california boy Posted August 27, 2018 Posted August 27, 2018 26 minutes ago, ttribe said: It's local leadership roulette on the interpretation of Church policy and guidance. If it is not church policy, then why don't the girls simply say, sorry, but I am not going to follow YOUR arbitrary rules. And if it is not policy, then why us ANYONE defending this kind of behavior? 1
ttribe Posted August 27, 2018 Posted August 27, 2018 1 minute ago, california boy said: If it is not church policy, then why don't the girls simply say, sorry, but I am not going to follow YOUR arbitrary rules. And if it is not policy, then why us ANYONE defending this kind of behavior? Answer to Q1 - Because "sustain local leaders" Answer to Q2 - Because they agree with it.
Bernard Gui Posted August 27, 2018 Posted August 27, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Calm said: “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? In all fairness to me and with the great respect and admiration that you know I have for you, this is your comment that set us on this road...I may be mistaken but up to this point I had said nothing about male/female arousal and modesty. I was simply replying to a flippant comment on shirtless ness by another poster..... Quote If the argument is girls and women shouldn't go shirtless because it is sexually arousing for many others to see them in that state, may .I point out the endless beefcake photos and screen appearances of shirtless men. Anyone claiming that boys and men going shirtless is not sexually arousing for others needs to explain all those shirtless sex shots of men. My apologies for any misunderstandings.[EDIT] I was not making any such claim. In the future I will try to be more circumspect. Quote 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. No, I don’t care to be any more explicit. Public school teaching for 40 years and 45 wonderfulyears of marriage to Sister Gui have toughened me, but I’m not comfortable with rancor among us Saints. Quote 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. That is not my concept, but I’ll leave it at that. Edited August 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: Oh, I agree completely. And yes, social norms are often arbitrary. I guess I err on the side I’m 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. I think we are more on the same side than would appear. Has anyone here advocated for the extremes that you describe?
CV75 Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 31 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: 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? Yes, I have noticed and I certainly respect that. The various examples of one-on-one correction that have been throughout the thread seem to be fairly well-balanced approaches, which not everyone can execute in a positive way and for this reason I don't think can be implemented by way of a uniform (oops, pun! 😀) procedure. I think schools have more latitude in enforcing dress codes than the Church does due to how their regulations are structured with built-in consequences, which FTSOY or the Handbooks do not have. I think a Church youth event can rightly be promoted as a "Sunday-dress" or "FTSOY-mindful" event. I don't see how these expectations can be enforced, but rather youth and parents can be invited to address a leader's or chaperone's concerns one-on-one, whether in the moment or later on. If there are too many exceptions to deal with, the problem has to be addressed outside of the event and spearheaded by prayerful leadership. I think this is a great subject for council discussion! 3
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: 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. 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. Thank you for the thoughtful and informative post. I could not agree more.Olease add more to the discussion.
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 1 hour ago, ttribe said: <--------Still find it fascinating that the primary "defenders" of the current LDS-cultural norms in terms of modesty are men. There is only a small number of posters in this thread compared with the numbers of viewers. Why is it fascinating?
jkwilliams Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: To the point of accusing a defender of modesty of being a pervert, of course. Not an accusation, a caution. That's a matter of subjective opinion. No, it really isn’t. Nowhere did I come close to accusing a defender of modesty of being a pervert.
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: 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. I’m all for truth and correct understandings.
strappinglad Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 The breeze created here by folks talking past each other is disturbing my toupee. I also have chaperoned HS dances. The dress codes were generally followed but we had a rule against coming intoxicated to the dance or bringing any form of alcohol into the building. The excuse of " I just had one beer" didn't pass muster . The kid was escorted out and parents were called to come get him/her. Police were called if a fuss was made. If the person was found out on the floor drunk I have stopped the music, turned up the lights and told the persons friends to help them out. Over the years I have seen fewer and fewer dances because no teachers were prepared to confront the problems of not only the offenders but also the parents who were belligerent. Times have changed and entitlement is the stance of the day. Could I/would I do the same for a dress code violation? Back then , yes... today.. not likely. I would be accused of " looking " and be labeled a " person who should control his thoughts " What's the word for that ? Anyone... anyone ....Beuller ... BG ?
BlueDreams Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: 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? I don't get what you're asking me. Over all beyond just being a "discussion killer," The point I saw you inferring didn't seem to be supporting what you were trying to argue in the first place. Physiological arousal happens to everybody. With luv, BD
jkwilliams Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I think we are more on the same side than would appear. Has anyone here advocated for the extremes that you describe? The church magazines have. That’s what I was commenting on. I raised 6 children, all of whom have strong standards of modesty. But I hate this idea that I was supposed to teach my 4 year old that there’s something wrong with sleeveless tops. Let the kids enjoy childhood without obsessing about dress standards. But no, I have not equated teaching modesty with perversion. That is completely uncalled for.
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 1 hour 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.” Do you think it is possible to express concern about modesty without being a real deviant or n danger of being labeled as such? I do. I hope you do to. That is the point of Gui’s Law.
jkwilliams Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 Just now, Bernard Gui said: Do you think it is possible to express concern about modesty without being a real deviant or n danger of being labeled as such? I do. I hope you do to. That is the point of Gui’s Law. Of course I do, and I have not said anything to suggest otherwise. And that isn’t a matter of subjective opinion.
ttribe Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: There is only a small number of posters in this thread compared with the numbers of viewers. Why is it fascinating? Because, 1) much of the discussion has been on what constitutes modesty for women; and 2) the defending men seem to be giving very little weight to what the women participating in this thread have to say about the subject. Edited August 28, 2018 by ttribe 1
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 1 hour ago, ttribe said: 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. As is your right. It has riveted your attention, though, hasn’t it, as you seem equally bent on demonizing it. Have you not seen it faithfully played out over the decades? Back to the topic, how would you amend the Church modesty standards to make them more equitable and viable (avoiduping the term enforceable)? Does it need amending? Do you think they serve a purpose?
california boy Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 25 minutes ago, ttribe said: Answer to Q1 - Because "sustain local leaders" Answer to Q2 - Because they agree with it. So this thread is about a couple of fanatics trying to impose their values on a policy that the church does not have. I don't get why anyone cares if someone thinks women should never wear shorts, capri pants or swimming suits without a tee shirt. If it is not church policy, it should not be a requirement
BlueDreams Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: 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. I agree with what you say. The problem with this particular subject is the chicken v. egg dilemma. For instance, the subject of objectification of less clothed women may be tied to how society in general portrays women and their roles when they are dressed in less. In societies where less clothes is the norm it would likely not have the same effect. So often instead of a causal relationship, it's more like these studies are capturing a snapshot of the problem our current society struggles with. With luv, BD 3
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 1 hour 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? No. That appears to be a hyper vigilant reaction some leaders have had when setting dress codes for youth activities. For me the issue is that we have a guidelines set forth in the FTSOTY pamphlet that is an approved Church-wide standard. How those guidelines are interpreted may vary from place to place,. Some may take them with a grain of salt, some may extrapolate all manner of restrictions. Since we have the standards, what do we do with them? How do we make them meaningful and viable (avoiding the use of “enforce them)? 1 hour ago, california boy said: 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? This is where the comb meets the hair. As far as running around the mall, going to school (which probably has its own set of standards), hanging out at a burger joint, or sitting around the living room, thst’s between the youth and the parents. The problem seems to be what to do when standards are challenged at Church sponsored activities and how we teach and encourage kids to keep the standards.
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 1 hour ago, ttribe said: It's local leadership roulette on the interpretation of Church policy and guidance. It’s human nature.
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 50 minutes ago, ttribe said: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Gui. Indeed. Emphasis on Mr.
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 47 minutes ago, california boy said: If it is not church policy, then why don't the girls simply say, sorry, but I am not going to follow YOUR arbitrary rules. There could be more productive ways to handle concerns. 47 minutes ago, california boy said: And if it is not policy, then why us ANYONE defending this kind of behavior? What kind of behavior? Who is defending it?
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 43 minutes ago, CV75 said: Yes, I have noticed and I certainly respect that. The various examples of one-on-one correction that have been throughout the thread seem to be fairly well-balanced approaches, which not everyone can execute in a positive way and for this reason I don't think can be implemented by way of a uniform (oops, pun! 😀) procedure. I think schools have more latitude in enforcing dress codes than the Church does due to how their regulations are structured with built-in consequences, which FTSOY or the Handbooks do not have. I think a Church youth event can rightly be promoted as a "Sunday-dress" or "FTSOY-mindful" event. I don't see how these expectations can be enforced, but rather youth and parents can be invited to address a leader's or chaperone's concerns one-on-one, whether in the moment or later on. If there are too many exceptions to deal with, the problem has to be addressed outside of the event and spearheaded by prayerful leadership. I think this is a great subject for council discussion! Indeed. I could not agree more. Reasonable people can figure these things out without resorting to anger or bitterness. A meeting of parents, leaders, and youth to discuss expectations would be in order, but my experience is that it can easily get out of hand. What would you do at the door if you were in a position of observing (I’m avoiding the use of the word enforcing) standards at a youth activity and someone came in violation??
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, california boy said: So this thread is about a couple of fanatics trying to impose their values on a policy that the church does not have. I don't get why anyone cares if someone thinks women should never wear shorts, capri pants or swimming suits without a tee shirt. If it is not church policy, it should not be a requirement Before calling them names, it might help to understand the circumstances in which the decisions were made, the people and area involved, their intentions, etc.Without the whole story, we cannot know if they were operating out of ill-will or malice. Edited August 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui
ttribe Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Before calling them names, it might help to understand the circumstances in which the decisions were made, the people and area involved, their intentions, etc.Without the whole story, we cannot know if they were operating out of ill-will or malice. No one said anything about "ill-will or malice."
Recommended Posts