Shane: In this instance you make an extremely flawed argument supported by your own assumptions as to my beliefs and actions. Yes, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. Do you have a good understanding of church doctrine or are you making more assumptions? Were you once a member of the church and now think yourself above such ideals and sit in a self assumed ‘enlightened’ state? Do you have daughters of your own? I have four: 24 to 13 and two grandchildren.

My statement, “Women or men who choose to dress provocatively become pornography.” you believe is “nonsensical”. How so? Do you mean to say that when you see a woman (or man) wearing revealing attire or nothing at all it does not trigger a response? THAT is nonsensical. Don’t seek to put words in my mouth, read my following statement “This does not condone rape” that refutes your strawman argument which is in fact “bullshit”.

Do you truly feel Hollywood and mass media have no affect on our self image? Can one be so dense? If you had teenage daughters you perhaps would observe the inputs that influence how they perceive themselves as compared to their peers. You make another strawman argument when you falsely assume that as a father I can exert control over my children to the extent I remove choice. Anyone with teens knows that is far from the case.

Again, you make more assumptions as to how LDS families view and teach sexual intimacy. “The idea that sex is “bad” or “dirty” or “impure” and thus something to be avoided in conversation. The implication that sex is not something women enjoy.” All nonsense fabricated in an attempt to make a point. You probably believe the church teaches that sex even between husband and wife is condoned only for procreation and not for affection and pleasure. This is another fallacy claimed by the ignorant in an attempt to portray the church in an unfavorable light demeaning to women and backward. Each of your statement betrays more and more of your own ignorance.

I don’t know what you think of as “purity culture” but it certainly is NOT the policy of the church you’re describing.

“Question, do you feel it is better or worse for “regret, disease, low self esteem and loneliness” to know about sex and have the information and tools to have safe sex or to pledge to not have sex until marriage, fail the pledge, not understand and thus not practice safe sex, get pregnent and be pressured into marriage with someone you are not happy with?”

Good question, and I feel that given personal experience I am perhaps in a much better position to answer than most. Having been raised LDS I rebelled in my mid-teens and left the church thinking I was ‘enlightened and an independent free thinker’. I was taught via friends, parents, church, the media and school maturation classes about sex and provided resources (contraceptives) to be ‘responsible’ about my choices. Despite the education I was given of a spiritual and secular nature I ended up in an extremely difficult position which has influenced my life for better or worse to this day. With the wisdom of having gone through and continuing to deal with these circumstances I KNOW that if I had followed the path set forth by the gospel of Jesus Christ (e.g. abstinence till and fidelity in marriage) I would be much happier and my children would also be much happier and adjusted that they are presently.

The ideal situation where a man and woman save themselves for marriage, marry and bear children is sound. Can there be happiness outside of the ideal? Certainly, but this path is much more difficult. I can testify Christ’s gospel, ‘purity culture’ or whatever one chooses to call it is the ideal. Anything else is merely the fallible understanding of man (even Aristotle was but a man) and less than the ideal.

My daughters have the tools to make an informed choice, more so than children raised to believe sex is primarily about personal gratification and it’s acceptable to give in to such urges on a whim rather than keeping in mind the long-term ramifications such choices bring.

Mike, my only assumption is that you have a daughter, based on your statement. I made no other assumptions. You read them in. None of them change the argument made.

I do have an understanding of church doctrine, however that is beside the point. I am arguing about the predominate christian purity culture in specific, and purity culture in general. If the LDS church never existed the argument would be the same. Likewise, I do have a daughter, and over 20 girls I affectionately refer to as the “unofficially adopted” who range from kids I have taken on service trips, to friends of the genetic to friends who are simply young enough to be mine. Again, irrelevent.

Pornography is intended to stimulate erotic feelings. I know this is probably a new idea, but not everyone is dressing in order to stimulate or avoid stimulating you. Unless someone is specifically dressing to arose me, that is not pornography. Whether I respond or not has nothing to do with it. Shifting my response (or yours or anyone elses) from me to the person who chooses clothing you disagree with is exactly what you are doing. That is only a muted version of “she was asking for it” and if it offends you that I compare them, you should stop doing it. That is not putting words in your mouth. That is simply pointing out that by moving your response from you to the person you respond to you are shifting blame.

See above for your argument about Hollywood. You can refer to it as a strawman if you wish, but that is simply because you have failed to understand the argument.

I am not making an assumption as to how LDS families teach sex. I am explaining what exactly is meant by the term purity culture. Again, you are the one making assumptions. I said nothing at all about the LDS church in the last post, nor is anything I said there limited to it. It is interesting how strongly you feel you have to defend it however.

Notice also that purity culture doesn’t refer to the “policy of the church” but to a culture that has certain views about sexuality. Again, these are easily observed cultural comments that are not specific to religion.

I will however now refer specifically to Utah culture. Feel free to again equate it with the LDS religion, but again you would be making a mistake.

I am glad you feel your own experience learn about sex in school was adequate. I can tell you, having been involved in dozens of maturation classes and known hundreds of Utah kids, that is not typical. the information provided is generally not only inadequate but sometimes outright false. That is a problem. When the most common comment by kids doing generals to transfer to BYU about sex education is that “oral is moral” and that “you can’t get anything bad if you are still a virgin” the classes are clearly not getting the job done.

I am totally uninterested in your claim about Jesus abstinence gospel, first of all because, again, I don’t care about your religious beliefs. this is still an argument about the culture.

Save your testimony.

What you missed while defending your faith against an attack that nobody made was that I would also say that people who have sex on a whim and don’t consider long term ramifications of their choices have made a mistake That is the point Aristotle makes. Read it again, and this time try not to work so hard to defend your beliefs, which I am still rather uninterested in.

However actual observations of culture and relationships show that purity culture can result in “regret, disease, low self esteem and loneliness” at least as often as uneducated rutting in the field (so to speak) can. A realistic education and the observation that there is a middle ground between the extremes where your chances of avoiding problems are increased is simply a better choice.

Glenden: Your statement regarding purity culture that it “treats women’s bodies like men’s property” is a gross over generalization. Perhaps Wahhabi Muslims or the Taliban would view it as such but certainly not myself or the LDS church.

Let’s define promiscuous in this context: not restricted to one sexual partner
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promiscuous)

By Webster’s definition anyone who has had more than one sexual partner is promiscuous. Many adults and teens may be properly described as promiscuous.

“Unless someone is specifically dressing to arose me, that is not pornography.” This statement is ridiculous. How would anyone but those closest to you know this? Lacking such knowledge and resulting actions does not make dressing provocatively un-pornographic. Also, my insight does not remove the responsibility of the viewer of pornography (intended or unintended viewing) to act responsibility. This is not an attempt to shift the blame. People can and should dress as they chose but cannot expect the impression made on others to be unaffected.

If one is a practicing Christian then it is a fact that sexual relations are to be limited to those between man and woman bound by the marriage covenant with God. All else is sin. If one lacks faith in God, or rather decides to ignore the evidence of of his existence all around them, and relies solely on his own observations and secular ‘wisdom’ there is no sin and marriage becomes just another word to be defined however society chooses to recognize it given the prevailing opinions of the time.

If your definition of ‘purity culture’ is so constrained then perhaps you should begin by defining what in your mind consists of a ‘purity culture’. The gospel holds sexual purity as a positive. Does this not bring the church within the realm of what you would define as a ‘purity culture’? Again, your blanket statements don’t fit.

Of course you challenge gender specific roles. Why is this? Is it because this idea is old fashioned? I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I agree in the traits you mention as essential to a successful relationship and especially marriage but you neglect to acknowledge the more basic gender-specific traits: that of nurturer and the other of protector/provider. This is not to assume all fall neatly with each category but nonetheless those predispositions are there however much they may have been muted in some cases.

In some cases there may be a measure of success in non-traditional families. However, the ideal situation is always one in which the children are raised by their natural parents, father and mother in a loving environment secure in a co-equal covenant of marriage. This has always been the core strength of any successful society. The sign of a degenerate and declining society is one in which the family unit has become the exception rather than the norm.

Mike, you are still shifting guilt. If person A arosed by what person B wears that is not person Bs fault. Grow up. Take responsability for your own desires.

I have a great picture of a woman covered head to ankle in robes. One ankle shows as she is walking however. The two men passing on the bike in the other direction are turning to leer at her. The only difference between your responce and theirs it they are more blatent in asigning blame.

Do I expect how someone dresses to not affect people? No. But I expect people to not use this an an excuss for rape. Purity culture does. Explicitly.

If you don’t like the definition of purity culture that is given, then you are not discussing the article linked to here, in which case, why are you here?

Your entire final paragraph is unmitigated bullshit and shows that you have no exposure to the real world. Numerous cultures would find your definition of “family unit” to be patently absurd. A trip to India, for example, would show you a traditional family that is nothing like your definition. Further, actual studies show that children in “non-traditional” families are at least as successful and sometimes more successful than “traditioonal families.” Many societies both past and present have been successful without your definition of traditional marriage ever having been practiced. There is no evidence at all (save pearl clutching and clucked tongues from the pulpit) that society declines in relation to your definition of the family unit.

It would be at least as accuarate to say that the traditional western nuclear family is an aberation arising only in this particular time period in certain cultures and that such a limited family conception is why we see a decline and degeneration in society. But that would require some knowledge about the world.

Shane: Your inability to comprehend my statements does not make them false. Perhaps you just lack the perspective or the intelligence. No matter. I don’t expect to change anyone’s opinion herein.

Your first statement shows you continue to misunderstand my prior statements. I’m sorry I couldn’t bring it down to your level.

You don’t agree with my observation regarding the traditional family unit and now you assume “you have no exposure to the real world”. Perhaps I was in a trance all those years I worked with people from the Czech Republic to Kenya, across the Middle East to East Timor. The “traditional western nuclear family” may be an “aberration” but the nuclear family certainly is not. What observation in your vast experience would indicate otherwise or is that just another one of your opinions? What background; educational, personal or professional; makes you think you possess a greater “knowledge about the world” than myself? Given my near complete ignorance of your personal background, and vice versa, I’m surprised that you would make such a statement regarding myself.

Mike, I am sorry I assumed that exposure to the world outside the USA would also mean understanding. I stand corrected. Your ability to work in numerous other cultures and still fail to understand that some of them have no need for your definition of family does you a great deal of credit in the conservative world. You should see if you can parley that into a book deal.

“The lawyer representing three of the men charged with the gang rape and murder of a medical student (snip) has blamed the victims for the assault, saying he has never heard of a “respected lady” being raped….”

“…reporting of sex crimes and police investigations of rape are hindered by a tendency to blame the victim for not following the traditional, conservative social roles ascribed to women.”

“It is not a fact that sexual relations are to be limited to those between a man and woman bound by marriage if one is a practicing Christian.”

And a practicing Jew, and a practicing Hindu, and a practicing Muslim, and a practicing pretty much every faith on the planet in the history of man/womyn-kind.