Modesty issues...again

[Rain]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

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? 

Yes, they are responsible for influence. They have that capacity to effect others. They can not however, choose for someone else to follow that influence. They do not have the capacity to make the choice to follow. You can't be held accountable for others choices. 

45 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? 

I have the same thoughts on my children as I stated just above here. 

Here is the thing - I want my children to know they ALWAYS have a choice. I want them to have the power that comes through making those choices. I do not want them using excuses that lessen that power. I'm so tired of the world telling them that they don't choose who they love.  They don't choose how they are influenced etc. I think it does a great diservice to them to tell them that their choices make other people have choices. Instead I would tell them to let their light shine so that others see those choices and choose to make their own choices that will help them come back to God.

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are not accountable for how your message through dress affects others? 

I'm not sure how to answer this.  Body and clothing communication is so poor that I don't know how everyone could receive the same message. Consider the picture Smac posted earlier of the women in pioneer dresses. What message does that send? That they are polygamous? That they like pastel colors? That they are in a play? That their skin is sensitive to the sun?

So if I wear a yellow shirt because it makes me happy and you get the message that I am rooting for the rival school am I supposed to be accountable for that?

You are accountable for what you wear and what you intended by wearing that. You are not accountable for what someone chooses to think or do because of said clothing.

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

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. 

I used to be much more of a champion of how I affect and influence others. Until, I was totally thrown by finding out that despite how much I loved someone and wanted good for them that ultimately their choices were theirs and I could do nothing about it. 

We want to be a good example. We want to be a good influence, but if we cannot see that we only have accountability for ourselves then we don't really believe in agency for others and that would be against God's plan.

[Gray]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Maybe we should be counseling our youth about nonsuggestive posture. 

Or better yet, maybe leave the parenting to their parents and mind our own beeswax.

[BlueDreams]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

I didn't have to. It's the culture we build when we put ourselves as "gatekeepers" for modesty. It is a symptom of a systematic problem we have. I think what I'm trying to get at is...I don't want it to be simply a sad series of incidents. I would rather it be a moment of introspection on how what we say and do may be feeding a problem. 

 

There are under layers in thought that concern me, especially in the last couple pages where there seems to be little distinction to clothes and intention. Or harassment/predator behavior and dressing in a short skirt. How one's personal reaction to something is being placed on another's shoulders. 

I hope that is not anyone's actual intent here. But the underlying assertions rapidly lead in that direction. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Gray said:

Or better yet, maybe leave the parenting to their parents and mind our own beeswax.

Indeed. When my oldest daughter informed me years later what they had covered in their "standards night," I was mortified and wished I had never trusted the church to give my kids any advice about modesty and morality. There is no excuse for that kind of creepy, explicit, and intrusive teaching and questioning. 

[BlueDreams]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

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.

No worries, take your time

With luv,

BD

[juliann]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

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.   

Pogi, again I apologize for my bluntness. But others have explained the problem repeatedly in this thread and I am not seeing any difference.  What you are saying may be good general advice, but it is not responsive to what we are talking about. Here is the OP:

Quote

 

So, I know this has been talked about quite a bit but it is still aggravating. On my Ward's facebook page, the activity days leaders posted an invitation to a Stake activity day girls activity.  On the invitation it stated, "Please wear modest casual clothes with shoes for exercise."  One brave sister in my ward found the whole thing ridiculous.  She commented about why girls bodies age 8-12 would be considered immodest and found the words "modest casusal clothes for exercise"... ridiculous. This year, for girls camp the packing list said, "4-5 t-shirts (not tight enough to be revealing, no inappropriate logos, must be long enough to cover mid-riff if arms are above your head) • underwear • t-shirt, shorts and shoes that can get wet (shorts MUST be to the knee, If not you will be asked to change.) 

I compared the packing lists for the Priesthood encampment vs. for girls camp and found no theatening language. There were no "logo" warning or short length warnings. No threats about being asked to change. Have these words ever been said in a packing list for scouts? The scouts often hike shirtless when they get hot. The boy scouts wear shorts not to knee. Why do young girls who are not endowed have to wear shorts to their knees at an activty which includes exercise.

It's getting old and I realized today, I'm not the only one in my ward who notices and finds it "ridiculous." 

 

Further, I don't think anyone is denying that girls are currently being taught that boy's thoughts are a reason why these discriminatory rules have to be followed. A universal law of accountability does not address this at all because for someone to be "accountable" they have to be knowingly doing something wrong. Not to mention that "accountability" by definition is about causing other people harm. Like I said, all of these rationales end with girls being made responsible for boys' thoughts. You cannot escape it. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by juliann

[bsjkki]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Indeed. When my oldest daughter informed me years later what they had covered in their "standards night," I was mortified and wished I had never trusted the church to give my kids any advice about modesty and morality. There is no excuse for that kind of creepy, explicit, and intrusive teaching and questioning. 

Standards night is a minefield. I have had the same experience with my kids and try to always attend. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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. 

 

Actually, those who were endowed would still need to wear their garments.  

But I do get what you are saying.  In private, it's not immodest to be naked.  It's also not immodest to be naked in front of spouses or families (depending on ages I suppose).  So, in that sense it makes sense to say that in God's eyes, our modesty is directly connected to those around us.  I don't necessarily think the effect of our modesty on those around us is why we need to be modest in company though.

Consider what Silvia Allred taught about "why modesty" in the Ensign-

"The doctrine behind modesty begins with our knowledge that we are children of God, created in His image (see Moses 2:27). Our bodies are sacred gifts from Heavenly Father and have specific purposes that He has planned. As grateful recipients, we acknowledge this gift by treating our bodies as He has asked us to (see D&C 88:33). We learn to train, control, and bridle our bodies and their physical uses to become like Heavenly Father."

Everything in that paragraph teaches that modesty is for us, not those around us.  Being modest is one way that we learn to train, control, and bridle our bodies and their physical uses.  It is in the presence of others that we usually need to bridle our bodies an control their physical uses, so it makes sense that modesty is not an issue in private.

I've looked in a few references (but not that many) and I haven't been able to find an answer to the 'why modesty' question that talks about why God specifically wants us to be modest. You made a statement of fact above and I'd be willing to consider it if you can provide references that support it.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Standards night is a minefield. I have had the same experience with my kids and try to always attend. 

I would have attended had I been made aware of it. She told me about it years later, and when I asked her why she hadn't said anything, she said, "I thought you would feel bad for putting me in that situation." 

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

 

I've said very explicitly, to you personally, that I am in favor of having dress codes at some church activities.  So I'm not sure how you got 'there should be no dress standards'.

I just don't think that modesty should be the sole reason for a dress code, or that modesty by itself should be a reason that someone is not allowed to participate.

Quote

From my point of view,  1) I believe there should be dress standards involving modesty for youth activities (boys as well as girls), 2) they should be taught and observed, and 3)reasonable people can figure out ways to do it that accommodate respect, honesty, kindness, firmness, justice and mercy.

I've numbered your statements above to make them easier to respond to-

1) I agree.

2) I agree.

3) I disagree that there is a need to figure out a way to serve justice upon those who don't dress modestly at activities.  

[Rain]

47 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.

Interesting that you bring that up. Someone earlier said something about high heels and how it changes posture. I was thinking about how I don't personally know any women who wear them for that reason. Usually what I hear is how much they love the looks of this or that shoe.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Rain

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, juliann said:

Pogi, again I apologize for my bluntness. But others have explained the problem repeatedly in this thread and I am not seeing any difference.  What you are saying may be good general advice, but it is not responsive to what we are talking about. Here is the OP:

Further, I don't think anyone is denying that girls are currently being taught that boy's thoughts are a reason why these discriminatory rules have to be followed. A universal law of accountability does not address this at all because for someone to be "accountable" they have to be knowingly doing something wrong. Not to mention that "accountability" by definition is about causing other people harm. Like I said, all of these rationales end with girls being made responsible for boys' thoughts. You cannot escape it. 

No, I agree with the OP.  Those expectations are ridiculous.  What I am responding to are comments in this thread about how wrong it is for leaders to teach awareness about how dress might influence others for good or bad.  This is true in dress, words, and other behaviors as well.  I don't see it as telling women that they are responsible for boys thoughts, but simply that our behaviors can have impact on others and that is important to be aware of.   I find that teaching perfectly appropriate.  But I also think they need to include how it can potentially negatively influence and affect girls thoughts and self-perceptions as well.  The message could be delivered better, but I don't see it as wrong. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by pogi

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

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.

Once again, Feel the problem is the "well known dress standards". If those standards are more narrow than church guidelines, then they are counter to what church leaders are trying to teach.  There should never be a gate keeper at youth activities deciding who to let in and who to not allow in.  If someone shows up in inappropriate attire, then, just as I asked my daughter, the leader should sit down with the person and ask them what they think God expects.   The leader should talk about how the person who is inappropriately dress that THEY  have to decide if they are going to try and live up to His expectations.  The leaders role is to TEACH, not dictate or act as gate keeper.  This is where I differ in your approach.

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I would have attended had I been made aware of it. She told me about it years later, and when I asked her why she hadn't said anything, she said, "I thought you would feel bad for putting me in that situation."  

This makes we want to skip such activities altogether.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

No, I agree with the OP.  Those expectations are ridiculous.  What I am responding to are comments in this thread about how wrong it is for leaders to teach awareness about how dress might influence others for good or bad.  This is true in dress, words, and other behaviors as well.  I don't see it as telling women that they are responsible for boys thoughts, but simply that our behaviors can have impact on others and that is important to be aware of.   I find that teaching perfectly appropriate.  But I also think they need to include how it can potentially negatively influence and affect girls thoughts and self-perceptions as well.  The message could be delivered better, but I don't see it as wrong. 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've said more than once on this thread that I think it's good to teach awareness (and that we try to teach it in our laurels class).  

But teaching awareness is different than teach fault or responsibility.  It is the teachings that women are responsible for the thoughts of men, or that it is their fault if men have bad thoughts due to the way that a woman is dressed, or that girls should be modesty for the boys around then, that I disagree with.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

This makes we want to skip such activities altogether.

I've had many conversations with my kids about how just because you hear something at church, it doesn't mean it's true and must be applied to your life. 

[Gray]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I've had many conversations with my kids about how just because you hear something at church, it doesn't mean it's true and must be applied to your life. 

Sounds like a good conversation for us to have.

[jkwilliams]

Does anyone else notice a huge difference between the counsel to young women and young men regarding modesty?

Quote

Immodest clothing is any clothing that is tight, sheer, or revealing in any other manner. Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance. 

 

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I didn't have to. It's the culture we build when we put ourselves as "gatekeepers" for modesty. It is a symptom of a systematic problem we have. I think what I'm trying to get at is...I don't want it to be simply a sad series of incidents. I would rather it be a moment of introspection on how what we say and do may be feeding a problem. 

 

There are under layers in thought that concern me, especially in the last couple pages where there seems to be little distinction to clothes and intention. Or harassment/predator behavior and dressing in a short skirt. How one's personal reaction to something is being placed on another's shoulders. 

I hope that is not anyone's actual intent here. But the underlying assertions rapidly lead in that direction. 

 

With luv,

BD 

I'm out of rep points right now but this a thousand times.

These experiences happen because someone was 'reasonably trying to hold people accountable to the church's standards of modesty utilizing mercy and justice.'

[pogi]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

But teaching awareness is different than teach fault or responsibility.  It is the teachings that women are responsible for the thoughts of men, or that it is their fault if men have bad thoughts due to the way that a woman is dressed, or that girls should be modesty for the boys around then, that I disagree with.

I have never seen it taught that way from our leaders.  I have seen some people twist their words to read that way, but I strongly doubt that our apostles and prophets view boys as slaves to their bad thoughts, and that girls are entirely responsible and to blame. 

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, I agree with the OP.  Those expectations are ridiculous.  What I am responding to are comments in this thread about how wrong it is for leaders to teach awareness about how dress might influence others for good or bad.  This is true in dress, words, and other behaviors as well.  I don't see it as telling women that they are responsible for boys thoughts, but simply that our behaviors can have impact on others and that is important to be aware of.   I find that teaching perfectly appropriate.  But I also think they need to include how it can potentially negatively influence and affect girls thoughts and self-perceptions as well.  The message could be delivered better, but I don't see it as wrong. 

Awareness is very different from accountability. I think teaching awareness is great for both boys and girls. I do not think it should be tied to accountability.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Does anyone else notice a huge difference between the counsel to young women and young men regarding modesty?

 

Yup. Total double standard.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

 

why?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

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.

My whole point is WHY is there well-known dress standards for an activity which the youth have agreed to observe.  In every one of these "stated well-known dress standards, it is artificially dictated and not to be found anywhere in the FTSOY pamphlet.  If further standards are needed, why are they not found in the FTSOY pamphlet?  If you can answer those questions, then it will help me understand your ridged approach as "bouncer" for youth dances.

[Vanguard]

I've been following this thread loosely over the last several days. Has anyone commented on whether modesty in dress is something to be enforced at all? The prevailing consensus seems there should be no enforcement.