Jump to content
Avatar4321

Modesty standards

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, that would depend on the suit, wouldn’t it?

I would praise the young woman for holding to her standard of modesty. Participating in a sport does not justify immodest dress. That is what the two young women prove.

I think the only issue that is confusing people is how you are measuring modesty with these examples.

Is it by their own level of comfort?  If so, this would mean the rest of the team is not immodest if they are comfortable with the uniform, correct?

Is it by the coverage of the clothing?  If this, would a swimsuit have to cover the body as much as the adapted track uniform in order to be modest in your view?  If not but still coverage is the issue for you, could you please given an example of a minimally modest swimsuit and a minimally modest track suit, so we know the context you are speaking and what lines you believe shouldn't be crossed.  The clothing doesn't need to be worn by a model or swimmer/runner if posting pictures of young women to judge modesty bothers you.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, that would depend on the suit, wouldn’t it?

No it wouldn't depend on that at all.  There are plenty of swimsuits that 'the church' considers modest but there are no modest swimsuits that would be considered modest should someone try to wear one to a church dance.  And that's my point.  Modesty is often (if not almost always) situational, and that's what the church teaches.

If someone believes that the olympic track team is being immodest but the olympic diving team isn't, then that person has an illogical double standard.  There is nothing inherently immodest about running shorts.  They would be modest in some situations and immodest in others (just like swimsuits). 

If someone doesn't want to wear them because they don't fit in with their standard of modesty then I fully support that, but like Blue Dreams said, that's their standard, not the church's.  

My issue was that you claimed that the girl's standard of modesty = mormon church's standard of modesty.  I've been asking you questions so that you could show if that's actually true.  You haven't been able to.  Her standard of modesty is not the mormon church's standard of modesty.  Neither is it based on mormon principles.  She can be praised for doing what she believes is right (and i think it's awesome, like i already said) but she can't be praised for following the church's teachings on modesty-she's not. Her standard is more strict than the church's standard.

Quote

I would praise the young woman for holding to her standard of modesty. Participating in a sport does not justify immodest dress.

That's not what i asked.  I asked, would you argue with someone who attempted to claim that any girl not wearing long sleeves to run track in, like the Muslim girl, was being immodest?  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

No it wouldn't depend on that at all.  There are plenty of swimsuits that 'the church' considers modest but there are no modest swimsuits that would be considered modest should someone try to wear one to a church dance.  And that's my point.  Modesty is often (if not almost always) situational, and that's what the church teaches.

If someone believes that the olympic track team is being immodest but the olympic diving team isn't, then that person has an illogical double standard.  There is nothing inherently immodest about running shorts.  They would be modest in some situations and immodest in others (just like swimsuits). 

If someone doesn't want to wear them because they don't fit in with their standard of modesty then I fully support that, but like Blue Dreams said, that's their standard, not the church's.  

My issue was that you claimed that the girl's standard of modesty = mormon church's standard of modesty.  I've been asking you questions so that you could show if that's actually true.  You haven't been able to.  Her standard of modesty is not the mormon church's standard of modesty.  Neither is it based on mormon principles.  She can be praised for doing what she believes is right (and i think it's awesome, like i already said) but she can't be praised for following the church's teachings on modesty-she's not. Her standard is more strict than the church's standard.

That's not what i asked.  I asked, would you argue with someone who attempted to claim that any girl not wearing long sleeves to run track in, like the Muslim girl, was being immodest?  

OK.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Calm said:

I think the only issue that is confusing people is how you are measuring modesty with these examples.

Is it by their own level of comfort?  If so, this would mean the rest of the team is not immodest if they are comfortable with the uniform, correct?

Is it by the coverage of the clothing?  If this, would a swimsuit have to cover the body as much as the adapted track uniform in order to be modest in your view?  If not but still coverage is the issue for you, could you please given an example of a minimally modest swimsuit and a minimally modest track suit, so we know the context you are speaking and what lines you believe shouldn't be crossed.  The clothing doesn't need to be worn by a model or swimmer/runner if posting pictures of young women to judge modesty bothers you.

I simply reported what happened. I think what she, her parents, and the coach did was laudatory. It's not about what I think is modest or what lines I think should not be crossed. We've had this discussion here before several times and it never turns out well. I really don't care about competitive sports at all. To me sports are simply a way to stay fit.  

We all can't seem to be able to agree on what the word actually means, what Church standards are, or whether or not it is even an important concept, no less examples of what is or is not modest dress. For the sake of comparison (I will make no judgements or comments), compare these photo albums. Same sports, same activities, different outfits. Draw your own conclusions.  

https://byucougars.com/home/m-track-field

https://byucougars.com/home/w-track-field

https://byucougars.com/home/w-volleyball

https://byucougars.com/home/m-volleyball

 

 

 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/18/2017 at 12:21 PM, Calm said:

Women are encouraged by our general culture to wear more revealing clothing.  Men are not.  Take a look at movies or TV and contrast the powerful men with the powerful women.  In general, outside of physical power, men will have more clothing on the more powerful they are, women will have less as long as they are young.

I agree that this is the unfortunate case.  My question is, why is this acceptable to women?  It is no secret that the media objectifies women.  It is also no secret that the fashion industry sells sex and is influenced by the media portrayal of women.  What is not clear to me is why women choose to be influenced by the media and the fashion industry which is clearly degenerate and creates a wedge of inequality between men and women.  If women are all about equality, why do they choose to vote with their wallet and their dress in support of inequality?  

Some women may not view their more revealing clothing as being intentionally provocative, instead they view anything else as socially unacceptable.  Just imagine a girl cheerleader trying to dress like a boy cheerleader - it would not be acceptable!   It is so sad that a woman has to dress in a more revealing way to feel accepted by society and societal trends.  

Shouldn't the objectification of women in the media (which influences styles and more revealing clothing for women) be viewed by women as a form of inequality?  Shouldn't it be viewed by them as degrading?  My question is, why do women buy into it all then?  Why do they choose to wear more revealing clothing then men, when they know it stems from the objectification of women?  When are women going to stand up against the media and fashion designers and say, I am not an object, and prove it with their wallets?

Quote

 It is made acceptable by claiming this means women are proud of their bodies, comfortable in their own skins...so they show more skin.  Even in shows that typically have women in similar clothing to men (think cop shows), buttons are opened lower even if shirts are taped not to reveal and their off time public clothing is revealing.

I think that is a lie people tell women and themselves to pretend like the inequality and objectification of women is acceptable.  Think about it, why are women expected, but not men, to show more skin?  If it was about healthy self-acceptance, shouldn't it be equally expected of men to reveal more skin?   There is an inequity of expectation, and I think women are buying into the lie. 

The message to women from the media is this: Your body is an object. Women are < and not equal to men.  A woman's purpose is to please and pleasure men.  In gender advertisements, Erving Goffman performed a detailed analysis of more than 500 advertisements.  Goffman argued that "the relationship between men and women was portrayed as a parent-child relationship, one characterized by male power and female subordination."  I agree with that assessment. 

This daily bombardment of messages from the media has an impact on young girls...and boys.  It tells them what is and is not socially acceptable.  Girls believe that they have to dress a certain (more revealing) way to be accepted by society.  I don't think that women in general have become conscious of this fact, but by going with the flow of society, they are perpetuating the objectification of women and furthering the inequality.  

Some women are starting to get it though: (warning, this video may be should be seen as offensive and vulgar to some)

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree that this is the unfortunate case.  My question is, why is this acceptable to women?  It is no secret that the media objectifies women.  It is also no secret that the fashion industry sells sex and is influenced by the media portrayal of women.  What is not clear to me is why women choose to be influenced by the media and the fashion industry which is clearly degenerate and creates a wedge of inequality between men and women.  If women are all about equality, why do they choose to vote with their wallet and their dress in support of inequality?  

Some women may not view their more revealing clothing as being intentionally provocative, instead they view anything else as socially unacceptable.  Just imagine a girl cheerleader trying to dress like a boy cheerleader - it would not be acceptable!   It is so sad that a woman has to dress in a more revealing way to feel accepted by society and societal trends.  

Shouldn't the objectification of women in the media (which influences styles and more revealing clothing for women) be viewed by women as a form of inequality?  Shouldn't it be viewed by them as degrading?  My question is, why do women buy into it all then?  Why do they choose to wear more revealing clothing then men, when they know it stems from the objectification of women?  When are women going to stand up against the media and fashion designers and say, I am not an object, and prove it with their wallets?

I think that is a lie people tell women and themselves to pretend like the inequality and objectification of women is acceptable.  Think about it, why are women expected, but not men, to show more skin?  If it was about healthy self-acceptance, shouldn't it be equally expected of men to reveal more skin?   There is an inequity of expectation, and I think women are buying into the lie. 

The message to women from the media is this: Your body is an object. Women are < and not equal to men.  A woman's purpose is to please and pleasure men.  In gender advertisements, Erving Goffman performed a detailed analysis of more than 500 advertisements.  Goffman argued that "the relationship between men and women was portrayed as a parent-child relationship, one characterized by male power and female subordination."  I agree with that assessment. 

This daily bombardment of messages from the media has an impact on young girls...and boys.  It tells them what is and is not socially acceptable.  Girls believe that they have to dress a certain (more revealing) way to be accepted by society.  I don't think that women in general have become conscious of this fact, but by going with the flow of society, they are perpetuating the objectification of women and furthering the inequality.  

Some women are starting to get it though:

 

 

One of the reasons that it has been or is acceptable to some women is because women have had very little power historically, with the exception of their sexuality.  

There was a popular song a few years ago, sung by a popular band (Good Charolette) had a lyric comparing "boys with Ferraris were like girls with their bodies".  In other words, men gain value in society using money and power and women gain value in society using their sexuality.  Women want to be valued in society (like all people do) and they have often used their sexuality to have that.

There is also the prevalent 'if you can't beat them, join them' reason that some women are o.k. with being objectified.  Powerless people often end up going along with and even supporting the people that are abusing them because being a powerless 'friend' seems like a better deal than being a powerless enemy.

And another reason is because it is ingrained in our culture that half of the time, we (men and women) don't. even. notice.  Like with the ad above, i had to look at it for quite a few seconds before I could figure out the problem.  

Edited by bluebell
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Pogi, You need a warning on that video that many of the images are vulgar.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Pogi, You need a warning on that video that many of the images are vulgar.

You are right!  I meant to do that but must have forgotten.  For some reason it is being glitchy and will not let me edit my post.  I will try when I get home.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

One of the reasons that it has been or is acceptable to some women is because women have had very little power historically, with the exception of their sexuality.  

There was a popular song a few years ago, sung by a popular band (Good Charolette) had a lyric comparing "boys with Ferraris were like girls with their bodies".  In other words, men gain value in society using money and power and women gain value in society using their sexuality.  Women want to be valued in society (like all people do) and they have often used their sexuality to have that.

That last sentence is so sad to me, that some women have accepted and perpetuate the lie that their value is skin deep.  What society is offering as "value" to these girls is a "whitewashed tomb, beautiful on the outside but are filled with dead men's bones."  I personally see no value in that, and women should reject such superficial value from society and demand more respect.  

This says a lot about the values of society.  When are men and women going to stand up and say that this is unacceptable, where women can only have societal value by de-valuing her self-dignity.  Think about it - men are in total control!  They get the money, and they get the power because they have thoroughly convinced women that their most respectable value is their sexuality.  That way women become subordinate sexual objects who can only get money or power by arousing men's sexual desires, by exploiting their bodies and sexuality (historically).  The problem is that women have been so thoroughly convinced of this that they perpetuate the lie themselves.  They literally buy it and sustain it, and it is women (not just men anymore) in marketing agencies who are selling it.  It needs to stop.  Women have all the power to make this change with her wallet.  As soon as women stop buying it, they will stop feeding it.  We don't need to wait for the media to change their messed up morals before a change can be made.  

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

There is also the prevalent 'if you can't beat them, join them' reason that some women are o.k. with being objectified.  Powerless people often end up going along with and even supporting the people that are abusing them because being a powerless 'friend' seems like a better deal than being a powerless enemy.

This is so true.  Women have been exploited for far too long!  It is time for women to step up and take the power back!  Honestly, one of the most effective ways for women to take the power back is to start dressing modestly.  This will destroy the myth that says women can only have money and power by exploiting their bodies and sexuality.  Women don't need to dress (or undress rather) for success anymore.  Quid pro quo sexual harassment does not fly like it used to.    Send the message that "I will no longer be exploited", and that "my value is deeper than my skin."  Unfortunately, I fear that too many young women have become convinced that their value is only skin deep.  The media is such a powerful influence on these young minds.  It is so tragic!  

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

And another reason is because it is ingrained in our culture that half of the time, we (men and women) don't. even. notice.  Like with the ad above, i had to look at it for quite a few seconds before I could figure out the problem.  

You are right, we don't even notice a lot of the time.  And in some cases we defend it.  That is why it is incumbent upon the church to help us take notice.  Modesty in dress is predominantly a woman's issue today because society has made it so.

I think that you are all right that the church needs to stop making this a message about how modesty affects men, and start making it a message about how it affects women.  That would be much more effective!  Because it does have devastating consequences for the image and self-worth of women.  That is the better and healthier message that the church needs to portray.  Not that I disagree that immodestly dressed women have a profound influence on little boys with natural hormones, but that to me is a secondary issue. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

You are right!  I meant to do that but must have forgotten.  

 

I figured.  If you can't edit as sometimes happens, if you report it to the mods to fix, they will probably insert the warning for you, but might delete the video instead as there is at least one picture I remember as pretty explicit.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, pogi said:

Women have been exploited for far too long!  It is time for women to step up and take the power back!  Honestly, one of the most effective ways for women to take the power back is to start dressing modestly.  This will destroy the myth that says women can only have money and power by exploiting their bodies and sexuality.  Women don't need to dress (or undress rather) for success anymore.  Quid pro quo sexual harassment does not fly like it used to.    Send the message that "I will no longer be exploited", and that "my value is deeper than my skin."  Unfortunately, I fear that too many young women have become convinced that their value is only skin deep.  The media is such a powerful influence on these young minds.  It is so tragic!

The situation is apparently more complex than simple societal patriarchal exploitation. Modesty and societal level gender equality have had a sometimes inverse relation. For example, women clothing trends were much more "modest" and when women started taking power back, such as in the 20's, modesty reduced significantly. A similar thing happened in the 60's. Or perhaps when several towns in France outlawed "modest" swimsuits worn by Muslim women. These complex trends extend well past modesty and are largely puzzling to sociologists.
 

From an article looking at the infamous Google Memo:

"Culture and context matter, in complicated ways. Some gender differences have decreased over time as women have achieved greater equality, showing that these differences are responsive to changes in culture and environment. But the cross-national findings sometimes show “paradoxical” effects: progress toward gender equality in rights and opportunities sometimes leads to larger gender differences in some traits and career choices."

and

"Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences."

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Nofear said:

The situation is apparently more complex than simple societal patriarchal exploitation. Modesty and societal level gender equality have had a sometimes inverse relation. For example, women clothing trends were much more "modest" and when women started taking power back, such as in the 20's, modesty reduced significantly. A similar thing happened in the 60's. Or perhaps when several towns in France outlawed "modest" swimsuits worn by Muslim women. These complex trends extend well past modesty and are largely puzzling to sociologists.

 

I was going to point this out in a response to Pogi but forgot.  

It's wrong to assume that all women use their sexuality to gain power against their will or only to gain relevance in a man's world.  Women are sexual beings just like men are and women often enjoy asserting that sexuality in public places, for their own perceived benefits, that are not dependent on the reactions of men. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Nofear said:

The situation is apparently more complex than simple societal patriarchal exploitation. Modesty and societal level gender equality have had a sometimes inverse relation. For example, women clothing trends were much more "modest" and when women started taking power back, such as in the 20's, modesty reduced significantly. A similar thing happened in the 60's. Or perhaps when several towns in France outlawed "modest" swimsuits worn by Muslim women. These complex trends extend well past modesty and are largely puzzling to sociologists.

From an article looking at the infamous Google Memo:

"Culture and context matter, in complicated ways. Some gender differences have decreased over time as women have achieved greater equality, showing that these differences are responsive to changes in culture and environment. But the cross-national findings sometimes show “paradoxical” effects: progress toward gender equality in rights and opportunities sometimes leads to larger gender differences in some traits and career choices."

and

"Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences."

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/

It is probably fair to say that it is more complex.  I agree that a lot of it is unexplained, but I still have my own theories (speaking of morality in dress alone).  It certainly does seem to be the case that the more liberated that women become, we tend to see a reduction in modesty of dress.  Why is that?  That does seem to be paradoxical if immodesty is viewed solely as an artifact of patriarchal exploitation.   

I think however, that it can be partly explained by what we have been discussing here about culturally perceived roles and values of the different sexes.  As bluebell has pointed out, it seems that men in society are valued more for their money and power, while women are valued more for their bodies and sexuality.  Those values are a relic of patriarchal exploitation, in my opinion, that have been passed down from what seems like the beginning of time.  It is not just men who espouse these values, but women have bought into these values and ideas as well (I think that is obviously clear in today's culture and society).  This ingrained cultural value system might explain why a greater liberation of women would cause them to further embrace and enhance what they believe gives value to women in society - namely their sexuality and image.  We certainly shouldn't expect such deeply ingrained values and beliefs to vanish the moment that women become liberated.  It will take many, many generations for such views to change - and the media is not helping at all to make that change!   The problem is that these values do not serve women well, and until women recognize this, their value in society will only be skin deep.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Was going to leave this one alone, but I obviously have too much time on my hands. In my opinion modesty should be something innate, such as was the case after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit discovered they were naked. None of the scriptures tell us how much of the body that the coats of skin covered. As others have noted, social mores have long played a huge part in what is considered modest, and currently there are conflicting values in the United States because of the many varied cultures that is hosted herein and the ever more lenient views by many as to what is and is not modest. I believe that at least one poster mentioned something about the body as a temple. I agree with that idea. It has a scriptural basis and I believe that emphasizing that teaching from early youth will help our children and the adults realize that innate modesty.

Glenn

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/25/2017 at 8:26 AM, bluebell said:

There was a popular song a few years ago, sung by a popular band (Good Charolette) had a lyric comparing "boys with Ferraris were like girls with their bodies".  In other words, men gain value in society using money and power and women gain value in society using their sexuality.  Women want to be valued in society (like all people do) and they have often used their sexuality to have that.

Evidently both men and women are obtaining social value by displaying their desirability as mates. A man's desirability has historically been linked to his ability to provide, which can be demonstrated by displaying visible signs of wealth.

Which suggest that if female modesty involves wearing more clothing, then male modesty means something like buying a Toyota Yaris even if he can afford a Ferrari. After all, nobody can plausibly claim to need a Ferrari.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Evidently both men and women are obtaining social value by displaying their desirability as mates. A man's desirability has historically been linked to his ability to provide, which can be demonstrated by displaying visible signs of wealth.

Which suggest that if female modesty involves wearing more clothing, then male modesty means something like buying a Toyota Yaris even if he can afford a Ferrari. After all, nobody can plausibly claim to need a Ferrari.

 

Exactly.  Modesty is more than just the clothes we wear and someone can show very little skin and still be immodest.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/24/2017 at 6:13 AM, BlueDreams said:

These are really good questions. I'm not 100% sure. For me, I have plenty of sexual thoughts. Some of them intrusive :P. I am single. I think once upon a time I found them as minor sins of sorts. I would work to push them down. Instead now I thank God I have them and gently remind myself that they're currently not the right time for full expression. Or the right person, depending. I don't consider general sexual attraction as really a sexual thought or a form of lust. It just is because I have eyeballs and hormones. 

Most the people I know who objectify people aren't necessarily doing so consciously. But they can consciously change the internal dialogue. I think sexual objectification has 2 components to it. The first is seeing people as objects. But the other component I've seen is placing one's sexual appetites as the primary or sole voice in the sexual story. We do that all....the....time. Female sexuality in general has been filtered by male expectations of sex, sexual attractiveness, etc. So I think innappropriate thoughts start happening when your sexual desires and thoughts begin to override or take precedence over another's. Where it becomes more and more a part of an overpower monologue of a narrative than an actual bonafide dialogue between 2. 

 

I think the problem is stating that she was following "mormon standards." She was following her standards. Kudos for her for doing so as she saw fit. But they are not my standards as a good mormon woman who considers herself modest. I could care less about what sports attire I generally wear as long as it suits the sport, is comfortable, and doesn't hinder my performance. Which is why I hike in tanks and shorts during the summer and several layers during the winter.

And yes, many people would have the same question for a muslim girl. And often do.  I have a general problem with this form of modesty definition. Because it tends to allow others outside oneself to regulate what is really modest. But I'm out of time, so that thought is just going to have to stay unexplained. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

 

Thank you for sharing!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×