LDS Freedom Forum

Personally I think her comment is insulting to most Muslim men as well as to women in general. Is this the state of modern PC thought today?

Now in fairness she does try to elaborate on what she said but I am not entirely sure that takes away from this quote in the least: http://islamineurope.blogspot.se/2007/0 ... -rape.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; If I were to move to a Muslim nation like Saudi Arabia am I responsible if I drink alcohol? Of course I would be. So how the heck can a person move to a nation and then expect the local people to adapt?

In church I have heard people say or suggest that if a woman doesn't dress to church standards she is inviting rape. Yeah, sure - ask the guy who broke in and raped an 85 year old woman if her tight robe made him lose control.

I don't see how the woman's statement could insult Muslim men - men who, in some countries, have beauty pageants for camels.
http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/tr ... nt-photos/
Men who are told it is perfectly acceptable to rape prepubescent boys.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -pederasty

The problem is enlightened liberals who need to show the world how enlightened they are by welcoming savages who will never accept the culture of the welcoming country, but will do their absolute best to turn the new country into the stone age toilet they are trying to escape.

Like skmo, I have no problem with the execution of rapists. Nor do I have a problem using deadly force to prevent rape. I would sleep well at night if I protected women who have to walk past a refugee center from 200 yards with my hunting rifle.

Brother Cheppelle nails it!

Warning foul language and crass humor!! be ye warned:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fL-1kHxsavI

Not for the easily offended!!

brianj wrote:In church I have heard people say or suggest that if a woman doesn't dress to church standards she is inviting rape.

Why don't people ever do this in my wards? I could seriously have fun with someone spouting off stuff like this, regardless of the location. Stupid people are always fun to mess with.

skmo wrote:

brianj wrote:In church I have heard people say or suggest that if a woman doesn't dress to church standards she is inviting rape.

Why don't people ever do this in my wards? I could seriously have fun with someone spouting off stuff like this, regardless of the location. Stupid people are always fun to mess with.

Maybe people in your ward tend to have higher IQs. ;)

brianj wrote: I don't see how the woman's statement could insult Muslim men...

Um, because not all Muslim men are similar to the stereotype you have. We Mormons are subjects to much prejudices and stereotypes, and that is why I find it strange when we do the same for other religions.

Such an expectation is of course ridiculous and is just one of the reasons Muslims should stay in Islamic countries and not be allowed to impose themselves and their immorality on others. Multiculturism and Sharia law are evil and a curse to mortality.

Fiannan wrote: So how the heck can a person move to a nation and then expect the local people to adapt?

Fiannan wrote:

Personally I think her comment is insulting to most Muslim men as well as to women in general. Is this the state of modern PC thought today?

Now in fairness she does try to elaborate on what she said but I am not entirely sure that takes away from this quote in the least: http://islamineurope.blogspot.se/2007/0 ... -rape.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; If I were to move to a Muslim nation like Saudi Arabia am I responsible if I drink alcohol? Of course I would be. So how the heck can a person move to a nation and then expect the local people to adapt?

President Kimball said something similar back in the early '70's.

Brigham Young also fancied himself a dress designer, coming up with the "Deseret Costume". This allowed the sister saints to distinguish themselves for the rest of the world.

Even though everyone hated it, some of his wives continued to wear it as to follow "every word that proceedeth out of his mouth".

This to me sounds like a frustrated and jealous old lady, who felt she never had anything to show off, to attract men, and resented the younger women who did, and now has the perfect opportunity to chagrin or indict the young ladies.
Sounds personal. It sure doesn't make any sense on the level on which it was spoken.
dc

There is a huge difference warning women to not dress in super-revealing clothes because something might tip the balance in a disturbed mind and cause that sicko to attack and saying people come from a culture that appears to tolerate such behavior and thus the society in the west must submit and adapt.

I wonder...my understanding is that in the 1980s Scandinavian nations had some of the lowest rates of rape in the world and in those days Scandinavian beaches were generally topless. Is immigration the reason for the change in clothing styles?

One of the most powerful variables in men looking down on women is fostering an attitude that sex and the human body are shameful things.

I think it is important for people to be aware that men might place responsibility for their actions on others. But I don't believe it is wise to tolerate that idea. I think it would be better handled by people firmly stating that men are expected to take responsibility for their own behavior and set up safeguards to see that that expectation is upheld.

That statement sounds reasonable. Isn't that the same basis for the church's modesty standards? Which standards are constantly adjusted to match the culture. There was a time when ankles would turn a guy on.

Of course, the rules state to keep a dress at knee length or below, but still allow for showing off a figure, which can be provocative. Which is why the burka is the only answer to keep us pure.

Much of the drive behind modesty standards is to provide monopoly control by women over their man. They don't want to compete for his attention. The more attractive women don't seem to be as concerned about modesty, as they can compete.

Modesty should apply also to other areas. For example, men who make more money should not display any signs of wealth, lest wives become attracted to other men. That way, men would not have to compete for their wives' attention.

djinwa wrote:That statement sounds reasonable. Isn't that the same basis for the church's modesty standards? Which standards are constantly adjusted to match the culture..

I believe that Modesty as a spiritual principle goes far deeper than dress, grooming, or any of the other things usually attributed to it. To my mind modesty is a way of being. Hence I believe person A cannot judge of person B's modesty, just as person A can't really judge person B's charity or humility. However, I do think I can look at something another person is doing and say to myself "if I did that I would be immodest". I can do a similar thing with charity and humility. Hence I'm judging righteously because my judgement is focused on how I'm doing spiritually, not how someone else is doing. So "righteous judgement" then means self-judgement, or using another person's example to calibrate the bounds on how I can think and act.

For example, modesty specifically to me includes living within my means. It forbids gluttony, or generally taking more than my share. Hence no matter how someone else dresses, I must be modest in my appraisal of that person. That means I am completely responsible for my own thoughts and actions relative to the other person, and thus the only one in that situation who's in danger (as far as I can judge) of being immodest is me.