Juliann, Sophistry, and Rape

[_asbestosman]

Let's be clear about one thing - any girl who is not dating due to her weight already knows this is a problem and doesn't need someone else pointing it out to her. She sees it in the mirror every day and is likely already filled with self-loathing due to it.

Then why did she need to ask the bishop why she couldn't get a date?

In the quote, the girl didn't ask any such thing. Rather Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone conjectured that the girl may have been praying for such the night before and the "sweet" Bishop discerned this.

[_asbestosman]

In my experience, LDS men, particularly at BYU, are some of the most shallow you can find. They are obsessed with female weight and a certain type of looks. I think this is due to the fact that they know they will only ever get to have sex with one woman the rest of their lives, so they are determined to get one that really, really is worth it.

Are pretty women really any better, or is the pleasure only skin-deep? Personally I could not stand a dunce.

Now I don't know if the writer was serious, but it was taken very seriously and debated with much emotion and passion for several days.

Beauty is largely in the eye of the beholder. Again, there are African countries that think fat is hot (probably because fat is the opposite of starving and impovrished).

[_beastie]

Asbestos,

Oh, I agree with you - some very attractive people are almost intolerable, for various reasons. But so are some unattractive ones, of course. And yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no doubt. Some people you initially find attractive seem to become less attractive the more you know them, and vice versa.

The idea that you could "train" a pretty girl to have a different personality was just nonsense, and part of the reason the letter to the editor caused such a stink.

[_Mary]

I remember a big brouhaha in the BYU paper when I was out there due to some guy writing a letter to the editor sharing some sage advice his dad gave him. His dad told him to marry a pretty woman over a spiritual, but not pretty, woman. Why? You can teach a pretty woman to be spiritual, but you can't teach an ugly woman to be pretty.

Now I don't know if the writer was serious, but it was taken very seriously and debated with much emotion and passion for several days.

Oh...oh...oh....I just have to comment on this. On my mission, Paul H Dunn, came over for a visit and spoke to all the Elders. He told them this exact thing...

I just can remember thinking at the time that it was all pretty shallow, though some of the elders were full of it. I also remember thinking that Paul H Dunn must be a really shallow person to say something like that. (Didn't Brigham Young have an entirely different attitude...??? It's in my brainbox somewhere that he told the men of the church to look beyond the superficial...) I have found that love has extremely little to do with looks. (We love our children for instance, and we don't give a fig's leaf how they look..It's irrelevant)

Mary

[_Mister Scratch]

The commentary he quotes have absolutely nothing at all to do with rape, they have to do with modesty for the sake of being virtuous. Scratch, however, would like us to believe that all of this is catalyzed by his accusation that the Brethren "do indeed blame rape victims for their own plight." What is his only proof text for this accusation? A quote that liz and Fortiqurn don't think expresses that blame.

The problem with your argument, Mak, is that you assume there needs to be a "proof text". This is rather like saying that no criminal can ever be convicted unless there is a confession. In the case of this topic, the circumstantial and cultural evidence is quite overwhelming, in my opinion.

I'm gonna call Elder Scott's quote "A," and the other talks about earings and "walking pornography" "B." Now, saying that B is in place because the Brethren think of that kind of immodesty as promoting rape requires a proof text.

No, it does not. The two attitudes existing side-by-side amongst the same close-knit group of elderly men eliminates the necessity for a "confession"/"proof text."

On its own it only expresses exactly the wish that the Brethren state: don't dress immodestly because it offends other people and the spirit.

C'mon, Mak. This is not convincing at all! Think about the phrase "walking pornography" for a moment. Sure, porn is offensive to many people, but it is not merely offensive, now is it? It is also, for many men, a turn on. Why, I ask you, would the Brethren devote so many talks to pornography if it was merely "offensive"? Foul language is ostenisbly 'offensive,' and yet, comparatively speaking, how many GC talks are devoted to the subject? Isn't the real idea behind the "walking pornography" statement the notion that men are aroused by scantily-clad females? Let's face facts here: all of this is about the Church's desire to control people's sexuality, especially women's.

You cannot derive Scratch's thesis from B completely on its own. Scratch finds his proof text in only one place: A. A must be valid if it is to support B, but B is here used to support A, which has been questioned. This is textbook circular reasoning, and it did its job:

This is a gross oversimplification of what I've been saying.

None of the above. The argument is against the Church's insensitivity towards women. And against juliann's hypocrisy.

So you (a man) are going to tell a woman inside the church that she is incorrect in her emic perception of the church's treatment of women because your etic perception as a male is more enlightened? And your only proof text is a quote taken a thousand yards out of context and questioned by your own constituents?

My being male has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of juliann's statement. You are guilty of argumentum ad hominem, my friend.

[_twinkie]

Ah, I see, Mak. You apparently think that women who "go to college parties and get drunk" or "constantly speak about such things and verbally provoke and encourage that kind of behavior" are "asking for it." What is "that kind of behavior," by the way? You have shot yourself in the foot, my friend. There is no justification for rape, regardless of what the Brethren may have told you.

So rather than address the manner in which you blatantly read something into the text that wasn't there you try to turn the tables and hurl an accusation rather than an argument.

I don't recall saying there was any justification for rape. Am I wrong?

If my daughter chooses to spend her weekends doing keg-stands at a Sigma Nu house rather than studying or hanging out with the family her chances of experiences something as unfortunate as rape skyrocket. She knows this as well as I do. That doesn't take any of the responsibility off of the other person, but after such an experience she is going to know better than to put herself in that kind of situation. Why? Because if she chooses differently the next time her chances of going through that again plummet. She can choose to put herself at risk or she can choose to minimize it. If she chooses to put herself at risk is she in some capacity responsible for it, or can the actions of another retroactively rob you of the agency you exercised before the other even entered the picture? Can you answer without an appeal to emotion?

Yes. Tomorrow, you get into your car and drive to the store. It's raining outside. You know perfectly well that rain increases the likelihood of an accident, and yet you fire up your engine anyhow. As you turn at the stop light, you are t-boned by a reckless driver. You chose to drove on the rainy day. So is the accident partially your fault?

I find it enormously troubling, Mak, that you would ever see such behavior as "inevitable."

Haha... ask your insurance company! There is such a thing as comparative negligence. Very rarely is someone 0% negligent.

[_maklelan]

Because, Mak, your entire argument vis-a-vis risk depends upon this presupposition that men are "hardwired" to rape.

No it doesn't, it depends upon the supposition that young men can be predisposed to sex and inconsiderate of others. Add alcohol to the equation and their predisposition to rape becomes more likely. I've never said they were hardwired for it, but you seem to really want to push this point.

[_maklelan]

Yes, "swept it under the rug" in the sense that they excused the bishop's lack of tact. Once again, it is the girl who is blamed.

So you don't mean "sweep it under the rug," you mean excuse his behavior. ONce again, yes or no, is a fat girl who loses weight more likely to get a date?

[_maklelan]

Let's be clear about one thing - any girl who is not dating due to her weight already knows this is a problem and doesn't need someone else pointing it out to her. She sees it in the mirror every day and is likely already filled with self-loathing due to it.

So how is she to be helped?

[_Mister Scratch]

Because, Mak, your entire argument vis-a-vis risk depends upon this presupposition that men are "hardwired" to rape.

No it doesn't, it depends upon the supposition that young men can be predisposed to sex and inconsiderate of others.

I find it stunning that you would mention being "inconsiderate" and "rape" in the same breath.

Add alcohol to the equation and their predisposition to rape becomes more likely.

Men are "predisposed" to rape? Well, hey, at least you are copping to it.... Unbelievable.

I've never said they were hardwired for it, but you seem to really want to push this point.

I just want to make sure I'm clear on what your views are! As it happens, I very, very strongly disagree with you, and do not think that most men are either "hardwired" nor "predisposed" to rape. Further, I don't think that even *drunken* men are "predisposed" to rape. You seem to be imagining some kind of TBM dystopia which will help you to justify your implicit desire to frighten and control women, and to force them to fit into this neat little LDS behavioral pigeonhole.