Modesty issues...again

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Isn’t that the problem with any non-specific guideline? There’s always room for personal interpretation. Do you think they are operating with ill will? 

 

It doesn't have to be that way though.  For example, the church has repeatedly stated that giving people outlines of what is or isn't appropriate to do on the Sabbath day is not appropriate and shouldn't happen.  And because of that, it hardly ever happens, and when it does, it's pretty easy to set the person straight.  The same goes for tithing, which the prophets have defined in a specific way and teaching youth personal interpretations of tithing is not acceptable.

There really isn't any problem with non-specific guidelines when the church outlines that teaching personal interpretations will not be allowed.  

[Rain]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have no idea, but I would assume most women would not. You will have to bring me up to date. I can imagine it could be arousing to gay men, at least that is the impression given in our pop culture.

Sister Gui, my source for all things feminine, tells me that the fundamental differences in anatomy and sexual responses between men and women make visual arousal far more common and intense for men than women,  but we don’t run in those circles, so what would we know? 

I wonder how much it is far more common and intense than for women and how much of it is that it is just recognized more. Until I understood my body better I didn't really recognize it. Now that I have a much better understanding of it, it seems more common and intense.  

I have found the same thing with post partem depression. I had a horrible time with it after my second child, but it took awhile to understand what it was. Years later I told my FIL about my experience with it and he told me that he didn't believe in PPD because it never happened to the women in his day. I didn't argue with him because it would have been pointless, but it DID happen in his day. It just wasn't recognized or talked about and still women from that day struggle to talk about their experiences with it because it was such a taboo topic.

I see the same thing with visual responces for women. People often just do not have a good understanding of women's bodies. Those responces may be there, but they don't recognize it. When I started to recognize it then it seemed to became more much common and intense. 

It's not so much about running in "those circles" (though those circles may become much more worldly with their actions), but about knowing as much about women's bodies.

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

I wonder how much it is far more common and intense than for women and how much of it is that it is just recognized more. Until I understood my body better I didn't really recognize it. Now that I have a much better understanding of it, it seems more common and intense.  

I have found the same thing with post partem depression. I had a horrible time with it after my second child, but it took awhile to understand what it was. Years later I told my FIL about my experience with it and he told me that he didn't believe in PPD because it never happened to the women in his day. I didn't argue with him because it would have been pointless, but it DID happen in his day. It just wasn't recognized or talked about and still women from that day struggle to talk about their experiences with it because it was such a taboo topic.

I see the same thing with visual responces for women. People often just do not have a good understanding of women's bodies. Those responces may be there, but they don't recognize it. When I started to recognize it then it seemed to became more much common and intense. 

It's not so much about running in "those circles" (though those circles may become much more worldly with their actions), but about knowing as much about women's bodies.

 

I agree.  I think it's also about recognizing that just because women don't respond in the same way as men (maybe they don't instantly desire the person sexually, for example) that does not mean that our natural responses to visual images do not need to be controlled or are acceptable to let run wild.

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It doesn't have to be that way though.  For example, the church has repeatedly stated that giving people outlines of what is or isn't appropriate to do on the Sabbath day is not appropriate and shouldn't happen.  And because of that, it hardly ever happens, and when it does, it's pretty easy to set the person straight.  The same goes for tithing, which the prophets have defined in a specific way and teaching youth personal interpretations of tithing is not acceptable.

There really isn't any problem with non-specific guidelines when the church outlines that teaching personal interpretations will not be allowed.  

And this goes back to what people probably tire of me saying. Elder Packer and Elder Bednar find it is much better to help others understand doctrine than to teach applications. Elder Bednar says it can be important, especially with youth, to have applications, but if we get too heavy on the applications and away from the doctrine it can cause problems like we have discussed here. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

And this goes back to what people probably tire of me saying. Elder Packer and Elder Bednar find it is much better to help others understand doctrine than to teach applications. Elder Bednar says it can be important, especially with youth, to have applications, but if we get too heavy on the applications and away from the doctrine it can cause problems like we have discussed here. 

It makes sense.  When people have a testimony of the doctrine, then the application takes care of itself.  

[juliann]

Not doing well at your job? It is the other employees that cause that. Always late? Tell anyone expecting you that they need to change their schedule. Need to lose weight, well, blame food. Have poor sexual impulse control? Spend your time telling women what to do. 

[juliann]

57 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

I see the same thing with visual responces for women. People often just do not have a good understanding of women's bodies. Those responces may be there, but they don't recognize it. When I started to recognize it then it seemed to became more much common and intense. 

It's not so much about running in "those circles" (though those circles may become much more worldly with their actions), but about knowing as much about women's bodies.

 

I think women just have better impulse control because the culture only allows for sexually aggressive males. Women are shamed with all kinds of ugly names if they act on their impulses, not to mention they are the ones that suffer the natural consequences.

The comments here alone demonstrate how it is taken for granted that men will act on their impulses if not checked by other people and that is just normal. Women would be demonized for that. 

Does anyone remember that gag inducing Alex Boye' video with a string of hip thrusting young men singing to young women how they needed their modesty? 

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think women just have better impulse control because the culture only allows for sexually aggressive males. Women are shamed with all kinds of ugly names if they act on their impulses, not to mention they are the ones that suffer the natural consequences.

The comments here alone demonstrate how it is taken for granted that men will act on their impulses if not checked by other people and that is just normal. Women would be demonized for that. 

Does anyone remember that gag inducing Alex Boye' video with a string of hip thrusting young men singing to young women how they needed their modesty? 

I don't remember that.  Do you have a link?

[BlueDreams]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't remember that.  Do you have a link?

 

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I think women just have better impulse control because the culture only allows for sexually aggressive males. Women are shamed with all kinds of ugly names if they act on their impulses, not to mention they are the ones that suffer the natural consequences.

The comments here alone demonstrate how it is taken for granted that men will act on their impulses if not checked by other people and that is just normal. Women would be demonized for that. 

Does anyone remember that gag inducing Alex Boye' video with a string of hip thrusting young men singing to young women how they needed their modesty? 

Is it this one?

 

Cuz, yup it's all sorts of awkward. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Rivers said:

It’s been said that women struggle more with literary porn while men struggle more with the visual.  

Interacting with others is not the same as interacting with porn, there are numerous different types of cues/triggers happening.  It would be interesting to study not porn, but interaction in social situations, at beaches, parties, etc.  I would suspect there would be differences, but many would be culturally based and not inherent differences.

If arousal is similar to anxiety, I suspect it has a lot to do with men having been taught to pay attention to minor feelings of arousal as important cues while women have not.  Years of being told they are not visually stimulated may mean they don't recognize those triggers as important so their mind does not collect additional data while men have been taught it is very important to them so even if they look away, they may continue to think about the experience strengthening their response.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have no idea, but I would assume most women would not. You will have to bring me up to date. I can imagine it could be arousing to gay men, at least that is the impression given in our pop culture.

Sister Gui, my source for all things feminine, tells me that the fundamental differences in anatomy and sexual responses between men and women make visual arousal far more common and intense for men than women,  but we don’t run in those circles, so what would we know? 

Perhaps it is my living among nonmembers where expressing attraction to male bodies was not only acceptable, but expected, but back in the 70s in California I heard plenty of girls and women talking about how hot they found guys and it was rarely mentioned it was because the guy was smart even if he was.

If we had only visual interactions with each other, the fact that in the current US culture and ones similar to them men have stronger reactions would impress me more.

I have never found static pictures interesting, but seeing someone move is what is beautiful and attractive to me.  It is physical grace that catches my eye first.  And that includes a good haircut and well chosen clothes that move well, framing the body perfectly.  A well made guy standing in a nicely cut and coloured muscle shirt waiting for a bus will not merit a drop of attention, but him in running shoes and start him heading down the side of the road...it is time to focus on the other cars, maybe turn the radio on.  I do not, however, even think to open the windows and tell him to find some track to run on because he is creating a driving hazard by distracting me.

Should I start defining modesty as walking with hunched shoulders and drooped head and wearing inexpensive poorly cut clothing so that I don't have to recognize and deal with my own discomfort from my visual triggers?

Edited August 27, 2018 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps it is living among nonmembers where expressing attraction to male bodies was not only acceptable, but expected, but back in the 70s in California I heard plenty of girls and women talking about how hot they found guys and it was rarely mentioned it was because the guy was smart even if he was.

If we had only visual interactions with each other, the fact that in the current US culture and ones similar to them men have stronger reactions would impress me more.

I have never found static pictures interesting, but seeing someone move is what is beautiful and attractive to me.  It is physical grace that catches my eye first.  And that includes well chosen clothes that move well, framing the body perfectly.  A well made guy standing in a nicely cut and coloured muscle shirt waiting for a bus will not merit a drop of attention, but him in running shoes and start him heading down the side of the road...it is time to focus on the other cars, maybe turn the radio on.  I do not, however, even think to open the windows and tell him to find some track to run on because he is creating a driving hazard by distracting me.

Should I start defining modesty as walking with hunched shoulders and drooped head and wearing inexpensive poorly cut clothing so that I don't have to recognize and deal with my own discomfort from my visual triggers?

Exactly. Everyone has the choice not to look when they see something they find arousing. I believe in modesty, but it's ridiculous for people (men, especially, it appears) to blame their lingering gaze and wandering thoughts on others. If I know that my neighbor has a tennis-shoe fetish, is it my responsibility not to wear tennis shoes, lest he find himself aroused?

Edited August 27, 2018 by jkwilliams

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I spend a lot of time on Mt Rainier. When the weather is warm, most hikers wear shorts on the trails. I don’t because I hate mosquito bites. My experience is that most youth don’t make rational informed wardrobe decisions. 

I overheat easily, but am an avid hiker (3-4 hikes a month). i usually hike in shorts or workout pants and a tank during the summer  made for exercise as I try to go fast and cover a lot of trail. When I'm running trails, the tank often comes off to leave a sports bra to help regulate my temperature better. I'd rather be bit by a mosquito or scratched a little than dizzy, overheating and out for the day. Rational is in the eye of the beholder. For me, during the summer it would be the most irrational thing I could do to wear longer pants or shirts.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 27, 2018 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have no idea, but I would assume most women would not. You will have to bring me up to date. I can imagine it could be arousing to gay men, at least that is the impression given in our pop culture.

Sister Gui, my source for all things feminine, tells me that the fundamental differences in anatomy and sexual responses between men and women make visual arousal far more common and intense for men than women,  but we don’t run in those circles, so what would we know? 

That is a fairly small sample size. I don't fit it. Out of my husband and I, I am more likely to notice an attractive person on the street. And I'm definitely still visual. Our personalities and interests generally help shape that.

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Exactly. Everyone has the choice not to look when they see something they find arousing. I believe in modesty, but it's ridiculous for people (men, especially) to blame their lingering gaze and wandering thoughts on others. If I know that my neighbor has a tennis-shoe fetish, is it my responsibility not to wear tennis shoes, lest he find himself aroused?

What do people do when they are trying to eat healthy and they sit down at their work place to eat their salad and someone sits next to them with a wonderfully smelling pizza?  Would any tell them "excuse me, you can't eat that here?" Or is it more likely the healthy eater would assume it was up to himself to control his thoughts and desire and focus on enjoying his salad? 

Should we have laws banning advertising food due to the high percentage of overweight people in the country?

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

Then why make it all about what females do?

While I've often commented (and made fun of) the way some of the Church's ideas about "modesty" get implemented, I have noticed something over the years.  Whether it's among LDS or former-LDS, it's the women who are most insistent that the teachings should not be about what the women wear.  And it just seems wrong for the male leadership to make it about them.

As I've pointed out to ex-mormons when the issue comes up, this may be an area where the teachings are based more on evolution and science than on scriptures and ideas of "morality."  In other words, telling women that what they wear has an affect on men's thoughts isn't based on some idea of men not being responsible for their thoughts, or not being able to control their actions.  And it's not in any way excusing men for having those thoughts (certainly, there is a huge emphasis to the men to not have such thoughts).

And it's quite possible that, while there may be some perceptive and intuitive women who figure it out on their own, many young women and older women just don't understand how what they wear can change how they are perceived by men.  Honestly, from some of the comments in this thread, I think that is a common scenario.    Sure, we can insist that the men shouldn't perceive them that way, and it certainly isn't the woman's fault.  And it would never excuse a man acting inappropriately towards a women, and explaining such ideas to women should never be implied to be offering such an excuse. 

But as this article discusses, there's more going on than cultural conditioning and lessons on "modesty" (warning: the article addresses sexuality frankly, so don't click on it if you don't want to read words that describe sexual arousal):

Quote

To begin with, it’s essential to note that the literature specifically studying men’s arousal patterns (gay as well as straight) has repeatedly emphasized their sensitivity to visual cues. As soon as the lust-inspiring image registers in their brain, they become turned-on—not only physically but psychologically, too. Exposure to such erotic stimuli immediately activates the parts of their brain related to getting an erection. And, as Ogas and Gaddam suggest, “Men’s greater sex drive may be partially due to the fact that their sexual motivation pathways have more connections to the subcortical reward system than in women” [or, in short] “men’s brains are designed to objectify females.” Frustrated women have frequently (and cynically) complained that men’s brains are located between their legs. But the authors’ more scientifically grounded viewpoint seeks to elucidate the strategic—and frankly, unwilled—connection between the male’s brain and his genitals. (See also an earlier two-part post of mine called “The Testosterone Curse.”)

It’s therefore no coincidence that many adult sites targeting men zero in on body parts. Ogas and Gaddam (as the computational neuroscientists that they are) cite Fantasti.cc to point out that of their 100 top-rated images no fewer than 23 exhibit close-ups of female anatomy without a face. Although, unquestionably, the dehumanizing implications of such calculated cropping are saddening, many of the authors’ characterizations are nonetheless laugh-worthy. For instance, alluding to one website’s presentation of female body parts, they observe: “The site looks like a Victoria’s Secret catalog passed through a paper shredder.” And they’re forced to conclude (lament?) that “men’s brains scrutinize the details of arousing visuals with the kind of concentration jewelers apply to the cut of a diamond” (p. 47).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/201205/the-triggers-sexual-desire-men-vs-women

 

I've actually wondered how people might react differently if, instead of appealing to revelation and the scriptures, Church leaders introduced all their teachings about modesty with the phrase "Studies have shown..."?

"Women, studies have shown that how you dress affects how the people look at you."

"Women, studies have shown that if we compare some men's reactions to viewing pornography with how they react when they see a woman who dresses provocatively, they can be very similar reactions."

"Studies have shown that men view women who dress provocatively as being less intelligent, less professional, and as being 'objects' and not 'people."

Edited August 27, 2018 by cinepro

[pogi]

If I had to guess, I think the church focuses on modesty issues with females more than males because of the heightened social pressures that women face in regards to sexuality and appearance.  Unfortunately the female is sexually exploited in the media.  She is an object. Her purpose is to be sexually attractive. Period.  Because of this constant barrage of garbage media, appearance and image have become linked with self-worth and esteem.  Women and girls who watch popular media feel more pressure to sexualize their appearance in order to feel accepted in society.  Men do not feel the same social pressures.  In fact, we couldn't dress that way if we wanted to.  Retailers just don't sell that kind of clothing for men.  Men are pressured to flaunt their money and their power in dress, while women are more pressured to flaunt their bodies.  That is the cultural difference as I see it.  

For example:

The women are simply objects here. The man is dressed to flaunt his money/power, the girls are dressed to flaunt their bodies. It is a disgusting message that females are bombarded with.  

This next one pretty much sums it up.  Sorry if this is offensive, but this is what our children see in our malls, magazines, and TV adds every day!

The question is then, is it wrong for the church to focus more on females when it comes to image and dress, when they are the ones being attacked in media?

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I think women just have better impulse control because the culture only allows for sexually aggressive males. Women are shamed with all kinds of ugly names if they act on their impulses, not to mention they are the ones that suffer the natural consequences.

I'm not convinced women have better impulse control. I think there's more than a little bit of confirmation bias because of the structures we set up and because how men and women react is so different due to social priming. But when I talk to women about the number of unwanted more aggressive moves they encounter it honestly doesn't sound much different from when I talk to men. It's just that men are taught to either blow it off or take advantage of it. I do think you're right that the way people label such actions and/or people is different. But even there I think things aren't as different as often portrayed. Going mainly from hearing labels for men by women who hook up a lot (without going too far or being too pushy). Admittedly it's now been a while since I was in the dating scene. (Thankfully) So things may have changed. It's also interesting seeing women who were fast to label a guy a few weeks later taking advantage of the situation. 

Anyway, all this reminds me how grateful I am married and out of the dating scene. It was in hindsight not pretty. But having had enough women who surprised me by unwanted disrobing or the like, or who also became convinced of a relationship after a single date, I think things aren't not quite as far out of balance as portrayed. It's just all these behaviors I think that's the problem.

[Calm]

Quote

And it's quite possible that, while there may be some perceptive and intuitive women who figure it out on their own, many young women and older women just don't understand how what they wear can change how they are perceived by men. 

Quote

The question is then, is it wrong for the church to focus more on females when it comes to image and dress, when they are the ones being attacked in media?

 

We are not talking about buttocks showing mini skirts here or opened to the navel shirts.  We are talking about not allowing capris or shorts At All at camps for girls while allowing them for the boys so it can't be a safety issue.  It is about Tshirts over any bathing suit, not just bikinis.  It is not allowing sleeveless now when in the past it was acceptable even though today sleeveless is further from the extremes than it was back in the 60s and 70s.

I think women here do understand quite well that there is clothing that in essence is a flashing arrow to certain body parts (for both men and women).  Imo, The problem is because this is recognized in our society and gets abused by many that somehow this justifies forbidding of clothing that should do no such thing.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Calm

[cinepro]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

The question is then, is it wrong for the church to focus more on females when it comes to image and dress, when they are the ones being attacked in media?

 

I've never understood people (usually ex-mormons) who fixate on the Church's modesty teachings, but argue that the widespread availability and viewing of pornography in our society is a-ok.   Or they ignore the massive tidal wave of objectifying of women that our media culture pours on us every day. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by cinepro

[Amulek]

On 8/25/2018 at 11:56 PM, juliann said:

I hope you are informing parents that you shame their daughters for normal behavior.

I’m sorry, but I reject the notion that politely telling a little girl to put her dress down in Sunday school is “shaming.”

Keeping your clothes on during class is, in my view, perfectly reasonable expected behavior. And when a child has difficulty behaving properly in class I don’t see any issue with kindly asking that child to stop participating in the inappropriate behavior.

It isn’t “shaming” to tell a child to not lean back in her chair, or to put her fidget spinner away, or to not blow bubbles with her gum, or to keep her hands to herself, or to not run in the hallway, or to stay off her cell phone, or to not yell, or to not interrupt others when they are speaking, etc.

Lovingly asking a child to not take his/her clothing off is no different than any number of the other things we ask children not to do at church.

 

Quote

You are an adult.

Correct. At least, that's one thing we can agree on.

 

Quote

You can't handle a little girl lifting her dress? Seriously? 

If by “can’t handle” you mean “can’t [manage the problem of],” then no – I can manage the situation just fine. And it’s trivially easy: when a little girl lifts up her dress, I ask her to put it back down; when a little boy pulls down his pants, I ask him to pull them back up. It really isn’t a big deal.

 

Quote

What in the heck would "ladylike" mean to a young primary child...aside that she had done something wrong.

You seem to be tripped up on the word “ladylike.” Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but kids around here don’t have any trouble knowing what is meant by the phrase – even the ones whose families have moved here from out of state. 

 

Quote

I don't even know how to respond to this, other than it is not your business to be teaching children how to be a "lady" unless you are the parent.

We’re not talking about giving advice to a young woman on what she should do on her wedding night. 

We’re talking about encouraging a young girl to keep her dress down...at church...during a Sunday school lesson. If parents want to let their children run around naked at home, that’s their business, but that kind of behavior is inappropriate in a classroom environment (in a public place) and there’s nothing wrong with a teacher saying so. 

I’m not sure why this is even controversial. If you strip out the “modesty” element completely, having kids exposing themselves during class is going to be a major distraction for the other kids in the class, and the teacher should act to curb that behavior just as they would any other behavior that is distracting and disruptive. 

The kids are there to learn and grow – not to discover what patterns are on each other’s underwear. 
 

Quote

Does the part where a lady is an adult woman escape you?   

In the church we teach and modal ideal behavior all the time. 

You may not have noticed, but we spend a fair amount of time teaching primary aged children how to act like Jesus, yet I don’t ever hear people petulantly asking, “Does the part where Jesus was a perfect adult escape you?”
 

 

 

 

 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

 

Is it this one?

 

Cuz, yup it's all sorts of awkward. 

 

With luv,

BD

Oh I remember that one.  I really like the idea behind it but some of the lyrics are definitely cringe worthy.  They should have just stuck with virtue and integrity and left modesty out of it.  

[Amulek]

On 8/26/2018 at 1:54 AM, Maidservant said:

No victim contributes to the criteria of any selection process of the perpetrator. 

Right. People who leave their keys in the ignition do not contribute to the car thief’s selection process. 

 

Quote

Said ironically (not at you, but the whole idea of modesty): I guess the 'modest' thing would be to have young girls wear pants to church then.

For the record, I’m totally cool with women wearing pants (or whatever they heck they want) to church. 

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I've never understood people (usually ex-mormons) who fixate on the Church's modesty teachings, but argue that the widespread availability and viewing of pornography in our society is a-ok.   Or they ignore the massive tidal wave of objectifying of women that our media culture pours on us every day. 

I think the concerns of many women with the modesty boundaries all too common in the Church is they believe it feeds into the objectifying rather than protecting women from its effects.  When girls are told any shorts are wrong, t-shirts must be worn when swimming and they see boys wearing shorts and going shirtless, it becomes all about the female body as an object for most, imo.

[Amulek]

On 8/26/2018 at 1:43 AM, Calm said:

So it would seem he justifies his assault to himself by making sure his victims are the ones he thinks others look down on for how they dress and act.

Doubtful. He likely justified his assaults be simply imputing a motive to their behavior that wasn’t actually present. The behavior was real though, even if the understood motive was not. 

 

Quote

Are the ones targeted because they dress modestly and act the most "ladylike" also contributing to the selection process/influencing a predator when predators target them for being ladylike?  If it is the dress, then surely the same influence applies in your logic, does it not?

If you mean to say, could a different predator select victims based on different criteria, then sure; that’s always a possibility. All we can do is behave in ways that minimize our likelihood for being victimized. 

I don’t have a problem with questioning how much any particular factor may actually influence the material likelihood of being victimized, but some people seem to think that there is nothing we can ever do – in any circumstance – to affect the criminal’s calculus, and that sort of position is one that I just really have a hard time accepting.