Modesty standards

[Vanguard]

On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:45 AM, 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 like what Lewis has to say in Mere Christianity - "A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally "modest" proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). ... When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable."

 And of course, these rules apply to both men & women. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Just one question that needs an answer...why do we worry about modesty?

Modesty meaning clothing or modesty mean not calling attention to yourself?

And I have to ask again since it is not clear to me - is your question a real question because you want to know or a question you want someone else to answer so you can point out something?

Edited October 21, 2017 by Rain

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, Rain said:

Modesty meaning clothing or modesty mean not calling attention to yourself?

And I have to ask again since it is not clear to me - is your question a real question because you want to know or a question you want someone else to answer so you can point out something?

Modesty, meaning clothing, of course. It's a question that doesn't seem to have an answer.

Why the cross-examination?

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Avatar4321]

38 minutes ago, Rain said:

Modesty meaning clothing or modesty mean not calling attention to yourself?

And I have to ask again since it is not clear to me - is your question a real question because you want to know or a question you want someone else to answer so you can point out something?

it seems like both definitions of modesty are the same. Wearing clothes to draw attention to yourself vs wearing clothes not to

[Rain]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Modesty, meaning clothing, of course. It's a question that doesn't seem to have an answer.

Why the cross-examination?

 

Not a cross-examination at all. I just wanted to know your meaning and intent behind the question. I find communication more effective when you know those things. That's why I said, "it is not clear to me."

So, hoping you don't see this as further going to a cross examaniation - do you mean historically why do worry about it? Or do you mean "what has the Lord said that makes us worry about it?" Or something else. 

Just so I can be clear here. My 3 year old son asked me when I was pregnant, "how does the doctor get the baby out?" Luckily, I asked him what he meant by that. Then he asked me, "How does the Dr get the baby out of the carseat?"  Totally different question than I thought he was asking.

When I asked for clarification I could see lots of things that could totally make it a different question. That's why I wanted to know.

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

it seems like both definitions of modesty are the same. Wearing clothes to draw attention to yourself vs wearing clothes not to

It often does, but as I have seen on the thread, people can have very different definitions. I wanted to know what specifically he was asking for.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Rain

[kiwi57]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

Just so I can be clear here. My 3 year old son asked me when I was pregnant, "how does the doctor get the baby out?" Luckily, I asked him what he meant by that. Then he asked me, "How does the Dr get the baby out of the carseat?"  Totally different question than I thought he was asking.

Yes, three might be just a bit young to be starting on that discussion...

[Jeanne]

On 10/20/2017 at 1:31 AM, Calm said:

Or maybe we all can follow the same standards for what amounts to athletic clothing.

For all eternity, I would love to be in my gym clothes...comfort is everything!!  I wonder if the all white in the heavens is spandex???

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I like what Lewis has to say in Mere Christianity - "A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally "modest" proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). ... When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable."

 And of course, these rules apply to both men & women. 

I definitely see different definitions of what modesty means in different cultures.  For centuries women in Bali never wore tops.  Their breasts were just as naked as the men.  A while back the indonesian government forced the women to cover up.  I remember walking down the street and this much older woman was walking towards us.  Yeah she had a blouse on, but you could tell she only had it on because the government forced her to.  Nothing was buttoned and well everything was swaying back and forth.  I didn't look at like she was immodestly dressed.  I looked at her as someone who thought "what a silly law.  Who decided that women should cover their breast.". The law was something she clearly did not believe or see any sense in following..

[kiwi57]

For some reason, this whole discussion reminds me of this:

https://beingsakin.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/into-your-eyes-ii/

 

[Bernard Gui]

 

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

For some reason, this whole discussion reminds me of this:

https://beingsakin.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/into-your-eyes-ii/

 

How does "male domination" force the woman on the left to dress as she does?

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

How does "male domination" force the woman on the left to dress as she does?

Not "force," maybe, but then neither in most cases is the woman on the right "forced" to dress as she does. Rather, the woman on the left dresses as she feels she is expected to. Oh, I know some talk about it being "liberating" and "empowering" to expose as much skin as possible, but the fashions come and go, and all the most "liberated" and "empowered" women follow them exactly as if they had no choice in the matter.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Not "force," maybe, but then neither in most cases is the woman on the right "forced" to dress as she does. Rather, the woman on the left dresses as she feels she is expected to. Oh, I know some talk about it being "liberating" and "empowering" to expose as much skin as possible, but the fashions come and go, and all the most "liberated" and "empowered" women follow them exactly as if they had no choice in the matter.

Well, to quote the King of Siam, “Is a puzzlement.”

Quote

When I was a boy, world was better spot.
What was so was so, what was not was not.
Now, I am a man, world have changed a lot.
Some things nearly so, others nearly not.

There are times I almost think
I am not sure of what I absolutely know.
Very often find confusion
In conclusion, I concluded long ago.

In my head are many facts
That, as a student, I have studied to procure,
In my head are many facts
Of which I wish I was more certain, I was sure.
Is a puzzlement.

 

[Nofear]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How does "male domination" force the woman on the left to dress as she does?

Made me think of this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/burkini-ban-why-is-france-arresting-muslim-women-for-wearing-full-body-swimwear-and-why-are-people-a7207971.html

But, obviously, the interplay between social pressures and what is comfortable/desired to the individual woman is rather complex (e.g. corsets, bras, makeup, high heels, pantyhose, burkas, head coverings, long hair, etc.).

[mapman]

I agree with the poster that said that the modesty discussion should include not wearing costly apparel. I think modesty is at its essence humility in the way we present ourselves.

The issue of people's sexual thoughts about other people then isn't central to the doctrine of modesty, but I guess a related issue.

I think we need to be more clear about what are actually innapropriate thoughts.

Are we responsible for intrusive sexual thoughts? I don't think anyone would say you are since you can't control them, but I think lots of people feel guilty about them anyways.

What differences are there between sexual objectification and other sexual thoughts? Do you have to consciously choose to objectify someone?

Are different thoughts appropriate for a single person than a married person?

I'm interested in people's thoughts on these questions.

[Bernard Gui]

Yesterday our stake president said his daughter is on th HS track team, but she felt uncomfortable wearing the tight short-shorts uniform. She went to the coach and explained her concerns. He said everyone was required to wear the uniform, but he would check out the rules. He came back and said the rules did allow modifications and they found a uniform style with which she could comfortably compete. 

Kudos to her for standing up for LDS standards, to her parents for teaching her correct principles, and to her non-LDS coach for going the extra mile for her. This is what we should do. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yesterday our stake president said his daughter is on th HS track team, but she felt uncomfortable wearing the tight short-shorts uniform. She went to the coach and explained her concerns. He said everyone was required to wear the uniform, but he would check out the rules. He came back and said the rules did allow modifications and they found a uniform style with which she could comfortably compete. 

Kudos to her for standing up for LDS standards, to her parents for teaching her correct principles, and to her non-LDS coach for going the extra mile for her. This is what we should do. 

I agree with everything you've said.  But I wonder, if it's immodest for a girl to run track in running shorts then why isn't it immodest for a girl to compete in a swim meet in a swimsuit?  The swimsuit is way more revealing than the track shorts.

I fully support everyone being able to compete in whatever they are comfortable in, but I'm not sure i understand putting this into the category of her standing up for LDS standards/modesty/following correct principles?

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree with everything you've said.  But I wonder, if it's immodest for a girl to run track in running shorts then why isn't it immodest for a girl to compete in a swim meet in a swimsuit?  The swimsuit is way more revealing than the track shorts.

I fully support everyone being able to compete in whatever they are comfortable in, but I'm not sure i understand putting this into the category of her standing up for LDS standards/modesty/following correct principles?

What’s not to understand? Participating in sports should not justify immodesty? Shaving a couple hundredths of seconds (perhaps) off your time isn’t worth abandoning your standards. She is a very modest young woman....in all the meanings of the word we have been discussing. I totally agree that she stood up for her standards and followed correct principles, no question about it. Un aplauso para la chica.  Would we question a Muslim girl following her heart and instinct in the same situation? No. My hat is off to her.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

On 10/22/2017 at 11:34 AM, mapman said:

I agree with the poster that said that the modesty discussion should include not wearing costly apparel. I think modesty is at its essence humility in the way we present ourselves.

The issue of people's sexual thoughts about other people then isn't central to the doctrine of modesty, but I guess a related issue.

I think we need to be more clear about what are actually innapropriate thoughts.

Are we responsible for intrusive sexual thoughts? I don't think anyone would say you are since you can't control them, but I think lots of people feel guilty about them anyways.

What differences are there between sexual objectification and other sexual thoughts? Do you have to consciously choose to objectify someone?

Are different thoughts appropriate for a single person than a married person?

I'm interested in people's thoughts on these questions.

These are really good questions. I'm not 100% sure. For me, I have plenty of sexual thoughts. Some of them intrusive . I am single. I think once upon a time I found them as minor sins of sorts. I would work to push them down. Instead now I thank God I have them and gently remind myself that they're currently not the right time for full expression. Or the right person, depending. I don't consider general sexual attraction as really a sexual thought or a form of lust. It just is because I have eyeballs and hormones. 

Most the people I know who objectify people aren't necessarily doing so consciously. But they can consciously change the internal dialogue. I think sexual objectification has 2 components to it. The first is seeing people as objects. But the other component I've seen is placing one's sexual appetites as the primary or sole voice in the sexual story. We do that all....the....time. Female sexuality in general has been filtered by male expectations of sex, sexual attractiveness, etc. So I think innappropriate thoughts start happening when your sexual desires and thoughts begin to override or take precedence over another's. Where it becomes more and more a part of an overpower monologue of a narrative than an actual bonafide dialogue between 2. 

 

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What’s not to understand? Participating in sports should not justify immodesty? Shaving a couple hundredths of seconds (perhaps) off your time isn’t worth abandoning your standards. She is a very modest young woman....in all the meanings of the word we have been discussing. I totally agree that she stood up for her standards and followed correct principles, no question about it. Un aplauso para la chica.  Would we question a Muslim girl following her heart and instinct in the same situation? No. My hat is off to her.

I think the problem is stating that she was following "mormon standards." She was following her standards. Kudos for her for doing so as she saw fit. But they are not my standards as a good mormon woman who considers herself modest. I could care less about what sports attire I generally wear as long as it suits the sport, is comfortable, and doesn't hinder my performance. Which is why I hike in tanks and shorts during the summer and several layers during the winter.

And yes, many people would have the same question for a muslim girl. And often do.  I have a general problem with this form of modesty definition. Because it tends to allow others outside oneself to regulate what is really modest. But I'm out of time, so that thought is just going to have to stay unexplained. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

 

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What’s not to understand? Participating in sports should not justify immodesty? Shaving a couple hundredths of seconds (perhaps) off your time isn’t worth abandoning your standards. She is a very modest young woman....in all the meanings of the word we have been discussing. I totally agree that she stood up for her standards and followed correct principles, no question about it. Un aplauso para la chica.  Would we question a Muslim girl following her heart and instinct in the same situation? No. My hat is off to her.

Why is wearing running shorts in track immodest when wearing a swimsuit for swimming isn't?  The swimsuit covers much less skin.  That's what I don't understand and that's the question i would like an answer to.  

I would question anyone who tried to argue that the Muslim girl was the one making the modest choice.  Wouldn't you?   

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why is wearing running shorts in track immodest when wearing a swimsuit for swimming isn't?  The swimsuit covers much less skin.  That's what I don't understand and that's the question i would like an answer to.  

That’s what a I am asking...situational modesty, like  situational honesty or fidelity... what’s the point of modest dress if modesty is situational?

Quote

I would question anyone who tried to argue that the Muslim girl was the one making the modest choice.  Wouldn't you?   

I don’t understand your question.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That’s what a I am asking...situational modesty, like  situational honesty or fidelity... what’s the point of modest dress if modesty is situational?

 

So you believe that swimsuits are always immodest?  That's not what the church teaches.

Quote

I don’t understand your question.

I'll try to clarify.

The hypothetical muslim girl might believe that wearing short sleeves is immodest.  Would you argue with someone who attempted to claim that any girl not wearing long sleeves to run track in, like the Muslim girl, was being immodest?

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What’s not to understand? Participating in sports should not justify immodesty? Shaving a couple hundredths of seconds (perhaps) off your time isn’t worth abandoning your standards. She is a very modest young woman....in all the meanings of the word we have been discussing. I totally agree that she stood up for her standards and followed correct principles, no question about it. Un aplauso para la chica.  Would we question a Muslim girl following her heart and instinct in the same situation? No. My hat is off to her.

I have a daughter, 17 years old, who is spending her senior year as an exchange student in Italy.  She lives in a small town on the island of Sardinia.  The family with whom she lives have generally been very kind, but they have started to express a bit of frustration with my daughter as regarding alcohol.  As you can probably guess, my daughter does not imbibe.  Her family thinks this is only about two inches away from being socially unacceptable in their little town, where drinking is an integral part of their culture.  They have a very hard time understanding why she won't take a little wine with lunch (the main meal of the day).  I actually prepped my daughter for this, and went through several scenarios as to what she could say to her friends and acquaintances should they try to coax her into drinking.  I suggested that she not make a big deal of it, that she express thanks for any offers given to her, but that she then politely decline and ask for an alternative drink instead (like a soda).  She has been doing this, and I trust she has tried very hard to be as oblique in her declinings as possible, but some level of tension is there.

My daughter is also not too keen on the staying-out-until-the-wee-hours-of-the-morning that is also apparently expected of her by her peers.  I think the gist of the situation is that these Italian teens live in a small and remote town (on an island, no less) and apparently had expectations about how American teens "relax."  What they got, however, was a religious girl who doesn't drink alcohol or coffee, doesn't smoke, wants to be back home by a reasonable hour ("reasonable" being considerably later in the evening in Italy), and is doing all of these things of her own volition.

Don't get me wrong.  She has made several friends and is having a wonderful time.  She has taken up canottaggio (competitive rowing, a big deal in her town).  She has joined a community choir that practices in a medeival church with amazing acoustics.  And she is doing all she can to reach out and make friends with her peers, and is largely succeeding.  Moreover, just this last week she reported that an exchange program at her high school has landed some international teachers there, one of whom is a devout Muslim woman.  My daughter and this teacher are becoming friends, and are relying on each other a bit, as both of them are apparently viewed as a little odd because they take their religious beliefs seriously, and because they live according to those beliefs even when no co-religionists are around.

Bernard is right.  We should support young women who are striving to stand by and following their principles, particularly when they are facing social pressure not to.  These efforts will often involve some measure of individualized decision-making, particularly judgment calls about how modest clothing should be, how late a teenager should stay out at night, and so on.  But the point is that these young women appear to be striving to live according to their principles, so I'm not second-guessing my daughter's choices on "judgment calls," particularly she she seems to be erring on the side of caution.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Bernard is right.  We should support young women who are striving to stand by and following their principles, particularly when they are facing social pressure not to.  These efforts will often involve some measure of individualized decision-making, particularly judgment calls about how modest clothing should be, how late a teenager should stay out at night, and so on.  But the point is that these young women appear to be striving to live according to their principles, so I'm not second-guessing my daughter's choices on "judgment calls," particularly she she seems to be erring on the side of caution.

Thanks,

-Smac

No one (that i've seen) is disagreeing with any of that.

[Bernard Gui]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So you believe that swimsuits are always immodest?  That's not what the church teaches.

Well, that would depend on the suit, wouldn’t it?

Quote

The hypothetical muslim girl might believe that wearing short sleeves is immodest.  Would you argue with someone who attempted to claim that any girl not wearing long sleeves to run track in, like the Muslim girl, was being immodest?

I would praise the young woman for holding to her standard of modesty. Participating in a sport does not justify immodest dress. That is what the two young women prove.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui