Modesty issues...again

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, juliann said:

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. 

Wrong. That is absurd. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

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?

I don't think your take on enforcing modesty is unreasonable (even though I disagree with it) but I don't think your take on enforcing modesty is what's causing most of the problems on the thread.  I think it's a lack of perception on and engagement with why a lot of women in the church disagree with it.

Quote

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?

I know and that's good.  But I'm not sure you're understanding that some of what you feel is reasonable is causing shame and inflicting harm on girls regardless of intent.  That it's not purposeful doesn't mean it's not happening.  

Quote

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. 

Those who did that to Blue Dreams share the same beliefs as you do about the need to sometimes temper mercy with justice and enforce modest dress standards.  

Quote

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.

I agree.  However, the topic of this thread is how modesty enforcement and teachings by local leaders can negatively affect girls.  I'm not sure how to interpret 'understanding goes both ways' in that context.  Can you clarify?

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yet Imhave repeatedly said that we did not bar anyone from attending. At least give me some benefit of the doubt. I give up.

I'm very sorry if i misunderstood.  I was under the impression that if they repeatedly refused to follow the standards that you did bar them from participating.   And I was under the impression that you felt it was reasonable to bar youth from participating in activities if their clothing was not modest enough.

Edited August 30, 2018 by bluebell

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

It would never occur to me to “end a friendship” because I had one argument with someone. And I would certainly re-evaluate what I was doing if a variety of posters sharply pushed back at me. Or stop making them angry by letting it go. You know this is a very tender topic for us but you will not relent or even agree to disagree.  

You are really underestimating how you are coming across. I don’t think I have seen such annoyed responses from our most gentle women posters. I’m very puzzled why you can’t take that in. 

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Those who did that to Blue Dreams share the same beliefs as you do about the need to sometimes temper mercy with justice and enforce modest dress standards.  

My last response because I cannot let this go unanswered.

No, we do not share the same beliefs and I would never act the way they did. They abused her and shamed her. That is not in my repertoire. This misrepresents what I have taken great pains to explain. If that is your view of me, then we have failed to communicate.

Understanding goes both ways.

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

It would never occur to me to “end a friendship” because I had one argument with someone. And I would certainly re-evaluate what I was doing if a variety of posters sharply pushed back at me. Or stop making them angry by letting it go. You know this is a very tender topic for us but you will not relent or even agree to disagree.  

You are really underestimating how you are coming across. I don’t think I have seen such annoyed responses from our most gentle women posters. I’m very puzzled why you can’t take that in. 

I would never slander you or your friends. Friends don’t do that even in arguments.   If you don’t think that’s a problem, perhaps  you could do some self-reflection, too. You don’t need to lecture me any further.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

"Principles" is not what he or I said though.  He said, "boundaries and borders", as in "no short shorts or sleeveless shirts".  He said it is a problem that there are no boundaries and borders with my argument.  I thought that was ironic, considering the opposing argument. 

I hope that I can put this next issue to rest once and for all, because it keeps coming up, and up, and up, and up again and again.  I sometimes feel like I am speaking a foreign language or something.  I don't blame you guys, but it makes me question why I even try.  Forums are a difficult medium to be heard and understood in.   We don't seem to be understanding each other very well. This is the issue:

Quote

 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 have never said, and neither have the GA's, and it is not found in the FTSoY pamphlet, that anyone is responsible for anyone else's thoughts and behaviors - EVER!.  That is flat out, NOT what any of this is all about.  What it IS about is accountability for ones own behavior, words, dress, actions, and its influence on others.  

This IS what 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.

 

The only thing I would change is the first sentence.  I would make it read, "If you are modest, you do not [seek] to draw undue attention to you yourself."  We can't control if people give us undue attention, but we can control if we seek it from others - we are accountable for that, and how that might influence others. 

The way we dress absolutely 100% can have influence on ohters.  We are accountable for our effort to "exercise a good influence on those around you."  We absolutely should care enough about others to want to influence them to live righteously through our words, behaviors, actions, and dress.  

Edited August 30, 2018 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/26/2018 at 12:25 AM, Bernard Gui said:

It always astonishes me that so much rancor, division, and contention arise among the Saints when the principle of modesty is brought up. Instead of uniting in opposition to the influences of Babylon on us and our families, we pinch each other’s heads off over things like sleeves and shorts. Someone famous once wrote something about buzzing in a vacuum. 

 

[gopher]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

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

I wood agree.

 

Self reported to Mods

[california boy]

2 hours 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?

You act as if you invented Saturday night dances.  Seriously they have been a part of the church since I was a youth and probably much longer than that.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

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. 

 

I thought it was a thread about modesty primarily, but specifically and how it relates to YW and YM in the church - comparing and contrasting the expectations.  I will say this in a thread about any gender, male or female, it would be terribly tragic to perceive the gender as an island that has no influence upon the other, and about how men and women can affect each other for good.  We cannot comprehensively talk about the women without considering her influence on the man, and we cannot talk fully about the man without considering his influence upon the woman. 

[Calm]

2 hours 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?

 

Not objectionable, though .I do think she is jumping to an unlikely conclusion.  How did she know that was the reason?  I will either fuzz out faces or look towards the back out of nerves when in front of a group as if I focus on someone I lose my train of thought.  And since it is not that hard to look at the rest of the group while avoiding the one girl near the front, I think it is much more likely to have been a habit of speaking/concentration rather than avoiding looking at the whole group on the off chance he might see one person towards the front wearing thin, tight yoga pants.

If she finds comfort in the idea that men in the Church won't look at women for sexual gratification, I don't criticize her for that.  But if she begins assuming that is what every man should be doing if they see a woman dressed in a way she is uncomfortable with, she may be setting herself up for big dissapointment because there are likely many men who don't even go there in their thoughts and it is simply a nice young lady in the audience listening to them so it doesn't occur to them they need to look away.  Or she may be thinking someone has ridiculous standards because they are looking towards the back, yet she can't see anyone wearing anything she finds is immodest.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

 

It always astonishes me that so much rancor, division, and contention arise among the Saints when the principle of modesty is brought up. Instead of uniting in opposition to the influences of Babylon on us and our families, we pinch each other’s heads off over things like sleeves and shorts. Someone famous once wrote something about buzzing in a vacuum. 

—————————

First, you write this as if you haven’t been a part of it. 

Second, after 30+ pages, you are right back to denying women’s voices. The “rancor” should be your first clue that this is of great concern to the women here. We have testified how damaging it has been to us. Yet you still think our opinions are so trivial that we are no more worthwhile than buzzing. Which means that you think we should be spending our time on what matters to you. 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Fair enough. I think we are talking past each other. I can only say that based on the forty years of experience of being a man (39 of that attempting - yet always falling short - of being a good Latter-day Saint) and discussions with other men, that the only way a woman can stop herself from prompting impure thoughts in men (even men who are striving to be pure), is to complete avoid them and never speak to them. Avoiding yoga pants isn't enough. Wearing a burka isn't enough. Evolution or God or both made us this way. It's how we are wired. Teaching women that they have some measure of control over this is just not helpful.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

 

It would be better stated "Women have a powerful impact on the minds and passions of men."

 

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

“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.

 

Better stated, if you meet a man, you might prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure. 

 

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

“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 best 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. 

 

You would deserve none of the responsibility. The beaters would bear all of it. Is it a smart thing to do? No. Is it immoral? No. 

 

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

“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.

 

Please note that I think the way the church teaches sexuality is just as damaging to the young men as it is to the young women. The idea that young men can train themselves to avoid having sexual thoughts is a non-starter and sets people up to fail (probably best a topic for another thread). When young men fail, they blame themselves, and some (due to teachings like this one and from Elder Calister above) blame the women around them. In psychology there is a saying that "what we resist persists." If we taught our children to expect to notice those around them in a sexual way, that it is completely normal and natural, that God created us as sexual beings, we'd be a lot healthier. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

 

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? 

Fair enough. I apologize for the remark without reservation.

[gopher]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

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. 

Just to be clear - I'm not assigning blame to our wonderful YW leaders.  I think in many cases they repeat what they have been told by others wrt to modesty.  Many YW leaders do get it.  Maybe a talk by the YW General President in GC about the topic would help?  Our YW quote from conference talks often.  It would also be very valuable for men and boys to hear.

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

We cannot comprehensively talk about the women without considering her influence on the man, and we cannot talk fully about the man without considering his influence upon the woman. 

Of course we can. And we must until our needs and wants are considered as important as mens’.   It is quite possible for women to talk about women. We do it all the time. When men won’t cooperate, we go to forums that don’t allow men if that is what it takes. 

Shouldnt the real question be why so many men won’t allow women to talk about women? 

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

You act as if you invented Saturday night dances.  Seriously they have been a part of the church since I was a youth and probably much longer than that.  

Why the cheap Shot? That is an unfair and unwarranted statement. I was only a participant inasmuch as the stake president assigned me to represent the stake along with the youth leaders at the dances. I described my way of dealing with the request of the youth and adults for dress check at the door. Others had their ways of dealing with it. No one was harsh or punitive. Everyone wanted them to be safe and have fun.

Please take me at my word that I truthfully reported what happened.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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? 

First, I know that I am not understood.  Because people keep misrepresenting my position over, and over, and over. But also, I keep asking because I truly, truly, truly, don't understand the rationale of the opposite argument and I want to. I haven't heard an argument in defense of letting girls and boys wear whatever they want to whatever activity they want, with no cause or reason for intervention, EVER!  That simply seems so unreasonable to me that I am literally scratching my head wondering if this is just a unique group of women on this thread, or if this is the popular position of the females in the church.  I asked my wife about some of these issues last night, and she sided with you guys (girls) on some issues, but she too scratched her head on other points.  So I know there are other women out there who feel like I do on this issue.  Maybe it is the simply the medium of forums that is the issue, where we just keep talking past each other, I don't know, but whatever it is, we sure are not communicating well. 

Quote

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.

So our opinions don't matter?  We should not be sensitive to the opinions and sensitivities to the members in general?  It is a matter of scientific fact that a young man who dresses up in an ape outfit to pass the sacrament can and should be ignored?  What about the chorister?  What if the entire choir dressed up in their swim suits?  They might be perfectly modest in one setting, but in another setting, they are unavoidably distracting.  This demonstrates a point that there are always exceptions and leaders are required to use discretion and follow the spirit.  It should not be said that intervention is NEVER warranted.

You will likely counter that these are extremes that are unlikely.  Perhaps, but I promise you that there are boundaries are tested all the time in our world-wide church.  These guidelines were not created without experience and without consideration of the opinions, cultures, and sensitivities of others - as it should be. 

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

41 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My last response because I cannot let this go unanswered.

No, we do not share the same beliefs and I would never act the way they did. They abused her and shamed her. That is not in my repertoire. This misrepresents what I have taken great pains to explain. If that is your view of me, then we have failed to communicate.

Understanding goes both ways.

Well? Since this is about me. I wouldn’t describe what they did to me as abusing me or shaming me. They were working to enforce their regulations. The people at the pool, smiled kindly, asked gently, ans explained their policy (that i wear their baggy shirt or find something of my own to cover up in). I didnt feel shame for what i wore. 

Could you please explain again what you did and how the policies for the dances were enforced. Cuz I brought those up because they did seem like the inevitable experience that would happen with what you or others (including the OP scenario)  were suggesting. I honestly didnt see much of a difference.

 

with luv,

BD 

[Calm]

 

Quote

, but I have said numerous times I do not approve of anything that would shame girls or inflict harm on them

I have no doubt you do not approve of such things.

But you do seem to not understand some of the things that do shame girls and women and inflict harm on them and thus appear to approve of them inadvertently.  For example, even though you expressed you saw the shaming interaction as unpleasant, you seemed to miss the point of Bluedreams swimming incident and put the responsibility on her after she was shamed to find out what she could do to avoid being shamed in the future (specifically " Could you ask them what you should do to be more acceptable?")  including using the example of your mustache you had grown as a choice of pride that you knew broke the standards if I understood you correctly while she had chosen her clothing carefully with the full intent to abide by the standards and she was shocked the woman found it inappropriate on her.

It would be obvious to you that if the woman had called her a name or slapped her, it would be ridiculous for Bluedreams to go back to the woman and say "what should I do so you don't slap me again?"  To me, that you thought it appropriate advice to suggest going back to inquire how she could change what was a shaming response implies you don't realize the actual impact of what Bluedreams was saying even if you understood it was unpleasant.  You seemed to assume Bluedreams should try and modify her own behaviour (used "should" for example and not "could") and thus Bluedreams was at least if not doing something wrong, wasn't doing something right.

Add-on:  I see Bluedreams just spoke up and said she wasn't shamed by it or saw it as shaming behaviour.  I admire her strength because I certainly would have been and obviously I see it as such and I suspect most girls would feel shamed from how I have heard them say things even if that wasn't the intent of the attendants.

I would like to know how Bluedreams feels about your advice to go back and ask.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My last response because I cannot let this go unanswered.

No, we do not share the same beliefs and I would never act the way they did. They abused her and shamed her. That is not in my repertoire. This misrepresents what I have taken great pains to explain. If that is your view of me, then we have failed to communicate.

Understanding goes both ways.

So, you don't believe that a youth should ever be kept from participating in a youth activity because of the way they are dressed and you don't believe that we should utilize justice as well as mercy in regards to modesty at youth activities (asking for the sake of making sure that I understand what you are saying)?

I'm asking because you said this in a past comment-"I got a spiral notebook that I called the High Councilman’s Guestbook. If a youth came dressed or behaved inappropriately I would ask him/her to step aside. I gave them a dance card, asked them to read it, and then sign the card and my Guestbook that they had been informed. If the violation was egregious I asked them to get something more appropriate on and come back. There was no shaming or unrighteousness judgement involved. Sometimes that something else was out in the car. They got one chance. At the next dance if they tried another scam I showed them their signature in my Guestbook, and said, “Nice try. Go change and come back.”

What is different about Blue Dreams experience (where she was told she could not continue to do the activity she was engaged in unless she modified what she was wearing) and your words above?

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

First, I know that I am not understood.  Because people keep misrepresenting my position over, and over, and over. But also, I keep asking because I truly, truly, truly, don't understand the rationale of the opposite argument and I want to. I haven't heard an argument in defense of letting girls and boys wear whatever they want to whatever activity they want, with no cause or reason for intervention, EVER!  That simply seems so unreasonable to me that I am literally scratching my head wondering if this is just a unique group of women on this thread, or if this is the popular position of the females in the church.  I asked my wife about some of these issues last night, and she sided with you guys (girls) on some issues, but she too scratched her head on other points.  So I know there are other women out there who feel like I do on this issue.  Maybe it is the simply the medium of forums that is the issue, where we just keep talking past each other, I don't know, but whatever it is, we sure are not communicating well. 

So our opinions don't matter?  We should not be sensitive to the opinions and sensitivities to the members in general?  It is a matter of scientific fact that a young man who dresses up in an ape outfit to pass the sacrament can and should be ignored?  What about the chorister?  What if the entire choir dressed up in their swim suits?  They might be perfectly modest in one setting, but in another setting, they are unavoidably distracting.  This demonstrates a point that there are always exceptions and leaders are required to use discretion and follow the spirit.  It should not be said that intervention is NEVER warranted.

You will likely counter that these are extremes that are unlikely.  Perhaps, but I promise you that there are boundaries are tested all the time in our world-wide church.  These guidelines were not created without experience and without consideration of the opinions, cultures, and sensitivities of others - as it should be. 

 

Pogi, we simply disagree.  It's probably time to let it go.

[california boy]

50 minutes ago, gopher said:

I wood agree.

 

Self reported to Mods

You are a very funny guy and your avitar is perfect for that comment as well as to what it alludes to.

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, juliann said:

 It is quite possible for women to talk about women. We do it all the time.

I said "comprehensively".  The experience of women includes men.  You cannot fully understand the woman without understanding her influence on man and vise-versa - that is part of what a woman is - her influence.  She has influence on men, and we cannot ignore that part womanhood and think that we have a comprehensive, full picture, and idea of what womanhood is and does on planet earth. 

44 minutes ago, juliann said:

Of course we can. And we must until our needs and wants are considered as important as mens’.   It is quite possible for women to talk about women. We do it all the time. When men won’t cooperate, we go to forums that don’t allow men if that is what it takes. 

Shouldnt the real question be why so many men won’t allow women to talk about women? 

When you exclude the man in matters of modesty, you are not comprehensively considering what modesty really means for both the man and the women.  Modesty is partly about how we present ourselves to others (modesty would probably not be a thing in complete isolation), cultural expectations, and thus perceptions of others.  I like this definition:

Quote

 

Modesty is an attitude of propriety and decency in dress, grooming, language, and behavior. 

https://www.lds.org/topics/modesty?lang=eng

 

I like that a lot - an attitude of "propriety" in dress, etc.. 

Quote

 

pro·pri·e·ty

the state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.
"he always behaved with the utmost propriety"
synonyms:    decorum, respectability, decency, correctness, protocol, appropriateness, suitability, good manners, courtesy, politeness, rectitude, morality, civility, modesty, demureness; More
the details or rules of behavior conventionally considered to be correct.
plural noun: proprieties
"she's a great one for the proprieties"
the condition of being right, appropriate, or fitting.
"they questioned the propriety of certain investments made by the council"

 

Modesty is an attitude of "conforming to conventional and accepted standards".  In other words, modesty is a matter of conforming to culture (which we all seem to agree upon).  Conforming to culture is a matter of respecting the sensibilities of both men and women in that culture and dressing in ways which are not largely seen as offensive.  In other words, modesty IS about dressing for others and their cultural expectation.  

I like what BB said about this earlier and gave her a rep point for it. 

Quote

 

But I also agree that it's probably the culture that we live in that God expects His prophets to use to determine what is or isn't acceptable.

I just watched a funny video on Facebook about swear words in Swedish and one of the worst things a girl can call a guy if he gets too cheeky or inappropriate is a filthy lobster.  Another really bad insult is to tell someone that they've pooped in a boot.  Obviously, culture is what adds context to our actions and words and even our clothes, and the context is usually what determines how bad or not they are.  I do think that God takes that context into consideration (for lack of a better term).

 

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Pogi, we simply disagree.  It's probably time to let it go.

probably