Modesty standards

[JLHPROF]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Except it is God telling you not to think of elephants and providing the means by which you can learn that level of control.

Yes. It is conceivable that people can reach a point where even the most provocative immodest dress would not cause an improper thought.

But until the general population reaches that level of self control It is still possible for people to influence your thoughts with visual stimuli. And the idea that that falls entirely on the shoulders of the one doing the seeing is still unrealistic.  And both sides must learn accountability.

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes. It is conceivable that people can reach a point where even the most provocative immodest dress would not cause an improper thought.

But until the general population reaches that level of self control It is still possible for people to influence your thoughts with visual stimuli. And the idea that that falls entirely on the shoulders of the one doing the seeing is still unrealistic.  And both sides must learn accountability.

I think one problem here may be that the concept of "accountability" is being muddled a bit.

If a Person A deliberately incites Person B to commit violence, and succeeds at it, then Person B is "accountable" for committing that violence, and Person A is "accountable" for inciting that violence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 19, 2017 by smac97

[cinepro]

I'm not sure if anyone has ever blogged about this or done any research, but the whole thing with "bare shoulders" is presumably because "modesty" got linked to "Temple garments" a few decades ago.

I suspect that the counsel was first to just wear clothing that was Temple-garment friendly, if only so you didn't have to change your wardrobe and style when you went through the Temple.

At some point, well-meaning leaders probably started to equate all dress standards with "modesty" in the sense of sexual stimulation and enticement.  So the rule against "no bare shoulders so you can wear your dresses with sleeved Temple garments" became "no bare shoulders because it's immodest, which must mean it has something to do with guys wanting to see shoulders."

But if that's the case, I'm not sure the logic holds up considering the history of Temple garments.  At no point that I'm aware did the Lord or anyone else ever say "wear this pattern of underwear because it is the Lord's standard for modest dress."  Even more confounding would be the drastic changes made to the length and style of the Temple garments over the years.  It just isn't a good yardstick for "modesty" in relation to enticement.

If this is true, maybe we should be teaching a more nuanced version of modesty that delineates between legitimately "enticing" dress (miniskirts and bustiers), and practical dress patterns to prepare for wearing Temple-garments but not because it's enticing (bare shoulders). 

 

Also, pigs should be able to fly.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by cinepro

[juliann]

21 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure if anyone has ever blogged about this or done any research, but the whole thing with "bare shoulders" is presumably because "modesty" got linked to "Temple garments" a few decades ago.

 

I think it is self-evident. 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think one problem here may be that the concept of "accountability" is being muddled a bit.

If a Person A deliberately incites Person B to commit violence, and succeeds at it, then Person B is "accountable" for committing that violence, and Person A is "accountable" for inciting that violence.

Thanks,

-Smac

So what you're saying is that if a man looks at a woman and has immoral thoughts caused by the way she was dressed, both he and she have sinned?  (Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly).

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So what you're saying is

I submit that we do the following: I'll tell you what I'm saying.  In fact, I'll take the effort to commit what I am saying to writing.  We can then stick to that, and not get distracted with unnecessary paraphrases preceded with "So what you're saying is..."

Quote

is that if a man looks at a woman and has immoral thoughts caused by the way she was dressed, both he and she have sinned?  (Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly).

No, that's not what I'm saying.

If you want clarification as to my perspective, I'll provide it.  Just ask.

Here's a preview: "If a Person A deliberately incites Person B to commit violence..."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 19, 2017 by smac97

[Danzo]

15 hours ago, Rain said:

No. She bears responsibility for trying to be provocative. She cannot control the thoughts or actions of anyone else, so can't be held responsible for what they think and do.  

If you believe what she wears does control a man's thoughts then we might as well give up because that means we have no choice when Satan tries to control our thoughts as well. 

 

I don't know about controlling a man's thoughts, would influencing a man's thoughts be within possibility?

Edited October 19, 2017 by Danzo

[Danzo]

Is it possible that choice in clothing can an act of communication?

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I submit that we do the following: I'll tell you what I'm saying.  In fact, I'll take the effort to commit what I am saying to writing.  We can then stick to that, and not get distracted with unnecessary paraphrases preceded with "So what you're saying is..."

No, that's not what I'm saying.

If you want clarification as to my perspective, I'll provide it.  Just ask.

Here's a preview: "If a Person A deliberately incites Person B to commit violence..."

Thanks,

-Smac

Rephrasing what one thinks the other is saying is an effective way of finding out if you understand what the other is saying.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure if anyone has ever blogged about this or done any research, but the whole thing with "bare shoulders" is presumably because "modesty" got linked to "Temple garments" a few decades ago.

While that's part of it, it's also that the Church was heavily influenced by modesty discussions in the wider society. It's funny reading say Joseph F. Smith on modesty because what he says is so alien to us today but was pretty mainstream at the time. The fact is bare shoulders were an issue in the 1950's in the broader culture. If I recall the emphasis on shoulders was largely from David O McKay and was far more liberal than what had gone on before. It also largely reflected the changes in fashions of the 1950's that showed more skin than the 1940's. What then happened was a change in media along with the centralization of media and discourse in the church. Unsurprisingly McKay and others then become quoted a lot. That then fixes the discourse a fair bit since quotations divorced from context become repeated. That keeps the discourse in the 1950's just because the 1950's and 60's are when most of the quotes arise. (No one quotes Joseph F. Smith since ankles seem silly to worry about)

It's worth nothing that garments became much shorter in I believe the 1970's. I'd have to check to be sure, but I think that's when one piece garments stopped being popular and lengths became lower thighs and upper arms rather than wrists and ankles. As a funny aside I had an old pair of thermal one piece garments my dad had had that I used to wear skiing when I was younger. I honestly wish the Church had better athletic garments more akin to the underwear you'd get from say Patagonia. They're if anything more covering than Church ones but of much better design and fabric. I'd once asked a stake president if I could just take some white Patagonia underwear and sew the markings on. He said yes, but I never quite had the guts to do it.

In any case it's rather natural that garments would become a marker for modesty. While I don't know of any quote off the top of my head I'd be shocked if the older garments weren't used to argue against bear arms and calves in the late 19th century or early 20th century.

Edited October 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Is it possible that choice in clothing can an act of communication?

I think so. 

While I think many go overboard in modesty discussions, there's a reasonable parallel to make. Ask a woman how they'd feel if a man came up to them wearing only their briefs. I bet most women would justifiably consider it sexual harassment. Again while I think we as a church go overboard in unfortunate ways in how we explain modesty to women, really all that's being talked about is sexual harassment of a sort. Maybe we draw the line much farther than society at large does. But there ought be a line. Were I to criticize the church manuals it'd be less for how modesty is taught to women than how it is taught to men - especially priesthood. Really there should be discussions of sexual harrassment taught as modesty.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure if anyone has ever blogged about this or done any research, but the whole thing with "bare shoulders" is presumably because "modesty" got linked to "Temple garments" a few decades ago.

I suspect that the counsel was first to just wear clothing that was Temple-garment friendly, if only so you didn't have to change your wardrobe and style when you went through the Temple.

At some point, well-meaning leaders probably started to equate all dress standards with "modesty" in the sense of sexual stimulation and enticement.  So the rule against "no bare shoulders so you can wear your dresses with sleeved Temple garments" became "no bare shoulders because it's immodest, which must mean it has something to do with guys wanting to see shoulders."

But if that's the case, I'm not sure the logic holds up considering the history of Temple garments.  At no point that I'm aware did the Lord or anyone else ever say "wear this pattern of underwear because it is the Lord's standard for modest dress."  Even more confounding would be the drastic changes made to the length and style of the Temple garments over the years.  It just isn't a good yardstick for "modesty" in relation to enticement.

If this is true, maybe we should be teaching a more nuanced version of modesty that delineates between legitimately "enticing" dress (miniskirts and bustiers), and practical dress patterns to prepare for wearing Temple-garments but not because it's enticing (bare shoulders). 

 

Also, pigs should be able to fly.

 

 

Thanks.  But I thought the temple garment was designed to not allow for bare shoulders rather than the other way around.  It just seems strange to me that men should be so concerned about bare shoulders.  But hey what do I know.  A woman could be topless I couldn't care less.

[california boy]

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While that's part of it, it's also that the Church was heavily influenced by modesty discussions in the wider society. It's funny reading say Joseph F. Smith on modesty because what he says is so alien to us today but was pretty mainstream at the time. The fact is bare shoulders were an issue in the 1950's in the broader culture. If I recall the emphasis on shoulders was largely from David O McKay and was far more liberal than what had gone on before. It also largely reflected the changes in fashions of the 1950's that showed more skin than the 1940's. What then happened was a change in media along with the centralization of media and discourse in the church. Unsurprisingly McKay and others then become quoted a lot. That then fixes the discourse a fair bit since quotations divorced from context become repeated. That keeps the discourse in the 1950's just because the 1950's and 60's are when most of the quotes arise. (No one quotes Joseph F. Smith since ankles seem silly to worry about)

It's worth nothing that garments became much shorter in I believe the 1970's. I'd have to check to be sure, but I think that's when one piece garments stopped being popular and lengths became lower thighs and upper arms rather than wrists and ankles. As a funny aside I had an old pair of thermal one piece garments my dad had had that I used to wear skiing when I was younger. I honestly wish the Church had better athletic garments more akin to the underwear you'd get from say Patagonia. They're if anything more covering than Church ones but of much better design and fabric. I'd once asked a stake president if I could just take some white Patagonia underwear and sew the markings on. He said yes, but I never quite had the guts to do it.

In any case it's rather natural that garments would become a marker for modesty. While I don't know of any quote off the top of my head I'd be shocked if the older garments weren't used to argue against bear arms and calves in the late 19th century or early 20th century.

Thanks.  That was helpful.  Still doesn't make much sense.  But it was helpful.

[BlueDreams]

On 10/18/2017 at 11:45 AM, Avatar4321 said:

Elsewhere we've been discussing modesty and I thought it might deserve s own thread.

I'm not sure I truly understand the "Be modest so others have clean thoughts" as a reason for modesty. I've always understood modesty standards to be able respecting the temple that is our body and not sexualizing it, not to have any effect on others but so that we don't objectify ourselves. 

I've also always understood these principles to apply to men and women

I have a problem with the bolded statements. The body is meant to be sexual and is a divine part of it. "Not sexualizing it" to me is a form of repression that can lead to people feeling disconnected or uncomfortable in their sexuality. I've seen this happen before, particularly for women, pretty dang often. "Sexualizing it" to me makes about as much sense as it does to say "photosynthesizing plants." I don't see sexual expression, including attractive clothing choices, as objectification in and of itself. 

I like the guide to the scriptures definition to modesty: 

Behavior or appearance that is humble, moderate, and decent. A modest person avoids excesses and pretensions.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited October 19, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

Good point.  I think most people mean oversexualize or seeing our bodies as primarily for sexual gratification to the exclusion of other attributes when they say "sexualize", but that can lead to harmful misunderstandings of being sexual is a normal and very important part of who we are.  

Edited October 19, 2017 by Calm

[kiwi57]

16 hours ago, Rain said:

No. She bears responsibility for trying to be provocative. She cannot control the thoughts or actions of anyone else, so can't be held responsible for what they think and do.  

If you believe what she wears does control a man's thoughts then we might as well give up because that means we have no choice when Satan tries to control our thoughts as well. 

 

Okay, you agree that she bears responsibility for what she is knowingly trying to do, but not for the foreseen and intended consequences of that effort?

I'm sure I'm missing something here.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Okay, you agree that she bears responsibility for what she is knowingly trying to do, but not for the foreseen and intended consequences of that effort?

I'm sure I'm missing something here.

She is not acting on a machine that is programmed or animal that relies on instinct for behavioural choices, but a human being.  A person may throw a match on the pile of fuel that is another person, but we choose whether to be brittle tinder going up in flame or green, flexible living growth that won't catch no matter the intensity (I am not talking about physical reactions that are beyond our conscious control in the few seconds of exposure like heartbeat or extreme conditions such as during sexual assault).

I do believe that as children we are highly vulnerable without an ability to protect ourselves from outward influences, but unless someone wants to claim they are immature and have only the ability of a child to control themselves, claiming another is responsible for our behaviour beyond the very immediate, instinctual responses we all have is shifting responsibility inappropriately, imo.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Calm

[Rain]

19 hours ago, Rain said:

No. She bears responsibility for trying to be provocative. She cannot control the thoughts or actions of anyone else, so can't be held responsible for what they think and do.  

 

 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

....

I think the general principle being proposed here is that we should not try to "provoke" or "incite" or "foment" or "goad" or "entice" others into doing or saying or thinking inappropriate things.  This applies in all aspects of life, and to both genders, and to people of all ages.  Because when we do, we are multiplying the misconduct.  The act of "incitement to riot" is disturbing and wrong because of both the rioting and the incitement of it.  Both acts are wrong.  And both actors (the person(s) doing the rioting, and the person doing the inciting) are responsible for their respective behaviors.

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe I am reading you totally wrong here, but you seem to be telling me that I am correct.

Both acts are wrong - provoking and lusting (there was no word used so I had to find one that fit). And both actors (the person doing the lusting, and the person doing the provoking) are responsible for their respective behaviors.  

In other words, she bears responsibility for being provocative. She may even be responsible for natural, physical sexual responses, but she still is not responsible for his actions or thoughts. 

Please tell me where I have misread your words if that is the case.

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Danzo said:

I don't know about controlling a man's thoughts, would influencing a man's thoughts be within possibility?

I think so.  Sort of.  I think she would be more responsible for influencing his sexual response rather than his thoughts. 

Now I get that when you see or hear something, thoughts will automatically pop up in your head.  That, to me, is more of a response.  It is the thought after that  occurs for which he is responsible.  

And I say sort of because I have found that I can control thought responses.  It was incredibly difficult for me, but when I was on my mission I worked on that.  

At one point I was really worried about my husband to be, who was also serving his mission.  He was very sporadically writing me by that time and I didn't know what was going on with him, and things did not feel easy.  I spent a lot of time worrying about him.  A LOT. 

I finally did 3 things.  1. I wrote him a letter and told him that I wanted to see him after our missions, but now I needed to concentrate on my own.  That I couldn't keep worrying about what was going on every time I went to the mail box and found there wasn't a letter there.  So I was choosing to stop writing while we were out.  2. I allowed myself 5 minutes during the day to think of him.  3. When a thought would come to mind about him I would replace it with something else.  I found that after awhile, my mind did the automatic replacement before I thought of him.  I can't really explain how I know that was happening.  It is the only time I have worked so hard to control my thoughts and the only time I was ever able to do the automatic replacement.

So I pretty firmly believe that only I can have control of my own thoughts and actions.  Only I can decide what those thoughts and actions are.  Only I can be responsible for them.  Which makes me have "gratitude, peace, and hope—real hope—because of Jesus Christ" like  Elder Christopherson's mission president friend. And I feel stronger and more powerful because controlling my thoughts is actually possible with work and Christ's help and some day I will be able to do it much more easily.  

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I submit that we do the following: I'll tell you what I'm saying.  In fact, I'll take the effort to commit what I am saying to writing.  We can then stick to that, and not get distracted with unnecessary paraphrases preceded with "So what you're saying is..."

No, that's not what I'm saying.

If you want clarification as to my perspective, I'll provide it.  Just ask.

Here's a preview: "If a Person A deliberately incites Person B to commit violence..."

Thanks,

-Smac

I did ask. That's why I put a question mark after my statement and then even clarified further by saying "Just want to make sure I understand what you are saying". 

True, it was an implied question rather than out right stated, but i sincerely figured you, being a very intelligent person, would be able to interpret that without me being more clear.  In the future, i will be careful to be more literal in my communications with you.

Are you saying that if a person wears something and her intention is not to incite immoral thoughts, then she is not responsible for a man's immoral thoughts, regardless of how much skin she is showing?

[kiwi57]

On 10/19/2017 at 10:05 AM, cinepro said:

While I can understand the sensitivity (and hyper-sensitivity) by some when "blaming-the-victim" becomes an issue for things like sexual assault, this seems to be an odd situation where the Church is arguing a scientifically and research-based principle (not to mention common sense), and critics are arguing for the unscientific counter-proposition.

It's not often that I agree with you, Cinepro, but when you're right, you're right.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that if a person wears something and her intention is not to incite immoral thoughts, then she is not responsible for a man's immoral thoughts, regardless of how much skin she is showing?

I don't think we should characterize Person A as being "responsible for" the "thoughts" of Person B.

If Person A intentionally provokes Person B into improper conduct, the Person B is responsible for that improper conduct, and Person A is culpable for incitement to that improper conduct.

As for inciting "thoughts," I'm rather reluctant to parse out responsibility/blame for such things.  Thoughts precipitate deeds, and we should be mindful of that.  So a person who engages in speech or conduct (intentionally or recklessly) that could reasonably be construed as "provocative," then I think that person bears some culpability for that conduct.

I think we need to acknowledge that we can be held accountable for the influence we have on other people.  Consider the various scriptures we have on this concept (emphases added):

• "Now the sons of Mosiah were numbered among the unbelievers; and also one of the sons of Alma was numbered among them, he being called Alma, after his father; nevertheless, he became a very wicked and an idolatrous man. And he was a man of many words, and did speak much flattery to the people; therefore he led many of the people to do after the manner of his iniquities." (Alma 27:8)
• "And now the Spirit of the Lord doth say unto me: Command thy children to do good, lest they lead away the hearts of many people to destruction; therefore I command you, my son, in the fear of God, that ye refrain from your iniquities."  (Alma 39:12)
• "And it is those who have sought to take away the judgment-seat from me that have been the cause of this great iniquity; for they have used great flattery, and they have led away the hearts of many people..." (Alma 61:4)
• "And there was also a cause of much sorrow among the Lamanites; for behold, they had many children who did grow up and began to wax strong in years, that they became for themselves, and were led away by some who were Zoramites, by their lyings and their flattering words, to join those Gadianton robbers."  (3 Nephi 1:29)
• "Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you." (Jacob 2:35)

So it seems that we will be held accountable if we adversely influence our fellow man.  I think this is particularly so when that influence is intentional.  When we provoke or incite others.  However, there also seems to be some measure of accountability for our negative influence on others that arises from negligence or recklessness.  Consider, for example, Alma's words to his son, Corianton, in Alma 39:

Quote

1 And now, my son, I have somewhat more to say unto thee than what I said unto thy brother; for behold, have ye not observed the steadiness of thy brother, his faithfulness, and his diligence in keeping the commandments of God? Behold, has he not set a good example for thee?

2 For thou didst not give so much heed unto my words as did thy brother, among the people of the Zoramites. Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom.

3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.

4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.

5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?

6 For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.

7 And now, my son, I would to God that ye had not been guilty of so great a crime. I would not dwell upon your crimes, to harrow up your soul, if it were not for your good.

8 But behold, ye cannot hide your crimes from God; and except ye repent they will stand as a testimony against you at the last day.

9 Now my son, I would that ye should repent and forsake your sins, and go no more after the lusts of your eyes, but cross yourself in all these things; for except ye do this ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. Oh, remember, and take it upon you, and cross yourself in these things.

10 And I command you to take it upon you to counsel with your elder brothers in your undertakings; for behold, thou art in thy youth, and ye stand in need to be nourished by your brothers. And give heed to their counsel.

11 Suffer not yourself to be led away by any vain or foolish thing; suffer not the devil to lead away your heart again after those wicked harlots. Behold, O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words.

12 And now the Spirit of the Lord doth say unto me: Command thy children to do good, lest they lead away the hearts of many people to destruction; therefore I command you, my son, in the fear of God, that ye refrain from your iniquities.

This is interesting.  Alma allocates "blame" to Corianton for the negative (though probably more reckless/negligent than intentional) effect his personal behavior had on other people ("Behold, O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites...").  Did Corianton intend to adversely affect the Zoramites?  Probably not.  But was he blamed, to some extent, for the unintended influence he had on them?  Well . . . yes.  Yes he was.  

That said, the analogy starts to break down a bit when we are talking about clothing.  But without getting into hairsplitting about what is "too revealing" and what is not, about what is "provocative" and what is not, I think the general sentiment should be that modesty in dress and grooming and behavior are good and healthy standards to be aspired to by Latter-day Saints, and that one of the positive aspects of such measures is that we are less likely to adversely influence others.

I am reminded of Alma 12:14:

Quote

14 For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence.

If we, through our words or actions, entice or induce or provoke others into improper behavior (and, to some extent, thoughts), then it seems like we may be held accountable to some extend for that.  Even if the enticement/inducement/provocation was not fully intentional (see Corianton's effect on the Zoramites).  

Thanks,

-Smac

P.S. In the interests of living up to our aspirations, I formally apologize for my harsh/intemperate/brusque remarks over the past few days.  I apologize without reservation or equivocation.  I will work to do better.

Edited October 20, 2017 by smac97

[Yirgacheffe]

On 10/18/2017 at 4:05 PM, cinepro said:

While I can understand the sensitivity (and hyper-sensitivity) by some when "blaming-the-victim" becomes an issue for things like sexual assault, this seems to be an odd situation where the Church is arguing a scientifically and research-based principle (not to mention common sense), and critics are arguing for the unscientific counter-proposition.

For example, take Elder Oaks' well-meme'd statement here:

I understand why that statement causes distress.  For a scholared wordsmith such as Oaks, it's an odd miss-step.  But in all the discussion of how awful it is that young women could become "pornography" based on how they dress, few people ever acknowledge the simple fact that study after study shows that how people dress does have an influence on other people:

Men see bikini-clad women as objects, psychologists say

If you didn't read that excerpt from the study, take a moment and read it again.

Then take a moment and read Elder Oaks' quote.  Then read the excerpt from the article again.

Does anyone find it ironic that one of the most common criticisms against Elder Oaks is from when he stood in conference and said something that is backed by research, brain scans, and evolutionary theory?  He might not have been as tactful as he could have been, but that doesn't change the fact that what he said is entirely true.

And look at his whole talk.  Critics like to pretend that his comment is somehow excusing men for their thoughts, or even giving them permission or encouraging such leering.  But the entire talk (other than that one comment) is a plea to the men and teenagers to not look at objectified women that way.  

I often wonder how Oaks' comment would be perceived if he had just made one tiny little change.  What if he said this instead?

For those who objected to his comment, does that make you react any differently?

If anything, Oaks should be mocked and derided for standing and saying something in conference that is so obviously true that even the stupidest person would already understand it.  The response from men, women and the entire advertising industry should have been "Duh!"

I would like to see a study that shows just how covered up a woman must be before men don't objectify her. 

[Marginal Gains]

In terms of stated Church counsel or instruction on the subject of modesty, is the Mormon lady pictured in this Deseret News article considered to be attired modestly or not?

 removed

Do not put up pictures of Mormon women and ask posters to judge their attire.

 

[Bernard Gui]

If each individual is solely responsible for his/her thoughts notwithstanding any outside stimuli (whether intentional or incidental), if modesty is merely a flawed social construct, and if immodest dress cannot cause another person to be distracted or to think or act inappropriately, then other than for protection from environmental harm perhaps we should not bother about wearing any clothes at all. We should all be able to go about in the buff without a second thought. We would all be less hung up if we just wore a smile. What is the purpose of modesty?

On the other hand, speaking of shared responsibility for stumbling blocks, the Savior said,

Matt 18

Quote

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! 

8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui