Am I overreacting?

[yjacket]

4 minutes ago, Backroads said:

You seem to.

You also accused me of breaking specific rules. I can assure you I was well within the dictated modesty requirements of a swimsuit. However, those do not always replace a personal view, and this is when he became inappropriate.

To make my point, this is when the YW leaders became inappropriate, when they decided to go into a full-scale morality inquisition (according to report).

You brought it up!!! I really don't care, I was simply responding to your comment.

[mordorbund]

3 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I am having flashbacks to he-who-shall-not-be-named.

They changed the rules. You can say "Trump" now.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just now, mordorbund said:

They changed the rules. You can say "Trump" now.

Provided you hop on one foot and spit twice after every mention of the name.

[yjacket]

2 minutes ago, Backroads said:

You may feel you're in the Twilight Zone. I am having flashbacks to he-who-shall-not-be-named.

Again you brought it up-don't know why you did.  And if it was because of being well-endowed, he was probably doing you a favor.  I guarantee you none of the high school boys are going to go up to you and say "hey backroads, that suit is immodest".  I totally agree different body types wear differently.  

If the guy had a pattern of saying things other things then yeah maybe he was a perv, but based on one incident no I don't think so.

[yjacket]

8 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Says the guy freaking out that anyone suggest something other than his view.

 

Look, even if a person doesn't agree with my reasons, you ought to be looking out for yourself. Think of how many false accusations have been made against men who probably just mean well. I'm pretty sure that's something I've seen you discuss, in fact. It's just not wise to put yourself in the place of a modesty officer for girls who aren't your children. 

Freaking out me?? How many people wanted to rush immediately to the Bishop.  There was even a comment about kidnapping?  That's freaking out.

I agree that lots of false accusation occur, I just think it is a sad state of affairs where a) people immediately rush off to claim "perv" and b) in order to protect said people we institutionalize said thinking by creating rules to ensure that a doesn't happen.

[Backroads]

5 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Again you brought it up-don't know why you did.

My point was that he was not in the position to be doing that, and the story was intended as an example of how these YW overstepped their bounds and had a different result than what they probably wanted.

[Guest MormonGator]

20 minutes ago, yjacket said:

 Every leader today wants to be their "friend" instead of being their leader, it's quite frankly crap.

I forget where I heard this, and it's a JOKE so don't take it seriously everyone:

"Why would you want to be your kids friend? Their music is terrible, they whine a lot, and they can't drive you home after you've had too much to drink at a dinner party. So what kind of friend are they?" 

 

Again, joking. 

Edited April 17, 2017 by MormonGator

[yjacket]

9 minutes ago, Backroads said:

My point was that he was not in the position to be doing that, and the story was intended as an example of how these YW overstepped their bounds and had a different result than what they probably wanted.

You felt he wasn't in a position to do so, but he as an instructor did feel he was in a position to do so. My point is who is right, who is wrong-it doesn't really matter.

You were a kid, he was an adult and felt you needed instruction-big deal.  Move on, who cares.  

If I got offended and ticked off every time someone who I don't think is in an "authority" position over me told me something I didn't like, I'd be rich. That's part of life, it is so small and so insignificant that it just plainly doesn't matter.

Edited April 17, 2017 by yjacket

[yjacket]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I forget where I heard this, and it's a JOKE so don't take it seriously everyone:

"Why would you want to be your kids friend? Their music is terrible, they whine a lot, and they can't drive you home after you've had too much to drink at a dinner party. So what kind of friend are they?" 

 

Again, joking. 

Love it!!!

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Love it!!!

Thanks! Does that you'll buy my comedy CD? 10.99 please. 

(again, kidding! I didn't come up with the joke!) 

Edited April 17, 2017 by MormonGator

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

"Why would you want to be your kids friend? Their music is terrible, they whine a lot, and they can't drive you home after you've had too much to drink at a dinner party. So what kind of friend are they?" 

There's a worthy joke!

[Backroads]

12 minutes ago, yjacket said:

You felt he wasn't in a position to do so, but he as an instructor did feel he was in a position to do so. My point is who is right, who is wrong-it doesn't really matter.

You were a kid, he was an adult and felt you needed instruction-big deal.  Move on, who cares.  

If I got offended and ticked off every time someone who I don't think is in an "authority" position over me told me something I didn't like, I'd be rich. That's part of life, it is so small and so insignificant that it just plainly doesn't matter.

Actually, I was 24, an adult at a professional training (camp school is a certification program for camp administration), if that makes a difference. He was going out of his professional way to go above and beyond what was in his right to direct me on. I followed official dress code to the best of my ability and felt I was more modest than technically required. Was it really up to him to instruct me? My religion should not matter here.

Now I feel very awkward about this example story.

Now, you're right, it's not worth losing my mind over. Doesn't excuse it was inappropriate on his part.

On the OP, perceived righteousness does not make it suddenly appropriate to overstep boundaries.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Backroads

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, yjacket said:

You felt he wasn't in a position to do so, but he as an instructor did feel he was in a position to do so. My point is who is right, who is wrong-it doesn't really matter.

You were a kid, he was an adult and felt you needed instruction-big deal.  Move on, who cares.  

If I got offended and ticked off every time someone who I don't think is in an "authority" position over me told me something I didn't like, I'd be rich. That's part of life, it is so small and so insignificant that it just plainly doesn't matter.

I don't think it's hard to determine who was right and who was wrong in all these situations. Of course we don't have enough info to say in most explained situations on a forum. But.... I do agree that it doesn't really matter. Even if we're wronged by someone, we are given very, very clear directions on how to deal with those who wrong us.

Now I do agree that sometimes going to an authority figure and reporting an instance of something is the right choice, regardless of personal forgiveness.

What I don't get is how people tend to think that one person's idiotic actions define an institutional problem. Like in the OP case. Even if we could determine that the YW leader was out of line (which I do not think we can), the idea that the bishop needs to be told to fix an institutional problem is nonsense. Does anyone really believe that by reporting said incident to the bishop that such incidents will, thenceforth, cease to occur in said daughter's life? The institution isn't the problem. The YW leader -- the individual herself -- is (or is not...depending on if it actually is a problem or not). Therefore, telling the bishop is really just a matter of coming down on the YW leader and nothing more. Let's get that person in trouble for doing something wrong!

Once again, as I said before, I think the proper course in most of these situations is to merely forgive and forget, and to teach our children by word and example to do the same. Teaching them that tattling up the chain of authority whenever they're wronged isn't exactly a good lesson. There's a time and a place, of course. But because a leader spoke to your kid about something that concerned them?

There's a reason our society is getting filled up with "snowflakes".

Edited April 17, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Actually, I was 24, an adult at a professional training (camp school is a certification program for camp administration), if that makes a difference. He was going out of his professional way to go above and beyond what was in his right to direct me on. I followed official dress code to the best of my ability and felt I was more modest than technically required. Was it really up to him to instruct me? My religion should not matter here.

Now I feel very awkward about this example story.

Now, you're right, it's not worth losing my mind over. Doesn't excuse it was inappropriate on his part.

For what it's worth, I think I agree with you.  That guy sounds like a total creep.

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The institution isn't the problem. The YW leader -- the individual herself -- is (or is not...depending on if it actually is a problem or not). Therefore, telling the bishop is really just a matter of coming down on the YW leader and nothing more. Let's get that person in trouble for doing something wrong!

No, I don't agree. The bishop needs to know what's going on. Reporting this incident to the bishop need not be (or be viewed as) tattling. if this is a lone incident, then it's a one-off, no worries. But if the bishop is getting notified by two or three or five parents that the YW president is approaching problems in a counterproductive way, he needs to have a talk with her and either get things straightened out or call someone else to the position.

[yjacket]

17 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Actually, I was 24, an adult at a professional training (camp school is a certification program for camp administration), if that makes a difference. He was going out of his professional way to go above and beyond what was in his right to direct me on. I followed official dress code to the best of my ability and felt I was more modest than technically required. Was it really up to him to instruct me? My religion should not matter here.

Now I feel very awkward about this example story.

Now, you're right, it's not worth losing my mind over. Doesn't excuse it was inappropriate on his part.

On the OP, perceived righteousness does not make it suddenly appropriate to overstep boundaries.

Okay, my bad-I apologize.  Actually it does make a difference, I thought since we were talking about in the context of YM/YW you were a kid when this occurred.

Obviously as a 24-year old adult you were more aware of whether or not it was awkward and appropriate. You say it was awkward as an adult, I believe you.  My only comment would be, coaches at professional training do different things for whatever reason he felt he should say this; forgive and forget.

Edited April 17, 2017 by yjacket

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, I don't agree. The bishop needs to know what's going on. Reporting this incident to the bishop need not be (or be viewed as) tattling. if this is a lone incident, then it's a one-off, no worries. But if the bishop is getting notified by two or three or five parents that the YW president is approaching problems in a counterproductive way, he needs to have a talk with her and either get things straightened out or call someone else to the position.

In addition the Bishop is a neutral third party with authority(should he need to use it).  Parents can easily be biased... and in this case both of the main parties are likely to get highly emotional quickly in such a face to face discussion.  The bishop would be a good level head check to figure out who is off the rails... if anyone is.

 

 

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Actually, I was 24, an adult at a professional training (camp school is a certification program for camp administration), if that makes a difference. He was going out of his professional way to go above and beyond what was in his right to direct me on. I followed official dress code to the best of my ability and felt I was more modest than technically required. Was it really up to him to instruct me? My religion should not matter here.

Now I feel very awkward about this example story.

Now, you're right, it's not worth losing my mind over. Doesn't excuse it was inappropriate on his part.

On the OP, perceived righteousness does not make it suddenly appropriate to overstep boundaries.

I think this is a relevant issue, and one I don't really understand how to approach.

On the one hand, we have societal pressure for men in general never, ever to correct women in general, and specifically for adult men never to correct a girl or young woman on immodesty. Though this is overwrought and counterproductive in many instances, it's clear that such strictures arose from completely inappropriate actions of men toward women, and that there is at least a little wisdom behind such pressure.

On the other hand, we have the teachings of the gospel and the expectation that we take an active, even parental, interest in the development and well-being of the youth around us. That is our generational responsibility to them. At times, that might even include some sort of censure.

People like me want these rules spelled out in a nice, concise, logical, easily identifiable format, e.g. Men, don't ever correct a young woman on her dress under any circumstance. Even if she's running around naked, just call her parents (or the cops) and let them deal with it. But such rigid rules are impossible; we are forced to use "common sense". And unfortunately, as we all know, what's common sense to one person is uncommon sense to another, and nonsense to a third.

Our society now is presently at a stage where we aren't really supposed to say anything to anyone, ever (unless it's a liberal excoriating a conservative, but that's a separate discussion). This has even crept into parent-child relationships, where parents are afraid to correct their own children. The pendulum has swung very much too far toward the permissive and the "keep-your-mouth-shut" side. This is far worse than some normal situation, since it appears that people today can't agree on where the pendulum should be, or even whether we should keep the pendulum at all or just remove all constraint.

[Just_A_Guy]

One nuance from the OP that I missed earlier, is that one of the YW leaders involved is married to the bishop.

[The Folk Prophet]

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, I don't agree. The bishop needs to know what's going on. Reporting this incident to the bishop need not be (or be viewed as) tattling. if this is a lone incident, then it's a one-off, no worries. But if the bishop is getting notified by two or three or five parents that the YW president is approaching problems in a counterproductive way, he needs to have a talk with her and either get things straightened out or call someone else to the position.

I don't have a problem with telling the bishop anything any time. What I have a problem with is the implications (USUALLY IN ALL CAPS) that THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT MUST BE REPORTED!!! The tone implies something other than the idea: I'd let the bishop know because he's the ward's steward, and otherwise I'd forgive and forget.

[yjacket]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One nuance from the OP that I missed earlier, is that one of the YW leaders involved is married to the bishop.

Good catch.  Knowing that, it's highly unlikely that the Bishop didn't know about this.  In fact, he might have suggested the YW leaders talk to the girl at some point!

Edited April 17, 2017 by yjacket

[yjacket]

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

 

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

Our society now is presently at a stage where we aren't really supposed to say anything to anyone, ever (unless it's a liberal excoriating a conservative, but that's a separate discussion). This has even crept into parent-child relationships, where parents are afraid to correct their own children. The pendulum has swung very much too far toward the permissive and the "keep-your-mouth-shut" side. This is far worse than some normal situation, since it appears that people today can't agree on where the pendulum should be, or even whether we should keep the pendulum at all or just remove all constraint.

Completely agree Vort.  I think we are seeing society fracture apart at its seams. 

I'm very libertarian, but I also believe that for any society to stay together cohesively as a society that there needs to be an underlying structure that is simply understood.  

The underlying structure that is replacing the old is "do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt someone else it's okay and anyone who tells you differently is a bigot, racist, homophobic, etc. etc. etc.". I'm libertarian, but not libertine. I believe laws and the power to take away someone's life, liberty, property should only be done in very few cases.  We shouldn't put people in jail for smoking a joint, but at the same time as a society we should be very pro-active in saying "doing drugs is bad". We seem to be heading down the road of saying "doing drugs is bad" is bad and laws are just made up by whoever has the power to make them.

This is where I do not believe in any way, shape or form that diversity/multi-culturism is "good".  Too much diversity and there is no underlying common decency, unwritten rules, etc., people don't know how to interact with each other b/c they are coming from two polar opposites.  When you come from such drastic opposites, how can you form a society? As such, we each become our own "tribes" formed around our own "interest groups". We have "friends" that are part of xyz club that we only talk about xyz, we have "friends" that are part of abc club and we only talk about abc with them.

We get into it here plenty; but regardless of how much we get into it, we all have an underlying basis and understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It unifies us even when we get upset, offend others or are offended, even when we emphatically and forcefully disagree.

What happens in most of society when these same types of issues crop up, but there is not underlying basis that unifies?  

Society splits apart.

Edited April 17, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I'm very libertarian

I am too, but the more I listen to @Vort the more his left wing liberalism is really making sense to me. Thanks to him, I voted for Hillary.

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think this is a relevant issue, and one I don't really understand how to approach.

On the one hand, we have societal pressure for men in general never, ever to correct women in general, and specifically for adult men never to correct a girl or young woman on immodesty. Though this is overwrought and counterproductive in many instances, it's clear that such strictures arose from completely inappropriate actions of men toward women, and that there is at least a little wisdom behind such pressure.

On the other hand, we have the teachings of the gospel and the expectation that we take an active, even parental, interest in the development and well-being of the youth around us. That is our generational responsibility to them. At times, that might even include some sort of censure.

People like me want these rules spelled out in a nice, concise, logical, easily identifiable format, e.g. Men, don't ever correct a young woman on her dress under any circumstance. Even if she's running around naked, just call her parents (or the cops) and let them deal with it. But such rigid rules are impossible; we are forced to use "common sense". And unfortunately, as we all know, what's common sense to one person is uncommon sense to another, and nonsense to a third.

Our society now is presently at a stage where we aren't really supposed to say anything to anyone, ever (unless it's a liberal excoriating a conservative, but that's a separate discussion). This has even crept into parent-child relationships, where parents are afraid to correct their own children. The pendulum has swung very much too far toward the permissive and the "keep-your-mouth-shut" side. This is far worse than some normal situation, since it appears that people today can't agree on where the pendulum should be, or even whether we should keep the pendulum at all or just remove all constraint.

To be fair, I don't think it's the place of anyone to correct a well meaning adult on their modesty as it relates to swimwear or much else. They're adults. If it's legal, follows the clearly defined rules/policies of whatever institution, etc., then who's place is it to determine where the cut becomes too "french" for another adult? Knowing backroads was 24, this really becomes a matter of adults having the right to determine such things for themselves.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, yjacket said:

an underlying structure that is simply understood.  

yjacket interprets the rules and corrects anyone as needed? I think there is a structure, just a disagreement as to when and by whom it should be enforced.