13 Articles of Healthy Chastity

[Moliere]

You think even mentioning that we are in the image of our Heavenly Mother and we should honor Her though dressing modestly would get you released?

Man, things are even worse than I thought.

A more "tender" way to put this would be to say Heavenly Parents instead of Heavenly Mother. We even have the words Heavenly Parents in our Gospel Principles book that is being studied in PH/RS so if someone has a problem with that they can take it up with the correlation committee.

[DrumNFeather]

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:

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.

[Moliere]

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 don't think the issue is what she is told afterwards, but what she was told before it happened. If what she hears in YWs is that if you wear revealing clothing then you are enticing men to act on their desires. The victim will ultimately put two and two together and think that she brought it on herself because of what she wore. This will happen regardless of what she is told after the incident.

[TripletDaddy]

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.

No, you haven't. But you find nik's perspective to be cynical when none of the women in the thread find nik's position to be cynical. In fact, they seem to be agreeing with him. This should give you pause and reason to reassess your original stance. That was my point.

[Pheidippides]

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.

This story is not a hypothetical. Or an isolated non-hypothetical.

When it happens, bishops and YW leaders are usually very sensitive an I'm not arguing that they are not. But how do you undo years of conditioning in a moment?

[wally]

Interesting thread.

I have some questions regarding “modesty”, however.

I am not fashion conscious whatsoever. Let’s put it this way; I value my pants primarily based on the utility of their pockets. I only attempt to match my clothing colors because I consider it social responsibility not to look like a clown. (I am an engineer after all)

From my completely ignorant and uninformed male perspective, it appears that the New York fashionistas determine what is modest enough for teenage girls and what is not. Am I wrong?

I am honestly trying to get an understanding of what is modest dress and what is not. I think that this is largely an “eye of the beholder” thing, and I am pretty sure that a v-neck down to the navel is immodest.

And as a follow-on to what is modest, how much responsibility do women have to dress “modestly” and how much responsibility do men have to maintain control of themselves?

I would be interested CUF’s (particularly, the women’s) opinions on this.

Again, this is an honest question. This may be your opportunity to shape my opinion a topic, so be nice.

[UtahDan]

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.

We fundamentally agree. Particularly I agree with the point that is bolded. I suppose what I am saying is that it is also unproductive to pretend that boys and girls are the same and as a consequence not give boys proper guidance. That is not to the exclusion of giving girls proper guidance and recognizing that they may also have strong sexual desires. It is an argument for giving boys proper instruction and attention, not for failing to do the same for girls. Make sense?

[marsupial]

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.

Thank you. And re: Heavenly Mother. I have no problem bringing her into the discussion but yes, I do think that there are plenty of members who would complain.

[DrumNFeather]

This story is not a hypothetical. Or an isolated non-hypothetical.

When it happens, bishops and YW leaders are usually very sensitive an I'm not arguing that they are not. But how do you undo years of conditioning in a moment?

I take some issue with your use of the word conditioning in this context, but as I can see the tenor of the thread is going in a certain direction, I will just respectfully agree to disagree with you and step aside.

[Mrs. Funk]

We fundamentally agree. Particularly I agree with the point that is bolded. I suppose what I am saying is that it is also unproductive to pretend that boys and girls are the same and as a consequence not give boys proper guidance. That is not to the exclusion of giving girls proper guidance and recognizing that they may also have strong sexual desires. It is an argument for giving boys proper instruction and attention, not for failing to do the same for girls. Make sense?

Makes sense.

[TheBYUGuy]

Honestly, this topic is intriguing. I can understand the thoughts expressed that it doesn't do any good (or worse, is counterproductive) to teach the YW that immodest dress leads to inappropriate thoughts or conduct by the YM.

On the other hand, it would be a bold-faced lie to tell a YW that the way she dresses and presents herself does not impact the thoughts and hormones of YM.

It is a tricky subject, to be sure. It sounds like everyone agrees that 1) we should primarily teach modesty to YW in the vein of self-respect and confidence and 2) the YM are responsible for their own behavior.

[UtahDan]

I take some issue with your use of the word conditioning in this context, but as I can see the tenor of the thread is going in a certain direction, I will just respectfully agree to disagree with you and step aside.

You were just getting warmed up!

[marsupial]

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.

A more likely scenario: YW has a date. She dresses up in something immodest by LDS standards (which doesn't necessarily mean that it is provocative, given our strict standards). They start kissing and she is enjoying herself. He quickly and aggressively escalates the kissing and before she knows it, he is forcing himself on her. She goes home. Runs the date through her mind. She was kissing him in a car at night wearing immodest clothes--according to everything she has learned in YW, she was asking for it. She goes to her bishop and says, "I had sex." He unwittingly takes her through the repentance process for a sin that is not hers.

This is why sexual abuse, as the fmh author mentions, definitely needs to be a part of any chastity curriculum. Someone close to me was date raped and she went as far as marrying her rapist because she felt she was to blame and that because she had sex with him, she needed to marry him to make it right.

[Clark Addison]

A more likely scenario: YW has a date. She dresses up in something immodest by LDS standards (which doesn't necessarily mean that it is provocative, given our strict standards). They start kissing and she is enjoying herself. He quickly and aggressively escalates the kissing and before she knows it, he is forcing himself on her. She goes home. Runs the date through her mind. She was kissing him in a car at night wearing immodest clothes--according to everything she has learned in YW, she was asking for it. She goes to her bishop and says, "I had sex." He unwittingly takes her through the repentance process for a sin that is not hers.

This is why sexual abuse, as the fmh author mentions, definitely needs to be a part of any chastity curriculum. Someone close to me was date raped and she went as far as marrying her rapist because she felt she was to blame and that because she had sex with him, she needed to marry him to make it right.

Wow, that is messed up.

[Surfah]

A more likely scenario: YW has a date. She dresses up in something immodest by LDS standards (which doesn't necessarily mean that it is provocative, given our strict standards). They start kissing and she is enjoying herself. He quickly and aggressively escalates the kissing and before she knows it, he is forcing himself on her. She goes home. Runs the date through her mind. She was kissing him in a car at night wearing immodest clothes--according to everything she has learned in YW, she was asking for it. She goes to her bishop and says, "I had sex." He unwittingly takes her through the repentance process for a sin that is not hers.

This is why sexual abuse, as the fmh author mentions, definitely needs to be a part of any chastity curriculum. Someone close to me was date raped and she went as far as marrying her rapist because she felt she was to blame and that because she had sex with him, she needed to marry him to make it right.

A more likely scenario: YM has a date. He dresses like a dork even by LDS standards (which means that it is the dorkiest outfit ever, given our dorky standards). They start kissing and he is enjoying himself. He quickly and aggressively escalates the kissing because it feels better than he ever imagined it would and she hasn't said stop and before he knows it, he is having sex with her. He goes home. Runs the date through his mind. He was kissing her in a car at night--according to everything he has learned in YM, he should have know better because he is the priesthood holder and should have never placed his date in that position. He goes to his bishop and says, "I had sex." He unwittingly takes him through the repentance process for a sin that is his alone. He can't hold a calling or take the sacrament for over 6 months. His mission is delayed for at minimum a year and whether or not he can even go is in question and to be determined at a later date. His date doesn't take the sacrament for a month and is pronounced clean.