Leaderboard

My daughter came home from her singles ward combine Sunday School meeting this last Sunday and was very discouraged with the topic of the lesson. The bishops wife gave the lesson, she along with many of the men in the class emphasized how it is the responsibility of the women to dress modestly to prevent men from having inappropriate thoughts and actions. This is not the first time I have heard this concept taught. This is neither doctrine or appropriate. In fact it communicates a very unhealthy message and ignores our personal agency and responsibility over our own thoughts and actions. Have you heard this message taught and how how you responded? I really enjoyed this article it communicated, in my opinion, the correct concept. "If you want your daughter (and hopefully son) to dress modestly because you want them to value their intrinsic self over their outer self? Fabulous. If you want your daughter (and hopefully son) to dress modestly to create healthy attitudes toward sexuality? Great. If you want your daughter (and hopefully son) to dress modestly to glorify the Creator of all things? Boo-ya. If you want your daughter (and hopefully son) to dress modestly because it is a long standing tradition of your church/synagogue/people/culture/or group? Awesome possum. But don’t you dare say it is to protect my son. Because I am teaching my son that he is responsible for each of his thoughts and actions. I am teaching my son that he needs to treat females and males respectfully, no matter what they wear. I am teaching my son that the media uses sex to sell things and that he’s strong enough to not be manipulated by a woman’s body. I’m teaching my son to use his mind over his groin and I’m teaching him that women are more than just their body parts." http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/modesty-police-hurting-son-jvinc/

Are we detecting bitterness in the tone ?

Where? Show me where Americans bash other countries and the thread doesn't get locked. Sheesh. This forum's turned quite anti-American in the past few days. It's funny how you caution someone to not say anything critical and then proceed to do just that. Awesome.

I'm pretty sure funds get used to pay LDS Family Services for counseling on a regular basis. I've actually talked to bishops about this in the past. I have always had insurance that covered mental health issues with a reasonable copay, so I haven't needed to use it, but it was an option. I personally think there are some problems in marriage and family life that can be fixed with some good old spiritual advice. The bishop is entitled to revelation on your behalf. Sometimes the Sunday School answers are the best way to fix a marriage that's gone slightly off track. With the plumbing analogy, I have unclogged many drains, and I would feel confident helping anyone unclog their drains, too. But if I got in there and found that their drain was so different than mine that I couldn't make heads or tails of it, or so clogged that nothing I did could fix it, I would tell them to get someone who knew more than me. I know bishops aren't perfect, but I think this is what they do. You come to them and tell them your drain is clogged and they try to help you get it unclogged. If they find that it is beyond their ability to repair, they offer to refer you to a plumber.

Here's an idea you could try.... but it would require some effort on your part. Less headaches though. I run anywhere from 4-11 group therapy sessions a week. These are open groups (meaning any therapeutic topic is welcomed) with a wide variety of clients. We get people in these groups (we call them monopolizers in the clinical literautre) who have to dominate (hijack) the entire session. A couple ideas I've used have already been presented, so here's one I've had success with: I take a monopolizer aside before the group starts and I say something like, "I really appreciate all your participation. You seem to have some valuable insight (I just don't mention who the insight is or is not valuable to) and I do want to hear some of your thoughts. So, I was wondering, would you be willing to listen to the responses of others in group today, think about the overall discussion as you listen, and then come talk to me after group for 4 or 5 minutes to give me a brief synopsis of your thoughts and impressions of how you feel the discussion went and the topics we talked about." But then I have to follow at the end of the session or I undermine my credibility. And I be sure to say it in a way that is genuine and authentic. ("When it is given in a spirit of love it is received in a spirit of love.") 1) I've validated the person. 2) they are being asked a favor (in psychology, we call this "the helper's high"). 3) they know they are going to get 1-on-1 time, even if it is just for a few minutes. 4) others have been provided opportunities to participate. 5) I've avoided contention with the monopolizer. 6) I've created new possibilities for the monopolizer to choose from. The clinical literature is very adamant, and I've seen this myself, that after some time (not a week or a month, but not a year either), the monopolizer begins to modify their own behavior. I realize this is church, which is very different from therapy. Obviously, as with anything else, feel free to modify as appropriate. Hopefully this is something that might work for your situation. Good luck. Monopolizers are tasking, that's for sure.

I feel like this concept is degrading to both men and women. Its degrading to women because its like saying that a victim of rape is at fault for the rape because she dressed provocatively. Sure, it probably didn't help things, and it may have made her a target, but she certainly isn't at fault. Likewise, women who don't dress modestly may make themselves the target for inappropriate thoughts, but it certainly doesn't automatically make them responsible or at fault for those thoughts. Its degrading to men because it teaches them that they have no control over or responsibility for their own thoughts. That is as laughable as it is false. The only one who can control your thoughts is you, meaning that the only one responsible for the things you think is you.