Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[filovirus]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why do you think that?  I bet up until recently most women would have been too uncomfortable to explain to male leaders that they found them attractive in their suits or whatever.  How often even these days do you hear women complimenting men on attractiveness  while the reverse is not uncommon?

I may take you up on that bet. Don't know how we'd prove it either way.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I suspect that may be cultural. It happens frequently here. 

Generational too.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, filovirus said:

I may take you up on that bet. Don't know how we'd prove it either way.

All I know is my dorm sisters loved it.

And the young elders were a hit with the Young Women in every ward I have been whether they were especially spiritual or not.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Calm

[filovirus]

34 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I didn't think this thread was only about clothing worn in the church building.

No, but different attire is for different occasions. I ran a 5k last weekend. I wore compression tights because it was 45F outside.  It fits the occasion and offers (supposably) better blood circulation and is considerably lighter  than a pair of joggers. I wear shorts over them just to have a little more "cover up" because tights really can be revealing for men. That being said, plenty of men don't wear shorts over tights.

[MustardSeed]

if all things were equal, perhaps young men would be expected to wear padding to cover any muscle and would be expected to keep the suit coat on to cover the hiney👏🏻. 

But it is never asked, because? 

Perhaps it’s assumed we gals don’t experience desire.  

Or perhaps it’s assumed we gals are responsible enough to know we are in charge of our thoughts and behavior. 

Or perhaps our culture is so used to objectifying women that we assume that women never objectify men. 

Or perhaps men enjoy the freedom of not having restrictive covering. 

Who knows.  

[filovirus]

8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

if all things were equal, perhaps young men would be expected to wear padding to cover any muscle and would be expected to keep the suit coat on to cover the hiney👏🏻. 

But it is never asked, because? 

Perhaps it’s assumed we gals don’t experience desire.  

Or perhaps it’s assumed we gals are responsible enough to know we are in charge of our thoughts and behavior. 

Or perhaps our culture is so used to objectifying women that we assume that women never objectify men. 

Or perhaps men enjoy the freedom of not having restrictive covering. 

Who knows.  

I think it's more to do with this: https://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare

[bsjkki]

28 minutes ago, filovirus said:

No, but different attire is for different occasions.

I completely agree with this. That is why the inappropriate demands for extra clothing on girls/woman is so infuriating.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, filovirus said:

This is my personal opinion.

When I heard the age change for both male and female missionary ages the first thing that went through my mind was that this would create some problems eventually between Elder and Sister missionaries. I thought that for the first few years of this change, 18 year olds be dominant, but after that it would creep back to around 19 as the average age. But for sisters it would stat at 19 as the average age. Previously when separated by 2 years, the Sister missionaries would always seem more mature and hence curtail any romantic attraction between the two sexes. But now the ages are more aligned. Adults naturally will have romantic feelings for members of their own peer group. Well, as both Elders and Sisters are missionaries, they fall into the same peer group. So yes, Elders and Sisters are now looking at each other differently than they did a few short years ago.

Now on to the problem. Elders wear suits to church. Pretty black and white. It is hard to say that a suit elicits sexual thoughts for females. The Sisters have a little more leeway with their church attire, but not much. So which of the two is the easiest to change dress standards? Unfortunately the Sister missionaries. Do I agree with what has happened in at least one mission in regards to Sisters dress attire? No. Can I see the reasoning behind it? Yes.

Lol, wow! I have enough female friends to know that is dead wrong.

[juliann]

15 minutes ago, filovirus said:

I think it's more to do with this: https://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare

I made it through the first page and the author and every single person he quoted talking about women's thoughts and feelings....were men.

[filovirus]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Lol, wow! I have enough female friends to know that is dead wrong.

Which part?

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, filovirus said:

I think it's more to do with this: https://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare

So women are more affected by context than men are.  If anything, that would indicate clothing as in type...or no clothing would have a greater effect on women than men.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

I am reasonably fit. When I wear compression or run without a shirt I am aware that I get more looks.

About five years ago the only time I could really exercise was at night. I would go running some time between 11 and 1 in the morning. Friday nights I would often get catcalled by women in passing cars coming back from drinking. I tried to take it as a compliment but they were probably not that discerning at that point. The point is though that it is different. I did not feel threatened. If anything I felt complimented. Women on the other often do feel threatened. It seems an odd divine decision to give the generally more sexually aggressive gender more natural size and musculature. One would think the opposite would work better.

I have only once that I can remember felt physically threatened in a sexual manner and that was by a bunch of drunk gay guys on my mission. My companion was a bit slow and naive and did not understand the catcalls and obscene and anatomically unlikely things they were suggesting we should do with them so he turned around and walked over to talk to them thinking he might find a golden investigator or something. I almost left him. I got him out of there though.

Found out a couple of weeks later I probably should have left him. I was attacked by a guy who was on something (my retroactive guess is meth). He punched me in the back of the head and I took a few more hits. By the time I was on my feet again and the guy strutted off my companion had already fled over half a block away. Still have a scar on the inside of my mouth from that punch where it cut my lip. It is not the equivalent of Paul’s stripes but I am kind of proud of it.

Sorry, off topic. In any case, I never considered whether I would be porn to them. 

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Which part?

The part where women do not find suits attractive. The first girl I was engaged to if I remember right I caught her eye while wearing a suit.

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, juliann said:

I made it through the first page and the author and every single person he quoted talking about women's thoughts and feelings....were men.

Oh, you just remind me of this and thought you might get a kick out of it. Bookmarked it for just such an occasion. A study was done in 1986 looking at breast and uterine cancer. The entire study group was male.

https://ethicalnag.org/2013/05/26/no-women-breast-uterine-cancer/

I really wonder what they were thinking.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

It is not as if women have no clue that what they wear has an effect. I have recently been doing an admittedly unscientific study. I have used YouTube clips of all the TV talk shows and compared how the men dress to how the women dress. I am guessing that 95% of the men dress in a suit and tie. The women, on the other hand , have exposed arms, shoulders, legs and upper chest and back. Are they all just dressing for themselves or as has been said , for other women? ......................

 

6 hours ago, juliann said:

When the article begins with a sexist "joke," I can guarantee the research he cites begins with the same premise. I remember one of these studies was debunked sometime back. And since most social science stuff can be debunked, that is the last place I would place my confidence for stuff like this.

We all get excited when we see something we really want no matter what it is. But most of us don't steal because there are consequences. Currently, we are still in a boys will be boys culture, one in which rapists are let go because their lives might be ruined. 

It doesn't matter what is going through male minds. What matters is how we react to their behavior beginning with the smallest things at early ages. If they are taught they are not to touch girls, pull their hair, and all the other "cute" things we laugh at,  that might be the end of it. Meanwhile, all we can do is go at it defensively, have girls wear burkas just in case, knowing that if clothing really does have anything to do with it, we are question begging in the extreme. Do you really believe that burkas will permanently stop a rapist because the only reason he rapes is because of clothing? Of course not, ........................

Since clothing (or the lack of it) has nothing to do with rape, we need to ask more serious questions about how young people learn to deal with puberty.  The teen years are already difficult enough for everyone, and for some it never ends.  In the Western world, we have tried parochial schools in which males and females are kept in separate classes, or even separate schools.  That doers result in better education, but is no longer acceptable in modern society.  The opposite extreme was tried in many Israeli kibbutzim in which girls and boys were raised together in children's houses, without adults constantly present, and in which the girls and boys showered together right on through their high school years.  After that, nearly 100 % of the children entered the Israeli Army for regular gender-segregated service, ever after being in the ready reserves -- unless married women with children.  Israelis seem quite well-adjusted, and family life is their focus.

Since Mormons are only a small minority of the American population, they can't control their sexually exploitative environment.  So, how are they to deal with it effectively and still maintain high ethical and moral standards?  Will the new LDS youth programs be an improvement on that score?

[juliann]

2 hours ago, filovirus said:

I am reasonably fit. When I wear compression or run without a shirt I am aware that I get more looks.

You have tap danced around the question so often I’m asking again.  Are you concerned about their thoughts? Will you be dressing less provocatively in the future. Or do you feel that only women must do this and will not be dressing modestly?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

I think it's more to do with this: https://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare

The central problem with this kind of research can be found on the first page: 'He is a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago and lead author of a major survey of sexual practices, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States'.

This may well be a reasonably accurate description of the dominant 'social organisation' in the US at this particular historical moment. But as the title of his survey makes clear, sexuality is socially organised. That means that things like 'sex drive' are socially constructed and therefore vary across both time (history) and space (culture). Anthropology and history back this assertion up completely.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

would often get catcalled by women in passing cars coming back from drinking.

When women's social inhibitions are removed by the drinking, sexual aggression comes out more.  If it was always socially acceptable, then chances are we would see it consistently more from women just as happens in cultural differences with men where some cultures encourage more social aggression for men than others.  I suspect at least in American culture judging by media and many places touched by American culture, we will see more of sexual assertiveness from women.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Then why should we be concerned with how the culture judges provocativeness?  Why isn't having respect for one's body not about wearing clothing that is healthy and comfortable?  Why isn't vanity solely about not flaunting riches in front of others who have little or none?

I’ve re-read your post several times, yet I’m not at all certain I grasp your argument or how it pertains to my post, so I’ll put off responding to it for now. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

11 hours ago, filovirus said:

 

Speaking about Elders (missionaries) specifically, what would you do to make their church attire (neutral suit) less appealing to the Sister missionaries? I understand that suits can be made to highlight a physique, but those are not the types that Elders are instructed to bring on the mission.

My son just left on his mission a month ago so I am aware of what they are instructed to bring. No skinny suits. Specifically they want suits that are well made and in a business style. 

Specifically TELLING THEM TO BRING the type of suit (business style) that makes them attractive to oh so many women.  

You want a less attractive suit? A decades old polyester suit will do it. 

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Rain

[10THAmendment]

This whole notion is just another product of the deeply sexist attitude in the church. The church and its leaders are stuck in the 1700s. Just as they held on to racism longer than most they are hanging on to sexism. It’s going to take the same kind of external pressure that existed in the 1970s before women are truly seen as equal in this culture. 

[Meadowchik]

I think the correct approach is to teach children that our appearance can communicate to others and to consider that fact when we make choices governing appearance. Also, we can all be helped by the awareness that we are impacted by what our eyes see, and that we can have involuntary biological responses to visual (and all other kinds of) stimuli. And so if there are involuntary responses we want to avoid, we can be aware of triggers and perhaps might decide to avoid conditions that trigger us, if possible. However, ultimately, sexual arousal is not evil in itself. Paramount to being aroused is how we treat ourselves and others, with respect including reverence for their bodily autonomy and us being accountable for how we treat others, whatever their appearance. 

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

About five years ago the only time I could really exercise was at night. I would go running some time between 11 and 1 in the morning. Friday nights I would often get catcalled by women in passing cars coming back from drinking. I tried to take it as a compliment but they were probably not that discerning at that point. The point is though that it is different. I did not feel threatened. If anything I felt complimented. Women on the other often do feel threatened. It seems an odd divine decision to give the generally more sexually aggressive gender more natural size and musculature. One would think the opposite would work better.

I have only once that I can remember felt physically threatened in a sexual manner and that was by a bunch of drunk gay guys on my mission. My companion was a bit slow and naive and did not understand the catcalls and obscene and anatomically unlikely things they were suggesting we should do with them so he turned around and walked over to talk to them thinking he might find a golden investigator or something. I almost left him. I got him out of there though.

Found out a couple of weeks later I probably should have left him. I was attacked by a guy who was on something (my retroactive guess is meth). He punched me in the back of the head and I took a few more hits. By the time I was on my feet again and the guy strutted off my companion had already fled over half a block away. Still have a scar on the inside of my mouth from that punch where it cut my lip. It is not the equivalent of Paul’s stripes but I am kind of proud of it.

Sorry, off topic. In any case, I never considered whether I would be porn to them. 

Off topic, but I've got to say, I'm hearing this over and over of missionaries being assaulted or in real danger in parts of their missions, but told only to send letters of the positives in their missions. Just spoke with a former neighbor who's daughter just returned from a mission in another country. She and her companion were in constant danger and this former neighbor had no idea of how afraid her daughter and companion were. But now maybe in their weekly ability to speak or skype parents they won't be able to hide what is going on. My son was beat up by his short tempered large companion. My son was much shorter and not bulked up at all, pretty thin. And was left for two weeks with him because the MP thought my son was the only one to put up with him, until he figured it out. The companion had gotten mad when my son needed the cell phone. The guy was under a blanket with the phone and my son needed to make a call for missionary work, and that is what caused the flareup. My son had to keep this to himself and only told me in causual conversation after he returned home. Did you write anything about it happening to you on your mission or keep it to yourself. That sounds so horrible.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Tacenda

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think the correct approach is to teach children that our appearance can communicate to others and to consider that fact when we make choices governing appearance. Also, we can all be helped by the awareness that we are impacted by what our eyes see, and that we can have involuntary biological responses to visual (and all other kinds of) stimuli. And so if there are involuntary responses we want to avoid, we can be aware of triggers and perhaps might decide to avoid conditions that trigger us, if possible. However, ultimately, sexual arousal is not evil in itself. Paramount to being aroused is how we treat ourselves and others, with respect including reverence for their bodily autonomy and us being accountable for how we treat others, whatever their appearance. 

Very well put.  Thank you.

A few years back I was an adjunct professor at a local university.  Each semester I had a class taught in a computer lab.  I am somewhat tall (6'2), and most the students were seated just in front of me as I stood and lectured at the front (using either a laptop or writing on whiteboards).  One semester I had about 25 students, two of which were women who sat in the front-and-center seats.  Both of these women regularly wore clothing that was quite revealing in the chest area, particularly for someone with a vantage point from "above."

Now, was this a "sexual" thing for me?  Well, no.  I liked and respected both of these women as people.  I got along well with both of them.  And yet their choice in clothing created a difficulty for me.  I simply did not feel comfortable standing in a place where I could see . . . more of them than I really wanted to see.  It wasn't about "sex" (these women always acted with professionalism).  It was about propriety and decorum.  I resolved the issue by finding the remote control thingy for the computer, and then standing to one side at the front of the classroom so as to eliminate or reduce line-of-sight problems.  This probably looked a little weird, as the students' sightlines were such that they looked like they were watching a tennis match (turning to me when I spoke from the side of the room, then turning to look at the powerpoint slide being projected at the center-front of the room).  It was a relatively minor inconvenice, but it got the job done.

I never spoke to these women about their choice in clothing, as I did not feel it was my place to do so.  Fortunately, I had a means of resolving this issue.  Not everyone is so situated.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Very well put.  Thank you.

A few years back I was an adjunct professor at a local university.  Each semester I had a class taught in a computer lab.  I am somewhat tall (6'2), and most the students were seated just in front of me as I stood and lectured at the front (using either a laptop or writing on whiteboards).  One semester I had about 25 students, two of which were women who sat in the front-and-center seats.  Both of these women regularly wore clothing that was quite revealing in the chest area, particularly for someone with a vantage point from "above."

Now, was this a "sexual" thing for me?  Well, no.  I liked and respected both of these women as people.  I got along well with both of them.  And yet their choice in clothing created a difficulty for me.  I simply did not feel comfortable standing in a place where I could see . . . more of them than I really wanted to see.  It wasn't about "sex" (these women always acted with professionalism).  It was about propriety and decorum.  I resolved the issue by finding the remote control thingy for the computer, and then standing to one side at the front of the classroom so as to eliminate or reduce line-of-sight problems.  This probably looked a little weird, as the students' sightlines were such that they looked like they were watching a tennis match (turning to me when I spoke from the side of the room, then turning to look at the powerpoint slide being projected at the center-front of the room).  It was a relatively minor inconvenice, but it got the job done.

I never spoke to these women about their choice in clothing, as I did not feel it was my place to do so.  Fortunately, I had a means of resolving this issue.  Not everyone is so situated.

Thanks,

-Smac

When I was newly married at BYU, I was waiting in line at the BYU florist when I heard a conversation being me. What struck me was the accent of the male speaking, and I literally had to hold onto the counter because his voice was so twitterpating. I told myself "You're a married woman, don't look behind you!" And I didn't. 

It turns out, the accent was Scottish. Fortunately 20+ years later, I can enjoy beautiful accents without any danger, especially now that I live in Scotland!