Modesty issues...again

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, juliann said:

Your last statement pretty much sums up why women are getting angry. Despite the multiple witnesses of girls being told they should dress to protect boys, you feel that you are the ultimate authority merely because you (obviously) don’t experience this. Therefore, those who have should be disregarded. 

I don't dismiss those witnesses. I acknowledge that our leaders teach that, and I agree with our leaders that we SHOULD dress (and speak, and behave in general) to protect boys and girls.  What I disagree with is the idea that our leaders are teaching that anyone is responsible for the thoughts and choices of others, or that men are helpless slaves to their most puerile thoughts. BIG difference.  

Again the culpability of ones thoughts cannot be placed on another, but the culpability for ones influence on others cannot be dismissed either. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by pogi

[juliann]

Just now, pogi said:

From your own lips:

Change of heart?

I cannot figure out what you are seeing when you read things. At this point I have to wonder whether you are misreading on purpose?

There is no relationship to a statement about the rationales that have been offered here and an out of the blue declaration that women have claimed girls are being held ENTIRELY responsible.

I stand by my statement about the excuses that have been proffered. They do all end up putting the burden on the girls when analyzed. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

This article by Elder Hales is referenced by other Church leaders when talking about LDS standards of  modest dress. I don't know if you will find it to be just more of the same that has been objected to in this thread, but it is an answer to your search. Of course, he doesn't say, "Thus saith the Lord," but for what it's worth......

Quote

How we feel on the inside shows on the outside. We show love and respect for ourselves and others by our attitude, speech, and dress. We show love and respect for Church leaders and ward or branch members by speaking, dressing, and behaving in a manner that does not bring inappropriate attention to ourselves. We show love and respect for friends and associates when our language, dress, and behavior are not provocative or unduly casual. And we show love and respect to the Lord through humble dress and behavior. “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35).

When we know who we are—children of God—and understand that our outward appearance affects our inward spirituality and ultimately our behavior, we show respect for God, for ourselves, and for those around us by being modest in dress and behavior.

My father, who was an artist, helped me understand this concept when I was a boy. He drew me a picture of a knight in armor and labeled the critical elements of “the whole armor of God” as described in the scriptures (see Ephesians 6:11–17; D&C 27:15–18). That picture hung in my bedroom and became a reminder of what we need to do to remain true and faithful to gospel principles. Just as we are to “put on” the armor of God, we are to “put on” our clothes as protection for us and others. Clothing ourselves with modest dress and modest actions— mercy, kindness, humility, patience, and charity—will invite the companionship of the Spirit and will positively affect those around us (see Colossians 3:12, 14). [I note it's not gender specific]

Are we determined to be Saints in the kingdom of God, or are we more comfortable in the ways of the world? Ultimately, how we dress will greatly influence our obedi- ence to commandments and devotion to covenants. Dressing modestly will guide our attitudes and behavior as we conduct our daily lives. In time our dress may even determine who our friends and associates may be, thus influencing whether we live worthy of enjoying the blessings of happiness in this world and for eternity.

It is my fervent prayer that we will hold to our covenants and be modest in our dress and behavior as we attend church, visit the temple, and go about our daily lives. As we do so, we will show respect for ourselves, our parents, our Church leaders, and others, and we will show reverence to our Heavenly Father and invite the Spirit to be with us always.

http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/magazines/ensign-august-2008/2008-08-11-modesty-reverence-for-the-lord-eng.pdf

 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

To address this issue of intention and influence - I think it is true that where there is no intention/awareness, there can be no accountability.  But where there is awareness, then there is accountability.   No one is accountable/responsible for the thoughts/actions of others, but they are accountable for their influence.  No, it could not be said that Potifar's wife "made" Joseph do it, or that she "made" him feel that way.  She will not be accountable for his actions and thoughts, but she will be held accountable for her influence.  His culpability for his actions does not diminish her culpability for hers.   

How is a girl supposed to navigate such a thing though?

If she knows that a guy really likes feet then is she responsible for provoking him if she goes barefoot?  What about guys who find legs provocative?  If a woman knows that, is she accountable for his thoughts if she wears shorts?   If a girl wears a dress that flatters her figure, but everything is covered, is she responsible for the arousal that the guys around her are definitely going to have?  Or is she only culpable if she's dressed immodestly, but not culpable if she's dressed modestly?   A guy is aroused because he can see her thighs, then she's culpable, but if he's aroused because he can see her knees, she's not?

It's a literal minefield and it messes girls up trying to mitigate all of the arousal around them on a constant basis.  It's a huge amount of emotional labor for girls and women to have to shoulder, to have to worry about the fairly constant sexual attention that surrounds her and what part she is accountable for. 

 

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

I cannot figure out what you are seeing when you read things. At this point I have to wonder whether you are misreading on purpose?

There is no relationship to a statement about the rationales that have been offered here and an out of the blue declaration that women have claimed girls are being held ENTIRELY responsible.

I stand by my statement about the excuses that have been proffered. They do all end up putting the burden on the girls when analyzed. 

 

I am at a loss of how you think I should interpret the idea of "shifting responsibility" to women as doing anything other then placing the ENTIRE responsibility on women. 

Quote

They do all end up putting the burden on the girls when analyzed. 

The "ENTIRE" burden?  Do you see how "entire" seems to be implied here even when it is not stated?

Nope. Boys have the ENTIRE burden of being responsible for their thoughts, words, and actions (and influence).  Likewise, girls have the ENTIRE burden for the same.  

Edited August 28, 2018 by pogi

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

Again the culpability of ones thoughts cannot be placed on another, but the culpability for ones influence on others cannot be dismissed either. 

The initial two strawmen aside, if you really believe that influence matters you would feel just as strongly about the (inadvertent) damage that has been done to girls and is being done, as stated in the OP. 

But influencing these girls from the age of 4 to believe there is something bad about their bodies doesn’t seem to bother you in the least. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well then let's drop all dress standards for both sexes- everyone wears whatever they want to church, activities, dances etc and see if immorality increases.

Just a little experiment.

No more instruction about modesty at all. What applies to boys should apply to girls. It should be the same on both sides.

What do you think would happen?

Pretty much what I see in the non-LDS churches for whom I perform as a musician. Anything goes, especially no more "Sunday best" except for the older generations. Maybe that's a good thing?

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

This article by Elder Hales is referenced by other Church leaders when talking about LDS standards of  modest dress. I don't know if you will find it to be just more of the same that has been objected to in this thread, but it is an answer to your search. Of course, he doesn't say, "Thus saith the Lord," but for what it's worth......

 

I love Elder Hales words.  It provides a reason for modesty that is not tied to the sexual reactions of those around us.  

(and who has objected to the idea that modesty is important?  I think i've only seen Southern Mormon suggesting that modesty doesn't need to be taught at all.)

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Pretty much what I see in the non-LDS churches for whom I perform as a musician. Anything goes, especially no more "Sunday best" except for the older generations. Maybe that's a good thing?

This is a good point of reference.

In these churches where there are no enforced modesty requirements, but I assume they teach some principles?

How do most women dress?  How does the far end of the spectrum dress (those who seem to be most immodest)?

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

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.  

The thread is so long that it's hard to find specific responses, but I do recall you saying that modesty should not be a factor in Church activities, only vulgar images or words because that is sexual harassment. I even asked for and received a confirmation. If I misunderstood, I apologize. I will refer to the exchange if I can find it.

3) I think you misunderstand my reference to justice as being something punitive or harsh. I have always tempered it, as I did above, with compassion, kindness, fairness. What I intend to convey is this from Sister McConkie which I hope is something upon which we can agree:

Quote

Always we exemplify compassion and Christlike love for the individual while we remain loyal to the standards the Lord has set.

I think of the boundaries we set when we have to live with addicts.....please don't think I am equating modesty with addiction....but just the general principle. We love them, have compassion for them, seek for understanding and healing, but we do not do things that enable their poor choices. Once again, I am not equating modesty issues with addiction, nor young women with drug attacks, nor anything that could possibly be construed that way. Simply, that we have standards, we hold to those standards, we love those who may not keep them, we treat them with respect, dignity, compassion, kindness, but we do not give up the standards. We are loyal to them and try to instill them in our youth as best we can in a way that would be pleasing to the Lord.

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[rongo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think anyone is saying that girls are being taught that they are entirely responsible.  But girls have been/are being taught that one of the reasons that they should be modest is because boys need them to be modest to help them have clean thoughts.  They are being taught this by ward and stake leaders.

I think there is a middle ground between the "warring camps" in this thread.

1) I have been a lifelong proponent of preaching controlling thoughts on the part of men and women, boys and girls. I agree that men are 100% responsible for their own thoughts and feelings and their response to them. Historically, this has been much more a male problem, but this is shifting in my experience to include both genders. It hasn't equalized yet. 

This is important to me because of my personal experience as a 6th and 7th grader. I had never masturbated in my life, but I did willingly think inappropriate thoughts. I was a gospel scholar, and how this didn't occur to me is beyond me, but section 63 hit me like a train. There is a passage that phrases the NT and BoM passages differently: He that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear. I felt godly fear and godly sorrow, confided in my parents, prayed and felt forgiveness and a lifting of burden and guilt. But the ruts were dug deep, and it took about a year and a half of repentance and effort before I was master of my thoughts. So, I know that it is possible and worth it to pay the price to obtain mastery over one's thoughts. 

In counseling with people (mainly men on this, but increasingly women, too) trying to overcome pornography and masturbation problems, this is the key issue. The act of not controlling thoughts and willingly thinking inappropriate one is defined by Jesus in all of our standard works as tantamount to adultery. Spiritually, there is actually no difference between imagining doing it and actually doing it (brain scans by Dr. Hilton bear this out, too --- structurally, the brain looks the same either way). Obviously, actually committing the act is worse in the good-worse-worst continuum, but it is a serious thing that needs to be successfully addressed and repented of. It lies at the heart of the problem with masturbation and pornography. 

So, count me squarely in the "people are fully responsible for their thoughts and their reactions, actions, and inactions with them" camp.

2) However, how women choose to dress can greatly help or greatly hinder men's efforts. No, they aren't "responsible" for men's reprobate thoughts, but they can greatly help or hinder them. And where possible, they ought to help rather than hinder (never letting men off the hook of their personal responsibilities). 

My father was a beloved YSA bishop for six years (three past the usual and customary three years in the Church). He made a huge impact on his youth, and his entire bishopric and their wives remain in close contact with them even five years later. The bishopric that replaced them made little efforts at connecting with them, and they were released after six months. They held Sunday services, but that was about it. My dad faced a major problem when he was first called. Multiple boys struggling with pornography and masturbation had told him that they were having a hard time with the hugging culture. Young people today hug. A lot. All the time. I am put in a tough spot as a teacher and when I was a bishop, because girls of all ages expect and attempt to hug you. It is not always easy or clear cut as to how to avoid it or get out of it, and obviously misunderstanding or perception is always in mind with things like that. Doubly so with all of the #MeToo and Joseph Bishop-type issues percolating today.

These men were using these ubiquitous hugs (in the foyer, in the chapel, in the hall, in classes, at activities, etc.) as ersatz pornography for them. Efforts to shy away from it were problematic, as girls insisted and even pressed the matter. My dad pointed out the cultural phenomenon, explained that it was a problem for some members, and said that it was important that the kids stop hugging all the time at church and activities. The Relief Society president, a sharp girl, was outraged, and called a meeting of several kids in her apartment. She characterized this as unrighteous dominion, said that the bishop had no right or authority to insist on a cessation of hugging, and enjoined everyone to resist the counsel and direction from the bishopric. Many were uncomfortable with this, and it got back to him, and so he called her in to meet with her. He tried to explain why this was necessary, but she doubled down on her insistence (using a lot of the same language that has been displayed here --- e.g., we shouldn't have to stop hugging people because some people misuse and misappropriate it, etc.). He told her that if she were going to continue to foment opposition to what needed to be done, he would have no choice but to release her. She was crushed, and embarrassed, and it was hard on my dad, too. She withdrew from the ward, the ward followed the direction and counsel, and prospered. It saddens him to this day, because she was such a great young lady. 

----

What is the middle ground? I would say that a) people are 100% responsible for their own thoughts and how they handle them, and b) we all should do whatever we can to help people and not hinder them. Sometimes this means that we ride the bike with training wheels because there are those who can't yet ride without them. 

I think it's telling that the women in this thread who have been vocal about men and male church leaders needing to get with the program and stop making them tired of the old explanations and teachings . . . are completely out of line with what has been consistently taught in the Church. Not just from Packer and Oaks within the last 15 years, and not only by male leaders ---- the female auxiliary presidency members have made statements along these lines as well (as has been listed in this thread). That should cause some reflection, shouldn't it? 

---- 

An irony I've noticed in this discussion is that it seems to me that the most vociferous people in holding men to the 100% responsibility standard in their thoughts (which I have no problem with) are also usually the ones who want the Church to step way off the gas pedal in teaching masturbation is a sin and to stop imparting guilt for something that is "natural and unavoidable." That's really interesting, and pretty inconsistent, isn't it? Just an observation. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Yup. Total double standard.

   3 hours ago,  jkwilliams said: 

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

 

It would be if the playing fields were equal. Agreeing on what those playing field are, what they should be....that's where the disagreement comes in. We don't seem to be able to come to a consensus with which we can work to decide if it is a double standard or not. Just to label it so is not sufficient, IMO.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

IIf I was to flash little girls...

 

I get using extreme examples to make it obvious what you are talking about, but in athread wherethe central theme is discussing young women's dressing choices, it comes across as if you are putting both in the same category as if the length of shorts or sleeveless can be compared to full on exposure.

I suspect someone else may have said something already, but your example was disturbing enough I thought I would say something anyway.  I think there are definite categories of discussion where using absurd examples pushes the discussion in the wrong direction and young women's...oryoung men's for that matter... clothing is one of those categories.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

, 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? 

And did this ever happen at Church that you know of?  If not, what is it doing in a discussion about the young women of the Church?

You want realistic standards discussed, then please use realistic examples that relate to the actual young women of the Church.

[juliann]

25 minutes ago, rongo said:

 2) However, how women choose to dress can greatly help or greatly hinder men's efforts. No, they aren't "responsible" for men's reprobate thoughts, but they can greatly help or hinder them. And where possible, they ought to help rather than hinder (never letting men off the hook of their personal responsibilities). 

---- 

  

Your sentences contradict one another. There is no difference whatsoever in saying women can hinder or help men and women are responsible for men's thoughts.  Again, I'm asking men to start analyzing the logical consequences of their rationales before asserting them to women.

Quote

An irony I've noticed in this discussion is that it seems to me that the most vociferous people in holding men to the 100% responsibility standard in their thoughts (which I have no problem with) are also usually the ones who want the Church to step way off the gas pedal in teaching masturbation is a sin and to stop imparting guilt for something that is "natural and unavoidable." That's really interesting, and pretty inconsistent, isn't it? Just an observation.

I'm pretty sure I have never heard a woman talk about pleasuring herself, thankfully. So that would be a pretty limited sample of those who want to talk about it at all. 

We have a simple situation here, very simple. It can be explained in a few sentences. But we have been subjected to tales of criminal sexual acts and hyperbole of the highest level. Can we stop talking about men now? Can we have one thread in the history of this board where women were allowed to discuss their experiences without being regaled with this kind of thing? 

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Vanguard, sorry but I am weary of repeating. Can you please read the thread and then join in?

 

That's fine. If you can't point me to your post that answers this or simply type out what would probably require some 53 seconds of your time then I'm not interested in combing through the 24 pages finding it. It's unfortunate you were somehow able to find what must have taken a similar amount of time taking a snarky pot shot at my honest question but then again, your priorities are your priorities. No thanks for your contribution to a productive exchange. ; ( Anyone else?

[juliann]

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

   3 hours ago,  jkwilliams said: 

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

 

It would be if the playing fields were equal. Agreeing on what those playing field are, what they should be....that's where the disagreement comes in. We don't seem to be able to come to a consensus with which we can work to decide if it is a double standard or not. Just to label it so is not sufficient, IMO.

I don't mean this to sound harsh, but when something is about women, there is no "we." The women get to decide what is appropriate behavior towards us. 

I continue to ask why, why, why this is so difficult. 

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by juliann

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Please relate dropping all standards to even one thing that has been said. Good grief. 

Why do that?

It is a thought experiment to take the point to the extreme

What do you think would really happen honestly?

Does modesty have anything to do with morality?

Why? What are the implications of that for dress standards?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That seems like an extreme thing to do and I don't see the point in the hypothetical.

However, gypsy girls dress very provocatively as teens and tweens but have very very low rates of premarital sex.  So the connection between immodesty and immorality is not a given.

How is that relevant? In some cultures people go naked. What's your point?

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

That's fine. If you can't point me to your post that answers this or simply type out what would probably require some 53 seconds of your time then I'm not interested in combing through the 24 pages finding it. It's unfortunate you were somehow able to find what must have taken a similar amount of time taking a snarky pot shot at my honest question but then again, your priorities are your priorities. No thanks for your contribution to a productive exchange. ; ( Anyone else?

Vanguard, come on. If you are not willing to read through 24 pages why would you expect me to? I can't remember it all either and I was on my phone. I have rarely seen an instance where this demand was made that ended well. It's not good board etiquette. So read through and then join in.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Your sentences contradict one another. There is no difference whatsoever in saying women can hinder or help men and women are responsible for men's thoughts.  Again, I'm asking men to start analyzing the logical consequences of their rationales before asserting them to women.

Hindering and helping ≠ ultimate responsibility. How is noting that people can help or hinder while not being ultimately responsible for their choices a contradiction?

I'm pretty sure I have never heard a woman talk about pleasuring herself, thankfully. So that would be a pretty limited sample of those who want to talk about it at all. 

It's no fun for the bishop, either. 

What I was referring to is the fact that the "100% men responsibility" people seem to me to also be those who, by and large, don't want the Church to teach these men that it is wrong (and thoughts and lust are part and parcel with that). I wasn't addressing women masturbating at all, actually.

My point was that it seems inconsistent to me to hold men 100% responsible but then to argue that the very struggles with a bearing on this topic aren't really wrong, and the Church should stop guilt-tripping them about it. That seems to me to erode the "100% responsibility."

That's all I was saying. 

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Why do that?

It is a thought experiment to take the point to the extreme

What do you think would really happen honestly?

Does modesty have anything to do with morality?

Why? What are the implications of that for dress standards?

I don't think women are too interested in hypothetical what ifs. We have a real ongoing situation here. New thread?

[juliann]

Just now, rongo said:

Hindering and helping ≠ ultimate responsibility. How is noting that people can help or hinder while not being ultimately responsible for their choices a contradiction?

 

 

It's no fun for the bishop, either. 

What I was referring to is the fact that the "100% men responsibility" people seem to me to also be those who, by and large, don't want the Church to teach these men that it is wrong (and thoughts and lust are part and parcel with that). I wasn't addressing women masturbating at all, actually.

My point was that it seems inconsistent to me to hold men 100% responsible but then to argue that the very struggles with a bearing on this topic aren't really wrong, and the Church should stop guilt-tripping them about it. That seems to me to erode the "100% responsibility."

That's all I was saying. 

No one has said ultimate responsibility. This has been explained repeatedly within the last hour or so.

I don't envy bisops  You guys provide us with far more than most. But can you please stop talking about male masturbation in a thread about what girls are told to wear?

[bsjkki]

As a follow up...because this thread has gone where all modesty threads tend to... the activity day was a success and no girls were sent home for being dressed in sport shorts and sleeveless shirts and there were a few. I don't think anyone who attended thought much of it. None of these young ladies were dressed "immodestly" at this event because it involved exercise. Now, if those girls were sent home or made to change, I think it would have been very embarrasing for the these very young girls and upsetting for some moms. I will never teach modesty in the terms of "help a brother out" but I do teach modesty in a "love and respect yourself and God" sort of way. It is the extremes in the discussion that cause all these problems. Most, I think would agree, girls should not have to wear t-shirts over their swimsuits at girls camp. I think most would agree wearing shorts that don't hit the knee in the summer at girls camp would not be considered flaunting FTSOY guidelines. 

As a parent, I can tell you, I've had a lot more success teaching modesty to my younger girls after I learned to not make it a battleground and after common sense kicked in and I quit being afraid of what all the gossipy ladies might say. We wear the appropriate clothes for the appropriate occasions and it seems to do quite well.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I don't mean this to sound harsh, but when something is about women, there is no "we." The women get to decide what is appropriate behavior towards us. 

I continue to ask why, why, why this is so difficult. 

With respect, is it fair then only men should be allowed to talk about men when it comes to these issues? Are men not allowed to decide what is appropriate behavior towards them from women? This approach seems divisive and unproductive to me. From my point of view, we are brothers and sisters, children of the same Father, and what concerns one concerns us all. As Saints, we should be one. Even in contentious issues like this, we should seek mutual understanding. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui