Originally Posted by cougjunkie (Post 69408)

I just wanted to know what you guys thought of this, a very good friend of mine is a jr high counselor in Utah county.

Last week 3 girls at the school took some pictures of themselves in an inappropriate manner (we are talking very very explicit, porno explicit) on their cell phones and sent them to a boy at the school. Well this boy forwarded the pictures to his friends and they ended up getting in to the hands of a teacher and they were all caught.

The girls were all put on probation (which is basically a slap on the wrist) the boy that recieved the pictures and forwarded them was suspended for 4 days. The other boys that recieved them from their friend were also put on probation.

Why is the kid that recieved the pictures suspended when the girls that started the whole thing were not? I know its not right but what 14 year old boy would not forward those pictures to his friends?

I feel like if a boy sent an explicit picture of himself to some girls the consequences woudl have been outrageous probably expulsion and possibly criminal charges.

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 69414)

I agree that there is a double-standard. However, I assume the girls were not at school when they took the pictures and sent them to the boy, so really how can the school discipline them then? But if the boy was looking at the pictures during school and sending them to his friends at school, then school has authority to do something. Since they are all minors, I don't know what kind of criminal charges would be filed, but I am not a lawyer and obviously I don't know the full details.

In any case, stories like these make me sick. It seems like teenage girls are getting even more desperate in their attempts to win the affections of teenage boys and losing their dignity in the process.

Originally Posted by cougjunkie (Post 69408)

I just wanted to know what you guys thought of this, a very good friend of mine is a jr high counselor in Utah county.

Last week 3 girls at the school took some pictures of themselves in an inappropriate manner (we are talking very very explicit, porno explicit) on their cell phones and sent them to a boy at the school. Well this boy forwarded the pictures to his friends and they ended up getting in to the hands of a teacher and they were all caught.

The girls were all put on probation (which is basically a slap on the wrist) the boy that recieved the pictures and forwarded them was suspended for 4 days. The other boys that recieved them from their friend were also put on probation.

Why is the kid that recieved the pictures suspended when the girls that started the whole thing were not? I know its not right but what 14 year old boy would not forward those pictures to his friends?

I feel like if a boy sent an explicit picture of himself to some girls the consequences woudl have been outrageous probably expulsion and possibly criminal charges.

Originally Posted by ute4ever (Post 69428)

There are many laws geared towards punishing the male only, because historically women were seen as virtuous creatures who would not do anything lewd or uncomely. When something happens, it is the guy's fault.

Did you know that years ago, when a church couple separated, the husband's temple recommend was immediately revoked, no matter what the cause of separation was? He should have kept the innocent little wife happy.

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa (Post 69422)

You think that's bad, if you screw up with a sister in the LDS church, because the guy is the priesthood holder he'll get the more severe punishment.

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa (Post 69429)

Happened to me, but after the separation. We'd been separated for 8 months, when I announced to my Bishop that we'd finally made the decision for file divorce, he asked for me temple recommend. It was at a time where I could've used it and never understood the intent behind it, but I gave it to him anyway.

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 69431)

Wah-schmah. I'd take a revoked temple recommend and Bishop's court over an unwanted pregnancy any day.

Priesthood holders are supposed to protect women--that's a part of the job. As women, we are counseled to sustain you and look to you for leadership and guidance. With that authority comes greater responsibility. Certainly, I have my own issues with the traditional Priesthood/RS roles in our church, but when the men have all the power and they screw up, of course they are going to take more heat.

Essentially, because women can get pregnant and men can't, women will always pay the greatest price for sexual indiscretion. Perhaps the church is just making an attempt to even the score.

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 69431)

Wah-schmah. I'd take a revoked temple recommend and Bishop's court over an unwanted pregnancy any day.

Priesthood holders are supposed to protect women--that's a part of the job. As women, we are counseled to sustain you and look to you for leadership and guidance. With that authority comes greater responsibility. Certainly, I have my own issues with the traditional Priesthood/RS roles in our church, but when the men have all the power and they screw up, of course they are going to take more heat.

Essentially, because women can get pregnant and men can't, women will always pay the greatest price for sexual indiscretion. Perhaps the church is just making an attempt to even the score.

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 69431)

Wah-schmah. I'd take a revoked temple recommend and Bishop's court over an unwanted pregnancy any day.

Priesthood holders are supposed to protect women--that's a part of the job. As women, we are counseled to sustain you and look to you for leadership and guidance. With that authority comes greater responsibility. Certainly, I have my own issues with the traditional Priesthood/RS roles in our church, but when the men have all the power and they screw up, of course they are going to take more heat.

Essentially, because women can get pregnant and men can't, women will always pay the greatest price for sexual indiscretion. Perhaps the church is just making an attempt to even the score.

Originally Posted by tooblue (Post 69439)

I agree, consequences for the mans actions should be more severe. However, this is a societal problem much more than a 'in the church' problem.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 69440)

Why?

The treatment should be equal, if we believe in equal treatment under the law. I don't see a rational basis for disaparate legal treatment.

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 69431)

Wah-schmah. I'd take a revoked temple recommend and Bishop's court over an unwanted pregnancy any day.

Priesthood holders are supposed to protect women--that's a part of the job. As women, we are counseled to sustain you and look to you for leadership and guidance. With that authority comes greater responsibility. Certainly, I have my own issues with the traditional Priesthood/RS roles in our church, but when the men have all the power and they screw up, of course they are going to take more heat.

Essentially, because women can get pregnant and men can't, women will always pay the greatest price for sexual indiscretion. Perhaps the church is just making an attempt to even the score.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 69440)

Why?

The treatment should be equal, if we believe in equal treatment under the law. I don't see a rational basis for disaparate legal treatment.

Originally Posted by tooblue (Post 69444)

With authority comes greater responsability and more severe consequences. Unrighteous dominion cannot be tolerated in the least degree.

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 69446)

But the thing is, there is not equal treatment between men and women in the church. Women have influence, but no authority in the church. As long as that is so, the consequences are going to be different for the same wrong doing.

Originally Posted by tooblue (Post 69450)

They do have authority ... simply because it is a different authority does not mean it is less authority.

Originally Posted by tooblue (Post 69450)

They do have authority ... simply because it is a different authority does not mean it is less authority.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 69448)

Give me a break, friend. In a dating relationship, the male and female are not on equal ground--- she has total control over what happens and you're completely at her mercy.

I do not know "women" who honor the priesthood in giving deference to whatever the man wants. Perhaps some backwoods women do in Utah or Idaho, but I doubt that. No, women lack the final stamp of approval but general call the shots.

Each has dominion over one's own body. (Now I'm speaking of rape but consensual actions).

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 69453)

What authority is that? We get to decide what to do for Sharing Time? We plan the ward potluck? We are help mates. We have the supporting role. I'm not complaining. That's just how it is.

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 69453)

What authority is that? We get to decide what to do for Sharing Time? We plan the ward potluck? We are help mates. We have the supporting role. I'm not complaining. That's just how it is.

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 69459)

I am talking about authority in the Church, not within a marriage or in a dating relationship, BTW.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 69454)

This sounds like an argument about who gets to sign the checks when both parties also have credit cards.

Originally Posted by tooblue (Post 69461)

I'm talking about authority in the church!

Originally Posted by tooblue (Post 69460)

The athority to permit men to govern the church. The authority to minister to the sisters of a Ward. The authority to preach, teach and minister the gospel.

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 69466)

Yeah, but Archaea seems to be talking about within a relationship.

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 69467)

In my last ward, EVERYTHING the RS did had to be approved by the Bishop, including the books chosen for our book club.

Originally Posted by cougjunkie (Post 69408)

I just wanted to know what you guys thought of this, a very good friend of mine is a jr high counselor in Utah county.

Last week 3 girls at the school took some pictures of themselves in an inappropriate manner (we are talking very very explicit, porno explicit) on their cell phones and sent them to a boy at the school. Well this boy forwarded the pictures to his friends and they ended up getting in to the hands of a teacher and they were all caught.

The girls were all put on probation (which is basically a slap on the wrist) the boy that recieved the pictures and forwarded them was suspended for 4 days. The other boys that recieved them from their friend were also put on probation.

Why is the kid that recieved the pictures suspended when the girls that started the whole thing were not? I know its not right but what 14 year old boy would not forward those pictures to his friends?

I feel like if a boy sent an explicit picture of himself to some girls the consequences woudl have been outrageous probably expulsion and possibly criminal charges.

Originally Posted by YOhio (Post 69475)

The punishment wasn't sufficient for any of the involved parties. The girls should get shipped to a convent and the boy who passed them along should get strung up by his testicles with the receivers as witnesses. This story makes me ill.

Originally Posted by tooblue (Post 69468)

That's Archea ;) And Archea struggles to find anything positive to say about partnership in marriage

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 69453)

What authority is that? We get to decide what to do for Sharing Time? We plan the ward potluck? We are help mates. We have the supporting role. I'm not complaining. That's just how it is.

Originally Posted by pelagius (Post 69491)

I will grant theological differences in authority (I'm not a big fan and would be happy to see it change). Also, I will grant clear differences in authority as you move-up the leadership chain and that this may be a problem in and of itself for some/many woman (I would be happy if this changed as well). However, I am not sure there is really a big difference in terms of practical authority between a typical male and a typical female in the church. Most of us do something equivalent or less important than deciding what to do in sharing time. Less than 1.5% of all male members are in the following positions: General Authority, Mission President, Stake President, Stake Presidency Counselor, Bishop, or Bishopric Counselor. For anybody outside of the 1.5% it seems the differences in practical authority are pretty trivial? I wouldn't describe my practical authority as more expansive than choosing what to do for sharing time and this is true for the vast majority of all men in the church.

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death (Post 69500)

Don't bring sense into this! Women are oppressed and can't be held responsible for their own actions. It was the boy who forced those teenagers to send him lewd pictures. It was the husband who forced his wife to cheat on him.

Additionally we should make sure to always make it look like Men are idiots and Women are the smart ones of the relationship. Behind every good man is a great woman they say...Sitcoms, Media and even humor in General conference ("Men you are lucky to have your wives" comments) are always true.

Solon and I were discussing this last night and he said something funny but true

"the next time someone says I should be soooo grateful to have married my wife I am going to say: nope she is lucky to have me"

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death (Post 69500)

Additionally we should make sure to always make it look like Men are idiots and Women are the smart ones of the relationship. Behind every good man is a great woman they say...Sitcoms, Media and even humor in General conference ("Men you are lucky to have your wives" comments) are always true.

Originally Posted by pelagius (Post 69516)

I tend to see this as an overcompensation caused by the theological disparity, but I think often the overcompensation ends up ironically being patronizing to both parties.

Originally Posted by pelagius (Post 69516)

I tend to see this as an overcompensation caused by the theological disparity, but I think often the overcompensation ends up ironically being patronizing to both parties.

Originally Posted by pelagius (Post 69491)

I will grant theological differences in authority (I'm not a big fan and would be happy to see it change). Also, I will grant clear differences in authority as you move-up the leadership chain and that this may be a problem in and of itself for some/many woman (I would be happy if this changed as well). However, I am not sure there is really a big difference in terms of practical authority between a typical male and a typical female in the church. Most of us do something equivalent or less important than deciding what to do in sharing time. Less than 1.5% of all male members are in the following positions: General Authority, Mission President, Stake President, Stake Presidency Counselor, Bishop, or Bishopric Counselor. For anybody outside of the 1.5% it seems the differences in practical authority are pretty trivial? I wouldn't describe my practical authority as more expansive than choosing what to do for sharing time and this is true for the vast majority of all men in the church.

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death (Post 69432)

Could you have said "No"... I am not at fault? I had a friend whose wife was cheating on him with the Maintenance man at their apartment building. The bishop always took the woman's side. I thought there is no way that can be right. I guess yours is another case.