Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

Many of the lessons seem to suggest that they are responsible for men's/boy's thoughts by way they look and dress.  Not only is this offensive to many women I know, it is also offensive to men.  

I feel like this is a slightly old assumption to make… I feel like most everyone has moved past such conversations… but I could be wrong.

Posted
53 minutes ago, Fether said:

The issue with this argument is that we’re not talking about other cultures. We are talking about our own. 
 

If a culture somehow made the thumbs up sign sexual and erotic, I would say that culture should refrain from using the sign in the same way we should refrain from public displays of immodesty.

I think it is very hard to define culture.  It is not something that is bracketed by a national or state boundary.   Even in Utah there are many people that come from and a part of different curtures.

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Fether said:

I feel like this is a slightly old assumption to make… I feel like most everyone has moved past such conversations… but I could be wrong.

While better, it is not perfect. It is not explicitly addressing women here, but besides tight clothing they are examples that apply typically to only women. 
 

Quote

Revealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord’s law of chastity.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/modesty?lang=eng

This is from Standards of Youth. Is it still in current use (as opposed to being available online to reference)?

Quote

Immodest clothing is any clothing that is tight, sheer, or revealing in any other manner. Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/for-the-strength-of-youth/dress-and-appearance?lang=eng

Edited by Calm
Posted
16 minutes ago, Fether said:

Do you think the marketing team was using their understanding of the American sexual fascination in boobs to draw in more attention? Or was the concept of using the sexual nature of boobs in the advertising not even considered?

I think they were hoping that some people wanting to see "pictures of boobs" would click on the tweet, yes.   And I think they were hoping that the news coverage they would get for the tweet would also bring in a lot people who otherwise would not have paid any attention to their sports bras, even if they didn't care about boob pictures (which category I fall into so bravo to them). 

But I don't see the pictures as being all that applicable to sports bras, as most women would already know the different shapes and sizes that breasts come in, and wouldn't need to see pictures to get that message.

(I'm laughing a bit at those who went running to that tweet to see boobs and probably now need therapy because they've never seen a picture of breasts that wasn't porn.)

Posted
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

While better, it is not perfect. It is not explicitly addressing women here, but besides tight clothing they are examples that apply typically to only women. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/modesty?lang=eng

Could it be that they apply to woman more only because woman break this direction more?

If you look at swimsuit and dress styles over the centuries, men styles have mostly stayed the same. Woman styles have not

Posted (edited)
27 minutes 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?

"What were you wearing" Exhibit explores the myth of sexual violence.

What were you wearing Exhibit at the Dove Center

(For clarity, those are two different exhibits).

Edited by bluebell
Posted (edited)
Quote

A Federal Commission on Crime of Violence study found that just 4.4 percent of all reported rapes involved “provocative behavior” on the part of the victim. (In murder cases, it’s 22 percent.) It also found that most convicted rapists could not remember what their victims were wearing. Studies show that women with passive personalities, who tend to dress in layers, long pants and sleeves and high necklines, are actually more likely to be raped. In one study, 1 in 3 college men said that they would force someone to have sex if they could get away with it, and that has nothing to do with clothing.

 

Quote

Despite the fact that 9 percent of sexual assault victims are young men, we don’t insist that they dress differently. We don’t warn young men not to tempt their teachers with their bare biceps, knees or other body parts. We don’t warn young men not to be a distraction to their female classmates, or regulate whether they can wear shorts in the summer to school. When a news story breaks about an adult female teacher preying sexually on a boy, no one asks what he was wearing or insists he should have known better than to be alone with her.


 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/04/13/why-dress-codes-cant-stop-sexual-assault/

Turns out I can’t let this “common sense” falsehood not get rebutted. 

Edited by Calm
Posted
1 hour ago, Fether said:

The issue with this argument is that we’re not talking about other cultures. We are talking about our own. 
 

If a culture somehow made the thumbs up sign sexual and erotic, I would say that culture should refrain from using the sign in the same way we should refrain from public displays of immodesty.

But what is immodest? That is something few can agree 100% on.

 

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

1 in 3??!  That's horrific.

Seems like the pastor is wasting his time on the wrong problem with the wrong sex.

It should be noted it was a small study, around 70 participants.  I do not know if it has been confirmed by additional work or not. 
 

It should also be noted that some of that number was die to the men not understanding what rape was…they said they would force sex if they could, but said they wouldn’t rape someone. 
 

Added:  looks like there was also an issue of using a scale and then treating it like an absolute yes or no…though still concerned that someone might consider there is even a small possibility that they might rape or force someone.
 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pop-psych/201601/exaggerating-statistics-about-rape

Edited by Calm
Posted
Just now, Calm said:

It should also be noted that some of that number was die to the men not understanding what rape was…they said they would force sex if they could, but said they wouldn’t rape someone. 

Scary.  Maybe they mean coerce?  

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

"If you don't want to see it, don't look" is the ruling principle now.

17 minutes ago, provoman said:

Good grief, stop blaming others, walk with your eyes down if need be.

 

👍

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Posted
20 minutes ago, Calm said:

When more minutia laws are made for women than men, it is not surprising if women break more laws. 

If it doesn’t even matter if guys are shirtless, but people start noticing as soon as anything less than cap sleeves are on a woman…

When there is more obsession with women’s bodies than men’s, one is going to see more women breaking in that direction than men…

So do you continue with the obsession or do you work on altering the obsession by using generic terms?

Did you ignore the other portion of my comment? Do you at least acknowledge that clothing standards for men have remained largely the same since medieval times, but women have slowly gotten more and more revealing? The “minutiae” laws are made more for women because societal norms are pushing those styles further and further from modesty.

Imagine a middle aged man walking into church with the top three buttons undone, hairy chest hanging out. Or perhaps short shorts and a gym tank top. There would be just as many uncomfortable people seeing that as there would if it was a woman. Woman get talked to more because they experience it more. Society encourages it more for woman so it is easier to fall to such habits.

But I ask. What came first. The chicken or the egg? Did we make more rules for women, or did women start breaking the standardized rules so we had to emphasize them more in women?

I highly doubt there were such a focus on women back in pioneer times when everyone covered head to toe. Society started removing women’s clothes from the fashion first and have been doing so faster and faster.

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Scary.  Maybe they mean coerce?  

It would be best to do interviews given the inconsistencies in our culture over what is and isn’t assault and consent. 
 

My guess is that the 1 in 3 is quite high, but seriously that anyone would consider it okay if they could get away with it…at what percentage does that qualify as an anomaly due to individual or family issues and not culturally nurtured? Serious question. 

Edited by Calm
Posted
11 minutes ago, provoman said:

But what is immodest? That is something few can agree 100% on.

 

The only people concerned with modesty are those that live by sexual standards… which more and more we only find in churches. In the Latter-day Saint faith , the standard is made pretty clear in our literature.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Fether said:

The “minutiae” laws are made more for women because societal norms are pushing those styles further and further from modesty.

Again if it is okay for a guy to go shirtless, but concern exists for any exposure for a woman…how is it not going to be about more women breaking rules?

If women are moving towards no problem with being shirtless, is that an issue of actual inherent modesty or a cultural thing given men being shirtless is not viewed as inherently immodest. 
 

One could view women having less and less covering their torso as simply moving towards the norm established by the formerly dominant role models in our society, men. 

Posted
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

These exhibits effectively make it clear that women should never be blamed for being sexually assaulted due to what they are wearing. But is that what our thread is addressing? Is there anyone here who is actually making that claim? Or are they acknowledging that suggestive attire may invite unwanted attention and that in some cases this unwanted attention is pushed way too far? Additionally, I don't believe anyone is saying non-suggestive attire is safe from predators either.

Posted
26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Again if it is okay for a guy to go shirtless, but concern exists for any exposure for a woman…how is it not going to be about more women breaking rules?

If women are moving towards no problem with being shirtless, is that an issue of actual inherent modesty or a cultural thing given men being shirtless is not viewed as inherently immodest. 
 

One could view women having less and less covering their torso as simply moving towards the norm established by the formerly dominant role models in our society, men. 

Do you advocate for topless women to be normalized. Do you March in topless parades to normalize toplessness in women?

Posted
9 minutes ago, Fether said:

Do you advocate for topless women to be normalized. Do you March in topless parades to normalize toplessness in women?

And here is where I drop out of the conversation as cluelsss as to how it went in this direction and not the least bit interested. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...