Modesty issues...again

[juliann]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Exactly. They grow up thinking they can assess female bodies and demand protection from their own deviant thoughts throughout their lives. 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, changed said:

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.

The boundaries I’m talking about are between Church and parent. But yes, boundaries relate to many other things, which I tried to express in my post above (including modesty norms). Ownership of body and space involves clothing, and wise parents will model well-adjusted behavior and teach their children according to their developmental level, which does involve protecting their health, safety and sense of community and teaching them to protect and assert ("control" as you put it) themselves. I suppose the subject of parental permissiveness and temperance is a matter of boundaries also, but this is where my comments about extremism and community come in.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

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

I'm sorry, was there something about my reply that you felt was unresponsive?

I was asked how one could be considered to be "provok[ing]" without intent, and I replied by sharing a real life account of a child who communicated a vulgar message even though she didn't actually intend to be vulgar.

Maybe she had watched a cartoon and thought the symbol meant "Peace among worlds," but that's not how everyone else is going to take it regardless of how she meant it. And, because I know how everyone else is going to take it, I think it was perfectly acceptable (yea, desirable) for me to step in and dissuade her from engaging in that kind of behavior in the future. 

 

Quote

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

        la·dy·like  (lā′dē-līk′)
        adj.
             1. Characteristic of a well-mannered woman or girl who adheres to traditional norms of propriety and femininity: 
             2. Appropriate to such a woman or girl, as in being restrained or delicate:

It's not rocket science. Young men and young women should learn to develop a sense of propriety, and that teaching is something that needs to take place, appropriately, at even a very young age. 

I have been serving in the primary for several years now, and it's not uncommon at all to see young girls playing with their dresses and lifting them up in air. When something like that would occur during class, either my wife or I (depending on who was teaching) would simply say something along the lines of, "Susie, please put your dress down and sit in your seat properly" or perhaps, quietly, "Susie, is't not ladylike to raise your dress," or "Let's remember to behave appropriately in class." 

All of those seem like perfectly acceptable responses to me. Do you disagree? Or should we have, instead, said something like, "Susie, remember that modesty is just a social construct which you are free to ignore without consequence. In fact, if you would like, please feel free to remove your dress entirely; and if anybody tries to shame you into putting it back on just scream loudly and call them a pervert."

 

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

What planet is your story taking place on? Vulcan? 

[juliann]

I hope you are informing parents that you shame their daughters for normal behavior. You are an adult. You can't handle a little girl lifting her dress? Seriously?  What in the heck would "ladylike" mean to a young primary child...aside that she had done something wrong. I don't even know how to respond to this, other than it is not your business to be teaching children how to be a "lady" unless you are the parent.

Does the part where a lady is an adult woman escape you?   

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

What planet is your story taking place on? Vulcan? 

Haha, just try to figure it out, you're dealing with someone that is on the edge...... 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, juliann said:

I hope you are informing parents that you shame their daughters for normal behavior. You are an adult. You can't handle a little girl lifting her dress? Seriously?  What in the heck would "ladylike" mean to a young primary child...aside that she had done something wrong. I don't even know how to respond to this, other than it is not your business to be teaching children how to be a "lady" unless you are the parent.

Does the part where a lady is an adult woman escape you?   

I bet I haven't heard "ladylike" since my grandmothers stopped fussing at me for wearing long bangs and not sitting with my legs tightly together when wearing pants 45 years ago.

I will have to ask my granddaughters what they think "ladylike" means.  I am guessing they think it's something like the tea parties we have.

Why can't you just say "let's practice folding our arms and sitting reverently" and you doing the same as the kids?  It generally worked for everyone squirming for a few minutes at least for me.

Edited August 26, 2018 by Calm

[Tacenda]

https://religionnews.com/2018/08/21/when-i-was-a-young-girl-my-mormon-bishop-asked-me-about-my-panties-during-a-temple-recommend-interview/

This article made me think of this thread. And all she did was wear bikini underwear.

[Calm]

Quote

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

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

So it would seem he justifies his assault to himself by making sure his victims are the ones he thinks others look down on for how they dress and act.

Quote

t 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

Are the ones targeted because they dress modestly and act the most "ladylike" also contributing to the selection process/influencing a predator when predators target them for being ladylike?  If it is the dress, then surely the same influence applies in your logic, does it not?

[Maidservant]

10 hours ago, changed said:

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.

And to emphasize this point, the last thing you want is your child (at any age) to be unaware that, or no practice in that, they have a say over their own body--when they really need to be able to say something about situations even more important than clothes.  They will not automatically adopt an independence principle when they turn 18, if they have been taught a compliant principle in all the years before it.  They will comply with any authority, of any tone, instruction, or manner, rather than their own inner guidance.

10 hours 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. 

 

No victim contributes to the criteria of any selection process of the perpetrator.   Victims who have brown hair do not contribute to a perpetrator who has come to a process that selects for brown hair.

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

"Susie, please put your dress down and sit in your seat properly"

Said ironically (not at you, but the whole idea of modesty): I guess the 'modest' thing would be to have young girls wear pants to church then.

Edited August 26, 2018 by Maidservant

[Thinking]

For some members of the LDS Church, modesty seems to be mostly about how much skin is shown.

Quote

...shorts MUST be to the knee...

This guideline is for girls camp. Girls camp!

How many teenage girls even owned a pair of shorts that were long enough to conform?

IMO modesty is situational. There may be some absolutes that are appropriate for all situations, but I think that some LDS have too many absolutes.

Edited August 26, 2018 by Thinking

[Bernard Gui]

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. 

Let’s throw the Prophet’s “For the Strength of the Youth” standards out the window for a moment and rewrite the modesty section like we think it should really be written. Please list 4 or 5 things that should be included in the new version.

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, juliann said:

You are an adult. You can't handle a little girl lifting her dress? Seriously? 

Despite everything else Amulek has written, I don't have a problem with primary teachers reminding children of either sex to keep their clothes on in class.

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Let’s throw the Prophet’s “For the Strength of the Youth” standards out the window for a moment and rewrite the modesty section like we think it should really be written. Please list 4 or 5 things that should be included in the new version.

I don't have any issue with 'For the Strength of Youth'. At all. First of all, its title says it's for 'youth', not eight-year-olds. The First Presidency preface is addressed to 'Our dear young men and young women'.

Secondly, I've just had a re-read. Nowhere does it mention knee-length shorts or forcing young women (or men) to swim in heavy cotton T-shirts. It also doesn't say there's anything 'immodest' about wearing shorts whilst camping or, worse, wearing swimwear whilst swimming. In other words, despite your dramatic overreaction, it's possible to be perfectly on-board with the Church's dress standards and still be concerned when certain zealous Saints go overboard with their own personal additions to FTSOY.

You know, like that one person in every ward who tells everyone that drinking hot chocolate or eating gluten is really banned by the Word of Wisdom. Now imagine that person being in charge of the youth snow trip and posting on Facebook that chocolate and biscuits will be banned because, well, the Word of Wisdom!

Our youth can read, for heaven's sake. Telling them that crazy rules like no capris at camp is because of FTSOY standards just isn't going to fly if they've actually read the pamphlet.

Edited August 26, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Despite everything else Amulek has written, I don't have a problem with primary teachers reminding children of either sex to keep their clothes on in class.

I don't have any issue with 'For the Strength of Youth'. At all. First of all, its title says it's for 'youth', not eight-year-olds. The First Presidency preface is addressed to 'Our dear young men and young women'.

Secondly, I've just had a re-read. Nowhere does it mention knee-length shorts or forcing young women (or men) to swim in heavy cotton T-shirts. It also doesn't say there's anything 'immodest' about wearing shorts whilst camping or, worse, wearing swimwear whilst swimming. In other words, despite your dramatic overreaction, it's possible to be perfectly on-board with the Church's dress standards and still be concerned when certain zealous Saints go overboard with their own personal additions to FTSOY.

You know, like that one person in every ward who tells everyone that drinking hot chocolate or eating gluten is really banned by the Word of Wisdom. Now imagine that person being in charge of the youth snow trip and posting on Facebook that chocolate and biscuits will be banned because, well, the Word of Wisdom!

Our youth can read, for heaven's sake. Telling them that crazy rules like no capris at camp is because of FTSOY standards just isn't go to fly if they've actually read the pamphlet.

Amen.

The only issue that I have with the FTSOY is that it falls into the trap of believing that girls need to be given specific guidelines to be modest while boys don't.  It's no wonder that leaders in the church then do the same thing.

"Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance."

 

[changed]

6 hours ago, 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. 

Let’s throw the Prophet’s “For the Strength of the Youth” standards out the window for a moment and rewrite the modesty section like we think it should really be written. Please list 4 or 5 things that should be included in the new version.

I think that is a great idea to go through "For the Strength of Youth" and discuss what is healthy, and what is not healthy in it, although this might be better on starting a new thread.

Chapter 1: Agency and Accountability:
I would argue most of life is not a choice.
LGBT - do NOT choose their sexual preference... no one chooses the body they are born with, or who they were born to, or what resources they have growing up, or what medical conditions they have... no one chooses the religion of their parents, or the country they are born into and the culture they are taught.  Telling kids everything that happens in their life is their choice is wrong and damaging.  Most of our life is not a choice.  Most scientists agree we are a product of nature/nurture - of our DNA and our environment.  Be honest, if you were born in __________ country to _________ parents who had _________ beliefs and were educated in _________school, with __________ medical condition etc.  what would your beliefs be today?  

Consequences are not always the result ofpersonal choices. Natural disasters, health conditions etc. etc. 
Righteous choices do not always lead to happiness - take Jesus 12 disciples, 11 of them were brutally murdered. Telling kids their state of "happiness" is a result of their choice is wrong - the message "if you are not happy, it is because you are a sinner" is wrong.  This life is a cruel test.  Not tested beyond what you are able to bear?  If you believe that, then those with good happy lives are weak and unable to bear much of anything.

A better message - it is ok to not be happy about your situation. A bad situation does NOT mean you are being punished by God, a bad situation does NOT mean you are a sinner. 

Loss of freedom comes from disobedience? How about loss of freedom often comes from the situation you were born into - from being born into poverty, or born into an abusive family, or born into a repressive political regime, or born with a medical condition. None of us are free - and it is usually NOT because of disobedience that we are not free.

A much healthier message for chapter 1 would be - some things - and only some things - in life are a choice, while other things are not a choice.  For those few things you have control over do the best you can to follow moral principles.  For those things you do not have a choice over, know you can grow closer to your Heavenly Family if you rely on them during hardships.

 

chapter one... I could go on to chapter 2... etc.

Edited August 26, 2018 by changed

[Rain]

 

34 minutes ago, changed said:

I think that is a great idea to go through "For the Strength of Youth" and discuss what is healthy, and what is not healthy in it, although this might be better on starting a new thread.

Chapter 1: Agency and Accountability:
I would argue most of life is not a choice.
LGBT - do NOT choose their sexual preference... no one chooses the body they are born with, or who they were born to, or what resources they have growing up, or what medical conditions they have... no one chooses the religion of their parents, or the country they are born into and the culture they are taught.  Telling kids everything that happens in their life is their choice is wrong and damaging.  Most of our life is not a choice.  Most scientists agree we are a product of nature/nurture - of our DNA and our environment.  Be honest, if you were born in __________ country to _________ parents who had _________ beliefs and were educated in _________school, with __________ medical condition etc.  what would your beliefs be today?  

Consequences are not always the result ofpersonal choices. Natural disasters, health conditions etc. etc. 
Righteous choices do not always lead to happiness - take Jesus 12 disciples, 11 of them were brutally murdered. Telling kids their state of "happiness" is a result of their choice is wrong - the message "if you are not happy, it is because you are a sinner" is wrong.  This life is a cruel test.  Not tested beyond what you are able to bear?  If you believe that, then those with good happy lives are weak and unable to bear much of anything.

A better message - it is ok to not be happy about your situation. A bad situation does NOT mean you are being punished by God, a bad situation does NOT mean you are a sinner. 

Loss of freedom comes from disobedience? How about loss of freedom often comes from the situation you were born into - from being born into poverty, or born into an abusive family, or born into a repressive political regime, or born with a medical condition. None of us are free - and it is usually NOT because of disobedience that we are not free.

A much healthier message for chapter 1 would be - some things - and only some things - in life are a choice, while other things are not a choice.  For those few things you have control over do the best you can to follow moral principles.  For those things you do not have a choice over, know you can grow closer to your Heavenly Family if you rely on them during hardships.

 

chapter one... I could go on to chapter 2... etc.

Yes, it really would be better to start a new thread on this. We could probably all have a lot of discussion on just what I bolded and that would really disrupt this topic. 

[Rain]

8 hours ago, 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. 

Let’s throw the Prophet’s “For the Strength of the Youth” standards out the window for a moment and rewrite the modesty section like we think it should really be written. Please list 4 or 5 things that should be included in the new version.

It frustrates me as well, that we don't work in unity on this. It frustrates me when good, faith people try to explain why things like a ban on shorts and capris are a problem at girls camp over and over and we don't feel listened to. If it feels like division and contention then it is because we kept raising our voices and joining in unison hoping that some day we will actually be heard. 

I mean, think about it: I suspect that most of the people on this thread who are saying "this is a problem" are seen as good and faithful. Would it be such a big thing to really try and see it from our point of view and at least say, "yes, I can see why you have a problem with that"? You may be able to totally see the rule as justified and not have a problem with it yourself, but if we are, as you say, among saints, then it seems like a good, faithful man like yourself would at least try to look at it from the other good and faithful people's view to see why they find it a problem. 

Instead, usually what I hear is, "well men are visual...." etc which demonstrates to us that we haven't been listened to, just that someone is forming a defense without understanding what the problem actually is. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by Rain

[changed]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

 

Yes, it really would be better to start a new thread on this. We could probably all have a lot of discussion on just what I bolded and that would really disrupt this topic. 

Just started a thread, we'll see where it goes...

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Amen.

The only issue that I have with the FTSOY is that it falls into the trap of believing that girls need to be given specific guidelines to be modest while boys don't.  It's no wonder that leaders in the church then do the same thing.

"Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance."

 

So, would your rewrite include more specific standards for young men, or less specific for young women? Could you give an example of such wording? 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, would your rewrite include more specific standards for young men, or less specific for young women? Could you give an example of such wording? 

One example of more specific language for young men could include “young men should avoid wearing clothing that does not cover the shoulders. They should avoid being shirtless.”

There is no reason to believe that young women need specific instructions and young men don’t. Either teach both genders that they should maintain modesty and let them govern themselves  (like the YM are taught in the pamphlet) or give them specific guidelines that they need to follow (like the YW are taught in the pamphlet). 

The double standard, and the emotional baggage that comes with it, is unnecessary. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

It frustrates me as well, that we don't work in unity on this. It frustrates me when good, faith people try to explain why things like a ban on shorts and capris are a problem at girls camp over and over and we don't feel listened to. If it feels like division and contention then it is because we kept raising our voices and joining in unison hoping that some day we will actually be heard. 

I mean, think about it: I suspect that most of the people on this thread who are saying "this is a problem" are seen as good and faithful. Would it be such a big thing to really try and see it from our point of view and at least say, "yes, I can see why you have a problem with that"? You may be able to totally see the rule as justified and not have a problem with it yourself, but if we are, as you say, among saints, then it seems like a good, faithful man like yourself would at least try to look at it from the other good and faithful people's view to see why they find it a problem. 

Instead, usually what I hear is, "well men are visual...." etc which demonstrates to us that we haven't been listened to, just that someone is forming a defense without understanding what the problem actually is. 

I have purposely avoided making any comments about what other people perceive as problems. I’ve learned from long and sad experience that it’s a minefield for all sides. It invariably leads to rancor, misunderstanding, and unfair accusations. That has happened multiple times in this discussion. There is such a wide gap between those who appeal to African and European nudity and those who ban shorts at youth camps. How do we bring them closer together?

What do you think the problem is and what would a hypothetical rewrite of the Church’s policy look like for you? 

Edited August 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

One example of more specific language for young men could include “young men should avoid wearing clothing that does not cover the shoulders. They should avoid being shirtless.”

There is no reason to believe that young women need specific instructions and young men don’t. Either teach both genders that they should maintain modesty and let them govern themselves  (like the YM are taught in the pamphlet) or give them specific guidelines that they need to follow (like the YW are taught in the pamphlet). 

The double standard, and the emotional baggage that comes with it, is unnecessary. 

Thank you for responding. Could you provide some statements that could be used to teach ym and ym modesty to be included in a hypothetical FTSOTY booklet? How would you define modesty (in the area of dress) in an official way that could avoid situations like those in youth activities?

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, changed said:

I think that is a great idea to go through "For the Strength of Youth" and discuss what is healthy, and what is not healthy in it, although this might be better on starting a new thread.

Chapter 1: Agency and Accountability:
I would argue most of life is not a choice.
LGBT - do NOT choose their sexual preference... no one chooses the body they are born with, or who they were born to, or what resources they have growing up, or what medical conditions they have... no one chooses the religion of their parents, or the country they are born into and the culture they are taught.  Telling kids everything that happens in their life is their choice is wrong and damaging.  Most of our life is not a choice.  Most scientists agree we are a product of nature/nurture - of our DNA and our environment.  Be honest, if you were born in __________ country to _________ parents who had _________ beliefs and were educated in _________school, with __________ medical condition etc.  what would your beliefs be today?  

Consequences are not always the result ofpersonal choices. Natural disasters, health conditions etc. etc. 
Righteous choices do not always lead to happiness - take Jesus 12 disciples, 11 of them were brutally murdered. Telling kids their state of "happiness" is a result of their choice is wrong - the message "if you are not happy, it is because you are a sinner" is wrong.  This life is a cruel test.  Not tested beyond what you are able to bear?  If you believe that, then those with good happy lives are weak and unable to bear much of anything.

A better message - it is ok to not be happy about your situation. A bad situation does NOT mean you are being punished by God, a bad situation does NOT mean you are a sinner. 

Loss of freedom comes from disobedience? How about loss of freedom often comes from the situation you were born into - from being born into poverty, or born into an abusive family, or born into a repressive political regime, or born with a medical condition. None of us are free - and it is usually NOT because of disobedience that we are not free.

A much healthier message for chapter 1 would be - some things - and only some things - in life are a choice, while other things are not a choice.  For those few things you have control over do the best you can to follow moral principles.  For those things you do not have a choice over, know you can grow closer to your Heavenly Family if you rely on them during hardships.

 

chapter one... I could go on to chapter 2... etc.

Except I asked that the rewrite to be specifically for the dress standards under the modesty heading as per the OP,  not the entire booklet. This was intended for those who might be unhappy with that section. You appear to be one who finds it unhelpful. Do you have any suggestions on what would make it better?

Edited August 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Thinking said:

For some members of the LDS Church, modesty seems to be mostly about how much skin is shown.

This guideline is for girls camp. Girls camp!

How many teenage girls even owned a pair of shorts that were long enough to conform?

IMO modesty is situational. There may be some absolutes that are appropriate for all situations, but I think that some LDS have too many absolutes.

Modesty in dress is hardly unique to the LDS. We wrestle with it every day in the public schools. It invariably comes down to “how much skin is showing.”

When putting together a camp manual, should there even be a section about modesty and clothing? If so how would it be worded? What are a few absolute principles?

[BlueDreams]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

I completely agree...not only that, but I think it also can inadvertently handicap both men and women with understanding and holding proper accountability to their own bodies/sexuality. I've seen from time to time a couple of my porn addicts being triggered by my outfits...clothes that can easily be worn with garments. Knowing their struggle, for a second, I wanted to "help them out" by wearing something that was less flattering. But then I remembered that how I dressed wasn't provocative and was in a way that you may see any woman. By wearing something different, I wasn't allowing them the opportunity to get a hold of their own minds and desires and learn, as I had, to "bridle" my thoughts. 

I don't think how we are currently teaching about modesty is really the right way to go. Hyperfocusing on length of clothes, tightness of shirts, etc doesn't teach one to manage one's approach to life in a modest way/attitude or to learn to bridle one's thoughts and guide them to god-given relationships. 

With luv, 

BD