Modesty issues...again

[Bernard Gui]

 

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

No. I think it's demeaning to the person wearing it but not something that others need to be protected from.  

 A question not just to you but to others also (entering the minefield  ).... if a man came to work, school, or church wearing clothing that purposely emphasized or partially exposed his private parts, from my point of view that could rightly be called sexual harassment aimed at women. From a woman’s point of view, would that be harassment?

From a real life experience, once as a teacher in my 9th grade Spanish class, a girl seated facing a guy across the room was deliberately opening and closing her legs and glancing up occasionally to see his reaction. Would that be harassment? Could he rightfully say he was being harassed? 

I did not know how to handle the situation. On hindsight, I probably should just have asked her to move to another chair without further comment.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

23 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.  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. 

In your hypothetical....are you purposely flashing little girls? Would you have accountability if you just so happen to be using the bathroom or changing and said child walked in on you? Again, this is assuming that those who dress in your mind (or another's) "provocatively" are purposely trying to provoke. For most women, that is generally not the case. 

With luv,

BD

[juliann]

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)? 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?

I am pretty darn sure that any male who reacted to "provocation" would be judged more harshly. 

It is rather tiring that you are immediately going to the trope that women are trying to tempt men. Those poor helpless men again. I think that most women would see it as looking attractive, stylish, or it just feels good. I remember how freeing I thought miniskirts were at the time. 

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

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. 

Again, what in the world does that have to do with teaching girls that boys need protection from their own deviant thoughts? 

I'm really scratching my head over men who continue to peddle the idea that they are at the mercy of their deviant thoughts. Why would you do that to yourself??

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

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? 

Flashing can be dangerous to the mental health of victims. It is not a victimless crime. 

Just to clarify, you don't think that a person who flashes should not be held accountable for how that might adversely affect others?  Instead we should be telling the young women/men to "get over it", if you are troubled/affected by it, it is your own fault?  The flasher has no accountability here?

To your last point, what did I say that would make you think that I wouldn't be creeped out by a woman who flashed me in a grocery store - but that I would find it "alluring"? 

 

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

 A question not just to you but to others also (entering the minefield  ).... if a man came to work, school, or church wearing clothing that purposely emphasized or partially exposed his private parts, from my point of view that could rightly be called sexual harassment aimed at women. From a woman’s point of view, would that be harassment?

From a real life experience, once as a teacher in my 9th grade Spanish class, a girl seated facing a guy across the room was deliberately opening and closing her legs and glancing up occasionally to see his reaction. Would that be harassment? Could he rightfully say he was being harassed? 

I did not know how to handle the situation. On hindsight, I probably should just have asked her to move to another chair without further comment.

If he is flashing his genitals, there are laws against that. sigh.  If you will go back to the earlier thread about that ridiculous breast feeding incident, I think you will find that every woman condemned the amount of exposure that was really going on. Again, soooooo tired of the tropes and every woman's problem being turned into a male problem. 

How in the world do you know that girl's thoughts? What do you know about the boy and their relationship? Look how quickly you want to make the female responsible. How many more pages before you understand we aren't having this anymore? 

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Flashing can be dangerous to the mental health of victims. It is not a victimless crime. 

Just to clarify, you don't think that a person who flashes should not be held accountable for how that might adversely affect others?  Instead we should be telling the young women/men to "get over it", if you are troubled/affected by it, it is your own fault?  The flasher has no accountability here?

To your last point, what did I say that would make you think that I wouldn't be creeped out by a woman who flashed me in a grocery store - but that I would find it "alluring"? 

 

I think you are conflating flashing with dangerous and threatening behavior. Unless you are saying that their was additional threatening behavior, I'd have to ask if any woman here who has been flashed (not cornered, not threatened, just flashed) has had any lasting damage from seeing male genitals. So maybe you had better define what you think flashing means. The accountability is that the flasher is arrested. AGAIN, what in the world does that have to do with girls being told they must be "modest" to protect boys?

This entire thread has been about men needing to be protected. What word would describe their problem other than they find female body parts so alluring that they must dress a certain way to protect them from their own innapropriate thoughts? 

Why is this so difficult for you?

 

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Again, what in the world does that have to do with teaching girls that boys need protection from their own deviant thoughts? 

I'm really scratching my head over men who continue to peddle the idea that they are at the mercy of their deviant thoughts. Why would you do that to yourself??

No one in peddling that idea.  At least not me. People need to be taught that they are responsible for their own deviant thoughts, but they also need to be taught that they are accountable for how their behaviors might influence the thoughts of others.

Do you not believe that our actions have influence or impact on other's thoughts?  Do you not believe that we will be held accountable for that influence?  Should there be no expectations?

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

 A question not just to you but to others also (entering the minefield  ).... if a man came to work, school, or church wearing clothing that purposely emphasized or partially exposed his private parts, from my point of view that could rightly be called sexual harassment aimed at women. From a woman’s point of view, would that be harassment?

In my opinion, no.  Wearing pants that exposed his penis, while completely inappropriate, wouldn't be sexually harassing on it's own.  Specific actions would have to be coupled with the clothes (actions that would likely be sexually harassing whether he was wearing revealing clothing or not).

Quote

 

From a real life experience, once as a teacher in my 9th grade Spanish class, a girl seated facing a guy across the room was deliberately opening and closing her legs and glancing up occasionally to see his reaction. Would that be harassment? Could he rightfully say he was being harassed? 

I did not know how to handle the situation. On hindsight, I probably should just have asked her to move to another chair without further comment.

 

If a woman was acting in a way to try to provoke a man sexually against his wishes, then it probably would count as sexual harassment.  In that situation having her move would probably have been the best way to handle it.  

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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?

 

MY COMMENTS: No need to assume. I see that Hamba also viewed it as a subtle attempt to shame you. You had said that the moustache was just a dress code issue.  I had hoped I had made it plain that it was only about me. Apparently not. I will try to be cleare in the future. I was only saying that my experience was more than a dress code issue because I had unworthy motives for my violation and had to honestly face up to being rightly called out. I am embarrassed but my impulsive reaction at the time.

 

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 comp***/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. 

All well and good, but regardless the situation, flawed or not, godly or not,  reasonable or not....even if I were at the University of Utah or UCal Berkeley....I knew the standard and had agreed to abide by it as a condition of admission. I don’t think I would be in a good position to try to justify my behavior after signing an agreement and grouse about it later when I tested it and lost.

Once more, just to be clear, in no way do I think this is comparable with what happened to you, which was lamentable.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.”

If I remember right, you also kept track so that if someone tried to get into a dance in an immodest outfit after being informed of the rules and given a pass the first time, you didn't let them in.  From the perspective of 'modest dress or you can't participate' i agree that it's a good balance between justice and mercy.

But, would a bishop bar someone from attending sacrament if the last time they had been there they had been given a warning about their clothing and had modesty explained to them?   No they wouldn't, because bishops don't believe that, as far as modesty is concerned, a balance between justice and mercy needs to be struck at all.  

If, in regards to modesty, it is appropriate to respond only with mercy (no justice) during sacrament meeting, why isn't it appropriate to respond only with mercy (no justice) at a church youth activity?

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

No one in peddling that idea.  At least not me. People need to be taught that they are responsible for their own deviant thoughts, but they also need to be taught that they are accountable for how their behaviors might influence the thoughts of others.

Do you not believe that our actions have influence or impact on other's thoughts?  Do you not believe that we will be held accountable for that influence?  Should there be no expectations?

I am encouraged that you are finding it necessary to broaden your demands on women into something so global that it doesn't have to address the topic of this thread at all, demonstrating that the usual tropes aren't working well. Why does the topic of this thread make you so uncomfortable that you won't address it? Why do you want men to be seen as helpless slaves to their most puerile thoughts? 

[BlueDreams]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

All well and good, but regardless the situation, flawed or not, godly or not,  reasonable or not....even if I were at the University of Utah or UCal Berkeley....I knew the standard and had agreed to abide by it as a condition of admission. I don’t think I would be in a good position to try to justify my behavior after signing an agreement and grouse about it later when I tested it and lost.

Once more, just to be clear, in no way do I think this is comparable with what happened to you, which was lamentable.

It's not lamentable, it is what is to be expected in a world and culture that actively permits others to decide for women what is appropriate to wear based on another's comfort level. Sooner or later the fashion police come out. These were only the most prominent times that my outfits have been questioned for appropriateness. To be absolutely clear, only one or two of my outfits needed even marginal alterations once I became endowed. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, juliann said:

If he is flashing his genitals, there are laws against that. sigh.  If you will go back to the earlier thread about that ridiculous breast feeding incident, I think you will find that every woman condemned the amount of exposure that was really going on. Again, soooooo tired of the tropes and every woman's problem being turned into a male problem. 

Serious questions.... Why the sigh? Did I turn this into a trope turning a male problem into a female problem? I said that as a man I thought such behavior would be wrong. I purposely did not say he was flashing.

Quote

How in the world do you know that girl's thoughts? What do you know about the boy and their relationship? Look how quickly you want to make the female responsible. How many more pages before you understand we aren't having this anymore? 

Well, I got to know my students quite well. Foreign language is a very interactive subject. We had been together for 8 months. They were not friends. She was obviously doing it to gain his attention, it went on for several minutes, and he was responding...with a jaw dropped look. Who was the offended party? How does this reflect poorly on me? It’s a simple recounting of a true incident.

Help me out here. I’m not trying to shame anyone or pick a fight. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

Why do you want men to be seen as helpless slaves to their most puerile thoughts? 

What specifically have I said that leads you to believe this about me Juliann?  I think you know me better than this. How many times do I need to say that we are all responsible for our own thoughts before you will hear me?

If you would be kind enough to answer my questions, then you might better understand my point.

Edited August 28, 2018 by pogi

[juliann]

I appreciate all of the men who have readily stepped up and taken responsibility for what has been foisted onto girls and women. What these other exchanges are showing me is that there is considerable push back to analyzing the traditional behavior of blaming women. That requires lugging in a lot of other baggage that isn't applicable to the very specific OP. And that is not excusing the women who go along with the traditional thinking without examining it. 

There is a benefit to seeing so much of this POV to the point of being buried in it. What I glean from examining it, is that in this one instance, men are very satisfied with being helpless victims. I would guess that goes back to the idea that sexual aggressiveness is the default norm for men, so any attempt to modify that will be met with the victim of wanton women trope. With other avenues of escape blocked, the discussion is then controlled by claims that men know women's minds at all times. If men must be held accountable for a long term problem, then women must be similarly at fault! Back to the wanton women excuse. 

In other words, no matter which way this goes, it remains the woman's fault. It is no longer socially acceptable to say men aren't responsible for their own thoughts. That obviously isn't satisfactory, so the discussion must be moved to the woman's intent in dressing immodestly. 

So, yay, let's talk about what women are thinking instead of what men feel entitled to think. Mind you, that has nothing whatsoever, not the teeniest little bit, to the problem of men demanding women dress in certain ways to protect them from their own thoughts, which is what girls are being taught at this very moment. 

Yes, another example of the ongoing inability of women being allowed to discuss their own experiences and thoughts about difficult problems women live with, without it immediately being turned into a male problem. There is a serious and troubling inability for some men to even attempt to sit back and listen to women, which means they just don't care enough. 

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If I remember right, you also kept track so that if someone tried to get into a dance in an immodest outfit after being informed of the rules and given a pass the first time, you didn't let them in.  From the perspective of 'modest dress or you can't participate' i agree that it's a good balance between justice and mercy.

But, would a bishop bar someone from attending sacrament if the last time they had been there they had been given a warning about their clothing and had modesty explained to them?   No they wouldn't, because bishops don't believe that, as far as modesty is concerned, a balance between justice and mercy needs to be struck at all.  

If, in regards to modesty, it is appropriate to respond only with mercy (no justice) during sacrament meeting, why isn't it appropriate to respond only with mercy (no justice) at a church youth activity?

Sacrament meeting is not a youth dance or camp. But I can see from your point of view, if I understand it correctly....there should be no dress standards for activities other than vulgar expressions or graphics.....that they can be considered interchangeable and what applies to one applies to the other.

From my point of view, I believe there should be dress standards involving modesty for youth activities (boys as well as girls), they should be taught and observed, and reasonable people can figure out ways to do it that accommodate respect, honesty, kindness, firmness, justice and mercy.

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

In your hypothetical....are you purposely flashing little girls? Would you have accountability if you just so happen to be using the bathroom or changing and said child walked in on you? Again, this is assuming that those who dress in your mind (or another's) "provocatively" are purposely trying to provoke. For most women, that is generally not the case. 

With luv,

BD

That is an excellent point about intention.  You have given me something to think about.  Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I am not ignoring your point, but give me a little time to think and respond, because I think this is important.

[Bernard Gui]

49 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am pretty darn sure that any male who reacted to "provocation" would be judged more harshly. 

It is rather tiring that you are immediately going to the trope that women are trying to tempt men. Those poor helpless men again. I think that most women would see it as looking attractive, stylish, or it just feels good. I remember how freeing I thought miniskirts were at the time. 

With all due respect to an old friend, can’t we converse without being told how I am immediately going to this or that?

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

It's not lamentable

That you had to go through that is lamentable to me. 

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

With all due respect to an old friend, can’t we converse without being told how I am immediately going to this or that?

I do apologize, BG. But perhaps you are not understanding how tiring this is for the women here. It is unrelenting. We have been explaining women's stuff here for years, the same stuff over and over. The extreme push back and thread hijacking needs to stop. 

 

[juliann]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

What specifically have I said that leads you to believe this about me Juliann?  I think you know me better than this. How many times do I need to say that we are all responsible for our own thoughts before you will hear me?

If you would be kind enough to answer my questions, then you might better understand my point.

Pogi, with respect, I think it is time for you to start examining the logical construction of your traditional responses. All of it, no matter how far you stray from the OP, ultimately comes back to men's thoughts. ALL. OF. IT. 

Someone could construct a propositional analysis and it will all come down to that. 

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

Pogi, with respect, I think it is time for you to start examining the logical construction of your traditional responses. All of it, no matter how far you stray from the OP, ultimately comes back to men's thoughts. ALL. OF. IT. 

Someone could construct a propositional analysis and it will all come down to that. 

With all respect, I think it is time for you to start examining my responses.  How other's dress doesn't all come back to men's thoughts, it also comes back to women's thoughts and how they perceive themselves, their identity, their sense of self-worth, etc. It all comes back to our influence on others for good or bad.  I am not just talking about how girls dress, but also how boys dress and speak and act.  It all has influence, and we will be accountable for it.  That is the point I am making.  It is not just addressed at women, but it doesn't exclude them either.  It has NOTHING to do with blaming women for uncontrolled thoughts of men, no matter how many times you make that accusation.  All that shows is that you don't really understand my position, or really care to.   

Edited August 28, 2018 by pogi

[Gray]

According to this at least, revealing clothing plays little role in the matter of brains switching to sexual objectification. It's more about suggestive posture.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-new-home/201807/objectification-is-not-driven-revealing-clothing

For whatever this is worth.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Gray

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

According to this at least, revealing clothing plays little role in the matter of brains switching to sexual objectification. It's more about suggestive posture.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-new-home/201807/objectification-is-not-driven-revealing-clothing

For whatever this is worth.

Maybe we should be counseling our youth about nonsuggestive posture.