Am I wrong in my thinking?

[skippy740]

I can't think of ANY context where a HP should be touching a young woman in any way OTHER than a handshake or a light shoulder hug (I can't describe it in words but a truly innocent hug).

Could anyone imagine President Monson swatting a young woman on the behind???

It's NOT appropriate.

I think I've said everything that I could say on this thread, so I'll bow out now.

[Dravin]

I can't think of ANY context where a HP should be touching a young woman in any way OTHER than a handshake or a light shoulder hug (I can't describe it in words but a truly innocent hug).

Really? Not even a father giving a great big old bear hug? A father giving a daughter a kiss on the cheek? A non-relative, or relative, giving her a pat on the head? If you mean that literally, that you can't think of any other context, then you've got your mind in a straight jacket.

Could anyone imagine President Monson swatting a young woman on the behind???

Sure. Oh, I'm sorry, was that supposed to be your climax?

[Vort]

But it SHOULD'VE been handled by the young woman.

Sounded to me like she did handle it. She turned and talked in a friendly manner to the man. That was her response.

I bet she didn't know HOW to handle it because NO ONE should be doing such activity in the Church... or at any other time.

So she was supposed to say loudly, "Knock it off, Dad, or I'll call CPS!"?

[Guest]

Sooooo....

If that HP smacked a Young Man's butt... is that still inappropriate? Or is it just inappropriate because the owner of the butt is female?

Because... the US Women's Volleyball Team (beach and hardcourt) as well as the Women's Gymnastics team gets butt smacks.

Or is it only appropriate if you're an athlete? Or... is it only inappropriate because it is at Church?

If you're Filipino and did not grow up with this American "secret rules of propriety" do you get a pass?

Edited May 21, 2013 by anatess

[skippy740]

Sooooo....

If that HP smacked a Young Man's butt... is that still inappropriate?

Yes. Even if they're playing church basketball.

[selek]

Okay, we're going to disagree. Fine. I'm okay with that.

Likewise. But I'm still apt to try and get you to cry 'uncle'.

But it SHOULD'VE been handled by the young woman.

Agreed. Do you have any factual evidence to suggest that it was NOT?

I bet she didn't know HOW to handle it because NO ONE should be doing such activity in the Church... or at any other time.

Speculation (at best) and raw opinion.

When it says "the laying on of hands"... it doesn't mean this.

Agreed- there is a vast difference between the formal "laying on of hands" when invoking Priesthood authority and all other physical contact.

That does not, however, demonstrate that the accused's conduct was automagically wrong.

If I were the Bishop, I'd be talking with the Young Women's Presidency on how to coach young women on how to look a HP in the eye and say "That's not appropriate. Please don't touch me there."

If and when you are Bishop, that will be your stewardship.

Until then, it is not.

I spoke with my parents about this thread. Would my father dare to touch one of his daughters-in-law on the bottom at anytime? He had the look of shock and shook his head 'no way'.

Apples and oranges, at best.

Your particular mores and taboos- and those of your parents- are not binding upon the rest of us.

Bottom line: It's not appropriate contact, anytime or anywhere.

In YOUR opinion.

The OP doesn't want to confront the person directly. So, talk with the bishop in a semi-anonymous manner. It's not to accuse. It's to notify.

As outlined above, I disagree.

If we need further guidelines, maybe we need to look at the Church Handbook of Instructions?

By all means.

[Guest]

Yes. Even if they're playing church basketball.

So, it's a Church thing then? Because... butt smacking is a very popular thing to do on ESPN.

And what about the YSA that had a YM on his shoulders and a Cub Scout on the YM's shoulders in a totem pole pose (which almost gave me a heart attack thinking for sure the Cub Scout is going to break his skull when he falls)... Legs wrapped around each other's necks...

Is that inappropriate as well?

Edited May 21, 2013 by anatess

[Vort]

I can't think of ANY context where a HP should be touching a young woman in any way OTHER than a handshake or a light shoulder hug (I can't describe it in words but a truly innocent hug).

I am a high priest. I not only hug my daughter with more than a light touch or shoulder hug, I sometimes pick her up and hold her in my arms! And I support her by placing MY ARM underneath HER (brace yourself) BOTTOM!

And she's TWELVE YEARS OLD!

And sometimes, I pat her on the bottom!

And I have been known to do the same to my nieces!

At this rate, my GRANDDAUGHTERS -- God save them -- might be subject to the same treatment!

Could anyone imagine President Monson swatting a young woman on the behind???

It's NOT appropriate.

Perhaps we could ask Sister Dibb.

skippy, I'm very fond of you and not looking to fight. But this assumption that some great evil has been done here, or that the high priest in question must be a molester, is itself offensive. To drag the bishop into it seems excessive to me.

[skippy740]

Really? Not even a father giving a great big old bear hug? A father giving a daughter a kiss on the cheek? A non-relative, or relative, giving her a pat on the head? If you mean that literally, that you can't think of any other context, then you've got your mind in a straight jacket.

That's family and that's different... as I've stated before.

Maybe once you have daughters, you may feel differently.

Maybe once you have an inactive mother-in-law who was sexually abused by the "perfect" HP father... you may feel differently.

Maybe once you realize that there are accusations flying around and that the LDS church and its members aren't immune... you may feel differently.

My position is to protect the minor. The OP needs to talk to someone and didn't want to talk to the person. So that leaves the Bishop... to EXPLAIN what he saw.

The Bishop has stewardship over the activities that happen at the Church building. Please sustain your Bishop.

I don't understand why this is so hard.

[Vort]

In the workplace, all you have to do is witness something that makes you uncomfortable... and it's sexual harassment. It doesn't even have to INVOLVE you.

For the record, this is just plain false. I can witness all sorts of things in the workplace that make me uncomfortable, yet not a single one of them would qualify in any possible sense as sexual harassment.

[skippy740]

For the record, this is just plain false. I can witness all sorts of things in the workplace that make me uncomfortable, yet not a single one of them would qualify in any possible sense as sexual harassment.

Nice try Vort.

Harassment

The victim does not have to be the person harassed, but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.

[Guest]

I am a high priest. I not only hug my daughter with more than a light touch or shoulder hug, I sometimes pick her up and hold her in my arms! And I support her by placing MY ARM underneath HER (brace yourself) BOTTOM!

I guess Brazilian Jiu-jitsu is out of the question too... I put my 11-year-old kid on a headlock at church last Wednesday while riding on his back (he is much taller than me now). CPS Alert.

I'm still not sure if we're just talking about in Church or anywhere...

[Vort]

This is a straw man. Who has suggested that CPS be called, or anything like unto it, every time one disapproves of another's parenting?

It was you who raised the specter of sexual molestation, Finrock.

If I witnessed the situation the OP witnessed, it would strike me as strange enough that I would think twice before simply dismissing it as some innocent gesture. I think I just might have gone up and asked the high priest if he slaps every young woman in the Ward in the rear and see how he responds.

To which (had it been me and my daughter) my response might well have been, "No, I'm pretty selective about which young women I swat on the butt. I usually pick out those I like best." Which would have been true.

[Dravin]

That's family and that's different... as I've stated before.

And yet the OP doesn't know if it is family, of course I also provided an example that wasn't family. I can think of others. The point is, 'There is only two appropriate touches that I have just listed and none others.' is either hyperbole or you've gone off the deep end.

Maybe once you have daughters, you may feel differently.

Maybe once you've had time to sit and think you'll agree with selek in all particulars. Maybe once you've thought about it even longer you'll get dressed in a tutu and parade through a local park. Then again... maybe not.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Dravin

[Vort]

Nice try Vort.

Harassment

The victim does not have to be the person harassed, but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.

So if some fat guy wears a t-shirt that I think is too tight, then by your definition that is sexual harassment?

If some woman wears her hair parted in the middle and that causes me arousal, then by your definition that is sexual harassment?

If someone doesn't brush his teeth and his breath stinks, then by your definition that is sexual harassment?

If the woman in the next cubicle over loudly eats M&Ms, then by your definition that is sexual harassment?

Baloney. Bring up all the .gov quotes you want. Such a broad definition makes words meaningless.

[selek]

Maybe once you have daughters, you may feel differently.

Maybe once you have an inactive mother-in-law who was sexually abused by the "perfect" HP father... you may feel differently.

Maybe once you realize that there are accusations flying around and that the LDS church and its members aren't immune... you may feel differently.

So in otherwords, you are prejudging the accused based on your own tragedies.

Rather than responding to the accused and his actions, you are reacting to the harm done to your own loved ones.

This is understandable, but it is emotion-driven, rather than rational.

My position is to protect the minor.

Again, you are assuming:

1) that something inappropriate took place.

2) that the young woman in question needed protecting.

Neither assertion has been demonstrated to be true.

The OP needs to talk to someone and didn't want to talk to the person. So that leaves the Bishop... to EXPLAIN what he saw.

So... what you're saying is that timidity is an excuse to foist one's responsibilities off on the Bishop?

Please sustain your Bishop.

This is base, foul, and offensive demagoguery.

That we must either line up and bobble-head agreement with you or admit "to not sustaining our Bishop" is a false dichotomy.

It isn't an either/or choice, any more than the notion that we must bow worshipfully before Obama or automagically prove that we are racist.

I don't understand why this is so hard.

It's hard because of the absolutism you are investing in this discussion.

People of good conscience can and do disagree that the High Priest's behavior was automagically wrong.

That in no way makes us any more or any less faithful Latter-day Saints than you.

[Guest]

That's family and that's different... as I've stated before.

Maybe once you have daughters, you may feel differently.

Maybe once you have an inactive mother-in-law who was sexually abused by the "perfect" HP father... you may feel differently.

Maybe once you realize that there are accusations flying around and that the LDS church and its members aren't immune... you may feel differently.

My position is to protect the minor. The OP needs to talk to someone and didn't want to talk to the person. So that leaves the Bishop... to EXPLAIN what he saw.

The Bishop has stewardship over the activities that happen at the Church building. Please sustain your Bishop.

I don't understand why this is so hard.

It's not so hard. It's just that you look at the world through your lens of experience and automatically attach negative connotations based on it.

We look at the world through our lens of experience - including first hand experiences with sexual molestation - and feel differently than you do.

It's a human condition of differing reactions to similar circumstance. Perfectly normal.

Hence, instead of supposing evil intent - TALK to the people involved to determine the presence of evil instead of just assuming one is evil. Ruining an innocent man and woman's reputations out of an assumption simply for the fact that YOU've had experiences with sexual molestation is an injustice to the innocent and a dark cloud in your relationships with other human beings. "Reporting" to the bishop can ruin somebody's reputation even if both man and woman are completely innocent. It's a seed of mistrust you place on the desk of authority. And, regardless of your intentions, the innocent teen-ager will be innocent no more as you have sullied her innocent actions and relationships. If you feel this is an okay price to pay to protect the minors, then that's fine. I don't feel it is okay, but that's me. There are things in American culture like this one that I don't understand.

Edited May 21, 2013 by anatess

[Drpepper]

Because... the US Women's Volleyball Team (beach and hardcourt) as well as the Women's Gymnastics team gets butt smacks.

He he, those butts are just asking to be slapped. :)

Maybe we should be generating more energy at church. We could come out of sacrament meeting giving each other hi fives and pating each other on the back. Then im sure a little butt slapping would be fine.

On a side note- a sister in the ward slapped my wife's butt not that many Sunday's ago and she was not impressed at all. Seems butt slapping amongst the RS is a no go zone.

[Vort]

Nice try Vort.

Harassment

Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.

[skippy740]

Here's what I know.

The incident happened on Sunday. Today is Tuesday.

It bothered the OP enough to think about it for 2 days and to post a thread on the subject.

The OP is bothered.

Either we respect that feeling... or we don't.

Maybe talking to the Bishop is not the right course of action? I'm okay with that.

Maybe the time to deal with it has passed and should be forgotten by now. I'm okay with that too.

My best advice to the OP at this point: Pray about it and let the Lord guide you as to what you should do.

[Finrock]

Hi Dravin. I hope you are doing well!:)

You're presuming:

1) It was unwanted.

2) It was inappropriate.

So, outside of it being a relative, in what other context is the situation in question appropriate?

Regards,

Finrock

[Vort]

So, outside of it being a relative, in what other context is the situation in question appropriate?

There is nothing overtly sexual about a buttock. Our societal norms notwithstanding, it is not beyond reason that many cultures could find putting a hand on a buttock as nothing sexual or perhaps even unusual. In my family that I grew up in, it was neither.

[Leah]

There is nothing overtly sexual about a buttock. Our societal norms notwithstanding, it is not beyond reason that many cultures could find putting a hand on a buttock as nothing sexual or perhaps even unusual. In my family that I grew up in, it was neither.

Would you then have no issue with one of the brethren putting his hand on your wife's butt? If it's okay for your daughter, shouldn't it be okay for your wife?

If any male at church put his hand on my butt, slapped me on the butt...whatever....there would be a swift and clear response.

I am not saying that I know the particular situation described in the OP was inappropriate, if it were father and daughter and the daughter is okay with that....although it doesn't automatically mean it is okay just because it is a family member.

However, I do disagree with those who seem to think there couldn't possibly be anything inappropriate when an adult male touches the butt of woman, just because...what...she is younger?

Some people make the argument that breasts are not "overtly sexual". That they are merely functional in nature...their purpose is to feed babies. Is touching breasts also okay?

[Finrock]

There is nothing overtly sexual about a buttock. Our societal norms notwithstanding, it is not beyond reason that many cultures could find putting a hand on a buttock as nothing sexual or perhaps even unusual. In my family that I grew up in, it was neither.

Okay. So, it is possible that the HP and the young woman shared a common culture where it is normal for older non-relatives to touch the buttocks of teenage females? Is this what you are suggesting?

Regards,

Finrock

[Vort]

Would you then have no issue with one of the brethren putting his hand on your wife's butt? If it's okay for your daughter, shouldn't it be okay for your wife?

Of course not. I'm an American. This was not my point, as I think you understand perfectly well.

However, I do disagree with those who seem to think there couldn't possibly be anything inappropriate when an adult male touches the butt of woman, just because...what...she is younger?

Please point to a post -- any post at all -- that hints at what you suggest above.

Some people make the argument that breasts are not "overtly sexual". That they are merely functional in nature...their purpose is to feed babies. Is touching breasts also okay?

Casually? Not for those who consider them sexual. In fact, in general we don't touch other people without their permission. But that is a far cry from suggesting that every such touch is a potential molestation.