Emphasis on Modesty=Rape Culture in Utah

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

 

 

 

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

 

I wrote two long essays doing that very thing. Perhaps you could read them? The discussion is now going in all kinds of circles. Time to shut down.

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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

 

 

No, it's not a term. I made it up to poke at those who do the micro aggression thing and to describe what happened to this kid as the result of a visit with the high school counsellor. Having taught in high schools for 42 years, I don't doubt he has been outed.

The story should never have seen the light of day.

[edited for contentious remarks]

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Yirgacheffe]

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don't doubt he has been outed.

IMO that would depend on how big the HS was, ours has over 2500 kids from 7 different towns, and how well any given group is connected with the young man.  If he is "outed" it came from people who are close to him, since no one at the school has named names.  If he is outed, it again in my opinion is why gossip is the most prevalent and underrated "sin" among human beings.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

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.  

I was too, so I googled.  Wished I hadn't.

[saemo]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Honestly, I don't buy the hiding sand bit. The men aren't out there in Speedos and they have plenty of places for sand to irritate. I could post pictures of male/female volleyball, but at this point it just becomes a duel of whatever.

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. Actually, I'm surprised it has gone on without it for this long. I don't understand how you can read what I have written, especially my long essay above and think that about me. I have been as open and honest as I know how in this discussion. I used to post with my real name back in the previous iteration of this board. In a discussion on modesty...of all things....I mentioned that my wife and I were on a school district task force to pick school uniforms for our secondary schools. Two women on the board questioned my motives for wanting to be on the task force and accused me of being a child molester. How does one defend against that? That's when I assumed a screen name. I suppose this could be an example of a real micro aggression. Anyway, thanks for your comments.

Time to shut this down.

It's because the subject touches on privacy of oneself and ones children. That innermost aspect of our being. Sorry, but many would view a man that expresses too much detail about what women and girls are wearing and why they shouldn't, might cause an alarm to go off. 

Seeing I just had unconscious bias training with the Googlers, I didn't go there because I didn't see that as the intent or the context. People have their biases, that they don't even know they have. You experienced a bias. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

A search on the term "endowed" comes up once for you on the 16th.  No doubt you made the connection in less explicit ways, but my memory is not so good I hold on to one direct post made in the mass of others after six days...and I am not willing to take the time in this thread today to reread it to remind me where we have been.

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

A search on the term "endowed" comes up once for you on the 16th.  No doubt you made the connection in less explicit ways, but my memory is not so good I hold on to one direct post made in the mass of others after six days...and I am not willing to take the time in this thread today to reread it to remind me where we have been.

I don't remember any time that I called for imposing our standards on anyone else. We cannot do that. We can advocate for our standards, though, hopefully without fear of being misunderstood or wrongfully judged. That is what I have meant when I said several times that men swim in deep waters when we discuss this issue. My intent has been only to speak in the context of the church and the temple. If I have given an impression otherwise, I apologize. 

Here are some examples of explicit statements.

 

Quote

"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."

"This discussion has been directed towards the LDS standards of modesty and how they are taught and received. No one is suggesting we impose our standards on the rest of the world nor that modesty standards should be enforced by laws."

"Would you agree that the standard of modesty defined by the temple garment crosses cultural and societal lines? Whatever the cultural and societal norms, there actually is a model of modesty that has divine approval, a higher standard that people embrace when they choose to be endowed. For some it requires drastic changes in dress and thinking habits. Of course we cannot and must not impose this on others or shame them into accepting it. I am not asking for that. We can decide how closely we will keep the covenant. And we should also be allowed to advocate for it without fear of being labeled hateful sexist misogynistic promoters of "rape culture." It's a difficult issue for sure."

"This is a high standard [controlling one's thoughts] and Jesus reserved some of his strongest condemnation for adulterers.  It is a high standard that teaches absolute respect, honor, and reverence for women. That is the best rape protection there can be. If one wishes to follow Christ, one has to take this teaching seriously and figure out what one has to do to obey it. Most men could not care less. Any man wishing to follow Christ has to wrestle with it. "

"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 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."

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I was too, so I googled.  Wished I hadn't.

Very sorry. There are several coffee franchises in the Seattle area that use that business model. I should have included a specific warning. It's hard to unring the bell.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

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.

I apologize for bringing that up without a warning. It had been an issue in our area.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

IMO that would depend on how big the HS was, ours has over 2500 kids from 7 different towns, and how well any given group is connected with the young man.  If he is "outed" it came from people who are close to him, since no one at the school has named names.  If he is outed, it again in my opinion is why gossip is the most prevalent and underrated "sin" among human beings.

I agree with you.

[Bernard Gui]

Thanks to all who have participated. I have learned much.  One thing I have learned is always to avoid this topic in the future. It would have been better just to have said, "I don't think the LDS Church fosters a 'rape culture' and the school was wrong to reveal what the boy said in confidence," and let it go at that.

This can be a divisive and contentious issue for many people, with so many ways to see it. I hope I have not offended anyone. I realize this is sensitive personal topic and it is very easy to be misunderstood. If so, please accept my apologies. My hope is that as brothers and sisters we can help bear each other's burdens even in this. I don't believe anything new can be said, so I have asked the mods to shut it down. 

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

delete by BG for contentious response

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On September 21, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Garden Girl said:

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 

The comment I made about deleting the Savior's teachings was intended to be sarcastic. As you say, we believe in all the commandments. Sorry for the confusion.

Tying up loose ends at the end of my participation.

[Tacenda]

It was a good discussion Bernard, glad you posted it! 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks to all who have participated. I have learned much.  One thing is always to avoid this topic in the future. It would have been better to just say I don't think the LDS Church fosters a "rape culture" and let it go at that.

This is a difficult and personal issue with so many ways to see it. I hope I have not offended anyone. I realize this can be a sensitive topic and it is very easy to be misunderstood. If so, please accept my apologies. I don't believe anything new can be said, so I have asked the mods to shut it down. 

This really frustrates me. It frustrates me that when it is a topic that specifically concerns women then some men don't participate, some men consider it a prickly subject (verses other subjects that are not considered prickly) and that sometimes men want to shut the conversation down.

A year ago I was having a talk with my dad. He assumed some women were doing a  specific thing for a specific negative reason. I did not agree with the women, but I did understand many of them and understood their reason was not what he assumed it to be.  As I tried to explain he walked out on me mid sentence. I can't tell you how much that hurt.

Now I have no emotions tied to you so I am not hurt by you closing down the thread,  but I am frustrated that when faithful women want to be heard then the "defenders" of the church seem to get in combative mode or pretty much leave the topic alone.  I've been thinking about it a lot lately and have decided that somehow we need to make the conversation safe for both men and women and assume faithfulness on both sides. 

I am frustrated, yet I agree it may be time to close down this specific thread. Not because the conversation should be over with, but as you say, there were too many things going on and the OP wasn't specific enough for what you were trying to say.   

Edited September 23, 2016 by Rain

[Bernard Gui]

47 minutes ago, Rain said:

This really frustrates me. It frustrates me that when it is a topic that specifically concerns women then some men don't participate, some men consider it a prickly subject (verses other subjects that are not considered prickly) and that sometimes men want to shut the conversation down.

A year ago I was having a talk with my dad. He assumed some women were doing a  specific thing for a specific negative reason. I did not agree with the women, but I did understand many of them and understood their reason was not what he assumed it to be.  As I tried to explain he walked out on me mid sentence. I can't tell you how much that hurt.

Now I have no emotions tied to you so I am not hurt by you closing down the thread,  but I am frustrated that when faithful women want to be heard then the "defenders" of the church either get in combative mode or pretty much leave the topic alone.  I've been thinking about it a lot lately and have decided that somehow we need to make the conversation safe for both men and women and assume faithfulness on both sides. 

I am frustrated, yet I agree it may be time to close down this specific thread. Not because the conversation should be over with, but as you say, there were too many things going on and the OP wasn't specific enough for what you were trying to say.   

I had no intentions to offend anyone by shutting it down. It didn't even cross my mind that this could be offensive.  It certainly was not intended to shut people up or to walk away in disrespect. I have been as open, frank, and honest as I can because I think it is an important principle. Let me explain why I asked to shut it down.

In a similar discussion on the previous iteration of this board, I shared the experience Sister Gui and I had working on our school district task force to choose a uniform for our secondary schools. We were actually in that process during the discussion. At the time I used my real name on the board,

Two ladies started to grill me about why I wanted to have uniforms. The reason was to eliminate problems like the ones we have been discussing here, but they took to the notion that I was some sort of pervert, and accused me of being a child molester. How does a person defend against that kind of accusation? 

Knowing what can happen when names are associated with bad things on the Internet, I was concerned that my name could be connected to the term child molester. At that point, I assumed the screen name Bernard Gui.

This is the danger that men face when discussing this issue... whether it be on a discussion board in a school or company staff meeting. It's so easy to say the man is projecting, not being sensitive enough, a repressed pervert, not understanding, etc. I had hoped that wouldn't be the case here, but it has taken a course in that direction. Men should not have to fear being judged in this way....and neither should women.

I see this is important to you, moreso than I had supposed. Why not start up a new thread to address those issues? I would participate, but not as openly and frankly as I have here.... lesson learned.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

I understand being shy to respond to a subjest when you have been burned before. I can understand not using a real name (I've had friends stalked, known of families and employers being contacted etc. Crazy!)

But I'm unsure of what specifically makes you shy about what was said here. Maybe I just missed it speeding through, but I don't recall anyone calling you a pervert etc. Would you please share the specific words that made you feel unsafe, either here or by PM?  I (we) can't change if we don't know where the problem lies.  It's a possibility that we will disagree on what needs to be changed,  but at least we could have more understanding. 

Edited September 23, 2016 by Rain

[Bernard Gui]

53 minutes ago, Rain said:

I understand being shy to respond to a subjest when you have been burned before. I can understand not using a real name (I've had friends stalked, known of families and employers being contacted etc. Crazy!)

But I'm unsure of what specifically makes you shy about what was said here. Maybe I just missed it speeding through, but I don't recall anyone calling you a pervert etc. Would you please share the specific words that made you feel unsafe, either here or by PM?  I (we) can't change if we don't know where the problem lies.  It's a possibility that we will disagree on what needs to be changed,  but at least we could have more understanding. 

Yes, this is what triggered my knee-jerk response.

Quote

That some of us see them [male/female sports uniforms] as sexualized, probably still says more about us than the sport.

Since I was the one who "saw them as sexualized" (which I do believe for reasons I have given numerous times in this discussion), I was concerned that it "says more about me." What exactly does it say about me? How do I answer that?

In my experience, this is how it starts. Instead of discussing the issue, we now explore what my supposed problems are. That's exactly what happened in the previous iteration of this board. It's kind of like the "have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Like the story I told earlier when our school tried to enforce a dress code by giving male teachers a card saying "Please report to the office" that they could pass to a girl dressed immodestly, rather than confront her directly. The first time I did that, the young lady asked angrily, "What are you looking at!!!!???." I saw my career pass before my eyes. I said, "Nothing. Please go to the office." Much of my passion on this issue comes from being on the front line of the dress code fight for decades in the public schools and at church. It's not helpful to attribute that to some kind of projection of the "rape culture."

We should be able to discuss this openly without fear of being judged, not that the poster was judging me - who knows?, but it will quickly go down that path. I have really tried hard to avoid this in this discussion. Most people have been respectful, even when strongly disagreeing. That's commendable.

I'm surprised it lasted this long.

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Rain: would you prefer to open your own thread or that I not shut this one down? Or should we just let it go?

[BlueDreams]

18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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. 

What are you talking about?? I didn't even make it a gendered comment (some of us can include women such as the one tacenda had as an example). And it's completely fair. You assumed that the reason is one of appeal, I assume with your comment of "which hand holds the chocolate." I assume that means which sex is more sexually depicted by expectations in our society. I googled images because I don't watch volleyball and noticed the discrepancy. I initially was assuming something similar in the sense that if this is a mandatory outfit it's unequal. But it also didn't make sense because Egypt also dresses hyper modestly. And then I read the article and it made sense.

In general, This hyper-sensitvity over a perceived judgment or attack by the women here is getting ridiculous. I've read almost every comment on here and I'm not seeing how it's even warranted. This is a debate/discussion  board. We debate and discuss. And if people make general comments about something that are cultural or personal assumptions with little actual evidence to support it, there's push back. It doesn't matter the topic. 

One other general comment. current fashion can focus too heavily on women's modestly or women's sexuality. There can be disparities in displaying a woman compared to a man. I know this. But I also keep thinking about summers in Utah. I live in super Mormon country and am just a few minutes away from the school in question. Men and women can be equally unclothed, particularly for outdoor activities. Sure women are more likely to wear shorter shorts and tanks or various sports. But so are men, when given the choice and it's relatively fashionable. They'll run around (literally running) topless in shorter shorts. Some of the men are wearing far less clothing than the women doing the same excercise (such as running).

And though I know men and women can be socialized in expressing or understanding their sexuality very differently, I have never seen evidence that visual lust of real people is a uniquely male experience. Crrtain expressions of lust can be (men are more likely to regularly view porn, for example). But the experiences of checking out for too long someone attractively dressed or wearing little or having unobtainable crushes and fantasies about said crushes, isn't. Not even close. So when people point this out as a uniquely male problem or at least more potent for men, it doesn't show well with what I've seen.

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited September 23, 2016 by BlueDreams
grammar

[Bernard Gui]

BD: Please see my response to Rain.  I have acknowledged several times that it is not just a male problem, but I believe it is more pronounced for men. My feelings are my own and I am entitled to have them, as are you. 

As a high councilman, one of my duties was to attend stake youth dances and be the guy at the door checking for dress standards. On my first night, I realized this was going to turn into the same situation that I had faced at school.... challenging a young woman's dress left me open to "what are you looking at?" At school and at church I suggested that enforcing dress standards for girls should be done by the women, not the men. At church this was taken to heart. At school, only a handful of women stepped up to the plate. Most of the faculty women thought there was no problem and the girls were just being cute. I don't understand that word.

Are you familiar with "it's plain to see which hand has the chocolate" the Peter/Paul/Mary Talking Candy Bar Blues? A guy innocently offers a piece of chocolate to a kid on the playground, the kid runs away, a crowd gathers, someone shouts, "Pervert!", the police show up, the guy protests his innocence, but the cop asks him to show his hands, one of which is covered in melted chocolate, and then the line, "It's plain to see which hand has the chocolate." He was referring to a current ad for M&Ms that showed kids with melted chocolate all over their hands or holding up clean hands with M&Ms. "It's plain to see which hand has the chocolate," the ad finishes. It may seem ridiculous to you, but this is what it feels like to me. My feelings are my own and I am entitled to have them, as are you.

[EDIT: Dang YouTube!!!!!! Inappropriate links AFTER the youtube video. Deleting link and suggesting you simply Google Talking Candy Bar Blues]

Here are the lyrics:

Bought a candy bar the other day
Only ate half, s'gonna throw the rest away
When I saw this kid playin' in the street
I said, "Hey kid, you want somethin' to eat?"
He said, "Whut?", I said "Candy, son", he said, "Help"
Then he started to run and I stood there
Watchin' him go, half a bar of chocolate
Runnin' down my fingers

Well, the kid comes back in a minute or two
But his mom's with him and the neighbors too
And they got the kid scared it's plain to see
They say, "Which one done it?" he points at me
He says "Him", I say, "What do you mean?"
He says "You!" then he starts to scream
And I'm standin', everybody's lookin'
Everybody's starin' at me

Howdy doody, y'all waitin' for the bus?
Ah, a little late isn't it, anybody got a watch?
We could uh see how late it is
I got a better idea, let's find somebody with a watch
And stare at him

Well some start pickin' up baseball bats
And the others are pullin' the pins from their hats
"I think this thing's gone a little too far
Hell, I only offered him a candy bar", I said, "Wait"
I said, "What are you doin'?"
They said, "Prevert the kid's life is ruined"
"Oh oh well, then you better check what he's chewin'
'Cause I got the feelin' he's in the middle of a bubble gum orgy"

Well, they're comin' at me and I'm backin' away
And then I hear this policeman say
"Are you positive he's the right man?"
I quick flicked the candy bar out of my hand
He says, "Show me", I says, "Show ya what?"
He says the candy bar you degenarut and he grabs me
He grabs both my hands, pretty easy to see
Which hands got the chocolate

Well, I've had some troubled times before
But none like the trip from the candy store
Sympathize with the kid all right
Somebodys nice to ya, probably aint right
I'll grow up, I'll learn the way
I'll learn so that my later days'll be prosperous
Chocolate covered
If I don't bite off more than I can hide.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Rain: would you prefer to open your own thread or that I not shut this one down? Or should we just let it go?

I opened a new thread, but it is about how to talk about topics like this. I think as long as some can find value in it then I think it would be fine to keep it open.  You would just have to recognize there are a lot of subjects open in this thread and after 20 something pages of those subjects it won't stay to your original thoughts. 

I get why the sexualized uniform comment would bother you. I find the concept ("says more about you") holds true often (people often judge other people they say are judmental), but see why that bothered you. If this were my husband I would ask him what he meant by that. He would tell me and it would be cleared up pretty quickly to both of our satisfactions. I recognize that will not always hold true on message boards, but may help.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Rain

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

I opened a new thread, but it is about how to talk about topics like this. I think as long as some can find value in it then I think it would be fine to keep it open.  You would just have to recognize there are a lot of subjects open in this thread and after 20 something pages of those subjects it won't stay to your original thoughts. 

I get why the sexualized uniform comment would bother you. I find the concept ("says more about you") holds true often (people often judge other people they say are judmental), but see why that bothered you. If this were my husband and I would ask him what he meant by that. He would tell me and it would be cleared up pretty quickly to both of our satisfactions. I recognize that will not always hold true on message boards, but may help.

Well, I thank you for your compassion and wisdom. I hope you read my last response to BD.

[bsjkki]

I'm a little touchy on this subject because in the last few years I've retrained my brain.  For years, I never questioned anything and was a little self-righteous.  It was before I had teens and learned.  My mothers method of teaching modesty was to point out all the girls that were not dressing up to lds standards.  She was subtly degrading them even though they were not Mormon but it was her way of emphasizing the importance of Mormon modesty standards.  I remember feeling quite guilty as a  teen for wearing a tennis shirt while playing tennis that did not have cap sleeves. It had very wide straps but did not go down the shoulder.  I continued this practice of judging others, especially Mormon girls, if they did not live up to my definition of modestly standards and being shocked their mothers would let them run around like that.  

Well fast forward a few years and I had this experience.  My son did not get married in the temple.  He married a beautiful, lovely girl and she looked beautiful on her wedding day.  The first thought I had when I saw her dress was,'Oh, my it's not up to Mormon standards. Oh dear, what will all my family think.'  After the wedding pics were posted my daughter got Facebook messages from friends with the response, 'I'm so disappointed her dress wasn't modest.'  Really.  No congrats or positive comments, just--I'm sad her dress wasn't modest.  

I then did a very thorough study of the New Testament and decided this is not how Christ sees people.  He doesn't judge them by the clothes they wear or if they are believers or not.  I decided from then on to see people how I think Christ sees them.  To treat them how he would have me treat them.  To think about people they way I think Christ thinks about us.  I do not believe he loves us more because we are Mormon but that we have a special work to do because we are Mormon.  As his servants, we must be worthy to do his work but we must not feel superior or get self-righteous or we won't be as effective representing the Savior.  When people judge people by their dress before being happy for them on their wedding day, there is a problem.  

Bernard Gui, I know we don't see eye to eye on this topic and sometimes, we have talked past each other, but I respect you for engaging in the conversation.  I am on this board to hear opposing viewpoints as well as share my own.  I have absolutely discovered I can change the way I think and I can reassess long held beliefs and come to different conclusions.  I am very thankful to have others to learn from and try to understand their viewpoint.  

Edited September 23, 2016 by bsjkki

[Yirgacheffe]

41 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

'I'm so disappointed her dress wasn't modest.'  Really.  No congrats or positive comments, just--I'm sad her dress wasn't modest.  

This is where my mother would have come in with, "if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all, there is never any call for meanness".