Modesty Part 2 - Read "Modesty" first

[JojoBag]

This is part two about modesty.  Read part one first.  So, what are reasons for being modest?

 

Before I get into that, let me first tell you about some of my past, so you can understand my stand regarding modesty. I've mentioned in other posts that I was sexually assaulted as a child for several years. What I didn't mention was that before I turned seven years old, a middle aged neighbor got me into pornography. Seeing the porn made me understand what my three abusers were doing to me. I was addicted to the filth just after I turned seven and I spent nearly five decades as a porn addict. A few years ago, through a miraculous blessing and some intense, hard work, I was freed of that addiction.

 

Some of the reasons for being modest have everything to do with pornography.  I have toned this down as much as I can, but it is important you read this information. First off, I'm going to tell you a few statistics regarding porn use. Among fundamentalist Christians (I would classify the LDS in this category), fully half of the men have a problem with pornography. More than 20% of the women also have a problem with pornography. Fundamentalist Christians are 91% more likely to look at porn. One in three referrals to LDS Social Services are for pornography addiction.

 

More statistics:

66% of boys and 16% of girls look at porn every week.

35% of teen boys say they have viewed porn videos “too many times to count.”

68% of young adult men and 18% of young adult women look at porn every week.

2/3 of college age men and ½ of college age women say viewing porn is an acceptable way to express one's sexuality.

55% of married men and 25% of married women say they watch porn at least once a month.

90% of boys and 70% of girls reported accessing sexually explicit media on at least one occasion.

(Covenant Eyes)

 

Now I'll tell you about how women are portrayed in pornographic videos. There are basically three themes to the majority of these videos. First is the woman who finds a man, sometimes a passing stranger, a co-worker, the “good” man next door, irresistible and cannot control herself. In this video the man is taken advantage of with the woman forcing herself onto him. She is more than ready and practically frantic in her desire for sex, and is willing to do any imaginable perversion.

 

Second is the “unwilling” woman, who is taken advantage of by a man; sometimes a stranger, the guy in the bar, her boss, the doctor and basically raped. However, during the process of being raped, she realizes that she actually likes being sexually assaulted and ends up participating whole heartedly.

 

Third, the majority, are those with violence. The woman is always the unwilling victim and is often bound and gagged, beaten, raped, and forced into doing any imaginable perversion. 88% of scenes in porn videos include sexual aggression.

 

The reason this is important to understand is that this is how men involved in pornography are conditioned to think. Studies show that men who regularly look at pornography in as little as two weeks exposure begin to look at women as objects. They begin to minimize and even trivialize rape. With continued exposure, they don't even consider it a crime. In their eyes, it isn't rape; the women actually want to be sexually assaulted. Additionally, after minimal regular exposure, these men consider adultery to be normal and desirable.

 

The longer and deeper a man delves into porn, the more his thinking processes degrades. When a man becomes addicted, his thinking process becomes perverted.  To call the mind of a porn addict a cesspool would be insulting cesspools. Not only is rape trivialized, the addict fantasizes about committing rape. Women who fit what I term as “the porn profile” are the objects of his fantasies. He thinks about kidnapping women and using them, thinking that they will actually enjoy his attentions. The addict thinks that any woman who fits the profile just might want to have sex with him. The longer he is into porn, the more twisted his thinking becomes.  This is only a very toned down version of how the addict thinks.

 

Now comes the relationship between porn and modesty. The women who fit the porn profile are those whose dress reveals their figure. Even if they are fully covered, if their clothes hug their body revealing the outline of their figure, this is enough to fit the profile. The only thing that is necessary is for the female to have somewhat attractive enough figure; age doesn't matter until their body begins to age and sag.

 

The problem is that almost no women realize that the clothes they wear put them into the “porn profile” category. The fashion industry designs women's clothing to form to and reveal the figure. They use stretch fabrics and cuts that reveal the body rather than conceal. Fabrics like stretch jersey knit are a favorite for tops. They make the woman look “feminine.” The neck lines are usually low and reveal a lot of skin. All they have to do to give a show is bend over. The skirts, dresses and pants are often cut so that they mold to and hug the midriff, buttocks and legs.

 

Now, let me ask you a question. Do you want some guy fantasizing about raping you or your fourteen year old daughter? Do you want some guy, some old pervert, doing everything he can to get an eyeful? Do you want him hoping that you or your daughter will bend over and show some cleavage? This is what they are thinking! The guy heavy into porn doesn't look at your face. He checks out your chest, your waist, legs and buttocks; once he's done that, he will then look at your face to see if it agrees with his assessment of your body.

 

When I was an addict, the only woman who didn't get my attention was the one who dressed in loose fitting, modest clothing that covered everything and revealed nothing. All the rest of them were fair game! I've talked with other addicts and they say the exact same thing. If you dress according to church standards, the man that is into pornography will ignore you.

 

I am one of the fortunate few who have fully recovered from porn addiction. I'm not “in recovery;” I'm fully recovered. The stuff does not tempt me and I actually become sick at the thought of the filth. This is why I feel so strongly about modesty. If you or someone you know is addicted, get help. It will be the single most difficult thing you've ever had to fight and overcome, but it can be done.

 

Dress modestly!

[zil]

...Now comes the relationship between porn and modesty. The women who fit the porn profile are those whose dress reveals their figure. Even if they are fully covered, if their clothes hug their body revealing the outline of their figure, this is enough to fit the profile. The only thing that is necessary is for the female to have somewhat attractive enough figure; age doesn't matter until their body begins to age and sag.

 

...When I was an addict, the only woman who didn't get my attention was the one who dressed in loose fitting, modest clothing that covered everything and revealed nothing. All the rest of them were fair game! I've talked with other addicts and they say the exact same thing. If you dress according to church standards, the man that is into pornography will ignore you.

First, I'm so sorry for the trials you've had to endure.

 

Second, be prepared: you are going to get comments about not blaming the victim. (I don't particularly want to have that discussion, I'm just saying, it's probably gonna happen.)

 

Next, I think you might find this video (TED talk) by a man (no relation to the church) who stopped watching porn.  It's an excellent video, IMO.

 

Finally, I think unless you go with something like a burka, you're not going to find clothing that "cover everything and reveal nothing".  And even then, depending on a woman's various dimensions, there may be no hiding certain  attributes.  Check out the "Everyday People" category of images on LDS.org.  You say the church standards for what they'll publish are what we should follow.  Well what they publish does not "cover everything" (*) and there's plenty "revealed".

 

Now maybe this is just a woman's perspective, I don't know, and certainly no one in these pictures is wearing anything suggestive, but I can easily tell the women are physically women.

 

(*) I'm a programmer.  Everything is everything.  All things are included in everything.  Nothing is excluded from everything.  So unless you define "covers everything" as "covers everything the garment covers" (or similar), your personal standards are not the same as those used in images on LDS.org...

[BeccaKirstyn]

The solution to the problem of the sexualization of women is not modesty. The solution to the problem of pornography addictions is not modesty. Any man or woman can "undress" and think inappropriately about a woman's body with modest clothing on. You cannot control the mind of a man or woman with the intent to sexualize a woman/man. The solution to these problems is changing how we view each other. That we are sons and daughters of God. That girl, who is in a porn movie, is a daughter of God, and DOES NOT deserve to be viewed as a sexualized object just because she is dressed "provocatively" in your mind. She also does not deserve to be raped just because she was dressed "immodestly/provocatively" (I don't believe you are assuming this but I want to make that very clear for anyone who believes such a foolish notion).

 

I don't ever think this will be a solution feasible in our society. But we cannot just say "hey women, stop dressing so provocatively. It's reminding me of the porn I watch and makes me want to sexualize you". This is completely putting the women at fault when they have done NOTHING. You may say that they have by dressing immodestly. There may be women out there who specifically dress provocatively to get the attention of men. That is THEIR choice. For LDS members, who are taught to treat their body as a temple and respect the gift they have been given from God, the choice of modesty is between the individual, God, and their parents (if under the age of 18). Any repercussions beyond their choice of dress (i.e., someone sexualizing her/him because of their choice of clothing) is the fault of the person choosing to follow the ill thoughts of their mind. We have agency to choose to dress modestly or not. We have agency to choose to not view a man or woman with sexual intent. We have agency to choose to look at pornography or not. I do believe it can become an addiction and I do believe and know the power of addictions. But we are not a slave to our mind.

 

There will always be immodestly dressed individuals on this Earth (intentionally or unintentionally). 

 

As to your studies about men viewing pornography and then gradually assuming rape is okay: this is not in the case for "regular" pornography. This is only the case for violent pornography. The correlations about pornography and less understanding about consent, rape, assault, etc. is found for only violent pornography. This does not mean I think any form of pornography is better than the other. It is all horrific and detrimental to society.

 

I understand your reasoning and I am so very sorry for the things you have experienced in your past. But I cannot agree that modesty is the solution to this overwhelming problem. 

Edited November 14, 2015 by BeccaKirstyn

[Vort]

(1 of 2)

 

When I read responses like the following, I despair. When even well-intentioned and honest people ignore the root of the problem and instead parrot the dishonest, agenda-driven axe-grinding of the feminists and other special-interest groups, I don't know that any hope is left.

 

The solution to the problem of the sexualization of women is not modesty. The solution to the problem of pornography addictions is not modesty.

 

Of course it is not the entire solution. But of course it is an important part of the solution.

 

 

The solution to these problems is changing how we view each other. That we are sons and daughters of God.

 

And one of the very first steps to changing how we view each other is learning to be modest in dress, in action, and in thought.

 

That girl, who is in a porn movie, is a daughter of God

 

Yes, of course she is. So is the girl who molests her little brother. So is the girl who stabs her boyfriend to death because she thought he was looking at another girl. So is the girl who unleashes vile personal attacks on the new girl in class just for the pure joy of watching her suffer. All of these are daughters of God. So what? That fact alone means nothing.

 

and DOES NOT deserve to be viewed as a sexualized object just because she is dressed "provocatively" in your mind.

 

This is absurd. It is exactly like saying, "That professional MMA fighter does not deserve to be punched in the face just because he put on the gloves and entered the octagon."

 

The wonan in porn is prostituting herself. She wants to be viewed as a "sexualized object". By what possible logic do you blame men for viewing her exactly as she wants to be viewed?

 

The blame for the porn actress's whorish actions lie exactly on her. Blaming her customers is beyond ridiculous. You would never, ever accept such an argument if it went the other direction.

 

She also does not deserve to be raped just because she was dressed "immodestly/provocatively" (I don't believe you are assuming this but I want to make that very clear for anyone who believes such a foolish notion).

 

No one in this conversation has said anything about rape. It was never even suggested. Why would you suddenly insert such a bizarre, seemingly off-topic rant? Do you also believe that bacon should be advertised as being "asbestos-free"? Just in case, you know, anyone was wondering.

[Vort]

(2 of 2)

 

I don't ever think this will be a solution feasible in our society. But we cannot just say "hey women, stop dressing so provocatively. It's reminding me of the porn I watch and makes me want to sexualize you".

 

Yet no one has said anything even remotely approaching this. This is an absolute mischaracterization of what has been said, which is, "Women, you should be modest."

 

This is completely putting the women at fault when they have done NOTHING.

 

Hold it. Aren't you the one talking about porn actresses? I would not say that's "nothing".

 

You may say that they have by dressing immodestly. There may be women out there who specifically dress provocatively to get the attention of men. That is THEIR choice.

 

I don't understand. Did anyone suggest it was not their choice? No one except, perhaps, you.

 

And it is an evil choice. That is the point. Shame on them for choosing immodesty.

 

For LDS members, who are taught to treat their body as a temple and respect the gift they have been given from God, the choice of modesty is between the individual, God, and their parents (if under the age of 18).

 

Ah. So, if I choose to run around stark naked, that is simply a choice between God and me, and you have no right to say anything about it, or even to tell your children that Brother Vort really should put on some pants (or at least underwear) before going on a walk.

 

Right?

 

Any repercussions beyond their choice of dress (i.e., someone sexualizing her/him because of their choice of clothing) is the fault of the person choosing to follow the ill thoughts of their mind.

 

This is simply nonsense, Becca. If a woman freely chooses to dress provocatively with the intent of tittilating men, you say that it is not at all her fault that men are tittilated; it's all on the men. Therefore, we need not teach our daughters modesty, because they can run around stark naked and the men simply shouldn't get excited.

 

This is a fantasy land, and a truly ugly one. Real people (at least healthy people) would never act in such a manner.

 

There will always be immodestly dressed individuals on this Earth (intentionally or unintentionally.

 

Just as there will always be murderers. That doesn't mean we should quit teaching against murder.

 

I understand your reasoning and I am so very sorry for the things you have experienced in your past. But I cannot agree that modesty is the solution to this overwhelming problem. 

 

So, BeccaKirstyn: Do we teach our daughters about modesty, or do we not?

 

If so, what are you complaining about?

 

If not, why not?

[Guest]

My interpretation about what Becca said about dressing modestly is she was not talking about p*** actresses in that case, but your everyday woman at church.

[Guest]

My interpretation about what Becca said about dressing modestly is she was not talking about p*** actresses in that case, but your everyday woman at church.

[BeccaKirstyn]

Oh, Vort.....

 

 

 

 

Of course it is not the entire solution. But of course it is an important part of the solution.

 

 

I wasn't saying that modesty has no part in the solution. I am stating that modesty does not equal the end of individuals who choose to view pornography and sexualize a woman or a man. 

 

 

 

Yes, of course she is. So is the girl who molests her little brother. So is the girl who stabs her boyfriend to death because she thought he was looking at another girl. So is the girl who unleashes vile personal attacks on the new girl in class just for the pure joy of watching her suffer. All of these are daughters of God. So what? That fact alone means nothing.

 

This fact alone means EVERYTHING. This is the central part of this solution. If we viewed each other as children of God, rather than an object for lust and masturbation, then we would not have any intentions to sexualize each other. We would understand our purpose, the purpose of our fellow brothers and sisters, and their worth. 

 

 

 

This is absurd. It is exactly like saying, "That professional MMA fighter does not deserve to be punched in the face just because he put on the gloves and entered the octagon."

 

The wonan in porn is prostituting herself. She wants to be viewed as a "sexualized object". By what possible logic do you blame men for viewing her exactly as she wants to be viewed?

 

The blame for the porn actress's whorish actions lie exactly on her. Blaming her customers is beyond ridiculous. You would never, ever accept such an argument if it went the other direction.

 

 

 

So you must see these "porn stars" as women who choose to participate in this activity because they want people to view them in such a horrific way? Because they want their bodies splashed all over the internet? Are you aware that the majority of women in these pornographic movies and films are women who are trafficked into this business by their pimp? That these women are not willingly wanting to display their bodies for men to be gratified by them, but have been forced, beaten, tortured, and traded for money by a disgusting human being who views this woman as less than dirt? 

 

Are there women in this industry who, by their own means and will, volunteer to be apart of it? Yes. Many women do. And I do not view a one of them as someone who WANTS to be viewed as a sexual object. I view them as women who have been abused, degraded, and shamed their whole life into a job that they feel they are only capable of having. That because society views them as what you have stated above, that they feel they can never leave this industry due to the shame that would be placed upon them. I have met these women. I have listened to their stories and wept with them as they described the sexual abuse they experienced in their past by their own family members, the option of prostitution or living on the streets and hoping not to die. I do not blame them for their actions. I empathize with them. I hope to get rid of this horrible industry so that women do not have to resort to such measures just to stay alive. 

 

Most importantly, I hope this industry is destroyed for the sake of the young women who are trafficked into it. I blame the individuals (NOT just men) who buy and sell pornography that keeps it alive. 

 

 

No one in this conversation has said anything about rape. It was never even suggested. Why would you suddenly insert such a bizarre, seemingly off-topic rant? Do you also believe that bacon should be advertised as being "asbestos-free"? Just in case, you know, anyone was wondering.

 

It is actually not off-topic whatsoever. Pornography is rape for the women who have no desire to be apart of it but have no other option available to them. It is also an absurd correlation that filters in our culture when discussing the issues of modesty. So you may view it as off-topic, but I view as very central to the argument being stated. So we can differ on that.

 

 

Yet no one has said anything even remotely approaching this. This is an absolute mischaracterization of what has been said, which is, "Women, you should be modest."

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure if we read the same posts or if we are viewing it differently, but this post was speaking about modesty's relationship to pornography. Which has everything to do with the sexualization of women in society, because those in pornographic films are almost always women. 

 

And I would completely disagree with what you would assume should be the central theme of this post. This should be about Modesty, and it's relationship to us and our own salvation, not dependent upon what gender you are. Modesty is a principle for every person. Not just women. 

 

 

 

Hold it. Aren't you the one talking about porn actresses? I would not say that's "nothing".

 

I would refer you back to my statement about women's role in pornography. 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand. Did anyone suggest it was not their choice? No one except, perhaps, you.

 

And it is an evil choice. That is the point. Shame on them for choosing immodesty.

 

 

 

What you have just stated is what I believe is wrong with our culture, and I am sorry if that is offensive to you but I cannot stand what you have just stated. "Shame on them". We are always talking on this forum about being more Christ-like, and I can in no way see Christ saying this to any one of these women. He didn't say anything of the sort to the adulterer brought to him in the act of the sin, so why should we be allowed to say "shame on you for choosing to dress immodestly"? We should be teaching love and the teachings of Christ. So should we be teaching them about modesty? Sure, but I would not start with modesty. I would start with the teaching of their worth, most importantly their divine worth. That they are loved by a Father in Heaven. That they have a Savior who died for them and suffered anguish and pain so that they would not have to bear their burdens alone. Then after they have that foundation, the can understand the concept of modesty. No one in our society understands the concept of modesty because they have not been taught the former principles stated. And if they still choose to dress immodestly after such concepts have been taught, then that is between them and God. Not for us to say "shame on them". 

 

 

 

Ah. So, if I choose to run around stark naked, that is simply a choice between God and me, and you have no right to say anything about it, or even to tell your children that Brother Vort really should put on some pants (or at least underwear) before going on a walk.

 

You can teach your children anything you want. That is between you, your children, and God. As soon as you say "shame on you" to the person who is dressing immodestly, then I believe that is a very different scenario. 

 

 

 

This is simply nonsense, Becca. If a woman freely chooses to dress provocatively with the intent of tittilating men, you say that it is not at all her fault that men are tittilated; it's all on the men. Therefore, we need not teach our daughters modesty, because they can run around stark naked and the men simply shouldn't get excited.

 

This is a fantasy land, and a truly ugly one. Real people (at least healthy people) would never act in such a manner.

 

 

Just as there will always be murderers. That doesn't mean we should quit teaching against murder.

 

I'm not sure where in my post that I stated that the concept of modesty should not be taught. As LDS members we should understand the reason for modesty an the purpose of it. For those who have no concept of WHY dressing modestly is important, I do not hold them to such a standard. Society tells them that showing more leg and more of their boobs will get a man's attention. A man reinforces this by showing her attention (for the sole purpose of wanting sex). If a woman chooses to dress provocatively, then she chooses to dress provocatively. Any man who chooses to view her as less than a human being is the one at fault. 

 

 

So, BeccaKirstyn: Do we teach our daughters about modesty, or do we not?

 

If so, what are you complaining about?

 

If not, why not?

 

I believe I already answered this. 

[BeccaKirstyn]

And I do want this to be very clear:

 

We are discussing LDS women and their choice of modesty, NOT women who have no knowledge of the principle of modesty. These are two very distinct groups of women with different knowledge and understanding. How I have replied to your posts Vort is in discussion about women in the pornography industry in which I would estimate that close to 90% of them have no knowledge about the principle of modesty from Heavenly Father. (I'm making my own rough estimate from my knowledge of the women in this industry and my research on this topic). 

Edited November 14, 2015 by BeccaKirstyn

[Guest]

And we live in a society where the populous is more fired up about the current design of Starbuck's cups than human trafficking that happens right under our noses. Suzanne Collins sure wasn't far off when the created The Capitol. 

[zil]

Just a few technical points in relation to these comments:

 

1...By what possible logic do you blame men for viewing her exactly as she wants to be viewed?

 

2...No one in this conversation has said anything about rape.

 

3...This is an absolute mischaracterization of what has been said, which is, "Women, you should be modest."

 

1. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.26?lang=eng#25

 

2. The OP included rape in the conversation.

 

3. At least one of us has said "Men and women, you should be modest."

 

(Another point about the victims of human trafficking has already been made.)

 

I suspect we all mostly agree and we're using different words and perspectives to say similar things, but our perspectives are so different that we're seeing past each other.

[BeccaKirstyn]

 

 

I suspect we all mostly agree and we're using different words and perspectives to say similar things, but our perspectives are so different that we're seeing past each other.

I think you are very correct. 

[kapikui]

Vort, while I agree with most of what you say on this topic, one thing to consider is that while a small percentage of porn actresses do it because they like it, a great many are coerced.  Linda Lovelace was a famous pornstar who, before her death, became an ardent anti-porn activist got started because the man holding the gun to her head told her to. She started taking drugs to deal with the horror of her life and eventually went along willingly to feed the addiction.  She eventually escaped and fixed up her life, but from what I understand, it was rather horrific. 

[JojoBag]

The solution to the problem of the sexualization of women is not modesty. The solution to the problem of pornography addictions is not modesty. Any man or woman can "undress" and think inappropriately about a woman's body with modest clothing on. You cannot control the mind of a man or woman with the intent to sexualize a woman/man. The solution to these problems is changing how we view each other. That we are sons and daughters of God. That girl, who is in a porn movie, is a daughter of God, and DOES NOT deserve to be viewed as a sexualized object just because she is dressed "provocatively" in your mind. She also does not deserve to be raped just because she was dressed "immodestly/provocatively" (I don't believe you are assuming this but I want to make that very clear for anyone who believes such a foolish notion).

 

I don't ever think this will be a solution feasible in our society. But we cannot just say "hey women, stop dressing so provocatively. It's reminding me of the porn I watch and makes me want to sexualize you". This is completely putting the women at fault when they have done NOTHING. You may say that they have by dressing immodestly. There may be women out there who specifically dress provocatively to get the attention of men. That is THEIR choice. For LDS members, who are taught to treat their body as a temple and respect the gift they have been given from God, the choice of modesty is between the individual, God, and their parents (if under the age of 18). Any repercussions beyond their choice of dress (i.e., someone sexualizing her/him because of their choice of clothing) is the fault of the person choosing to follow the ill thoughts of their mind. We have agency to choose to dress modestly or not. We have agency to choose to not view a man or woman with sexual intent. We have agency to choose to look at pornography or not. I do believe it can become an addiction and I do believe and know the power of addictions. But we are not a slave to our mind.

 

There will always be immodestly dressed individuals on this Earth (intentionally or unintentionally). 

 

As to your studies about men viewing pornography and then gradually assuming rape is okay: this is not in the case for "regular" pornography. This is only the case for violent pornography. The correlations about pornography and less understanding about consent, rape, assault, etc. is found for only violent pornography. This does not mean I think any form of pornography is better than the other. It is all horrific and detrimental to society.

 

I understand your reasoning and I am so very sorry for the things you have experienced in your past. But I cannot agree that modesty is the solution to this overwhelming problem. 

 

This post was not for the women and men of the world, but of the church.  Modesty is the foundation stone of chastity and immodesty is the foundation stone for breaking the law of chastity.  I agree that the solution is not necessarily modesty, but a change of attitude.  This change needs to start in the church and it needs to change through knowledge - understanding what the world, i.e. Satan, is trying to do to each of us.  If we know and understand the eternal perspective, we will implement it in our lives.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of LDS do nothing to gain knowledge.

 

As for pornography, I didn't list all the stats, only a small part of them.  What is readily available and free online is the "soft core" porn.  This is what the majority of kids and men see, not the violent stuff.  That is something I avoided and I still had those thoughts.  It is the same for the addicts I've talked to.  The start is the soft porn and that is horrible enough as it is.  A large number of the women who perform in these videos do it only one time.  The rest who continue in this profession drug themselves to dull the psychic pain.  They are not the victims of pimps, but do it willingly - although drugged to the point that they don't care what happens to themselves. 

 

However, you aren't getting what I'm trying to point out and I didn't make it clear enough.  One is that you can prevent knowing or unknowing victimization of yourself and children.   The minute some guy starts fantasizing about you, you are a victim. Two, immodesty, the acceptance of and desensitization toward it is where the problems with pornography start.  Porn addiction starts in the home by parents allowing their kids to watch media that has immodest characters in it.  Nothing is done to teach their children that immodesty is wrong and to turn it off.  The child grows up thinking that it is normal and once they are conditioned by their parents to accept breaking one commandment, they may think it's ok to break other commandments.

[Vort]

1 of 2.

 

I wasn't saying that modesty has no part in the solution.

 

Here is what you wrote:

 

 

The solution to the problem of the sexualization of women is not modesty. The solution to the problem of pornography addictions is not modesty....I cannot agree that modesty is the solution to this overwhelming problem. 

 

If you actually believe that modesty is an important part of the solution, that did not come through in what you wrote.

 

I am stating that modesty does not equal the end of individuals who choose to view pornography and sexualize a woman or a man.

 

This is not about converting the general porn-using population. This is about protecting our sons and our daughters. No one ever suggested that modesty among our ranks would destroy the pornography industry.

 

This fact alone means EVERYTHING. This is the central part of this solution. If we viewed each other as children of God, rather than an object for lust and masturbation, then we would not have any intentions to sexualize each other. We would understand our purpose, the purpose of our fellow brothers and sisters, and their worth.

 

A man can sexualize his wife, yet still manage to see her as a daughter of God. Lots of people who lust after power see other people as more than mere sex objects, yet they don't care about their eternal worth. So this idea apears to fail in both directions.

 

So you must see these "porn stars" as women who choose to participate in this activity because they want people to view them in such a horrific way? Because they want their bodies splashed all over the internet?

 

Bingo.

[Vort]

2 of 2.

 

Are you aware that the majority of women in these pornographic movies and films are women who are trafficked into this business by their pimp? That these women are not willingly wanting to display their bodies for men to be gratified by them, but have been forced, beaten, tortured, and traded for money by a disgusting human being who views this woman as less than dirt?

 

Not only am I unaware of this, I disbelieve it. Please provide evidence for this claim.

 

Are there women in this industry who, by their own means and will, volunteer to be apart of it? Yes. Many women do. And I do not view a one of them as someone who WANTS to be viewed as a sexual object. I view them as women who have been abused, degraded, and shamed their whole life into a job that they feel they are only capable of having. That because society views them as what you have stated above, that they feel they can never leave this industry due to the shame that would be placed upon them.

 

So, let me get this straight:

• If a man chooses to view pornography, that is his own fault for giving in to such base desires.
• But if a woman chooses to create pornography, that is the fault of some man (or men in general) because they haven't made her feel special enough.

In both cases, it is the fault of men, and never of women.

 

Do I understand you correctly?

And you blame my attitudes for creating this horrific mess...

 

It is actually not off-topic whatsoever. Pornography is rape for the women who have no desire to be apart of it but have no other option available to them. It is also an absurd correlation that filters in our culture when discussing the issues of modesty. So you may view it as off-topic, but I view as very central to the argument being stated. So we can differ on that.

 

In other words, it is not off-topic because you say so. You will forgive me if I find that less than convincing.

 

And I would completely disagree with what you would assume should be the central theme of this post. This should be about Modesty, and it's relationship to us and our own salvation, not dependent upon what gender you are. Modesty is a principle for every person. Not just women.

 

So now it's you, and not the OP, who defines the theme of the thread?

 

What you have just stated is what I believe is wrong with our culture, and I am sorry if that is offensive to you but I cannot stand what you have just stated.

 

Then maybe you should learn a bit of tolerance and open-mindedness.

 

When people do shameful things, then they should be ashamed. Duh. This is not hard.

 

Tell me this, Becky: What SHOULD people be ashamed of? If a woman should be unashamed for prostituting herself in pornographic images, is there ANYTHING that she should be ashamed of?

 

We are always talking on this forum about being more Christ-like, and I can in no way see Christ saying this to any one of these women.

 

Surely you understand that the fact that you are incapable of seeing something doesn't make that thing false. Your failure of imagination doesn't define reality.

 

If a woman chooses to dress provocatively, then she chooses to dress provocatively. Any man who chooses to view her as less than a human being is the one at fault. 

 

But if a man chooses to view a woman sexually, then he chooses to view her sexually. Any woman who chooses to view a man in a negative light for this fact is the one at fault.

 

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

[BeccaKirstyn]

As much as I would love to continue with this back and forth banter of disagreement, I have a million and one things going on with graduation and applying to graduate schools that are a little bit more important at the moment. Maybe when I have some down time I'll reply back.

 

 

Not only am I unaware of this, I disbelieve it. Please provide evidence for this claim.

 

 

I will, however, provide you with some light reading on the subject matter that you disbelieve. Hopefully you can view this, since I've obtained this article through a student library database system. If not, the article is titled "Pornography as Trafficking", by Catherine A. Mackinnon.

 

http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/mjil26&div=44&g_sent=1&collection=journals

[Vort]

As much as I would love to continue with this back and forth banter of disagreement, I have a million and one things going on with graduation and applying to graduate schools that are a little bit more important at the moment. Maybe when I have some down time I'll reply back.

 

I will, however, provide you with some light reading on the subject matter that you disbelieve. Hopefully you can view this, since I've obtained this article through a student library database system. If not, the article is titled "Pornography as Trafficking", by Catherine A. Mackinnon.

 

http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/mjil26&div=44&g_sent=1&collection=journals

 

I have no intention of paying $30 to read an article. If there are studies that reliably establish your extraordinary claims, just reference them. Until then, there is no way I'm going to believe that the majority of American pornography uses unwilling, enslaved women. That is simply too outrageous to believe, unless you can provide some reliable sources.

[BeccaKirstyn]

I have no intention of paying $30 to read an article. If there are studies that reliably establish your extraordinary claims, just reference them. Until then, there is no way I'm going to believe that the majority of American pornography uses unwilling, enslaved women. That is simply too outrageous to believe, unless you can provide some reliable sources.

Like I said.....if you can't view this it's because I'm using a student library database system in which I have access to articles for free. The title of the article is stated above if you'd like to search for a free copy of it. If you'd like to view the studies that reference my "claims", then these studies will be found in similar journal articles which unfortunately are not available for free for the community (but free for students who pay for it through their tuition). 

 

So you can either believe that I, as a student of a reputable university, have just lied to you about the research I have read on the subject matter, or you can believe that what I state is true (and even more so because I have personally talked to girls who have escaped their pimps who were forced into performing for pornographic films and are in counseling programs that I have volunteered with). It's up to you. You can believe what you would like. 

[Vort]

Like I said.....if you can't view this it's because I'm using a student library database system in which I have access to articles for free. The title of the article is stated above if you'd like to search for a free copy of it. If you'd like to view the studies that reference my "claims", then these studies will be found in similar journal articles which unfortunately are not available for free for the community (but free for students who pay for it through their tuition). 

 

So you can either believe that I, as a student of a reputable university, have just lied to you about the research I have read on the subject matter, or you can believe that what I state is true (and even more so because I have personally talked to girls who have escaped their pimps who were forced into performing for pornographic films and are in counseling programs that I have volunteered with). It's up to you. You can believe what you would like. 

 

No, I will not take your word for it, Becca. You are a highly biased and therefore unreliable source.

 

Just provide evidence to establish your extraordinary and unbelievable claim. Saying "I said so, and I'm an expert" won't get you anywhere in the academic community, and it won't work here, either.

[BeccaKirstyn]

No, I will not take your word for it, Becca. You are a highly biased and therefore unreliable source.

 

Just provide evidence to establish your extraordinary and unbelievable claim. Saying "I said so, and I'm an expert" won't get you anywhere in the academic community, and it won't work here, either.

Goodness, Vort. I'm just going to let you continue on in your stubborn ways with this. I have provided you with reliable sources.  I can continue to cite studies in which you won't be able to read since you couldn't read the first article (they will all cost money for you to view seeing that the first one was $30). So we'll just keep going on in an endless circle of disagreement. 

 

I am not an expert. I am a student learning about this subject matter through research and have personally spoken with and cried with young women who have experienced what we are discussing. So am I biased? Sure. I have too many personal experiences to not be biased. But please do not make assumptions as to my character in the academic community. 

 

Feel free to look up this matter for yourself if you have no sense of reliability from me. Or don't. 

[BeccaKirstyn]

Here. I'm not a fan of just "googling" information and looking at websites. That is unreliable, but this does cite reputable sources. I'm about to be in a research lab for 4 hours so I won't be able to continue our lovely disagreement. But I'll check in later.

 

http://humantraffickingsearch.net/wp/the-connection-between-sex-trafficking-and-pornography/

[Vort]

 

Goodness, Vort. I'm just going to let you continue on in your stubborn ways with this.

 

"Stubborn"? Because I won't accept your word as ultimate truth?

Okay. Whatever.

 

 

I have provided you with reliable sources.

 

Um...no. You have pointed to articles that are not publicly available and that you claim establish your point. I do not trust your claim, because, as we have established, you are biased.

 

So we'll just keep going on in an endless circle of disagreement.

 

Yes. Or...you could cite sources that can actually be checked.

 

I am not an expert.

 

It's actually encouraging to read this from you. Based on what has gone on so far, one might think you consider yourself a primary source. Good to know that you recognize your own limitations, at least in theory.

 

So am I biased? Sure.

 

Again, I'm glad to see you recognize this, at least in principle. You would do well to keep this fact in mind.

 

But please do not make assumptions as to my character in the academic community.

 

To which assumptions are you referring? I don't recall having publicly made any assumptions on your character. I think you are a highly biased and therefore unreliable source. That is not a character judgment.

 

Feel free to look up this matter for yourself if you have no sense of reliability from me. Or don't. 

 

Your assumption is false. I have researched the matter to some degree, and see no evidence that a majority of porn is produced by non-compliant women being forced into it. That is your claim, and therefore it is your responsibility to establish it. It is not my responsibility to disprove you.

[Vort]

Here. I'm not a fan of just "googling" information and looking at websites. That is unreliable, but this does cite reputable sources. I'm about to be in a research lab for 4 hours so I won't be able to continue our lovely disagreement. But I'll check in later.

 

http://humantraffickingsearch.net/wp/the-connection-between-sex-trafficking-and-pornography/

 

I agree that this is an unreliable site. It is a polemic, not an analysis. That doesn't make it false, of course, but it does make it unreliable. Note the title sentence of the last paragraph:

 

Pornography is in and of itself a form of sex trafficking.

 

This is not an observation or even a definition. It is a claim. It is never established; rather, we are supposed simply to accept this writer's viewpoint on pornography.

 

The problem is not necessarily in the claim itself. To be honest, I agree that pornography is exactly a form of sex trafficking.

 

But not all sex trafficking is coerced. And that is the central point.

 

Women can and often are willing participants in the sex trafficking industry. They make a lot of money for (as they see it) very little work. They sell their sexuality for money. This is a horrible thing, and for you to handwave away all their culpability and pretend that they are simply ignorant and exploited is not honest.

 

I have seen the situation before where women insist that men are to blame when they ingest pornography, and that men are also to blame when women create pornography. This argument takes many forms, but it always comes back to the same tired, dishonest central claim: Women are never to blame for acts of prostitution (including pornography). Men are always to blame, because if men didn't want it, there would be no market for it.

 

If you would limit yourself to factual discourse, you would find that many of us are in your corner and willingly support much of what you work for. But when you become an extremist, you immediately lose many who would otherwise stand with you.

[BeccaKirstyn]

I don't know if you've done any kind of research while in school (whenever that might have been) but if you're not aware, scholarly peer-reviewed articles in which the evidence you are asking for resides are not available to the public. There is a wonderful documentary about an individual who tried to make this information publicly accessible if you'd like to watch it--which I highly recommend for anyone, it's a fabulous film (

), but the evidence you are asking for to credibly cite that human trafficking victims are involved in pornography are unfortunately a pay per view service, unless you are a student at a university where they have paid (through my tuition) to view those journals.

 

I really find no point in this banter, because I can clearly see your viewpoint and no amount of information from me will change it (since you view me as very unreliable). 

 

I have my opinion on this topic, and you have yours. The beauty of this is that we can walk away from this conversation with differing viewpoints and not have any animosity for each other, but that is a matter of choice of course. 

 

I still respect your opinion, while I disagree with it, and if you have any further inquiry about the subject of human trafficking victims, feel free to message me.