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

[Danzo]

 

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).

 

 

I don't think the emphasis is excessive.

 

 

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? 

 

Boundary? covering? I think you are exagerating much. The only "boundry" I know of in the church refers to those who have gone to the temple, and covering garments.  I don't think you need to worry about the church advocating Burkas.

 

 

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. 

 

You are completely wrong here.  I don't get your logic. Dressing modestly actually decreases sexualization of girls (Nothing encourages sexualization more than dressing in a sexualized way), and dressing modestly increases self esteem.

 

Believe me, I have lived in places where no standards are taught and young women seem to be more sexualized (hard to believe, I know!).  And (amazingly!)  the self esteem was even less because of it.

[Mystery Meat]

 

Believe me, I have lived in places where no standards are taught and young women seem to be more sexualized (hard to believe, I know!).  And (amazingly!)  the self esteem was even less because of it.

 

This tracks with my experiences as well.

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

This brings to mind the recent furor over a good Christian mother's blog post that made the headlines.  In the blog the Mother sent a request to all the young women out there to quit posting immodest "selfies" on their facebooks/instagrams/twitters etc.  She said that she was trying to raise her sons a certain way and that she would use her parental oversight to block/unfriend or whatever any young woman who posted such a picture for her son.

 

The irony - her blog page had numerous photographs of her strapping teenage sons shirtless in swim shorts playing on a beach.  Wow did she get lambasted for her double standard (she changed the pictures right away).  But Cal's point is a valid one.  Young men should be held to the same standards of modesty as young women and taught correctly just as our daughters are.  And the complaint about these kinds of  articles seems to be really less about the modesty recommendations and more about the double standard that's applied.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

Let me restate.

Here is my understanding of your argument:

a:Women doing "x" increases the likelihood of men lusting after them.

b:We should therefore teach women that when they do "x", they are contributing to men's problems - i.e. becoming walking pornography. Hence they should not do "x"

If I misunderstand where you are coming from let me know.

Here is my arguement:

1. Premise b is harmful to women. It sexualizes them, creates body image problems for them, makes them feel guilt for something they are not responsible for.
2. The goals of modest dress can be accomplished without premise b by teaching men and women to repect the temple of God that they have been given. Since premise b is harmful and unnecessary it should be discarded.

In addition (and this is where I am losing you apparently) premise a and b can be, have been, and continue to be used to oppress women all over the world.  You say "x" = dress immodestly where immodest is a standard that changes to "fit the culture." In certain muslim countries, x="attend any function at the same time as men" and therefore they teach that women should not attend any function with men present. Do you agree with this application of your premise a and b? If so why not? How does it not follow from the same logic?

 

Lets try closer to home. Let's say I was in college at BYU and my roommates and I had a conversation amongst ourselves about how the painted toenails at church and around our complex were very distracting for us. Even turning us on. We figure if this is a problem for us, it might be affecting other males in the ward and find out that it does. We approach the bishop with our problem. Applying premise a and b above is the bishop justified in asking the women to cover their toes at church and around our apartment complex? If no then why not. Where is my logic breaking down?

Edited February 18, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I don't think the emphasis is excessive.

 

 

 

Boundary? covering? I think you are exagerating much. The only "boundry" I know of in the church refers to those who have gone to the temple, and covering garments.  I don't think you need to worry about the church advocating Burkas.

 

 

 

You are completely wrong here.  I don't get your logic. Dressing modestly actually decreases sexualization of girls (Nothing encourages sexualization more than dressing in a sexualized way), and dressing modestly increases self esteem.

 

Believe me, I have lived in places where no standards are taught and young women seem to be more sexualized (hard to believe, I know!).  And (amazingly!)  the self esteem was even less because of it.

Danzo, were you going to respond to my repeated request to provide a quote from someone in this thread who was advocating that we not teach modesty to our young women? 

Edited February 18, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You are completely wrong here.  I don't get your logic. Dressing modestly actually decreases sexualization of girls (Nothing encourages sexualization more than dressing in a sexualized way), and dressing modestly increases self esteem.

And you misread me. I didn't say dressing modestly increased sexualization of girls. I am all for dressing modestly. What I did say was that teaching girls that their bodies are causing sexual problems for the men sexualizes their bodies.

[Danzo]

Danzo, were you going to respond to my repeated request to provide a quote from someone in this thread who was advocating that we not teach modesty to our young women? 

I got that impression from the negative reactions to this instance of the teaching of modesty.

 

lets start with post number 1,3, 7, 15, 19,40, 43, 45

 

There are probably other posts as well that seem to me to be a negative reaction to the teaching of modesty.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I got that impression from the negative reactions to this instance of the teaching of modesty.

 

lets start with post number 1,3, 7, 15, 19,40, 43, 45

 

There are probably other posts as well that seem to me to be a negative reaction to the teaching of modesty.

Did you miss this in post 1?

 

 

As the father of an 11-year-old girl I of course encourage her to dress modestly. 

 

Can you provide just a sentence from one of those posts you sited stating they don't think modesty should be taught? Or perhaps you want to retract your unfounded accusation?

[mercyngrace]

You know --- I had more to add to this conversation but I keep stopping to watch the Diet Coke commercial.

 

So ...

 

distracted....

[Mystery Meat]

Let me restate.

Here is my understanding of your argument:

a:Women doing "x" increases the likelihood of men lusting after them.

b:We should therefore teach women that when they do "x", they are contributing to men's problems - i.e. becoming walking pornography. Hence they should not do "x"

If I misunderstand where you are coming from let me know.

Here is my arguement:

1. Premise b is harmful to women. It sexualizes them, creates body image problems for them, makes them feel guilt for something they are not responsible for.
2. The goals of modest dress can be accomplished without premise b by teaching men and women to repect the temple of God that they have been given. Since premise b is harmful and unnecessary it should be discarded.

In addition (and this is where I am losing you apparently) premise a and b can be, have been, and continue to be used to oppress women all over the world.  You say "x" = dress immodestly where immodest is a standard that changes to "fit the culture." In certain muslim countries, x="attend any function at the same time as men" and therefore they teach that women should not attend any function with men present. Do you agree with this application of your premise a and b? If so why not? How does it not follow from the same logic?

 

First, you are not "losing" me anywhere. I understand your arguments, I simply disagree with them. Here is what I am saying:

 

a. men and women should be held accountable for their own actions.

 

b. as disciples of Christ we should not only do everything we can to make it easier not harder, for those around us to draw nearer to Him, we should be aware of which actions affect others and how.

 

c. in the case of modesty, women should be encouraged to dress modestly out of respect for God and themselves AND out of respect for those around them.

 

d. girls should also be taught to love and embrace their bodies and not be ashamed of them. This can be done while still applying point c.

 

e. men should be taught (and in our Church they are taught) that they should control their thoughts.

 

f. Men and women should be given opportunity to interact one with another, to date, fall in love, etc. 

 

That should answer all of you questions. Each and everyone of these things can be done together. They are not exclusive principals. A woman who is taught to be modest and the potential effect immodesty could have on a young man (or grown man), does not have to be ashamed of her body. Nor is it sexualization. Quite the opposite. 

[Danzo]

And you misread me. I didn't say dressing modestly increased sexualization of girls. I am all for dressing modestly. What I did say was that teaching girls that their bodies are causing sexual problems for the men sexualizes their bodies.

 

"Their bodies are causing sexual problems for the men"

 

Either this statement is true or it is false.  

 

If it is true, then the ones with the problem are men, not women. 

 

If the statement is false, we really don't need to worry about anything.

 

Recognizing that X causes (or in this case influences) Y is not saying that X is responsible for Y.

 

Because women and men often interact, it is very useful for women (and men) to be aware of any effect they cause others. By being aware of that effect they can have more control over their situation. If you close your eyes and pretend there is no effect, you lose what control you have. 

[Danzo]

 

Did you miss this in post 1?

 

Can you provide just a sentence from one of those posts you sited stating they don't think modesty should be taught? Or perhaps you want to retract your unfounded accusation?

 

 

I don't want to make other poster's intentions the topic of my posts.

 

I just want to make the observation that it seems the teaching of modesty and chastity seemed to set off some negative comments. 

 

This lead me to a (perhaps unwarranted) conclusion that teaching modesty and chastity was something that many here don't want to be taught.

 

I personally found the article uplifted and timely.  Could it have been said better? perhaps, but you could say that about any speaker on any topic. I saw nothing in the article that was especially shocking and offensive.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Danzo

[cinepro]

"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?

 

Honestly, it's really dependent on how hot she is.  

 

Can someone clarify if we're only talking about hot chicks when it comes to immodesty, or if we are supposed to pretend all women are equally alluring in spaghetti straps?

[Calm]

"Their bodies are causing sexual problems for the men"

Either this statement is true or it is false.

If it is true, then the ones with the problem are men, not women.

If the statement is false, we really don't need to worry about anything.

Recognizing that X causes (or in this case influences) Y is not saying that X is responsible for Y.

Because women and men often interact, it is very useful for women (and men) to be aware of any effect they cause others. By being aware of that effect they can have more control over their situation. If you close your eyes and pretend there is no effect, you lose what control you have.

"Cause" is defined as "responsible for"

The accurate way of saying what I believe you mean is many men and boys allow their seeing women in a certain way to affect themselves inappropriately.

Yes, it is wisdom to know what triggers are created by a particular culture, but recognising the connotations a culture may impose on something is not the same thing as saying that something caused it.

It is similar to the debate of gun control. Guns don't kill people, people do, etc. etc. Does one prevent killing best by attempting to remove guns (have women dress modestly) or by teaching people to love one's neighbour so there is no desire to kill AND teach gun safety so people don't use guns carelessly (teaching others to see all others as children of God and not as objects). In the first case one is trying to control others by removing what is used as the vehicle of temptation, in the second one is attempting to remove the source of temptation, the natural man/woman.

In the long run only the second will work, the first is a stop gap measure that sinners will adapt to and simply shift their behaviour to accommodate...for guns, this may be finding them through illegal means or finding other weapons to harm others, for modesty it simply means that culture will shift to looking at more modest attire in a sexual way.

Reality being what it is if we want to create a Zion people we need to teach people to control their thoughts so they have no wish to harm others either through violence or thinking of them in a sexual manner. It won't work to attempt to put someone else beyond the reach of temptation. They can only do that for themselves. Reality being what it is if we also want to help protect each other, we need to teach what others may have as triggers for inappropriate thoughts...but that is different than teaching that we are responsible for another's thoughts.

Edited February 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[Danzo]

"Cause" is defined as "responsible for"

The accurate way of saying what I believe you mean is many men and boys allow their seeing women in a certain way to affect themselves inappropriately.

Yes, it is wisdom to know what triggers are created by a particular culture, but recognising the connotations a culture may impose on something is not the same thing as saying that something caused it.

It is similar to the debate of gun control. Guns don't kill people, people do, etc. etc. Does one prevent killing best by attempting to remove guns (have women dress modestly) or by teaching people to love one's neighbour so there is no desire to kill AND teach gun safety so people don't use guns carelessly (teaching others to see all others as children of God and not as objects). In the first case one is trying to control others by removing what is used as the vehicle of temptation, in the second one is attempting to remove the source of temptation, the natural man/woman.

In the long run only the second will work, the first is a stop gap measure that sinners will adapt to and simply shift their behaviour to accommodate...for guns, this may be finding them through illegal means or finding other weapons to harm others, for modesty it simply means that culture will shift to looking at more modest attire in a sexual way.

Reality being what it is if we want to create a Zion people we need to teach people to control their thoughts so they have no wish to harm others either through violence or thinking of them in a sexual manner. It won't work to attempt to put someone else beyond the reach of temptation. They can only do that for themselves. Reality being what it is if we also want to help protect each other, we need to teach what others may have as triggers for inappropriate thoughts...but that is different than teaching that we are responsible for another's thoughts.

 

I was using SeekingUnderstanding's words in my quote above.

 

I believe the correct word is "influences"

 

What women do (wear, act etc) influences male behavior (and vice versa).

 

Maybe that is not how it should be, but that is how it is.  Billions of dollars of advertising success are evidence of that fact.

 

If we understand the influence, we can use the influence for good or for bad.  It does not absolve us of the respectability for controlling our thoughts and actions, Indeed, recognizing what influences us is a necessary step in controlling our thoughts and actions.

As not all of us are not perfect in controlling our thoughts and actions yet, sometimes it can help if others, who recognize this influence, and love us, help us. After all, we are our brothers keepers.

 

In a certain city where I used to live, it was a well known fact that staying north of a certain street would greatly reduce ones risk of being a victim of crime.  That information didn't absolve the people who lived south of that street from responsibility for committing crime. It did not make the victims of crimes committed responsible for those crimes.  II't didn't guarantee that a person who stayed north of the street would never be a victim. But it was useful information for people who wanted to avoid being a victim.

 

Likewise, dressing immodestly doesn't make a woman responsible for a man's bad thoughts and actions, it doesn't absolve the man in the least, I don't even think it is a mitigating factor. But knowing that dress can influence men's thoughts and behavior can be useful information for the woman who doesn't want a man to have bad thoughts and actions.

[Calm]

I was with you until the last sentence.

The idea that a woman can prevent a man from having "bad thoughts" and acting inappropriately is faulty.

One needs to be very careful to phrase the teachings so that impression isn't given. It can create not only a false sense of responsibility (I was date raped because my skirt was an inch above my knees) but a false sense of security (I am safe because my skirt is right at my knees and everything else I am wearing wont cause a man to think of me sexually).

[Tacenda]

And you misread me. I didn't say dressing modestly increased sexualization of girls. I am all for dressing modestly. What I did say was that teaching girls that their bodies are causing sexual problems for the men sexualizes their bodies.

Hear, hear!

A lot of this brings to mind a quote by either BY or someone, not remembering, that said they need polygamy to keep men from having affairs. So it seems to me, there is a problem when people say that it's up to the girl/woman to help keep the boy/man's thoughts pure. As if in both scenarios, men lack self control. I don't buy it.

[Tacenda]

I was with you until the last sentence.

The idea that a woman can prevent a man from having "bad thoughts" and acting inappropriately is faulty.

One needs to be very careful to phrase the teachings so that impression isn't given. It can create not only a false sense of responsibility (I was date raped because my skirt was an inch above my knees) but a false sense of security (I am safe because my skirt is right at my knees and everything else I am wearing wont cause a man to think of me sexually).

I agree!! And I think rape has everything to do with someone wanting power. Also, we are getting to the point that women showing too much skin is akin to being a slut. So wrong.

[The Nehor]

Honestly, it's really dependent on how hot she is.  

 

Can someone clarify if we're only talking about hot chicks when it comes to immodesty, or if we are supposed to pretend all women are equally alluring in spaghetti straps?

 

What are creepy are the middle-aged to old women trying to dress like teenagers. I would rather deal with sexual attraction then revulsion. TIA

[The Nehor]

I agree!! And I think rape has everything to do with someone wanting power. Also, we are getting to the point that women showing too much skin is akin to being a slut. So wrong.

 

We aren't getting there. We have been there for several centuries. This is not a new concept.

[Yirgacheffe]

It is similar to the debate of gun control. Guns don't kill people, people do, etc. etc. Does one prevent killing best by attempting to remove guns (have women dress modestly) or by teaching people to love one's neighbour so there is no desire to kill AND teach gun safety so people don't use guns carelessly (teaching others to see all others as children of God and not as objects). In the first case one is trying to control others by removing what is used as the vehicle of temptation, in the second one is attempting to remove the source of temptation, the natural man/woman.

 

 

It's also like the issue with TV, those who want no swearing or nudity or violence on TV won't take responsibility for the box in their home themselves and want someone else to impose their standards for them.  It's lazy, it doesn't work for the reasons Cal said and also because not everyone has the same standards.  The helpless young men that need to be protected from immodest women are just going to be out of luck, lot's of women out there in spaghetti straps, halters, bikinis and so on.  Heck,no one ever questions showing shoulders and knees.  Can't expect the people around you to control your thoughts for you, you have to learn to do it yourself.

[sunstoned]

This article was the subject of a channel 2 news report tonight.  It seems that many people are upset over it. 

 

http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_9739.shtml

Edited February 19, 2014 by sunstoned

[slamarwi]

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.

 or the same work place! I think that it is a great idea! 

[slamarwi]

 

Did you miss this in post 1?

 

 

 

 

Can you provide just a sentence from one of those posts you sited stating they don't think modesty should be taught? Or perhaps you want to retract your unfounded accusation?

 

I have to agree with Danzo.

 

Because of the utter disdain for men and their (honest) reaction to immodesty in this thread, it would seem that modesty shouldn't be taught at all. Or if it is taught, it should only be by the same gender for the improved self esteem of those being taught - really?

 

Good grief, the natural man is an enemy to God and so is the natural woman. Maybe we can all step back and ask ourselves "how can I dress and act more modestly and set a good example for others" rather than criminalize a GA's  poor choice of words.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

"Their bodies are causing sexual problems for the men"

 

Either this statement is true or it is false.  

 

If it is true, then the ones with the problem are men, not women. 

 

If the statement is false, we really don't need to worry about anything.

Recognizing that X causes (or in this case influences) Y is not saying that X is responsible for Y.

Yes it is. At least partially responsible for. The word that Elder Callister uses is "prompt" which is defined as "cause or bring about." Parents at the church are told that they are to influence their kids to choose good (if they don't they have sinned). We are told to try to influence others to come to Christ and if we slack in this duty we have quotes like this: "If you do not magnify your callings, God will hold you responsible for those whom you might have saved had you done your duty." Clearly in this church we are accountable for the way we influence others.

Because women and men often interact, it is very useful for women (and men) to be aware of any effect they cause others. By being aware of that effect they can have more control over their situation. If you close your eyes and pretend there is no effect, you lose what control you have.

So why don't we tell women not to wear makeup? Why do we allow them to go swimming with the men (if too much leg or tight clothing is causing them to sin, shouldn't we be avoiding this type of situation). Why don't we tell women to stop exercising so they become less attractive? The fact of the matter is that no matter how a women dresses, she can still "influence" a man to become aroused. This creates unneeded guilt and shame in the woman that doesn't belong there.