13 Articles of Healthy Chastity

[Babs]

Nothing. For someone from your generation.

You continue to demonstrate that you do not grasp the concept.

There's a subtle paternalism that seems deeply ingrained.

[woot]

I'm not sure that Mormon teachings on modesty are really any different from the orthodox muslim view of wrapping women in blankets so that nothing is visible at all. Sure, the Mormon view on modesty is much less extreme than the Muslim view, but I still think it's something totally concocted out of thin air. I'm not sure how much modesty mattered 20,000 years ago. If it mattered back then, then it's part of our biology. If not, then it's purely a social construct. In other words, it matters because people told us that it matters. On the other hand, maybe someone could regard it as a form of technology or something along those lines.

I was about to make a similar point. The reason why these two issues (modesty and sex causing emotional and spiritual illness) are important because we already know what happens when those who believe such nonsense get their way.

If females are the stewards of male chastity, then it makes sense to force them to wear beekeeper suits and to throw acid in their faces when they get raped, and this is exactly what happens with shocking frequency.

If STIs and unwanted pregnancy are less important than the emotional and spiritual consequences of sex, then it makes sense when the Catholic church causes the death of millions in Africa through their ideology that AIDs and poverty are bad, but condoms are worse, and it makes sense when the HPV vaccine is denied to American and Australian children for fear that they will get the idea that sex is ok.

It's no different from the people who are actively preventing researchers from using stem-cells to prevent, treat, and cure a huge number of horrible diseases.

These sorts of baseless beliefs have enormous impacts on society, and cause a great deal of misery and suffering. The guilt and confusion experienced by mormon youth are only one small example.

[Surfah]

I'm curious to know whether that is sarcastic or whether you see that as inequitable. Should boys be punished more severely? My anecdotal experience, which is admittedly a bit dated, is that they are just as you have said.

I hope people aren't getting too bent out of shape by this discussion (not saying you) because in the end its seems like most of us agree that teaching modesty is a good thing, though we may differ over how and why. To me this is all very constructive and not a thinly veiled attack on the brethren or some such. We all worry about our precious kids.

Sorry, I was feeling snarky. But really it was intended to be both (not sure it works). I think the punishment of young men is extremely inequitable when compared to the young women. Like you, just my own anecdotal experience to draw from (see my response to Sup). Whether or not YM deserve to be punished more severely I guess is a topic of its own. I am not sure how I feel about it. I suppose to a degree it depends on what one believes in regards to the priesthood.

[TripletDaddy]

There's a subtle paternalism that seems deeply ingrained.

Subtle like a sledgehammer.

"Can't I blame the YW just a teensy little bit? What's wrong with that?"

I wonder if LA Ute has ever spoken to his boys about not purposely doing things to make themselves seem more attractive to the opposite sex. I am sure he has because to speak to his daughter about this and not his sons would be sexist.

[SuperGabers]

I didn't say that I don't do those things! In fact, I think I have stated previously that I have an affinity for vacuuming and I absolutely do not allow anyone else to do my laundry.

Hey, I sat through a multi-stake volleyball tournament last night as a show of support. You are going to be hard pressed to top that. There were probably around 50-60 women and only 5 or so husbands. Some of the worst volleyball I have ever seen in my life. And I was there, darn it!

Yeah, DDD. You're like a big ol' church jock strap.

[marsupial]

Sorry, I was feeling snarky. But really it was intended to be both (not sure it works). I think the punishment of young men is extremely inequitable when compared to the young women. Like you, just my own anecdotal experience to draw from (see my response to Sup). Whether or not YM deserve to be punished more severely I guess is a topic of its own. I am not sure how I feel about it. I suppose to a degree it depends on what one believes in regards to the priesthood.

I really don't know much about church discipline. I thought it was more to the discretion of the bishop.

I was responding to DNF who was talking about how unlikely it would be for a bishop or YW leader to say "I told you so" after getting raped. I agree. I don't think most bishops or YW leaders would say that.

However, I do think that it is not uncommon for YW who are raped or otherwise sexually-abused to feel guilty, blame themselves and maybe even go through the repentance process with a bishop. This is why sexual abuse should be addressed during these chastity lessons--for both the YW and YM. And why modesty should not be framed in terms of "if you wear that, you're basically asking for it."

[UtahDan]

If it mattered back then, then it's part of our biology. If not, then it's purely a social construct.

I'm not a scientist, but I have read a number of things that would lead me to believe that those are not distinct things you are talking about there. Social constructs are a reflection of our biology. So say Sam Harris and others.

[TripletDaddy]

Yeah, DDD. You're like a big ol' church jock strap.

I actually consider myself more of a sports bra.

[UtahDan]

Yeah, DDD. You're like a big ol' church jock strap.

I actually consider myself more of a sports bra.

[SoonerCoug]

I'm not a scientist, but I have read a number of things that would lead me to believe that those are not distinct things you are talking about there. Social constructs are a reflection of our biology. So say Sam Harris and others.

Well everything we do is a reflection of our biology. Being a reflection of biology is different from being part of our biology. The point is that clothes were something concocted later--by human minds.

Humans didn't evolve with clothes on. Clothes came later as a form of technology. That people get worked up about it is a reflection of our biology, but it's still concocted.

I think clothing reflects some basic human behaviors and emotions. I'm guessing that we initially wore clothes to keep us warm, and later humans gave clothing other purposes. We use clothes to define ourselves as part of a group or religion, and we judge people who dress differently. Before clothes existed, humans just had other ways of defining themselves as part of a group or judging people who looked different. In the end, it all goes back to basic tribalism--just like judging people with different skin color and so on. So yeah, it's a reflection of our biology, but it's constructed to serve a purpose that could be served in a variety of other ways.

I think advocating modesty or a certain form of dress (white shirts and ties) isn't really different from having gang colors. This stuff goes back to human tribes that existed tens of thousands of years ago--before clothing was even a big deal.

[DrumNFeather]

When you say "Little Robin" you're referring to your son, right?

[SoCalCoug]

That's fine, but I don't believe anything I have said in this thread advocates the position that women are responsible for the sexual behavior of men.

I don't think anyone here is doing that. But some are advocating a position that some think might lead in some cases to women thinking they are responsible for the sexual behavior of men, and this is the danger in that position.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I have it on good authority that the letter was a troll.

I know, and that's part of the fun. What isn't a "troll" is how seriously it was taken by some at the BYU.

[Babs]

I actually consider myself more of a sports bra.

You mean uptight and ineffective?

[Pheidippides]

I really don't know much about church discipline. I thought it was more to the discretion of the bishop.

I was responding to DNF who was talking about how unlikely it would be for a bishop or YW leader to say "I told you so" after getting raped. I agree. I don't think most bishops or YW leaders would say that.

However, I do think that it is not uncommon for YW who are raped or otherwise sexually-abused to feel guilty, blame themselves and maybe even go through the repentance process with a bishop. This is why sexual abuse should be addressed during these chastity lessons--for both the YW and YM. And why modesty should not be framed in terms of "if you wear that, you're basically asking for it."

I am very okay with the lesson of "if you dress in this way you are more likely to be viewed as this sort of person". That's just the way things are. That "way" doesn't necessarily include temple garment modesty and my wife and are agreed that we believe that she would dress a bit differently but for aforementioned underwear.

A different issue is the "if you dress like this, you are asking for it" talk. This is when are talking about YM controlling themselves to be clear. At a minimum we are insinuating that girls somehow have some responsibility for young Brigham skipping off to the bathroom an hoping everybody effing knocks. At worst we are saying that it's her fault if she gets date (or otherwise) raped. Both are sad statements that I would call sexist but for the fact that they are insulting to both genders.

I think the real problem is that people mean to say the former and say the latter. Or say the latter and don't understand the implications.

I am very nervous about dealing with this when my daughter hits YW. And my sons when they hit YM as well, as I remember the religious instruction I received on the matter and it was little better. Except for one bishop who was clear that sex was awesome and we should just wait a bit for the awesomeness.