Jump to content
bsjkki

Modesty issues...again

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, juliann said:

Scott, CFR for any poster called a pervert. 

But calling someone a pervert means they do have to use the word pervert. 

But calling someone a pervert means they do have to use the word pervert. 

I shared the sick feeling as I saw some men giggling over it.

Rather than focus on the meaning of the word creepy (which in my experience at church and school is the go-to word used by kids to describe someone who is perverted around young men and women), focus on this and its insinuations...

Quote

If a guy shows up in a shirt that is too tight for you and you are aroused, is that the criteria?  If a young woman shows up in too short of dress that arouses you, does her name get put in your little book?  Do you see how creepy this is?

This makes the accusation that the actions I took in my role as a high council representative assigned to a church dance by a stake president who was following the lead of the youth and their leaders in his stake were the result of my being aroused by the dress of the youth. This, after repeated and extensive explanations of what the truth of the matter was. I get a sick feeling when I am accused of doing something in good faith and then being accused that I am doing it because boys and girls arouse me.

No, that is not acceptable. It's unwarranted, contemptible, and slanderous. It's ignorant and stupid. Ignore Gui's law. 

If you can't see that, then you don't get it at all.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Calm said:

Apparently mentioning arousal is labeling someone a pervert, so I guess I violated GUI's law for myself several pages back. ;)

One of GUI's Law's corollaries perhaps?

I guess you don't get it.

Rather than focus on the meaning of the word creepy (which in my experience at church and school is the go-to word used by kids to describe someone who is perverted around young men and women), focus on this and its insinuations...

  Quote

If a guy shows up in a shirt that is too tight for you and you are aroused, is that the criteria?  If a young woman shows up in too short of dress that arouses you, does her name get put in your little book?  Do you see how creepy this is?

This makes the accusation that the actions I took in my role as a high council representative assigned to a church dance by a stake president who was following the lead of the youth and their leaders in his stake were the result of my being aroused by the dress of the youth. This, after repeated and extensive explanations of what the truth of the matter was.

No, that is not acceptable. It's unwarranted, contemptible, and slanderous. It's ignorant and stupid. Ignore Gui's law. 

If you can't see that, then you don't get it at all.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

After this thread, I will never take “Gui’s Law” seriously. reepy = pervert. Hmmmm. The problem is that no such slandering has happened here. It may have happened many years ago on ZLMB, but it hasn’t happened here. Insisting it has just derails the thread. Maybe that was the point. 

I took time to explain to you why I take it seriously. Were you not genuinely concerned then?

Rather than focus on the meaning of the word creepy (which in my experience at church and school is the go-to word used by kids to describe someone who is perverted around young men and women), focus on this and its insinuations...

  Quote

If a guy shows up in a shirt that is too tight for you and you are aroused, is that the criteria?  If a young woman shows up in too short of dress that arouses you, does her name get put in your little book?  Do you see how creepy this is?

This makes the accusation that the actions I took in my role as a high council representative assigned to a church dance by a stake president who was following the lead of the youth and their leaders in his stake were the result of my being aroused by the dress of the youth. This, after repeated and extensive explanations of what the truth of the matter was.

No, that is not acceptable. It's unwarranted, contemptible, and slanderous. It's ignorant and stupid. Ignore Gui's law. 

If you can't see that, then you don't get it at all.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I would love it if discussion of Gui’s   Law could be ignored on this thread...

Ignore Gui's Law. That's really easy to do. 

Rather than focus on the meaning of the word creepy (which in my experience at church and school is the go-to word used by kids to describe someone who is perverted around young men and women), focus on this and its insinuations...

  Quote

If a guy shows up in a shirt that is too tight for you and you are aroused, is that the criteria?  If a young woman shows up in too short of dress that arouses you, does her name get put in your little book?  Do you see how creepy this is?

This makes the accusation that the actions I took in my role as a high council representative assigned to a church dance by a stake president who was following the lead of the youth and their leaders in his stake were the result of my being aroused by the dress of the youth. This, after repeated and extensive explanations of what the truth of the matter was.

No, that is not acceptable. It's unwarranted, contemptible, and slanderous. It's ignorant and stupid.

If you can't see that, then you don't get it at all.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rain said:

It was nice to step away from the thread for a little bit.  While I did quickly skim it from time to time I find that if I am not planning to post then I invest so much less time that should be spent elsewhere.  I lost sense of where my priorities should be earlier and hope that I can keep them now.  

I think the word "modesty" has become quite charged.  It has happened over decades so many may not see that it has become so much more than where it should be.  So it became really charged when people recognized that and started speaking out about it. 

There really is no question that how we dress is an influence on how others see us.  No one is arguing that at all.  We have had a lot of discussion here of how varied that influence can be.  

Years ago I noticed that when I started feeling "less than" or insecure or that people didn't like me - do they think I'm dumb, boring?  etc. - then it was almost always a sign of my relationship with God.  When I put my focus on him I started feeling better about myself.  I saw myself more of how He saw me - as his child and of worth.  That then allowed me to open up myself and help others with their struggles. Occasionally those feelings pop up again and then I focus again on God and I am balanced again.

Perhaps there is some miscommunication through all this talk about modesty which relates to that. When we tie our behavior to other people rather than to God than our feelings about modesty get way out of whack.   Here's the thing - if God is happy with what I am wearing it really doesn't matter what you think.  It's not that I don't care about you.  It's not that I don't want to help you.  It's not that I think you are a pervert.  It's not even that I think men and women shouldn't work together.  It's that when I am aligned with God then He is all that matters. 

When we start saying women or men should be modest so that others are not aroused then we have changed the focus on my relationship with God as the priority and put it on my relationship with someone else.  And the same holds true that with your relationship with God.  That relationship I have with you is important, but I if I and you both put our relationships with God first than my relationship with you will align.  

We have had so many years of hearing that women should be modest for men that the balance is way out of whack.  If we go back to focusing the kind of modesty that God has in mind for us - ("Modesty is behavior that flows out of remembering our true place of service, and does not conceitedly boast about the self, but boasts in God ") then maybe one day we can talk about a benefit of modesty is how it helps other people out, but until then the arousal argument is going to be ever trying to make our relationship with God come second.  

I agree 100% that our priority and focus should be on God.  We need to keep our eye single to Him.  The point that I am making is that I don't think God would really care how you dress if you were the only person on earth.  The only reason that God cares about how you dress is because of how it affects others.  There is nothing intrinsically evil about any piece of clothing - it is all about social awareness about how other's are affected by it.  Just like he cares about how our language affects others, our actions, our behaviors, etc.  He wants you to be socially conscious and charitable to cultural sensibilities of others.  It is no different from language.  The only reason that the word "sh**" is bad and "crap" is not, is entirely a social.  God didn't deem the word "sh**" to be immodest.  Honestly, when used in certain situations (as BlueDreams has pointed out), I don't think he minds at all if you use the word sh**.  It is really no different from swimsuits.  Some situations it is appropriate, others, not so much.  The only reason that swearing is a modesty issue is not because God really sees one word as intrinsically worse then the other, but because other people do in certain situations.  He wants us not to offend. To be sensible. To be charitable.  To be courteous. To be kind. To be friendly. Etc.  What I have found whenever I turn to God to see what he wants for me, he always turns me to uplift others, to help others be the best they can be - that is how I become the best that I can be. He wants us to be socially aware. He cares about propriety.  It seems to matter to him.  

So, in response to your bold part, your relationship with God is largely dependent upon your relationship with your brothers and sisters around you.  You cannot have a relationship with him without involving them.  "When you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me."  He cares about what other's think...so should we.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Ignore Gui's Law. That's really easy to do. 

Rather than focus on the meaning of the word creepy (which in my experience at church and school is the go-to word used by kids to describe someone who is perverted around young men and women), focus on this and its insinuations...

  Quote

If a guy shows up in a shirt that is too tight for you and you are aroused, is that the criteria?  If a young woman shows up in too short of dress that arouses you, does her name get put in your little book?  Do you see how creepy this is?

This makes the accusation that the actions I took in my role as a high council representative assigned to a church dance by a stake president who was following the lead of the youth and their leaders in his stake were the result of my being aroused by the dress of the youth. This, after repeated and extensive explanations of what the truth of the matter was.

No, that is not acceptable. It's unwarranted, contemptible, and slanderous. It's ignorant and stupid.

If you can't see that, then you don't get it at all.

Did you report the post?

When someone does something that is "not acceptable. It's unwarranted, contemptible, and slanderous. It's ignorant and stupid" you need to report it.  That way the offending post/poster can be handled by the mods and the thread does not get bogged down in issues that the OP (who has the right to dictate the content of the thread) does not want to focus on.  :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Calm said:

I think this whole thread is a debate over what is defending modesty and what is shredding it to pieces.  As far as .I am reading things, everyone considers themselves the defender.

Last weekend, my daughter Bellalindissima sent her early-teen-age kids to a high school football game with some family friends. Not just any old game. It was the Benton/Bryant High Schools football game in Arkansas. It's such a big rivalry that they hold it in a university stadium in Little Rock. Nearly the entire population of both communities attends the game.  At the game apparently someone started shooting a gun which caused the fans and players to panic. All 38,000 fans and players screamingly made a dash for the exits. Some were hurt. My grandchildren were separated from their friends and had to flee on their own. It has taken Bella and her husband several days to get them back to normal.

Turns out that shots were not fired. It is still being investigated, but there was a fight that police were trying to break up, a barrier was kicked over, and either a policeman or a fan fired off a couple of stun gun rounds.

My point is that everyone in the game had the perception that they were in mortal danger, even without knowing they really weren't, and acted instinctively. The facts of the matter made absolutely no difference.

In our case, yes, everyone considers themselves the defender. We react instinctively based on our perceptions of the reality. I'm sure the football fans were relieved to find out there wasn't a real shooting, but that does not change the reality of the situation they thought they were in.

I think we should realize we are all in this fight together. The reality is that we have a common enemy and that is the Evil One. What more perfect line of attack can he employ than that which attacks the well-spring of Heavenly Father's plan......reproduction. It's at the heart of all God promises us. We struggle to learn what is good and evil while we live here on earth because the reward in Heaven is the continuation of our families and our divine-given creative abilities. If we are to live together with him, we must learn how to view each other as He views us. 

Attacking our fellow Saints over this can only be pleasing to one....either God or Satan. Whatever it is we think we are defending when we defend modesty, we should be united, against Babylon, not divided. Reasonable people should be able to do this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Did you report the post?

When someone does something that is "not acceptable. It's unwarranted, contemptible, and slanderous. It's ignorant and stupid" you need to report it.  That way the offending post/poster can be handled by the mods and the thread does not get bogged down in issues that the OP (who has the right to dictate the content of the thread) does not want to focus on.  :) 

I have reported very few posts over the years. It seems many here have been displeased with my posts but didn't report them. I'm not much into tattle-tailing. I get your point. I'll try it and see what happens.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, bluebell said:

So, you don't believe that a youth should ever be kept from participating in a youth activity because of the way they are dressed and you don't believe that we should utilize justice as well as mercy in regards to modesty at youth activities (asking for the sake of making sure that I understand what you are saying)?

I'm asking because you said this in a past comment-"I got a spiral notebook that I called the High Councilman’s Guestbook. If a youth came dressed or behaved inappropriately I would ask him/her to step aside. I gave them a dance card, asked them to read it, and then sign the card and my Guestbook that they had been informed. If the violation was egregious I asked them to get something more appropriate on and come back. There was no shaming or unrighteousness judgement involved. Sometimes that something else was out in the car. They got one chance. At the next dance if they tried another scam I showed them their signature in my Guestbook, and said, “Nice try. Go change and come back.”

What is different about Blue Dreams experience (where she was told she could not continue to do the activity she was engaged in unless she modified what she was wearing) and your words above?

I indicated that they were always invited to come back....every time I described the situation. I can see that not making a more highly detailed account of the situation might lead to your mistaken conclusion. In further discussion, I clarified that no one was excluded, kicked-out, banished, whatever. We worked with the situation as best we could and the youth seemed to respond respectfully....except for the one bishop's son that I mentioned. Even he eventually came around. 

I hope this answers your question. I appreciate you pointing out specifics and giving me a chance to answer, rather than shooting out blanket accusations that I am unresponsive and self-important.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, juliann said:

I'm surprised that you won't accept the offer for both of us to leave the thread. 

Sorry to see you go.

I saw that offer as a continuation of your sarcastic responses to me.

I see you liked California Kid's comment that boys and girls arouse me. Care to comment?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, ttribe said:

Uggh...butthurt.

Uggh..indeed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...