A return to modesty

And now, the long-promised post about A Return to Modesty. (Lesson learned: if you start hyping a post in advance, then you feel more obligated to do a good job of it, which can easily lead to stress. It’s better to go with Apple’s secrecy-before-release mentality, methinks.)

The book, written by Wendy Shalit, is amazing. I can’t recommend it enough. I’m going to start buying up copies to give as gifts. It’s that good. And it’s definitely earned a place on my must-read list (which I’ll be adding to the sidebar one of these days).

Where to begin? The cover, I suppose. :) Yes, it’s a bit embarrassing, and I’ll admit that I covered it up as I was walking around with it at the book sale. Wendy talked about it at her blog a couple of weeks ago.

But back to the book. It’s about modesty, of course — more particularly, how our let-it-all-hang-out culture of sexual “freedom” has caused more problems than it solved. Violent sex crimes are more prevalent than they were in the modest days of yore, and the perpetrators are becoming younger and younger. (She mentions several cases of sodomy in the playground, with nine-year-olds. Nine! What is the world coming to?!?)

Now, being a Mormon, I’ve made vows of chastity, promising God that I’ll only have sex with my wife, after we’re married. No premarital or extramarital sex. And I will of course keep those vows.

Granted, I knew that our society was pretty darn sex-saturated, but it hadn’t really struck me just how much the rest of the world has embraced casual sex and free love and all that jazz — or how early on (twelve- and thirteen-year-olds? Holy smokes!). I suppose I live in a bubble. :) (And yes, I think that’s fine.)

The part that really spoke to me, though, was the bit about gentlemanly behavior. Having watched my fair share of Jane Austen movies, I’m enamored of courtesy and chivalry and the old-fashioned etiquette, and I think it’s a good thing that really ought to be brought back. I open doors for girls, and I’m starting to stand up when they enter the room and help them with their coats and such. But the feminists (and others) have labeled such behavior as sexist, propagated by male chauvinist pigs who think women are too weak to do these things for themselves. Bah, humbug. (And a big sigh.)

Anyway, the book’s great. It’s very well-written, and Wendy says it all a lot better than I ever could. I really haven’t done it justice here — not even close.

If you’re interested, you can also check out her website, ModestyZone.net, and her blog, Modestly Yours.

The links don’t work.

Well… What do we expect? If we don’t take a stand against open sexuality, then we silently advocate it. I find it ironic that we are so shocked and appalled (did I spell that right?) by what we see on myspace.com from underage girls, when no one’s gotten upset about Bratz dolls, or the kind of music that age group is exposed to. One of Satan’s great achievements among us is that morality is an antiquidated notion, and that one should be able to do whatever with whomever. This society is screwed, and no pun intended. You can pretty much watch softcore pornography on TV, and then we blow a fuse when we see ‘To Catch a Predator.’

To quote Samuel (my favorite Lamanite)

But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head.

(emphasis mine)

We are doing just that. Bleh. We’re horrible.

Hmm, that’s really weird — they were working earlier today! I wonder why they would stop working all of a sudden…

Ah, figured it out. I used WriteRoom to write the last two posts, and I’d set it to automatically use smart quotes. Looks like web browsers don’t like those for HTML tags. :) It should all work now.

Has violence and sexuality gotten worse, or has reporting it become less taboo? I haven’t researched an answer, but it’s worth asking. Back in the fifties, when you couldn’t even say “pregnant” on TV, is it any wonder we didn’t hear about molestations?

sixline: That reminds me of Edmund Burke’s famous quote, “All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.” And yes, society’s values are becoming very twisted, superficial, and coarse. Not all of it, of course, and there’s still good left in the world — just look at how America united after 9/11, for example — but evil is becoming more blatant, more accepted as the norm.

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

– Alexander Pope

Eight: Wendy Shalit makes a pretty good contention that it’s the loss of the taboo that has worsened violence and sexuality, not that it was just going on all the time and we didn’t know about it. I don’t think that such crimes were non-existent — they’ve been around since the beginning — but it has definitely started spreading, especially since the sexual revolution of the 60s. Handing condoms out to kindergarteners, the steady dissolution of marriages and families (was the divorce rate this high 100 years ago? I don’t think so), the upheaval of all the traditional values that held society steady — we’ve turned sex into the god we worship, a modern-day Aphrodite, and a growing number are bent on making human sacrifices to her.

I’m not entirely convinced, Ben. I worked with a guy from Denmark where hard-core porn is readily available everywhere, including convinience stores. Strangly(?) enough, places like Denmark and Holland have lower rates of sexual crime than the US.

In fact crime in general is significantly lower in these societies. Now I’m not advocating having things out for the kids to see, but I will argue for just leaving people alone. “Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves” as the saying goes. And condoms to kindergartners? Really? Whatever for?

Me, I don’t worship at the altar of sex, but I do like to send in a donation once in a while. ;)

To add to Eight Hour Lunch’s comments, there’s certainly a school of thought that finds that cultures that hide and shame sexuality in general, create a tense sexual undercurrent, where sexual crimes from molestation to rape are a very common occurrance. That’s not to say that people necessarily ought to wear their sexuality brazenly on their sleeves (cars, t-shirts, walls, etc), but when people can’t express themselves because of the fear of public, primarily conservative, opinion, that may be why they turn to quiet, secret, even violent and subversive actions to fulfill their “needs”. For example, think Catholic church! Of course, I believe there’s something seriously wrong with every single sexual criminal…but the question needs to asked…What kind of social environment creates these criminals in the first place?

thewife, I’m sorry but I disagree with your implications. If I understand them correctly, it appears you are saying that fear of reprisal from a socially conservative public is repressing people to the point where they feel the urge and need to act out, even violently. I disagree. A rapist’s problems are not traceable back to the public that disagrees with how much nudity passes on TV, in print, and in film. Blaming someone else or something else for the problems I have is irresponsible and only encourages more behaviour because hey– it’s not my fault. Society won’t let me do what I want so I have to do it this way. I just don’t agree.

Eight: It’s kind of tough to follow your logic that higher availability of porn leads to less sexual crime because I do not believe it is nearly that simple. Europe has an entirely different way of handling people with social problems and reporting the news. They are not without their problems, and their problems are just as bad as here. They might be pacified now, but sins whose effects are not immediately seen are quickly embraced only to be bitterly regretted when it’s time to pay the piper. As far as teaching people correct principles and letting them govern themselves, I think the dude who coined wasn’t talking about just letting people do what they want. I think he was getting at teaching people correct principles to the point of where they wish to follow them, then letting them govern themselves.

Just my coupla pennies.

Finally something we agree on:

“Blaming someone else or something else for the problems I have is irresponsible and only encourages more behaviour because hey– it’s not my fault.”

To say that immodesty is causing crime is to misrepresent the problem. Tom Green, Warren Jeffs and all the other fundies wear clothing to their ankles and wrists. They aren’t even allowed to *watch* television. Did that stop them from having sex with minors? How about the Catholic priests that wear frocks down to their feet. Did that stop them from raping boys?

Just like the rapist who couldn’t control himself because she was just asking for it by the way she dressed. Or because he watched porn. Or because kindergartners were being handed condoms. Who should be blamed? *The freaking criminal.*

On the other hand, if there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between “smut” and crime as you suggest, why isn’t there more crime? Why has violent crime actually been in decline in recent years. Considering the millions of dollars just the Marriotts make peddling porn, you’d think we’d have had complete social collapse by now.

Sixline, I think you may have missed my point. I’m not about to suggest that the guilty individuals can blame society as a whole for their actions. That being said, you can’t deny that the taboos placed on sex and sexuality place a certain amount of shame on and around the very act. Some of the most conservative organizations in the world, those who clearly define morality for their constituents, are the very organizations where sexual crimes pop up most frequently. I mentioned the Catholic church as just a single example. My point is simply that we seriously consider what type of an environment creates, and then continues to foster, these criminals…if for no other reason than to find a method of prevention! It would be interesting to socially profile countries with low sexual crime rates to better evaluate where this country could stand to improve. Just a thought!

Eight, though I don’t see how the Marriot’s have anything to do with this, and I really don’t want to pull in an unrelated issue, I’ll explain why I think it is related, although not as directly as I might have come across before.

First off, statistics without case studies cited just don’t amount to anything in my eyes, as true as they may be. I’m way of statistics in general, having taken so many courses in that field of study they’re just too easily inflated to show one side or another. If your logic is sound (mine too for that matter! :D) Then I’m far more likely to give credence to your side of thinking.

Secondly, all this is my opinion, and as much as I’d like to think it’s correct, I’m merely a blob of spittle in the grand sea of life. I call it how I see it, and that’s that. I treat your thinking the same way as I treat mine.

Now… Good point on polygamists and priests. I will, however, go out on a limb and say that since they’re a bit out of mainstream, they don’t represent the point, either. It’s difficult to relate social issues from two very separate bodies.

Earlier, I don’t think I represented my point very well. I don’t think that an erosion of moral standards will lead to more violent crime. Obviously, we as a people aren’t going to take very well to anything that correlates directly to violent crime. In fact, it’s not the violent crimes that are the fruit of moral erosion. Rather, I think we (society) will be lulled into a false sense of security. It’s the long term effects of moral erosion that scare me. It’s easy to eschew murder, rape, and heavy drug uses. It’s tough to eschew ‘harmless drugs,’ Victoria’s Secret, and casual sex between consenting adults because the immediate consequences are non-existent. It’s possible to sell your most treasured possession without even knowing it, only to find that when you want to use it, it’s gone.

The trend is downward. Fewer and fewer things are considered wrong. Moral erosion isn’t only where your skirt meets your skin. Modesty expresses itself in speech and thought as well as actions. If we can’t respect the awesome power of procreation for what it is, then we’re going to abuse it. There’s quite a few social problems inovlved there, the worst of which is non-existent fathers. If we grow up thinking that sex is used for selfish stimulation, then we’ll either kill our unwanted consequences (abortion) or walk away from the responsibility of raising them.

(Up to 4 cents now!)

thewife

Some of the most conservative organizations in the world, those who clearly define morality for their constituents, are the very organizations where sexual crimes pop up most frequently.

I just don’t agree with your perception. And I’m sorry for misrepresenting you.

perspective, not perception. Sorry. :)

I know, isn’t this book wonderful? You may thank me for reccomending it…..
(P.S. Buy the hardcover. Then you can ditch the embarrassing dust jacket.)

My point on the Marriotts was just that they sell a lot of movies that go waaay beyond modest.

Here’s something else you said we agree on:

“If your logic is sound (mine too for that matter! :D) Then I’m far more likely to give credence to your side of thinking.”

Of course to be fair, if you want me to apply sound logic and a scientific approach to my arguments, then you should have to do the same. So…

*Can* you throw out priests and polygamists? *Why*? Are you saying that morality is relative? Does morality only apply for the mainstream, or is it absolute? (I’d argue that it’s absolute, but probably for different reasons than you).

The argument of the post, and the book was, “Violent sex crimes are more prevalent than they were in the modest days of yore, and the perpetrators are becoming younger and younger.” Is that really true? In your own Bible, Lot put his daughters out of his house to be raped by strangers:

“Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.”

Or maybe when people say the “good old days” they mean what happened later in the chapter:

“And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
“Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.”

The trend is downward? I don’t know anyone who would tolerate that kind of behavior in modern society! The only ones I’ve heard of have ended up (rightly) in prison. And yet these are the ones your god chose to save!

When an argument such as “immodesty is destroying our society” is put out, one would be right to check their premises. Can we objectively say society has gotten more dangerous as a direct result of how much skin we cover? I haven’t seen anything to convince me of that. And that’s all I’m trying to say.

“Can we objectively say that society has gotten more dangerous as a direct result of how much skin we cover?”

Wendy’s argument in the book (which I agree with) is that the increasing lack of modesty in modern society (and not just in America — this is everywhere) has chipped away at the respect that used to be shown to women. She quotes Alexis de Tocqueville as saying a hundred or so years ago that a young woman could go on a long journey alone in America without any fear of being assaulted. Today…well, it depends, but do girls really feel safe on the streets? Even those who dress modestly are often accosted (with stares, lewd remarks, or what have you).

So, for women, yes, I do think it’s more dangerous. Nowadays men view women as objects (because of porn and other portrayals), and that’s bad. Using objects for your own pleasure, hurting them, doing whatever you want with them — it doesn’t make a difference if it’s just an object. But a woman is not an object. And I object to anyone who says otherwise.

I would take issue with de Tocqueville. That sounds more like an opinion. Sexuality is nothing new, and neither is rampant sexuality. When was this blessed time when we were all so much more chaste? It wasn’t in the middle ages, and before then it’s too vague to really comment. It was a completely different world (and not in any good ways).

I think the time we always fall back to as this golden age of morals is the Victorian era. However, we have to realize that everything about this time was idealized and the literature that comes from that time vaunted some of these ideals ad nauseum. Just because people wrote about people living chaste, “old-fashioned” relationships in fiction doesn’t mean that it happened in the real world at the time.

Women also haven’t lost as much respect as you might think. It wasn’t so long ago when the only position for a woman was in the home, tending the children. Having any thoughts otherwise was considered wrong. You don’t go too far back from there when women were strictly viewed as property, bought and sold through dowries (sp?) and denied right in public discourse. What has decreased in some regards is the etiquette which, outside of Victorian and romance fiction, usually was chauvenistic and condescending. These things were done because it was viewed that women were incapable of fending for themselves. The impression I get of the past was that women didn’t take many strolls down the streets alone because they had to be escorted.

Today some of these more gallant behaviours aren’t seen as much as in the movies or in books (I challenge that such displays were really given as much in the actual world and public in a non-condescending manner as we are led to believe), but there’s also the belief that women can be themselves. They don’t have to have someone open the door for them, they don’t have to be pandered to. To me, that was the mindset of the Victorian era. It some regards, I think it a compliment to allow a girl to do something for herself that might otherwise fall to the role of a “gentleman”. It’s a way of saying that I recognize you as a competent individual who can care for herself. Then when I do choose to open doors or whatever else, it feels more genuine as opposed to “duty”.

My stance is that people today aren’t so radically different from people yesterday. As such, the problems of today I feel are hardly new, though we would like to believe so. One of the big differences between now and then that is rarely talked about is the explosion in population. It simply stands to reason that the more people there are in the world, the more crimes and sexual promiscuity is going to show up. If ten per cent of the population are lewd, then when the population triples, the number of lewd people triple as well. Combine that with a sensationalist media that searches endlessly for these kind of stories and you are probably getting a warped view of the way the world really is.

I’m not saying that it isn’t a problem. What I am saying is that the problem has been around for as long as man. The only things that have changed are mediums and such. Information and “stuff” has never been more available before today. And tomorrow it will be even more ubiquitous, so we hear about it more (which does, in turn, desensitize us to a degree).

The problem, however, isn’t that “society” is to blame. This is the kind of thinking that has lead to radical treatment of men and women. Think radical Islam and even Christianity. We’ve been trying to control this for as long as time and its this idea of control that has gotten us into it in the first place. You can’t solve a problem using the same thinking that got you into it. I agree that some of the taboo that is associated with sex shares blame. If you can’t talk about it, learn about it, and exchange ideas about it in an open, honest, yet mature fashion, people won’t just decide that it’s something that shouldn’t be messed with. They’ll learn about it in their own way, and that’s where it goes wrong.

I think the solution lies not in controling it and limiting promiscuity, but in letting go. Letting go of the taboo and be willing to see it for what it is. These sort of things thrive on secrecy and can only survive when we are willing to keep them a secret by not talking about it. When you turn on the lights and start accepting people, even if they may live in a manner you disagree with, then they no longer feel a need to “act out” or rebel. They can talk about their feelings, receive feedback, and feel a part of society rather than on the fringes (and if you’re seen as on the fringe, what’s the point in trying to please people who won’t understand you?).

That kind of thinking does have its weak points and runs a good risk of people adopting no morals. But I’m not saying accept no matter what, I’m saying eliminate taboos and atmospheres that require conformity or suggest that the individual should be silent. People will ask questions and explore and its best that they feel they can talk about it so guidance and advise can be given. Otherwise they just go to themselves. Either way, this concept of controlling human behaviour has largely failed us through the millenia, what do we really have to lose by trying to think about the problem differently?

Shaun, I much enjoyed reading that. I agree with you. And though I should give Wendy’s book a chance, too, but I’d like to read *your* book on the topic. :)

Openness is a very important thing. I recall the only time I was ever “caught” by my parents for something they considered sexually immoral–I had downloaded a textfile of some story that kids at school had been saying was funny. It was perverse fanfic about Barney (yes, the purple dinosaur) murdering and abusing children. There was some sexual element to it, but I had basically grasp of the concepts involved, to the point that I have no recollection of what it said. My parents found it and exploded, complete with banning me from the computer for a time, yelling, the demanding of explanations, and throwing the word “pornography” around–something else I had no concept of. I can’t have been older than 10 or 11, but it set a precedent in my home, and I never exchanged two words with my parents on the subject of sex for the rest of my time in their home. My dad passed away a few years thereafter and my mom figured the Church was teaching me about it. Which I guess it was, but the world at large was teaching me, too, and definitely not in a good way. But it was such a taboo topic that I knew I couldn’t approach anyone at home if I had questions, so I kept what I learned to myself–both the good and bad–and so some of those ideas developed unhealthily for a while.

I don’t think the answer is that parents should shield children more securely from unhealthy influences, because I really believe that’s impossible from a practical standpoint.

I believe I was taught well, and that I made some mistakes, but was able to figure things out eventually, and I consider myself lucky to have had the Church to teach me those things.

But I am convinced that an open and caring dialogue in the home would have been extremely helpful and is very important, and a much stronger deterrent against misunderstanding of these issues, including warped views of sexuality and the objectification of women, et cetera. If I had some question or some problem, I would love to have been comfortable enough in my own home to be able to talk to my parents about those things, and I plan to make my home that way.

Again, I haven’t read Wendy’s book, but what is its point, other than to say that society respects women less than it did in some intangible point in the past? What are her suggested solutions? What does an increase in modesty mean to her? We should cover our bodies, but we shouldn’t cover up the subject.

Everybody’s got a body, after all.

Now, here’s where I say to myself, “am I really submitting this comment?” and reread it, embarassed, before hitting submit………

Shaun: “When was this blessed time when we were all so much more chaste?” It’s not that there wasn’t sexuality back then — just read Chaucer — but sex wasn’t something paraded around in the open like it is nowadays. Are you saying the 60s changed nothing? :) Mainstream movies and advertisements are far more sexualized than they were fifty or sixty years ago. There have been bad movies for as long as film’s been around, but it wasn’t till the last few decades that things became more open.

I can see your point about control, but I still think that the overflowing of sex everywhere in our society is doing far more damage, and it’s not helping the problem at all. And as a romantic, being “willing to see it for what it is” takes some of the magic out of sex and turns it into something common and anything but special — and if that’s the case, it doesn’t matter if you have sex out of marriage because it’s just sex. But if sex is something holy, sacred, and special, then it does matter.

Rikker: I completely agree that parents ought to talk openly with their children about sex. Sex ed belongs in the home, not the classroom or the whispered giggles of friends. What I do have issue with is society and the media turning sex into a spectacle, into something talked about on every television show and in every movie. Practically everything is laced with innuendo these days. And I think that’s bad. Yes, parents absolutely need to talk about the birds and the bees with their children, but do we really need pornographic billboards, TV shows all about sex, and movies glorifying extramarital affairs?

Wendy argues that more modesty will bring sex from its current obsessively manic spot in society — it’s a god to many people — back to a far healthier position as a natural part of married life, but not something to be brandished out in public like a new pair of shoes or a nice shiny car.

One other thing: it seems to me (and correct me if I’m wrong) that in the last few decades there’s been a huge increase in the number of children born out of wedlock. We’re up to around a third of all children now, according to my Family Life class. Sure, there were illegitimate children before, but the percentage has skyrocketed ever since the “free love” movement of the 60s. And there are plenty of statistics out there showing how fatherless homes (do I really need to establish the connection between illegitimacy and fatherless families? It seems obvious) do indeed create more crimes and other socially aberrant behaviors. Bringing sex out into the open makes it casual, which makes it more “normal” and even expected for people (both adults and young teenagers) to be involved in premarital and extramarital sexual relations, which destroys families and is, in effect, gnawing away at society.

Ben, suffer me to prove your point by using the following speech stress pattern:

I’ll lace you with innuendo.

Don’t ask me to try to interpret what that might mean, however, I don’t even want to begin to think about it. Innuendo is everywhere, it’s true.

Now, Ben, you comment on films which glorify extramarital sex. I wonder at your use of “glorify,” though. I’m not at all arguing that many films don’t glorify it, but what is the difference between simple portrayal and glorification? Is it glorification that you oppose, or even mere portrayal? Is it possible, in your estimation, for films to portray bad things but be good films, or to carry worthwhile messages, or to provoke worthwhile thought? To edify?

What about killing? Or worse, murder? Do you think visual media are more affecting and thus more in need of censorship? The Book of Mormon’s got a heck of a lot of killing, even in gory detail (Shiz, anyone?). The Bible (which, granted, is less “correct” according to Joseph Smith) includes tell of children getting mauled to death by bears, filicide, drunken father-daughter incest, homosexual sex, mass slaughter of infants, yada yada yada. We relish and obsessively retell tales of abuse and mistreatment of the Saints in the early Restored Church at the hands of disbelievers as proofs of faith in the face of hardship. Would you watch The Passion of the Christ? If not, is it because you care not to see the gore, or you think it’s inappropriate to portray it at all?

That’s a lot of questions, I know. Take your time. :)

Now, consider the human body. Perhaps some consider David or Venus de Milo et cetera to be indecent (think of the rogue modesty advocates who covered up a statue outside the Iowa Capitol building, for example, or some folks in Tucson). What makes some things art and others smut?

Litmus test: do readers think this picture is funny or pornographic? (Warning/spoiler: it shows bare boobs.) I’d guess that someone who has been through the craziness of their own wedding day would find it funny. But that’s just me. Does a humorous (nonsexual) display of nudity at all justify it? Or does even the possibility that it will arouse undue thoughts make it a bad thing?

Obviously these points of comparisons are not all made equal. The human body is a creation of God. It’s a good thing. Extra-marital sex is not. Neither is murder usually good, and yet we are encouraged to read and treasure up some tales involving murder, liken them unto ourselves, and seek spiritual guidance from them.

Apologies if this is all very disconnected. Ben, I’m posting this not to bait you but to find out your thoughts and opinions, because we think very differently.

Thoughts? Comments? Denunciations?

Those are some tricky questions, some of which don’t have clear answers. One of the reasons for the current obsession with sex in the media, I believe, is because it was suppressed back in the 50s. It was taboo to even talk much about pregnancy, to show that on television, much less talk about the actual act of intercourse.

I also do not think that the prominent display of all things sexual in today’s media is good. It is teaching us to objectify one another and view ourselves and others as things from which to derive pleasure.

However, it also needs to be noted that we are sexual beings. Face it, a lot of our lives revolves around procreation. It’s pleasurable. It ensures the continuation of our family/line/species. It can bring a man and woman closer together. To enjoy sex or be curious about it is hardly to be unexpected.

Combine this with the fact that discussion about it tends to be shamed upon and you have an incredibly alluring mystery. If you tell someone, say your child, “Don’t open this door.”, what is going to happen? We seem to have this ideal that we should not open the door. I mean, we are given a ton of other doors we can open and such, why should we care about this door?

Another aspect of humanity is our curiousity. We have strived to attain knowledge and understanding and we will continue to do so. The obvious and inevitable answer is that the door will be opened. Now if you said, “Don’t open this door, there is a pack of ravenous wolves behind it”, you still state to not open the door but now you say why. It’s not a command or order from one person to another, it’s more like a plea. There is something that can hurt you behind this door, so please don’t open it. Not yet.

While the analogy is somewhat trite, this is how I feel about sexuality. We do not have all the answers about human sexuality. The simple existence of things like homosexuality and other similar deviations should be proof enough of this. Some of it is a deliberate perversion on the part of the individual, but some of it truly appears to be beyond the control of some people. What does this mean?

I don’t have all the answers. I don’t even have most of them. But I’ll never find them if I can’t ask the questions. Putting magic to sex in that romantic fashion can be just as detrimental. It gets put up on a pedestal as a thing untouchable, and thus beyond scrutiny man. This is dangerous.

I personally do not see a detraction from making the topic of sex more “common”. As I mentioned, these need to be mature discussions of the subject and not discussions of pleasure. To me, it is like saying that the study of the Earth, the sun, and the cosmos is to detract from the works and divinity of God.

We all know of the time when it was considered heretical to conceive of the Universe as something other than in a geo-centric fashion. Yes, we know that they did not have the truth and lacked the Spirit of Knowledge, but should we assume that we have it all now?

We are to become Gods and Goddesses. An essential part of this is knowing all that is knowable. God has all knowledge. Not just knowledge of that which is “good” or “holy”, not just of the scriptures, not just of the Church. If we are to become as He is, we cannot be afraid to look at things as they really are. To understand them from different angles.

The act of sex itself is not, in my opinion, what is sacred or holy. Perhaps I should qualify that a little. It is like the temple. The building itself is beautiful and to a degree is holy. But it is still just a physical thing made of stone, fabric, and other common items. It is what the temple represents that is holy and sacred.

We invite people to come in to the temples to see what is inside and to understand what it is before the work it was built for commences. We do not hide the temples as physical buildings. It becomes sacred and holy when the principles are taught and the ordinances performed.

The emotions and physical sensations associated with sex are intense and even pleasurable. It is little wonder there is a fascination about it. We know it is part of the divine plan, and from our own experience we have seen that it can bring a husband and wife closer together. However, this is for more than just the nature of the act.

Because sex is pleasurable, to restrict it to only one other person and for that other person (not just for yourself) sends a very strong and powerful message. It is saying, to some degree, that you (your spouse) are so precious to me that I am willing to give up this great and powerful thing with all other people, save you only. It is not something that I want for myself, but to share with you and I want you to enjoy it as I do.

No matter how you look at it, this is a sacrifice. By making that kind of commitment, you are willingly denying yourself the potential pleasure extra-marital sex would bring. This, I believe, is what makes sexual relations between husband and wife so sacred, romantic, and special.

The incredible blessing to create new life is astounding, but even it can be a one-sided thing. What makes these things truly beautiful is the willingness of two people to share them with each other and seek out the other’s benefit as well or even before their own. We know that the willingness to sacrifice, and actually sacrificing, something we love or otherwise hold close is one of the ultimate ways of showing true love for another person. This comes in the form of money and time, but can also come in the form of lost, or given up, opportunities.

This is why I think we, as a society, can allow ourselves to talk about what sex and sexuality is about and not make it “common” or “base”. The current execution is harmful, there is no denying that. But the reason it is harmful is not because sex is being discussed, it is because of the way it’s being discussed along with the persistant, shaming fear that many people still try to attach to it.

Knowledge is power and is empowering. It is only with knowledge that we can make any meaningful decision (think Adam and Eve). If we and our teenage children are making bad decisions about sex, it is not because we have made a mistake in bringing it into discussion. It is because we do not understand it and we need seek after this understanding so that we can make wise, meaningful decisions.

Rikker: I’ve thought a lot about Portrayal v. Glorification :), and while I don’t think I’ve yet discovered the right answer, here are some thoughts on the matter. There’s a big difference between portrayal and glorification. With profanity, for example, there’s a difference between having protagonists use both it and vulgarity for humorous effect (condoned by the filmmaker/writer/musician with an expected consensus from the audience) and using it rarely to express intense emotions, like seasoning. I’m certain the former is wrong; as for the latter, it doesn’t offend me as much, but of course I prefer to avoid it when possible. Unfortunately it’s only possible if one stays in a bubble. :)

As for violence, there’s violence necessary to the story, and then there’s gratuitous violence (for the sake of blowing things up). Most modern action movies seem to fall into the latter category, at least judging from the trailers. War movies, on the other hand, would of necessity need to portray some level of violence by nature of the story. I’m not saying that violence should be taken out of art; it’s just that we need to make sure whether we’re saying violence is a good thing or a bad thing.

The portrayal of sex in the media is touchier. By “glorify” I mean art that says it’s okay to have sex whenever you want, to treat women as objects, to give in to the carnal, to denigrate marriage and the family. That’s wrong, plain and simple. Now, sex is a part of life and so it will inevitably come into some stories. (But not all!) When it’s an integral part of the story and not gratuitous fluff designed to rack in some extra moolah, I think it can be appropriate as long as it’s not presented in a sensual, erotic way. Is depicting the actual sex act necessary? Hardly. You can get the message across that it happened without going into detail. I know there’ll be a lot of people who disagree with that, but this is one thing I’m not wavering on.

Oh, as for the Bible, at least some of the cases are clearly depicted as Bad Things. Filicide is frowned upon. In the JST, the drunken father-daughter incest is condemned — Genesis 19:31 (though in the JST it’s verse 37) is changed to read “And the firstborn dealt wickedly, and said…” Claims from the homosexual community to the contrary notwithstanding, homosexuality is the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, so it’s hard to read any kind of acceptance into that. That’s the difference between portrayal and glorification, in my estimation.

Concerning The Passion of Christ, the question of whether or not I’d watch it has nothing to do with the violence and gore. It’s an important story and taking the violence out of it does damage to its integrity, minimizing its power to move us. (And yet I also realize the need to make the Church movies not so violent as to scare little children.) In fact, with a story like the crucifixion, I want to feel the horror and pain, because it helps me to better understand what Christ went through, and it grows my love for him. The violence is not gratuitous. (As for whether I’d watch it, the sole reason I wouldn’t is that it’s rated R. I’m torn because it’s something that I do want to see, and I don’t think the MPAA’s ratings should always be trusted — virtually all PG-13s these days are inappropriate for Latter-day Saints — and yet there’s the commandment not to watch R-rated movies. If I had an opportunity to watch it, I suppose I would, but if not then that’s okay, too.)

Coming back to your comments, yes, it’s possible for good films to portray bad things. If we took all the evil out of fiction and films and such, we’d be left with sappy, one-dimensional cardboard that has no power to move us. Bad ought to be bad. But it should be presented in ways that inspires us to good, not in ways that leave us feeling stained.

Shaun: I agree that knowledge is empowering, and that covering up the truth is likely to cause problems. My main concern isn’t that we ought to keep sex under wraps; it’s that we’re discussing it in the wrong places. The place to learn about the birds and the bees is at home, not in the schools, not from your friends, not in the media. (Yes, I do realize that in many homes that won’t happen, or it’ll happen in the wrong way. I don’t know how to solve that.)

On second thought, there are places to discuss sex outside the home, but (as you said) the key is to make sure they’re mature discussions and not discussions for the sake of pleasure or stimulation. In the media, it’s almost always the latter. In schools, well, it’s just not an appropriate setting. I wouldn’t want some teacher whose morals and standards might be drastically different from my own teaching my kids about something in the wrong way. (In some schools they’re teaching kids to masturbate! Good grief.)

Summing my thoughts up, I originally thought that any discussion of sex outside the home was probably inappropriate, but then I realized that this thread (as well as “Lip-locked lust”) are exactly that. Ah, the irony! :) Going back to the portrayal vs. glorification theme, I’m fine with discussing sex as long as it’s respectful of procreation, keeps itself within the Lord’s boundaries, and isn’t for the purpose of stimulation or arousal.

On the subject of a commandment not to watch R-rated movies, I have to of course bring in Orson Scott Card’s writing on the matter: http://www.nauvoo.com/r-rated-movie.html . He has a point: depending on the way you interpret Pres. Benson’s sentence structure, the actual quote is not really a condemnation of all R-rated films, but of specific content that happens to show up in almost all R-rated films along with other media he mentions.

I find it interesting that you can in the same post have a blanket condemnation of R-rated movies and at the same time state that we can’t trust the MPAA’s ratings. If we can’t trust their judgement at the PG-13 rating, why do we trust it at the R-rating? Seems odd to me.

Anyway, I personally don’t believe the blanket “don’t see R-rated movies” and find a blanket “don’t see PG-13 movies” frankly ridiculous. Instead, I stick to judging all movies based on content–which ends up excluding most of the R-rated films anyway. And I still haven’t seen more than one R film, but that’s mostly out of a desire to not offend others. Which I hope I haven’t done too much in this post.

I agree. Sometimes I think things are misinterpreted even from the prophets. The biggest point is the content of the movie over the rating. It stands to reason that as you get higher up in the age rating, the more objectionable content you’ll find. However, it’s what the movie is saying or promoting that is one of the core issues. I agree on many PG-13 movies being inappropriate, there simply isn’t anything redeeming to them (I can do without dick and fart jokes, thank you).

On the other hand, some of what is depicted in R movies happens in real life, take “Saving Private Ryan”. I haven’t seen the whole movie, but in high school we watched the storming of Normandy clip, one of the reasons it got the rating in the first place. At first I watched it because I was too ashamed to leave the room, but now that I look back on it I’m glad I stayed. It taught me a very harsh and graphic lesson about the nature of war. I don’t think it was dramatized or glorified one iota.

Subsequent movies have given me similar insights into various aspects of life, as well. I tend to not watch R movies myself, but mostly because I object to the content itself. Blood and gore makes me queasy (sp?), sex I feel is glorified, and cursing doesn’t really help bring any message across for me. However, I do recognize that some of those films have many redeeming and even educational values to them.

I firmly believe that everyone needs to be exposed to the drama and horror of war through a clip or film like the one I watched at an appropriate time in their life. I had no understanding until I saw that and only now can I begin to appreciate what it is that those men went through and what our soldiers of today experience. I learned to value life, mine and others, just that much more. It’s not pleasant to see, but it’s the truth. And we should never seek to hide our eyes from the truth.

Liz: I don’t trust the MPAA’s ratings, but if they rate something R, then in 99% of the cases it’s going to be offensive to the Spirit. It’s a pretty darn good rule of thumb. And I do agree with Orson Scott Card on the matter. It seems like there are very, very, very few exceptions to the R-rated counsel, and The Passion of Christ is one of them.

When I said above “the sole reason I wouldn’t is that it’s rated R,” I didn’t mean that I won’t watch it; I meant that its R rating is the only thing that would give me pause. Anyway, I didn’t give a blanket statement saying “don’t see PG-13 movies” — I said “virtually all PG-13s these days are inappropriate for Latter-day Saints,” and I stand by that statement, having judged those PG-13 movies based on content and not on their rating. ScreenIt and Kids in Mind will support me on that. I think there are several PG-13s that are good and wholesome and uplifting (Life Is Beautiful, for instance), but again, 95% of them are offensive to the Spirit. It seems like all too many Latter-day Saints willingly imbibe this darkness, since everyone else is doing it, but I can’t see the Lord approving. (And I’m not saying that members who watch this material aren’t good Latter-day Saints or that they’re evil or any such nonsense. All I’m saying is that in that particular media choice, I’m almost certain the Lord doesn’t approve.)

Perhaps a case study is appropriate. Take Hitch, a movie which seems to be popular with a number of LDS kids my age. Under the profanity section: 1 “f” word, 2 “s” words, 5 slang terms for sex, one slang term for breasts, six “a**” words, twenty cases of taking the name of God in vain, and a few “lesser” cuss words. Based on the list alone, I don’t think the profanity is justified. As for sex/nudity: the movie clearly condones extramarital sex, and there’s a substantial amount of innuendo to boot.

How can any Latter-day Saint find that appropriate?

It boggles my mind. Either they know it’s wrong but don’t want to admit it, or they’ve become so desensitized from a steady diet of this garbage that they can’t see it for what it is. And it’s not just Hitch — it’s the vast majority of movies that come out nowadays.

Shaun: I think something like that scene from Saving Private Ryan could indeed be one of those very few exceptions to the “rule.” Perhaps it’s only warranted when the message is clearly what’s important, as it is with The Passion and with war movies, where the intensity is the point — that the crucifixion of Christ really was something horribly painful and terrible, and that war isn’t a game but that lives are shattered and it’s bloody and dreadful and not something we should be treating lightly. And yes, it ought to be determined on a case-by-case basis. As for me, I’m not going to watch R-rated movies unless I have a darn good reason to do so.

Just a quick note. Frankly, I’m glad others have taken Ben to task for such easily misconstrued comments. :) As usual, he is prepared to back things he says up, and is thoughtful about what he says, which is a very good thing to be.

For those who aren’t afraid that their Bishop will discern that they have read it, here’s a link to a different treatment of the same topic from Sunstone Magazine. It’s a PDF file.

Now, one thing I like about you, Ben, is that you are a Mormon with extremely high standards but who isn’t self-righteous or pretentious about it. As someone who would rather overthink than underthink every time, I enjoy Church meetings where the traditional view (distinguished from the canonical view) of some issue comes up, and a member decides to challenge it or to invite discussion in a non-contentious way. Now, when not being openly rebuked, I feel that those with different ideas are very often being merely tolerated, rather than accepted. So, to borrow from Edward R. Murrow, let us not confuse dissent with disloyalty.

I need to call your statistics into question here. I realize you’re not trying to claim they’re actual, but by quoting numbers and percents even as opinions–especially such high ones–unless you’re clearly using hyperbole or making a point, it gives false authority to your claim. The 99% comment is more in the vein of the speaking figuratively. But saying 95% of PG-13 movies are offensive to the spirit is a frankly ridiculous thing to say, not because of factual inaccuracy (you’re right in your sentiment here), but for the apparent literalness with which you said it. But maybe that’s just me.

So here’s another thought: I have never, prior to reading your above comment, heard anyone refer to the R-rated movie “policy” of the Church as a commandment. Plain and simple. Never heard it called that. So it certainly surprised me quite a bit to read you writing that. It seems to me that the Church (let alone God) would never officially endorse such a secretive body whose members are unknown and whose methods and policies are about as reliable as sending a wino on an errand to the grocery store for you. We know only that these people have born offspring, as that is the sole requirement for membership on the committee, but beyond that their identities are guarded like they’re CIA operatives.

And last I heard, there’s no such thing as a commandment that hasn’t been voted on by the general body of the Church membership in a General Conference. The tenets of the Word of Wisdom? Yep, those are commandments (although hardly eternally true principles), because the Church voted on them and decided they were. So for the duration of the Church’s existence within the bounds of time, at least until the Second Coming, that will be a law, unless revoked at some later date (not that I think that is likely to happen). Beyond that, I think we need to be very careful with the word “commandment.” I think it’s a bit strong, and even things like “No dating before age 16″ should probably be referred to as “rules” or “prophetic counsel” or “generally agreed-upon standards” or something like that.

Now, I know there are lots of Mormons who live in the United States, but as we all know (or, to be strictly literal, believe because we are told so), it’s not the majority anymore. Why would the Church endorse the U.S.’s CARA (run by the MPAA), any more than the rating board for one of Canada’s provinces (where each province deals with ratings separately), or the ratings boards of the Phillipines, or Brazil, or South Korea? Shouldn’t the Church put a portal to the CARA website (www.filmratings.com), so that members worldwide can know whether The Church, The Prophet, and God have approved a movie? Sounds easy enough, right?

Wait a second! The CARA only rates movies which screen in the United States. Oh, snap. Now what? Is the correct answer to forbid all movies that have not been screened in the U.S.? I hope the answer is obviously not. You can educate yourself about the ratings system of that country, but what if it’s from a country that has no ratings system? It always seems to fall back to personal accountability and conscience, which is as it should.

Ben, I know you’re more intelligent and thoughtful than 95% of Church members :P, so don’t take this as an attack on your standards. It absolutely is not. But if someone is going to be very literal in their interpretation of counsel and commandment, then they might as well avoid beverages consisting of ground orange rinds and rose hips soaked in hot water, because the package calls them “tea.” After all, 95% of teas actually break the Word of Wisdom, right? ;)

Disclaimer: this little window is so small that it’s hard to proofread carefully, and I am neglecting to copy-and-paste into a larger editor. So please forgive any glaring errors in grammar and logic. The devil made me do it.

Oh man, that was so not a “quick note.” What a nut I am.

I too am glad to be taken to task for easily misconstrued comments, in all honesty. Not that it’s fun or anything ;), but I’m seeking truth, and if what I say is clearly wrong or unclear, I like to know about it. :) That’s the only way to improve.

That said, you have a very good point on my statistics. I incorrectly used them, and they gave an unintentional authority to what I said. (Especially the 95% figure, which strikes me as ridiculous as well when I re-read it.) So I hereby take them back and replace them with “most.” :)

Concerning the word “commandment,” I see where you’re coming from. I suppose I usually accept “rules” like the For the Strength of Youth guidelines as commandments from God by virtue of inheritance. So for me, at least, I consider them commandments. As for using the word “commandment” to label them when talking about them with others, however, you’re probably right in that they’re not exactly commandments per se. But at the same time I see those rules just as binding as if they were commandments. My concern is that people will say, “Oh, that’s not a commandment,” and then make excuses and rationalize their behavior. I suppose it all comes down to living by the Spirit, really. If we’re listening to the still, small voice, we’ll know when the choices we make are good and holy and pure and when they’re not in line with what the Lord wants for us.

Speaking of which, I ran into an excellent quote by Susanna Wesley: “Take this rule: whatever weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes off your relish of spiritual things; in short, whatever increases the strength and authority of your body over your mind, that thing is sin to you, however innocent it may be in itself.” While some may take this as license to say, “Sex and violence don’t affect me, so I’m going to watch these R-rated movies that are full of them,” I see it from the opposite end of the valley — better safe than sorry. I’d rather be “deprived” of some things that I thought were offensive to the Spirit but actually weren’t, than mistakenly consume things that I thought weren’t offensive but were. I believe that heaven’s going to be such a grand place that all sacrifices I make to get there will be worth it.

As for the USA-centric nature of the MPAA rating system, I agree. We can’t base our media choices on what a group of people say. Each has to decide for himself or herself what is appropriate and what’s not. Let’s just pray that people are seeking the Spirit so that they’ll know and won’t be deceived. (And by that I mean won’t be deceived into watching movies the Lord deems inappropriate, not those I deem inappropriate.)

However, I think the MPAA ratings can still be useful as an initial filter, even for those out of the States. If a movie is R-rated, then it should almost certainly be avoided. If it’s PG-13, it should probably be avoided. If it’s PG, it’s probably okay. If it’s G, it’s almost certainly okay. I’m not saying that we should go solely by the ratings. Certainly not! But they’re somewhat acceptable as a very rough indication of how appropriate they are.

For example, if I hear that a movie’s really good and that it’s PG-13, warning flags go up in my mind and I decide that I most likely won’t watch it unless ScreenIt shows that it’s not offensive. That doesn’t happen often. :) If it’s PG, then I know that I probably don’t have to worry as much, but I still check ScreenIt because standards are eroding.

Truth be told, though, I’m finding that my taste for movies is quickly disappearing. I’d much rather sit down with a book these days than watch a movie. Over the past few months I’ve tried watching a number of movies but got bored within five minutes and turned them off. And that’s fine by me, because I don’t live to be entertained. And there are quite enough books to last me for the rest of my life. :)

So much for a short reply. ~sigh~

Thanks for being gentle with my hastily written comments. :P You have expressed well your positions on these issues, and none of it seems ill-advised or unjustified. More power to you, stick to what works for you and what feels right.

I really like that Susanna Wesley quote, too. Thanks for sharing it.

Very unfortunate choice of example with Hitch, seeing as my stake president showed a long portion of it in his Sunday school lesson last ward conference. Granted, it was to be an example of what he thought the wrong attitude about dating was, but still, it implies that he did watch and enjoy said movie. And he’s a pretty amazing guy.

As for seeing rules as commandments, I’m personally wary of those who might use this to build a hedge around the law. Doing that weakens our understanding of the law as much as if we didn’t follow it. Overstating rules as commandments, in my opinion, is always a dangerous thing. It can result in disunity among church members because of perceived self-righteousness, whether it is actually there or not. If your sense of the law happens to exclude most R-rated movies, fine, but don’t mistake the R-rating for your standard.

I guess I just worry a lot about this issue since I am an English major, obligated as it were by my major to read and see a lot of things others would find objectionable.

I agree. You’ve got to be really careful when choosing to not hear/read/see what someone/something has to say. I think it is more important to judge what is being said than how it is said (i.e. with profanity).

I would say we are all in agreement that it would be better if crude/offensive language were not used. However, while we may choose carefully our own words, we do not have the luxury of choosing what words others use. Even though the message contains some profanities or crudities, it may yet be a very valid idea that needs to be considered. I think choosing to ignore something solely based on what one considers offensive is completely missing the point.

Liz: The appropriateness or inappropriateness of Hitch has little to do with your stake president, I’m afraid, even if he is a “pretty amazing guy.” That’s making our standard dependent on other mortals, which is often a dangerous route spotted with weaknesses and imperfections. I still stand by my position that Hitch is an inappropriate movie laden with sexual references and really shouldn’t be watched by Latter-day Saints. (And I’m not singling it out here; most modern PG-13s fall into the same category.) Now, I don’t want this to sound like an attack on your stake president, because I’m sure he’s a great person — after all, the Lord did call him to that position. Perhaps it’s okay for married people to absorb innuendo, to watch sexual material that would be unsuited for young whippersnappers. :P After all, President Benson’s counsel was to the Aaronic Priesthood, not to the adults. But I don’t see the rules changing. So, to be perfectly honest, I don’t think watching Hitch is helping him in his calling, but I don’t have enough information to judge, and even if I did, I haven’t the authority. Thank heavens for that! :) All I know is that from the ScreenIt description, Hitch and many other movies of its kind are tainted with worldliness, not purity and holiness. Can you imagine the Savior watching Hitch?

Ah, yes, the English major. :) I think one of the subconscious reasons I decided to go for ELang instead (though I didn’t realize it at the time) was that I would be kicking and screaming at being obligated to read objectionable material to get my degree. But to each his (er, her) own. :)

Shaun: I do think we have some influence on what words we take in. Not always, but much of the time. In real life, for example, if we work with people who cuss with the best of them, we can ask them not to use that kind of language around us. Many will respect that. For “non real life,” meaning books and movies and such, we choose what we put into our minds, and I don’t think we have any obligation whatsoever to read or watch or listen to something we find offensive, even if what they have to say is important. Their message does not override my sovereignty of my soul. Is this completely missing the point? I don’t think so. Real life example: yesterday I read the first 100 pages of Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere. To make sure I wasn’t being too self-righteous, I plunged through the profanity (there wasn’t a lot of it — one or two every four or five pages — but he used the full gamut of expression), the occasional sexual references, and the violence, determined to get to page 100 without stopping. Two thoughts: first, the Spirit was definitely not there, and its lack was noticeable. Darkness instead of light. (Granted, the whole story’s premise revolves around an underworld where it’s supposed to be dark and frightening, but even so, the Spirit was gone.) Second, this morning I kept finding those choice swear words coming into my mind, much to my chagrin. Another example: a blog post I read several months ago which had a vivid expletive phrase has stuck in my mind and pops up for fresh air every few days. Now, I’m not saying that we can keep profanity out of our lives 100%. That’s impossible. But when we have a choice, I say we ought to use it, and exercise our agency and “touch not the unclean thing.” Why make things harder than they need to be? If the message is that important, then it can be said without profanity or vulgarity.

I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder-day Saints and I watched “Hitch” and enjoyed it. Having said that, I agree with Ben about it being inappropriate. Some of the jokes made me uncomfortable as I watched it. A few years ago I started watching more PG-13 movies and I think I have become desensitized to it. I haven’t seen as many in theaters, because I do like the option to skip scenes, but many of them are still full of inappropriate jokes and morals, even if you cut out the gratuitous sex scene. Honestly, what value comes from most of those movies? I took my little brother to see “Superman Returns” for his birthday. I would say that it’s pretty clean for a PG-13 movie. There was one joke in there that I probably wouldn’t have thought much of had my little brother not asked me what everyone was laughing about. The moral standards in the movie are also out of line with what I believe in.

I have seen really good PG-13 rated movies. I don’t regret watching “Saving Private Ryan” and “Schindler’s List” but I think the more often we say “This R-rated movie is OK” the easier it is to say it again and again, when maybe it isn’t. It happened to me with PG-13 rated movies. There are still plenty of PG-13 rated movies I wouldn’t watch, but I’ve gone farther and farther down the road. So, here’s my commitment to tighten my standards in what I watch. Thank you for the wake-up call.

The ironic thing about this whole, um, thing, is that I actually haven’t seen Hitch, so I couldn’t really tell you my opinion on its appropriateness. The point of bringing it up was just to point out that there’s a lot of variation of standards, even amongst church leaders. Which is why I try to float somewhere in the middle of it all.

Laura: Thanks for your comment. :) I agree, it’s easy to turn into the frog in the kettle if we’re not careful.

Liz: Variation of standards is one really good reason (among many) for having people rely on the Spirit for guidance. :) (It sounds almost like a cop-out, but personal revelation really is the key to staying on God’s path. What’s right for you may be wrong for me, and vice versa.)

Just an update on this topic: I watched Hitch this weekend, and I have to say I see nothing inappropriate about it. The few sexual references in the movie exist to condemn getting into relationships for merely lustful reasons. The whole point of the movie is to discuss how those kinds of things fit into dating life, so I think the references were, for the most part, necessary and appropriate to the message, which was a good one.

None of the references were gratuitous or vulgar, in my opinion. I hear worse at my family’s Thanksgiving dinner table, and we’re all members. :D There’s a certain necessity to discussing some sexual issues when it comes to discussing relationships, and, for a mainstream movie, this hits very close to the gospel philosophy of relationships. Discussion, however, does not equal approval.

Just thought I should follow through on that.

Interesting. I could have been wrong. :) But even if Hitch is an exception, I think my point stands, that most of these modern movies portray sex inappropriately.

True, but it also brings in the point that you cannot judge whether a movie appropriately portrays these issues by using an out-of-context list like those provided on movie ratings sites.

Rats, I was hoping you wouldn’t call me out on that. ;)

thewife: My two pennies’ worth in regard to socially profiling countries. Egypt had one of the lowest crime rates (even though the media reports otherwise; I know, I live there) when its people were in general a lot more modest than they are now. Since becoming mroe liberated (rather, since embracing unnecessary nudity: topless sunbathers in Hurghada and Sharm, unnecessary, but girls in midriff-baring tops running errands? Why?), crime has soared freakishly fast.

I realize that this post has enough comments to justify a whole new webiste just to contain them, but that will not stop me from adding my voice to the fray.

I read Wendy’s book after seeing it in the BYU bookstore several years ago. It changed my life forever because it helped me see myself and my feminity so differently.

Ditto, ditto, ditto! Your comments and praise of the book as a work and of Wendy as a person echo my opinions exactly! Thanks for spreading the word.

LOL, there are indeed a plethora of comments on here. But that’s good, and more are always welcome. :) I’m glad you liked Wendy’s book. A few weeks ago I saw some copies in the bargain corner of the BYU bookstore, and now I wish I’d bought them so I could give them out… At any rate, it’s an excellent book which everyone should read. Thanks for your comment. :)