Modesty issues...again

[pogi]

I am trying to understand the position of other posters on here.  It seems to be the position of some, that people are not accountable for how their dress and appearance might affect other's thoughts.  Is that a fair statement?  If a man man is affected by the way a female "provocatively" dresses, she has no accountability whatsoever?  It is the man who needs to control his thoughts while the female intentionally (or not) dresses in provocative ways?  Females can internalize sexual objectification messages and begin to dress and act as a sexual object to garner acceptance and attention.  It is sad, and I don't know what the best way to combat this is.  I certainly don't think the best way is to make girls wear knee length shorts and shirts while swimming. Having said that, there must be accountability and responsibility for how we dress.  To say that we don't have influence on others seems to miss the mark.  

I would post a picture as an example of a provocative dress, but I am at work...probably not the best to be looking up stuff like that   I am sure that you have all seen them and know what I am talking about.  I wish that I could post one to serve as a good case study.  But I think it is clear that the internalization of sexual objectification is evident in how some females dress and act.  Are we really saying that there is absolutely NO accountability on these women for how they dress?  To socially protest the provocative nature of some outfits and the overt self-sexual objectification to protect both young men AND young women from their influence is wrong?

What I am trying to say is that I understand that some in the church can take it too far, but to say that there is NO line that can be crossed seems problematic to me. To say that 'I can wear whatever I want, and if it adversely affects you, it is because you can't control your thoughts and has nothing to do with what I am wearing' seems to miss the mark.  

If we really think it is the boys fault for being adversely affected by the way some females dress, and that the female has no accountability, then should we equally blame young girls for being influenced by the way other females dress and the internalizing of sexual objectification?  To do away with all expectations and accountability is to do away with modesty all together. 

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's likely true, but is a flaw/weakness of men and not something that needs to be addressed to women or girls as a reason God wants them to be modest.

You've had great comments throughout this thread! Thanks.

But I'll quibble just a bit with this as bit because I don't think it's a flaw/weakness for sight to be a part of male arousal. I don't want to get creepy so I won't go into detail but it is a very natural thing. A swimsuit or clothing doesn't have to be revealing at all to catch attention from men/boys. That's how God made us. If I'm not mistaken the animal kingdom is replete with examples of arousal based on sight. It's a part of life.

But unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, men have the ability to control their actions and they should be expected to. Blaming women for being attractive to men is absurd. Placing extra restrictions on them because they may be viewed as "too appealing" to men is offensive and they should bear no responsibility for a man's thoughts. The man is responsible. Claiming otherwise is offensive to both men and women but women seem to bear the brunt of the shaming. 

The list you shared above is all correct but terribly sad. Those negative male behaviors can and should be controlled. When they aren't, only the man is to blame

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's likely true, but is a flaw/weakness of men and not something that needs to be addressed to women or girls as a reason God wants them to be modest.

Why?  What is wrong with teaching awareness and accountability for how we may positively or negatively influence and affect others?

Immodest dress does not only negatively affect boys/men.  It also adversely affects and influences girls/women. 

Sexual arousal is not a weakness/flaw.  Dressing to sexually arouse others for attention and acceptance is. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by pogi

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

 

The standards in the FSOY.  The FSOY says nothing about not wearing certain types of clothing if you want to be welcome at church activities.  The hedges I'm referring to are the extra rules that leaders make up (no shorts, no capris, no leggings, no shoulders, no swimsuits, no skinny jeans, no form fitting shirts-or you can't participate!).

Quote

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

I used "good enough" to describe your example of those kids you felt were not dressed appropriately for the church dance.  It was not my judgment call but my way of describing your judgment calls when you were acting as 'bouncer'. 

Quote

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.

You said-"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."  You seemed to be using this as a reason for why it's good not to let kids participate in activities if they aren't 'dressed appropriately'.

I asked the question about sacrament meeting to illustrate that I don't agree that modesty should be a gatekeeping issue (because I believed that you would obviously answer it 'no').  If immodest clothing is not going to get someone kicked out of our most sacred meeting (sacrament meeting), then why should it get someone kicked out of girls camp or a church dance?

Like I said before, i agree with using dress codes for church stuff.  I believe in teaching modesty and in asking the youth to follow the FTSOY guidelines, but if someone shows up and they are not following the rules, I don't agree with sending them home.

 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You've had great comments throughout this thread! Thanks.

But I'll quibble just a bit with this as bit because I don't think it's a flaw/weakness for sight to be a part of male arousal. I don't want to get creepy so I won't go into detail but it is a very natural thing. A swimsuit or clothing doesn't have to be revealing at all to catch attention from men/boys. That's how God made us. If I'm not mistaken the animal kingdom is replete with examples of arousal based on sight. It's a part of life.

But unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, men have the ability to control their actions and they should be expected to. Blaming women for being attractive to men is absurd. Placing extra restrictions on them because they may be viewed as "too appealing" to men is offensive and they should bear no responsibility for a man's thoughts. The man is responsible. Claiming otherwise is offensive to both men and women but women seem to bear the brunt of the shaming. 

The list you shared above is all correct but terribly sad. Those negative male behaviors can and should be controlled. When they aren't, only the man is to blame

I'll clarify.  It's not a flaw/weakness that men are visual beings.  I think it's a flaw/weakness when men allow themselves to view anyone as 'walking porn'.   Just being aroused is not the same thing as looking at pornography, in my view.  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I'll clarify.  It's not a flaw/weakness that men are visual beings.  I think it's a flaw/weakness when men allow themselves to view anyone as 'walking porn'.   Just being aroused is not the same thing as looking at pornography, in my view.  

Totally agree! Very degrading view of the individual.

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You've had great comments throughout this thread! Thanks.

But I'll quibble just a bit with this as bit because I don't think it's a flaw/weakness for sight to be a part of male arousal. I don't want to get creepy so I won't go into detail but it is a very natural thing. A swimsuit or clothing doesn't have to be revealing at all to catch attention from men/boys. That's how God made us. If I'm not mistaken the animal kingdom is replete with examples of arousal based on sight. It's a part of life.

But unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, men have the ability to control their actions and they should be expected to. Blaming women for being attractive to men is absurd. Placing extra restrictions on them because they may be viewed as "too appealing" to men is offensive and they should bear no responsibility for a man's thoughts. The man is responsible. Claiming otherwise is offensive to both men and women but women seem to bear the brunt of the shaming. 

The list you shared above is all correct but terribly sad. Those negative male behaviors can and should be controlled. When they aren't, only the man is to blame

Excellent point about it not being a flaw/weakness!  

I would disagree that women should bear some responsibility for how she dresses and how it affects boys/men's thoughts, and how it also adversely affects and influences girls/women's thoughts.  The internalization of sexual-objectification is real.  How women dress adversely affects how little girls perceive themselves.  Women absolutely should be responsible for how way they dress and the message they send affects other's thoughts. 

[Rain]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am trying to understand the position of female posters on here.  It seems to be the position of some, that people are not accountable for how their dress and appearance might affect other's thoughts.  Is that a fair statement?  If a man man is affected by the way a female "provocatively" dresses, she has no accountability whatsoever?  It is the man who needs to control his thoughts while the female intentionally (or not) dresses in provocative ways?  Females can internalize sexual objectification messages and begin to dress and act as a sexual object to garner acceptance and attention.  It is sad, and I don't know what the best way to combat this is.  I certainly don't think the best way is to make girls wear knee length shorts and shirts while swimming. Having said that, there must be accountability and responsibility for how we dress.  To say that we don't have influence on others seems to miss the mark.  

I would post a picture as an example of a provocative dress, but I am at work...probably not the best to be looking up stuff like that   I am sure that you have all seen them and know what I am talking about.  I wish that I could post one to serve as a good case study.  But I think it is clear that the internalization of sexual objectification is evident in how some females dress and act.  Are we really saying that there is absolutely NO accountability on these women for how they dress?  To socially protest the provocative nature of some outfits and the overt self-sexual objectification to protect both young men AND young women from their influence is wrong?

What I am trying to say is that I understand that some in the church can take it too far, but to say that there is NO line that can be crossed seems problematic to me. To say that 'I can wear whatever I want, and if it adversely affects you, it is because you can't control your thoughts and has nothing to do with what I am wearing' seems to miss the mark.  

If we really think it is the boys fault for being adversely affected by the way some females dress, and that the female has no accountability, then should we equally blame young girls for being influenced by the way other females dress and the internalizing of sexual objectification?  To do away with all expectations and accountability is to do away with modesty all together. 

 

Each of us is responsible/accountable for our own actions and thoughts. If a person, whether male or female, dresses to provoke feelings in others then they are responsible for how they dress - they are not responsible for how someone else thinks or feels. If a person, whether male or female, is enticed by how someone dresses and thinks thoughts not consistant with how a saint should be thinking they are responsible for those thoughts and not responsible for how the other person dresses.

Now it is important to keep the idea in mind that The Living Christ states, "Each of us will stand to be judged of Him according to our works and the desires of our hearts." We are responsible for both our actions/thoughts and our desire to control those actions and thoughts. I believe desires and works are stated together for a very compassionate reason because sometimes our desires to be righteous seem to be in a losing battle with our thoughts and feelings.

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Rain

[Calm]

Outside of the Church and a few friends who hang around Latter-day Saints, do The Church's teachings have much, if any impact on the greater society (Not saying we shouldn't try to have an impact, just talking about the practicalities of life)?

If not, then what is a Latter-day Saint man going to do every timewhen he runs into women that are not members and do not dress according to the standards of the Church and maybe even the standards of the local social community?  Are they not going to have to learn to control their own thoughts in each of these cases or are they given a pass by God as asking too much of them since all these women are ignoring God's commandments (or at least the Latter-day US current interpretation of them) so they can to?

Latter-day Saint men last I checked do not live in a bubble.  Why talk about them as if they do?

You can certainly hold the world accountable for putting you in situations that test your ability to control your thoughts, even when others are trying to manipulate them (any form of advertising).  That isn't going to change what the world is doing one iota imo.

[SouthernMo]

If the goal of institutionalizing female modesty is to reduce the sexual attraction of men, I submit the current 'modesty' standards are incomplete and not well thought out.

The effect of high heels is interesting.  When women wear them, they push out a woman's back side, her chest rises, and the added height makes her appear more slender.  These are all things that make her more sexually attractive to men.  Perhaps an address on high heels is in order?

Do church leaders need to address make-up?  The purpose of make-up is to make women look more attractive (let's call this sexually appealing).  Why is the face a body part that church leaders and society generally view as acceptable to be sexualized? I am far more turned on by a beautiful face than I am a nice thigh or a shoulder.

What about certain interactions between men and women?  I'm far more likely to cheat on my wife because a woman is kind to me, and laughs at my jokes.  Seeing a shoulder doesn't sexually effect me nearly as much as a woman's kindness to me.  Maybe church leaders should encourage women not to laugh at men's jokes or be kind to them because it contributes to sexual interest?

If church leaders expect women not to be porn, and to help protect men from our natural deviancy (which is RIDICULOUS - I alone am responsible for my feelings and actions), then why not address the issues that contribute more to sexual interest/attraction than bare shoulders and knees?

Pardon me for being so passionate and for the long post, but the solution to this supposed problem of female immodesty seems simple to me:

For women - Tell them that what they do/wear/say has an effect on men, and inform them about those effects without shame or blame of any kind.  Heck, we could even encourage affecting men in some healthy cases.  Who doesn't want to look good in the right way at the right time for the right people!  Then, let them make their own decisions, and never, ever ban someone from an event because of their modesty choices.

For men - Tell them that they, and they alone are responsible for their thoughts and actions.  If a man believes that a woman is being overtly sexual towards him in a way that makes him feel uncomfortable, then he does not have to interact with her.  He can choose his thoughts, and he can choose his potential mates.  He should factor in all he knows about a woman in his choice (including her appearance and choices) for a partner.

[juliann]

Pogi, I don’t care if a woman is naked. She bears no responsibility for what a man thinks or does anymore than you bear responsibility for what a thief thinks or does by going to an ATM. 

Something some of the men here might want to analyze is why it is so difficult for them to separate men’s thoughts from “modesty.” They are completely different topics. To condemn the idea that men’s thoughts are a woman’s responsibility is not condemning using wisdom in how one dresses. 

I think BB said it well, we are just done with what men demand from us for their own benefit. That expectation is demeaning and damaging to girls who are being told there is something wrong with their shoulders and knees at shockingly young ages. 

When I was in the YW presidency 15 years ago, the president thought it would be a great idea to have big T-shirts available for offending girls. There was dead silence until I said those girls might not return. Then the others spoke against it. I don’t think it takes much for this to stop because it is appalling. Somebody, with social capital, needs to object to these insulting camp rules. 

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why?  What is wrong with teaching awareness and accountability for how we may positively or negatively influence and affect others?

Nothing.  It's good to teach girls these kinds of things, so they can better protect themselves and manage their interactions with men.  I think it's wrong to teach women and girls that God wants them to be modest because of how their bodies affect men sexually.

Quote

Immodest dress does not only negatively affect boys/men.  It also adversely affects and influences girls/women. 

I feel that teachings on modesty should focus on our own selves, and not being modest for the opposite sex.  

Quote

Sexual arousal is not a weakness/flaw.  Dressing to sexually arouse others for attention and acceptance is. 

Sexual arousal is not a weakness/flaw, but looking at a woman to lust after her is (not just a weakness, but a sin).  Some of the men on this thread have pointed out that the biology of males is designed to see women as sexual objects.  To the degree that that is true, that is a weakness.  

Edit to say--and I agree that intentionally dressing to inappropriately sexually arouse someone is a sin as well.  

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by bluebell

[pogi]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

Each of us is responsible for our own actions and thoughts. If a person, whether male or female, dresses to provoke feelings in others then they are responsible for how they dress - they are not responsible for how someone else thinks or feels. If a person, whether male or female, is enticed by how someone dresses and thinks thoughts not consistant with how a saint should be thinking they are responsible for those thoughts and not responsible for how the other person dresses.

Now it is important to keep the idea in mind that The Living Christ states, "Each of us will stand to be judged of Him according to our works and the desires of our hearts." We are responsible for both our actions/thoughts and our desire to control those actions and thoughts. I believe desires and works are stated together for a very compassionate reason because sometimes our desires to be righteous seem to be in a losing battle with our thoughts and feelings.

It is true that we are all responsible for our own thoughts.  But that is not to say that we will not be accountable for how we might influence the thoughts of others for good or bad.

As an example of accountability should work:  Look at the sexual objectification of women in the media.  Are they not accountable for how they dress their models and how that may influence the thoughts of boys and girls?  Or, are boys and girls entirely responsible for their own thoughts and the media has no accountability for their role whatsoever? 

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is true that we are all responsible for our own thoughts.  But that is not to say that we will not be accountable for how we might influence the thoughts of others for good or bad.

As an example of accountability should work:  Look at the sexual objectification of women in the media.  Are they not accountable for how they dress their models and how that may influence the thoughts of boys and girls?  Or, are boys and girls entirely responsible for their own thoughts and the media has no accountability for their role whatsoever? 

D&C 82:19 seems to call for some consideration and empathy towards others, and I think this extends to choices in dress and appearance. But I think the argument for modesty in dress and appearance is primarily to honor one's true identity and thus invite the companionship of the Spirit, thereby being a good influence on others, and not to influence others through an abundance of caution and caution of the motives of others. I see the first argument as positive and affirming and the second one negative and fearful.

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is true that we are all responsible for our own thoughts.  But that is not to say that we will not be accountable for how we might influence the thoughts of others for good or bad.

As an example of accountability should work:  Look at the sexual objectification of women in the media.  Are they not accountable for how they dress their models and how that may influence the thoughts of boys and girls?  Or, are boys and girls entirely responsible for their own thoughts and the media has no accountability for their role whatsoever? 

Any money making machine will do whatever works. What that tells me is that we need to work better to shape our girls and boys rather than shifting responsibility to others. 

But again, this is question begging. What is the real problem here? What blows me away is how men immediately go to the "I'm helpless because my natural thoughts are deviant to the point I must be protected from myself by other people." Do you use this line of reasoning in any other situation? What would make it appropriate in this one circumstance? Is it easier because it is women that are being given instructions? 

[pogi]

Quote

 I think it's wrong to teach women and girls that God wants them to be modest because of how their bodies affect men sexually.

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I feel that teachings on modesty should focus on our own selves, and not being modest for the opposite sex.  

 

I think it should focus on both.  Why should the principles of modesty be any different from any other principle the church teaches.  We live the principles not only for ourselves, but also because of how they may affect/influence others.  

Would it be wrong to teach that God expects us to dress modestly because of how it affects young women's perspective of themselves?  Many women have internalized sexual-objectification and dress accordingly.  This needs to be talked about.  We need to address how this affects not only boys, but girls, and how it can adversely affect their sense of self identity, self-worth, and sexuality.  The way we dress DOES impact the way other people perceive , not only us, but themselves. 

Does God not expect us to dress modestly for others?  Of course he does.  If we were islands, then modesty wouldn't be an issue.  We could run around in bare skin and not sin. 

 

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, juliann said:

But again, this is question begging. What is the real problem here? What blows me away is how men immediately go to the "I'm helpless because my natural thoughts are deviant to the point I must be protected from myself by other people." Do you use this line of reasoning in any other situation? What would make it appropriate in this one circumstance? Is it easier because it is women that are being given instructions? 

I don't use that line of reasoning ever.  That is not my argument.  I am not giving instruction to women.  I am commenting on how we are accountable for how our dress can impact others positively or negatively.  Do you really believe we are not accountable at all?

Quote

Any money making machine will do whatever works. What that tells me is that we need to work better to shape our girls and boys rather than shifting responsibility to others. 

I agree completely here.  It is not about shifting responsibility, it is about teaching accountability to our girls and boys in how they dress.  Social influence is real.  Internalization of sexual objectification is real. Our girls and boys are influenced by this garbage and when they buy into the media's message, they not only degrade themselves, but they also further propagate the machine and it's message/influence.  It is important to teach kids that we can and do have influence on others for good or bad in how we dress, in how we talk, the language we use, the choices we make, etc.  

Edited August 28, 2018 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You said-"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."  You seemed to be using this as a reason for why it's good not to let kids participate in activities if they aren't 'dressed appropriately'.

 

To clarify....I gave a practical example of my approach when I chaperoned youth dances. It was based on respect, open communication, and fairness, but it involved accountability. I rely it was a good balance between “justice and mercy.”

Quote

I asked the question about sacrament meeting to illustrate that I don't agree that modesty should be a gatekeeping issue (because I believed that you would obviously answer it 'no').  If immodest clothing is not going to get someone kicked out of our most sacred meeting (sacrament meeting), then why should it get someone kicked out of girls camp or a church dance?

Like I said before, i agree with using dress codes for church stuff.  I believe in teaching modesty and in asking the youth to follow the FTSOY guidelines, but if someone shows up and they are not following the rules, I don't agree with sending them home.

If there is a code, it should have meaning. I guess I have an issue with “kicked out.” On the rare occasion, if someone was behaving inappropriately perhaps they would be asked to come out, but I see “kicked out” as throwing out of the door, angry, confrontational, vindictive, “get out and don’t come back!” That’s never appropriate. Some times I found the kids were just testing the system and had the appropriate clothes out in the car. If the clothing was over the edge, for example your objection to vulgar graffiti, we would ask them to call home or go home for something better and then come back. There are ways to accomplish this with good will and humor, not rancor. That would be my emphasis....as we said at school, firm but friendly.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

 

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I remember one of my daughters getting ready to go out in an outfit that I thought was really not modest. I sat down with her and asked her what she thought the Lord expected her to dress.  I then talked about how she has to decide for herself if she is going to try and live up to His expectations.  Never told her to go change.  Never told her what was even immodest about what she was wearing.  Never gave her any specific guidelines the I thought she should follow.  It was a general discussion about deciding to be modest.  

She went and changed.  At 15 she started deciding for herself how she was going to dress.  Sometimes the worse idea is to define what should and should not be worn.  It is a lazy way of enforcing modesty with absolutely no teaching of what modesty is.

That is an excellent approach. It would be a good thing for leaders at the door of an activity, but if there are stated, well-known dress standards for an activity which the youth have agreed to observe as in our stake dance cards....not the extremes we have heard about, but in the spirit of FTSOTY....I think there should be accountability. As I said to Bluebell, reasonable people can figure out how to do it with respect, good will, humor, sincerity, but firmness.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Pogi, I don’t care if a woman is naked. She bears no responsibility for what a man thinks or does anymore than you bear responsibility for what a thief thinks or does by going to an ATM. 

I totally agree that we are all responsible for our own thoughts.  That is not to say that we will not be held accountable for our influence on the thoughts of others.  That is not to say that we should not teach awareness of how our dress influences others, both boys and girls, for good and bad.

If I was to flash little girls, I may not be responsible for their thoughts, but I am accountable for influencing them and the impact of my message through dress (or lack thereof) on others. They probably would not be aroused with sexual thoughts, but they would likely have fearful thoughts and thoughts/feelings of vulnerability.  I would be held accountable for that.  It would not be a sin simply because of the display of lack of self respect and dignity, but because it adversely affected someone else.  How we dress does influence the thoughts and feelings of others.  It affects self perception of others. It can be powerful.  I think that needs to be addressed. 

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Now it is important to keep the idea in mind that The Living Christ states, "Each of us will stand to be judged of Him according to our works and the desires of our hearts." We are responsible for both our actions/thoughts and our desire to control those actions and thoughts. I believe desires and works are stated together for a very compassionate reason because sometimes our desires to be righteous seem to be in a losing battle with our thoughts and feelings.

Indeed. I understand this as it relates to our thoughts, desires, and actions. Do you think it also applies to wardrobe choices (both male and female)? When we choose our clothing, can one consciously make choices for the purpose of provoking sexual attraction? Would that be something for which to be held accountable by the Lord? When that is the message that is sent, is it just the recipient that is accountable?

[Rain]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed. I understand this as it relates to our thoughts, desires, and actions. Do you think it also applies to wardrobe choices (both male and female)?

I think it applies to ALL of our actions. Our clothing choices are actions.

Quote

When we choose our clothing, can one consciously make choices for the purpose of provoking sexual attraction?

Yes.

Quote

Would that be something for which to be held accountable by the Lord?

Yes, which is something I have already stated.

Quote

When that is the message that is sent, is it just the recipient that is accountable?

When what message is sent and to whom? That we are accountable for our choices in clothing? 

Edit: ok. Reread. You are talking about choosing clothing for the purpose of sexual attraction. 

Like I said above earlier.The recipient isn't accountable for another person choosing to try to sexual attract someone through clothing choices. Likewise, the person choosing the clothing is not responsible for the other person choosing to entertain sexual thoughts or their actions.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Rain

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Based on your later posts, I'm assuming the reason you gave this story is to just give an example of a time a dress code violation could be a time for introspection and learning? For me (if I were in the exact same position, which you acknowledged I wasn't), that wouldn't have worked in the least. My main problem is with the bolded part. BYU is not the Lord. The honor code is a mix of expectations based on actualy faith principles (ex. WoW) and ideals of the people leading that specific organization. It's changed in implementation and has been terribly flawed at times. For me and how my moral compass/value system works is that there better be a reason for a rule. If you can't show me a clear and necessary reason to it that makes sense, I will likely a) follow it grudgingly or when it's absolutely needed (such as when I needed to take a test....ya know if I could grow a stache) b) ignore it when in private settings and/or c) work to change it if it's in my power to do so. There is little that irritates me more than rules without reason or purpose. 

3 hours ago, rongo said:

So, are Elder Oaks' and President Packer's comments universally panned by the women here? 

I agree with what the other women mentioned. For me, yes. I don't find that specific phrase to be true. 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I am trying to understand the position of other posters on here.  It seems to be the position of some, that people are not accountable for how their dress and appearance might affect other's thoughts.  Is that a fair statement?  If a man man is affected by the way a female "provocatively" dresses, she has no accountability whatsoever?  It is the man who needs to control his thoughts while the female intentionally (or not) dresses in provocative ways?  Females can internalize sexual objectification messages and begin to dress and act as a sexual object to garner acceptance and attention.  It is sad, and I don't know what the best way to combat this is.  I certainly don't think the best way is to make girls wear knee length shorts and shirts while swimming. Having said that, there must be accountability and responsibility for how we dress.  To say that we don't have influence on others seems to miss the mark.  

I would post a picture as an example of a provocative dress, but I am at work...probably not the best to be looking up stuff like that   I am sure that you have all seen them and know what I am talking about.  I wish that I could post one to serve as a good case study.  But I think it is clear that the internalization of sexual objectification is evident in how some females dress and act.  Are we really saying that there is absolutely NO accountability on these women for how they dress?  To socially protest the provocative nature of some outfits and the overt self-sexual objectification to protect both young men AND young women from their influence is wrong?

What I am trying to say is that I understand that some in the church can take it too far, but to say that there is NO line that can be crossed seems problematic to me. To say that 'I can wear whatever I want, and if it adversely affects you, it is because you can't control your thoughts and has nothing to do with what I am wearing' seems to miss the mark.  

If we really think it is the boys fault for being adversely affected by the way some females dress, and that the female has no accountability, then should we equally blame young girls for being influenced by the way other females dress and the internalizing of sexual objectification?  To do away with all expectations and accountability is to do away with modesty all together. 

What I would like to know is who is the judge of the woman's intentions when she dressed? You, me, the guy being "tempted," or Jesus? If there was no intention to be "provocative" or to try and to illicit sexual oriented attention to herself, then no...she doesn't have an iota of accountability to the man's thoughts. But even if she was, the vast majority of the experience and what he does in the situation is his. Think of it this way. What if Joseph succumbed to Potifar's wife abject tries of seduction. Would the excuse "she made me do it. She made me feel this way" really excuse or even mitigate some of his culpability in the situation? NO. He would have been the one to screw up and follow suit. 

To redirect accountability where accountability belongs, is not the same as assuming there should be no standards. I didn't get my first sense of standard or reason to modesty until I was on a mission (and it wasn't from my nun dresses before the changes for more attractive apparel for sisters....p.s. definitely didn't stop men from lusting still). I remember watching a woman who was dressed to the hilt in something that could be described a "provocative" next to a man who was dressing in knee length khakis shorts and a t-shirt for a date. It struck me as unequal...with an excessive focus on a woman's body than the man's. And that they weren't the most important priorities i would want to be emphasized when connecting to others. 

I was almost 23 at that point....i should have been well on my way in understanding and believing ideals of modesty well before then. It was the focus on rules (most of them, weren't wildly out there...they were FTSOY pamphlet generally, though at times with more rigidity and add ons) that left me without any real belief in the principle of modesty. It missed the mark by focusing and adding rules. I don't want all expectations gone. I just want the right expectations to be followed and greater capacity to focus on true principles. 

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It is true that we are all responsible for our own thoughts.  But that is not to say that we will not be accountable for how we might influence the thoughts of others for good or bad.

As an example of accountability should work:  Look at the sexual objectification of women in the media.  Are they not accountable for how they dress their models and how that may influence the thoughts of boys and girls?  Or, are boys and girls entirely responsible for their own thoughts and the media has no accountability for their role whatsoever? 

Much of the media is still extremely male directed...and as we're seeing at times by very misogynist men. I do think that could be held to some form of accountability for using sex to sell their scripts. If and only if that was their purpose. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 28, 2018 by BlueDreams

[pogi]

If a young woman is influenced by how celebrities dress in sexually objective ways, and if the young woman begins to internalize that message and think of herself as a sexual object and begins to dress accordingly, will the celebrities not be held accountable for their influence, even if the girl is entirely responsible for her own thoughts about herself? 

Is that the message that we want our children to have - How you dress has no influence for good or bad on others?  You are not accountable for how your message through dress affects others?  What abut their words?  Should they not be accountable for how those affect others either?  Words, dress, actions, etc. these all have impact on others.  We NEED to be aware of that.  We are not islands.  To teach how our words, actions, dress might affect others negatively is a GOOD thing.  Social awareness is healthy. We should dress for others, not just ourselves.  We are social beings. What we do impacts others. 

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

I totally agree that we are all responsible for our own thoughts.  That is not to say that we will not be held accountable for our influence on the thoughts of others.  That is not to say that we should not teach awareness of how our dress influences others, both boys and girls, for good and bad.

If I was to flash little girls, I may not be responsible for their thoughts, but I am accountable for influencing them and the impact of my message through dress (or lack thereof) on others. They probably would not be aroused with sexual thoughts, but they would likely have fearful thoughts and thoughts/feelings of vulnerability.  I would be held accountable for that.  How we dress does influence the thoughts and feelings of others.  It affects self perception of others. It can be powerful.  I think that needs to be addressed. 

 

I was flashed in a grocery store when I was a kid. My friend and I ran home. But after the initial shock and fear, we only thought it was extremely weird and that the man was a perv and laughed about it. My only interest in what he flashed was that as someone with only sisters, I hadn't ever seen what he so willingly displayed. 

By using this, it is another example of how women's experiences are replaced with male experience. Flashing is not considered dangerous in and of itself, it is just creepy unless there is further action at which point it wouldn't be called flashing. 

So I would replace your concern with another question, why can't males also see female "flashing" as creepy rather than alluring? Wouldn't that be the quickest way to stop it?