Emphasis on Modesty=Rape Culture in Utah

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

 

Exactly.  Men and women react differently to each other's bodies.  If women have a responsibility to dress in a way that does not cause impure thoughts in men, shouldn't men have the same responsibility?  

And if women are modest--in part--to help men not lust after them (if the definition of modesty for a women includes that aspect), then shouldn't modesty for men also include the same aspect? If a woman can't be modest if she dresses in a way that invites impure thoughts, then shouldn't that mean that men also can't be modest if they dress in a way that invites impure thoughts in women?

I'm probably not saying it very well so i don't blame you if you are confused.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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! 

 

 

We can all agree that our concepts of modesty are different. There are degrees of tolerance and intolerance on all sides. As endowed Mormons, we have a standard that is defined by the garment. For us, that is the starting point. Belittling our brothers and sisters and their kids who adhere to that standard serves no one. Teaching, believing, and living it should be applauded, not demonized. It does not foster a rape culture. On the contrary, it opposes the objectifying and sexualizing of women

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, provoman said:

 

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.

 

Indeed. [edited for contentious remarks]

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Exactly.  Men and women react differently to each other's bodies.  If women have a responsibility to dress in a way that does not cause impure thoughts in men, shouldn't men have the same responsibility?  

And if women are modest--in part--to help men not lust after them (if the definition of modesty for a women includes that aspect), then shouldn't modesty for men also include the same aspect? If a woman can't be modest if she dresses in a way that invites impure thoughts, then shouldn't that mean that men also can't be modest if they dress in a way that invites impure thoughts in women?

I'm probably not saying it very well so i don't blame you if you are confused.

Of course. What would such a code look like? I think there is a difference between lust and attraction. That may be where our purposes cross.

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We can all agree that our concepts of modesty are different. There are degrees of tolerance and intolerance on all sides. As endowed Mormons, we have a standard that is defined by the garment. For us, that is the starting point. Belittling our brothers and sisters and their kids who adhere to that standard serves no one. Teaching, believing, and living it should be applauded, not demonized. It does not foster a rape culture. On the contrary, it opposes the objectifying and sexualizing of women

Nope, I believe the opposite, that her nephew sexualized his sister by crying that she was in a bikini, IMO. Not all his fault though. And I know of a woman that did the same thing with the volley ball Olympics' women. She was quite upset that they wore what they did, along with the swimsuits of the women swimmers. She sexulized women also.

Please, when is it going to end.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Tacenda

[Yirgacheffe]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

I've always been under the impression that the sanitation code by me requires anyone who prepares food or drinks has to have sleeves. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course. What would such a code look like? I think there is a difference between lust and attraction. That may be where our purposes cross.

That's the million dollar question.  Implying that a woman isn't a real woman if she wears something that you (general you, not you specifically) find sexually stimulating implies that we are each allowed to set our own code and then judge whether people are 'real' men or 'real' women (with all the inherent modesty and being their brother/sister's keeper in regards to sexual thoughts that being 'real' entails) based on it.  

But holding people to an arbitrary and subjective code that is different for everyone isn't very just or practical.

I think that's why modesty is much easier to define and live when we take out the 'do this to keep members of the opposite sex from lusting after you' element.  Making 'being responsible for the sexual thoughts of others' part of being modest sets everyone up for failure.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's the million dollar question.  Implying that a woman isn't a real woman if she wears something that you (general you, not you specifically) find sexually stimulating implies that we are each allowed to set our own code and then judge whether people are 'real' men or 'real' women (with all the inherent modesty and being their brother/sister's keeper in regards to sexual thoughts that being 'real' entails) based on it.  

But holding people to an arbitrary and subjective code that is different for everyone isn't very just or practical.

I think that's why modesty is much easier to define and live when we take out the 'do this to keep members of the opposite sex from lusting after you' element.  Making 'being responsible for the sexual thoughts of others' part of being modest sets everyone up for failure.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Tacenda

[Bernard Gui]

20 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Nope, I believe the opposite, that her nephew sexualized his sister by crying that she was in a bikini, IMO. Not all his fault though. And I know of a woman that did the same thing with the volley ball Olympics' women. She was quite upset that they wore what they did, along with the swimsuits of the women swimmers. She sexulized women also.

Please, when is it going to end.

It is a difficult issue.

[edited for contentious remarks]

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

19 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

I've always been under the impression that the sanitation code by me requires anyone who prepares food or drinks has to have sleeves. 

Apparently not. Certainly not at the Cowgirl stands. Keep in mind this is a Seattle company. Maybe it would be different if the corporates were in San Francisco?

[edited to add explicit content warning and to apologize for any offense]

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Apparently not. Certainly not at the Cowgirl stands. 

I can't wear sleeves..too much dishwashing and icing all over me!!

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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! 

 

 

I will admit that I hadn't watched the video until just now.  Scandalous!!  

Yeah, the kid who had impure thoughts needs to just stay away from basketball games.  These girls are not wearing titillating uniforms.  They are no more brief than standard athletic uniforms for girls.  In fact, just off the cuff, I'd say that at his age impure thoughts would be more or less coming on their own.  He needs to get a grip -- or get a grip and just enjoy the sight.

Barefoot?  That's extreme.  But a young woman wearing a bikini for a home teacher visit?  Hmmm.  Why doesn't she just wear a bra and panties?  Same thing.  But either way, it's not appropriate for the occasion.  And some will say that a bikini is always inappropriate. I tend to agree.

Yeah, I'm so perfect that in order to keep from being translated, I have to do a Google search on images of pretty women in bikinis at least once per week.  A little titillation and then I'm good for one more week in mortality.

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That's the million dollar question.  Implying that a woman isn't a real woman if she wears something that you (general you, not you specifically) find sexually stimulating implies that we are each allowed to set our own code and then judge whether people are 'real' men or 'real' women (with all the inherent modesty and being their brother/sister's keeper in regards to sexual thoughts that being 'real' entails) based on it.  

But holding people to an arbitrary and subjective code that is different for everyone isn't very just or practical.

I think that's why modesty is much easier to define and live when we take out the 'do this to keep members of the opposite sex from lusting after you' element.  Making 'being responsible for the sexual thoughts of others' part of being modest sets everyone up for failure.

Well...you know..I have a problem with men in sandals!  Good post!

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That's the million dollar question.  Implying that a woman isn't a real woman if she wears something that you (general you, not you specifically) find sexually stimulating implies that we are each allowed to set our own code and then judge whether people are 'real' men or 'real' women (with all the inherent modesty and being their brother/sister's keeper in regards to sexual thoughts that being 'real' entails) based on it.  

But holding people to an arbitrary and subjective code that is different for everyone isn't very just or practical.

I think that's why modesty is much easier to define and live when we take out the 'do this to keep members of the opposite sex from lusting after you' element.  Making 'being responsible for the sexual thoughts of others' part of being modest sets everyone up for failure.

Not sure what's the issue. Must be that I said I believe modesty is the indicator of being a "real" woman. Perhaps I should have said an indicator.  It was, after all, one out of dozens of responses I have made in this discussion. I'm not usually this open and frank. I am remembering why. In the larger posts expressing my feelings, I think I have soldiered on for its importance. I certainly have not made a case that women are responsible for men's "impure thoughts." 

Do you have problems with any of the sample dress codes I have shared? They appear to be quite typical of what is out there and are not written by Mormons but would probably fit quite well in an LDS situation. The consequences for not following them can result in disciplinary actions, retraining, or dismissal. Do you think they foster a "rape culture?" 

It's part of our endowment covenant and the instructions are quite specific. If our heritage and destiny is to be like our Heavenly Parents as we believe, we should be interested in how they view us and each other. I plead for both men and women to consider the conditions, consider their actions, and respond as they think the holy family would. We live in the fallen world and we all do what we can to cope. Eventually, we will see things as they do. If we promise to bear one another's burdens, and modesty is a burden, we should at least be willing to consider our brothers and sisters as they wrestle with life. That's all I'm asking.

What would you consider to be a reasonable and practical dress code... say for a school or office where men and women, boys and girls, live in close proximity?

Edited September 22, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Compare the women's Olympic beach and court v-ball uniforms with the men's. Really. It's plain to see which hand has the chocolate.That's been a main issue of this discussion.

From this article

“The athletes are allowed to wear long sleeves, they’re allowed to wear shorts, tank tops,” Calabro said. “But we’ve gotten a lot of athletes on record saying they prefer to wear a two-piece because there are less places for sand to hide. They don’t view it as swim wear or anything like a fashion statement. For them, that’s their uniform.”

It's their option. Most choose a bikini style uniform for practicality. 

Court v-ball honestly doesn't look all that different to me. Slightly shorter and tighter shorts for the women, but not by much, and they look comfier in my mind and not what I'd call sexualized. 

That some of us see them as sexualized, probably still says more about us than the sport.

 

With luv,

BD  

[BlueDreams]

On 9/21/2016 at 1:23 AM, Bernard Gui said:

The cheerleaders felt they got some microagression. The boy got some macro aggression.

It's tricky to figure out a workable unisex dress code.

That's beautiful about the temple. I wonder if that approach would work in a high school.

Macro aggression isn't a term. It's just aggression, either overt or covert. I don't know if the boy got "macro" aggression. He isn't named, it's in a school just shy of 2000, and there's no real way to ID him. It's not liked, sure, but he's not the major focus. I feel bad for the kid, but I wouldn't call this an act of aggression unless there was evidence he was named and publically shamed. You can assume based on what you know about HS. But I was a HS at a large high school of 3K and that's just not as likely because everybody doesn't know everybody. 

IF the policy was actually going to be a policy based on what info they had it would have included a level of shaming and enforcing body consciousness in a way that's unhealthy.

I wasn't talking about a unisex dress code, just a dress code that's equally applied. Oddly I checked out my old HS for its dress code and found out it was unisex in basic wording (not true for Timpview). My concern is the application. If there is both a boy and girl walking about in a tank, are they both called out on it, sort of thing.

I'm not sure if it would apply in a HS. As I mentioned, I don't care as much about dress codes in general. As long as they're dressed, their clothes are clean, it's appropriate for the setting (no snorkeling gear in class, no jeans at a black tie event, sort of thing), and there's nothing overtly offensive or provocative about the outfit, I don't care what they wear. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

[Yirgacheffe]

57 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Apparently not. Certainly not at the Cowgirl stands. Keep in mind this is a Seattle company. Maybe it would be different if the corporates were in San Francisco?

I don't see anyone in the picture who doesn't have sleeves.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

I hope you don't feel it was intrusive of me to suggest it.  If we are not aware of the sources of influences on us, it is harder to change when we believe we should.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

As endowed Mormons, we have a standard that is defined by the garment. For us, that is the starting point. 

For endowed members yes, I am not aware of anything that suggests that should be our standard when looking at the rest of the world and judging if modest or immodest.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

I don't see anyone in the picture who doesn't have sleeves.

This is not a picture of Cowgirl Expresso, which would get BG banned if he posted one or a link to it.

[Honorentheos]

20 hours 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. 

That challenge this creates is modesty is a horizontal definition. Your view of it versus someone's view who bases it on their culture are really no different from one another. It takes a form of vertical thinking to see it for what it is and not make value judgments purely on the basis you are applying the definition of modesty you believe is right (which also happens to be the one you were dealt I guess).

As such, there isn't much to say about different cultural norms regarding modesty standards. Burkinis, shirt sleeves, ear piercings, exposed belly buttons, expose ankles, short-shorts and torn t-shirts...they're all expressions of cultural norms. I don't think they're relevant to the bigger picture question. At least, not more than how they may inhibit development of healthy behaviors and relationships. We'll move on from that, though, since it's been stated plenty.

Now, the question of if there is some divine, transcendent law has been introduced when you said,

20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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."

While every aspect of this could be debated from "Is there a Savior?". "Does any particular 21st c. interpretation of the New Testament accurately express the teaching of the historical Jesus of Nazareth some 2,000 years ago in a province of the Roman Empire?" or "Does the LDS church have unique access to divine truths that have an eternal, universally applicable nature?" - we'd never get anywhere because we would disagree so strongly at the outset it would be a quagmire to approach the question from that angle.

If we approach it from assuming your position as stated above, I still think we're left with a rather challenging question, "To what eternal end?"

By that I mean, "To what eternal end is it God's will that a person's eternal soul be in jeopardized by looking at a person who is living a different standard in a telestial world?" What is it you believe is God's purpose here? To test...?

"To what eternal end is it's God's will that people be told standards of dress that are designed to shield one sex so the other doesn't experience emotional reactions to seeing them that by their nature is likely to conclude with the person being so tempted they are in spiritual danger?"

There are other questions this raises just by accepting the paradigm as provided. Which is certainly debatable but this being a Mormon Discussion board it's fair to assume the discussion take place from that perspective.

Basically, I'm curious how you tie this into the bigger picture of LDS theology.

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by Honorentheos

[Yirgacheffe]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

This is not a picture of Cowgirl Expresso, which would get BG banned if he posted one or a link to it.

Well I was a little confused since he said "apparently not" in regards to my comment about sleeves being required for those who prepare food and drinks, and then posted a picture of people with sleeves.  There are no Cowgirl Espressos by me and I still think that sanitation code requires sleeves for people who prepare food and drinks.

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

From this article

“The athletes are allowed to wear long sleeves, they’re allowed to wear shorts, tank tops,” Calabro said. “But we’ve gotten a lot of athletes on record saying they prefer to wear a two-piece because there are less places for sand to hide. They don’t view it as swim wear or anything like a fashion statement. For them, that’s their uniform.”

It's their option. Most choose a bikini style uniform for practicality. 

Court v-ball honestly doesn't look all that different to me. Slightly shorter and tighter shorts for the women, but not by much, and they look comfier in my mind and not what I'd call sexualized. 

That some of us see them as sexualized, probably still says more about us than the sport.

With luv,

BD  

Your last comment is unfair. It's the reason most men won't discuss topics like this. I had hoped we would not go in that direction.

[edited to remove contentious content]

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

For endowed members yes, I am not aware of anything that suggests that should be our standard when looking at the rest of the world and judging if modest or immodest.

Oh my. I have said that we cannot and should not do that many, many times in this discussion. 

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Deleted for contentious content

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui