Internet Rips Apart Relief Society’s ‘Flirting Bingo’ Sheet

[Third Hour]

We don’t know a lot about this Bingo sheet (below) besides the fact that Twitter user @itscambam found it inside her YSA ward's Relief Society binder, took a picture and sparked a firestorm of hilarious criticism in the Twittersphere. https://twitter.com/itscambam/status/858737159674634240 Maybe it was meant to be the serious focus of a real Relief Society activity or just a practical joke, but either way the reactions on Twitter are hysterical. Here are 10 of our favorite responses: 1. Someone already made a parody Bingo sheet https://twitter.com/agwalk22/status/858784947678527488 2. This is too real https://twitter.com/sometots/status/858868342383271936 https://twitter.com/sometots/status/858903092019945472 3. I guess that's the way it works https://twitter.com/meehan/status/858742836539162624 4. *Laughter turns into sobbing* https://twitter.com/TineshaCapri/status/858747370011377664 5. #Relatable https://twitter.com/ausdaw/status/858763052732239872 6. You've got a point https://twitter.com/ByCommonConsent/status/858813108533448704 7. Dang, he's right https://twitter.com/BYU_craiggers/status/858754385878319105 8. You're not alone, Alison https://twitter.com/alison_sig/status/858747689902628864 9. That's a good perspective https://twitter.com/3L_belle/status/858762921546981376 10. Last but not least https://twitter.com/SethMcCausland/status/858770745924534272 The overwhelming response amongst young adults online is that the BINGO sheet is a pretty terrible way to get women to flirt with us "boys," but what do you think? Does the sheet go too far, or is it a genius idea? Let us know what you think in the comments section.

View the full article

[Just_A_Guy]

I must have missed the column that got similar chuckles over the way so many non-LDS girls try to get guys by giving it all up on the very first date.  I'm sure it was a gut-buster, right guys?  Right?  Guys? . . .

Oh, there was no such column?  Interesting, how we have morphed into a society where the dating tactics of promiscuous girls are sacrosanct; whereas chaste girls who indulge in silly-but-harmless little games merit a public pillorying and flaying.  

Look, Brother Snell; mock the LDS girls who do this kind of thing all you want--some of it is indeed rather inane.  I get it.  I also get that, based on the tenor of several recent columns, you and some of the other authors here are probably jonesing for a more . . . erm . . . heterodox audience, and I've tried to give you guys the benefit of the doubt.  

But let me go on-record as saying that once you've crossed the line of virtue-shaming, I don't want to hear you or anyone else say another gosh-darned thing about "slut-shaming".

Edited May 8, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Blueskye2]

1 hour ago, MormonHub said:

We don’t know a lot about this Bingo sheet (below) besides the fact that Twitter user @itscambam found it inside her YSA ward's Relief Society binder, took a picture and sparked a firestorm of hilarious criticism in the Twittersphere. https://twitter.com/itscambam/status/858737159674634240 Maybe it was meant to be the serious focus of a real Relief Society activity or just a practical joke, but either way the reactions on Twitter are hysterical. Here are 10 of our favorite responses: 1. Someone already made a parody Bingo sheet https://twitter.com/agwalk22/status/858784947678527488 2. This is too real https://twitter.com/sometots/status/858868342383271936 https://twitter.com/sometots/status/858903092019945472 3. I guess that's the way it works https://twitter.com/meehan/status/858742836539162624 4. *Laughter turns into sobbing* https://twitter.com/TineshaCapri/status/858747370011377664 5. #Relatable https://twitter.com/ausdaw/status/858763052732239872 6. You've got a point https://twitter.com/ByCommonConsent/status/858813108533448704 7. Dang, he's right https://twitter.com/BYU_craiggers/status/858754385878319105 8. You're not alone, Alison https://twitter.com/alison_sig/status/858747689902628864 9. That's a good perspective https://twitter.com/3L_belle/status/858762921546981376 10. Last but not least https://twitter.com/SethMcCausland/status/858770745924534272 The overwhelming response amongst young adults online is that the BINGO sheet is a pretty terrible way to get women to flirt with us "boys," but what do you think? Does the sheet go too far, or is it a genius idea? Let us know what you think in the comments section.

View the full article

Wait, they left off the bend and snap. Otherwise, harmless and containing old advice, such as make eye contact. Gosh, so scandalous I don't know how people read it and survive. ??

Edited May 8, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Vort]

@Just_A_Guy needs to get about five hundred likes to his comment. And whoever's making decisions about columns published under the MormonHub name should grow the heck up and start exercising some actual judgment about content.

[dsnell]

@Just_A_Guy Brother Snell here, thanks for the feedback. Allow me to address a couple of things:

I apologize if you feel I treat the dating tactics of promiscuous girls as sacrosanct or that I participate in slut-shaming. I do not explicitly say anything in the article that supports that, but I suppose your unique perspective could interpret the article in that way.

Let me assure you that because I think the flirting tactic "Go to an activity you didn't want to go to" is silly doesn't mean I think the appropriate method is to "give it all up on the very first date". Again, I apologize if somehow that is the message you got.  The intent of the article was not to offend or to mock virtue.

I come from a heavily YSA culture (BYU) where the prospect of companionship dominates almost every other aspect of life. The wards I'm used to have no lack of creativity when it comes to trying to pair people off (which is fine, but frankly oftentimes overbearing and, as you said, inane) - I simply thought the bingo sheet was a hilarious example of that. 

You saw it as a mockery of virtue.

I saw it as a funny dialogue on YSA culture.

I'm sorry you didn't find it funny and you're probably right, I was probably too harsh on whoever created the sheet. I hope hope readers find a separation between the product and the creator, because I'm sure whoever made the sheet is a great girl. Even though I disagree with much of what you've said, I am grateful for your passion to stand up for and protect others.

I hope you can understand my point of view and again I apologize for any unkind feelings the article instigated.

[pam]

@dsnell  Just so you know...we have a very tough audience here on the forums.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, pam said:

@dsnell  Just so you know...we have a very tough audience here on the forums.

She ain't kidding. This one lady @pam, I think her name is-she throws tomatoes at speakers in church! 

[dsnell]

@pam Yeah I got that feeling too haha *pulls at collar*.

[pam]

5 minutes ago, dsnell said:

@pam Yeah I got that feeling too haha *pulls at collar*.

I'd recommend wearing a loose fitting t-shirt from now on.

[pam]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

She ain't kidding. This one lady @pam, I think her name is-she throws tomatoes at speakers in church! 

At least I use cherry tomatoes.

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, dsnell said:

I apologize if you feel I treat the dating tactics of promiscuous girls as sacrosanct or that I participate in slut-shaming. I do not explicitly say anything in the article that supports that, but I suppose your unique perspective could interpret the article in that way.

Brother Snell, I don't speak for @Just_A_Guy, but I am confident you have badly misunderstood his point.

The "RS Bingo" activities and ideas that you poked fun at and that you pointed out had responses that were quite hostile and "politically correct" are, in fact, the very sort of activities that VIRTUOUS young women tend to engage in. The more worldly young women are much more likely to be involved in things such as sex, alcohol, and other drug usage -- yet you didn't make fun of them for so doing. There were no jokes targeted at young women who engage in casual oral sex with their boyfriends or dates, for example. No mockery or finger-pointing laughter at girls who get wasted at parties and wake up next to some beer-reeking guy they don't recognize and have no recollection of how they got there. Rather, it was the virtuous girls and the sometimes silly things they do and say that you mocked.

JAG never accused you of slut-shaming. Rather, he stated (quite clearly, I thought) that if you are going to "virtue-shame" faithful LDS girls because someone makes up a silly "RS Bingo" sheet pointing out and perhaps parodying such activities -- which is exactly what you did -- then you should never complain if OTHER people then "slut-shame" the girls who drop their panties to keep their boyfriends interested. No fair whining about "slut-shaming" when you go about "virtue-shaming".

Clear now?

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, dsnell said:

@Just_A_Guy Brother Snell here, thanks for the feedback. Allow me to address a couple of things:

I apologize if you feel I treat the dating tactics of promiscuous girls as sacrosanct or that I participate in slut-shaming. I do not explicitly say anything in the article that supports that, but I suppose your unique perspective could interpret the article in that way.

Let me assure you that because I think the flirting tactic "Go to an activity you didn't want to go to" is silly doesn't mean I think the appropriate method is to "give it all up on the very first date". Again, I apologize if somehow that is the message you got.  The intent of the article was not to offend or to mock virtue.

I come from a heavily YSA culture (BYU) where the prospect of companionship dominates almost every other aspect of life. The wards I'm used to have no lack of creativity when it comes to trying to pair people off (which is fine, but frankly oftentimes overbearing and, as you said, inane) - I simply thought the bingo sheet was a hilarious example of that. 

You saw it as a mockery of virtue.

I saw it as a funny dialogue on YSA culture.

I'm sorry you didn't find it funny and you're probably right, I was probably too harsh on whoever created the sheet. I hope hope readers find a separation between the product and the creator, because I'm sure whoever made the sheet is a great girl. Even though I disagree with much of what you've said, I am grateful for your passion to stand up for and protect others.

I hope you can understand my point of view and again I apologize for any unkind feelings the article instigated.

Hi Brother Snell - 

First, let me thank you for being much more gentlemanly in your response to me, than I was with you.

Regarding the substance of your post  @Vort accurately sums up my position; which was intended less as a reaction to you personally than to the culture that your post embodied--that we will carp and mock and undermine the things LDS women tend to do to find long-term partners; in ways that we would never assail their less-chaste counterparts in the secular world.  

I would agree with you, as a BYU grad myself, that all-in-all the BIngo sheet itself is amusing.  But the examples your article cites go far beyond amusement or even bemusement.  By turns they dismiss the sheet as "crazy crap"; call for it to be "mock[ed] ruthlessly", associate it with "vomit". Remember that goshawful "Friday song" Youtube video that made the rounds a few years ago, and how after a while a consensus emerged that those of us who remarked on how bad the thing was were actually engaging in "cyber-bullying", whereupon the internet repented in sackcloth and ashes?  Well, as you say, the sheet was drawn up by a real girl; probably at the behest of a real YW/RS presidency. 

Moreover, while some of the tactics described in the sheet (especially the physicality of some of them) are . . . unique; most of the underlying assumptions in the sheet (that a romantic partnership is a desirable thing; that lasting romantic partnerships are usually preceded by initiative on the part of one or both parties; that asking someone about themselves and making them feel valued and appreciated and empowered is a good way to gain someone's affections; that romantic relationships can be initiated without forfeiting one's chastity, but that--yes--romantic relationships usually begin with a spark of physical attraction) are fundamentally sound.  I think, if you got to know some of the folks you retweeted a bit better, you'd find that a good number of them disagree with some or all of those assumptions; which is why they reacted to the sheet with the rhetorical equivalent of vitriolic sneers rather than indulgent smiles.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[priesthoodpower]

They should have called it "YSA Flirting Bingo" so that us "family ward" guys dont get the idea that our married/widowed women in Relief Society were creating such games.

 

[dsnell]

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Hi Brother Snell - 

First, let me thank you for being much more gentlemanly in your response to me, than I was with you.

Regarding the substance of your post  @Vort accurately sums up my position; which was intended less as a reaction to you personally than to the culture that your post embodied--that we will carp and mock and undermine the things LDS women tend to do to find long-term partners; in ways that we would never assail their less-chaste counterparts in the secular world.  

I would agree with you, as a BYU grad myself, that all-in-all the BIngo sheet itself is amusing.  But the examples your article cites go far beyond amusement or even bemusement.  By turns they dismiss the sheet as "crazy crap"; call for it to be "mock[ed] ruthlessly", associate it with "vomit". Remember that goshawful "Friday song" Youtube video that made the rounds a few years ago, and how after a while a consensus emerged that those of us who remarked on how bad the thing was were actually engaging in "cyber-bullying", whereupon the internet repented in sackcloth and ashes?  Well, as you say, the sheet was drawn up by a real girl; probably at the behest of a real YW/RS presidency. 

Moreover, while some of the tactics described in the sheet (especially the physicality of some of them) are . . . unique; most of the underlying assumptions in the sheet (that a romantic partnership is a desirable thing; that lasting romantic partnerships are usually preceded by initiative on the part of one or both parties; that asking someone about themselves and making them feel valued and appreciated and empowered is a good way to gain someone's affections; that romantic relationships can be initiated without forfeiting one's chastity, but that--yes--romantic relationships usually begin with a spark of physical attraction) are fundamentally sound.  I think, if you got to know some of the folks you retweeted a bit better, you'd find that a good number of them disagree with some or all of those assumptions; which is why they reacted to the sheet with the rhetorical equivalent of vitriolic sneers rather than indulgent smiles.

@Just_A_Guy Fair enough. I'll try to be more thoughtful about what I write/how I write/whose reactions I share in the future. Thank you for the feedback.

[NeuroTypical]

Kudos, by the way dsnell.  It takes guts to write stuff and publish it for the world to see.  It also takes guts to wade into a batch of critics and interact with them.  

Joseph Smith talked about being a rough stone rolling down a hill, and every violent crash knocked off a chunk here and there, until he was a smooth stone.  He also talked about the refiner's fire - gold ore starts out full of impurities and gunk, and it is purified by heating to the point it melts, then scraping off the gunk, then repeating the process.

Yeah, so kudos in coming here. I'm sure it's no walk in the park.

Hey Pam - can we maybe have a "refiner's fire" board?  It can be where we go to call each other out on perceived imperfections!  

[Guest Godless]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Hey Pam - can we maybe have a "refiner's fire" board?  It can be where we go to call each other out on perceived imperfections!  

Isn't that what the Current Events forum is for? 

[dsnell]

18 hours ago, Vort said:

Brother Snell, I don't speak for @Just_A_Guy, but I am confident you have badly misunderstood his point.

The "RS Bingo" activities and ideas that you poked fun at and that you pointed out had responses that were quite hostile and "politically correct" are, in fact, the very sort of activities that VIRTUOUS young women tend to engage in. The more worldly young women are much more likely to be involved in things such as sex, alcohol, and other drug usage -- yet you didn't make fun of them for so doing. There were no jokes targeted at young women who engage in casual oral sex with their boyfriends or dates, for example. No mockery or finger-pointing laughter at girls who get wasted at parties and wake up next to some beer-reeking guy they don't recognize and have no recollection of how they got there. Rather, it was the virtuous girls and the sometimes silly things they do and say that you mocked.

JAG never accused you of slut-shaming. Rather, he stated (quite clearly, I thought) that if you are going to "virtue-shame" faithful LDS girls because someone makes up a silly "RS Bingo" sheet pointing out and perhaps parodying such activities -- which is exactly what you did -- then you should never complain if OTHER people then "slut-shame" the girls who drop their panties to keep their boyfriends interested. No fair whining about "slut-shaming" when you go about "virtue-shaming".

Clear now?

@Vort I didn't make jokes about casual oral sex and "girls who get wasted at parties and wake up next to some beer-reeking guy they don't recognize and have no recollection of how they got there" because I don't find that funny.

On the other hand, I do find "say something straight up flirty" as a funny flirting tactic. I'm sorry if that offends you. I don't feel that I made fun of the Law of Chastity or sacred doctrines regarding sexual intimacy, and therefore don't feel like I'm virtue-shaming. You obviously feel differently, which is fine. You're allowed to feel that way, and you're definitely allowed to rip me apart for it :).

Have a great day!

[dsnell]

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Kudos, by the way dsnell.  It takes guts to write stuff and publish it for the world to see.  It also takes guts to wade into a batch of critics and interact with them.  

Joseph Smith talked about being a rough stone rolling down a hill, and every violent crash knocked off a chunk here and there, until he was a smooth stone.  He also talked about the refiner's fire - gold ore starts out full of impurities and gunk, and it is purified by heating to the point it melts, then scraping off the gunk, then repeating the process.

Yeah, so kudos in coming here. I'm sure it's no walk in the park.

Hey Pam - can we maybe have a "refiner's fire" board?  It can be where we go to call each other out on perceived imperfections!  

Thanks for the encouragement @NeuroTypical. 

[Vort]

Just now, dsnell said:

@Vort I didn't make jokes about casual oral sex and "girls who get wasted at parties and wake up next to some beer-reeking guy they don't recognize and have no recollection of how they got there" because I don't find that funny.

That is not the point, David. The next time you hear someone else make such a joke, are you going to be okay with it? Or is it okay only to mock the dating habits of virtuous women, and leave sacrosanct the dating habits of the non-virtuous?

1 minute ago, dsnell said:

On the other hand, I do find "say something straight up flirty" as a funny flirting tactic. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Seriously?

How can you have read JAG's and my comments, and still maintain that we are offended that you find something funny?

Do you have any clue what JAG and I have been trying to say? Because you seem to be completely at sea. In fact, you seem to be actively avoiding what we have written.

3 minutes ago, dsnell said:

I don't feel that I made fun of the Law of Chastity or sacred doctrines regarding sexual intimacy, and therefore don't feel like I'm virtue-shaming.

Honestly, this is pretty straightforward:

• You made fun of the dating tactics and habits of virtuous women.
• You did NOT make fun of the dating tactics and habits of non-virtuous women.

Still with me?

SO.....

When someone else makes fun of the dating habits of non-virtuous women -- say, I don't know, a bingo card with "Fingering" and "Porno flick" and "Sexting" in the squares -- you won't get offended for them. Right? Because making fun of the dating tactics of non-virtuous women is at least as acceptable as mocking the tactics of the virtuous.

In other words, by laughing at and mocking the dating tactics of virtuous young women -- that is, by "virtue-shaming" -- you have permanently forfeited your right to get offended by "slut shaming".

Agreed?

[dsnell]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

That is not the point, David. The next time you hear someone else make such a joke, are you going to be okay with it? Or is it okay only to mock the dating habits of virtuous women, and leave sacrosanct the dating habits of the non-virtuous?

Seriously?

How can you have read JAG's and my comments, and still maintain that we are offended that you find something funny?

Do you have any clue what JAG and I have been trying to say? Because you seem to be completely at sea. In fact, you seem to be actively avoiding what we have written.

Honestly, this is pretty straightforward:

• You made fun of the dating tactics and habits of virtuous women.
• You did NOT make fun of the dating tactics and habits of non-virtuous women.

Still with me?

SO.....

When someone else makes fun of the dating habits of non-virtuous women -- say, I don't know, a bingo card with "Fingering" and "Porno flick" and "Sexting" in the squares -- you won't get offended for them. Right? Because making fun of the dating tactics of non-virtuous women is at least as acceptable as mocking the tactics of the virtuous.

In other words, by laughing at and mocking the dating tactics of virtuous young women -- that is, by "virtue-shaming" -- you have permanently forfeited your right to get offended by "slut shaming".

Agreed?

@Vort I guess you're right, Vort. I'm pretty much the worst.

[Vort]

Just now, dsnell said:

@Vort I guess you're right, Vort. I'm pretty much the worst.

Oh, for heaven's sake. Really? That's the level of discourse you want? "You're personally insulting me, so I'm going to go the passive aggressive route"?

Does what I wrote have merit, or does it not? If it does not, then explain where I'm wrong, point by point. It shouldn't be hard. On the other hand, if I'm right, then respond to that with a real response, not some passive aggressive nonsense.

[The Folk Prophet]

Honestly, @Vort and @Just_A_Guy, that seems a bit of a stretch to me. I don't think it logically follows that because, for example, we make fun of Mormons and green jello that we forfeit our right to get offended by keggers.

That being said, I don't think we, as saints, ought to be making fun of each other at all, which is my primary problem with this article.

[pam]

37 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Hey Pam - can we maybe have a "refiner's fire" board?  It can be where we go to call each other out on perceived imperfections!  

I thought we already did that on the forums?  That wouldn't be anything new.

[Vort]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Honestly, @Vort and @Just_A_Guy, that seems a bit of a stretch to me. I don't think it logically follows that because, for example, we make fun of Mormons and green jello that we forfeit our right to get offended by keggers.

I agree. It wasn't the making fun per se that gored my ox. Rather, it was the nasty, cutting remarks made by those who were making fun that got my dander up. To quote JAG, with a few parts emphasized:

18 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would agree with you, as a BYU grad myself, that all-in-all the BIngo sheet itself is amusing.  But the examples your article cites go far beyond amusement or even bemusement.  By turns they dismiss the sheet as "crazy crap"; call for it to be "mock[ed] ruthlessly", associate it with "vomit". Remember that goshawful "Friday song" Youtube video that made the rounds a few years ago, and how after a while a consensus emerged that those of us who remarked on how bad the thing was were actually engaging in "cyber-bullying", whereupon the internet repented in sackcloth and ashes?  Well, as you say, the sheet was drawn up by a real girl; probably at the behest of a real YW/RS presidency. 

Moreover, while some of the tactics described in the sheet (especially the physicality of some of them) are . . . unique; most of the underlying assumptions...are fundamentally sound.  I think, if you got to know some of the folks you retweeted a bit better, you'd find that a good number of them disagree with some or all of those assumptions; which is why they reacted to the sheet with the rhetorical equivalent of vitriolic sneers rather than indulgent smiles.

We have a celebration of the mockery of decent young women, with most of that mockery coming from people who likely reject the morality that underlies what they mock. They great hypocrisy is the outrage these same people (and perhaps Brother Snell himself) would demonstrate if the target of such mean-spirited mockery were the dating tactics and habits, not of the virtuous, but of the non-virtuous. It is that hypocrisy to which JAG and I object (speaking for JAG, which of course I can't really do). I do not know that Brother Snell himself participates in this hypocritical view -- I hope he does not -- but his column certainly furthered that end, whether or not that was his intent.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, pam said:

I thought we already did that on the forums?  That wouldn't be anything new.

I think it might be very popular to have a "The Folk Prophet's imperfections" board.