A Game Theoretic Approach to LDS Dating

The March 2014 issue of the “Ensign” contains an article my Elder Tad R. Callister titled, “The Lord’s Standard of Morality” that has provoked much comment.  The most controversial paragraph may be

The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men.  If it is too low or too high or too tight, it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure. 

Understanding Elizabeth

In this post, I develop a game theoretic approach to Mormon youth dating.  The agents in this problem are Elizabeth and George who are both actively engaged in the Mormon youth program.  The agents might as easily be reversed to Joseph and Joan.  The main assumption of the model was taken from Callister who observed

Our dress affects not only our thoughts and actions but also the thoughts and actions of others.

Elizabeth is a typical LDS youth; she wants to “choose the right” but she also wants to be stylish and craves acceptance of her peers, particularly boys.  She was excited that George, the cutest boy in the ward, flirted with her at a combined youth activity.

Her excitement was tempered by a conversation she overheard in which George told friends that immodestly dressed girls made him hot.  She concludes that his statement is consistent with four personality types.  First, George is normal devout member like her and more likely to commit a “confessable sin” while dating a person who is immodest in dress or action; he was confessing a weakness and not betraying a hope.  George is blustering, a wannabe bad boy trying to avoid the label of “goody two-shoes.”  He might be personable but with average moral standards and not those of the Church.  Finally, he might be a “player” betraying preferences, not confessing weaknesses.  She estimates the odds of each as righteous (40%), blustering (30%), common (20%) and player (10%).  She decides to go because the risk of a bad outcome is low. 

The Game

She goes further and creates game matrixes for each possibility.  The game begins with a date.  She has the first move, choosing to dress modestly or not.  He has the second, to keep his hands on or off.  Not shown in the matrix is her final choice, to reject any improper advances or not.  She knows that she is more likely to respond positively to an improper advance than make one.  She expresses her desire to do right by ordering her preferences.  The matrix lists four outcomes and her preference with the best outcomes having the highest numbers:

dress modestly, hands off, 4

dress immodestly, hands off, 3

dress modestly, hands on, 2

dress immodestly, hands off, 1

An outcome of three or better results in willingness for a second date, 2 or lower, a lack of willingness.  These options are show in the matrix as one half of an ordered pair.

Set up Matrix

	Hands off	Hands on
Immodest	(3, )	(1, )
Modest	(4, )	(2, )

George’s ranking of outcomes is the second number in the ordered pair and depends on his nature.  The first matrix assumes that George is just like Elizabeth, an imperfect but good LDS youth trying to live the gospel.  His payoff matrix is the same as hers. 

Matrix 1.  George is like her.

	Hands off	Hands on
Immodest	(3, 3)	(1, 1)
Modest	(4, 4)	(2, 2)

Elizabeth chooses first. Her choice is modesty because it brings the highest outcome of 4.  George looks at his options give her choice.  He can keep his hands off and achieve his best outcome (4) or he can put his hands on and achieve his second lowest outcome (2).  He chooses 4.  The outcome of the date is (4, 4).  The selected outcome is highlighted in yellow.

Matrix 2.  George is blustering

	Hands off	Hands on
Immodest	(3, 4)	(1, 1)
Modest	(4, 3)	(2, 2)

George is really not a bad guy.  He wants to avoid a bad outcome while appearing like something of a bad boy, a nonconformist.  Elizabeth has the first move and dresses modestly.  George can keep is hands off, and earn a 3, his second highest ranking or he can make a move and earn a 2.  His best response is to keep his hands off. 

Matrix 3.  George is average.

	Hands off	Hands on
Immodest	(3, 3)	(1, 4)
Modest	(4, 2)	(2, 1)

George does not want to be seen with a modestly dressed Mormon girl, and he wants to engage in immodest hands on behavior if he can avoid trouble.  He also believes that immodest dress is a signal for some desire on Elizabeth’s part for a “confessable outcome.” 

Elizabeth again elects to dress modestly.  George is going to have a bad night; he seriously considers leaving her standing at the door.  He is left with his two worst outcomes.  He can keep his hands off and earn a 1, or go for it and earn a 2.  Fearing detection as a horn dog and the trouble detection would cause, “average” George keeps his hands to himself.  Elizabeth wants a second date but “average” George will not call.

Matrix 3.  George is a player.

	Hands off	Hands on
Immodest	(3, 2)	(1, 4)
Modest	(4, 1)	(2, 3)

George is a player and believes who also believes that immodest dress is a signal inviting a physical advance.  It dictate his actions but affects his estimation of the probability of a successful outcome—some level of sexual activity. 

Elizabeth dresses modestly.  George can keep is hands off or on.  Because he is a player, he goes for it without the proper signaling and earns a 3.  Ironically, George sexually objectifies women.  He got in a few pokes and squeezes and is happy with the date.  He will call again.

Results

When dressed modestly, Elizabeth has three dates that she views as successes and two with young men who have standards similar to her own.  Both “saint” George and “blustering” George consider the dates as successes and she is likely to get a call for a second date. She would also like another date with “average” George but he will not call back.  Elizabeth wonders why.

She considers one date a failures because “player” George got grabby.  She will not accept a second date.  These dates pose a second, more significant risk for Elizabeth.  Because she is human and has sexual impulses which are impart activated by sexual contact, George’s actions increased her chances of engaging in activities she considers wrong.  Because she was modestly dressed, her defense systems were higher and her spiritual distress only reached orange and not red. “Player” George was relatively content with the date not viewing Elizabeth’s standards or feelings as barriers to his actions.  Next Friday, he will pull out his cell phone, go through his list of numbers and call girls in order of his probability of a successful sexual encounter. 

If Elizabeth’s preferences are changed slightly to make her highest outcome dressing immodestly with hands off behavior and her second best outcome, dressing modestly again with hands off behavior, the outcomes are subtly changed. 

Elizabeth only enjoys two dates and did not enjoy the other two.  Twice her spiritual defenses reached red because she was immodestly dressed.  She was more likely to give into “average” and “player” Georges’ advances. 

“Saint,” “blustering” and “player” George still view the dates as success, but now “average” George regards the date as a success as well.  Elizabeth’s discomfort is also higher.  While “average” and “player” George both gave there dates the highest outcomes, Elizabeth gave it her lowest and both young men will call again.