Misogyny and the Male LDS mindset

[_Sam Harris]

You're getting out of hand here. No. Read the last sentence, and try again. If I had allowed others to convince me (especially in the LDS church) that I was an ugly black whore, I'd have gone suicidal again. But I'm better, stronger, and more beautiful than that. And those who tried to make me believe that were far worse than jerks.

I guess I'm not getting what you're trying to say here.

I thought you were saying that because these men didn't want to marry you, that you took that as a blow to your self worth? And that you believe that a man shouldn't dismiss a woman because of an abused past.

Am I understanding you correctly?

LDS men wouldn't even come near me. They feared me. You could see it in their eyes. Abuse never even came into the picture, but they knew I was "damaged goods" because of my culture and my convert status. Of course I took that as a blow to my self worth. Who wouldn't? I'm a good person, but because I wasn't born on the right side of white and delightsome and in the church you avoid me?

You have no idea the agony that caused me. I don't even like remembering it.

NO a man should NOT dismiss a woman because of an abused past. He should try to understand the person first, and if the issues are too great, break the relationship off in friendship. But that takes a lot of strength and maturity. It's hard to do.

[_asbestosman]

What do you mean by compatibility?

How well can we share some fun things together. How well can we meet each other's needs and expectations. Certainly it won't be perfect, but there will be some who will be better suited to it than others. The idea that any righteous man and woman can work it out may be correct, but it will be much more difficult or some than others. Greater happiness could probably be found if they each found a different partner.

[_Sam Harris]

What do you mean by compatibility?

How well can we share some fun things together. How well can we meet each other's needs and expectations. Certainly it won't be perfect, but there will be some who will be better suited to it than others. The idea that any righteous man and woman can work it out may be correct, but it will be much more difficult or some than others. Greater happiness could probably be found if they each found a different partner.

Women think of the same things. But women also want to know if you find them attractive, if you see worth within them...there's more than just having fun together. There's the "do you see inside me, and do you like what you see" aspect of it.

[_Scottie]

LDS men wouldn't even come near me. They feared me. You could see it in their eyes. Abuse never even came into the picture, but they knew I was "damaged goods" because of my culture and my convert status. Of course I took that as a blow to my self worth. Who wouldn't? I'm a good person, but because I wasn't born on the right side of white and delightsome and in the church you avoid me?

So your issues aren't with abuses per se, but rather that we should get to know someone before passing judgment on that person? I have mixed feelings...see below.

You have no idea the agony that caused me. I don't even like remembering it.

I'm going through that now, and yes, it does hurt.

NO a man should NOT dismiss a woman because of an abused past. He should try to understand the person first, and if the issues are too great, break the relationship off in friendship. But that takes a lot of strength and maturity. It's hard to do.

I have mixed feelings on this. One the one hand, I agree that it sucks that something as stupid as past childhood abuses are a dealbreaker for some guys. They certainly wouldn't be for me.

On the other hand, who am I to say what is or is not a valid criteria for someone when choosing a mate. This is the single more important decision someone can make! You will be with this person (hopefully) for the rest of your life!

I refuse to date a smoker, regardless of how compatible they are with me. I refuse to date an alcoholic. Those are MY criteria, and I'm sure there are some smokers and alcoholics out there saying they are good people, and why do guys dismiss them when they find this out. I have my reasons, just as someone might have their reasons for not dating an abused person.

So, you see, I don't need to get to know a smoker or an alcoholic to know I'm not going to pursue a romantic relationship with them. I have my deal-breakers and I don't think it's fair for someone to tell me I'm a bastard for having them.

Some LDS men have the criteria of a virgin. Who are we to say they are bastards for this?

Now, mind you, I would withhold judgment as far as being friends with these people and GLADLY be their friend.

[_Sam Harris]

Kissing an abused person must really leave an aftertaste.

[_Yoda]

Some LDS men have the criteria of a virgin. Who are we to say they are bastards for this?

It depends on the reasoning behind it. If the LDS man is also a virgin, then I'm fine with it. If he's not, and he just wants his little bride to be "pure", then, yeah, I would view him as a misogynistic bastard, but that's just me. ;)

[_Sam Harris]

And let me add one more thing. PEOPLE CHOOSE TO SMOKE AND DRINK!!! THEY DO NOT CHOOSE TO HAVE THEIR CLOTHES TAKEN OFF THEIR BODIES AND THEN BE BEATEN!

IT IS NOT THE SAME! YOU CANNOT COMPARE AN ALCOHOLIC TO AN ABUSED PERSON! ARRGH!

[_Scottie]

Some LDS men have the criteria of a virgin. Who are we to say they are bastards for this?

It depends on the reasoning behind it. If the LDS man is also a virgin, then I'm fine with it. If he's not, and he just wants his little bride to be "pure", then, yeah, I would view him as a misogynistic bastard, but that's just me. ;)

I think the "misogynist" word is being tossed around rather loosely here...

I'm not sure that these men HATE women.

But, your point is valid. If I were a smoker and refused to date a smoker, that would be rather hypocritical of me.

[Guest]

This is interesting to me:

I refuse to date a smoker, regardless of how compatible they are with me. I refuse to date an alcoholic. Those are MY criteria, and I'm sure there are some smokers and alcoholics out there saying they are good people, and why do guys dismiss them when they find this out. I have my reasons, just as someone might have their reasons for not dating an abused person.

Scottie, equating behaviors (that is smoking, drinking, whatever) with assumptions about someone's inner psyche (that may not manifest at all behaviorally) is different. If the abused person is hands off 'cause of "issues" I get that. Yet, assuming that a person has issues is different. I don't care if you date someone with or without whatever -- I don't care who you date. I'm just attempting to talk to you about it and perhaps you can understand how frustrating it is for people to make assumptions that are not factual.

I just wonder (and no one get hot and bothered by this question) if talking about people having "issues" is something done in the Church. I know gossip and twittering about deviance is par for the course -- yet is this a term used often?

I imagine with many people in the Church attempting to live up to some standard and constantly being pushed to not show flaws of any sort that this could actually make you all more aware of people that have bumps in their lives. I know people on this site (and MAD) are treated HORRENDOUSLY for just normal parts of life.

[_Yoda]

I think the "misogynist" word is being tossed around rather loosely here...

You and BC...You're so picky! LOL