Modesty issues...again

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

Sexualizing a 4-year-old (according to you what one does when one teaches her modesty) seems perverse to me. 

Bernard, for whom Gui’s Law was named, might have a different take in it. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

49 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?

Of corse not. But we’re conflating issues. If the youth chooses to show up at an activity stoned or drunk, yes the adult should make a decision. If the kids are acting inappropriately at an activity, yes the adult needs to make a decision.

If there is a dress standard for an activity and the youth makes poor choices in his/her attire, yes the adult needs to make a decision, as in your example of unacceptable graffiti on a shirt. I have been that adult several times. I think there are other things that should not be allowed, too. 

We started having regular multi-stake youth dances because school dances had become outrageously out of hand. I know, because I also chaperoned them. They were awful and most, not all, of the adults there were cool with it. After a while I stopped volunteering. Our youth asked us to provide a better environment. We were the first to start the LDS Proms. After a year or two we had non-LDS kids clamoring to attend our dances.

My assignment on the high council was to chaperone youth dances, which meant I was the guy at the door (along with some other youth leaders) to check for dress code and behavior compliance, but I was the final arbiter. I was Brother Bouncer. We had a dance card with the dress and behavior standards for the various kinds of dance events listed for boys and girls that they obtained from their bishop and that they had signed in agreement in order to attend the dance. Some frequent fliers would scam the system, saying they lost the card or left it at home, were non-members and didn’t know about the code, wore this last time and nobody said anything, pointed to another kid and said they were worse violators, never were able to get one from the bishop, etc., etc., etc. 

I got a spiral notebook that I called the High Councilman’s Guestbook. If a youth came dressed or behaved inappropriately I would ask him/her to step aside. I gave them a dance card, asked them to read it, and then sign the card and my Guestbook that they had been informed. If the violation was egregious I asked them to get something more appropriate on and come back. There was no shaming or unrighteousness judgement involved. Sometimes that something else was out in the car. They got one chance. At the next dance if they tried another scam I showed them their signature in my Guestbook, and said, “Nice try. Go change and come back.”

At some point, all the high principles and concepts we try to teach are tested and an accountability happens, and then specifics loom large. We don’t do us or the kids any favors if we wink and nod.

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Yes, exactly....that was my point about small samples....my story alone would be enough to balance out Sis. Gui's. Considering I'm not the only woman even on this thread to acknowledge visual arousal, the evidence begins to stack against this assumption. Either way, with the word arousal, it still applies about the same in this small anecdotal household. It's not that hard to redirect and move on from it. Though it hasn't always been as simple. It's called practice over many years. And as others have mentioned, the more body and emotional awareness women have, the more they're likely to be aware of their attraction and arousal towards others. I see this in my office a lot. 

Either way I don't get the point of emphasizing arousal on a topic that's discussing a spiritual principle. Even IF women weren't also physiologically aroused by visual stimuli (not true) but were becoming more mentally or emotionally aroused...it would still have a similar spiritual weight and concern. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 27, 2018 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

I think I forgot to post this:

On 8/26/2018 at 12:32 PM, Bernard Gui said:

What would be a better way?

What do you think of this?

“The best protection against rape, stalking, and domestic violence is to raise men who both understand that women are different, and would never dare take advantage of this difference.” 

 

I don't know what is meant by "different." Either way, there isn't one specific "best protection" that i think would prevent rape, stalking, and domestic violence. It would be a mix of things including comprehensive sex ed and open frank discussions by families about the positive purposes to sexuality. Less objectification and communication on healthy relationships in general. More capacity for men to learn to share their emotions and for both men and women to learn the difference between assertiveness and aggression. Along with so many other things, like effective corrections/punishment for sexual or domestic crimes and more egalitarian views and practices in our culture between men and women.

 

I'm a little skeptical of anything that says just one thing that will prevent some major endemic problems in our societies that span millennia in their creation.

On 8/26/2018 at 1:06 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for these excellent suggestions. Your emphasis on modesty as a principal of character is crucial.

Sometimes our journey leads us to the doors to a youth activity. What guidance would you give the gatekeepers who are facing the issue of let in or not let in? Should they have a checklist? Should there be any restrictions?

If you have not already seen it, I think you would enjoy Wendy Shalit’s book A Return to Modesty. Sister Gui read it a while back and recommended it to all our family. It approaches modesty in a way similar to yours but through the eyes of an Orthodox Jewish woman. There’s a sizable quote here...

https://books.google.com/books?id=idCDAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT12&source=kp_read_button

On your questions: I would ask what is more likely to lead the person-in-question to Christ? Nit-picking about skirt length or allowing them to associate with other youth who may likely be positive influences on them? Should there be a checklist in welcoming those with not our exact set of standards into having good clean fun? The only restriction I would have is if they present a real danger to the other youth (as in physical, verbal, and sexually inappropriate behavior/assaults....basically are they treating others with mutual kindness and respect). 

If you can't guess from the questions I gave, I wouldn't have much or any restrictions minus having their attire fit the activity they're going to. I would leave decisions on what they feel is appropriate as a personal and familial decision. Not one that I impose on them.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 27, 2018 by BlueDreams

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sexualizing a 4-year-old (according to you what one does when one teaches her modesty) seems perverse to me. 

Bernard, for whom Gui’s Law was named, might have a different take in it. 

 

sex·u·al·ize

ˈsekSH(o͞o)əˌlīz/

verb

1. make sexual; attribute sex or a sex role to.

    

   My little granddaughter has a bright pink tutu that we bought her. She loves twirling around in it. It doesn’t have sleeves. Is it immodest? Is it appropriate to tell parents of a 2 year old that she is dressing immodestly?

Edited August 27, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

 

sex·u·al·ize

ˈsekSH(o͞o)əˌlīz/

verb

1. make sexual; attribute sex or a sex role to.

    

I know what the word means. I disagree that’s what teaching modesty does to a person. And saying so smells like Gui’s Law. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I know what the word means. I disagree that’s what teaching modesty does to a person. 

As others have noted here, immodesty in the church is tied to sexual behavior and arousal. Applying that to a 4 year old is sexualizing the child, IMO. And no matter what you or Bernard think, I’m not saying that is “perverted.” 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sexualizing a 4-year-old (according to you what one does when one teaches her modesty) seems perverse to me. 

Bernard, for whom Gui’s Law was named, might have a different take in it. 

Just what is "Gui's Law" again (I honestly can't remember....but it seems awfully important to you and Bernard).  Whatever it is, I sincerely hope it doesn't continue being mentioned as if it's important to all here 

[ALarson]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

As others have noted here, immodesty in the church is tied to sexual behavior and arousal. Applying that to a 4 year old is sexualizing the child, IMO. And no matter what you or Bernard think, I’m not saying that is “perverted.” 

I hate that 4 year olds are expected to dress as if they were to wear temple garments.  I really dislike all of that attitude and wish it had never started to creep into the attitudes of many in the church.  

[Bernard Gui]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

Hmmmm. I don’t really care to get into the ins and outs of the various states of arousal on a public discussion board, thank you. In the end, though, isn’t this the elephant in the room, what all the talk about modesty leads to? After all, it was the images of shirtless hunky men and the thoughts of arousal they might engender that led us down this path. I should be able to run around town in my Speedo without becoming an objectified man! Not that I’m a hunk, but some might find me lustable. Well, probably not. 

Getting back to the topic, what changes would you suggest, if any, should be made to the dress standards in FTSOTY? How should they be interpreted and enforced?

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I undestsnd that. The word used was arousal.

And this doesn’t apply to women?

I honestly cannot believe what it appears you are continuing to imply here!  Are you really this out of touch with how a woman can get just as aroused as a man?

Edited August 27, 2018 by JulieM

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours 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? 

Are you getting that from what I am saying? If so, either you misunderstand or I am poor at communication. Probably the latter. I would appreciate it if you addressed anything I have said that would lead to your conclusions. 

I don’t watch Alex Boye videos. How is this pertinent?

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

I don’t follow. Do you mean that having a testimony of something will somehow ensure correct behavior? Please explain.

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Just what is "Gui's Law" again (I honestly can't remember....but it seems awfully important to you and Bernard).  Whatever it is, I sincerely hope it doesn't continue being mentioned as if it's important to all here 

Yeah, I just roll me eyes every time I see them post it too 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Yes, only vulgar pictures and language should be barred.  

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And this doesn’t apply to women?

I honestly cannot believe what it appears you are continuing to imply here!  Are you really this out of touch with how a woman can get just as aroused as a man?

Good grief! Like I said, these discussions are minefields. No, I ‘m not out of touch. Do you need a compilation of my exploits? Why are you making this personsal? Can’t we talk and come to an understanding?

Like all other threads on modesty, this one is crashing and burning as misunderstandings, innuendo, and accusations multiply exponentially. 

What changes, if any, do you think should be made in the modesty section of FTSOTH, and how should they be interpreted and enforced?

Edited August 27, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[clarkgoble]

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. 

I think a lot here has to do with how you explain it to them. When I explain to my little girl why she can't keep flipping her dress up in the air, showing her underwear, or pull down her top in public, I'm trying to teach her about social norms. Further I can do it easily in a way that doesn't even bring up sex. Although frankly, any parent who doesn't worry about predators in public places is being naive. I'd hate to have some pervert secretly taking pictures of my innocent little girl or boy and posting them on the internet.

There's fundamentally no intrinsic difference between sleeves or tops. It's just an arbitrary social norm. We therefore can't say that sleeve reinforces the message her body is an object, while other parts of dress don't.

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Hmmmm. I don’t really care to get into the ins and outs of the various states of arousal on a public discussion board, thank you. In the end, though, isn’t this the elephant in the room, what all the talk about modesty leads to? After all, it was the images of shirtless hunky men and the thoughts of arousal they might engender that led us down this path. I should be able to run around town in my Speedo without becoming an objectified man! Not that I’m a hunk, but some might find me lustable. Well, probably not. 

Getting back to the topic, what changes would you suggest, if any, should be made to the dress standards in FTSOTY? How should they be interpreted and enforced?

I think the "enforcement" part only comes into play with those subjects that affect recommends, honor codes, and disciplinary counseling and councils, and is carried out between the interviewee and the priesthood authority. FTSOY does not talk about enforcement. I think the dress standards in that booklet are perfectly fine, and we also have flexibility to accommodate local circumstances and activities. I think they should be interpreted in the Spirit in which the booklet is written, and self-enforced. At the same time, we need to act charitably toward others who are different -- that goes for those who are rebellious toward the group's mores as well as those who are intolerant toward those who need to be drawn into the circle.

Edited August 27, 2018 by CV75

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, only vulgar pictures and language should be barred.  

Why should they be barred?

[jkwilliams]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Just what is "Gui's Law" again (I honestly can't remember....but it seems awfully important to you and Bernard).  Whatever it is, I sincerely hope it doesn't continue being mentioned as if it's important to all here 

It seems like a way to shut down discussion by exaggerating someone’s argument. 

[ttribe]

Good grief, this "Gui's Law" schtick is silly.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

It seems like a way to shut down discussion by exaggerating someone’s argument. 

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

I say we come up with something and call it "JK's Law".....any ideas?

Edited August 27, 2018 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the "enforcement" part only comes into play with those subjects that affect recommends, honor codes, and disciplinary counseling and councils, and is carried out between the interviewee and the priesthood authority. FTSOY does not talk about enforcement.

I mean enforcement at activities when the standards in FTSOTY are not met. What is to be done then? We have been talking about kids and youth being shamed at or banned from activities because of misinformed or malicious interpretations of those standards. Some want general non-gender standards, some want no written standards, some want stricter standards. The rancor developing in this discussion is evidence that it is a very divisive issue, as I stated in my first post on the thread. It seems to me rather than tear each other’s throats out we could come to some sort of agreement on what to do.

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Just what is "Gui's Law" again (I honestly can't remember....but it seems awfully important to you and Bernard).  Whatever it is, I sincerely hope it doesn't continue being mentioned as if it's important to all here 

Gui's Law is a semi-permanent part of my sig line. You'll find it below on this and all my other posts. It is this:
 

Quote

 

Gui's Law: In an online discussion of modesty, the probability that a defender of modesty is called a pervert approaches 1.

 

I said early on in this thread that I would be monitoring it to see how long before Gui's Law was borne out. I intend to follow through on that pledge to the extent I see fit. It's not right to demonize a person for defending modesty.

 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think a lot here has to do with how you explain it to them. When I explain to my little girl why she can't keep flipping her dress up in the air, showing her underwear, or pull down her top in public, I'm trying to teach her about social norms. Further I can do it easily in a way that doesn't even bring up sex. Although frankly, any parent who doesn't worry about predators in public places is being naive. I'd hate to have some pervert secretly taking pictures of my innocent little girl or boy and posting them on the internet.

There's fundamentally no intrinsic difference between sleeves or tops. It's just an arbitrary social norm. We therefore can't say that sleeve reinforces the message her body is an object, while other parts of dress don't.

I agree, mostly. I guess I just hate the idea that there’s some fundamental difference between boys’ and girls’ modesty that starts at the sleeves and that must be reinforced from an early age. I taught my boys and my girls not to expose their underwear. That’s common sense. 

And it doesn’t help to be told my dislike of this means I’m calling people perverts for disagreeing.