Modesty issues...again

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

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:
 

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.

Yet Gui’s law, when applied to someone who hasn’t called you a pervert, is the same kind of demonization. 

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

On the contrary. Like Godwin’s Law, it is simply stating a certainty that is being borne out even as we speak. One would hope for better results when we Saints talk about morality, modesty, and sexuality, but it appears to hold true.

For example, you said,

Quote

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. 

Could one legitimately express concern about teaching modesty to children without being saddled with the accusation that he/she is sexualizing children or attributing depravity to men?

Edited August 27, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

I don't think we were conflating issues until you made this statement.  We aren't talking about actions or illegal activities.  We are talking about clothes.

Quote

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. 

Great.  But (no disrespect intended) I don't want your standards to dictate whether or not a young man or young woman is allowed at an activity.  It becomes to arbitrary and capricious.  Let's just stick with the guidelines in the FSOY pamphlet (pretending that they are equal for girls and boys) and leave off adding all the extra hedges around the modesty law.  

Quote

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.

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.”

I think that's awesome that the church decided to hold such dances.  I also think that having a dress code for such dances--that kids are expected to follow--is a good thing.   I also think it's great that you still let them participate even when they weren't dressed appropriately.

Quote

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.

If you were a bishop, would you have pulled any of those kids--the ones you spoke about above that weren't following the dress standards good enough--aside and told them that if they didn't change the way there were dressed they would not be allowed to attend sacrament meeting again?

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

On the contrary. Like Godwin’s Law, it is simply stating a certainty that is being borne out even as we speak. One would hope for better results when we Saints talk about morality, modesty, and sexuality, but it appears to hold true.

Again, Scott is putting words in my mouth, and it’s disappointing that you are following suit. 

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

I'm sorry -- I have a bad habit of editing my posts while people are evidently reading and responding to them... What I added was this:

"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."

Specific to your question, at a youth dance, when the invite says "Sunday best" and someone doesn't meet the expectations of the chaperone, I think pulling them into the activity does more to impress upon them the Spirit of the standard than does asking them to leave.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

I agree, but attracting women does not usually entail revealing more leg and hairy chest...  Maybe in the 80's, but not so much anymore.

Also, we are mostly talking about the youth in the church who tend to be more susceptible to harmful media influence which almost always equates sex/appearance with self-esteem and acceptance of boys.  One cannot deny the different messages portrayed to boys and girls in the media about dress, appearance, and sexuality. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by pogi

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Gui's Law is a semi-permanent part of my sig line.

Just "semi-permanent"? 

You crack me up, Scott.  

 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

On the contrary. Like Godwin’s Law, it is simply stating a certainty that is being borne out even as we speak. 

It seems that's true, once you've entered the thread or discussion (from my observations).  Is that why it's named after you?

I think it may be best to drop its usage. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

No, i'm not saying that, because that would imply that perfection was possible and we all know that even the most converted person will still not have perfectly correct behavior.  

I'm saying that when someone is converted to a principal and wants to please God, then they automatically try to apply that in their lives without someone needing to use negative consequences to force them to comply.  That is why "the study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior."

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It seems that's true, once you've entered the thread or discussion (from my observations).  Is that why it's named after you?

I think it may be best to drop it's usage. 

He doesn't cause it. He has merely observed and identified it. His identification of it is the reason we named it after him. Just like Godwin's law was observed and identified by a man named Godwin.

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

He doesn't cause it. He has merely observed and identified it. His identification of it is the reason we name it after him.

It would have more impact if you waited until someone did it before you invoke it. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think we were conflating issues until you made this statement.  We aren't talking about actions or illegal activities.  We are talking about clothes.

We’ll have to leave it at that disagreement. I was responding to your questions about tithing and the WoW.

Quote

Great.  But (no disrespect intended) I don't want your standards to dictate whether or not a young man or young woman is allowed at an activity.  It becomes to arbitrary and capricious.  Let's just stick with the guidelines in the FSOY pamphlet (pretending that they are equal for girls and boys) and leave off adding all the extra hedges around the modesty law.  

If not mine or yours, then whose standards? What hedges are you referring to?

Quote

I think that's awesome that the church decided to hold such dances.  I also think that having a dress code for such dances--that kids are expected to follow--is a good thing.   I also think it's great that you still let them participate even when they weren't dressed appropriately.

That seemed fair to me.

Quote

If you were a bishop, would you have pulled any of those kids--the ones you spoke about above that weren't following the dress standards good enough--aside and told them that if they didn't change the way there were dressed they would not be allowed to attend sacrament meeting again?

Good enough? Ah, well. A judgement call, right? That’s when specifics rise up and smite you.

Why would a bishop do that? Why would need to ask me that question? We have a long history of conversation here. Is that what you think of me? Hope not.

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It seems that's true, once you've entered the thread or discussion (from my observations).  Is that why it's named after you?

I think it may be best to drop it's usage. 

It would be better to drop the behavior that it identifies (accusing those who defend modesty of being perverts).

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He doesn't cause it. He has merely observed and identified it. His identification of it is the reason we name it after him.

 

Who is "we"?  You and him?  So very lame.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It would have more impact if you waited until someone did it before you invoke it. 

Or if anyone even remembered what it meant or cared ....such self importance.....ha 

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It would have more impact if you waited until someone did it before you invoke it. 

I didn't invoke it. It's not something one invokes. It's a phenomenon that one observes. Like gravity.

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

I guess my point is just that it's only common sense relative to a particular set of norms. So there's a certain circularity that differentiates based upon what the norms are.

I raise this not because I think you ultimately disagree, but because what I tend to see is just people privileging one set of norms above an other. So you have differences from societal norms seen as silly or repressive while the norms of society are just common sense. But the reality is none of them are common sense. 

So I agree with a lot of criticisms. And personally I think it ridiculous to criticize a 4 year old for not having sleeves - especially for outside non-Church wear. My 5 year old has many sleeveless clothes and I don't think it immodest. Ultimately I don't care that other people think different norms should be enforced. What I am concerned about is when people take it into their own hands to enforce their norms on my kids. Especially when they are tactless or worse.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Who is "we"?  You and him?  So very lame.

I think there was at least one other involved in the discussion. USU78, as I recall.

But it doesn't matter how many were involved if it's a valid observation, does it?

 

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, Scott is putting words in my mouth, and it’s disappointing that you are following suit. 

And now you put words in my mouth. I simply asked a question....do you believe a person can be concerned about teaching modesty (in children, youth, adults, whatever, but in this case a child) without being called deviant? The answer of course is yes, but as a discussion progresses, the probability increases that this bridge will be crossed. Your comment leads in that direction.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Or if anyone even remembered what it meant or cared 

 

I already said it's in my sig line.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why should they be barred?

Because I believe that no one should be sexually harassed or demeaned at a church function. 

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

On the contrary. Like Godwin’s Law, it is simply stating a certainty that is being borne out even as we speak. One would hope for better results when we Saints talk about morality, modesty, and sexuality, but it appears to hold true.

Yes, even though I err on the liberal side of the application of the principle of modesty, I see Gui’s Law unfolding. It’s unfortunate.

When we combine the vague definition and circumstances of modesty with the sensitivity of the interplay between the stimulus and the stimulated (girls and boys; women and men), miscommunication and misunderstanding are nearly inevitable.

Metaphor: If I tell a group of people I’m in favor of gun control, there will be some who assume I mean that I think all guns should be taken from people, when that is not my nuanced position.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't invoke it. It's not something one invokes. It's a phenomenon that one observes. Like gravity.

Like gravity?  Really??? 

  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Just "semi-permanent"? 

You crack me up, Scott.  

 

Semi-permanent means that I'm leaving it there for now, though I do change the elements of my signature line from time to time.

I don't now why that should excite your ridicule.

[Calm]

“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”

Then why in the world did you draw attention to the possibility that men understand arousal differently than women multiple times, one post after another, if you didn’t want to discuss it?

I am not suggesting in any way this is deviant behavior, it just appears to be very inconsistent.

I am quite comfortable, btw, discussing explict descriptions of sexual arousal in men and women. Four years of Clinical Psychology with some very precise professors is good for raising comfort level there as is being married since 1980 to a man where neither of us are shy about the topic.  

However, if you prefer not to get into those details and are comfortable with the concept that many women have been paying attention to how men talk about their experiences for eons and therefore have had plenty of opportunities to figure out if we mean the same thing, I am happy to pass on the subject. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Calm