Modesty issues...again

[SouthernMo]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Just "semi-permanent"? 

You crack me up, Scott.  

 

Saw that. So funny. Oxymorons are funny to me. 😀

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

You are pretty funny sometimes Scott (without even meaning to I think).  First of all, I highly doubt many pay much attention to what is in your sig line.   But this whole "Gui's Law" thing is ridiculous.

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

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.

Only because the norms have changed. Now men are expected to do even more grooming and have a hairless chest. (And that's not new - my friends were doing that sort of thing back in the 90's) You're right short shorts are considered unfashionable. But that doesn't mean men aren't expected to do sexual displays in other ways as even a quick look at videos targeting 16-25 will demonstrate.

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

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. 

I think you're overlooking just how much media is communicating to young men and how much they are seeing their value in terms of both physical attractiveness norms as well as being charismatic, charming, and knowing how to entertain young women on a date. All rather intimidating. At least the physical attractiveness part can be dealt with by weights, jogging and Nair. The social skills of being charming in just the right socially acceptable way of course aren't really taught at all. And to the degree they are taught, it's by questionable internet sites that combine it with the very immorality and immodesty we're discussing.

But I'll probably bow out of the discussion. I do think men should be treated more like women relative to modesty. However I also think the well meaning attempts by many people to end the double standard unfortunately tend to attempt to just end the standard.

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Then I would caution against false positives. 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

You said that teaching a 4-year-old the principle of modesty is sexualizing her. And then you doubled down on that assertion.

I agree with Bernard that this assertion is leading in the direction of Gui's Law.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Then I would caution against false positives. 

Your caution is duly noted. I will be careful.

Again, I didn't say that your comment bears out Gui's Law, only that it is flirting with it.

 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours 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."

Thank you for posting this. It is what I have been trying to say in my obliquely clumsy way. Men and women are wired differently by nature. We all have to learn how to cope with that with love and mutual respect.

[jkwilliams]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Oh, I agree completely. And yes, social norms are often arbitrary. I guess I err on the side of not making small children worry about being immodest beyond the obvious “don’t pull your pants down.” I just don’t spend a lot of time worrying about my kids’ shoulders. Let them enjoy childhood. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You said that teaching a 4-year-old the principle of modesty is sexualizing her. And then you doubled down on that assertion.

I agree with Bernard that this assertion is leading in the direction of Gui's Law.

No, I did not say “teaching a 4-year-old the principle of modesty is sexualizing her.” 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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. 

 

Well, at least I got a jaw-dropping reaction out of you. Anything else might be considered inappropriate.  Do you think there is any qualitative or quantitative difference between male and female reactions? 

Quote

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.

Hot guys. What does that mean? Would you agree with Bluebell....

Quote

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.

I do. This is akin to my beliefs.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[ttribe]

<--------Still find it fascinating that the primary "defenders" of the current LDS-cultural norms in terms of modesty are men.

 

ETA to indulge Scott Lloyd's inability to maintain context: My comment is limited to the dynamic IN THIS THREAD.

Edited August 27, 2018 by ttribe

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

Would you consider provocative clothing harassment or demeaning?

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Saw that. So funny. Oxymorons are funny to me. 😀

I'm not sure it's an oxymoron.

From the Free Dictionary:

 

Quote

 

sem•i•per•ma•nent

(ˌsɛm iˈpɜr mə nənt, ˌsɛm aɪ-)

adj.

long-lasting but not permanent.

[1885–90]

 

If something is semi-permanent, it could be thought of as remaining in existence indefinitely but for the long term; that is, until something happens to remove it.

 

In a strict sense, nothing belonging to this world is permanent. Everything is, at most, semi-permanent.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

42 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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

You haven’t been in all the modesty discussions around here? It started a long time ago when I was accused of being a pedophile by a couple of women because I said I volunteered to be on a school dress code committee. That is when I stopped using my real name. That pattern has continued over the decades...as threads continue, some defender of modesty is invariably called a deviant. Yeah, silly perhaps, but quite true and not very helpful.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, I did not say “teaching a 4-year-old the principle of modesty is sexualizing her.” 

I'd ignore them on this.  You've done nothing that even hints of this.  

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for posting this. It is what I have been trying to say in my obliquely clumsy way. Men and women are wired differently by nature. We all have to learn how to cope with that with love and mutual respect.

They are, but I think far too many people make assumptions about what is biologically different that are incorrect. This has a long standing history in our culture. Of course the opposite is true where people make assumptions about what is social. I think the key is to not assume but to look at the scientific evidence and acknowledge our ignorance. Because there really is a lot of false information passed off as common sense in this arena. I should note I fully concede my relative ignorance on what is or isn't innate on many of these matters.

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

<--------Still find it fascinating that the primary "defenders" of the current LDS-cultural norms in terms of modesty are men.

I don't concede that this is true. In my household, my wife is more vigilant about modesty than I -- though I agree with her.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I'd ignore them on this.  You've done nothing that even hints of this.  

Yeah, I’ve already reached that conclusion. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't concede that this is true. In my household, my wife is more vigilant about modesty than I -- though I agree with her.

Do I need to edit my post to say - "in this thread"?  I thought it obvious that I was talking about this thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

You haven’t been in all the modesty discussions around here? It started a long time ago when I was accused of being a pedophile by a couple of women because I said I volunteered to be on a school dress code committee. That is when I stopped using my real name. That pattern has continued over the decades...as threads continue, some defender of modesty is invariably called a deviant. Yeah, silly perhaps, but quite true and not very helpful.

And as I mentioned in the prior discussion, the one where we formulated Gui's Law, I am a witness to that incident years ago where two individuals on a message board libeled Bernard in this manner. I recollect it clearly. It was on the old ZLMB. After vigorous complaint we eventually got the moderation team to delete the entire thread. With good reason. The libel could have been devastating to his reputation and career.

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Do I need to edit my post to say - "in this thread"?  I thought it obvious that I was talking about this thread.

No, it was not obvious to me.

But this thread is not a very impressive sample size.

[ttribe]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

No, it was not obvious to me.

But this thread is not a very impressive sample size.

Oh, my.  I'm not engaging in any kind of generalization beyond this thread.  I was fascinated by the dynamic IN THIS THREAD and expressed it.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I'd ignore them on this.  You've done nothing that even hints of this.  

 

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, I’ve already reached that conclusion. 

Then take it as a caution not to let it get to that point.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, my.  I'm not engaging in any kind of generalization beyond this thread.  I was fascinated by the dynamic IN THIS THREAD and expressed it.

So you did not mean to imply that it is primarily men in general who are concerned about modesty?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Then take it as a caution and don't let it get to that point.

Sorry, but I’m not going to capitulate to such demands just because someone falsely accuses me of “getting to that point.”