Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[Jake Starkey]

People are pretty much the same.   When men and women act or talk improperly around you, tell them "that is your one gimmee."  

Ignore them after the second time.  If it crosses a major line, repot them to the proper authority.

One example (and there are others) of dealing with this: we don't let three young genxrs (all women) into our family meetings in our house, because they simply can't be civil to others.  If it were some of the guys, it would be the same treatment.

I don't buy the entitlement arguments some of the guys and gals are using above.  You all were taught what is proper and not.

[Meadowchik]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

 

 

This isn't about you. Why are you centering an argument about systemic sexism on your personal esoteric interpretations?

You are equating Juliann and I. You are minimizing this discussion to humour. This is textbook misogyny.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Peacefully said:

All men depraved? Women better than men? Obviously, you haven’t met my husband. He is my kinder and more spiritual half. 

Also, one of the blessings of the temple is that we can all receive our own unique understanding about what things mean. Your understanding may be very different from mine.

Thank you for welcoming me to the board, btw.

 

The natural man is an enemy to the Lord, or we wouldn't need to repent.

Totally misses the point. Totally.

Other folks who agree with you? They don't understand repentance either? Very strange.

I am dumbfounded at the response to my simple point that the natural man is an enemy to God, and that males tend to be more carnally minded than females.

All I am doing is agreeing with Calm's grandma. 

And yet not even an attempt to account for the differences in the temple. 

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

This isn't about you. Why are you centering an argument about systemic sexism on your personal esoteric interpretations?

You are equating Juliann and I. You are minimizing this discussion to humour. This is textbook misogyny.

Misogyny ?  This?

You make my point about innocence.

Thanks. Keep em coming. Self contradiction after Self contradiction.

Forget about Ted Bundy. This is textbook misogyny. Exalting women is misogyny.

Oh yeah keep them coming.

Please don't throw me in that Briar Patch

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And yet not even an attempt to account for the differences in the temple. 

 

You sure make a lot of these differences. Until recently, women were not allowed to enter certain places without a veiled face. How do you account for this stark difference between men and women. How do you account for the fact that this stark difference disappeared overnight? What about the vow of obedience and the difference there between men and women. That difference was softened in the 90's and disappeared overnight recently. How do you explain that. What's to say that the small ceremonial difference that is SOOOOO important to you, won't change overnight and doesn't mean what you think it means?

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You sure make a lot of these differences. Until recently, women were not allowed to enter certain places without a veiled face. How do you account for this stark difference between men and women. How do you account for the fact that this stark difference disappeared overnight? What about the vow of obedience and the difference there between men and women. That difference was softened in the 90's and disappeared overnight recently. How do you explain that. What's to say that the small ceremonial difference that is SOOOOO important to you, won't change overnight and doesn't mean what you think it means?

So you think it actually has a correct meaning then,  is that correct, that the whole story is not figurative?

That is not my view nor is it my question.

Of course if you are not a believing member of the church it doesn't matter.

Newsflash :

The church is based on patriarchy!

 And so is the temple.

if you don't like that you have a decision to make.

The fact that Temple stories are told from a patriarchal point of view is  obvious.

 Like maybe you've heard the word patriarchal a few times?

 The presentation may change but what is taught will not.  I do not personally know a single woman who was offended by wearing the Veil. And yes of course as a convenience the change was wonderful.

 And yes this is all about opinions. The question is what justifies a given interpretation of any text, and the church presets a patriarchal context and that will remain as long as we are about families.

 The patriarchal point of view is much larger than a few words in a temple you're right.

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

This, I swear, just popped up from a non-LDS source

https://www.pinterest.com/amp/pin/574209021214001745/

" Dress how you want other women to dress around your husband."

More dang female misogynists.

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Misogyny ?  This?

You make my point about innocence.

Thanks. Keep em coming. Self contradiction after Self contradiction.

Forget about Ted Bundy. This is textbook misogyny. Exalting women is misogyny.

Oh yeah keep them coming.

Please don't throw me in that Briar Patch

Yes, you are expressing misogyny, which can come in many forms, and--I wish I didn't have to actually point this out--it doesn't have to be serial murder to be wrong. 

[mfbukowski]

Okay well this isn't going anywhere so thanks for your comments.

They have truly changed my life.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So you think it actually has a correct meaning then,  is that correct, that the whole story is not figurative?

I think it’s all made up, but that’s beside the point. The point is that many in the church used the temple differences as evidence that men were in charge in the home. Then the temple changed. Apparently the temple ordinance didn’t mean what they thought it did. Who’s to say the same won’t happen to your pet difference? 

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not personally know a single woman who was offended by wearing the Veil. 

 

 

 

Give your views expressed in this thread I can’t imagine why no one would come to you with these concerns. 🤔

[bsjkki]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This, I swear, just popped up from a non-LDS source

https://www.pinterest.com/amp/pin/574209021214001745/

" Dress how you want other women to dress around your husband."

More dang female misogynists.

 

You know, I don't worry one whit how other women dress around my husband. Just because it is a female opinion doesn't mean I agree with it. I think it is sad women feel they should think this way. Do they have creepy husbands? Will their spouse turn into a bubbling, drooling pervert if there are scantily clad women around...or worse? 

Personally, I don't think your comments on this post are very clear. I have found them confusing and slightly disturbing. Could you give a concise clear, post about your position?

Are you saying men are terrible and need women to cover up to control a man's basic, terrible, instincts?

Are you saying, women can control how a man thinks due to her clothing choices?

Are you saying we should teach young girls to cover up to make it easier on the men around them?

 

 

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You say I can't point to other examples, and then you do it for me?

My grandmother's Victorian view of men is not equivalent to LDS teachings.  I already said the idea men are depraved, women are spiritual was commonly found in the greater culture so there are plenty of examples out there...in the gospel though, not seeing it.

And you were the one who said you couldn't provide other examples because it was an esoteric teaching only found in the temple if I understood you correctly.  If not, please correct my misinterpretation.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The natural man is an enemy to the Lord, or we wouldn't need to repent.

So you don't believe scriptures use "man" generically here and it actually only applies to males, not all humans?

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The church is based on patriarchy!

 

But patriarchy does not imply males are depraved.   There are patriarchal societies that degrade women, not exalt them as well.

[Calm]

To clarify my own position so mfb, if he decides to answer doesn't have to waste effort on things we agree on...

1.  I do believe men and women are different and see this as obvious just from the scientific data on biology, including differences in brains.  Different experiences create opportunities for development of different characteristics and the unique to women experience of pregnancy alone would result in significant differences.  These differences need to be recognized for the physical and emotional and spiritual health and safety of men and women.  Evidence for this:  Nehor linked to an article about the deficiencies in medical treatments for women due to the unfounded assumption one can extrapolate from men to women biologically.  This ended up with women dying unnecessarily because their doctors couldn't recognize that they were having heart attacks as women's key symptoms are generally different than men's.

2.  There are also similarities because we share a species, we are all human and we experience many of the same things...hunger for instance.  Recognizing similarities can improve the ability to work together imo, because there is a shared foundation to build on.  In the gospel, the common shared desire to return to our heavenly parents and live as part of an eternal, celestial family drives many men and women to live temple standards and seek temple blessings.

3.  So humanity in my view can be pictured (simplistically ignoring gender biological variations for purpose of discussion) as a Venn diagram of two overlapping circles, one for males and the other for females.  Shared characteristics are symbolized by the intersection of the circles, differences by the unique areas of the circles.  However often differences are not unique, but are variations.  In this thread, an example of this is the difference in sexual arousal patterns.  Both men and women tend to be aroused by visual cues.  What those cues are may vary between sexes as well as individuals, much of this difference is likely culturally based given in some cultures there is nothing inherently provocative in a naked body while other cultures find such extremely provocative in most contexts.  Intensity of responses to visual stimuli may vary as well, though some of the perceived differences may be due to the fact arousal is more easily recognized and measured for most men in comparison to most women.

4.  Assuming differences equate to uniqueness or inflating differences will lead to confusion and unnecessary problems for all.  An example in this thread is the assumption that girls and women are not visually stimulated and therefore there is no real need for men to dress to avoid influencing women/triggering instinctual/learned sexual 'programming' even if the reverse is true (women's visual appearance can have impact on males and trigger sexual arousal).  Thus we have the bishop described as going white in his face when he learns the young women are paying close attention to how the young man look in their 'skins' outfits and the rules for male attire at his ward activities get changed (no more shirtless games for young men).

5.  For me accountability enters in when agency is present.  Triggered behaviour is not conscious and therefore is not the result of a moral choice.  Accountability kicks in when we have the ability to respond to our triggered behaviour.  Do we look away or otherwise control our environment, external or internal to remove ourselves mentally or physically from the triggering stimuli?  If we do not, but continue to focus on the trigger or add additional triggers by fantasizing or other things, that is lust, a sin for which most of us will be accountable (brain damaged or mentally incapable people may be able not be able to exert self control or recognize a need to do so and if so, they will be judged as unaccountable by God imo).

------

The above seems to me separate from any demonstration that men are depraved while women are spiritual.  Even if men were all visually triggered, this does not demonstrate they all have an innate desire to rape women that is only controlled out of fear of the consequences of being caught, for an extreme example.

And men's responses have nothing to say about women's natures, so cannot be used to demonstrate women's greater spirituality.

So at this point I see nothing in this thread logically relevant to evidence for the belief men are inherently depraved and women are inherently spiritual outside a claimed temple teaching by mfb (Bernard, you have agreed with mfb that the temple differences are informative, do you also interpret this to teach men are depraved and women are spiritual?  Or do you see it teaching something else?).  Since there are those who are aware of the differences (and I for one do believe the temple does direct us to greater understanding of who we are, including shared and different characteristics of men and women) who do not believe that this teaches or implies or even hints in my case that men are inherently depraved and women are inherently spiritual, I don't see it as possible to establish this as anything but a personal interpretation...and one that is, imo, contrary to gospel teachings that men are children of our heavenly parents.

----

Therefore at this point in discussing this with mfb, I am only focusing on how he supports his belief that men are depraved.  I have no problem with women are spiritual as I believe women are.  I also think men that are, though how spirituality is expressed may be different between sexes and individuals.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Calm

[Peacefully]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We are discussing a story about issues a bit larger, not about real people

 

Then don’t generalize.

[Peacefully]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course

And what is your interpretation for the extra blessings sisters get, and why it was Eve who understood what Adam could not?

I haven’t given it any thought. For me, the temple is about feeling the spirit, and coming closer to my Heavenly Father. I don’t feel the need to pick it apart and try to interpret everything that is said. My answer probably won’t satisfy you, but I can live with that.

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

To clarify my own position so mfb, if he decides to answer doesn't have to waste effort on things we agree on...

1.  I do believe men and women are different and see this as obvious just from the scientific data on biology, including differences in brains.  Different experiences create opportunities for development of different characteristics and the unique to women experience of pregnancy alone would result in significant differences.  These differences need to be recognized for the physical and emotional and spiritual health and safety of men and women.  Evidence for this:  Nehor linked to an article about the deficiencies in medical treatments for women due to the unfounded assumption one can extrapolate from men to women biologically.  This ended up with women dying unnecessarily because their doctors couldn't recognize that they were having heart attacks as women's key symptoms are generally different than men's.

2.  There are also similarities because we share a species, we are all human and we experience many of the same things...hunger for instance.  Recognizing similarities can improve the ability to work together imo, because there is a shared foundation to build on.  In the gospel, the common shared desire to return to our heavenly parents and live as part of an eternal, celestial family drives many men and women to live temple standards and seek temple blessings.

3.  So humanity in my view can be pictured (simplistically ignoring gender biological variations for purpose of discussion) as a Venn diagram of two overlapping circles, one for males and the other for females.  Shared characteristics are symbolized by the intersection of the circles, differences by the unique areas of the circles.  However often differences are not unique, but are variations.  In this thread, an example of this is the difference in sexual arousal patterns.  Both men and women tend to be aroused by visual cues.  What those cues are may vary between sexes as well as individuals, much of this difference is likely culturally based given in some cultures there is nothing inherently provocative in a naked body while other cultures find such extremely provocative in most contexts.  Intensity of responses to visual stimuli may vary as well, though some of the perceived differences may be due to the fact arousal is more easily recognized and measured for most men in comparison to most women.

4.  Assuming differences equate to uniqueness or inflating differences will lead to confusion and unnecessary problems for all.  An example in this thread is the assumption that girls and women are not visually stimulated and therefore there is no real need for men to dress to avoid influencing women/triggering instinctual/learned sexual 'programming' even if the reverse is true (women's visual appearance can have impact on males and trigger sexual arousal).  Thus we have the bishop described as going white in his face when he learns the young women are paying close attention to how the young man look in their 'skins' outfits and the rules for male attire at his ward activities get changed (no more shirtless games for young men).

5.  For me accountability enters in when agency is present.  Triggered behaviour is not conscious and therefore is not the result of a moral choice.  Accountability kicks in when we have the ability to respond to our triggered behaviour.  Do we look away or otherwise control our environment, external or internal to remove ourselves mentally or physically from the triggering stimuli?  If we do not, but continue to focus on the trigger or add additional triggers by fantasizing or other things, that is lust, a sin for which most of us will be accountable (brain damaged or mentally incapable people may be able not be able to exert self control or recognize a need to do so and if so, they will be judged as unaccountable by God imo).

------

The above seems to me separate from any demonstration that men are depraved while women are spiritual.  Even if men were all visually triggered, this does not demonstrate they all have an innate desire to rape women that is only controlled out of fear of the consequences of being caught, for an extreme example.

And men's responses have nothing to say about women's natures, so cannot be used to demonstrate women's greater spirituality.

So at this point I see nothing in this thread logically relevant to evidence for the belief men are inherently depraved and women are inherently spiritual outside a claimed temple teaching by mfb (Bernard, you have agreed with mfb that the temple differences are informative, do you also interpret this to teach men are depraved and women are spiritual?  Or do you see it teaching something else?).  Since there are those who are aware of the differences (and I for one do believe the temple does direct us to greater understanding of who we are, including shared and different characteristics of men and women) who do not believe that this teaches or implies or even hints in my case that men are inherently depraved and women are inherently spiritual, I don't see it as possible to establish this as anything but a personal interpretation...and one that is, imo, contrary to gospel teachings that men are children of our heavenly parents.

----

Therefore at this point in discussing this with mfb, I am only focusing on how he supports his belief that men are depraved.  I have no problem with women are spiritual as I believe women are.  I also think men that are, though how spirituality is expressed may be different between sexes and individuals.

Thanks

Short answer is that I really do not disagree with anything here, though my interpretations sometimes differ but not much

Maybe I will get a chance to go line by line, and do so if and when I get time.  A teaspoon of your grandma's view more and I think we would be there.

The political correctness imposed on my views have distorted everything 180 degrees.  It appears no one can remove those lenses and just read what the words actually say anymore, and that is what was a genuine life change for me.

Notice that most of the male who usually respond to posts on these topics, with whom I generally agree, and who also get shouted down have had the good sense to stop expressing their opinions.   The usual few men who have responded, repeat their usual opinions, but those who might disagree with the most shrill here are silent.

It's down to Bernard and me.

The world has become vastly different in a very short time.   I did not perceive how much before.  It's attack attack attack without any attempt at understanding.  It goes with the shouting down on campuses etc.   Dialogue is not possible here anymore.  That's why we have no pros left except on very esoteric linguistic subjects.

And I have experienced that here before but nothing like this.   I really need to find a different forum for reasonable discussion.  And what is surprising that it comes largely from those I considered friends.

But there are some rabid whited sepulchers lying in wait here now, twisting everything.   It's quite sad.

But thanks for your summary.

Edited October 27, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Then don’t generalize.

Don't generalize about general topics.

Uh huh.  This is what I am talking about.  Attack attack without comprehension.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I haven’t given it any thought.

There you go.  See above.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

A teaspoon of your grandma's view more and I think we would be there.

That you think my grandmother's view is a plus for you shows you didn't know my grandmother.  Talk about being naive or at least acting that way (I think she was naive, but admit the possibility she just thought women should act that way)....and as far as being more spiritual...Grandpa was a stake patriarch (which he was made for according to my mom, not someone who had to grow into the calling) while Grandma focused on road shows and drama productions (she was an English teacher and pretty much turned over raising her family to my mother by the time she was 13 for her career and social life, sweet woman that people really enjoyed being around, but priorities were not deeply gospel oriented from what I could tell ).  And I view her needing to cut a curl off a wig and glue it on to a baby's bonnet to put on my mom's apparently bald baby head to pretend my mom had a full head of cute curls as rather a defining characteristic of her personality when I knew her.

You might as well say "a teaspoon of Queen Victoria's view" imo.

My grandmother didn't learn that view from the Gospel.  It doesn't qualify as close to doctrinal.

Quote

t appears no one can remove those lenses and just read what the words actually say anymore, and that is what was a genuine life change for me

I am not attacking you, I am trying to understand you.  If you think I am misunderstanding 'males are depraved and females are spiritual', then please clarify.

And if for some reason the thread gets locked or you get banned, we can finish it privately because I am not offended, but curious.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Calm

[strappinglad]

When it comes to humans , I tend to see them in terms of a Bell Curve. The differences between men and women can be seen as overlapping Bell Curves. Height, weight , IQ etc. have all been studied. The curves for each gender vary at the Mean scores and the Standard Deviations ( wide or narrow ) . Sometime  more men are found at the extreme edges or have narrower scores. Sometimes women are that way. 

Personally I don't think men  can be lumped at the " ogre " end and women lumped at the " princess " end. 

[Peacefully]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There you go.  See above.

How have I attacked you? 

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

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

What do you make of this information Bluebell posted?

Quote

Almost 100% of violence that women have suffered historically, has been at the hands of men. 

Likewise, statistically women are at more risked from male significant others than anyone else. 

How does that equate to millions of years of evolution men protecting women?  

 

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This isn't about you. Why are you centering an argument about systemic sexism on your personal esoteric interpretations?

You are equating Juliann and I. You are minimizing this discussion to humour. This is textbook misogyny.

I totally agree, and I think the women on this thread are being treated poorly.  I just want to say that I have basically stayed out of the thread because I feel I have no business trying to mansplain things.  As a guy, I have no real idea what it is like to be a women who is in our church to hear that they are blamed for men's thoughts.  I have never believed this, and I find the whole concept repugnant.  Dalian Oaks is wrong.  No one is responsible for the thoughts of another.  If someone (man or woman) has lustful thoughts of someone else, then they need to manage it.  Those thoughts are probably a result of our DNA that has been programmed in us to ensure the survival of the species by reproducing. But then again, so is fighting for food. Our society has evolved.  We have food. I don't fight for food, and I am not overly concerned about the survival of our species. So, bringing this conversation into modern time,  what a person chooses to wear on not to were is their business, and no one else needs to be involved. 

As a man, in my youth I was very social.  I was athletic and popular.  And getting noticed by the opposite sex was not my big problem in life. Yes, I am sort of bragging, so please forgive an old man for doing so.  I had 20/20 vision and I was very aware of the women around me.  But, I always took responsibility for by thoughts, and I sure has hell never let my thoughts turn into in-appropriate actions.  I find it highly offensive to me as a man that someone would preach that the opposite sex needs to cover up because I or my gender cannot maintain control.  I am not an animal.  I have more or less overcome the natural man.  I don't need 30 plus wives to keep from committing adultery.  In fact, I feel 30 plus wives is adultery.  Teaching that lady missionaries need to wear coats over their granny dresses to keep Elders from having bad thoughts is a sad and destructive teaching.   It wrong and it is repugnant.  

 

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by sunstoned