Kids send dirty pictures to each other

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

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

Not at all. I am just surprised given the sexual freedom our society gives teenagers that a school could do anything about a few girls acting slutty off of school grounds, not on a school day.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

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.

I actually don't believe we should slam members for illicit sexual activity but rather we should work with them, perhaps reducing activity in terms of callings or sacrament, but the work should be done lovingly and not out of spite. The actions of slamming the priesthood holder while coddling the women seems pedantic and wrong-headed.

[SoCalCoug]

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?

Well, naughty photos of a minor (9th graders here) are illegal. Transmitting (or possessing) sexual pictures of a minor is illegal, even for a minor, which is probably the justification for the heavier punishment for the boy who circulated the photos. Also, how old was he? If he was 17, maybe they took that into account.

That being said, if the school has the authority to discipline the girls for taking and sending the photos (which they apparently did, as they were put on probation), the girls should have been suspended, as well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yikes. My son had 490 text messages last month. Now you have me worried.

You should see how some of these girls flirt with him. It is amazing.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I actually don't believe we should slam members for illicit sexual activity but rather we should work with them, perhaps reducing activity in terms of callings or sacrament, but the work should be done lovingly and not out of spite. The actions of slamming the priesthood holder while coddling the women seems pedantic and wrong-headed.

I agree slamming members rather than working with them is wrong. You know I'm a grace guy.

What I find off in this thread is the sexist stuff, like in your last sentence. I think people are taking anecdotes and making general conclusions.

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

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

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.

Just to clarify: I certainly believe that women in the church should be disciplined for sexual sin. Whether a woman is punished as severely as the participating Priesthood holder is not my decision. However, it makes sense to me when she is not. A responsibility of the Priesthood is to protect women. When a Priesthood holder has sex with a woman that is not his wife, even when consensual, he is failing in his responsibility to protect her.

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

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

Well, it's nice to have you two agreeing on something.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by jay santos

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.

I've known and know lots of single LDS women who blame a sexual encounter on the man and don't take accountability for actually being there at the time and being involved. Some were very angry that some of the men "only got disfellowshipped" as opposed to excommunicated.

When I ask "Did he force himself on you? Was it rape?" cause obviously covering ones bases is smart and she goes...."No it wasn't rape, but still,,, I mean...." Being on a date as they go on and on and soon it just becomes evident that they pretty much hate men in general while I'm just sitting their smiling letting her rant.

No accountability or responsibility on her part. Just angry and bitter and refusing to accept any responsibility.

While I agree that to an extent men should be held to a higher degree of responsibility IF,,,,IF they hold the priesthood, but otherwise the women are typically treated with kid gloves in these situations the majority of the time.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I agree slamming members rather than working with them is wrong. You know I'm a grace guy.

What I find off in this thread is the sexist stuff, like in your last sentence. I think people are taking anecdotes and making general conclusions.

From an organizational standpoint, all I will ever possess is anecdotal, as each case, after considering general guidelines is on a case by case basis.

My experience in the bishopric and elsewhere is that women can be treated more kindly through the process than men.

I don't believe excommunication works, as only five percent of those ex'ed ever return. The process is too long and arduous to be worth it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by marsupial

Just to clarify: I certainly believe that women in the church should be disciplined for sexual sin. Whether a woman is punished as severely as the participating Priesthood holder is not my decision. However, it makes sense to me when she is not. A responsibility of the Priesthood is to protect women. When a Priesthood holder has sex with a woman that is not his wife, even when consensual, he is failing in his responsibility to protect her.



Well, it's nice to have you two agreeing on something.

This sounds awefully pedantic and paternalistic. I see the protection aspect as extending to wife and children, not to women in general. In fact, if I were to voice that my duty as a priesthood holder is protect women, I'd be laughed into the ground. We're adults. If one party consents with another to have sex, we're both to share in the responsibility.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

While I agree that to an extent men should be held to a higher degree of responsibility IF,,,,IF they hold the priesthood, but otherwise the women are typically treated with kid gloves in these situations the majority of the time.

I simply don't agree that the priesthood should increase the level of responsibility. However, perhaps a position of leadership should, in light of the reflection upon the Church.