Identity = Child of God > Gay Man

[california boy]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Your body told you it was wrong?

My moral compass told me it was wrong. It felt immoral to have sex with my wife. I just shouldn’t be doing it

Edited September 10, 2021 by california boy

[california boy]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  What statistics do you have in mind?  CFR, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

Here is a study of Mixed orientation marriages among LDS couples

In the USU study, which involved 1,612 LGBT Mormons, surveys revealed that mixed-orientation marriages (the marriage of a heterosexual person to a person with same-sex attraction) have an estimated 70 percent divorce rate — meaning that couples are 200 to 300 percent more likely to get a divorce. By contrast, the divorce rate for LDS couples in which both partners are heterosexual is around 25 percent.

This study shows an 80% failure rate

 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Here is a study of Mixed orientation marriages among LDS couples

In the USU study, which involved 1,612 LGBT Mormons, surveys revealed that mixed-orientation marriages (the marriage of a heterosexual person to a person with same-sex attraction) have an estimated 70 percent divorce rate — meaning that couples are 200 to 300 percent more likely to get a divorce. By contrast, the divorce rate for LDS couples in which both partners are heterosexual is around 25 percent.

This study shows an 80% failure rate

 

The first study included Dehlin and as far as I can tell could have been the type of study that is self selecting and therefore may be slanted towards a particular experience.  He has done other work that was problematic this way, imo. I don’t know anything about the other researchers. 
 

The second is not a study, but looks more like a textbook or informative article.  The 80% info is just identified as “research” as far as I saw, which was surprising because he gave names associated with other stats. 
 

Not saying they are wrong, I assume the stats would be higher than non mixed orientation marriages, given they would have almost all the issues of non mixed with the addition of the difficulty of maintaining sexual attraction if the homosexual partner has been able to develop such or adapting to lack of physical attraction with one partner if the arrangement involved that. 

Edited September 10, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

The first study included Dehlin and as far as I can tell could have been the type of study that is self selecting and therefore may be slanted towards a particular experience.  He has done other work that was problematic this way, imo. I don’t know anything about the other researchers. 

Found this:

Quote

Of the participants surveyed -- all of whom volunteered to be in the study -- 31 percent reported entering mixed-orientation marriages at some point in their lives, with 240 still in a mixed-orientation marriage at the time of the survey. The study found a divorce rate of 51 percent for couples who entered mixed-orientation marriages. But broader studies showed the divorce rate among these couples varies from 50 percent to 85 percent.

 

https://www.ibtimes.com/gay-mormons-heterosexual-marriages-are-more-likely-divorce-study-1782124

[smac97]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Here is a study of Mixed orientation marriages among LDS couples

In the USU study, which involved 1,612 LGBT Mormons, surveys revealed that mixed-orientation marriages (the marriage of a heterosexual person to a person with same-sex attraction) have an estimated 70 percent divorce rate — meaning that couples are 200 to 300 percent more likely to get a divorce. By contrast, the divorce rate for LDS couples in which both partners are heterosexual is around 25 percent.

This study shows an 80% failure rate

Interesting study.  I also note that it compares the divorce rate not to divorces overall (which I understand is at about 50%), but to Latter-day Saint couples who are heterosexual (which have half the average divorce rate).  

Meanwhile, the divorce rates for same-sex marriages are an interesting mixed bag.  Divorce among lesbian couples is substantially higher as compared to homosexual men couples in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK.

The divorce rate for gay couples in the U.S. is about the same as for heterosexual couples, though again lesbian marriages don't seem to last as long.

Plenty of interesting explanations for these things (see, e.g., here, here, here).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 10, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Found this:

https://www.ibtimes.com/gay-mormons-heterosexual-marriages-are-more-likely-divorce-study-1782124

And from earlier in this thread:

Quote

As for whether mixed-orientation marriages can actually work, consider this article (from August 2020) (emphasis added) :

Quote

Skyler Sorensen and his wife Amanda have a lot in common.

For starters, they’re both attracted to men. But Skyler claims that being gay hasn’t gotten in the way of their blissful marriage — or their sex life.

“That sexual attraction came from, I mean, trial-and-error and a lot of practice,” the 25-year-old told The Post, laughing with his wife, also 25.

As Mormons, he and Amanda believe that the “celestial marriage” between a man and woman — and a man and woman only — is key to heavenly salvation. So, the couple sought to make their unusual union work, despite their mismatched desire.
...
Determined to make the conventional marriage work, the Sorensens called on a trusted counselor, with both personal and professional experience in mixed-orientation relationships (MOR), to help them prepare for their unusual arrangement — which it turns out isn’t so uncommon, said Dr. Ty Mansfield, a private practice marriage and family therapist in Provo and adjunct professor at BYU.

Mansfield, who specializes in MORs, specifically among Mormons, said “anywhere from 40 to 60% [of my clients] are navigating sexual or gender-identity questions.”

“Whatever path you choose, there are healthy ways and unhealthy ways to navigate that path,” he said. For some in the church, this could mean a lifetime — an eternity, even — of celibacy. Others, such as the Sorensens, can achieve an “authentic sexual expression” through the “nurturing of the … personal, spiritual bond,” as opposed to defining marriage as “just an expression of [an] orientation.”

Recently, he and his colleagues conducted a study of Mormon adults, either practicing or defected, “who experience sexual attractions to same-sex adults,” according to the survey, published on 4OptionsSurvey.com. Among other insights, they discovered that MORs are, in fact, viable. About 80% of such respondents reported being generally satisfied with their status — almost double the rate of those who were single and celibate (42%) or single and not celibate (40%).

Still, the survey found that the happiest couples were those attracted to members of the same sex who were in same-sex relationships. They reported a 95% satisfaction rate.

I'd like to see the polling data and methodology.

I'd also like to see Dehlin's methodology.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Peacefully]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course it wasn’t fair to either one of us. Church leaders should have never promised that marriage would somehow change my orientation.  It was a false promise taking advantage of someone who trusted in their claims to know the will of God.

I learned to never trust anyone who claims to know what God thinks.  It is up to each and every one of us to have our own relationship with God.  He will guide us.

 This is an issue that many have had confirmed a different answer from the ones put out by church leaders 

Unfortunately, I think some leaders counsel from their own, personal biases. I was counseled by a Bishop to ask my daughter not to wear tight shirts to church because it made his son uncomfortable. The same Bishop counseled me not to invite any of the young women to my wedding in the chapel be cause it would be celebrating a non-temple wedding. I was younger and sometimes I took these things to heart instead of seeking my own inspiration. I now realize these are men, doing the best they can in a probably overwhelming position. Have some done damage, maybe even irreparable? Absolutely, and I think there are legitimate reasons to take other paths. But I think it is getting better. So I choose to stay and be the change I want to see because I do think there is more light and knowledge to come. 
 

Edit: Not comparing the above situations to yours, CB, just trying to explain why I give leaders some leeway in making mistakes. The fact they told you that you would not be gay anymore if you married a woman would fall into sometimes irreparable damage that I spoke of. 

Edited September 10, 2021 by Peacefully

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Unfortunately, I think some leaders counsel from their own, personal biases. I was counseled by a Bishop to ask my daughter not to wear tight shirts to church because it made his son uncomfortable.

I think the bishop could have omitted the reference to his son and the counsel still be sound.  I can understand that some women and girls don't like "modesty" framed primarily as a "how it affects others" kind of thing.  I'm not sure I fully understand it, though.

By way of illustration: I think the highest and best motivation to adhere to the Law of Chastity is because I am trying to obey God.  Now, a well-intended bishop may suggest that I keep this commandment because violating it would adversely affect my wife and children.  Is he wrong?  Well, no.  Would it be better for him to encourage me to keep the Law of Chastity based on a love of God ("If ye love me, keep my commandments...")?  

5 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

The same Bishop counseled me not to invite any of the young women to my wedding in the chapel be cause it would be celebrating a non-temple wedding.

Oi.  I'm sorry to hear that.  

5 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I was younger and sometimes I took these things to heart instead of seeking my own inspiration. I now realize these are men, doing the best they can in a probably overwhelming position.

And their "best" is often fairly congruent with the principles and doctrines espoused by the Church.  But yeah, they can and do screw up as well.

5 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Have some done damage, maybe even irreparable? Absolutely, and I think there are legitimate reasons to take other paths. 

Could you elaborate?  I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

5 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

But I think it is getting better. So I choose to stay and be the change I want to see because I do think there is more light and knowledge to come. 

Very cool.  I think we improve the Church by improving ourselves and then work together to improve and strengthen our community.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Vanguard]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Found this:

https://www.ibtimes.com/gay-mormons-heterosexual-marriages-are-more-likely-divorce-study-1782124

Are they including those unions where the man or woman entered into the union not having revealed their inclinations? If so, this would skew the data and conversation away from what I thought we were taking about - that is, what happens when a couple enters marriage where one of the partners has come out to the other and still they decide to make a go of it. It stands to reason if one of the partners kept it a secret from the other (hoping s/he could 'cure's themself in a hetero-union) that these divorce stats would be higher. I think we all already knew this though. What of those who were entirely open from the get-go?

Edited September 10, 2021 by Vanguard

[CV75]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course it wasn’t fair to either one of us. Church leaders should have never promised that marriage would somehow change my orientation.  It was a false promise taking advantage of someone who trusted in their claims to know the will of God.

I learned to never trust anyone who claims to know what God thinks.  It is up to each and every one of us to have our own relationship with God.  He will guide us.

 This is an issue that many have had confirmed a different answer from the ones put out by church leaders 

A personal answer to prayer is typically the only way to get an exception to general Church or local leader guidance without their concurrence. Also, individuals are entitled to ongoing personal revelation, and their spiritual convictions may change over time (just as the Church operates).

I believe spirituality drives our voluntary sexual expression. To help with that, our covenants, including the companionship of the Holy Ghost, help us choose how we express ourselves sexually.

As with anyone / everyone, you had you own levels levels of spiritual development in the areas of personal revelation and following ecclesiastical direction, and the forces played out when you trusted whoever told you to marry a woman. You did that in good faith, but live and learn, hopefully with greater light and knowledge as time goes on.

The general guidance about marriage being a setting to resolve personal issues by aligning covenants and the companionship of the Holy Ghost is generally sound, but must be balanced with the general guidance to enter marriage both selflessly and carefully. Not many of us are prepared to do that when we marry, at least we find out quickly that we are not as prepared as we thought, but we step forward in good faith anyway, and hopefully learn to follow the Lord selflessly and carefully.

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the bishop could have omitted the reference to his son and the counsel still be sound.  I can understand that some women and girls don't like "modesty" framed primarily as a "how it affects others" kind of thing.  I'm not sure I fully understand it, though.

Interestingly the Savior Himself weighed in on who is responsible for ‘modesty’ in thoughts.

Quote

 

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

 

No mention of making sure the woman is adequately covered by law or custom. Instead Jesus  gives a possibly sarcastic injunction that if you can’t control yourself just gouge out your eye. Seems to suggest whose problem it is in any case.

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Interestingly the Savior Himself weighed in on who is responsible for ‘modesty’ in thoughts.

Not sure this is an either/or scenario.

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No mention of making sure the woman is adequately covered by law or custom. Instead Jesus  gives a possibly sarcastic injunction that if you can’t control yourself just gouge out your eye. Seems to suggest whose problem it is in any case.

I think there are many circumstances pertaining to modesty that are not about "lust{ing}" after someone.

By way of example: A while back I spent several years teaching at a local university.  Most of my classes were scheduled in a computer lab, where the students were sitting at a right angle to the front of the class (facing the computers, rather than me).  The lectern was a standard stand-in-the-front-of-the-classroom-between-the-students-and-whiteboard setup.  The computer lab was pretty cramped, with the students at the front of the classroom sitting only about 4-5 feet in front of me.

Well, one semester I had a student who sat front and center in the lab, just a few feet in front of me.  Inconveniently, she was A) well-endowed and B) prone to wearing quite revealing clothing (lots of cleavage), such that her sitting position right in front of of the standing lectern necessarily gave me . . . an unsolicited eyeful.

I really liked this student.  She worked hard and was very bright.  I certainly did not "lust" after her at all.  I was not comfortable about the environment, but I did not feel it was my place to say anything to the student.  So I spent most of the semester in that class lecturing from the corner of the computer lab rather than at the lectern.

I would have preferred if she had dressed more . . . professionally.  Not because of any "lust" on my part, but rather a preference for working in an environment of decorum and propriety.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 10, 2021 by smac97

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure this is an either/or scenario.

I think there are many circumstances pertaining to modesty that are not about "lust{ing}" after someone.

Maybe not but it is at least a more reponsible/less responsible scenario.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think there are many circumstances pertaining to modesty that are not about "lust{ing}" after someone.

By way of example: A while back I spent several years teaching at a local university.  Most of my classes were scheduled in a computer lab, where the students were sitting at a right angle to the front of the class (facing the computers, rather than me).  The lectern was a standard stand-in-the-front-of-the-classroom-between-the-students-and-whiteboard setup.  The computer lab was pretty cramped, with the students at the front of the classroom sitting only about 4-5 feet in front of me.

Well, one semester I had a student who sat front and center in the lab, just a few feet in front of me.  Inconveniently, she was A) well-endowed and B) prone to wearing quite revealing clothing (lots of cleavage), such that her sitting position right in front of of the standing lectern necessarily gave me . . . an unsolicited eyeful.

I really liked this student.  She worked hard and was very bright.  I certainly did not "lust" after her at all.  I was not comfortable about the environment, but I did not feel it was my place to say anything to the student.  So I spent most of the semester in that class lecturing from the corner of the computer lab rather than at the lectern.

I would have preferred if she had dressed more . . . professionally.  Not because of any "lust" on my part, but rather a preference for working in an environment of decorum and propriety.

Thanks,

-Smac

So she was unprofessional, indecorous, and guilty of impropriety? And she was inconveniently dressed in a way not suitable for your rarefied preferences? And poor you since the whole thing was entirely unsolicited.

[Kenngo1969]

I haven't been following the thread slavishly, so please forgive me, but, with reference to the thread title, really, that was my only concern about the young man who came out at graduation: Is he a child of God who happens to be gay, or is he a gay child of God?  If one puts any modifier or qualifier before "child of God," in my opinion, one should exercise care that the modifier (whatever it happens to be: e.g., Black, etc.) does not come to exceed the rest of the descriptor, "child of God," in importance, or, heaven forbid, to supplant it.  As long as that caveat, always, is kept top of mind (and heart), whatever one is, "child of God who happens to be [blank]," more power to him or her.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Maybe not but it is at least a more reponsible [sic]/less responsible scenario.

So she was unprofessional, indecorous, and guilty of impropriety? And she was inconveniently dressed in a way not suitable for your rarefied preferences? And poor you since the whole thing was entirely unsolicited.

I think that was an uncalled-for cheap shot, but, hey, we all have to add something to the forum.  You're simply a constant reminder that not all contributions are equally valuable.

[Tacenda]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure this is an either/or scenario.

I think there are many circumstances pertaining to modesty that are not about "lust{ing}" after someone.

By way of example: A while back I spent several years teaching at a local university.  Most of my classes were scheduled in a computer lab, where the students were sitting at a right angle to the front of the class (facing the computers, rather than me).  The lectern was a standard stand-in-the-front-of-the-classroom-between-the-students-and-whiteboard setup.  The computer lab was pretty cramped, with the students at the front of the classroom sitting only about 4-5 feet in front of me.

Well, one semester I had a student who sat front and center in the lab, just a few feet in front of me.  Inconveniently, she was A) well-endowed and B) prone to wearing quite revealing clothing (lots of cleavage), such that her sitting position right in front of of the standing lectern necessarily gave me . . . an unsolicited eyeful.

I really liked this student.  She worked hard and was very bright.  I certainly did not "lust" after her at all.  I was not comfortable about the environment, but I did not feel it was my place to say anything to the student.  So I spent most of the semester in that class lecturing from the corner of the computer lab rather than at the lectern.

I would have preferred if she had dressed more . . . professionally.  Not because of any "lust" on my part, but rather a preference for working in an environment of decorum and propriety.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, maybe in this circumstance think of her chest as a life giving substance for babies, not a mental image of porn?  ETA: I want to add that I understand that in our world in the US, we are programmed to believe that image is walking porn, or whatever you want to call it. And if a student was a man and I was teaching and he was showing his lower half, too low, I might not like that either. So I think it's our conditioning, all of us. But cleavage seems a little better than a man showing the beginnings of his pubic area. I see cleavage at church. On Marie Osmond. So I really don't know since I wasn't in the classroom how bad it was.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Tacenda

[smac97]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Maybe not but it is at least a more reponsible/less responsible scenario.

So she was unprofessional, indecorous, and guilty of impropriety?

I think she was likely oblivious.

I have since ran into her a few times.  She's a court clerk.  Her professional dress is . . . professional.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

And she was inconveniently dressed in a way not suitable for your rarefied preferences?

She often wore revealing clothing, and was situated in the classroom such that I felt obligated, both professionally and as a matter of decency and decorum, to lecture from the corner of the room rather than seeing what she was, well, revealing.

As for my "preferences," I admit I am generally accustomed to working with women in a legal setting, where professional dress is the order of the day.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

And poor you since the whole thing was entirely unsolicited.

Yep.  Not sure why you are sneering at that.

As our own Gui put it: "Gui's Law: In an online discussion of modesty, the probability that a defender of modesty is called a pervert approaches 1."

It's strange that I went out of my way to not run afoul of generalized notions of decorum and propriety, and here you are mocking me for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, maybe in this circumstance think of her chest as a life giving substance for babies, not a mental image of porn? 

I said nothing about "a mental image of porn."  Please don't impute such things onto me.  I find that very offensive.

And I would rather not "think of her chest" at all.  That was the point in my moving to the corner of the classroom and lecturing from there.

I am fortunate in that I work in a legal setting, where everyone dresses professionally.  I guess I'm sort of old-fashioned.  I think men should dress modestly and professionally as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT:

Quote

ETA: I want to add that I understand that in our world in the US, we are programmed to believe that image is walking porn, or whatever you want to call it.

Again, I have said nothing about "walking porn" or anything like it.

Quote

And if a student was a man and I was teaching and he was showing his lower half, too low, I might not like that either. So I think it's our conditioning, all of us.

Yes, there are cultural elements.  

Quote

But cleavage seems a little better than a man showing the beginnings of his pubic area.

I'm not particularly inclined to adjudicate incremental comparisons.

I get that there is no "bright line rule" in terms of modesty, and that cultural expectations/norms play a part.

Quote

I see cleavage at church. On Marie Osmond. So I really don't know since I wasn't in the classroom how bad it was.

I guess you'll have to take my word for it.  If and when I encounter a woman who is wearing provocative/revealing clothing, I can avert my eyes.  Look or turn away.  Stop for a moment to tie my shoe.  Don't ogle or stare or admire.  Be a gentlemen.  In the classroom setting, however, I did not really have those options.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 10, 2021 by smac97

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I said nothing about "a mental image of porn."  Please don't impute such things onto me.  I find that very offensive.

And I would rather not "think of her chest" at all.  That was the point in my moving to the corner of the classroom and lecturing from there.

I am fortunate in that I work in a legal setting, where everyone dresses professionally.  I guess I'm sort of old-fashioned.  I think men should dress modestly and professionally as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm sorry, did you see my edit? Would you mind looking at it? Apologize, if I imputed that on you. In my edit, I hope it helps.

[MustardSeed]

20 hours ago, bOObOO said:

Back to the topic now.  Can we all now admit that we have gay or bisexual tendencies, or have had, or may have in the future.  That would be swell.  I would like to think we are all mature enough to admit that as at least a possibility.  Thank you.

 Speak for yourself. I have no issue with your homosexual thoughts.  Your assumption that we all think as you do on any topic is preposterous. 
 

 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

would have preferred if she had dressed more . . . professionally.  Not because of any "lust" on my part, but rather a preference for working in an environment of decorum and propriety.

I can appreciate this preference.  I admit I’m annoyed when I attend the symphony or theater and see folks dressed ultra casually.  I like to see people dress up for air travel. 
one of my pet peeves is when high school girls wear revealing clothing for choir and instrument concerts that they are participating in. 
 

That said, there’s a new movement on the horizon looking to de emphasize the objectification of women.  This movement elevates all of us.  I love it. 

[bOObOO]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

If there is a "spectrum" or "continuum," then it would follow that at one end there are the "strictly attracted to members of the opposite sex" folks (statistically, most people fall here).  At the other and there are "strictly attracted to members of the same sex," and in between there are varied shades.  

And it appears that some may experience "fluidity," wherein their position on this spectrum/continuum can shift.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think now is a wonderful opportunity to quote from Hamba again:  (@Hamba you might want to help us make sure we understand your words correctly, again):

I don't have children of my own, but I have long worked with young men and young missionaries and have taught them the following facts that are fully supported by historical and anthropological research:

• the concept of fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-) is a late 19th-century social construct that has no historical precedence and, despite 150 years of Western colonisation of the imagination, these still haven't become natural categories across all cultures
• same-sex sexual behaviour has been ubiquitous since the beginning of recorded history (along with opposite-sex and other behaviours too numerous to list), though it has been framed in a dizzying number of ways across both time and space, with some cultures (for example, many Melanesian ones) having once required it as part of normal human development
• it is perfectly normal to experience various kinds of attractions to both males and females
• it is also perfectly normal not to be attracted to an entire class of people; for example, a male does not have to be attracted to females as a class, and to be honest, this can make living the Law of Chastity much easier!
• whilst some cultures offer very narrow gender stereotypes, there are actually an infinite number of ways to be a righteous man or woman
• the one constant is that all these things are fluid because humans are dynamic

End quote.

I am particularly intrigued by this part of what Hamba said:

it is perfectly normal to experience various kinds of attractions to both males and females (I'm thinking this includes basic sexual attraction to both sexes as sex is a basic component of what each person is, whether male or female)

whilst some cultures offer very narrow gender stereotypes, there are actually an infinite number of ways to be a righteous man or woman

the one constant is that all these things are fluid because humans are dynamic

And I also like that you, smac, aka Spencer, said this:

NEVER listen to someone who wants to place you in a box and keep you there; the whole point of the gospel is to free us from such limitations

 

Edited September 10, 2021 by bOObOO

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not sure this is an either/or scenario.

I think there are many circumstances pertaining to modesty that are not about "lust{ing}" after someone.

By way of example: A while back I spent several years teaching at a local university.  Most of my classes were scheduled in a computer lab, where the students were sitting at a right angle to the front of the class (facing the computers, rather than me).  The lectern was a standard stand-in-the-front-of-the-classroom-between-the-students-and-whiteboard setup.  The computer lab was pretty cramped, with the students at the front of the classroom sitting only about 4-5 feet in front of me.

Well, one semester I had a student who sat front and center in the lab, just a few feet in front of me.  Inconveniently, she was A) well-endowed and B) prone to wearing quite revealing clothing (lots of cleavage), such that her sitting position right in front of of the standing lectern necessarily gave me . . . an unsolicited eyeful.

I really liked this student.  She worked hard and was very bright.  I certainly did not "lust" after her at all.  I was not comfortable about the environment, but I did not feel it was my place to say anything to the student.  So I spent most of the semester in that class lecturing from the corner of the computer lab rather than at the lectern.

I would have preferred if she had dressed more . . . professionally.  Not because of any "lust" on my part, but rather a preference for working in an environment of decorum and propriety.

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe it is you that should have been born gay.  Women’s breasts do nothing for me.  She could have been naked and I would have no problem lecturing right in front of her.  
 

Actually if you were born gay, I think most of your views would change.  But I get it.  We each view life through the lense we have been given.   And maybe your obsession with LGBT issues is because you know you will never have to deal with them.  So you regularly start these threads and pontificate on how you would solve the problems.  It is always easier to deal with other peoples problems rather than dealing with our own. 

[bOObOO]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe it is you that should have been born gay.  Women’s breasts do nothing for me.  She could have been naked and I would have no problem lecturing right in front of her.  

Not being sexually attracted to a woman or women in general should not make you blind to indecent exposure, whether it is a man or a woman who is indecently exposed.  Cloth the naked is my motto.  I would have brought her a more modest top to wear.

 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Unfortunately, I think some leaders counsel from their own, personal biases. I was counseled by a Bishop to ask my daughter not to wear tight shirts to church because it made his son uncomfortable. The same Bishop counseled me not to invite any of the young women to my wedding in the chapel be cause it would be celebrating a non-temple wedding. I was younger and sometimes I took these things to heart instead of seeking my own inspiration. I now realize these are men, doing the best they can in a probably overwhelming position. Have some done damage, maybe even irreparable? Absolutely, and I think there are legitimate reasons to take other paths. But I think it is getting better. So I choose to stay and be the change I want to see because I do think there is more light and knowledge to come. 
 

Edit: Not comparing the above situations to yours, CB, just trying to explain why I give leaders some leeway in making mistakes. The fact they told you that you would not be gay anymore if you married a woman would fall into sometimes irreparable damage that I spoke of. 

Unfortunately I believe it was a pretty common promise given to gay men during that time period.  I have heard a lot of stories from across the country from other gay men.  They too resent those church leaders giving them that false promise    I only know of one that is still in the church.  And thankfully Gordon B Hinkley put an end to this practice when in a conference address declared that marriage is not therapy. We move forward.