Modesty issues...again

[Calm]

On 8/28/2018 at 7:25 PM, kllindley said:

 Men routinely have to alter their otherwise reasonable behavior to avoid suffering due to female biology. Usually about once per month. 

The vast majority of women I know who get as part of their PMS mood changes are well aware of the cause and actively work to control them, some being willing to take medication even. Many significantly alter their own behavior to avoid what they see as unnessary conflict under their control.

Iow, women being very aware of any additional hassles or burden hormonal changes may add to their lives and others and actively engaging in behaviors  that as effective as possible increase self control is quite typical for them. The only time I have seen women actually dictating to men to change their behavior due to hormones is on the screen,  though I suppose it might happen.  But considering many societies forced women to withdraw from the presence of men during parts of their cycle, it is an odd statement in a variety of ways.  

Are men also typically aware and active in self control measures in areas where they cause women to suffer (and I am talking primarily about physical harm, fear of such, and social humiliation and not the more likely short temper or depression that may be seen in women with PMS as a disorder)?

Edited August 30, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

This is where most of this discussion about modesty totally falls apart.  Let's take a deep breath and come back to reality for a minute.  I would say that just about every decision we make about clothing is meant to enhance our physical desirability.  So let's not pretend that it isn't.  When I go to buy a new suit, the tailor puts me in front of the mirror and marks where to take the coat in.  How the pants fit on my body.  Basically he is trying to get the suit to fit better.  Why?  Because I look better physically in a suit that fits rather than one that is ill-fitting.  And what is this all about?  So that I will be more attractive to others.  It is why we dress the way we do.  We stand in front of the mirror and constantantly say "Do I look good in this".  What does that mean?  It means will others find me attractive in this outfit.  It means will others respond positive to how I look.  Think about what that means?  Is it not really about sexual arousal or desirability?  It doesn't mean that I want to have sex with everyone who finds me attractive.  And I am not looking for that.  I am perfectly happy. with the person I am with.  But I still want to be attractive don't I.  Everyone does.  

So why do I want my suit taken in?  To show off what lies beneath the suit.  To emphasize that I am fit and have a trim waist.  Men are no different than women.  They want to be viewed as attractive and desirable as well.  We get hair cuts that make us look better. We go to the gym to have better body definition.  Believe me, there is not a single person at the gym lifting weights so that they can be better at moving their best friend next time they change houses.  They do it so that sexually they will be more desirable.  

Women are the same.  We choose colors that are more flattering on us.  We will try on 20 outfits to find the one that fits our body the best. If a woman has great legs, they will show that asset off more than a woman who doesn't. If a woman has nice breasts, they will make sure that part of them is enhanced.  That does not mean that their breasts are hanging out of their clothes.  That does not send the right sexual message for most women.  They don't want to look like hookers.  And sometimes less is more.  As Matthew Cowley once said about the Navajo women in their long velvet dresses "They leave everything to the imagination".  That is the look that the church finds acceptable.  The mystery of what is not revealed.  That is the look Mormon women are going for. Why?  Because in Mormon culture, that is what is socially acceptable.  They don't go for the easy, cheap shot.  They go for the alluring, use your imagination shot.  But let's not kid ourselves, everyone is trying to be more physically desirable.  If not we would all be running around in potatoes sacks.

Maybe at some point in our lives, we start to not worry about how desirable we are to others.  But usually that happens when we feel that no matter what we wear, that whole sexy body thing is not going to happen.  Generally the less you feel good about your body, the more you don't care about what you wear.  Of course these are all generalities, but the principle is correct imo.

Interesting thoughts. You speak for everyone, male and female?

We were talking about this in our family support group last night. A friend said part of her 65-year-old husband’s treatment for cancer included the administration of testosterone and estrogen. When he was on T he got really frisky like earlier years, but when he was on the E he totally lost interest. Perhaps much of our behavior as fallen man is hard wired in our biology. We are learning how to live in a body.

We have differing views about clothing. No decision I make about clothing has anything to do with desirability. I  buy clothes based on what I like and whether it is comfortable and serves my needs, not on what would make me attractive to others. I don’t care about being attractive to anyone other than Sister Gui. When we were first married, I made her promise she would still love me when I’m old, fat, wrinkled, and bald. So far she’s kept her promise, but I’ve still got a few years to go.....

My mirror is Sister Gui. She checks to see if my collar and tie are right, if I have clashing colors, and if my socks match. I have never been able to afford a tailor. The last time Sister Gui took in my pants was because I had lost weight and they were falling off. Usually she has to let them out There’s nothing within my suit that I want to show off. Isn’t that a good definition of modesty?

When I exercise, the purpose is to maintain and improve my health, not to increase definition. I don’t buy cool form-fitting exercise clothing.

Quote

“They leave everything to the imagination". That is the look that the church finds acceptable.  The mystery of what is not revealed.  That is the look Mormon women are going for.

I have a lot of non-Mormon friends who would agree with that. It is the thesis of the Wendy Shalit (Orthodox Jew) book A Return to Modesty. 

I admit I must really be weird.

 

I loved the bower bird in Australia. They have some fascinating reproduction hard-wiring. (Sorry...I can’t get the quote box to work). Any similarities to humans?

“The Ailuroedus catbirds are monogamous, with males raising chicks with their partner, but all other bowerbirds are polygynous, with the female building the nest and raising the young alone. These latter species are commonly dimorphic, with the female being more drab in color. Female bowerbirds build a nest by laying soft materials, such as leaves, ferns, and vine tendrils, on top of a loose foundation of sticks. In courtship the male bowerbird will dance to the female in an attempt to attract her....

“The most notable characteristic of bowerbirds is their extraordinarily complex courtship and mating behaviour, where males build a bowler to attract mates. There are two main types of bowers. One clade of bowerbirds build so-called maypole bowers, which are constructed by placing sticks around a sapling; in some species, these bowers have a hut-like roof. The other major bowerbuilding clade builds an avenue type-bower made of two walls of vertically placed sticks. In and around the bower, the male places a variety of brightly colored objects he has collected. These objects – usually different among each species – may include hundreds of shells, leaves, flowers, feathers, stones, berries, and even discarded plastic items, coins, nails, rifle shells, or pieces of glass. The males spend hours arranging this collection. Bowers within a species share a general form but do show significant variation, and the collection of objects reflects the biases of males of each species and its ability to procure items from the habitat, often stealing them from neighboring bowers. Several studies of different species have shown that colors of decorations males use on their bowers match the preferences of females.

“In addition to the bower construction and ornamentation, male birds perform involved courtship displays to attract the female. Research suggests the male adjusts his performance based on success and female response.

Female satin bowerbird

“Mate-searching females commonly visit multiple bowers, often returning to preferred bowers several times, and watching males' elaborate courtship displays and inspecting the quality of the bower. Through this process the female reduces the set of potential mates. Many females end up selecting the same male, and many under-performing males are left without copulations. Females mated with top-mating males tend to return to the male the next year and search less.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowerbird

Plus they really had wonderfully unique calls.

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[juliann]

Yes, the first thing I think of when it comes to women is animals! Come ON. 

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

The vast majority of women I know who get as part of their PMS mood changes are well aware of the cause and actively work to control them, some being willing to take medication even. Many significantly alter their own behavior to avoid what they see as unnessary conflict under their control.

Iow, women being very aware of any additional hassles or burden hormonal changes may add to their lives and others and actively engaging in behaviors  that as effective as possible increase self control is quite typical for them. The only time I have seen women actually dictating to men to change their behavior due to hormones is on the screen,  though I suppose it might happen.  But considering many societies forced women to withdraw from the presence of men during parts of their cycle, it is an odd statement in a variety of ways.  

Are men also typically aware and active in self control measures in areas where they cause women to suffer (and I am talking primarily about physical harm, fear of such, and social humiliation and not the more likely short temper or depression that may be seen in women with PMS as a disorder)?

And let's not forget that women suffer mentally and physically each month so that they can eventually get pregnant, which includes 40 weeks of physical and mental suffering-sometimes to the point of repeated hospitalization, and then give birth, which requires them to literally risk death, so that they and men can have and raise children.

But yes, let's all feel sorry for how inconvenient that all is for men once a month.  

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

How many times do you need to be told how before it registers with you? 

I was asking for her view. She had asked me to answer things I have answered many times here. My first response was curt, but I repented and tried to be more responsive. Sorry that that offended you.

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

Yes, the first thing I think of when it comes to women is animals! Come ON. 

Come ON? I love animals. We are animals. We observe their behavior to learn more about them  and ourselves. That I find the bowerbird fun and interesting and can see human foibles reflected in their behavior doesn’t deserve your contempt. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And let's not forget that women suffer mentally and physically each month so that they can eventually get pregnant, which includes 40 weeks of physical and mental suffering-sometimes to the point of repeated hospitalization, and then give birth, which requires them to literally risk death, so that they and men can have and raise children.

But yes, let's all feel sorry for how inconvenient that all is for men once a month.  

This....thank you, Bluebell. 

[gopher]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm not exactly sure where the origin came from that modesty of YW is in part to keep YM from being turned on.  It's a good question.  YM have actually complained in the past though about the clothing choices of a young woman though.  It seems to happen most in college.

BYU student given note by a man that her clothing is inappropriate (picture of her clothes is included in the article)

Male BYU student keeps woman from being able to take a test because her pants were too tight  (And for those who want to say 'she wasn't following the honor code' the BYU-I put out a statement saying that skinny jeans were not prohibited by the honor code and that the testing centered had been corrected).

From my perspective, these kinds of situations (where young men shame young women because they feel their clothing is immodest) stem completely from boys being taught that girls should dress with their needs in mind.  

My concern is that it's being also being taught by YW leaders in lessons on modesty.  I agree with and trust the women in this thread (and I'm even not gay!).  We recently had a big Facebook brawl between a mom and a YW leader about an outfit a new member girl wore to church.   How can you also encourage moms and yw leaders to stop passing along harmful expectations and incorrect notions on modesty?  It seems that it would be best coming from other women instead of clueless men getting involved.  We all care about our young women and want to support them all we can.  I'm just not sure everyone is on the same page yet.

And I think most men would agree that those BYU boys are losers.  Probably very lonely losers.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, gopher said:

What is the origin of the idea that the purpose for modesty for young women is to not arouse young men?  Is it from overzealous YW leaders?  It would be creepy if girls are hearing it from male leaders.  And I doubt the young men are doing any complaining.  We had a YW leader that admitted she was very naïve about how easily aroused males were until she was married.  She said she would have dressed differently around boys in high school, as well as acted differently (no prolonged hugging, sitting on boy's laps, and in flirting).  So she may have guilty of mentioning it in a lesson.  She was recently replaced by a vocal OW follower who refuses to even say the word modesty due to the protests she's read online.   I've never heard it taught to the young men.  If we are serious about reducing the occurrences of the arousal of young men, we should look into getting rid of bumpy school bus rides.  And mornings.

I especially liked the getting rid of morning idea.  LOL.  You can't dress away feeling young men have of a sexual nature.

[juliann]

Gopher, anything that is going to stick will come from local leadership because only they can do the personalized shaming. Since girls have their own program, the majority of that will come from females. But, as with every other common teaching, it is first dispensed by men in positions of authority. The above quotes from them illustrate that. So I am cautious in assigning blame to these teachers who are on the lower rungs of the hierarchal ladder. 

What I suspect will happen at an increasing rate as women become more visible and active in decision making, is there will be enough of us to stop the modesty is for boys stuff. 

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, gopher said:

My concern is that it's being also being taught by YW leaders in lessons on modesty.  I agree with and trust the women in this thread (and I'm even not gay!).  We recently had a big Facebook brawl between a mom and a YW leader about an outfit a new member girl wore to church.   How can you also encourage moms and yw leaders to stop passing along harmful expectations and incorrect notions on modesty?  It seems that it would be best coming from other women instead of clueless men getting involved.  We all care about our young women and want to support them all we can.  I'm just not sure everyone is on the same page yet.

And I think most men would agree that those BYU boys are losers.  Probably very lonely losers.

I agree that it does seem that women are most often behind the push to enforce specific modest clothing for girls that goes beyond what the FSOYP teaches.  I'm not exactly sure why.   I think the more that we engage with those standards and speak our thoughts about them, the less we will see it happening, but time will tell.

 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I was asking for her view. She had asked me to answer things I have answered many times here. My first response was curt, but I repented and tried to be more responsive. Sorry that that offended you.

I appreciate any attempt to be more responsive. I don’t think I have ever seen a long thread where women have been united like this. 

So you don’t need to make her say it again. You have seen it over and over again and we know that because you have rarely passed a woman’s post without a smack down.  

We have had enough of what is beginning to look like trolling, to be honest. It isn’t a pleasant sight to see those who will not accept women’s united voices pull so many diversions and stalling techniques while refusing to respond to direct questions themselves. 

[pogi]

17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Come to activities with clothes on....make sure it makes sense for the activity. 

the bold I feel is the crux of what keeps this cycle going in this thread. As I mentioned, I already mentioned my stance. Teach correct principles and let the govern themselves. And I meant it. I would make sure everyone knows what is generally expected (read the FTSoY pamphlet to them, encourage them to let their friends know who aren't members what that expectation is....and most importantly emphasize and teach them Why.) I liked CAboy's and a few other comments that talked about if there is a youth who clothing choices really seem to be pushing boundaries to discuss the principles with them and to have them ponder what would God expect from them. So I'm not going to keep rehashing the same thing past that summary. I really do not want us dictating our teens and I certainly don't want some form of enforcement. 

As for the burden of guessing, I actually don't think this is a good thing that leaders have "taken the burden" of guessing off of them. Not if we want children that can confidently stride through life with a testimony and purpose to what they're doing. And teen years is a very important time to teach autonomy and how to make good decisions. It's a time to stop telling them simply "don't do that" but to give them the first opportunities to make positive decisions in their own life. If we over manage and make guidelines absolute dictations, we're going to have a problem.  If they can't manage such a tiny burden in choice, their agency and connection to revelation will likely atrophy and be unable to handle very pertinent decisions and greater burdens to come. 

 

It is interesting that you mentioned that this isn't gendered and yet you state that the GA's likely came up with the standards based on the young men's needs. Not the young women. The young men. Obviously (I think) this is speculation on your part, but as it is a key common justification for modesty "standards," it doesn't actually read as simply principles. Very little of this thread and the last few pages can be separated from issues of gender. 

I'm not concerned with lines. I'm concerns with principles and making sure our youth are actually taught correct principles. It not about "helping the men out"....it's about keeping our minds focused most on the things of the lord. To not feed into our sense of vanity and materialistic spectacle. When one's endowed it is to maintain one's covenant with the lord. 

Since somehow language came up....I cuss in my sessions. I find that it helps them express their emotions that their suppressing. I purposely do it. There are always grey
"lines" in areas that are completely subjective and contextual. What's "appropriate" clothes wise is one of them. The "Standard" changes from culture to culture and era to era. You can't draw a universally okay outfit. There isn't one way to express modestly through style. 

If your principle can't stand up to an actual experience than the principle may have a major flaw inherently in it. if accountability is between me and God, then sans some concerns that are explicitly meant to harm, harass, or is so inappropriate no one would reasonably do it (the nudity extremes a few people keep harking to) then I'm not going to draw a limit. Their body is not my stewardship. That is something I abjectly believe and I'm not going to start now to try and enforce what I think they should do.

If you're at all interested, my judgment at the time with my shirt is that if I changed the way I dressed for his discomfort and sexual attractions, I would be enabling him to never learn to control his own thoughts and confront his problem with sexual behaviors and thoughts. It cemented my belief that I wouldn't change what I wore for another. 

As for young women, I wouldn't change my clothes. I hope that who I am and what i say teaches them to love themselves, love their bodies, and allow only God to define who they are. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

There is a lot that I agree with here, and obviously some points of disagreement.  However, if we really get down to the nitty-gritty, I honestly doubt that our leadership style would be that different in practice with the youth.  I have been a YM leader for the past 10 years, currently I am both the scout master and 2nd counselor in YM.  I very much lean towards the principle of "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves."  That seems to work almost all of the time - but these are teenagers, and there are exceptions.  I don't really like the word "enforcement", when it comes to church principles, but I do find it appropriate in certain situation to give the youth a clear choice - either stop being a distraction, or leave.  In an ideal world, it would work to sit the kid aside and tell him "why" modesty, and not being a total irreverent jerk and distraction etc. is important and they will get it and heed your counsel, but in the real world, you have to create boundaries and enforce those boundaries for the good of all participants.

The most recent example I can think of, we have a teacher who likes to come to activities bur rarely, rarely comes to church.  He loves to play his music (rap) at activities on his phone speakers, which I don't usually have a problem with if it is not completely offensive and distracting from the activity.  But sometimes his music is raunchy and offensive (eminem style offensive).  I tell him that what he listens to on his own time is his choice, but that this type of music can be distracting from the spirit for others and will not be allowed in church activities.  He agreed to abide by that standard.  The problem continued week after week, and I had to continually remind him.  He actually came to church one week (which I was really excited about), but guess what he started playing in church on his phone speakers during lesson time?  Yep, something about Bitc*es and hoes - no joke.  I had taught him correct principles many times already, and he didn't seem to get it, but continued to push the envelope - even in church.  Should I have let him continue to be a complete distraction from the spirit during the lesson, or should I have given him an ultimatum? I did the later.  I pulled him aside and told him that we are all really excited to see him at church, but that if he wanted to stay, he is going to need to put his music away and participate.  I told him you have a choice, you can either put your music away, or you can have me call your mom and have her come pick you up (she is not active).  I let him know very clearly that this is not acceptable in the church.  He apologized and wanted to stay.  We haven't had a problem sense.  And, yes he is still semi-active. 

My question is, would you disagree with that approach and style of "enforcement"?  I somehow highly doubt that anyone here would allow this distraction to continue in class and on youth activities.  But when I try to justify this approach, I only get harped on.  Clothing can be just as inappropriate and just as much of a distraction from the spirit as offensive music can be.  Should we allow a child to participate who is clearly just trying to get attention for himself by being an irreverent and inappropriate distraction from the spirit?  Or, should I have pulled him aside, taught him correct principles, but let him continue to be an attention seeking distraction if he so decided?  Should I have told the other youth who might have complained, "quit being a baby, and learn to control your own thoughts.  You shouldn't expect John to be responsible for your thoughts.  If you are distracted, that is your own fault and not John's.  He has no accountability in this matter, and no boundaries or expectations should be placed on him.  I have taught him correct principles, and he has every right to govern himself without any form of intervention."  Maybe this will help you understand why I have a problem with the principle of your approach. It is the best method most of the time, but there are always exceptions.

Wearing an immodest outfit to church can be just as distracting as a person standing up in a lesson and saying "look at me, look at me, look at me, look at me..." throughout the lesson.  I don't think you would or should tolerate that type of behavior if you were teaching.  I understand that clothing/appearance can be a sensitive and subjective area and much wiggle room needs to be allowed (as I have stated previously), but there ARE exceptions.  

In high school, I decided that it would be funny to dress up like Angus Young (AC DC) in shorts and a dress shirt and tie to church.  I thought, "hey, if little kids can dress in shorts to church , why can't I"?  Note, that I also had a huge afro at the time...like really big.  I was previously assigned to pass the sacrament that day.  Was it wrong of my bishop to ask me to go home and change?  Really, should there be no "enforcement"?  What if I showed up in just a swim suit?  An extreme example to demonstrate that there are always exceptions. 

I am glad to hear that you think of the FTSoY as guide of general expectations.  It is precisely that pamphlet that I am defending here.  It teaches all of the principles that I have discussed already, including being considerate of others in your dress. It says:

Quote

 

 If you are modest, you do not draw undue attention to yourself. Instead, you seek to “glorify God in your body, and in your spirit” 

Your clothing expresses who you are. It sends messages about you, and it influences the way you and others act. When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you can invite the companionship of the Spirit and exercise a good influence on those around you.

Your words and actions can have a profound influence on you and on others. Express yourself through clean, positive, uplifting language and in actions that bring happiness to those around you.

 

Maybe the responsibility that we have to help others is more driven into the young men then young women because of scouts.  They have taken an oath to "help other people at all times."  That to me is sound principle in modesty, and all other areas of life. 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

How many times do you need to be told how before it registers with you? 

I have been pondering the hostility in your responses toward me in this thread. It puzzles me.

Would you please provide some specifics that need to register with me? I would like to be able to consider them and to respond in a reasonable and mutually respectful way.

[juliann]

I don’t think clothing is comparable to playing loud vulgar music in church. You can choose to not look but you can’t choose to not hear. 

 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, we should want to be a good influence on others.  If we are sincerely behaving and dressing in ways that we believe God is o.k. with, then we have covered all the 'I want to be a good influence' bases.  If we are behaving and dressing in a way that we believe God is o.k. with, then we don't have to ask ourselves if we are being a good influence or not.  We are already doing everything we need to do.

 

The problem is that youth don't always get it, and intervention is required.  When youth are clearly attention seeking and distracting from the spirit in words, dress, and action.  Should we just tolerate it? Let them continue on...  Tell others to just focus harder and control their thoughts?  Read my last post for more on this. 

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have been pondering the hostility in your responses toward me in this thread. It puzzles me.

Would you please provide some specifics that need to register with me? I would like to be able to consider them and to respond in a reasonable and mutually respectful way.

If you haven’t noticed, I’m not the only one who has had enough. Nor do I accept your definition of what is reasonable and respectful. That is another area where women are given double standards. I don’t consider what you are doing in this thread to be anywhere near reasonable or respectful. What you are really demanding is that women who will not accept your behavior be female “nice” Nope. Done with that, too. 

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

The problem is that youth don't always get it, and intervention is required.  When youth are clearly attention seeking and distracting from the spirit in words, dress, and action.  Should we just tolerate it? Let them continue on...  Tell others to just focus harder and control their thoughts?  Read my last post for more on this. 

But we aren’t talking about “youth.” We are talking about destructive dictates that girls are being told. 

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

But we aren’t talking about “youth.” We are talking about destructive dictates that girls are being told. 

We have been talking about the FTSoY guideline and principles and enforcement of those principles.  We have been talking about being responsible for our influence on others, all of which are outlined in the pamphlete.  And yes, we have been talking about how this all applies to youth and their leaders.

Edited August 30, 2018 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

I appreciate any attempt to be more responsive. I don’t think I have ever seen a long thread where women have been united like this. 

Very few women and men have been involved in this thread. Lots more have been following, but not chiming in. We discussed this in our family support group last night. It has been an ongoing concern for some who have loved ones with pornography problems. I read some excerpts from various sides of the thread, not mentioning names. The reactions there from both men and women was not the same as it has been here.

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

So you don’t need to make her say it again. You have seen it over and over again and we know that because you have rarely passed a woman’s post without a smack down.  

I don’t believe that is a fair assessment, but I accept that it is your sincere opinion of me. I would appreciate an example of a smack down.

 

[Bernard Gui]

25 minutes ago, juliann said:

If you haven’t noticed, I’m not the only one who has had enough. Nor do I accept your definition of what is reasonable and respectful. That is another area where women are given double standards. I don’t consider what you are doing in this thread to be anywhere near reasonable or respectful. What you are really demanding is that women who will not accept your behavior be female “nice” Nope. Done with that, too. 

Can we slow down? Please give an example of what you think is in my egregious behavior so I can respond.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, juliann said:

I don’t think clothing is comparable to playing loud vulgar music in church. You can choose to not look but you can’t choose to not hear. 

 

So you do agree at least that enforcement of at least some principles is appropriate, and that sometimes, something more than “teaching correct principles and letting them govern themselves” is needed.

They both can be a distraction and inappropriate for certain activities. If I showed up in a swim suit at church, expecting others to not look and be distracted somehow seems unreasonable.

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

My concern is that it's being also being taught by YW leaders in lessons on modesty.  I agree with and trust the women in this thread (and I'm even not gay!).  We recently had a big Facebook brawl between a mom and a YW leader about an outfit a new member girl wore to church.   How can you also encourage moms and yw leaders to stop passing along harmful expectations and incorrect notions on modesty?  It seems that it would be best coming from other women instead of clueless men getting involved.  We all care about our young women and want to support them all we can.  I'm just not sure everyone is on the same page yet.

And I think most men would agree that those BYU boys are losers.  Probably very lonely losers.

The frontlines may be areas like YW's lessons. But it's a lesson that men will also need to carry as well. If there were a talk, say by the bishop, about how we welcome all into our congregation and that this is no place to criticize or judge others based on choice in clothes....but to love and teach them good principles to prepare them to further serve the Lord, that could make a world of difference. To me this problem still runs 2-fold. In teach men that they need us to be modest in order for them to manage themselves. There needs to be focus on how to learn to do that themselves and learning to accept their sexuality but then direct it so that they have space to build healthy relationships and to focus on other valuable experiences as well. There also needs for women to relearn that they aren't in control or responsible for the feelings and experiences of others. And that it is not only okay, but good, to love your body and to dress it in a way that promotes a sense of love toward that gift while also making sure they also focus on building healthy relationships and gain other valuable experiences. At least that would be the start.

There are both men and women who have bought into a false narrative around modesty. They may even have experiences that assert to them that this must be true, often from negative experiences. They cannot visualize a world where maybe if something fundamental had been different, the experience simply wouldn't exist. And that type of change takes us all. 

With luv,

BD

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, juliann said:

I don’t think clothing is comparable to playing loud vulgar music in church. You can choose to not look but you can’t choose to not hear. 

 

Was that addressed to me?

One sister in our meeting last night told of an experience at girls camp. One evening they had a guest speaker, an older man from the stake leadership. As he spoke he kept his gaze on the trees behind the group. She thought this was odd until she noticed a girl near the front who was wearing thin-fabric, skin-tight yoga pants, and realized he was choosing not to look. She said her respect for him expanded exponentially. She also said she was a convert who had come from a fairly permissive environment and was so glad to have found a church that was a safe haven from what she had grown up with outside the Church. She referred me to Sister Eubanks’ FAIR talk.

Is there anything objectionable in her story?

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

The problem is that youth don't always get it, and intervention is required.  When youth are clearly attention seeking and distracting from the spirit in words, dress, and action.  Should we just tolerate it? Let them continue on...  Tell others to just focus harder and control their thoughts?  Read my last post for more on this. 

A lot of it depends.  If actions or words are clearly distracting from the spirit then sometimes intervention is necessary.  I don't think that intervention (in the moment) is ever really necessary when it comes to dress.  I don't think we have to worry about youth showing up naked or in especially provocative clothing so speaking in general terms, typical immodest clothing isn't intervention worthy in my opinion.