Walking porn? Why not teach men self control?

[_3sheets2thewind]

Thomas S. Monson October 1979

"The FBI points out that pornography may have a direct relationship to sex crimes. “In one large western city,” an agency report states, “the vice squad advised that 72 percent of the individuals arrested for rape and child-related sexual offenses had in their possession some type of pornographic material.”"

Richard P Lindsay 1984:

"A growing body of evidence suggests that the more pornography a viewer sees, the more likely he will be to commit sex crimes. It is no coincidence that the last ten years have been marked by a rise in both pornography sales and crimes of sexual violence. Exposure to pornography contributes to a social climate in which crimes of aggression, mainly against women and children, come to appear more acceptable."


Cinepro, there is more, but it ie not needed. In the LDS context pornography ---> rape.

[_palerobber]

It's really not unlike the homosexual marriage issue. Why introduce additional risk factors into a relationship or a family?

gay marriage has tempted you to leave your wife and family?

hang in there, buddy. do it for the kids.

[_palerobber]

by the way, wasn't there someone in the news recently who was a big believer in modesty?

... he says “There are no values anymore,” and worries that “people can’t control themselves.” [He] says he doesn’t usually take his shirt off so girls don’t get bad ideas: “I’m very religious.”

[_beastie]

Let's just look at this pragmatically:

You can ask all of the men of your particular denomination to learn to control their thoughts. You can teach them that they are exclusively responsible for their own thoughts regardless of how a woman is dressed. (I ask in all sincerity: have LDS leaders ever taught this?) And we know that men are capable of controlling their thoughts and behavior around women in all states of dress and undress (see: male doctors).

You can ask all of the women of your particular denomination to dress a certain way. (The LDS church very frequently does this.)

You cannot ask all of the women in the world to dress a certain way. Well, you could, but why would the women outside of your faith and culture care about your standards?

Eventually, the men of your religious group are going to encounter women from outside their church and culture who do not care about your dress standards. So which of those options is going to be most effective at curbing lust?

I think that there's a reason that Jesus holds men exclusively responsible for their own thoughts, but never suggests that women are in any way responsible for men's thoughts.

Yes, yes, and yes.

The most modestly dressed LDS woman could be labeled as "walking pornography" by those who advocate burqas.

I suppose we should scout around and find the most conservative position on women's dress and all follow suit.

The reason young male LDS may have a disproportionate physical reaction to, say, a woman in a bikini is that the male in question is in a constant state of near-arousal due to the refusal to ever engage in sexual release. Take a teenage boy, tell him God cries when he masturbates, and that teenage boy will become aroused by a telephone pole.

[_cinepro]

Yes, yes, and yes.

The most modestly dressed LDS woman could be labeled as "walking pornography" by those who advocate burqas.

So, because victorian men might be aroused by the sight of an uncovered ankle, there is no logical reason Laurels shouldn't wear string bikinis on the youth waterski trip?

The reason young male LDS may have a disproportionate physical reaction to, say, a woman in a bikini is that the male in question is in a constant state of near-arousal due to the refusal to ever engage in sexual release. Take a teenage boy, tell him God cries when he masturbates, and that teenage boy will become aroused by a telephone pole.

I don't think young (or old) male LDS have any kind of reaction out of proportion with other guys. The only difference is how they feel about the reaction. It's not like the non-LDS guys are much more restrained and prudent in their thoughts and actions because they are getting a regular "sexual release".

Maybe Elder Oaks should have been more specific? Would it have been better if he had something like this?

And young women, please understand that when you dress immodestly, you present yourself to men in a way that you might not want to. That old 60-year old single guy in your ward might have a problem with masturbation, and he might be trying to not think about your new, perky breasts when he starts to get the urge to masturbate that night. But you wanted to wear a low cut dress and push-up bra to Church, and now that image is stuck in Brother Rub's mind no matter how much he tries to forget about them.

And then there's the married men in the ward, whose wives' bodies might not be quite as youthful as they once were, especially after having a few kids. When the lights are off at night, and he's rubbing his hands up his wife's cottage-cheese thighs, it's only biologically natural for him to think of your smooth runner's legs that you were showing off earlier that day in short shorts that you wore to the ward picnic. We tell him he shouldn't, but God seems to have wired some mens' brains that way.

So, we tell the men to control their thoughts, and to avoid places where they might be tempted (and to not view pornography, which is designed to create and foster these thoughts). But as long as we live in a culture and world where most men seemed to be hard-wired by God (or, as Brother Talmage might argue, evolution) to be sexually aroused by breasts, smooth legs, and a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7, would it be too much for people to come to Church and not have to look at your perky nipples, poking through that almost sheer dress you decided to wear?

Yeah, that would have been much clearer.

[_beastie]

Yes, yes, and yes.

The most modestly dressed LDS woman could be labeled as "walking pornography" by those who advocate burqas.

So, because victorian men might be aroused by the sight of an uncovered ankle, there is no logical reason Laurels shouldn't wear string bikinis on the youth waterski trip?

I'll get back to you when I see some evidence you actually read the substance of Jack's post.

by the way, I don't believe for one second Laurels are wearing string bikinis on the youth waterski trip. Unless you can prove otherwise, I'm going to assume you used a completely unrealistic point because you don't feel like engaging what Jack actually said.

[_beastie]

The more I think about this, the more irritated I get.

AS JACK CLEARLY SAID in her post, it's fine for religions to have standards of dress they ask of their members. So make the girls responsible for that. This is the standard we expect. It's your responsibility to follow that standard.

But do not make them feel responsible for the reaction of men to them.

If a sixty year old man is perverted enough to masturbate while dreaming of a sixteen year old Laurel, then that is solely the responsibility of that sixty year old man, and a young woman - who isn't intellectually mature, anyway - should NOT be made to feel responsible for that reaction.

Besides, I've seen a couple of Facebook photos of coeds who were accused of dressing inappropriately at BYU. It's laughable.

[Guest]

...

[_cinepro]

by the way, I don't believe for one second Laurels are wearing string bikinis on the youth waterski trip. Unless you can prove otherwise, I'm going to assume you used a completely unrealistic point because you don't feel like engaging what Jack actually said.

I have been in a ward where the Laurels wore bikinis on a Laurel/Priest waterski trip. I don't know if they were of the string-type; I didn't think to ask.

[_cinepro]

But do not make them feel responsible for the reaction of men to them.

Is it not possible to acknowledge the reality of the situation without assigning "responsibility" to the woman?

Yes, it would be great if we lived in a world where women could wear the most immodest thing they wanted, and all men would avert their gaze and keep their thoughts clean and pure. I suspect LDS leaders would do almost anything to live in such a world.

But we don't live in that world, so it seems odd to insist that we should try and pretend we do.