Is Modesty Actually Damaging To Self-Worth?

[Stroopwafel]

Oh, and the most damaging message for girls and boys is that young men can't control their own thoughts regardless of surroundings...and shouldn't be expected to.

That's one of the thing that I find most annoying. Calmoriah's comment touched on this as well.

From what I thought about it so far, I find that the problem is the emphasize put on the object of desire and the need to cover it up, hid it, conceal it. This approach seems to be saying: "if we don't see it, it is as if it doesn't exist, and it will have no influence on us." It implies that the problem is in the object of desire itself instead of being in the desire.

I think a comparison could be drawn (and has often been in the past) between the need for food and sexual drive. Those are part of the most basic needs / urge of human beings and will inevitably be a force shaping and influencing the life of every individual, male and female. When we hunger or thirst, the object of our desire is food and drink, and once the need is statisfied, the desire for it is gone until next time. However, in the instance that someone has an eating disorder of some sort, the problem lies not so much in the food as it is in the person and its desire for it. The way to help re-establish a balanced approach to food consumption will be, in my opinion, to work on both the desire itself and the "access" to food.

However, as for the "carnal" drive, I have the impression that it is seen as already troublesome in itself, almost a priori; it doesn't need to have any "disorder" or "deviance" for it to become problematic, it is from the get-go. Then, those who find it so will take the "appropriate" counter-measures, imposing strict restrictions where none or very little would have been necessary... and then we get what pmccombs1 described.

Mind you, as a father of a beautiful girl, I will want her to be sober in the way she dresses and acts, but I believe the best way to achieve this won't be to impose modesty on her. Rather, I wish to bring her up in such a way that the desire to dress and act that way will be fostered. How different will that be from "imposing" / teaching her modesty in a more direct manner? you ask. Well, that's what I'm still trying to figure out.

[cinepro]

The Church has a program where amateur photographers can donate their pictures to the Church for use in Church materials. These are included as part of the guidelines for the program:

Because of the need to present people modestly, regardless of age, please avoid submitting photos of them in sleeveless tops and dresses or short skirts.

Also, we cannot accept photos of people, even children, in swimming suits.

This one is my favorite though:

Appropriate for Church Use:

Members photographed in Church buildings should be dressed appropriately for sacrament meeting attendance except when shown in an activity.

Not Appropriate for Church Use:

The above photo would be inappropriate if it was in a ward building.

[cinepro]

Oh, and the most damaging message for girls and boys is that young men can't control their own thoughts regardless of surroundings...and shouldn't be expected to.

I agree. If only the Church Leaders would tell the young men (and adult men) to control their thoughts, just once or twice!

Instead, all we hear about is how we are not responsible for our thoughts and actions if a woman entices us, and how we shouldn't feel guilty if we think or do something we shouldn't, because God places the blame on the woman, not us.

There was even that talk in the Priesthood Session of Conference last year titled "It Wasn't David's Fault", where we learned that the reason the Lord couldn't forgive David for the whole Bathsheba thing wasn't because what he had done was so bad, but because there actually wasn't anything to forgive. It wasn't David's fault in the first place.

That talk also pointed out that while it's great that Joseph in Egypt fled from Potipher's wife, he really didn't need to. Once he had registered his initial objection, based on her insistence and (presumably) immodest dress, he would no longer be accountable for what happened subsequently.

Edited May 2, 2013 by cinepro

[Buzzard]

I agree. If only the Church Leaders would tell the young men (and adult men) to control their thoughts, just once or twice!

Instead, all we hear about is how we are not responsible for our thoughts and actions if a woman entices us, and how we shouldn't feel guilty if we think or do something we shouldn't, because God places the blame on the woman, not us.

There was even that talk in the Priesthood Session of Conference last year titled "It Wasn't David's Fault", where we learned that the reason the Lord couldn't forgive David for the whole Bathsheba thing wasn't because what he had done was so bad, but because there actually wasn't anything to forgive. It wasn't David's fault in the first place.

That talk also pointed out that while it's great that Joseph in Egypt fled from Potipher's wife, he really didn't need to. Once he had registered his initial objection, based on her insistence and (presumably) immodest dress, he would no longer be accountable for what happened subsequently.

It's been a while since I was a young man, but we sure had the concept of controlling our thoughts drilled into us, probably at the same time the young women were being lectured on modesty.

BTW, I always point out that if David had been doing what he should have been doing, leading his armies and not "tarrying still at Jerusalem", he would not have been walking on that roof. So just be where you are supposed to be in the first place and you just might avoid a lot of the trouble and temptations we find ourselves in.

[pogi]

_{So if the puropose of modesty is to keep men from having certain kinds of feelings, then the muslims have the right idea by having burkas.}

Modesty is not about keeping men's sex drives in check. Any teachings of that sort, I feel are damaging. Modesty is the result, not the cause, of dignity, self-respect, and wholesome confidence. If a girl is struggling with modesty issues, her heart needs to be assessed and addressed more than her wardrobe. Who cares what she looks like if her heart is hurting? I think that we too often try to cover up the superficial issues and leave the deep core issues unchecked. This approach I think does more damage than good at times, which may explain the reaction of the women who wrote the article.

Edited May 2, 2013 by pogi

[Maidservant]

Well, you have to start somewhere. I wholeheartedly agree that women are more than their bodies, no matter what they are wearing. But an attractive woman of any age in a revealing outfit doesn't allow either her or the men around her to get to the next level of appreciating woman for what they are rather than how they look. This is true for men as well, though not to the same extent.

So let's just use common sense and dress, no matter which gender so that the opposite gender has a chance to appreciate what we bring to the table intellectually and spiritually rather than spend the whole time fighting the urge to stare at our bodily endowments.

Welllll . . . but this is the philosophy behind burkas as well. That women can have the freedom to move about society and become educated and work without being objects of sexual desire. That people will look at their eyes instead of elsewhere. That they can live and work equally alongside men--the burka is a blessing. It sounds good! Maybe it's even right! But I am just not convinced, but I'm still thinking through it.

The way to help re-establish a balanced approach to food consumption will be, in my opinion, to work on both the desire itself and the "access" to food.

Makes some sense, but this difficulty with that is that no one dates, marries, works alongside 'food'. Food doesn't have a need for a sense of self-worth, dignity, self-determination, personal responsibility. The food disorder person may be codependent on food, but the food can't be codependent back. You can say 'sex' or modest if you want to, but 'sex' and modesty is always attached to a human being--food isn't.

Modesty is the result, not the cause, of dignity, self-respect, and wholesome confidence.

I like this. I will think on it more.

Who cares what she looks like if her heart is hurting?

Thanks.

[Maidservant]

By the way, I consider the 'self-worth' aspect of modesty or immodesty or damaging presentations of the concept to be a secondary issue.

The main issue for me personally is personal responsibility and captivity. I am not willing to be held captive by culture or by the irresponsibility of other people (co-dependency) to the degree that I can continue to heal beyond that in my sojourn here on earth. I don't want modesty to be an expression of me as an ennabler to paradigms that haven't been examined, and upon examination are based on disrespectful ideas about the human body and the relationship between genders. I seriously don't think this is what my heavenly Father is asking of me about the body he gave me. So I am on a search about what he is asking of me (and why it hinges on my bare shoulders or no!).

Going along with that, what pmccombs tried to bring up--how dare we create a culture where our innocence is lost that we attach meanings to our body that simply aren't necessary. To me, that's a captivity and the type of the thing the gospel is meant to heal, not perpetuate. To introduce into 'our eyes' a nakedness that was never there (a la Adam and Eve: "Who told you that you were naked?" as in--who said that you are? who got you to believe that? again not the nakedness of body, but the comment this makes about why we believe damaging and captive paradigms here in mortality and why we as mankind ever invented them.)

Edited May 2, 2013 by Maidservant

[thesometimesaint]

I agree. If only the Church Leaders would tell the young men (and adult men) to control their thoughts, just once or twice!

Instead, all we hear about is how we are not responsible for our thoughts and actions if a woman entices us, and how we shouldn't feel guilty if we think or do something we shouldn't, because God places the blame on the woman, not us.

There was even that talk in the Priesthood Session of Conference last year titled "It Wasn't David's Fault", where we learned that the reason the Lord couldn't forgive David for the whole Bathsheba thing wasn't because what he had done was so bad, but because there actually wasn't anything to forgive. It wasn't David's fault in the first place.

That talk also pointed out that while it's great that Joseph in Egypt fled from Potipher's wife, he really didn't need to. Once he had registered his initial objection, based on her insistence and (presumably) immodest dress, he would no longer be accountable for what happened subsequently.

We are not responsible for random thoughts. Even Christ was tempted in all things. But that doesn't mean we should dwell upon them. Let alone act them out.

I'm not blind. I can see a man/woman in whatever state of dress or undress they are in. If I look upon a person with lust in my heart. Then I have sinned, but much less so than if I acted out that sin.

[Rivers]

I think River may be saying that no matter what a woman does (since he states that even modest women may trigger inappropriate thoughts) a man will have certain thoughts....iow, he is saying it is the man's responsibility and not the woman's, that men are wired that way. I assume he also would agree that because it is the man's wiring, it is also the man's responsibility to control those thoughts once triggered.

I believe he is suggesting that the purpose of modesty is not to prevent men from having certain thoughts (because it is impossible to prevent men from having such thoughts).

He can correct me if I am wrong, but going from his history I think I am correct.

That is exactly what I'm saying. Men and women are attracted to each other for a reason. We all have passions and those passion need to be bridled. I absolutely agree that men (and women) are responsible for their own thoughts and actions. I also agree that there is a lot more to modesty than keeping men from having lustful thoughts.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Rivers

[BlueDreams]

Was this woman wrongly taught about modesty? If you think so, could you elaborate on what was wrong with the way she was taught and what would have been a better way?

Yes, big time. To me modesty is often seen from a view of extremes. On the modesty end there’s often a heavy emphasis about what you shouldn’t do, it often has an underlying message that the body, sexuality, etc needs to be contained, controlled, and hidden. It also can lead to some terrible (and stupid) ideas about the body, gender diffs, and “safe-guarding” virtue. I feel that these are the ideas that were found in her piece that she’s labeled (and was probably taught to her) as modesty…..that mixed with her own distorted image ideals linked to having an eating disorder. To me that’s not what modesty means (what it really is, at least). But under the assumptions that are dominant, especially in conservative social groups, I do believe that what happens is an objectification and devaluation of the body, especially of the female form.

The other end of the extreme entails idolizing the body/sexuality, especially the female form. This is just as objectifying and demeaning to women IMHO. I, personally, don’t think it’s about a definite measure of how much one does or does not wear. If everybody is running around in almost nothing, then it’s equal to me... “modest” may entail a tiny loin-cloth. To me, it’s more about the disparity of what men wear compared to women. I remember realizing this as I was watching couples walking down the road during spring. Where the men were usually in general clothes (nice tee and long shorts/jeans) the women were often wearing very little, emphasizing their sexual desirability. It was just as objectifying and demeaning as was extreme modesty in the opposite way.

Do you think it would have mattered at all how this woman was taught about modesty? Meaning, would she have perceive modesty in the same way in the end no matter how it would have been taught?

I think the woman would have still had some serious body image issues, with or without the modesty thing. I doubt it helped any, but she also has a serious disorder the distorts the view about the human body. It not linked to conservative ideals in the least.

Don't feel you have to stick to those questions, and feel free to contribute with any (relevant) comments. /// Are there different ways to teach modesty, and is there a better way to teach it?

My random thoughts on modesty: I am not naturally a "modest" and/or physically insecure person at all. I don’t like wearing clothes. When I was a kid I often lived in my swimsuit during the summer. I enjoy looking good, I think my body is beautiful, and I have enjoyed being able to turn men’s heads it was once my silly little pleasure. I remember my mom wanting me from time to time to “cover up” more or that my clothes were too tight. But I generally ignored it…I wasn’t terribly immodest either. Very few of my clothes went when I got garments. So basically I don’t associate at all with the woman’s depiction.

In my childhood/early adulthood, I think I viewed modesty as a semi-necessary restriction. It was something that I had to do because it was what was expected, not because I enjoyed it. Once I was in my home I was not “modest.” It was a worldly presentation that I didn’t enjoy. Honestly I didn’t care much for the idea, which appeared to be more along the lines of don’t do this and that than something deep or beautiful…and certainly not empowering.

I do believe there is something deep, beautiful, empowering about modesty when it is divorced from these ideas;

1 that it’s solely a behavioral/physical mandate and more so a focus of the spiritual idea behind it.

2 That it is heavily a female virtue (in this I mean the focus on modesty is strongly linked to what women do, wear, and appear as.

I’ve come to like modesty. I still love to look pretty. But I find that my focus is less materialistic and objectifying of my image than from when I was younger. It is not based on what I can’t do and what I should look like, but a deep love of who I truly am and the gift that my body truly is. The greatest gifts and things that God are given are often deeply personal and sacred. They are something that enrich our lives and make us stronger and better. My body is a great gift from God, filled with power and capacity to move and work on this earth and become like Him. Who I am is beautiful to the most High because it is His. Like my most sacred blessings that I’ve receive I share it judiciously, I treat it with care, I try not to neglect it, and I find joy in using it. I don’t feel a crazy need to satisfy some ideal of beauty because I generally feel beautiful as myself.

If I had my way, that’s what I would want to be taught and emphasized: the sacred, personal, and beautiful gift that is our bodies. All of us, whether male or female, must treat it with dignity and reverence

With luv,

BD

Edited May 3, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Stone holm]

As a wise man once told me. "If you are not selling don't advertize. I wear clothes for essentially two reasons. One is for warmth, and the other is not to scare the public".

My brother put it a slightly different way, "Some things just shouldn't see the light of day, for everyone's sake."

[Acris Venator]

1 that it’s solely a behavioral/physical mandate and more so a focus of the spiritual idea behind it.

2 That it is heavily a female virtue (in this I mean the focus on modesty is strongly linked to what women do, wear, and appear as.

I like this a lot. We often think of this issue as external when it should be taught as an internal battle only. Others will always react how they will depending on their proclivity for sin or righteousness, but a personal choice should be framed within the relationship that we have with Christ. The community is secondary, and focusing on the reactions of other Mormons will always set up a prison to be broken out of.

[Acris Venator]

A couple things about objectification:

If the body is a temple, then Christ believed in objectification.

The word objectify has two meanings (from the OED):

1. To express (something abstract) in a concrete form.

2. To degrade or demote (a person, class of people, etc.) to the status of a mere object; to treat as an object.

Much energy is spent to avoid being objectified in the second sense. The tendency to regard women according to their sex appeal renders them as sex objects first and people second, and any women are understandably offended by this. We all want to be known for who we are rather than what we are.

Nevertheless, Christ identifies us as temples in several scriptures. From D&C 93:

35. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, Man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

Temples are objects, and there is no way around that fact. They just happen to be the most sacred and ennobling objects on earth. So is Christ degrading us when he refers to us so? And when he referred to himself as a temple in John 2, was he demoting himself?

No. The fact of the matter is that what we are matters just as much as who we are. To reject this notion is to reject the set of symbols offered by Christ.

The sacredness of human beings was in the abstract before Christ's said those words; "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Now that sacredness is tied to a concrete object and concept.

Hence, rejecting all forms of objectification is too simplistic an approach when it comes to comprehending and embracing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Second Wave's tendency to do exactly that renders it inadequate as a lens for comprehending womanhood and motherhood in the LDS context.

At the end of the day, the real issue isn't objectification. It's which objects you allow yourself to be identified with, and for what reasons.

Describing the New Jerusalem, John offered this detail in Rev. 21:

22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Such revelations are not degrading or demeaning. To say so is to put darkness for light. This notion of Godly glory is what Christ wants to share with us, what he wants to rebirth us into. The objects he utilizes communicate a clear objective for us to achieve.

[Stone holm]

I remember once in a upper level religious history course at Notre Dame, the Professor casually mentioned that you would not see an active Mormon woman in a sleeveless dress, at the time I thought, "So what, you also wouldn't see an active Morman man in a sleeveless shirt." The problem with modern modesty has been that it seems to always focus on women. Am not sure the reason for this other than even men with good physiques look like dorks in speedo bathing suits.

[Questing Beast]

We all "revolve around the sex drive". Being biological and adult we are partly or in some cases almost wholly sexual beings. It is all part of "the perfect joke", the core cyclical phenomenon of "being there" (here). Death releases us from the carnal, biological imperatives.

That said, modesty is a state of mind, not a set of strictures imposed by society or particular (religious) segments of it. This woman still has a problem, she's gone far the other way like a pendulum. There is nothing wrong about being sexy to either gender. If that natural walk and activity is perceived by someone as "sexy" so what? Is the concern even supposed to come up? To deny that what you do revolves around other beings' sexuality is denial of reality. Live with it, you're sexy to somebody at some point in your life. And having become a "sex object" for the duration isn't some denouncement of your modesty or sexual mores, it is a revelation of someone else's....

Edited May 3, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

We all "revolve around the sex drive". Being biological and adult we are partly or in some cases almost wholly sexual beings. It is all part of "the perfect joke", the core cyclical phenomenon of "being there" (here). Death releases us from the carnal, biological imperatives.

That said, modesty is a state of mind, not a set of strictures imposed by society or particular (religious) segments of it. This woman still has a problem, she's gone far the other way like a pendulum. There is nothing wrong about being sexy to either gender. If that natural walk and activity is perceived by someone as "sexy" so what? Is the concern even supposed to come up? To deny that what you do revolves around other beings' sexuality is denial of reality. Live with it, you're sexy to somebody at some point in your life. And having become a "sex object" for the duration isn't some denouncement of your modesty or sexual mores, it is a revelation of someone else's....

Is that Freudian assertion true globally or just in America. I think our society has made everything revolve around it, not sure that it necessarily has to be that way -- one might argue that because Americans appear to be bigger prudes than most Western Europeans, and because our dominant religions in America seem to be obsessed with sex as the primary moral issue (and in some cases the sole moral issue) of the day -- that we force a focus on sex that is beyond the natural urges.

[thesometimesaint]

First and foremost we are biological beings. If we don't take care of that biology we won't live long enough for anything else to matter much. OTOH if we pay too much attention to that biology we miss what it is to be truly human, our morals and our values.

Ps. SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicentennial_Man_%28film%29

Edited May 3, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Janelle Monáe addresses the issue quite nicely, I think.

[Wanderer7]

Am I the only one who is really confused about why this is a debate? Everyone: dress modestly and keep your thoughts in check. That's the official teaching of the church. Not one or the other.

[Rivers]

Am I the only one who is really confused about why this is a debate? Everyone: dress modestly and keep your thoughts in check. That's the official teaching of the church. Not one or the other.

I was also surprised when I I first heard this topic debated. I find it amazing how one could a negative spin on just about anything.

[Tacenda]

Modesty is not about keeping men's sex drives in check. Any teachings of that sort, I feel are damaging. Modesty is the result, not the cause, of dignity, self-respect, and wholesome confidence. If a girl is struggling with modesty issues, her heart needs to be assessed and addressed more than her wardrobe. Who cares what she looks like if her heart is hurting? I think that we too often try to cover up the superficial issues and leave the deep core issues unchecked. This approach I think does more damage than good at times, which may explain the reaction of the women who wrote the article.

I agree, so often that girl is just starved for attention and love. Too often they were let down by their fathers or even abused. But not always, but it is the utmost importance to try to look past and figure out the person that's hiding. And our young men would do welll to have a lesson about this, not label a girl a sl#!. Then just pass her off that way, but look at the reasons behind her actions.

[BlueDreams]

Am I the only one who is really confused about why this is a debate? Everyone: dress modestly and keep your thoughts in check. That's the official teaching of the church. Not one or the other.

I was also surprised when I I first heard this topic debated. I find it amazing how one could a negative spin on just about anything.

To me the debate is less about whether modesty is good or bad but how it's presented. You can teach a good principle in a way that can be damaging or lead to false ideals. Or at best (with the whole check your thoughts and dress modestly) so rudimentary and functionalist that the spiritual reasons behind it can be lost. This is similar to how the law of chastity is often presented. Where behavioral don't are overemphasized, the no's to chastity overstated, and the use of analogy and poorly designed object lessons used, chastity become less an ennobling principle and moreso fostering problematic ideals about our bodies and sexuality in general.

With luv,

BD

[ERayR]

IMNSHO modesty is not the cause of poor self image but the result of a poor self image.

[Questing Beast]

So the Church has a poor self-image because it insists on modesty?...

[BlueDreams]

I agree, so often that girl is just starved for attention and love. Too often they were let down by their fathers or even abused. But not always, but it is the utmost importance to try to look past and figure out the person that's hiding. And our young men would do welll to have a lesson about this, not label a girl a sl#!. Then just pass her off that way, but look at the reasons behind her actions.

It's just as judgmental to assume that there is something wrong with the girl who's dressed immodestly that we can simply feel more sympathy towards. Just because someone doesn't dress in a socially acceptable ideal of modesty does not indicate they've got some poor past history.

Though my past wasn't stellar, my choice of clothes and leaning towards what was considered "immodest" wasn't indicative of that. In fact it was the opposite. I started wearing clothes my mom found questionable when I was doing far better emotionally/spiritually. My issue was that many of the rules seemed more socially arbitrary than an actual indication of something meaningful. It's a prevalent character trait for me. If someone couldn't tell me why I should wear boy-shorts with my swim suit while swimming/boating that seemed legitimate than I didn't see the point. Sometimes I followed it. Other times I didn't. It was usually a balance between practicality (swimming in shorts was annoying), what looked good to me (I thought undershirts looked stupid most the time), and social pressure. God and my self-esteem had little to do with it.

With luv,

BD