Kids send dirty pictures to each other

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by marsupial

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.

I agree with you except to where you absolve the other party of any accountability or responsibility. Were you part of the Utah County prosecutors against the Black football players down at BYU too?

Women are treated with kid gloves in the church, so I'm failing to see the bitching and moaning.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

No, because I was at fault for my actions. I take full responsibility and accountability for my actions.

The girl whom I was involved was grown up enough to take her responsibility and accountability as well.

She didn't have the "it's all his fault cause he's the man" attitude because well, she initiated it, and was also there. I wasn't strong enough to stop it and I should've been.

Unless rape is involved, or a confidential, doctor-patient relationship is involved, both parties share in the act, be it good or bad.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I disagree with the great Pelagius here--might be the first time.

If you tweaked that 1.5% to include only active males and expanded it to include all men who have held in the past, now hold, or will hold in the future any of those callings, I imagine you're moving into a signficant number. The number for females will always be zero.

Well, I don't disagree with you. You are, of course, right about that. I was trying to capture that idea when I said:

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).

But you are right to point out that if you are an active male member there is a significant probability that at some point in your life you will be in a position of substantial practical authority.

[RockyBalboa]

By the way I should note......

My temple recommend being revoked because I announced an intention to divorce is an ENTIRELY different thing that this seemed to morph into my NOW Current membership status because of having a night of indiscretion with a female.

They're completely different and not related in any way. I was a faithful and honest husband.

I think that's been Lost in Translation.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Unless rape is involved, or a confidential, doctor-patient relationship is involved, both parties share in the act, be it good or bad.

We don't often agree, but in this instance I completely agree with you.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by marsupial

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.

Legally speaking (how else would I speak?) I don't think it makes a difference from the school's standpoint where they were taken as opposed to where they were viewed. If they had sent him a bomb, I doubt it would matter where they built it. On the other hand, there may be some issue about whether they intended it to go to him at school or somewhere else, or whether it was reasonably foreseeable that he would recieve it at school. Bottom line, I think the school could have easily justified being much harder on the girls.

Diving now to why men go easier on women.......well there I just already said it all. Men are hard on men. Women are infinitely harder on each other than men are on each other or than women are on men. Men are lend a sympathetic ear to things that would make other women say PUH-LEASE!! Men instinctively want to protect women. I think, in my amatuer opinion, that this is why men get it harder in the church than women do. I think the Priesthood issue is a post-hoc rationalization, but what do I know. Well, I know this: if women were put in these decision making positions, suddenly women would find that things had gotten tougher for them and men would find that things had eased up somewhat.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Legally speaking (how else would I speak?) I don't think it makes a difference from the school's standpoint where they were taken as opposed to where they were viewed. If they had sent him a bomb, I doubt it would matter where they built it. On the other hand, there may be some issue about whether they intended it to go to him at school or somewhere else, or whether it was reasonably foreseeable that he would recieve it at school. Bottom line, I think the school could have easily justified being much harder on the girls.

Diving now to why men go easier on women.......well there I just already said it all. Men are hard on men. Women are infinitely harder on each other than men are on each other or than women are on men. Men are lend a sympathetic ear to things that would make other women say PUH-LEASE!! Men instinctively want to protect women. I think, in my amatuer opinion, that this is why men get it harder in the church than women do. I think the Priesthood issue is a post-hoc rationalization, but what do I know. Well, I know this: if women were put in these decision making positions, suddenly women would find that things had gotten tougher for them and men would find that things had eased up somewhat.

I don't know. I agree, given the theological disparity in authority, the Church overcompensates, but I disagree that women would go easier on women. From what I've regretably seen in a limited number of divorce cases, sympathy for men is limited and in short supply. Women tend to hate men but not vice versa. Obviously that is an overgeneralization but a woman's affections cools easily.

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Legally speaking (how else would I speak?) I don't think it makes a difference from the school's standpoint where they were taken as opposed to where they were viewed. If they had sent him a bomb, I doubt it would matter where they built it. On the other hand, there may be some issue about whether they intended it to go to him at school or somewhere else, or whether it was reasonably foreseeable that he would recieve it at school. Bottom line, I think the school could have easily justified being much harder on the girls.

A bomb is illegal. Naughty photos are not. So, a school has authority over a student's actions when they are not at school and it is not a school day? So, could they get suspended for having sex at Squaw Peak on a Saturday night?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by marsupial

A bomb is illegal. Naughty photos are not. So, a school has authority over a student's actions when they are not at school and it is not a school day? So, could they get suspended for having sex at Squaw Peak on a Saturday night?

In a sexual situation is a woman ever accountable for anything? You seem intent to avoid this.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

In a sexual situation is a woman ever accountable for anything? You seem intent to avoid this.

Are you talking about the church or in society or what? Marsupial is correct in that women carrying and raising the child is more significant accountablity than men ever receive, if you're talking about in society. Rape is a seperate issue, but rape is nearly 100% of the time a male on female crime. Do you mean the church? Yes, women are accountable for sexual sin in the church. Is that really a big problem in the church, that women don't take accountability for sexual sin? Even the reasonable people like Archaea and UtahDan are off in this thread.