When the Benefit of the Doubt Isn't Ours to Give

What does it mean to give someone the benefit of the doubt? I must admit that I coined my own definition long before ever looking it up. When I finally did, three different sources gave three slightly different definitions. Each definition, however, revolves around the theme of choosing to believe in someone's good intentions when there is doubt in a given situation. My own definition agrees with that theme, but it extends the theme even further, drawing upon the implications of being able to believe in someone's good intentions.

The way I see it, believing in someone's good intentions requires the knowledge or belief that those good intentions exist. Such knowledge or belief can only arise from experience with the person. In other words, if my first encounter with you is a negative one, I essentially have no basis for assuming you have good intentions.

Let's say, for example, you are talking to your friend on the phone, and this friend starts complaining to you about someone they recently met at school. According to your friend, this other person made some very insensitive comments and was quite cynical during their encounter. After listening to your friend describe this person, you start to realize that you actually know them! Not only do you know them, but you have a very high opinion of this person and are appalled that your friend would say these things about them.

So what do you do? Do you assure your friend that this person most likely did not mean those things the way your friend took it? Do you remain neutral? One thing you should not do is give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because in this case, the benefit of the doubt is not yours to give. Neither is it theirs to give, because they don't know the person beyond that negative experience.

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt requires some element of setting our negative feelings aside--based on the assumption that the person wasn't trying to hurt us. But how can you assume that about someone you don't even know? That doesn't mean we should assume all strangers are out to get us, but it does mean that our feelings are still there and deserve to be addressed. That is how we set boundaries with people we've just met. (On a side note, when we choose not to give the benefit of the doubt to people we already know, it is because there is no doubt that they have crossed those boundaries.)

As such, while it is okay to share with your friend your own experiences with the person they just met, you shouldn't dismiss those feelings, assuming there was a misunderstanding. For all you know, there wasn't. I have plenty of friends who dislike each other, and in their minds, for good reason. It would be wrong for me to force my positive opinions on them. If they ever do become friends, it won't be because they gave each other the benefit of the doubt. It will be because their subsequent interactions are more positive than negative, thus enabling them to look past their first impression--without dismissing their own feelings.

So why do I bring this up? A friend of mine recently shared a link that had angered and disgusted her. It had made her feel dirty inside. While my reaction to the article wasn't quite as intense, I could very well understand hers. I won't go into detail because that may lead to tangents, but her reaction was informed by a recurring theme that this article seemed to perpetuate. For various reasons, the theme doesn't affect me as much as it does her, which is actually why it wouldn't have been right for me to suggest she was overreacting.

Someone else did, though. Apparently he was well-acquainted with the author, and was deeply offended by our mutual friend's reaction. He insisted that she had misunderstood the author's words, claiming that the author was a good man with good intentions. Fair enough. It's perfectly fine to give a stranger the benefit of the doubt when your friend vouches for them. It's not okay for the friend to insist that you do so, which is what this person did. Right after indignantly clarifying the author's words, this person condescendingly "requested" that our friend edit or remove her comments. He didn't care that she had found the article repugnant. He didn't care that reading it made her want to take a shower afterwards. All he cared about was his own experience with the author. That is wrong.

Too many of us are dismissive of other people's feelings, albeit unintentionally, when we have more knowledge than they do about a given situation. But it is precisely because of their lack of knowledge that we shouldn't be so dismissive. It is hard enough not to let our emotions overpower our intellect, but if the intellect isn't there, so to speak, our emotions are all we have. Sometimes we simply have different knowledge than the other person, based on different experiences. It is not okay to invalidate other people's experiences by suggesting that ours carry more weight. And yet, when we demand they take us at our word and give someone else the benefit of our doubt (not theirs), that is exactly what we are doing.

Truth be told, I wish a lot more people would give others the benefit of the doubt in general. All too often, when someone says or does something out of place, we rush to judgment and give them no chance to explain themselves. We might even have enough prior knowledge about the person to logically deduce that there has most likely been a misunderstanding. But that is our prerogative. The only way we can change another person's heart is to allow them the same experiences that have changed our hearts. Then and only then can the benefit of the doubt be applied. It cannot be demanded.

Phil Robertson: A Poor Case for Freedom of Speech

So after days of reading about protests for and against Phil Robertson's suspension for his recent rant against homosexuality, I finally relented and read some of the Duck Dynasty star's infamous remarks. I was initially going to stay out of it because I don't care for reality TV, neither does it interest me when celebrities get themselves into trouble with thoughtless statements such as Robertson's. But then people started bringing the First Amendment into the discussion.

Coming from a patriotic family, I am an ardent proponent of the First Amendment. And truth be told, I sometimes find it difficult to support someone's First Amendment rights when they say or do something I otherwise disagree with. But free speech is free speech, and it works both ways. The First Amendment is a true and moral principle that should not be trifled with.

At the same time, as a writer, I get quite irritated when people loosely throw around a word or phrase without quite understanding its actual meaning. Now I've come to accept that words like "literally," "irony," and "further" will always be misused by a good portion of the population. But when vital principles like the First Amendment appear to be misused, I feel inclined to speak up.

So what about Phil Robertson's case? Is the First Amendment being trivialized by one side, or is it being misused by the other? I certainly wasn't about to form my own opinion without reading his actual comments, so I finally googled it. When asked what Robertson considered sinful, this was the response that led to his suspension:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. (Paraphrasing Corinthians) Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

From my perspective, that quote does not target homosexual behavior. Neither does it compare homosexuality with bestiality, as many critics claim. They are just two of the many behaviors that Robertson lists as sinful. But I can see why people would take it that way. His use of the phrase "morph out from there" implies that homosexuality ultimately leads to those other behaviors. I have mixed feelings about such an inference. On one hand, I find the inference hypocritical because the phrase "morph out from there" is just a poor substitute for "go from there," and many of us misuse that phrase on a regular basis. We often use it not just to suggest a cause-effect relationship, but also to indicate our own thought process while expressing ourselves. We're basically thinking out loud.

But on the other hand, when we communicate with an audience, we are responsible for expressing our point effectively. If we choose our words poorly, we cannot blame our audience for misunderstanding us. This is why I value effective communication, as ineffective communication can have drastic consequences. When we think of the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword," we tend to look at it only one way. But just like words can be more persuasive than violence, they can also be more deadly.

Now if A&E were a Government entity, my mixed feelings would be significant. If Robertson meant to identify homosexuality as a gateway sin, he was targeting a group in front of millions of people, and his words come dangerously close to inciting action against that group. Such behavior is not protected by the First Amendment. But if Robertson was simply expressing himself poorly--and I believe he was--then he was merely listing his religious beliefs, which are protected by the First Amendment. While he has had a lot more to say about homosexuality in the past, those past comments aren't what got him suspended.

But because A&E is not a Government entity, all of that is irrelevant. As a former church leader of mine recently observed, freedom of speech "was put in place to protect us from being punished by the Government for speaking out against the Government...it doesn't protect us from the consequences of our publicly-stated opinions in regard to other private parties."

In other words, the First Amendment doesn't apply here, as this issue involves a private employer legally using its own discretion regarding the behavior of one of its employees. While there is such thing as wrongful termination, I don't think that applies here either. If an employer can show that an employee's conduct is hurting their business, that is justifiable grounds for termination. The employer does not have to tolerate such behavior just because it is guided by the employee's personal beliefs.

So no, no matter how you spin it, Robertson's suspension is not a violation of the First Amendment.

When we misuse and overuse a principle as vital as the First Amendment, we eventually weaken its integrity. That is why those who care about it as much as I do should insist upon its correct application even if its incorrect application works in their favor. When we allow the end to justify the means, we make ourselves no better than the tyranny the First Amendment was intended to prevent.

Are Stereotypes Necessarily Bad?

Recently on Twitter, I made a comment that stereotypes are based on true experiences. Someone asked me if I was justifying stereotypes.

My answer to that is yes and no. Stereotypes aren't inherently bad, and by definition have an element of truth. It's what we do with them that can be bad. The way I see it, there are positive and negative ways to respond to stereotypes, and they fall into two categories. The positive response generally involves awareness and preparedness. The negative response generally involves reactiveness and suspicion. Mind you, these thoughts are anecdotal, but they make sense to me. With that in mind, allow me to illustrate with some examples:

Stereotype: Most tall people are good at basketball.

Positive Response: If you're a college basketball scout and visit a high school basketball summer camp, you should probably factor in height when looking for a good rebounder. That doesn't mean you should ignore the shorter players, but it is common sense that being tall makes it easier to rebound the ball.

Negative Response: If you're a college basketball scout, you might ignore the shorter players. If you're anyone else, you might judge a tall person who isn't good at basketball, perhaps thinking he/she doesn't have any other talents. It is true that for some reason, we sometimes negatively judge someone who doesn't meet our expectations based on a given stereotype of their demographic - regardless of the nature of the stereotype.

Stereotype: Most men are problem solvers, while most women like to discuss their problems without necessarily seeking a solution.

Positive Response: Women, if a man tells you he has some issues he's trying to figure out, 1) Ask him if he wants to talk about it, and 2) If the answer to number 1 is yes, listen to him and ask if he would like some advice. Stereotypically, he will not tell you no when he really does want help. Otherwise he wouldn't have said yes to number 1.

Men, if a woman tells you her problems, ask whether she is seeking a solution or a listener.

Negative Response: All I can think of for this stereotype is that sometimes, if a man is seeking a listener instead of a solution, his friends will resent him for wasting their time. They assume that he will want a solution, so perhaps they will set a different standard for when and how long they are willing to listen to him. That's the only explanation I can think of for why they would respond to him differently than if he were a woman doing the same thing. Or perhaps it's just that he violates their expectations based on the stereotype, all other things being equal. And by friends I mean both male and female friends. I've had female friends respond to me less than favorably for getting more emotional than the average male.

In contrast, a negative response to a solution-oriented woman would be to assume that she's too pushy and demanding.

In other words, when it comes to offering a solution vs. just listening, ask either gender which they would prefer. Regarding expectations, prepare for and respect the possibility of either preference.

Stereotype: Most Middle Easterners are terrorists.

Positive Response: If you're at a restaurant and see two men who appear to be Middle Eastern, and they start using vague yet suspicious language such as "Don't fail the mission," "We want them to be afraid," and "Five minutes until the big kaboom," then you should call the police. Something similar actually happened shortly after 9/11, and the person who called it in was accused of racial profiling. But while the existence of a terrorist threat is debated these days, back then it was common sense to be careful. In fact, the Bush Administration was criticized for not detecting the signs leading to 9/11.

That being said, you should notify the authorities of any such suspicious behavior, regardless of the person's race or ethnicity.

Negative Response: With your friends, tackle the men to the ground in front of everybody, shouting, "Terrorist!"

Stereotype: All church-goers are good, honest people.

Positive Response: When you go to church, chances are you won't need to worry about being robbed or attacked as though you were in a dark alley. Don't automatically be on your guard without cause. Recognize, however, that people who go to church are still human, so don't lose your faith all at once if one or more people violate this stereotype.

Negative Response: Intentionally leave your wallet and your keys in the foyer. Again, everyone is human, especially in these hard times.

To summarize, stereotypes only hurt us when we rely on them to make our decisions for us. Otherwise they simply act as defense mechanisms and/or shortcuts. Remember that all defense mechanisms and shortcuts should be assessed for effectiveness before being used. And so it should be with stereotypes. Keep in mind that stereotypes and misconceptions are completely different. One is rooted in some element of truth, however unwisely generalized, while the other is often based on falsehoods that have been passed down due to hate (i.e. racism, homophobia, etc.). We often say stereotype when what we mean is misconception.

So yes, there is a place for stereotypes.

Real Love vs. Emotional Pornography: When Butterflies, Stuttering, and Just Knowing Don't Happen

I just read the article The Dangers of Emotional Pornography, which discusses how the media sets unrealistic emotional expectations for our romantic relationships. While countless articles have been written for decades on this subject, reminding us that true love is seldom how it is portrayed in our favorite Disney flicks, this article extends the discussion to include the negative implications of these expectations. Using movie examples such as The Notebook and Jerry Maguire, the article likens some of our favorite love stories on the silver screen to emotional pornography.

At first this may sound like a harsh assessment, but when you think about it, what is pornography? While an exact, consistent definition has never been agreed upon, a historical sentiment has been that pornography sets unrealistic expectations in the eyes of the viewer towards those people represented in the images. Simply put, a man who looks at pornographic images of women risks developing the expectation that all women look like those images. Emotional pornography is not much different, as it teaches us to expect certain feelings to arise as indicators of chemistry and attraction. And, like visual pornography, those who fall victim to emotional pornography tend to experience anger and frustration when those expectations aren't fulfilled.

I think back to one of my first girlfriends, who at the time had been severely victimized by this epidemic. In her mind, if while kissing someone you had your eyes open and/or were thinking of other things, that was a bad sign. She felt like talking on the phone all night every night was the norm, and that two people in love should never tire of each other. I have heard it said that when you meet the right person you just know, and that the love of your life should put butterflies in your stomach every time he/she walks by.

Now I'm not saying that those things aren't possible. I have known couples who seemed to know right away that they wanted to be together. I had a college buddy who never went on dates before meeting his wife. I couldn't even picture him with a woman. And yet right from the start, he made it clear that he felt like he would die if he never asked her out. The feelings were so mutual that dating was practically a mere formality for them. Obviously this happens for some people.

But what about when those types of feelings don't happen right away? What about those of us who are awkward the first time you meet us and have a more difficult time getting to know people? As much as we like to believe that love defies all reason and logic, I am not convinced that a woman is going to know she wants to spend forever with me before coming to terms with some of my less delightful eccentricities. I won't get into them, but I will tell you that some of them are such that I would be turned off if the woman I was dating didn't at least point them out sometime in the relationship. Whether she points them out respectfully and whether she can live with them is a different story. I hope she can. But at the very least, I expect to hear the question, "Why don't you walk in a straight line?" at least once. And let's be honest. That scar on my leg where my tumor used to be is bound to be a romance killer for anyone who's not expecting it.

The fact is that the true love portrayed in the media is unhealthy if taken in its most literal sense. We forget that many of these love stories often sandwich weeks and weeks of courtship into two hours of entertainment, glossing over the hardships experienced in these relationships and musically montaging the high points as if those are the essence of the relationship. I have admittedly fallen for that myself, and it's frustrating! While I'm sure many young members of this increasingly progressive society would deny it, I would venture to pinpoint this as a major reason people have been getting married later. It isn't just about finding fulfillment in your life before tying yourself to someone else for the rest of your life. In all actuality, I feel like most of us want to find that special someone sooner than later, but somehow it is ingrained in us that unless we're walking on air the first time we meet someone--or at the very latest, after the first date--it's probably not meant to be.

So what is real love? When I observe some of my married friends on Facebook and in real life, I notice that most of them are still falling in love with each other. They treat falling in love as a process that hasn't been completed yet, let alone completed before they decided to be together. They took a chance on each other, and because they were both committed, they are reaping the benefits. Very few of them experienced the silver screen version of true love. To debunk some of the assumptions I mentioned above, here are some examples:

1. The First Kiss - A friend and former college roommate of mine once told me that his first kiss with his wife was awkward and disgusting. This was partially because it was his first kiss, and he didn't realize that kissing is more of a feeling than an action. Long story short, he probably had his eyes open and was thinking about other stuff besides romance while kissing her, as was she. And yet, eight years and four boys later, theirs is one of the happiest, most well-rounded families I have ever known.

2. Spending Every Waking Moment Together - Just a couple of years ago, I had another roommate who was dating the woman he would soon marry. One night, as I was returning from a friend's house at around 11:00, my roommate and his girlfriend were coming out of his bedroom. She looked pretty tired and frazzled, like she hadn't slept in days. Apparently my roommate agreed, because he specifically instructed the rest of us not to start a conversation with her, that she needed to get home to bed. This was a far cry from my former girlfriend's attitude that true love and the desire to spend time together trumped all need for sleep. In reality, we tend to resent people who demand so much of our time and energy. The most successful relationships I've seen have been those where each person respected the other's space.

3. Just Knowing -I liked Jessica Alba in Valentines Day, but when she asks Ashton Kutcher whether he'd rather have the girl think about marrying him or just know, I cringe. I have many friends who spent quite a while deciding whether they wanted to marry their significant other. My brother-in-law's younger brother had to wait for an answer, while a church leader of mine had to wait while his wife eliminated other romantic possibilities. Marriage is a big step not to be trifled with! And there is so much more than chemistry to consider. I daresay that practicality should play a role as well, among other things.

As you can see, I didn't really answer what true love is. I'm still single, so what did you expect? Maybe there's something to be said for just knowing, but not in the sense that we're going to know right away whether we want to marry someone. I feel like we cheat ourselves when we set specific requirements based on our favorite chick flicks. The man most women marry is not likely to say "As you wish," whenever she orders him around (In fact, I hope he stands up for himself once in a while!), while the woman most men marry will not say yes to their proposal regardless of how unromantic the venue is (One of the many reasons I liked Walk the Line is because she lectures him about proposing at midnight on a tour bus.).

Like the other article says, this doesn't mean we should shun the movies that portray love in these ways. But rather, we should take note of the fact that much like fantasy and science fiction, they're not real. The sooner we recognize this, the fewer ulcers we'll experience during the courtship process, not to mention the fewer frogs we'll see get hitched based on the premise that one single kiss will turn them into a prince.

My Apologies for My Un-Christlike, Reactive Behavior

To the exmormon discussion forum that I spent part of last night trolling in defense of a friend of mine:

I apologize. I should not have reacted the way I did. My protective instinct towards my friends and loved ones is no excuse for the un-Christlike manner in which I behaved. I lost my head. Mind you, that doesn't take away from the basic perspective that I shared in that forum. I believe your comments about my friend's post are destructive and counterproductive to your attempts to heal from what you view as a destructive religion. But I sincerely hope that whatever methods you use, you will one day attain the peace and happiness everyone is searching for.

That is all. I excuse nothing else--least of all my testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

How to Not Be Offended, Part II: Kate Middleton and Insulting Skinny Women

Apparently I'm not done talking about this issue--probably because people aren't done looking for ways to be offended. I'll keep this post much shorter.

Did you know that when someone compliments another person for doing something that you don't need to do, that doesn't mean they're insulting you? Really, it doesn't. Let's talk about Kate Middleton and her post-pregnancy belly. On second thought, I'll just let you read this post from the Huffington Post. Essentially, Kate Middleton still looks pregnant because, well, she just barely had a baby. But this post refutes any criticism of her appearance by praising her for focusing on her baby and not worrying so much about her looks. While most of the comments I read on this article praised Kate Middleton for this, one commenter accused the author of slighting those women who don't have to worry so much about the weight issue after pregnancy and are able to spend time on their appearance.

Really? She's marginalizing all of the skinny women by merely praising someone for not obsessing over being skinny? By that logic, the following statements are all slights to someone:

1. Money Can't Buy Happiness. - This insults people who have a lot of money.

2. The Celtics are a great team. They've won 17 NBA titles! - Are you saying the other 29 teams are not great because they haven't won 17 NBA titles?

3. Motherhood is very fulfilling. - I guess all childless people must feel empty.

4. I love Denmark! It's the happiest place on Earth! - So the U.S. is just a miserable place to live?

5. You look really nice today. - So you're saying I don't look nice any other day?

While I'm thinking about it, read this post from my friend if you haven't already. She talks about why she as a millennial is in fact staying with her faith instead of leaving it. The post has gone viral, but some people took it as a slight when she said that one aspect she likes about our faith is that it has unpaid clergy. For the record, such an element is merely one indicator of a clergy member's sincerity in his/her service. That doesn't mean other indicators of sincerity can't exist as well.

I also added that link because it's a brilliant post. Obviously it's on a different topic, but since I already posted the link to support my point, you might as well read it.

Anyway, I feel strongly about this, particularly because when you find offense in someone else's moment in the sun, you're making it all about you.

How to Not Be Offended: When Political Correctness Defeats Efficiency

Over the past few days, I had a Twitter exchange with a lady who is an atheist. The essence of our exchange was regarding a tweet I had sent last Sunday. I basically called out a group of people in an online forum for mocking someone's blog post. I didn't even rebuke them for being disrespectful. I simply told them that while they had wasted their time attacking someone, I was out living life at a Train concert--which, I might add, was dominated by members of the female variety. Now you tell me which you would rather be doing.

But that argument is for another day. As for now, this lady questioned whether these people were actually mocking the blogger. You see, it was a group of ex-members of my faith mocking a member of my faith for expressing his thoughts on anti-mormon propaganda. Based on some of her previous tweets, this lady has had some interesting exchanges with Christians. Christians can be mean sometimes, even when trying to prove the Christlike way to live. Indeed, it is understandable why some people turn away from Christianity--or believing in God at all--as there are some poor examples out there. On the other hand, some atheists and non-Christians are also mean.

This lady wasn't rude. She was very civil and respectful. But it felt as though she was trying to get me to admit some sort of bias against non-believers. At one point she asked why I had bothered identifying the group as ex-Mormons, to which I responded that it was the name of the group, it was a religious context, and I wanted to establish to whom I was speaking in the Twitterverse. Did she think I was targeting them? The exchange eventually culminated in her asking me to cite some of the quotes I had given her from the group mocking the blogger. I haven't responded yet, and probably will not, as I know what I read. I know the difference between simply critiquing someone and outright mocking them. I also have the credibility to back up my denial of any bias against people who don't believe as I do. I've called out fellow Mormons for mocking others.

I understand as well as anyone that in a world as crazy and unequal as ours, we need to be sensitive to the implications of bias and misrepresentation in our speech--especially bias and misrepresentation of groups who have been marginalized throughout history. But sometimes it is worth identifying someone by their demographic because it provides context for his/her perspective.

When referring to the fact that my cousin has all but denounced the faith she grew up in, it is worth adding that her son is gay, particularly when she says, "My son is gay and therefore has no place in your religion." And when I was a graduate instructor and asked a Dominican student whether he knew a previous student of mine who was also Dominican, it wasn't because I thought all Dominicans knew each other. I asked that because I knew they were both part of a group of Dominican freshmen who had transferred there together through some sort of program; as it turned out, they did know each other.

Here's what we need to do: Stop being so sensitive to the possible hidden meaning behind the words of others. Yes, when someone blatantly over-generalizes and clearly misrepresents a person or group, we should respectfully correct them. But don't go into the conversation expecting that to happen. Otherwise we start to sound like Phil Lewis when talking to Billy Crystal in the movie City Slickers:

"Really? You're both dentists?"

"Yes, we're black and we're dentists. Let's not make an issue out of it."

Just give people the benefit of the doubt. I promise you'll be much happier if you do. As has been said before, we need to stop seeking out the storms and just enjoy the sunlight.

Why I'm Staying: A Mormon's Response to CNN's "Why Millennials Are Leaving the Church"

I recently read the CNN article, "Why Millennials Are Leaving the Church." According to the article, the younger generation has become restless amidst the politics and contention that have overflowed from the secular world into religion. Despite various strategies of Christian leaders to appeal to the youth, the disillusionment continues to grow.

Interestingly enough, I have encountered a good number of people throughout my life who don't understand why I choose to stick with my faith. I am a Mormon, and being well-known as "a peculiar people," we have a belief system and a tradition that tend to run counter to what one might expect a young person to endorse as a legitimate and fulfilling religion. But it is the very nature of those beliefs and traditions that has produced fulfillment in my life as well as the lives of millions of other "millennials." So as a response to the article, here is why I'm staying:

1. Our church takes care of its members. In addition to paying special attention to the sick and the elderly in our wards (Mormon congregations), we believe it is our duty as followers of Christ to look out for each and every member's temporal and spiritual well-being. This is why we are given regular assignments to visit each other's homes and share a doctrinal message to strengthen one another's faith. Service projects both inside and outside the church are especially important to us, and every ward I have attended has had some sort of service committee. If someone is moving in or moving out, we make an announcement in church and ask for people to sign up to come help. At leadership meetings, our leaders discuss the needs of individual members in the ward to determine how best to reach out to them. While these elements may seem intrusive to some, it makes me feel like my ward is mindful of me. In our fast-paced society, it is easy to forget each other's daily needs as we focus on our own, so having a church that makes a point of remembering them is quite refreshing.

2. Our church asks its members to actively participate in the Gospel. Having responsibilities to other members of the ward teaches us how to be true followers of Christ. Instead of having leaders serve us all the time, regularly serving others the way Christ did helps keep us in line with His teachings. I would also venture that we inherently find fulfillment in embarking in the service of others. It gives us purpose, which everyone desires in life. Serving others in multiple capacities throughout my life has given me a sense of purpose, making me feel needed and valued.

3. Our church provides members with social opportunities. Right now I attend a singles ward, and because we we consider marriage a sacred institution, we have many opportunities to meet people at church-sponsored functions. But even in married wards, the Church sponsors social events that enable us to cultivate healthy interpersonal relationships. We are, after all, brothers and sisters, so it is important to get to know each other and strengthen one another in Christ. Having close relationships with like-minded peers who can relate to my day-to-day experiences reminds me that I am not alone in this world. I am also able to learn and grow from the testimonies and talents of my peers.

4. Our church holds its members accountable. From my perspective, it is not that difficult to keep the basic covenants I made at baptism and remain worthy of church membership. But to actively abide Gospel principles and obey the higher covenants we make in the Temple requires much effort. From donating ten percent of our income to sustaining all of our leaders even when we may disagree with them, we must sacrifice quite a bit to become worthy of the blessings God has promised us. Nobody wants to be a passive recipient of life's pleasures without earning them. While I certainly cannot earn the Grace of God, having a road map by which to fulfill God's Plan makes me more certain that I am living a Christlike life.

5. In our church, members learn from each other. Because we have lay clergy, that means that everyone is on the same level when it comes to teaching each other the Gospel. Today's Bishop might be tomorrow's Activities Committee Chair, so there is no preconceived authority when it comes to knowledge of the Gospel. This means that during Sunday School, the lessons are quite interactive and discussion-based. Some might argue that this puts us at risk for learning incorrect doctrine, but that is why we teach from the scriptures and invite the Spirit to help us make sense of them. Even when discussions do get dicey, we can rely on the Spirit to get us back on track. In the meantime, these opportunities to discuss the Gospel help me to grow as a person and to grow closer to Christ, which is more important than gaining a perfect knowledge of the scriptures.

For me and many other young people, the attributes mentioned above are what make God and religion something worth believing in. They're what make life worth living. This is why I'm staying. Please respond as to why you are staying in your faith either on this blog or on social media, using the hashtag #whyimstaying.

How Should We Share Our Talents?

As children of our Father in Heaven, we all have gifts and talents, given purposefully to each of us to help others come unto Christ (D&C 46:11-12). Because of this purpose, we have been commanded to share these talents so that we may glorify God (Matthew 5:16). But how do we know when and how to share them? We certainly don't want to misuse them, but we also don't want to be like the servant who hid his talent and had it taken away from him (Matthew 25:24-28). Based on my understanding of the scriptures, when it comes to sharing our talents, here are some questions we should ask ourselves:

1. Am I using my talent to build the Lord's Kingdom? - This requirement does not mean that you should only use your talent in religious contexts. To me it means to live your life in ways that encourage others to want to know more about the Gospel which you represent. Here in the Boston Singles Wards is a sister missionary who has an amazing singing voice. Before coming to Boston, she was a member of Gladys Knight's band and had been Gladys Knight's assistant choir director for years. Because the beauty and strength of her testimony resonate through her vocal chords, she can and has built the Kingdom of God in powerful ways that extend beyond her missionary service. Anyone who hears her sing can't help but be touched by the Spirit, thus persuading them get to know her as a person. This alone provides her with opportunities to share the Gospel, whether on the mission or on tour.

2. Does using my talent enrich my life, or does it cause disruption? - As difficult as it can be to follow the promptings of the Spirit, the Lord will not prompt us to use our talents in ways that disrupt our daily lives. In the seminary video that portrays the First Vision, we see the Prophet Joseph working in the field when he finally realizes how to best heed the counsel of James to seek wisdom from God. Note that Joseph did not immediately drop to his knees and start praying, randomly leaving his chores unfinished. Instead, he carefully designated a particular time and place to visit later on (JSH 1:14). This would enable him to approach the Lord in the right mindset--free from the distractions of the world. I believe this played an important role in preparing Joseph for the magnificent and life-changing experience that would ensue. And so it is with sharing our talents. While we may feel prompted at a given time, we need not assume that we must drop everything and neglect other things that are also good in the Lord's sight. Inspiration often comes when it does so that we may prepare ourselves for when the time does come to act. The Lord will always prepare us beforehand to accomplish the commandments He has given us (1 Nephi 3:7).

3. Does using my talent allow me to keep the Commandments? - I first started writing this post on a Sunday morning, and I truly felt inspired to address this topic. But I eventually had to stop and get ready for Church, remembering that no matter how inspired I may have felt, the Lord would not require me to break the Sabbath. We must remember that the Spirit can only dwell within us when we are striving to keep the Commandments. Rather than prevent us from keeping God's Commandments, the sharing of our talents should help us and others keep them.

4. Does using my talent promote love or incite confrontation? - When acting on spiritual promptings, we should always remember that the Gospel is not one of aggression or contention. True principles are not to be enforced, but defended. In the Book of Alma, Captain Moroni was a gifted soldier, but he did not wage war on the Lamanites in an effort to enforce true Gospel principles on them. Instead, he armed the Nephites in defense of their land and freedom after the Lamanites had waged war on them (Alma 44:1-2, 54:13). While we are certainly commanded to teach and share truth with those who have yet to come unto Christ, we should abide by the fruits of the Spirit when doing so (Gal. 5:22).

The gifts and talents our Father gives us are infinite, without which we could not fulfill His Plan and help others come unto Christ. I am grateful for the gifts with which He has blessed me, as well as the gifts He has blessed others with that have benefited me and strengthened my testimony. I know that if we strive to keep the Commandments and remain sensitive to the Spirit, we need not worry about missing those opportunities to share our talents in ways that are pleasing unto Him.

My Post to the Ordain Women Movement

With all of the pills of wisdom I have shared as of late, I'm sure you're dying to know my thoughts on the Mormon Feminist Movement. I'll get to my complete thoughts eventually, but today I just want to share something I wrote a few months ago regarding the closely-related Ordain Women Movement. I wrote it on the Ordain Women Facebook page, and it received some positive feedback. To put it into context, this page features people from both sides of the issue sharing their thoughts on whether women should receive the Priesthood. After observing some of the more reactive and un-Christlike posts from both sides, I put my wannabe conflict mediation skills to work and wrote what I hoped would be taken as a humble and sincere approach to a very sensitive issue. I have edited out the names as well as the introduction--since I just provided one here.

I don't pretend to know everything the Lord has in store for us in the future, and I don't interpret this morning's [General Conference] session as a direct condemnation of this movement like some of the people on this thread. I find that interpretation presumptuous, judgmental, and prideful. Some people have essentially dusted their feet at this site, which is a serious thing. Nobody at Conference came right out and said that women will never get the priesthood. We did hear the importance of following the Prophet, while Sister Dalton marveled at the value of women and the implications of recognizing them as daughters of God. Some may have interpreted these as rebuttals of the Ordain Women movement, but I would think that such a rebuttal would have been more blatant. In contrast, I feel like those talks were an indirect expression of the sentiment I would like to express right now. And I hope it will be taken in the right spirit, as I don't mean to offend with my words, neither do I mean to imply anything beyond what I actually say.

Women are severely undervalued and under-appreciated in proportion to their role in our Heavenly Father's Plan--not just in the Church but in the world. That is obvious. I will acknowledge, however, that there is a particularly tragic sentiment within the Church's imperfect membership that places women in a subservient role. The presumption has been that the priesthood trumps all feelings and opinions in the family unit, and that the wife is to obey her husband by virtue of his position as patriarch. That attitude, however, should have been eradicated once Section 121 of the Doctrine & Covenants had been revealed, if not sooner. Yes, the Lord uses a patriarchal order to give His Church structure, as He is not a God of chaos and disorder. Why did He choose the man to be the head of the family? We don't know. We really don't. But He never meant for the husband to dominate the wife. We believe in a Heavenly Mother, and I believe that Heavenly Father holds Her in such high regard that the reason He rarely talks about Her is not because She's not important, but because He has seen the way we've denigrated women for thousands of years, and He refuses to let us do that to Her.

That may sound condescending, but that is not my intention. It certainly doesn't answer the question as to why women don't have the priesthood. I hope you sisters believe, however, that while some may see the priesthood as a symbol of superiority, there are plenty of us men in the Church who don't approach the priesthood with that attitude. My mother raised me to respect women and appreciate them for everything they do for us both temporally and spiritually. I don't see you as less than me because I hold the priesthood, and I certainly don't expect my future wife to blindly submit to my authority because I hold the priesthood. I see it as a responsibility and as a symbol of the Lord's mercy. While we use the wording "All worthy adult males are eligible to receive the priesthood," we truly aren't worthy of it--anymore than we are worthy of the rest of God's Grace. The priesthood is one way of serving. Again, I don't know why only men have the priesthood. But the ways in which women serve are just as eternally valuable as any priesthood responsibility. I'm not talking about women being able to give birth, as I find that typical response insulting. There are so many other things that make the woman invaluable to God's Plan.

I believe that is why Sister Dalton said what she said. And I believe the importance of following the Prophet was stressed today because no matter what we may want or petition for, in the end it is the Prophet who will reveal the Lord's will for us. Yes, he will take our concerns seriously, but he will always defer to the Lord's will, not ours.

That being said, it is doctrinally sound to question the teachings of the Church. That is how the Church was restored in the first place. There is nothing wrong with questioning--so long as we're doing it with a humble heart and a desire for understanding. Just as the Prophet Moroni encourages us to pray about the Book of Mormon with faith and real intent, we must do so in matters like these. Now I don't pretend to know the hearts of all those who support the Ordain Women movement. But anytime we question something about the Lord's doctrine, we must ask ourselves whether we are doing it in a spirit of faith and real intent. Do we seek to gain a greater understanding and enlightenment, or do we seek to get what we have already decided is right? Do we seek the Lord's will or do we seek our own will? Most importantly, even if we don't get what we are hoping for, will we continue to sustain the Brethren as the Lord's Prophets and Apostles?

If the answer to that last question is yes, then forget about those who condemn you for this. The talks to which they refer weren't directed at you.

Live and Let Live: What We Can Learn from Joseph of Egypt About Truly Keeping the Faith

With the recent decisions concerning DOMA and Prop 8, many people who share similar ideologies with me have expressed horror at what this world is coming to. People are criticizing our leaders and lamenting the fact that our country keeps getting worse and worse, and the animosity between sides is greater than ever. And yes, I believe the world is going downhill. Wars and calamities are happening all around us, good is being taken for evil, and the love of man is waxing cold. The Second Coming is fast approaching. In no way do I deny that.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the idea that when our brothers and sisters make poor choices, it then becomes our duty to send them on guilt trips for bringing this world one step closer to destruction. In my 32+ years as a Latter-Day Saint, not once have I come across a scripture in any of the Standard Works that instructs us to protest against a person's choices AFTER he/she has made them. I recently mentioned this sentiment on my Facebook page, and someone said that I still need to do all I can to show that I'm against immoral practices, otherwise I cannot expect to not be held accountable. I wish I had corrected him more fully. Instead of qualifying his statement, I should have just said that his statement was blatantly false. Because it is.

I think a lot of us get this strange idea in our heads that sincerely believing in something and never backing down means throwing rocks at the neighborhood bully's head as he walks away after pounding you. Many God-fearing people think that defending their faith means spending their time and energy denouncing the Godlessness that has befallen this world and shunning those who are products of it. If that were true, Joseph of the Old Testament would have spent every minute of every day in captivity trying to escape the house of Potiphar, after which he would have fled the heathen land of Egypt in search of the Promised Land.

But he did not. Instead he endured, using the gifts that God had given him to thrive within his own realm, never losing faith and never sinning against God. Despite being a slave who had to do everything his masters told him to do, he somehow found a way to remain true to his covenants. That eventually landed him in prison, but even then, he managed to keep God's Commandments. Even as a prisoner, he was free. As Ben Kingsley said as Potiphar in the 1995 movie Joseph, "As long as he has his God, he is free." That sentiment is supported in the book of Genesis: "And the Lord was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian" (Gen. 39:2).

Next to keeping his covenants despite his situation, I think the best part about Joseph's story is that his obedience to God's Commandments allowed him and those around him to thrive. He spent several years as a slave and then as a prisoner before even getting an audience with Pharaoh, and yet he still moved up the ranks, always earning the trust of his captors and using the power of God to help them (See Gen. 39:3-4, 20-23). That of course is what eventually put him in a position to interpret Pharoah's dream, which earned him the opportunity to use God's gifts on a much grander scale to benefit God's children.

If you're familiar with that much of the story, you likely also know that all of this enabled Joseph to not just save Egypt, but to save his family! His family, who had made the same covenants with God and had been promised the same blessings as he, benefited from Joseph's unwavering faith and endurance that had not been stained by bitterness and resentment towards those who despitefully used him. He had not cursed the land of Egypt, but rather had helped them prosper, which in turn helped his family prosper.

So what do we do in these hard times? I'm not going to lie and say I'm okay with what's going on around us. I am disappointed by what is happening to this world's moral compass, and often I do get discouraged that more and more people are forgetting God. But we must be careful not to lose our heads by making up strict "standards of righteousness" that nobody can follow without betraying human decency. That sounds like an oxymoron because it is. I truly believe that when we are told to be in the world but not of the world, it is meant that we should allow ourselves to live among those who do not believe the way we do, keeping our own covenants and yet allowing them to exercise the free agency with which God has blessed them. The trick there is to keep ALL of our covenants, which includes sacrificing ourselves unto God by serving Him and His children, as well as being careful not to conform to the world, but to let the Power of God transform them by showing through our example what is acceptable before God (See Romans 12:1-2).

So just lead by example, everyone. Share the Gospel, serve others, and teach the truth when given the opportunity--and there are many opportunities out there. Show compassion for those who have been stained by the poor choices of others as well as their own, and look to that as an opportunity to bring them unto the Gospel as well. Do not fall into the trap of mocking and scorning those who are not holding to the rod, or even gnashing your teeth at evil. Those reactions are specifically reserved for those who have not remained true and faithful. Do not fool yourself into believing that remaining true and faithful means doing it right back.

Mormon Singles Wards: Why We Deserve to Be Treated Like Children

A few months ago, I read the blog post The Infantilisation of Young Single Adults. In a nutshell, this discusses why the author feels Mormon singles are being stunted emotionally by the social opportunities offered them in their respective wards. Many of the things described in this post reminded me of my own singles ward experiences. I have been to singles activities where we played Duck-Duck-Goose (hadn't played that since second grade), crab-soccer (why is it never regular soccer?), and four men on a couch (it's actually pretty fun when you're feeling silly; otherwise it's best reserved for high school kids). But I didn't realize these were common throughout the Church.

While reading the post, I clicked a link to the Activities section of the Church Handbook, and I wondered if the approach of Church Auxiliary leaders towards single members has something to do with this issue. Seriously, based on Church guidelines, my 26 year-old cousin, who was barely a deacon when I left for my mission, is now qualified to chaperone me at Church dances simply because he has already found that special someone with whom to spend eternity. That just isn't right. And some of the other policies and practices by their very existence suggest a mistrust of our judgment. In Boston, our campouts are planned quite extensively, and while we're certainly not required to participate in the service activity, relays, or ward skit, what exactly is the motive behind scheduling all three throughout an entire Saturday?

To articulate the connection here, I should profess my belief in the self-fulfilling prophecy. If you keep believing someone will behave a certain way, they eventually will. In this context, if you keep treating someone like a child, they'll start acting like a child--hence the juvenile activities. But while such policies regarding Mormon singles activities may in fact be patronizing us as well as stunting us emotionally, I'm not sure how many of us are in a position to suggest that we deserve better. Do we really?

For starters, people are cliquish. Whether it's age, looks, clothing, or wealth, when we notice differences, we become just like Dr Seuss's Sneetches. Mormons are no different, throwing invite-only parties where the coolness factor is an issue, repeatedly passing the ball or frisbee to the more athletic types at activities even when the less athletic type are clearly open, and subtly walking away from conversation circles when someone we don't care for has just joined the circle.

Next, we don't know how to interact with the opposite sex, thus suggesting why we're still single in the first place. I currently attend the mid-singles ward in Boston, and while I know several people in that ward who simply haven't found the right one, there are others who make it painfully obvious why it's taking them so long to get married. From blowing each other off for dates instead of just saying we're not interested, to awkwardly avoiding each other following a date, to simply ignoring each other in non-dating social contexts unless we are romantically interested, we act like children around each other.

While I'm at it, I might as well throw in the communication deficit. We don't know how to be straightforward with each other, making promises we know we can't keep and then avoiding one-on-one situations with them while hoping they'll practice some decorum by not bringing it up in public settings. If by chance they do get us alone, we make excuses for why we haven't followed through. And then there are those of us who actually get upset with each other for not detecting these signals. Heaven forbid we should give each other the benefit of the doubt by assuming that our excuses really are sincere.

So what does all of this have to do with the nature of our singles activities? At face value, nothing at all. It would be kind of strange to punish flakiness by planning a blanket fort FHE, but does the full tithe payer deserve the blessings upon which it is predicated if he doesn't keep the Sabbath Day holy? Whatever our Auxiliary leaders' motives are for regulating our activities the way they do, we should ask ourselves whether we truly deserve the trust and reliance we are asking for based on other, seemingly unrelated behavior.

You want to play regular soccer at the next FHE? Are you willing to teach some of the finer points to those who have less experience with the game--as opposed to taking advantage of said inexperience when they end up on the other team? I'm pretty sure that's one reason we play crab soccer instead--because nobody is good at crab soccer. You want to do a hiking activity up in the mountains instead of building forts at the church? Will you do your part to make sure everybody that wants to go--not just those people you click with--has a way of getting there? And if you really want to avoid those dreaded speed-dating activities, maybe you should try dating on your own--you know, the kind that you arrange in person or over the phone (not group hangouts that you arrange via text), during which you act genuinely interested in getting to know the other person, and after which you are able to interact without worrying that the other person wants to marry you.

I can't say whether that will persuade our Auxiliary leaders to treat us differently, while the policy on chaperoning activities may be more of an attempt to help us avoid temptation during such a tenuous stage in our lives. I do know, however, that if we want a leg to stand on when asking to be treated like adults--no matter the context--we need to start acting like adults.

The Swimsuit Video: Why It Doesn't Solve the Problem

Today I watched the swimsuit video that has gone viral over the past couple of weeks. During this ten-minute presentation, actress and designer Jessica Rey promotes her line of modest swimwear by discussing the evolution of the swimsuit, while she also touches on a study done at Princeton on the effects of less clothing on people's thought processes. Specifically, the study showed that women in bikinis cause men to objectify them and develop attitudes of hostility and superiority towards them. For the record but not to digress, there were flaws in this study, as observed in a friend's blog post titled Whosoever Looketh On A Woman. But besides that, Rey is basically positioning her swimsuits as a way for women to allow men to control their thoughts while looking at them.

Interestingly enough, the tagline for Rey's swimsuits is, "Who says it has to be itsy bitsy?" I find the selling point and tagline incompatible with each other. The tagline accurately establishes Rey's pursuit of female empowerment as her reason for giving women a more modest option. I admire this pursuit, as we live in a society that constantly tells women less is more and that everything about them is only secondary to their appearance, especially when it comes to pleasing men. The tagline suggests we shouldn't worry about how others think we should dress. The selling point, however, contradicts that sentiment by implying that women should dress more modestly so as to control what men think of them. So Rey is replacing one method of pleasing men with another. While the two methods are opposite, the objective is the same, and it's a very dangerous objective that we have been trying heavily to eradicate in the recent years.

My friend's blog post rejects the idea of modifying your attire for the sake of other people's self-control (or lack thereof), in favor of wearing what makes you feel comfortable and not allowing the judgements of others to override your own free will. In this post, my friend makes the following statement:

Though it is indeed objectifying to teach a woman that her value lies in wearing fewer clothes and showing off her body so as to turn on the boys around her, it is also objectifying to teach a woman that her value lies in wearing more clothes and covering up her body so as to keep the thoughts of the boys around her pure.

Most of the 240 commenters agreed with this sentiment, but a good portion of them found my friend's approach to be selfish and immature. They saw it as a perpetuation of the "me first" attitude where we should be able to do what we want regardless of how it affects other people. It's as if they stopped reading once they had read the phrase "Wear what you want" and dissected that. The rest of that same sentence urges women to act, dress, and live in a way that makes them happy and allows them to do good in the world, not to live for others. How could anyone argue with that?

Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of modesty and chastity. But I am also in favor of determining for yourself what is modest and chaste. Some guidelines are black and white, of course, but all too often, we make up our own guidelines and try to enforce them on others. Some of the commenters who criticized my friend's post reminded her that while we all have the freedom to make our own choices, those choices have consequences. They said that if you make poor choices, you can't expect someone not to judge you. Yes, that is true, but 1)We should be allowed to accept the consequences of our actions, and 2)There is a difference between judging someone for their choices and persecuting them for those choices as well as trying to force them to change.

When I meet a woman, I do have the right to judge her. I have the right to judge whether she is the type of person I would want to date and eventually marry. I have the right to judge her intelligence and outer beauty. I even have the right to judge her attire as a measure of her moral standards and values in comparison to my own. But once I'm done judging this woman as a potentially positive or negative influence on my life, I have no more rights. I certainly don't have the right to treat her as an object because I have chosen not to control the impure thoughts that have entered into my mind. With that in mind, the only reason this woman should want to dress according to my judgements would be because one of her purposes in life is to please Matt Andersen. After all, our actions in life should be geared towards our own purpose, not someone else's. If you want to please men by wearing a bikini or help them control their thoughts by not wearing a bikini, go ahead. But don't let others tell you that either one of those should be your purpose.

I have enough faith in humanity that most of us know which of our choices set reasonable vs. unreasonable expectations for the reactions of others. But we can't base every decision on what others might think, especially when those thoughts are often not uncontrollable. People just choose not to control them. If we continuously choose our behavior based on what others think, we eventually stop living. That is what I got out of my friend's blog post.

Why Glee Missed the Boat This Week

So I watch Glee. There, I said it. I wasn't sure how to segues into that guilty pleasure of mine, but I felt it necessary to finally bring this semi-addiction out of the closet for the same reason a lot of long-term addictions are brought to light: I think I'm ready to quit.

I don't know, maybe that's just a knee-jerk reaction to this week's episode, but even if I end up forgiving Ryan Murphy and the show's other writers for this mishap, it will always in my mind be a mishap.

If you haven't watched Glee and have somehow dodged the commercials and show promotions for the past four years, it's your high school glee club's answer to Friday Night Lights, only these kids are anything but popular or cheered on by their community. The drama, however, tends to be just as intense and omnipresent, if not more so.

Now that you're all caught up (seriously, the narrator at the beginning of each episode couldn't have done it better), let me tell you what happened this week: Right at the beginning, the school has a power outage, rendering all electric guitars and pianos useless. Since the show must go on, Mr. Schuester (Mr. Schu for short) decides to have the kids perform acoustic songs that week. The objective is for each student to strip down their feelings and let them all out. I'll skip Sam Evans' charming performance of "That Loving Feeling" and go straight to Ryder's performance of "Everybody Hurts." I love REM, I love that song, and I loved Ryker's rendition (though it wasn't entirely acoustic, but what acoustic song is these days?). What I didn't love was the reaction he received from some of his classmates upon sharing his experience with being molested at the age of 11 by his teenage babysitter. Seriously, Sam and Artie's high-five praises and virtual reverence for this achievement of every adolescent male's fantasy was way out line.

Admittedly, this show often uses satire. But in my mind, for satire to be successfully executed, at least two of the following three elements must be present: 1) Believability, 2) Extremism, and 3) Contrast.

Now obviously, believability is essential in any genre of the performing arts. The piece's plot and characters must develop themselves in such a way that their audience buys anything and everything they sell. This is especially critical with satire, which often involves insensitive dialog and behavior that, if not believed to be part of the offending character's nature, could fall on the writers as a tasteless attempt at humor.

This episode did not lack believability. Sam and Artie are teenagers, and their character development has been more than consistent with such a reaction. But what about the element of extremism? For behavior and attitudes to be recognized as satire, they must be extreme in comparison to what we the audience experience on a regular basis. Sam and Artie's reaction wasn't extreme in comparison to the typical attitude present among adolescent males, a population that makes up a substantial portion of this show's audience. Not only that, but many adolescents do not have a fully developed capacity to recognize satire or the attempts thereof. I certainly didn't.

Combine those two factors, and Mr. Schu's immediate yet weak attempt to address the problem is taken by your average teenage male as nothing more than a prudish reaction from an older, out-of-touch generation that doesn't understand how the world works anymore. I can also see Katie's subsequent attempt to reach out to Ryder being perceived as another manipulation tactic from an evil Quinn Fabray protege. I wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to be the case, as I'm not fully convinced she has changed. The only way this problem could have been remedied--if at all--would have been for Mr. Schu to incorporate the element of contrast by revisiting the issue and emphasizing to the kids--especially the guys--that rape is never okay, regardless of the victim and/or offender's gender. But he never did. And the public service announcement at the end of the episode, though wise, didn't do much to erase the attitude the scene may have inadvertently perpetuated.

We need to keep in mind that the double standard that exists between genders begins with our thought process and the extent to which society rebuts it. Our society is out of control in the way we treat each other and ourselves. And it all starts with the way we think. Just like many girls grow up learning to base their self-esteem on the praise they receive for their outer beauty, boys are often taught that "making it" with an older woman is an envious achievement, of which you should never be ashamed. If errant thoughts like these don't get corrected immediately--let alone overtly enough--those thoughts soon turn into the person's schema of the world.

With all that in mind, this double standard cannot be "satired" away by merely echoing it. That's way too subtle. It needs to be imitated in such a manner that places it in a position of contempt. Perhaps not all satire needs to be addressed to that extent, but because it addresses just a small piece of a several thousand-year-old epidemic of gender inequality and stereotypes, this one did.

Like I said, I'm sure I'll eventually forgive Glee for this epic fail. But for now, I'm pretty sure we're fighting.