Modesty issues...again

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

No it doesn’t. It tells you nothing about me. I agree with what you recommend to her.

Yet you could not articulate that. I'm curious though. If she should dress in ways to help the righteous men in her life avoid inappropriate thoughts, why shouldn't she cover her feet?

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

That could possibly cost you your life, but if we’re that important to you maybe that would be acceptable. I already said what they appear to be doing is wrong. 

Whoa! Just for the record, I was talking a hypothetical. Like if they came in and asked me for advice.

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

That’s certainly what some people think.

Those are serious accusations. What kind of poster am I?  Could you point out a specific thing I said that you think is damaging? 

The message from Elder Callister: "The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men. If it is too low or too high or too tight, it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure." And "Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own self-respect and to the moral purity of men. In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for." So if a young woman "prompts" improper thoughts in a young man striving to be pure, then clearly it is too high, too low, too tight. Right? The thing is, I used to be a young man, and I used to strive to be pure. And I got improper thoughts all the time regardless of what the young woman was wearing. That's what the picture I shared demonstrated. Straight men are biologically (not saying women aren't) wired to notice women. It happens. For me, it happened at church, at church dances, at school, around the neighborhood. It made me feel like crap. So the idea that women can dress modestly enough to prevent "prompting" improper thoughts in men who are striving to be pure is a non-starter. It doesn't work. It doesn't matter if a woman is covered from head to toe. 

So what is damaging? We are setting up the young women to fail. They are given an impossible task. This is the damaging message. To the extent that you teach or use the idea that ties women's modesty to men's improper thoughts then yes you are damaging young women. 

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why do you think it should be taught? What should be taught?

Men and women should be taught to respect their bodies. They are a gift. Modest in its scriptural use has nothing to do with inches above the knee, but has to do with how much we spend on things and how much attention we are calling on ourselves. Do we have modest homes? Cars? Clothes? It's the same concept. How we dress sends a message. Are we dressing to purposefully draw attention to ourselves? We should be aware of that message and dress in ways that send appropriate messages. When I go to the gym I wear short shorts and a tech t-shirt. If I go to a job interview I wear a suit and tie. When I go on a date with my wife, I strive for nice but casual. When I go swimming I take off my shirt and wear swim trunks. Never once in any of these situations do I give a second thought to what the women around me are thinking or feeling (aside from my wife). I teach my four sons the same. When I have my daughter (expecting this December), I will teach her similarly. Being modest at the beach, at the office or at home has nothing to do with what the men are thinking. 

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'm a dude. But interesting that on a board dominated by men, you assumed otherwise.

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

As I pointed out earlier, it was the youth of our stake who requested a better environment for dances. They fully participated in structuring the plan. It included a viable dress code.The dances became so popular other stakes asked to join in, and they became a monthly regional event. Non-member youth asked to come. They established an LDS Senior Prom with FTSOY standards that has been very successful. Would it be unreasonable to conclude that the dress standard played at least a small part in the success?

[pogi]

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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?

Wait, wait, wait, now you guys are agreeing with me that it is a problem to have no defined boundaries and borders?  That is my argument against you, so I am really confused at all of this.  It appears that you all agree with me and this discussion is over.  Cool.  I am the one saying there should be some basic boundaries - and there are.  It is called the FTSoY pamphlet.  That is how far we should take it. 

[bluebell]

32 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.

I appreciate that you are attempting to have a respectful dialogue.  I think some of the problem might be that it doesn't seem like you are trying to understand what women are saying or engaging our perspective so much as you are trying to explain why we should find your take on modesty to be reasonable.  

For example, some posters have provided examples of how the way that some church leaders are interpreting and enforcing the modesty standards causes emotional and mental harm to girls, as well as creating an unhealthy burden for them to bear. I could have missed it, but I didn't see you engage those experiences.

Blue Dreams provided an example of how someone's desire to enforce modesty standards at a church school caused her some distress and you responded that it was lamentable to you that she would have to deal with that, but did you address how that distress was caused by people who hold some of the same beliefs that you do concerning modesty and enforcing it?  

You do not have agree with anyone, but it would go a long way if you and other men could recognize the unique perspective and value that women's thoughts on modesty teachings and enforcement bring to this subject and engage  that specific perspective.

[BlueDreams]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

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:

 I'm tired and not in the mood to answer everything right now. But I don't 100% agree with everything in the FTSoY. Most importantly for how it is easily miscontrued and misused. I would word it differently to help reduce the likelihood that others get the ideas that I found growing up that retarded my capacity to actually understand modesty in a spiritual sense.  And what I see as having enabled others to comment and make judgments on my dress or others even as adults. The passage you quoted is one of them. 

 

With luv,

BD

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Wait, wait, wait, now you guys are agreeing with me that it is a problem to have no defined boundaries and borders?  That is my argument against you, so I am really confused at all of this.  It appears that you all agree with me and this discussion is over.  Cool.  I am the one saying there should be some basic boundaries - and there are.  It is called the FTSoY pamphlet.  That is how far we should take it. 

I haven't seen anyone here arguing that there should be no standards. That isn't the issue here. It is quite possible to teach your children (boys and girls) standards of modesty without making them feel responsible for other people's thoughts and behaviors. I know because I've taught 6 children standards of modesty without ever telling them they needed to cover up lest the neighbor kid get aroused. 

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A lot of it depends.  If actions or words are clearly distracting from the spirit then sometimes intervention is necessary.  

Clearly distracting to whom?  Women only?  What about the men? Do our opinions of what might be distracting to the spirit not count?  What if an outfit in church or other youth activity IS clearly distracting from the spirit (surely you don't doubt this has happened), then what?  Should leaders intervene?  As I have said before, clothing are a form of words. 

The funny thing is, my wife has commented on how distracting other women's outfits are in church far more than I have ever noticed myself.  Maybe there is some truth to the statement that "women don't dress for men, they dress for other women."

Edited August 30, 2018 by pogi

[juliann]

20 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

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

I am encouraged that my ward regularly teaches that people shouldn’t be criticized for what they wear to church. Ever. It was started by a male GD teacher. I have no knowledge of our YW to know if it was generalized to the girls. It will be much more difficult to get it out of YW because it is so embedded in lessons in various forms. 

Our bishop wouldn’t put up with putting responsibility for boys on the girls. I’ll have to ask what he has run into. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

I am encouraged that my ward regularly teaches that people shouldn’t be criticized for what they wear to church. Ever. It was started by a male GD teacher. I have no knowledge of our YW to know if it was generalized to the girls. It will be much more difficult to get it out of YW because it is so embedded in lessons in various forms. 

Our bishop wouldn’t put up with putting responsibility for boys on the girls. I’ll have to ask what he has run into. 

I'm reminded of being in a small branch in Bolivia with 3 active members: the branch president, an elderly woman, and an 18-year-old young man. The branch president asked us to bless and pass the sacrament, but then we found out the young man was an ordained priest. We said he should be participating in the sacrament, but the branch president refused because the young man was too poor to own a white shirt and tie. We protested, but the branch president was adamant that it was inappropriate, showed lack of reverence, and would be distracting to the congregation (the other 4 of us, apparently). So, I gave the young man one of my shirts, and my companion gave him a tie. This whole talk of being distracting or arousing to others is as ridiculous to me as that branch president was. 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

As I pointed out earlier, it was the youth of our stake who requested a better environment for dances. They fully participated in structuring the plan. It included a viable dress code.The dances became so popular other stakes asked to join in, and they became a monthly regional event. Non-member youth asked to come. They established an LDS Senior Prom with FTSOY standards that has been very successful. Would it be unreasonable to conclude that the dress standard played at least a small part in the success?

No, I don't think that would unreasonable at all.  If dress did not impact our actions, I don't think God would care about it in the least.

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

What about the men? 

Pogi, just a gentle caution. Never, ever say this in a thread by and about women unless you want to become a meme. It’s bad form. 

 

[juliann]

I’m find it very odd that something as banal as dress would “distract from the Spirit.” Where does this idea even come from? The only way I can see it as being distractive is if the observer was such a Pharisee and control freak they couldn’t look at anything else or concentrate on the uplifting things being said. 

I sure hope they don’t have to deal with accident victims and such if they can’t muster up any spirit. 

I have no idea why any rational thinker would kowtow to someone who demanded a perfect environment of their choosing. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Clearly distracting to whom?  Women only?  What about the men? Do our opinions of what might be distracting to the spirit not count?  What if an outfit in church or other youth activity IS clearly distracting from the spirit (surely you don't doubt this has happened), then what?  Should leaders intervene?  As I have said before, clothing are a form of words. 

The funny thing is, my wife has commented on how distracting other women's outfits are in church far more than I have ever noticed myself.  Maybe there is some truth to the statement that "women don't dress for men, they dress for other women."

Sounds, actions, and clothing can certainly all be distracting.  So can babies, smells and really bad make up or toupees.  Just because something is distracting does not mean, in and of itself, that intervention is needed.  Sometimes we are simple required to ignore the distraction.  It's a part of becoming mature adults.

Audible disruptions that cannot be ignored are clearly distracting to both men and women, and since they can't be ignored, it makes sense that sometimes intervention is necessary.  I don't believe that clothing counts as a distraction that cannot be ignored (regardless of the opinions of the men and women in the room) and that is why i do not find it to be intervention worthy.

Pogi, you have asked these similar questions over and over and over and over again and I can't figure out why.  Is it an issue of concern that you aren't wording things clearly enough, or wanting to use the better examples to prove your points?   Are you concerned that I'm not understanding you and that's why you need to keep asking?  

It seems clear that you believe that youth leaders should sometimes intervene in issues of modesty at youth activities.  I disagree.  Is there anything left to say or any questions really left to ask?

 

[BlueDreams]

51 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am encouraged that my ward regularly teaches that people shouldn’t be criticized for what they wear to church. Ever. It was started by a male GD teacher. I have no knowledge of our YW to know if it was generalized to the girls. It will be much more difficult to get it out of YW because it is so embedded in lessons in various forms. 

Our bishop wouldn’t put up with putting responsibility for boys on the girls. I’ll have to ask what he has run into. 

I quite like that. 

I've been thinking about the insert on dress and appearance in the FTSoY pamphlet. Since I'm 30 and don't have children, it's been a long time since I read it. I forgot that there's very gendered descriptions that I've never been a fan of, because the only language with specific descriptions as what not to wear are tied to women. Men are just given general advice. So I was thinking, what would I do if I had the option to rewrite what it says. For anyone interested this is what I'd change about. 

 

 

Quote

Your body is sacred. Respect it and do not defile it in any way. Through your dress and appearance, you can show that you know how precious your body is. You can show that you are a disciple of Jesus Christ and that you love Him.

Prophets of God have continually counseled His children to dress modestly. When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you invite the companionship of the Spirit and you can be a good influence on others. Your dress and grooming influence the way you and others act. Examples of this can be seen especially in the BoM where men and women became focused on attaining costly and excessive apparel. Their hearts turned to pride and vanity, by judging people based on their appearance and developing a sense of worth that focused more on their appearance and status in society. This impaired them in caring for their neighbor, sharing the gospel, and understanding their full worth with the Lord.

Never lower your standards of dress. Do not use a special occasion as an excuse to be immodest. When you dress immodestly, you send a message that is contrary to your identity as a son or daughter of God. You also send the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval.

Immodest clothing is any clothing that is tight, sheer, or revealing in any other manner, draws excessive attention to ones body and material/worldly status. 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. and 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.

Do not disfigure yourself with excessive tattoos or body piercings. Young women, if you desire to have your ears pierced, wear only one pair of earrings.

Show respect for the Lord and yourself by dressing appropriately for Church meetings and activities. This is especially important when attending sacrament services. Young men and women should dress with dignity when officiating participating in the ordinance of the sacrament.

If you are not sure what is appropriate to wear, study the words of the prophets, pray for guidance, and ask your parents or leaders for help. Your dress and appearance now will help you prepare for the time when you will go to the temple to make sacred covenants with God. Ask yourself, “Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were in the Lord’s presence?”

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 30, 2018 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

I love much of what Elder Callister has written on other subjects, but I wish he had chosen a different approach when it came to modesty, especially this:

”the end, most women get the type of man they dress for”

It is so easy to take this to a woman got a lazy, abusive, or whatever husband due to the way she chose to dress. And since I know of no way to dress that will automatically attract someone interested in kids or interested in books or interested in any other activity besides sex (unless one is actually dressing for the activity like skydiving or scuba), it also reads to me like he is referring to whether or not a husband will be faithful to his wife...and a wife should only expect faithfulness if she dresses modestly (though since what is modest varies from person to person, anyone can use a personal standard to justify wandering).

 It translates automatically imo to ‘she deserves whatever she gets’. Since I am positive that is not what he means based on his other writings, I choose to ignore this comment for myself, but it is very soundbitish and therefore way too easy to get stuck in one’s head as a youth. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yet you could not articulate that. I'm curious though. If she should dress in ways to help the righteous men in her life avoid inappropriate thoughts, why shouldn't she cover her feet?

She lives in a culture that is foreign to me. I don’t know what is in her mind nor what what was in the minds the men. It would appear they were leering, but we can’t know any more than their appearance.If they were doing that, it was wrong. I would guess an observant Muslim man would also think it was wrong, but I can’t speak for him. As for myself, I choose to try to avoid anything that could cause another to stumble. That is my position. Sisters should look within and decide for themselves if what they do may cause another to stumble. I think it is a matter of introspection.

In addiction recovery, we go through a process of repentance where we make a list of everyone we have harmed and resolve to make amends to them. It took me a long time to write my list. I tried to make it comprehensive. On it was a girl in my high school named Anna. Her appearance and demeanor made her a target for ridicule. I am ashamed to say that to some extent I participated in that. If I ever see Anna again, even in the next life, I will express my sorrow and ask her forgiveness. 

Quote

Whoa! Just for the record, I was talking a hypothetical. Like if they came in and asked me for advice.

I understood that. Mine was a hypothetical too.

Quote

The message from Elder Callister: "The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men.”

From my experience as a man and with men in and out of the Church, I think this is accurate. You may disagree, but it is what I have observed and experienced.

“If it is too low or too high or too tight, it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure."

This is also true. It is something men have to deal with. It is why pornography is such a difficult problem.There is a broad spectrum of where men are along the spectrum, everything from “”Woohoo, baby. Show me your booty” to the way a Heavenly Father looks on his daughters. I want to be like a father, but it is a struggle. I believe this is wired into men by biologgy and that part of our reason for being here is to learn how to master it so we can be in the eternities with our brothers and sisters, wives and daughters.

“And "Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own self-respect and to the moral purity of men. In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for."

I think women can consider their actions and choose what they think is best. I don’t agree with the second statement.

“So if a young woman "prompts" improper thoughts in a young man striving to be pure, then clearly it is too high, too low, too tight. Right?”

Maybe. This is where the division starts. Just what is the nature of cause and effect. A crude and imprecise analogy, but there are actions I could take that would prompt inappropriate reactions such as wearing a Trump hat at an Antifa protest. Would I be responsible for the beat down I would get? Would the beaters bear some responsibility? Yes, for both. Please don’t extrapolate that as some sort of slam on women. That is not intended. Simply and only that what I do can cause a reaction in others. 

“The thing is, I used to be a young man, and I used to strive to be pure. And I got improper thoughts all the time regardless of what the young woman was wearing.”

I believe that is part of our biological nature as fallen man. If men care, they must learn to do better. Many don’t care.

“That's what the picture I shared demonstrated. Straight men are biologically (not saying women aren't) wired to notice women. It happens. For me, it happened at church, at church dances, at school, around the neighborhood. It made me feel like crap. So the idea that women can dress modestly enough to prevent "prompting" improper thoughts in men who are striving to be pure is a non-starter. It doesn't work. It doesn't matter if a woman is covered from head to toe.”

I agree. Most good men I know (with whom I have discussed this) have had similar struggles. But you cared. Many men don’t care and think it is Christmas every day. It is a starter. It is a fact that immodesty can prompt unworthy thoughts. That does not excuse the man from being accountable. Jesus said, “But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” In order to be like Jesus we have to learn not to do that.

So what is damaging? We are setting up the young women to fail. They are given an impossible task. This is the damaging message. To the extent that you teach or use the idea that ties women's modesty to men's improper thoughts then yes you are damaging young women. 

The formatting feature here is inconsistent.

It depends on how that is approached. In our meeting last night, the women said that had not been their experience,. That doesn’t.’t mean it doesn’t happen. Reasonable people can figure out how to make it better.

 

Quote

Men and women should be taught to respect their bodies. They are a gift. Modest in its scriptural use has nothing to do with inches above the knee, but has to do with how much we spend on things and how much attention we are calling on ourselves. Do we have modest homes? Cars? Clothes? It's the same concept. How we dress sends a message. Are we dressing to purposefully draw attention to ourselves? 

 

I don’t understand what this means. Do you mean purposely choosing immodest clothes in order to attract attention? Would that also include sexual attraction? Are we not saying the same thing?

 

We should be aware of that message and dress in ways that send appropriate messages. When I go to the gym I wear short shorts and a tech t-shirt. If I go to a job interview I wear a suit and tie. When I go on a date with my wife, I strive for nice but casual. When I go swimming I take off my shirt and wear swim trunks. Never once in any of these situations do I give a second thought to what the women around me are thinking or feeling (aside from my wife). I teach my four sons the same. When I have my daughter (expecting this December), I will teach her similarly. Being modest at the beach, at the office or at home has nothing to do with what the men are thinking. 

 

Much to agree with there. I will be interested in talking with you after 20 or 30 years with your daughter and future daughters-in-law. Mine is 38 and I have 4 daughters-in-law. They have a spectrum of thought on this. Some of them have sons and are concerned about this issue.

 

I'm a dude. But interesting that on a board dominated by men, you assumed otherwise.

How is that interesting? I can’t see through my computer into your room. We haven’t had much interaction here. Your name is not gender specific. Why do you take this kind of cheap shot? 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, I don't think that would unreasonable at all.  If dress did not impact our actions, I don't think God would care about it in the least.

So what are we bickering about?

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

 

Reminds me of the talk about the saintly guy who had to put a hankerchief between his righteous hand and his dance partner’s immodest skin. 

I’ve been to girls camp a few times. First, they don’t need men speakers there anymore than boys’ need women speakers. Second, those speaker meetings are outside usually...meaning very dim lighting. 

It is totally gross that some guy thought it was more important to look at trees than to make EYE contact with the girls. Again, the same message. Now girls’ skin is so unrighteous it can’t be touched to they are so unclean they don’t deserve to be looked at. 

I would hope your gossip source never bothered to verify her creepy obversation because if true, this guy is seriously disturbed. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So what are we bickering about?

You said (about the youth church dances in your area)-"Would it be unreasonable to conclude that the dress standard played at least a small part in the success?"

I firmly believe that our dress affects how we feel and act in every situation.  I'm sure that your dances were successful because the kids wanted (and choose to support) modest dress standards.  I think our disagreement is in whether or not adults need to bar youth from participating in church activities if they show up in clothing that does not exactly match the guidelines given.

Given everything else that your stake, and the youth in your stake, did to create these dances, do you believe that if you hadn't of been at the door being the modest bouncer that the dances would not have been successful?  Was adult enforcement of the dress code what made them work?

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How is that interesting? I can’t see through my computer into your room. We haven’t had much interaction here. Your name is not gender specific. Why do you take this kind of cheap shot? 

Do you not see the pattern? You feel attacked when women strongly disagree with you. Gender matters because I suspect you assume that anyone who is disagreeing with you is female by default. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Reminds me of the talk about the saintly guy who had to put a hankerchief between his righteous hand and his dance partner’s immodest skin. 

I’ve been to girls camp a few times. First, they don’t need men speakers there anymore than boys’ need women speakers. Second, those speaker meetings are outside usually...meaning very dim lighting. 

It is totally gross that some guy thought it was more important to look at trees than to make EYE contact with the girls. Again, the same message. Now girls’ skin is so unrighteous it can’t be touched to they are so unclean they don’t deserve to be looked at. 

I would hope your gossip source never bothered to verify her creepy obversation because if true, this guy is seriously disturbed. 

I can see your point of view but I have a different take on Bernard's experience.  

I don't have a problem with having men speak at girls camp and I think it would be so amazing and good for the young men if women spoke at their camps.  For girls camp, it's almost always a male leader and having them come and speak at girls camp, in my experience, helps the girls feel loved by their male leaders.  They don't have a lot of chances for personal interaction with them and girls camp is a good way to foster those relationships.  Our girls love all of our leaders (they especially love to prank them!).  I wish that the boys had more chances to feel loved and to have a positive relationship with women leaders in the ward or stake. 

And I also think that it was fine for that man to 'speak to the trees' if that's how he got through the moment.  I don't find it disturbing that he chose to look somewhere else rather than see more of the girl's body than it sounds like she would have wanted to show (since it sounds like her clothing was inadvertently see-through due to the fabric and the firelight).

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I appreciate that you are attempting to have a respectful dialogue.  I think some of the problem might be that it doesn't seem like you are trying to understand what women are saying or engaging our perspective so much as you are trying to explain why we should find your take on modesty to be reasonable.  

Thanks for your response. I’m trying to learn what people think. If you interpret that as not trying to understand women, then I have fallen short. I appreciate your patience. Is “my take” unreasonable to you? From what I have said, could you summarize my take so that I understand what that means?

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

For example, some posters have provided examples of how the way that some church leaders are interpreting and enforcing the modesty standards causes emotional and mental harm to girls, as well as creating an unhealthy burden for them to bear. I could have missed it, but I didn't see you engage those experiences.

I can’t go through all these pages yet again, but I have said numerous times I do not approve of anything that would shame girls or inflict harm on them. Why would I want that?

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Blue Dreams provided an example of how someone's desire to enforce modesty standards at a church school caused her some distress and you responded that it was lamentable to you that she would have to deal with that, but did you address how that distress was caused by people who hold some of the same beliefs that you do concerning modesty and enforcing it?  

I said it was lamentable and she said not to her and I replied that is was to me. That means I thought it was deplorable, bad, unfortunate, wrong. Those who did that were out of place. I said nothing in their defense, but I can’t anticipate all the bases I have to cover. My view of modesty is that which is expressed in FTSOY and the temple garment. Most of us have agreed on that. I have refrained from using the word enforce because of the negative implications it engenders. I reject anything that would shame girls or cause them harm. I have never thought anything differently. I hated the chewed gum analogy of my youth. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You do not have agree with anyone, but it would go a long way if you and other men could recognize the unique perspective and value that women's thoughts on modesty teachings and enforcement bring to this subject and engage  that specific perspective.

That’s why I have participated fully in this discussion. This has been a frequent topic of discussion in our extended family  We all think it is important and have various points of view, but it has never been acrimonious. Understanding goes both ways or it is not understanding.

[Bernard Gui]

24 minutes ago, juliann said:

Reminds me of the talk about the saintly guy who had to put a hankerchief between his righteous hand and his dance partner’s immodest skin. 

I’ve been to girls camp a few times. First, they don’t need men speakers there anymore than boys’ need women speakers. Second, those speaker meetings are outside usually...meaning very dim lighting. 

It is totally gross that some guy thought it was more important to look at trees than to make EYE contact with the girls. Again, the same message. Now girls’ skin is so unrighteous it can’t be touched to they are so unclean they don’t deserve to be looked at. 

I would hope your gossip source never bothered to verify her creepy obversation because if true, this guy is seriously disturbed. 

I give up. You are out of line slandering me and my friends. We don’t deserve this kind of abuse. Heck of a way to end a friendship.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[juliann]

BB, it isn’t avoiding looking at the girl’s body, aside from most speakers are establishing eye contact so I have no idea why he would even be checking out her lower extremities. Not to mention she would be sitting sandwiched by other girls rather than on her back waving her legs around so he could see her face.

I find this story suspect to begin with but what I object to is the idea that if you are going to send a man to girls’ camp and he can’t keep his eyes on faces, he should have enough respect to at least talk to the rest of the girls instead of the trees. 

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You said (about the youth church dances in your area)-"Would it be unreasonable to conclude that the dress standard played at least a small part in the success?"

I firmly believe that our dress affects how we feel and act in every situation.  I'm sure that your dances were successful because the kids wanted (and choose to support) modest dress standards.  I think our disagreement is in whether or not adults need to bar youth from participating in church activities if they show up in clothing that does not exactly match the guidelines given.

Given everything else that your stake, and the youth in your stake, did to create these dances, do you believe that if you hadn't of been at the door being the modest bouncer that the dances would not have been successful?  Was adult enforcement of the dress code what made them work?

Yet I have repeatedly said that we did not bar anyone from attending. It was what the youth wanted. At least give me some benefit of the doubt. I give up.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui