Modesty issues...again

[bsjkki]

So, I know this has been talked about quite a bit but it is still aggravating. On my Ward's facebook page, the activity days leaders posted an invitation to a Stake activity day girls activity.  On the invitation it stated, "Please wear modest casual clothes with shoes for exercise."  One brave sister in my ward found the whole thing ridiculous.  She commented about why girls bodies age 8-12 would be considered immodest and found the words "modest casusal clothes for exercise"... ridiculous. This year, for girls camp the packing list said, "4-5 t-shirts (not tight enough to be revealing, no inappropriate logos, must be long enough to cover mid-riff if arms are above your head) • underwear • t-shirt, shorts and shoes that can get wet (shorts MUST be to the knee, If not you will be asked to change.) 

I compared the packing lists for the Priesthood encampment vs. for girls camp and found no theatening language. There were no "logo" warning or short length warnings. No threats about being asked to change. Have these words ever been said in a packing list for scouts? The scouts often hike shirtless when they get hot. The boy scouts wear shorts not to knee. Why do young girls who are not endowed have to wear shorts to their knees at an activty which includes exercise.

It's getting old and I realized today, I'm not the only one in my ward who notices and finds it "ridiculous." 

Edited August 24, 2018 by bsjkki

[katherine the great]

Tale as old as time. I always thought it was absurd to impose strict dress standards at girls' camp. As long as their hoo hoos aren't hanging out, they should be able to dress comfortably for the weather and activity. This post made me think about something I've noticed over time. In all my years of leadership in the church, I've noticed that the relentless modesty emphasis seems to be driven by the female leadership--at least on the local level. It is possible that this is just the case in the areas I've served (primarily in N California and Boise Idaho). Only twice in four decades have a heard a male leader comment on female modesty and one of those events was back in the 70's. But there always seems to be a handful of sisters who are obsessed with modesty, and not just plain modesty, but modesty as they define and measure it.

[cinepro]

1 minute ago, katherine the great said:

Tale as old as time. I always thought it was absurd to impose strict dress standards at girls' camp. As long as their hoo hoos aren't hanging out, they should be able to dress comfortably for the weather and activity. This post made me think about something I've noticed over time. In all my years of leadership in the church, I've noticed that the relentless modesty emphasis seems to be driven by the female leadership--at least on the local level. It is possible that this is just the case in the areas I've served (primarily in N California and Boise Idaho). Only twice in four decades have a heard a male leader comment on female modesty and one of those events was back in the 70's. But there always seems to be a handful of sisters who are obsessed with modesty, and not just plain modesty, but modesty as they define and measure it.

That certainly seems to be the case in our stake (the female leaders leading the charge).

My daughter is in young women's but it's not a big deal for her.  It only becomes an issue when we have non-member friends coming to activities and it becomes evident how weird the fixation on knee-length shorts and covered shoulders is.

"Peculiar people" indeed...

[blueglass]

44 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So, I know this has been talked about quite a bit but it is still aggravating. On my Ward's facebook page, the activity days leaders posted an invitation to a Stake activity day girls activity.  On the invitation it stated, "Please wear modest casual clothes with shoes for exercise."  One brave sister in my ward found the whole thing ridiculous.  She commented about why girls bodies age 8-12 would be considered immodest and found the words "modest casusal clothes for exercise"... ridiculous. This year, for girls camp the packing list said, "4-5 t-shirts (not tight enough to be revealing, no inappropriate logos, must be long enough to cover mid-riff if arms are above your head) • underwear • t-shirt, shorts and shoes that can get wet (shorts MUST be to the knee, If not you will be asked to change.)  I compared the packing lists for the Priesthood encampment vs. for girls camp and found no theatening language. There were no "logo" warning or short length warnings. No threats about being asked to change. Have these words ever been said in a packing list for scouts? The scouts often hike shirtless when they get hot. The boy scouts wear shorts not to knee. Why do young girls who are not endowed have to where shorts to their knees at an activty which includes exercise.

It's getting old and I realized today, I'm not the only one in my ward who notices and finds it "ridiculous." 

My poor cousin raised in a similar home with strict rules on the length of shorts.  They bought shorts for the kids with garments in mind so they would be trained early to wear longer shorts.  Then my cousin got suspended from school for wearing "gangster" clothing.  My sweet aunt protested the rules, and the school held firm.  They had to buy 6 new pairs of shorts for the kids

[Maidservant]

I long for the day when female bodies are not marked along the immodest- modest spectrum at all.  That there is no way in our framework/worldview to be either modest or immodest ("what did they used to call it again, Grandma?").

Edited August 24, 2018 by Maidservant

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So, I know this has been talked about quite a bit but it is still aggravating. On my Ward's facebook page, the activity days leaders posted an invitation to a Stake activity day girls activity.  On the invitation it stated, "Please wear modest casual clothes with shoes for exercise."  One brave sister in my ward found the whole thing ridiculous.  She commented about why girls bodies age 8-12 would be considered immodest and found the words "modest casusal clothes for exercise"... ridiculous.

A lot of bare-midriff-type stuff out there.  Including stuff for little girls.

"Modesty" is not a bright line rule.  But just because there is no clear-cut definition does not mean it cannot be defined at all.

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This year, for girls camp the packing list said, "4-5 t-shirts (not tight enough to be revealing, no inappropriate logos, must be long enough to cover mid-riff if arms are above your head) • underwear • t-shirt, shorts and shoes that can get wet (shorts MUST be to the knee, If not you will be asked to change.) 

Pretty standard stuff.

Every summer our stake's young women go to Girls Camp, one evening of which is devoted to "Bishops' Night," in which each bishop brings dinner or a dessert for the girls in his ward.  One year a bishop in our stake went up there and forgot that shorts were not allowed at the camp.  He didn't have time to go back home and change (the camp was about 1.5 hours away), so he showed up and took a pretty good ribbing for it.

Modesty in clothing is like harmony between spouses.  It is an ideal to which we aspire.  It is a concept that has no clear delineation, but from which some things can be understandably excluded - even if that exclusion has an element of arbitrariness to it.

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I compared the packing lists for the Priesthood encampment vs. for girls camp and found no theatening language. There were no "logo" warning or short length warnings. No threats about being asked to change. 

"You will be asked to change" is a threat?

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Have these words ever been said in a packing list for scouts?

Yes.

I think it is part of our culture that, as far as clothing options go, there are far more "modesty" concerns for girls/women than for boys/men.  As a male attorney, it is understood and required that I wear a suit to court.  Women, however, have all sorts of options available to them, some of which are potentially inappropriate.  I'm not sure that's "sexism."  It's just that women have more sartorial options than men, some of which can be inappropriately "revealing."

So it is, I think, with women in general.  Although "modesty" in clothing choices is not exclusively a female problem, it sure seems to be a predominantly female problem.

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The scouts often hike shirtless when they get hot.

I've never seen that.

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The boy scouts wear shorts not to knee. Why do young girls who are not endowed have to where shorts to their knees at an activty which includes exercise.

Preparing now for choices they will face in the future, perhaps?

I can't remember the time I had to consider "modesty" when buying clothing for myself.  My wife and teenage daughter, however, have to factor that in all the time.  Low-cut jeans.  A blouse a bit too open in the chest area.  A formal dress that shows "too much" back or is too short at the hemline.  A dress that is too form-fitting.  

And so it goes.  The broader spectrum of options for female clothing will understandably include options that risk veering toward nebulous notions of "immodesty."  Men and boys run into that problem, too, but not as often.

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It's getting old and I realized today, I'm not the only one in my ward who notices and finds it "ridiculous." 

Do you find the concept of modesty itself to be "ridiculous?"  Or just the particular instructions noted above?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, Maidservant said:

I long for the day when female bodies are not marked along the immodest- modest spectrum at all.  That there is no way in our framework/worldview to be neither modest nor immodest ("what did they used to call it again, Grandma?")--but rather human beings wearing clothes, or not as the case may be.

You seem to be suggesting that "modesty" does not exist.  But if that's so, then why do we have the word?  And why is the word defined in the dictionary?  And why does it have an antonym?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

59 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So, I know this has been talked about quite a bit but it is still aggravating. On my Ward's facebook page, the activity days leaders posted an invitation to a Stake activity day girls activity.  On the invitation it stated, "Please wear modest casual clothes with shoes for exercise."  One brave sister in my ward found the whole thing ridiculous.  She commented about why girls bodies age 8-12 would be considered immodest and found the words "modest casusal clothes for exercise"... ridiculous. This year, for girls camp the packing list said, "4-5 t-shirts (not tight enough to be revealing, no inappropriate logos, must be long enough to cover mid-riff if arms are above your head) • underwear • t-shirt, shorts and shoes that can get wet (shorts MUST be to the knee, If not you will be asked to change.) 

I compared the packing lists for the Priesthood encampment vs. for girls camp and found no theatening language. There were no "logo" warning or short length warnings. No threats about being asked to change. Have these words ever been said in a packing list for scouts? The scouts often hike shirtless when they get hot. The boy scouts wear shorts not to knee. Why do young girls who are not endowed have to wear shorts to their knees at an activty which includes exercise.

It's getting old and I realized today, I'm not the only one in my ward who notices and finds it "ridiculous." 

 

this kind of attitude (IMO) is getting old.  Time to give young girls credit for common sense and decency without even the mention of "modest".  Come on..you have these girls thinking about what they may be doing wrong before they are even old enough to know!!  This is part of the problem with sex and young girls...they are thinking about it and not understanding!

[katherine the great]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seem to be suggesting that "modesty" does not exist.  But if that's so, then why do we have the word?  And why is the word defined in the dictionary?  And why does it have an antonym?

Thanks,

-Smac

Where in the dictionary is modesty defined as knee length shorts or covered shoulders? Modesty is an attitude--not a culture specific style of clothing.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Tale as old as time. I always thought it was absurd to impose strict dress standards at girls' camp. As long as their hoo hoos aren't hanging out, they should be able to dress comfortably for the weather and activity. This post made me think about something I've noticed over time. In all my years of leadership in the church, I've noticed that the relentless modesty emphasis seems to be driven by the female leadership--at least on the local level. It is possible that this is just the case in the areas I've served (primarily in N California and Boise Idaho). Only twice in four decades have a heard a male leader comment on female modesty and one of those events was back in the 70's. But there always seems to be a handful of sisters who are obsessed with modesty, and not just plain modesty, but modesty as they define and measure it.

Local male leaders are perhaps a bit nervous about giving too much emphasis on this topic.  

The human body can cause sexual arousal.

Many forms of "revealing" clothing can facilitate that arousal.

A person can be affected by his or her environment.  A person who is constantly around others who use profane language can end up adopting such language.  A person who has friends and family who resort to violence as a means of expressing disagreement may end up likewise resorting to physical violence.  And so on.

I previously taught at a local university for several years.  During that time I had hundreds of students, a very few of which (yes, they were women) chose to wear rather revealing clothing.  Lots of cleavage.  Lots.  It was distracting.  It was discomfiting when they sat at the front of the class and I was standing (as necessary to use the computer, projector, etc.), thus giving me a copious view of . . . things I did not want to be seeing.

Yes, I am (or should be) the master of my own thoughts.  But I am not always the master of my own environment.  I interact with other people.  And through those interactions I can have an effect on those people, and they can have an effect onme.  I can say and do and wear things that are provocative.  Or offensive.  Or discomfiting.  I can also be affected by others and their words and actions.

The Church also teaches us to moderate our language.  I think this is intended to both help us not pollute ourselves with profane words, and also not to adversely affect others.

Clothing can be a form of speech.  It can affect what others think and say and do.  Hence we get things like this advice from the University of Colorado:

  Quote

How to Dress For a Public Speech

Your message is always the most important part of a public speech; however, everything else about your speech will affect how your audience perceives you & your message. Your voice, your gestures, your grammar, your movements, your mannerisms, your clothes, and your style all create the impression you leave on the audience & how much of your message they hear and subsequently, remember.

"Your voice, your gestures, your grammar, your movements, your mannerisms, your clothes, and your style all create the impression you leave on the audience..."

This advice from the University of Colorado is not based on a moral code.  It's just . . . common sense.  The LDS Church takes that sort of common sense and builds on it a bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, katherine the great said:

Quote

 

You seem to be suggesting that "modesty" does not exist.  But if that's so, then why do we have the word?  And why is the word defined in the dictionary?  And why does it have an antonym?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Where in the dictionary is modesty defined as knee length shorts or covered shoulders?

It's not.  But it is defined.

Just now, katherine the great said:

Modesty is an attitude--not a culture specific style of clothing.

I acknowledge that.  My point is that modesty is a concept that has meaning.  It can be defined.  That it can be defined with exacting precision does not mean it cannot be defined at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A lot of bare-midriff-type stuff out there.  Including stuff for little girls.

"Modesty" is not a bright line rule.  But just because there is no clear-cut definition does not mean it cannot be defined at all.

Pretty standard stuff.

Every summer our stake's young women go to Girls Camp, one evening of which is devoted to "Bishops' Night," in which each bishop brings dinner or a dessert for the girls in his ward.  One year a bishop in our stake went up there and forgot that shorts were not allowed at the camp.  He didn't have time to go back home and change (the camp was about 1.5 hours away), so he showed up and took a pretty good ribbing for it.

Modesty in clothing is like harmony between spouses.  It is an ideal to which we aspire.  It is a concept that has no clear delineation, but from which some things can be understandably excluded - even if that exclusion has an element of arbitrariness to it.

"You will be asked to change" is a threat?

Yes.

I think it is part of our culture that, as far as clothing options go, there are far more "modesty" concerns for girls/women than for boys/men.  As a male attorney, it is understood and required that I wear a suit to court.  Women, however, have all sorts of options available to them, some of which are potentially inappropriate.  I'm not sure that's "sexism."  It's just that women have more sartorial options than men, some of which can be inappropriately "revealing."

So it is, I think, with women in general.  Although "modesty" in clothing choices is not exclusively a female problem, it sure seems to be a predominantly female problem.

I've never seen that.

Preparing now for choices they will face in the future, perhaps?

I can't remember the time I had to consider "modesty" when buying clothing for myself.  My wife and teenage daughter, however, have to factor that in all the time.  Low-cut jeans.  A blouse a bit too open in the chest area.  A formal dress that shows "too much" back or is too short at the hemline.  A dress that is too form-fitting.  

And so it goes.  The broader spectrum of options for female clothing will understandably include options that risk veering toward nebulous notions of "immodesty."  Men and boys run into that problem, too, but not as often.

Do you find the concept of modesty itself to be "ridiculous?"  Or just the particular instructions noted above?

Thanks,

-Smac

I find the concept of modesty as expressed in these fliers to be ridiculous. Modesty is a lot more than hem lines and dress codes. I grew up in the 70’s and it was not like this back then. I think the emphasis on dress codes for girls has been unhealthy. 

Looking through old family photos, I teased my sisters about the “immodest” shorts they wore as teens. Two more “modest” in every way women I have never met. We are making something sexual for young women when their intent is completely innocent. I find this sad.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll just mention here I'm watching this thread to see how long it will be before Gui's Law is borne out.

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[bsjkki]

I had one mother call the Stake Young Women’s President when the dress code for a swimming activity had clear instructions for “no cleavage.”  She told her her daughters where not invited to this activity because unless they wore a shirt there was no swimsuit made that would reveal no cleavage for her daughters.

My old stake required shirts with swimsuits at girls camp. It is “ridiculous.”

[changed]

Are there scriptures outlining dress codes?

I know the scripture - "if your eye offends you, pluck it out" - perhaps the solution is for those who cannot control their thoughts to pluck out their eyes?

Edited August 24, 2018 by changed

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I find the concept of modesty as expressed in these fliers to be ridiculous.

"Ridiculous": deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd.

Synonyms: absurd, bizarre,fantastic, foolish, goofy, impossible, incredible, laughable, ludicrous, nonsensical, outrageous, preposterous, silly, unbelievable, wacky, antic, comic, comical, contemptible, daffy, derisory, droll, farcical, foolheaded, gelastic, grotesque, harebrained, hilarious, jerky, nutty, risible, sappy, slaphappy.

Are the guidelines really that bad?  They are totally outside the bounds of reasonableness?  They are patently, irredeemably "ridiculous?"

Or is it possible that reasonable minds can disagree about them?

6 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Modesty is a lot more than hem lines and dress codes.

I agree.

6 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I grew up in the 70’s and it was not like this back then.

So there were no problems with "modesty" in the 70s, then?

6 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think the emphasis on dress codes for girls has been unhealthy. 

Unhealthy in what way?

6 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Looking through old family photos, I teased my sisters about the “immodest” shorts they wore as teens. Two more “modest” in every way women I have never met. We are making something sexual for young women when their intent is completely innocent. I find this sad.

I think the point is to avoid "making something sexual for young women."

And there seems to be a middle road here.  The Church isn't mandating this level of "modesty":

Or this:

I acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree about what "common sense and decency" means in terms of modesty.  But the Church's general guidelines, and the ones you cited, do not seem extreme or ridiculous.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

49 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I long for the day when female bodies are not marked along the immodest- modest spectrum at all.  That there is no way in our framework/worldview to be either modest or immodest ("what did they used to call it again, Grandma?").

Grandma did not live in a world like that. I think the last time we got along without sexualizing others was Eden.

[bsjkki]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Local male leaders are perhaps a bit nervous about giving too much emphasis on this topic.  

The human body can cause sexual arousal.

Many forms of "revealing" clothing can facilitate that arousal.

A person can be affected by his or her environment.  A person who is constantly around others who use profane language can end up adopting such language.  A person who has friends and family who resort to violence as a means of expressing disagreement may end up likewise resorting to physical violence.  And so on.

I previously taught at a local university for several years.  During that time I had hundreds of students, a very few of which (yes, they were women) chose to wear rather revealing clothing.  Lots of cleavage.  Lots.  It was distracting.  It was discomfiting when they sat at the front of the class and I was standing (as necessary to use the computer, projector, etc.), thus giving me a copious view of . . . things I did not want to be seeing.

Yes, I am (or should be) the master of my own thoughts.  But I am not always the master of my own environment.  I interact with other people.  And through those interactions I can have an effect on those people, and they can have an effect onme.  I can say and do and wear things that are provocative.  Or offensive.  Or discomfiting.  I can also be affected by others and their words and actions.

The Church also teaches us to moderate our language.  I think this is intended to both help us not pollute ourselves with profane words, and also not to adversely affect others.

Clothing can be a form of speech.  It can affect what others think and say and do.  Hence we get things like this advice from the University of Colorado:

  Quote

How to Dress For a Public Speech

Your message is always the most important part of a public speech; however, everything else about your speech will affect how your audience perceives you & your message. Your voice, your gestures, your grammar, your movements, your mannerisms, your clothes, and your style all create the impression you leave on the audience & how much of your message they hear and subsequently, remember.

"Your voice, your gestures, your grammar, your movements, your mannerisms, your clothes, and your style all create the impression you leave on the audience..."

This advice from the University of Colorado is not based on a moral code.  It's just . . . common sense.  The LDS Church takes that sort of common sense and builds on it a bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the University of Colorado would think casual exercise clothes for 8-12 year olds was a perfectly sufficient descriptor. You know, the appropriate clothing for the appropriate activity is usually a good way to choose your clothes.

[pogi]

I think I understand the irritation with imposed modesty dress standards, but doesn't there have to be a line drawn somewhere as to what is appropriate and what is not?  Is the frustration more that it is only directed to women and not men?  I can understand that, but surely, everyone here has seen an outfit that they have found inappropriate to wear in public.  Finding a line that everyone will agree with is the impossible part, but doesn't somebody have to draw the line anyway?    

There are some pictures of outfits that I would probably be banned for posting on here.  

Edited August 24, 2018 by pogi

[katherine the great]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Clothing can be a form of speech.  It can affect what others think and say and do.  Hence we get things like this advice from the University of Colorado:

  Quote

How to Dress For a Public Speech

Your message is always the most important part of a public speech; however, everything else about your speech will affect how your audience perceives you & your message. Your voice, your gestures, your grammar, your movements, your mannerisms, your clothes, and your style all create the impression you leave on the audience & how much of your message they hear and subsequently, remember.

"Your voice, your gestures, your grammar, your movements, your mannerisms, your clothes, and your style all create the impression you leave on the audience..."

This advice from the University of Colorado is not based on a moral code.  It's just . . . common sense.  The LDS Church takes that sort of common sense and builds on it a bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with the University of Colorado. I also agree with their approach--let them think about it and make an intelligent choice. I don't agree with the approach of bsjkki's girls' camp leader. These girls aren't going to camp to learn how to speak in front of an audience. They're going to have fun and learn new skill with other girls and bond with their leaders in the great outdoors! Outlining an exact measurement that is acceptable for clothing at an activity like that is an absurdity in my opinion. And it breeds an attitude of judgement in a certain type of person (who then grows up to perpetuate their random standards of modesty on the next generation of young women).

[bluebell]

I believe modesty is important to our Heavenly Father and that's why it should be important to us and to our youth.  However, i think that the way a lot of church members try to define and force modesty is off-putting.  And confusing (because the rules change depending on the person).  And alienating to non-members, less-active, heavier, and poorer girls who don't know the rules, or don't have the money to buy clothes that comply with specific rules that are capricious and arbitrary, or have a body type where the only option for not wearing something form fitting is shopping in the big and tall men's section.

I mentioned this on another thread but this summer we had a stake youth conference at a church camp here in Utah and the rules were spelled out before we left, namely, absolutely no swimsuits (even though the activities for the afternoon were tubing in the creek and a giant slip-n-slide).  The girls grumbled but complied and wore shorts and a t-shirt (which, by the way, was a disaster because the shirts kept sliding up while the girls were sliding).  Then we get there and almost every boy on the slip in slide was shirtless!  In swimsuit bottoms!  And no one said a word (which, i'm glad about because at that point there was no reason to bring it up, it was what it was).

Girls are always hit over the head with modesty and for most boys it is not on their radar at all.  Part of that is because, like Smac said, boy fashion is not prone to immodesty and girl's fashion is.  Some of it though is that most boys find the way our church usually teaches about modesty to be irrelevant to them, other than those times when a church leader teaches them that girls need to be modest to help them remain moral.  

The boys at the youth camp did not set out to be disobedient or immodest, it's just that it did not occur to them that it would be immodest for them to be in a swimsuit at a water activity so they didn't even think about it.  But girls are taught ALL THE TIME that swimsuits at church activities are immodest.  They are taught that their shorts must touch the knee (and they fret about it!) while boys at activities wear shorts a couple inches above the knee and never think twice about it because they've never been told about the knee-length rule.  

Modesty often become a heavy emotional burden for the girls in our church and it's not for our boys, and we need to find ways to end that, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I had one mother call the Stake Young Women’s President when the dress code for a swimming activity had clear instructions for “no cleavage.”  She told her her daughters where not invited to this activity because unless they wore a shirt there was no swimsuit made that would reveal no cleavage for her daughters.

My old stake required shirts with swimsuits at girls camp. It is “ridiculous.”

It is, and it makes girls feel horrible about their bodies!  If you have a large bust, it is incredibly difficult to find swimsuits that show no cleavage.  Even the 'modest' ones that you can find here in Utah can only do so much.  And those are suits that cost $50-80, which most families cannot afford.

So yes, you are left with a girl who has to wear a t-shirt in the pool while other girls don't because the rules have determined that her body is inherently immodest.  That's a horrible (and ridiculous) emotional burden for a girl to carry.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think I understand the irritation with imposed modesty dress standards, but doesn't there have to be a line drawn somewhere as to what is appropriate and what is not?  Is the frustration more that it is only directed to women and not men?  I can understand that, but surely, everyone here has seen an outfit that they have found inappropriate to wear in public.  Finding a line that everyone will agree with is the impossible part, but doesn't somebody have to draw the line anyway?    

There are some pictures of outfits that I would probably be banned for posting on here.  

In my experience, most girls will self-regulate on those occasions.  Our YWs focuses on teaching them correct principles and then letting them (and their parents) govern themselves.  

My friend told about talking her daughter and her friends to the temple to do baptisms for the dead a few months ago, and one of the girls wore a dress that was kind of short (mid-thigh).  She was visibly uncomfortable surrounded by girls in longer dresses and skirts and while no one said a thing to her about it, she spent the drive trying to pull the skirt down so it would be longer, and eventually mentioned to one of the other girls that she wasn't going to wear the dress again because it was too short.

I've never see a girl wear something truly inappropriate to a church activity, but when we do get girls who wear shorts that are way too short or shirts that show some cleavage or whatever, we don't say a thing.  We would rather the girl was there than not, regardless of her clothing.  

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I agree with the University of Colorado. I also agree with their approach--let them think about it and make an intelligent choice.

But isn't that what the guidelines in the OP are?  Isn't that what those guidelines facilitate?

Consider this article published by the American Bar Association (the quoted material below is from a sidebar in the article):

Quote

BEFORE YOU SASHAY INTO COURT . . .
CLICK ONTO CORPORETTE.COM.

In 2008 and 2009, the American Bar Association recognized this website as one of the “Top 100 Blawgs.” Here are excerpts from one post:

What to Wear for a Month in Court
›› Limit yourself to three or four dark suits—one black, one navy, and maybe one in brown and/or gray.
›› If you’re prickly about having matching accessories, go with all black accessories and choose the gray suit.
›› When possible, buy both the skirt and the pants to a set.
›› To change looks, switch the layers beneath the suit. For example, one day wear a collared shirt beneath the jacket.  Another day wear a jewel-necked silk t-shirt with a strand of pearls.
›› Your goal in dress should be vanilla—you don’t want the jury to notice yourclothes in either a good or bad way.
›› Avoid logo bags and anything with sparkles, including jewelry.
›› Also avoid noticeable accessories such as red-soled shoes.
›› We recommend wearing a skirt the first few days, if only until you get a feel for the judge and the lay of the land. After that, go with your gut.
›› Make sure your undergarments are not distracting. Avoid lacy bras beneath silk blouses, the quad-boob look, etc. Stock up on simple camisoles.

Here we have the American Bar Association publishing an article (written by a woman) directed at adult female professionals who have been through at least four years of college and three years of law school.  And yet these adult women still need tips about proper clothing choices in court.

If adult attorneys are making mistakes in terms of clothing choices, such that specific guidelines are warranted, then isn't also possible that little girls and young women might also make mistakes, such that specific guidelines are warranted for them?

14 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I don't agree with the approach of bsjkki's girls' camp leader. These girls aren't going to camp to learn how to speak in front of an audience. They're going to have fun and learn new skill with other girls and bond with their leaders in the great outdoors! Outlining an exact measurement that is acceptable for clothing at an activity like that is an absurdity in my opinion. And it breeds an attitude of judgement in a certain type of person (who then grows up to perpetuate their random standards of modesty on the next generation of young women).

An "attitude of judgment," you say.

Hmm.

🤨

-Smac

[bsjkki]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I believe modesty is important to our Heavenly Father and that's why it should be important to us and to our youth.  However, i think that the way a lot of church members try to define and force modesty is off-putting.  And confusing (because the rules change depending on the person).  And alienating to non-members, less-active, heavier, and poorer girls who don't know the rules, or don't have the money to buy clothes that comply with specific rules that are capricious and arbitrary, or have a body type where the only option for not wearing something form fitting is shopping in the big and tall men's section.

I mentioned this on another thread but this summer we had a stake youth conference at a church camp here in Utah and the rules were spelled out before we left, namely, absolutely no swimsuits (even though the activities for the afternoon were tubing in the creek and a giant slip-n-slide).  The girls grumbled but complied and wore shorts and a t-shirt (which, by the way, was a disaster because the shirts kept sliding up while the girls were sliding).  Then we get there and almost every boy on the slip in slide was shirtless!  In swimsuit bottoms!  And no one said a word (which, i'm glad about because at that point there was no reason to bring it up, it was what it was).

Girls are always hit over the head with modesty and for most boys it is not on their radar at all.  Part of that is because, like Smac said, boy fashion is not prone to immodesty and girl's fashion is.  Some of it though is that most boys find the way our church usually teaches about modesty to be irrelevant to them, other than those times when a church leader teaches them that girls need to be modest to help them remain moral.  

The boys at the youth camp did not set out to be disobedient or immodest, it's just that it did not occur to them that it would be immodest for them to be in a swimsuit at a water activity so they didn't even think about it.  But girls are taught ALL THE TIME that swimsuits at church activities are immodest.  They are taught that their shorts must touch the knee (and they fret about it!) while boys at activities wear shorts a couple inches above the knee and never think twice about it because they've never been told about the knee-length rule.  

Modesty often become a heavy emotional burden for the girls in our church and it's not for our boys, and we need to find ways to end that, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  

Thank you! You stated beautifully the double standards and why the fixation and rhetoric is unhealthy. 

I also believe in modesty but it doesn’t have much to do with dress codes.