Assertion Number 1: Women who dress provocatively are partially to blame for the sinful lust they help create in men who see them.
Typical Response: You are blaming the woman for the man’s choice to sin, which conclusion makes reason stare!
Assertion Number 2: Women would never dress provocatively if men didn’t encourage them, by being such pervs.
Typical Response: You go, girl!
Anyone see anything logically inconsistent in these two conversations? Discuss.
For more context, click the title of this post to read the linked comment and others related to it in the BCC discussion on general conference.
Ryan, does this post relate to the conversation we were having elsewhere? If it does, let me make it clear that I don’t unequivocally endorse either statement, or either response. To see whether there’s a contradiction between the two statements, let’s put them in analogous causal form:
1. Women who dress provocatively (partially) cause men to lust.
2. Men who lust(partially) cause women to dress provocatively.
I don’t see the two assertions to be contradictory; they seem to describe a circular, collusive gender dynamic that may well describe many junior high settings!
Here’s a set of related statements that I would endorse:
1. Women who dress provocatively may cause men to become aroused; men may then exercise their agency to prevent arousal from becoming lust.
2. A market-driven (not primarily male-lust driven) emphasis on the sexualized female body may cause women to dress provocatively; women may then exercise their critical judgment and agency to dress modestly.
I’ve been in these discussions way too many times to really want to go through it again. I’ll just say that one problem is that the main populace in question are not adults but youth ranging in age from 12 – 18 and with quite a bit of ignorance and lack of self-control. We all remember what it was like in those days with the desire for attention, acceptance, and embarrassment over various aspects of ones developing sexuality.
It seems to me the real issue is with regards to parents and school officials teaching these people to deal with these issues. I think it fair to say that most young women who dress provocatively don’t understand in the least the power they are exercising. Further I think that while it is extremely important to teach young men to control themselves, one ought to realize just how hard that is for them.
Rosalynde, yes, this is related to that other discussion. Specifically, it references (see the link in the title) a comment made by Tess there.
My point was not to address the individual merits of each of the stated assertions. Rather, I was hoping to point out what a shallow double standard we’ve all accepted– that it is chauvinist and oppressive to implicate female immodesty as a factor in male lust, but quite sane and respectable to implicate male lust in female immodesty. In each case, the woman is the unaccountable victim and the man is the morally culpable agent. Don’t you find that strange?
Ryan,
You may have a double standard, but I don’t. As a woman who tries to dress modestly, I can tell you I don’t hold girls/women blameless in their immodesty.
I realize that many are naive…they don’t understand male sexuality and they also seem unaware of what you can see if you are sitting accross from them and they are wearing a short skirt.
I’m sure I made some modestly mistakes…I never had a mirror to put in front of me when I sat down in a Sunday School class during teen years, oh and then there are the baby years where a wrap around skirt is a disaster or a shirt keeps getting pulled down by a squirming toddler.
I have been to church activities, or heard of situations where someone was not dressed modestly (to the standard of those around them). It makes both men and women around them uncomfortable.
I would say that the attitude of my married men and women friends towards the immodestly dressed woman/girl in a setting where you’d expect modesty is she’s clueless, she’s inconsiderate, and she’s superficial.
Um, not really, in all honesty.
Eeps, now my comment doesn’t make sense! It was in response to Ryan’s question “Don’t you find that strange?”
Rosalynde,
I’m curious to know why you do not find that strange. Could you explain more?
Clark,
You said: “I think it fair to say that most young women who dress provocatively don’t understand in the least the power they are exercising.”
This is quite naive. I knew at a very young age the power of dressing a certain way. I would almost say it can be quite as difficult for young women to control their desire to posture themselves as sexual objects for males as it can be for young men to control their lust toward said young women.
In each case, the woman is the unaccountable victim and the man is the morally culpable agent. Don’t you find that strange?
I don’t find that strange at all, Ryan.
Don’t YOU think it’s strange when women are blamed for men’s lack of control? Don’t YOU think it’s strange that a rape victim is usually the one on trial? That a scantily dressed woman is wondered at, but the man who looks at her isn’t?
I can’t tell you how many times on my mission I heard the idiotic catchphrase: “If you don’t look once, you’re not a man…”- as an excuse for an elder to take a long look at a woman. Why is it again that men feel so entitled to look? Oh yeah- because the woman dressed in such a way that the man couldn’t help himself. Doesn’t that sound strange to you?
I think that men are culpable for looking at women that way, no matter how they are dressed. Thus, it does not seem strange to me that in both cases, women are not accountable. Perhaps scanty clothes opens them to other accountability, but the fact that the clothes “caused” (what a crock) a man to look should not be a ground for this acountability.
The two statements are not inconsistent.
I hope this is sufficiently restrained to survive censorship:
“Women who dress provocatively are partially to blame for the sinful lust they help create in men who see them.†— Yeah, so what? Admiring an attractive gal isn’t a sin. And define provocatively dressed. Every time I look at a woman in a healthy way, it’s a testament to me that, yes, G-d is a man. Perhaps in the opposite situation the sisters say that about good looking men, yes, Heavenly Mother is a woman? I remember guys at BYU and my mission who thought any attractive woman should practically go around with a bag over her head. Kind of an insult to our creation/creator, n’est-ce pas?
“Women would never dress provocatively if men didn’t encourage them, by being such pervs.†— So now a healthy male who appreciates female beauty is a perv?
Steve,
no, not every male who appreciates female beauty is a perv. But women are not to blame for men “appreciating” their beauty- that is a man thing.
Are women their brother’s keeper?
Good observation Minerva. Dressing provocatively seems to be a temptation for many young women–that is why the church addresses their mode of dress. But I think that it is overly simplistic to say that their motivation is to posture themselves as sexual objects for males. That is certainly one aspect of it, but I get the impression that often their concern is as much or more about impressing and/or competing with other girls. They want to appear sophisticated and mature. The rules of their competiton and their concept of what it means to appear sophisticated and mature are probably rooted somewhat in posturing for male lust, but it is a complex dynamic.
Rosalynde, I”m not sure how to interpret that response– either you don’t understand my formulation of the double standard, or you don’t think it actually is a double standard, or you do think it’s a double standard, but a good one. What gives?
Let me give it just one more go: If a man sees a provocatively dressed woman and has lustful thoughts, the woman’s state of dress is a partial objective cause of those thoughts. However, she is not to blame for the thoughts, because the man had agency to choose whether to entertain them. And yet, when a man gives extra attention to a woman dressed immodestly, and that woman or other women decide to dress immodestly in the future because of those cues, the man is a partial objective cause of that decision, and so, even though the women made their own choices to dress immodestly, the man is still partially morally culpable for the decision, as he partially caused it.
Whew, having a hard time bringing clarity to the whole thing, but I think that makes sense.
Jordan, you’ve made the mistake most commonly made in this discussion, by assuming that by placing some blame on the woman I’m exonerating the man. That’s a ridiculous assumption, and not based on anything I’ve said.
You seem to speak in support of double standards, citing some rather unrelated social phenomena that place women at a disadvantage. Of course I don’t agree with people who blame rape victims. What on earth have I said that could make you think I do?
What I’m saying is that if men are partly to blame for women dressing immodestly, it’s only logically consistent that the women who immodestly cause evil thoughts among men are partly to blame for that act as well. I emphasize, though: this double culpability doesn’t diminish the amount of blame apportioned to the man. Why must we act like parceling out blame among multiple sinners exonerates the primary sinner? Is God’s method of accounting really that simplistic?
Jordan — yes, I’m certainly in agreement with you on that. Blaming a woman for a male response to their physique is lame in the extreme. Where I blow a gasket is equating that normal healthy male response with sin. An earlier comment of mine was censored because I referred to (in too graphic a term I guess) to getting aroused on my mission when near a certain sister missionary because her particular perfume reminded me of a past intimacy with someone else. My physiological respond in that case wasn’t sinful because I wasn’t lusting after or fantasizing about the sister missionary. In other words, a normal and spontaneous response to sexual stimulus isn’t sin.
Isn’t part of the church/family educating young women about dress and modesty just that, education (about male sexual response) to prepare them for the reproductive aspects of life? I remember explaining to my oldest daughter (because my wife wouldn’t) when she started dating that she must never go into a guys place or room alone with him, because many men, even in the church, assume that in that event the woman wants sex and that a “no” later is just a “nice girl” really saying yes because in the guy’s mind the woman already gave consent by agreeing to join them alone. My daughter needed that blunt explanation of how many men think, to understand the dangers of being alone with a guy before she was ready for sex with him. Modesty in dress seems like a good place to start that kind of sex ed.
Ryan, that sounded flippant and annoyed–and I’m not! Sorry. I’ll devote more time to it in a bit.
Meanwhile, I want to make a deal with Adam: I will promise to teach my daughters to wear only modest clothing, if you will promise to teach your sons to date and marry only righteous, smart, accomplished women. Are you in? 😉
It’s clear as a bell where Ryan’s coming from in #13. I guess you have to be a guy to understand a guy.
Ryan,
Sorry- I did misunderstand you. I have kind of been in my own little world lately but I should emerge soon back to reality. Carry on now.
How does everyone feel in reversing the situation; Female’s lusting after males? I recall in middle and high school male friends of mine forced to remove from their lockers cut-outs of barely-clad models in swim suits, underwear, etc… while administrators ignored female students keeping similar pictures of male models/ actors posing in the same way. At times do we (as a society and as a churh) hold males to higher standards than females regarding lust?
Brandon – Good point. To rephrase my number 9, perhaps all of us, men and women should just chill out and use our admiration of the opposite sex’s physique as an opportunity to honor our creator. When spontaneously admiring a woman, the men can say, yes, G-d is a man, and, in the opposite situation, the women can say, yes, Heavenly Mother is a woman.
My experience is somewhat anecdotal, so take it for what it is worth. In my suburban L.A. ward, the teen-age girls are suprisingly naive about how men react to them when they dress provocatively. Often, when the (“awful”) truth is made clear to them, they are shocked and repulsed. I don’t think they are faking. These are not sheltered girls. My theory is that their environment is so unrelentingly sexualized that they equate provocative dress with beauty, attractiveness, desirability, etc. Every time I start to think I might be exaggerating this problem, I think of my 7 year-old daughter’s Barbie dolls: I’d bet 10% of Barbie outfits are modest. Otherwise, midriffs are bare, shorts are short, tops are sleeveless. So it starts when the girls are tiny and they are continually bombarded thereafter — billboards, TV, MTV (not watched in my house), magazines. I’m no prude but it is smart to be aware of these things and do something about them, I think. Deciding just what to do is where the rubber hits the road.
Steve,
I think you have a good point about chilling out, however we need to be weary of this when our youth are involved. I can testify by looking at my Beautiful (with a capitol B) wife that G-d knows what he is doing. But we have to be esspecially careful when youth are tempting other youth. But parents: don’t ignore what your son’s are wearing/ doing to attract female attention.
#7, Minerva, while young women recognize some of the power, I think it very hard to argue that they understand the effects on men the way a more mature women with far more experience does. That includes women who have unfortunately been hypersexualized at a young age and who utilize that. They simply don’t understand what is going on nor do they have the maturity to contextualize it. At best they may know that they get men aroused, get men interested, and perhaps can manipulate men to get things they want. But understanding that in a more coherent fashion is simply not something they are capable of.
Further many young women who are hypersexualized (often, but not always because of past abuse) also have severe problems with intimacy.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not totally relieving them of blame. However I think it a very safe statement that young people are immature. Further even when we call them mature, we typically simply mean they have knowledge that we don’t expect young people to have. It doesn’t mean they have the knowledge in the context of a mature view of life. Young teenagers engaging is sexual behavior is typically the classic example of this.
I think that one fact all of us agree upon is that these ways of dress are sexual, even if the women in question don’t understand how. Expecting young people to understand sexuality and make mature decisions is not fair, in my humble opinion. That doesn’t mean we treat them like children. But neither should it mean we treat them like adults. Parental guidance is essential in these matters. It is sad that so many parents abdicate their role in these matters. I fear that years later when they look back at their decisions they will severely regret them.
Ryan, you’ve been clear. And if the genders interacted on a level cultural playing field–that is, if male and female sexualities were equally and appropriately valued, and were translated into equitable social mores, allocations and expectations–then yes, I’d find the double standard in the two conversely-causative statements surprising and troubling. But, alas, we do not operate on such a playing field. I fully accept the fact that young men are subject to forces that are extremely difficult to marshall; nevertheless, those forces are internal, susceptible to personal will and discipline, however heroic the necessary measures. A young woman is subject to a vast and very nearly pervasive external system of market-sublimated desire (note that I don’t blame men for this; as noted by several above, women participate in this market, as well) that is entirely unresponsive to her personal will and discipline.
So, yes, I do think that young women bear somewhat less personal moral culpability in the collusive dynamic. And slow down, everybody, let’s engage in some complex thought: this does not mean that girls aren’t capable of choosing to dress modestly, nor that they’re not at fault when they dress immodestly. We’re talking about degrees here.
When addressing this issue, lets consider Hosea 4:12-14, as follows:
The “stocks” and “staff” are phallic references. The spirit of whoredoms being referenced here is not figuratively referencing idolatry, but is referring to literal sexual immorality, as established by the following two verses.
Hosea is referring to Canaanite fertility rites, which involved cult prostitution. Note the men are the ones leading the women to commit whoredom and adultery.
The Lord states flatly that when men lead women into sin, the men will be punished for it.
What percentage of pimps are male? What percentage of pornographers are male? What percentage of consumers of pornography are male? What percentage of soliciters of prostitutes are male?
When women respond to a societal trend to compete with their sisters in order to maintain the attention of males, who’s fault is that primarily? Them for competing, or the men for creating the competition?
Can women use this as an excuse to not be virtuous and chaste? Of course not. But lets be clear on where the blame lies. Its our fault, not theirs.
Rosalynde, while I’m obviously quite sympathetic to your view, as you can see from my prior comment, I suspect that the “inside” / “outside” categorization you make is perhaps problematic. Women’s choices are given outside and are thus not really by them, whereas men’s choices are given inside and thus really are. It seems a way to justify things and to abrogate choice.
But let’s turn this around. Why is it that men find these clothing so sexual? Isn’t it, at least in part, due to the way we are culturally taught? If you go to a different culture, while there is similarity in what is sexual, there are also profound differences. What is an invitation in one place is not in an other. Put more succinctly, if the sexual communication women are subjected to so as to communicate, it works only because men have been subjected to the same culture with the same lessons. Communication is communication precisely because both parties understand the language.
My point is that just as we may not appreciate a poem, a scripture or a phrase as a child the way we are able to as an adult, even so a child can not appreciate the meaning of sexual communication. They are in a situation akin to a foreign language speaker attempting to pick up a new language. That the language also has such strong, often ecstatic, ties to our biology makes things difficult, but in a fashion that I don’t think is different from young women or young men.
Yes young men have “forces that are extremely difficult to marshall.” But so too do young women, often seeking ways to gain acceptance especially in terms of new hormones coursing through their veins. Sexuality isn’t just something that men experience. (As I know you know – I’m just emphasizing it)
While women are sexualized in many unfortunate ways in their youth, so too are men. Perhaps how they are sexualized is different, but the expectations on young men can be just as devastating as the expectations on young women.
“What percentage of pimps are male? What percentage of pornographers are male? What percentage of consumers of pornography are male? What percentage of soliciters of prostitutes are male?”
I don’t know the actual figures, but I seem to recall a Washington Post or related story on the above that suggested that many people running brothels are women and many producers of pornography are as well. Consumers of pornography are primarily male, but the female use is rapidly increasing.
A lot of this is due to other social trends where women feel like they have more control over their sexuality. Thus whereas until the last few decades women were more passive and thus dressed/acted in accordance to what men wanted, now they are making demands on what they want men to be like that parallel men’s actions. The media picks this up and amplifies it. Thus the rising expectation of a six pack for men that parallels male expectations regarding female beauty. There are also more and more fashion expectations as well. You can see this communicated via the media which then young men do pick up on.
Kurt,
Let me turn this around on you. Since men are the ones that are apparently more driven by the sensual, what would happen if the females took control?
For example, the power of the woman is greatly underestimated. If women refused to date men that smoked, how long would it be before men recognized that in order to satisfy their most banal drives they would have to stop smoking? Similarly, if women refused to date men who swore, or were abusive etc.
Since men are such carnal creatures, driven to satisfy their needs, taking control over these feeble creatures would be the easiest thing in the world for women to do if they set their mind to it.
Kurt: I disagree with your reading of Hosea. I think it is primarily speaking about covenant disloyalty (since Hosea in particular uses “harlot” and related words in that way, as in Hos. 1:2). The wood and staff were commonly used in divination, and indicate that Israel is not consulting the Lord, but other deities.
A result of that covenant disloyalty was sexual immorality.
I (following the WBC commentary) view v. 14 as an unmarked question. “Will I not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery?”
I think we can all agree that each individual – despite any external influences – is still ultimately responsible for his thoughts or her dress. A man who understands a woman’s divine nature can continue to have virtuous thoughts, even if a shapely and athletic woman comes to Sunday School wearing a thong bikini. A woman who understands her divine nature will reject the influences of the world – the media, her peers, etc. – to define herself as a sexual object for consumption by men.
I don’t like assertions that young men have such difficult urges to control. They can be controlled, and if in the habit of doing so, can be controlled without too much difficulty. I agree that if any young man or woman entertains worldly notions or playfully seeks arousing circumstances, these influences can become addicting and nearly impossible to control. Nevertheless, control can be reestablished.
Likewise, I think it is fair to say that women are often unwitting participant-victims of our sexualized society. I think it is unlikely that young women are truly naive about their effect on young men. Sadly, some women participate in world-prescribed courting rituals to a degree where A) they come to enjoy debasing themselves and B) they believe that this encapsulates the purpose of the female gender.
I do not think it is fair to lay the responsibility for this entirely on the shoulders of the male gender. Properly, this is a feature of our fallen, temporal society, and we are all unwitting participants.
What to do about the grossly distorted perceptions of gender in the world? Other than emphasize being individually responsible and repentant, teaching divine nature, and setting standards, I’m not sure what else can be done. Awakening from the Matrix is not as easy as prescribing a red pill. Recognizing the shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave, I suppose, requires some individual tutelage from the Holy Ghost.
Clark, what you are stating supports what I am forwarding. The simple fact that use and participation rates are increasing among females necessarily requires that historical and present rates are predominantly male. All it shows is that women are learning to participate in a male-dominated industry, they have learned that women can exploit women too.
The social trends of sexuality have been dictated by males. How many porn industry leaders were females? Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione, Larry Flynt, etc. Now, 40-50 years later the women are catching up and exploiting each other too? Great. Theyre just following our bad example.
A few madams in Las Vegas and New Orleans doesnt tip the statistical balance of the male pimping population nationwide, a lot of which is affiliated with organized crime, which is male dominated.
Larry, historical might-have-beens and hypotheticals do not change the present reality. The present reality is men in Western society dictate sexual norms. And, the reality is men will be held accountable for this. Expecting women as a majority to remain stalwart and unified against a minority population of women who are willing to compromise when the majority of men are more interested in that minority simply isnt realistic.
Ben, the Hebrew in question is problematic. I would refer you to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) translation, which draws on both the Masorah and available DSS fragments. Their reading is that it is a phallic reference, thats not my fabrication. The sticks as a divination tool do not fit the context of Canaanite fertility worship in v. 13. But, regardless, if you don’t like this reference to support the thesis, then how about Jacob’s rip on the Nephite men (cf. Jacob 3), which says pretty much the same thing, and note he doesnt fault the women involved at all. He portrays them as victims.
Come on guys. Its our fault. Admit it. If there were no demand, there would be no supply. We’ve created the demand, not the women. They are the victims. Sure its difficult for us to behave ourselves, but that doesnt mean we get to indulge and that doesnt excuse us when we do.
I’ll only be convinced that the “stocks” and “staff” are phallic references if there’s a pre-Freud publication that so indicates its. Don’t get me wrong, I think Freud’s contribution to human behavior understanding are on the money (sex/reproduction is our primary motivator in life). I just don’t think people automatically associated so many common objects with the male sex organ before Freud and he was dead wrong about citing objects who’s form obviously follows function as intentional phallic symbols.
Wow, Kurt! That’s the first time I’ve heard a man taking clear responsibility for the unfortunate state of affairs, which is that women use their appearance to control men because a woman’s appearance is one of the few instruments of power a woman has over men (and other women, of course).
Anyway, as I said elsewhere, asking sexy women to cover up is like asking women to give up the power to get what they want. And as others on this blog have mentioned, if women were valued for their accomplishments and intelligence instead of their appearance, I don’t think immodest dress would be quite as rampant as it is.
This argument has been articulated very well between Ryan and Rosalynde, but I wanted to add my two cents, since I’m assuming I was responsible for the Typical Response to Assertion #2 up above.
By the way, kudos to Ryan and Rosalynde for participating in a well-reasoned, intellectual discussion of such a controversial topic. Thanks.
I’ve edited and added my own words to point out a huge problem with Tess’s statement. My substitutions are in brackets.
. . . asking [strong men] to not use [violence] is like asking [men] to give up the power to get what they want . . . if [men] were valued for their accomplishments and intelligence instead of their [aggression], I don’t think [violence] would be quite as rampant as it is.
Or if you find violence to not be quite as analogous as you might like, try this:
. . . asking [clever people] to not use [manipulation] is like asking [people] to give up the power to get what they want . . . if [people] were valued for their accomplishments and [goodness] (intelligence is not necessarily a virtue and is far over-rated, except in intellectual circles) instead of their [manipulative abilities] or [achievements], I don’t think [manipulation] would be quite as rampant as it is.
Or choose your own vice, any will do, that might skew towards one sex or the other, and the statement is blatantly immoral. Why is ‘sexy’ any less so to retain any kind of power? Conversely, add any virtue to that particular statement and it becomes nonsensical.
It’s clear that in looking at this issue as a power struggle, as gender issues all too often are, the debate will rage unabated. I would submit that this is the least productive perspective by which to judge any issue that deals with the struggle to be more united as a Church, more loving and charitable as spouses and more Christ-like as individuals.
Kurt,
“Larry, historical might-have-beens and hypotheticals do not change the present reality. The present reality is men in Western society dictate sexual norms. And, the reality is men will be held accountable for this. Expecting women as a majority to remain stalwart and unified against a minority population of women who are willing to compromise when the majority of men are more interested in that minority simply isnt realistic.”
You must be right. Women are weak and incapable of enforcing what it is they want. Now I have to tell my daughters; and they have to change their standards to meet the minority of women in order to please men. Oh the shame of it.
We’re talking about degrees here.
“But the test of what is evil is not its degree but its effect.” Elder Oaks, same talk.
Brian, I had exactly the same reaction. Perhaps a slightly better example would be asking me to not use violence when my kid throws a tantrum in a store– a scenario where I otherwise have very little control over him. Does my powerlessness justify violence?
Rosalynde, I’m amazed at what I think is the upshot of what you are proposing here: That we are less culpable when we sin in response to external pressure than when we sin in response to internal pressure. Is that a reasonable restatement of your argument? If so, consider the following:
1. Couldn’t one make a decent argument that exactly the opposite is true? Since a boy can’t get away from his hormones, but must constantly keep them in check, it’s harder for him to do than for a girl who can theoretically avoid cultural cues in various ways. One’s source of temptation is inescapable, and the other, merely pervasive. Okay, maybe that’s not a fabulously strong argument, but it’s only one of many one could make on this point.
2. Is there some support for the idea that we are determined by culture, but not by internal dynamics? Is there some support for the idea that we can even separate the two? As Clark has pointed out above, where do the thousand beer commercials I’ve seen end, and my independent, raw hormones begin?
3. Are you really willing downgrade our idea of female moral agency to the point of saying that we do not hold them responsible for how they respond to cultural pressures? I doubt you’re up to accepting some of the implications of this idea (such as teaching it to your daughters!)
Still, it would be fun to treat your theory as simply a description of how men and women are tempted differently. Under this analysis, men’s temptations come from inside- Satan speaking directly to their thoughts and hormones and appetites. His contact with women is more attenuated- speaking to them through external influences, such as culture and media, etc.
Of course this is plainly not accurate, given how many men are tempted by the media and how many women are tempted by appetites, but maybe it has a bit of truth to it? (Not saying I accept that, but that it’s intriguing).
Oops- that looks confusing (in #38). I tried to use italics to show I was quoting. Here is another try, with quotes instead of italics.
From #25: “We’re talking about degrees here.”
From Elder Oaks: “But the test of what is evil is not its degree but its effect.”
Brian- I agree with you. But we don’t live in a perfect world where everyone treats each other with love and respect. Historically, women have not had the opportunity to use violence, money, or manipulation to influence others. Women were (are) weaker than (most) men, they were (are still) treated as property and weren’t allowed to own property independently, and intelligent women were (are) not taken seriously.
So, as you quite clearly point out, typically, the woman’s only “power” to exert influence and control over others was through her sexuality.
Granted, we should never force people to do things or to manipulate people to get our way at the expense of others. I guess I should have been clear that I don’t endorse this kind of behavior for women or men.
Can I just say it bothers me that somehow all men are implicated because of the actions of some men? Am I defined by the sex I happen to be? Am I guilty because of the acts of some male pimps in the inner city even if I happen to decry such activities?
The fact is that each of us are free agents. The young women who dress provocatively are as are the young men who lead young women on for sex. Either has the opportunity and largely the captibility to not do this. Yes society has an effect. But the bigger impact is the family. And it is that focus on family that many seem to ignore.
As to trying to break things down entirely by gender, it’s a game I don’t particularly care for. The fact is that I’m not implicated in the actions of some men just because we happen to share some accidental quality.
Clark –
Right on! I would say that seeing as how both sexes have hormones, then both can be help accountable equally. I don’t think that gender will be an aggrivating or mitigating factor come judgement day. I don’t expect Hevenly Father to say, “Well, Brandon… this wasn’t so good – but you are a guy, so it isn’t really your fault…” Accountability will rest on us all.
I know this is a tangent, but aren’t you a dead duck at the judgment if you haven’t taken advantage of the atonement to have the judgment pass over you? Isn’t that what faith in JC is, the faith that he will be there and protect us from the judgment and thus save us from our sins? I have often thought that guilt was one feeling the burden of the impeding judgment and when we’re forgiven we feel the judgment being lifted off us. If someone is facing judgment, I think they’re in deep doodoo.
Hi Ryan–
I’m framing the argument in terms of agency, rather than in terms of sin, which I think throws moral gradations into stronger relief. In that framework, I’d translate your statement as: “External ideological apparatuses–often reinforced in structures and institutions–can compromise our knowledge of ‘things as they really are’ and thus compromise our ability to choose freely; to the degree that an individual’s agency is so compromised, the moral culpability for sin is diminished.” Nephite theology is helpful on this point: individual agency is a bedrock gospel principle, but that agency is only made possible by real knowledge. Here’s an example: take two young men, one from a good family in a safe suburban environment, one from a gang-controlled inner-city with no father, where killing is an integral way men understand themselves as masculine; each young man commits murder. Are both equally morally culpable? (Of course without actual circumstances and evidence, the hypothetical is incomplete, but go with me here.) I would say that a just and merciful judge would hold these young men to different standards.
Of course, each of us has to contend with the “natural man,” but scripture doesn’t suggest that agency is compromised by our carnal nature. (Mental illness might be a case in which the natural man–or “internal pressures”–compromise agency.)
So to respond to your considerations:
1. Whether internal or external, I think the question to ask is: “To what extent does this circumstance compromise my ability to know and thus to choose?”
2. Um, yeah, it’s called social constructionism, and it’s a profoundly influential (if somewhat controversial and, in my view, necessarily incomplete) theory of culture. I’m willing to entertain the real possibility that male sexuality is socially constructed–but you guys are the ones who are always insisting that it’s inborn, innate and natural.
3. It’s not just female agency that can be compromised by cultural pressures, as my example shows. In the case of pornography and our current culture of sexuality, it seems clear to me that the female body bears far more pressure than the male body. What I’ll teach my daughters, then, is critical thinking: I’ll try to teach them to recognize the social constructs in which they operate, use critical skills to identify its harms, and thus–I hope and pray–help them to know themselves and their strengths “as they really are.”
And in addition to #3, of course I’ll teach them gospel principles above all!
Steve, it seems to me that guilt can lead one to repentance, but it can also be damaging and keep people from taking hold of the atonement. Likewise lack of guilt may be due to contrite repentance or it may be due to self-justification and convincing ones self that one isn’t a sinner at all.
Larry, there isnt anything substantive for me to respond to.
Clark, the discussion is about gender roles, men and women, not individual’s behaviors. Women, YW in specific, are being encouraged to dress modestly so as to be less of a temptation to YM, right? Thats general groups, populations of individuals. We aren’t talking about Sally’s too short skirt at the last YM/YW dance and the impact it had on Ralph, Doug, and Chuck.
Of course generalizations break down when applied at the individual level. But, that doesnt make the generalization any less true for a population. Nobody is blaming you personally for what a pimp does. However, we men are to blame for creating and/or permitting a social norm that encourages/accepts/tolerates pornography and the sexploitation of women. Our culture is rife with it. Am I personally to blame for the porn industry? No. Are we American males to blame for it? Yes. And don’t try to duck out because youre a Canuck. The sales statistics for the swimsuit issue of SI are damning evidence against us, even if I personally have never bought one. This is why the Church wants women to dress modestly. Because it is acceptable in our society to dress immodestly, and that norm is reinforced by men in our society. How many GA talks in PH session telling men in the Church to stop looking at porn do we have to hear before it sinks in that its a problem with men in the church? If its not a problem for me and you personally, then great. But, that doesnt change the fact that there is a significant population of men in the church that do have the problem, and thats what the GAs are addressing. Thats what Jacob addressed, and thats what Hosea addressed.
Kurt, you mention that women are encouraged to dress modestly so as to be less of a temptation to men. While that may be true, I think there is a fundamental reason that we are all encouraged to dress modestly which needs to be addressed: because of our respect and understanding for our own bodies. We are taught in the scriptures and by our prophets that our body is a temple. We also know our ultimate divine destiny if we remain true — to become Gods and Goddesses. Thus, we are now Gods and Goddesses in embryo. When we truly understand who we are and what we can become, there is a reverence and an understanding that evolves and translates into action and thinking. While I understand that the thrust of this dialogue is to discuss the paradox Ryan laid out at the beginning, but I think we also need to look a little deeper into our doctrine and understand why we even talk about modesty in the first place.
I find the application of tort law here interesting. Some, the Cardozo faction, seem to be arguing for a Palsgraf-esque analysis, i.e., that the girl who dresses in a way that ultimately contributes in some way to temptation is like the Long Island RR, in that she owes no duty to the tempted guy, represented by Mrs. Palsgraf, so no liability arises. The other side, the Andrews dissenters, maintain that the hypothetical should have properly been analyzed in terms of causation (whether without the immodest girl’s actions the tempted guy would have sinned), and that culpability should be imposed for contributing to the temptation of anyone within the zone or radius of danger that was a result of her actions/dress. Elder Oaks theory, it would seem, is more in harmony with the Andrews dissent.
And then, I hear echoes of the eggshell skull argument in all the claims that females shouldn’t be held responsible for the lustful thoughts of all these messed up, horny guys. The eggshell skull is a hypothetical medical condition used to illustrate the idea that if you are legally at fault when you injure someone, you are responsible for all the consequences, whether you could have foreseen them or not. For example, if you cause a slight injury to a hemophiliac who begins to bleed severely, you are responsible for whatever happens to him, even though you had no way of knowing that the injury would be so severe. In short, you take your victim as you find him. In the same way, it could be argued that a woman who breaches the Lord’s standards of modesty is at least partially culpable for any sin/temptation that her dress creates in the mind of the tempted male.
I think this is an amazing amount of discussion for a subject that is not complex. We teach our young women and men to help each other keep the commandments, including (and maybe especially) the law of chastity. We teach women to dress modestly and men to avoid impure thoughts. Both have their own responsibilities in this regard.
I do think it is quite naive to think that some women do not sometimes create stumbling blocks for men by the way the women dress. This is not a general criticism of anyone or any group, simply a statement of fact. There are plenty of stumbling blocks– billboards along the main boulevards of L.A., where I live, are among them. LDS men do not need more such problems, and most LDS women know not to create them.
Jim Richings said:
I don’t like assertions that young men have such difficult urges to control. They can be controlled, and if in the habit of doing so, can be controlled without too much difficulty. I agree that if any young man or woman entertains worldly notions or playfully seeks arousing circumstances, these influences can become addicting and nearly impossible to control. Nevertheless, control can be reestablished.
I find this statement startling: The “urges . . . can be controlled without too much difficulty.” I work with lots and lots of LDS young men and of course was one once myself. That’s not the reality I see. If it is all that easy to control those urges, why do the prophet and the other brethren devote so much time to helping young men do so?