Modesty issues...again

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

What about young women's thoughts?  Should their thoughts influence what is or isn't acceptable for you to wear?  Shouldn't you strive to be a good influence for them in dress?  Whether you want it or not, we can't escape the influence that other's (both men and women) have on our dress.  We all dress for others to some extent.  If there is a dress that you wouldn't feel comfortable in around young men and young women, then your concern about their thoughts and how they perceive does influence what is acceptable for you to wear or not.  It is inescapable and there is nothing wrong with it.  I understand the resistance - women are tired of being controlled by men.  But lets not take this fierce independence too far, we are all human and all in this boat together.  We should have influence on each other. 

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.  I don't wear anything that I wouldn't be comfortable in in any company.  The clothes I wear with my YW are the same I wear when they aren't around.

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

We should have influence on each other. 

A positive influence, no? We are in this together.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

Do most women understand that when they dress immodestly, they can encourage thoughts in some men that are very similar to the thoughts those men get when they look at pornography?  Maybe.  But from the reactions to Oaks' comment, it would appear many women didn't understand that.

Does saying that mean you think it's okay for those men to have those thoughts, or that they don't need to control them?  Of course not.  It's just acknowledging the reality of the culture and biology of the world we live in.  If he hadn't said it, it wouldn't have made it less true.

That being said, we can't underestimate the propensity for some LDS to go overboard, and we're definitely seeing that with the "no sundresses for toddlers" crusade.  But that doesn't encapsulate the entire issue.

Agree on all counts!

No it's not ok but if all women could understand what men might be thinking and how their safety can be compromised by the way some men see them- they would not dress they way some dress.

It's like going down to skid row and flashing a wad of hundred dollar bills.  No they are not responsible for the actions of others, but at some point it becomes a question of safety vs naivete.  Of course actions like that "should" be safe but the facts are they just plain are not safe and it is not wise to do things like that. 

The way men "ought" to be has nothing to do with it- at some point it just becomes a question of the reality of the facts of life.

I have one of the sweetest and brilliantly intelligent LDS sweethearts on the planet and three sweet now adult daughters and thank God they "get" it.  You don't need to know what is going through a criminal or near-criminal mind to understand what can be dangerous,  and the repercussions of perfectly innocent motives in a not-so-innocent world.

I have not always been a member and I have seen it and heard what is discussed by guys like that and the notion that they would even think that way about one of my four sweeties or any other woman for that matter just......  riles me up.

There are realities here which are not "nice" and some women are just plain naive about this stuff.  And they should stay that way as far as I am concerned but at least accept advice from those who know.

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, I meant immodesty.  You said that one of the reasons that we should enforce modesty at youth activities is so that we don't enable bad choices.  I'm saying that if the church does not feel it's necessary to enforce modesty standards for sacrament meeting (if they are o.k. with 'enabling immodesty' as you implied), then I'm not sure why youth activities need to be held to a higher standard.

We are not understanding each other. I mean we should not enable immodesty, much like we don’t want to enable other undesirable behaviors. I don’t know how we disagree.

Sacrament meeting is not the same as a youth activity, but we will disagree on what that means.

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.  I don't wear anything that I wouldn't be comfortable in in any company.  The clothes I wear with my YW are the same I wear when they aren't around.

Are you suggesting that you are not influenced at all by how you think other's might perceive you?  That is what I am asking essentially.  Most people don't have different outfits when they are alone and when they are in public, too expensive.  Generally, most people dress with the public in mind.  "How do I look?"  Dress is social, it is cultural, it is language. We are all influenced by how we think other's might perceive us when we dress.  There is nothing wrong with that.  

So, your comment was that you don't wan't men's thoughts to influence what is or is not acceptable for women to wear.  I am simply asking, what about the young women? Aren't you responsible for being a role model to them in how to dress appropriately and modestly? It seems that if I asked that question in RS, the majority would agree with that statement. Because they look up to you.  They form opinions about their own identity, self-worth, and sexuality as a women by how other women dress and present themselves.  You have influence on them.  I am asking if it is right or wrong to dress with their thoughts in mind?  If you agree, that you should dress with their thoughts in mind, then it seems natural to extend that to young men's thoughts too as we are all human and we should care about both genders equally. 

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree on all counts!

No it's not ok but if all women could understand what men might be thinking and how their safety can be compromised by the way some men see them- they would not dress they way some dress.

It's like going down to skid row and flashing a wad of hundred dollar bills.  No they are not responsible for the actions of others, but at some point it becomes a question of safety vs naivete.  Of course actions like that "should" be safe but the facts are they just plain are not safe and it is not wise to do things like that. 

The way men "ought" to be has nothing to do with it- at some point it just becomes a question of the reality of the facts of life.

I have one of the sweetest and brilliantly intelligent LDS sweethearts on the planet and three sweet now adult daughters and thank God they "get" it.  You don't need to know what is going through a criminal or near-criminal mind to understand what can be dangerous,  and the repercussions of perfectly innocent motives in a not-so-innocent world.

I have not always been a member and I have seen it and heard what is discussed by guys like that and the notion that they would even think that way about one of my four sweeties or any other woman for that matter just......  riles me up.

There are realities here which are not "nice" and some women are just plain naive about this stuff.  And they should stay that way as far as I am concerned but at least accept advice from those who know.

Ahhh. A Polish minesweeper.

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

What about young women's thoughts? 

Even regular TV shows like these "Bachelor" things advertise plenty of muscles and 6-packs, and handsome guys.

I wonder if they would do that if they did not arouse some.... attraction.... in the demographic most likely to watch these shows.

But of course men cannot be responsible for what these women are thinking..... and it certainly is not THEIR fault if they arouse someone.....

Edited August 29, 2018 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Even regular TV shows like these "Bachelor" things advertise plenty of muscles and 6-packs, and handsome guys.

I wonder if they would do that if they did not arouse some.... attraction.... in the demographic most likely to watch these shows.

But of course men cannot be responsible for what these women are thinking..... and it certainly is not THEIR fault if they arouse someone.....

Exactly.  They are completely innocent! No accountability whatsoever before God for their influence.  They shouldn't give a -------- about how their dress effects the thoughts of a young girl.  

Edited for vulgarity.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree on all counts!

No it's not ok but if all women could understand what men might be thinking and how their safety can be compromised by the way some men see them- they would not dress they way some dress.

It's like going down to skid row and flashing a wad of hundred dollar bills.  No they are not responsible for the actions of others, but at some point it becomes a question of safety vs naivete.  Of course actions like that "should" be safe but the facts are they just plain are not safe and it is not wise to do things like that. 

The way men "ought" to be has nothing to do with it- at some point it just becomes a question of the reality of the facts of life.

I have one of the sweetest and brilliantly intelligent LDS sweethearts on the planet and three sweet now adult daughters and thank God they "get" it.  You don't need to know what is going through a criminal or near-criminal mind to understand what can be dangerous,  and the repercussions of perfectly innocent motives in a not-so-innocent world.

I have not always been a member and I have seen it and heard what is discussed by guys like that and the notion that they would even think that way about one of my four sweeties or any other woman for that matter just......  riles me up.

There are realities here which are not "nice" and some women are just plain naive about this stuff.  And they should stay that way as far as I am concerned but at least accept advice from those who know.

I've never met a woman who has not had sexual obscenities yelled at them in public at least once in their lifetime.  I started getting sexually suggestive things yelled at me when i was 12.  We understand the realities of being in public with men.  To be blunt, a lot of time the realities suck.  I'm angry that I can't walk down the street in public without worry about how the men around me are going to respond.  And that's with the jerks and the lowlifes.  I'm even angrier that I'm expected to worry about how the 'good guys' are going to respond.

But 'cover up' is not advice that makes a bit of difference.  Modestly dressed women get yelled at and raped every single day.  Modestly dressed women get assaulted on the streets every year because they rebuffed a sexual advance by a stranger.   

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Ahhh. A Polish minesweeper.

LOL!!

We seem to have a penchant for starting trouble. ....  look at our countryman Lech Walesa, Jan Sobieski, Karol Wojtyla, Kosciuszko, Brzezinski, Pulaski....

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

Exactly.  They are completely innocent! No accountability whatsoever before God for their influence.  They shouldn't give a flying sh** about how their dress effects the thoughts of a young girl.  

Absolutely and after all it's not as if WOMEN and their sex appeal are ever used to sell products.....  because of course advertisers know that such vile tactics don't work and no one looks anyway- or if they do, it only works with vile low-lifes....

Decent men are completely immune to noticing scantily clad women, so there is no reason to use that for advertising!   I don't know what these ad executives are thinking!!   And they get paid for coming up with advertising that doesn't work?  Shocking waste of money!!

The very notion that a scantily clad female  would attract the wrong kind of attention is just so....... primitive....

The people who would think that are just totally politically incorrect and clearly among the dregs of our enlightened post-gender- difference culture!

Edited August 29, 2018 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that you are not influenced at all by how you think other's might perceive you?  That is what I am asking essentially.  Most people don't have different outfits when they are alone and when they are in public, too expensive.  Generally, most people dress with the public in mind.  "How do I look?"  Dress is social, it is cultural, it is language. We are all influenced by how we think other's might perceive us when we dress.  There is nothing wrong with that.  

Not when it comes to modesty, no I don't worry about how others might perceive me.  And if we take modesty out of the picture, what else would I be concerned about when it comes to the influence of my dress on YW?  I dress how I think my husband will find me attractive but I do have some clothes that he doesn't prefer the style of that much and I wear them anyway (and he does as well, from my perspective).  

Quote

So, your comment was that you don't wan't men's thoughts to influence what is or is not acceptable for women to wear.  I am simply asking, what about the young women? Aren't you responsible for being a role model to them in how to dress appropriately and modestly? It seems that if I asked that question in RS, the majority would agree with that statement. Because they look up to you.  They form opinions about their own identity, self-worth, and sexuality as a women by how other women dress and present themselves.  You have influence on them.  I am asking if it is right or wrong to dress with their thoughts in mind?  If you agree, that you should dress with their thoughts in mind, then it seems natural to extend that to young men's thoughts too as we are all human and we should care about both genders equally. 

I don't want my thoughts to influence what is or isn't acceptable for the YW to wear and I don't want the YW's thoughts to influence what is acceptable for me to wear. The only thoughts that I want to influence what is or isn't acceptable are God's thoughts.  If I believe that God is good with what I have on, then what anyone else thinks of it, including the YW, is irrelevant.

 

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've never met a woman who has not had sexual obscenities yelled at them in public at least once in their lifetime.  I started getting sexually suggestive things yelled at me when i was 12.  We understand the realities of being in public with men.  To be blunt, a lot of time the realities suck.  I'm angry that I can't walk down the street in public without worry about how the men around me are going to respond.  And that's with the jerks and the lowlifes.  I'm even angrier that I'm expected to worry about how the 'good guys' are going to respond.

But 'cover up' is not advice that makes a bit of difference.  Modestly dressed women get yelled at and raped every single day.  Modestly dressed women get assaulted on the streets every year because they rebuffed a sexual advance by a stranger.   

Yes and so it follows perfectly then that a scantily clad woman will NOT get raped!  Or arouse more men!

I get it now!!

Because people get mugged in good neighborhoods, it is fine to go down to skid row and flash a wad of hundreds!  I never realized that!

Edited August 29, 2018 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Absolutely and after all it's not as if WOMEN and their sex appeal are ever used to sell products.....  because of course advertisers know that such vile tactics don't work and no one looks anyway- or if they do, it only works with vile low-lifes....

Decent men are completely immune to noticing scantily clad women, so there is no reason to use that for advertising!   I don't know what these ad executives are thinking!!   And they get paid for coming up with advertising that doesn't work?  Shocking waste of money!!

The very notion that a scantily clad female  would attract the wrong kind of attention is just so....... primitive....

The crazy thing is that the target audience is usually women!!!  Portraying women as sexual objects works!  It is women who buy those products!  That is a terribly sad commentary on the state of womanhood.  It says that many, many, many women are confused about womanhood.  They identify appearance and sexuality with self-worth.  When a man tries to speak up and say, "this is not appropriate"  The feminists come out with flaming lips in an ironic display of slavery to men's objectifying advertising, confusing that with freedom from the influence of men.  It is women who perpetuate the sexual objectification of women with their wallets.  I once heard it said, "I don't sell clothes, I sell sex."

Of course, this is a problem with men to, but it is disproportionate.

Duck for cover!

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We are not understanding each other. I mean we should not enable immodesty, much like we don’t want to enable other undesirable behaviors. I don’t know how we disagree.

Sacrament meeting is not the same as a youth activity, but we will disagree on what that means.

Yes, probably just time to agree to disagree.   

Edited August 29, 2018 by bluebell

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But 'cover up' is not advice that makes a bit of difference. 

So then, as I said earlier, let's abolish all ideas of modesty right?

What difference does it make?  That was my earlier point

I think perhaps you are overstating your case?

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes and so it follows perfectly then that a scantily clad woman will NOT get raped!  Or arouse more men!

I get it now!!

Because people get mugged in good neighborhoods, it is fine to go down to skid row and flash a wad of hundreds!  I never realized that!

No, you definitely don't get it.  But you don't want to get it so it makes sense that you are struggling.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

So then, as I said earlier, let's abolish all ideas of modesty right?

What difference does it make?  That was my earlier point

I think perhaps you are overstating your case?

I wish I was overstating my case. 

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't want my thoughts to influence what is or isn't acceptable for the YW to wear and I don't want the YW's thoughts to influence what is acceptable for me to wear. The only thoughts that I want to influence what is or isn't acceptable are God's thoughts.  If I believe that God is good with what I have on, then what anyone else thinks of it, including the YW, is irrelevant.

Should we not care then about being an influence for good to others? Or, are you saying that we should care, but not when it comes to modesty?  Should we just leave it all up to God and not try to be an instrument in his hands for good influence and an example of light and truth, dignity, self-respect, and modesty through all of our communications (including dress)?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Should we not care then about being an influence for good to others? Or, are you saying that we should care, but not when it comes to modesty?  Should we just leave it all up to God and not try to be an instrument in his hands for good influence and an example of light and truth, dignity, self-respect, and modesty through all of our communications (including dress)?

The whole problem with this line of thinking is it has no defined boundaries or borders. If we are trying not to arouse others, how far do we take it? What is reasonable? Do we just separate the sexes? What about our gay brothers and sisters? Should we wear makeup? Should we shower? If our goal is to not arouse others shouldn't we just gain 150 pounds? Try to make ourselves look old? It just becomes an impossible mess. 

Women in general are said to be attracted to masculinity, earning potential, alpha males. Should we eschew these things? Should men live impoverishedly to keep women from lusting after them?

Edited August 29, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes and so it follows perfectly then that a scantily clad woman will NOT get raped!  Or arouse more men!

I get it now!!

Because people get mugged in good neighborhoods, it is fine to go down to skid row and flash a wad of hundreds!  I never realized that!

Do you have data that supports the idea that "scantily clad" women are raped more than non-"scantily clad" women?

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wish I was overstating my case. 

There is no need for modesty then?

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Do you have data that supports the idea that "scantily clad" women are raped more than non-"scantily clad" women?

I did not say that.  Read it until you understand what I did say.  I asked if a scantily clad woman would NOT get raped.

The issue was whether or not nakedness is objectively more arousing than modesty

The claim is that modesty has no relevance to arousing the other sex.  I disagree with that and used advertising and other things to show that it immodesty is sexually arousing in both sexes.

If the objective is to NOT arouse the other sex, modesty is clearly more effective in NOT arousing others than immodesty.

It's a pretty objective point.  One could wire a group up, theoretically and see which kind of picture was more arousing.  It has nothing to do with blame etc- the objective question is whether or not immodesty causes arousal- a point I believe is ignored for the pro-immodesty contenders.

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

Should we not care then about being an influence for good to others? Or, are you saying that we should care, but not when it comes to modesty?  Should we just leave it all up to God and not try to be an instrument in his hands for good influence and an example of light and truth, dignity, self-respect, and modesty through all of our communications (including dress)?

Yes this is it exactly

1- IF it is the case (and it obviously is) that immodesty is arousing

AND

2 IF we want to help others who are struggling with becoming sexually aroused in inappropriate venues

Conclusion:

One should dress modestly.  Men and women it doesn't matter

If you don't care about arousing others then wear whatever you want- but don't blame it on THEM if they get aroused.

You would have to be an idiot to think that nakedness does NOT cause sexual arousal.   If that were not the case pornography would not exist.

Since we are to work together in the gospel, we should all work together to NOT arouse others.  We should care about others, our affects on them, be kind, etc.  We should treat others as we want to be treated.

That means modest dress.

Just like not insulting people or being rude etc.  We should be humble and caring to each other.

It's clear as day!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I did not say that.  Read it until you understand what I did say.  I asked if a scantily clad woman would NOT get raped.

Okay. I guess I'm confused by you statement and what you meant, so sorry.

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The issue was whether or not nakedness is objectively more arousing than modesty

The claim is that modesty has no relevance to arousing the other sex.  

Who made this statement exactly? I haven't seen that here.

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I disagree with that and used advertising and other things to show that it immodesty is sexually arousing in both sexes.

If the objective is to NOT arouse the other sex, modesty is clearly more effective in NOT arousing others than immodesty.

It seems like not arousing the opposite sex is an impossible standard. Given that not arousing the opposite sex is a non-starter, I think most people here advocate for teaching modesty from the stand point of respecting oneself and being aware of the message we communicate when we dress and act in certain ways.