Emphasis on Modesty=Rape Culture in Utah

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 

Both you and Tacenda are trying to branch out into arguing with me that immodesty does not give excuse for assault.

No, I am not.  

I suspect most everyone posting in this thread is tired of their comments being taken the wrong way.  And I think I have hit my limit of wanting to reexplain what I mean.  In addition, I have, I believe, invested enough time and effort into responding to demonstrate I take posters' concerns seriously and am not blowing anyone off, but I have got to step out of the conversation as I can't devote a satisfying amount of attention to it without going way over what I should be allowing myself right now.  I am feeling great and need to take full advantage of it while I have it in order to tide the family over the lean times that are likely to come back (I operate on Joseph of Egypt's method, use the fat years to store up for the lean ones though it is more like weeks than years).

[Stargazer]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Speaking the words that none dare speak at the peril of their lives. You swim in the deep, deep waters, brother. Watch for the sharks as they will surely want to eat you alive. Dare I say this is the reason for modesty rules in dress codes? No. I dare not say it.

I think it was Elder Packer, he of the thankless conference talks, who said something like, "You can't keep the birds from circling around your head, but you can keep them from nesting in your hair." Constant vigilance Is mandatory.

Yes, the sharks are already circling.  In case you hadn't noticed.

I searched and couldn't find an Elder Packer quote about that, but my mission president told us Elders in 1973 that "you can't keep the birds from flying over your heads, but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair."  Almost the same thing.  Maybe Elder Packer got it from him.

[Honorentheos]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Why is it so bloody hard to get across the notion that a normally-interested, sexually aware, human male is easily made interested in sexually mature females?  Why is there so much outrage over the request that you sexually mature females cover yourself up a bit more than perhaps you are wont to do, so as to not make it harder for the the poor male who is trying to follow the Lord's admonition, to not look upon a woman to lust after her, to be comfortable to be in your presence?  Are you completely oblivious to the fact that one of the precursors to sexual activity is the removal of clothing and exposure of the body?  And that when clothing is coyly pulled back to bare just enough skin so as to almost but not quite uncover sexually interesting portions, it is extremely enticing?  That's what the Lord was talking about when he said to put out your eyes if they offend you.

Not asking for you ladies to wear a burka.  I just don't think it's unreasonable to request that you avoid showing off too much of your cleavage, and make your dress come down to perhaps a bit below mid-thigh so I don't have to desperately look elsewhere to avoid viewing your netherparts if you happen to bend over.

Someone is bound to be outraged about this post of mine.  I can't wait.  Come on, tell me all about it.

Nothing to be outraged over. But it does illustrate two sides of the issue well. First, you are responsible for your thoughts and what you do with them Second, your culture is failing you by providing a poor narrative to navigate life which is exaggerating something into a matter of no consequence into a matter of eternal concern. If any normal thought is a perversion it makes objects and perverts out of everone, and that's not a healthy frame of mind.

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, I am not.  

I suspect most everyone posting in this thread is tired of their comments being taken the wrong way.  And I think I have hit my limit of wanting to reexplain what I mean.  In addition, I have, I believe, invested enough time and effort into responding to demonstrate I take posters' concerns seriously and am not blowing anyone off, but I have got to step out of the conversation as I can't devote a satisfying amount of attention to it without going way over what I should be allowing myself right now.  I am feeling great and need to take full advantage of it while I have it in order to tide the family over the lean times that are likely to come back (I operate on Joseph of Egypt's method, use the fat years to store up for the lean ones though it is more like weeks than years).

I know I am.  Because it keeps happening to me.

Excuse me, all I said was that it was the rule in Western culture that men keep their hands off, unless invited.  You responded with statistics that showed that people weren't keeping to the rule, with the 1 in 5 women being sexually assaulted  in their lives.  Well, I started off and wrote about three hundred words responding to this, saying that exceptions don't disprove rules, when I suddenly realized that I was being led off my point in a direction I hadn't wanted to go -- since I was talking about inappropriate thoughts, not sexual assault.  So I deleted those three hundred words.  I was talking about inappropriate thoughts, and both you and Tacenda responded by going off on sexual assault.  I am pretty sure that you, Calm, weren't trying to drive me off point on purpose, so perhaps I shouldn't have included you with Tacenda.  And perhaps she didn't intend to toss a straw man at me, either, but that's how it came out.

And by the way, just saying this as a general comment, not directed at anyone in particular: only an idiot makes the claim that immodest dress incites or justifies sexual assault.  An idiot or a pervert.  And I was not making any such claim.

I'm supposed to be getting ready to fly to England on Friday, and here I am posting long comments nobody is going to read.  I am going to step out of this conversation now, too.

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Stargazer

[Meadowchik]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I do think it is helpful to flip the female modesty "obsession" on its head: what is up with society's obsession with female immodesty? Why are so many clothes for girls made with less material and less coverage than for boys? Even t-shirts are smaller, shorter.  Why is it so fashionable for girls to dress in tighter, more revealing clothes when such expectation for boys is rare and even nonexistant?

We cannot have a reasonable discussion about the sexism in Mormon modesty culture if we don't acknowledge the pervasive sexism in the larger culture demanding female immodesty, imo.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

Self discipline.

He should have been told he was responsible for his thoughts and if he can't be, he has a problem that needs resolved for which he is responsible.

If the argument is that his parent culture provides an excuse to deflect his own responsibility for what he does with his own thoughts, that cultural behaviour would be part of the problem as well.

How do you know he wasn't told that?

I don't recall ever being taught that I was not responsible for my own thoughts, that I could excuse them, or that I could deflect responsibility for them. This is forcefully made clear in all our scriptures and in manuals and conference talks.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Why is it so bloody hard to get across the notion that a normally-interested, sexually aware, human male is easily made interested in sexually mature females?  Why is there so much outrage over the request that you sexually mature females cover yourself up a bit more than perhaps you are wont to do, so as to not make it harder for the the poor male who is trying to follow the Lord's admonition, to not look upon a woman to lust after her, to be comfortable to be in your presence?  Are you completely oblivious to the fact that one of the precursors to sexual activity is the removal of clothing and exposure of the body?  And that when clothing is coyly pulled back to bare just enough skin so as to almost but not quite uncover sexually interesting portions, it is extremely enticing?  That's what the Lord was talking about when he said to put out your eyes if they offend you.

Not asking for you ladies to wear a burka.  I just don't think it's unreasonable to request that you avoid showing off too much of your cleavage, and make your dress come down to perhaps a bit below mid-thigh so I don't have to desperately look elsewhere to avoid viewing your netherparts if you happen to bend over.

Someone is bound to be outraged about this post of mine.  I can't wait.  Come on, tell me all about it.

I warned you about swimming in deep waters. I would venture to say most boys men reading your somewhat energetic explanation would discretely nod their heads, but also would hesitate saying so out loud. We all seem to tippy toe around this. I also say that many women would not have a clue what you are talking about or would label you a troglodyte.

Nevertheless, it is reasonable to say the ease with which men can be distracted is part of their nature and forms the real basis for the modesty clauses in dress codes. I would appreciate any rebutting comments. There I go dipping my toes in the shark-infested pool, too.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I haven't read the entire thread, but I do think it is helpful to flip the female modesty "obsession" on its head: what is up with society's obsession with female immodesty? Why are so many clothes for girls made with less material and less coverage than for boys? Even t-shirts are smaller, shorter.  Why is it so fashionable for girls to dress in tighter, more revealing clothes when such expectation for boys is rare and even nonexistant?

We cannot have a reasonable discussion about the sexism in Mormon modesty culture if we don't acknowledge the pervasive sexism in the larger culture demanding female immodesty, imo.

This point was made earlier with a discussion of the differences between the various degrees of modesty in uniforms for male and female sports including the topic at hand - cheerleading. But as you note, this extends to all manner of fashion and profession. For example, note the difference in the dress of male and female hosts and guests on virtually all news and opinion programs. Why are the men in suits and the women in short skirts? When I put your question to Sister Gui, she says, "Follow the money." I think she's right. As usual.

There are fortunes to be made from this cynical exploitation of women's bodies. And it's not always the men that do the exploiting, but they get the "natural man" benefits. For some reason, though, many women go along with it. Perhaps there is a mistaken notion that dressing immodestly makes one more attractive. Wendy Shalit's book "Return to Modesty" ably makes just the opposite point. Oddly, a man who objects to playing the game is the one who gets pilloried. There's no money to be made from virtuous thoughts, but plenty to gain from "impure thoughts."

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

". I also say that many women would not have a clue what you are talking about or would label you a troglodyte."

I know I was not going to say anything more, but perhaps you guys need to ask your wife if they ever feel their heart start beating a bit faster when they see a well built man dressed just so.  Women experience a wide range of sexual feelings like men, though we are probably more sensitive to context than men are, but there is more than enough context supplied by our society these days to provide that needed component.

[Yirgacheffe]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

An expectation, then? Organizations set dress and behavior codes for the purpose of minimizing distractions. 

Setting standards for dress and  behavior to me seems to imply that it's the distractions that are the expectation

[Yirgacheffe]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I haven't read the entire thread, but I do think it is helpful to flip the female modesty "obsession" on its head: what is up with society's obsession with female immodesty? Why are so many clothes for girls made with less material and less coverage than for boys? Even t-shirts are smaller, shorter.  Why is it so fashionable for girls to dress in tighter, more revealing clothes when such expectation for boys is rare and even nonexistant?

We cannot have a reasonable discussion about the sexism in Mormon modesty culture if we don't acknowledge the pervasive sexism in the larger culture demanding female immodesty, imo.

This seems to fluctuate, when my kids started school girls t-shirts were short by the time they were in middle school t-shirts and camisoles were very long.  My girls were adamant about shirts being long enough so that if they curled up in a ball for somersaulting their skin wouldn't show.  The boys department was not necessarily the go to place for long t-shirts either. 

[Yirgacheffe]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

posting long comments nobody is going to read

I read them.

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, the sharks are already circling.  In case you hadn't noticed.

I searched and couldn't find an Elder Packer quote about that, but my mission president told us Elders in 1973 that "you can't keep the birds from flying over your heads, but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair."  Almost the same thing.  Maybe Elder Packer got it from him.

I'm not a shark or am not building a nest. I was at a spot in my life that I was certainly anti immodesty. My daughter would wear revealing clothing occasionally. And I would have the hardest time not saying anything. She was married at the time. Her clothing has gotten loads better now, and she is a mom. I remember even looking at my older sisters bare shoulders and wincing at a baby shower they gave me, because of what my mother in law and sister in laws might think. Bare shoulders was it and I was worried at what my TBM in laws would think of them. Pretty lame!

Now I see that it was the church's conditioning on me. I am now able to look past the so-called immodesty and have a much healthier way to look at skin. I sometimes find myself going back a few steps and have to watch that I don't judge someone by their lack of clothing. 

What do you think of those in the church that get breast implants for the purpose of looking sexy? Anything?

How about tight fitting clothing. I know many TBM women that wore tight pants, are they wrong?

I remember one woman in the nursery that wore low cut shirts showing her garments and when leaning over to help a child you would see a lot of cleavage. 

When is it going to sink in that it's got to start with the person looking? They need to figure out a way to get over it. And look at the individual, not as a sex object. 

Hope this makes sense. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Tacenda

[Honorentheos]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How do you know he wasn't told that?

I don't recall ever being taught that I was not responsible for my own thoughts, that I could excuse them, or that I could deflect responsibility for them. This is forcefully made clear in all our scriptures and in manuals and conference talks.

By the results. Were it handled correctly we wouldn't be talking about it. It would not have turned into a discussion about cheerleader uniforms and if they were responsible.

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Based on my experience teaching in rural, suburban, and city schools, I find it hard to believe a student would be allowed to do that, but if you say so. Did you ever try it or did anyone else?

People wore short shorts, but I don't recall any boys wearing tank tops. Girls sometimes, yes. The only clothing rules I recall were to do with what kinds of messages or images on t-shirts were allowable. Of course my memory could be going. 

[Gray]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, I couldn't have. That's why I asked. Interesting that you didn't include this message when that thread got closed down...

 

The rules of that particular subreddit aren't relevant here. They have very strict "faith positive only" rules for discussion, while this site is much more open. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I hope this isn't current but an old video that was thrown in a trash can. ETA: If this isn't rape culture, I don't know what is. It's threatening women that if they show too much they'll get touched. This seminary video and the church authorizing it's existence is a party to possible rapes. Shame on the church.

Bernard, if I were an attorney, I'd show this video in a court of law and call it evidence, that male students in the church's seminary program are possibly affected, in fact, not even possibly.

It certainly wouldn't be "official" curriculum. But this kind of garbage seems to spread like wildfire -- not just in our church but in fundamentalist evangelical circles as well. 

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I think the video is flawed, but there is a principle that needs to be addressed.

Men are highly subject to visual cues when it comes to sexual attraction.  Does anyone disagree with this?  If so, then they are delusional.  The idea that if a woman shows off something a man should feel free to touch it is utter and absolute baloney. Except possibly in a Muslim tradition.  In Western culture men keep their hands to themselves.  But what about their brains?  I can no more shut off my sexuality than I can stop thinking of elephants, after being told not to think of elephants.  I'm not always thinking about sex (despite what that old research seemed to claim about men), and when I do not have visual stimuli of that nature in my sight, I am not frequently bothered by those thoughts.  When I was young and my raging hormones were new to me, well, then I might have gone off my rocker independently of any stimuli, but not today.  Well, since I am recently newly remarried, I'm somewhat back in the occasional self-initiation phase again, but still...

I remember the General Conference when a speaker admonished the young women to dress more modestly so as not to incite the young men.  And I remember the furore this caused.  "My daughter can wear anything she darn pleases!"  Also that some women were laying the problem at the feet of men in general.  "Its not my daughter's fault if a young man starts having sexual thoughts by seeing her dressed like a two-bit lady of the night!"  

The problem is, those objecting to the call for modesty in dress seem to be in full-on denial concerning the nature of male sexuality.  And they want those pesky men to just turn it off!  As if there were a switch somewhere that could enable this.  Well, there may be exceptions, but virtually no heterosexual and non-blind man upon the planet can any more turn it off than he can not think of elephants when someone commands him to not think of elephants.  Some of us are just better at making it look like we're not affected, that's all.  If you're an exception, by the way, and you CAN turn it off, please tell me how you do it, because I want to know how.

It's not that as soon as I see some cleavage I am immediately having to hold myself back from thinking of ravishing the woman showing it.  Not at all.  It is just that it is highly distracting. There was a woman at one of my former places of employment who was pretty and well-endowed, and she invariably wore a low-cut blouse to work, every day.  She literally never wore anything that came all the way up to her neck.  I could have ignored her, but her job required that I occasionally come to her to interact for one reason or another.  It was a challenge to keep my eyes off that gorgeous cleavage!  I didn't want to gawk; yet I still did occasionally.  I noticed that she noticed that I would occasionally glance that way, and believe it or not she didn't like it!  OK, I will admit that it was my failing that I sometimes failed to keep my eyes away.  But dammit, what was the point of her showing off her mammaries, if she didn't want men to look at them?  What if I showed up to work wearing a codpiece?  How ridiculous would I sound if I complained that the women were looking at it?

I am much better at seeming to ignore immodest or exhibitionist dress these days.  But I wish I wasn't getting challenged from time to time by the way some women feel they must put themselves on display, as if they had to somehow PROVE that they are a woman.

Men will have sexual thoughts regardless of what women are doing. Let's not lay the blame at women's feet because men have been trained to be terrified of their own sexuality. 

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

You are mistaken.  They are just as much to provide sources for seeing actual context of quote or other material though this may not be clear in the guidelines.  Anything that is not your original product can be cfred.

Good to know, thanks. I was under the impression that CFRs were only to back up factual claims - that seems to be how the rules are worded.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

No, I am not.  

I suspect most everyone posting in this thread is tired of their comments being taken the wrong way.  And I think I have hit my limit of wanting to reexplain what I mean.  In addition, I have, I believe, invested enough time and effort into responding to demonstrate I take posters' concerns seriously and am not blowing anyone off, but I have got to step out of the conversation as I can't devote a satisfying amount of attention to it without going way over what I should be allowing myself right now.  I am feeling great and need to take full advantage of it while I have it in order to tide the family over the lean times that are likely to come back (I operate on Joseph of Egypt's method, use the fat years to store up for the lean ones though it is more like weeks than years).

Thank you. It is hard not to be misunderstood when discussing this difficult issue.

Thanks to everyone for keeping it civil. There have been many thought-provoking comments. Hopefully we can all come to a better understanding of how Heavenly Father looks upon his children.

Sexuality is part of the natural man that we must learn to keep within the bounds he has set if we are to become like him. 

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

". I also say that many women would not have a clue what you are talking about or would label you a troglodyte."

I know I was not going to say anything more, but perhaps you guys need to ask your wife if they ever feel their heart start beating a bit faster when they see a well built man dressed just so.  Women experience a wide range of sexual feelings like men, though we are probably more sensitive to context than men are, but there is more than enough context supplied by our society these days to provide that needed component.

As I stated many pages ago, Sister Gui and I have had many frank and honest conversations on modesty and its relation to virtue from the time we first me almost 50 years ago. These have been in the contexts of our roles as friends, engaged couple, marriage and parents of 6 boys and a girl, our school teaching professions, and church callings such as bishop, RS president, teachers, youth leaders, etc. We have seriously considered the aspects of virtue and modesty included in the temple covenants. We read, discussed, and recommended Wendy Shalit's "A Return to Modesty" and writings by church leaders. Because of our concerns, we served on our school district's year-long task force to create secondary school uniforms hoping to make that aspect of the school experience less confrontational and divisive. We truly want to get this right because we agree that sexuality is wonderful part of our eternal nature, but that it is also part of the "natural man" that we must learn to keep within the bounds set by God. What I have learned about you on this board, I am confident we share those beliefs.

Regarding your specific question about women checking out the hunks, I will simply say Sis Gui is the most modest person I know, but of course I don't know anyone as intimately as I know her. I think she may be something very rare.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Setting standards for dress and  behavior to me seems to imply that it's the distractions that are the expectation

Indeed. As Patton said, "A good plan violently executed is better than a perfect plan next week." Preemptive strikes are good military and school teaching strategies.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not a shark or am not building a nest. I was at a spot in my life that I was certainly anti immodesty. My daughter would wear revealing clothing occasionally. And I would have the hardest time not saying anything. She was married at the time. Her clothing has gotten loads better now, and she is a mom. I remember even looking at my older sisters bear shoulders and wincing at a baby shower they gave me, because of what my mother in law and sister in laws might think. Bare shoulders, was it and I was worried at what my TBM in laws would think of them. Pretty lame.

Now I see that it was the church's conditioning on me. I am now able to look past the so-called immodesty and have a much healthier way to look at skin. I sometimes find myself going back a few steps and have to watch that I don't judge someone by their lack of clothing. 

What do you think of those in the church that get breast implants for the purpose of looking sexy? Anything?

How about tight fitting clothing. I know many TBM women that wore tight pants, are they wrong?

I remember one woman in the nursery that wore low cut shirts showing her garments and when leaning over to help a child you would see a lot of cleavage. 

When is it going to sink in that it's got to start with the person looking? They need to figure out a way to get over it. And look at the individual, not the sex object. 

Hope this makes sense. 

The shark comments are those that stereotype men as rapists and abusers because they can't control "impure thoughts." It was not intended to disparage individuals. That's why I have repeatedly said men who talk about modesty swim in deep, deep, dangerous waters. President Packer's birds was his metaphor for controlling those thoughts, not a sexist reference to women or girls.I was there.

It's interesting how marriage can change some of our behaviors and attitudes.

Breast implants? I hope it isn't the man who is insisting on them. IMO, that would be unrighteous dominion. I think they are a part of the fashion and pop culture industries that preys on women. Tight pants? Ditto.

My definition of modesty is that you dress so that you can perform normal activities without sexualizing them. In the case you cited, could we agree it would not be appropriate if the sister were bending over in front of a co-worker, her daughter's boyfriend, her best friend's husband, or a stranger. Could she be that oblivious? The immediate natural male reaction would be to look. What happens next depends on whether or not he cares if the birds nest in his hair. Perhaps she could have some consideration for those men.

In a professional situation, repeatedly doing that to a male co-worker could be considered sexual harassment, but would most men object, or would they enjoy the show or take it as a come-on message? Church should be the last place for that kind of thing. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Rivers]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Men will have sexual thoughts regardless of what women are doing. Let's not lay the blame at women's feet because men have been trained to be terrified of their own sexuality. 

It's a cross that we men have to bare. One mark of being a real man is having discipline over our own sexuality.  Blaming  the women only makes us weaker.

[Raingirl]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This point was made earlier with a discussion of the differences between the various degrees of modesty in uniforms for male and female sports including the topic at hand - cheerleading. But as you note, this extends to all manner of fashion and profession. For example, note the difference in the dress of male and female hosts and guests on virtually all news and opinion programs. Why are the men in suits and the women in short skirts? When I put your question to Sister Gui, she says, "Follow the money." I think she's right. As usual.

There are fortunes to be made from this cynical exploitation of women's bodies. And it's not always the men that do the exploiting, but they get the "natural man" benefits. For some reason, though, many women go along with it. Perhaps there is a mistaken notion that dressing immodestly makes one more attractive. Wendy Shalit's book "Return to Modesty" ably makes just the opposite point. Oddly, a man who objects to playing the game is the one who gets pilloried. There's no money to be made from virtuous thoughts, but plenty to gain from "impure thoughts."

 

I have not read every word in this thread - modesty (for both sexes) is an important topic to me - because I tend to get frustrated and have trouble articulating my viewpoint, but I do want to respond to a pile of things in your post.

Regarding the comments about newscasters/hosts, I have friends in the entertainment industry (musicians). The men regularly wear suits or similar attire. The women show much more skin, and that is the expectation/pressure.  No such expectation for the men. 

I am going to check out Wendy Shalit's book based on your comments here.  You have made me curious.

Last (inarticulate) thoughts.  I converted from Judaism. I was Orthodox, so modesty in clothing is not a new concept for me. I did go through a phase of going way over to the other end of the spectrum, including (to a limited, and still more modest than popular culture), how I dressed.  I came away from that experience with even further understanding, and appreciation of modesty.  I wish I could articulate all the reasons why, including the one that would get me mercilessly flamed - that many women are not being honest when they claim that that their desire to dress in certain ways has absolutely noting to do with wanting to appear sexually appealing.