13 Articles of Healthy Chastity

[Mrs. Funk]

it would depend entirely upon the situation (bishop, YW, and their parents), but I think there is good reason for sup's paranoia.

That's really, really sad to me. The statement seems pretty benign, and in line with a fundamental truth regarding modesty.

[UtahDan]

what is this myth?

Here is the quote from the article:

This myth of male weakness is a pernicious lie that we have to eradicate from our culture. It manages to be both anti-male and anti-female. Anti-male because it teaches that men are wild beasts instead of noble agents of their own destinies. I do not mean to imply that it is a myth that teenaged boys think about sex, a lot. But it is a harmful lie to say sex is the only thing boys want. Boys are just as complex and moral and strong as girls are. And No girl can make a boy think or do anything. Boys make their own choices and are exclusively responsible for those choices.

Here is the quote. I suppose the myth I'm thinking of is that boys have more powerful sexual urges than girls do that require a more focused effort at self control. I'm not sure that is a myth, I think boys do have a stronger sexual urge than girls when you compare bell curves. Still, I agree with the point above that it is harmful to boys and girls to caricature boys as wild sexual beasts. Perhaps what I should say is that I don't think it is entirely a myth, though parts of it clearly are. Is that helpful?

[DrumNFeather]

That's really, really sad to me. The statement seems pretty benign, and in line with a fundamental truth regarding modesty.

I don't think it is as dramatic as some are making it out to be. I suspect that if someone had an issue with it, they would either take it up with you, or take it up with the bishop...after which maybe....maybe they have a discussion with you about what your intent was vs. the interpretation etc. And even then, I think that is only in cases where people are very motivated to cause a stink. I don't think this is the case for most members because we all hear so many crazy things at church (not that what you'd be teaching is crazy, I am not suggesting that at all) that we're kind of numb to it.

Some people don't believe this, and believe that callings are issued more out of availability than ability, but I believe that callings with the youth are different (always exceptions to that). In general, I think that if you are called to teach the YW, then there is a beleif that you have something of value to offer them as an instructor. It's then your job to weave in what you want to teach them within the framework of a lesson...in this instance, chastity which, I think you would be more than capable of doing.

[UtahDan]

That's really, really sad to me. The statement seems pretty benign, and in line with a fundamental truth regarding modesty.

It is not easy for men to understand why women would have a desire to believe that there is something divine that is like them. As men, everything in our religious world is male from Diety, to the people in the scriptures, to the structure and thoughts processes of our organizations. It is hard for us to wrap our minds around curiosity about divine femininity. But you already have a loving Father Isn't that enough? You must be a power grubber.

Guys should go through the thought exercise of imagining that the whole Godhead is female, everyone in the scriptures is female and all of their leaders are female. Now imagine knowing that there must be a Father in the mix somewhere too and someone telling you "isn't a Mother enough for you? What is your problem?"

[marsupial]

Here is the quote from the article:



Here is the quote. I suppose the myth I'm thinking of is that boys have more powerful sexual urges than girls do that require a more focused effort at self control. I'm not sure that is a myth, I think boys do have a stronger sexual urge than girls when you compare bell curves. Still, I agree with the point above that it is harmful to boys and girls to caricature boys as wild sexual beasts. Perhaps what I should say is that I don't think it is entirely a myth, though parts of it clearly are. Is that helpful?

Don't underestimate the teenage girl's hormonal drive. What kind of bell curve are you talking about?

[Pheidippides]

The entire concept is a moving target. Basically, any clothing could arouse a guy (as well as no clothing...rowrrr!). As SIEQ pointed out, guys are hard-wired to think about sex. Nothing women do will prevent it or mitigate it.

How can you identify the clothing that might arouse a man? How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand? How do you pin a wave upon the sand?

I think the real and worst danger here is the situation where somebody does get raped. A YW in a ward of mine was once raped. The emotional baggage, the violation, the scars, the pain will take years and years to heal, if they do at all (note that I hate the concept of "heal" in these situations). It will take counseling and therapy and other things. Now your telling me that we should pile on guilt on her - however unwittingly - so she will think if only she'd not worn this it wouldn't have happened, and but for my choice to wear that skirt Joe wouldn't have held me down and ripped it off and you get the picture. Unacceptable. Or even the case where a YW gets knocked up and now this is her fault for wearing a tanktop one day?

That is the message we are sending and it is bull-effing-shit.

[TripletDaddy]

Here is the quote from the article:



Here is the quote. I suppose the myth I'm thinking of is that boys have more powerful sexual urges than girls do that require a more focused effort at self control. I'm not sure that is a myth, I think boys do have a stronger sexual urge than girls when you compare bell curves. Still, I agree with the point above that it is harmful to boys and girls to caricature boys as wild sexual beasts. Perhaps what I should say is that I don't think it is entirely a myth, though parts of it clearly are. Is that helpful?

Yes, thanks. I assumed that was the direction in which you were heading but wanted to clarify.

I agree with your assessment above.

I think the confusion in practicum is that we rarely hear such extreme characterizations. We are mostly given subtle yet repeated reminders, in the spirit of what LA Ute is talking about. My sense is that an elevated dialog on this matter would abandon the draconian notion of women's dress being responsible, in whole or in part, for the sexual behavior of men.

I use "draconian" purposely. There are regimes today that still endorse the idea that a women that show skin are making it tough for a brother to get through his day. These regimes still stone women for such behavior. It is ridiculous.

Also, from an LDS perspective, to teach a YW that her shirt is contributing to the spiritual delinquency of YM seems to start down a slippery slope that runs contrary to the Second Article of Faith.

I am all for teaching modesty and self-respect to our female chilluns. I have 2 little girls and I already worry about them. They are only 5. I just don't see the need to teach them these principles by weaving a "YM sex drive" guilt trip into the conversation.

[UtahDan]

Don't underestimate the teenage girl's hormonal drive. What kind of bell curve are you talking about?

Maybe someone can educate me, but I have at some point in the past accepted as biological fact that human males have stronger sexual urges and are more sexually aggressive, on average, than human females. If that is not the case, I will happily stand corrected.

This is not well sourced (or sourced at all) but this article from webmd sums up what I have understood. Again, if this is all wrong I would appreciate being educated on the point.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare

[TheBYUGuy]

But it is a harmful lie to say sex is the only thing boys want.

Yes, it is clearly a lie to say that sex is the only thing boys want, especially with teenagers. A more accurate representation would be something like this:

What boys want:
85% Sex
10% Food
5% A good prank on a friend or unsuspecting enemy

[TripletDaddy]

Maybe someone can educate me, but I have at some point in the past accepted as biological fact that human males have stronger sexual urges and are more sexually aggressive, on average, than human females. If that is not the case, I will happily stand corrected.

I think all of us would happily rise up!

:condom:

[DrumNFeather]

I think the real and worst danger here is the situation where somebody does get raped. A YW in a ward of mine was once raped. The emotional baggage, the violation, the scars, the pain will take years and years to heal, if they do at all (note that I hate the concept of "heal" in these situations). It will take counseling and therapy and other things. Now your telling me that we should pile on guilt on her - however unwittingly - so she will think if only she'd not worn this it wouldn't have happened, and but for my choice to wear that skirt Joe wouldn't have held me down and ripped it off and you get the picture. Unacceptable. Or even the case where a YW gets knocked up and now this is her fault for wearing a tanktop one day?

That is the message we are sending and it is bull-effing-shit.

I understand that you're taking a bit of a cynical position here, but I cannot imagine a circumstance where, if someone is raped, the first thing the members of the church leadership (young women or bishopric) would tap their foot, wag their finger and say "well, I hate to say I told you so."

I too have known someone who was raped (in her case she was actually knocked out, abducted, raped, and left somewhere) and I think that the reaction to the situation you describe above is the last thing that would happen. If anything, the opposite.

Are there isolated incidences where insensitivity runs wild? Sure. I'm not naive enough to think that their aren't. But I imagine that in most cases if this kind of thing comes across a bishop or YW leaders desk, they have no idea what to do, and the first thing they should do is put their arms around the girl and help get her whatever help she needs.

[Mrs. Funk]

Maybe someone can educate me, but I have at some point in the past accepted as biological fact that human males have stronger sexual urges and are more sexually aggressive, on average, than human females. If that is not the case, I will happily stand corrected.

This is not well sourced (or sourced at all) but this article from webmd sums up what I have understood. Again, if this is all wrong I would appreciate being educated on the point.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/se...-women-compare

I think soup's basic point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that teenage girls want and think about sex, too. A lot. Both males and females are awash with hormones at this age. It's incorrect to assume that teenage females aren't interested in sex. Do they want it as much as their male cohorts? I'm not sure. That's not exactly the point, though. Just because teenage males may have more intense or frequent desires for sex doesn't make the females their same ages stewards of male chastity.

A lot of the YW manual seems to assume that girls have no interest in sex or that teenage female sex drive is non-existent. It puts the onus on young women to keep those boys from having sex with them, when in all reality many of the girls are pretty dang interested themselves.

Anyway, I think the point is that each young person is in charge of his or her own chastity, regardless of sex drive. Putting that responsibility on females is both unfair and unrealistic.

[KillerDog]

I understand that you're taking a bit of a cynical position here, but I cannot imagine a circumstance where, if someone is raped, the first thing the members of the church leadership (young women or bishopric) would tap their foot, wag their finger and say "well, I hate to say I told you so."

I too have known someone who was raped (in her case she was actually knocked out, abducted, raped, and left somewhere) and I think that the reaction to the situation you describe above is the last thing that would happen. If anything, the opposite.

Are there isolated incidences where insensitivity runs wild? Sure. I'm not naive enough to think that their aren't. But I imagine that in most cases if this kind of thing comes across a bishop or YW leaders desk, they have no idea what to do, and the first thing they should do is put their arms around the girl and help get her whatever help she needs.

I think everyone would try and "put their arms around the girl and help get her whatever help she needs" but I think the point here is that we can't preach again and again that dressing in a provacative manner leads to lack of control by young men then expect the YW who has been raped to disassociate from that position. She has been indoctrinated and the guilt that often accompanies sexual assault will bring that position back to the forefront of her mind. No one in the Church will say "I told you so" afterwards but the YW herself will say, "They told you so. You deserved it."

[DrumNFeather]

I think everyone would try and "put their arms around the girl and help get her whatever help she needs" but I think the point here is that we can't preach again and again that dressing in a provacative manner leads to lack of control by young men then expect the YW who has been raped to disassociate from that position. She has been indoctrinated and the guilt that often accompanies sexual assault will bring that position back to the forefront of her mind. No one in the Church will say "I told you so" afterwards but the YW herself will say, "They told you so. You deserved it."

Yeah, maybe.

[TripletDaddy]

I understand that you're taking a bit of a cynical position here, but I cannot imagine a circumstance where, if someone is raped, the first thing the members of the church leadership (young women or bishopric) would tap their foot, wag their finger and say "well, I hate to say I told you so."

I too have known someone who was raped (in her case she was actually knocked out, abducted, raped, and left somewhere) and I think that the reaction to the situation you describe above is the last thing that would happen. If anything, the opposite.

Are there isolated incidences where insensitivity runs wild? Sure. I'm not naive enough to think that their aren't. But I imagine that in most cases if this kind of thing comes across a bishop or YW leaders desk, they have no idea what to do, and the first thing they should do is put their arms around the girl and help get her whatever help she needs.

It isnt cynical. He is taking things from the female perspective.

Your answer is the response your typical male would make and I understand your line of thinking. But read the female responses in this thread. They are universal in their tone of agreement: WOMEN ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR OF MEN.

nik is basically advocating the female perspective, and correctly so, imo. I would wager that most women, Einstein, and SeattleUte would agree with him.

As a patriarch-driven organization, why don't we listen to our sisters more intently on some of these matters that pertain to them anyway? Perhaps they have a point that the age-old approach isn't the correct one, at least not anymore.

PS For all you women that are incredibly turned on by my sensitivity, I also do dishes and cook. :rockon2: