Modesty issues...again

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No. That appears to be a hyper vigilant reaction some leaders have had when setting dress codes for youth activities. For me the issue is that we have a guidelines set forth in the FTSOTY pamphlet that is an approved Church-wide standard. How those guidelines are interpreted may vary from place to place,. Some may take them with a grain of salt, some may extrapolate all manner of restrictions. Since we have the standards, what do we do with them? How do we make them meaningful and viable (avoiding the use of “enforce them)?

This is where the comb meets the hair. As far as running around the mall, going to school (which probably has its own set of standards), hanging out at a burger joint, or sitting around the living room, thst’s between the youth and the parents. The problem seems to be what to do when standards are challenged at Church sponsored activities and how we teach and encourage kids to keep the standards.

I think you answered your own question.  It should be between the youth and the parents.  Church leaders do not have a role in deciding if women should wear shorts etc.  Church sponsored activities should welcome anyone who shows up.  As you stated, it is not whoever is uncharge of a church activity to draw arbitrary lines in the sand on what is required for participation in a church activity if there has been no such directive from church headquarters.  If it becomes a problem,  am sure Utah will let everyone know.

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

There could be more productive ways to handle concerns.

What kind of behavior? Who is defending it?

Arbitrary lines in the sand when no such policy exists.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Being one caught up in rule enforcement (because as a public school teacher for 40 years and active church member for over 6 decades I have had to rub up against them) and in the spirit of my question that apparently set off this fireworks show, we have modesty standards expressed in FTSOTY.

As a school teacher, I learned that having no dress code is no better than having one but not enforcing it. The trick was to find a way to enforce it. Many were tried, amost of them failed...well, school uniforms go a long way in helping with this, but that’s another topic. 

So we have our Church standards. Do they deserve our attention? If not, why do we have them? If they do, what should that attention look like when it comes to activities where the standards may be challenged? Isn’t there a middle ground between what you call boundary-policing and looking the other way? I think there is.

The problem is the guidelines as stated in FTSOTY are subjective and impossible to enforce without adding to them. I teach them and follow them but there is no knee length standard outlined in the FTSOTY. Some parents may think I am not strict enough with my definition of "short" but I don't agree with theirs. Who is right? I had a friend  who was told in her temple recommend interview to train for a marathon while wearing her garments. That is crazy. We also only impose them on the youth or on church campuses.  Like has been said before, we don't turn people away at the temple because of their clothing. We would never remove an investigator from church for not comforming to a subjective standard but we would kick them out of a youth dance. Many girls don't understand some of the rules I've talked about because they don't feel they are being immodest. Many girls add leggings under a dress or skirt to make it more modest but that is outlined as unacceptable for stake dances. 

I think it is a hard topic too because I have no desire to have stake dances resemble school dances. I just wish for camp and youth activities it wasn't so heavy handed and not "sexist" and a lot of common sense was applied. 

I just orientated a brand new primary teacher. She is 18 and fresh out of young women's. She is the only active member in her family and comes to church alone. She is preparing to serve a mission. She is an amazing girl who I really respect. Her attire Sunday would not pass muster for many here. It was "immodest." But...also immodest in a very non attention seeking way. She is very humble and unassuming and not trying to look "sexy" at all. I don't think any of you would reccommend I tell her she should go home and change. 

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Before calling them names, it might help to understand the circumstances in which the decisions were made, the people and area involved, their intentions, etc.Without the whole story, we cannot know if they were operating out of ill-will or malice.

Sorry but telling women they should never wear shorts, capri pants or swimming suits without a tee shirt is fanatical. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The problem is the guidelines as stated in FTSOTY are subjective and impossible to enforce without adding to them. I teach them and follow them but there is no knee length standard outlined in the FTSOTY. Some parents may think I am not strict enough with my definition of "short" but I don't agree with theirs. Who is right? I had a friend  who was told in her temple recommend interview to train for a marathon while wearing her garments. That is crazy. We also only impose them on the youth or on church campuses.  Like has been said before, we don't turn people away at the temple because of their clothing. We would never remove an investigator from church for not comforming to a subjective standard but we would kick them out of a youth dance. Many girls don't understand some of the rules I've talked about because they don't feel they are being immodest. Many girls add leggings under a dress or skirt to make it more modest but that is outlined as unacceptable for stake dances. 

I think it is a hard topic too because I have no desire to have stake dances resemble school dances. I just wish for camp and youth activities it wasn't so heavy handed and not "sexist" and a lot of common sense was applied. 

I just orientated a brand new primary teacher. She is 18 and fresh out of young women's. She is the only active member in her family and comes to church alone. She is preparing to serve a mission. She is an amazing girl who I really respect. Her attire Sunday would not pass muster for many here. It was "immodest." But...also immodest in a very non attention seeking way. She is very humble and unassuming and not trying to look "sexy" at all. I don't think any of you would reccommend I tell her she should go home and change. 

Amen and amen!

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, ttribe said:

No one said anything about "ill-will or malice."

Fanatics imposing their will on others could be operating out of good-will, I suppose

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sorry but telling women they should never wear shorts, capri pants or swimming suits without a tee shirt is fanatical. 

We can easily ascribe ill-will to others intentions, but one would need to have more knowledge of their situation. Who is telling women that?

[BlueDreams]

I've also been thinking on this thread that there have been several examples of people who have acted as "gatekeepers" to modesty standard at Youth functions and experiences. I don't know if there's been much discussion about what it's like to be on the other side. 

On more than one occassion my clothes have been the matter of external judgment as to whether it was "appropriate." The first time was not LDS related, but at a middle school. I wore shorts that were mid-thigh. A male teacher, that I generally enjoyed as a teacher, had me go to the principles office because my weirdly gangly arms at the time were longer than your average pre-teen. And "shorts to your fingertips" was the standard. At that time that was around my knees. So as "correction" they had me where my gym shorts....which were ironically shorter than my jeans. Beforehand, I didn't stand out much in the crowd; After, I was repeatedly catcalled and extremely uncomfortable the entire time I was at school. 

The other times that stand out to me were at BYU's swimming pool. They had extremely rigid rules about "appropriate" swimsuits. The first time I was unaware of it. I chose a one piece that my own mother described as pretty (my mom is the sort of mormon who won't drink herbal tea or caffeinated soda...if she deems it okay I assume someone else would think I'm amish  ). I didn't get called out the first couple of times I went. But I was others. I was doing nothing but swimming laps. Some woman nicely came and asked me to put on what looked like a large old t-shirt (I'm XS or S in size)....which basically meant she was asking me to drag a wet blanket around my small frame. I opted to go an chlorinate one of my smaller shirts instead. 

I couldn't afford to buy several swimsuits. Those things cost 40-60 bucks easily. So the next year, determined to do one of my favorite forms of exercise, I went to several stores trying to find a swimsuit that I thought would meet this idiotic standard and that fit. I found a tankini that I wore at my uber-mormon side's family reunion without a second thought. I walked in, sure I'd be fine took off my towel and began my quiet laps. Again someone pulled me aside to explain that my outfit wasn't to standard. Again I was offered a shirt several sizes too large. Again I opted for my own clothes to drag with me for my exercise. 

Each time I walked by I could find at least 2 or 3 women who technically didn't fit the "standards" they only had posted in the locker rooms. Women who were more likely to just be chatting away and more on display that I was in my quiet corner, swimming laps. The only difference I could really pull out was that I more often stood out looks wise and was more likely to be deemed attractive. I never swam at BYU again. It wasn't worth the stress of figuring out who would arbitrarily call me out for being "immodest."

These were the few structured times, but I've often had my clothes judged as appropriate enough. Showing too much or not. being too tight or not. It's never taught me jack about modesty. It never made me feel more closer to God or prepared for the temple (Ironically I began wearing shorter shorts after being endowed because my G's usually reach mid-thigh so why not). It didn't feel really positive in any meaningful way. And it sure didn't feel like any means of protection or helpful to me. I still was sexually harassed, still received catcalls, and still had to deal with men who hadn't learned to bridle themselves no matter what I wore. 

Men didn't receive this much scrutiny from others on their clothes ever. Yes, women have more styles and outfits that they can wear that may veer into what others deem as "inappropriate"...but there are plenty of men that can fit that bill on a usual day. And with or without that the actual principle and virtues in scriptural modesty were lost under the hyperfocus on what others deemed correct. I have no positive experiences with other people telling me what I should or shouldn't wear. Not one. There was nothing spiritual about it. Nothing in the long-term that became a helpful lesson that went beyond skirt length. It only brought unnecessary attention and discomfort that did not need to be there. It only felt intrusive and frustrating. And it often didn't seem fairly applied. 

 

I think it's important when discussing this to ask what are we actually wanting to teach people about their bodies. The messages I received inadvertently taught me that I was likely to be extra-penalized for being attractive. That others could judge for me as to how to manage my body. And that I should spend hours to try and "fit" what was expected so I could participate in basic things such as exercise. Rigid proscriptions as to what I should wear left me feeling more objectified. Not less.

 

With luv,

BD

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Fanatics imposing their will on others could be operating out of good-will, I suppose

That’s generally how fanaticism works. 

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I have no positive experiences with other people telling me what I should or shouldn't wear. Not one. There was nothing spiritual about it. Nothing in the long-term that became a helpful lesson that went beyond skirt length. It only brought unnecessary attention and discomfort that did not need to be there. It only felt intrusive and frustrating. And it often didn't seem fairly applied. 

I think most girls would agree with this.

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you answered your own question.  It should be between the youth and the parents.  Church leaders do not have a role in deciding if women should wear shorts etc.  Church sponsored activities should welcome anyone who shows up.  As you stated, it is not whoever is uncharge of a church activity to draw arbitrary lines in the sand on what is required for participation in a church activity if there has been no such directive from church headquarters.  If it becomes a problem,  am sure Utah will let everyone know.

Thats’s contradictory. The key words there are “Church sponsored.” The directive is in the official booklet that sets guidelines for such activities. It sets the standards for the activities it sponsors. It has the right and obligation to do so. I would prefer that reasonable people work things out if there are problems without “Utah” having to get involved. Seems like the best approach.

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Fanatics imposing their will on others could be operating out of good-will, I suppose

Actually, I suspect that's EXACTLY what they think.

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Actually, I suspect that's EXACTLY what they think.

But they would be wrong?

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

But they would be wrong?

Not playing your games, Bernard.  I don't think you are actually interested in what anyone else thinks on this topic.  I think you are just looking for another data point to bolster your "Gui's Law" schtick.  I'm not interested.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Not playing your games, Bernard.  I don't think you are actually interested in what anyone else thinks on this topic.  I think you are just looking for another data point to bolster your "Gui's Law" schtick.  I'm not interested.

I don’t think that’s fair. 

It is your privilege not to engage in the dialogue, but I believe you are misjudging him. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

So often instead of a causal relationship, it's more like these studies are capturing a snapshot of the problem our current society struggles with. 

And then we get into trouble by universalising these snapshots. Big trouble, in many cases.

As many recent metastudies have shown, social science research has overwhelmingly told us specific things about the upper-middle classes in 20th century America, but then those 'snapshots' are exported as if they pertain across the board. The rest of the world, thankfully, is finally starting to rebel against this colonisation of the imagination by the West (and in particular by the American academic enterprise and its promoters in the entertainment industry).

It's crazy, really. I taught in Indonesia before I taught in America. Indonesian teens don't rebel against parental authority.* In fact, it's common to see a father and his teenage son walking down the street hand-in-hand like the best mates that they often are. And Indonesian teens aren't riddled with depression and highly prone to self-harm, either. Then I found myself in a high school in the US where our text books all taught kids that rebellion against parental authority is a normal and necessary stage in psychological development. As an English teacher, I had a classroom full of books filled with teen angst. Chicken or egg, as you asked in your post?

One of the reasons I'm a fan of deep historical knowledge is that it belies such universalism. Human societies have ordered themselves and created meanings in such a diverse array of ways. Whilst it is nearly universal for cultures to recognise differences between males and females, what those differences are diverges dramatically. In some societies, women are (or have been) construed as the sexual predators or especially prone to sexual arousal, and so they are. We have gone through phases even in European history where men were the predominant objects of the sexual gaze -- both for women and for other men -- and this has not been unusual at all in world history. What is modest and what is sexual is definitely not universal in any way. And as I've noted what feels like 1,000 times on this board, the construction of sexual attraction has been equally diverse across time and space, with fixed, gendered sexual identity such a recent phenomenon that it has a completely knowable genealogy ... and such an unprecedented phenomenon that literally every language on this planet has had to borrow the late 19th-century terminology (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc.) that arose alongside its man-made construction.

An awareness of this fact is a useful defence against every time we are told that a certain socially constructed Western phenomenon that is, upon careful observation, clearly tied to a specific historical moment is how the whole world is and always has been. It can also be about the only defence we Latter-day Saints have when the world tries to put us into boxes that simply do not align with what a loving Heavenly Father intends for His divine children.

-----

* Sadly, the pervasive reach of Hollywood has begun to significantly import foreign notions of teen rebellion into many parts of the globe.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

It's never taught me jack about modesty. It never made me feel more closer to God or prepared for the temple.

Commenting again just because clicking 'like' is not enough. The entire post is spot-on.

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think that’s fair. 

It is your privilege not to engage in the dialogue, but I believe you are misjudging him. 

Oh, I'm sure he's a big boy and can explain himself just fine.

[BlueDreams]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

One of the reasons I'm a fan of deep historical knowledge is that it belies such universalism. Human societies have ordered themselves and created meanings in such a diverse array of ways. Whilst it is nearly universal for cultures to recognise differences between males and females, what those differences are diverges dramatically. In some societies, women are (or have been) construed as the sexual predators, and so they are. We have gone through phases even in European history where men were the predominant objects of the sexual gaze -- both for women and for other men -- and this has not been unusual at all in world history. What is modest and what is sexual is definitely not universal in any way. And as I've noted what feels like 1,000 times on this board, the construction of sexual attraction has been equally diverse across time and space, with fixed, gendered sexual identity such a recent phenomenon that it has a completely knowable genealogy ... and such an unprecedented phenomenon that literally every language on this planet has had to borrow the late 19th-century terminology (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc.) that arose alongside its man-made construction.

An awareness of this fact is a useful defence against every time we are told that a certain socially constructed Western phenomenon that is, upon careful observation, clearly tied to a specific historical moment is how the world is and always has been. It can also be about the only defence we Latter-day Saints have when the world tries to put us into boxes that simply do not align with what a loving Heavenly Father intends for His divine children.

I 100% agree. I get that same experience by walking and having close access to different cultures and people. What’s considered appropriate behavior, language, or mores around the body often vary. My husband mentioned as much when he talked about how people/cultures dominated by white Europeans often feel that there is one right way that should be endorced for all. That this wasnt as much of a tradition for other cultures who did not feel as much a need for one universal standard. 

I’ve seen many people who assume that some belief they have about the body or sexuality must be universal to the greater church body. Or how many right their differences in their marriage is because of some notion they hold about men and women and their nature. They’re somewhat surprised when they learned this is not actually true. 

 

With luv, 

BD

Edited August 28, 2018 by BlueDreams

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That’s generally how fanaticism works. 

Indeed. We can all be fanatical at times.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

What's funny is I think they are the only two who remember what it means (without them explaining it again). 

I had to look it up to remind myself...and I don't believe I have seen any tendency towards it in this thread.  People are disagreeing about what is modesty and how to teach it and some other things, in no way does that imply anyone here is a pervert or approaches one.

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Not playing your games, Bernard.  I don't think you are actually interested in what anyone else thinks on this topic.  I think you are just looking for another data point to bolster your "Gui's Law" schtick.  I'm not interested.

Really. I have answered every post addressed to me, and there are a ton of them, with comments and further questions, sometimes in great detail, seeking to find some common ground on this issue. In comparison, I have said very little about the Law, most of that with you and a couple others. You seem to have a shtick stuck in your craw. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 hours ago, rongo said:

My son was a little taken aback that he sleeps in and walks around in just his boxers while in the dorm room. We told him that this isn't uncommon outside of the Church.

I didn't realise this was uncommon inside of the Church. Before I was endowed, I slept in and walked around in just my boxers. Post-endowment, I sleep in and walk around in just my garments. All of my mission companions did the same, as have all but one or two of my LDS housemates and roommates.

Quote

I can see how missionary work will be pretty natural and easy with 200-300 LDS kids among 24,000 for those who attend church and activities.

Absolutely! When I was studying in America, Pres Hinckley visited our uni. He specifically praised us for making the decision to study at a public university where we could be a part of this work. We had close to a dozen converts in our student ward every single year.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I had to look it up to remind myself...and I don't believe I have seen any tendency towards it in this thread.  People are disagreeing about what is modesty and how to teach it and some other things, in no way does that imply anyone here is a pervert or approaches one.

It really is hard to carry on a conversation with people who say you’re flirting with an ugly accusation you haven’t made. Very frustrating, such that it makes one question whether the conversation is in good faith. 

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I had to look it up to remind myself...and I don't believe I have seen any tendency towards it in this thread.  People are disagreeing about what is modesty and how to teach it and some other things, in no way does that imply anyone here is a pervert or approaches one.

There are a few comments that have lead off in that direction, IMO, but that is neither here nor there.  It’s when folks start drilling down, questioning motives, using innuendo, making unwarranted assumptions, but that is neither here nor there. I would much rather talk about the issue of how to make meaningful and viable standards and policies that would further the cause of the Church and keep us all united on the path to the Tree of Life.