Modesty standards

[Avatar4321]

Elsewhere we've been discussing modesty and I thought it might deserve s own thread.

I'm not sure I truly understand the "Be modest so others have clean thoughts" as a reason for modesty. I've always understood modesty standards to be able respecting the temple that is our body and not sexualizing it, not to have any effect on others but so that we don't objectify ourselves. 

I've also always understood these principles to apply to men and women

[bluebell]

The 'be modest so that the YM can stay worthy' type statements tend to happen in YW's meetings and sometimes standard's nights (more so in the past i believe).  I've even heard a well meaning leader go as far as to teach the girls that women's work in the priesthood (the actual topic of a lesson a few months ago) is supporting their husbands after marriage and dressing modestly for the YM in the ward before marriage.

It sounds good on paper (obeying a commandment as a form of service to others) but it just opens up so many problems when it comes to anything with sexual connotations and youth.

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Elsewhere we've been discussing modesty and I thought it might deserve s own thread.

I'm not sure I truly understand the "Be modest so others have clean thoughts" as a reason for modesty. I've always understood modesty standards to be able respecting the temple that is our body and not sexualizing it, not to have any effect on others but so that we don't objectify ourselves. 

I've also always understood these principles to apply to men and women

Firstly, Mormon culture has abused the word modesty by equating it with dress and grooming standards specifically.  The word is much more broadly defined and we shouldn't look at the use of the word modesty in these narrow terms.  

Secondly, Mormon culture typically associates modest dress and grooming with women specifically.  This is another misappropriation, and it shouldn't land on the shoulders of women any more than men.  

Thirdly, this idea that my thoughts and actions are the responsibility of someone else, is completely misplaced and I would argue contrary to our core tenants of theology as defined in AoF #2.  If you have trouble with thoughts, that's your problem, not the problem of everyone else.  Continue down this road and you're wading into the sin of victim blaming. 

Anyway, these things have been discussed many times before and by much more capable people than myself.  

 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Elsewhere we've been discussing modesty and I thought it might deserve s own thread.

I'm not sure I truly understand the "Be modest so others have clean thoughts" as a reason for modesty.

The human body can cause sexual arousal.

Many forms of "revealing" clothing can facilitate that arousal.

A person can be affected by his or her environment.  A person who is constantly around others who use profane language can end up adopting such language.  A person who has friends and family who resort to violence as a means of expressing disagreement may end up likewise resorting to physical violence.  And so on.

I previously taught at a local university for several years.  During that time I had hundreds of students, a very few of which (yes, they were women) chose to wear rather revealing clothing.  Lots of cleavage.  Lots.  It was distracting.  It was discomfiting when they sat at the front of the class and I was standing (as necessary to use the computer, projector, etc.), thus giving me a copious view of . . . things I did not want to be seeing.

Yes, I am (or should be) the master of my own thoughts.  But I am not always the master of my own environment.  I interact with other people.  And through those interactions I can have an effect on those people.  I can say and do and wear things that are provocative.  Or offensive.  Or discomfiting.  I can also be affected by others and their words and actions.

6 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I've always understood modesty standards to be able respecting the temple that is our body and not sexualizing it, not to have any effect on others but so that we don't objectify ourselves. 

It would seem that a person who "objectifies" himself/herself is often going to involve other people in that effort (that is, potentially having an "effect on others").

The Church also teaches us to moderate our language.  I think this is intended to both help us not pollute ourselves with profane words, and also not to adversely affect others.

Clothing can be a form of speech.  It can affect what others think and say and do.  Hence we get things like this advice from the University of Colorado:

Quote

How to Dress For a Public Speech

Your message is always the most important part of a public speech; however, everything else about your speech will affect how your audience perceives you & your message. Your voice, your gestures, your grammar, your movements, your mannerisms, your clothes, and your style all create the impression you leave on the audience & how much of your message they hear and subsequently, remember.

"Your voice, your gestures, your grammar, your movements, your mannerisms, your clothes, and your style all create the impression you leave on the audience..."

This advice from the University of Colorado is not based on a moral code.  It's just . . . common sense.  The LDS Church takes that sort of common sense and builds on it a bit.

6 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I've also always understood these principles to apply to men and women

They do.  However, it seems that sartorial options for women are much more diverse than for men.

While in law school I never heard anyone caution men against wearing "inappropriately revealing" clothing (they were cautioned against other types of clothing, but not that).  Women, on the other hand, were cautioned against this sort of clothing.  And the people doing the cautioning were almost always other women.  So I don't think it's a matter of sexism.

So yes, modesty as a principle applies to both men and women.  But I think women tend to hear about it more because they have many, many more options of what to wear as compared to men, some of which can be "inappropriately revealing" in some contexts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

I think given the topic, "abuse" of words is better stated as misuse as it comes across to me as trivializing actual abuse.

Other than that, I am fine with what you stated though it is important in my view to be aware of culturally appropriate dress for both sexes in order to be able to judge what is respectful for oneself since dress is another form of language we communicate with that culture has assigned meanings to.

Add-on:  I see Smac has made the clothing as speech comment as well.  I think I differ from him on how much the environment impacts us.  I may constantly hear swear words around me through no choice of my own, but if I am an adult I can choose not to use them.  The same with refusing to dwell on the clothing choices of others.  

"While in law school I never heard anyone caution men against wearing "inappropriately revealing" clothing (they were cautioned against other types of clothing, but not that).  Women, on the other hand, were cautioned against this sort of clothing.  And the people doing the cautioning were almost always other women.  So I don't think it's a matter of sexism.."

Women being aware of how some men choose to respond to revealing clothing and sharing that info with other women does not remove sexism from the equation.

Women are encouraged by our general culture to wear more revealing clothing.  Men are not.  Take a look at movies or TV and contrast the powerful men with the powerful women.  In general, outside of physical power, men will have more clothing on the more powerful they are, women will have less as long as they are young.  It is made acceptable by claiming this means women are proud of their bodies, comfortable in their own skins...so they show more skin.  Even in shows that typically have women in similar clothing to men (think cop shows), buttons are opened lower even if shirts are taped not to reveal and their off time public clothing is revealing.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Calm

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Firstly, Mormon culture has abused the word modesty by equating it with dress and grooming standards specifically.  The word is much more broadly defined and we shouldn't look at the use of the word modesty in these narrow terms.  

I think the church is realizing this and is slowly trying to change that.  They had an article in the July Ensign that talked about this a bit.  It was geared towards children.

Modesty: More than a dress code. 

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Firstly, Mormon culture has abused the word modesty by equating it with dress and grooming standards specifically.  The word is much more broadly defined and we shouldn't look at the use of the word modesty in these narrow terms.  

Secondly, Mormon culture typically associates modest dress and grooming with women specifically.  This is another misappropriation, and it shouldn't land on the shoulders of women any more than men.  

Thirdly, this idea that my thoughts and actions are the responsibility of someone else, is completely misplaced and I would argue contrary to our core tenants of theology as defined in AoF #2.  If you have trouble with thoughts, that's your problem, not the problem of everyone else.  Continue down this road and you're wading into the sin of victim blaming. 

Anyway, these things have been discussed many times before and by much more capable people than myself.  

 

Yes using the term modesty to mean women must cover up arms, legs, shoulders and stuff eats at me every time.  Being modest would likely cover the clothes we wear, whether men or women, but its far more about not being boastful or proud, to me, than it is about women showing knee when they go outside. 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Firstly, Mormon culture has abused the word modesty by equating it with dress and grooming standards specifically.  The word is much more broadly defined and we shouldn't look at the use of the word modesty in these narrow terms.  

What other word would you think more appropriate?

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Secondly, Mormon culture typically associates modest dress and grooming with women specifically. 

I think the emphasis is generally more prone to be on what women wear, yes.  But not exclusively.

Men's fashions these days are, in the main, "modest."  I think that's just happenstance.

Women's fashions these days are, well, all over the map.  There's a huge spectrum, portions of which are generally characterized as "revealing" or "provocative" or whatnot.  Women seem to have choices to make about their clothing that are not generally relevant for men and their choices.  It's not like I have a choice between a "conservative" suit to wear to court versus a "provocative" or "revealing" one.  In contrast, female lawyers do have such a choice, and so are cautioned against wearing clothing that is "provocative" or "revealing."

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is another misappropriation, and it shouldn't land on the shoulders of women any more than men.  

In the abstract, you are quite correct.  Modesty as a standard applies to both men and women equally.

But as a practical matter, I think women will generally be faced with more decision-making scenarios than men about whether their choice of dress is appropriate.

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thirdly, this idea that my thoughts and actions are the responsibility of someone else, is completely misplaced and I would argue contrary to our core tenants of theology as defined in AoF #2. 

We also cannot ignore that we are members of a community.  What we say and do, how we behave, affects other people.  There are oodles of commandments that govern our interactions with other people.  

So yes, we should be responsible for our own thoughts and actions.  But we cannot ignore the effect our words and actions and behaviors can have on others.

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If you have trouble with thoughts, that's your problem, not the problem of everyone else.  Continue down this road and you're wading into the sin of victim blaming. 

I don't know what this means.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

"It's not like I have a choice between a "conservative" suit to wear to court versus a "provocative" or "revealing" one."

Guys could choose to wear shirts open exposing their chests.  They could have pants that were skin tight. (Think disco) Neither fashion never really caught on.  Instead you get three piece suits, neckties, and pocket squares to model wealth and power and more clothing, not less.  Not just happenstance, imo.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Calm

[bsjkki]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We also cannot ignore that we are members of a community.  What we say and do, how we behave, affects other people.  There are oodles of commandments that govern our interactions with other people.  

So yes, we should be responsible for our own thoughts and actions.  But we cannot ignore the effect our words and actions and behaviors can have on others.

Yes...and because we live in a free society, individuals can not dictate or control others dress choices. It is entirely the responsibility of oneself to control ones own thoughts and actions--even unwanted responses to unwanted stimulus. 

[bsjkki]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

It's not like I have a choice between a "conservative" suit to wear to court versus a "provocative" or "revealing" one."

But you see...for women, the well tailored suit could be very attractive. I think men should dress in sloppy sweatsuits to avoid arousing the women at work and church.  http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Yes...and because we live in a free society, individuals can not dictate or control others dress choices.

I quite agree.  Membership in the Church is a voluntary association on both sides.  No "dictat{ion} or control" is warranted.  Or allowed:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

I am grateful that we live in a free society.

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It is entirely the responsibility of oneself to control ones own thoughts and actions--even unwanted responses to unwanted stimulus. 

Quite so.  It is also our responsibility to not say or do improper things which may adversely affect our neighbors.  I think that's a necessary part of loving thy neighbor as thyself.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Guys could choose to wear shirts open exposing their chests.  

Yes, I suppose so.  But generally, they don't.  And I don't think that it's because men are preternaturally more "modest" than women.  We just have fewer options in how we dress.

Quote

They could have pants that were skin tight. (Think disco) Neither fashion never really caught on.  

Yep.  In contrast, there are plenty of "skin tight" or other types of "revealing" fashions which have "caught on" . . . for women.

Quote

Instead you get three piece suits, neckties, and pocket squares to model wealth and power and more clothing, not less.  Not just happenstance, imo.

I don't follow.  When I wear a suit I am not "model{ing} wealth and power."  It's an off-the-rack special from Mr. Mac.

When I wear a suit to court, I am not intending to project an aura of "wealth and power."  Same with when I wear a suit to Church.  Or to a wedding or other formal occasion.

Again, I don't follow.

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

Elsewhere we've been discussing modesty and I thought it might deserve s own thread.

I'm not sure I truly understand the "Be modest so others have clean thoughts" as a reason for modesty. I've always understood modesty standards to be able respecting the temple that is our body and not sexualizing it, not to have any effect on others but so that we don't objectify ourselves. 

I've also always understood these principles to apply to men and women

I think it comes from these snippets from the Strength of Youth:

“When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you invite the companionship of the Spirit and you can be a good influence on others.” Ergo when not modestly dressed, you do not invite the companionship of the Spirit and are not a good influence, and can even be a bad influence.

“When you dress immodestly [which is not influencing others for the better], you …also send the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval [in an adverse way].”

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is also our responsibility to not say or do improper things which may adversely affect our neighbors.

And who defines this? Is it okay for a young man to tell a young woman her shorts are too short? Should she immediately change based on his assessment of the situation? I have no issue with the Strength of Youth guidelines but like most things, they have produced some unforeseen/negative side effects in Mormon Culture.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

And who defines this?

We do.  And God.  And His servants.  And, for a time, parents as to their minor children (and to a limited extent after that).  And, perhaps, trustworthy and wise friends.

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Is it okay for a young man to tell a young woman her shorts are too short?

Probably not.  That would not be within his stewardship.

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Should she immediately change based on his assessment of the situation? I have no issue with the Strength of Youth guidelines but like most things, they have produced some unforeseen/negative side effects in Mormon Culture.

I am not aware of a widespread problem of young men in the Church acting as some sort of Mormon Mutawa.  Isolated incidents, yes, but nothing widespread or systemic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

A double standard. Those two concepts, while incompatible, are nonetheless ones I try to subscribe to and teach my son and daughter.

1. You are responsible if somebody says/does something and you lose your temper.

2. You are also partially culpable if you say/do something to deliberately cause another to lose their temper.

 

Similarly, as much as we may wish to divorce clothing from modesty (and a guy or gal is always responsible for how he or she responds to another's clothing choice), it is nonetheless true that clothing is a sexual signal. And modesty does include sexual communication (e.g. dirty jokes, ogling, etc. are immodest). https://www.livescience.com/10828-booty-call-spot-fertile-woman.html

[Buckeye]

Here is my approach to the modesty topic. Fair warning, I'm actually sort of "conservative" on this one.

1. When I teach the youth modesty, I have them explain it first without any reference to clothing. That helps set the right tone. At the end of the lesson we can discuss applications to clothing.
2. Modesty means to moderate your behavior so as not to draw untoward attention. Clothing is one type, but there are many others: what car you drive, how much of the conversation space you take up, running up a score in church basketball, even whether you use electronic scriptures in certain wards.
3. The primary test of modesty is your intent. If you're trying to gain untoward attention (yes, including through clothing) then you're immodest. Period. End of analysis.
4. That said, even if you are not intending immodesty, you should be aware of the effect your choices have on others. We are under gospel covenant to bear each other's burdens. So, for example, if you're with friends who are struggling to diet, the spirit may direct you to choose a different dessert than they one you planned on because of the impact on your friend. Likewise, YM (I teach YM primarily) should be aware of how flirting can be misread by YW and cause them pain, even if that was not the YM's intent. And finally, yes, I do believe that - defined appropriately - YW should consider the impact of their clothing choices on YM. The primary responsibility lies with the YM. But YW covenant to bear the burdens of those YM. 
5. Finally, the range of modest clothing is highly determined by our culture, and therefore is out of our control. In many cultures, women bathing in the local river is normal. But in the US it's not. Likewise, church standards for dress have changed somewhat over the years (e.g., women and pants) but tend to be more conservative than "the world." There is no such thing as "modesty" in the absolute. In heaven, we may be all naked for all I know. Heck, Moroni showed up to Joseph's bed room wearing nothing more than a loose robe. So obviously modesty standards (not to mention the use of garments) may be different on the other side. But for the here and now, we must be aware of our culture.

[llama]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think it comes from these snippets from the Strength of Youth:

 

“When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you invite the companionship of the Spirit and you can be a good influence on others.” Ergo when not modestly dressed, you do not invite the companionship of the Spirit and are not a good influence, and can even be a bad influence.

 

“When you dress immodestly [which is not influencing others for the better], you …also send the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval [in an adverse way].”

 

There is no better test of a man's virtue than his haircut.

[bsjkki]

58 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

• The primary test of modesty is your intent. If you're trying to gain untoward attention (yes, including through clothing) then you're immodest. Period. End of analysis.
• That said, even if you are not intending immodesty, you should be aware of the effect your choices have on others. We are under gospel covenant to bear each other's burdens. So, for example, if you're with friends who are struggling to diet, the spirit may direct you to choose a different dessert than they one you planned on because of the impact on your friend. Likewise, YM (I teach YM primarily) should be aware of how flirting can be misread by YW and cause them pain, even if that was not the YM's intent. And finally, yes, I do believe that - defined appropriately - YW should consider the impact of their clothing choices on YM. The primary responsibility lies with the YM. But YW covenant to bear the burdens of those YM. 

So in #3 the test is intent but then in #4 you are responsible even without intent. I find it a subjective cesspool that sends the message young women are responsible for the thoughts of young men. How is a young woman to know the effect her 'sweater' may have on a young mans thoughts unless he tells her, shows her, or assaults her? When you take this thread with the other about sexual assault--I think we should spend less time on the "modesty" lecture and more time on controlling ones thoughts and actions. There is no way for a young woman to dress in a fashion that prevents a young man from having sexual thoughts. I choose to dress modestly and my daughters dress modestly, according to my interpretation of the the strength of youth, but that has not stopped inappropriate actions by others. I will never teach my daughters that they covenant to bear the burden of a young mans sexual response to their body. I've posted the male ogling burka picture too many times to ever believe it would truly make a difference. 

Edited October 18, 2017 by bsjkki

[ksfisher]

28 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Here is my approach to the modesty topic. Fair warning, I'm actually sort of "conservative" on this one.

1. When I teach the youth modesty, I have them explain it first without any reference to clothing. That helps set the right tone. At the end of the lesson we can discuss applications to clothing.
2. Modesty means to moderate your behavior so as not to draw untoward attention. Clothing is one type, but there are many others: what car you drive, how much of the conversation space you take up, running up a score in church basketball, even whether you use electronic scriptures in certain wards.
3. The primary test of modesty is your intent. If you're trying to gain untoward attention (yes, including through clothing) then you're immodest. Period. End of analysis.
4. That said, even if you are not intending immodesty, you should be aware of the effect your choices have on others. We are under gospel covenant to bear each other's burdens. So, for example, if you're with friends who are struggling to diet, the spirit may direct you to choose a different dessert than they one you planned on because of the impact on your friend. Likewise, YM (I teach YM primarily) should be aware of how flirting can be misread by YW and cause them pain, even if that was not the YM's intent. And finally, yes, I do believe that - defined appropriately - YW should consider the impact of their clothing choices on YM. The primary responsibility lies with the YM. But YW covenant to bear the burdens of those YM. 
5. Finally, the range of modest clothing is highly determined by our culture, and therefore is out of our control. In many cultures, women bathing in the local river is normal. But in the US it's not. Likewise, church standards for dress have changed somewhat over the years (e.g., women and pants) but tend to be more conservative than "the world." There is no such thing as "modesty" in the absolute. In heaven, we may be all naked for all I know. Heck, Moroni showed up to Joseph's bed room wearing nothing more than a loose robe. So obviously modesty standards (not to mention the use of garments) may be different on the other side. But for the here and now, we must be aware of our culture.

Some good advice here.

[Buckeye]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So in #3 the test in intent but then in #4 you are responsible even without intent. I find it a subjective cesspool that sends the message young women are responsible for the thoughts of young men. How is a young woman to know the effect her 'sweater' may have on a young mans thoughts unless he tells her, shows her, or assaults her? When you take this thread with the other about sexual assault--I think we should spend less time on the "modesty" lecture and more time on controlling ones thoughts and actions. There is no way for a young woman to dress in a fashion that prevents a young man from having sexual thoughts. I choose to dress modestly and my daughters dress modestly, according to my interpretation of the the strength of youth, but that has not stopped inappropriate actions by others. I will never teach my daughters that they covenant to bear the burden of a young mans sexual response to their body. I've posted the male ogling burka picture too many times to ever believe it would truly make a difference. 

You are absolutely correct that more time should be spent on controlling one's own thoughts; also, that no manner of dress can prevent impure thoughts. However, recognizing these truths does not mean that women (and men) do not have any responsibility ever for considering the impact of their dress on others. Let me objectify my fellow men for a minute. In my stake, sometimes the young men play basketball on Saturday mornings. Just between them, they'd be happy to go shirts and skins. No one is offended. It's normal. But I realize that some YW (and older women) may be uncomfortable by sweaty shirtless YM. So I have them all wear shirts. Is that objectifying them? Possibly. But I'm trying to strike a balance and feel this is appropriate. 

Again, I'm not saying that other's thoughts should be a primary (or even strong) consideration, but it should be a consideration. As a final example, consider this. In our church the YM pass the sacrament. Suppose a YM did so wearing a Confederate Flag necktie. Or wearing a Nazi Swastika tie. Or wearing nothing but a speedo. Would that affect your sacrament experience? It would mine. Should the YM consider our feelings? I say he should.

[Johnnie Cake]

I’m all for LDS females wearing  burka’s ... gotta remove all temptation snd impure thoughts and frankly burka’s do nothing for me

Edited October 18, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[cinepro]

While I can understand the sensitivity (and hyper-sensitivity) by some when "blaming-the-victim" becomes an issue for things like sexual assault, this seems to be an odd situation where the Church is arguing a scientifically and research-based principle (not to mention common sense), and critics are arguing for the unscientific counter-proposition.

For example, take Elder Oaks' well-meme'd statement here:

Quote

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.

Dallin Oaks, "Pornography", April 2005 General Conference Priesthood Session

I understand why that statement causes distress.  For a scholared wordsmith such as Oaks, it's an odd miss-step.  But in all the discussion of how awful it is that young women could become "pornography" based on how they dress, few people ever acknowledge the simple fact that study after study shows that how people dress does have an influence on other people:

Men see bikini-clad women as objects, psychologists say

Quote

New research shows that, in men, the brain areas associated with handling tools and the intention to perform actions light up when viewing images of women in bikinis.

The research was presented this week by Susan Fiske, professor of psychology at Princeton University, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"This is just the first study which was focused on the idea that men of a certain age view sex as a highly desirable goal, and if you present them with a provocative woman, then that will tend to prime goal-related responses," she told CNN.

(Emphasis added)

If you didn't read that excerpt from the study, take a moment and read it again.

Then take a moment and read Elder Oaks' quote.  Then read the excerpt from the article again.

Does anyone find it ironic that one of the most common criticisms against Elder Oaks is from when he stood in conference and said something that is backed by research, brain scans, and evolutionary theory?  He might not have been as tactful as he could have been, but that doesn't change the fact that what he said is entirely true.

And look at his whole talk.  Critics like to pretend that his comment is somehow excusing men for their thoughts, or even giving them permission or encouraging such leering.  But the entire talk (other than that one comment) is a plea to the men and teenagers to not look at objectified women that way.  

I often wonder how Oaks' comment would be perceived if he had just made one tiny little change.  What if he said this instead?

Quote

And young women, studies show that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you.

For those who objected to his comment, does that make you react any differently?

If anything, Oaks should be mocked and derided for standing and saying something in conference that is so obviously true that even the stupidest person would already understand it.  The response from men, women and the entire advertising industry should have been "Duh!"

Edited October 18, 2017 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

While I can understand the sensitivity (and hyper-sensitivity) by some when "blaming-the-victim" becomes an issue for things like sexual assault, this seems to be an odd situation where the Church is arguing a scientifically and research-based principle (not to mention common sense), and critics are arguing for the unscientific counter-proposition.

For example, take Elder Oaks' well-meme'd statement here:

I understand why that statement causes distress.  For a scholared wordsmith such as Oaks, it's an odd miss-step.  But in all the discussion of how awful it is that young women could become "pornography" based on how they dress, few people ever acknowledge the simple fact that study after study shows that how people dress does have an influence on other people:

Men see bikini-clad women as objects, psychologists say

If you didn't read that excerpt from the study, take a moment and read it again.

Then take a moment and read Elder Oaks' quote.  Then read the excerpt from the article again.

Does anyone find it ironic that one of the most common criticisms against Elder Oaks is from when he stood in conference and said something that is backed by research, brain scans, and evolutionary theory?  He might not have been as tactful as he could have been, but that doesn't change the fact that what he said is entirely true.

And look at his whole talk.  Critics like to pretend that his comment is somehow excusing men for their thoughts, or even giving them permission or encouraging such leering.  But the entire talk (other than that one comment) is a plea to the men and teenagers to not look at objectified women that way.  

I often wonder how Oaks' comment would be perceived if he had just made one tiny little change.  What if he said this instead?

For those who objected to his comment, does that make you react any differently?

I think you just equated a provocative woman with a woman who walks around in society showing a shoulder being pornography to men (after the Church's standards of dress is not just women not wear bikinis but not wear tops that show shoulder).  If a woman wears her swimming trunks at the beach is she being provocative?  Or is it more that if she is wearing her swimming trunks, or something like it, in different unexpected venue?  It seems to me men should accept the women will wear their swimming trunks at the beach and so shouldn't be seen as provocative women. 

If the problem is women wearing swimming trunks at the beach, then perhaps we ought to ban women wearing swimming trunks lest men get happy and excitable.