Modesty issues...again

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

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.

Yup. When you say a 4 year old is being immodest for wearing a top without sleeves, you are sexualizing a 4 year old and reinforcing the message that her body is an object that must be protected from the thoughts of other people, particularly men. 

[Jeanne]

It is just really...the very idea that young girls, young women, and adult women are responsible for the morals of men.  To use them that way is just an excuse to potentially blame them for any attitudes they have about morality and women in general.  God forgives men.

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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):

 

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."

I think that most women understand this.  Young girls probably don't fully get it (and we try to talk about it in Laurels in YWs), though I know they talk about in in schools sometimes.  It's important for girls to realize so that they understand why using different levels nakedness to attract men often does not create the kind of relationships they are after.  Girls tend to equate attention with affection and that causes a lot of problems when dealing with boys, for whom attraction and affection do not at all have to be connected.

We are aware that biologically men are visual and see women as objects.  Most women deal with catcalling men on a regular basis (and have dealt with it since around age 11).  The last time I got to deal with it was at the county fair two weeks ago with a group of YW and adult leaders.  It was super fun.  

It's not that we aren't aware what studies have shown. You can't be a woman very long in this world without having lots of personal experience with what studies have shown....

(As an aside, a big part of the pushback on this whole topic in society in general is that women are tired of suffering because of the biology of males.  Males are not required to alter their otherwise reasonable behavior to keep from suffering because of the biology of females.  We are tired of being responsible for protecting ourselves from the biology of men.  Women are just emotionally and mentally done with the disparity.)  

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

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

Also a fairly small sample. The word used was arousal. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

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

Different strokes for different folks.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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?

I undestsnd that. The word used was arousal.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours 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 understand that. The word used was arousal. That has a specific meaning for men.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours 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.  

All that is fine until the rubber hits the road and a leader has to make a decision about the non-specific guidelines. At that moment they become specific.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

All that is fine until the rubber hits the road and a leader has to make a decision about the non-specific guidelines. At that moment they become specific.

Again, not really.  Are leaders forced to make decisions for the youth about non-specific guidelines about the Sabbath day?  Are they forced to make decisions for the youth about whether paying on gross or net is a full tithe?  Are they forced to make decisions for the youth about whether or not drinking caffeine and energy drinks is compatible with following the WoW?

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I undestsnd that. The word used was arousal.

And it is a bit awkward stating in public that I, an almost 60 year old woman, am aroused by well made men running down the street, but if you insist (and I find it jaw dropping you are thinking there is a significant difference)...yes, I get aroused and always have since that track star up the street would run past me as I walked to seminary in the early morning. 

And then I control my thoughts so those feelings don't continue.

And the way women and girls have been talking around me since my teens about hot guys, yes, that is arousal too, not just thinking they are attractive like a great sunset.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Calm

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Again, not really.  Are leaders forced to make decisions for the youth about non-specific guidelines about the Sabbath day?  Are they forced to make decisions for the youth about whether paying on gross or net is a full tithe?  Are they forced to make decisions for the youth about whether or not drinking caffeine and energy drinks is compatible with following the WoW?

This position is hard for some to understand who prefer the in/out black/white mentality.

It appears some believe that when someone is not ‘modest’ to a certain standard, they should be excluded.

Why not make events/culture/meetings as inclusive as possible, and not make obedience a pre-requisite (whether a firm rule or a principle) to participation?

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand that. The word used was arousal. That has a specific meaning for men.

Right, because women never get sexually aroused, we only find men mentally and emotionally attractive with no parallel physical sensation, since we are missing essential body parts for that.  

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Right, because women never get sexually aroused, we only find men mentally and emotionally attractive with no parallel physical sensation, since we are missing essential body parts for that.  

Yesterday the high council speaker mentioned that, most Sundays, his wife is on her own wrangling with kids to get them ready for church. Two of their boys are priesthood age, and last week a sister in the ward came up to his wife and said the boys' shirts were not ironed and it was "distracting." Instead of getting offended, his wife replied, "Well, at least they are here participating." I think what people are commenting on in this thread is both the fixation some people have on appearance and the clear double-standard applied to boys and girls in too many cases. 

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yesterday the high council speaker mentioned that, most Sundays, his wife is on her own wrangling with kids to get them ready for church. Two of their boys are priesthood age, and last week a sister in the ward came up to his wife and said the boys' shirts were not ironed and it was "distracting." Instead of getting offended, his wife replied, "Well, at least they are here participating." I think what people are commenting on in this thread is both the fixation some people have on appearance and the clear double-standard applied to boys and girls in too many cases. 

I am awful...I would have been angered and would not have been so kind.  This wife is a gem!

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Jeanne said:

I am awful...I would have been angered and would not have been so kind.  This wife is a gem!

I'm a lot more patient with families with a lot of children since I had a lot of children of my own. Back in the day I might not have responded as kindly as this sister did.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

This position is hard for some to understand who prefer the in/out black/white mentality.

It appears some believe that when someone is not ‘modest’ to a certain standard, they should be excluded.

Why not make events/culture/meetings as inclusive as possible, and not make obedience a pre-requisite (whether a firm rule or a principle) to participation?

I don't have an issue with dress codes for some events, but I don't think the dress code should exist to enforce modesty.  

And I agree that dress codes should be as inclusive as possible.  I know that temples, for example, started instructing people at the recommend desk not to turn any one away who had a recommend, regardless of how they were dressed (at my parents temple in Billings Montana, a recently reactivated member was turned away when he came to the temple--with his new recommend--in jeans, so it was instruction that needed to happen).  If we use that as our example to follow, is there any youth activity that we could hold where someone's reasonable dress should get them barred from participation?  (I noted reasonable dress because obviously clothing with vulgar pictures or phrases on them would be an exception).

Edited August 27, 2018 by bluebell

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Right, because women never get sexually aroused, we only find men mentally and emotionally attractive with no parallel physical sensation, since we are missing essential body parts for that.  

[Bernard Gui]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Right, because women never get sexually aroused, we only find men mentally and emotionally attractive with no parallel physical sensation, since we are missing essential body parts for that.  

You are taking it beyond what I have said. Perhaps we do not understand arousal the same way. Shall we become more graphic?

Edited August 27, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't have an issue with dress codes for some events, but I don't think the dress code shouldn't exist to enforce modesty.  

And I agree that dress codes should be as inclusive as possible.  I know that temples, for example, started instructing people at the recommend desk not to turn any one away who had a recommend, regardless of how they were dressed (at my parents temple in Billings Montana, a recently reactivated member was turned away when he came to the temple--with his new recommend--in jeans, so it was instruction that needed to happen).  If we use that as our example to follow, is there any youth activity that we could hold where someone's reasonable dress should get them barred from participation?  (I noted reasonable dress because obviously clothing with vulgar pictures or phrases on them would be an exception).

How do you define reasonable? Based on what standard? Only vulgar pictures or phrases should be barred? All the rest is reasonable?

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You are taking it beyond what I have said. Perhaps we do not understand arousal the same way. Shall we become more graphic?

You can't possibly believe that because it's more obvious (physically) when a man gets aroused, this means women don't get just as aroused  as men.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Yeah, I certainly agree some go too far especially for practical things like working out at the gym or other athletic events. I remember back in the late 90's people getting mad because of how the Cougarettes dressed or how ballroom dancers dressed too. I do wish this kind of pharisee like attitude could be eliminated. Context matters a lot.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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 feel more social pressure to be rich then to be sexy.  For men, dressing in rich expensive clothing is dressing "sexy".  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.  

This has changed. I think most sociologists assume that as women gain more power and say over their s==uality that this increases the requirements for men to attract them. (You see this broadly in sexual evolution among mammals when females have more control over mating preference too) Thus men spend more time at the gym achieving the desired physique and even dress changes. More is expected by men on dates. etc. Compare for example male expected fitness today to the 1950's. Of course some do so in a fashion they think attracts women but may only do so for a small group. (Think bodybuilders who typically aren't terribly attractive to most women but are very attractive to some women) I think your point about signaling wealth/power is apt though. Although what counts as that has changed over time. (Say the way people in a band were considered attractive by many women) Part of that again though is changing precisely as women gain more power in society. Added into all of this is delaying of marriage and differences between economic groups. (By and large s=uality among college educated after college is different from those not so educated  - with college educated sowing their oats then adopting traditional middle class norms despite rhetoric while non-educate have total breakdown)

All of this then affects Mormons through societal influences. Some of this is positive such as changing power for women.

Anyway though going back decades, men often flaunt bodies and have clothing that does the same. It might only apply in certain subgroups, but it does definitely happen. Especially in the key 18-25 demographic. When guys are showing off shirtless on the basketball court when women around, it's not just because it's hot out.

We should also note that you'll see differences between "high status" people and the rest of us as well. So high status people have lots of people who want to date them. That's due to a variety of traits -- attractiveness, personality, humor, wealth, etc. Those of us not quite as charismatic or frankly socially clueless are shut out of such things for the most part. But you'll have people trying. Thus attractive women in the typical singles ward complaining about too many people trying to ask them out, being clueless on dates and so forth. Attractive men getting lots of baked goods and so forth. Again, I'm really glad I'm not in a singles ward anymore. That meat market aspect is always more than a little ridiculous. Plus I think the majority in any ward are actually fairly clueless about all the unwritten social rules and so forth thereby opening up lots of misunderstandings.

35 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Instead of getting offended, his wife replied, "Well, at least they are here participating." I think what people are commenting on in this thread is both the fixation some people have on appearance and the clear double-standard applied to boys and girls in too many cases. 

I think there's a lot to this. And often you have people with fairly easy to deal with kids being far too judgmental on other kids - often kids with unique challenges. So I'm sympathetic to this having been judged a few times myself. Of course my argument is that boys don't get taught modesty enough - not just sexual oriented modesty but also the other types people have mentioned such as flaunting wealth or other such things to create a division. That is ultimately modesty is about the problem of trying to set oneself up above others. So I completely agree with the double standard issue and the issue of worrying about silly things. I just think the problem is that people don't understand the principles behind modesty and thus get caught up in rule-enforcement with a focus on in-group boundary policing. Yet as you note, the effect of such policing is to drive people away.

 

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[BlueDreams]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

I'm generally not into cheesy things all together....so I probably have a profound bias in that regard. I think they would have been fine singing about wanting virtuous women. But by the way they framed the song, virtue seemed tied to skirt length. And the whole "I need your modesty" thing was weird.

 

With luv,

BD

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Yup. When you say a 4 year old is being immodest for wearing a top without sleeves, you are sexualizing a 4 year old and reinforcing the message that her body is an object that must be protected from the thoughts of other people, particularly men. 

Teaching a 4-year-old to be modest is not sexualizing her. 

I said I’d be watching this thread to see how long it would be before Gui’s Law was borne out. It seems like this is getting close to it. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Teaching a 4-year-old to be modest is not sexualizing her. 

This is getting close to bearing out Gui’s Law. 

I said nothing about perversion, and I stand by my statement. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Teaching a 4-year-old to be modest is not sexualizing her. 

I said I’d be watching this thread to see how long it would be before Gui’s Law was borne out. It seems like this is getting close to it. 

You are putting words into my mouth.