Saturday, September 10, 2016

Ladies, don't be cock teases...

Pardon the inflammatory title of today's post, but that's what I thought of when I happened to see a link to this photo on Imgur.  The person who posted it claims that it was part of a lesson on modesty being taught in a LDS seminary class.  For those who don't know, "seminary" is a special LDS religion course for Mormon kids.  It runs for the four years of high school and typically is taught outside of regular school hours-- often before school starts each morning.

According to the photograph posted on Imgur, the concept of modesty is one of the lessons taught during seminary.  Personally, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to teach young people how to dress appropriately for the situation they're in.  At the same time, I strongly object to the idea that how a person dresses should impact how another person behaves.  Unfortunately, the teacher who was using the visual aid imparts the idea that girls have to "cover up" because apparently boys can't control themselves.

The poem goes...

I hope you won't tempt me
By clothes you might wear--
Or taunt me and tease me--
It just isn't fair.
Whatever you show me
I'll think I can touch--
So if you don't want that
Then don't show me much--

In other words, ladies, don't be cock teases.  If a horny male sees your shoulders, it might cause him to "fall".  If he sees your knees, he might be overcome with lust.  You are like ripe fruit waiting to be plucked and if you aren't careful, you'll be well fucked.  

I wonder if that was the case a few years ago when former Mormon seminary principal Michael Pratt, then 38, was "tempted" by a 16 year old girl attending seminary.   In 2010, Pratt was found guilty of one count of forcible sodomy, two counts of object rape, and second degree forcible sexual abuse.  The victim, who was 18 years old in 2010 when Pratt was sentenced, told him that she was moving on.  But she did ask him to stop and think about the damage he'd wrought.  She urged him to accept responsibility for his actions.

Pratt knew very well that if he acted on his desires, he would lose everything.  He'd lose his home, his job, his family, and his freedom, as well as his beloved church.  But he was "weak".  Whom should we blame for Pratt's weakness?  Is it his victim's fault that he molested her, even though he himself has four children.  At the time of his conviction in September 2010, Pratt had a two month old baby.  It would be up to his wife to provide for those kids.

Meanwhile, the young girl Pratt molested thought he loved her.  She thought they had a real relationship.  It was not a real relationship to Pratt.  He was overcome by his inability to control himself.  It wouldn't have mattered what the girl was wearing.  He wanted her and was determined to have her.  And, thanks to the slut shaming culture within the church, that young lady endured insults from the community.  People called her a "Jezebel" and blamed her for being molested by a man in a position of authority who should have been especially able to control himself.

Before he was busted, Pratt was evidently well loved by his community.  The teen's own mother had sung his praises, noting that her daughter seemed happier and was staying on the "straight and narrow" path.  Pratt had been spending extra time with her and giving her attention that the girl had been missing.  How sad that the attention he was giving her was so malevolent.  He and taxpayers are paying for it because he's in jail.  His victim is paying for it with the horrible memories of what happened to her and the shameful way some people in her community treated her in the aftermath.


Seriously?  A bunch of Mormon guys sing the praises of being modest and virtuous...

Instead of begging females not to be too sexy and "slutty" looking, how about we teach young men to keep their hands and penises to themselves?  I am all for young women to dress in a way that is attractive and flattering.  I personally choose not to wear clothes that are too revealing.  But that is my choice.  Most men would probably prefer me to cover up anyway because I'm not exactly a "hottie".  But if I were young and "hot" and chose to wear something that some others felt was immodest, I would still expect other people to respect me enough not to commit a felonious act because my dress caused them to "fall".  That's ridiculous.  Control yourselves, men.  Don't end up like Brother Pratt, who is now sitting in prison while the mother of his children raises his kids.  Have respect for yourselves and other people.  Instead of telling ladies not to be cock teases, how about not being dicks?

7 comments:

  1. I'm all for men taking accountability for their actions. Nothing a woman wears or doesn't wear causes a man to touch her or any other woman appropriately or inappropriately (usually inappropriately).

    I have a situation I'll share. My freshman year of high school, we had that form of scheduling where everyone goes from table to table trying to get the courses they need in the time slots that work for them. (The computer does a much better job, then discrepancies are fixed by hand later, though that's neither here nor there in regard to the topic at hand.)

    I was so incredibly naive at the time that I didn't even notice what was happening all around me, but apparently a whole bunch of boys were developing erections. (I don't think I even knew what an erection was, much less what it looked like.) The adults in charge scanned the situation and decided that the overwhelming male response was due to a girl in our class who was a year older than most of the students (2 years older than I) and was stacked beyond belief. That waas not her fault, but she wore an almost-nonexistent bra and a blouse that was so transparent that you could determine the pattern of lace on what there was of the bra through the blouse. Her shorts were of questionable length (a dress-code violation for a regular school day), but by itself, that probably would not have caused the overwhelming response. (Had the girl just been smoking hot and wearing tight clothing and had the same response on the part of the boys taken place, the boys maybe should have been told to leave until they could control themselves a bit better, but there was clear visual imagery, and the boys were mostly 14.) A parent helper complained. The administrators determined it was too much for the males. The girl was pulled aside and quietly given a choice of shirts to put on over her existent outfit. Of course her parents complained, but nothing major came of it.

    Because someone else was on vacation, my mom had to deal with the girl's parents. The prents said the girl was not responsible for the boys' actions. My mom agreed that hd anyone as much as touched the girl, it would have been another matter entirely. Even had she shown up nude, no one had the right to violate her body. On the other hand, she was in violation of the district's dress code, and it was causing an embarrassing involuntary response on the part of many males. They didn't touch her, but were embarrassingly aroused and essentially forced to sit until they got their hormones under control. My mom chose to back up the site administrator, which was to uphold that it wa reasonable to expect the girl to cover up a bit, but that no punitive action was to be taken. The parents threatened litigation, but no one ever heard a word from them about it again. I don't think the girl ever egregiously violated the dress code again, for that matter, although I missed a substantial portion of my senior year.

    What do you think?

    I may blog about this when I have another sleepless night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My personal opinion is that schools should be places where students are expected to dress appropriately. When it comes down to it, kids go to school to learn how to function outside of school. Most work places have standards for dress. So I think it's appropriate for schools to have reasonable dress codes. I used to be anti-uniform and would have hated wearing one when I was a kid, but now I think they might solve a lot of problems regarding dress.

      However... I also think that it's absolutely wrong to send the message to girls that they are in control of boys' erections. The truth is, young men will get erections from a stiff breeze. It's not reasonable to expect females to "protect" men from sexual thoughts and feelings. Males have to be taught to control themselves.

      Delete
  2. I wasn't present when she was spoken to, but I believe the way it was presented to my classmate was that she was in violation of the dress code, period. I don't think the subject of the boys' erections was even brought up to her. It was just when the parent volunteer got through her "prayer chain," telling everyone all about what she observed and what she thought was said or done by the administrator, and then those people added their own personal touches to the account, by the time it got to the parents, they heard a very distorted version of the story. Even 15-year-olds are impressionable. Her parents probably asked, "They told you that you were causing boys to be aroused, didn't they?" and she probably said yes. When my mom talked to the parents, she said it was a simple dress code violation which was handled discreetly and accordingly.

    As far as being responsible for one's own state of arousal, there's certainly something to be said for that. At that same time, attire at school or at most places of work is expected not to cause undue distraction. If it's simply that the girl is such a flaming beauty that the men or boys cannot help from being distracted, that's their problem, and they need to learn some self-control. She shouldn't wear a burka (or however it's spelled) because she's attractive. If the immodesty of anyone's clothing, male or female, is causing distraction however it my be manifested, that probably crosses a line where a dress code should be concerned, with or without erections.

    It reminds me of once in the main library at UCSB, a girl or young woman was in a particular wing on the second floor. She decided to take of her clothing because she said she was over-heated. UCSB is an incredibly liberal place. You'd be arrested at many universities for being nude in a library. Word got out, and people were appearing from all over the area - some probably not even students, and WAY more than one would typically be found in a library on a Saturday afternoon not immediately preceding finals. Eventually one of the lazy library workers decided he should probably get up and ee what was going on. He told the woman she needed to put her clothes back on or he would call security, and they would probably arrest her. Word has it that she argued a bit, but put most of her clothing back on before the security officer got there. UCSB was one of the weirder places on the planet. I don't even know if the woman was an actual student,or if it was a sorority initiation rite, or what it was about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are places in Germany where you might actually see people completely nude. Nobody cares. Nudity is apparently not illegal here, though most of the time, you wouldn't want to be naked in German weather.

      My point is, though, that young guys who are around puberty age will get erections regardless. It doesn't matter what someone is wearing. Most of them have no dick control.

      Clothing that is distracting, regardless of the reason why, probably shouldn't be allowed in school because it detracts from having an environment conducive to learning.

      Anyway... this post was more about how seminary principals don't necessarily practice what they preach. Clearly Brother Pratt couldn't control himself when confronted by the charms of a sixteen year old girl, right?

      Delete
    2. They, along with other Mormon authorities, typically practice what they least preach, perhaps because it's a particular hangup or fetish.

      Delete
    3. Yes. And apparently, it's the responsibility of females to protect these fellows from their own wicked desires.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Comments on older posts will be moderated until further notice.