Modesty issues...again

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

That is absurd. This is never going to be fixed until the predators are no longer given excuses for their behavior. There is no such thing as “provocative” clothing because it is only in the mind of the beholder. There are only predators. And yes, the minute someone says they needed to be protected from their feelings about the opposite sex, they have merely left out the “or else.” 

Edited August 25, 2018 by juliann

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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. 

 

Good grief!  That doesn't mean the children were to blame!  That means this sick piece of crap had come up with a selection method of his own accord.

[juliann]

15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Good grief!  That doesn't mean the children were to blame!  That means this sick piece of crap had come up with a selection method of his own accord.

Are we to the point where we should begin to deal with the root problem? Anyone who thinks what they “feel,” whether they call it discomfort or arousal, has anything to do with how people dress at church functions, is harboring predatory behavior. These “feelings” no longer should have any place in a polite discussion. They need to be labeled for what they are. 

[webbles]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

I've done the "raise the arms" test on shirts several times to ensure they would cover me correctly.  I've also down a "bend over" test to ensure that both the pants and shirt won't show anything in the back.  I generally try and make sure my clothing is large enough to not cause me problems in those areas but I've received gifted clothing that have caused me issues and I generally send them to DI or only wear them when I know that I won't be doing activities that could "expose" me.

[Rain]

22 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Good grief!  That doesn't mean the children were to blame!  That means this sick piece of crap had come up with a selection method of his own accord.

I like the way you worded that. It really makes the idea clear.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

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

I think that's even better... it was even more within his control to have chosen to leave rather than to have been chased away. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

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. 

 

When I was first married, there was several kidnappings, including my boss' six year old daughter.  We were informed by the police a number of predators came from outsideof Utah because of its reputation for innocence of its youth and young women.

There is a good chance many kids are targeted not because they are dressing 'older than their years' in someone's mind, but because of their (to the predator) "modest" appearance.  

As ttribe says, it's about the predator's selection process, not the child's choice.  

They found the daughter after a number of weeks in So Ca. and returned her to her family.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

22 hours ago, bsjkki said:

So, I know this has been talked about quite a bit but it is still aggravating. On my Ward's facebook page, the activity days leaders posted an invitation to a Stake activity day girls activity.  On the invitation it stated, "Please wear modest casual clothes with shoes for exercise."  One brave sister in my ward found the whole thing ridiculous.  She commented about why girls bodies age 8-12 would be considered immodest and found the words "modest casusal clothes for exercise"... ridiculous. This year, for girls camp the packing list said, "4-5 t-shirts (not tight enough to be revealing, no inappropriate logos, must be long enough to cover mid-riff if arms are above your head) • underwear • t-shirt, shorts and shoes that can get wet (shorts MUST be to the knee, If not you will be asked to change.) 

I compared the packing lists for the Priesthood encampment vs. for girls camp and found no theatening language. There were no "logo" warning or short length warnings. No threats about being asked to change. Have these words ever been said in a packing list for scouts? The scouts often hike shirtless when they get hot. The boy scouts wear shorts not to knee. Why do young girls who are not endowed have to wear shorts to their knees at an activty which includes exercise.

It's getting old and I realized today, I'm not the only one in my ward who notices and finds it "ridiculous." 

This has been the case in Colorado as well.  The stake YW camp packing lists tell them "no shorts" and "no tank tops".  The stake YM camp packing lists have no such rules.  Having attended quite a few stake YM camps I can tell you that both boys and leaders often wear shorts that do NOT come to the knee.  YM are also seen running around shirtless (usually coming back from the lake or playing sports).

The double-standard seems to be coming from the stake YW leaders.

[Amulek]

20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

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

I think you misunderstood the question. You stated that modesty for modesty's sake is unhealthy. 

That is a proposition that doesn't seem to be inherently obvious - at least, not to me - so I asked why that is?

If I am home alone and chose to dress modestly while I laze around the house, what's unhealthy about that?

 

Quote

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:

That's kind of funny. Here's the thing though: thieves actually do select their targets based in part on how wealthy they look. Do you honestly think they don't consider the potential for payoff when choosing their victims?

 

[changed]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think this is why Elder Packer put forth what he did. He is saying the first thing to do is establish boundaries, regardless of who is better at parenting or running a Church program, what either believes is right to hold as a standard, or what various influences a child is subject to outside of the home and Church.

Once a sense of boundary is established at the most intuitive level, parents and children develop a sense of right and wrong as they make their way through life. They move past this level and make informed choices. Parents humble themselves to learn the Gospel and teach it to their children. On the narrow subject of modesty, any extreme will yield bad results and that unfortunately is going to happen, and these "ultra" cases can be held up as object lessons. I think these tendencies among those so disposed can be prevented with fellowship and social interaction (charity).

 

To me, boundaries are not about what a child is wearing, but teaching a child it is ok to take ownership of their own body and space.  If they do not want to hug someone, that is ok!  If they want to say "No" that is ok!  Kids are told what to do for so much of their life, they are required to obey obey obey - giving them the chance to be their own boss is really important.  

Telling kids what cloths to wear, or how to do their hair is taking away their ability to control their own body.  Allowing kids to choose their own cloths and otherwise take care of their body teaches them ownership - allows them to define their own boundaries.  "No, I don't want to wear that, I do not want my body to look like that, I get to decide what cloths to put on my body" is in line with "No, I do not want you to touch me.  No, I do not want to play with you like that"...  Kids need control over their own bodies, and that includes feeling empowered to define what they are going to wear.

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

Many marriages end in divorce over sexual incompatibility.  Knowing that lustful thoughts are part of everyone's human experience - just as hunger for food, and breathing are part of our bodies and part of the human experience - it is best to acknowledge these feelings, not condemn them (just as you would not condemn someone for being hungry if they smelled food nearby), and instead teaching healthy ways to address that perfectly natural part of themselves.  Shame culture - ignore/repress/hide - this is not going to help.  

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

If anyone has not seen the "What were you wearing" exhibits, to understand victims were not at fault, ... link.  (Nothing provocative in that link)  

That's kind of funny. Here's the thing though: thieves actually do select their targets based in part on how wealthy they look. Do you honestly think they don't consider the potential for payoff when choosing their victims?

Blaming victims - any kind of victim - and that is what all of this modesty stuff does - is the wrong approach.  Instead of spending time telling everyone what to wear (with the implication that they are asking for it if they do not dress right, and teaching everyone it is the victim's fault if they are abused) instead of blaming victims... lets instead teach everyone how to control their thoughts.

Wouldn't it be great if the church dance had long paragraphs on how to listen, how to recognize boundaries and follow the boundaries of others, how to make sure everyone feels included etc. etc. - wouldn't it be great if there was a long paragraph on positive interactions instead of long paragraphs on what not to wear?

 

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by changed

[Amulek]

53 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Good grief!  That doesn't mean the children were to blame!  That means this sick piece of crap had come up with a selection method of his own accord.

I didn't say the children were to blame. I was asked if some factor may have contributed to the selection process, and my understanding is that it did. 

 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I didn't say the children were to blame. I was asked if some factor may have contributed to the selection process, and my understanding is that it did. 

 

So the guy became a predator and chose his selection process because of what was to him provocative clothing?  If the clothing was on a mannequin, would he have assaulted the mannequin?  The way you are phrasing it is confusing.

I am not understanding what you mean by "contributed to the selection process".  Perhaps you should clarify.

[SouthernMo]

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That is a proposition that doesn't seem to be inherently obvious - at least, not to me - so I asked why that is?

If I am home alone and chose to dress modestly while I laze around the house, what's unhealthy about that?

I don’t think modesty is a static description of what clothes cover or hide.  I think modesty is a purpose.  If you wear your most comfortable pajamas, and they happen to cover your shoulders and knees, but if you don’t care if they do or don’t because they’re your pajamas, then I don’t think you’re being modest.  You’re just wearing what you want, and not giving a thought to modesty.

It is unhealthy to live without intent.  We should be beings of purpose.  If I’ve chosen to be modest at home alone - the question is why?  If my response is ‘modesty is better than immodestly just because it is’, I think my response is unhealthy because I haven’t given any thought to my life. I’ve accepted modesty without purpose.

I think I understand your point, but I’m having a hard time articulating mine.

Unhealthy may be a bit strong of a word, but I want to make the point that sometimes we live a principle or a law without understanding it.  When we do this, we run a risk of mis-applying that principle, and lose track of what Christ wants us to learn.

 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

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? 

 

It's time to realize that the body is not sexual to those that control their thoughts. End of story. 

 

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

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. 

 

Maybe the teenager was taught that girls are walking porn when not dressed modestly and in his mind they were asking for it. Not to disparage the person who taught it, I'll leave that out of it. 

[changed]

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I don’t think modesty is a static description of what clothes cover or hide.  I think modesty is a purpose.  If you wear your most comfortable pajamas, and they happen to cover your shoulders and knees, but if you don’t care if they do or don’t because they’re your pajamas, then I don’t think you’re being modest.  You’re just wearing what you want, and not giving a thought to modesty.

It is unhealthy to live without intent.  We should be beings of purpose.  If I’ve chosen to be modest at home alone - the question is why?  If my response is ‘modesty is better than immodestly just because it is’, I think my response is unhealthy because I haven’t given any thought to my life. I’ve accepted modesty without purpose.

I think I understand your point, but I’m having a hard time articulating mine.

Unhealthy may be a bit strong of a word, but I want to make the point that sometimes we live a principle or a law without understanding it.  When we do this, we run a risk of mis-applying that principle, and lose track of what Christ wants us to learn.

 

 

I think everyone is aware of the different learning styles - V: Visual (sight), A: Auditory (hearing), K: Kinaesthetic (sensation and emotion) etc. - these are not just learning styles they are interaction styles.  

Those who interact with others visually - need to make eye contact, judge based on cloths/wear nice cloths - that is one personality type.  There are others who interact through listening and hearing - these people will often not look you in the eyes, are often not interested in cloths (tend to not care as much about what they are wearing, or what others are wearing).  Those who are Kinaesthetic give you no personal space - like to touch you when communicating - are the huggers, will touch your hand etc. etc.  

This entire modesty thing seems to revolve around those who are "visual" communicators and interactors... 

The lookers, the listeners, the touchers... 

It might be hard for those who are "visual" to understand that those who are auditory and kinaesthetic are not dressing out of modesty etc. they are dressing for comfort and practicality - and that is honestly what they are dressing for.  Cloths are not important to some people - that does not mean that they are inferior to others, it just means they have a different learning / interaction style. 
 

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by changed

[changed]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe the teenager was taught that girls are walking porn when not dressed modestly and in his mind they were asking for it. Not to disparage the person who taught it, I'll leave that out of it. 

I think long paragraphs telling girls how to dress is doing just that - when boys read it, they are being taught "if you see a girl who is wearing xyz, this is going to tell you she is xyz... when that is not true at all.  

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, changed said:

Many marriages end in divorce over sexual incompatibility. 

When the marriage is based upon sexual attraction, all the more likely, but I think most marriages end because the couple are not really friends - the me doesn't become the we.

Quote

Knowing that lustful thoughts are part of everyone's human experience - just as hunger for food, and breathing are part of our bodies and part of the human experience - it is best to acknowledge these feelings, not condemn them (just as you would not condemn someone for being hungry if they smelled food nearby), and instead teaching healthy ways to address that perfectly natural part of themselves.  Shame culture - ignore/repress/hide - this is not going to help.  

It is important to control lustful thoughts since our actions are controlled by our thoughts. Sinful actions are born in the mind. These include fornication, adultery and rape.  Therefore, until a couple is married it is important to control such thoughts. This issue is what has made pornography such a scourge in our society. It introduces all kinds of lustful thoughts and desires which were not there before. So, yes, I think there are healthy ways to deal with sexual desire, but feeding them with pornography is not one of them - I am not suggesting that you are saying that, but the rationale of use of pornography is essentially the same - feed the hunger. I did not teach my sons that feelings of arousal are bad. I taught them that it is natural to have them, and that wet dreams are natural. However, I also taught them that they should not act upon those feelings with women until they are prepared to be committed to a woman and raise a child with her, and be there for that child as a father and with the woman as a husband. I never condemned my sons for having feelings of arousal. I know all too well feelings of guilt can lead to unhealthy outlets or mental states. 

[changed]

10 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

When the marriage is based upon sexual attraction, all the more likely, but I think most marriages end because the couple are not really friends - the me doesn't become the we. 

It is important to control lustful thoughts since our actions are controlled by our thoughts. Sinful actions are born in the mind. These include fornication, adultery and rape.  Therefore, until a couple is married it is important to control such thoughts. This issue is what has made pornography such a scourge in our society. It introduces all kinds of lustful thoughts and desires which were not there before. So, yes, I think there are healthy ways to deal with sexual desire, but feeding them with pornography is not one of them - I am not suggesting that you are saying that, but the rationale of use of pornography is essentially the same - feed the hunger. I did not teach my sons that feelings of arousal are bad. I taught them that it is natural to have them, and that wet dreams are natural. However, I also taught them that they should not act upon those feelings with women until they are prepared to be committed to a woman and raise a child with her, and be there for that child as a father and with the woman as a husband. I never condemned my sons for having feelings of arousal. I know all too well feelings of guilt can lead to unhealthy outlets or mental states. 

 

A marriage is different from a friendship... the main difference is sex.  

Sounds like you are sending the right messages to your kids

[Amulek]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

So the guy became a predator and chose his selection process because of what was to him provocative clothing?  

In part, yes. At least that is my understanding.

The girls that he targeted were the ones who dressed and acted the least...ladylike. 

I have no doubt that he was ascribing a motive to their dress and behavior that was not intended (and, let's be honest, at that age it's not even something they had the capacity conceive, let alone convey), but if the question being asked is something along the lines of, 'Can dress be something that influences a predator when targeting a victim,' then I think the answer to that question is going to be 'yes.' 

 

Quote

If the clothing was on a mannequin, would he have assaulted the mannequin?

I think not. 

 

Quote

The way you are phrasing it is confusing.

I am not understanding what you mean by "contributed to the selection process".  Perhaps you should clarify.

Sorry for the confusion. In conversations like this you have to be artful about how you phrase some things or people quickly throw you under the 'victim blaming' bus. 

 

[Calm]

Just now, changed said:

 

A marriage is different from a friendship... the main difference is sex.  

I disagree.  I don't buy houses with just friends, spend half my life with them, attend their business/friends parties on a regular basis, just friends don't regularly attend my family/friends parties (unless they are part of that circle), they don't share legal status with me, spend my money or I spend theirs, etc. etc. etc.  Then if one has children together, that is a massive additional difference.

[Calm]

Quote

and, let's be honest, at that age it's not even something they had the capacity conceive, let alone convey

So how can they "provoke" if they lack intent?

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

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."

 

I get that.  I was just giving my thoughts on the answer you offered.  

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, changed said:

I think long paragraphs telling girls how to dress is doing just that - when boys read it, they are being taught "if you see a girl who is wearing xyz, this is going to tell you she is xyz... when that is not true at all.  

Those kinds of teachings also teach boys that they have a stake in how girls dress and that "good" girls always dress with the needs of boys in mind.  That's not a healthy thing to imply to teenage boys at all.

[Amulek]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

So how can they "provoke" if they lack intent?

People can incorrectly infer something that wasn't willfully implied. 

Take, for example, the scenario I shared previously about my young daughter making a rude gesture. She didn't intend to communicate a vulgar expression, but if someone in the car next to us were to have seen her they might have thought differently.

 

[juliann]

21 minutes ago, Amulek said:

People can incorrectly infer something that wasn't willfully implied. 

Take, for example, the scenario I shared previously about my young daughter making a rude gesture. She didn't intend to communicate a vulgar expression, but if someone in the car next to us were to have seen her they might have thought differently.

 

You are going to compare THAT to predators who allegedly assess “ladylike” behavior in children??

Please explain what “ladylike” behavior even looks like for children.