Comments on: SCIENCE!

By: Mark Brown

Mark Brown — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:34:13 +0000

I am going to blatantly abuse my admin superpowers to re-open comments long enough for me to also issue an apology to bbell. Sorry man. I overreacted, and there’s no excuse.

OK, comments closed again.

By: John C.

John C. — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:34:59 +0000

I stand by my question (although I agree it is silly; I just think that bbell was being a bit silly, too).

That said, I will follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost. Let’s close this sucker down.

By: Sam's Girlfriend

Sam's Girlfriend — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:31:36 +0000

*something

sorry for the typo

By: Sam's Girlfriend

Sam's Girlfriend — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:27:48 +0000

Hello all–found this link on my boyfriend’s blog. I sat here and read every word posted. This letter was written out of frusteration with the girls around him, and as a voice for similar comments he’s heard from other guys. I am sad that it is considered such a scandal that he, along with other young men, *want* the young women around them to respect themselves. Young women at BYU have been asked to respect and uphold standards put forth by the Church, specifics on which can be found in pamphlets such as For Strength of the Youth (which short shorts and tanktops do, yes, violate as casual wear). The point of these guidelines is to teach young people to dress modestly in clothing that will compliment covenants they will make with their Heavenly Father, and the garments they will wear as a symbol of those covenants. The majority of young men in Helaman Halls are soon-to-leave missionaries who will, themselves, be entering the temple and making such covenants. My boyfriend expressed his concern about the young women’s choices in supporting (or not supporting) these young men and his worry about whether or not they understand how serious their influence can be (why he included the quote by Elder Oaks). The sarcastic and mocking responses, regardless of my boyfriend or his intentions or what he put into words, are a sad misunderstanding of this important and understated issue. This is not an issue of social norms, trends, influences, or a battle of the sexes, as many of the arguments are based on, but of somthing that is important and sacred. I understand that some of you are simply looking for a point to debate, and know nothing that is said can stop that. But for those of you who honestly had a question about my boyfriend’s letter, I wanted to clarify and ask for some respect.

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:02:12 +0000

#194 – Niblet?

By: Latter-day Guy

Latter-day Guy — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:59:35 +0000

Oh, c’mon HG. I thought you left this post ages ago! Why interrupt now?

By: The Holy Ghost

The Holy Ghost — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:57:10 +0000

Isn’t it time to let this one go?

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:53:38 +0000

If what you mean by partial blame extends much beyond the example, then your “complicity” vs “blame” becomes a distinction without a difference.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:50:11 +0000

I used those examples to draw the semantic distinction between the two phrases in question–not to describe what kind of blame goes to a person in cases of modesty. So no, that analogue wasn’t intended.

Steve Evans,

You got me there!

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:42:04 +0000

So the blame a woman bears for the lustful feelings her incompletely covered body induces in the minds of men is analogous to the person who forgets to lock his door?

That sounds like a different degree of blame from the augmented-breasted harlots trying to monopolize the attention of righteous men with their cleavage…