Blaming women for the way they dress is like blaming cake for the way it tastes. "It's not my fault I'm 300 lbs. The cake was just begging to be eaten!"
Certainly, dressing seductively raises a woman's risk factor, but even if she's walking down the street naked, we'd still chuck an asshole in jail if he assaulted her. I think it's far more reasonable to expect men to control themselves than to expect women to dress a particular way.
I will defend to the death a woman's right to dress attractively.
Yet it is only a man who can say what inflames his desire for a woman. It's interesting that attraction is probably genetic yet there is probably no genetically based counter reaction to "cover up".
Wait a minute! the atheist says. So this desire to enforce modesty is merely social/cultural? Then it's all relative.
Now hold on! says the believer. If it's all relative, then there is no reason for any modesty or self control whatsoever as that is merely social/cultural as well. We might as well act on every natural desire from dressing to attract to all sexual impulses etc.
So basically if we followed the atheist's logic, women would be dragged down in the streets and malls to be impregnated on the spot at any man's whim. Of course if society behaved this way, there probably wouldn't be any malls or streets. We would still be swinging from the branches philosophizing about whether or not we should come down from of the trees or whether or not coming out of the oceans was a good idea in the first place.
We have rules ,for a reason and frankly, some of these rules come from God. That's the only logical explanation as even most atheists have some moral quality which, if they are honest with themselves, don't come from society or culture because an atheist eschews that as a valid source for reasonable action.
(That is an allusion to the Spirit of Christ by the way)
Game goes to the believer.
When bcspace plays with himself, he always claims victory just like on those rare occasions when he plays with others.
It's interesting to read about self control. Our Puritan roots seem to be showing. Anyone who has enjoyed the beaches in many European, Caribbean or South American "hot spots", quickly realizes that if you are a man, you'd better control your, um, emotions or find a hat. There are still Amazonian societies where everyone lives half dressed. I'm always amazed at how much emphasis we Americans place on partial nudity. Terms have been created to describe the various states of the human body as seen through clothing. Hmm.
I live in Portland Oregon where each summer, a couple of hundred brave folks ride their bicycles in the buff. If you happen to be fishing the Columbia river near a certain beach, or launch your kayak there, you'll be greeted by folks wearing their birthday suit. Fun stuff.
Dryfly only pawn in game of life - almost Mel Brooks
sock puppet wrote: When bcspace plays with himself, he always claims victory just like on those rare occasions when he plays with others.
I've long suspected bc is full of crap and knows it. I just don't think he really believes his schtick. There's no way he could say the stupid crap he says, claim victory, and really believe it (unless he's got a piece of metal lodged in his head the doctors were afraid to remove, perhaps). He's got to know he's just spewing nonsense and loves to watch people fall over themselves to point it out. He's like a dude with a laser pointer whipping the little red dot around the floor to watch the cats go nuts trying to catch it, laughing all along that people are chasing an argument he knows is stupid and outrageous.
This is why I never comment on his specific instances of nonsense... or as he calls them, "arguments." I'm not chasing his illusion.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
3sheets2thewind wrote:So a rapist is only 51% responsible and the victim is 49% responsible.
And in gang rape the victim is still 49% cupable, and the 51% is divided equally amongst the rapist, thus making the rapists individually less cupable than the victim.....
Thanks.cinpero for helping clarify this
Yes, that's exactly what I meant, but I wasn't able to pin down the exact percentages.
Some Schmo wrote:No, the comparison is between two categories of self-control. I thought that was obvious.
A critical difference would be that you don't get fat from looking at cake. As long as the Church wants people to keep their thoughts "pure", it would be logical to ask people not to dress in ways that make that difficult.
But if the Church became just as insistent about the healthfulness of food as they are about the modesty of clothes, I wouldn't complain.
Some Schmo wrote:No, the comparison is between two categories of self-control. I thought that was obvious.
A critical difference would be that you don't get fat from looking at cake. As long as the Church wants people to keep their thoughts "pure", it would be logical to ask people not to dress in ways that make that difficult.
Well, women don't get raped just by being looked at either. What matters is what happens in the dude's brain when he sees the cake/attractive woman.
As for the church's view on thoughts control... well, it's ill-conceived, to say the least.
cinepro wrote:But if the Church became just as insistent about the healthfulness of food as they are about the modesty of clothes, I wouldn't complain.
It is kind of confusing if the church says there's nothing wrong with attacking a tasty dish.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:Well, women don't get raped just by being looked at either. What matters is what happens in the dude's brain when he sees the cake/attractive woman.
Just so we're on the same page, here's the actual quote:
Finally, do not patronize pornography. Do not use your purchasing power to support moral degradation. And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you.
Immodesty, pornography, and rape are three different things. As far as I can tell, Oaks was sharing his opinion that it's possible for a woman to dress in a way that elicits the same response in "some of the men" as pornography does.
This is a relationship between the concepts of "immodesty" and "pornography"; how did "rape" get into the equation? This would require a discussion of whether or not pornography leads to rape, which no one here has suggested.
And to take this further by suggesting that the Church is somehow justifying or condoning sexual assault is beyond absurd.
cinepro wrote:Oaks was sharing his opinion that it's possible for a woman to dress in a way that elicits the same response in "some of the men" as pornography does.
Given that Oaks was speaking in his official capacity as an Apostle, at Conference, how did you differentiate between what was Oaks' personal opinion and what was inspired instruction from the Lord?
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Some Schmo wrote:Well, women don't get raped just by being looked at either. What matters is what happens in the dude's brain when he sees the cake/attractive woman.
Just so we're on the same page, here's the actual quote:
Finally, do not patronize pornography. Do not use your purchasing power to support moral degradation. And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you.
Immodesty, pornography, and rape are three different things. As far as I can tell, Oaks was sharing his opinion that it's possible for a woman to dress in a way that elicits the same response in "some of the men" as pornography does.
This is a relationship between the concepts of "immodesty" and "pornography"; how did "rape" get into the equation? This would require a discussion of whether or not pornography leads to rape, which no one here has suggested.
And to take this further by suggesting that the Church is somehow justifying or condoning sexual assault is beyond absurd.
First, cinepro, go read your first post, you state quite clearly that a female is partial responsible for the actions of a male.
Second, pornography in the context of LDS Culture is taught and believed to lead to all manner of sin. Anecdotally, until I find the story, there is the RM who viewed porn which ultimately lead to him raping and murdering a child.
So in LDS context, pornography is the gateway sin to rape is an understood given.
