Modesty issues...again

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 hours ago, rongo said:

While men still struggle with masturbation and pornography far more than women, these things are increasing significantly among women, based on my experiences with LDS women confessions over the last 12 years. I think this trend in "masculinization" of women is very troubling.

We have discussed this in our recent stake presidency meetings. Our bishops have been very clear that automatically assuming porn use is a male problem does not match the reality in their wards at all. I disagree, however, that this is a 'masculinisation' of women in any way as per my post above.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Really. I have answered every post addressed to me, and there are a ton of them, with comments and further questions, sometimes in great detail, seeking to find some common ground on this issue. In comparison, I have said very little about the Law, most of that with you and a couple others. You seem to have a shtick stuck in your craw. 

That's not what I've seen here, but my opinion doesn't really matter on the issue.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We have discussed this in our recent stake presidency meetings. Our bishops have been very clear that automatically assuming porn use is a male problem does not match the reality in their wards at all. I disagree, however, that this is a 'masculinisation' of women in any way as per my post above.

What I mean by that is the cultural pressure to act "manly," especially as to publicly drawing attention to sex drive, etc. (catcalling, locker  room talk, etc.). It is a cultural expectation among women in some quarters, and it is starting to manifest itself in things that were formerly male problems. One example, reported by military chaplains, is the fact that a couple of decades ago, pin-ups and the like were completely absent from female barracks (we all know what was to be expected in the men's). Now: lots of pin-ups and crude pictures in the female dorms. I think a lot of this is play-acting on the part of women who have been conditioned by society and media to act like horn-dog men. I think it's a contrived act that becomes reality, in many cases, and it's sad. We're seeing it in the Church, too. 

[Bernard Gui]

59 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I think it's important when discussing this to ask what are we actually wanting to teach people about their bodies. The messages I received inadvertently taught me that I was likely to be extra-penalized for being attractive. That others could judge for me as to how to manage my body. And that I should spend hours to try and "fit" what was expected so I could participate in basic things such as exercise. Rigid proscriptions as to what I should wear left me feeling more objectified. Not less.

Thanks for sharing your experiences. Not pleasant. Could you ask them what you should do to be more acceptable? While not comparable with your experience, I was called out of the BYU registration line because my moustaches dipped below the corner of my mouth. My impulsive reaction was to point out several other students standing in the line who also had dress code violations. I went home, and indeed, I was pushing the envelope and they were too long. I had wanted to look cool with my band when we played in the tram Room at Snowbird ski resort on the weekends. 

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's not what I've seen here, but my opinion doesn't really matter on the issue.

As you wish.

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It really is hard to carry on a conversation with people who say you’re flirting with an ugly accusation you haven’t made. Very frustrating, such that it makes one question whether the conversation is in good faith. 

And to jump to conclusions about other’s feelings and intentions. It works both ways. We could talk about how to make the guidelines better. Any suggestions?

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

What I mean by that is the cultural pressure to act "manly," especially as to publicly drawing attention to sex drive, etc. (catcalling, locker  room talk, etc.).

I understand. I just meant to point out that, viewed against the backdrop of cultural differences across historical time and geographical space, there is nothing inherently 'male' about such behaviour.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We could talk about how to make the guidelines better. Any suggestions?

Serious question: why are you so opposed to leaving the guidelines as they now are whilst expecting members not to harrass others with their personal interpretations of the guidelines?

Edited August 28, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

The only reason why "vigorous complaint" would have occurred is because a knowledgeable moderator was not on the board. Something like that would have been immediately deleted as soon as a mod who knew how to delete a thread as aware of it.  Sheesh, we immediately deleted as soon a reference to someone's post elsewhere about buying a car.  

actually we never deleted anything (except one new mod who didn't realize that), we just hid it so we had record of repeat behaviour in case someone needed to be banned and argued against it.  I was hyper about privacy, still am and Pacumeni appeared to share my concern as far as I could tell.  I doubt Rory and the rest of the nonLDS moderators would have allowed it either.  

Let's get back on topic.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The only reason why "vigorous complaint" would have occurred is because a knowledgeable moderator was not on the board. Something like that would have been immediately deleted as soon as a mod who knew how to delete a thread as aware of it.  Sheesh, we immediately deleted as soon a reference to someone's post elsewhere about buying a car.  

actually we never deleted anything (except one new mod who didn't realize that), we just hid it so we had record of repeat behaviour in case someone needed to be banned and argued against it.  I was hyper about privacy, still am and Pacumeni appeared to share my concern as far as I could tell.  I doubt Rory and the rest of the nonLDS moderators would have allowed it either.  

As I’ve said when recounting this incident before, I don’t recall you being involved. 

On that occasion, the one fielding complaints (plural, not singular; I made a typo) was a moderator going by the handle of Gadianton. His response at first was to delete all of Bernard’s posts, thinking that would safeguard Bernard’s reputation from the libelous innuendo. I promptly complained that the only thing that accomplished was to privilege Bernard’s maligners, as it appeared to leave their insinuations unchallenged. 

The next day, it appeared the entire thread was deleted. I can only assume that someone else showed up at the moderator post (evidently not you, as you don’t recall it) and took things in hand. I don’t think Gadianton would have deleted the thread on his own initiative. He was no great friend of  Bernard, me or the other Latter-day Saint defenders on that board.

As Bernard mentioned, from that day forward, he ceased to post under his real name. He has posted as Bernard Gui ever since, even after he migrated over to this board (or its predecessor). 

That’s my recollection. I suppose Bernard could fill in other details if he chooses to do so. 

If this derail continues, posters are going to be removed from the thread.

[BlueDreams]

38 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for sharing your experiences. Not pleasant. Could you ask them what you should do to be more acceptable? While not comparable with your experience, I was called out of the BYU registration line because my moustaches dipped below the corner of my mouth. My impulsive reaction was to point out several other students standing in the line who also had dress code violations. I went home, and indeed, I was pushing the envelope and they were too long. I had wanted to look cool with my band when we played in the tram Room at Snowbird ski resort on the weekends. 

I believe i and others have already mentioned what we would do in considerable detail...several that i agree in full with. Mine basically dalls along the lines of “teach basic/correct principles and let them govern themselves.” In the most extreme cases where their behaviors may pose a threat or danger to others/themselves, then intervene.

In your mustache case that could mean nothing would be done. At the same time, a mustache isn’t generally considered an indication whether one is “modest” or not. It’s purely a dress code. The examples i’m giving and that are tied to women’s apparel more often run into people assuming our virtue, modesty, appropriateness, and/or ladylike behavior. I have no problem with dress codes in general as long as what is asked isnt then seen as indicative of some greater sense of morality based on how well one follows a uniform or custom. The YW’s camp and church activities for youth mentioned in the OP with said curtailments for women as i grew up often were used as an indication of just that and more. 

 

with luv, 

BD

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I had to look it up to remind myself...and I don't believe I have seen any tendency towards it in this thread.  People are disagreeing about what is modesty and how to teach it and some other things, in no way does that imply anyone here is a pervert or approaches one.

All you have to do is look at my signature line. 

[kllindley]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

So you believe that clothing can sexually harass and demean?  But only the words or logos on the clothes?

[kllindley]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

Males are not required to alter their otherwise reasonable behavior to keep from suffering because of the biology of females.

Please tell me this is satire. Seriously, please. 

[why me]

The modesty issue just needs to be fair. Boys should also be modest, especially during coed events. Unfortunately, for boys, the chest can be seen, which is not for the girls. This is a makeup of biology and what the human mind deems to be sexual and not sexual. In the Quran, men must be covered from the navel to the knee, which means that the private parts need to be covered. For women, the Quranic verse has been interpreted to mean for many muslim groupings, but not all, to be everything covered by a loose fitting garment but not the face and hands. Which means that women need to be covered to protect the spiritual life of men. And it also means that the male chest is not a sexual object for women.

So  how to make the modesty equal for all sexes? That is the question. Should boys wear t-shirts when they swim at coed events? Or when they swim at boys only events? What is the solution? It seems from implication, that the male species is more tempted by the female body and women are less tempted by the male body. Is this true?

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by why me

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

All you have to do is look at my signature line. 

I dont include sig lines, they are on ignore as I lose interest after the first three times as they take up too much space for the benefit, except Nehor’swhich makes me smile every time. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

“s. Unfortunately,for boys, the chest can be seen, which is not for the girls.This is a makeup of biology and what the human mind deems to be sexual and not sexual”

No, there is nothing, no inherent biology that deems what is and isn’t sexual except in a few cases. It is a cultural standard that a man’s chest is modest no matter howshapely but not a woman's even is practically flat. 

“. Is this true?“

Not generally,depends on their culture for the most part. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Calm

[Rain]

 

6 hours 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?

Girls don't say it because they want to go and if they don't follow the rules they are not allowed to go.  

Talking calmly and logically about the rules with some leaders doesn't always work.  The last camp that my daughter went to with these rules had more serious issues with the local stake YWP that needed to have priority. I was very grateful she had excellent ward leaders.

 

 

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

I would amend FTSOY just as bluebell described several pages back. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Serious question: why are you so opposed to leaving the guidelines as they now are whilst expecting members not to harrass others with their personal interpretations of the guidelines?

You misunderstand my intentions. I totally support the guidelines. There was a lot of criticism being expressed here about the them so I proposed we make a rewrite that would solve all the perceived problems... everyone who was dissatisfied to give some ideas how the FTSOYT dress standards could be improved or to express support of the current ones.. My object was to find a way to bring the disparate views together with something that was viable and to eliminate the ambiguities and personal interpretations that some find problematic. 

[Bernard Gui]

I didn’t ask you to repeat the suggestions that you and others had already given. 

Of course, as I stated, my experience was not on a par with yours....just to show I can relate to being singled out for a dress code violation at BYU. It was embarrassing and  unpleasant. I was certainly at fault. Looking back, I’m embarrassed by my impulsive reaction to deflect blame on to others.

As to it being just a dress code issue: I had signed an agreement that I would abide by the rules as a condition of attendance, and I purposely broke that oath of which I am not proud. Without compliance, I would not have been allowed to register for my classes. My reason for challenging the code was pride and the vanity of wanting to appear to be cool in front of my band members and a rowdy international non-member drinking crowd in a very hip environment. I had been taught correct principles and agreed to abide by them, but did not govern myself, hence a confrontation I could have avoided with a little self-restraint...another aspect of modesty.

Oath-breaking, pride, vanity, and seeking the praise of men instead of obeying the Lord  reflect on one’s moral character. I learned from the experience.

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I believe i and others have already mentioned what we would do in considerable detail...several that i agree in full with. Mine basically dalls along the lines of “teach basic/correct principles and let them govern themselves.” In the most extreme cases where their behaviors may pose a threat or danger to others/themselves, then intervene.

In your mustache case that could mean nothing would be done. At the same time, a mustache isn’t generally considered an indication whether one is “modest” or not. It’s purely a dress code. The examples i’m giving and that are tied to women’s apparel more often run into people assuming our virtue, modesty, appropriateness, and/or ladylike behavior. I have no problem with dress codes in general as long as what is asked isnt then seen as indicative of some greater sense of morality based on how well one follows a uniform or custom. The YW’s camp and church activities for youth mentioned in the OP with said curtailments for women as i grew up often were used as an indication of just that and more. 

with luv, 

BD

 

[Rain]

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You misunderstand my intentions. I totally support the guidelines. There was a lot of criticism being expressed here about the them so I proposed we make a rewrite that would solve all the perceived problems... everyone who was dissatisfied to give some ideas how the FTSOYT dress standards could be improved or to express support of the current ones.. My object was to find a way to bring the disparate views together with something that was viable and to eliminate the ambiguities and personal interpretations that some find problematic. 

You misunderstood. There really wasn't a lot of criticism. The vast majority of us, as far as I could tell, felt something as simple as what Bluebell stated would work in the FTSOY. We keep repeating that we don't need a big overhaul of it. We would just like local leaders to not be making additions to it.

We would love to have our children understand the doctrine rather than applying a bunch of little rules, especially inconsistantly.  Over and over again I feel like you ask us what rules we would put in it and it makes me wonder when you reply to one of us if you actually heard what we said.

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, why me said:

The modesty issue just needs to be fair. Boys should also be modest, especially during coed events. Unfortunately, for boys, the chest can be seen, which is not for the girls. This is a makeup of biology and what the human mind deems to be sexual and not sexual. In the Quran, men must be covered from the navel to the knee, which means that the private parts need to be covered. For women, the Quranic verse has been interpreted to mean for many muslim groupings, but not all, to be everything covered by a loose fitting garment but not the face and hands. Which means that women need to be covered to protect the spiritual life of men. And it also means that the male chest is not a sexual object for women.

So  how to make the modesty equal for all sexes? That is the question. Should boys wear t-shirts when they swim at coed events? Or when they swim at boys only events? What is the solution? It seems from implication, that the male species is more tempted by the female body and women are less tempted by the male body. Is this true?

 

It seems to be something that most people thought was true, but is actually false. That doesn’t comport with my experience, but perhaps I grew up in a bubble. It appears to be at the heart of heated debates about LDS modesty in dress. We would need to agree on a definition or some variation of it to be able to compose a viable modest dress policy we can all support. That doesn’t appear to be impossible to do.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Oath-breaking, pride, vanity, and seeking the praise of men instead of obeying the Lord  reflect on one’s moral character. I learned from the experience.

So if someone points out that 'enforcement' of inherently ambiguous dress-code rules can feel very arbitrary, your response is to gently suggest that the person reflect on whether her oath-breaking, pride, vanity and desire for the praise of men aren't the real issue?

Yeah, I have absolutely no clue why, according to your own admission, you found being the dress-code enforcer at both school and Church dances so unpleasant and prone to descend into confrontation ... 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, Rain said:

You misunderstood. There really wasn't a lot of criticism. The vast majority of us, as far as I could tell, felt something as simple as what Bluebell stated would work in the FTSOY. We keep repeating that we don't need a big overhaul of it. We would just like local leaders to not be making additions to it.

We would love to have our children understand the doctrine rather than applying a bunch of little rules, especially inconsistantly.  Over and over again I feel like you ask us what rules we would put in it and it makes me wonder when you reply to one of us if you actually heard what we said.

 

Perhaps you are right. There were a number of criticisms of LDS dress standards in addition to what you describe. Some questioned their ambiguity, unfairness, subjectivity, and some even referred to absurdity of the dress code, the FTSOTY, and how they can be misinterpreted and misapplied by some. Certainly not all these criticisms were mean-spirited, sour grapes, etc. Many expressed legitimate frustrations. But they evidenced a feeling that the standards themselves or how the were applied were defective in some ways. Later responses included sharper criticism of the standards. I asked if there are suggestions for ways they could be done better. My intent was to come up with guidelines (not rules....several times I recognized the futility of making such rules) that we could agree upon to make things better and reduce the difficulties we face when confronted with standards-testers at activities.. It apparently did not come across that way. I will try to be a better listener in the future.

For example, 

Quote

I always thought it was absurd to impose strict dress standards at girls' camp. 

That there is no way in our framework/worldview to be neither modest nor immodest ("what did they used to call it again, Grandma?")--but rather human beings wearing clothes, or not as the case may be.

this kind of attitude (IMO) is getting old.  Time to give young girls credit for common sense and decency without even the mention of "modest".

Where in the dictionary is modesty defined as knee length shorts or covered shoulders?

I find the concept of modesty as expressed in these fliers to be ridiculous. Modesty is a lot more than hem lines and dress codes. I grew up in the 70’s and it was not like this back then. I think the emphasis on dress codes for girls has been unhealthy. 

Some of it though is that most boys find the way our church usually teaches about modesty to be irrelevant to them, other than those times when a church leader teaches them that girls need to be modest to help them remain moral.  

Modesty standards in the church are ambiguous. For The Strength if Youth is highly subjective..

Even if the church allows fabric to the knee, wouldn't it be better if we went ahead to burka if the issue was ACTUALLY if a man sees a part of our body, then we are in danger?  This is like when a person reads the Word of Wisdom--the church mandates so much--but wouldn't it be better to live the whole law? 

The short answer is the female body is sexualized in our broader American culture, and Mormons are very sensitive to sexuality and avoiding any appearance of it.  FTSoY phamplet amplifies this is issue as do temple garments because of misperceptions about the length of those garments being a guide of some kind that communicates modesty.  It’s kind of a mess. 

My friend is very conservative and she thought the dress code was ridiculous, especially because they reiterated over and over again that any girl not dressed appropriately would be asked to leave.  

The double-standard seems to be coming from the stake YW leaders.

Wouldn't it be great if the church dance had long paragraphs on how to listen, how to recognize boundaries and follow the boundaries of others, how to make sure everyone feels included etc. etc. - wouldn't it be great if there was a long paragraph on positive interactions instead of long paragraphs on what not to wear?

Those kinds of teachings also teach boys that they have a stake in how girls dress and that "good" girls always dress with the needs of boys in mind.  That's not a healthy thing to imply to teenage boys at all.

Exactly. They grow up thinking they can assess female bodies and demand protection from their own deviant thoughts throughout their lives. 

For some members of the LDS Church, modesty seems to be mostly about how much skin is shown....

IMO modesty is situational. There may be some absolutes that are appropriate for all situations, but I think that some LDS have too many absolutes.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So if someone points out that 'enforcement' of inherently ambiguous dress-code rules can feel very arbitrary, your response is to gently suggest that the person reflect on whether her oath-breaking, pride, vanity and desire for the praise of men aren't the real issue?

Oh no! Please don’t misunderstand. I was simply recounting my experience as a dress code violator and what I learned about myself.  It was in response to someone who had had a very unfortunate experience. There was absolutely no intention to shame her or suggest I think that applies to her or to anyone else, gently or otherwise. She did nothing wrong. I did. IPlease.

Quote

Yeah, I have absolutely no clue why, according to your own admission, you found being the dress-code enforcer at both school and Church dances so unpleasant and prone to descend into confrontation ... 

I don’t understand this comment. Could you explain?

Edited August 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui