Modesty standards

[kiwi57]

8 hours 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."

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.

You're right, it probably isn't just happenstance.

Karen Straughan suggests that women like men to be dressed, because that displays wealth, which is a key component of their desirability as mates. Men like to see women wearing less because that displays their youth and health - which are the key components of their desirability as mates. It all comes down to the biological drive to maximise reproductive opportunities, and for women that means the mate that can demonstrate success at bringing home the most venison.

All of which is probably over-simplified, of course. But her argument isn't that men don't objectify women; it is that both sexes do it to the other just as much - but they are interested in different types of objects.

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

I rather think llama was being sarcastic.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

You're right, it probably isn't just happenstance.

Karen Straughan suggests that women like men to be dressed, because that displays wealth, which is a key component of their desirability as mates. Men like to see women wearing less because that displays their youth and health - which are the key components of their desirability as mates. It all comes down to the biological drive to maximise reproductive opportunities, and for women that means the mate that can demonstrate success at bringing home the most venison.

All of which is probably over-simplified, of course. But her argument isn't that men don't objectify women; it is that both sexes do it to the other just as much - but they are interested in different types of objects.

Yep.....

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, llama said:

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

And by the color of his shirt.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, bsjkki said:

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.

What if the girl or woman intentionally dresses in a provocative way in order to invite male attention? Does she bear any responsibility at all for the thoughts or actions her dress engenders?

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Shoulderless was fashionable for for BYU homecoming queens and princesses for many years.

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What if the girl or woman intentionally dresses in a provocative way in order to invite male attention? Does she bear any responsibility at all for the thoughts or actions her dress engenders?

No. She bears responsibility for trying to be provocative. She cannot control the thoughts or actions of anyone else, so can't be held responsible for what they think and do.  

If you believe what she wears does control a man's thoughts then we might as well give up because that means we have no choice when Satan tries to control our thoughts as well. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

No. She bears responsibility for trying to be provocative. She cannot control the thoughts or actions of anyone else, so can't be held responsible for what they think and do.  

If you believe what she wears does control a man's thoughts then we might as well give up because that means we have no choice when Satan tries to control our thoughts as well. 

 

Are you assuming all men want to control their thoughts? Isn’t this what much advertising and all pornography rely on? 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you assuming all men want to control their thoughts? Isn’t this what much advertising and all pornography rely on? 

I'm not assuming anything. It doesn't matter one bit if men want to control their own thoughts or not on this. No person has the ability to control or choose someone else's thoughts - you can't be held responsible for something you don't have any control or choice over.

You can only be held responsible for your own actions - so she has responsibility for intentionally dressing provacatively. 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, llama said:

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

Hell’s streets are paved with the remains of the screaming tortured souls of those who thought it might be okay to try a mullet.....just once.

THEY WERE WRONG!

Edited October 19, 2017 by The Nehor

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

No. She bears responsibility for trying to be provocative. She cannot control the thoughts or actions of anyone else, so can't be held responsible for what they think and do.  

If you believe what she wears does control a man's thoughts then we might as well give up because that means we have no choice when Satan tries to control our thoughts as well. 

I don't fully agree.  I do get the point, but it is not entirely realistic. It's the old "don't think about elephants" example.

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I'm not assuming anything. It doesn't matter one bit if men want to control their own thoughts or not on this. No person has the ability to control or choose someone else's thoughts - you can't be held responsible for something you don't have any control or choice over.

You can only be held responsible for your own actions - so she has responsibility for intentionally dressing provacatively. 

We don’t live in that kind of isolated bubble in the real world. I think you are missing my point, but I have learned from sad experience that honestly responding to this topic is fraught with all kinds of dangers and misunderstandings. And so I will bow out. 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

33 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We don’t live in that kind of isolated bubble in the real world. I think you are missing my point, but I have learned from sad experience that honestly responding to this topic is fraught with all kinds of dangers and misunderstandings. And so I will bow out. 

I don't think I am missing it. I just disagree with you. And I don't think it is an isolated bubble because the woman would definitely be responsible for her part. I didn't say it would have no effect on the man. I specifically answered your question about his "thoughts and actions". But I'd like to make sure I do understand you point so please read on. 

I'm sorry you are bowing out. I see you as a good man and it honestly frustrates me because communication cannot work only on one side. 

One of the  things I love about my husband is how very hard he has worked to communicate with me. When we were first married he felt that any disagreement meant confrontation. He didn't realize you could communicate and not have contention. He didn't realize till later that nearly every time we had a problem was because we hadn't communicated. 

One of the things he has learned is that I am ok with him not agreeing with me as long as he understands my point of view and I understand his.

This is all part of why I posted my listening thread.

To understand you better, if you come back - did you want answers to these questions or were they rhetorical: "What if the girl or woman intentionally dresses in a provocative way in order to invite male attention? Does she bear any responsibility at all for the thoughts or actions her dress engenders?"

 

 

[california boy]

Ok so I have been dying to ask this question for a long time.  Seriously.  And this seems like the perfect place to ask the question.  What is it about women's shoulders that are driving men insanely sexually crazy?  Sure they are nice, but how about the line of the neck.  Or crystal clear eyes?  Or long fingers.  What is it about the shoulders?  Is it a generational thing?  Do those leading the church today have some throwback fantasy that really gets them going when they see a bare shoulder?  Of course I may be completely wrong on this.  I am the first to admit that I might not see women in the same sexual capacity as other men.  So feel free to correct me if I am wrong about this.

And from a gay man's perspective, why aren't men required to cover up their biceps? Wouldn't most people agree that men with great biceps are incredibly sexy?  Would you women agree with me on this?  

I think the church has this point of view reversed.  Men should cover up their arms, women should be free to show their shoulders.  Maybe they need a gay man or even just one woman among the group of all older men that decides these things to tell them what makes a man sexually attractive.  Obviously they are missing huge areas of sexual arousal in men while picking on women's shoulders.

[Alan]

I think modesty in dress should also include the "costly apparel" element.

To wear expensive designer labels is not being modest.

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

Quote

What if the girl or woman intentionally dresses in a provocative way in order to invite male attention? Does she bear any responsibility at all for the thoughts or actions her dress engenders?

No. She bears responsibility for trying to be provocative.

I don't understand.  If, in this context, a person is "trying to be provocative" (as in "tending or serving to provoke; inciting, stimulating..."), that person is trying to "provoke" (as in " to stir up, arouse, or call forth (feelings, desires, or activity)").  

Given the context of this discussion, the "feelings, desires, or activity" which the person is "trying" to "stir up, arouse, or call forth" are . . . what?  What sort of feelings?  Desires?  Activities?

And if that person succeeds in efforts to "stir up, arouse, or call forth" such "feelings, desires, or activit{ies}," there is no responsibility for having done so?  For having tried, and succeeded, in the intended provocation?

Quote

She cannot control the thoughts or actions of anyone else, so can't be held responsible for what they think and do.  

I don't understand.  If a person yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater, he certainly would be "held responsible" for the "thoughts or actions of anyone" in the theater (panic, rush to the exits, injuries, etc.), because he deliberately provoked others into thinking something (that the theater is on fire), and in acting in accordance therewith (panicking and rushing the exits).

In criminal law, a person can be criminally prosecuted for things like "incitement to riot" and "sedition."  So-called "fighting words" are "those {words} that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

A person "incites" others to riot, or to engage in seditious activity, or to fight or commit a "breach of the peace" is criminally responsible for having done so.  The persons who are so incited are also responsible for their actions.

Interestingly, the verbs "to provoke" (as in "trying to be provocative") and "to incite" (as in "incitement to riot") are synonyms of each other.

If in the law a person can be held responsible for "inciting" others, that that seems pretty much equivalent to saying he "provoked" others.  And a person who "incites" or "provokes" others is held responsible for their incitement or provocation (and again, those persons who were provoked/incited are also responsible for their actions).

In sum, a person who is trying to be provocative, who is trying to provoke inappropriate behavior, and who succeeds at it, is usually deemed culpable for his or her provocation/incitement. 

In fact, even an unsuccessful effort to incite or provoke can lead to culpability.  Such a thing is called an "inchoate offense" ("inchoate" meaning "not yet completed or fully developed; rudimentary").  In other words, a person who attempts to incite others to riot, but fails to succeed at it, can be prosecuted for the attempt.  This is because our society has deemed it wrong to both commit a crime and, in some instances, to attempt or prepare to commit a crime.  Thus we have both "robbery" and "attempted robbery," and "sexual assault" and "attempted sexual assault," and so on.

What are your thoughts?

Quote

If you believe what she wears does control a man's thoughts

Whoa.  Let's not switch gears here.  The phrasing here is "provocative," as in "to provoke" (not "control").

Quote

then we might as well give up because that means we have no choice when Satan tries to control our thoughts as well. 

I think the general principle being proposed here is that we should not try to "provoke" or "incite" or "foment" or "goad" or "entice" others into doing or saying or thinking inappropriate things.  This applies in all aspects of life, and to both genders, and to people of all ages.  Because when we do, we are multiplying the misconduct.  The act of "incitement to riot" is disturbing and wrong because of both the rioting and the incitement of it.  Both acts are wrong.  And both actors (the person(s) doing the rioting, and the person doing the inciting) are responsible for their respective behaviors.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 19, 2017 by smac97

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

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.

Yes, but I think it is also good to think about others as well, and what is good for the community, and how we can influence each other for the better. That is why I think the manual touches on both considerations.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I rather think llama was being sarcastic.

I'm glad it was intended to show support for the principles in For the Strength of Youth.

[Rain]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  If, in this context, a person is "trying to be provocative" (as in "tending or serving to provoke; inciting, stimulating..."), that person is trying to "provoke" (as in " to stir up, arouse, or call forth (feelings, desires, or activity)").  

Given the context of this discussion, the "feelings, desires, or activity" which the person is "trying" to "stir up, arouse, or call forth" are . . . what?  What sort of feelings?  Desires?  Activities?

And if that person succeeds in efforts to "stir up, arouse, or call forth" such "feelings, desires, or activit{ies}," there is no responsibility for having done so?  For having tried, and succeeded, in the intended provocation?

I don't understand.  If a person yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater, he certainly would be "held responsible" for the "thoughts or actions of anyone" in the theater (panic, rush to the exits, injuries, etc.), because he deliberately provoked others into thinking something (that the theater is on fire), and in acting in accordance therewith (panicking and rushing the exits).

In criminal law, a person can be criminally prosecuted for things like "incitement to riot" and "sedition."  So-called "fighting words" are "those {words} that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

A person "incites" others to riot, or to engage in seditious activity, or to fight or commit a "breach of the peace" is criminally responsible for having done so.  The persons who are so incited are also responsible for their actions.

Interestingly, the verbs "to provoke" (as in "trying to be provocative") and "to incite" (as in "incitement to riot") are synonyms of each other.

If in the law a person can be held responsible for "inciting" others, that that seems pretty much equivalent to saying he "provoked" others.  And a person who "incites" or "provokes" others is held responsible for their incitement or provocation (and again, those persons who were provoked/incited are also responsible for their actions).

In sum, a person who is trying to be provocative, who is trying to provoke inappropriate behavior, and who succeeds at it, is usually deemed culpable for his or her provocation/incitement.

What are your thoughts?

Whoa.  Let's not switch gears here.  The phrasing here is "provocative," as in "to provoke" (not "control").

I don't think that's right.  I think the general principle is that we should not try to "provoke" or "incite" or "foment" or "goad" or "entice" others into doing or saying or thinking inappropriate things.  This applies in all aspects of life, and to both genders, and to people of all ages.  Because when we do, we are multiplying the misconduct.  The act of "incitement to riot" is disturbing and wrong because of both the rioting and the incitement of it.  Both acts are wrong.  And both actors (the person(s) doing the rioting, and the person doing the inciting) are responsible for their respective behaviors.

Thanks,

-Smac

Did you want to understand what I said better or were you asking me the questions in this post to prove your point? This feels, to me, like you you are just "waiting to talk" ( http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69734-listening/ ) and you have mentioned before you are here to debate. If you are wanting to debate I don't have any interest in responding. If you are wanting to really understand me and where I am coming from then I will gladly respond. 

So I'd honestly like to know if you were asking for understanding  or if you were asking to prove your point.

 

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

Did you want to understand what I said better

Yes.

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

or were you asking me the questions in this post to prove your point?

A bit of both.  You are sharing your thoughts, and I am sharing mine.

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

This feels, to me, like you you are just "waiting to talk" ( http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69734-listening/ ) and you have mentioned before you are here to debate.

And discuss.  And exchange ideas and viewpoints.

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

If you are wanting to debate I don't have any interest in responding.

Why is that?  Debate need not be acrimonious.  It is, after all, defined as "a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints."

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

If you are wanting to really understand me and where I am coming from then I will gladly respond. 

I really want to understand you and where you are coming from.  I also wanted to explain my thoughts and where I am coming from.  It is this exchange of ideas that makes discussion worthwhile (and, where differing or "opposing" viewpoints are in play, debate is worthwhile too).

I was attempting to have a discussion, that's all.  I even went back and edited a few things I said initially so as to clarify that.

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

So I'd honestly like to know if you were asking for understanding  or if you were asking to prove your point.

Yes, I am asking for understanding.

I am also presenting my viewpoint.  It would seem that the former does not need to preclude the latter (or vice versa).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you assuming all men want to control their thoughts? Isn’t this what much advertising and all pornography rely on? 

It would seem to me if a man makes a choice not to control his thoughts, that is his choice and his responsibility no matter how much encouragement someone gives him.  If we are to resist Satan's temptations and are held responsible when we give in, surely we are required to resist other mortals' temptations.

If you are thinking in terms of addiction, an analogy of questionable culpability might be an alcoholic being given a spiked drink unaware.  Given his limited self control due in part to the screwed brain wiring, is he responsible for the drunken behaviour that follows a first unintended drink?  What if he knowingly placed himself in a situation where such a thing had a higher probability of occurring than typically? I think a lot depends on how he became an addict in the first place and how aware he is of the environment he has placed himself in.

It is in line with how the Church teaches about homosexuality.  Thoughts are behaviours, those that are intentional such as fantasizing about homosexual sexual behaviour would be generally judged as wrong, those that are unintentional, not nurtured, but attempted to controlled would not be judged as sinful.

For me, the only question in most situations if the intent is to provoke and we are asked to judge the culpability of those exposed to the provocation is who is responsible for the moment of first exposure....where thoughts are allegedly unable to be controlled.  There could also be a difference for the case of addiction and awareness of what happens with that...haven't decided yet.

I do think men and women can work on controlling their thoughts to the point that there are people who first see the child of God and not the mortal appearance, provocative or not.

For those who are not in control at that level, who would we blame if a woman willingly posed nude for a porn producer and the porn producer emailed it under an innocent label and caught a person unaware?  In that case I feel comfortable saying the intent was to create a sexual response, they are in part responsible for it.

As for less obvious intentional provocative behaviour, I think level of intent and awareness of the implication plays into it...awareness being how innocent the individual is of the likely response.  If they are less educated or aware as sometimes teens are and think the only attention they are going to get is "Wow, she's beautiful" in some divorced of sexuality way (which I believe the nonmember 8 year old I babysat who wished to dress provocatively because of how she saw some others dressing, including her mother and older sister, was only aware of...it was more dressup/costume to her than sex), I don't see them as culpable.  If they understand the likely sexual responses and the implications of that, I do believe they share responsibility for that first moment of response with a person who has not yet been able to reach his desired control, but once past that moment, the responsibility is fully the individual choosing to respond including the choice to not attempt to control at all.

I also think no one can fully judge how much understanding of what being intentionally provocative means to others save God, so judging a woman or man by their clothing is unwise.

So if someone intentionally dresses provocatively, they are as fully culpable for having that intent as the level of understanding the potential responses to that behaviour, but they are not responsible imo for any behaviour a person has control over, including when they have control enough to refuse to control.  

The grey area is who is responsible for the behaviour that is instinctive or addictive...would a man or woman who knowingly posts their own naked pictures to a porn site be responsible at all for a persona's reactions?  Does it make a difference if a person intentionally clicks on the photo knowing what they are going to get...is that enough control they should be held fully responsible? Should those producing porn be held at all responsible for those knowing behaviours or only responsible for problematic behaviours that are a result unknowingly stumbling across the porn?  Is there a line of provocation that creates a shared responsibility?  Is someone who acts provocatively, but is unaware of the effect responsible? 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't fully agree.  I do get the point, but it is not entirely realistic. It's the old "don't think about elephants" example.

 

Except it is God telling you not to think of elephants and providing the means by which you can learn that level of control.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Calm

[Rain]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

A bit of both.  You are sharing your thoughts, and I am sharing mine.

And discuss.  And exchange ideas and viewpoints.

Why is that?  Debate need not be acrimonious.  It is, after all, defined as "a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints."

I really want to understand you and where you are coming from.  I also wanted to explain my thoughts and where I am coming from.  It is this exchange of ideas that makes discussion worthwhile (and, where differing or "opposing" viewpoints are in play, debate is worthwhile too).

I was attempting to have a discussion, that's all.  I even went back and edited a few things I said initially so as to clarify that.

Yes, I am asking for understanding.

I am also presenting my viewpoint.  It would seem that the former does not need to preclude the latter (or vice versa).

Thanks,

-Smac

Debate, to me, is trying to "win" a conversation. To put out the best points.  I do it occasionally with my son for fun and it keeps our minds quick. I find sometimes though our debate can slip out of debate mode and become something hurtful so it is important that I watch for cues both in him and me.

I've never found it to build relationships and relationships are what is important to me. It has never helped me to gain understanding. When I am in debate mode I am in "win" mode and not in a place where I can learn those deepest things from Heavenly Father.

That is why I do not want to debate here. 

So because, in part, you do want to understand, I will read your post further and think on it and get back to you. I want to make sure of what you are saying and see how it fits in with my understanding of responsibility.

[strappinglad]

I recall a quote by ( JS ? ) about thoughts are like birds. You can't stop them from flying over head , but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair.

We are told not to ' dig a pit for your neighbor.' Does a person dressing provocatively  dig a pit for others to fall into?

Perhaps smac can clarify the law about police entrapment. To what point can police leave a vehicle to entice someone to steal it ? If they leave a car running with the keys in it and a sign saying " Go Ahead , Steal me " , is that a bridge too far ?

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Rain said:

Debate, to me, is trying to "win" a conversation.

Allow me to explain my thought on this point.  Debate on this board is (or should be) an exercise in seeking synthesis.  This arises from a form of "dialectic" ("a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments").  In modern philosophical thought, the "Hegelian dialectic" is described as follows:

Quote

{The] Hegelian dialectic {is comprised of} three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis.

As applied to online discussions, I think this information about this dialectic is useful:

Quote

Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis has also been used as a basic scheme to organize writing in the English language. For example, the website WikiPreMed.com advocates the use of this scheme in writing timed essays for the MCAT standardized test:

Quote

For the purposes of writing MCAT essays, the dialectic describes the progression of ideas in a critical thought process that is the force driving your argument. A good dialectical progression propels your arguments in a way that is satisfying to the reader.

• The thesis is an intellectual proposition.
• The antithesis is a critical perspective on the thesis.
• The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.

 

So no, I do not propose that we "debate" in order to achieve a win/lose result.  Rather, I propose that we "debate" in order to achieve "synthesis" (a resolution of "the conflict between the thesis {your ideas} and antithesis {my ideas} by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition").

Put another way, you bring your insights, and I bring mine, and let's see if we can build something out of all of it.  Together.

Quote

To put out the best points.  I do it occasionally with my son for fun and it keeps our minds quick. I find sometimes though our debate can slip out of debate mode and become something hurtful so it is important that I watch for cues both in him and me.

Yes, I do that, too.  I'm a lawyer by trade, so I am often necessarily in a "win/lose" mindset.  But that it not my intention here.

Quote

So because, in part, you do want to understand, I will read your post further and think on it and get back to you. I want to make sure of what you are saying and see how it fits in with my understanding of responsibility.

Okay.  Take your time.  And thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

-Smac

Edited October 19, 2017 by smac97