Modesty issues...again

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

Caution = demand?

When you cautioned me in a post above about "false positives," was that a demand?

Edited August 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Being one caught up in rule enforcement (because as a public school teacher for 40 years and active church member for over 6 decades I have had to rub up against them) and in the spirit of my question that apparently set off this fireworks show, we have modesty standards expressed in FTSOTY.

As a school teacher, I learned that having no dress code is no better than having one but not enforcing it. The trick was to find a way to enforce it. Many were tried, amost of them failed...well, school uniforms go a long way in helping with this, but that’s another topic. 

So we have our Church standards. Do they deserve our attention? If not, why do we have them? If they do, what should that attention look like when it comes to activities where the standards may be challenged? Isn’t there a middle ground between what you call boundary-policing and looking the other way? I think there is.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Caution = demand?

When you cautioned me in a post above about "false positives," was that a demand?

“Don’t let it get to that point” is a demand, IMO. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by jkwilliams

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Let me be abundantly clear so we can end your silliness on this - NO, I DO NOT THINK IT IS GENERALLY THE CASE THAT IT IS PRIMARILY MEN WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT MODESTY.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

“Don’t let it get to that point” is a demand. 

No, it was an explanatory definition of the caution I was issuing.

At least that's how it was meant. If you like, I will rephrase it and say, "Then take it as a caution to not let it get to that point."

 

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Let me be abundantly clear so we can end your silliness on this - NO, I DO NOT THINK IT IS GENERALLY THE CASE THAT IT IS PRIMARILY MEN WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT MODESTY.

Well, that's a relief.

Makes me wonder why you made the remark in the first place, though.

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

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. 

I was responding to questions and comments and did not bring it up. I reluctantly went that way. It’s always a discussion killer when that happens. What would be the concern?

[ttribe]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You haven’t been in all the modesty discussions around here?

Of course.  That doesn't mean I have to give any credence, whatsoever, to the "Gui's Law" schtick that you Scott seem bent on promoting.

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not sure it's an oxymoron.

From the Free Dictionary:

 

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

 

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

You win, Scott!

I still think it’s a dumb word. Like “almost completely.”  Just say “almost.”

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Get to what point?  You and Bernard having to bring out the dreaded "Gui's Law" accusation?  

Whatever you think that is, it doesn't apply to anything that jkwilliams posted.

Edited August 27, 2018 by ALarson

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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. 

No, I agree, there is that. But sexual objectification in the media disproportionately targets females.

Quote

SO occurs when a woman’s body or body parts are singled out and separated from her as a person and she is viewed primarily as a physical object of male sexual desire (Bartky, 1990) 

The crazy thing is that we see this in female fashion magazines, mall windows, etc. This is the advertising that sells female clothing.  Girls are influenced and affected by this stuff and internalize the messages and begin to dress accordingly - more so than males.  The fear is the internalization:

Quote

Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) asserted that women to varying degrees internalize this outsider view and begin to self-objectify by treating themselves as an object to be looked at and evaluated on the basis of appearance.Self-objectification manifests in a greater emphasis placed on one’s appearance attributes (rather than competence-based attributes) and in how frequently a woman watches her appearance and experiences her body according to how it looks (McKinley & Hyde, 1996; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998).

https://www.apa.org/education/ce/sexual-objectification.pdf

You rarely see this in the reverse, where a man's body parts are singled out and separated from his person and viewed primarily as a physical object of female sexual desire.

39 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

That's an astute point. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

You win, Scott!

I still think it’s a dumb word. Like “almost completely.”  Just say “almost.”

Your advice is noted.

I'm not sure I can readily come up with a synonym for "semi-permanent," though, that conveys my meaning as well. "Temporary" doesn't  do it, as I intend to leave it there for a longer time than "temporary" connotes. "Permanent" would, of course, be inaccurate.

I'm concerned that some people new to the board might think that a sig line changes with each post. My use of "semi-permanent" was to make clear that is not he case.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Get to what point? 

To the point of accusing a defender of modesty of being a pervert, of course.

Quote

You and Bernard having to bring out the dreaded "Gui's Law" accusation?  

Not an accusation, a caution.

Quote

Whatever you think that is, it doesn't apply to anything that jkwilliams posted.

That's a matter of subjective opinion.

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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?

It may seem funny to you, but I assure you that it is not funny when your name is associated with pedophilia on the internet.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It may seem funny to you, but I assure you that it is not funny when your name is associated with pedophilia on the internet.

It’s also not funny when someone accuses you of equating modesty with perversion. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

I hope you have noticed that nowhere have I advocated shaming, shunning, or expelling anyone. In fact I wrote of my experiences as a public school teacher and Church member who has had to bump up against this issue in real time. Should the dress code include standards of modest attire? Are you saying those should be self-enforced? If so, what would be the point? How would you deal with inappropriate dress?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour 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 its usage. 

Yes, it’s named after me. I formulated it kind of tongue-in-cheek it based on Godwin’s Law after decades of sad experience here. It does bear out, though regardless of when I enter a discussion., It still holds true, but I appreciate your acknowledgment of my great power and influence here.

Why should I withdraw it? Are you a moderator? 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

After 15 pages, I am a bit confused about something.  Maybe someone can clear it up.  Is it now church policy that all women are prohibited from ever wearing shorts, capris, and swimming suites without a tee shirt?  Are they suppose to always wear baggy pants now?

Because if these things are not appropriate at girls camp which is by definition almost all girls and just a handful of men, when are they allowed to wear shorts, capris, swimming suit without a tee shirt and pants that actually fit?

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s also not funny when someone accuses you of equating modesty with perversion. 

That’s true. We should all be more circumspect. Who has done that?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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."

I think youth are in the early stages of gaining this kind of spiritual maturity. Have I said anything about forcing compliance? That is contrary to my nature.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

After 15 pages, I am a bit confused about something.  Maybe someone can clear it up.  Is it now church policy that all women are prohibited from ever wearing shorts, capris, and swimming suites without a tee shirt?  Are they suppose to always wear baggy pants now?

Because if these things are not appropriate at girls camp which is by definition almost all girls and just a handful of men, when are they allowed to wear shorts, capris, swimming suit without a tee shirt and pants that actually fit?

It's local leadership roulette on the interpretation of Church policy and guidance.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

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

Why lame? Lots of folks have inside jokes and understandings here. Some have cryptic initials in their sig lines or quote other members or things they consider interesting. Long-time members share memories and have things in common. Why personalize this with insults?

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why lame? Lots of folks have inside jokes and understandings here. Some have cryptic initials in their sig lines or quote other members or things they consider interesting. Long-time members share memories and have things in common. Why personalize this with insults?

I insulted your schtick because I think it's lame.  I didn't insult you.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I insulted your schtick because I think it's lame.  I didn't insult you.

It would be better to ask what it means, how it came about, and discuss whether you agree with it or not, rather than use puerile insults and put-downs.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It would be better to ask what it means, how it came about, and discusswhether you agree with it or not, rather than use puerile insults and put-downs.

Thank you for your advice, Mr. Gui.