Modesty issues...again

[pogi]

The man is not without the woman, and the woman is not without the man in modesty. 

[juliann]

Pogi, you really do need to let this sink in. We don’t care what men think about our bodies anymore (other than on a personal level, of course) It only is important to the degree that it emboldens men to do us bodily harm. And that still isn’t going to make us continue to take responsibility for it. 

At some point men are going to have to adjust to the fact that women no longer have to measure every thought with men in mind. Take it from a widow who has lived a long time without men. 

[california boy]

41 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

If this is true then I think part of the problem lies in the way you introduced your role in this whole issue with your Brother Bouncer label and making youth sign a book if an infraction occurred.  It was my understanding that once their name got put in your book if they showed up a second time in something YOU didn't approve of, they were barred from attending the event.  This is really troubling to me as well as others.  What becomes the gauge.  If a guy shows up in a shirt that is too tight for you and you are aroused, is that the criteria?  If a young woman shows up in too short of dress that arouses you, does her name get put in your little book?  Do you see how creepy this is?  Do you see how your judgment may not be shared by the person you deem as being in violation of YOUR interpretation of the dress standards?

Cheap shot?  I think not.  You seem to be presenting Saturday Night Dances as your creation so you have every right to have complete control of who gets in based on your judgment.  That is how your posts are coming across.  So here is a reality check.  Kids go to Saturday Night dances because it is a great way to spend a Saturday night with their friends and they love to dance.  They put up with the dress code but that is hardly the reason they are coming to the dance.  As a youth, I went to both high school dances as well as church dances.  What other people wore at EITHER event had no real bearing of why I was there.  I just liked dancing.

Edited August 30, 2018 by california boy

[Senator]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

Pogi, you really do need to let this sink in. We don’t care what men think about our bodies anymore (other than on a personal level, of course) It only is important to the degree that it emboldens men to do us bodily harm. And that still isn’t going to make us continue to take responsibility for it. 

At some point men are going to have to adjust to the fact that women no longer have to measure every thought with men in mind. Take it from a widow who has lived a long time without men. 

I wish you would quit talking about men in this women's thread...

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

If this is true then I think part of the problem lies in the way you introduced your role in this whole issue with your Brother Bouncer label and making youth sign a book if an infraction occurred.  It was my understanding that once their name got put in your book if they showed up in something YOU didn't approve of, they were barred from attending the event.  This is really troubling to me as well as others.  What becomes the gauge.  If a guy shows up in a shirt that is too tight for you and you are aroused, is that the criteria?  If a young woman shows up in too short of dress that arouses you, does her name get put in your little book?  Do you see how creepy this is?  Do you see how your judgment may not be shared by the person you deem as being in violation of YOUR interpretation of the dress standards?

Cheap shot?  I think not.  You seem to be presenting Saturday Night Dances as your creation so you have every right to have complete control of who gets in based on your judgment.  That is how your posts are coming across.  So here is a reality check.  Kids go to Saturday Night dances because it is a great way to spend a Saturday night with their friends and they love to dance.  They put up with the dress code but that is hardly the reason they are coming to the dance.  As a youth, I went to both high school dances as well as church dances.  What other people wore at EITHER event had no real bearing of why I was there.  I just liked dancing.

You took me to task a while back for not quoting your whole posts when responding to you, even citing a non-existent board rule. Now I'm asking you to be respectful and not mischaracterize what I write. You obviously have not read what I posted. If you had read what I wrote about our dances, you would know that what you say above is highly inaccurate. If you have read it, then you are willfully and grossly misrepresenting it. 

And I invoke Gui's Law on this comment. Spectacular example. The probability has reached certainty.

Thank you for obliging.

Quote

If a young woman shows up in too short of dress that arouses you, does her name get put in your little book?  Do you see how creepy this is?

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[katherine the great]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There is no level of modesty that will prevent men from objectifying woman. Period. Full stop. Teaching young women that they can become walking porn to the righteous young men around them is DAMAGING to them and sets them up for failure. Women are told to be attractive (Elder Ballard says to act feminine and put on lipstick, Utah culture "Moddest is Hottest") but not too attractive (don't want to be walking porn). It's just a majorly screwed up message. And what is sad is this thread is filled with faithful latter-day saint women who have shared story after story about how this messaging is damaging to them and posters like you (and mfbukoski, scott llyod, pogi and others) don't seem to care.  

I started out in this thread really only objecting to requiring long shorts and sleeves at girls' camp. I think activity day girls and the young women should be allowed to be around other girls without worrying about whether or not their shorts come down to their knees. However, this post reminded me of an experience I had as a brand new teenaged convert.

I was fourteen years old and was modifying my wardrobe in order to appear acceptable around my new LDS family. This was the 70's and it was very difficult to find fashionable dresses that were longer than mid thigh. I found a dress I liked that had a high neck, a very simple style, long sleeves, covered my thighs and sat at the top of my knee. After sacrament meeting, my mom approached me and told me that the Bishop had informed her that my dress was too short. I was embarrassed but I looked around and noticed that a few of the more prominent girls were wearing dresses or skirts that were noticeably shorter than mine (but still looked quite modest) and I pointed that out to my mom. She then went back to the Bishop and told him what we had observed. He said he would get back to her. When he did he was red faced and embarrassed and he said: "You are right. Those girl's skirts are shorter than your daughter's and all I can say is that your daughter's dress is too short".

Fortunately for me, I have a pretty good self image and was able to brush it off. It wasn't my fault that I had the body of a 24 year old at 14 and I wasn't going to waste my time trying to accommodate everyone around me. I was doing my best to keep the rules, I knew I was dressed modestly and didn't worry more about it. Many girls would have been devastated and confused by that experience. Those are the girls I worry about.

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You took me to task a while back for not quoting your whole posts when responding to you, even citing a non-existent board rule. Now I'm asking you to be respectful and not mischaracterize what I write. You obviously have not read what I posted. If you had read what I wrote about our dances, you would know that what you say above is highly inaccurate. If you have read it, then you are willfully and grossly misrepresenting it. 

And I invoke Gui's Law on this comment. Spectacular example. The probability has reached certainty.

Thank you for obliging.

 

Oh. Brother.  Where did I not quote your entire post that I responded to? You do realize you had to take one sentence out of what I wrote to apply your "Gul law" thing,  I hardly called you a pedophile did I.  You are going complletely off the rails now. This is all about what gives you the right to decide what is too tight or what is too short.  Why is your criteria the one that bars the youth from attending the dance.

Edited August 30, 2018 by california boy

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, juliann said:

Pogi, you really do need to let this sink in. We don’t care what men think about our bodies anymore (other than on a personal level, of course) It only is important to the degree that it emboldens men to do us bodily harm. And that still isn’t going to make us continue to take responsibility for it. 

At some point men are going to have to adjust to the fact that women no longer have to measure every thought with men in mind. Take it from a widow who has lived a long time without men. 

I will consider what you have said.  I hope that you consider what I have to say too - If I distill what you just said down to 3 words, it comes across as this to me: "we don't care."  That to me is hurtful and troubling, because this is not a church of just women, and because I do care about how I present my self to the opposite sex and their sensibilities.  I really do.  I know it is different and the historical expectations are imbalanced and completely out of whack, but I don't see that as a valid reason to stop caring.   Modesty is not just about the self, it is about cultural expectation.  Men are a part of that culture.  They matter.  I understand that historically women rightfully have a lot of issues with how men perceive them, and treat them, and sexually objectify them, and demean them, and control them, and hurt them, etc. But not all men.  Take a look, a good close look, at the young man passing the sacrament on Sunday.  He matters.  You should care about him and want to protect him. You are not responsible for his thoughts. But you should want to protect him. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

You can second guess her or question her motives if you wish. I take her for her word. She is a sensitive, humble, good, faithful, utterly truthful Latter-day Saint woman. She does not deserve slander. Nor do I.

We were told the man should look away. When he does, there is something wrong with him. It can't be both ways. Ask any conscientious male school teacher. In all our efforts to understand, maybe we could include this.

[Calm]

Quote

we don't care.

I think it is more "we can't care because it changes us and the young women that come after us in ways we don't like and don't believe God wants for us" (speaking generally, not specifically as women are bothered by different things and are in various levels of vulnerabilities).

add-on: protecting means in part helping people learn to protect themselves, which at times may involve allowing them to be exposed to things they can't control so they can learn to control their reaction to it.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You can second guess her or question her motives if you wish. I take her for her word. She is a sensitive, humble, good, faithful, utterly truthful Latter-day Saint woman. She does not deserve slander. Nor do I.

Who was questioning her motives?  I was just questioning your interpretation of her conclusion.  She didn't ask the man why he was looking at the trees, she may have been wrong.  And this conclusion that good men should behave this way may lead her to misunderstand situations.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with a man choosing not to look.  I think it is an economical approach in general.  My husband told me how he took his glasses off as a missionary when women breastfed in front of him so he could look at her without seeing something that made him uncomfortable.  But I never heard him suggest the woman was doing something wrong or that it was some sort of sacrifice for him to accept full responsibility for his own discomfort, as he realized he was in her home a d her culture and it was modest for her to do what she did.  He would have never gone up to the woman or anyone else and suggest that in the future, mothers should be told not to breastfeed in front of missionaries who were not used to it.  Him and his companions knew their reactions had nothing to do with the mothers, but was their own issue, their own responsibility to adjust to.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

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.

I can see how the comment could be misunderstood. It was not intended to put blame back on her, only a suggestion of how to resolve the problem by asking. That would be a way to confront the issue and have the lady be responsible for her actions. As a result, she chose never to swim there again. The lady exercising unrighteous dominion won. I think that is....can I say it?....lamentable. She shouldn't have had to experience that. For me, after repeated tries, I would ask, "OK. What do I need to do? I want to swim here." But that is from a man's angle.

Quote

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.

I'm charged with assuming a whole lot of things. It was simply a suggestion, but foolhardy and inappropriate. I retract the suggestion. Thank you for pointing out the difficulties.

Quote

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.

No need. I retract the statement, apologize, and hope she was in no way offended. It was not intended to offend or shame.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it is more "we can't care because it changes us in ways we don't like and don't believe God wants for us" (speaking generally, not specifically as women are bothered by different things and are in various levels of vulnerabilities).

Ok.  That is helpful in understanding the position of some women on here.  But I need to understand more, because maybe you all don't realize how the overall message comes accross (to me at least).  It just simply sounds like "we don't care."  "We don't want to help out the brothers", "We want to do whatever we want and can't give a flying flip about how it might affect you."  You can see how in any other context, these things would be very troubling and hurtful.  So, it is very hard for me to understand why these things wouldn't be troubling and hurtful in any context, including modesty.  It just sounds horrible to me.  So maybe you can help me understand what you are all REALLY saying, because that is all I am hearing.  I don't know, maybe after all that has been said, it is pointless to try. Forums are just not the ideal medium to discuss these types of things. 

I think maybe some women might see what I am saying as simply another way for men to control women. That is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the principles of love, decency, mutual respect, care, etc. that I am alluding to.  These principles seem universal to me, whether in regards to driving on the freeway, talking on forums, or in the way we dress.  

So, what do you mean by "we can't care because it changes us in way's we don't like..."?  I am not going to argue with you about this, I just truly want to understand. 

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Who was questioning her motives?  I was just questioning your interpretation of her conclusion.  She didn't ask the man why he was looking at the trees, she may have been wrong.  And this conclusion that good men should behave this way may lead her to misunderstand situations.

She was a gossip who was telling a made-up story. She was explicit about her conclusion. I did not misinterpret it. He could have been staring at a squirrel in the tree because he liked squirrels more than girls, I suppose. Or he could have been trying to look away as we have been told to do here...."Look away." Are we not bound by our perceptions? BTW, it was not at night by a campfire. Either way, neither she nor I deserve slander.

Quote

I didn't say there was anything wrong with a man choosing not to look.  My husband told me how he took his glasses off as a missionary when women breastfed in front of him so he could look at her without seeing something that made him uncomfortable.  But I never heard him suggest the woman was doing something wrong or that it was some sort of sacrifice for him to accept full responsibility for his own discomfort, as he realized he was in her home a d her culture and it was modest for her to do what she did.  He would have never gone up to the woman or anyone else and suggest that in the future, mothers should be told not to breastfeed in front of missionaries who were not used to it.  Him and his companions knew their reactions had nothing to do with the mothers, but was their own issue, their own responsibility to adjust to.

You did not, but others did. Bravo for Brother Calm. I had the same situation many times.  I wouldn't confront a woman either.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Senator]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok.  That is helpful in understanding the position of some women on here, because maybe you all don't realize how this message comes accross (to me at least).  It just simply sounds like "we don't care."  "We don't want to help out the brothers", "We want to do whatever we want and can't give a flying flip about how it might affect you."  You can see how in any other context, these things would be very troubling and hurtful.  So, it is very hard for me to understand why these things wouldn't be troubling and hurtful in any context, including modesty.  It just sounds horrible to me - like, evil almost.  So maybe you can help me understand what you are all REALLY saying. 

I think maybe some women might see what I am saying as simply another way for men to control women. That is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the principles of love, decency, mutual respect, care, etc. that I am alluding to.  These principles seem universal to me, whether in regards to driving on the freeway, talking on forums, or in the way we dress.  

So, what do you mean by "we can't care because it changes us in way's we don't like..."?  I am not going to argue with you about this, I just truly want to understand. 

 

To my good bros, pogi and Bernard gui..

I give you this refresher

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg

 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok.  That is helpful in understanding the position of some women on here, because maybe you all don't realize how this message comes accross (to me at least).  It just simply sounds like "we don't care."  "We don't want to help out the brothers", "We want to do whatever we want and can't give a flying flip about how it might affect you."  You can see how in any other context, these things would be very troubling and hurtful.  So, it is very hard for me to understand why these things wouldn't be troubling and hurtful in any context, including modesty.  It just sounds horrible to me.  So maybe you can help me understand what you are all REALLY saying. 

I think maybe some women might see what I am saying as simply another way for men to control women. That is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the principles of love, decency, mutual respect, care, etc. that I am alluding to.  These principles seem universal to me, whether in regards to driving on the freeway, talking on forums, or in the way we dress.  

So, what do you mean by "we can't care because it changes us in way's we don't like..."?  I am not going to argue with you about this, I just truly want to understand. 

 

There is a long history with women and men posting here and I can't remember one of them who if I took more than a few threads I would see as uncaring.  This conversation is not in a bubble, everyone is pulling in past experiences to explain their positions so it doesn't make sense to me to isolate any comments as if the person never said anything else besides what you are responding to.  I think if you start to have concerns with someone's posts in a thread, you can go back and remember how they have posted elsewhere to get a more global sense (and search out their comments if you are having a hard time placing them).

------

I assume you have experienced shaming at sometime in your life or perhaps there has been a person in your family or work that has tried to manipulate you into behaviours and feelings you don't believe will help you personally grow.  At some point you probably had to decide if you would confront them in hopes of them changing.  Perhaps you did, but they didn't change.  What would you decide to do at that point?  Do you allow their behaviours to continue trouble you or do you decide to accept it is their problem and not yours?

[Calm]

 

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

I had the same situation many times.  I wouldn't confront a woman either.

But did you or do you interpret it as immodest or inappropriate?

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, Senator said:

To my good bros, pogi and Bernard gui..

I give you this refresher

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg

 

Oh my gosh, that is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time...probably since the last time I saw it 

Edited August 30, 2018 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

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 

Quote

 

It appears to me they were abusing their power over you, which to me is the same as abusing you. I apologize for saying that.

 

Short statements:

The youth requested dances at which they would feel safe, have fun, and keep Church standards.

The stake formed a youth council that worked with leaders to draw up what that would look like.

The plan included a dress code similar to FTSOY, behavior code, appropriate music.

The youth and leaders devised a dance card with the standards on the back and a place for them to sign.

The card was obtained from and signed in the presence of a member of the bishopric.

They knew before the dance what the dress standard was.

The card was presented at the door upon entering.

Even non-members had to have cards.

A number of adults checked the cards at the door.

I was the one designated to be the arbiter.

I was assigned by the stake president to represent the stake priesthood leadership.

Even with the signed agreement, a few kids would try to scam by feigning ignorance or having lost or not obtained a card.

If there was an obvious violation as per the standards on the back, the kids were asked by adults to change.

I didn't carry a tape measure or microscope.

I didn't leer at the girls or bully the boys.

No one was kicked out.

No one left and didn't come back AFAIK.

Often the change of clothes was out in the car.

We realized that some of the kids were frequent flyers.

I devised a way to ensure we knew who had been advised.

If an adult had talked with them (without accusations or shaming, with respect and good humor), I asked them to sign that they knew the standards.

If they tried to scam the next dance, I showed them their signature. Most laughed.

No one refused to comply and went away angry or shamed, because they had agreed to the standards.

After a while, the word got around and it became a non-issue.

There were multiple adults at the door making dress code checks and others on the floor for WoW and behavior things.

It seemed to work quite well and everyone was happy with it.

The dances were very popular and successful.

They even ended up creating an LDS Senior Prom that even non-members preferred over the school prom. Maybe our dress standards had something to do with that, maybe not. I think I did something right.

 

I thought that was a way to be just (keep the rules) and merciful (a kind way to help keep the rules). Perhaps that was the wrong choice of words. I also mentioned I thought the method was fair and friendly. I didn't' impose my standards on anyone, I didn't instigate the rules, I wasn't seeking for power, just to serve. At the time, I spend 5 days a week with several hundred kids, and spending my Saturdays with more kids was not alway what I wanted to do.

Perhaps I could have done something better or just ask not to be put in the situation. Perhaps you have a better suggestion.

One frequent flyer was a bishop's son (of course) who came several times in jeans and t-shirt. Those were not allowed in the code. When asked to change at the first few dances, he feigned knowledge of the code. He would go out and come back in with the right clothes. I came up with my idea partly as a result of his scam. After he signed the book, there were no more of that kind of problem with him. There were very few problems with the kids.

This is not unlike dance policies in high schools. In my particular school there was a policy, but most of the faculty, especially the ladies for some reason (not taking another jab at the ladies, please) didn't enforce it. The LDS students didn't like going. My own kids were in that group.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, Senator said:

To my good bros, pogi and Bernard gui..

I give you this refresher

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg

 

Oh my, Senator. Another Polish mine sweeper. You may have stepped on one.

[Bernard Gui]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

But did you or do you interpret it as immodest or inappropriate?

Neither. Why would I do that. It was their culture. It was not comfortable. There were other aspects of their culture regarding modesty/male/female relationships that made for uncomfortableness. Different elders had different reactions. We are all someplace on the spectrum. When my son Indefatigalissimo served his mission in Boulder CO, college girls would answer the door topless just to embarrass the missionaries. Some might see that as an insult or sexual harassment. Others would think it was Christmas in July. There is a spectrum. 

If I were home teaching ministering in a home here in the US, it would make me very uncomfortable and I probably would leave. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Oh. Brother.  Where did I not quote your entire post that I responded to? You do realize you had to take one sentence out of what I wrote to apply your "Gul law" thing,  I hardly called you a pedophile did I.  You are going complletely off the rails now. This is all about what gives you the right to decide what is too tight or what is too short.  Why is your criteria the one that bars the youth from attending the dance.

Oh brother indeed. You didn't even comprehend my request. You asked me to do something. I asked you to do something. Easy, no?

Yes, I took one sentence out. It's the one that showed the certainty of the law. The one that said

Quote

If a young woman shows up in too short of dress that arouses you, does her name get put in your little book?  Do you see how creepy this is?

It's for comments like this that the law was formulated. You matched it to a T. It is undeniable. Own it. Or retract it, if you wish.

In response to the other silly questions, asked and answered many times. Please take the time to read what I have said. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Neither. It was their culture. It was not comfortable. There were other aspects of their culture regarding modesty/male/female relationships that made for uncomfortableness. Different elders had different reactions. We are all someplace on the spectrum. When my son Indefatigalissimo served his mission in Bould CO, college girls would answer the door topless just to embarrass the missionaries. Some might see that as and insult or sexual harassment. Others would think it was Christmas in July. There is a spectrum. 

If I were home teaching ministering in a home here in the US, it would make me very uncomfortable and I probably would leave. 

Thanks for the clarification.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I will consider what you have said.  I hope that you consider what I have to say too - If I distill what you just said down to 3 words, it comes across as this to me: "we don't care."  That to me is hurtful and troubling, because this is not a church of just women, and because I do care about how I present my self to the opposite sex and their sensibilities.  I really do.  I know it is different and the historical expectations are imbalanced and completely out of whack, but I don't see that as a valid reason to stop caring.   Modesty is not just about the self, it is about cultural expectation.  Men are a part of that culture.  They matter.  I understand that historically women rightfully have a lot of issues with how men perceive them, and treat them, and sexually objectify them, and demean them, and control them, and hurt them, etc. But not all men.  Take a look, a good close look, at the young man passing the sacrament on Sunday.  He matters.  You should care about him and want to protect him. You are not responsible for his thoughts. But you should want to protect him. 

Pogi, I appreciate your POV, I do. I should have explained myself. There is a global kind of caring and a intimate kind of caring. We have been subjected for far too long to the global expectations of males, we have measured by it, judged by it, and too frequently harmed by it. That is what I mean by women are no longer caring about pleasing male whims. Of course I care about the men around me and I consider their needs as I hope they would consider mine. But I do not put any stock in opinions that involve my body or my lifestyle or how I should express myself when it is a double standard no matter who it comes from.

[SouthernMo]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The man is not without the woman, and the woman is not without the man in modesty. 

I have no idea what this means. Sounds like it should be deep, but I don’t understand.