Emphasis on Modesty=Rape Culture in Utah

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

In the OP you ask a more provocative form of a question that may be softened to ask if LDS culture plays a role in how this event played out? And implied in that question is the follow-up question if there might be a better way?

Modesty is a cultural norm. What one culture may define as appropriate, modest dress may be prudish to some and immodest to others. It's subjective and reflects learned behaviors and value systems.

How a person views a member of the opposite sex, how they react to normal biological emotions that arise from finding someone attractive - these aren't the same class of thing. Poorly developed abilities to express or respond to what one feels or how one acts towards someone one is attracted to is damaging for a number of reasons that transcend cultural norms or value judgements such as what is modest or not.

Personally, I think LDS would do well to ratchet down the rhetoric against all sexual emotional feelings and behaviors outside of marriage and engage the questions of sexual mores and expression in terms of relationships between people. The moral issue isn’t about sex itself. The moral issue is complex, but includes how one extends respect for the other person’s self (body and soul, emotional and physical) as well as acting respectfully of one’s self. There is a lot of room for unfortunate dysfunction to develop when sexual expression is defined as sinful when a person would be far better off developing a better understanding of the role of respect, emotional sharing and expression, and connection as important parts of a healthy physical relationship. A young person who experiences normal biological induced emotions who is taught to take responsibility for their own thoughts, but not be ashamed of having them and learning to engage with respect those to whom they are attracted is far better off in the long term than the young person who responds with self-flagellation and shame which they externalize with blame.

I honestly don’t think the young man did anything wrong until he turned this into being about the cheerleaders and their dress. Being aroused by attractive people is normal. The guidance and focus on helping him understand that, how to react to it, to own it for the subjective personal thing it is, and use that ownership as motivation for developing healthy, mutually respectful ways of exploring and expressing what comes of becoming a mature adult person equipped with self-knowledge and a sense of earned self-worth is by far the best service the current adults in his life could have given him.

IMO, given the fact it made the news because it became about modesty tells us they failed him.

IMO, they all were set up to fail by the parent culture that does not teach or enable healthy options over shaming, blame, and denigration of powerful natural emotions and what they lead to.

Sex is one of the areas I feel Mormonism really falls down and fails its membership. This news story is just one example of countless many that demonstrate it. And from the inside, using the language and norms of Mormonism it’s so hard to even see it that way because it’s set up to lead people to make evaluations on criteria that are part of the flawed system.

I actually wonder about that having a 15 year old son and friends in my home right now and not too long ago having another son here as well. I can see the counselor asking about grades and the kid being stumped and thinking, "I don't know why I'm not doing well and just pulling the cheerleading uniforms out of his head trying to come up with some answer. Then having it get all blown out of proportion. Obviously I have no clue what happened,  but I have heard and seen enough teen boys get a bewildered look on their faces and forlornly say, "I don't  know" to come up with it as a possibility. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

In the OP you ask a more provocative form of a question that may be softened to ask if LDS culture plays a role in how this event played out? And implied in that question is the follow-up question if there might be a better way?

Modesty is a cultural norm. What one culture may define as appropriate, modest dress may be prudish to some and immodest to others. It's subjective and reflects learned behaviors and value systems.

How a person views a member of the opposite sex, how they react to normal biological emotions that arise from finding someone attractive - these aren't the same class of thing. Poorly developed abilities to express or respond to what one feels or how one acts towards someone one is attracted to is damaging for a number of reasons that transcend cultural norms or value judgements such as what is modest or not.

Personally, I think LDS would do well to ratchet down the rhetoric against all sexual emotional feelings and behaviors outside of marriage and engage the questions of sexual mores and expression in terms of relationships between people. The moral issue isn’t about sex itself. The moral issue is complex, but includes how one extends respect for the other person’s self (body and soul, emotional and physical) as well as acting respectfully of one’s self. There is a lot of room for unfortunate dysfunction to develop when sexual expression is defined as sinful when a person would be far better off developing a better understanding of the role of respect, emotional sharing and expression, and connection as important parts of a healthy physical relationship. A young person who experiences normal biological induced emotions who is taught to take responsibility for their own thoughts, but not be ashamed of having them and learning to engage with respect those to whom they are attracted is far better off in the long term than the young person who responds with self-flagellation and shame which they externalize with blame.

I honestly don’t think the young man did anything wrong until he turned this into being about the cheerleaders and their dress. Being aroused by attractive people is normal. The guidance and focus on helping him understand that, how to react to it, to own it for the subjective personal thing it is, and use that ownership as motivation for developing healthy, mutually respectful ways of exploring and expressing what comes of becoming a mature adult person equipped with self-knowledge and a sense of earned self-worth is by far the best service the current adults in his life could have given him.

IMO, given the fact it made the news because it became about modesty tells us they failed him.

IMO, they all were set up to fail by the parent culture that does not teach or enable healthy options over shaming, blame, and denigration of powerful natural emotions and what they lead to.

Sex is one of the areas I feel Mormonism really falls down and fails its membership. This news story is just one example of countless many that demonstrate it. And from the inside, using the language and norms of Mormonism it’s so hard to even see it that way because it’s set up to lead people to make evaluations on criteria that are part of the flawed system.

Interesting thoughts.

Of course, the concept of modesty varies from culture to culture. We all play with the hand we are dealt. 

Can't find much to disagree with, except I don't believe the young man did anything wrong. He went to a mature adult person for such guidance and got burned big time. Unfortunate.

Part of the problem is that Mormons actually believe the Savior's teaching on impurity of thought and adultery. Maybe we could call that one of the philosophies of men that got added to the Bible. That would certainly make it a lot easier. Much of what you find lacking in Mormonism is actually the sensibilities and standards of previous LDS and non-LDS generations. I think the Church has made great progress in recent years in trying to adhere to Godliness in a world of awfulness while at the same time keeping your sanity and dignity. I reject the notion, however, that by teaching modesty and sexual purity the Church perpetuates a "rape culture."

Edited September 22, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

I've never heard of anything so silly... in fact when my home teachers come into my house they automatically take off their shoes (and I'm only in stocking feet) because here in the wet/dusty Pacific Northwest it is a matter of courtesy to remove one's shoes upon entering a home so as not to track in dirt or mud, etc.  

GG

Yeah, we did this up in Canada.  With the dog running in and out and around the house and me not being able to clean the floors as much as we used to I prefer people to keep their shoes on.  It is a habit I am looking forward to doing again.  Will buy some cheap slippers for those uncomfortable to go shoeless.  Or covers for the shoes.  It makes it so much easier to keep floors clean.

[Garden Girl]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, we did this up in Canada.  With the dog running in and out and around the house and me not being able to clean the floors as much as we used to I prefer people to keep their shoes on.  It is a habit I am looking forward to doing again.  Will buy some cheap slippers for those uncomfortable to go shoeless.  Or covers for the shoes.  It makes it so much easier to keep floors clean.

My mom knitted me a bunch of different colored slippers that I kept in a basket in the entryway and those not comfortable only in stocking feet could take their pick to wear while visiting... 

GG

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

I actually wonder about that having a 15 year old son and friends in my home right now and not too long ago having another son here as well. I can see the counselor asking about grades and the kid being stumped and thinking, "I don't know why I'm not doing well and just pulling the cheerleading uniforms out of his head trying to come up with some answer. Then having it get all blown out of proportion. Obviously I have no clue what happened,  but I have heard and seen enough teen boys get a bewildered look on their faces and forlornly say, "I don't  know" to come up with it as a possibility. 

 

According to my son nothing was ever really happening at school (he is someone that doesn't wish to spend time rehashing his days unless it is something having to do with his kids, Legos or Star Wars).  Perhaps the usual cross examining that takes place in those situations (with monosyllabic replies if one is lucky, grunts if not) is what triggered the thought, but how often are game days in comparison to the days he wouldn't see a uniform in class?  Surely the counselor wouldn't take it seriously.  It definitely could be something he was led into saying rather than really thinking it himself though I would think it would have happened before with that counselor if so...but maybe having Mom call moved it up in problems for the admins.  His mom calling an admin about it seems like unlikely though in that case; perhaps the counselor called her as surely if that happened, the young man wouldn't have mentioned it to his mom.

That such a scenario is reasonable demonstrates how little we really know about it and how it is possible nothing reported about the young man actually happened and instead it was all the adults projecting on him, 'speaking' for him.  And that seems very likely to me as I have never been in a school where I didn't hear teachers moaning about overwrought parents (I did a lot of volunteer work since I couldn't manage a part time job and wanted to contribute and have adult conversations) and how the poor kids suffered and I have seen a few teachers create their own dramas around kids to justify their decisions, especially their self centered ones.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Where was there any suggestion in the reports that he claimed they were in violation of the dress code?

It's an assumption I made earlier, but I think it is valid - based on this quote, several comments by the girls, and my experience with some dress code/cheerleader/uniform/game day problems in my high school. You think it was a bad assumption? 

Quote

"But then after the meeting, one of the assistant principals communicated to the cheer coach that we shouldn't be wearing our uniforms to school [on game day]," says one cheerleader. "All of us were trying to decide which skirt to wear on Friday and our coach told us that we couldn't wear them anymore. We asked what would happen if we wore them anyway, and she advised us not to. So we didn't. Instead we wore best dress the next day."  From another source..."According to a report by Fox 13 Now, the incident went down like this: the Utah high school cheerleaders have a tradition of wearing their cheer uniforms to class on game days."
 

I don't see what the issue would be if the girls could wear their "best dress" to class on game day. He only expressed concern about the uniforms being destructing in class, not at games. There is no indication he had a problem with regular dress on other days. But who knows? Unfortunately, the Timpview HS dress code is not available on line. After a while, all the stories end up just quoting each other, and the lazy plagiarists add their two bits of opinion  ...so that one rag even reported the school board made the decision.

I think the school district and Fox13 News have an obligation to clear up the confusion they have created. Nevertheless, I reject the unanimous conclusions that teaching modesty or maintaining standards creates a "rape culture." 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I hear what you are saying. We heard more from Kate Kelly and a sister of one of the girls than we did from the girls themselves, and we heard nothing from the boy. Yet it was enough for the media to condemn the Utah/Mormon "rape culture." 

All the stories repeated the same set of quotes.  There was no original reporting that I saw outside of adding stuff that had nothing to do with the occurrence.   The older sister of one of the cheerleaders posted it to the FB page of Mormon Stories, which is where it took off.  The article that mentioned this was the most detailed, iirc (they are blurring).  Given the amount Dehlin is used as a media resource, I am thinking certain reporters keep an eye on his site in hopes of finding something controversial to print about Utah and/or the Church or Dehlin knows reporters well enough to call them up when he wants to push something.  Or it could have been Kelly...more likely since she was quoted.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Calm

[Garden Girl]

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting thoughts.

Of course, the concept of modesty varies from culture to culture. We all play with the hand we are dealt. 

Can't find much to disagree with, except I don't believe the young man did anything wrong. He went to a mature adult person for such guidance and got burned big time. Unfortunate.

Part of the problem is that Mormons actually believe the Savior's teaching on impurity of thought and adultery. Maybe we could call that one of the philosophies of men that got added to the Bible. That would certainly make it a lot easier. Much of what you find lacking in Mormonism is actually the sensibilities and standards of previous generations. I think the Church has made great progress in recent years in trying to adhere to Godliness in a world of awfulness while at the same time keeping your sanity. I reject the notion, however, that by teaching modesty and sexual purity the Church perpetuates a "rape culture."

Huh?  Are you serious?  Yes, we Mormons actually believe the Savior's teachings, including the Commandments in regard to adultery, to not coveting, to not bearing false witness, to not murdering et al.  I think I'm not understanding you...

GG 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It's an assumption I made earlier, but I think it is valid - based on this quote, several comments by the girls, and my experience with some dress code/cheerleader/uniform/game day problems in my high school. You think it was a bad assumption? 

I just don't know too many boys that age that concerned themselves with dress codes.  They might hear there was something they couldn't wear when they got in trouble for wearing it, but never seemed to care enough to learn the actual code or what it meant for girls.  It is something teachers would focus on and have to talk to kids about in some fashion or at least go to assemblies that discussed it and you would hope the boys were listening, so it makes sense you would assume that though. Girls tended to be more concerned ime, at least the ones that wanted to push the boundaries and the ones that worried about conforming to the rules.  Otoh, my kids didn't hang out with boys who came close to breaking the dress code nor were that type too friendly with the volunteer librarian or class tutor so maybe I just missed their analysis of dress codes.  In Clinical Psych, when I got to hear examples of men talking about what triggered them and what the women were doing wrong, in those cases they projected their issue on their target...and my memory says they used their own 'dress code' to compare and didn't refer to outside standards in most cases, but that was a long time ago and not that many cases thankfully and there could be gaps both in memory and reporting and thankfully only two or three I knew personally and was creeped out that there might be a time they would catch sight of me walking across campus and thinking about me the way they reported thinking about other women.  I sympathized with them, but they also had an air that they valued their obsession, it gave them value or interest (they were volunteering, eager even to talk about it, including in group therapy where he would go on about how he knew it was wrong and then slip into how it was important for him to denounce these women; the other didn't seem to register what he was talking about wasn't typical chit chat).  Hmm...off topic, memory lane moment.  Sorry.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It was one of those extreme, what a joke folklore reasons, repeated by Martha Nibley Beck in her book where she claims to have encountered every odd ball ever reported personally as opposed to the 'did you hear about...., my roomate's friend's sister knew the guy who baptized the guy who married his cousin' kind of thing.  When the book came out, a number of people, including some FM members...and Smac iirc (it was a long time ago) or it may have been a different obsessive compulsive type that went to the BYU library to check on claims of stuff removed from microfiche, fact checked her claims.  This was one of them discounted iirc.  Someone dug up the history of the dress code.  It didn't make sense anyway because guys could wear shorts exposing all that inappropriate leg hair in PE.

She also claimed a hairdresser insisted on calling her husband to get permission to cut her hair as if that woman would have risked losing the tips, let alone having all those women customers walk out on her when she demanded it.

PS:  I think I didn't wear stockings with my open toed shoes in the 70s if I wore pants, but maybe my previous and future practice of avoiding hose---except in dire circumstances as in no other clean clothes to wear---has wiped out those few years of horror.  I think you had to wear hose or tights with skirts which, meant for me skirts probably came out only on Sundays unless they were long enough to wear with boots that removed the hose necessity.  I did knee highs with my maxi and in the temple.  I vaguely remember thinking it was funny that guys would have to wear socks with their sandals...maybe someone thought it would help hide less attractive toenails or keep feet from getting too smelly.  I missed my flip flops though.

My memories of hearing this explanation are from 1990.  I heard it more than once. I don't think my memories are do to her book.  

[Bernard Gui]

 I would like to contribute my magnum manifesto and thank all those who have made sincere and thoughtful comments, kept it civil and for the most part serious. I am learning much here.

When we are baptized we took on this obligation:

Quote

....and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life— Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you? And now when the people had heard these words, they clapped their hands for joy, and exclaimed: This is the desire of our hearts.

We Latter-Day Saints carry some burdens other folks either don't care about or find offensive and silly. Some of those burdens include taking seriously Jesus's teachings about sexual purity, marital fidelity, and the moral thoughts we have about our brothers and sisters. These may be hard to define and even harder to live, but in the cooperative spirit of the above scripture we can make it easier.

A while back, a few members of our ward said they had allergic reactions to the perfumes and cosmetic odors in the chapel and RS room. I felt nauseous from the combined fumes when I entered the smaller room after an RS meeting. No one complained that those folks were trying to "control" how people smelled when they came to church. No one said, "I'll put on whatever smell I want. If you don't like it, you can stay home or go to another ward. You can get medicine for that!" People just stopped wearing smelly things when they came to church. That is simple common consideration and respect. 

In our 12 Step group meeting tonight, one of the brothers said, "Life is difficult enough. We are all in this together and we must help each other in any way we can." That resonated with my thoughts on this divisive issue of modesty. It's important enough that the Savior gave us this hard saying:

Quote

......Whosoever looks on a woman, to lust after her, has committed adultery already in his heart. Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else. And he that looks upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.

That's quite a burden! The cultures in which we live make it very difficult to keep this high standard. Most probably conclude it is creepy and weirdly repressive, but a few may take it to heart. Eventually each of us must learn to do it. Is it possible to ignore, dilute, or justify breaking this commandment because of societal pressures and fashions and still be a follower of Christ? I don't think so.

Those few who do take it seriously are often mocked, especially if they broadcast their concerns. Jimmy Carter, a good Christian man, was ridiculed relentlessly because he admitted his struggle with this commandment. It probably contributed to his loss of the Presidency. It is, as we LDS call it, part of being the "natural man" (woman), and is something we must learn to control in this mortal experience. 

If a brother or sister has a burden, we pledged to help make it light. For some, purity of thought is a heavy burden. It's built into our very nature to do just the opposite. They struggle to know what it means and how to do it. We help each other when we are ill, why not make this burden light, too? We must not allow this to become a matter of debate and contention, mutual finger-pointing and shaming.

We covenant not to speak evil of the Lord's anointed. We are the Lord's anointed. We should speak good of others and treat themwith compassion and respect.... no matter the burden they are carrying. If a friend is alcoholic, we do not invite her into our home, set out some wine and say, "Make your choice. It's your problem, not mine."

Those who are struggling may feel in need of comfort. Instead, some mock them and send them to the corner where they are told to deal with it on their own. Some may even mourn. If so, they deserve our compassion, not our scorn.

As a bishop, I was counseled not to meet alone privately or publicly with a woman. Part of the reason for this was that even innocent actions create appearances that could cause stumbling blocks for someone who lacks the spiritual maturity required not to make assumptions or pass judgements. Some might think, "that's a silly and immature reason." I could have thought, "That's their problem if they have creepy judgmental thoughts projected from their own personal problems. I'll do what I want. It's not my fault they are jerks. They'll just have to deal with it. What time do you want to meet for lunch?" But rather than be a cause for someone else to stumble, blindly obedient though it might seem, I simply chose to follow the counsel. It didn't cost me a thing in self-respect, self-expression, self-fulfillment whatever. Perhaps I made someone's burden lighter by doing that.

A compelling example (from an LDS perspective) of standing as a witness of God at all times and in all places is adherence to His standard of modesty which He has set in the temple endowment. It is clearly defined by the temple garment.  Of course we cannot enforce this standard on the world, but we have made the covenant, and we promise to keep it with uprightness and integrity. We help each other keep the covenant by how we dress and think about each other. We can advocate for it in our families and communities.

In his glorious vision of the after-life, Joseph F. Smith saw

Quote

Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all, And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God.

I cannot believe they were jousting about modesty, debating about who causes whom to do what and whose fault it is that I do whatever. Nor can I imagine them saying to each other, "It's your problem I couldn't care less. Learn to deal with it." I hope we all, including, and I have much to learn, aspire to this level of unity and mutual compassion.

If we hope to become like our Heavenly Parents, we must learn to look at each other in ways that are totally bereft of any impure or disrespectful notions. I am absolutely certain this is one reason we are placed here on the earth. I often imagine the absolute and uncompromising unity that must exist in their relationship. I cannot imagine one of them telling the other "you made me do this" or "that's your problem. Deal with it." Why would we say this to each other? We cannot be with them unless we share that transcendent unity with them and with each other.

And they all clapped their hands with joy and said, "We will make your burdens light! We will mourn when you mourn! We will comfort you when you need comfort!" To me, this is this the highest expression of modesty and virtue that there is.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Darned board software... i already responded to this, and it won't let me go...

[Stargazer]

19 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 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. 

Didn't call you a shark -- I was metaphorically referring to you fine sisters who I suspected would become unglued that a...  MAN!  ... would dare to question their choices in clothing. As for nests, my mission president was referring to allowing oneself from dwelling upon the sight of a woman who apparently cannot afford enough clothing.

Healthier way to look at skin?  Two centuries ago the Church didn't exist and yet, amazingly enough, society's attitudes about modesty in dress were quite conservative by today's standards.  I think you give the Church too much credit.

Quote

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

Who am I to judge?  If nature has stinted, and a woman wants to enhance her appearance or correct a malformation, what business is it of mine?  I'd say it was her choice, just like it's her choice to wear makeup and color her hair.  But I believe this is irrelevant to a discussion of modesty in dress.   Or, at least, that is what it has turned into -- the original topic was "rape culture" and we are clearly going off on a tangent. 

Quote

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 I was in high school, despite what were at the time the normal dress codes (this was the mid-60's) some of the young ladies would wear the lowest-cut blouses they could get away with, and then make sure the young men had opportunities to observe their enticing characteristics.  I'd have to say that this is pretty normal -- it is a biological imperative to seek for a mate, and how else to do so, except to advertise one's suitability for that role.  Young men do the same thing, but not so much in exhibiting their bodies so much as demonstrating their physical prowess and courage, as a way to advertise their suitability to take care of a mate.  Once a woman or a man has finally attracted a mate, why do they continue to try to demonstrate to everyone outside the marital union that they are suitable for mating?  

I actually believe that women (or men) who do these things after marriage aren't consciously trying to advertise their suitability, regardless of appearances.  Perhaps they just don't understand that there is a time and place for everything, and so on. I am certain that most everyone, male and female, want to make a good impression to their fellow humans.  I applaud this!  But is it really necessary to put on a public sexual display when one has finally found someone to mate with?

Quote

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. 

And here we go again.  It's got to start with the person looking, does it?  That sounds pretty much like a one-way street, to me.  If only the troglodyte male can make himself be totally non-reactive to females, it would be great, wouldn't it?  Let me ask you, can you, as a mother, turn off your reaction to babies?  So that another woman's baby doesn't at all provoke a reaction in you: "Oh, she's so sweet!"  Can you do this?  If you witness a fellow human being being severely injured, doesn't it provoke a sense of dismay, or dread, or sympathy?  Can you turn it off?  Should you even try to turn it off?

When is it going to sink in that there are certain emotional or hormonal responses that are innate, and cannot in fact be turned off?  I'm a happily married man with an intense interest in my wife.  As an official "Old Fart" I can proudly report that if a skimpily clad swimsuit model crosses my path, I am perfectly capable of suppressing the outward appearance of being affected by the sight.  But inwardly I will be wrenched around at it.  Especially if it comes on suddenly, when I am not prepared.  But unless I am seeking out such sights, by going to the beach for example, or visiting porn websites (I do neither, btw), why must I be subjected to such things in public by people who feel conscience-free to completely disregard others' feelings?  If someone comes on board a bus carrying a boombox cranked up at maximum volume, would you try to tell the other people on the bus that they need to figure out a way to get over it?  Or would you contest the violation of your space by this highly impolite action?

Like I was saying, I would never advocate the wearing of a burka.  All I'm asking is for you wonderful and beautiful women to be modest in your dress.  You don't need to show off your gifts in all their glory.  

I'm pretty sure you're not going to see my point.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Stargazer

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

 Given the amount Dehlin is used as a media resource, I am thinking certain reporters keep an eye on his site in hopes of finding something controversial to print about Utah and/or the Church or Dehlin knows reporters well enough to call them up when he wants to push something.  Or it could have been Kelly...more likely since she was quoted.

Sad but true. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

My memories of hearing this explanation are from 1990.  I heard it more than once. I don't think my memories are do to her book.  

Probably not, some of them had a lot of history before she decided to use them.  She was repeating the stories as if they had happened to her in order to make her book more salable, imo.  Iirc, she first intended to write a novel, but made it a 'real story ', her alleged autobiography, to drive up interest.  Otherwise it would have been another of those Bapists at the Ward party or other hundred or so of books whose humor comes from making our lives absurd with the help of folklore.  I don't think any of her claims about BYU were actually original (though varied perhaps) though I didn't read all of her book so there may be claims I didn't know about.

[Calm]

"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."

Since your older sisters don't have the same attitude as you do and it seems likely they were exposed to similar church teachings as you were as well as you seem to feel it was a certain time period and not all your life, perhaps you should consider it might have been a different influence on you than the Church in general.  For example, why do you were you so concerned about your in laws opinions instead of being comfortable with your siblings and daughter's approaches since you likely spent much more of your life with them?  Perhaps it was because at that time in your life you were looking at your in laws as role models or for some reason hoping to win or keep their approval?  Perhaps it was their standards you had adopted in the effort to feel comfortable with them?

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

No, I try to stay out of Walmart as a general rule. 

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

It's not that you haven't said that men should be modest, it's that you have tied female modesty with the importance of dressing in a way that won't tempt men to have impure thoughts-essentially saying that if it tempts men it's automatically not modest.  You haven't tied male modesty with the importance of dressing in a way that won't tempt women to have impure thoughts though.  It seems like an unnoticed double standard.

If women need to take into account how their clothing is going to affect the males around them, and change accordingly, shouldn't men have to do the same?

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Didn't call you a shark -- I was metaphorically referring to you fine sisters who I suspected would become unglued that a...  MAN!  ... would dare to question their choices in clothing. As for nests, my mission president was referring to allowing oneself from dwelling upon the sight of a woman who apparently cannot afford enough clothing.

Healthier way to look at skin?  Two centuries ago the Church didn't exist and yet, amazingly enough, society's attitudes about modesty in dress were quite conservative by today's standards.  I think you give the Church too much credit.

Who am I to judge?  If nature has stinted, and a woman wants to enhance her appearance or correct a malformation, what business is it of mine?  I'd say it was her choice, just like it's her choice to wear makeup and color her hair.  But I believe this is irrelevant to a discussion of modesty in dress.   Or, at least, that is what it has turned into -- the original topic was "rape culture" and we are clearly going off on a tangent. 

When I was in high school, despite what were at the time the normal dress codes (this was the mid-60's) some of the young ladies would wear the lowest-cut blouses they could get away with, and then make sure the young men had opportunities to observe their enticing characteristics.  I'd have to say that this is pretty normal -- it is a biological imperative to seek for a mate, and how else to do so, except to advertise one's suitability for that role.  Young men do the same thing, but not so much in exhibiting their bodies so much as demonstrating their physical prowess and courage, as a way to advertise their suitability to take care of a mate.  Once a woman or a man has finally attracted a mate, why do they continue to try to demonstrate to everyone outside the marital union that they are suitable for mating?  

I actually believe that women (or men) who do these things after marriage aren't consciously trying to advertise their suitability, regardless of appearances.  Perhaps they just don't understand that there is a time and place for everything, and so on. I am certain that most everyone, male and female, want to make a good impression to their fellow humans.  I applaud this!  But is it really necessary to put on a public sexual display when one has finally found someone to mate with?

And here we go again.  It's got to start with the person looking, does it?  That sounds pretty much like a one-way street, to me.  If only the troglodyte male can make himself be totally non-reactive to females, it would be great, wouldn't it?  Let me ask you, can you, as a mother, turn off your reaction to babies?  So that another woman's baby doesn't at all provoke a reaction in you: "Oh, she's so sweet!"  Can you do this?  If you witness a fellow human being being severely injured, doesn't it provoke a sense of dismay, or dread, or sympathy?  Can you turn it off?  Should you even try to turn it off?

When is it going to sink in that there are certain emotional or hormonal responses that are innate, and cannot in fact be turned off?  I'm a happily married man with an intense interest in my wife.  As an official "Old Fart" I can proudly report that if a skimpily clad swimsuit model crosses my path, I am perfectly capable of suppressing the outward appearance of being affected by the sight.  But inwardly I will be wrenched around at it.  Especially if it comes on suddenly, when I am not prepared.  But unless I am seeking out such sights, by going to the beach for example, or visiting porn websites (I do neither, btw), why must I be subjected to such things in public by people who feel conscience-free to completely disregard others' feelings?  If someone comes on board a bus carrying a boombox cranked up at maximum volume, would you try to tell the other people on the bus that they need to figure out a way to get over it?  Or would you contest the violation of your space by this highly impolite action?

Like I was saying, I would never advocate the wearing of a burka.  All I'm asking is for you wonderful and beautiful women to be modest in your dress.  You don't need to show off your gifts in all their glory.  

I'm pretty sure you're not going to see my point.

I get it Stargazer. But how is Timpview's cheerleaders outfits crossing the line, don't think you said this, but others might. I believe with the modesty craze, it's how in this boy's mind, their outfits crossed the line.

For example, just today I heard from a gal in my ward, after having asked her if she remembered the women being told not to be barefoot when the home teachers came over, said to me that her nephew got so upset and cried when his sister wore a bikini. He even asked her to wear a t-shirt and how this gal's mother-in-law was so proud that he did this. It's gotten so out of control! 

 

 

[provoman]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's not that you haven't said that men should be modest, it's that you have tied female modesty with the importance of dressing in a way that won't tempt men to have impure thoughts-essentially saying that if it tempts men it's automatically not modest.  You haven't tied male modesty with the importance of dressing in a way that won't tempt women to have impure thoughts though.  It seems like an unnoticed double standard.

If women need to take into account how their clothing is going to affect the males around them, and change accordingly, shouldn't men have to do the same?

 

Websters defines modesty as:

• the quality of behaving and especially dressing in ways that do not attract sexual attention

 

If Jack is going to demand "modesty" from Jane, so that Jack can control his thoughts, by definition, Jack is agreeing that he must be modest so that Jane can control her thoughts. The demand for modesty, seems mainly to fall on females to be modest, in order to help the over stimulated males from going into rut.  This one way street of modesty seems to have been how modesty has been pushed for centuries.   There very likely other prejudices at play with the demand for modesty, for instance that a female is not interested in sexual things except when an unscrupulous male cons her into it.

Edited September 22, 2016 by provoman

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

"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."

Since your older sisters don't have the same attitude as you do and it seems likely they were exposed to similar church teachings as you were as well as you seem to feel it was a certain time period and not all your life, perhaps you should consider it might have been a different influence on you than the Church in general.  For example, why do you were you so concerned about your in laws opinions instead of being comfortable with your siblings and daughter's approaches since you likely spent much more of your life with them?  Perhaps it was because at that time in your life you were looking at your in laws as role models or for some reason hoping to win or keep their approval?  Perhaps it was their standards you had adopted in the effort to feel comfortable with them?

Nailed it! That's it exactly, sorry to pin it on the church.

[Jeanne]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

This made me smile because I work there..and even early in the morning we have pajama people...one year, I guess a USU fraternity dared guys to shop in their underwear...they did until a CEO in charge got them out.  It was quite a sight I must say  This is why I  thought a problem at school is not necessarily the only problem.  And Walmart did take responsible action ..so it is everywhere and I hope young men..and old women like me who see young men in underwear...can rein it in.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Jeanne

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's not that you haven't said that men should be modest, it's that you have tied female modesty with the importance of dressing in a way that won't tempt men to have impure thoughts-essentially saying that if it tempts men it's automatically not modest.  You haven't tied male modesty with the importance of dressing in a way that won't tempt women to have impure thoughts though.  It seems like an unnoticed double standard.

If women need to take into account how their clothing is going to affect the males around them, and change accordingly, shouldn't men have to do the same?

Thank you for these comments. I have been discussing the fact that the modesty components of institutional dress codes focus more on the details of female than male modesty. Many even specify the female body parts that should be covered. Male restrictions usually are limited to low hanging pants, holes, or exposed underwear. Requiring or suggesting a uniform is one way to get around the ambiguities, but even then there is specific verbiage addressing the way it is interpreted and worn by females. 

For example, a typical code from Washington Union High School in Fresno shows this specificity. Most of the code is directed at female modesty.

Quote

Make Up (Purpose: Appropriateness and Character)

• Appropriate adult make-up is acceptable.

 

Pants and Shorts (Purpose: Appropriateness and Character)

• ·       Pants are worn with no undergarments showing and no excessive sagging
• ·       No holes or see-through frays 
• ·       No Pajama Bottoms
• ·       Shorts
  • Minimum 4” inseam

 

Skirts/Dresses (Purpose: Appropriateness and Character)

• Skirts, and dress lengths are no shorter than mid-thigh

 

Tops/Blouses/T-Shirts (Purpose: Appropriateness and Character)

• ·       Midriff and lower back must be covered
• ·       No spaghetti straps, halter tops or tube tops 
• ·       Tops must have straps and sleeves on both shoulders
• ·       Strap width: Undergarment straps must be completely covered
• ·       No exposed undergarments
• ·       Arm openings should not be excessive 
• ·       No cleavage exposed
• ·       No see-through or net tops

• Undergarments may not be worn as outer garments

Seattle is a very progressive city. We live close by. My son, Scordatura, is an attorney for Amazon. His previous job was with a huge law firm in LA where the lawyers had a strict professional dress code that required tailored shirts, suits and dresses for men and women. The tailors came into the office to take the measurements. No Freaky Friday's. With Seattle/Amazon one would expect a loser code, which in fact there is, but he is still rewuired to dress in a manner that would not dimish the company when meeting with clients. Amazon requires office and warehouse clothing not to be "sexually distracting." I don't have access to the specific details, but I would bet a Kindle download there are differences for men and women.

Starbucks is noted for its employee-friendly code which encourages some personality expression, but even the baristas have limits on what can be exposed. http://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/5cdbf4a69a4d421494354784ddd4fabc.pdf. Restrictions include no shirt openings below the top of the apron, maximum of two buttons not buttoned at the top of a shirt, no unzipped tops or bare shoulders, shorts or skirts no shorter than 4" above the knee, and no tops that would expose the midriff while bending or reaching. Although in good Seattle spirit, not explicitly separating men from women, between, it's clear which sex gets the most rules.

It's not clear to me that the practical details and effects of male immodesty can be equated with those of female immodesty. You seem to be making that point. My understanding is that male and female physiological responses to visual stimulation are not the same in frequency, intensity, immediacy, etc. Am I mistaken? All the dress codes I have seen demonstrate and reinforce the fact that there are specific differences in quality and quantity. They are written to address the difference. The reaction to a man exposing his privates at work or school would not be the same as a woman doing the same. It would probably include being fired and having a conversation with law enforcement. I would be happy to consider new light and knowledge, though.

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

This made me smile because I work there..and even early in the morning we have pajama people...one year, I guess a USU fraternity dared guys to shop in their underwear...they did until a CEO in charge got them out.  It was quite a sight I must say  This is why I  thought a problem at school is not necessarily the only problem.  And Walmart did take responsible action ..so it is everywhere and I hope young men..and old women like me who see young men in underwear...can rein it in.

That's funny. Midnight Walmart runs are always entertaining. I wonder where some of those good folks hang out during the day.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

"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."

Since your older sisters don't have the same attitude as you do and it seems likely they were exposed to similar church teachings as you were as well as you seem to feel it was a certain time period and not all your life, perhaps you should consider it might have been a different influence on you than the Church in general.  For example, why do you were you so concerned about your in laws opinions instead of being comfortable with your siblings and daughter's approaches since you likely spent much more of your life with them?  Perhaps it was because at that time in your life you were looking at your in laws as role models or for some reason hoping to win or keep their approval?  Perhaps it was their standards you had adopted in the effort to feel comfortable with them?

Starbucks doesn't allow it's baristas to bare their shoulders. The owner must be a Mormon. A Seattle competitor Cowgirls Espresso has no such restriction. Just the barest of restrictions there, actually. They serve their coffee hot. 

When speaking of women and fashion, what does "hot" mean?