Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[Jake Starkey]

46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

As a school orchestra teacher, I took great care not to be alone in my office with the door closed with a female student. If it were necessary, I made sure the window in the door was unblocked and I was visible from the outside. 

On orchestra trips I never hung out with a girl by herself and always tried to be in mixed  groups.  I never entered a girls’ motel room at bed check. 

We male teachers had to be careful when touching girls in pedagogical situations. I would ask if I could touch, but usually just avoided it. One of the most uncomfortable duties for male teachers was to enforce the school dress codes for girls.

I would follow the same protocols if the group was all adults.

The above is a form of the Bill Graham covenant that he had with his music minister to never be alone if at all possible with females not in his family.

I followed that in my careers in the military and at college.  Two female superiors in the military did not like that I required them to have the door open during counseling and advising; I suggested we could take it up with the XO.

Some women believe that such hinders advancement for them, which may be so.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

But my main question is, should we worry about what other people will think if they see us at lunch or dinner with a someone of the opposite sex who is not our spouse. Are we responsible for whatever conclusion the draw? Appearance of evil, in other words.

I don't think we are, but I suppose someone could use our example as justification for putting themselves into a situation that they shouldn't be in, but that would not be our responsibility.  

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

Very wise of you to follow those protocols with students. The church has similar protocols in place and I believe it is for the safety of adults and kids.

Enforcing the dress code would not be fun. Did you ever have to enforce the dress code for the boys?

 

Yes, but no where near as frequently. That was easy to do. Never saw my career flash before my eyes with the boys. 

Edited October 28, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not to inject politics into an already sensitive subject, but Vice President Pence gets a lot of flack from democrats for insisting that he never be alone with another woman other than his wife.  I LOVE that about him, and his approach could have saved many o' politicians careers and family...

...So to get this straight, you have a friend in the bishopric whose husband cheated on another woman?  (I think you meant whose husband is serving in the bishopric ) That would have been quite the story though - a bishop secretly married to another man...

Yes, instead of 'who's' I should have used 'whose' in that sentence.  Then it would have been more clear.  

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

The above is a form of the Bill Graham covenant that he had with his music minister to never be alone if at all possible with females not in his family.

I followed that in my careers in the military and at college.  Two female superiors in the military did not like that I required them to have the door open during counseling and advising; I suggested we could take it up with the XO.

Some women believe that such hinders advancement for them, which may be so.

Yet some will think this is Neanderthal thinking.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Jake Starkey]

Jake Starkey said: The above is a form of the Bill Graham covenant that he had with his music minister to never be alone if at all possible with females not in his family.

I followed that in my careers in the military and at college.  Two female superiors in the military did not like that I required them to have the door open during counseling and advising; I suggested we could take it up with the XO.

Some women believe that such hinders advancement for them, which may be so.

Bernard Gui said: Yet some will think this is Neanderthal thinking.

Jake Starkey said:  It can be remedied.  Leave the door open.  Leave the window unblocked.  Do it in a glass and window conference room visible to all.  It need not be difficult.  Three or more individual counseling and mentoring can be easily done if thinking is put into it.

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

No, you did not say that, but I understood you to be agreeing with mfb who said:

 

I am still waiting to see the context of why I said that, please

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

I understand you want to understand, but misconstruing what others have said is not the way to do it.  Ask direction questions.

I don't know if I was misconstruing anything (and to be honest, neither do you), that's why I asked a clarifying question - while you (on the other hand) are simply assuming that you know without clarifying.  Maybe it is you that should be asking direct questions (like I did) instead of just assuming.  Speaking of misconstruing - the only thing we know for sure is that ttribe misconstrued the ensign article.  Why are you not getting after him for that?

"Just to clarify, are you saying...Is that what you really believe?"  Don't know how I can be more direct than that so I am really confused as to what your beef is here.  The fact is, you know as little as I do about where ttribe is coming from, neither of us is ttribe, so how can you say that I am misconstruing anything?  Are you a clairvoyant or something?  The fact is, I don't see how any other conclusion could be possible based on what was said, but I always allow the other person to explain themselves if the conclusion seems ridiculous, and I might not be seeing something.  

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

Jake Starkey said: The above is a form of the Bill Graham covenant that he had with his music minister to never be alone if at all possible with females not in his family.

I followed that in my careers in the military and at college.  Two female superiors in the military did not like that I required them to have the door open during counseling and advising; I suggested we could take it up with the XO.

Some women believe that such hinders advancement for them, which may be so.

Bernard Gui said: Yet some will think this is Neanderthal thinking.

Jake Starkey said:  It can be remedied.  Leave the door open.  Leave the window unblocked.  Do it in a glass and window conference room visible to all.  It need not be difficult.  Three or more individual counseling and mentoring can be easily done if thinking is put into it.

 

Well, that’s exactly as I described above. Read it more carefully, please.

I choose to err on the side of caution.

Enforcing  the dress codes was a different ball game.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

One of the most uncomfortable duties for male teachers was to enforce the school dress codes for girls.

I never personally enforce it. If it's an egregious offense I tell the female teacher next to me who will then take care of it.

At the beginning of last school year (18-19) the admin would come on the speaker at the beginning of the day and have all the students stand up and ask teachers to inspect for dress code violations. I refused to do so and told the kids to remain seated. There is no way I wanted the girls to perceive me as looking over their bodies for too much skin, too much cleavage, etc. It was a terrible practice that ended after a few weeks.

Edited October 28, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[Jake Starkey]

46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, that’s exactly as I described above. Read it more carefully, please.

I choose to err on the side of caution.

Enforcing  the dress codes was a different ball game.

Now read what I posted below, and you will see that you are saying what I said, and for what I complimented you.  Please, take your time.

Jake Starkey said: The above is a form of the Bill Graham covenant that he had with his music minister to never be alone if at all possible with females not in his family.

I followed that in my careers in the military and at college.  Two female superiors in the military did not like that I required them to have the door open during counseling and advising; I suggested we could take it up with the XO.

Some women believe that such hinders advancement for them, which may be so.

Bernard Gui said: Yet some will think this is Neanderthal thinking.

Jake Starkey said:  It can be remedied.  Leave the door open.  Leave the window unblocked.  Do it in a glass and window conference room visible to all.  It need not be difficult.  Three or more individual counseling and mentoring can be easily done if thinking is put into it.

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Now read what I posted below, and you will see that you are saying what I said, and for what I complimented you.  Please, take your time.

Jake Starkey said: The above is a form of the Bill Graham covenant that he had with his music minister to never be alone if at all possible with females not in his family.

I followed that in my careers in the military and at college.  Two female superiors in the military did not like that I required them to have the door open during counseling and advising; I suggested we could take it up with the XO.

Some women believe that such hinders advancement for them, which may be so.

Bernard Gui said: Yet some will think this is Neanderthal thinking.

Jake Starkey said:  It can be remedied.  Leave the door open.  Leave the window unblocked.  Do it in a glass and window conference room visible to all.  It need not be difficult.  Three or more individual counseling and mentoring can be easily done if thinking is put into it.

Yeah. We’re talking past each other. I called him Billy. You must have known him better.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Just to clarify, it is your position then that our leaders truly believe and teach that a person can supersede the God given agency of another, and therefore become accountable for the thoughts, words, and actions of another human being?  That is what you really believe?

You think that our leaders (not just one, but many) could possibly make, and repeat such an egregious error of the core and foundational doctrine of agency/accountability, over and over and over again?  And of course, that error is only made in regards to how women dress, we don't see the same error anywhere else mysteriously. 

Or, is it more likely that our leaders know and understand the doctrine of agency/accountability and you are perhaps misreading them?

Just to clarify again, he didn't say that we are "responsible for the moral purity of men" - that is your own contorted wording.  What he ACTUALLY said is this -  "Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own self-respect and to the moral purity of men."  "Contributing to" and being "responsible or accountable for" are two very different things - or am I just being too "legalistic" here?

In other words our behaviors (and yes, even dress) can indeed contribute to the righteous betterment of others.  Do you really disagree?  You don't think that we can have a profound influence on others for good or evil?  Seriously!?  That is all he is saying.  Period.  Any implied accountability for someones behavior or thoughts, is simply your own doing. 

How does stating that women can be pornography for men somehow suggest that the agency and accountability of the man actually belongs to the woman?  The man is entirely accountable for his own thoughts and lust after the woman. 

 

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't know if I was misconstruing anything (and to be honest, neither do you), that's why I asked a clarifying question - while you (on the other hand) are simply assuming that you know without clarifying.  Maybe it is you that should be asking direct questions (like I did) instead of just assuming.  Speaking of misconstruing - the only thing we know for sure is that ttribe misconstrued the ensign article.  Why are you not getting after him for that?

"Just to clarify, are you saying...Is that what you really believe?"  Don't know how I can be more direct than that so I am really confused as to what your beef is here.  The fact is, you know as little as I do about where ttribe is coming from, neither of us is ttribe, so how can you say that I am misconstruing anything?  Are you a clairvoyant or something?  The fact is, I don't see how any other conclusion could be possible based on what was said, but I always allow the other person to explain themselves if the conclusion seems ridiculous, and I might not be seeing something.  

Oh my...I'll come back to this.  I'm working.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am still waiting to see the context of why I said that, please

If I didn't phrase it correctly my apologies.  I got that out of the phrase bluebell quoted, engaging her question is sufficient

I have family coming shortly and a trashed kitchen

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72357-womens-dress-and-mens-thoughts/?do=findComment&comment=1209939615

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Calm

[bsjkki]

I am a bit fed up with this whole thread. 

I get it. Some of you don't care how women have internalized words taught about modesty at church. We should just continue on because men are stimulated visually and are depraved. Because of this, women should wear sweaters or jackets over missionary attire, t-shirts over swimsuits, and shorts should be banned at girls camp. When exercising shoulders should be covered and nothing should be tight, revealing or short. The female form is dangerous. Whatever modesty rules are imposed, women should acquiesce. The boys must be protected or they may turn into rapists. All this is fine. Got it.

Women are more spiritual than men. Because of this and their carnal natures, men need a lot of help to stay righteous. Got it.

Women in the work place should be feared. Being alone with a woman should be avoided. If this hurts her career, oh well. Got it. 

I am naive and uninformed because I trust my husband. Got it. 

Men can learn to control themselves only as they control women. Got it. 

 

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I am a bit fed up with this whole thread. 

I get it. Some of you don't care how women have internalized words taught about modesty at church. We should just continue on because men are stimulated visually and are depraved. Because of this, women should wear sweaters or jackets over missionary attire, t-shirts over swimsuits, and shorts should be banned at girls camp. When exercising shoulders should be covered and nothing should be tight, revealing or short. The female form is dangerous. Whatever modesty rules are imposed, women should acquiesce. The boys must be protected or they may turn into rapists. All this is fine. Got it.

Women are more spiritual than men. Because of this and their carnal natures, men need a lot of help to stay righteous. Got it.

Women in the work place should be feared. Being alone with a woman should be avoided. If this hurts her career, oh well. Got it. 

I am naive and uninformed because I trust my husband. Got it. 

Men can learn to control themselves only as they control women. Got it. 

 

I don't think anybody ever said that. Certainly not me. None of those things.

You're drawing conclusions that are not warranted at least from my posts.

This is disgusting. I feel like now I've got to stay here watching for lies about me.

All I did was essentially bear my testimony of my personal religious evidence that men are more depraved than women and women are superior spiritually to men.

I did provide some anecdotes invading armies and the population of old women at churches.

It was never intended to be anything like the assertion of some kind of science

It's not Statistics it's not sociology it's nothing but a spiritual witness.

If you disagree you disagree.

It's like someone saying "well you believe in the LDS Faith but I am Catholic, and the spirit has sold me that is true."

We disagree. So what.

There's no need for the rancor, insults, lies, twisting of words that I have seen here.

I've never seen anything like it before.

Edited October 29, 2019 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I am a bit fed up with this whole thread. 

I get it. Some of you don't care how women have internalized words taught about modesty at church. We should just continue on because men are stimulated visually and are depraved. Because of this, women should wear sweaters or jackets over missionary attire, t-shirts over swimsuits, and shorts should be banned at girls camp. When exercising shoulders should be covered and nothing should be tight, revealing or short. The female form is dangerous. Whatever modesty rules are imposed, women should acquiesce. The boys must be protected or they may turn into rapists. All this is fine. Got it.

Women are more spiritual than men. Because of this and their carnal natures, men need a lot of help to stay righteous. Got it.

Women in the work place should be feared. Being alone with a woman should be avoided. If this hurts her career, oh well. Got it. 

I am naive and uninformed because I trust my husband. Got it. 

Men can learn to control themselves only as they control women. Got it. 

 

As far as I am concerned, I am very concerned with how women have been clearly negatively affected by teachings on modesty.  Something clearly needs to change, because women who are defenders of the faith and the brethren in most issues take exception with the teachings on modesty.  I find it hard to believe that is all their fault.  At the same time, after reading several of accusations against the brethren, I feel that they are being misunderstood, at least in part.

I think there are misunderstandings on both sides, and to treat this as if either the brethren or the sisters are entirely clueless is not helpful and only creates deeper division and polarization of this important issue where we really need to see eye to eye (for our daughter’s sake at the very least), but are not.

Edited October 29, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't think anybody ever said that. Certainly not me. None of those things.

I feel the same 🙁

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Have you  heard the baseball analogy to dating?

Nope, never. Though popular media make it seem that Americans can compare nearly anything to baseball.

[Hamba Tuhan]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

All I did was essentially bear my testimony of my personal religious evidence that men are more depraved than women and women are superior spiritually to men.

...

There's no need for the rancor, insults, lies, twisting of words that I have seen here.

From my vantage point, no one has twisted your words. Your statement above is clear on its face. A number of us strongly disagree with it and, in fact, find it deeply troubling. In my case, it both flies in the face of what I know academically/intellectually as one who holds a PhD in history and does harm to basic gospel principles that I hold dear. I think some of us -- and you can include me in this number -- recognise that your 'testimony' has the real potential to damage and mislead both women and men. If you taught such a thing to my children at church, I would be upset and raise the issue with leadership. Perhaps that gives you a sense of how ugly and damning I think such statements are?

Edited October 29, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Women in the work place should be feared. Being alone with a woman should be avoided. If this hurts her career, oh well. Got it. 

I could comment on all your points, but will only discuss this one as it is something that I commented on previously.  I think several women on here said they respect men who make that decision - are you throwing them under the bus too?

First, no one said that women should be feared.  No one said that being alone with a woman should be avoided - as a universal rule.  The man who makes the honorable personal decision to never be alone with a woman doesn't fear women.  He fears himself.  You may mock him for being weak and say that he should be able to control himself as he should around other women.  Given the rate of infidelity in society, who are the weak ones really?  Do all men need to go to such extremes to protect their marriage?   Absolutely not.  But we should respect those who do, as we DON'T KNOW them and can't judge what they have been through.  A person who makes such a decision understands his own personal weaknesses, perhaps from past experiences and builds up hedges to keep temptations at bay; not unlike an alcoholic who avoids bars at all costs.  He holds his marriage sacred and makes serious sacrifices to protect it (if you think it will never hurt his own career - think again!) He honors his wife.  He honors his children.  He does not put himself into a situation where his weaknesses may get the better of him.  Some may mock him for being too weak to control himself around women, but to make such a sacrifice is not easy and takes great strength and self control - something that society lacks a great deal this day and age.

I don't think all men need to place such extreme guards up, but God bless the man who places his marriage above his career, his colleagues careers, and his own carnal desires.  Some men need to keep up such guards their entire life, other's may temporarily need to take such actions, while others still may never need that.  One of my best friends lost his marriage because he didn't have the courage to put up such hedges.  Wish to God that he had. So does he.  

[Peacefully]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

I could comment on all your points, but will only discuss this one as it is something that I commented on previously.  I think several women on here said they respect men who make that decision - are you throwing them under the bus too?

First, no one said that women should be feared.  No one said that being alone with a woman should be avoided - as a universal rule.  The man who makes the honorable personal decision to never be alone with a woman doesn't fear women.  He fears himself.  You may mock him for being weak and say that he should be able to control himself as he should around other women.  Given the rate of infidelity in society, who are the weak ones really?  Do all men need to go to such extremes to protect their marriage?   Absolutely not.  But we should respect those who do, as we DON'T KNOW them and can't judge what they have been through.  A person who makes such a decision understands his own personal weaknesses, perhaps from past experiences and builds up hedges to keep temptations at bay; not unlike an alcoholic who avoids bars at all costs.  He holds his marriage sacred and makes serious sacrifices to protect it (if you think it will never hurt his own career - think again!) He honors his wife.  He honors his children.  He does not put himself into a situation where his weaknesses may get the better of him.  Some may mock him for being too weak to control himself around women, but to make such a sacrifice is not easy and takes great strength and self control - something that society lacks a great deal this day and age.

I don't think all men need to place such extreme guards up, but God bless the man who places his marriage above his career, his colleagues careers, and his own carnal desires.  Some men need to keep up such guards their entire life, other's may temporarily need to take such actions, while others still may never need that.  One of my best friends lost his marriage because he didn't have the courage to put up such hedges.  Wish to God that he had. So does he.  

My husband and I took separate cars to church one day and he borrowed my keys and forgot to give them back. I had a meeting so he went home. When I realized I didn’t have keys, the only people left at the church were the first counselor in the Bishopric and myself. Instead of driving me home, he called his wife to come up to the church and drive me home. Did I think it was a bit silly, yes. But I also respected his choice to do it. My experiences are not his experiences, and while I wouldn’t have had any qualms about him giving me a lift, he obviously did. He helped me while still preserving his own sense of peace.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

My experiences are not his experiences, and while I wouldn’t have had any qualms about him giving me a lift, he obviously did.

This is actually Church policy. I'm glad he knows his Handbook. In another (non-Church) situation, he may or may not have acted differently.

[InCognitus]

13 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

My husband and I took separate cars to church one day and he borrowed my keys and forgot to give them back. I had a meeting so he went home. When I realized I didn’t have keys, the only people left at the church were the first counselor in the Bishopric and myself. Instead of driving me home, he called his wife to come up to the church and drive me home. Did I think it was a bit silly, yes. But I also respected his choice to do it. My experiences are not his experiences, and while I wouldn’t have had any qualms about him giving me a lift, he obviously did. He helped me while still preserving his own sense of peace.

I worked with the 12 to 13 year old boys (Deacons) for a number of years, which included participation in the Scouting program.  There is a hard fast rule in BSA youth protection, that you need at least two leaders present on every activity and in providing transportation for the boys to and from activities.  We were not permitted to pick up or drop off a boy without another adult with us.  My following of those rules of course had nothing to do with my personal concerns or experiences, it was about following the requirements exactly to avoid even the appearance of inappropriate circumstance.  I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the Bishop was doing in following Church policy.  

[bsjkki]

I did not quote anyone. I am telling you what I 'hear' when reading through all 25 of these pages. It's an aggregate kind of thing. My perception. My opinion. My daughter getting discriminated against by men who can't control themselves. If you can't meet alone with someone without being tempted you should not be in management...ever. You should also not chaperone girls camp.

*I have no problem with the church policy on rides. *I wish youth could not be one on one with adults in cars too (no ministering exception.) *I meet behind closed doors with men at church one on one frequently. We don't even keep the door open because we are discussing confidential matters. In business, singling out just one gender is problematic these days--the problems cross genders. (i.g. Katie Hill)