Controversy Over Utah Pastor's Tweet Re: Woman Posting Pics of Themselves in Revealing Clothing

[Calm]

So couldn’t find the original of the Washington Post statement, they did not link to it and neither did the original of the link (I tracked down a 2010 wayback screenshot), so you can take or leave the 4.4% rapes involving provocative behavior claim (and given that isn’t defined, might be best…provocative behaviour with murder included a “simple glance” apparently, so thinking it may be the rapist claiming they were provoked and not actual provocative behaviour measured).

However, did find this study you can peruse to your heart’s delight.  I am just going to quote the discussion.

Quote

Finally, not only is the accusation that in wearing revealing clothing women are asking for sexual intrusion inconsistent, on the whole, with the present findings, it also seems to be factually refuted by the lack of correlation between sexual victimization and style of dress documented in this study. According to the findings, there is absolutely no connection between appearance and the occurrence of sexual violence, which necessarily refutes the claims embodied in the provocatively dressed victim-blaming myths. In other words, inasmuch as no significant differences were found between victims and non- victims in their style of dress, it becomes clear that women do not bring sexual violence upon themselves by wearing revealing clothes. This finding resonates with similar claims made in many previous studies in which the validity of these charges have been questioned and disproved (Buddie & Miller, 2002; Cowan, 2000; Koss & Harvey, 1992)

https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1202&context=jiws

The last three references, the abstracts don’t provide enough info to know what the claims are that are referred to, unfortunately.

Hoping to call it a night on this, doing research in this area is always so depressing.  I have had enough of the disappointment in humanity experiences for today.

[Fether]

22 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Lucky you. Personally, I'm a bit old. I feel like things while I was raising kids were much more uptight than when I was growing up. But, I grew up part member so maybe that skewed my memories. Definitely have seen lots of shaming around the topics of porn and masturbation. I think I would go to bat for the young men here as much as I go to bat for the young women and modesty lessons. There are some pendulums' that need to swing to healthy places. 

 

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Lucky you.  Seriously mean that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4239200/

Then there are studies linking shame and depression and other lovely things.

I do acknowledge I am a lucky one. I don’t know why I “got it”, but thank God on occasion that I was able to.

Tough love talks and “you need to do more” messages give me energy and strength my self vision of who I want to become.  The church as it has been was made for people like me. I know MANY people who relate, but equally as many that don’t.

Its something I have been concerned about because the advice that gets me feeling excited and motivated would cripple many others and only add the the shame they are so prone to feel. I’m trying to be more gentle in my opinions and my poor wife gets to be the benefactor of my attempts.

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

How in the world is one supposed to enhance their natural beauty without calling attention to their body?  

You’ve never heard of make-up?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

You’ve never heard of make-up?

Which is on the body usually.   

[The Nehor]

I saw this yesterday and wondered who would support this weirdo.

*sigh*

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So couldn’t find the original of the Washington Post statement, they did not link to it and neither did the original of the link (I tracked down a 2010 wayback screenshot), so you can take or leave the 4.4% rapes involving provocative behavior claim

Possibly this one https://web.archive.org/web/20111125101114/http://www.usu.edu/saavi/docs/myths_realities.pdf You could possibly contact them to find the original report sources.

[The Nehor]

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Possibly this one https://web.archive.org/web/20111125101114/http://www.usu.edu/saavi/docs/myths_realities.pdf You could possibly contact them to find the original report sources.

Yep, that is the one. Not sure they would know after 12 years, but if my head is on straight tomorrow I might call them and see if someone there can track it down. 
 

Oops, not quite the one.  I will get that one. They may have reformatted it, so the part that includes the claim was on a second page the next year. 
 

Added:  

https://web.archive.org/web/20100528062150/Www.usu.edu/Saavi/pdf/myths_facts.pdf

Edited February 11, 2022 by Calm

[Raingirl]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Which is on the body usually.   

Make-up calls attention to one’s face, not one’s body. And I know you’re going to be deliberately argumentative, and say the face is part of the body, but you do know the point I’m trying to make. 

[Nofear]

10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And there is nothing wrong with that. The church only seems to draw the line at certain types of attractiveness enhancers. Just all temple square sisters or you could try and get Elder Ballards advice on lip stick. 

Indeed, I made no value judgement with my provocative post. I simply pointed out a replicated finding. We humans are sexual beings and that's a good thing too. There is no point in denying it. Socially we set some (flexible) boundaries that shift and adjust. Personally I think it a mistake to equate some of those boundaries with divinely immutable mandates. What is a divinely immutable mandate is that all of us, male and female, are to exercise constraint, mentally and physically, within bounds the Lord has set. Compliance with those bounds are a personal responsibility. The commandments are typically of the form "thou shalt" and not "they shall".

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Make-up calls attention to one’s face, not one’s body.

Yeah, it is probably what they meant…but that kind of bothers me too, as if the only beauty that is safe or valued is in the face, yet natural is not good enough.  Ah well, I guess all those MIA classes on makeup left a bad taste in my mouth (we had a newly married, probably barely 20 years old woman as our advisor one year and she tried hard to relate to us by giving what she thought were fun lessons or maybe she just allowed the class to go that way too much as there were a couple of girls who were really into it, but she was obviously so uncomfortable teaching and very good with clothes, hair, and makeup; add to that I didn’t wear makeup except when I had to dress up and already knew how I wanted to apply it—as little as possible—but I did really enjoy talking about scripture…I felt MIA was such a waste of time and resented being required to go when I could be reading, but I was both a good and nice girl and tried to not make it worse for her).

Edited February 11, 2022 by Calm

[Teancum]

Feel to preach and teach what you believe in a respectful way.  But mind your own business in the broader social media sense. And don't focus just on women and don't blame women for men's lustful thoughts or actions.  No matter how a woman dresses I am responsible for my own thoughts and actions. We need to move beyond the idea of immodesty equaling walking porn or that based on the way a women dresses she may have has something bad that happened to her coming and be partly responsible.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Here- Imma say something true, and see if anyone has a problem with it:

Women can increase or decrease their risk of being sexually assaulted, in certain situations, by how they choose to dress.

What do you think folks?

That should not be the case.

[MiserereNobis]

13 hours ago, James 1 5 said:

People who say rape is about violence against woman rather than about the clothes a woman wears are of course correct.  Rape is a violent act.  Rape is not a wardrobe choice. A wardrobe choice can make a woman more enticing as in more attractive, though.

Ahab, remember how your last ban was because of your opinions on rape? You might want to sit this thread out. 

[MiserereNobis]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Document it or stop saying it.  Do you not comprehend the damage you are doing if you are wrong?  
 

Are you not reading what has been posted?
 

If you are saying provocative attire entices, which is another word for invites btw, someone to rape, then why are women who are wearing less provocative clothing more likely to be assaulted?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/articles/200901/marked-mayhem

 

It’s Ahab. Remember his previous comments on rape?

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It’s Ahab. Remember his previous comments on rape?

There are similarities that I have noticed…and I believe I noticed you noticing   and a couple of posts really made me think it was him and he has managed a more subdued style, but then I don’t think so.  His comments about his background…my memory isn’t great and search function is worthless so I can’t check, but I don’t think they match. 
 

The solution is to ask him outright if he is Ahab and if he ignores the question, odds are it is him. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

14 hours ago, James 1 5 said:

People who say rape is about violence against woman rather than about the clothes a woman wears are of course correct.  Rape is a violent act.  Rape is not a wardrobe choice. A wardrobe choice can make a woman more enticing as in more attractive, though.

James, are you a former poster named Ahab?  You have a similar style that was rather unique.  

[smac97]

17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Yeah, for the most part. If it's the same line of reasoning I would still have a problem with it and see it as still policing female modesty more than men and therefore maintaining sexist modesty/chastity boundaries that tend to fall heavier on women. More often than not, women are the ones called to police female modesty lines. It's just a little creepier when men do it. 

I think unsolicited advice from strangers about modesty/sex can certainly be creepy.

There is a corollary issue that men encounter: unsolicited commentary and directives from women pertaining to physical violence.  I generally do not attribute this to "sexism," though, because I think we generally believe that male-on-female physical violence is more prevalent and more serious, such that commentary critical of such violence is, it would seem, properly directed at men.

As it happens, though, it seems like female-on-male physical violence is also a pretty serious problem.  See, e.g., here ("IPV" = "Initmate Partner Violence") :

Quote

Facts and Statistics on 
Prevalence of Partner Abuse

Victimization

• Overall, 22% of individuals assaulted by a partner at least once in their lifetime (23% for females and 19.3% for  males)
• Higher overall rates among dating students
• Higher victimization for male than female high school students
• Lifetime rates higher among women than men
• Past year rates somewhat higher among men
• Higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) among younger, dating populations “highlights the need for school-based IPV prevention and intervention efforts”

Perpetration

• Overall, 25.3% of individuals have perpetrated IPV
• Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)
• Wide range in perpetration rates:  1.0% to 61.6% for males; 2.4% to 68.9% for women,
• Range of findings due to variety of samples and operational definitions of PV

Is it possible, then, that there is more commentary about female "modesty" issues because there is a generalized perception - which may well be incorrect - that revealing/sexualized clothing/photographs are issues substantially more prevalent among women (just as there is a generalized perception - also potentially inaccurate - that IPV is an issue substantially more prevalent among men)?

17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I got curious and looked through a lot of his other recent tweets. I strongly strongly doubt there's a way that I wouldn't be uncomfortable with his views. Here's a quote from one of them:

Quote

A brief of exhortation to my Christian brothers in light of the absolute tsunami of sexual temptation they face every day. Brothers, you have no choice but to live in a world where even some of your professed Christian sisters parade their bottoms and breasts in front of you. Be what they are so often not being, and love your enemies. Love them enough to honor them even when they can't even be bothered to honor themselves. And when you fall, remember your Father's mercy. He is slow to anger. He looks on Christ and pardons us.

It's patronizing, creepy, and a little nauseating for me to watch someone describe women this way and proclaim them "Your enemy" just because they're "sexual temptation." Throwing in commands to "love your enemy" does not make this somehow better.

I can see how that could cause offense.  That said, a few thoughts come to mind:

First, he didnt "describe women this way and proclaim them 'your enemy.'"  He described some women this way.  He was not generalizing as to all women.  He was referencing some women who behave in a particular way.  I think that's a fairly important distinction.

Second, when I sent my 17-year-old daughter to Italy to spend her senior year there as an exchange student, I and my wife had a few discussions with her beforehand about keeping herself safe, both physically (from unwanted attentions/behaviors) and morally (keeping the Law of Chastity).  We gave her some counsel about how some men may lack a general respect for women, or may have inaccurate ideas about how women communicate, or may feel like aggressive romantic posturing may be cool and effective, or that alcohol may impair their judgment, and so on.  We gave her this advice without me feeling at all like I was "judging" men categorically because, well, we weren't doing that.  We were saying that some men behave badly toward women, and saying this about some men is a far cry from saying it about all men.

As it turns out, the advice . . . worked.  She had a few (very few, fortunately) instances of unwanted attention from a few men.  She never drank, so her cognitive abilities and judgment were never impaired.  She stayed with friends and in "plain view" public areas, she did not stay out late, and so on.  In an ideal world, we could have sent her there without such constraints because she would be perfectly safe.  But we don't live in that world.  We instead live in a world where some men - some men - behave toward women in ways that are opportunistic, untoward, predatory, etc.  She apparently encountered a (very) few such persons, but never in circumstances that compromised her safety.

I don't think we made "men" out to be a categorical "enemy."  We instead cautioned her against some men - men who behave in a particular way - as potentially dangerous.  Is it possible that the pastor was intending something similar?  That he was not generalizing as to all women, but instead was specifying women who behave in a particular way?  

17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Here's another:

Quote

There's a theme in the Proverbs—a book about preparing sons for godly kingship—that is more relevant today than ever before. It's something like: Sons, there are women in this world who will put their bodies on a hook to lure you in and kill you. Don't give them your strength.

Again there's this brotherhood against the evil temptress language that puts women who are tempting to a man as an enemy or evil.  He may not "mean" it that way...but the steps to get to that are really really short.

Yes, I can see how that is offensive.  I feel the same way about stuff like the #TeachMenNotToRape hashtag.  Attributing sexual licentiousness to women as a generalization is offensive to women, sort of like how attributing physical or sexual violence to men as a generalization is offensive to men.

17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm not surprised how people are reading this as having mysogynistic undertones. This guy may not hate all women obviously. But he does paint certain women who do not act in the way he sees as right as "enemies" and dangerous.

Yes.  And those broad generalizations end up alienating more than enlightening.

17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

And most of the posts I've read focus on women in terms of male sexual problems. Women do not feel like fully fleshed out human beings with compassionate stories. They're flat and objectified into either a supporting role to christian men or as enemy temptresses luring righteous men from god's glory. That is always going to be repugnant to me. That will always scream sexist for me. 

"The posts I've read" is a reference to posts from this pastor?

I think the Law of Chastity is important for both sexes, as is the general principle of modesty.  But boy, unsolicited online directives about such things can sure go awry pretty quickly.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 11, 2022 by smac97

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think unsolicited advice from strangers about modesty/sex can certainly be creepy.

There is a corollary issue that men encounter: unsolicited commentary and directives pertaining to physical violence.  I generally do not attribute this to "sexism," though, because I think we generally believe that male-on-female physical violence is more prevalent and more serious, such that commentary critical of such violence is, it would seem, properly directed at men.

As it happens, though, it seems like female-on-male physical violence is also a pretty serious problem.  See, e.g., here ("IPV" = "Initmate Partner Violence") :

Is it possible, then, that there is more commentary about female "modesty" issues because there is a generalized perception - which may well be incorrect - that revealing/sexualized clothing/photographs are issues substantially more prevalent among women (just as there is a generalized perception - also potentially inaccurate - that IPV is an issue substantially more prevalent among men)?

I can see how that could cause offense.  That said, a few thoughts come to mind:

First, he didnt "describe women this way and proclaim them 'your enemy.'"  He described some women this way.  He was not generalizing as to all women.  He was referencing some women who behave in a particular way.  I think that's a fairly important distinction.

Second, when I sent my 17-year-old daughter to Italy to spend her senior year there as an exchange student, I and my wife had a few discussions with her beforehand about keeping herself safe, both physically (from unwanted attentions/behaviors) and morally (keeping the Law of Chastity).  We gave her some counsel about how some men may lack a general respect for women, or may have inaccurate ideas about how women communicate, or may feel like aggressive romantic posturing may be cool and effective, or that alcohol may impair their judgment, and so on.  We gave her this advice without me feeling at all like I was "judging" men categorically because, well, we weren't doing that.  We were saying that some men behave badly toward women, and saying this about some men is a far cry from saying it about all men.

As it turns out, the advice . . . worked.  She had a few (very few, fortunately) instances of unwanted attention from a few men.  She never drank, so her cognitive abilities and judgment were never impaired.  She stayed with friends and in "plain view" public areas, she did not stay out late, and so on.  In an ideal world, we could have sent her there without such constraints because she would be perfectly safe.  But we don't live in that world.  We instead live in a world where some men - some men - behave toward women in ways that are opportunistic, untoward, predatory, etc.  She apparently encountered a (very) few such persons, but never in circumstances that compromised her safety.

I don't think we made "men" out to be a categorical "enemy."  We instead cautioned her against some men - men who behave in a particular way - as potentially dangerous.  Is it possible that the pastor was intending something similar?  That he was not generalizing as to all women, but instead was specifying women who behave in a particular way?  

Yes, I can see how that is offensive.  I feel the same way about stuff like the #TeachMenNotToRape hashtag.  Attributing sexual licentiousness to women as a generalization is offensive to women, sort of like how attributing physical or sexual violence to men as a generalization is offensive to men.

Yes.  And those broad generalizations end up alienating more than enlightening.

"The posts I've read" is a reference to posts from this pastor?

I think the Law of Chastity is important for both sexes, as is the general principle of modesty.  But boy, unsolicited online directives about such things can sure go awry pretty quickly.

Thanks,

-Smac

Two thoughts:

1) The "not all men" reply to this kind of stuff is not helpful or useful.

2) I think that one of the reasons that men here so much about this from women is because while we know that it's not all guys, it is some guys, and we can't tell the difference until it's too late.

 

 

 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Two thoughts:

1) The "not all men" reply to this kind of stuff is not helpful or useful.

I think it is.  I think it's useful to rebut the conflation of "all men" into one horrible category.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

2) I think that one of the reasons that men here so much about this from women is because while we know that it's not all guys, it is some guys, and we can't tell the difference until it's too late.

I don't understand what you are saying here.  "Too late" for what?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

For those who care, here are my stream of conscious thoughts on the article...

Quote

Dear Ladies,
There is no reason whatsoever for you to post pictures of yourself in low cut shirts, bikinis, bra and underwear, or anything similar—ever.
Not to show your weight loss journey.
Not to show your newborn baby.
Not to document your birth story.
-Your Brothers
— Brian Sauvé (@Brian_Sauve) February 7, 2022

First off, that should be "Brother," singular. You don't speak for me.

Second, and this really more of an aside, but I really hate all of this twitter-quote kind of journalism that I see everywhere these days. Seriously, there is little more to this "article" than a handful of twitter quotes separated by maybe a paragraph or two (at best) which do little more than restate or attribute said Tweets.™️ There's no substance; no investigation; no nothing - just a barely organized collection of quotes that makes me wonder whether or not a human actually wrote the piece in the first place.

Third, he's plainly wrong about there being "no reason whatsoever...ever." There are plenty of legitimate reasons why a woman might wish to share images of herself at specific times.

That being said, I do think it is wise to be mindful about what you share on social media and elsewhere. I give all of my children, regardless of gender, the exact same advice when it comes to posting online:

     NEVER put ANYTHING on the Internet that you are not okay with EVERYBODY seeing FOREVER.

Once you put something online you lose the ability to control where it goes and what gets done with it. And I think that's important to remember - especially for young men and young women as they grow up in a world filled with cell phones which can ensure their bad decisions get recorded and preserved for eternity.

Of course, I don't think that's where Pastor Suave (seriously, Sauvé?) was going with his message, but I'm happy to appropriate it for my own ends.

 

[James 1 5]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

James, are you a former poster named Ahab?  You have a similar style that was rather unique.  

No.  That was not me.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it is.  I think it's useful to rebut the conflation of "all men" into one horrible category.

I know you think it is, but it's not and this is why (some of these are from this article):

1) Every time this topic comes up you find a way to talk about how men have it bad too, and that really isn't any different than Wilcox discussing the priesthood ban by outlining why white people had to wait to.  Just like talking about the priesthood ban for Blacks is not the correct time bring up a "hardship" for whites, talking about sexist behavior and sexual assault is not the time to bring up the "hardships" that men also face.  It's completely tone deaf.

2) Women already know that it's not all men.  Everyone already knows that it's not all men.  You already know that everyone knows that it's not all men. So clearly you aren't saying it to provide information.   You should ask yourself why you always make it a point to bring up a fact that everyone already knows.

3), It's a defensive statement.   "When people get defensive they aren't listening to the other person; they’re busy thinking of ways to defend themselves."  That's not useful to this conversation.

4)  It's not useful because it sidetracks the conversation. "The discussion isn’t about the men who aren’t a problem."  Why do you want to make the conversation about men who aren't the problem when men who are the problem exist?  

Quote

I don't understand what you are saying here.  "Too late" for what?

5) "This is important, so listen carefully—when a woman is walking down the street, or on a blind date, or, yes, in an elevator alone, she doesn’t know which group you’re in. You might be the potential best guy ever in the history of history, but there’s no way for her to know that. A fraction of men out there are most definitely not in that group. Which are you? Inside your head you know, but outside your head it’s impossible to. This is the reality women deal with all the time."

Until we've put ourselves in danger or allowed problematic men access to us and our lives.  Read through some of the stories in the link (if you care).  Some of these men were friends with these women for years and then they decided to try to sexual assault them or otherwise became abusive.    

[James 1 5]

16 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Most teenage boys are going to have sexual thoughts. A LOT of them. Probably the same is true for girls but I wouldn’t know. These thoughts are normal, and healthy and should be embraced as part of the human experience. By telling young men that if they are righteous they won’t have them. That’s a problem. By looking to blame someone else for a biological reaction - that’s a problem. We need to teach young men how to productively experience their sexuality rather than suppress it. Teach them boundaries and consent. Teach them respect and self control. Stop trying to control women. 

I've seriously considered this approach and what that might look like, and feel like.  Just smiling when I am around women wearing bikinis at the beach while not even considering how those half naked bodies would look better to me with some more clothes on them?  No cough or hint of suggestion from me or anyone else that maybe they should consider wearing some more clothes?  Just a smile of appreciation for what is to be seen?  Thinking all of that was okay and even wonderful?  I'm just having some trouble adopting that mindset and I am not totally sure why.

But what if I did somehow manage to adopt that mindset?  And what if everyone else did too?  Would that mean there would be nobody left on this planet to praise and advise others about the virtue of modesty?  Would everyone instead say others should wear whatever they want to wear and be okay with getting as much attention as they can get?  Should everyone think a string bikini is even better than a regular bikini because it shows even more of a woman's body?  Where would we draw the line in regard to what is okay to wear and what should not be worn, at least not in public? Or should there be no line?

Edited February 11, 2022 by James 1 5

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, James 1 5 said:

Would that mean there would be nobody on left on this planet to praise and advise others about the virtue of modesty?

Limiting “modesty” to how many inches of skin is showing is very limiting IMO and perhaps where you are making an error. The first definition from Oxford per google: “the quality or state of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one's abilities.”

I think Jacob captured it well here: ““Because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they”