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

[canard78]

Just remember that you are not required to believe everything that is said by anyone in any venue.

Good point:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," (4 May 2007)

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[mfbukowski]

So teach both men and women to not letch. Teach them to notice and not stare.

Don't teach our daughters that they are "walking porn."

And teach the beauty of the atonement. Stop making people second class citizens if they have past transgressions.

Where did I ever say any of that?

 

Careful there bro, your testosterone is showing. You don't want to do THAT now do you?  Yes, I want to protect my daughters and wife as well. I have one wife and three daughters and would be....... riled up if anyone regarded them that way.

 

Relax and take a deep breath.......  notice your thoughts, and let them go by......

[Senator]

Good point:

LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," (4 May 2007)

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Exactly

[mfbukowski]

So teach both men and women to not letch. Teach them to notice and not stare.

Don't teach our daughters that they are "walking porn."

And teach the beauty of the atonement. Stop making people second class citizens if they have past transgressions.

No actually I think we should be as lecherous as possible, and catcall all pretty girls to teach them a lesson.

 

We should make our daughters dress in burkas and stay at home and not get educated.

 

If people have past transgressions, they should be stoned.

 

 

For those who are sarcasm impaired, let me say that this is an example.

[canard78]

I'm not quite sure how you have interpreted the article to be stating this?

Mercyngrace's first post in this thread mentioned this quote:

The blessings of living a clean and moral life are overwhelming. Such a life will bring self­ confidence and self­ esteem. It will result in a clear conscience. It will make us eligible

for a spouse of like purity...

I'd recommend her full post to you. She makes the point more eloquently than I could that the undertone of this statement creates a divide between the desirability of those who had repented from sexual transgression and those who have never needed to.

What happened to scarlet sins being white as snow.

[Buzzard]

So why does the article have double standards? Why are only the women specifically given this warning? It's an unfair pressure placed on one gender. It's sexism.

Because it's been a while since spandex bike shorts were everyday men's fashions? "For the Strength of Youth" does tell young men to dress modestly as well. 

The plain fact of the matter is that women's fashions are typically more problematic, modesty-wise, than mens. And kids want to wear what is on the rack down at the store as well as what is worn by their friends. 

This is a "special case", but try, just try, to buy a modest prom or special occasion dress off the rack at any store outside of Utah. Thank goodness for web shopping.

[mfbukowski]

And of course guys should wear shirts at all times and speedos should be banned.

 

Kilts are out because they may arouse all the girls.  Bermuda shorts must cover the knee if they are worn at all, but only with high white sox.

 

There- now we are even I guess.  I think it is terrible when girls whistle at guys and call them walking porn.  It makes them terribly uncomfortable and could cause serious trauma.

 

I would never want my son to be dressed in a way that would make women want to attack him.  I hate it when women make passes at me just because I am so attractive.  They don't see my character or my brain- they are only interested in making me a sex object.  It's horrible!

[Buzzard]

And of course guys should wear shirts at all times and speedos should be banned.

 

Kilts are out because they may arouse all the girls.  Bermuda shorts must cover the knee if they are worn at all, but only with high white sox.

 

There- now we are even I guess.  I think it is terrible when girls whistle at guys and call them walking porn.  It makes them terribly uncomfortable and could cause serious trauma.

 

I would never want my son to be dressed in a way that would make women want to attack him.  I hate it when women make passes at me just because I am so attractive.  They don't see my character or my brain- they are only interested in making me a sex object.  It's horrible!

What a terrible burden for you to live life under. You have my sincere condolences.

[mfbukowski]

What a terrible burden for you to live life under. You have my sincere condolences.

[canard78]

Where did I ever say any of that?

Careful there bro, your testosterone is showing. You don't want to do THAT now do you? Yes, I want to protect my daughters and wife as well. I have one wife and three daughters and would be....... riled up if anyone regarded them that way.

Relax and take a deep breath....... notice your thoughts, and let them go by......

I have too much respect for you to set up straw men suggesting YOU were saying this. And apologies if I communicated badly.

(My latest mantra is: "There are very few bad people in the church, just bad communicators. Myself included.")

My point is that the article has this kind of undertone.

First it says:

"Pornography is any picture or narrative that feeds the carnal man within."

Then it says:

"The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men. If it is too low or too high or too tight, it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure. Men and women can look sharp and be fashionable, yet they can also be modest. Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own self­-respect and to the moral purity of men. In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for."

Therefore... If women dress in any way that will feed the carnal man within they are doing that man a disservice. They are, in effect, pornographic.

If he didn't mean to leave this impression (and he probably didn't. I hope he didn't), then he should have paused to consider the impact and undertones of his words.

Like I said, we're all imperfect communicators.

I suppose Elder Uchtdorf put it better:

And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

And before anyone warns me to not "condemn the things of God" my reply to them is: I don't think I am condemning the things of God. Because I don't think the specific parts of the article I disagree with are the things of God. I think they are the symptoms of seeing through the dark glass and personal opinion.

And no, I don't claim any exemption from this life reality. We all see through the glass darkly. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with ever Ensign article or church leader talk.

[Garden Girl]

Sorry folks... while there are many valid points made from the various POVs and posts here, we do live in what has become a super-sexualized (as somone pointed out) world... if you wear the right shade of lipstick, you'll be sexy... if you do or wear something, you'll be sexy... etc etc. Madison Ave has gone nuts promoting this concept to younger and younger women, and men... my sis worked in the fashion industry and in meeting after meeting the push was on for molding pubic opinion and tastes in order to sell merchandise... and the trend became that "sexiness" equaled success, romance, wealth... and particularly in relationships and attracting the opposite sex... ever pay attention to the ads and commercials and listen to the words? 

 

You can throw out most of the arguments that go beyond this basic point (again, as someone pointed out) that a woman or man will attract the type of person they project themselves for... in today's world of fashion and the narrative that goes along with it... a woman or man, girl or boy, knows exactly what message or image they want to present every time they choose a garment or style... no one is so naive  that they don't make a specific choice as to that message or image when they present themselves either modestly or immodestly... it's actually as simple as that. 

 

GG

Edited February 17, 2014 by Garden Girl

[mfbukowski]

What a terrible burden for you to live life under. You have my sincere condolences.

On the serious side, that post was made to make it totally obvious that men and women are different.

 

The sooner we can get over that the sooner we can deal with it and get over all this nonsense and appreciate our differences and celebrate them.  Gender is an essential aspect of our eternal selves.  THAT is doctrine.

 

Yes, there are people who are confused and troubled with these matters, and we must deal with that in a Christlike manner and do what we can to understand God's plan in this regard.

 

But thinking that men and women are the same is only going to make it all worse.  We must be unified in our differences, not ignoring of our differences.

 

In my opinion the only question is whether or not the article was consistent with doctrine, insofar as we have any.  I think clearly the article was in accord with doctrine and was vetted and vetted and vetted in all likelyhood.

 

So if we are not in accord with the article, we are not in accord with the position of the church.

 

That's ok- we are allowed to disagree and follow our own hearts on these matters.  None of this would keep us out of the temple.

 

So really the discussion is about whether or not the church is politically correct.

 

It is not.  I am not, clearly by the reaction on this thread.  That's fine with me.  I agree with the church on this one, and always will.

 

It may be passe and politically incorrect, but I think men and women are different and that we need to respect each other for what we are, and love each other.

 

Yep I am old fashioned.  go figure.

[Senator]

Mercyngrace's first post in this thread mentioned this quote:

I'd recommend her full post to you. She makes the point more eloquently than I could that the undertone of this statement creates a divide between the desirability of those who had repented from sexual transgression and those who have never needed to.

What happened to scarlet sins being white as snow.

So in other words, if the author had included the words, "through repentance and obedience", the statement would be more acceptable?

 

"The blessings of living a clean and moral life [through repentance and obedience] are overwhelming. Such a life will bring self­ confidence and self­ esteem. It will result in a clear conscience. It will make us eligible

for a spouse of like purity..." 

 

If so, I think you might be making an assumption that the author didn't have those words in mind.

[Gray]

So notice that the only comments which are quite negative about the article are from women.

 

Even canard makes it clear that he encourages modesty in his daughter.  What man here will stand up for immodest dress for his wife or daughter?  None!

 

Women are extremely naive about what goes on in men's minds when it comes to these matters.

 

Perhaps the article could have been more sensitive but the central message is correct.  Just notice the sex of the commenters in each comment and you will see a difference.  

 

Women aren't responsible for the thoughts of men.

[canard78]

Because it's been a while since spandex bike shorts were everyday men's fashions? "For the Strength of Youth" does tell young men to dress modestly as well.

The plain fact of the matter is that women's fashions are typically more problematic, modesty-wise, than mens. And kids want to wear what is on the rack down at the store as well as what is worn by their friends.

This is a "special case", but try, just try, to buy a modest prom or special occasion dress off the rack at any store outside of Utah. Thank goodness for web shopping.

Do most men get the type of woman they dress for?

[mfbukowski]

I have too much respect for you to set up straw men suggesting YOU were saying this. And apologies if I communicated badly.

(My latest mantra is: "There are very few bad people in the church, just bad communicators. Myself included.")

My point is that the article has this kind of undertone.

First it says:

"Pornography is any picture or narrative that feeds the carnal man within."

Then it says:

"The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men. If it is too low or too high or too tight, it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure. Men and women can look sharp and be fashionable, yet they can also be modest. Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own self­-respect and to the moral purity of men. In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for."

Therefore... If women dress in any way that will feed the carnal man within they are doing that man a disservice. They are, in effect, pornographic.

If he didn't mean to leave this impression (and he probably didn't. I hope he didn't), then he should have paused to consider the impact and undertones of his words.

Like I said, we're all imperfect communicators.

I suppose Elder Uchtdorf put it better:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

And before anyone warns me to not "condemn the things of God" my reply to them is: I don't think I am condemning the things of God. Because I don't think the specific parts of the article I disagree with are the things of God. I think they are the symptoms of seeing through the dark glass and personal opinion.

And no, I don't claim any exemption from this life reality. We all see through the glass darkly. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with ever Ensign article or church leader talk.

No, well you know that I respect you tremendously as well and am a terrible communicator.

 

My honest, straight to the gut response is that I think you are drawing false conclusions that we not intended- I think your "therefore" above should not be a "therefore"- I take the statements separately.

 

Clearly he could have been more sensitive, those Callister boys are like that   A little too opinionated and a little too blunt.

 

But of course I also have no problem with disagreeing with GA's- that is a long honored Mormon tradition!   If you have ever raised an eyebrow over a Brigham Young quote you are in that camp automatically.

 

And yes, he picked a bad chapter to quote from Paul.  But I think all we really disagree about is the "Therefore" in your above post.

 

So ultimately it's no big deal. 

 

I should probably get my neanderthal posterior out of this thread before you and Jeremy make me look REALLY bad. 

[mfbukowski]

Women aren't responsible for the thoughts of men.

I'd like to see a quote for where I said that.

[mfbukowski]

Do most men get the type of woman they dress for?

I think the reality is that an active Mormon woman would not marry a man who constantly dresses in "wife beaters" and tatoos and jeans at half-mast, so yes.

 

On the other hand, if a guy is clean shaven and shows up in a suit, his chances will be much improved.

[mfbukowski]

Women aren't responsible for the thoughts of men.

But clearly men must be responsible for the thoughts of women considering this thread

[canard78]

No, well you know that I respect you tremendously as well and am a terrible communicator.

My honest, straight to the gut response is that I think you are drawing false conclusions that we not intended- I think your "therefore" above should not be a "therefore"- I take the statements separately.

Clearly he could have been more sensitive, those Callister boys are like that A little too opinionated and a little too blunt.

But of course I also have no problem with disagreeing with GA's- that is a long honored Mormon tradition! If you have ever raised an eyebrow over a Brigham Young quote you are in that camp automatically.

And yes, he picked a bad chapter to quote from Paul. But I think all we really disagree about is the "Therefore" in your above post.

So ultimately it's no big deal.

I should probably get my neanderthal posterior out of this thread before you and Jeremy make me look REALLY bad.

You're right bud, I added the therefore. I made the conclusion and read an undertone. Maybe there was no intention to send that message.

I don't think Elder Callister is a bad man. I'm sure he's a very good man who is trying to do the best he can with the perspectives he has been raised with. I'm sure he's trying to teach positive and uplifting principles to help people lead better, more Christlike lives. I just wish he'd made better communication choices. I wish this talk wasn't no encased in the credibility that the Ensign cover lends it.

[canard78]

I think the reality is that an active Mormon woman would not marry a man who constantly dresses in "wife beaters" and tatoos and jeans at half-mast, so yes.

On the other hand, if a guy is clean shaven and shows up in a suit, his chances will be much improved.

In which case Elder Callister could have made it a gender neutral statement.

"Most people get the person they dress for."

That at least removes the sexism from the statement. I personally still have a bit of an issue with that statement because it seems to imply that we should judge a book by its cover. And I don't think we should.

[Mystery Meat]

I have too much respect for you to set up straw men suggesting YOU were saying this. And apologies if I communicated badly.

(My latest mantra is: "There are very few bad people in the church, just bad communicators. Myself included.")

My point is that the article has this kind of undertone.

First it says:

"Pornography is any picture or narrative that feeds the carnal man within."

Then it says:

"The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men. If it is too low or too high or too tight, it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure. Men and women can look sharp and be fashionable, yet they can also be modest. Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own self­-respect and to the moral purity of men. In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for."

Therefore... If women dress in any way that will feed the carnal man within they are doing that man a disservice. They are, in effect, pornographic.

If he didn't mean to leave this impression (and he probably didn't. I hope he didn't), then he should have paused to consider the impact and undertones of his words.

 

I guess I don't see anything wrong with what he said. In the relevant thread currently going on, I outed myself as a recovering porn addict. Perhaps, some of the problem is that we attribute the word pornographic with the type of hard core smut that is viewable on the www. If that is how we are defining pornographic in this thread then I agree with you. However, I think what the author (not to mention myself) meant by pornographic is an inciting of the carnal and natural man. I think that is a fair definition and it seems appropriate in this context.

 

I said earlier in this threat that I believe we will be judged for our own sins. My thoughts and actions are my own and no single other person should be held responsible for them. However, I added that I believe we will also be held to account for words, actions, and our manner of dress and how they each encouraged those we interact with to draw nearer to the Lord...or pull us further away from him. We don't live our lives in a vacuum and we can't view any of our actions as having no effect on others even if we can't be held responsible for the way those folks use their agency.

 

As a recovering pornaholic, there was a period of my life where I was attempting one of many, many permanent breaks from my sexual addictions. I had gone weeks without looking at porn or masturbating (why are people so afraid to use that word here?) and my sexual frustrations were incredibly high. I went to school with a lot of folks who weren't members of the Church, many of whom were very, very, very, very attractive girls. It seems on one particularly frustrating day they all decided to where cute outfits that unfortunately (or fortunately?) left very little to the imagination. This only served to weaken my resolve and I gave into temptations that I faced. Now, that is not their fault. Especially considering each of their backgrounds and I consider many of them to be some of my closest friends. I didn't yield to temptation because of what they wore, I yielded to temptation because I was weak. That doesn't mean what they wore didn't have an effect either. In fact it did incite the carnal and natural man within me, and by my definition and what I think Elder Callister is saying, that made them pornographic to me. That may have been totally my fault as I had taken steps on my own to inappropriately over sexualize myself with a fairly regular dose of smut, but it was pornographic nonetheless. Had I been a stronger man who lived by the Spirit I could have ignored those thoughts and dealt with my frustrations in ways that are more in line with the Lord's will. As it was, I didn't.

 

If we can't live our lives in a vacuum, and I maintain that we can't, it seems fair to suggest then that a girl should be conscious of what she wears and how that may effect those around her. In fact, I would say it seems like a very Christian thing to do. Even if it is not her fault that a guy who was like I used to be, was incited to look at pornography after seeing a little bit of cleavage, it stands to reason in my mind that if she has any sort of compassion for those afflicted with such a terrible plague as porn addiction that she would think twice before putting on the push up bra AND the low cut halter top. Again, we don't live our lives in a vacuum and I believe we will be held to account to the extent we made it harder for people to draw nearer to God even if they are still accountable for their individual actions.

 

For the ladies, imagine you came home after a long day to find Hugh Jackman in your kitchen scrubbing your dishes, having just finished preparing you a gourmet meal. After eating he tells you, in his Australian accent no less, that he has drawn you a hot bath and to take your time while he changes your kid's poopy diaper and puts them down for the night.

 

Yeah, it's kinda like that.     

[T-Shirt]

 I'm pretty furious about the sexism in this article. I deeply object to the dual standards in this article. 

I am really struggling to see how you find this article as, "sexist" and as having, "dual standards".  First of all, the article is rather long and applies to both genders.  You take a couple of sentences from it that you find objectionable and trash the entire article.  I don't see it the way you do.

 

I will encourage all of my children to be modest in their appearance and behaviour for multiple reasons, mainly to encourage self-respect.

 

Why do you feel that modesty in women promotes self-respect?  Do you feel the same way about men?  Can we agree that while dressing modestly is a universal principle, it is far more of an issue among the young women?  If you have been around teenage girls enough, you realize that when they choose what to wear, by and large, the furthest thing from their mind is what the boys are going to think, rather, they are concerned about what their female friends will think.  They dress for their female peers, not for boys.  They want to be stylish and fit in.  They want to hear their friends tell them how cute their outfit is.  Young girls are generally quite naive and oblivious to how their appearance is perceived by young boys.  There is an innocence in this.  Nevertheless, they need to understand why modesty is important and, among other things, one of the significant reasons is because their appearance can affect boys in ways that are inappropriate.  This does not make the boys' thoughts her fault, but it helps her understand how her choices affect other people.  As a Scout Master, I have to teach young boys how to properly handle food in the wilderness in order to avoid a bear attack.  This in no way makes them responsible for the bears' actions, it just educates them on how bears think and helps them stay safe.  It would be foolish for anyone to willingly ignore the proper handling of food in the back country while smugly claiming they are not responsible for what a bear thinks.  Now, I know that bears are not humans, but it illustrates the point.

 

I will not, however, use false threats and guilt such as:

- You're walking porn

- You'll get, and deserve, the wrong type of partner

- You'll only get a "high quality" spouse if you're pure

All are very poor teaching tools, encourage negative self-image and give tacit endorsement to sexism and misogyny.

 

Good, because neither did Elder Callister.  You seem to have taken such offense that you read into the article things that were not even there.

 

The article is terrible and quotes scripture that, in some cases, is taken from chapters that we otherwise reject wholesale.

Elder Callister, for example, selectively quotes from:

1 Tim 2:

 

Should we reject everything Paul said or just things he said within close proximity to something you disagree with?

 

Given Elder Callister claims to be delivering God's indisputable word on the matter, at what verse in the list above does Paul stop speaking God's doctrine and instead speaks his own opinion? V10? V11??

I find it somewhat ironic that in the opening paragraphs he sweeps aside the opinions of psychologists when the dominant view of morality is born less out of revealed doctrine and more out of Victorian prudishness. Attitudes which were, in part, influenced by the attitudes of psychologists of the era.

I find little doctrine in this article and instead personal opinion sprinkled with selective scripture.

(Does that help adjust the male:female balance mfbukowski?)

 

Did you notice that after addressing how the manner in which girls dress can affect what boys think (without assigning blame to the girl) he then goes to a section about keeping thoughts pure which puts the responsibility of impure thoughts squarely on the person doing the thinking.

I think it is quite appropriate to help young women  understand how dressing immodestly can contribute to the difficulty of a young man's effort to keep his thoughts clean.  This is certainly not the only reason modesty is important, but it is good for the girls to know the unintended consequences of how they dress.

Edited February 17, 2014 by T-Shirt

[Mystery Meat]

I think the reality is that an active Mormon woman would not marry a man who constantly dresses in "wife beaters" and tatoos and jeans at half-mast, so yes.

 

On the other hand, if a guy is clean shaven and shows up in a suit, his chances will be much improved.

 

Well I show up in suit. So I have half of it down.

[mercyngrace]

However, it is always better to remain clean than to sin and repent afterward. Why is that? Because certain adverse con­sequences of sin may remain even after repentance, such as disease or a child 

born out of wedlock or damage to our reputation. Our goal in life is not just to be clean but also to be perfect. The quest for perfection is accelerated when we are clean, but it is stymied when we are not.

 

 

Here's another quote that leaves me shaking my head.

 

Even in invoking the atonement, Elder Callister refers to adverse consequences of sin. Like a child. By all means put that into the minds of a child who was accidentally conceived. You, little one, were mommy's adverse consequence.

 

Diseases can be prevented by other means besides obedience to the law of chastity. Do they not carry condoms at his local CVS?

 

And damage to reputation is an indictment of the judgmental not the sinner. If someone sins and repents but you persist in seeing their reputation as damaged... that stone's in your hand. I hope you are without sin. 

 

I'm not trying to nitpick here but we really need to be thinking through what we say and teach at church. My 15 year old could pick this talk apart in a second if he were assigned the task of critically reading it. We don't need to scare our children to choose well. We need to inspire them by engaging their hearts, their souls, and their minds.