Emphasis on Modesty=Rape Culture in Utah

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm replying to the previous comment........ "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."

I realize that.  Do you not really believe what you said and were just trying to make a point?  I'm not sure why it matters that you were replying to someone, if you honestly believe the reply is true and relevant to women.

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Priesthood presence, my understanding, for blessings if needed and we did have bears at our camp that were a problem so there was always a guy who knew how to handle them down there.  He would teach proper response and when safe (small bears with park rangers there as backup), lead the girls in running the bears off the grounds (form a large group to look as big as possible and make a lot of noise).  Also because even though it seems ridiculous, a predator of the human kind will see a camp full of women and girls as targets, while the presence of a few men often leads him to go look elsewhere from what I have heard reported eons ago in my psych classes.

Also for the possibility of the occasional creep who may be creeping around with something in mind that would not involve the welfare of the young women. That's why we stayed up all night at our girls camps, or so we were told.

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I realize that.  Do you not really believe what you said and were just trying to make a point?  I'm not sure why it matters that you were replying to someone, if you honestly believe the reply is true and relevant to women.

 

At the risk of being judged a creepy jerk, yes, I believe modesty is the mark of true womanhood. I imagine it is an eternal characteristic of exalted women. I defer to Judy Shalit and Sister Gui.

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Schedule got changed today so putting off resolution to bar myself from thread one more day.

I am curious about responses from men who have pointed out that males are going to be aware of female features etc. and may feel such distractions would be better to not be allowed and actually enforced if they are not allowed, but ignored by women or girls anyway for whatever reason.

If one grants that men are physically programmed to have strong physical and mental responses to certain physical appearances of women (usually culturally determined) and we should be realistic in taking that into account, then we should realize that homosexual men are in the same situation as heterosexual men and thus they may be as easily distracted by male attire as heterosexuals are of female.  If there was some attire that was consistently triggering for homosexual men, do those who believe in strong dress standards and enforcement based in part on what males find distracting/arousing agree that efforts should be made to require men to be less distracting?  I understand that a very fit body is the number one attraction (according to a couple of surveys), do you think it is appropriate to require boys in high school to wear loose shirts with long sleeves to avoid showing well built/trim arms and abs and baggy pants to avoid showing any physical development In the hips and legs?  To disallow any removal of tops for sports or any other reason where a gay boy might be exposed to such, like in the gym showers?  Perhaps have full torso covering bathing suits for male swimmers as is required for women to avoid showing distracting areas of their bodies?  Also gay men (and women in general) tend to find shaved faces more attractive and thus distracting, so perhaps beards should become standard dress code at high school and college (BYU at least).  Of course we would need to find an alternative for boys and men with little to no facial hair.  

I suppose it would matter only if the homosexual man was trying to avoid "impure thoughts." Probably limited only to LDS gay men who are trying to keep covenants. Like I said, men who engage in this conversation swim in deep, deep, dark waters. Preferably in a 1890s -style onesie bathing suit. I wish I had one of those. I think they are cool!

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The onus is on the individual.  I don't see a lot of women going around trying to control what the men/boys are wearing or blaming them for their own thoughts and actions.

Well, the individual that we are talking about has had a lot of onus heaped on him. Without even knowing what he said or thought. Do you think there is a difference between male and female sexual stimuli and response? I don't believe they are the same, and approaching them as being the same creates chaos and confusion for both men and women.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If a man is in danger of denying the faith because he lusts after a woman in his heart, it seems we would all be on board with helping men avoid that fate, in spite of a man's supposed weaknesses.

All heterosexual men must be in a state of constant spiritual peril. Yikes!

[saemo]

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The boy did not tell them they couldn't wear the uniform. No one has said that. The question is if it meets the dress code established by the school. If yes, no worries. If no, why the double standard? 

It is unfair to call the boy a jerk or a creep. Unless you have insider information on the situation, you are making unjust assumptions. Based on 2nd- and 3rd-hand rumors of what he said in a confidential setting you come to this conclusion? Do you know the boy?

I'm going by the news story, which reported the boy blamed a cheerleader for his poor performance. If someone, girl or boy, is locked in his own mind, having impure thoughts about one person, or a particular group of persons, to the point they can't do what they are supposed to be doing, that is creepy. Seriously, if he's sitting there in class with his attention in his own head, he's in that fantasy for a long time, and the subject of those impure thoughts, would rightly view that as creepy.

[bsjkki]

46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, the individual that we are talking about has had a lot of onus heaped on him. Without even knowing what he said or thought. Do you think there is a difference between male and female sexual stimuli and response? I don't believe they are the same, and approaching them as being the same creates chaos and confusion for both men and women.

Yes things are very different.  I agree with this. That is why it's important for women's voices to be heard. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I just don't think you've really thought about what you are saying and carried it out to it's logical conclusion.  

For example, i know quite a few women who find men in suits sexually stimulating (that sounds weird but i think you know what i mean-some women find a really well fitted suit can easily lead them to have impure thoughts).  Seriously.  It's not rare or weird-this is how we women function as sexual beings a lot of the time.  I'm not trying to be funny or make an analogy.  It's a real issue.  I know quite a few women who find it hard not to be lustful about men when they have muscular forearms as well.  

What brings out lust in men is not typically what brings out lust in women.  Yet no one really puts any effort into keeping boys and men from invoking impure thoughts in women (naked men and male private parts are not typically at the top of our list of problems, for example.  We don't react the same way that men do.).  We are just expected to control it ourselves.  It's a double standard that all of us women just accept.  But it's hard to just accept it when someone is going on and on about how women have a duty to dress so that men are not sexually turned on.  Why don't men have that same duty?  

 

I have found the solution that would treat both sexes the same and help all us keep our thoughts pure.  Everyone should wear over sized, sloppy sweatsuits to church and everywhere else and it should be a world wide law. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by bsjkki

[saemo]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I suggest you read some actual school dress codes. Here's one that is apropos to this discussion. I'm hoping the cheerleader uniforms conform otherwise there is a situational-based code.

 

1.  

And there are multiple exceptions in every school. Cheerleading uniforms being singled out for what reason?

[Jeanne]

To the topic, I asked my son who is now in his early thirties, what he thought of the article that I showed him.  His response was:  This is sad, here is a young teenage boy who is has feelings like a young teenage boy.and yet, he is not seemingly allowed or allowed himself to be a regular teenage boy. "  It is those biological hormones that are rampant at that age and it is normal...their is a way to reign it all in..but blaming anyone for what is God given and natural isn't right  Instead of making others responsible for our reactions..we should be resonsible as individuals and this takes practice.

 

 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, saemo said:

What I read is the boy was being called out on his poor school performance, which he then attributed being distracted by impure thoughts, specifically, of cheerleaders in their uniforms. 

Link please.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Yes things are very different.  I agree with this. That is why it's important for women's voices to be heard. 

I have found the solution that would treat both sexes the same and help all us keep our thoughts pure.  Everyone should wear over sized, sloppy sweatsuits to church and everywhere else and it should be a world wide law. 

No more Cary Grants, Gregory Peck, or James Bonds....sigh.  There goes my fantasy life.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Calm

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

It's a very good approach but I made the mistake of reading the comments. I think many of the comments at the Deseret News show there is a problem with rape culture in Utah. It seems if a girl is raped, she would be quizzed about what she was wearing, was she drinking etc...  I've decided it's about thinking we have 'control.'  Many want to believe that if we obey the commandments, we would never be raped and if our daughters are smart, they will never be raped. If it does happen, you must have been something wrong because good Mormon girls don't get raped or put themselves in positions where they are raped. I do believe the commandments do offer some protection but bad things happen to those that keep the commandments and to those that do not. (Just read the BYU threads.) Most young women in American over the age of 21 drink and dress immodestly/per Mormon standards, so some Mormons seem to believe this automatically makes a victim 'a little' culpable in being raped.  I do not think most boys or adult men become rapists while living in standard American culture. The only way to fully protect yourself from rape is to never be alone with anyone ever.  But, then, some are gang raped so that doesn't even work. 

Modesty is subjective. Mormons only make up 1.6 percent of the US population. Some, seem to think high school Cheerleader uniforms are immodest. I do not. (Some NFL teams--that's a whole different story.)  Some see the picture of BYU Cheerleaders in active wear and see immodesty. I do not. I read a Christian website that discusses modesty and their standards would be considered immodest to a Mormon. Based on some comments, my daughters volleyball team were all a bunch of immodest temptresses.  I can guarantee, these girls were harboring no thoughts of dressing provocatively to attract attention. We all dress immodestly to the Muslim world.

I do think objectifying girls based on what they are wearing is in the eye of beholder and is not the responsibility of the girls. Some of my stakes rules seem to be made because it is assumed, young men or male leaders cannot behave around a group of teenage girls. Why can't girls wear shorts at girls camp?  Why can't girls swim without wearing a t-shirt over their swimsuit. The boys wear much less than girls swimming. Mormon boys even take their shirts off during hikes. During family activities at beaches and public swimming pools, are Mormon families concerned their son or husband will not be able to control themselves around normally attired women and girls?  If a leader is chaperoning at girls camp and can't handle the site of girls in shorts or swimsuits, he should not go. The issue lies with him. No amount of clothing will ever stop a boy from having impure thoughts around girls. If you see a girl in shorts and a tank top and can't control your thoughts or actions, you should not go out publicly in the summer in most of the country.  These cheerleaders were frustrated because they were doing nothing wrong but felt they were punished for the thoughts of others.  The boy did nothing wrong but sought help.  The school seems to have done everything wrong. Don't put the burden of controlling someone else's thoughts on a teenage girl.  

Dress codes are proper. It helps people wear the proper clothes at the proper time. How they are enforced is very tricky. There are many, many news stories about issues with dress code enforcement from the business world down to schools across America. It is telling that temple workers are told not to say anything about how a temple patron is dressed.  Some older ladies, I know, are quite appalled the younger generation doesn't wear pantyhose with their dresses.

This thread proves a point in another thread. Depending on your gender, you do see the world very differently and bring different thoughts and ideas about things to a discussion. And just as a point of offensive defense,  I dress modestly and teach my girls to dress modestly and I value the guidelines in The Strength of Youth. Why, because I love God.  

It gets pretty bad when you're told not to be barefoot when the home teachers visit. This really happened in my stake, sad to say.

[saemo]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, this is certainly one way to look at the issue. Apparently you haven't been following the discussion very closely. If what you say is true, then there should be no modesty-related dress codes for adults. 

Certainly dress codes are a social construct. Not all societies define modesty in the same way. Some wear no clothes at all. Clothing in the most base sense of survival is a protection from the elements. 

Personally, I like the teachings of JP II, from his Theology Of The Body, where he describes modesty as a reaction to the fallen nature of humankind. That is, in the garden Adam and Eve wore no clothes, and they didn't seek to own, control, or objectify each other.

After the fall, they cover themselves, which was a protection of their innermost selves, against the new (broken) desires that are based on owning, controlling and objectifying. All healthy humans, especially in particular age groups, experience our fallen nature. 

When I say a reaction to God, it is in this context, where we were originally created as healthy sexual creatures. God's desire, being that we love one another based not seeking to satisfy our desires to own, control or objectify the other person. Dressing immodestly, by both men and women, can be a form of seeking to control or to own the other. Agreed? I dress modestly, for myself, as a protection of my inner self. I hide what is mine and share my inner self only with the man who I love. 

Not everyone believes as I do. Some have different ideas of modesty, that are solely based on societal norms. Either society in the larger sense or micro-societies to which they identify.

Now schools, have a responsibility to teach and provide an environment conducive to learning. Dress codes can be dependent on localized issues, such as gang concerns, or what the student can afford. My daughter went to one school that had a "uniform", of sorts, and all the kids hated them, feeling their individuality was squashed. Such is teenage angst. The adults have a responsibility to all involved, not to one boy, or to one group of students.

[Rock_N_Roll]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 Also gay men (and women in general) tend to find shaved faces more attractive and thus distracting, so perhaps beards should become standard dress code at high school and college (BYU at least).  

Not according to this…   

https://vwo.com/blog/ab-test-proves-women-find-bearded-men-attractive/

"For every research that claims the smooth clean-cut look is more desirable among women, there are two counter studies claiming face fuzz is the way to go."

 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There are more articles linked by various people in the early pages. None of them provide quotes from the mother, the boy, or the counsellor. There are inflammatory quotes from cheerleaders, their friends and relatives, an extended interview with anti-Mormon Kate Kelly, and a few school administrators trying to put out the fire. Two people are quoted who predict the young boy will become a rapist because of the Utah/Mormon "rape culture." So, some specifics are given, but nothing that would shed more information on what actually precipitated the fiasco. We know how the girls and their supporters feel, but there is nothing but disdain and ridicule for the boy and the Church.

What I was saying was that it made me smile that you felt my lack of information, before the further links were posted, didn't matter, yet you found lack of information after the links were posted. The only difference that I can see is that I didn't feel we should scoff at what the girls (and the boy too actually) said or did without more information and you are saying we shouldn't do the same of the boy without more information. 

We actually dont know how the girls feel. We know statements from a couple of them , but not all. We don't know why they felt the way they did. We don't know if they are justified in their thoughts.   We don't know if there is a pattern of them being called out for "immodesty" or not. There are just a ton of things here we dont know enough about to justify calling them out. 

So if we are going to say we don't  know enough about the situation to disdain the boy (which I agree) then we should be willing to say we don't know enough about the situation with the cheerleaders to disdain them either.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It gets pretty bad when you're told not to be barefoot when the home teachers visit. This really happened in my stake, sad to say.

Are you saying they were telling the women and girls they had to have something on their feet and the men could walk around barefoot or that they wanted everyone in footwear (I suspect they see it as being respectful and not treating HTing disrespectfully, like requiring the men visiting to wear Sunday clothes)?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

Not according to this…   

https://vwo.com/blog/ab-test-proves-women-find-bearded-men-attractive/

"For every research that claims the smooth clean-cut look is more desirable among women, there are two counter studies claiming face fuzz is the way to go."

 

Yeah, the studies I was skimming through weren't rigorous, iirc most were magazine or 'we polled our readers' variety.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you saying they were telling the women and girls they had to have something on their feet and the men could walk around barefoot or that they wanted everyone in footwear (I suspect they see it as being respectful and not treating HTing disrespectfully, like requiring the men visiting to wear Sunday clothes)?

They specifically asked the women. This was several years ago. Made me really self conscience after that, like what's wrong with bare feet. Not that it was what I would do, just that we were asked not to.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

They specifically asked the women. This was several years ago. Made me really self conscience after that, like what's wrong with bare feet. Not that it was what I would do, just that we were asked not to.

Who is "they" and how do you know men or boys weren't also asked?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, saemo said:

I'm going by the news story, which reported the boy blamed a cheerleader for his poor performance. 

I just read around ten reports, none of them said his distraction was given as a reason for poor performance.  I would really like to see this report that stated this additional information that is rather crucial, imo, and surprising that no one else is reporting.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I guess it depends on what you mean by modesty. In Mormon terms modesty has something to do with the length of your sleeves, which is, in my very subjective opinion, taking things rather too far. Most Americans seem to dress pretty modestly, in my opinion. 

If you don't know what I mean by modesty by now, I don't know what to say. I have spent several days and 18 pages of comments explaining it. What remains unclear?

Have you been to Walmart recently?

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I just don't think you've really thought about what you are saying and carried it out to it's logical conclusion.  

For example, i know quite a few women who find men in suits sexually stimulating (that sounds weird but i think you know what i mean-some women find a really well fitted suit can easily lead them to have impure thoughts).  Seriously.  It's not rare or weird-this is how we women function as sexual beings a lot of the time.  I'm not trying to be funny or make an analogy.  It's a real issue.  I know quite a few women who find it hard not to be lustful about men when they have muscular forearms as well.  

What brings out lust in men is not typically what brings out lust in women.  Yet no one really puts any effort into keeping boys and men from invoking impure thoughts in women (naked men and male private parts are not typically at the top of our list of problems, for example.  We don't react the same way that men do.).  We are just expected to control it ourselves.  It's a double standard that all of us women just accept.  But it's hard to just accept it when someone is going on and on about how women have a duty to dress so that men are not sexually turned on.  Why don't men have that same duty?  

Do you believe that men should not wear fitted suits or short sleeves because if they do, they are not taking responsibility for their dress?

 

Much of what I am saying is an attempt to further the discussion and draw out many viewpoints. That is why my name is Bernardo Gui.

Olive Oyl did have a thing for Popeye, but Bluto was the one who lusted after her. Popeye remained chaste, much to his credit.

Forgive me if I have given the impression that I think men have no responsibility to dress modestly. I have mentioned several instance where I pointed out immodest male dress. Of course they have the same duty. 

I'm going out to have my suit pressed. Be back in an hour.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

All heterosexual men must be in a state of constant spiritual peril. Yikes!

Perhaps they are. Or maybe not, if they can control those "impure thoughts."

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Who is "they" and how do you know men or boys weren't also asked?

I remember it specifically directed to the women, no men.