Modesty issues...again

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Boys shouldn't go shirtless if the girls can't...

That doesn’t answer the question. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Probably, although I don't think I would use the word modesty.

What word would you use?

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Be sure to dress appropriately for the different activities and meetings...

What does “appropriate” mean in specifics?

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

For girls camp I would say wearing clothes.

Not for boys’ camp?

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

An interesting and thought-provoking piece. I just now read through much of it (as you mentioned, the excerpt is fairly sizable.

A couple of thoughts that occurred to me as I read:

First, given the harassment that the author endured in her university years, I wondered whether college campuses need to institute the vaunted "safe spaces" for those who champion traditional values, who, as the author put it are attacked not for being wrong but for being right.

Second, for some reason it made me think of this portion of an email I received this past week from the principal at the high school my son attends, not to me specifically, but to families of students enrolled there:
 

How sad that things have gotten so extreme in society today that a public school administration must be so explicit with something that ought to go without saying, for parents if not for students themselves.

 

Indeed, that’s what is happening. The limits are always explored. Dress code issues are a minefield. You have to be vigilant to navigate through them  .

Sister Gui just gave me a mandate to purchase a new suit...probably the last one I will get in this life. Other than the contents of the fabric, my options were exactly the same as when I got a new suit in 1957 when I became a deacon, for my high school graduation in 1964, for my mission in 1966, marriage in 1972, ordination as a bishop in 1980, professional garb for orchestra work over the decades, and after some weight gains and losses more recently. Pretty much the same can be said about the every-day clothing I have used for the past 71 years....shirts and a pair of pants. No issues with hem length, low cuts, transparency, gaposis, faux stress tears in the thighs, ripped out shoulders, etc. Not so for Sister Gui and the other Gui ladies over generations. It’s a constant battle for them. 

There is a new male cheerleader for the New Orleans Saints. First in the NFL, I believe. His uniform of choice is a full long pants workout sports outfit, not at all like that of his female cohorts. I don’t understand why. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If the argument is girls and women shouldn't go shirtless because it is sexually arousing for many others to see them in that state, may .I point out the endless beefcake photos and screen appearances of shirtless men.  Anyone claiming that boys and men going shirtless is not sexually arousing for others needs to explain all those shirtless sex shots of men.

I leave that to the women to explain. The ladies closest to me don’t buy into that. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[SouthernMo]

I know I’m chiming in late here, and acknowledging that this topic has strayed from the OP.

The more I reflect pragmatically on the issue of modesty, the more I believe it doesn’t matter nearly as much as the volume and intensity of LDS (local and HQ) teaching on this subject implies.

Seriously - what would happen if church teachings just stopped addressing modesty (I’m not talking about morality - JUST modesty)?  I have been looking, and I can’t find any studies that correlate modest dress with decreased premarital sex.  If there are any, please share.

(To be clear - I’m interested in studies and data only, not anecdotes, real or hypothetical)

[Thinking]

 

36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What word would you use?

Appropriate. Is there an echo in here?

36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What does “appropriate” mean in specifics?

Example: It is recommended that you bring a pair of long pants for the hike since wearing shorts will subject your legs to scratches from the bushes and trees.

36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not for boys’ camp?

The boys don't have to wear clothes at boys camp.

 

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I know I’m chiming in late here, and acknowledging that this topic has strayed from the OP.

The more I reflect pragmatically on the issue of modesty, the more I believe it doesn’t matter nearly as much as the volume and intensity of LDS (local and HQ) teaching on this subject implies.

Seriously - what would happen if church teachings just stopped addressing modesty (I’m not talking about morality - JUST modesty)?  I have been looking, and I can’t find any studies that correlate modest dress with decreased premarital sex.  If there are any, please share.

(To be clear - I’m interested in studies and data only, not anecdotes, real or hypothetical)

The OP was about dress standards for youth activities. How has it strayed?

How would such a thing be studied?

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Appropriate. Is there an echo in here?

No. Just trying to understand what you are trying to say. What does appropriate dress mean? What is inappropriate and what should be done when something inappropriate shows up? My question was about a substitute for the word modesty. 

Quote

Example: It is recommended that you bring a pair of long pants for the hike since wearing shorts will subject your legs to scratches from the bushes and trees.

Do much hiking?

Quote

The boys don't have to wear clothes at boys camp.

You think so?

Edited August 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[SouthernMo]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The OP was about dress standards for youth activities. How has it strayed?

No - the OP was about a local leader imposing more strict modesty (and logo restrictive?) codes on 8-11 year olds.  Not youth. Go back and read it.

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How would such a thing be studied?

I’m no PhD sociologist, but maybe survey or look for corellations between typical clothing habits and at what ages a person goes to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and home bases?

See if there is a linear inverse relationship between length of sleeves and shorts and how early they engage in sexual/intimate behavior.

Just an idea. Not trained in this area enough to build a study myself...

Edited August 26, 2018 by SouthernMo

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

No - the OP was about a local leader imposing more strict modesty (and logo restrictive?) codes on 8-11 year olds.  Not youth. Go back and read it.

It was also expanded to include scouts and quickly moved to include youth as well. 

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I’m no PhD sociologist, but maybe survey or look for corellations between typical clothing habits and at what ages a person goes to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and home bases?

See if there is a linear inverse relationship between length of sleeves and shorts and how early they engage in sexual/intimate behavior.

Just an idea. Not trained in this area enough to build a study myself...

This is such a complex issue. I don’t think there could be a way to measure it 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t think it is simply a matter of economics or social viability. 

There can be several legitimate reasons for having school/church/workplace dress codes...modesty, safety, health, appropriateness, etc. If you were a bishop or assistant school principal talking with a student who wears immodest attire to an activity, how  would you explain the inevitable question, “But what’s wrong with it?”

As a principal I wouldn't have any answer to what's wrong with immodesty.  From a secular point of view, what is wrong with modesty (that isn't based on a girl making it difficult for boys to pay attention, which is not a valid reason to ask a girl to be modest)?  I don't have an answer to that question so i can understand why so many schools don't seem to have an answer either and are in the news for failing to have a reasonable dress code or implement it in a way that isn't sexist.

As a bishop, my answer would probably be some iteration of 'because God has told us that we are not being respectful of our bodies if we don't dress modestly.'

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I leave that to the women to explain. The ladies closest to me don’t buy into that. 

So you are suggesting no one finds shirtless men arousing?  

Btw, if you google "sexy shirtless" it is men's pictures that primarily show up, not women's....at least on my iPad.

Edited August 26, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think you may be missing my point. The rewrite is purely hypothetical. I’m not calling for a rewrite. When I chaperoned school and church dances, it was nearly impossible to go an evening without multiple verbal challenges (often emotional and heated) to the dress code for the events. This lead to demands from both sides for more and more specific guidelines which lead to more confrontations. Some chaperones ignored the standards, some demanded they be followed jot and tittle. Eventually, I quit volunteering to be a chaperone. 

 Since so much misunderstanding and egregious misapplication apparently comes from the current wording, how could it be improved? Could you write a publishable statement that would reflect your position? I ask because I have been involved in both school and church attempts to write such a document. None of them was successful.

I'm not sure how saying 'I don't think it needs to be rewritten' is missing the point though. I told you the parts that I would change.  I think the rest is fine.  From my perspective, the pamphlet isn't really the problem. It's the people that want to hold others to their personal interpretation of the pamphlet that is the problem.  

Specific guidelines are necessary if someone is going to not let someone participate in an event because they are 'not dressed modestly.'  But when we take 'you will not be allowed to come to the activity' off the table, then specifics are not necessary at all.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So you are suggesting no one finds shirtless men arousing?  

Btw, if you google "sexy shirtless" it is men's pictures that primarily show up, not women's....at least on my iPad.

🤣  Busted!!!!!

 

Is my less than perfect mental score keeping incorrect, or is it the case that the primary (and majority) defenders of the cultural status-quo are men?

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

What does appropriate dress mean? What is inappropriate and what should be done when something inappropriate shows up? My question was about a substitute for the word modesty.

I would hope that the girls and their parents collaborate on what to take to camp.

Absolutes can create more problems than they solve.

Suppose a rule was listed that shorts had to have an inseam of at least 4 inches. One girl has a pair of shorts that appears to have an inseam of less than 4 inches. Do the leaders measure the inseam? How do the leaders approach the girl without embarrassing her? There might be girls telling on each other for borderline infractions.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do much hiking?

Yes. If I was in charge and knew the trail had the probability of scratching legs, that's what I would say. I gave you one example. Hopefully there would be a list of activities so the girls (or boys) could make informed decisions.

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Btw, if you google "sexy shirtless" it is men's pictures that primarily show up, not women's....at least on my iPad.

“Honey - I was just doing research on modesty. I swear!”

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

“Honey - I was just doing research on modesty. I swear!”

To you and tribe:  

[Hamba Tuhan]

39 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Suppose a rule was listed that shorts had to have an inseam of at least 4 inches. One girl has a pair of shorts that appears to have an inseam of less than 4 inches. Do the leaders measure the inseam?

And even if they do, this creates even more issues. I'm not a woman, but I know that a 4-inch inseam can look very different on girls of different weights and builds. It may, for example, look much shorter on a larger girl than on a thinner one. Oh dear.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Since so much misunderstanding and egregious misapplication apparently comes from the current wording, how could it be less ambiguous?

It can't. I'm quite certain that's the whole point.

The alternative has been tried by our fellow People of the Book, but I feel confident that the prophets don't want to replicate either Jewish or Islamic law.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And even if they do, this creates even more issues. I'm not a woman, but I know that a 4-inch inseam can look very different on girls of different weights and builds. It may, for example, look much shorter on a larger girl than on a thinner one. Oh dear.

Or it may look shorter on a taller girl. The taller girl may have a hard time finding shorts that go to the knee - if that's a rule like in the OP.

[Rivers]

I don’t know if this point has been brought up yet.  I haven’t read the entire thread.  But it should be noted that men, in general, are much more susceptible to visual sexual stimuli than women.  

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040316072953.htm

 

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Rivers

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I don’t know if this point has been brought up yet.  I haven’t read the entire thread.  But it should be noted that men, in general, are much more susceptible to visual sexual stimuli than women.  

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040316072953.htm

 

 

More susceptible does not mean women are not though...or that a greater susceptibility removes even partial responsibility to self control.

It is wise to be selfaware and learn one's triggers because that will be the only way self control will come.

It doesn't come by telling others they have to avoid the triggers for you though.  Makes sense to childproof a house, but does anyone really want others to keep treating them as a child when they are adults if they take the time to think about it?  I would hope not.  If they do, maybe they ought to consider the  self-control and responsibility that comes with exaltation.  No bubble wrapping there, I am guessing.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, canard78 said:

I attended a parents’ briefing meeting for a school trip. The entire focus for clothing was aimed at the girls and their bodies. 

It’s the sexualisation of girls that is particularly problematic in this skewed focus of attention. 

If schools and churches must put down clothing guidelines, I wish they would at least treat children and teens equally. 

Please address the principal's email I quoted from. Shouldn't it go without saying that no one, male or female, ought to be exposing his or her buttocks or any portion thereof while attending public school?

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

I attended a parents’ briefing meeting for a school trip. The entire focus for clothing was aimed at the girls and their bodies. 

It’s the sexualisation of girls that is particularly problematic in this skewed focus of attention. 

If schools and churches must put down clothing guidelines, I wish they would at least treat children and teens equally. 

I suppose one advantage of making the same post twice is that an individual can give you two rep points for it. (Just kidding. I'm certain it was inadvertent.)

Edited August 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

29 minutes ago, Rivers said:

It should be noted that men, in general, are much more susceptible to visual sexual stimuli than women.  

Historical examples would strongly suggest that such things are culturally determined.