I have learned many things at this great University. Thanks to Dr. Clayton, one of the things I have learned is the three things that are required for a causal inference. That is to say, the three things that are needed to be able to say that Thing A caused Thing B. The first is covariance. Second is time-order relationship and lastly, elimination of other possible explanations.
In a recent editorial, guys were blamed for girls wearing immodest clothing. I have my doubts that this is truly the cause, but lets examine this allegation using the three necessary ingredients for a causal relationship. First, covariance, is there a relationship between the gaze of a male at a female and the females’ desire to wear immodest clothing? I think more empirical research is needed here. Second, time-order relationship. Are the girls already wearing immodest clothing when the guys’ eyes are drawn to them? Or do the guys look at the girls before the girls are prompted to wear immodest clothing? Thirdly, elimination of other possible causes. Maybe, just maybe a guy looks at a girl for some other reason than to satisfy a lustful thought or desire (contrary to the aforementioned article, there are guys who are not “pigs”) or perhaps, heaven forbid, girls choose of their own free will to wear clothes that are ‘immodest’ (but that’s not possible here at BYU where all the girls are angels and the guys are pigs).
I think its extremely unfair to blame guys for the girls wearing immodest clothing. Not only is that a stretch of an assumption, it’s a ridiculous assumption at that. I have always been told that its better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. To the author of the guy-blaming editorial – be careful, you’re removing doubt.
Jason Eldredge
Layton, UT
