13 Articles of Healthy Chastity

[Levin]

Camille Paglia agrees with LA Ute, and would definitely consider DDD some type of middle class, jello-spined paternalistic idiot. DDDs arguments are actually anti-feminist by taking all responsibility away from the women.

Relevant part begins at 2:35, and especially at 7:00, although the entire interview with Costas is entertaining.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYp-vFS0Z58&feature=related"]YouTube - Camille Paglia 2/5 on Later w/Bob Costas[/nomedia]

[Levin]

Camille Paglia agrees with LA Ute, and would definitely consider DDD sometime of middle class, jello-spined paternalistic idiot. DDDs arguments are actually anti-feminist by taking all responsibility away from the women.

Relevant part begins at 2:35, and especially at 7:00, although the entire interview with Costas is entertaining.


YouTube - Camille Paglia 2/5 on Later w/Bob Costas

Here theme to women: STOP WHINING. Amen. Sex is a combustible force. If you dress as if you want it, then you can't whine when men interact with you as if they want it too.

[TripletDaddy]

Camille Paglia agrees with LA Ute, and would definitely consider DDD some type of middle class, jello-spined paternalistic idiot. DDDs arguments are actually anti-feminist by taking all responsibility away from the women.

Relevant part begins at 2:35, and especially at 7:00, although the entire interview with Costas is entertaining.

YouTube - Camille Paglia 2/5 on Later w/Bob Costas

Citing Camille paglia as support for your views on feminism? She is certainly the voice of mainstream feminism. I have no doubt that she disagrees with all the women in is thread, as well as with me.

What's next...citing Ann Coulter for your political arguments?

[Levin]

Citing Camille paglia as support for your views on feminism? She is certainly the voice of mainstream feminism. I have no doubt that she disagrees with all the women in is thread, as well as with me.

What's next...citing Ann Coulter for your political arguments?

I do think she has a point, though, in saying such arguments as yours are actually anti-feminist b/c they strip all responsibility from women.

And it shows that LA Ute is not some gerontological freak who is way behind the times. In many ways, I think his views are more forward-looking by giving women the responsibility they've fought so hard to achieve. It's theirs, and ours. Don't take it away from them.

If you show me your cleavage, I will look. And don't whine when I do. Own what you are doing and get real about males, females, hormones, and sex.

Edit -- DDD, please don't show me your cleavage. Even if you did, i wouldn't look. I was speaking to a theoretical audience of females.

[TripletDaddy]

I do think she has a point, though, in saying such arguments as yours are actually anti-feminist b/c they strip all responsibility from women.

And it shows that LA Ute is not some gerontological freak who is way behind the times. In many ways, I think his views are more forward-looking by giving women the responsibility they've fought so hard to achieve. It's theirs, and ours. Don't take it away from them.

If you show me your cleavage, I will look. And don't whine when I do.

I think you misunderstand the posts in this thread. I don't remove all responsibility from women. I simply suggest that women are not responsible for the sexual behavior of men. Women are still responsible for themselves, naturally.

Your last sentence about cleavage makes no sense in the context of this thread. Nobody has been arguing that men shouldn't be attracted to women or that women are offended by men finding them desirable. In fact, most have said that it is only natural for men to find women attractive. If you are really in LA Utes camp, your final sentence would read something like, "I blame you for showing me your cleavage. It is your fault." I have a feeling you didn't read this thread carefully.

Goodnight!

[Levin]

I think you misunderstand the posts in this thread. I don't remove all responsibility from women. I simply suggest that women are not responsible for the sexual behavior of men. Women are still responsible for themselves, naturally.

Your last sentence about cleavage makes no sense in the context of this thread. Nobody has been arguing that men shouldn't be attracted to women or that women are offended by men finding them desirable. In fact, most have said that it is only natural for men to find women attractive. If you are really in LA Utes camp, your final sentence would read something like, "I blame you for showing me your cleavage. It is your fault." I have a feeling you didn't read this thread carefully.

Goodnight!

No, the point is that if a woman wears provocative clothing, she is inviting men -- making the choice to have men -- ogle her. She absolutely does have some responsibility in the sexual reactions of the men she entices.

It's ridiculous to suggest that, in the sexual realm, men's actions are wholly independent of women's actions, and vice versa. It's utterly detached from any sense of reality. Have you really gotten to the point where your faux-feminism has blinded you to the ancient and biological rules of sexual attraction, of call and response?

Look at the animal kingdom, with male and female birds coloring and puffing themselves up in order to attract sexual mates.

That's what women do when they wear provocative clothing. Get real, people.

And this is where Paglia's point gains real traction. If a woman wears skimpy clothes and invites a man back to her apartment, she is choosing to give signals that she wants to have sex and when the man tries to have sex with her, it is partly her doing because that is what she has invited.

It's ridiculous to suggest that women should be stripped of their biological ability to invoke sexual reactions from men based on their actions.

Give women their due, and responsibility!

Good morning.

[LA Ute]

I think you misunderstand the posts in this thread. I don't remove all responsibility from women. I simply suggest that women are not responsible for the sexual behavior of men. Women are still responsible for themselves, naturally.

Your last sentence about cleavage makes no sense in the context of this thread. Nobody has been arguing that men shouldn't be attracted to women or that women are offended by men finding them desirable. In fact, most have said that it is only natural for men to find women attractive. If you are really in LA Utes camp, your final sentence would read something like, "I blame you for showing me your cleavage. It is your fault." I have a feeling you didn't read this thread carefully.

Says the guy who sees unicorns in others' posts. The backpedaling is fun to watch.

[marsupial]

I do think she has a point, though, in saying such arguments as yours are actually anti-feminist b/c they strip all responsibility from women.

And it shows that LA Ute is not some gerontological freak who is way behind the times. In many ways, I think his views are more forward-looking by giving women the responsibility they've fought so hard to achieve. It's theirs, and ours. Don't take it away from them.

If you show me your cleavage, I will look. And don't whine when I do. Own what you are doing and get real about males, females, hormones, and sex.

Edit -- DDD, please don't show me your cleavage. Even if you did, i wouldn't look. I was speaking to a theoretical audience of females.

Yes, women have fought hard for the responsibility of young men's chastity.

[marsupial]

No, the point is that if a woman wears provocative clothing, she is inviting men -- making the choice to have men -- ogle her. She absolutely does have some responsibility in the sexual reactions of the men she entices.

It's ridiculous to suggest that, in the sexual realm, men's actions are wholly independent of women's actions, and vice versa. It's utterly detached from any sense of reality. Have you really gotten to the point where your faux-feminism has blinded you to the ancient and biological rules of sexual attraction, of call and response?

Look at the animal kingdom, with male and female birds coloring and puffing themselves up in order to attract sexual mates.

That's what women do when they wear provocative clothing. Get real, people.

And this is where Paglia's point gains real traction. If a woman wears skimpy clothes and invites a man back to her apartment, she is choosing to give signals that she wants to have sex and when the man tries to have sex with her, it is partly her doing because that is what she has invited.It's ridiculous to suggest that women should be stripped of their biological ability to invoke sexual reactions from men based on their actions.

Give women their due, and responsibility!

Good morning.

We were talking about teaching modesty to Young Women, who are essentially teenage girls who live with their parents. Now you are talking about a grown woman inviting a grown man into her apartment. Yeah, sure the man is thinking, "I'm going to get some tonight."

But she still has the right to change her mind or say no. If he ignores her and forces himself on her anyway, it is still rape.

Finderson, where are you here? I need you to teach Levin a lesson in Feminism 101.

[DrumNFeather]

Awww...




What would the fun of that be? I think this thread is rad. There are many, different, views which are very insightful and interesting. I see the value in a thread like this in being able to bounce off ideas and draw new conclusions.

No no, I get that, believe me I get that. DNF not allowed to troll a bit?

[RobinFinderson]

Finderson, where are you here? I need you to teach Levin a lesson in Feminism 101.

In Feminism 101 we learn some concepts that hold true for ALL branches of feminism, including Ms. Paglia's. ALL feminists hold these truths to be self evident: No matter how alluringly a person dresses, no means no and rape is rape.

In Feminism 201 we learn that there are indeed branches of feminism that have extremely different views about the appropriate use of female sexuality. What Paglia and Levin seem to be pointing out is that female sexuality is a real force that tints every social situation that includes men and women, and it should be no surprise to any of us that the advantage tends to tilt in favor of the sexy. Women have always been consciously and subconsciously calculating this fact into their fashion choices, and to the extent that this obvious biological force is understood and consciously acted upon, there is a degree of personal accountability in one's fashion choices and what those choices communicate in the current cultural space (which continually changes and evolves).

Anyhow, I don't think that anyone, including Paglia, is arguing that women's accountability for how they choose to use the power of female sexuality to obtain social privilege includes placing the culpability for rape on anyone other than the rapist. If I'm wrong about this, and either Levin or Paglia is arguing otherwise, then he/she/they are buffoons.

[RobinFinderson]

So, continuing from where I just left off, one might ask, "Which branch of feminism should the LDS church adopt in shaping its curriculum for the young women?"

A. Should the church be for the use of female sexuality for the benefit of those who are sexy (and those who can be made to be sexy, via fashion, makeup, surgery, etc)?

B. Or should the church take a more egalitarian view of female sexuality, and assume that any conscious use of female sexuality for the seeking social privilege is inappropriate because 1. It legitimizes the marketplace where social privilege and sexuality are freely traded, and 2. This marketplace penalizes many people because they were not born with the advantages that come with beauty.

Group A. tends to include pro-porn feminists, and advances the idea that women are accountable for how they choose to trade their sexuality in the social marketplace (though they are not accountable for rape). Ironically, the LDS church's current views are probably more closely aligned with this line of thinking than with the second view.

Group B. argues that it is our collective social responsibility to oppose our animal natures and create a culture that maximizes merit, and minimizes privileges derived from sexuality (it would be nuts to pretend we can eliminate this privilege all together).

I don't foresee LDS women giving up on makeup, yet makeup is almost always applied to accentuate female sexuality. Women use it to conceal the signs of age, and thus appear more sexually mate-worthy. Why do women try to look younger? There is nothing inherently better about looking youthful rather than older. The reason is simple. A healthy youthful look is a biological indicator for an ideal mate. Likewise, young women tend to apply makeup to enhance those parts that indicate sexual desirability. To the feminists in group B., Mormon women and radical pro-porn feminists are part of the same continuum of thinking about the appropriate use of women's sexuality.

[marsupial]

I think we are talking about two things here: responsibility for impressions AND responsibility for actions.

Yes, our appearance gives others impressions about who we are. Those impressions may or may not be accurate, but I will concede that we hold some responsibility for them.

What I am talking about is actions. Young Women cannot be held responsible for the Young Men's decisions. If Susie comes straight to Mutual from volleyball practice still in her itty bitty athletic shorts and tank top and Tim thinks she looks hot in it, is Susie responsible when Tim goes home and spanks his monkey? Absolutely not. And you know, it probably wouldn't have mattered what she wore. Little Timmy likes spanking his monkey.

What the fMH author was saying was to frame modesty lessons in the terms of self respect. Mrs. Funk already said this well. Teach the Young Women to dress so that others get the impression that they are girls with dignity, self respect and high moral standards. Don't tell them not to wear tank tops or short skirts or strapless dresses because it'll lead the Young Men to sin and they're responsible for helping them uphold their Priesthood.

[Levin]

Anyhow, I don't think that anyone, including Paglia, is arguing that women's accountability for how they choose to use the power of female sexuality to obtain social privilege includes placing the culpability for rape on anyone other than the rapist. If I'm wrong about this, and either Levin or Paglia is arguing otherwise, then he/she/they are buffoons.

Thanks for the primer. And this is obvious. Of course culpability rests with the rapist. Always.

But we're talking about something else, and that is a Chinese wall that some faux-feminists are attempting to erect between female and male sexual calls and responses. No such wall exists.

If I place candy in front of a child, and the child chooses to eat it, did I have some role in the child eating the candy? Yes. Did the child still exercise its own agency to eat the candy? Yes. Must there be a simplistic and artificial division between the interaction of our two choices? No.

[DrumNFeather]

What the fMH author was saying was to frame modesty lessons in the terms of self respect. Mrs. Funk already said this well. Teach the Young Women to dress so that others get the impression that they are girls with dignity, self respect and high moral standards. Don't tell them not to wear tank tops or short skirts or strapless dresses because it'll lead the Young Men to sin and they're responsible for helping them uphold their Priesthood.

I think this would be an excellent approach. If you dig through all the weeds and tangents associated with this discussion and you break it down to using this as your baseline for teaching modesty lessons, then you absolutely have made an improvement over what the previous lessons are alleged to be.

I think the author used a little bit of hyperbole in trying to illustrate her point, which detracts a bit from the core message as you have outlined above.