Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cinepro

Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Having a daughter who is extremely "developed" early on can really sharpen one's awareness of this. She can just wear a normal fitting tee but be made to feel "immodest" because of the size of her breasts. 

I did not want my daughter to feel bad about that, but she felt terribly self-conscious for a long time.

I can relate to your daughter’s experience and understand how difficult it is to maneuver life and church membership when your body develops in a way that others sexualize through no fault of your own.  It can be mentally debilitated in a lot of ways. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can relate to your daughter’s experience and understand how difficult it is to maneuver life and church membership when your body develops in a way that others sexualize through no fault of your own.  It can be mentally debilitated in a lot of ways. 

Yes. And she got it everywhere, at school (sexually harassed daily), too, and even walking down the sidewalk. I felt like yelling at motorists more than once!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Perhaps red tents are in order.  To protect the men, that is. 

There it is. 

Biology is offensive to you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes. And she got it everywhere, at school (sexually harassed daily), too, and even walking down the sidewalk. I felt like yelling at motorists more than once!

If people only knew the incredibly horrible sexual things that some men (strangers and not) will say to girls in passing.  It's really scary to be young and the focus of someone who feels like it's o.k. to say such things in public.  Who knows what else they are capable of. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Society sexualizes females' appearance and the church does so as well, in its specialised fashion. 

I'm not sure I follow.  We are sexual beings. The problem is not in sexualizing women (they are innately sexual already), the problem is in using dress to emphasize sex. That is the opposite of what the church is doing. 

41 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Also in the church female beauty is sometimes framed as a prize for righteous men, which is further objectifying. So the church has the larger social norms to manage plus it's own issues to correct.

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to CFR that one. 

Edit to add:  You seem to be conflating beauty with objectification.  Are you suggesting that beautifying oneself is the same as objectifying oneself?  I don't think that appreciating beauty in the opposite sex is the same as sexually objectifying them.  

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Surely there is some responsibility that can be allocated? 

What do you think the legal concept of "incitement" is about?  What about "solicitation"?  And isn't it possible that if these concepts can be applied outside a legal/criminal context?  That Person A can, through speech and/or conduct, incite/solicit Person B into immoral thoughts/conduct?  And if so, isn't it reasonable for prophets and apostles to encourage Person A to not incite/solicit such thoughts/conduct in others?

No.  Because wearing jewelry is not intended (and generally does not function) as an incitement or solicitation to engage in wrongful conduct.

That said, if a woman were to wear a conspicuous piece of jewelry while strolling alone through Central Park at 3:00 a.m., and if she is robbed, has she "solicited" or "incited" the theft?  Technically, no.  But did she increase the risk to herself by putting herself into a situation where the risk of misconduct by others was reasonably foreseeable?  I think so.  So while she's certainly not culpable for the crime against her, I think it would be absurd to, say, criticize the police for encouraging her to not wear jewelry while strolling alone through Central Park at 3:00 a.m., or to vilify the police for giving her sensible advice.

Reductio ad absurdum.  That's what you are doing here.

I ask you to reconsider that.  Wrongful thoughts are a necessary precursor to wrongful conduct.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh for heaven’s sake. Not everything happens in a courtroom. We are talking about girls being taught that they are sex objects for boys to the point they must dress for them. Of course we have to take precautions in the world we live in. But that is only because women are still blamed for men’s behavior. As women continue to assert their feelings, we hopefully will reach a time where a group of women can walk down a street naked with all of the responsibility placed on men who feel entitled to act out. And NO that doesn’t mean it is a good thing for women to do. But until you can separate those two things, it won’t be a fruitful discussion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Surely there is some responsibility that can be allocated? 

What do you think the legal concept of "incitement" is about?  What about "solicitation"?  And isn't it possible that if these concepts can be applied outside a legal/criminal context?  That Person A can, through speech and/or conduct, incite/solicit Person B into immoral thoughts/conduct?  And if so, isn't it reasonable for prophets and apostles to encourage Person A to not incite/solicit such thoughts/conduct in others?

No.  Because wearing jewelry is not intended (and generally does not function) as an incitement or solicitation to engage in wrongful conduct.

That said, if a woman were to wear a conspicuous piece of jewelry while strolling alone through Central Park at 3:00 a.m., and if she is robbed, has she "solicited" or "incited" the theft?  Technically, no.  But did she increase the risk to herself by putting herself into a situation where the risk of misconduct by others was reasonably foreseeable?  I think so.  So while she's certainly not culpable for the crime against her, I think it would be absurd to, say, criticize the police for encouraging her to not wear jewelry while strolling alone through Central Park at 3:00 a.m., or to vilify the police for giving her sensible advice.

Reductio ad absurdum.  That's what you are doing here.

I ask you to reconsider that.  Wrongful thoughts are a necessary precursor to wrongful conduct.

Thanks,

-Smac

And how often as a young man or now do you let that kind of thinking impact what you wear?

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've been to a stake activity where the girls were told that they could not wear swimsuits and instead had to tube down the creek and do a large slip in slide in shorts and a shirt.  The boys however, were allowed to wear swim trunks with no other clothing.  

It is ridiculous.  And it impacts the girls.

That sounds awful. Well, except for the tubing and slip and slide. That sounds fun.

In the other extreme one of the most awkward phone calls a bishop I know ever got involved a Priest activity about 25 to 30 years ago. They went water skiing Saturday morning. The Laurels were having a different activity at a house on the lake. They saw the Priests and after they were done they wanted to join the Priests and the bishop got a call from the Young Women’s President asking if since the Laurels did not have swimsuits could they just go water skiing with the priests in their underwear. The answer was a polite but firm no.

Happy Ending: They went and got swimsuits and an hour later were out on the lake.

We do have some weird hang ups. Every time though that I think we should abolish all talk of modesty I think back to the surreal experience of going Home Teaching to a single mom who was worried about her teen daughter getting into trouble and hanging out with overly interested boys and insisted she was doing all she could to teach her but it never seemed enough. Then her daughter came down in clothing that can charitably described as appropriate for pole dancing saying she was going out for the night and her mom sweetly told her to have a good time as if nothing was wrong. I bit my tongue though in hindsight I wonder if I should have. It is those kids who need to hear it from church leaders because while it should be the parents taking care of this some parents are idiots.

I just do not know how to avoid harming those who are insecure and preventing what is meant to be helpful from creating insecurity while still drawing some guidelines.

None of this mitigates that the Stake leadership in that activity made a dumb decision. Some men seem to be oblivious to the idea that the even could be a double standard. A friend of mine as a Young Woman was talking to her bishop and brought up to him that it was weird that the Young Men were having shirts vs skins basketball games once a month for their mutual activity and that it seemed like that was inappropriate for the girls based on what the church was teaching about modesty. According to her he kind of laughed it off and said girls do not think that way and she replied that many of the Young Women have their favorites as to who they want to be skins each week.she definitely did. She said he went a little white. Mutual basketball changed to no longer being shirtless after that. If I remember right what she said it went to shirts versus inside out shirts. I admit I do feel a little sorry for that Bishop. Not even understanding that that desire exists......what? She was a bit of a radical. She ruined the then-common Young Women activity about describing your ideal future spouse when she said she did not care about a mission and some of the other stuff. She was very orthodox to beliefs but anti-culture.

I need to text her and see how she is doing. Good reminder. We have not talked in several months now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

That's odd. I've been a tourist in lots of places I taught the gospel. But it was also while living there normally. I think many like returning to their old mission grounds to visit friends and connections but also experience more of the place.

I would go there to live there but I do not feel comfortable going to just see the sights and reconnect. I am in no way saying it is wrong to do that. It just feels wrong for me.

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Society sexualizes females' appearance and the church does so as well, in its specialised fashion. Also in the church female beauty is sometimes framed as a prize for righteous men, which is further objectifying. So the church has the larger social norms to manage plus its own issues to correct.

Yes! Not to mention that our priesthood holders should be in front of society in protecting women. Instead, here we having to say again and again that women are not here for men’s gaze and men’s thoughts are their own. 

When will we know Mormon men have matured? When their first response to any hint of asking a girl to dress for a boy’s benefit is to  turn his attention to the boy instead. 

Fortunately, we are seeing some of those men here. Hopefully others will benefit by their example because I guarantee that women will not stop saying “enough!”

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And how often as a young man or now do you let that kind of thinking impact what you wear?

That sounds awful. Well, except for the tubing and slip and slide. That sounds fun.

In the other extreme one of the most awkward phone calls a bishop I know ever got involved a Priest activity about 25 to 30 years ago. They went water skiing Saturday morning. The Laurels were having a different activity at a house on the lake. They saw the Priests and after they were done they wanted to join the Priests and the bishop got a call from the Young Women’s President asking if since the Laurels did not have swimsuits could they just go water skiing with the priests in their underwear. The answer was a polite but firm no.

Happy Ending: They went and got swimsuits and an hour later were out on the lake.

:lol:

Quote

We do have some weird hang ups. Every time though that I think we should abolish all talk of modesty I think back to the surreal experience of going Home Teaching to a single mom who was worried about her teen daughter getting into trouble and hanging out with overly interested boys and insisted she was doing all she could to teach her but it never seemed enough. Then her daughter came down in clothing that can charitably described as appropriate for pole dancing saying she was going out for the night and her mom sweetly told her to have a good time as if nothing was wrong. I bit my tongue though in hindsight I wonder if I should have. It is those kids who need to hear it from church leaders because while it should be the parents taking care of this some parents are idiots.

It was stupid, and it backfired, because when you are on a slip in slide wearing a t-shirt, t-shirts have a tendency to come up.  Lots of accidental bra showing on that day.

Quote

 

I just do not know how to avoid harming those who are insecure and preventing what is meant to be helpful from creating insecurity while still drawing some guidelines.

None of this mitigates that the Stake leadership in that activity made a dumb decision. Some men seem to be oblivious to the idea that the even could be a double standard. A friend of mine as a Young Woman was talking to her bishop and brought up to him that it was weird that the Young Men were having shirts vs skins basketball games once a month for their mutual activity and that it seemed like that was inappropriate for the girls based on what the church was teaching about modesty. According to her he kind of laughed it off and said girls do not think that way and she replied that many of the Young Women have their favorites as to who they want to be skins each week.she definitely did. She said he went a little white. Mutual basketball changed to no longer being shirtless after that. If I remember right what she said it went to shirts versus inside out shirts. I admit I do feel a little sorry for that Bishop. Not even understanding that that desire exists......what? She was a bit of a radical. She ruined the then-common Young Women activity about describing your ideal future spouse when she said she did not care about a mission and some of the other stuff. She was very orthodox to beliefs but anti-culture.

I need to text her and see how she is doing. Good reminder. We have not talked in several months now.

 

It's hard.  If a man really sincerely believes that the spirit is directing him to speak up about clothing, I think the most important thing is to come at it from either a practical standpoint (clothing does influence us, and it can attract attention that we don't want) or the personally spiritual standpoint (we need to dress in ways that highlight our relationship with our Savior and desires to follow His counsel).  

Usually the worst thing a man can do is bring anything sexual into the conversation.  It will almost always be instantly awkward and cause the girl to wonder if the man said something because he was sexually stimulated by her dress.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

How about the idea that we, through our words and deeds (including how we dress) can influence the thoughts of others?  Is that a fair statement?

Garbage.   We cannot influence anyone who doesn't choose to be influenced react to what we do.   Not even Satan does.   What you are suggesting is that women and their actions just because of their gender are some kind of satanic temptresses.   When we are each fully in control of how we let whatever we see, hear or experience affects us.

Not a fair statement of reality (though I'd give you that it could be -- though I hope not ---  a fair statement of how many men think about this issue).

In my world men ought not to be telling or controlling or insinuating that they have any right to have opinions about what women or girls wear, and particularly not about the standards of what women wear.  (Note that I'm not saying that in a steward situation like being a father, it is inappropriate to do what one receives inspiration from heaven to counsel.)

And I am also not saying that we all don't have obligations to God to seek our best self, however that plays out for us.   I am saying that that has to come from inside US, not imposed by others.

 

Edited by rpn

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven’s sake. Not everything happens in a courtroom.

Not everything is a pitched battle in the Gender Wars, either (with dastardly men being the bad guys, natch).

I know that not everything happens in a courtroom.  Hence my reference to solicitation/incitement by analogy, which you largely sidestepped:

Quote

Surely there is some responsibility that can be allocated? 

What do you think the legal concept of "incitement" is about?  What about "solicitation"?  And isn't it possible that if these concepts can be applied outside a legal/criminal context?  That Person A can, through speech and/or conduct, incite/solicit Person B into immoral thoughts/conduct?  And if so, isn't it reasonable for prophets and apostles to encourage Person A to not incite/solicit such thoughts/conduct in others?

And isn't it a bit strident to accuse fellow members of the Church of teaching our daughters that "they are sex objects for boys"?

Quote

We are talking about girls being taught that they are sex objects for boys to the point they must dress for them.

I question that characterization.  I just finished a lengthy stint in the bishopric, and I worked extensively with the Young Women.  My wife is the current YW president.  I have a daughter in YW, and another who is 19.  Nobody has ever taught them anything like "they are sex objects for boys."

My parents have spent their entire lives in the Church.  So have my in-laws.  I have a large number of siblings and sibilings-in-laws, and around 45 nieces and nephews.  I have never heard any of these folks characterize the Church's treatment of modesty (either institutionally or in day-to-day interactions amongst the general membership) in the nasty and offensive way you are doing here.

Encouragement to dress modestly is quite a distance from "girls are sex objects for boys."

Quote

Of course we have to take precautions in the world we live in.

Then why the gripe about the analogy to incitement/solicitation?  

Quote

But that is only because women are still blamed for men’s behavior.

The effort to import the Gender Wars into the Church continues apace, I see.

And no, I do not accept this.  Modesty should be observed as a virtue in its own right.  The male of the species could disappear from the face of the earth and God would still want women to dress modestly.

Quote

As women continue to assert their feelings, we hopefully will reach a time where a group of women can walk down a street naked with all of the responsibility placed on men who feel entitled to act out.

Oh, brother.  I'll just repeat what I said before (since you didn't respond to it):

Quote

That said, if a woman were to wear a conspicuous piece of jewelry while strolling alone through Central Park at 3:00 a.m., and if she is robbed, has she "solicited" or "incited" the theft?  Technically, no.  But did she increase the risk to herself by putting herself into a situation where the risk of misconduct by others was reasonably foreseeable?  I think so.  So while she's certainly not culpable for the crime against her, I think it would be absurd to, say, criticize the police for encouraging her to not wear jewelry while strolling alone through Central Park at 3:00 a.m., or to vilify the police for giving her sensible advice.

Reductio ad absurdum.  That's what you are doing here.

The Gender Wars are really an ugly thing.

Quote

And NO that doesn’t mean it is a good thing for women to do.

And yet elsewhere you are railing against this assessment (that immodesty "is {not} a good thing for women to do"), characterizing it as "girls being taught that they are sex objects for boys."

I guess it's okay when you do it.  But a man saying that dressing/behaving immodestly "is {not} a good thing for women to do?"  Heaven forfend!

Is there anything that a male can say that cannot be construed as an assault on womankind?  Or are we forever darned if we do, darned if we don't, darned no matter what we do?

Quote

But until you can separate those two things, it won’t be a fruitful discussion. 

Right.  

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rpn said:
Quote

How about the idea that we, through our words and deeds (including how we dress) can influence the thoughts of others?  Is that a fair statement?

Garbage.  

Wow.

3 minutes ago, rpn said:

We cannot influence anyone who doesn't choose to be influenced react to what we do.  

That is not what I said.  Here it is again: "How about the idea that we, through our words and deeds (including how we dress) can influence the thoughts of others?"

Person A can influence / incite / solicit Person B to engage in wrongful conduct.  Of course Person B's agency is in play.  My statement did not dispute that.  My question, instead, is about Person A.

3 minutes ago, rpn said:

What you are suggesting is that women and their actions just because of their gender are some kind of satanic temptresses.  

I have said nothing close to that.  That is a false and offensive characterization.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Society sexualizes females' appearance and the church does so as well, in its specialised fashion.

CFR, please.  Please provide, say, 3-5 examples of the Church "sexualiz{ing} females' appearance."

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Also in the church female beauty is sometimes framed as a prize for righteous men, which is further objectifying.  So the church has the larger social norms to manage plus its own issues to correct.

I'd like to see examples of these "issue."

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

:lol:

It was stupid, and it backfired, because when you are on a slip in slide wearing a t-shirt, t-shirts have a tendency to come up.  Lots of accidental bra showing on that day.

It's hard.  If a man really sincerely believes that the spirit is directing him to speak up about clothing, I think the most important thing is to come at it from either a practical standpoint (clothing does influence us, and it can attract attention that we don't want) or the personally spiritual standpoint (we need to dress in ways that highlight our relationship with our Savior and desires to follow His counsel).  

Usually the worst thing a man can do is bring anything sexual into the conversation.  It will almost always be instantly awkward and cause the girl to wonder if the man said something because he was sexually stimulated by her dress.  

Let me respond by bringing up a situation I encountered (and previously posted about):

Quote

A few years back I was an adjunct professor at a local university.  Each semester I had a class taught in a computer lab.  I am somewhat tall (6'2), and most the students were seated just in front of me as I stood and lectured at the front (using either a laptop or writing on whiteboards).  One semester I had about 25 students, two of which were women who sat in the front-and-center seats.  Both of these women regularly wore clothing that was quite revealing in the chest area, particularly for someone with a vantage point from "above."

Now, was this a "sexual" thing for me?  Well, no.  I liked and respected both of these women as people.  I got along well with both of them.  And yet their choice in clothing created a difficulty for me.  I simply did not feel comfortable standing in a place where I could see . . . more of them than I really wanted to see.  It wasn't about "sex" (these women always acted with professionalism).  It was about propriety and decorum.  I resolved the issue by finding the remote control thingy for the computer, and then standing to one side at the front of the classroom so as to eliminate or reduce line-of-sight problems.  This probably looked a little weird, as the students' sightlines were such that they looked like they were watching a tennis match (turning to me when I spoke from the side of the room, then turning to look at the powerpoint slide being projected at the center-front of the room).  It was a relatively minor inconvenice, but it got the job done.

I never spoke to these women about their choice in clothing, as I did not feel it was my place to do so.  Fortunately, I had a means of resolving this issue.  Not everyone is so situated.

So to the extent Person A has, or needs to have, a "conversation" with Person B about Person B's sartorial expressions, would you endorse Person A emphasizing things like "propriety and decorum," rather than "anything sexual?"

In my line of work as a lawyer, I have only rarely seen lawyers dress inappropriately, and never in circumstances in which I felt it was my place to offer advice / correction / instruction to another person.  However, other persons in the profession (judges, professional associations like the ABA, etc.) are so situated.  And when they do offer advice/instruction about dressing appropriately for court, they seem to do so in ways that seem fairly similar to how bishops can and do offer such guidance.  See, e.g., here (from a post I wrote last year):

Quote

I am fortunate in that I work in a law firm where the majority of the employees are women (men are very much the minority).  These women dress and act professionately and appropriately for a workplace.  Similarly, I frequently attend hearings in court, which involves interacting with female law enforcement officers, clerks, attorneys, judges, and so on.  Again, these women all dress and act professionately and appropriately for the venue.  All the men with whom I interact also dress appropriately.

"Revealing" clothing seems to be more of an option for women than for men.  This seems to be a function of greatly-expanded fashion options.  Consider, for example, this article published by the American Bar Association (hardly a bastion of overly-prudish Mormons):

Quote

Female lawyers, it seems, have forever been pushing the boundaries of what is considered appropriate courtroom attire for their sex. They long ago threw out the floppy bow ties once deemed necessary to blend in with the guys and be taken seriously. And whereas many female lawyers gripe that they must still sometimes abide by antiquated conventions and fusty judges who favor women in skirts over pants (even the lawyer portrayed by Julianna Margulies on the television series The Good Wife was reprimanded by a judge in a recent episode for wearing pants), generally speaking, the wardrobe attire of today’s female lawyers reflects more style, color, and individualism than ever before.

At the same time, some female (and male) lawyers have demonstrated a fashion derring-do that does not always draw admiring glances from the bench, as suggested by judges at a Seventh Circuit Bar Association panel discussion that took place last year.  Judge Joan H. Lefkow of the Northern District of Illinois, for instance, described how one lawyer showed up for a jury trial in a velour outfit that looked like she was “on her way home from the gym.”

Chief Judge Michael P. McCuskey of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois said that he’d observed female participants at moot court competitions at law schools wearing “skirts so short there’s no way they can sit down, and blouses so short there’s no way the judges wouldn’t look.” And Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois piped up from the audience to say he also found some women lawyers’ attire to be a distraction and “a huge problem.”

Do you think Judge McCuskey, a sitting federal judge, is framing this issue as being about "sex?"  Nope.  It's about . . . "basic notions of modesty, decorum, and common sense."

The entire article is worth a read, as it addresses the issue of propriety in a particular venue (court).  How participants dress and behave matter.  A lot.

So if our society can impose standards of dress and behavior for court, why not for church?

And here (same previous thread):

Quote
Quote

As I've said I think both sides in the debate appeal to sex too much. But it seems pretty clear that there are a lot of people on both sides. It's not like there aren't many stories of federal judges being sexist or adopting those older cultural norms. Maybe there's some background knowledge of McCuskey you have that the rest of us don't. However I'd certainly not be shocked to find out they thought it about sex.

I have appeared in court hundreds of times, all but one of which involved me wearing a suit.  As for that one time, my paralegal had failed to calendar a hearing in federal court (in Salt Lake, about 40 miles from my office in Orem at the time).  The court clerk called me and told me to get to court immediately.  I was wearing slacks and a white shirt with a blazer, but no tie (I hadn't anticipated being in court).  I arrived in court, breathless.  The court clerk looked me over, then went into her office and brought me back a tie to put on.  I put it on and we proceeded with the hearing.

The judge was not thinking about "sex" in that instance.  He was thinking about decorum.  He was thinking about maintaining high standards of dress and deportment.  I think most judges fall into this category.

Quote

So I agree with you that modesty typically isn't about sex. Otherwise norms against things like shirtless or barefoot men wouldn't be in place. It's simply far more complex. However simultaneously it's hard not to notice that many people who get most upset about norm breaking do tend to defend them in terms of sex just like those who get most upset at norms do as well.

Yep.  That's why I observed in the OP that "I think it might have been better [for the bishop] to not [have] frame[d] this issue as a 'don't tempt men.'"  Perhaps had he had more time to be circumspect, he could have framed the issue as being more about basic notions of modesty, decorum/deportment, and common sense.

And here (ditto):

Quote
Quote

How can it {inappropriately revealing attire} be distracting?

Well, inappropriate attire can be "distracting" in the sense of giving others in the courtroom an inappropriate looksee (from the article I quoted earlier) :

Quote

Jurors, who are spending their time in court intently watching and listening, can be affected by countless details. And they often share their impressions with the other jurors.  “They make comments about lawyers all the time,” says Judge Lynn, recalling the time she received a note from a jury complaining that a female lawyer wasn’t sitting with her legs properly closed. Another time, a female lawyer wore a gauzy blouse that the jurors could see through. “It was distracting,” she notes.

Inappropriately revealing attire isn't a "sexual" issue per se.  It can just be inappropriate.  Distracting.

Consider this bit from a sidebar in the article:

Quote

BEFORE YOU SASHAY INTO COURT . . .

In 2008 and 2009, the American Bar Association recognized this website as one of the “Top 100 Blawgs.” Here are excerpts from one post:
...
›› Make sure your undergarments are not distracting. Avoid lacy bras beneath silk blouses, the quad-boob look, etc. Stock up on simple camisoles.

I had to look up "the quad-boob look."  Um, yeah.  Not really appropriate for court.

Other times clothing can be "distracting" in terms of color or style.  Again from the sidebar in the article:

Quote

›› Limit yourself to three or four dark suits—one black, one navy, and maybe one in brown and/or gray.
›› If you’re prickly about having matching accessories, go with all black accessories and choose the gray suit.
...
›› Your goal in dress should be vanilla—you don’t want the jury to notice your clothes in either a good or bad way.
›› Avoid logo bags and anything with sparkles, including jewelry.
›› Also avoid noticeable accessories such as red-soled shoes.

Logos, sparkles, jewelry, red-soled shoes, etc. are not "sexual," but they can be "distracting."

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  Please provide, say, 3-5 examples of the Church "sexualiz{ing} females' appearance."

I'd like to see examples of these "issue."

Thanks,

-Smac

I think meadowchik might be referring to the church's focus on modesty for girls for the sake of not eliciting sexual feelings in men.  Many people believe (and reasonably so) that when you teach someone that they must dress a certain way because their clothing sexually influences others, you are sexualizing their appearance in a way that it wasn't before you taught that.  That is because the teaching makes their appearance all about sexual feelings of others instead of being about the normal uses for clothing.

Using Cinepro's earlier example with the sister missionaries, teaching sisters that they need to cover their arms so that they don't influence elders in a sexual way essentially sexualizes sister missionaries' arms.  Such a teaching takes the arm and makes it about sex instead of about being an arm.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

IMO the problem we are having is defining the middle. I'm confident that we all would agree that walking around naked is inappropriate. What level of non-nakedness is appropriate? As a high school teacher I have seen (though trying not to) some "out there" outfits on girls AND boys. Once a well endowed girl came to class wearing a very, very low-cut top. The boys around her couldn't stop staring. After the lesson I decided to "talk" to a few students individually about their grades. When she came up I talked to her while holding a note that asked her to wear something more appropriate. She was not offended and dressed reasonably the rest of the year. I'm confident that I handled the situation appropriately.

What seems to be the conflict is this gray area about whether, for example, a sleeveless blouse is immodest, or how far above the knee shorts need to be? Some people are so "Law of Moses" with their interpretations and communications that people are getting offended.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Imo the problem is never clothes. 

Men and women have their ways of exuding sexuality. That should be the conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post

This thread grew quickly, but I thought I would at least comment.  Yes, males should be modest and females are attracted to different attributes of men depending on their tastes.  When I was in high school in the 70s Angel Flight pants were these tight polyester pants that men would wear.  I heard some women talk about them (in regards to butts) in a store I was in one time.  That was about the same time I heard some girls talking about boys with big muscles and hair on their chests in a tank top.  Unfortunately, it actually encouraged me to dress like that.  Then I realized what the Lord expected of me.  

Of course today as I was reading through the threads I came across men running in tights or bike pants.  I exercise in both, but I sure don't have to wear them every where.  They are kind of like yoga pants in girls/women.  The other night at the mall, I think more than half of the women were wearing yoga pants.  I am a lot better at not looking at them than when I was a teenager.  Yoga pants remind of the exercise tights and leotards of the 70s and 80s.  They always got my attention.  

So, I`m a guy and it takes some real effort to not look at women, but that doesn't keep me from knowing what is expected of me.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Let me respond by bringing up a situation I encountered (and previously posted about):

So to the extent Person A has, or needs to have, a "conversation" with Person B about Person B's sartorial expressions, would you endorse Person A emphasizing things like "propriety and decorum," rather than "anything sexual?"I

In that scenario i would advise that person A has say nothing to person B and to do what you did and find ways to handle their own personal feelings about person B's clothing without getting person B involved.  It's very very good that person A has a personal code of conduct for themselves and attempts to live by it, doing what is necessary to retain integrity in that regard.  It would be inappropriate though for person A to try to make person B follow their personal code of conduct in regard to dress though.   

Quote

 

In my line of work as a lawyer, I have only rarely seen lawyers dress inappropriately, and never in circumstances in which I felt it was my place to offer advice / correction / instruction to another person.  However, other persons in the profession (judges, professional associations like the ABA, etc.) are so situated.  And when they do offer advice/instruction about dressing appropriately for court, they seem to do so in ways that seem fairly similar to how bishops can and do offer such guidance.  See, e.g., here (from a post I wrote last year):

And here (same previous thread):

And here (ditto):

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I'm struggling to see the relationship between a judge speaking about the rules of decorum in his courtroom and a bishop handling modesty issues in his ward.  

Decorum is about following the rules of society for whatever the activity is, and more so, the Judge is the final authority in his courtroom about what is appropriate.  Bishops, on the other hand, are not usually interested in decorum when it comes to modesty and neither are they the final authority on what is modest and what isn't.  Besides that, some church leaders specifically flout decorum (such as the stake leadership who didn't want the YW wearing swim suits while they were swimming) because their focus isn't on what's appropriate for the activity but on what will show the least amount of skin.  

Maybe I'm missing your point though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

This may be linked to the ovulatory shift hypothesis,[49] where males are adapted to respond to the ovulation cycles of females by sensing when they are most fertile and whereby females look for preferred male mates when they are the most fertile; both actions may be driven by hormones.

So your point?  It is women's fault men have high sex drives? We should give out birth control pills to all women to suppress ovulation in order not to increase male sex drive?

Otherwise, what does this have to the topic?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And how often as a young man or now do you let that kind of thinking impact what you wear?

Not often.  But then, it seems like clothing choices for men are far less in scope, and far less likely to be designed to be sexually provocative or otherwise inappropriately revealing.

By way of example, look at my previous posts about ABA articles addressing proper dress for attorneys.  It's almost entirely about women.  This is because the expected attire for men (in court) is a suit.  Women have a lot more options, some of which are inappropriate for court.  It's not a religious thing.  It's not even a sexual thing.  It's about propriety and decorum.

When I shop for clothes, modesty isn't really a concern for me.  Pretty much all the clothes options for me are "modest."

It is quite different for my wife and daughters.  Not because of them, mind you, but because of the expansive clothing selections available to them, some of which are inappropriately revealing.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...