Modesty issues...again

[california boy]

 

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

I am not saying the church shouldn't have modesty standards.  Actually not a single person has said that.  I am saying that the only policy the church has on modesty standards are written in the FTSOY brochure.  But NOWHERE in the brochure can you find any prohibition against women wearing shorts, capri pants or a requirement to wear a tee shirt.  If that were church policy it would be easy to spell out.  But you are telling me that it is not there nor is it church policy.

Fanatical members of the church are free to have their own ridged ideas of what modesty is.  But they are not the ones with the authority to rewriting the FTSOY pamphlet to express their personal views.  They are not the ones who have a right to decide that church policy should fit their own personal view of modesty.  What arrogance.  

The FTSOY is MEANT to be a general guide line. It is meant to guide not dictate.  These fanatics should respect that approach.  You know the whole "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves" thing.  They don't have a right to throw Joseph Smith's teachings under the bus just because they want to grab power and start dictating.  And they are not entitled to throw the teachings of Christ under the bus, who regularly condemned those that would dictate what the Law of Moses should be based on their own personal fanatical beliefs.  Thee fact that Christ constantly corrected this kind of behavior should give anyone pause to reconsider their position.

Edited August 28, 2018 by california boy

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

The FTSOY is MEANT to be a general guide line. It is meant to guide not dictate.  These fanatics should respect that approach.  You know the whole "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves" thing.

Of course. I have said that all along.

Most youth are in their infancy in learning correct principles and how to govern themselves. My cowboy uncle referred to this as “”climbing Fool ‘s Hill.” He used to ask, “Are you over Fool’s Hill yet, Bernardo?” The problem is when the general becomes specific and the guideline or commandment is challenged, for example at a youth camp or a dance. At that point the adult has to make a decision. What to do?

In the Japanese garden at the University of Victoria BC there are various paths passing by water features that represent the various stages of life. One long path wanders to a feature that’s is a bit out of sorts where there is a sign that says, “Adolescence. Dead end. Go back.” 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course. I have said that all along.

Most youth are in their infancy in learning correct principles and how to govern themselves. My cowboy uncle referred to this as “”climbing Fool ‘s Hill.” He used to ask, “Are you over Fool’s Hill yet, Bernardo?” The problem is when the general becomes specific and the guideline or commandment is challenged, for example at a youth camp or a dance. At that point the adult has to make a decision. What to do?

In the Japanese garden at the University of Victoria BC there are various paths passing by water features that represent the various stages of life. One long path wanders to acfeature that’s is a bit out of sorts where there is a sign that says, “Adolescence. Dead end. Go back.” 

Personally, I think the role of the church leader is to teach and guide, not be a gate keeper at all, ever.  Having them chaperone at a dance gives them an excellent opportunity to see if they are being effective in their teaching modesty.  If someone is truly immodest, then perhaps having a teaching moment one on one asking that person what they think modesty means.  And then gently guiding them in a healthy direction.  See if that person's behavior changes over time.  If not, then more follow-up teaching may be required along possibly with input from other girls that are more modest in their appearance.  Forcing someone to conform to some artificial standard has no room in the gospel of Christ.  What good is forcing someone to comply with an arbitrary dress code at church events if they don't believe or embrace the principles of modesty.  Is all it means is that they comply at church events, but do not embrace those attitudes in the rest of their life.  Doesn't that make the whole exercise kind of pointless?  Far too many children are micromanaged to the nth degree until they turn 18 and leave the house.  Then when they are finally away from controlling parents and micromanaged leaders, they go out of control because they never got the chance to decide for themselves what their standards were.  What this does is cause them to decide what their standards are without any parents or church leaders around.  Wouldn't it have been far better for that person to make those decisions over time in an environment where parents and teachers can gently guide them along?  

I think leaders should also recognize that there is not a sharp line as to what modesty is.  Nor should there be.  I think that lesson was covered very well by both Joseph Smith and Christ.  

[california boy]

I remember one of my daughters getting ready to go out in an outfit that I thought was really not modest. I sat down with her and asked her what she thought the Lord expected her to dress.  I then talked about how she has to decide for herself if she is going to try and live up to His expectations.  Never told her to go change.  Never told her what was even immodest about what she was wearing.  Never gave her any specific guidelines the I thought she should follow.  It was a general discussion about deciding to be modest.  

She went and changed.  At 15 she started deciding for herself how she was going to dress.  Sometimes the worse idea is to define what should and should not be worn.  It is a lazy way of enforcing modesty with absolutely no teaching of what modesty is.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed. I could not agree more. Reasonable people can figure these things out without resorting to anger or bitterness. A meeting of parents, leaders, and youth to discuss expectations would be in order, but my experience is that it can easily get out of hand.

What would you do at the door if you were in a position of observing (I’m avoiding the use of the word enforcing) standards at a youth activity and someone came in violation?? 

I know this sounds like a cop-out, but for me it really does depend on any number of personal and situational factors and contexts. I think a rule of thumb is that it does have to be about assessing the dress and not about judging the person, and communicating correction in a way that edifies behavior rather than controls behavior. There are many ways to do that, but I think we must always be mindful that we are there to teach and support parents in teaching their children, so they need to be in the loop at some point. Not everyone is reasonable, so it's OK by me if things get out of hand (that's only the battle and a symptom of the problem, not the war and the child of God identity we are trying to facilitate).

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you consider provocative clothing harassment or demeaning?

No. I think it's demeaning to the person wearing it but not something that others need to be protected from.  

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think youth are in the early stages of gaining this kind of spiritual maturity. Have I said anything about forcing compliance? That is contrary to my nature.

By forcing compliance I meant the standard, "if you don't dress this specific way, then you will not be allowed at this activity" that we so often get at church activities where someone's ideas of modesty are being strictly enforced.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No. I think it's demeaning to the person wearing it but not something that others need to be protected from.  

What do you think about then Elder Oaks' comment that women dressing immodestly "become pornography" to men?

I remember that some were pretty upset about that at the time. 

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No. I think it's demeaning to the person wearing it but not something that others need to be protected from.  

One of the things my wife and I taught our kids is that how they dress reflects how they respect their own bodies and themselves. If you are overly focused on what you look like, you may be devaluing who you really are, the you that isn't visible. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by jkwilliams

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

What do you think about then Elder Oaks' comment that women dressing immodestly "become pornography" to men?

I remember that some were pretty upset about that at the time. 

You are probably referring to Elder Packer’s “walking pornography” comment. I am certain that he would not use that phrase today. It was unfortunate, to say the least. 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, kllindley said:

So you believe that clothing can sexually harass and demean?  But only the words or logos on the clothes?

I believe phrases and sexually explicit pictures can sexually harass and demean, yes.  

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

You are probably referring to Elder Packer’s “walking pornography” comment. I am certain that he would not use that phrase today. It was unfortunate, to say the least. 

There is an Oaks one as well that caused a furor at the time. I'll see if I can find it (but, my search skills are dreadful).

ETA: Well, what do you know! I found it.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/pornography?lang=eng

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

Edited August 28, 2018 by rongo

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

You are probably referring to Elder Packer’s “walking pornography” comment. I am certain that he would not use that phrase today. It was unfortunate, to say the least. 

I found it from Elder Oaks just now, "Finally, do not patronize pornography. Do not use your purchasing power to support moral degradation. And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/pornography?lang=eng

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

You are probably referring to Elder Packer’s “walking pornography” comment. I am certain that he would not use that phrase today. It was unfortunate, to say the least. 

From the April 2005 conference:

Quote

Finally, do not patronize pornography. Do not use your purchasing power to support moral degradation. And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you. (Dallin H. Oaks, "Pornography")

 

[Calm]

In that talk he defined porn as "promotional literature of illicit sexual relations” and "erotic pictures".

I cannot remember one time I remember any young woman or woman dressing at any church activity or outside of church in anything that even approached this.

That there are (hopefully a small group of ) men out there that have addictions and oversensatozed triggers such that even innocent apparel can set them off is unfortunate, but that is not the young woman's responsibility any more than it is the cook's responsibility for creating a wonderfully smelling/looking meal that happens to set off a binge eating episode by someone who happens to smell/see it.

Would anyone expect everyone to cook bland meals because some few have eating disorders?

[rongo]

So, are Elder Oaks' and President Packer's comments universally panned by the women here? 

[Gray]

I would suggest to all the modesty police who wish to make comments about young women and their bodies, you absolutely cannot do so without sounding like a creep. Wiser people stay away from such matters, even if that means you're uncomfortable with an item of clothing or two worn at some activity.

That goes double for comments about young girls.

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

In that talk he defined porn as "promotional literature of illicit sexual relations” and "erotic pictures".

I cannot remember one time I remember any young woman or woman dressing at any church activity or outside of church in anything that even approached this.

That there are (hopefully a small group of ) men out there that have addictions and oversensatozed triggers such that even innocent apparel can set them off is unfortunate, but that is not the young woman's responsibility any more than it is the cook's responsibility for creating a wonderfully smelling/looking meal that happens to set off a binge eating episode by someone who happens to smell/see it.

Would anyone expect everyone to cook bland meals because some few have eating disorders?

Years ago, my wife and I were struggling in our marriage, mostly over my apostasy. At some point, a friend she confided in convinced her that I was a sex addict (I wasn't). She insisted that we attend the church's 12-step meetings. My therapist, an active high priest, not only said I wasn't a sex addict but that I might find these meetings do more damage than help. But, I was doing everything I could to save the marriage, so I said I would go. We went for a few months, she to the support group for family members of addicts, and I to the addicts' meetings. It honestly was the most disheartening experience of my life. A lot of the young college-aged kids would stand and say they were addicted to pornography, masturbation, or "lustful thoughts." I remember these young college kids being distraught because, after two years of being "clean" they had masturbated once. Some older men were there because their wives had caught them masturbating or looking at pornography, or had decided that their husbands wanted sex more than they should. Very few people actually seemed to be addicts, at least in the sense that they had compulsive sexual behavior.

One kid I will never forget, though. As a boy, he was on the swim team and dreamed of becoming a lifeguard. The summer after his mission he fulfilled his dream and was a lifeguard at a local water park. He wept in the meeting as he described how he had to quit after 2 weeks because he couldn't concentrate on the job because he couldn't stop staring at female bodies in swimming suits. He said it didn't matter if they were "modest" suits or not. To me, that kid should have been in therapy, not in a 12-step meeting. 

The one good thing that came from that experience is that the support group meetings provided some much-needed perspective for my wife and me. She said she realized that much of the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth was over trivial stuff that had been blown out of proportion, and I realized that even trivial stuff could still be hurtful to her and that I needed to respect her wishes. After about 3 months, we were at our usual post-meeting visit to Krispy Kreme when she said, "I don't think we should go anymore. You're not an addict, and this isn't helpful to either of us. I'm sorry I pushed you into this." I apologized for doing things that had hurt her, and since then, things have been so much better.

In my view, these issues become a problem when they become compulsive to the point they interfere with a person's ability to function in their life and relationships. But I have a hard time saying that how my kids and I dress must account for that kid who couldn't look at a woman without getting aroused. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

32 minutes ago, Rain said:

I found it from Elder Oaks just now, "Finally, do not patronize pornography. Do not use your purchasing power to support moral degradation. And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/pornography?lang=eng

gmta

[Rain]

42 minutes ago, rongo said:

So, are Elder Oaks' and President Packer's comments universally panned by the women here? 

I have a difficult time with how you worded this. Most, if not all of us, sustain our leaders. I kind of feel like if we answer your question "yes", then we will be looked at as not sustaining our leaders. 

Does every woman here pan/criticize the comments? I suspect not, but probably each of us that posted on this thread. 

I just cannot ever imagine Jesus telling a young woman, "you are porn" which is essentially what Elder Oaks said.

I wouldn't have liked the quote if he had dropped the "young" from it either, but it was especially unfortunate that he put it in because of how crushing that would be for youth, including my very "modest" daughter had she been old enough to catch it.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Rain

[juliann]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

So, are Elder Oaks' and President Packer's comments universally panned by the women here? 

Why would you even ask that? Elder Oaks comment was over a decade ago and almost certainly played off Elder Packer’s even worse comment. 

What is the difference between telling all young women they are potential pornography and telling all young men they are potential deviants? Other than saying such insulting things to men wouldn’t be considered. 

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

So, are Elder Oaks' and President Packer's comments universally panned by the women here? 

Not the entire talk, just the two references that appear to present young women in the Church of likely to dress as if they were in porn productions.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

Why would you even ask that? Elder Oaks comment was over a decade ago and almost certainly played off Elder Packer’s even worse comment. 

What is the difference between telling all young women they are potential pornography and telling all young men they are potential deviants? Other than saying such insulting things to men wouldn’t be considered. 

Would any man here be comfortable with this version?:

'And young men, please understand that if you think immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming rapists to some of the women you see.'  Or if you don't think rapist is appropriate, substitute 'pimp' as someone who promotes the use of women (and men for that matter) in porn.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, kllindley said:

Please tell me this is satire. Seriously, please. 

I'll give you some examples of what I mean.

Women have to consistently alter/be concerned about our behavior and our clothing in order to protect themselves from physical harm by men:  

• Women cannot walk or be alone outside without that concern (just yesterday a married woman had to fend off an attempted kidnapping while going on a walk in Roy Utah. Molly Tibbetts murdered while jogging:  she's not the first. Utah 15 faces 6 felonies for attacking and sexually assaulting 50 year old in the middle of the afternoon while she was out exercising.  We all know the examples could easily go on and on).  
• Women cannot consume liquids in the company of men without vigilance and concern for their safety (Products that are challenging date-rape drugs).  
• Women cannot wear certain things without having to deal with how male biology will respond ("What were you wearing?").
• Women cannot reject the advances of a man without concerns for their physical safety (Men are killing thousands of women a year for saying no, Rejecting men has deadly consequences, These 14 women were brutally attacked for rejecting men, etc. etc.)
• On average 3 women are killed every day by a man who is currently or used to be a romantic partner (Fact checking a sad statistic).  

So, speaking in generalities, how are men consistently asked/required to alter their reasonable behavior (dressing, exercising, socializing, dating) to protect themselves from being physically harmed or killed by women?  (I'm obviously not saying that it never happens.  I'm asking for evidence that it happens frequently enough that men alter or are asked to alter their reasonable behavior to keep themselves safe from physical or sexual harm by women)

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

What do you think about then Elder Oaks' comment that women dressing immodestly "become pornography" to men?

I remember that some were pretty upset about that at the time. 

I think it's likely true, but is a flaw/weakness of men and not something that needs to be addressed to women or girls as a reason God wants them to be modest.