being particularly insightful not only for a human, but a woman?

As the Mother of all living, all humanity, why wouldn't all of her children have the chance to share in her characteristic?

My dad was a mechanical engineer, my mother an artist.  I excelled in math and science and couldn't draw a straight line with a ruler, but have a good color sense and ability to compose a picture with objects if I do say so myself.  I go deep like my mother, but dissect ideas like my father.

Children inherit from both parents.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

 I think it is unfortunate you think so poorly of men.  It comes across as almost Calvinist to me.

And why do you think poorly of women then without answering my temple questions?

Why did God ostensibly write the story that way?

Of course it could be all literature but not on this board, I should think.

But all bets are off.   All I know is that is what the spirit tells me as I create

Quote

a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, ... creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future." - Calmoriah

 

[Calm]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

And why do you think poorly of women then without answering my temple questions?

Who says I think poorly of women?  I think men and women are both children of God, which tells me in general they are pretty fantastic.

Sure, there are evil women and evil men, but I don't see evil or depravity as the dominant character of either gender.