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

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Or are they acknowledging that suggestive attire may invite unwanted attention and that in some cases this unwanted attention is pushed way too far?

Are you saying that suggestive attire raises the risk of assault…which research has demonstrated is not true though research has also demonstrated it is a very common myth, especially among men?

If you are not saying that, can you phrase what you are saying again to see if I can understand your point.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

Is there anyone here who is actually making that claim?

No one said women should be blamed.  What they said and what was rebutted is suggestive attire increases risk of assault, which is not true.

 

[Paloma]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Pastor Causes Outrage After Saying Women Should Never Post Photos Of Themselves In Bikinis, Bra Or Underwear

I'm interested in hearing your perspectives on this.  

I'm also curious as to reactions like these.

Again, what are your thoughts on his response to the criticisms he has received?

For me, it seems like there are a few topics that are of such import, sensitivity, and about which there are such diversities of viewpoints and opinions, that they (the topics) should always be addressed with great care, with much tact, decorum, civility, and so on.  Public commentary about modesty in women's clothing, particularly by men, is one of those topics.

Here, I have some reservations about the time, place and manner of the pastor's comments.  They come across as unsolicited (being addressed to all women, everywhere), somewhat brash, and somewhat insolent.  And while I think he is correct to object to inappropriate reactions to his comments (sending him "unsolicited sexual images and videos"), I think he also should have remained focused on the subject matter.  Perhaps he could have found a way to advance and improve the discussion by responding to reactions that were appropriate.

This story has also caused some introspection for myself.  I need to consider some of the things I say that might likewise be brash, insolent, or otherwise inappropriate in terms of time, place and manner.

Anyway, thoughts all around?

Thanks,

-Smac

As a woman and as a Christian, I find this pastor's online comment very inappropriate and offensive.  Many of my reasons would be similar to those I've read in responses to this thread, though I've not read everything.  I know I'm being largely repetitive here of what's already been said, but these are my initial thoughts: 

He comes across as misogynistic because he is addressing women only as a man without any acknowledgment that modesty works cross-gender.

He presumes to speak authoritatively rather than expressing his opinion.

It is particularly objectionable - just so wrong! - that he presumes to know what is or isn't appropriate concerning health issues specific to women.

His pontification isn't wanted or needed in this open online venue.  It's just common decency to not give uninvited and unasked for advice. 

Scripturally, if he wants to hold someone to account, he would do well to use the model in Matthew 18: 15-17 of first speaking privately to the individual.  This pastor is out of bounds.  Random women online are not within his pastoral charge and he is not proceeding with gentle respect and love.  I don't know if he wrote what he did simply as a man or as a man who is a pastor, but both are inappropriate.  If the latter is true and he assumed some kind of pastoral mantle as he wrote, it makes it even worse in my view as he is not following Scriptural principles and he inevitably does harm to the role and reputation of what it means to be a pastor.

Edited to add:    I admit that I was very hasty in my perusal of the link attached that showed the pastor's comments in question.  If I have missed some context in that link and/or in posts on this thread, I will gladly take any correction needed.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Paloma

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

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?

Um you have just shown how biased you are here. Are we comparing only to clothing worn by Northern Europeans with cold long winters and mild summers. Really!? That’s the yardstick?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Paloma said:

As a woman and as a Christian, I find this pastor's online comment very inappropriate and offensive.  Many of my reasons would be similar to those I've read in responses to this thread, though I've not read everything.  I know I'm being largely repetitive here, but these are my initial thoughts: 

He comes across as misogynistic because he is addressing women only as a man without any acknowledgment that modesty works cross-gender.

I can see how you would feel that way, but I'm not sure I agree.  If a woman were to direct some broad statement to all men, which statement could have equal utility in being applied to women, I would not necessarily impute misandy onto that woman.

By way of example: A woman tweets: "Men, don't physically assault women.  Such abuse is among the vilest behaviors imaginable."  Now, we all know that women can also commit such assaults, right?  But because the tweet does not include "any acknowledgment" that women also physically abuse men, does that make the tween misandrist?  Not in my view.  If a woman is making a point about male-on-female physical violence, I don't think the absence of "acknowledgment" of female-on-male physical violence is evidence of misandry.

The pastor's tweet, in addressing female but not male "modesty" issues.  While I think the tweet is problematic in other ways, attributing hatred of women (misogyny) to the pastor seems a bit much for me (just as it would be to attribute hatred of men to a woman tweeting about male-on-female, but not female-on-male, violence).

7 minutes ago, Paloma said:

He presumes to speak authoritatively rather than expressing his opinion.

I dunno.  I think Tweets are pretty much always going to be seen as a statement of opinion.  Nothing in the post cites to his having "authority" over anyone.

7 minutes ago, Paloma said:

It is particularly objectionable - just so wrong and repugnant - that he presumes to know what is or isn't appropriate concerning health issues specific to women.

I'm not sure I understand.  What did he say about "health issues specific to women"?

7 minutes ago, Paloma said:

His pontification isn't wanted or needed in this open online venue. 

Okay.  But the same can be said for millions of things said on Twitter every day.  And on YouTube.  And in the "Comments" sections on news outlet websites.  And on message boards.  And on and on.

He has the right to Free Speech.  The rest of us have the right to ignore his exercise of that right.

7 minutes ago, Paloma said:

It's just common decency to not give uninvited and unasked for advice. 

Are you sure?  Here you are, responding to him and giving him what could be construed as "uninvited and unasked for advice."

7 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Scripturally, if he wants to hold someone to account, he would do well to use the model in Matthew 18: 15-17 of first speaking privately to the individual. 

I don't think he was intending to "hold someone to account."  He was speaking broadly and categorically.

Again, what if a woman tweets "Men, don't abuse women!"?  Is she wrong to do so?  Isn't that "uninvited and unasked for advice"?

7 minutes ago, Paloma said:

This pastor is out of bounds.  Random women online are not within his pastoral charge and he is not proceeding with gentle respect and love. 

I agree with you here.  I think the tweet comes across as brash and insolent.

That said, what if a woman tweets "Men, don't abuse women!"?  Would you respond with "Random men online are not within your charge"?

7 minutes ago, Paloma said:

I don't know if he wrote what he did simply as a man or as a man who is a pastor, but both are inappropriate. If the latter is true and he assumed some kind of pastoral mantle as he wrote, it makes it even worse in my view as he is not following Scriptural principles and he inevitably does harm to the role and reputation of what it means to be a pastor.

Thank you for these thoughts.  I appreciate your input.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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. 

You seem to be suggesting that there is some unequal standards because men can walk around without shirts while women cant. I didn’t want to make any assumptions so I asked.

[Fether]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Um you have just shown how biased you are here. Are we comparing only to clothing worn by Northern Europeans with cold long winters and mild summers. Really!? That’s the yardstick?

You must have missed where we were talking about culture. We have acknowledged that nudity caused by cultural norms is an exception. We are now talking about sexualized nudity within western culture. As far as western dress culture goes, men have worn the same things since before America was born. Western women dress has slowly become more and more revealing.

[LoudmouthMormon]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

No one said women should be blamed.  What they said and what was rebutted is suggestive attire increases risk of assault, which is not true.

Actually, @Calm incorrectly relays what I said. 

What Calm said I said: "suggestive attire increases risk of assault"
What I actually said: "Women can increase or decrease their risk of being sexually assaulted, in certain situations, by how they choose to dress."

I said a thing that is true.  If people want to read something into what I said, (like victim blaming, or some rape isn't rape, or only attractively dressed women get raped, or other horribly untrue nonsense), that's their problem.  I didn't say any of that nonsense.  I didn't mean any of that nonsense.  I don't believe any of that nonsense. 

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I said a thing that is true. 

Let me see the data.  I and bluebell posted evidence that attire does not affect risk.

Unless you are suggesting wearing more modest clothing increases the risk of assault (given the only 4.4% of rapes involving provocative clothing, I suppose you could claim that).

Edited February 10, 2022 by Calm

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

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.

Manuals and practice are quite different. Though how many “tight” fitting shirts, skirts, blouses are worn to Temples or Church services.

Which illustrates that ‘immodest’ is something few agree on.

[Paloma]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can see how you would feel that way, but I'm not sure I agree.  If a woman were to direct some broad statement to all men, which statement could have equal utility in being applied to women, I would not necessarily impute misandy onto that woman.

By way of example: A woman tweets: "Men, don't physically assault women.  Such abuse is among the vilest behaviors imaginable."  Now, we all know that women can also commit such assaults, right?  But because the tweet does not include "any acknowledgment" that women also physically abuse men, does that make the tween misandrist?  Not in my view.  If a woman is making a point about male-on-female physical violence, I don't think the absence of "acknowledgment" of female-on-male physical violence is evidence of misandry.

The pastor's tweet, in addressing female but not male "modesty" issues.  While I think the tweet is problematic in other ways, attributing hatred of women (misogyny) to the pastor seems a bit much for me (just as it would be to attribute hatred of men to a woman tweeting about male-on-female, but not female-on-male, violence).

I dunno.  I think Tweets are pretty much always going to be seen as a statement of opinion.  Nothing in the post cites to his having "authority" over anyone.

I'm not sure I understand.  What did he say about "health issues specific to women"?

Okay.  But the same can be said for millions of things said on Twitter every day.  And on YouTube.  And in the "Comments" sections on news outlet websites.  And on message boards.  And on and on.

He has the right to Free Speech.  The rest of us have the right to ignore his exercise of that right.

Are you sure?  Here you are, responding to him and giving him what could be construed as "uninvited and unasked for advice."

I don't think he was intending to "hold someone to account."  He was speaking broadly and categorically.

Again, what if a woman tweets "Men, don't abuse women!"?  Is she wrong to do so?  Isn't that "uninvited and unasked for advice"?

I agree with you here.  I think the tweet comes across as brash and insolent.

That said, what if a woman tweets "Men, don't abuse women!"?  Would you respond with "Random men online are not within your charge"?

Thank you for these thoughts.  I appreciate your input.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ah... so reasonable in your assessment, Smac.  

I knew I wrote hastily, and I agree with much of what you said.

Yes, misogynistic is too strong.  

Yes, I too am offering unsolicited commentary (kind of, as I'm responding to your invitation for feedback, Smac! 😉).

Especially since this was a Christian pastor from outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I wanted to give a "gut reaction" kind of response.

And at least part of my haste was because I'm preoccupied with family health issues here at home.

Thanks for graciously listening and being so thought provoking in a good way!

[Fether]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Let me see the data.  I and bluebell posted evidence that attire does not affect risk.

Unless you are suggesting wearing more modest clothing increases the risk of assault (given the only 4.4% of rapes involving provocative clothing, I suppose you could claim that).

Just saying… by your standards, he is still TECHNICALLY right.

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

Your link said “Studies show that women … who tend to dress in layers, long pants and sleeves and high necklines, are actually more likely to be raped.”

he may have meant one thing, but what he said was entirely true

Edited February 10, 2022 by Fether

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Ah... so reasonable in your assessment, Smac.  

I knew I wrote hastily, and I agree with much of what you said.

Yes, misogynistic is too strong.  

Yes, I too am offering unsolicited commentary (kind of, as I'm responding to your invitation for feedback, Smac! 😉).

Actually, I did solicit your commentary.  The pastor didn't, though.

2 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Especially since this was a Christian pastor from outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I wanted to give a "gut reaction" kind of response.

And at least part of my haste was because I'm preoccupied with family health issues here at home.

Thanks for graciously listening and being so thought provoking in a good way!

Sounds good.  Thank you for your time.  I wish your family well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

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

Why not permit gender neutral toplessness? What makes the chest of someone assigned male at acceptable to be seen in public but not the chest of someone assigned female at birth?

And if a transgender undergoes procedures to increase/decrease their chest, is that chest assigned male or female at birth not appropriate for public display depending on the preferred pronoun the individual identifies by?

All in all, topless is either wholly acceptable or not, gender lines for toplessness suggest, in my opinion, the line is arbitrary.

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

Just saying… by your standards, he is still TECHNICALLY right.

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

Your link said “Studies show that women … who tend to dress in layers, long pants and sleeves and high necklines, are actually more likely to be raped.”

he may have meant one thing, but what he said was entirely true

If that is what he meant, he can clarify.  

[Vanguard]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you saying that suggestive attire raises the risk of assault…which research has demonstrated is not true though research has also demonstrated it is a very common myth, especially among men?

If you are not saying that, can you phrase what you are saying again to see if I can understand your point.

Could you provide a research link(s) that evidences risk of assault has no connection to attire and that especially men hold this as a common myth? Did I miss this reference from somewhere else in the thread? I don't believe bluebell's two links established this. And then we can go from there.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Vanguard

[Vanguard]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

No one said women should be blamed.  What they said and what was rebutted is suggestive attire increases risk of assault, which is not true.

 

See my previous post.

[Fether]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

Why not permit gender neutral toplessness? What makes the chest of someone assigned male at acceptable to be seen in public but not the chest of someone assigned female at birth?

And if a transgender undergoes procedures to increase/decrease their chest, is that chest assigned male or female at birth not appropriate for public display depending on the preferred pronoun the individual identifies by?

All in all, topless is either wholly acceptable or not, gender lines for toplessness suggest, in my opinion, the line is arbitrary.

 

So you support normalizing toplessness for women in public?
 

What about genitalia? Could we not make the same argument? Did you know the Greeks didn’t consider a man naked unless their foreskin was pulled back (made it difficult for Jews to participate in the early Olympics).

If such lines can be drawn so easily, why not remove clothing all together?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Could you provide a research link(s) that evidences risk of assault has no connection to attire and that especially men hold this as a common myth? Did I miss this reference from somewhere else in the thread? I don't believe bluebell's two links established this. And then we can go from there.

No, I can’t at the moment or for a number of hours most likely.  Someone can look for the Justice Dept report reported in quote I posted if interested enough in actual data and not just a summary.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Calm

[Fether]

@Calm
Would a better standard of modesty be “don’t do or wear anything with the intention to draw sexual attention to yourself”?

This would prevent people from pointing fingers cause we don’t know what others intentions are 

[provoman]

5 minutes ago, Fether said:

So you support normalizing toplessness for women in public?
 

What about genitalia? Could we not make the same argument? Did you know the Greeks didn’t consider a man naked unless their foreskin was pulled back (made it difficult for Jews to participate in the early Olympics).

If such lines can be drawn so easily, why not remove clothing all together?

I don’t see a non-religious reason to prohibit toplessness or nudity; all are welcome to follow their beliefs.

[Fether]

Just now, provoman said:

I don’t see a non-religious reason to prohibit toplessness or nudity; all are welcome to follow their beliefs.

Well sure, in a world where anything goes… anything goes! But we are talking about modesty and cultural norms as it relates to the church. If you believe modesty is purely cultural and we can build a happy society around being naked, then shouldnt you support full on nudity everywhere?

Or do you see a moral issue with that?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Vanguard 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.

Loudmouthmormon stated Women can increase or decrease their risk of being sexually assaulted, in certain situations, by how they choose to dress.  These two exhibits help to combat the idea that what women wear increases or decreases their chances of being raped.

Whether or not someone tries to rape a woman 100% depends on the man trying to do it.

[provoman]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

Well sure, in a world where anything goes… anything goes! But we are talking about modesty and cultural norms as it relates to the church. If you believe modesty is purely cultural and we can build a happy society around being naked, then shouldnt you support full on nudity everywhere?

Or do you see a moral issue with that?

Wearing of clothing certainly seems cultural. I suppose we can assume the children of Jacob wear clothes because Adam and Eve.  From what I understand, many cultures wore little clothing until colonizers showed up.

[Fether]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

Wearing of clothing certainly seems cultural. I suppose we can assume the children of Jacob wear clothes because Adam and Eve.  From what I understand, many cultures wore little clothing until colonizers showed up.

So if they don’t wear any clothing, would you say they are always immodest?