Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Wait. Did I say there is an innate desire to rape women in males? I believe there is a powerful natural urge to procreate that has to be checked and controlled. That’s why strong social barriers have historically been set in place to keep such things civil. Do you think that urge is a proclivity to rape women? I can see how could be considered predatory in some sense. How would you define it?

No, you did not say that, but I understood you to be agreeing with mfb who said:

Quote

I think the innate desire for men to rape women is simply much stronger than you think and more universal. 

 

[rchorse]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sigh

I am tired of fighting statements attributed to me without any evidence that I ever said them

I really don't have time for this anymore

Sorry, this topic just happens to be a pet peeve of mine.

You make post after post trying to prove that women are spiritually superior to men. A big chunk of the evidence was right in the post I quoted. But every time someone says they disagree, you say you didn't say that or that someone just doesn't get what you mean.

If you disagree, that's fine, but saying that I'm attributing statements to you that you never made when I quoted them in my response seems more than a little disingenuous.

Edit: I'll leave this alone. That's why I try not to post here much. Getting involved in the rhetorical games gets me too wound up. It's all about scoring points and not about genuinely understanding each other. I'll just go back to lurking.

Edited October 28, 2019 by rchorse

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, rchorse said:

I have likewise observed the things you mention above, but I come to a different conclusion. I think men like the narrative that men are depraved and women are spiritual because it means they just can't help themselves. We men are then absolved of responsibility. "I'm a man. I can't help it." This is exactly why I find this concept to be so sinister. We get jokes along the lines of if you want it done right, ask the Relief Society, etc. But in reality, what men are really saying is "I'd rather watch TV than be bothered by that."

That's why we men perpetuate this narrative. It excuses our laziness and bad behavior. I have found no doctrine in all the standard works, the temple, conference talks or anywhere else to support the notion that men are incapable of being just as spiritual as women. Rather, I consistently find that Heavenly Father (an exalted man, by the way) expects, desires, and commands men to rise to exactly the same level that women do. I consistently find that the scriptures and prophets tell the men to "rise up and be men" of God.

Good thoughts.  Such thinking also denies the effort and desire that women put in to becoming more like Christ, instead implying that it's just natural for them to want to be selfless and spiritual.  

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I was walking down the middle of a deserted street around midnight in the East Village in NYC- in the middle of the street so that lurkers could not jump out from recesses in buildings and rob you.   I was a grad student living in the Village and had just gotten off the subway from my swing-shift job and was walking the few more blocks to home.   It's pretty normal in those circumstances to see people walking in the streets, which are deserted anyway.

  Then I saw the five guys walking toward me, also down the middle of the street.   If they are NOT going to rob you, showing fear might actually induce them to rob you if you seem weak.  Besides there was nowhere to run or hide anyway, so I put on my best swagger and kept on.

But it didn't work.  

They grabbed my arms behind me and put me in a shoulder lock and suddenly there was a switchblade at my throat.

I know what it is to be helpless looking at a knife at your throat.  That is nothing compared to what some women have to endure.

They just wanted my money which I was in no position to stop anyway, and then let me go.

That time I was blessed or "lucky"  But scared s....... so much

 

I've mentioned this before on the board I believe, but I had an incident in my early 20's, where I was jogging at a park I was unfamiliar with before attending a real estate class, I went to the restroom and when I was coming out the park was nearly empty, and this group of men were walking toward me, I had a feeling I was in trouble, so I started acting like a strange woman and like I had mental issues and ran past them. I'm sure it was a sight, but it was my instinct to do this. I think it diverted them from harming me, if that was their intent. 

BTW, I'm glad that you've opened up more in a few posts above! If you had done that earlier in the thread I think it could have avoided a lot of misunderstanding of your views, way to go!! 

 

[MustardSeed]

For the record, Tacoma is absolutely not be  a place to walk around at night alone, by either sex. You should be afraid.  

But as a woman, I feel very vulnerable about being objectified and also of being sexually targeted.  (In fact, had an attempt in Provo that went to trial.) 

I don’t discount the reality of men’s victimization.  It happens, men are violently acted upon certainly.  But if we are still talking about modesty and it’s effect on men’s thoughts, I’d suggest we all do our parts to help influence boys to learn that regardless what a woman wears, she is not to be objectified. 

And let’s teach our girls to have self esteem.  They will naturally dress in a way that reflects how they feel about themselves. 

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't understand how this works with the belief there is an innate desire to rape women in males.  Could you clarify please.

One thing I’d like to clarify too (not directly responding to you) but fantasy is different than reality. Many women report rape fantasies (see here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201508/why-do-women-have-rape-fantasies%3famp). This does not actually mean they want to be raped. Men who support violent p* rn do not necessarily want to act on that particular fantasy. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

No, you did not say that, but I understood you to be agreeing with mfb who said:

 

I stand by what I said.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I stand by what I said.

So you disagree with mfb when he said the "innate desire for men to rape women is simply much stronger than you think and more universal"?

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I stand by what I said.

I am not sure if that includes what you said about mfb's comments, so at this point I am just going with what you said about your own position and not anyone else's.  Hopefully I will be close enough (perfect understanding being impossible for mortals).

[Jake Starkey]

Calm said:  I don't understand how this works with the belief there is an innate desire to rape women in males.  Could you clarify please. 

SeekingUnderstanding said: One thing I’d like to clarify too (not directly responding to you) but fantasy is different than reality. Many women report rape fantasies (see here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201508/why-do-women-have-rape-fantasies%3famp). This do.es not actually mean they want to be raped. Men who support violent p* rn do not necessarily want to act on that particular fantasy. 

Jake Starkey: A woman told me of her rape fantasy (not at my prodding or insistence).  She was hesitant, wondering if she were weird.  She was one of the most wonderful, gentle, loving woman I have ever known, not a violent instinct in her at all.

I know boys played 'war' and 'cowboys and Indians' when we were young, which involved fantasies of death and destruction.  Several of us served in the military, including me.  None of us, as far as I know, were ever suspected of homicide outside of the law.  Three (of several dozen) were involved in domestic violence of which I know.

My only point is that 'fantasy' in these situations does not necessarily mean anyone wants to be hurt or to hurt anyone.

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Bernard Gui]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not sure if that includes what you said about mfb's comments, so at this point I am just going with what you said about your own position and not anyone else's.  Hopefully I will be close enough (perfect understanding being impossible for mortals.

Close enough for what? No comprendo. 

Bukow is quite capable of explaining and defending his own words. Oops. Wouldn’t  that just be more mansplaining to some?  

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

So you disagree with mfb when he said the "innate desire for men to rape women is simply much stronger than you think and more universal"?

Disagree or agree? I would want to hear more details. I don’t know that I would couch it in those words, but my statement is what I think. 
 

Have you  heard the baseball analogy to dating? Do you think it includes a scenario that implies rape? Is there a similar one among the ladies?

[pogi]

On 10/25/2019 at 5:28 PM, Calm said:

Pogi, for teachings that women are in part accountable for men's thoughts, do you want recent ones (if so, please give a cutoff year) or just want to see how things have been taught that created and maintain the culture.

Here is an oldie but goodie:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1977/10/young-women-real-guardians?lang=eng

"Control" is bolded as it makes clear the entire point of the talk, imo.  Young women can control men...and if you are controlling something, you are accountable for it.

He is clear it is only in part, but that does not negate the idea of control.

A lot of what he says is great, especially where he suggests the couple work together in establishing boundaries rather than implying the young men will live with any boundaries the young woman sets, so it is her role to be the chastity guardian.

Ok, I have had time to read the talk.  First, to validate, I can see why some women would take issue with this talk.  It gave the impression that the worthiness of men was of primary importance, and that women are lower down on the tier somehow and only in a supportive role.  It felt very much like World War II era thinking where all American citizens were expected to be involved in the war effort one way or another in support of the troops.  Our troops were number one, and all American's played a supportive role to them.  To name just a few examples, It was expected that people do with less so the troops would have enough.  Girls tried to keep up the moral of soldiers through letter writing etc, and Americans bough war bonds to help support the effort.  David B. Haight's talk felt very much as if the missionaries were like troops on the front lines of a great battle.  Missionary work was expected of them in growing the kingdom of God, and much less so of the women.  I think women very much played a more supportive role in that effort.  I think Elder Haight was thinking in those lines - that if we are going to fulfill the Lords command to bring the gospel to all the earth, we need more worthy priesthood holders and that we should all do our parts as parents, family, friends, etc. in influencing young men and helping them to serve. 

Here is the part you quoted:

Quote

 

My remarks this morning are directed to the young women of the Church, particularly those who are dating our young men. I desire to be appropriate and correct in what I say, but because of necessity and the urgency concerning this matter, I must be very direct and candid.

Some young men cannot go on missions because they are not worthy.

I challenge the young women of the Church who associate with and date our young priesthood bearers to become real guardians of their morality. You can. You must. Many of you are. Please do not underestimate your role. I am aware that the total responsibility is not yours. However, on a date you can set the proper atmosphere to encourage your companion to honor the commandments of God. In fact, you have the opportunity to emphasize the Mormon ideals of womanhood in all their honor and glory. I know the Lord expects it to be so.

You young ladies have a profound influence on young, masculine behavior. Young men wear clothes they think you like. Their hair will be cut to please you. You can control how fast they drive their cars if you want. They will dress as grubby as you like. You need not dress in the extreme fashions of the world. Are you aware that fashions and styles are promoted because someone has a product to sell? The rightness or appropriateness or effect on a youthful society does not matter as long as it sells. But the day will come when the world will follow the ways of the Church. Its influence will be as though flowing from the stars to affect the actions of men. Your influence with young men is important. You encourage Church standards and dress and conduct....

Most missionary concerns are worthiness concerns, the product of their dating and social activities. ...You young women have a vital role in this preparation and pretraining of our young men. If you live worthily and develop a strong, positive self-image of your divine role of joint-inheritor of the fulness of all things, you will be a blessing to the young men who may come under your influence....

When you are clean and pure, the young men you date will be clean and pure...

You young women have a vital role in converting the world to the gospel of Jesus Christ. You can encourage, influence, and even shield a young man at a critical time in his life...

Let there radiate from you young women a spirit and influence that will have the power to cause “a mighty change” (Alma 5:14) when needed in the hearts of our young men.  May there come forth through your efforts generations of young men in the Church who have spiritually been born of God, who reflect his Spirit in their countenances. You possess a divine key given by the Creator to lock or unlock, destroy or bless, that can make young men become as great as they ought to be.

 

I was specifically asking for a reference to a talk that clearly states that young woman are accountable for the thoughts of young men (as the accusation has been made).  I don't see that here.  You underlined "control", but I think that word was used more tongue-in-cheek to emphasize the powerful influence young women can have on men.  I don't think Elder Haight was really saying that women can literally supersede or undo the agency/accountability of men.  If you asked Elder Haight if women are accountable for the thoughts of young men, I think we all understand that he would say something like this  - "of course not, the law of agency makes us each accountable for our own thoughts words and actions and not of others".  I think he would agree with me however, that we are responsible and accountable for our example/influence - that we are our brothers keeper, and that we are supposed to let our "light so shine", and that we are to take upon us the name and image of Christ as examples of good to the world.  That is our covenant.  It is our responsibility.  To not consider our example/influence on others is not living up to our covenant.

So, again, while I can understand why some women might have a problem with this talk, I don't think it is clear at all that it says what I am looking for.   The overall message was about the "profound influence" a woman can have on a man and not about literal control are accountability for another's thoughts, words, or actions.  Again, the "control" sentence, I think, was said tongue-in-cheek to highlight the profound influence of women over men, not unlike the clip below.  I don't think the mother in this scene really believes that women control men or are accountable for their thoughts, but she is simply highlighting women's powerful influence. 

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

On 10/25/2019 at 5:43 PM, ttribe said:

Good grief.  The quote from Elder Oaks has been posted multiple times.  

This one took less than a minute to find (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng)  (ETA: The part that says "I'm assuming you can use Google..." are my words. Note sure how they ended up as part of the quote)

Maybe I am not making myself clear, I want to see a quote that states that a person can be accountable to God for the thoughts, words, or actions of another person.  This is the quote you provide:

Quote

 

Our dress affects not only our thoughts and actions but also the thoughts and actions of others. Accordingly, Paul the Apostle counseled “women [to] adorn themselves in modest apparel” (1 Timothy 2:9).

The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men. If it is too low or too high or too tight, it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure.⁴

Men and women can look sharp and be fashionable, yet they can also be modest. Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own self-respect and to the moral purity of men. In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for.

I'm assuming you can use Google; it's really not that difficult.

Yes, dress can "prompt", have a "powerful impact upon", and "affect" the thoughts of others, but where does it say that the law of agency is revoked and that someone can be accountable before God for the thoughts, words, or actions of another?  All this quote does is support my position that we are responsible and accountable for our example/influence (even in dress).  That is the covenant I made at baptism.  While we are not ultimately responsible for the thoughts of others, we are accountable for how we choose to present ourselves as an example of one who takes upon the name of Christ.  

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

Calm said:  I don't understand how this works with the belief there is an innate desire to rape women in males.  Could you clarify please. 

SeekingUnderstanding said: One thing I’d like to clarify too (not directly responding to you) but fantasy is different than reality. Many women report rape fantasies (see here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201508/why-do-women-have-rape-fantasies%3famp). This do.es not actually mean they want to be raped. Men who support violent p* rn do not necessarily want to act on that particular fantasy. 

Jake Starkey: A woman told me of her rape fantasy (not at my prodding or insistence).  She was hesitant, wondering if she were weird.  She was one of the most wonderful, gentle, loving woman I have ever known, not a violent instinct in her at all.

I know boys played 'war' and 'cowboys and Indians' when we were young, which involved fantasies of death and destruction.  Several of us served in the military, including me.  None of us, as far as I know, were ever suspected of homicide outside of the law.  Three (of several dozen) were involved in domestic violence of which I know.

My only point is that 'fantasy' in these situations does not necessarily mean anyone wants to be hurt or to hurt anyone.

 

 

 

The question is, where do these fantasies come from??

Half the reason there is so much confusion about what I said earlier thread is that I was trying to be more subtle and presumed the ability of others to extrapolate the true meaning.

Now that we're talking about rape fantasies I think we can get into it.

I think such fantasies betray a deep tendency within us and I was speaking specifically about men because of course I can't speak about women here.

Obviously the reason needs our fantasies is because we find them exciting and arousing.  No of course we would never act on them. That's not the point.

The point is that if we find those thoughts themselves arousing, does that make us "depraved"?

Why would the thought be arousing if secretly within our bodies it is not something we actually want to do?

Of course acting on them entirely different. My position is that these fantasies come from the deep distant dark past of the human body and our relation to for example chimpanzees.

Have you studied the behaviors of groups of chimpanzees?

Yes I'm a member of the church but yes I also believe in evolution of our bodies.

God used natural law to organize our bodies and into them comes our spirit.

Those Tendencies after millions of years of evolution have not totally been erased.

I think that to the extent we believe they are erased we are the ones who are deluded.

We have come to this earth to overcome those tendencies. Those Tendencies show what we call the natural man or the carnal man.

To ignore their existence is deep denial.

[Jake Starkey]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The question is, where do these fantasies come from??

Half the reason there is so much confusion about what I said earlier thread is that I was trying to be more subtle and presumed the ability of others to extrapolate the true meaning.

Now that we're talking about rape fantasies I think we can get into it.

I think such fantasies betray a deep tendency within us and I was speaking specifically about men because of course I can't speak about women here.

Obviously the reason needs our fantasies is because we find them exciting and arousing.  No of course we would never act on them. That's not the point.

The point is that if we find those thoughts themselves arousing, does that make us "depraved"?

Why would the thought be arousing if secretly within our bodies it is not something we actually want to do?

Of course acting on them entirely different. My position is that these fantasies come from the deep distant dark past of the human body and our relation to for example chimpanzees.

Have you studied the behaviors of groups of chimpanzees?

Yes I'm a member of the church but yes I also believe in evolution of our bodies.

God used natural law to organize our bodies and into them comes our spirit.

Those Tendencies after millions of years of evolution have not totally been erased.

I think that to the extent we believe they are erased we are the ones who are deluded.

We have come to this earth to overcome those tendencies. Those Tendencies show what we call the natural man or the carnal man.

To ignore their existence is deep denial.

Thank you for your thoughts on these matters.

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Maybe I am not making myself clear, I want to see a quote that states that a person can be accountable to God for the thoughts, words, or actions of another person.  This is the quote you provide:

Yes, dress can "prompt", have a "powerful impact upon", and "affect" the thoughts of others, but where does it say that the law of agency is revoked and that someone can be accountable before God for the thoughts, words, or actions of another?  All this quote does is support my position that we are responsible and accountable for our example/influence (even in dress).  That is the covenant I made at baptism.  While we are not ultimately responsible for the thoughts of others, we are accountable for how we choose to present ourselves as an example of one who takes upon the name of Christ.  

 

If you are going to insist on a legalistic, precise wording, quote to address your argument then we aren't going to get anywhere.  If you are unable to understand why women would interpret being told they are "pornograpy" to men with how they dress, and being told they have a responsibility for the "moral purity of men" and "get the man they dress for", as implicitly stating that they (women) are accountable for the thoughts of men, then I can't help you.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

So you disagree with mfb when he said the "innate desire for men to rape women is simply much stronger than you think and more universal"?

I don't like this:  "innate desire for men to rape women is simply much stronger than you think and more universal" !!

It makes it so men believe that they just can't help it, if they want an excuse. Besides, in our religion, we aren't taught that men/women are the lowest of the lowest, like some Christians believe and therefore rely solely on Christ to bring us out of it. Wasn't that the starting message of the Manti Pageant? Now I can't find it, but remember it when I saw it. Some teachings that we are gods in embryo or something.

[nuclearfuels]

On 10/27/2019 at 12:48 AM, Tacenda said:

🤢🤮

Excellent rebuttal.

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, ttribe said:

If you are going to insist on a legalistic, precise wording, quote to address your argument then we aren't going to get anywhere.  If you are unable to understand why women would interpret being told they are "pornograpy" to men with how they dress, and being told they have a responsibility for the "moral purity of men" and "get the man they dress for", as implicitly stating that they (women) are accountable for the thoughts of men, then I can't help you.

Just to clarify, it is your position then that our leaders truly believe and teach that a person can supersede the God given agency of another, and therefore become accountable for the thoughts, words, and actions of another human being?  That is what you really believe?

You think that our leaders (not just one, but many) could possibly make, and repeat such an egregious error of the core and foundational doctrine of agency/accountability, over and over and over again?  And of course, that error is only made in regards to how women dress, we don't see the same error anywhere else mysteriously. 

Or, is it more likely that our leaders know and understand the doctrine of agency/accountability and you are perhaps misreading them?

Just to clarify again, he didn't say that we are "responsible for the moral purity of men" - that is your own contorted wording.  What he ACTUALLY said is this -  "Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own self-respect and to the moral purity of men."  "Contributing to" and being "responsible or accountable for" are two very different things - or am I just being too "legalistic" here?

In other words our behaviors (and yes, even dress) can indeed contribute to the righteous betterment of others.  Do you really disagree?  You don't think that we can have a profound influence on others for good or evil?  Seriously!?  That is all he is saying.  Period.  Any implied accountability for someones behavior or thoughts, is simply your own doing. 

How does stating that women can be pornography for men somehow suggest that the agency and accountability of the man actually belongs to the woman?  The man is entirely accountable for his own thoughts and lust after the woman. 

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by pogi

[nuclearfuels]

On 10/26/2019 at 11:23 PM, ttribe said:

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

The pracatice in the Bible, Islam and in general in the ancient wordl as well as in some parts of AFrica currently (Cameroon, for example).

Legalize it and you will have more data if you'd like. 

 

[Peacefully]

This is off the subject but related to controlling other people’s thoughts. Plus I think we are beating a dead horse with who is most depraved. Anyway, my bishop said he wouldn’t feel comfortable going to a business lunch with a female other than his wife and one of the reasons was not to give people the wrong impression. I’ve worked in a male-dominated industry for 26 years. I’ve eaten out with men, traveled by car with men, and been in lots of meetings one on one and with groups of men. I’ve never felt threatened and I’ve never felt the need to worry about what someone else might think. Now, i’m Sure a Bishop has to be much more careful about how things look than I do. But I do get tired of people still thinking that men and women always have to be on their guard in platonic work situations and worry about what people might “think”. Any thoughts or is my situation an anomaly? 

[Meadowchik]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The question is, where do these fantasies come from??

Half the reason there is so much confusion about what I said earlier thread is that I was trying to be more subtle and presumed the ability of others to extrapolate the true meaning.

Now that we're talking about rape fantasies I think we can get into it.

I think such fantasies betray a deep tendency within us and I was speaking specifically about men because of course I can't speak about women here.

Obviously the reason needs our fantasies is because we find them exciting and arousing.  No of course we would never act on them. That's not the point.

The point is that if we find those thoughts themselves arousing, does that make us "depraved"?

Why would the thought be arousing if secretly within our bodies it is not something we actually want to do?

Of course acting on them entirely different. My position is that these fantasies come from the deep distant dark past of the human body and our relation to for example chimpanzees.

Have you studied the behaviors of groups of chimpanzees?

Yes I'm a member of the church but yes I also believe in evolution of our bodies.

God used natural law to organize our bodies and into them comes our spirit.

Those Tendencies after millions of years of evolution have not totally been erased.

I think that to the extent we believe they are erased we are the ones who are deluded.

We have come to this earth to overcome those tendencies. Those Tendencies show what we call the natural man or the carnal man.

To ignore their existence is deep denial.

 An awareness of natural tendencies can be an incredible relief sometimes, as it tends to point to a cause which can often be addressed. 

So when it comes to sexual predation, there is probably no correlation between a female's attire and being sexually assaulted. That's not a cause. The cause is the aggressor's cognitive abilities which give way to aggressive tendencies.

I don't think that more-covered females will help "bad" men be good or "good" men be better. All of us can lessen our bad tendencies and enhance good ones by awareness and by personal proactive choices. 

I know someone who is admittedly "hypersexual." His plan frequently involves staying busy with fulfilling work and fun. He has two businessess and has flipped more than three houses for profit in the last 20 years while staying active serving in church. As far as I can know, this works well for him.

[Jake Starkey]

Pogi, in part, said: "ust to clarify, it is your position then that our leaders truly believe and teach that a person can supersede the God given agency of another, and therefore become accountable for the thoughts, words, and actions of another "being?  That is what you really believe?"

Jake Starkey said: No, Pogi, no ~ that is your position, your misconstruction of what someone else supposedly meant.

I challenge you to use your own words to say what you mean and not to put misconstructed meanings in the mouths of other posters.

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't like this:  "innate desire for men to rape women is simply much stronger than you think and more universal" !!

It makes it so men believe that they just can't help it, if they want an excuse. Besides, in our religion, we aren't taught that men/women are the lowest of the lowest, like some Christians believe and therefore rely solely on Christ to bring us out of it. Wasn't that the starting message of the Manti Pageant? Now I can't find it, but remember it when I saw it. Some teachings that we are gods in embryo or something.

I have never heard anything from the Church that would excuse men from controlling themselves. On the contrary, it’s been clear to me that we are fully accountable. In our culture that is not an easy thing to do, so finding someone to blame for failure is one way to cope.