Emphasis on Modesty=Rape Culture in Utah

[Tacenda]

It's no wonder this young man and his mother went to the school.......

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/pornography?lang=eng

"Finally, do not patronize pornography. Do not use your purchasing power to support moral degradation. And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you."

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Ah yes, the Pres McKay story. It's kind of the Godwin's Law of LDS modesty discussions. The longer the discussion, the closer to certainty that it will appear. 

Would you say it justifies immodesty? Or does it imply there is no need for modesty if we were are all pure of heart as was Pres McKay? Does the Church foster a "rape culture" because of its emphasis on modesty? I don't know. That's why I'm asking these questions.

And the Bill Clintons of the world. Caution indeed, but let's not get political.

“The best protection against rape, stalking, and domestic violence is to raise men who both understand that women are different, and would never dare take advantage of this difference.” 
― Wendy Shalit, A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue

Notions of modesty are culture-driven and vary widely.  In a modern, multicultural society such as ours, which also fosters freedom of expression along with tolerance, it may be expecting too much to find only good-hearted and restrained behavior in all places and at all times.  The totalitarian temptation is always present, making some of us feel that we should reach out and control the behavior of others, and that we should legislate morality.  The Constitution be damned.

Now, of course, were I Buddhist, I would recount the story of the two monks who came to a river.  There they found a woman who was afraid to cross for fear of drowning.  One monk picked her up, carried her across, and set her down on the other side.  The two monks then proceeded on their way.  After some time, one monk said to the other, "I can't believe that you actually carried that woman across the river" (monks are not supposed to have female contact)  The other monk replied:  "I set her down on the other side.  You are still carrying her."

Jesus did equally scandalous things with women and low-lifes in his society.  Whether any of these stories are true is not the point.  Rather a principle of basic goodness is being conveyed -- which is far more important than some busybody's narrow requirements.  The letter killeth, and the Spirit giveth life.  Wendy Shalit's prescription sounds nice, but will definitely not be put into practice.  Everyone needs to learn lovingkindness by seeing it practiced all around them, and to learn tolerance for those who differ with us in some particulars.  That includes tolerance for political leaders who seem unable to stop committing adultery, which includes dozens from both political parties.  How odd that you think it an appropriate subject for a thread on rape-culture, which is completely unrelated.

[Rain]

25 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

We do get wound up on this topic.  As I have read through many of the posts, read articles, and reviewed Church material I think there is a high degree of confusion - specifically, that people are conflating what modesty is and what we believe about it.  

First, I read two articles, one in Time entitled, "The Troubling Connection Between Modesty Culture and Rape Culture" and the other on Patheos entitled, "How the Modesty Doctrine Fuels Rape Culture" promoted the concept that women/girls needed to be modest because their bodies caused boys or men to fall or to sin.  The problem with this line of thinking is this is not why or how the Church of Jesus Christ teaches modesty.  Prima facie evidence is the simply to look at the temple garment.  We don't wear the garment because without it the opposite sex would fall into sin.

We teach that we are modest because we glorify God both in our spirit and in our bodies (See 1 Cor 6:20).  Further, that the human body is sacred.  How we clothe the sacred is revealing; it expresses who we are and what caliber of people interest us.  

I acknowledge that some parents and individuals may teach the concept of modesty poorly or that they miss the more important aspects of the teaching.  Yet, that does not invalidate the need for modesty or made modesty invalid.  Further, the wrong way should not dictate the end all of modesty and/or allow it be accused of promoting the rape culture.  I think the accusation is wrong and it is stretching credulity to make it responsible for assisting or building a rape culture.  

It is perplexing to me that some make the accusation that the language is vague or easily misunderstood.  Please tell me, who does not understand what the following means "short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach....."  Is there a single thinking adult or teenager that does not understand what a short skirt is or short shorts?  Why play with words or strive to become pharisees.  No, we have never needed to measure the length of a short skirt and we should not attempt to define it as such.  If you cannot bend over to pick up your shoe without showing your backside your skirt is too short.  This is just plain old common sense, which seems to be in short supply in this day and age.

When teach modesty we need to teach it property and for the right reasons.  We are not modest to benefit others, but to further strengthen our own relationship with God and reflect our understanding of holiness, righteousness, and beauty.  

 

 

I agree with much of what you have said. I do think some take it way too far, but it bothers me that some seem to feel there is never a problem with how modesty is taught. The things you were saying is much along the lines of how I feel it should be taught, but it is ok to look at the topic and see some things should be changed. 

One of the things I get frustrated with is when I share my concerns over these matters I feel I sometimes get automatically dumped in with Kate Kelly (or in this case the person who shared the story on Mormon Stories facebook page). Some will say she got people talking and changing things. I think she set us back because I feel that some in defence against her won't listen to some who stand with the church,  but can see that some things need  to change that don't affect doctrine.

There are definitely good ways and bad ways to do it. One should say, "hey I see a problem. Here is why it is a problem. Can we look at doing it this ways instead?" Much more effective then saying, "You are doing it all wrong! You don't  care about others and want to perpetuate hurt."

And the other side should listen with the heart and say, "help me to understand your concern better so we can see if we need to change and how to do it" instead of "you are just against the church or are siding with those against the church."

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

I agree with much of what you have said. I do think some take it way too far, but it bothers me that some seem to feel there is never a problem with how modesty is taught. The things you were saying is much along the lines of how I feel it should be taught, but it is ok to look at the topic and see some things should be changed. 

One of the things I get frustrated with is when I share my concerns over these matters I feel I sometimes get automatically dumped in with Kate Kelly (or in this case the person who shared the story on Mormon Stories facebook page). Some will say she got people talking and changing things. I think she set us back because I feel that some in defence against her won't listen to some who stand with the church,  but can see that some things need  to change that don't affect doctrine.

There are definitely good ways and bad ways to do it. One should say, "hey I see a problem. Here is why it is a problem. Can we look at doing it this ways instead?" Much more effective then saying, "You are doing it all wrong! You don't  care about others and want to perpetuate hurt."

And the other side should listen with the heart and say, "help me to understand your concern better so we can see if we need to change and how to do it" instead of "you are just against the church or are siding with those against the church."

Well said.  I often feel on this board that because I have concerns over how a certain principal of the gospel is taught, others assume I don't believe in the principal.  That is not the case.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Rain said:

I agree with much of what you have said. I do think some take it way too far, but it bothers me that some seem to feel there is never a problem with how modesty is taught. The things you were saying is much along the lines of how I feel it should be taught, but it is ok to look at the topic and see some things should be changed. 

One of the things I get frustrated with is when I share my concerns over these matters I feel I sometimes get automatically dumped in with Kate Kelly (or in this case the person who shared the story on Mormon Stories facebook page). Some will say she got people talking and changing things. I think she set us back because I feel that some in defence against her won't listen to some who stand with the church,  but can see that some things need  to change that don't affect doctrine.

There are definitely good ways and bad ways to do it. One should say, "hey I see a problem. Here is why it is a problem. Can we look at doing it this ways instead?" Much more effective then saying, "You are doing it all wrong! You don't  care about others and want to perpetuate hurt."

And the other side should listen with the heart and say, "help me to understand your concern better so we can see if we need to change and how to do it" instead of "you are just against the church or are siding with those against the church."

My thoughts too, anytime I see MormonStories or Kate Kelly in an article I think someone is going to be turned off and think it's anti. And not give anything in the article a chance.

[Jeanne]

I do understand everyone's thoughts on Kate Kelly.  I see where you stand and understand.  My only hope that you might realize just one thing..and it may be the only thing and that is she did give YOU more voice.  In my opinion, she did open up some doors that may have closed.  Finally...there is a group of people higher up who are willing to listen to your voices..if only to better communicate your good thoughts and ideas.  At least I hope this is the case.   I am sure that those priesthood holders that care about you...don't want to lose you.  Take the good and work with it.  Hugs..Jeanne

Edited September 16, 2016 by Jeanne

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My daughter was a cheerleader and I attest to this!!

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

All excellent points and wonderful principles. But when reality strikes as it inevitably does, the questions will all be along the line, How long? How short? How tight? How revealing? How little can I wear to the dance and still get in? Kids always have and always will test the limits. Should limits be imposed? What should modest dress, based on the principles you listed, look like? Is it different for men and women? At what point should adults intervene?

I don't know why we have to have exact stances. It still feels like we're speaking from 2 different perspectives. I am wanting the choice of how one dresses yourself to be a very personal decision based on what feels right to you and your beliefs. I think about it with those who are endowed and immediately have a specific restriction. I have a number of dresses from a slightly taller friend who had felt prompted to not wear anything even slightly above the knee. I didn't. I figure if it covers its good enough and for me, my garments come a lot higher. I have 2 or so dresses that are definitely above the knee. The bishop's wife the other day complimented me on of them. It's not a matter of needing to catch the eye of someone, it's that I feel beautiful in it. Simple as that. When I go hiking, I hike in a sports tank and mid-thigh shorts. I used to be more "modest," wearing clothes that would cover garments. But I would overheat at times and wasn't comfortable. So I changed it up and I liked the freedom of minimal clothes at times. On the trails, clothes range from those that are ankle-to-wrist in clothing and often with a hat for sun/bug exposure concerns, to people like me to men running about topless, and everything in between. During the winter it reverses. I wear double layers and thermal garments on the coldest days. It's not about where the line is, but what is appropriate for the circumstance and what do I feel comfortable in doing and represents me best.

Different clothes mean different things to people and one form isn't necessarily more "righteous." For example when I was a teen I went through a phase where I wore all dark colors. I was angry and miserable inside. As I got happier my wardrobe branched out and became brighter. To this day I associate all black on me with misery. Another person I know likes to wear all black. For her it's artsy and fits her playful and passionate personality. She may wear all black one day and then a completely different outfit the next. The symbol isn't universal.

Teens will learn to balance this. Like everything we learn growing up, they're likely to not do so perfectly. If it feels like a girl or boy are dressing in a way simply to gain sexual attention. I would work with them to find what is most important to them and help them reflect that message outward. Or I'd just wait and see. I still remembering testing the boundaries of sexual expression in clothes at a pool as a teen. I realized quickly that that wasn't the attention I really wanted. And the ridiculous idea that was making rounds by the group of girls I was with, died naturally for me. Teach principles and let them decide.

I do think that a lack of clothes can indicate an inequity between men and women. But a standard skirt line won't fix it. I have met more than one woman who cannot leave her house without makeup. They may dress "modestly" by traditional standards, but their image of themselves is still conditional and at standards that men do not have to live up to, to be acceptable. I have nothing wrong with makeup and wear it myself. But to be obsessed with appearance to the point that one's self-esteem is based in part on a bottle could be just as much a broach of modesty.

But either way in reality I don't mind in the least that one person's standard and choice may very from the next.

With luv,

BD

Edited September 16, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My thoughts too, anytime I see MormonStories or Kate Kelly in an article I think someone is going to be turned off and think it's anti. And not give anything in the article a chance.

I have to admit seeing Mormon Stories in the OP article made me feel defensive. It is why I wanted to know more about what was going on and had a hard time differentiating the topic from the article. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

We do get wound up on this topic.  As I have read through many of the posts, read articles, and reviewed Church material I think there is a high degree of confusion - specifically, that people are conflating what modesty is and what we believe about it.  

First, I read two articles, one in Time entitled, "The Troubling Connection Between Modesty Culture and Rape Culture" and the other on Patheos entitled, "How the Modesty Doctrine Fuels Rape Culture" promoted the concept that women/girls needed to be modest because their bodies caused boys or men to fall or to sin.  The problem with this line of thinking is this is not why or how the Church of Jesus Christ teaches modesty.  Prima facie evidence is the simply to look at the temple garment.  We don't wear the garment because without it the opposite sex would fall into sin.

We teach that we are modest because we glorify God both in our spirit and in our bodies (See 1 Cor 6:20).  Further, that the human body is sacred.  How we clothe the sacred is revealing; it expresses who we are and what caliber of people interest us.  

I acknowledge that some parents and individuals may teach the concept of modesty poorly or that they miss the more important aspects of the teaching.  Yet, that does not invalidate the need for modesty or made modesty invalid.  Further, the wrong way should not dictate the end all of modesty and/or allow it be accused of promoting the rape culture.  I think the accusation is wrong and it is stretching credulity to make it responsible for assisting or building a rape culture.  

It is perplexing to me that some make the accusation that the language is vague or easily misunderstood.  Please tell me, who does not understand what the following means "short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach....."  Is there a single thinking adult or teenager that does not understand what a short skirt is or short shorts?  Why play with words or strive to become pharisees.  No, we have never needed to measure the length of a short skirt and we should not attempt to define it as such.  If you cannot bend over to pick up your shoe without showing your backside your skirt is too short.  This is just plain old common sense, which seems to be in short supply in this day and age.

When teach modesty we need to teach it property and for the right reasons.  We are not modest to benefit others, but to further strengthen our own relationship with God and reflect our understanding of holiness, righteousness, and beauty.  

 

 

Thank you for the thoughtful and informative reply. In addition to the points you make, I believe there is a component of modesty that does take into consideration the feelings and sensibilities of others. I base it on Paul's admonition that we not be stumbling blocks.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I do understand everyone's thoughts on Kate Kelly.  I see where you stand and understand.  My only hope that you might realize just one thing..and it may be the only thing and that is she did give YOU more voice.  In my opinion, she did open up some doors that may have closed.  Finally...there is a group of people higher up who are willing to listen to your voices..if only to better communicate your good thoughts and ideas.  At least I hope this is the case.   I am sure that those priesthood holders that care about you...don't want to lose you.  Take the good and work with it.  Hugs..Jeanne

I disagree. I've always had the voice. I've not had problems using it. I just use it in different ways then she does and for different things.  In my opinion the women and men who were called into leadership opened those doors. I've had too many inspirations ahead of when I needed them for callings to think that these women and men just suddenly increased their understanding because she came along. 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Rain

[Gray]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

No offense intended, but this sounds like an agenda. Practing cheer routines in sweats seems safe for these young ladies. The game uniforms worn by the BYUP ladies are far more modest than those in the workout photo that was posted.

 

Obviously BYU has apostatized. The one true Lord's University is Ricks BYUI. 

[Jeanne]

19 minutes ago, Rain said:

I disagree. I've always had the voice. I've not had problems using it. I just use it in different ways then she does and for different things.  In my opinion the women and men who were called into leadership and opened those doors. I've had too many inspirations ahead of when I needed them for callings to think that these women and men just suddenly increased their understanding because she came along. 

I am sorry to hear that.  You would know more than I the affects of being heard and any of Kate Kelly's influence.  It really wasn't my knowledge of things..but hope.  I care about the women in the church.  I don't like the way Kate went about things..but had hoped there was something there women could use to be better understood.  Thank you for YOUR voice on this board.  I value your input and any correction in my thoughts.  Hugs..Jeanne

[Kenngo1969]

Robert,

I can understand the live-and-let-live, libertarian approach.  It does have its merits and its appeal.  Generally speaking (that is to say, I'm not accusing anyone in particular of this, notwithstanding my use of the second-person pronoun here ) I don't think the place to start when trying to persuade who may (or who does) disagree with you is to assume that s/he must accept your paradigm; the vitality imparted by Living Water notwithstanding, it's probably not best to attempt to impart that Living Water through a fire hose set at full blast, particularly not without having done some soil preparation and without having undertaken other preparatory measures first; in our public discourse as well as our personal discourse, we should employ Doctrine and Covenants Section 121 principles of "persuasion . . . long-suffering . . . gentleness and meekness, and . . . love unfeigned . . . kindness and pure knowledge" and non-hypocrisy and guilelessness (see vv. 41-42); and I do think it's important to not sacrifice good will, to disagree as agreeably as possible, and so on.

All of that having been said, I'm not convinced of the idea that morality cannot or should not be legislated.  Yes, I know that the idea that morality should be legislated has been carried to extremes in various totalitarian regimes throughout history, but those cases are notable precisely because they are so extreme.  Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who knows a thing or two about morality, about law, and (in particular, I'm tempted to say) about the Constitution, has said that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality.  (I'll hasten to add that that does not mean that the converse ... everything that is immoral also should be illegal ... is true, and a big part of what it means to live in a free society involves negotiating the various tensions between law, morality, social mores, and other such forces.)

Yes, living in a free, tolerant society is a complex undertaking, and no, no one person or group of people should undertake to impose that person's or that group's will on another person or group in violation of the principles I have laid out (as well as others too numerous to mention).  But as President David O. McKay is reported once to have said (paraphrasing), "Right is right even if nobody listens to it, believes it, or does it, and wrong is wrong even if everybody listens to it, believes it, or does it."  

A few weeks ago in another thread, I mentioned the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s passage from Letter From a Birmingham Jail which he wrote in response to critics who felt that, as an outsider, he had no business meddling in local affairs ... "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" ... and asked whether that same principle might be applied to (un)righteousness ... "Unrighteousness anywhere is a threat to the righteous everywhere."  As I recall, you gave me a reputation point for that observation.  I think it applies with equal force here.  I believe that various scriptures are in accord, e.g.: "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn" (Proverbs 29:2); "And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you" (Mosiah 29:27); et cetera.  See also The Family: A Proclamation to the World toward the conclusion of that document. One of the reasons I think we have a duty to stand for righteousness even in public spheres and even when it's not popular (and I'm not suggesting that you disagree here) is because it's not as though the righteous will escape calamity because of their righteousness: They'll suffer right along with the wicked.

All of this is, perhaps, simply a long-winded way of saying that while I'm not, by any means, endorsing unrighteous dominion as an antidote, neither am I prepared to say that in no case can or should morality be legislated.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Bernard Gui]

55 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Everyone needs to learn lovingkindness by seeing it practiced all around them, and to learn tolerance for those who differ with us in some particulars.  That includes tolerance for political leaders who seem unable to stop committing adultery, which includes dozens from both political parties.  How odd that you think it an appropriate subject for a thread on rape-culture, which is completely unrelated.

Odd? I was responding (somewhat in jest) to your statement about Bill Cosby and Roger Ailes. Apparently I misunderstood your point. Mr Clinton has been accused of rape. Tolerance for him but no tolerance for them? Had he and those you refer to been taught as Wendy Shalit proposes, they might have fewer problems. Wendy makes many interesting arguments for modesty from a religious (Jewish) perspective. Mrs Gui and I strongly recommend her book.

Quote

Then there are the sociopathic Bill Cosbys and Roger Aileses of the world, working the system.  Caution is always called for.

I like the version of the monks story that makes them LDS missionaries.

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.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It's gone national. http://www.people.com/article/utah-cheerleaders-body-shamed

Where is the poor kid's safe space? What about his narrative? Where is the acceptance and understanding for his plight? Just for fun, how would the cheering be different if cheerleaders wore a different less revealing uniform? Would the teams be less motivated to score or the fans less prone to yell their support?

And the opportunist vultures start to circle over Provo...

Quote

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, young men and women are taught that their bodies are sacred and that they should dress modestly to show reverence. But this often leads to "body shaming," says Kate Kelly, the founder of Ordain Women who was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 2014 for advocating female entry into the all-male Mormon priesthood. 

"In a culture where females are responsible for all sexual 'sin,' it unfortunately makes sense that girls – even talented athletes and performers – would be shamed for what they wear," Kelly tells PEOPLE. 

"A common refrain for young women in Mormon-populated Utah," she says, "is that 'modest is hottest,' which simultaneously sexualizes girls and shames them for how they choose to dress. This is consistent with Mormon rape culture, where the burden is put on women and girls to fend off sexual advances with forethought and planning, but men are often pitted as victims of the sexual advances of women and girls." 

Boys at Timpview High School who are preparing to become missionaries for the Mormon Church at age 18, Kelly adds, "are in a way being warned against the (make-believe) advances of these girls in order to maintain their purity." 

It's a dilemma that some say would be laughable if it weren't so prevalent in Utah.

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

There are definitely good ways and bad ways to do it. One should say, "hey I see a problem. Here is why it is a problem. Can we look at doing it this ways instead?" Much more effective then saying, "You are doing it all wrong! You don't  care about others and want to perpetuate hurt."

And the other side should listen with the heart and say, "help me to understand your concern better so we can see if we need to change and how to do it" instead of "you are just against the church or are siding with those against the church."

I hope I have not made you feel I think you are against the church or siding with those who are. That is far from my intentions. I apologize if that is the case. Your contributions are valuable and cause me to think along other paths. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

My thoughts too, anytime I see MormonStories or Kate Kelly in an article I think someone is going to be turned off and think it's anti. And not give anything in the article a chance.

And then Kate swoops in on the issue and lives up to expectations as noted above.

 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know why we have to have exact stances. It still feels like we're speaking from 2 different perspectives. I am wanting the choice of how one dresses yourself to be a very personal decision based on what feels right to you and your beliefs. I think about it with those who are endowed and immediately have a specific restriction. I have a number of dresses from a slightly taller friend who had felt prompted to not wear anything even slightly above the knee. I didn't. I figure if it covers its good enough and for me, my garments come a lot higher. I have 2 or so dresses that are definitely above the knee. The bishop's wife the other day complimented me on of them. It's not a matter of needing to catch the eye of someone, it's that I feel beautiful in it. Simple as that. When I go hiking, I hike in a sports tank and mid-thigh shorts. I used to be more "modest," wearing clothes that would cover garments. But I would overheat at times and wasn't comfortable. So I changed it up and I liked the freedom of minimal clothes at times. On the trails, clothes range from those that are ankle-to-wrist in clothing and often with a hat for sun/bug exposure concerns, to people like me to men running about topless, and everything in between. During the winter it reverses. I wear double layers and thermal garments on the coldest days. It's not about where the line is, but what is appropriate for the circumstance and what do I feel comfortable in doing and represents me best.

Different clothes mean different things to people and one form isn't necessarily more "righteous." For example when I was a teen I went through a phase where I wore all dark colors. I was angry and miserable inside. As I got happier my wardrobe branched out and became brighter. To this day I associate all black on me with misery. Another person I know likes to wear all black. For her it's artsy and fits her playful and passionate personality. She may wear all black one day and then a completely different outfit the next. The symbol isn't universal.

Teens will learn to balance this. Like everything we learn growing up, they're likely to not do so perfectly. If it feels like a girl or boy are dressing in a way simply to gain sexual attention. I would work with them to find what is most important to them and help them reflect that message outward. Or I'd just wait and see. I still remembering testing the boundaries of sexual expression in clothes at a pool as a teen. I realized quickly that that wasn't the attention I really wanted. And the ridiculous idea that was making rounds by the group of girls I was with, died naturally for me. Teach principles and let them decide.

I do think that a lack of clothes can indicate an inequity between men and women. But a standard skirt line won't fix it. I have met more than one woman who cannot leave her house without makeup. They may dress "modestly" by traditional standards, but their image of themselves is still conditional and at standards that men do not have to live up to, to be acceptable. I have nothing wrong with makeup and wear it myself. But to be obsessed with appearance to the point that one's self-esteem is based in part on a bottle could be just as much a broach of modesty.

But either way in reality I don't mind in the least that one person's standard and choice may very from the next.

With luv,

BD

We are speaking from two different perspectives. I'm grateful that you express yours so thoughtfully. Your insights are valuable.

Sister Gui and I have had many conversations over decades on this issue, as friends, in courting, in our church callings working with youth, as school teachers, as a married couple, as parents of 7 children, and now as grandparents. Much of what you say reminds me of conversing with her. She is the most modest person I know, but she is no prude. She chooses what some might think a high standard of modesty because of her commitment to the gospel, part of which includes considering the sensibilities of others including men, not because she has been shamed or guilted into it by misguided church leaders. She was taught by her mother (a convert) and by others whom she refers to as loving and wise women. She recommended I read Wendy Shalit's book on modesty because it resonated deeply with her beliefs. I recommend it to anyone interested in the subject of modesty.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Obviously BYU has apostatized. The one true Lord's University is Ricks BYUI. 

From your mouth to God's ears.  I have kids who have attended both. They tend to agree with you. I think both schools are great, but they do have their issues.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Where is the poor kid's safe space? What about his narrative? Where is the acceptance and understanding for his plight? Just for fun, how would the cheering be different if cheerleaders wore a different less revealing uniform? Would the teams be less motivated to score or the fans less prone to yell their support?

And the opportunist vultures start to circle over Provo...

 

I agree somewhat with her.

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree somewhat with her.

So do I. 

[Danzo]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It's no wonder this young man and his mother went to the school.......

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/pornography?lang=eng

"Finally, do not patronize pornography. Do not use your purchasing power to support moral degradation. And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you."

do you have evidence that the boy was reacting to this conference talk given 11 years ago?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I do understand everyone's thoughts on Kate Kelly.  I see where you stand and understand.  My only hope that you might realize just one thing..and it may be the only thing and that is she did give YOU more voice.  In my opinion, she did open up some doors that may have closed.  Finally...there is a group of people higher up who are willing to listen to your voices..if only to better communicate your good thoughts and ideas.

I don't really buy that.  She caused, imo, greater distrust among members for those who are moderate because as has been pointed out they are now being linked with her if they feel there are worthwhile changes to be made in how things are done culturally without needing to touch doctrine (and in fact in many cases it would result in teaching doctrine in a clearer and stronger way).  There were already many women in discussions with church leaders (Neylan McBaine, Valerie Hudson, and Margaret Young come to mind) giving voice.  There were even movements that actually made changes in cultural attitudes before she showed up.  Kelly may well have delayed some changes these movements were working on as well as others a year or two or more.

Her being named/focused on as The Gamechanger has caused the loss of voice of the women who were working at it much longer than she was (by her own words she couldn't be bothered to join the general movement before she established her own group, claiming she was the sole founder of it, because she didn't like to wear pants to church and couldn't be bothered to deal with discomfort for one day to stand with her sisters in making a statement as well as once leaving Ordain Women refusing to contribute to a book on the organization, which undoubtedly contributed to lower sales and attention, because she was just a contributor and not controlling the content iirc).  And her insisting on an all or nothing approach rather than the small step by small step approach of previous wiser women created unnecessary turmoil and polarization.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It's no wonder this young man and his mother went to the school.......

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/pornography?lang=eng

"Finally, do not patronize pornography. Do not use your purchasing power to support moral degradation. And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you."

Having worked in the public schools for 42 years, I would expect a young man expressing concerns to a school counselor would be considered confidential, unless he revealed sexual or physical abuse, at which time the counselor would be required by law to report it to the administration and the necessary authorities. I also know that if a student or parent makes a complaint the counselor and administration are in a tough spot because ignoring it can lead to severe consequences for them. In this case, I think the young man's rights and safe place were violated, but there is not enough information to know for sure. In any case, someone messed up and he and his family are paying dearly.