Danzo Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 The article in question frames women's modesty in terms of how it impacts men. Are you asserting that the way women dress does not impact men?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 "The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men." Do most people here think this is a falsehood?This is true. It's also true if you remove the first three words. Perhaps women and men shouldn't be going to the same schools, churches etc.
Danzo Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 This is true. It's also true if you remove the first three words. Perhaps women and men shouldn't be going to the same schools, churches etc. If it's true, what is wrong with saying it? I don't follow your conclusions, Just because the statement is true, doesn't mean we need to separate men and women. I don't think Elder Callister was advocating that. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 Are you asserting that the way women dress does not impact men?On the contrary, I think that it does. I don't think the solution lies with the women however. The problem is that if we want to address the problem on the female side(as the picture on the previous page demonstrates), you are going to have to completely separate the sexes. Make sure that the YM don't have any interactions with the YW. Segregated schools, beaches, work places etc. Or we could just teach the men that their thoughts are their problem. Still waiting on you to back up your assertion that the consensus here is that modesty shouldn't be taught to YW. Just one post would be great. Thanks!
ERayR Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 It would seem the consensus here is that modesty isn't important and shouldn't be taught to young women. Or maybe that nothing should be taught to young women unless the topic is covered exactly the same to young women (I should probably be teaching my son that spaghetti strap are not appropriate) Or maybe we should not teach our children that anything is bad lest they should feel bad about themselves. Yep but then it has long (75-100 years) been the custom of my family to teach the young men of the family that it is immodest to go shirtless, in public, except when swimming.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 If it's true, what is wrong with saying it? I don't follow your conclusions, Just because the statement is true, doesn't mean we need to separate men and women. I don't think Elder Callister was advocating that. If the idea is to prevent women from arousing lustful feelings in men, why not take it to the ultimate solution? Why do we draw the line arbitrarily at the knees? Why not the ankles? If our measuring stick is having the women not cause any lustful thoughts why not just not comingle at all? How do you justify where you draw the line Danzo? Why is a skirt that goes to the knee okay now when it would have been considered obscene 150 years ago? Are the men today better able to resist temptation?
jkwilliams Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 If the idea is to prevent women from arousing lustful feelings in men, why not take it to the ultimate solution? Why do we draw the line arbitrarily at the knees? Why not the ankles? If our measuring stick is having the women not cause any lustful thoughts why not just not comingle at all? How do you justify where you draw the line Danzo? Why is a skirt that goes to the knee okay now when it would have been considered obscene 150 years ago? Are the men today better able to resist temptation? That's the problem: what is arousing is culturally defined, and like it or not, it changes. The only way to prevent all people from ever being aroused by your body is to wear a burqa. And even then there's probably someone out there with a burqa fetish. 2
Danzo Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 On the contrary, I think that it does. I don't think the solution lies with the women however. The problem is that if we want to address the problem on the female side(as the picture on the previous page demonstrates), Still waiting on you to back up your assertion that the consensus here is that modesty shouldn't be taught to YW. Just one post would be great. Thanks! I don't think (and I don't think Elder Callister is saying) "The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men." means that this is a problem with women, I think that he is acknowledging that such a "powerful impact" exists, and suggesting a way for women to use that "powerful impact" for good by being modest. "Power" is neutral, how it us used can be good or bad. We are judged by how we dress (whether right or wrong). When I show up to court, I dress in a suit because I know I will be unrighteously judged (and my client as well) by the way I dress.
Gray Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 I don't think (and I don't think Elder Callister is saying) "The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men." means that this is a problem with women, I think that he is acknowledging that such a "powerful impact" exists, and suggesting a way for women to use that "powerful impact" for good by being modest. "Power" is neutral, how it us used can be good or bad. We are judged by how we dress (whether right or wrong). When I show up to court, I dress in a suit because I know I will be unrighteously judged (and my client as well) by the way I dress. The impact is only as powerful as you think it is. People psych themselves out about this stuff, and it ends up spiraling, but that's really on the attitudes we teach young men, not about how women dress.
Danzo Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 If the idea is to prevent women from arousing lustful feelings in men, why not take it to the ultimate solution? Why do we draw the line arbitrarily at the knees? Why not the ankles? If our measuring stick is having the women not cause any lustful thoughts why not just not comingle at all? How do you justify where you draw the line Danzo? Why is a skirt that goes to the knee okay now when it would have been considered obscene 150 years ago? Are the men today better able to resist temptation? Why are you looking for lines and rules, why not be satisfied with the principle? The point is that women should be aware of the "powerful impact" and use it to their advantage (Eternal Advantage, that is)
The Nehor Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 That's the problem: what is arousing is culturally defined, and like it or not, it changes. The only way to prevent all people from ever being aroused by your body is to wear a burqa. And even then there's probably someone out there with a burqa fetish. Missed Lady Gaga's latest leaked song? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/lady-gaga-burqa_n_3805394.html
Danzo Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 The impact is only as powerful as you think it is. People psych themselves out about this stuff, and it ends up spiraling, but that's really on the attitudes we teach young men, not about how women dress. You should tell that to advertising executives. If what you say is true, then their industry is going to collapse.
bcuzbcuz Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 Any young man looking for a young woman that dresses modestly, at all times, need look no further than the millions of young women who take such behavior seriously, in any of the Islamic countries: Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia and a dozen other countries.
The Nehor Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 If the idea is to prevent women from arousing lustful feelings in men, why not take it to the ultimate solution? Why do we draw the line arbitrarily at the knees? Why not the ankles? 1
Gray Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 You should tell that to advertising executives. If what you say is true, then their industry is going to collapse. I'm not sure how that affects my statement.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) Why are you looking for lines and rules, why not be satisfied with the principle? The point is that women should be aware of the "powerful impact" and use it to their advantage (Eternal Advantage, that is)The point is that the principle that women should dress in a way as to not arouse the passions of men is an impossible standard. It is unobtainable. Period. Full stop. Unless we want women in burqa's (even these aren't bullet proof as shown by my photo), we are not going to get there. It also comes with all sorts of baggage that damages the psyche of some our young women. Now if the principle is that we should respect the temple that God has given us and dress appropriately, then that's an entirely different story. Still waiting on you to back up your assertion that the consensus here is that modesty shouldn't be taught to YW. Just one post would be great. Thanks! Edited February 18, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
Mystery Meat Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 The article in question frames women's modesty in terms of how it impacts men. I have repeatedly maintained that men are responsible for their own thoughts. But, please tell me why this can't be a consideration when discussing modest dress? Shouldn't we all be mindful of the effects our behavior has on others, even if those effected are ultimately responsible for their actions? Doesn't it seem like the Christ-like thing to do to adopt behavior (including how we dress) that makes it as easy as possible for our fellow brothers and sisters to make good choices and return to our Father in Heaven? Seriously, please, please, please tell me I am wrong. Yes, there is no doubt that women should dress modestly because 1. They respect God; 2. They respect themselves. But even if it is farther down the list can't we also teach that number 3 might be: 3. They respect men and want men to respect them for the right reasons? I know I am not alone on this, because I have talked with plenty of faithful brothers and men who are not members of the church, but when a woman shows up with her breasts hanging out and her gorgeous legs on display very few men see past those "distractions" and what they remember about her is her sexual prowess. She could have been the future first female president of the USA, a spiritual giant, and amazing mother of 3. However, what most men will walk with if she presents herself that way is, "Dang, that girl is fine." And even if we are able to get passed that (and I firmly believe we should) that still won't change our initial perception. I am sure a lot of guys on this board and some of the girls will get on here and say how vile and disgusting this is that men act like this and that they don't need to, but it is how God made man. We notice beauty. We enjoy seeing women. If I were a woman I would want men to respect me for everything I have to offer and not just my bustline or well shaped backside. Yes, there is no doubt it is nice to be pretty, but as a YSA I am looking for more then a pretty face and in my own world of experience girls who dress immodestly are typically nothing more then a pretty face.
Mystery Meat Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) Yes, there is no doubt that women should dress modestly because 1. They respect God; 2. They respect themselves. But even if it is farther down the list can't we also teach that number 3 might be: 3. They respect men and want men to respect them for the right reasons? I know I am not alone on this, because I have talked with plenty of faithful brothers and men who are not members of the church, but when a woman shows up with her breasts hanging out and her gorgeous legs on display very few men see past those "distractions" and what they remember about her is her sexual prowess. She could have been the future first female president of the USA, a spiritual giant, and amazing mother of 3. However, what most men will walk with if she presents herself that way is, "Dang, that girl is fine." And even if we are able to get passed that (and I firmly believe we should) that still won't change our initial perception. I am sure a lot of guys on this board and some of the girls will get on here and say how vile and disgusting this is that men act like this and that they don't need to, but it is how God made man. We notice beauty. We enjoy seeing women. If I were a woman I would want men to respect me for everything I have to offer and not just my bustline or well shaped backside. I will also add that men should not entertain impure thoughts, even if prompted by an immodestly dress girl because 1. They respect God; 2. The respect themselves; and 3. They respect women and don't view them as objects for sexual gratification. I don't think when you teach women about dressing modestly you need to also teach men about controlling their thoughts and vice versa. And just because Elder Callister didn't say what I posted above about the young men and men doesn't mean he doesn't believe it is true. In fact, I think he could have written an article about how controlling your thoughts and bridling your passions as a male may have a positive results for women in keeping the commandments. Edited February 18, 2014 by lvjd66
thesometimesaint Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 It's a bit more complicated than that. Humans are sexual creatures. We wouldn't last very long if we weren't. Now can that be taken to extremes? We LDS aren't known as extremists. Ideally we wear clothes not only for warmth, but that enhance our beauty or at least draw attention to our most expressive part our faces. Burqas and Bikinis do neither.
mercyngrace Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 Yeah.... women don't think like men at all.... 3
Yirgacheffe Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 Yeah.... women don't think like men at all.... Yeah that one or the Kraft Zesty Guy.
Calm Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) Women think about men differently from how men think about women? I thought every one knew this. This is futile.On top of this, do young men have an issue wearing short shorts or short skirts? Do men have an issue wearing shirts that show the tummy? Further more does men wearing a shirt that shoes the tummy have the same effect on a girl as it does a man if she were to were the shirt showing the tummy?I remember women lusting over Tom Selleck in his shorts and recently you could hear all the yum yums when Chris Hemsworth bared his chest and stomach.Given what I've heard over the years from women about men, if the point of modesty is not to arouse the other sex, the lessons should be given to young men as much as young women.Men's fashions come and go just as women's do but at a slower pace, I don't see why standards shouldn't be taught so that anytime in a man's life he thinks about dressing modestly just as a woman is taught. Edited February 18, 2014 by calmoriah 3
Calm Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) On the contrary, I think that it does. I don't think the solution lies with the women however. The problem is that if we want to address the problem on the female side(as the picture on the previous page demonstrates), you are going to have to completely separate the sexes. Make sure that the YM don't have any interactions with the YW. Segregated schools, beaches, work places etc. Or we could just teach the men that their thoughts are their problem.Still waiting on you to back up your assertion that the consensus here is that modesty shouldn't be taught to YW. Just one post would be great. Thanks!And then of course the Young Men still will have the same problem with the rest of the female world they encounter. For their own sake, emphasis should be on learning to control their thoughts. If that is done, then modesty can be taught to boys and girls from primarily a respect issue though I do think that they should also be taught that there is a good portion of the rest of the world that have no intent to control their thoughts and in fact delight in letting them out of control and they (both males and females) need to be aware and make choices to protect themselves to a reasonable extent. Edited February 18, 2014 by calmoriah 3
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 I have repeatedly maintained that men are responsible for their own thoughts. But, please tell me why this can't be a consideration when discussing modest dress? Shouldn't we all be mindful of the effects our behavior has on others, even if those effected are ultimately responsible for their actions? Doesn't it seem like the Christ-like thing to do to adopt behavior (including how we dress) that makes it as easy as possible for our fellow brothers and sisters to make good choices and return to our Father in Heaven? Seriously, please, please, please tell me I am wrong. There are a several issues with how this is currently taught, but I will give you three: First the excessive emphasis on women's dress and women being the object of men's desire (e.g. walking pornography) make it so that this is the primary focus of modesty (instead of the distant third that your reference). A second problem with including this is determining the boundary of what is modest. If covering the knees is good, why not the ankles? I will admit to being sexually attracted to women in a full length dress, so maybe we need a burqa to help some men keep their thoughts pure. On the previous page I shared a picture of men leering at a woman in a burqa so maybe women just need to stay at home to help the men? Please tell me where you set the boundary and why. When is a woman's dress no longer a contributor to your bad thoughts? A third problem is that it further serves to sexualize women and gives many girls self esteem issues. We have Friend articles discussing how sleeveless sun dresses on four-year-olds are immodest. My sister who is large chested felt dirty growing up because of her body shape and how it might be impacting those around her. Go to a mormon feminist blog and you will read many stories that are similar. Given all the issues is it worth it? Wouldn't it help the young men to stay the most pure if they just avoided any contact with the opposite gender all together?
Mystery Meat Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 There are a several issues with how this is currently taught, but I will give you three: First the excessive emphasis on women's dress and women being the object of men's desire (e.g. walking pornography) make it so that this is the primary focus of modesty (instead of the distant third that your reference). A second problem with including this is determining the boundary of what is modest. If covering the knees is good, why not the ankles? I will admit to being sexually attracted to women in a full length dress, so maybe we need a burqa to help some men keep their thoughts pure. On the previous page I shared a picture of men leering at a woman in a burqa so maybe women just need to stay at home to help the men? Please tell me where you set the boundary and why. When is a woman's dress no longer a contributor to your bad thoughts? A third problem is that it further serves to sexualize women and gives many girls self esteem issues. We have Friend articles discussing how sleeveless sun dresses on four-year-olds are immodest. My sister who is large chested felt dirty growing up because of her body shape and how it might be impacting those around her. Go to a mormon feminist blog and you will read many stories that are similar. Given all the issues is it worth it? Wouldn't it help the young men to stay the most pure if they just avoided any contact with the opposite gender all together? I have never felt it is the primary focus of modesty. And I don't have a problem with it being emphasized more then my other two points either if the speaker/author feels so inspired. Your second point is a good and fair question. I am not sure where I draw the line, but there is no doubt that culture norms play a huge role in shaping our feelings on the matter. I will say I have no problem adjusting the standard to fit the culture, and I feel like that the Lord would be okay with that too. I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching a young girl the importance of immodesty. I know many parents who do a good job with it without giving their kids awful complex's about their bodies. I am sorry your sister felt that way growing up and if anyone made her to feel that way intentionally they were wrong to do so. We should strive to teach men not to objectify women certainly even if they have certain features that are over sexualized society craves and values. In the world but not of the world comes to mind. I am assuming your last sentence is a purposeful exaggeration. If not, I don't think it does anything to prove any kind of point let alone make one. No one is suggesting that feelings of attraction are bad. Attraction is very, very good. Lust is bad. While the primarily (sole) responsibility is on the one doing the lusting, all that I am suggesting is that we as a cultural should have no problem adjusting our own behavior in order to help others be more Christlike, assuming of course we ourselves want to do so. The answer is not to separate men and women, I have not argued anything close to that, Elder Callister didn't either, nor has anyone else on this board. Those supporting at least the Spirit of Elder Callister's message are not proposing things that are just as impractical and ridiculous as you say, "keeping women home to help the men." Therefore, it is a strawman argument.
Recommended Posts