In Case You Were Wondering

One of the many ways in which I wish I was like Mary Poppins is her take on explaining herself: "Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I never explain anything."

But, I frequently spend a great deal of time, energy and effort explaining myself, because it's important to me that people understand me. If they understand me, we'll live a harmonious existence, and everyone will be happier, right?

Yes, I actually do hang on to that hope. No comments about futility, please.

Anyway...

Apparently, there are people wondering if I've changed my mind about certain things, because, the theory goes, they didn't "really" affect me before.

You see, I belong - by choice, I feel impressed to add - to a religion that teaches that marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman, and my daughter married a woman.

For instance, someone recently said to me, "Have you come to terms with your daughter yet?" I have no idea what that inquiry means.

Do they mean, am I aware that my daughter does not follow the religion in which we raised her? Of course. When her age was still in single digits, she started arguing with us about church teachings because "nobody else does things that way." Once, when she insisted that "nobody else has household rules like that" (the subject was chores, something she detested) and I immediately rattled off the names of half a dozen families, she wailed, "Why are you talking about people at church?" I responded, "Why aren't you? When you use words like 'nobody' or 'everybody,' you'd better not know of any exceptions. Those words mean 'not even one person, worldwide.'" As a teen, she started saying things like, "Mormons do it all wrong." She stopped attending church at 18, and has never been quiet about her disagreements with doctrine or practices.

Do they mean, have I processed the fact that my daughter's in a relationship with a woman? Years ago. The first time I met my now daughter-in-law, she and my daughter were wearing matching rings. Even in the early years of the relationship, which dates back to when my now-28 year old was in college, my daughter's photos on my computer (her open Shutterfly account) contained an image of them kissing. Even early in the relationship, there were Internet searches of wedding venues. We didn't have to be Sherlock Holmes.

Do they mean, how do I treat my daughter's wife? The same way I always have, the same way I treat any person. From the time we met, we included her in family outings and family meals. Before we even met her, we bought travel souvenirs for her when we were on vacation. At Christmas, when we bought glasses with his favorite NFL team logo for my son-in-law, we bought her glasses with her favorite NFL team logo. We've included her name and photo in our Christmas card.

Do they mean, am I prepared for public scrutiny or questions? Always. How will people know anything if they don't ask? Plus, I'm generally a TMI person, not a privacy obsessed one. Virtually everything on my social media, for instance, is set on "public," so everyone knows what I'm saying about anyone and anything. I have never, ever asked my daughter or her wife to hide, to lie, to make themselves scarce, to not bring up their relationship around certain people. If people are obnoxious, well, that's a good sign that I need to keep those people, not my daughter, at arm's length.

Do they mean, am I aware that my daughter has unfavorable things to say about my religion? See above; yes, since her childhood.

Do they mean, am I prepared for this to be my reality? Of course. Anyone who believes that other people and their actions are, or should be, under the control of anyone but themselves is delusional or power hungry.

Do they mean, have I changed my mind and left, or doubted, my religion? That mindset - and yes, I have come across it - has always been so annoying. Do people usually change their minds, especially their deeply held beliefs, because someone else doesn't agree? Should they? I'm not easily swayed. Besides, it's outright offensive when someone says to me, "How can you belong to your religion, knowing that its beliefs cause your daughter pain?" but they are aghast and horrified if the question is reversed - "How can my daughter hold her beliefs, knowing that they cause her parents pain?" Take any answer you would give to one of us about free will and determining our own destiny, and apply it to the opposite question, as well, because the answers are the same.

Do they mean, do I agree with my religion? Yes, I do. Any official doctrine of my church is something that I embrace. Sometimes that has come quickly and easily (sometimes, before I even attended my church), and sometimes it's taken years of study and prayer. It's also offensive to me when someone sees me treat someone, anyone, outside of my religion with love and friendship, and then says, "So, you obviously don't believe (insert doctrine here) that the Mormons teach." (Yes, this has actually happened to me.) They are almost universally puzzled when I say, "Yes, I do. That's why my treatment of people doesn't depend on me agreeing with them. That's what my church teaches, that we are all children of God." I have no idea why people equate "children of God, who should be loved and cared for" with "agrees with and acts like me." I assure you, that is not what LDS members are taught.

As a subset of that, do they mean, do I think that this is the life that my daughter was destined to live? No, I do not. I do not believe in the "soul mates" concept that there is only one perfect partner for you. Anyone who's had a spouse die, or gone through a breakup thinking, "I will never love anyone that way again" knows that you will meet someone that you can love again (and that love is every bit as "real" as the love that you previously had). I think it is also possible to be deeply, truly in love, and have the relationship be one that should not be pursued. We know that, even if we don't enjoy the actions, or they don't come easily, we still need to practice good nutrition, exercise, hold a job (at home or somewhere else), be polite, be helpful, treat everyone fairly, clean our homes, do our laundry, refrain from violence, and a host of other behaviors. So, it makes no sense to me to say, "Unless you act on your sexual feelings, you're not being true to yourself, and you're doomed to failure." I don't think that "normal" necessarily equates to "desirable." I think that the fact that it biologically takes a man and a woman to perpetuate the species indicates that the ideal environment for raising them will contain a father and a mother.

A friend works for the local crisis hotline, and once went to her social media to ask, "What should I say to callers like this?" A caller said he was afraid to tell his parents that he was gay, because they thought homosexuality was wrong. My response was: I would say, "You think your parents are wrong. You think their views are hateful, divisive, inaccurate and hurtful. Yet, YOU LOVE THEM, and you WANT THEM IN YOUR LIFE, ALWAYS. That's undoubtedly EXACTLY how they feel about YOU."

So, I'm sitting there, having been asked if I've "come to terms," and having no earthly idea what that actually means. So I went with the only fact that matters, and said, "I love my daughter."

"I know that's what you say, but what about the Sharon in private?" Um - what? Did you just actually imply to my face that I do not love my daughter, AND that I'm two faced?

"She's the same person," I said. Remember the old computer term, WYSIWYG, which meant What You See Is What You Get? That's me. I do not have the energy to be different things to different people, and to try to remember how I'm "supposed" to act around them. My kids (and this daughter in particular) used to hate it when they'd tell some story that they were sure would embarrass me (on the theory that I'd bribe them to get them to shut up), only to discover that people already knew the story. Or, if they didn't, I was likely to say, "That's not the worst part!" and share more. I don't believe in tying myself in knots trying to make sure that others don't hear unflattering tales.

"I said Sharon."

"I know. And I'm telling you, the public and private Sharon look the same."

"Oh, I know you say that. But I know you."

Obviously not too well! This is someone who spent almost two decades in a relationship that they would not acknowledge in public, and they know very personal and often embarrassing things about me, and I'm the one accused of hiding? Seriously? I've told scores of people things that were none of their business, just because I overshare.

"You keep things inside." Do I make every effort to be civil, even when I'm angry, to be courteous, even when I don't like people, and make every effort to refrain from gossip? Yes; that's not being deceitful, that's being mature.

So, here I am, typing, trying to explain myself again, with no idea if that's possible, or even a good idea.

Let's try this. Here's a photo from my daughter's wedding:

That's my husband, me, our 4 kids, and my new daughter-in-law.

Here's one of all of the wedding guests:

Almost all of those people are members of my family. (The number inches closer to 100% if you count Mickey, and many of us would.) Since going on a cruise is expensive, the couple knew that the numbers would be small, but for a small ceremony, that's a lot of people. Now think about the fact that some people are there because they think my daughter is doing the right thing, and some are there just because they love my daughter.

The couple had a beautiful day that made them happy, and they shared it with loved ones.

Here's one from my oldest daughter's wedding:

That building we're in front of is the Salt Lake Temple. The woman in the wheelchair is my mom. She is not LDS, and she did not think that it was important to be married in an LDS temple. She is there, far from her home and in no small amount of physical discomfort, knowing that she cannot set foot inside the building, and that she will not see the wedding ceremony. She is there, in a borrowed wheelchair, because she loves my daughter.

The couple had a beautiful day that made them happy, and they shared it with loved ones.

This was taken at my grandniece's naming ceremony, at the synagogue my niece attends.

Only 3 people in this photo are Jewish, the parents and the new infant. The rest of them traveled a great distance, and are at the synagogue not to worship, but because they love my niece. (And, just as an aside, my niece is also in a same sex relationship.)

The couple had a beautiful day that made them happy, and they shared it with loved ones.

In sharing this I by no means am saying, "We are so amazing!" In fact, quite the contrary. My family and I are extremely ordinary. There are no rich, famous, or powerful people. We are flawed. We can be petty, bad tempered, forgetful, lazy, annoying, hurtful. We have money issue and health issues. We squabble and bicker. There are no Superhumans here.

Other people are doing the family thing better than I am. You're a good parent and your house is clean? Hats off to you. You work full time and coach your kid's team? I get exhausted just thinking about it.

We are so, so ordinary. Ordinary is good enough.

Any time someone wants to pat my daughter on the back for being willing to love such clueless parents, or to pat us on the back for loving such a difficult child, they need to stop. The idea that the main purpose of human interaction is achieving agreement is prejudicial and oppressive. I am amazed that so many people subscribe to it. It amazes and puzzles me any time someone feels that in order to truly love someone, or in order to even get along with civility, you have to agree, at least on the big stuff - religion, politics, etc.

Things that others said to my daughter undoubtedly contributed to the ridiculously long time it took for her to have The Conversation with us. Every time the subject of same sex relationships came up, we assured her that the horror stories you hear about people behaving badly in the face of such differences are a small fraction of the population. Most people handle them quite well, but those aren't the stories you hear repeated over and over again. Nobody calls up their friends and says, "Did you hear about Sally's parents? They behaved perfectly reasonably." Nobody re-shares "... and life went on as usual" stories on their social media. But many people perpetuate the idea that people will only treat you well if they agree with you. The positive stories that do get reblogged are the ones that say, "... and because we all agreed that Jimmy was right, everything was fine."

People say things like, "Religious parents are going to be the ones who behave badly," and, "Mormon parents are going to be a problem." Sometimes they say things like, "They'll come around eventually," indicating again the idea that everyone will need to agree for things to be fine, and that eventually, of course, everyone will agree. When I've asked people why this is, I get answers like, "Well, you hear all these stories..." or, "I had Mormon neighbors once, and they..." When someone says something like, "I had a Mormon uncle, and he...," I want to point out that I don't consider, for instance, my devout Catholic niece to be the final word in Catholic doctrine, or the poster child for her religion, or indicative of how all Catholics will (or should) behave. When I say things like, "I know a lot of Mormons who behave differently than that," I'm told that it's irrelevant, but those same people will insist that the people that they know or have heard about are hard evidence. Or, someone wants to get into a game of numbers - "I have more examples than you do!" (This is often despite the fact that they have never met as many LDS members as someone who regularly attends LDS meetings has.)

We never cautioned our younger children against spending time with, or listening to, their sister, either. We didn't view her as contagious in any way.

Someone once told me that the mere fact of my church membership indicated bigotry. Aside from the fact that that belief is the dictionary definition of prejudice, I was letting my children sit on the lap of my gay best friend with AIDS before my accuser was even born. I was still hugging him when the disease was advanced, and that was in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when people still said things like, "We don't know if the virus can spread through casual contact." Do not try to talk to me about bigotry if you have no idea what my life looks like, or if you think that a single piece of information is all that you need to know! (I get almost as upset at people who say, "Well, you can't blame her for thinking that. Most Mormons..." Again, that's prejudice, and again, you don't know most Mormons, even in your own community, much less worldwide.)

People told my son stuff like this, too, when he decided to leave our church, and not serve a mission. "Oh, your parents are going to just freak out!" It's almost understandable coming from people who've never met us, but even then it's annoying. Plus, we aren't the freak out type. Neither my parents-in-law nor my parents freaked out when we joined the church, either; the odds that we'd lose our minds over a child leaving were very small. (Plus, we'd already had one child leave the church; surely that's a pretty good indicator of how we'd act.)

"It's different when it's your own child," people said, dismissing the way we'd treated anyone else, gay or otherwise. You know how it's different? The parent/child relationship is permanent. Marriages are dissolved, friendships fade, but children are always yours. My child could never speak to me again, and I'd still be her mother. I could die tomorrow, my husband could re-marry, and I'd still be her mother. The parent/child relationship is the only biological relationship that you choose. You can't choose any of your other biological relatives, but any woman who has given birth has chosen, daily, for months on end, to bring a child into the world. That's how it's different.

(As an aside, I can speak to the mindset of giving birth, because it's what I did, but adoptive parents spend more time preparing, and they have to go find their children. They are equally determined; perhaps more so.)

So, for better or worse, I'm putting us out there, pointing at my family and saying, "People can disagree on fundamental things, and still love and support each other." "Support" does not mean "agree with."

In case you were wondering.

Now, when people say, "Well, I know this one Mormon family..." you can say, "I do, too." Plus, if we aren't impressive enough, I can point you in the direction of some really impressive people.

Honor Code Violations

I hesitate to write anything on this subject again; it did not go well on my Facebook page.

It started with this article about Brigham Young University (BYU) and the students challenging the school's honor code. The claim was made that it unfairly targeted female victims of sexual assault. People were very angry, because sexual assault is a dreadful crime, and they insisted that school policy further victimized the women. How? Because if they were in violation of the school's Honor Code when the assault occurred, they would still face censure for any rules they, themselves, broke.

(You can read the entire Honor Code here.)

I sincerely thought that this was a misunderstanding of the policy at best, and knee jerk reaction at worst. It should be possible to clear up this misunderstanding easily, I thought. I posted the article and said so - "It's not about gender bias or shaming. It's about breaking contracts."

I mean, to me it's obvious that if you know that a policy exists, you agree to that policy in writing, and you sign your name to a contract saying that you will follow those rules or accept censure, there's very, very little room - no, strike that, there's no room - to complain if you're censured for breaking the rules. Simple. right?

A few people saw it that way. They said things like, "I agree that if a student agreed to attend this school knowing that they have such a code, that they should not feel like they get a pass if they're the victim of any sort of crime."

Most pounced on me and quite roundly accused me of condoning rape, of saying that women "asked for it" or "deserved it," and voiced the opinion that I only thought this because I was brainwashed and controlled by my religion.

This was a typical response: " There is NEVER a good reason for punishing the victim of rape."

I could not quite get across that no one was punished because they were raped, they were punished because they broke rules, even when I said things like, "They're referred (to the disciplinary committee) if there's something to show that a rule's been broken - no different than if a male student was pulled over for DUI, off campus." I spent the better part of two days answering every response, and people STILL accused me of condoning rape.

It's been months, and I am still astonished that anyone could take the statement, "Contracts are enforceable" and turn it into, "Women deserve to be raped." That is just such a huge, ridiculous, illogical leap that, if you'd told me before this that people would make it, I would have told you that you were wrong.

And I said "it's about contracts" repeatedly: "It makes no sense to say, "I agree to these rules," but then disagree with them if they negatively impact you. I wouldn't get a free pass on an honor code violation if I was a victim of any non-sexual crime, so why should I get one if the crime is sexual? The students are not being held responsible for their assaults, but simply for breaking the school rules" "As an example, the woman in the article who said, "I'm being honest here. I was doing drugs. But you're not going to censure me for that, are you?" If I was being asked, the answer would be, "Um, yes, I am. It's breaking the law, AND violating the code of conduct to which you agreed.""

Someone responded by telling me that someone was raped "because she was out past 10pm."

NO. To be clear, the women were NOT raped because of what time they were out. They were raped because they were alone with a rapist.

I didn't even bother to point out that, if you read the article, you saw that some of these women were groped, through their clothes; although that is sexual assault, and both immoral and illegal, it is not rape. I went ahead and let people assign the word "rape" to ANY assault.

It's bad enough to have acquaintances, people who don't know me very well, tell me that I believe that certain women deserve to be raped, but many of the people insisting that it was OBVIOUS that this was what I thought were people who've known me for 20 or 30 years, or more. That was quite painful. You've known me for most of your life, and you honestly think it's possible that I hold this opinion? What about my conduct or speech has ever given that impression, even for a moment? I don't even joke about this.

I realized that many people were obviously having a discussion about whether or not rape was OK, and I said, repeatedly, "This is not about rape. It's about contracts." I was told, "No. It's about rape." So, what if this were about men who were robbed when they were out after curfew, because someone was sure that they'd never report it? I was told that such comparisons are wrong, because rape was a violent crime, and therefore in a different category. OK, what if these men were beaten when they were out after curfew, instead? Do we say that you get a pass if you're the victim of a violent crime, but not a non violent one? Do you get preferential treatment if you're a woman? Both those options seem ridiculous and ill advised.

One friend finally understood what I was saying the next day, after protracted conversation, when I said, "First, here's what they did wrong: 1: choose a university whose rules they intended to ignore. 2. Sign a pledge stating that they would uphold the rules (or accept the consequences). 3. Break the rules. 4. Complain that they shouldn't be penalized for breaking the rules. Now, I'm not a sports fan, but that looks like more than three strikes, you're out.

But let's assume that nobody did anything morally wrong. Allow me to illustrate that point with an example starring: my husband.

Now, I think my husband is a pretty great guy. That's why I'm married to him. He has a job. His job has a dress code. It used to be just things like the kind of footwear they allow. Now, they have uniforms. If he did not wear his uniform, the first time, he'd be written up. A second time, he might be demoted or docked pay. A third time, and he could kiss the job goodbye.

It's not that his regular clothes are immoral or dangerous. It's not that he'd be unable to do his job in street clothes, or that he's a danger or distraction to others. It's not as if he turns into a violent pervert if he wears his Star Wars T-shirts. It's just that his employer has a policy. His employment is contingent on following those policies, regardless of his opinion about any of them. (The policy has also changed several times in the years he's been working for his employer.)

If he lost his job because he just couldn't be bothered to put on the uniform, I'd kick his butt into next week. If your employer mandates that everyone wear a Carmen Miranda fruit hat on Tuesdays, you wear one. You don't refuse to wear the hat, then file a lawsuit, and get the Vegetable Growers of America to back your suit, on the grounds that fruit hats perpetuate the idea that fruit is fun and vegetables are icky, and are therefore discriminatory."

The friend then said, "It sounds like the story you heard was "women are trying to use their status as victims to get out of responsibility for their actions.""

YES! YES! I have used THOUSANDS of words to say just that! I responded, "What I heard was "Women expect to get a pass on any rules they broke, because they were raped while breaking them, and rape is worse than whatever they did." My belief is, "Rule breakers should expect consequences, even if somebody else did something worse." Sex, gender, whatever is irrelevant. "

Most people wanted to discuss whether the rules were good ones, and whether rape was bad. We were having THREE separate conversations in one; and, many people really had no interest in understanding me.

One close friend severed all contact with me after this Facebook discussion. This friend is SURE that I was excusing violence and victimization. I can't talk to people if we're obviously having different discussions. And if you won't even have the conversation, well, I can't help you.

So, I'm going to have all three discussions here, separately. We've already had Discussion 1: Contracts Are, and Should Be, Enforceable.

So, let's go on to Discussion 2: Is Rape Ever OK?

This should be quick: NO. (But then again, I thought that the contract discussion was quick and self explanatory, so I'll say more.)

I said on Facebook: " My opinion on rape has always been, and I've said online, to my kids, and anywhere else, all of my life, that if a woman you've previously had sex with is drunk, naked and alone, but says "no," then you're a cretin if you so much as push the issue or ask again."

I'll admit that there is wiggle room in a marriage for a little wheedling. "No" might get the response, "Oh, come on, the kids are at your mom's! We never get this kind of privacy!" But in or out of a marriage, sexual activity is NEVER NEVER NEVER a given, an inevitability, an obligation. Never. You're allowed to be hurt, frustrated, unhappy with an answer of "no," but you still have to honor the other person's wishes.

I can't quite believe that it isn't an absolute given that I feel this way. But now you know - that's what I think.

People have a right to refuse even non-sexual body contact if they don't want it. Cases of safety, medical care and child rearing are the only times it's OK to touch someone who doesn't want it (screaming, "No bath!" doesn't mean that I won't bathe a child who needs it), and it's legally OK to refuse medical care!

Now let's have Discussion 3: Are the Honor Code Rules Good Ones? Honestly, I think this is where many people got bogged down. Having decided that they disagree with the Honor Code, they could not see any way they would ever be OK with its enforcement.

First, see my analogy about my husband's employer's dress code. I truly do not care if the rules are good or bad. If the school wanted to say that everyone must wear purple on Tuesdays, and must turn counterclockwise three times every time they enter or leave a classroom, those rules are enforceable. If you don't like the rules, don't attend the school. This is not public school, where attendance is mandated by law.

I said, " If I am mugged, neither the law nor popular opinion will consider it my fault. If, however, I was alone, at night, in certain neighborhoods or situations, wearing expensive jewelry, carrying large amounts of cash, people will feel - and rightly - that I did not take all of the precautions, or display all of the awareness, that I could/should have. That's the second consideration.

We routinely warn people to avoid the situations named above, or to lock their cars and hide their valuables, or to lock their doors at home. When we travel, those warnings go up. If someone is robbed, the thieves will still be to blame, and will still be prosecuted, but everyone from law enforcement to casual friends will remind the victims that they should have taken precautions in the past, and should definitely take them in the future."

"Of course, I'm also ticked off that society went from leaving our doors unlocked to locking them to also locking the windows to whole house security systems (in ONE lifetime!). We SHOULD be able to expect people to stay the heck out of our houses, belongings, etc. without them. But, when my house was robbed, one of the first things the police asked was, "Were your doors and windows locked?" And you can bet I would have kicked myself had the answer been "No. I trust in the goodness of my fellow humans.""

"If you (the rhetorical, as well as individual "you") don't like the rules at BYU, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. I mean, are campuses that are OK with all night alcohol and sex situations in short supply, somehow? There's only 3 BYU campuses (and the admissions are highly competitive). Surely someone who thinks the rules are Draconian is best served by going elsewhere."

"I mean, at its core, the point is that each person is responsible for their own actions, and accepts the consequences when they take any action. Just as we're not responsible for others, we also can't forgo the consequences of what we do.

The only reason this has people freaking out is because there's questions of sex, religion and violence pushing everyone's buttons. If I made the above statement in almost any other situation, people would say, "Sure. Of course. That's obvious.""

"To me, the BYU rules say, "You have to be more careful here than you did at home. You are away from family, familiar places and your safety net. The lines have to be adjusted accordingly. Even if you might not have a problem, the person next to you might.""

"I know that there are those who disagree with BYU's honor code. I've even had people tell me that following such rules "ruins" the students' chances of "living a normal life." People who feel this way should choose another school."

"Often, non-LDS people respond to hearing those things (included in the Honor Code) by saying, "They got suspended/kicked out/disciplined for that? That's normal behavior on any other university campus!" And THAT is why most people should attend schools that are NOT BYU."

"I have active, temple recommend holding LDS friends who say that they would not attend BYU or encourage their kids to attend, because they disagree with the honor code. That's OK; it's a valid opinion. But anyone who HAS chosen to attend does NOT get, in my opinion, to say, "Oh, wait, I've now decided that I don't like these rules, so I shouldn't be subject to them." Universities are supposed to prepare students to be productive citizens. Is there any civic law that will say, "oh, OK, you're exempt," if you say that you're philosophically opposed to the law or policy? Sorry, officer, I think that speed limits are wrong, so you can't ticket me."

I think everyone also ignored the fact that there are many, many possible outcomes when you're investigated for an Honor Code violation. From the official BYU website: " An appropriate action will be selected from the following: No Action, Counsel and Education, Referral (to a responsible person or agency—e.g., reconciliation process), Warning, Probation, Suspension Withheld, Suspension, and Dismissal."

That's right - you might face NO action, or a simple warning. There's EIGHT possible outcomes. They're not kicking you out of school if you were 5 minutes past curfew. (The complete article can be read here.)

Having had a couple of months to mull it over, I think that what upsets people most is the BYU dress code. This also doesn't really register with me, because, with a few exceptions, it's how all LDS people are counseled to dress. It's not unique to BYU. I tend to forget how any kind of clothing standards tend to cause people to freak out.

All LDS Church members are told to avoid tank tops (or spaghetti straps) or strapless clothes, bare midriff, bare backs and the like. Shorts should reach the knee. Women's swimsuits should be one piece. The school's is a bit stricter; in church during almost any week, you can find women and girls wearing leggings under skirts that are shorter than knee length, but BYU doesn't allow that.

It also is a code for ALL people, not just women. Men need knee length shorts. They are not allowed tank tops, sleeveless tops, or to wander around topless (except for places like the  swimming pool). They are not allowed beards, including goatees, soul patches, or simple scruff. (If you are a member of a religion that mandates facial hair, you are granted an exemption from that requirement.) My son favors scruff, and when he attended BYU-Idaho, they would not let him take his ID photo or sign in to his student housing until he shaved it off. Was he annoyed? Sure. He griped. But he complied, because those are the rules. He also left his cherished sword and knife collection home, because they violate the school's weapons policy. His weapons aren't considered immoral in any way - LDS Scout leaders gave him some of those knives - but they violate campus policy; so, they stayed home. Again, he griped, but he complied.

"But why have these rules?" people ask. I don't; I don't think that any organization needs to defend its dress code or other policies to me, personally. But, in this case, aside from the normal modesty standards we're all asked to maintain, they have a dress code for the same reason any business, school, company or team has a dress code: this is the image they want the public to see. This is how they want their school represented. (If you don't like it, go elsewhere.)

Asking for modesty seems to freak some people out. They are just sure it's about repression, shame, and subjugating women. They just cannot seem to wrap their heads around ANY other POSSIBLE reason for clothing standards, and I find that really puzzling. If it was about subjugating women, why are there clothing standards for men? Is anyone going to make the statement that the school, or the church, thinks that men should be the victims of crime if they're bearded and wearing a tank top? Then why assume that they're making those judgments about women? It's illogical.

I have gotten some truly infuriating answers when I've asked people questions like that. With some frequency, I get answers like, "It's easier for men. They can be considered fashionable and attractive in clothing like that ("that" meaning that it covers most of their body), but women can't." EXCUSE ME? That is an enormously anti-woman sentiment! Do you sincerely want to tell me that women cannot be "attractive" or "fashionable" unless they are in skimpy clothing? You don't see the rampant sexism in that statement? Do we want a university, of all places, to say, "Ladies, in order to be fashionable and attractive, you're going to need to show some skin"? There is no way that I'm OK with any form of that sentiment.

And if the sexism weren't bad enough, I'm also appalled that being "fashionable" is seen as a worthwhile goal. Don't think for yourselves, folks - do whatever's popular right this minute! Sure, what's popular will change in the weeks, months, and years ahead, but you're expected to change your opinion, and your appearance, to conform! I have so little use for trends of any kind, and certainly not for appearance oriented trends. I have the same basic "style" I had as a child. I never did big hair and parachute pants, despite being a teen and 20-something in the 80s. Am I aware that people make negative judgments about that? Yes. Do I care? No. And do not tell me that it is the job of a university to encourage the following of fashion; I find that thought incompatible with the idea of "higher learning."

Do I find fashion and its followers implicitly immoral? No. I just find following fashions to be superficial at best and elitist at worst. Neither of those things is desirable to me.

I also have a really difficult time with sentiments often quoted in popular media. After a celebrity was recently criticized after she posted nude selfies on her social media, she said, "I'm not going to dilute my sexuality and my power because it makes you uncomfortable." Honey, attention seeking is not power. And if you think that your power and your sexuality are tied to your appearance, opinions about you, what the public sees, exposure, or how much attention or validation you get, I feel very sorry for you. You obviously do not understand either power or sexuality.

I was deeply delighted by what actress Gwendolyn Christie said to TIME Magazine about her role as Captain Phasma in Star Wars, and in particular, about her costume (which, if you don't know, was unisex armor that included a full helmet with face shield): “What I found interesting about the character was when they showed me the costume, obviously it looks incredible, and I got excited by that. But it is rare that women get to play a character and below the neck they are really covered up to the extent that you cannot really see the flesh outlines of their body. This excited me for two reasons. It excited me because I realized that every gesture I made would have to indicate something, would have to say something about the character. So the way I stood, the way that I gestured with my arm, where I put the weight in my hips that would all say something about the character. Because [producer] Kathleen Kennedy said to me, ‘Have you ever Googled female heroines?’ And I said I hadn’t, and she did the Google search and showed me. There were a lot of very conventional images of women in fairly revealing outfits, or at least outfits that showed the outlines of their body. And it felt to me that there was a character where we should respond to her due to her actions and what she represented rather than a more conventional delineated flesh outline. And that felt like a step forward in terms of the kind of characters women play in films in our entertainment industry. It felt really progressive to me. And consequently I’m very proud to play this part because yeah, you look at her and she looks badass. But also it means something much deeper and it represents something of proper progressive thought, and it’s in a package that we all love. That’s why I’m so over the moon to be part of this wonderful thing because it’s actually doing something positive and progressive.”

YES. YES. YES. We should "respond to her due to her actions," not according to how she looked! That's the point! That's what I would expect anyone who considers themselves a feminist to think. About the whole brouhaha over BYU's honor code, I wrote, "And, I consider my position that it doesn't matter if the offenders are male, female, minor offenders, major offenders, sexual offenders, carjackers or term paper salesmen to be very feminist. The whole point is to assess by action and ability, not biology."

I wish I could find again and link to a blog I read several months ago. The writer, a woman, said that she had spent her life thinking that modest clothing, and in particular, modest swimsuits, indicated that a person was unattractive, out of shape, or suffering from low self esteem. Consequently, she wore "the tiniest bikini" she could find when she went to the beach or pool. She said that she was constantly comparing her body to those of other women at the pool, either positively or negatively. (And, by the way, the frequently used terminology about whether someone "has the body to wear that" makes me just see red. It's objectifying and demeaning. Whether or not you wear revealing clothing should NOT be determined by whether anyone else thinks you are attractive.).

Then, one day, she found herself enchanted by a little family. They looked so happy, and seemed to be having so much fun. The couple seemed very in love. Then, the writer realized two things simultaneously - 1. she had not compared this woman's body to hers at all, or even thought about whether she was attractive at all, and 2. the woman was the only woman at the pool in a modest one piece swimsuit. "I had noticed her life and her personality, not her body parts. Then, I realized that that was what modesty was about - letting people see my life and my personality, instead of noticing my body or my clothes." YES, YES, YES! That's what modesty is about! It is not about shame!

LDS people are fairly unique in our belief that God has a body, that we are literally made "in His image." That's another reason to dress modestly, avoid tattoos and abstain from alcohol and illegal drug use - to give respect to something that is the image of God.

Another reason for modest clothing is to preserve intimacy. According to dictionary.com, "intimacy" means: "a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship; a close association with or deep understanding of; an act or expression serving as a token of familiarity, affection, or the like; the quality of being warm or familiar." Putting your body parts on unnecessary display erodes intimacy, as your personal body was never meant to be for public consumption. It belongs to you, your partner and your babies, not to anyone with whom you might come in contact.

Even our sexual organs have non-sexual uses, so it makes no sense to me to assume that everything about your physical self is sexual in nature, and that's what you're doing when you insist that the dress code is about sexuality. Many, many things are physical, but not sexual.

Thinking that clothing standards are about sexuality is so foreign to me that I honestly do not consider that possible interpretation until someone (rather forcefully) points it out. In short, I forget that people think that way. Therefore, I'm at a loss to understand the rage that people direct towards the BYU dress code.

In general, I tend to assume that the most reasonable point is between extremes, and on a continuum of "nudist" to "burka," the LDS Church clothing policy falls smack in the middle.

In an effort to use an analogy to explain myself, think of it this way: I have a bank account. There's nothing immoral about it, or about my money. I am not ashamed of having or using a bank account, and I'm not ashamed by what's in it. It's important to me (and to my family). That is exactly why the only people who have access to it are my husband and myself. Even those I love and trust do not have access to my bank account. It would be too easy to do me and my family harm, even unintentionally, if I allowed other people access to it. That is exactly how I feel about my body. That is how I think everyone should feel about their body.

"But fear of being censured for minor infractions is keeping women from reporting assaults!" people have said to me. I understand, and sympathize, with many of the obstacles to reporting and prosecuting a rape. I understand fear of having to tell the story over and over, the frequent lack of physical evidence, fear that you won't be believed, fear that your attacker will retaliate. But if you would rather let a rapist go free, to rape someone else, than receive a curfew or dress code warning, I'm afraid that you aren't very mature, or displaying good judgment. And if your infraction was bigger - say, drug or alcohol use - you would undoubtedly be happier at another university, and should consider a transfer.

I don't mind if anyone disagrees with me. I do, though, mind very much when people try to tell me what I think, instead of asking me, and listening to (and believing) what I have to say.

And I don't mind if you take exception to the BYU rules. However, those rules are not about shame, blame or subjugation. And if your first instinct is to tell me that that statement is wrong, that I am mistaken or misled about that, don't be too upset if I tell you that you are wrong about what you think, or that I know better than you do what your opinion (or that of your family, religious philosophy, employer, club affiliation or anything else) is.