Modesty issues...again

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Girls are always hit over the head with modesty and for most boys it is not on their radar at all.  Part of that is because, like Smac said, boy fashion is not prone to immodesty and girl's fashion is.  Some of it though is that most boys find the way our church usually teaches about modesty to be irrelevant to them, other than those times when a church leader teaches them that girls need to be modest to help them remain moral.  

The boys at the youth camp did not set out to be disobedient or immodest, it's just that it did not occur to them that it would be immodest for them to be in a swimsuit at a water activity so they didn't even think about it.  But girls are taught ALL THE TIME that swimsuits at church activities are immodest.  They are taught that their shorts must touch the knee (and they fret about it!) while boys at activities wear shorts a couple inches above the knee and never think twice about it because they've never been told about the knee-length rule.  

In the 80s OP made the swim trunk popular. Since that time for whatever reason the male bikini swim suit went out of vogue in the United States. Baggy shorts became the rage. I have worn shorts that went to my knee or a little below the knee crease, and hated them. I walk a lot, and they had a tendency to rub the top of my calf raw, so I only wear shorts which fit just above my knees or somewhere in my lower thigh. I don't really understand the fixation with knee length garments.

Whatever the deal, I do find it kinda strange to see men running around in swim trunks but every female in a form fitting swimsuit or bikini. It seems to be a weird double standard society has come up with, in which men show "nothing" except maybe hairy chests, and women show all kinds of skin. This is not so in Europe where men still wear "bikini" bathing suits. So here in the states I can see why girl leaders perceive a double standard, and feel their girls are putting up with unfair dress codes and being taught modesty improperly. I can also see why female swim suits are seen as inherently immodest as compared to male swim trunks. If the boys were to wear skin tight bikini bathing suits, I think eyebrows would be raised, and calls made for the boys to put on shorts - maybe even by some of the female leaders?! Anyway with the current clothing and swim styles, boys generally don't think about modesty, but I have definitely seen dress codes informing boys not to wear tank tops - I guess females find tank tops sexier than t-shirts. I personally don't like t-shirts much. I find them to be hot, so use them almost exclusively as PJs on cold nights. I wear button-up and crew shirts. I don't think I own anymore tank tops - but I definitely would not look sexy in one 😭 (females have no fear)

[Meerkat]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

I believe modesty is important to our Heavenly Father and that's why it should be important to us and to our youth.  However, i think that the way a lot of church members try to define and force modesty is off-putting.  And confusing (because the rules change depending on the person).  And alienating to non-members, less-active, heavier, and poorer girls who don't know the rules, or don't have the money to buy clothes that comply with specific rules that are capricious and arbitrary, or have a body type where the only option for not wearing something form fitting is shopping in the big and tall men's section

 Modesty is important and should be taught.  Most YW will get it and reasonably comply.  Some may not, but may move in the direction of modesty at a future time.  

Two of our lovely grandaughters wear skinny jeans and tank tops when hanginging out with their friends.  They also wear them to Church activities occasionally.  They are missionary minded and invite their friends to Church and activities.

I don't prefer the skinny jeans and tank tops.  I find them a little provocative.  However, I find the concept of agency more compelling, having been strict with our children growing up.  Two, who were apparently compliant as youth, left the Church as adults.

I think we need to choose our battles and not feel the need to micromanage everything.  If there is a rare problem, try to deal with it gently one to one.  I suppose if there is a major problem it may need to be addressed.  But shirts over swimsuits?  Whatever happened to "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.."?  

Edited August 25, 2018 by Meerkat

[Meerkat]

41 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Baggy shorts became the rage.

They still wear Speedos for male and female competitive swimming.  They can be modest or not, in the eye if the beholder.  Having said that, it is not a statement against modesty in any way.  Just a point that many seem to be able to control their thoughts in some public settings.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't remember playing sports, but I wore sleeveless in the 70s and didn't have different standards for Church except for skirts being required.  (Went through high school without wearing a skirt once to school, who really wants to sit on a bus or walk an hour in a skirt?  They must be insane).  This was California though, maybe Utah was different (assuming you grew up in Utah, pardon me if wrong).  I remember no miniskirts or strapless being an issue...and two piece bathing suits.

My mom even bought me a halter top (I hating shopping and would have been happy with Tshirts and jeans, but no way that was allowed) and she is conservative when it comes to clothing.  Though born in Utah, I think they moved in her early teens or before to back East, so perhaps that made a difference...but her mom was way over the top concerned with appearance (cut hair off a wig and attached it to a baby bonnet to put on wee little Mom so no one would guess she was bald), so I think if there were issues back then Mom would have picked it up.  Mom was somewhat obsessed with weight in us girls (translated it into a measure of health mostly, but definitely had tones about attractiveness), so I know she put effort into things she thought were important and I noticed when she did so (who puts their kid on a diet for 5 lbs?).

My friends and I all wore sleeves shirts on temple trips (temple trips were overnight affairs where I grew up because the nearest temple was 5-6 hours away) in the 1990s and it was fine. (I believe your story Tacenda, because individual wards and stakes have often had different rules than the world-wide church.)

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

Girls camp is a little nuts here. Since we have lived here each ward had to attend stake young women's camp. I think there was a compromise and they could do a half week of ward and half a week stake. Whoever made the ruling on the shorts, it was at the stake level, but I don't know if it was the stake presidency or the stake YW presidency. It easily could have been either one.

The older girls supposedly plan it, but the year my daughter was supposed to be doing that was a joke and I've heard that other years have been similar. When she did it they seriously were hurting for help because they wouldn't allow the girls to plan and all the girls,were dropping out. DD naturally supports her leaders, but in the end she prayed and could no longer in good consciousness support them. But that all would be a subject for another thread.

Seriously though, the shorts thing is a very common rule here in frosty Phoenix Arizona for young women.

Girls camps can be a little nuts here too.  The church camp senior missionaries can be a little strident.  My friend's daughter went to Aspen Grove (church camp) for girls camp and they weren't allowed to wear shorts, leggings, form fitting jeans or even capris. Only loose fitting pants (which I'm sure all the girls just had laying around) and loose fitting shirts.  My friend is very conservative and she thought the dress code was ridiculous, especially because they reiterated over and over again that any girl not dressed appropriately would be asked to leave.  

We did our ward girls camp at a church camp but before we went to the camp we kayaked in a reservoir close by.  After kayaking and swimming all day the girls and leaders went directly to the camp for orientation (while they were still in their swimwear, which consisted of shorter shorts and tankini tops for many of them) and the senior sister missionary stopped her presentation to tell two of the girls that their clothes were inappropriate and to ask if they had ever read For the Strength of Youth (in a not charitable tone).   We had three nonmember girls at camp with us and three less active girls who never come to church on Sunday's and two inactive girls who's parents will have absolutely NOTHING to do with the church but who reluctantly allowed them to come to girls camp with friends.  It was an awkward orientation and the girls had negative feelings towards that sister for the rest of the camp.  

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Lots has been said about modesty for youth. But, going back to the OP - this started as a discussion about modesty for 8-12 year old girls.

If someone is worried about these children being too sexually tantalizing for men, is the problem really that the girls aren’t dressed right?  Maybe the wrong men are around them...

Come on. We're not talking about androgynous toddlers here; these are young women who are about to hit (and in many cases already have hit) puberty.

Are you saying that it is never possible for any girl in this age range to be dressed immodestly? Ever?

When, pray-tell, is the universal age where women need to begin thinking about modesty? 

 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I cannot and do not speak for Smac in responding to this question (and I certainly wasn't there that day). But I would suggest a reason some might have felt embarrassed and uncomfortable, that being that Latter-day Saints are called to present before the world a certain image and demeanor that befits the covenant people of God.

From the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet:

 

I might feel uncomfortable or embarrassed as well were a young man to show up at a Church activity wearing a T shirt bearing the Jack Daniels logo or a design that glorifies worldliness or unchastity.

 

I can understand being uncomfortable and embarrassed on behalf of someone else (it's a very human reaction), but I don't believe that me never being uncomfortable is the reason that God cares about whether or not someone else is modest.  I don't think that He finds my embarrassment a significant problem, and least not one that He doesn't expect me to manage.  If anything, being uncomfortable and embarrassed because of the dress of someone else at a church activity is a good chance to practice "looking on the heart" rather than the outward appearance and being more like Christ.  

I also think that as Latter-day Saints we portray a much more Christlike and Covenant People image when we embrace people who don't always follow the standards with love and acceptance (while never flinching on our values).  From an outsider's perspective, seeing members react lovingly and inclusively around people who look different, probably presents a pretty awesome image to the world. 

[RevTestament]

30 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

They still wear Speedos for male and female competitive swimming.  They can be modest or not, in the eye if the beholder.  Having said that, it is not a statement against modesty in any way.  Just a point that many seem to be able to control their thoughts in some public settings.

My son swam on the school swim team. He wore what was called a jammer. It was a form fitting "speedo" which had some legs. It had a low rise but went about half-way down his thigh - females, no. Females wore one piece suits with no legs. I do think the jammer had a tendency to hide the male anatomy more than a regular bikini suit. No one is going to race in a swim trunk. They just create too much drag, so in the name of speed, modesty takes a back burner. I am personally not aroused by females in bathing suits in the typical setting, but I have to confess some may catch my eye. I can understand the calls for certain dress standards, however, I seem to be the silent, rebellious type who silently rebels the "Mormon model" my wearing red, oxford blue and accru-colored shirts. 

[SouthernMo]

43 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Are you saying that it is never possible for any girl in this age range to be dressed immodestly? Ever?

The 8-11 year old girl who has shorts that don’t go down to her knees is not trying to attract the male gaze. Hence, her intent is not sinful.

The man who views an 8-11 year old girl whose shorts don’t cover her knees and is bothered because he feels attracted to her when he shouldn’t - that is his problem (a big problem I would argue), and he should not dictate what the 8-11 year old girl should wear.

Modesty for modesty’s sake is not healthy. We need to look at the intent and the perception to identify if and where there is a problem.

To answer you directly - it is possible that an 8-11 year old would intentionally dress provocatively. But, her problems are deep, and won’t be solved by enforcing a dress code.

Similarly, it is possible that there are men who find an 8-11 year old girl in short shorts sexually provocative. But, his problems are deep, and also won’t be solved by enforcing a dress code among children.

[SouthernMo]

58 minutes ago, Amulek said:

When, pray-tell, is the universal age where women need to begin thinking about modesty?

This is a good question.

My daughter is 2, and I think I’d encourage her to start thinking about modesty and making her own choices when she starts to want to sexually attract young men. 

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is a good question.

My daughter is 2, and I think I’d encourage her to start thinking about modesty and making her own choices when she starts to want to sexually attract young men. 

I believe the LDS ideal is not to do this. The ideal is to spiritually attract your mate. I think relationships based on sexual attraction are headed for trouble - but maybe that is why so many modern marriages result in divorce. Encouraging lustful thoughts outside of marriage seems to be the opposite of NT teachings...just sayin.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I can understand being uncomfortable and embarrassed on behalf of someone else (it's a very human reaction), but I don't believe that me never being uncomfortable is the reason that God cares about whether or not someone else is modest.  I don't think that He finds my embarrassment a significant problem, and least not one that He doesn't expect me to manage.  If anything, being uncomfortable and embarrassed because of the dress of someone else at a church activity is a good chance to practice "looking on the heart" rather than the outward appearance and being more like Christ.  

 

Your question to Smac was why he or others might feel uncomfortable or embarrassed on the occasion he described. I suggested a possible reason. I offered no value judgment on whether feeling embarrassed or uncomfortable on such an occasion is justified.

Quote

I also think that as Latter-day Saints we portray a much more Christlike and Covenant People image when we embrace people who don't always follow the standards with love and acceptance (while never flinching on our values).  From an outsider's perspective, seeing members react lovingly and inclusively around people who look different, probably presents a pretty awesome image to the world. 

I think we need to do the one and not leave the other undone. You put it well in saying "never flinching on our values."

 

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is a good question.

My daughter is 2, and I think I’d encourage her to start thinking about modesty and making her own choices when she starts to want to sexually attract young men. 

With respect, I believe it needs to be done much earlier than that.

 

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With respect, I believe it needs to be done much earlier than that.

 

I see merit in your point.

A boys’ & girls’ sexuality probably needs to be addressed at the right time. Not too soon, but not too late for healthy development.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

I see merit in your point.

A boys’ & girls’ sexuality probably needs to be addressed at the right time. Not too soon, but not too late for healthy development.

Children can be taught modestly long before they learn anything about or become curious about sex. The subject of modesty need not always have a sexual component to it.

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The subject of modesty need not always have a sexual component to it.

Tell me more. What is the point of modesty?  I don’t mean to sound cynical, but I’m looking for reasons, not platitudes (like “our bodies are temples”) or more quotes from church that it is important.  Of course there are plenty of those.

Why is modesty important if not an element of sexuality?

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Rain said:

When my husband was young men's president he was asked to chaperone at one of the stake dances. It was Sunday best dress.

One of his young men came in with I think black leather pants, an extreme haircut etc. Someone told my husband that you should tell this young man to go change. My husband refused. Instead he went up to him, put his arm around him and told him how glad he was that he came. 

If I remember right, the young man didn't stay long.  He likely didn't feel comfortable. But that created quite a bond between them. There was a change in the young man. I love to hear my husband talk about him now and the love he still has. 

This is the post that touches my heart as being Christ-like. Sending kids home because they wore the wrong outfit just seems so wrong.  Are girls suppose to feel like sinners every time they put on a pair of shorts or just when they go to girls camp? What man would go camping for a week and not pack a pair of shorts.  Why all this aggressive controlling of behavior that should be taught by example and tenderness rather than mandated by proclamation. 

But then we have this in the scriptures.  After Christ's resurrection, He appears to his apostles, and finds Peter naked.  Christ never said a word about the fact that they were naked.  He was more concerned that they forgot their mission to teach the gospel.  Hum.  Is the focus really where it should be?  Maybe time to kick in the whole teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves?  

[Rain]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

That may well have been his Sunday best.

It was definitely not. We knew him. We knew what he had. 

[Calm]

So as far as I recall, all the men here describe their choosing of clothes as for comfort or to conform, I don't remember any of them saying they thought about being too exposed when shopping.  If I have missed someone's account or if your experience is different, please speak up.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Calm

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

The 8-11 year old girl who has shorts that don’t go down to her knees is not trying to attract the male gaze. Hence, her intent is not sinful.

I remember the first time my daughter - probably wasn't more than four or five at the time - flipped the bird.

She was ignorant about what that gesture means and didn't intend to communicate a vulgar message. 

I didn't consider her action to be sinful, but I didn't let her continue to use that particular sign anymore either. 

 

Quote

The man who views an 8-11 year old girl whose shorts don’t cover her knees and is bothered because he feels attracted to her when he shouldn’t - that is his problem (a big problem I would argue), and he should not dictate what the 8-11 year old girl should wear.

I can't recall the statistics off the top of my head, but a disturbing number of sexual assaults happen to girls under the age of 12. 

If the man acts on that attraction then it is no longer just "his problem."  

And remember, the hypothetical "man" you are referring to here doesn't have to be a rational, well-adjusted adult like you or me. He could be a dysfunctional teenager who predates upon the children he meets at church activities. In fact, I have a family member who had that exact situation come up in their stake within the last couple of years. 

 

Quote

Modesty for modesty’s sake is not healthy.

This makes no sense to me. What on earth is unhealthy about modesty-qua-modesty? 

 

Quote

To answer you directly - it is possible that an 8-11 year old would intentionally dress provocatively. But, her problems are deep, and won’t be solved by enforcing a dress code.

A provocative outfit is a provocative outfit, regardless of intent, and I don't see the harm in teaching young women (and men) about modesty - even at a young age.

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by Amulek

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

When, pray-tell, is the universal age where women need to begin thinking about modesty?

This is a good question.

My daughter is 2, and I think I’d encourage her to start thinking about modesty and making her own choices when she starts to want to sexually attract young men. 

If you wait that long you will be too late.

Fortunately, you have several years to change your mind. 

 

[Calm]

Quote

 can't recall the statistics off the top of my head, but a disturbing number of sexual assaults happen to girls under the age of 12. 

Are you suggesting these kids are sexually assaulted at this age in general because of provocative dress?

Edited August 25, 2018 by Calm

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

This makes no sense to me. What on earth is unhealthy about being modesty-qua-modesty? 

It’s like saying I should eat cucumbers because they are cucumbers. That’s not a reason. I need to know why I should.

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And remember, the hypothetical "man" you are referring to here doesn't have to be a rational, well-adjusted adult like you or me. He could be a dysfunctional teenager who predates upon the children he meets at church activities. In fact, I have a family member who had that exact situation come up in their stake within the last couple of years. 

These are truly disturbing situations. I’m not an expert on assault cases or the profiles of those criminals, so I can’t be sure, but I’m guessing that these disturbed individuals who prey on children are not going to be any less problematic if 8-11 year olds just stopped wearing tank tops.

For anyone who feels that the victims of inappropriate behavior (or crime) are partially to blame, this is a tongue-in-cheek clip I think you should watch:

 

[Amulek]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting these kids are sexually assaulted at this age in general because of provocative dress?

In general, probably not. I suspect most of them are assaulted by family members and it's mostly a matter of access.

However, in the situation I am aware of where the teenager was assaulting primary age children, yes - the dress and conduct of the children contributed to how he selected his victims. 

 

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If you wait that long you will be too late.

Fortunately, you have several years to change your mind. 

 

True. @Scott Lloyd brought this up to me, and it’s a good point.