Modesty standards

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, cinepro said:

"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,"

So are there women out there "priming goal-related responses"? (there are easier words to use for that,  one that starts with an "H" comes to mind.)
Yes there are such women (not all), and they do it to either attract men or to show off what they have to make other women jealous.  But as latter-day saints we should not let the attention we give it it go beyond, at most, a casual notice.  

I think it was Brigham Young who once said: "I wouldn't give nickel for a guy who wouldn't look at a pretty girl once. And I wouldn't give a penny for a guy who would look at a pretty girl twice."
Members of the church should not need to resort to such base attempts to get noticed and the opposite sex should not be looking for it or give it top priority in looking for an eternal mate.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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. 

This is good to see, thanks for sharing the link. 

Just don't tell anyone that these articles are influenced by the culture at large, we have to preserve the mystique that its revelation independent of outside influence.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Agreed.  Fashion norms are fluid and culturally contextual.  Apparently showing too much knee is against the honor code at BYU Idaho, but not in Provo.  Maybe eating too many potatoes produces some chemical response that is triggered when knees are viewed? 

Of course in other cultures around the world there are very different norms for fashion, and our western norms are viewed as deviant in some cases. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

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. 

This is a good example of the double standard that exists in our culture.  YM playing basketball in only shorts would be akin to playing basket ball in their swimwear but as you said, your concern was not that the YM would be immodest, but that they would make someone uncomfortable, regardless of not being immodest.  If a YW wanted to play basketball in swimwear she would be stopped at church for immodesty.  Her playing in a swimsuit would be seen as sinful (immodestly is a sin) while a YM playing in a swimsuit (or the equivalent of), isn't.  It's normal, like you said.

So often in our culture women's clothes are considered immodest because they might impact a male in a negative way.  This is what church leaders (well meaning church leaders who care deeply for the youth) teach girls about modesty:  Normal but inappropriate sexual feelings in someone = woman dressed immodestly and woman dressed immodestly = woman sinning, therefore normal but inappropriate sexual feelings in someone = woman sinning.

For men, immodesty in dress and their impact on others is not really connected, as your story shows.  Normal but inappropriate sexual feelings in someone does not = man dressed immodestly and therefore men are not really taught to equate the sexual reactions of others to whether or not they themselves are sinning.

I think this is one of the points that bsjkki is trying to make.  Women shoulder a burden an unequal burden when it comes to modesty in dress and it's affect on others (and it doesn't have anything to do with women's fashions being less modest in general).  

It's difficult for girls to absorb the "normal but inappropriate sexual feelings in someone = I'm sinning" teaching in a healthy way because it's not a healthy thing to teach someone. 

Quote

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.

It would affect my experience, but is my experience what determines what is acceptable to wear to pass the sacrament?  In a ward of white nationals, would wearing a nazi tie be o.k. because no one would care?  No, it still wouldn't be o.k. because the experience of the sacrament takers doesn't determine whether or not the boy was sinning by wearing the tie.

But oftentimes the reaction of a male is what people use to determine whether or not a girl is being sinful in her clothing choices.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, llama said:

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

I suppose in a certain narrow context that might be so, but I don't agree with that as a general standard, and I don't think that is the kind of message to be taken from the Strength of Youth.

Edited October 18, 2017 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

Should have left the garments alone.  Worked for nearly a century in the Church.  "Modesty" wasn't much of a debate when both men and women didn't wear open necklines, form hugging tight clothes, or missing sleeves.

Edited October 19, 2017 by JLHPROF

[cinepro]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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). 

It's possible you're stretching Oaks' comment beyond what a plain reading might indicate.  But I agree that he should have taken a minute or two to explain that he meant really dressing immodestly, like bikinis and mini-skirts and nipples poking through the shirt. 

It probably also would have been good for him to clarify that his comment didn't apply to uggos or fat chicks.

 

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Should have left the garments alone.  Worked for nearly a century in the Church.  "Modesty" wasn't much of a debate when both men and women didn't wear open necklines, form hugging right clothes, or missing sleeves.

But unmarried women were wearing shoulderless dresses according to my grandma to major parties.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Calm

[bsjkki]

This photo is from a twitter account. This is what was said in a comment, "Armed women beat burqa’d women on sexiness scale!"

I'm sure these two women were going for that 'sexy vibe." 

Teach modesty...just don't  teach that girls are in anyway responsible for the thoughts and actions of young men. It doesn't actually lessen their burden or "help" them by thinking they can blame their thoughts on the attire of the girls. The local high school is 2.8% Mormon so the young men better figure it out. 

Edited October 18, 2017 by bsjkki

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

But unmarried women were wearing shoulderless dresses according to my grandma to major parties.

And tank tops with thick sleeves were not considered immodest when i was in YWs in the 90s for unendowed girls.  We even wore sleeves shirts on a temple trip once.  

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

And tank tops with thick sleeves were not considered immodest when i was in YWs in the 90s for unendowed girls.  We even wore sleeves shirts on a temple trip once.  

I think this is what bugs me too...when I was a teenager, things were not so uptight and the modesty rhetoric was way less. I've seen these lessons hurt my own daughters. It's not just the men either. I see a lot of woman looking at the teenage girls and checking the hem length. In a discussion on sexual assault my young women's leader discussed the need for girls to help the boys by dressing modestly. Really--so you think if the girls dressed modestly they would not be assaulted? I held back in the moment as the discussion was led a different direction...contention and all that but, it was frustrating. 

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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."

All definitions are based on cultural norms, there really is no objective measurement for fashion modesty.  Women going topless is just as objectively modest as a man going topless.  Now, I recognize its not as culturally acceptable based on traditions of the culture, but recognizing this principle is important when you make statements that men's fashions are more modest, that is just a subjective opinion and will vary in different contexts and cultures.  I would argue that the rampant sexism of our culture is a key factor in common paradigms for thinking that men's fashions are generally more modest than women's, or that some women are "cautioned" about wearing certain clothing is also a sexist way of viewing fashion for women.  And to your defense, these sexists paradigms are just a part of our overall culture, I'm not blaming you individually for them, they are everywhere and are built into our systems and traditions.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what this means.

As for victim blaming, this is a huge problem with respect to sexual harassment and sexual assault in our country.  If you aren't up to speed on this, I highly recommend you read a couple of these links.  

http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/07/27/how-outdated-mormon-teachings-may-be-aiding-and-abetting-rape-culture/

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/10/the-psychology-of-victim-blaming/502661/

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think this is what bugs me too...when I was a teenager, things were not so uptight and the modesty rhetoric was way less. I've seen these lessons hurt my own daughters. It's not just the men either. I see a lot of woman looking at the teenage girls and checking the hem length. In a discussion on sexual assault my young women's leader discussed the need for girls to help the boys by dressing modestly. Really--so you think if the girls dressed modestly they would not be assaulted? I held back in the moment as the discussion was led a different direction...contention and all that but, it was frustrating. 

I think that some women do think that about dress and sexual assault (and men too) and I think that sometimes it's a subconscious way to feel in control.  Kind of like "if i do all of this then i'll be safe or my loved ones will be safe" thing.    

[Rain]

44 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's possible you're stretching Oaks' comment beyond what a plain reading might indicate.  But I agree that he should have taken a minute or two to explain that he meant really dressing immodestly, like bikinis and mini-skirts and nipples poking through the shirt. 

It probably also would have been good for him to clarify that his comment didn't apply to uggos or fat chicks.

 

 

So, the nipples poking through the shirt.  That is a natural reaction to cold, working out, sexual stimulus etc.  Kind of like a man's erection is a natural thing. Of course men's nipples do it as well sometimes.  Some women have more problems with it than other women.  Some climates will have more women with problems. 

Is anytime nipples poke through a problem or is it only when she doesn't do enough to hide it? If she wears garments, a padded bra and a shirt is that enough or does she need to do more? Or does she need to wear more layers if that doesn't take care of the problem?

He should clarify it doesn't apply to Uggos and fat chicks? 

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

Won’t work for me. I find women’s eyes to be particularly attractive.  

[Avatar4321]

7 hours 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.  

 

as a male deeply involved in Mormon culture I've never understood modesty to apply to only the women.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

as a male deeply involved in Mormon culture I've never understood modesty to apply to only the women.

Me either. Modesty applies to both.  As does the responsibility not to influence others with immodest in dress or action.

 

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

But the burka's do something to the women... it seems they sometimes have vitamin D deficiency. It seems the standard was not always so strict either, but became more restrictive with the advent of Wahabbi Islam. I feel for the burden placed on Muslim women, but some seem not to mind, but think of it as a protection... IMHO it's ashame they feel the need for a "protection," but then Islam is a very outward religion.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

But unmarried women were wearing shoulderless dresses according to my grandma to major parties.

And Joseph F. Smith decried it.

[Buckeye]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Should have left the garments alone.  Worked for nearly a century in the Church.  "Modesty" wasn't much of a debate when both men and women didn't wear open necklines, form hugging tight clothes, or missing sleeves.

The FLDS still maintain those dress standards, but the standards don't seem to have saved them from the problems of objectifying women and girls. 

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The FLDS still maintain those dress standards, but the standards don't seem to have saved them from the problems of objectifying women and girls. 

Modesty doesn't prevent a lustful mind in others but it also cannot be accused of being a source of temptation .  It is about personal cleanliness and purity.

The FLDS are modest which is good but also dress in the equivalent style of praying and fasting to be seen.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

But unmarried women were wearing shoulderless dresses according to my grandma to major parties.

My mother's dress in a dance picture at BYU wasn't modest according to today's church standards. 

It makes me wonder if our focusing too much on modesty can be a problem. The Brady Bunch girls and their mom wore short skirts and it wasn't a problem. I remember wearing a short skirt to church when I was a young girl and my mother was super modest but didn't worry about me wearing it. Also I remember wearing spaghetti straps all the time and halter tops that I made with a triangle piece of fabric when I was younger. 

We need to stop sexualizing women, especially young girls. 

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

So, the nipples poking through the shirt.  That is a natural reaction to cold, working out, sexual stimulus etc.  Kind of like a man's erection is a natural thing. Of course men's nipples do it as well sometimes.  Some women have more problems with it than other women.  Some climates will have more women with problems. 

Is anytime nipples poke through a problem or is it only when she doesn't do enough to hide it? If she wears garments, a padded bra and a shirt is that enough or does she need to do more? Or does she need to wear more layers if that doesn't take care of the problem?

 

 

When I went to Church dances in the 1980s, we had to present dance cards which outlined the dress standards.  Girls promised not to sport the "no bra" look. 

So I guess your answer is "whatever it takes."

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, cinepro said:

When I went to Church dances in the 1980s, we had to present dance cards which outlined the dress standards.  Girls promised not to sport the "no bra" look. 

So I guess your answer is "whatever it takes."

Well, for some of us one some days that will mean an iron bra.

[Avatar4321]

7 hours 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].”

 

Isn't that one of the reasons we keep all the commandments? So that we invite the Spirit and having the the Spirit we can be a good influence on others?

Modesty to me is more about respect in ourselves and our bodies and less about what others think about our body. Its a sacrifice we can make for the Lord.