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

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

Sorry it was Danzo that said "I don't get your logic." And I meant no disrespect. I just didn't think I had been clear.

 

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

Does this include ambiguous actions like becoming walking pornography? At church we are frequently taught we are responsible for our influence on others (I provided two instances in my post above) do you agree with this?

 

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.

Are there any limits to this? I find it harder to focus at church when the women are wearing makeup and attractive dresses. Can I talk to the bishop about having them wear frumpy dresses and no makeup? If not, how is this different than teaching women that they need to dress modestly so as not to distract the men? Can I ask for burqas?

 

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.

Please pretend you are a young woman. You are told when you dress "immodestly" you are "becoming pornography to some of the men who see you." You are also told "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." How do you know if you are being immodest? How do you know if it is too low, too high or too tight? Is it by the response of others? My wife has tons of stories (and I suppose that most women do) about boys and men throughout high school and college that sexualized her. She did not wear short shorts or tight clothes. Was she being immodest? How can she tell? Should she have worn a burqa? Do you think it would help?

Edited February 19, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[MorningStar]

I don't have any expectations that young men and young women will be treated the same on this subject because we don't think the same.  I don't see the young men dressing immodestly at church like the young women do and there are a lot more fashion trends that they are more likely to fall into.  I watched a mom in my ward march her daughter out of sacrament meeting when she showed up dressed quite immodestly.  She had told her she would walk to church because she was running late, so she was shocked to see how she arrived. 

 

And I wish moms would stop wearing hooker pumps to church!  My heck.  Maybe it's my ward? It's church, not a catwalk!

[Danzo]

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.

 

We are responsible for our own thoughts. There is nothing a woman can do to prevent a man from having bad thoughts, there is nothing a man can do to prevent a woman from having bad thoughts.

 

However, a woman (or anyone else) can Influence someone else's thoughts (for good or bad). This influence can be through appearance, actions, dress, behavior and words.   

 

Do we disagree?

[Gray]

We are responsible for our own thoughts. There is nothing a woman can do to prevent a man from having bad thoughts, there is nothing a man can do to prevent a woman from having bad thoughts.

 

However, a woman (or anyone else) can Influence someone else's thoughts (for good or bad). This influence can be through appearance, actions, dress, behavior and words.   

 

Do we disagree?

 

A woman can influence someone else's thoughts just by existing 

[Mystery Meat]

A woman can influence someone else's thoughts just by existing 

 

Agreed. But that changes none of the arguments that have been made in the slightest.

[Mystery Meat]

Sorry it was Danzo that said "I don't get your logic." And I meant no disrespect. I just didn't think I had been clear.

 

Does this include ambiguous actions like becoming walking pornography? At church we are frequently taught we are responsible for our influence on others (I provided two instances in my post above) do you agree with this?

 

Are there any limits to this? I find it harder to focus at church when the women are wearing makeup and attractive dresses. Can I talk to the bishop about having them wear frumpy dresses and no makeup? If not, how is this different than teaching women that they need to dress modestly so as not to distract the men? Can I ask for burqas?

 

Please pretend you are a young woman. You are told when you dress "immodestly" you are "becoming pornography to some of the men who see you." You are also told "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." How do you know if you are being immodest? How do you know if it is too low, too high or too tight? Is it by the response of others? My wife has tons of stories (and I suppose that most women do) about boys and men throughout high school and college that sexualized her. She did not wear short shorts or tight clothes. Was she being immodest? How can she tell? Should she have worn a burqa? Do you think it would help?

 

At this point we are just talking past each other.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Agreed. But that changes none of the arguments that have been made in the slightest.

Yes it does. What you refuse to acknowledge is that the same arguments you think are relevant to women wearing clothes to the knee can and are used in different places to restrict women's access to schools, businesses even places of worship.

[Danzo]

Yes it does. What you refuse to acknowledge is that the same arguments you think are relevant to women wearing clothes to the knee can and are used in different places to restrict women's access to schools, businesses even places of worship.

 

The fact that an argument can be misused doesn't make it untrue, or irrelevant. 

 

No one here is proposing those things, why do you continue to argue that we are proposing them.

 

According to your logic, all arguments that have been misused in the past are automatically invalid.  If that were the case there could be no such thing as a valid argument.

 

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

Edited February 19, 2014 by Danzo

[cinepro]

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

 

Sadly (and ironically), you just described most of the young women's leaders in my ward.

[Yirgacheffe]

I don't have any expectations that young men and young women will be treated the same on this subject because we don't think the same.  I don't see the young men dressing immodestly at church like the young women do and there are a lot more fashion trends that they are more likely to fall into.  I watched a mom in my ward march her daughter out of sacrament meeting when she showed up dressed quite immodestly.  She had told her she would walk to church because she was running late, so she was shocked to see how she arrived. 

 

And I wish moms would stop wearing hooker pumps to church!  My heck.  Maybe it's my ward? It's church, not a catwalk!

Maybe you're the only one who sees them as "hooker pumps", why does it bother you, the shoes that other women choose to wear.

[MorningStar]

Maybe you're the only one who sees them as "hooker pumps", why does it bother you, the shoes that other women choose to wear.

Because they look like hooker apparel (I'm not the only one who feels this way).  And we're at church.  And they're supposed to be an example to young women. 

[bluebell]

Because they look like hooker apparel (I'm not the only one who feels this way).  And we're at church.  And they're supposed to be an example to young women. 

 

You're definitely not the only one who get's bugged by those kinds of shoes.

 

What's worse than seeing 2 inch platform, 6 inch heel shoes on grown women in church is seeing them on 13 and 14 year olds in church.  It's not sinful of course, but that doesn't mean it's not tacky!  

[hoo rider]

Because they look like hooker apparel (I'm not the only one who feels this way).  And we're at church.  And they're supposed to be an example to young women. 

 

Sorry, but you're way off base if you think wearing a high-heeled shoe is a bad example for young women.  The beam and the mote come to mind.  

[MorningStar]

You're definitely not the only one who get's bugged by those kinds of shoes.

 

What's worse than seeing 2 inch platform, 6 inch heel shoes on grown women in church is seeing them on 13 and 14 year olds in church.  It's not sinful of course, but that doesn't mean it's not tacky!  

Yes, way tacky.  The whole point of pumps is to make your legs look sexy.  Church isn't the time for sexy.  Go be sexy at home.  I agree that men need to control their thoughts, but it's really unfair that they can't even go to church without having to avert their eyes!  Really, the only safe place is the temple.

[Gray]

"Judge not according to the appearance" should really stop these sorts of articles from ever being published. Unfortunately we have an unhealthy culture of judging based on superficiality and not on actual character.

[MorningStar]

Sorry, but you're way off base if you think wearing a high-heeled shoe is a bad example for young women.  The beam and the mote come to mind.  

I'm not talking about high heels.  I'm talking about hooker pumps.  There are formal high heels and there are hooker pumps. 

[Gray]

Yes, way tacky.  The whole point of pumps is to make your legs look sexy.  Church isn't the time for sexy.  Go be sexy at home.  I agree that men need to control their thoughts, but it's really unfair that they can't even go to church without having to avert their eyes!  Really, the only safe place is the temple.

 

Worrying overmuch about the appearance of women in every day life isn't very healthy. I know I developed some of these unhealthy attitudes on my mission. If you can find a way to let it go then suddenly you're not bothered by anything you're likely to see in public.

 

The only place that isn't "safe" for me is a  nude beach, and those are easy enough to avoid. 

 

Being offended because someone is wearing high heels or a short skirt is participating in the objectification of women, only coming at it from the other side.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Gray

[ERayR]

It appears that Brother Brigham saw this and was greatly disturbed.

 

Brigham Young understood this trend, namely, that the desire for unity with society would often come at the expense of righteousness. As recorded in the journal of Mosiah Hancock, Brother Brigham “said that he dreaded the time when the Saints would become popular with the world”—we might say become united with the world—“for he had seen in sorrow, in a dream, or in dreams, this people clothed in the fashions of Babylon and drinking in the spirit of Babylon until one could hardly tell a Saint from a black-leg. And he felt like shouting, ‘To your tents, Oh Israel!’ because it was the only thing that could keep the people pure.” Brigham continued:

Many of this people for the sake of riches and popularity, will sell themselves for that which will canker their souls and lead them down to misery and despair. It would be better for them to dwell in wigwams among the Indians than to dwell with the gentiles and miss the glories which God wishes them to obtain. I wish my families would see the point and come forth before it is too late. For oh, I can see a tendency in my families to hug the moth-eaten customs of Babylon to their bosoms. This is far more hurtful to them than the deadly viper; for the poisons of the viper can be healed by the power of God, but the customs of Babylon will be hard to get rid of.

[MorningStar]

Worrying overmuch about the appearance of women in every day life isn't very healthy. I know I developed some of these unhealthy attitudes on my mission. If you can find a way to let it go then suddenly you're not bothered by anything you're likely to see in public.

 

The only place that isn't "safe" for me is a  nude beach, and those are easy enough to avoid. 

 

Being offended because someone is wearing high heels or a short skirt is participating in the objectification of women, only coming at it from the other side.

No, we need to teach the young women to dress appropriately for church and the moms dressing inappropriately is not helpful.  My daughter and I will probably be having difficult conversations in less than 10 years and it would sure be helpful if her YW leaders weren't dressing inappropriately. 

[Gray]

No, we need to teach the young women to dress appropriately for church and the moms dressing inappropriately is not helpful.  My daughter and I will probably be having difficult conversations in less than 10 years and it would sure be helpful if her YW leaders weren't dressing inappropriately. 

 

There is a way to do that without crossing into unhealthy territory. Currently as a culture we have an unhealthy obsession with "modesty"

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The fact that an argument can be misused doesn't make it untrue, or irrelevant. 

 

No one here is proposing those things, why do you continue to argue that we are proposing them.

 

According to your logic, all arguments that have been misused in the past are automatically invalid.  If that were the case there could be no such thing as a valid argument.

 

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

If you can explain to me why you think the line should be drawn at the knees and not the ankles I'm listening.

[thesometimesaint]

 

It appears that Brother Brigham saw this and was greatly disturbed.

 

Brigham Young understood this trend, namely, that the desire for unity with society would often come at the expense of righteousness. As recorded in the journal of Mosiah Hancock, Brother Brigham “said that he dreaded the time when the Saints would become popular with the world”—we might say become united with the world—“for he had seen in sorrow, in a dream, or in dreams, this people clothed in the fashions of Babylon and drinking in the spirit of Babylon until one could hardly tell a Saint from a black-leg. And he felt like shouting, ‘To your tents, Oh Israel!’ because it was the only thing that could keep the people pure.” Brigham continued:

Many of this people for the sake of riches and popularity, will sell themselves for that which will canker their souls and lead them down to misery and despair. It would be better for them to dwell in wigwams among the Indians than to dwell with the gentiles and miss the glories which God wishes them to obtain. I wish my families would see the point and come forth before it is too late. For oh, I can see a tendency in my families to hug the moth-eaten customs of Babylon to their bosoms. This is far more hurtful to them than the deadly viper; for the poisons of the viper can be healed by the power of God, but the customs of Babylon will be hard to get rid of.

 

 

Brother Brigham was also appalled that ballet dancers didn't wear long dresses. 

[MorningStar]

There is a way to do that without crossing into unhealthy territory. Currently as a culture we have an unhealthy obsession with "modesty"

And some people obsessively seek for attention by dressing inappropriately.  There needs to be a balance and there are women who cross the line.  We had a teenager who was dressing like Christina Aguilera and it was very obscene looking.  I don't think it's too much to ask to dress respectully at church. 

[ERayR]

There is a way to do that without crossing into unhealthy territory. Currently as a culture we have an unhealthy obsession with "modesty"

 

On whose authority do you so regally claim we have "an unhealthy obsession with "modesty""  There are a goodly number of sane rational people who would disagree with you.

[hoo rider]

No, we need to teach the young women to dress appropriately for church and the moms dressing inappropriately is not helpful.  My daughter and I will probably be having difficult conversations in less than 10 years and it would sure be helpful if her YW leaders weren't dressing inappropriately. 

 

I think this really shows a major flaw with the way we teach and talk about modesty.  It has become a "check-the-box" commandment, so there isn't much thought into what is modest and what is immodest beyond checking the boxes.  Unfortunately, we as saints seems to love this sort of thinking because it makes it easy for us to judge others.  

 

I think modesty depends on the situation.  What is modest at the beach may not be modest at church.  What is modest for prom may not be modest for church.  Seems like the "hooker pump" shoes fall into that category.  I would say hooker pump shoes are immodest for church not because they show too much skin (which is the usual concern about modesty), but because they unduly call attention to themselves.  Those same shoes might be entirely appropriate for a nice evening out with your spouse.