13 Articles of Healthy Chastity

[marsupial]

Agreed about the hyperbole, but i'll still stick with thinking that you don't get how damaging these things can be to YW. That's okay. You have your perspective and I don't expect that you'll change it.

In addition to it being a damaging message, because it truly is, I don't think it is a very effective way to motivate teenage girls to dress modestly. "Dress modestly or you'll drive the boys crazy and they won't be able to resist you." Yeah, they're convinced now.

[Surfah]

heh heh... you misunderstand me. Read it from the perspective of someone who doesn't think that it's helpful for kids to feel like they need to "confess" sexual "sins" to ecclesiastical leaders.

All the time.

[LA Ute]

Agreed about the hyperbole, but i'll still stick with thinking that you don't get how damaging these things can be to YW. That's okay. You have your perspective and I don't expect that you'll change it.

You have succeeded in (insisted on?) putting me on the defensive. This is probably a violation of board etiquette. In any case, I don't have to like it! We disagree less than you and Marsupial think. Of course these things can be damaging. It's all in how they're handled.

In addition to it being a damaging message, because it truly is, I don't think it is a very effective way to motivate teenage girls to dress modestly. "Dress modestly or you'll drive the boys crazy and they won't be able to resist you." Yeah, they're convinced now.

If I had time I'd find a little tiny graphic of a straw man to insert here, I would; but you're just going to have to imagine one. If you could be a fly on the wall when my wife and I are talking to our 13 year-old about these things, I have a hunch that you would feel just fine about the proportion and emphasis we give to this one part - and it is just one relatively minor part - of reasons to be modest. I guess you'll just have to trust me on that. But you can be my daugther's YW president any time.

[SuperGabers]

I liked that blog post and I think most of the 13 suggestions make a lot of sense. These two don't, however, IMO:

This misses the point, I think. Of course girls have no stewardship over boys' thoughts or actions, but they have stewardship over their own, and over whether they tempt the boys. It's not fair for YW to make life more difficult for YM by, for example, showing up at seminary dressed in a way that is going to make it pretty hard for the boys (if they are awake) to concentrate on anything but what the girls are showing them. I think LDS YW do have a responsibility not to set traps for YM, intentionally or not. It's surprising to me how naive many LDS YW seem to be about how female immodesty affects YM.

*snicker*

[LA Ute]

*snicker*

You know, I purposefully tried to replace that word with "difficult" just because I knew someone like you would do exactly what you just did. But I missed that one. I am beginning to understand UtahDan much better now.

[UtahDan]

You know, I purposefully tried to replace that word with "difficult" just because I knew someone like you would do exactly what you just did. But I missed that one. I am beginning to understand UtahDan much better now.

We may both be screwed up but we are well matched.

[SuperGabers]

We may both be screwed up but we are well matched.

You and L'Ute do make a cute couple.

[shoganai]

Just so we're clear, you're completely making this up, right?

I would assert that the only "made up" argument, is the one that says a lifestyle of dead-end sexual relationships or outright promiscuity has no emotional effect on people - especially teens.

I'm assuming it was pretty clear that we're not talking about marital sex.

[TripletDaddy]

I liked that blog post and I think most of the 13 suggestions make a lot of sense. These two don't, however, IMO:



This misses the point, I think. Of course girls have no stewardship over boys' thoughts or actions, but they have stewardship over their own, and over whether they tempt the boys. It's not fair for YW to make life more difficult for YM by, for example, showing up at seminary dressed in a way that is going to make it pretty hard for the boys (if they are awake) to concentrate on anything but what the girls are showing them. I think LDS YW do have a responsibility not to set traps for YM, intentionally or not. It's surprising to me how naive many LDS YW seem to be about how female immodesty affects YM.



The assumption here (that raging male teen hormones are difficult for YM to deal with is a "myth") is a huge one, I think, and I don't buy it. And sure, men can control themselves, but that doesn't mean YM should feel free to give YM frequent opportunities to test their self-control.

I have not read the whole thread, so I am sorry if I repeated anything.

When did you convert to fundamental Islam?

Telling girls to dress modestly for their own sake is one thing. Skip the part about blaming them for boys hormones or whatnot. You are basically advocating the "she was asking for it...look how she was dressed" approach. You arent vigorously championing it, but you are using the same logic. Illogic, I mean.

[Rosebud]

You have succeeded in (insisted on?) putting me on the defensive. This is probably a violation of board etiquette.

Sorry LA. Long day. I think that sometimes I come to CUF to let off steam. I jumped in then realized that I didn't really want to debate you on it. That wasn't really fair of me. My apologies.

[woot]

I would assert that the only "made up" argument, is the one that says a lifestyle of dead-end sexual relationships or outright promiscuity has no emotional effect on people - especially teens.

I'm assuming it was pretty clear that we're not talking about marital sex.

I would submit that the burden of evidence is in your court. Humans have been fucking everything in sight since long before marriage was invented, and the same is basically true today. Why should we assume that sex outside of marriage leads to greater emotional difficulties than does a worldview that views sex outside of marriage as sinful or somehow against "god"'s "plan"? Why should we view the obvious and tangible hazards of STI's and pregnancy as less detrimental to amorphous, subjective, and imaginary notions of "emotional and spiritual illness"? Excuse me if it's offensive to you, but I'll go ahead and care about kids dying or bringing more unwanted kids into the world more than kids being sad or "unworthy", whatever the hell that even means.

Either way, the correct answer is "yes". You're completely making that stuff up. You'd like to believe it's true because it would support your religious beliefs, the same way it would be great if the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption would go away, but the facts are stubborn that way.

[LA Ute]

When did you convert to fundamental Islam?

Telling girls to dress modestly for their own sake is one thing. Skip the part about blaming them for boys hormones or whatnot. You are basically advocating the "she was asking for it...look how she was dressed" approach. You arent vigorously championing it, but you are using the same logic. Illogic, I mean.

Utter nonsense. You're going to have to explain how I am doing that.

[LA Ute]

Sorry LA. Long day. I think that sometimes I come to CUF to let off steam. I jumped in then realized that I didn't really want to debate you on it. That wasn't really fair of me. My apologies.

The "board etiquette" remark was TIC. You made me think.

[UtahDan]

Canned peaches has true significance, broccoli however can only reference the mangled mess that happens to a wrestlers' ears. I do recall a pretty good BYU female hoopster named Jen Leitner who missed a game with an earache and then was suspended the next week. Not exactly a hole I would want to hit but to each their own, I suppose.

Probably the wrong place to put this, but thought everyone would want to see this pic I found of you.

[Donuthole]

I would submit that the burden of evidence is in your court. Humans have been fucking everything in sight since long before marriage was invented, and the same is basically true today. Why should we assume that sex outside of marriage leads to greater emotional difficulties than does a worldview that views sex outside of marriage as sinful or somehow against "god"'s "plan"?Why should we view the obvious and tangible hazards of STI's and pregnancy as less detrimental to amorphous, subjective, and imaginary notions of "emotional and spiritual illness"? Excuse me if it's offensive to you, but I'll go ahead and care about kids dying or bringing more unwanted kids into the world more than kids being sad or "unworthy", whatever the hell that even means.

Either way, the correct answer is "yes". You're completely making that stuff up. You'd like to believe it's true because it would support your religious beliefs, the same way it would be great if the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption would go away, but the facts are stubborn that way.

Yes, great argument. Perhaps we should go back to the way things were long before marriage was invented.

Or we can accept the social progress we've made since man was apeish.
Calling an argument stupid because it can't be proven is all fine and dandy until you throw out an argument that is equally impossible to prove. Like, say, that humans had fewer emotional difficulties when "fucking everything in sight" was the norm.

Either way, the correct answer is "yes". You're completely making that stuff up. You'd like to believe it's true because it would support your scientific beliefs, the same way it would be great if the satisfaction of people in healthy monogamous relationships would erode, but the facts are stubborn that way.