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

[pogi]

There is a difference between being aware that what you wear will be acceptable to others and "dressing for others" or dressing for that acceptance.

 

I don't think the there is a difference.  You can't avoid the influence that the awareness plays.

 

An extreme example to make my point. An assassin wants to get near a protected public figure. He is only able to do so at a fancy fundraiser. He dresses appropriately for the occasion, not too fancy or rich to draw attention to himself, not too shabby or dull to stand out as 'not belonging'. He gets close to the man and kills him, slipping away as one of the frightened pack. Does anyone here think it gave him a warm fuzzy feeling or a bump of his self esteem to know that his attempt to blend in was successful or that he cared one whit that he was approved by the rest of the gathering? That he would have been disappointed that someone looked down his nose at him for a moment or felt hurt over that rejection...if he even gave it a moment of thought.

 

You are right, this is an extreme example and an outlier, which makes it a poor example to explain normal human behavior.  Even so, I can still use it to demonstrate my point.  He obviously dressed for the approval of others to complete his mission.  He needed their approval by wearing "appropriate" dress to get close enough.  To say that he doesn't care about the approval of his enemies (other than to complete his mission) is an obvious statement, but ultimately he does care about the approval of those with his same ideology.

 

This is Pogi's original comment that has been challenged:

"People dress to impress, that is what fashion is about.  The question is, who are you trying to impress?  Your boss or co-workers, your man, your friends, that girl that always looks so perfect and seems to have it all together, or just the general public?"

 

If you put this quote in context with everything I have said, I think you get a much more perfect picture of what I believe. To me, fashion is about impressing others.  I think that we have all done it at at least one time in our lives - It could have been at a job interview, a dance, a date, a party, or simply just going to church.  We obviously don't dress like that everyday, at least not all of us, but ultimately, we do dress according to what is acceptable (unless you are trying to make a statement, in which case you are still dressing for the attention of others).  The only other exception might be if you are among enemies or those that you simply don't care for.

 

What I have been challenging is the sentiment that some people don't care about the acceptance or rejection of others and dress completely independent of its influence, like when you said "I didn't care the least about approval or disapproval"  The simple awareness of what is acceptable plays a major role in how we choose to dress and do our hair everyday.  We dress acceptably because we want to be accepted by those we love and want to be a part of. 

Edited March 5, 2014 by pogi

[EllenMaksoud]

I don't think the there is a difference.  You can't avoid the influence that the awareness plays.

 

 

You are right, this is an extreme example and an outlier, which makes it a poor example to explain normal human behavior.  Even so, I can still use it to demonstrate my point.  He obviously dressed for the approval of others to complete his mission.  He needed their approval by wearing "appropriate" dress to get close enough.  To say that he doesn't care about the approval of his enemies (other than to complete his mission) is an obvious statement, but ultimately he does care about the approval of those with his same ideology.

 

 

If you put this quote in context with everything I have said, I think you get a much more perfect picture of what I believe.  Ultimately, we always dress according to what is acceptable (unless you are trying to make a statement, in which case you are still dressing for the attention of others).

 

What I have been challenging is the sentiment that some people don't care about the acceptance or rejection of others, and that it plays no role in what they wear.  

 The article seems to blame the woman for getting a bad husband, and on some sociological circles, it is said that it is the woman who makes the choice about the man she wants.

 

However, I think the man bears equal responsibility, at least on paper.  In Islamic culture, the woman is blamed for so much. Some Muslim men blame the woman for inflaming their lusts in spite of the fact that they can see nothing but her eyes, and some Islamic authorities now wish woman to only show one eye.

 

A very brief time of my life was spent in skirts so short we ain't talking more about them. And, yes you do get the sort of attention that is not suitable. A woman, even a Sister Missionary, is subtly coerced by our American culture to tread the fine line between modesty and sexuality. At 67. I can safely say that NO man will be attracted to me, so I have drifted back to floor length skirts, long sleeves, high neck and sometimes head scarf. It is warmer.

 

So, with a Sister just home from the Mission Field, is it necessary to "bust out" a little? No pun intended.   I got married in 1966 to the first person I met after I graduated from High School, so I have no experience in the dating pond. However, I am pretty sure that you can not get a husband from a bar, and you will not meet him smoking pot on a camping trip. I was absolutely surprised to see one of MY sister Missionaries wearing a tiny bikini after she went home from her mission. Of course, what does a woman from an Amish background know?

 

Hopefully, a woman will meet her husband at a church sponsored activity. But what is a girl to do if she meets him at ****'s sporting goods, or while snow boarding? Yes, girls can snow board, in fact next winter I may do this myself ! How do you know if the guy you meet at the Library is good husband material? Does it mean anything if he is reading Somerset Maugham? What if he is holding "50 Shades of Grey"?

 

No, I do not think the woman has more than half the blame for a bad husband.

[Bernard Gui]

I wouldn't want to be the General Authority who is assigned to give "the talk."

 

Over the past 6 decades, I have observed that the person who attempts to define

the Lord's standards of morality henceforth and forever is mocked, belittled, tutt-tutted,

called names, and in general marginalized by many members, all disgruntled current

and former members, and most non-members alike. They latch on to one phrase or

concept and drive it deeply into the ground to serve as a way-point in the quest to water down

any kind of firm principled stand and make the Church appear oppressive and out of touch.

The messenger then becomes the focus point and the message goes pretty much unheeded.

 

It's a thankless task.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh yes, it is always so helpful to inflate error and demonise those you disagree with.

Or, as Isaiah put it, make a man an offender for a word.

[pogi]

No, I do not think the woman has more than half the blame for a bad husband.

 

No doubt.  I have been on a tangent more than I have been addressing the article. 

[canard78]

I haven't read Elder Callister's article, but is it really fair to say he advocates "teaching women how to make men approve of them"?

You made a point without reading the source material? Quality contribution.

[Scott Lloyd]

You made a point without reading the source material? Quality contribution.

Re-read the post you quoted, this time for comprehension.

 

I was asking a question.

 

Perhaps you would like to try to answer it rather than criticizing me for raising it.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

There is a difference between being aware that what you wear will be acceptable to others and "dressing for others" or dressing for that acceptance.

An extreme example to make my point. An assassin wants to get near a protected public figure. He is only able to do so at a fancy fundraiser. He dresses appropriately for the occasion, not too fancy or rich to draw attention to himself, not too shabby or dull to stand out as 'not belonging'. He gets close to the man and kills him, slipping away as one of the frightened pack. Does anyone here think it gave him a warm fuzzy feeling or a bump of his self esteem to know that his attempt to blend in was successful or that he cared one whit that he was approved by the rest of the gathering? That he would have been disappointed that someone looked down his nose at him for a moment or felt hurt over that rejection...if he even gave it a moment of thought.

Wearing the 'uniform' expected may just be a matter of convenience.

This is Pogi's original comment that has been challenged:

"People dress to impress, that is what fashion is about.  The question is, who are you trying to impress?  Your boss or co-workers, your man, your friends, that girl that always looks so perfect and seems to have it all together, or just the general public?"

Not everyone dresses to impress. Feel free to continue adding conditions in hope that eventually it will be so vague that it will apply to everything but that doesn't change what he said and what is being challenged.

[mfbukowski]

I wouldn't want to be the General Authority who is assigned to give "the talk."

 

Over the past 6 decades, I have observed that the person who attempts to define

the Lord's standards of morality henceforth and forever is mocked, belittled, tutt-tutted,

called names, and in general marginalized by many members, all disgruntled current

and former members, and most non-members alike. They latch on to one phrase or

concept and drive it deeply into the ground to serve as a way-point in the quest to water down

any kind of firm principled stand and make the Church appear oppressive and out of touch.

The messenger then becomes the focus point and the message goes pretty much unheeded.

 

It's a thankless task.

I owe you a few rep points for that one.

 

(By the way I think we should grab our AK's and head on out to the Ukraine to help our bros- whatcha think?  )

[cinepro]

Really letters about messenger bags, sounds like an un-sub on an episode of Criminal Minds.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the "Messenger Bag" letter was satirical.

 

Here it is; this was published in the opinion section of the BYU Daily Universe back in 2009 or 2010:

 

 

 

"Every month, The Daily Universe publishes a handful of letters urging female students to do their part in keeping the male mind pure. As a married woman, I do my best to avoid shirts that show figure and eschew the cross-the-chest messenger bag. But I must ask our male counterparts to show us the same respect.

To put it delicately, men must realize that their constant public displays of kindness make it extremely difficult for women to keep their thoughts in line.

When visiting campus, I often keep my head down and sing a hymn in my mind to avoid seeing the gratuitous acts of goodness that are everywhere — men holding doors for strangers, escorting sisters home at night, returning library books on time. If I unwittingly happen upon a gentleman holding the elevator for a latecomer, please remember this image can be seared into my mind for days.

Men, keep in mind that the female brain does not work in the same way as yours. What seems like a casual “good deed” to you can have a devastating effect on an otherwise innocent woman’s desire to control her thoughts. We need your help. So please limit your acts of kindness to interactions with your family members and all-male roommates. If you cannot keep your good deeds concealed, realize that you are holding a giant, chocolate cupcake in front of your fellow co-eds. Can women really be blamed if it gets a lick?"

 

Jamie Littlefield

Los Angeles, Calif.

Edited March 5, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

I wouldn't want to be the General Authority who is assigned to give "the talk."

 

Over the past 6 decades, I have observed that the person who attempts to define

the Lord's standards of morality henceforth and forever is mocked, belittled, tutt-tutted,

called names, and in general marginalized by many members, all disgruntled current

and former members, and most non-members alike. They latch on to one phrase or

concept and drive it deeply into the ground to serve as a way-point in the quest to water down

any kind of firm principled stand and make the Church appear oppressive and out of touch.

The messenger then becomes the focus point and the message goes pretty much unheeded.

 

It's a thankless task.

Making a man an offender for a word.

 

It's a prophecy of the last days.

[canard78]

Re-read the post you quoted, this time for comprehension.

I was asking a question.

Perhaps you would like to try to answer it rather than criticizing me for raising it.

Why not spend the 15 minutes to read the article and make your own mind up? Edited March 5, 2014 by canard78

[canard78]

Making a man an offender for a word.

It's a prophecy of the last days.

Ah yes of course, wanting to discuss the communication choices of a 70 makes us apostates fulfilling prophecy. Oh for the good old days when members bowed their heads and agreed with leaders who taught that racial inter-marriage was "repugnant."

The particular focus of my concerns in this original post was both the underlying attitudes of how an underdressed woman appeared viewed by Elder Callister but, even more, his (and the Ensign's) communication choice given their positions of influence.

Either Elder Callister or the editor even cut some content from the original speech (including a "leave it to the imagination" comment about a Native American). One wonders why they didn't also take the time to cut the line that serves as the title of this thread.

By the way, it's not all. I don't think I've ever taken issue with a single thing Elder Uchtdorf (for example) has said. He has a much more considered and sensitive approach to communicating his message.

[canard78]

Making a man an offender for a word.

It's a prophecy of the last days.

I fundamentally disagreed with both of Pres Hinckley's pro-war talks a decade or so ago. As did my, very faithful, mother and lots of UK LDS friends. That doesn't mean we didn't still sustain him as the president of the church, we just chose to disagree with a couple of his talks.

I see this in the same way.

[Tacenda]

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the "Messenger Bag" letter was satirical.

 

Here it is; this was published in the opinion section of the BYU Daily Universe back in 2009 or 2010:

This is priceless, this woman has nailed it!  ETA:  I'm pasting it here again because it was left out of your quote.

 

"Every month, The Daily Universe publishes a handful of letters urging female students to do their part in keeping the male mind pure. As a married woman, I do my best to avoid shirts that show figure and eschew the cross-the-chest messenger bag. But I must ask our male counterparts to show us the same respect.

To put it delicately, men must realize that their constant public displays of kindness make it extremely difficult for women to keep their thoughts in line.

When visiting campus, I often keep my head down and sing a hymn in my mind to avoid seeing the gratuitous acts of goodness that are everywhere — men holding doors for strangers, escorting sisters home at night, returning library books on time. If I unwittingly happen upon a gentleman holding the elevator for a latecomer, please remember this image can be seared into my mind for days.

Men, keep in mind that the female brain does not work in the same way as yours. What seems like a casual “good deed” to you can have a devastating effect on an otherwise innocent woman’s desire to control her thoughts. We need your help. So please limit your acts of kindness to interactions with your family members and all-male roommates. If you cannot keep your good deeds concealed, realize that you are holding a giant, chocolate cupcake in front of your fellow co-eds. Can women really be blamed if it gets a lick?"

 

Jamie Littlefield

Los Angeles, Calif.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Tacenda

[cinepro]

Making a man an offender for a word.

 

It's a prophecy of the last days.

 

John Travolta agrees with you.

[canard78]

This is priceless, this woman has nailed it!  ETA:  I'm pasting it here again because it was left out of your quote.

 

"Every month, The Daily Universe publishes a handful of letters urging female students to do their part in keeping the male mind pure. As a married woman, I do my best to avoid shirts that show figure and eschew the cross-the-chest messenger bag. But I must ask our male counterparts to show us the same respect.

To put it delicately, men must realize that their constant public displays of kindness make it extremely difficult for women to keep their thoughts in line.

When visiting campus, I often keep my head down and sing a hymn in my mind to avoid seeing the gratuitous acts of goodness that are everywhere — men holding doors for strangers, escorting sisters home at night, returning library books on time. If I unwittingly happen upon a gentleman holding the elevator for a latecomer, please remember this image can be seared into my mind for days.

Men, keep in mind that the female brain does not work in the same way as yours. What seems like a casual “good deed” to you can have a devastating effect on an otherwise innocent woman’s desire to control her thoughts. We need your help. So please limit your acts of kindness to interactions with your family members and all-male roommates. If you cannot keep your good deeds concealed, realize that you are holding a giant, chocolate cupcake in front of your fellow co-eds. Can women really be blamed if it gets a lick?"

 

Jamie Littlefield

Los Angeles, Calif.

 

Wow, brilliant

[EllenMaksoud]

I wouldn't want to be the General Authority who is assigned to give "the talk."

 

Over the past 6 decades, I have observed that the person who attempts to define

the Lord's standards of morality henceforth and forever is mocked, belittled, tutt-tutted,

called names, and in general marginalized by many members, all disgruntled current

and former members, and most non-members alike. They latch on to one phrase or

concept and drive it deeply into the ground to serve as a way-point in the quest to water down

any kind of firm principled stand and make the Church appear oppressive and out of touch.

The messenger then becomes the focus point and the message goes pretty much unheeded.

 

It's a thankless task.

In some ways, the church is a very steep slope.

[EllenMaksoud]

This is priceless, this woman has nailed it!  ETA:  I'm pasting it here again because it was left out of your quote.

 

"Every month, The Daily Universe publishes a handful of letters urging female students to do their part in keeping the male mind pure. As a married woman, I do my best to avoid shirts that show figure and eschew the cross-the-chest messenger bag. But I must ask our male counterparts to show us the same respect.

To put it delicately, men must realize that their constant public displays of kindness make it extremely difficult for women to keep their thoughts in line.

When visiting campus, I often keep my head down and sing a hymn in my mind to avoid seeing the gratuitous acts of goodness that are everywhere — men holding doors for strangers, escorting sisters home at night, returning library books on time. If I unwittingly happen upon a gentleman holding the elevator for a latecomer, please remember this image can be seared into my mind for days.

Men, keep in mind that the female brain does not work in the same way as yours. What seems like a casual “good deed” to you can have a devastating effect on an otherwise innocent woman’s desire to control her thoughts. We need your help. So please limit your acts of kindness to interactions with your family members and all-male roommates. If you cannot keep your good deeds concealed, realize that you are holding a giant, chocolate cupcake in front of your fellow co-eds. Can women really be blamed if it gets a lick?"

 

Jamie Littlefield

Los Angeles, Calif.

Or two.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why not spend the 15 minutes to read the article and make your own mind up?

So you have no answer then?

 

(For reference, the question is "Is it really fair to say he advocates 'teaching women how to make men approve of them'?".

 

If I recall correctly, I already gave my own take several posts ago.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I fundamentally disagreed with both of Pres Hinckley's pro-war talks a decade or so ago. As did my, very faithful, mother and lots of UK LDS friends. That doesn't mean we didn't still sustain him as the president of the church, we just chose to disagree with a couple of his talks.

I see this in the same way.

Characterizing them as "pro-war talks" says quite a bit about your mindset while criticizing him.

[Scott Lloyd]

By the way, it's not all. I don't think I've ever taken issue with a single thing Elder Uchtdorf (for example) has said. He has a much more considered and sensitive approach to communicating his message.

The proper title these days is President Uchtdorf. He is second counselor in the First Presidency.

[Calm]

I owe you a few rep points for that one.

 

(By the way I think we should grab our AK's and head on out to the Ukraine to help our bros- whatcha think?  )

It's "Ukraine" not "the Ukraine"....posted in fond memory of our brother volgadon who is not posting here even close to nearly enough.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's "Ukraine" not "the Ukraine"....posted in fond memory of our brother volgadon who is not posting here even close to nearly enough.

Has volgadon left the auditorium?

[Calm]

Has volgadon left the auditorium?

He posts on what feels like rare occasions only these days. It may be a whole week between posts! I yearn to see his name in the index for the little moment of excited anticipation of his wit and wisdom.

I think he managed to get a life. How sad.

Edited March 6, 2014 by calmoriah