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

[LittleNipper]

As a young guy, I can say I was looking for the "nice" girl. I always enjoyed the June Lockhart, Donna Reed type. What I would call a natural beauty without a lot of fluff. What some might have once called "Mommy material." The "wild" girl might be OK for a lark, but not someone any reasonable man would want to raise his children. And I didn't get that sort of young lady (the young lady I married did have a striking Katharine Hepburn look) showing up all the time in T-shirt and jeans. I can imagine that she wanted someone who was stable, honest, caring, "daddy" material.

 

Today, it seems like it is all about sex ---- look sexy, act sexy, talk sexy -------------------- have sex... And I do believe that society today does seem to promote this by relaxing all the taboos of dress, language, manners and behavior that MOST EVERYONE, at least at one time in the past, appeared to at least publically agree with. Did everyone live like Leave it to Beaver? Of course not. But what the Cleavers said, and how the Cleavers acted was not considered moronic --- though mom didn't always wear peals.  I cannot imagine most people today even believe that life was ever like some 50's family sitcom, but I can say that it wasn't far from reality for many average people 50 years ago. 

[Bernard Gui]

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 all depends on what the Urkaine folks want to do when Putin decides to reannex Poland...that would tick me off!!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Was he married? If not, maybe he found romance.

 

As the Beatles sang, "The Ukraine girls really knock me out. They leave the West behind."

[Calm]

I believe he is married...to a Ukraine girl even.

[Tacenda]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Pakistan

 

These women are completely covered yet still get raped.  Why is rape so prevalent in Pakistan if they are covered from head to toe?  Granted they don't give women rights.  Hopefully the mentality in our church doesn't ever get to the point that women are told to cover up entirely, I know it won't happen, but the article by Bro. Callister is clearly not a foot in the right direction!  It shouldn't be about what women wear especially young girls, that just sexualizes them before they are at that age.  There is an excellent podcast on Mormon Matters that addresses the article in the Ensign where they mention this among other things.    http://mormonmatters.org/2014/03/03/215-mormonisms-modesty-and-sexuality-discourse/

[Danzo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Pakistan

 

These women are completely covered yet still get raped.  Why is rape so prevalent in Pakistan if they are covered from head to toe?  Granted they don't give women rights.  Hopefully the mentality in our church doesn't ever get to the point that women are told to cover up entirely, I know it won't happen, but the article by Bro. Callister is clearly not a foot in the right direction!  It shouldn't be about what women wear especially young girls, that just sexualizes them before they are at that age.  There is an excellent podcast on Mormon Matters that addresses the article in the Ensign where they mention this among other things.    http://mormonmatters.org/2014/03/03/215-mormonisms-modesty-and-sexuality-discourse/

 

In what Universe, can anyone interpret  Elder Callister's  statements to be advocating that a woman be covered from head to toe?

[canard78]

In what Universe, can anyone interpret Elder Callister's statements to be advocating that a woman be covered from head to toe?

Because that would be outrageous, sexist and approaching mysogynistic even wouldn't it? Imagine a man telling a woman how much of her skin she should cover up to be modest.

(Psst, our church does the exact same thing, they just draw the hem line a little further up the arm/leg).

[Danzo]

You really think it is the same thing?

I guess we really must be living in different worlds.

[ERayR]

Because that would be outrageous, sexist and approaching mysogynistic even wouldn't it? Imagine a man telling a woman how much of her skin she should cover up to be modest.

(Psst, our church does the exact same thing, they just draw the hem line a little further up the arm/leg).

 

Where would you draw the line.  Your daughter comes downstairs in a thong bikini and tells you she is headed for the park to sunbath.  What is your reaction?

[Danzo]

Because that would be outrageous, sexist and approaching mysogynistic even wouldn't it? Imagine a man telling a woman how much of her skin she should cover up to be modest.

(Psst, our church does the exact same thing, they just draw the hem line a little further up the arm/leg).

In your world someone saying:

"Avoid working on Sunday" = "Don't walk more than 50 paces on the sabath"

"Dress modestly" = "Wear a burqa "

"Live the law of chastity" = "Stone Adulterers"

"follow the prophet" = "Bow down daily to the dear leader"

[Tacenda]

Sorry to rehash this thread, but the porn addiction one is locked, but this will be on topic I believe.  I can't not post this great Doves and Serpents entry.  It talks of porn addiction and how we are going about it all wrong!!  Please read, it's something to think about.  I hope minds can be tweaked who work with porn addicted people, also goes along with other addictions as well.   

 

http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2014/03/heber-j-grant-beer-and-sexual-morality/

[canard78]

Where would you draw the line. Your daughter comes downstairs in a thong bikini and tells you she is headed for the park to sunbath. What is your reaction?

My 11-year old?

She can't go to the park on her own yet and doesn't sunbathe.

My point is that Danzo was indignant that anyone would imply Elder Callister was calling for head to toe covering. I know he's not. But he is calling for a (hem) line to still be drawn. If not head to toe then elbow to knee. That line is always drawn based on the culture of the day. In some cultures a woman wearing only a skirt and no top is considered to be modest while in others even an ankle showing gets attention.

Elder Callister is compounding and affirming the western culture of too much leg or chest on show being a sexual distraction. Instead of teaching men to not look or not letch he is teaching women to hide their bodies and take responsibility for the men's wandering eyes.

[canard78]

In your world someone saying:

"Avoid working on Sunday" = "Don't walk more than 50 paces on the sabath"

"Dress modestly" = "Wear a burqa "

"Live the law of chastity" = "Stone Adulterers"

"follow the prophet" = "Bow down daily to the dear leader"

A baseless distortion of anything I've said. Straw man.

[canard78]

Sorry to rehash this thread, but the porn addiction one is locked, but this will be on topic I believe. I can't not post this great Doves and Serpents entry. It talks of porn addiction and how we are going about it all wrong!! Please read, it's something to think about. I hope minds can be tweaked who work with porn addicted people, also goes along with other addictions as well.

http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2014/03/heber-j-grant-beer-and-sexual-morality/

Excellent. Thank you.

I particularly found Heber J Grant's story interesting.

[ERayR]

My 11-year old?

She can't go to the park on her own yet and doesn't sunbathe.

My point is that Danzo was indignant that anyone would imply Elder Callister was calling for head to toe covering. I know he's not. But he is calling for a (hem) line to still be drawn. If not head to toe then elbow to knee. That line is always drawn based on the culture of the day. In some cultures a woman wearing only a skirt and no top is considered to be modest while in others even an ankle showing gets attention.

Elder Callister is compounding and affirming the western culture of too much leg or chest on show being a sexual distraction. Instead of teaching men to not look or not letch he is teaching women to hide their bodies and take responsibility for the men's wandering eyes.

 

Nice side step.  So your daughter is only 11 and doesn't go to the park alone, she won't be 11 for long and will be going to the park and other places on her own.  The question was are you going to provide a dress code for her or will you allow her to wear whatever she wants, no matter how revealing?  My point is why do you feel indignation that others advocate a dress standard when you undoubtedly have your own standards for your daughter(s) and son(s)?

 

I am very interested what standards you are going to set for your daughters.  Are you going to allow them to show "too much leg or chest"?

Edited March 11, 2014 by ERayR

[ERayR]

A baseless distortion of anything I've said. Straw man.

 

A very apt comparison.  That is exactly the tactic you are using against Elder Callister.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A very apt comparison.  That is exactly the tactic you are using against Elder Callister.

I cant believe this thread is even going. Most of the criticisms are just what you said a straw man, and the rest just defy common sense. Oh well.

[Senator]

I cant believe this thread is even going. Most of the criticisms are just what you said a straw man, and the rest just defy common sense. Oh well.

 

So all the criticisms either defy common sense or are a straw man.

 

Huh...

 

What a bunch of idiots!

[Danzo]

My point is that Danzo was indignant that anyone would imply Elder Callister was calling for head to toe covering. I know he's not. But he is calling for a (hem) line to still be drawn. If not head to toe then elbow to knee. 

 

Perhaps you need to re-read the article. 

 

He doesn't mention an elbow or knee in his article. 

 

Next time, you might try criticizing what was actually written, rather than adding words just so you can criticize them.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Danzo

[BCSpace]

Elder Callister is compounding and affirming the western culture of too much leg or chest on show being a sexual distraction. Instead of teaching men to not look or not letch he is teaching women to hide their bodies and take responsibility for the men's wandering eyes.

 

 

A truer cartoon was never drawn.  Who can doubt the plain evidence right before our very eyes that "In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for."? 

 

Plus your statement is incorrect.  Read the article again.  Callister spent pretty good time on the subject of men looking and letching.  Don't forget that God created us this way so an immodestly dressed woman is indeed responsible for the increased pressure and temptation on a man.  We are in this together as per 1 Corinthians 11:11.  This is true in any culture because there is going to be some standard of modesty.  Whether that standard is higher or lower than our culture makes no difference whatsoever.   This simple principle, which many seem to be over thinking, still applies.

 

Some years ago my father, an attorney, was trying a lawsuit. For his authority, he cited only one case—a California Supreme Court case issued many years before. His opponent cited a number of lower-court decisions of more recent vintage.

 

The judge said to my father, “Mr. Callister, don’t you have a more recent case than this?”

 

My father looked at the judge and replied, “Your Honor, may I remind you that when the supreme court speaks on a matter, it only needs to speak once.” The judge nodded with approval. He was reminded that the supreme court trumps all lower-court decisions, however numerous or recent they may be.

 

So it is with God our Father—He needs to speak only once on the issue of morality, and that one declaration trumps all the opinions of the lower courts, whether uttered by psychologists, counselors, politicians, friends, parents, or would-be moralists of the day.

 

It is almost unbelievable to think that God has given to His children the power that is most prized and sacred to Him—the power to create life. Because God gave us this power, He, and He alone, has the right to prescribe how it should be used.

 

Contrary to much public sentiment, there is nothing negative or restraining about God’s moral standards. Rather, they are positive, uplifting, and liberating. They build relationships of trust, they enhance self-esteem, they foster a clear conscience, and they invite the Spirit of the Lord to bless individual and married lives. They are the proven standards for happy marriages and stable communities.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng

 

 

I excuse not myself.  I am quite sure I too have been somewhat guilty of 'moralizing' and 'rationalizing' away from the Church on this very issue from time to time.

Edited March 12, 2014 by BCSpace

[Tacenda]

BC could this boy have thought she wanted sex, the girl in the cartoon, because he was trained to believe it by the way she dressed? It goes both ways. I just don't like sexualizing young girls, sorry. And I see it, maybe not in Callister's talk so much, but in other ways in the church. The friend magazine for instance. A sun dress on a little girl needs a t-shirt? Come on.  https://www.lds.org/friend/2011/06/hannahs-new-dress?lang=eng   http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/05/16/children-cant-dress-immodestly/

Edited March 12, 2014 by Tacenda

[canard78]

Nice side step.  So your daughter is only 11 and doesn't go to the park alone, she won't be 11 for long and will be going to the park and other places on her own.  The question was are you going to provide a dress code for her or will you allow her to wear whatever she wants, no matter how revealing?  My point is why do you feel indignation that others advocate a dress standard when you undoubtedly have your own standards for your daughter(s) and son(s)?

 

I am very interested what standards you are going to set for your daughters.  Are you going to allow them to show "too much leg or chest"?

 

If you read the OP I did not say I dismiss the principle of dress standards. I will teach her principles of modest dressing, but I will also let her "govern herself." Naturally what I teach as dress standards will be influenced by my cultural norms (just like yours are). The things you consider modest today, would have been immodest 200 years ago. It's a cultural dress standard.

 

What I will not do, is teach her that "most women get the type of man they dress for." My original objection was always about the communication technique in his talk, but instead some participants of the thread have tried to distort this into a conversation about whether moral standards should be taught or not. Elder Callister and I could agree entirely on the standards but I could still disagree with the communication technique for teaching these standards.

 

It's the rhetoric, not the standards I objected to in the first place. If I've been drawn into the tangent of what standards are right/wrong then I regret doing so. That was never my intention.

[mtomm]

Sarah's letter.

 

Sarah reports the following response.  Which seems to indicate that how things are worded matters, even to General Authorities:

 

 

I wanted to update you (again!) on my letter responding to Elder Callister's Ensign article. I sent/emailed my letter to the Ensign, my local church leadership and several General Authorities. I opened my email yesterday to find a response from a prominent General Authority (that asked that our correspondence be kept private, understandably so). Tears streamed down my face as I read the email and let his validating, kind, and affirming words sink in. He said that he isn't able to respond to people personally very often, but was very thankful for the letter and said that the way I "articulated my principles" would be helpful to him in the future and assured me that he would take the responsibility to share it. WOW! 

[Rob Osborn]

After reading much around the web on this and the reaction from the talk given at BYU-Idaho abd published in the Ensign I am of the honest opinion that although the wording is rough and judgemental in some respects I am reminded of the painful truth in our society that has sexualized women to the point where the politically correct want us to view women as sexual objects rather than sacred and holy beings created in Gods image who blessed priveledge it is to bring the gloriest gift of life into this world. I blame a lot or most of this (why not just all of it)on Hollywood and those who adhere to the politically correct fashion police. It is true that we are now conditioned in society to where the women are to appear as sexual objects and as such we have made their clothing more revealing, have insinuated that the shapely curves of a women should be shown off and used to propmote sales, promote sexual products, used provocatively to enhance ones desire for something, etc.

 

One of the pitfallss we now face because of this is that our dress codes (mostly for women) have dipped way below the Churches standards of modesty and thus below the modesty level pleasing to God. I too think that some women for the most part are trying to appeal to the politically correct standard of looking appealing to men by wearing clothing that is racey or imodest, Ialso see this with som men for the same reasons. The problem that has started at the top now has to be fixed starting at the bottom. It starts in our homes with adhering to the Lords standards of modesty and showing to the world that women can be attractive and feel beautiful, empowered, etc, by dressing according to the Lords standards of modesty. We can destroy Hollywoods persona of over-sexualization of women but it is going to have to start with each one of us in our homes.

 

From a mans perspective i can testify that there is more and more immodesty in dress standards for both sexes but definitely more in womens dress. Some of the clothes I see on women and even young girls nowdays would have never been permitted 50 years ago. I am not saying that all womens clothing is bad I am just saying that there is a danger in where womens clothing in the industry is heading. its being fueld in large part by Hollywood and the politically correct who are trying to use the womens body as a sexual object as a means of selling product, selling fame, etc. The basic commercialization of the womens body. Its wrong and we should do something about it.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[cinepro]

What I will not do, is teach her that "most women get the type of man they dress for." My original objection was always about the communication technique in his talk, but instead some participants of the thread have tried to distort this into a conversation about whether moral standards should be taught or not. Elder Callister and I could agree entirely on the standards but I could still disagree with the communication technique for teaching these standards.

 

 

I think that's the point that most people are missing.  The problem isn't having dress standards or encouraging "modesty" in dress.  The problem is how Elder Callister and many others teach it. 

 

For example, I wear pants and a dress shirt to my office every day.  If Elder Callister said "Now you men, be sure to wear long pants and dress shirts to the office, because if you wear shorts you might entice the homosexuals who may work nearby..."  I would express my objection to his reasoning, but I wouldn't be arguing against the benefits of proper work attire in general.