Modesty issues...again

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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. 

 

You know, I can help but think when I read this post "hmmmm, if only there were some external guideline that would remove the burden of wondering from the girls and women. There could be some general rules about what to wear."

But then those rules are lambasted. 

I appreciate that you have personally been vocal about supporting some standards and expectations. From what I understand, your point is that enforcement of those standards is unacceptable.  Is there no limit to what dress you would "permit" at a public activity? Should a person of either gender be allowed to attend sacrament meeting nude? Or would it be reasonable to say that you disagree with the line that some people currently draw in regards to enforcement?

[kllindley]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'll give you some examples of what I mean.

Women have to consistently alter/be concerned about our behavior and our clothing in order to protect themselves from physical harm by men:  

• Women cannot walk or be alone outside without that concern (just yesterday a married woman had to fend off an attempted kidnapping while going on a walk in Roy Utah. Molly Tibbetts murdered while jogging:  she's not the first. Utah 15 faces 6 felonies for attacking and sexually assaulting 50 year old in the middle of the afternoon while she was out exercising.  We all know the examples could easily go on and on).  
• Women cannot consume liquids in the company of men without vigilance and concern for their safety (Products that are challenging date-rape drugs).  
• Women cannot wear certain things without having to deal with how male biology will respond ("What were you wearing?").
• Women cannot reject the advances of a man without concerns for their physical safety (Men are killing thousands of women a year for saying no, Rejecting men has deadly consequences, These 14 women were brutally attacked for rejecting men, etc. etc.)
• On average 3 women are killed every day by a man who is currently or used to be a romantic partner (Fact checking a sad statistic).  

So, speaking in generalities, how are men consistently asked/required to alter their reasonable behavior (dressing, exercising, socializing, dating) to protect themselves from being physically harmed or killed by women?  (I'm obviously not saying that it never happens.  I'm asking for evidence that it happens frequently enough that men alter or are asked to alter their reasonable behavior to keep themselves safe from physical or sexual harm by women)

To be fair, your first comment didn't specify physical harm or death. It said suffering. Men routinely have to alter their otherwise reasonable behavior to avoid suffering due to female biology. Usually about once per month. 

[juliann]

15 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

I appreciate that you have personally been vocal about supporting some standards and expectations. From what I understand, your point is that enforcement of those standards is unacceptable.  Is there no limit to what dress you would "permit" at a public activity? Should a person of either gender be allowed to attend sacrament meeting nude? Or would it be reasonable to say that you disagree with the line that some people currently draw in regards to enforcement?

OK. Third explanation that there is so much misreading that the discussion is derailed. Just because we aren't to the point of discussing solutions, it does not mean we think there should be no "enforcement," as you put it. Notice how you immediately launch into even more strawman arguments, which I can only assume means you want to avoid the real topic.

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

To be fair, your first comment didn't specify physical harm or death. It said suffering. Men routinely have to alter their otherwise reasonable behavior to avoid suffering due to female biology. Usually about once per month. 

You need to leave the thread. How disgusting.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's a literal minefield and it messes girls up trying to mitigate all of the arousal around them on a constant basis.

Indeed it is. It's also a minefield for men.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

Your list of quotes was informative to see the modifications. Drawing attention to yourself is now the problem. That covers everyone. So at least at the top the dialogue is changing. 

There is no way to respond to a middle ground without knowing what the definition of license is. The only middle ground I have seen is to humiliate girls by making them wear t shirts or somebody’s sweater. 

That extreme reaction is hardly a middle ground. 

Notice the quotes come from various decades. 

License means no standards at all.

[juliann]

51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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. 

How did you miss the point that a growing number of women just don't care what men think about appropriate behavior?  It's our turn. So no, in a thread started by a woman about women you are not "allowed" to decide anything when it comes to women's behavior. 

At what point will you guys start your own threads about how women won't let you take over their threads? I think we would probably all stay out of them and you could comfort one another without interruption.

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed it is. It's also a minefield for men.

And back to the most important thing in a woman's thread,  the men.   

 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I disagree you on this, but for reasons you may agree with (if you can follow that!).

I honestly think people would be better off if we led the church as Joseph Smith intended. Something about “teach correct principles, but let them govern themselves...”

I trust people to make wise choices on their own most of the time. When we make mistakes, we tend to learn. I think that agency, fall, repent, improve method works a lot better than the “not one soul will dress immodestly” method.

Sorry for seeming melodramatic, but I embrace principles of agency as of god, and principles of control as satanic.

At the practical level, if a youth shows up at an activity....dance, camp, whatever....and is not dressed according to the publicized standards for the event, would you call that a mistake? If he/she is not (in some way that is yet to be specified) corrected, what will be learned from it? Is correction even needed? What would the standards look like, how would they be implemented, and how would the correction process look if you were in charge? 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.)

Some have objected that modesty isn't important, but many have objected to the trappings of its definition and implementation. That is what I was talking about.

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Some have objected that modesty isn't important, but many have objected to the trappings of its definition and implementation. That is what I was talking about.

Strawman Alert  ‼️

Nobody has said modesty isn't important although it is interesting how determined you are to change the topic to "solutions."

 

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That extreme reaction is hardly a middle ground. 

Notice the quotes come from various decades. 

License means no standards at all.

You seem to have a low opinion of LDS girls. Without enforced church standards they would all be coming to church in tank tops and miniskirts, right?

:::::::::::::::::waiting for the first accusation that I said standards don't matter  :::::::::::::::::::::::::

Edited August 29, 2018 by juliann

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

At the practical level, if a youth shows up at an activity....dance, camp, whatever....and is not dressed according to the publicized standards for the event ..., s correction even needed?

Assuming that the 'publicised standards for the event' come directly from FTSOY, what exactly would this look like? For example, what if you think that a young man's shirt is too tight, and I think it looks fine? At this point we can assume the young man himself thinks the shirt is fine, or he wouldn't have worn it. What should happen at this point? Who or what needs correcting?

Edited August 29, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bernard Gui]

57 minutes ago, juliann said:

How did you miss the point that a growing number of women just don't care what men think about appropriate behavior?  It's our turn. So no, in a thread started by a woman about women you are not "allowed" to decide anything when it comes to women's behavior. 

At what point will you guys start your own threads about how women won't let you take over their threads? I think we would probably all stay out of them and you could comfort one another without interruption.

Strawman Alert  ‼️

Nobody has said modesty isn't important although it is interesting how determined you are to change the topic to "solutions."

Juliann, I think we can converse without being yelled at and throwing out unwarranted accusations such as: taking turns lambasting one another, me wanting to decide anything when it comes to women's behavior and feeling a need to comfort the brethren without interruption. That's such a loaded comment. I understand this is a hot button for you, but it doesn't help in the communication. If I have said something offensive to you, please just point it out and we can talk about it. Maybe I can repent. I can't imagine me telling you that I just don't care what you think about what is appropriate behavior for men even as you do that to me and say I engage in inappropriate behavior. That is not helpful.

I was not aware that there are gender specific threads where only members of one gender are allowed to participate. That is new to me and I've been around for a very long time. Perhaps there should be a new room established for gender-specific topics. Not a sarcastic suggestion.

When we visited Mary Todd Lincoln's birthplace in Lexington, Kentucky, they showed us the dining parlor that had a partition in the wall that could be closed after dinner. The men went into one side to smoke cigars, drink bourbon, and talk manly talk, and the ladies stayed on the other side to do what ladies do when they are alone together. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[SouthernMo]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

At the practical level, if a youth shows up at an activity....dance, camp, whatever....and is not dressed according to the publicized standards for the event, would you call that a mistake? If he/she is not (in some way that is yet to be specified) corrected, what will be learned from it? Is correction even needed? What would the standards look like, how would they be implemented, and how would the correction process look if you were in charge? 

If someone shows up to an event, and feels no shame for how he or she dresses, then I don’t think it’s a mistake.  If he or she regrets what he or she wore, then that person made a mistake, and will make changes next time.

I’d drop any standards completely, and teach principles of modesty. Tell people that what they do/wear/say has an effect on others, and inform them about those effects without shame or blame of any kind.

I believe agency and the desire to belong will move people to change themselves. In some cases, some one on one correction, coaching, review might be warranted, but the decision will be in the hands of the person wearing the clothes.

How to implement it?  Drop any rules about what can and cannot show, and instead have lessons taught in priesthood, RS/YW about the principles of modesty.

[BlueDreams]

3 hours 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.   

President Monson said this:

"More than 40 years ago, when President David O. McKay extended to me a call to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, he warmly welcomed me with a heartfelt smile and a tender embrace. Among the sacred counsel he extended was the declaration, “There is one responsibility that no one can evade. That is the effect of one’s personal influence"

I really liked Bluebell's words which is why I've got it quoted down below. My own concerns is what constitutes "awareness?" I gave an example earlier of clients that at times were triggered by my appearance. I still remember the first time I was wearing a blue wrap cap sleeve shirt with a small under cover. I've worn that shirt to several functions...from conferences, to church, to dates. I like the color and feel pretty in it. The person noted it was my tight shirt. At that point, if I wore that same shirt to that person's session ever again...by your definition am I now "accountable" for my "influence" in their inability to control their sexual thoughts about me....even if my purpose isn't to sexually arouse the individual? 

Scanning the full talk, the context to Monson's talk doesn't seem to directly apply to this situation or what you're suggesting.   

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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. 

Amen, BB!

 

With luv,

BD

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

That would be a fair point if I was responding to a comment about shots and sleeveless shirts.  My comment needs to be taken in context of what I was responding to and not in context of the OP.  I was responding to the comment, “I don’t care if a women is completely naked...”.   When read in context, I was clearly not placing it in the same category of shorts or sleeveless shirts, but was paralleling the example already put forward by Juliann of “full on exposure”, as you put it.  There is an evolution that happens in threads and it is not fair to critique my comment out of context of what I was responding to.

Edited August 29, 2018 by pogi

[Gray]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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. 

 

A big part of this is treating being turned as some kind of disease or sin. It's normal and healthy to feel turned on by someone you're attracted to. If that didn't happen, the human race would die out in a generation. Treating it like a sin to be stamped out leads to all kinds of unhealthy coping mechanisms, like blaming women for what they're wearing, writing them creepy notes about their clothing, or going to addiction recovery to treat your "addiction" to being young and healthy and attracted to the opposite sex.

Boys do need to be taught from a young age though to respect the space and autonomy of girls. Just because you're turned on by someone does not give you the right to creep on them.

[Bernard Gui]

37 minutes ago, juliann said:

You seem to have a low opinion of LDS girls. Without enforced church standards they would all be coming to church in tank tops and miniskirts, right?

:::::::::::::::::waiting for the first accusation that I said standards don't matter  :::::::::::::::::::::::::

Oh my. I am really sorry I have offended you so badly. I have tried to offer the peace pipe, but even that is offensive. My apologies. 

 

35 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Assuming that the 'publicised standards for the event' come directly from FTSOY, what exactly would this look like? For example, what if you think that a young man's shirt is too tight, and I think it looks fine? At this point we can assume the young man himself thinks the shirt is fine, or he wouldn't have worn it. What should happen at this point? Who or what needs correcting?

Well you know, that's exactly what I have been asking since page 7.....what do you think a viable standard and procedure would look like? I explained in detail what I did as a high councilman at stake dances, which is to speak with the youth, ask to see their dance card with the standards on the back and their signature on the front saying they agreed to abide by them, try to avoid confrontation and argument, and ask them to get something appropriate and come back in. Many times the appropriate thing was left out in the car.

I'm assuming "you thing that..." is the generic "you," not me, Bernard Gui. You have included a part of FTSOTY in your example:

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. Young men and young women should be neat and clean and avoid being extreme or inappropriately casual in clothing, hairstyle, and behavior. They should choose appropriately modest apparel when participating in sports. The fashions of the world will change, but the Lord’s standards will not change.

The leader might think this applies to young women but not young men. That seems to be at issue here. But since it comes before the specific list for YW, it may to apply to both sexes.

I would feel uncomfortable confronting a young woman alone. I had an experience in school that informed this attitude. Our school wrestled with the interminable problem of the dress code. There, like here, the issue involved the girls more than the boys, but the boys had problems, too, if I may say this without fear of offending, but it was the case. Just reporting the facts. The male faculty appealed to the female faculty to help enforce the code, but there, as here, was mixed reactions from the ladies....some were gung-ho to get it done, and some thought it was ridiculous. The men did not know what to do. It was decided that a card would be printed that faculty could hand to a youth who was dressed inappropriately (male or female) that said something like "Your clothing does not conform to the school dress code. Please see the assistant principal." So, away we all went with our cards. Within a few days, I was walking down the hall and a young lady passed with a very low cut sheer shirt that was not compliant with the code. Without saying anything, I handed her the card and started to walk away and she asked, "Well, what are you staring at?" I saw my career pass before my eyes. I did not hand out any more cards. If it had been a guy with a wife-beater Budweiser shirt, I would have not hesitated handing him the card and saying something. I was the only Mormon on the faculty, by the way.

When confronted, as in the case with my mustaches at BYU, a typical first reaction is to ask what is wrong with it and project some attention to others in the vicinity who may also have problems with the code. 

So, I guess we would first have to decide to whom the standard of tight applies or being unable to come to agreement, perhaps it would be best if this word tight were stricken from the standards? 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm assuming "you thing that..." is the generic "you," not me, Bernard Gui.

Wrong assumption; I mean you. That's why I wrote 'you'.

So let me ask again: If a young man thinks his shirt is not too tight, and if I as an adult at a Church dance think the young man's shirt is fine, but you think his shirt is too tight, what or whom needs to be corrected? What is the objective measure of 'too tight' that we can apply to this situation in order to 'enforce' the standard and/or correct the behaviour?

Edited August 29, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

If someone shows up to an event, and feels no shame for how he or she dresses, then I don’t think it’s a mistake.  If he or she regrets what he or she wore, then that person made a mistake, and will make changes next time.

I’d drop any standards completely, and teach principles of modesty. Tell people that what they do/wear/say has an effect on others, and inform them about those effects without shame or blame of any kind.How

I believe agency and the desire to belong will move people to change themselves. In some cases, some one on one correction, coaching, review might be warranted, but the decision will be in the hands of the person wearing the clothes.

How to implement it?  Drop any rules about what can and cannot show, and instead have lessons taught in priesthood, RS/YW about the principles of modesty.

How does this line up with Sister McConkie's statement...

Quote

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

Can we ignore the standards at church activities and be loyal to them at the same time? How we navigate those waters that is the problem, as I see it.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Boys do need to be taught from a young age though to respect the space and autonomy of girls. Just because you're turned on by someone does not give you the right to creep on them.

That is what I was taught as a boy and young man, what my sons were taught, and now what my grandsons are taught. Could you explain how anything that has been said here would lead one to think boys have that right?

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Can we ignore the standards at church activities and be loyal to them at the same time? How we navigate those waters that is the problem, as I see it.

I don’t believe the Lord set those standards. I think men did. I mean men in the true men sense. Not mankind.

If the standards aren’t set by god, why follow them?  No difficult waters to navigate from my perspective.

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Wrong assumption; I mean you. That's why I wrote you.

So let me ask again: If a young man thinks his shirt is not too tight, and if I as an adult at a Church dance think the young man's shirt is fine, but you think his shirt is too tight, what or whom needs to be corrected? What is the objective measure of 'too tight' that we can apply to this situation in order to 'enforce' the standard and/or correct the behaviour?

Why the hostility? I don't think I have said anything to deserve it and we don't have a history of confrontation. If I have, please forgive me.

I think I answered that in my response: "I explained in detail what I did as a high councilman at stake dances, which is to speak with the youth, ask to see their dance card with the standards on the back and their signature on the front saying they agreed to abide by them, try to avoid confrontation and argument, and ask them to get something appropriate and come back in. Many times the appropriate thing was left out in the car." Is this not adequate for what I would do?

If the standard said, "Boys cannot wear tight shirts," but it was deemed unworkable, then that would be the standard until a more reasonable standard could be formulated. Reasonable people can do that. Earlier in a response to California Kid I posted 5 things I gathered from the LDS website that we can do.

Quote

1. Parents, youth, and youth leaders should work together to decide what will be the standards for an activity.

2. When an adult finds him/herself in the position of correcting a youth, it should be done privately with dignity, fairness, and compassion.

3. Be sure dress standards are well publicized before the event.

4. Chaperones should be trained on how to deal with confrontations and correction.

5. Rules should not be inflexible but applied wisely and fairly.

Not trying to read your mind, but apparently you think the standard needs to be reworded. I have avoided using the loaded word "enforce." I have posted talks by Elder Hales and General YW leaders, I have repeatedly said all issues should be treated with fairness, kindness, compassion, respect, mercy, and justice (meaning being loyal to the standards as Sister Canon put it). I feel these are reasonable things. I'm not sure what you are looking for.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

OK. Third explanation that there is so much misreading that the discussion is derailed. Just because we aren't to the point of discussing solutions, it does not mean we think there should be no "enforcement," as you put it. Notice how you immediately launch into even more strawman arguments, which I can only assume means you want to avoid the real topic.

I am happy to hear this, because I was beginning to think that you didn’t care if a woman was completely naked and how that might affect others.  I am happy to learn that is not what you actually meant.  I would love to hear exactly what parameters and enforcement you would recommend and your reasoning for those parameters and enforcement.   

Edited August 29, 2018 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I don’t believe the Lord set those standards. I think men did. I mean men in the true men sense. Not mankind.

If the standards aren’t set by god, why follow them?  No difficult waters to navigate from my perspective.

Well, FTSOY was first published when I was a youth under the direction of President McKay and has been updated and republished and distributed all over the Church and referred to by every prophet since, so I really don't know how to respond to that. Granted, those prophets were all men in the true sense, so perhaps their thinking was not right. I suppose the finger of God could write new standards on the walls of the Conference Center during conference. Now that would be impressive!

There is also this from the New Era, which I had posted before...

Quote

Who is it that determines what Church standards of dress shall be? Is it a Church auxiliary? a committee? a school faculty? The answer is that it is none of these. It is true that an organization may set up certain standards or restrictions for those who participate in its programs or activities, and the trustees of Church schools establish rules and standards for those who enroll in those schools. Such standards and regulations are determined by the leaders of the specific group and in terms of what they think is best for the majority of those concerned, but these regulations would not necessarily apply to members of the Church in other areas and under other conditions. Hence they would not be Church-wide regulations or standards.

Even if it were the desire of our leaders to dictate specific dress standards for Church members everywhere, it would be difficult, if not impossible, because of the worldwide scope of the Church and the fact that modes of dress vary among different cultures and from generation to generation. And so, rather than do this, they consistently and forcefully point out and set before us the standards and principles that the Lord established as guidelines for entrance into his kingdom.

Foremost among these principles are those that pertain to purity of thought and action. Since modesty is an essential element of purity, and, in the matter of dress, is interpreted to mean clothing the body adequately and in good taste, dress standards become a matter of concern to youth, to parents, and to our Church leaders.

In this matter of modesty, as in other concepts, the Lord tries to teach us by giving us principles rather than by listing exact specifics that would tend to take from us our free agency. To help us understand and interpret these principles and make the right choice is a primary role of our Church leaders.

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui