cinepro Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 5 hours ago, bsjkki said: I found this article with statistics about mentions of modesty as it pertains to clothing in church magazines. I have felt that the rhetoric about modesty in dress has been emphasized much more now then when I was a teenager. Her analysis found this to be the case. http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2014/06/03/modesty-rhetoric-in-church-magazines/ From the article: A few observations: The increase in modesty rhetoric appears to have started around the turn of the millennium. (In my previous post, the data were too grossly categorized in time to see this clearly.) Women/YW/girls have definitely had more modesty rhetoric targeted at them. The increase for men/YM/boys is slight in comparison to the increase for women/YW/girls. Looking at results for the New Era, it’s clear that YW have the most modesty rhetoric aimed at them, and its volume still appears to be increasing. The downturn for girls the Friend looks small, but I’m actually very encouraged by it. In my search, I found no modesty references in the Friend since May 2013. This may not sound like a big deal, but there have been several such articles per year for the previous several years, so I wonder if it might not represent a genuine change. Kathleen Flake's observation that the abandonment of polygamy led to a new emphasis on Joseph Smith and the First Vision in the early 1900s raises the idea that such "changes in emphasis" may be triggered by other events or changes in the Church culture. So when I see things like that, I wonder what it might have been that changed around the time the emphasis changed? Certainly, the culture and styles of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s had incredibly "immodest" trends and fashions, yet the Church wasn't as fixated on it. So what happened in the early 2000s? 2
Gray Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, cinepro said: Kathleen Flake's observation that the abandonment of polygamy led to a new emphasis on Joseph Smith and the First Vision in the early 1900s raises the idea that such "changes in emphasis" may be triggered by other events or changes in the Church culture. So when I see things like that, I wonder what it might have been that changed around the time the emphasis changed? Certainly, the culture and styles of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s had incredibly "immodest" trends and fashions, yet the Church wasn't as fixated on it. So what happened in the early 2000s? I just remember a lot of ridiculously pointy boots and shoes. But, we seem to take a lot of our cues from our conservative Christian neighbors (including the anti-porn crusade), so perhaps the modesty thing started there first. Edited November 29, 2016 by Gray
bsjkki Posted November 29, 2016 Author Posted November 29, 2016 I found this research paper on Mormon modesty dress standards and its history very informative. It explains the evolution of these dress standards and explains the motivations behind them. https://bycommonconsent.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/blakesley.pdf.
Calm Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 2 hours ago, cinepro said: Kathleen Flake's observation that the abandonment of polygamy led to a new emphasis on Joseph Smith and the First Vision in the early 1900s raises the idea that such "changes in emphasis" may be triggered by other events or changes in the Church culture. So when I see things like that, I wonder what it might have been that changed around the time the emphasis changed? Certainly, the culture and styles of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s had incredibly "immodest" trends and fashions, yet the Church wasn't as fixated on it. So what happened in the early 2000s? Social media explosion?
Bernard Gui Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Yes more of that. But wait! There's more. Quote Dress and Grooming If we are unsure about whether our dress or grooming is modest, we should ask ourselves, “Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were in the Lord's presence?” We might ask ourselves a similar question about our language and behavior: “Would I say these words or participate in these activities if the Lord were present?” Our honest answers to these questions may lead us to make important changes in our lives. Prophets have always counseled us to dress modestly. This counsel is founded on the truth that the human body is God's sacred creation. We must respect our bodies as a gift from God. Through our dress and appearance, we can show the Lord that we know how precious our bodies are. Our clothing expresses who we are. It sends messages about us, and it influences the way we and others act. When we are well groomed and modestly dressed, we can invite the companionship of the Spirit and exercise a good influence on those around us. Central to the command to be modest is an understanding of the sacred power of procreation, the ability to bring children into the world. This power is to be used only between husband and wife. Revealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord's law of chastity. In addition to avoiding clothing that is revealing, we should avoid extremes in clothing, appearance, and hairstyle. In dress, grooming, and manners, we should always be neat and clean, never sloppy or inappropriately casual. We should not disfigure ourselves with tattoos or body piercings. Women who desire to have their ears pierced should wear only one pair of modest earrings. Language and Behavior Like our dress and grooming, our language and behavior are expressions of our character. Our words and actions can have a profound influence on us and on others. We should express ourselves through clean, positive, uplifting language and in actions that bring happiness to those around us. Our efforts to be modest in word and deed lead to increased guidance and comfort from the Holy Ghost. We should avoid the filthy language and the casual, irreverent use of the Lord's name that are so common in the world, and we should withstand any temptation to participate in extreme or inappropriate behavior. The irreverent nature of such language and behavior impairs our ability to receive the quiet promptings of the Holy Ghost.
BlueDreams Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: (....tiptoeing in with great trepidation....) Dang! Where were all these feisty ladies when I was single and on the prowl? Granted, in my case there's not much to lust after. That awesome fellow under my screen name is a famous actor, not me. I did have hair then but it was light brown. Sister Gui picked me for my money, snappy clothes, witty banter, fast car, and brains. All the usual things the ladies look for in men. If an LDS man watches a show (filmed or live) with perfect bare chested ladies...and that not platonically...what do we say? ...or heaven forbid any man stare non-platonically at a woman's torso in the office or another public place....what do we say? He may lose his job. On the other hand, I imagine most men would be more than flattered at such attention; it may even stoke some egos. Do the ladies feel that way when they get ogled with more than just a platonic passing glance? Is there a double standard? Waiting to take my lumps. (...running desparately for cover in the tall grass...) I think i've mentioned this before, but I've been sexually harassed more than once in my life and sexually bullied/groped at least once. And no, harassment is not what I consider just looking. This will come off as a little....conceited, but I'm looked at fairly frequently. I am generally considered pretty. Having someone turn here and there isn't the problem. I sure don't mind when I guy I like is checking me out. Staring too long or too much or with a horn, sexual gesture and posturing....makes me nervous and is uncomfortable. The double standard isn't about a look but what has a tendency to follow after. Though it certainly occurs, the level of sexual harassment, assualts, rapes, etc are disproportionately women that are getting this. And the sexual/social dynamics between men and women warrant more concerns from a woman when a man looks a little too long. I've seen this more than once in my office where the amount of coercion, force, and general disregard for female voice in sexual relationships is a common theme for many of the women I meet. I am not saying all men are like this. Most aren't. I've had great male friends who weren't like this at all. But that doesn't exclude the fact that some are and you can't tell, at first glance, who will be THAT guy. It's not a double standard, really, but a different frame/context in sexual power/dynamics. Also for the record, I generally don't stare long at living breathing people who happen to be in front of me. I may peak a glance, but oggling....not as much. It's creepy. With luv, BD 1
pogi Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said: Also for the record, I generally don't stare long at living breathing people who happen to be in front of me. I may peak a glance, but oggling....not as much. It's creepy. Staring and ogling at dead corpses on the other hand is not creepy at all Sorry, I couldn't resist.
BlueDreams Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 4 minutes ago, pogi said: Staring and ogling at dead corpses on the other hand is not creepy at all Sorry, I couldn't resist. Of course not. Completely normal. Although to be fair, that is why I put the qualifier of "who happen to be in front of me." Just saying . 1
Bernard Gui Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 23 minutes ago, BlueDreams said: I think i've mentioned this before, but I've been sexually harassed more than once in my life and sexually bullied/groped at least once. And no, harassment is not what I consider just looking. This will come off as a little....conceited, but I'm looked at fairly frequently. I am generally considered pretty. Having someone turn here and there isn't the problem. I sure don't mind when I guy I like is checking me out. Staring too long or too much or with a horn, sexual gesture and posturing....makes me nervous and is uncomfortable. The double standard isn't about a look but what has a tendency to follow after. Though it certainly occurs, the level of sexual harassment, assualts, rapes, etc are disproportionately women that are getting this. And the sexual/social dynamics between men and women warrant more concerns from a woman when a man looks a little too long. I've seen this more than once in my office where the amount of coercion, force, and general disregard for female voice in sexual relationships is a common theme for many of the women I meet. I am not saying all men are like this. Most aren't. I've had great male friends who weren't like this at all. But that doesn't exclude the fact that some are and you can't tell, at first glance, who will be THAT guy. It's not a double standard, really, but a different frame/context in sexual power/dynamics. Also for the record, I generally don't stare long at living breathing people who happen to be in front of me. I may peak a glance, but oggling....not as much. It's creepy. With luv, BD Happily accepting the thumps.
Bernard Gui Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, pogi said: Staring and ogling at dead corpses on the other hand is not creepy at all Sorry, I couldn't resist. Get some ice ready for these.... Edited November 29, 2016 by Bernard Gui
Tacenda Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 The girl in the video seems to be picking a rather modest dress, except for the sleeveless part, which still seemed perfectly modest to me, or was at one time. When the BYU had no issues with strapless prom dresses. Yes, the church is definitely getting the females ready for garments one day. All the way down to the babies actually. No sundresses for them either.
bluebell Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Tacenda said: The girl in the video seems to be picking a rather modest dress, except for the sleeveless part, which still seemed perfectly modest to me, or was at one time. When the BYU had no issues with strapless prom dresses. Yes, the church is definitely getting the females ready for garments one day. All the way down to the babies actually. No sundresses for them either. My baby girl wears sundresses all the time to church in the summer. I do know people who believe that it's immodest even for babies to show their shoulders in church, but they are misguided in their zeal (that's the nicest way i can put it). Edited November 30, 2016 by bluebell 1
Tacenda Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 Just now, bluebell said: My baby girl wears sundresses all the time to church in the summer. I do know people who believe that it's immodest even for babies to show their shoulders in church, but they are misguided in their zeal (that's the nicest way i can put it). I see it too. But I don't want to judge, just need them to understand that shoulders shouldn't be considered pornography. But that's my opinion. I've seen girls that are so afraid their swimsuits are immodest, one cried when her mother wouldn't take her to find something else right before a swim activity in the ward. 1
theplains Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 21 hours ago, bsjkki said: I liked 98% of this video and found the story and illustrations very well done. But, at the 2:38 point in the video it discusses making correct choices for your journey. It shows a girl picking out her clothes. Of all the choices one makes that keeps a person on the right path and heading towards Christ, and all the choices a person makes that leads away from Christ, this video chose to highlight a girl and her clothing choices. I find that incredibly sad. https://www.mormonchannel.org/watch/series/mormon-messages/the-journey?cid=HP_TU_22-11-2016_dPFD_fMLIB_xLIDyL2-3_ They need a separate video for men. Otherwise President Dieter F. Uchtdorf gives the impression that modesty is only a matter concerning women. Thanks, Jim
Rain Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 I suspect it was the easiest way too show making good choics so I will give it a pass. the spot showing that was pretty short so I don't think the timing was good to show making good choices. What would they do with men? Showing him making a choice about a speedo or shorts that were short? Many might view those things as underwear and it would be confusing. Perhaps word of wisdom choices, but most may be confusing there as well except cigarettes. Stealing is a no go. Showing someone considering stealing a candy bar would be confused for someone making a choice of whether to eat it or not. 2
strappinglad Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, theplains said: They need a separate video for men. Otherwise President Dieter F. Uchtdorf gives the impression that modesty is only a matter concerning women. Thanks, Jim When men make it a habit to go to church in shorts and tank tops , it will definitely be time for a stern video on the topic. Most men don't have the legs for shorts and a tight T shirt on most men is just gross. And Tacenda, in Japan at one time, showing the back of the neck/shoulders of a woman was considered very risqué . In JS time , seeing a ladies ankle was quite the event. Times change, culture changes, what is considered modest changes. The trouble is, someone is always pushing the boundaries and others are always pushing back. The Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites etc. have WAY more restrictive boundaries than the LDS. And we don't even want to go in the direction of some Muslims. Happy medium anyone? when I say most men, I am thinking of those over a certain age....and weight. Edited November 30, 2016 by strappinglad
Kenngo1969 Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 (edited) 23 hours ago, Calm said: There were some young men who were lovely for my eyes to dwell upon in my youth. ... Why, Cal! Neverwouldathunk! Perhaps I'll have to rethink my assessment of you as Pure as the Driven Snow! <== "With no apparent beauty, that women should me desire ..." (Sorry. I love that song ... I mean, the original of that song ... ) Edited November 30, 2016 by Kenngo1969
strappinglad Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 I have spent quite a bit of time facing 'driven snow', and while it is certainly pure, one should be prepared for its ' sting ' . 3
pogi Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 18 hours ago, strappinglad said: Happy medium anyone? Immodesty is like pornography in the sense that it is impossible to define in a way that everybody agrees with, but you know it when you see it. What is considered pornographic for one person, might be considered art to another for example. I think the Lord expects us to just use our best judgment, because everyone's "happy medium" will be different. 1
cinepro Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 (edited) All I can say is if you liked the moral dramatizations of the Uchtdorf video, you'll love this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfFYQt6x6t0 The video even includes straight talk about STDs... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfFYQt6x6t0&t=13m30s Edited November 30, 2016 by cinepro
bsjkki Posted November 30, 2016 Author Posted November 30, 2016 1 hour ago, cinepro said: All I can say is if you liked the moral dramatizations of the Uchtdorf video, you'll love this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfFYQt6x6t0 The video even includes straight talk about STDs... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfFYQt6x6t0&t=13m30s Thank you for that flashback to high school. I'm going to have that song stuck in my head all day
Maestrophil Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 It seems much ado about nothing to me. The small clip of the girl looking at a dress in the mirror made no statement as to what is modest or not. It is a video about choices. The girl could have been thinking about the modesty of the dress, true - but she could have been thinking about the cost or timeliness of buying the dress too. An image is not the same as interpretation of an image. We are all just interpreting here when the meaning of the image was not defined specifically by the narrator. 4
Recommended Posts