Identity = Child of God > Gay Man

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

The personal cannot be easily divorced from the discussion of societal/political matters.

Sure it can. 

40 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Look, I’m new here and even I’ve noticed that the subject seems to of especial, even personal emphasis to ya.

It's an important topic, yes.  You'll also note that I talk quite a bit about litigation involving the Church.  I have written huge amounts of stuff about McKenna Denson, Laura Gaddy, the Huntsman lawsuit and many others.  I also talk about historical issues, and about the Book of Abraham.  And about BYU.  

I come here to talk about the Church.  I think there is a disproportionate amount of news and social media coverage on matters pertaining to homosexuality.  But the coverage is there, so I talk about it.  And rather than talk about the topics I raise, CB very often veers into tangents wherein he focuses on critiquing and attacking me personally.  That's not the way this board is supposed to work.

40 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

But it’s only natural that the subject is of great importance to those of us that are 2SLBTQ+

Great.  Feel free to talk about it.  I just ask that CB and others quit hectoring me when I choose to talk about it.  

40 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

So no. 

So yes.  Personalizing threads is generally not something the mods are fond of seeing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Though I don't mean to pick you out singularly, I do believe you and many others are guilty of this. Your comment "And if a student was a man and I was teaching and he was showing the lower half, too low, I might not like that either" prompts my question - But are you yourself struggling with notions of modesty you expect others to follow and that perhaps you should take a look at? And your later comment "So I really don't know since I wasn't in the classroom how bad (italics added) it was". How bad what was? Are you suggesting a standard that you haven't shared? And if so, please share this standard with the board. And that's mainly my point - it seems far too many find great ease in criticizing those who suggest a standard though they themselves fall far short of explaining where this different standard should be - that is, unless those who are critical are suggesting there should not be a standard? In that event, I don't see how we'll ever come to an agreement.

In order to best insure a productive exchange here, many times we must first plot out the extremes. Is there someone who would argue there should be no standard?

You didn't read further as I started gathering my thoughts. Here's my comment to Smac. :

 

Thanks for responding, I know you're a busy guy. I probably didn't apologize well by bringing up the walking porn statement. In my edit I was empathizing with you when I mentioned that I wouldn't like or like you mentioned would have to avert my eyes if a gentleman was sitting with his lower body peeking through. But somehow I don't think I did a good job of empathizing. Sort of a backhanded way of empathizing. But come to think of it, I don't think they compare at all, since it's not the lower part of a woman that was showing. I think the comparison could be of a male student that has his shirt mostly open perhaps. So I do get it.

I like MustardSeed's comment as well:

"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."

But again, maybe women objectify male's bodies too. Not as much, but it's there. And there is appropriate attire on both sides. Sorry to have wasted space on this thread. 

[Vanguard]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You didn't read further as I started gathering my thoughts. Here's my comment to Smac. :

 

Thanks for responding, I know you're a busy guy. I probably didn't apologize well by bringing up the walking porn statement. In my edit I was empathizing with you when I mentioned that I wouldn't like or like you mentioned would have to avert my eyes if a gentleman was sitting with his lower body peeking through. But somehow I don't think I did a good job of empathizing. Sort of a backhanded way of empathizing. But come to think of it, I don't think they compare at all, since it's not the lower part of a woman that was showing. I think the comparison could be of a male student that has his shirt mostly open perhaps. So I do get it.

I like MustardSeed's comment as well:

"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."

But again, maybe women objectify male's bodies too. Not as much, but it's there. And there is appropriate attire on both sides. Sorry to have wasted space on this thread. 

Thanks for the clarification but could you still answer my questions? 

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Vanguard said:

Thanks for the clarification but could you still answer my questions? 

Here's your question, hopefully I understood it:

But are you yourself struggling with notions of modesty you expect others to follow and that perhaps you should take a look at? And your later comment "So I really don't know since I wasn't in the classroom how bad (italics added) it was". How bad what was?

My answer:

For sure, I struggle...but I've come a long way from how I use to be. When seeing my daughter showing cleavage as a young adult, as her mother it took everything to bite my tongue from saying something, this is even when she is an adult now. Because I know it is wrong to judge her, and realize that it was my fault for being such a prude over modesty. I'm still learning to get my head out of that space. From years of listening to the wrong messages. And trying not to see cleavage as bad. Women that are endowed with larger chests can't always help how their shirts fit. And that is why I wondered how bad the student's shirt was in Smac's college class. Maybe it was or maybe it was like how I first thought showing cleavage was. It's a learning curve and as MustardSeed's post mentioned, start to stop objectifying women.

 

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Here's your question, hopefully I understood it:

But are you yourself struggling with notions of modesty you expect others to follow and that perhaps you should take a look at? And your later comment "So I really don't know since I wasn't in the classroom how bad (italics added) it was". How bad what was?

My answer:

For sure, I struggle...but I've come a long way from how I use to be. When seeing my daughter showing cleavage as a young adult, as her mother it took everything to bite my tongue from saying something, this is even when she is an adult now. Because I know it is wrong to judge her, and realize that it was my fault for being such a prude over modesty. I'm still learning to get my head out of that space. From years of listening to the wrong messages. And trying not to see cleavage as bad. Women that are endowed with larger chests can't always help how their shirts fit. And that is why I wondered how bad the student's shirt was in Smac's college class. Maybe it was or maybe it was like how I first thought showing cleavage was. It's a learning curve and as MustardSeed's post mentioned, start to stop objectifying women.

 

But are you saying there should be no standard? Or is there a time when women "endowed with larger chests" can help it?

Edited September 10, 2021 by Vanguard

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

But are you saying there should be no standard? Or is there a time when women "endowed with larger chests" can help it?

 I'll stick with this one. 

https://www.cfbjs.com/our-blog/2020/december/how-might-i-be-charged-with-indecent-exposure-/

• exposing their private parts;
• engaging in sexual conduct or masturbation; or
• engaging in conduct that to an ordinary observer would appear to be sexual conduct or masturbation.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sure it can. 

It's an important topic, yes.  You'll also note that I talk quite a bit about litigation involving the Church.  I have written huge amounts of stuff about McKenna Denson, Laura Gaddy, the Huntsman lawsuit and many others.  I also talk about historical issues, and about the Book of Abraham.  And about BYU.  

I come here to talk about the Church.  I think there is a disproportionate amount of news and social media coverage on matters pertaining to homosexuality.  But the coverage is there, so I talk about it.  And rather than talk about the topics I raise, CB very often veers into tangents wherein he focuses on critiquing and attacking me personally.  That's not the way this board is supposed to work.

Great.  Feel free to talk about it.  I just ask that CB and others quit hectoring me when I choose to talk about it.  

So yes.  Personalizing threads is generally not something the mods are fond of seeing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yet you can’t seem to see when you personalize the thread directed at me.  Somehow that is different when you do it.  
 

My comment to you was this

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.  

 

You took my comment as personalizing it when clearly I was trying to get you to see your interaction from a different point of view. It was you yourself making your post personal by giving a personal example of how you reacted to a students cleavage.  I was suggesting that cleavage does not have to be sexual at all.  If you were gay, women’s breasts are not sexual at all.  

From that you leap to being a victim and it is my fault that I am using your personal experience as being too personal. Should I have not pointed out that the posts you used were 5 to 10 years ago??? Starting a thread 5 years to 10 ago is not the same as you constantly posting about LGBT issues monthly. 
Any hypocrisy here?  Or am I just to ignore your accusations that are distorting what I wrote 

I have said my piece so I will leave it at that. 

Edited September 11, 2021 by california boy

[The Nehor]

On 9/10/2021 at 4:00 PM, smac97 said:

Sure it can. 

When you have no skin in the game it is pretty easy. Like you with this topic right now. Congrats on being dispassionate regarding a subject for which you have no great passion.

If there was a strong movement to require lawyers to have tracking chips implanted in them to ensure they commit no crimes do you think you would be able to discuss the situation equally dispassionately or do you think you would end up insisting that this would be unfair to you and your colleagues and feel some emotion about it?

[Nemesis]

If everyone doesn’t stop getting personal with each other I’m going to shut the thread down.