Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[MustardSeed]

I’m stepping out now, thanks all. 

[Jake Starkey]

I have not heard anything from the Church that men and women are born depraved animals, the lowest of the low: to suggest such is heresy.

MustardSeed, thank you very much for your contributions and I learned a lot from them.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[mfbukowski]

9 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.

I notice you got a lot of points for this reply which of course does not even represent my position.

Let me show you precisely where you are wrong about what I said.   This is also for those who gave you rep points.

I would suggest that you and others take a class in logic.   I have trouble sometimes expressing myself so that others understand me- perhaps I have a touch of Asperger's or something which had not yet been discovered in my youth, perhaps because the syndrome had not yet been discovered.   In fact that seems quite likely to me.  Everyone complains that I either take to long to explain things if I think the audience is unfamiliar with the concept or too short if I think the audience IS familiar- I tend to skip steps assuming they are following.  That has been the problem here in this thread.

But I DO know how to analyze the logic of statements and instantly see logical errors when they present themselves.

This quote is chock full of them.  I decided not even to respond to the ridiculousness presented here but then you got all these rep points even from my friends, indicating they were just as much in error as you.   

Unbelievable.

Now to the above.

Where have I ONCE asserted that "I like" the ridiculous notion that "men are depraved and women are spiritual because it means they just can't help themselves." ??

NEVER!  Where have I asserted that men to not deserve to take responsibility for their sexual proclivities?   NEVER  Where have I ever said that women are responsible for men's temptations?  NEVER

Quote

 

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."

 

What do the jokes about Relief Society (which tend to be true in my opinion) or that men like to watch TV have to do with men being violent toward women??  How could such drivel possibly have any value in a discussion about violence toward women?  

And most curious of all is the fact that raising that point that they jokes indicate that women are more spiritual than men- and the element of truth found in the joke-  We know that jokes always carry an element of truth-  is widely ACTUALLY acknowledged by men in councils on every level I have experienced.   

Yet you twist the JOKE into men actually NOT taking responsibility.   Absurd.   You think Bishops and Stake presidents sit in front of the TV and don't work on their sexual temptations because they are not their fault- and blame it all on women?  Do you actually think men sit back and let the Relief Society do it because they are so good at it?

TOTALLY absurd.

Quote

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.

Of course you do not find it because it is not there!!  We are partners with our spouses in every way in working on temptations and indeed that is one of the spiritual functions of marital love in a Celestial marriage!!!

We work together as equals learning about each other and the other half of humanity about likes and dislikes, how the other thinks and feels about these topics and the appropriate way to move closer to Christ in the bedroom as well as in all other aspects of life!

I NEVER said that men are "INCAPABLE" of being as spiritual as women and in fact the purpose of the endowment and the blessings given is precisely to CORRECT what MIGHT be differences in the innate spirituality each sex exhibits.

Quote

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.

This reminds me of the old joke about di-hydrogen monoxide.

You can make anything look sinister and this thread is the proof of that.

 

Quote

 

Dihydrogen monoxide:

• is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
• contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
• may cause severe burns.
• contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
• accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
• may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
• has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

• as an industrial solvent and coolant.
• in nuclear power plants.
• in the production of styrofoam.
• as a fire retardant.
• in many forms of cruel animal research.
• in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
• as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

 

 

Di-hydrogen monoxide is also known as H2O, or the usual English word is "water".

Thanks to all.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, rchorse said:

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.

So who's disingenuous ?  Got more truths about di-hydrogen monoxide?   And who scored the points?

Edited October 28, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Totally true, I think

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

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.

Great, that's why I prefaced it with "just to clarify..." because that is indeed what it means to me.  I think it is generally considered good form to let the person clarify for themselves what they mean...

In case you haven't been following, the claim has been made that leaders teach that women are accountable and in some cases outright "control" the thoughts/words/actions of men. What does that say about the gift/law of personal agency/accountability?  I seriously need some clarity there.    

It helps if you use the quote function so that I know someone has responded to me.  I am not really following the whole thread and may overlook this. 

Edited October 28, 2019 by pogi

[bluebell]

1 hour 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 agree with you.  I don't believe we are taught that, in church or in the temple.  Mfb seems to disagree though.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

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

 

Please show me where I said that and the context

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

 

I love that movie, and I think that that clip is funny, but I wouldn't use it to teach anything gospel related because it implies that men are easily manipulated and that women should be passive/aggressive, manipulative, and sneaky to get what they want from their husbands.  

It's funny in a movie but it's not a model of a healthy relationship or the way that men and women should try to influence each other.

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I love that movie, and I think that that clip is funny, but I wouldn't use it to teach anything gospel related because it implies that men are easily manipulated and that women should be passive/aggressive, manipulative, and sneaky to get what they want from their husbands.  

It's funny in a movie but it's not a model of a healthy relationship or the way that men and women should try to influence each other.

Totally agree!

I really think the only point he was making is that woman can have a profound influence on men, (I think he, and we, would agree that the reverse is true too) and injected a little hyperbole to make the point.  I really, really, don't think he was trying to imply that woman can literally control men.

Edited October 28, 2019 by pogi

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

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. 

 

All you did was cite the practice, both anciently and currently.  You didn't actually show that the practice had the effects you stated.

If that's the substance of your argument, I'll submit the foul evidence and outcomes that are shown by the FLDS, et al.

[sunstoned]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just for the record, I agree totally and never said otherwise.

I never doubted you. 

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

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? 

I have a close friend who's very active, serving in the bishopric, attending the temple monthly, reading scriptures and praying daily husband had an affair with a married woman that he worked with, and who he became emotionally close with exclusively over business lunches and business travel (which eventually lead to the sexual aspect).  I also know a bishop (this was years ago) who had an affair with a RS president and who became close to the her after repeatedly having to travel one-on-one with her to church related functions in a different town.  The bishop's wife didn't have a problem with the arrangement because the RS president was very overweight and not someone that the bishop was attracted to. 

So while I completely understand what you are saying and I think it's very valid, I respect those who feel like they need to protect their relationships by limiting chances to become emotionally close someone of the opposite sex through work or even church.  None of us are above these kinds of temptations under the right circumstances.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

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? 

That can be a problem and can negatively impact a woman's ability to progress in her career. If, for example, a boss or associate thinks they need a chaperone when with a woman, that makes employing her more costly. I've seen people address this by making any necessary policy apply to all, instead of just women. Keeping doors open, or having glass walls for one-on-one a, etc... are examples of approaches.

It takes work and planning to create healthy boundaries in social situations--ones that protect but also allow for growth--but the effort is imo worth it because healthy boundaries are, heh, healthier!

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have a close friend who's very active, serving in the bishopric, attending the temple monthly, reading scriptures and praying daily husband had an affair with a married woman that he worked with, and who he became emotionally close with exclusively over business lunches and business travel (which eventually lead to the sexual aspect).  I also know a bishop (this was years ago) who had an affair with a RS president and who became close to the her after repeatedly having to travel one-on-one with her to church related functions in a different town.  The bishop's wife didn't have a problem with the arrangement because the RS president was very overweight and not someone that the bishop was attracted to. 

So while I completely understand what you are saying and I think it's very valid, I respect those who feel like they need to protect their relationships by limiting chances to become emotionally close someone of the opposite sex through work or even church.  None of us are above these kinds of temptations under the right circumstances.

Not to inject politics into an already sensitive subject, but Vice President Pence gets a lot of flack from democrats for insisting that he never be alone with another woman other than his wife.  I LOVE that about him, and his approach could have saved many o' politicians careers and family...

...So to get this straight, you have a friend in the bishopric whose husband cheated on another woman?  (I think you meant whose husband is serving in the bishopric ) That would have been quite the story though - a bishop secretly married to another man...

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Peacefully said:

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? 

As a school orchestra teacher, I took great care not to be alone in my office with the door closed with a female student. If it were necessary, I made sure the window in the door was unblocked and I was visible from the outside. 

On orchestra trips I never hung out with a girl by herself and always tried to be in mixed  groups.  I never entered a girls’ motel room at bed check. 

We male teachers had to be careful when touching girls in pedagogical situations. I would ask if I could touch, but usually just avoided it. One of the most uncomfortable duties for male teachers was to enforce the school dress codes for girls.

I would follow the same protocols if the group were all adults. 

Edited October 28, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Thinking]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think the innate desire for men to rape women is simply much stronger than you think and more universal.  And the conclusion for that is not based on data, it is based upon 40 years of Elder's Quorums and High Priest Groups talking about how their wives are what keep them in church and how much more spiritual their wives are than they are, and how one keeps a marriage successful for such spans of time.

My data is accumulated testimony reports by hundreds or perhaps thousands of LDS men in various geographic areas, all of which presenting the same message.

You are entitled to your opinion, even when it is not based on data. I'm not sure what is the correlation between women being more spiritual and rape. Most men have a desire to have sex with a woman to whom they are attracted, and may even want to seduce that woman. Seduction surely doesn't rise to the level of rape. Rape involves force.

[rchorse]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I notice you got a lot of points for this reply which of course does not even represent my position.

Let me show you precisely where you are wrong about what I said.   This is also for those who gave you rep points.

I would suggest that you and others take a class in logic.   I have trouble sometimes expressing myself so that others understand me- perhaps I have a touch of Asperger's or something which had not yet been discovered in my youth, perhaps because the syndrome had not yet been discovered.   In fact that seems quite likely to me.  Everyone complains that I either take to long to explain things if I think the audience is unfamiliar with the concept or too short if I think the audience IS familiar- I tend to skip steps assuming they are following.  That has been the problem here in this thread.

But I DO know how to analyze the logic of statements and instantly see logical errors when they present themselves.

This quote is chock full of them.  I decided not even to respond to the ridiculousness presented here but then you got all these rep points even from my friends, indicating they were just as much in error as you.   

Unbelievable.

Now to the above.

Where have I ONCE asserted that "I like" the ridiculous notion that "men are depraved and women are spiritual because it means they just can't help themselves." ??

NEVER!  Where have I asserted that men to not deserve to take responsibility for their sexual proclivities?   NEVER  Where have I ever said that women are responsible for men's temptations?  NEVER

What do the jokes about Relief Society (which tend to be true in my opinion) or that men like to watch TV have to do with men being violent toward women??  How could such drivel possibly have any value in a discussion about violence toward women?  

And most curious of all is the fact that raising that point that they jokes indicate that women are more spiritual than men- and the element of truth found in the joke-  We know that jokes always carry an element of truth-  is widely ACTUALLY acknowledged by men in councils on every level I have experienced.   

Yet you twist the JOKE into men actually NOT taking responsibility.   Absurd.   You think Bishops and Stake presidents sit in front of the TV and don't work on their sexual temptations because they are not their fault- and blame it all on women?  Do you actually think men sit back and let the Relief Society do it because they are so good at it?

TOTALLY absurd.

Of course you do not find it because it is not there!!  We are partners with our spouses in every way in working on temptations and indeed that is one of the spiritual functions of marital love in a Celestial marriage!!!

We work together as equals learning about each other and the other half of humanity about likes and dislikes, how the other thinks and feels about these topics and the appropriate way to move closer to Christ in the bedroom as well as in all other aspects of life!

I NEVER said that men are "INCAPABLE" of being as spiritual as women and in fact the purpose of the endowment and the blessings given is precisely to CORRECT what MIGHT be differences in the innate spirituality each sex exhibits.

This reminds me of the old joke about di-hydrogen monoxide.

You can make anything look sinister and this thread is the proof of that.

 

Di-hydrogen monoxide is also known as H2O, or the usual English word is "water".

Thanks to all.

You're not understanding me. I never said that you said all those things. Those are my thoughts on why the myth that women are more spiritual than men persists in the church.

The only part I'm claiming you said is that you believe women are more spiritual than men. Is that not what you believe? This is the part I disagree with, and the rest of what I wrote was my opinions on WHY I disagree.

I'm sincerely sorry I'm not a better communicator.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

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.

We could all learn a lot from that if we actually practiced it ourselves.

Edited October 28, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Peacefully]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have a close friend who's very active, serving in the bishopric, attending the temple monthly, reading scriptures and praying daily husband had an affair with a married woman that he worked with, and who he became emotionally close with exclusively over business lunches and business travel (which eventually lead to the sexual aspect).  I also know a bishop (this was years ago) who had an affair with a RS president and who became close to the her after repeatedly having to travel one-on-one with her to church related functions in a different town.  The bishop's wife didn't have a problem with the arrangement because the RS president was very overweight and not someone that the bishop was attracted to. 

So while I completely understand what you are saying and I think it's very valid, I respect those who feel like they need to protect their relationships by limiting chances to become emotionally close someone of the opposite sex through work or even church.  None of us are above these kinds of temptations under the right circumstances.

I get what you are saying and I remember one time in my career where I made a decision not to stay in a hotel my coworker was staying in because my first marriage was on the rocks and I was in an emotional place where we could be in dangerous waters. So we do have to be vigilant about these things. But my main question is, should we worry about what other people will think if they see us at lunch or dinner with a someone of the opposite sex who is not our spouse. Are we responsible for whatever conclusion the draw? Appearance of evil, in other words.

[Peacefully]

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

As a school orchestra teacher, I took great care not to be alone in my office with the door closed with a female student. If it were necessary, I made sure the window in the door was unblocked and I was visible from the outside. 

On orchestra trips I never hung out with a girl by herself and always tried to be in mixed  groups.  I never entered a girls’ motel room at bed check. 

We male teachers had to be careful when touching girls in pedagogical situations. I would ask if I could touch, but usually just avoided it. One of the most uncomfortable duties for male teachers was to enforce the school dress codes for girls.

I would follow the same protocols if the group was all adults. 

Very wise of you to follow those protocols with students. The church has similar protocols in place and I believe it is for the safety of adults and kids.

Enforcing the dress code would not be fun. Did you ever have to enforce the dress code for the boys?

 

[Peacefully]

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not to inject politics into an already sensitive subject, but Vice President Pence gets a lot of flack from democrats for insisting that he never be alone with another woman other than his wife.  I LOVE that about him, and his approach could have saved many o' politicians careers and family...

...So to get this straight, you have a friend in the bishopric whose husband cheated on another woman?  (I think you meant whose husband is serving in the bishopric ) That would have been quite the story though - a bishop secretly married to another man...

I respect him for this decision. 

[Jake Starkey]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Great, that's why I prefaced it with "just to clarify..." because that is indeed what it means to me.  I think it is generally considered good form to let the person clarify for themselves what they mean...

In case you haven't been following, the claim has been made that leaders teach that women are accountable and in some cases outright "control" the thoughts/words/actions of men. What does that say about the gift/law of personal agency/accountability?  I seriously need some clarity there.    

It helps if you use the quote function so that I know someone has responded to me.  I am not really following the whole thread and may overlook this. 

To get the connections I need in the quotes, I did it the way for me that seemed sensible, so I will continue doing it.

I understand you want to understand, but misconstruing what others have said is not the way to do it.  Ask direction questions.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Jake Starkey]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We could all learn a lot from that if we actually practiced it ourselves.

Indeed, and I challenge all to do so.

[Meadowchik]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not to inject politics into an already sensitive subject, but Vice President Pence gets a lot of flack from democrats for insisting that he never be alone with another woman other than his wife.  I LOVE that about him, and his approach could have saved many o' politicians careers and family...

...So to get this straight, you have a friend in the bishopric whose husband cheated on another woman?  (I think you meant whose husband is serving in the bishopric ) That would have been quite the story though - a bishop secretly married to another man...

Hopefully he does not allow that to restrict access from female representatives of government or the press who are trying to do their jobs. Such behaviours tend to create additional layers between female perspectives and leadership and can reduce leadership access to female perspectives.