Most Women Get The Type Of Man They Dress For - March 2014 Ensign

[mfbukowski]

She said "That is something a friend should say to friend" and then she told me of a situation where she made a similar statement to a friend. She did not think it was a message that General Authorities should be giving.

I can understand the sensitive nature of that, but on the other hand, if one woman would say that to another, one could argue that what was said was actually correct. Insensitive, yes, but still essentially true.

I will have to poll my sweetie, but I think she will think it is much ado about nothing. I will return and report We tend to have the same opinions on these matters- if we didn't, I think we would not have made it to our 34 years.

[Danzo]

The question is does the statement in parenthesis follow from the original statement. I would say that it does.

No. From Elder Callister's statement you could say that she dressed for a fireman however (whatever that means).

but do you think that is what Elder Callister meant?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

but do you think that is what Elder Callister meant?

No, but I thought we were going through this exercise to understand why some people are upset about the language used not to determine what Elder Callister meant. I do think he meant that modest girls get good boys and immodest girls get bad boys though. As to the definition of good and bad, you'd have to ask him and that is part of the problem. Again do you want to understand or not? Understanding does not take agreement...

[Danzo]

No, but I thought we were going through this exercise to understand why some people are upset about the language used not to determine what Elder Callister meant. I do think he meant that modest girls get good boys and immodest girls get bad boys though. As to the definition of good and bad, you'd have to ask him and that is part of the problem. Again do you want to understand or not? Understanding does not take agreement...

 

Well, I can see if someone read the sentence, by itself, with no context, and read it as an authoritative pronouncement, they could get the wrong idea.

[MorningStar]

People are reading too much into this.  If a woman ends up with a jerk (which can happen for many reasons), he's not saying it's because of the way she dressed, but the way she dresses can attract the wrong or right kind of guy.  My heck. 

 

I have two friends with daughters who are seniors in high school and their senior portraits were posted.  One of them is wearing cut-off jean shorts that are so short, you can see her pockets hanging below them.  What kind of guy do you think she will attract? 

 

Another friend's daughter is wearing a beautiful, long, flowing, yellow dress and looks like the model of purity.  That doesn't mean she is, but that is the message she sends.  I think she is less likely to land a jerk than the girl with the exposed pockets.

 

We advertise who we are through the way we present ourselves and the clothing we choose to wear.

[frank_jessop]

Considering that the term "jerk" is up to the person applying it, it is very reasonable to take Elder Callisters statement to be "You dressed for a jerk and you got a jerk." 

 

The message of modesty in that talk and any other message in that talk was obliterated by a completely unnecessary statement.  Teaching modesty is important, and the message of modesty can be taught, learned and followed without unnecessary unhelpful statements.

[frank_jessop]

I can understand the sensitive nature of that, but on the other hand, if one woman would say that to another, one could argue that what was said was actually correct. Insensitive, yes, but still essentially true.

 

 

Not all truths are useful or faith promoting.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Well, I can see if someone read the sentence, by itself, with no context, and read it as an authoritative pronouncement, they could get the wrong idea.

So we agree that Elder Callister meant no harm in his statement and we agree that the statement can be taken out of context and misconstrued. I would add further that if Elder Callister meant "Most girls that dress modestly get better spouses" he also necessarily meant that "Most girls that don't dress modestly get worse spouses." It may not be intended (and I don't think it was), but if I was in a crappy marriage, I would wonder if I dressed good enough.

I would further propose that while attempting to be witty, the statement adds nothing to the conversation and while it may be superficially true, it is meaningless and a red herring (relying on a correlation = causation view of the world or post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy if you will). That is, just because modestly dressed women attract a certain type of spouse, it does not follow that marriage came about because of the modestness of the individuals involved. I would propose that those who dress extremely immodestly do so because they are insecure, have low self esteem, don't have a solid sense of worth as a child of God. I would further propose that it is these attributes that would lead them into less than desirable relationships. Now it may be easy to shortcut the process by looking at the outward appearance, but if we want to get at the heart of the matter and change lives, I would suggest that we need to dig deeper and address the underlying issues.

For these reasons (the statement is easily misconstrued, and superficial to the real issues) I think the statement and the sentiment behind it is misguided and ought to change.

Edited February 25, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I'll try to be more explicit. A man sees a woman and has an impure thought.  You have stated (I think - sorry if I put words in your mouth) that a modest woman will never prompt an impure thought in a man who is striving to be pure. So if the man has an impure thought the options are:

a)Woman is immodest

b)Man is not striving to be pure

c)

 

What other options are there?

Not trying to prompt you to respond, but as you haven't I'll let you know where I was going with this. If a modest woman can't prompt an improper thought in a man striving to pure (which I believe is your position and in line with Elder Callister's position) we have a problem. If I'm a young man, have an improper thought and think I'm striving to be pure, I can safely and logically conclude the woman in question is not dressed modestly enough. Hence she needs to dress more modestly. This gets us into the slippery slope that we discussed and left pages ago. This creates situations where modesty vigilantes go up to young woman in leggings and a slightly above the knee skirt and leave nasty notes. This creates letters to the editor at BYU complaining about evil women wearing a one strap backpack across their chest. It creates testing center policies at BYU-I where employee's take it upon themselves to ban "skinny" jeans and tell young woman that wear them that "If a student prays and they think that the tight, 'form-fitting' clothing [skinny jeans in this instance] is accepted by the Lord, they have not asked, or have not asked the right question, or they have chosen an answer for their own gratification."

These are the direct fruits of this type of rhetoric. And logically they follow. If I am striving to be pure and I have improper thoughts about a woman, obviously what she is wearing is "too low, too high, or too tight." How can it not follow? For the women who experience these kinds of attention it can have a real negative impact. Especially those that already have body issues, self esteem problems etc.

Again the problem isn't modesty, and I am not saying we shouldn't teach modesty. I'm saying we need to carefully consider the message we send and what its fruits are. There are many ways to teach modesty that avoid these problems.

[mfbukowski]

Not all truths are useful or faith promoting.

That is certainly true.

Ok- I have to defer to my wife on this one. She essentially said the exact same thing, almost to the word, your wife said which that it was not a huge deal but that kind of message should have come from a woman, not a man, and that it essentially could (she was not aware of the controversy until later) "Stir up contention between men and women"

She said that a mature married woman would understand his intention, but that it would be inappropriate for an older man to speak to a young girl in that manner. She said that she understood his intention and that he was correct in what he was saying, but that it should have come from a woman.

So with that, like any good husband, I do an about face, (sort of- I kind of already had this position)and stand with my wife on that one and definitely think that some female editor should have edited that one line.

But overall, I found the full article to be well-written and spot on. I mean we are talking about a few words here in a very long treatise on morality- it is a shame that this would tarnish it.

 

So yes, it was true but not faith promoting especially for young and innocent girls.

[frank_jessop]

...

But overall, I found the full article to be well-written and spot on.

 

...

 

I agree.

[cinepro]

I will admit that perhaps Elder Callister's comment means something different than how it appears to me.

 

If someone thinks there is a positive message buried in his statement, can you please explain it to me by giving me some examples?

 

In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for.

 

For example, women who dress this way ___________ will probably "get" the kind of man that ____________.    Women who dress ________________ will usually get the kind of man that ________________. And women who _______________ will more often than not get a man that _________________.

 

So fill in the blanks and let me know what Elder Callister meant (or what it means to you).

[ERayR]

Considering that the term "jerk" is up to the person applying it, it is very reasonable to take Elder Callisters statement to be "You dressed for a jerk and you got a jerk." 

 

The message of modesty in that talk and any other message in that talk was obliterated by a completely unnecessary statement.  Teaching modesty is important, and the message of modesty can be taught, learned and followed without unnecessary unhelpful statements.

 

Why don't you take what is valuable from Elder Callisters very valid message instead of looking for reasons to complain about it and reject it?  You miss so much that way.

Edited February 25, 2014 by ERayR

[cinepro]

I'll also add that another disappointing aspect to Elder Callister's comment is that it is linking a girl's appearance to the kind of man that she will "get". 

 

His comment might make a girl who dresses immodestly think twice, but it would most likely be much more devastating to a girl who considers herself ugly or otherwise has issues with her appearance.  Because an immodest girl can buy a different dress if she wants to "get" the kind of man that likes pretty girls who dress modestly.  But there's nothing an ugly girl can do (except hope to "get" the kind of man who likes girls who look that way, I guess).

Edited February 25, 2014 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

I notice it is very common for returned missionaries to date biker chicks.  It must be the tattoos.

 

That definitely proves Elder C wrong.

[frank_jessop]

Why don't you take what is valuable from Elder Callisters very valid message instead of looking for reasons to complain about it and reject it?  You miss so much that way.

 

Just me? Or everyone on this board who has expressed concern about the statement and the negative effect it can have?

[frank_jessop]

I'll also add that another disappointing aspect to Elder Callister's comment is that it is linking a girl's appearance to the kind of man that she will "get". 

 

His comment might make a girl who dresses immodestly think twice, but it would most likely be much more devastating to a girl who considers herself ugly or otherwise has issues with her appearance.  Because an immodest girl can buy a different dress if she wants to "get" the kind of man that likes pretty girls who dress modestly.  But there's nothing an ugly girl can do (except hope to "get" the kind of man who likes girls who look that way, I guess).

 

Johnny Lingo

[Danzo]

Not trying to prompt you to respond, but as you haven't I'll let you know where I was going with this. If a modest woman can't prompt an improper thought in a man striving to pure (which I believe is your position and in line with Elder Callister's position) we have a problem. If I'm a young man, have an improper thought and think I'm striving to be pure, I can safely and logically conclude the woman in question is not dressed modestly enough. Hence she needs to dress more modestly. This gets us into the slippery slope that we discussed and left pages ago. This creates situations where modesty vigilantes go up to young woman in leggings and a slightly above the knee skirt and leave nasty notes. This creates letters to the editor at BYU complaining about evil women wearing a one strap backpack across their chest. It creates testing center policies at BYU-I where employee's take it upon themselves to ban "skinny" jeans and tell young woman that wear them that "If a student prays and they think that the tight, 'form-fitting' clothing [skinny jeans in this instance] is accepted by the Lord, they have not asked, or have not asked the right question, or they have chosen an answer for their own gratification."

These are the direct fruits of this type of rhetoric. And logically they follow. If I am striving to be pure and I have improper thoughts about a woman, obviously what she is wearing is "too low, too high, or too tight." How can it not follow? For the women who experience these kinds of attention it can have a real negative impact. Especially those that already have body issues, self esteem problems etc.

Again the problem isn't modesty, and I am not saying we shouldn't teach modesty. I'm saying we need to carefully consider the message we send and what its fruits are. There are many ways to teach modesty that avoid these problems.

 

I think the problem is that you are thinking that the two issues are more connected then they really are.

 

If a young (or old) man has an impure thought, it is his responsibility to repent.  This  involves confessing and forsaking his sin, not her sin (if any).

 

It is not his responsibility to confess the sins of other people, it does no good to confess the sins of other people.

 

Only very rarely, if one is a bishop or branch president, and under the direction of the spirit, is it appropriate to call anyone else to repentance.

 

I never went to BYU, but from what I heard, it can be a strange place.  I would not place too much significance on BYUs Rules. They are not always the church's or Gods rules.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Danzo

[ERayR]

Just me? Or everyone on this board who has expressed concern about the statement and the negative effect it can have?

 

The message was public and open so don't feel special.  Most anything can have a negative affect if one takes the pessimistic view.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Why does the phrase "If it's too low, too high, or too tight..." damage people?

 

What is wrong with teaching youth not to wear thing that are "Too low, too high, or too tight?" This is what my wife and I teach my daughters, never once has it entered into our minds that teaching this might be damaging them. They have never expressed that they feel damaged by the teaching.  

 

I guess this is the thing that I don't understand.

emphasis added

 

I think the problem is that you are thinking that the two issues are more connected then they really are.

 

If a young (or old) man has an impure thought, it is his responsibility to repent.  This  involves confessing and forsaking his sin, not her sin (if any).

 

It is not his responsibility to confess the sins of other people, it does no good to confess the sins of other people.

 

Only very rarely, if one is a bishop or branch president, and under the direction of the spirit, is it appropriate to call anyone else to repentance.

 

I never went to BYU, but from what I heard, it can be a strange place.  I would not place too much significance on BYUs Rules. They are not always the church's or Gods rules.

 

I continue the conversation in an attempt to build understanding. I don't want to convince you you are wrong, but merely show you a little of how other people see this issue and why. Ultimately I have no pony in this race. I'm middle aged and married. It's not a big deal for my wife and I have no daughters. My read of your posts is that you are still trying to fix me ("I think the problem is that you are thinking"). I don't need fixing. I agree that any young man that thinks its his role to confess or publicly correct the sins of other people is not living the gospel. I agree that everyone is responsible for their own thoughts. I agree that BYU can be a strange place (although it does serve as an interesting place to view and study applied mormonism since it is 99% LDS). I don't think Elder Callister is a bad person.

 

All the best,

-John

Edited February 25, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[jkwilliams]

The message was public and open so don't feel special.  Most anything can have a negative affect if one takes the pessimistic view.

 

I'll never understand the idea that disagreeing with someone is a result of a bad attitude. If someone says something I disagree with or find harmful, I don't see anything wrong in expressing my opinion. It doesn't mean I have a pessimistic view.

[Danzo]

emphasis added

 

 

I continue the conversation in an attempt to build understanding. I don't want to convince you you are wrong, but merely show you a little of how other people see this issue and why. Ultimately I have no pony in this race. I'm middle aged and married. It's not a big deal for my wife and I have no daughters. My read of your posts is that you are still trying to fix me ("I think the problem is that you are thinking"). I don't need fixing. I agree that any young man that thinks its his role to confess or publicly correct the sins of other people is not living the gospel. I agree that everyone is responsible for their own thoughts. I agree that BYU can be a strange place (although it does serve as an interesting place to view and study applied mormonism since it is 99% LDS). I don't think Elder Callister is a bad person.

 

All the best,

-John

 

Sorry if it seemed like I was Attacking or trying to fix you, I should probably be more general and watch my use of the pronouns.

[mfbukowski]

OK - just found this by random chance- actually it was posted on a Ward site, with positive comments from the sisters.

 

It appeared on a Catholic facebook site, from Catholic Study Fellowship, with many positive responses.   Don't shoot me- I'm just the piano player.

 

https://www.facebook.com/269333284741/photos/a.10151861364014742.1073741825.269333284741/10152293024274742/?type=1&theater

 

It says:

DEAR GIRLS, DRESSING IMMODESTLY IS LIKE ROLLING AROUND IN MANURE. YES, YOU'LL GET ATTENTION, BUT MOSTLY FROM PIGS.  SINCERELY, REAL MEN

Nearly 5,000 "likes" and more than that "shares".

Elder Callister should be talking to Catholics? Maybe they would agree with him?

Edited February 25, 2014 by mfbukowski

[frank_jessop]

I'll never understand the idea that disagreeing with someone is a result of a bad attitude. If someone says something I disagree with or find harmful, I don't see anything wrong in expressing my opinion. It doesn't mean I have a pessimistic view.

 

I do not think he realizes how many people he ridiculed with his comment.

[mercyngrace]

OK - just found this by random chance- actually it was posted on a Ward site, with positive comments from the sisters.

 

It appeared on a Catholic facebook site, from Catholic Study Fellowship, with many positive responses.   Don't shoot me- I'm just the piano player.

 

https://www.facebook.com/269333284741/photos/a.10151861364014742.1073741825.269333284741/10152293024274742/?type=1&theater

 

It says:

Nearly 5,000 "likes" and more than that "shares".

Elder Callister should be talking to Catholics? Maybe they would agree with him?

 

'Cause there's nothing creepy or condescending about men telling women how to dress for men...

 

And certainly nothing vain about men thinking women dress for them.