Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[mrmarklin]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why do women buy shoes with 6 inch heels?

AKA CFM pumps.  You do the analysis.

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Does he not think less of the men for having sex outside of marriage, or is it just the women?

Yes, both, but I take it personally, because I'm female, I guess.

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think I probably used to think like you do on accountability. I've had a shift on the way I view things the last few years because of my experiences as a mom. I have come to understand how huge of a thing agency is. In a nutshell I have learned first hand that all the motherly faith in the world won't change the agency of my child.

So how does that work where in the scriptures it says that parents are responsible for what they teach children? It really comes down to I am responsible for how and what I teach them. I am not responsible for what they do with those teachings. 

It is the same way with modesty. I, as a woman, am accountable to Heavenly Father for how I apply service, charity etc.  I am not accountable with how a man reacts to my application. I am accountable for my actions, not the relationship between us.

It's a subtle difference, but important. 

I actually don't disagree with any of this at all which suggests that we are probably in more agreement than disagreement and are simply not communicating well. 

Quote

I have come to understand how huge of a thing agency is. In a nutshell I have learned first hand that all the motherly faith in the world won't change the agency of my child.

Absolutely agree!  But I think you would also understand and agree that you are accountable for your influence on your child for good or evil.  You are not accountable for their use of agency, but you are accountable for your influence and messages you teach them.

24 minutes ago, Rain said:

So how does that work where in the scriptures it says that parents are responsible for what they teach children? It really comes down to I am responsible for how and what I teach them. I am not responsible for what they do with those teachings. 

 Exactly! And it is the same with dress and modesty, I agree.  Clothes are symbols not much different from words.  We teach through how we dress, we send messages with how we dress, etc. and we are responsible and accountable to teach and send good messages to others.  We absolutely should be conscious of others and the messages we send and teach when we dress, just like we are conscious of others in the messages we teach through words.  

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by pogi

[mrmarklin]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

This may or may not be on topic. I love my husband dearly but something that makes me want to run out the door is when he reacts badly to women in movies or what not, that have sex w/o marriage. He calls them slutty. I put down the gauntlet every time and get so irate over it that I'm ready for a divorce. It's because I think women are more than their chastity. But in the church we were taught it's a sin next to murder. Well whomever taught my husband really drilled in some crazy stuff. Because every show or movie, he'll say something. I get so upset and he is too immature I guess to keep his mouth shut.

Sorry, Tacenda.  One cannot repeal 6,000 years of history with your secular notions of right and wrong. 

The Church cautions women (and men too, for that matter) about their chastity because of the sacredness of reproduction and the sanctity of the family.  Do most women look back on their lives and wish they would have spent more time at the office?  The answer is no.  Yes a woman is more than her chastity, but that is not something to lightly give away.  God has advised us to only have sex inside the bonds of matrimony because of the sacredness of reproduction.  Movies are not real life, and the actions of the characters if imitated can only lead to misery. 

Even today, most world societies take many steps to protect women from the predations of men.  Men are visual.  It's only natural for us to look at a beautiful woman and appreciate her.  Other thoughts are not far behind.  History has proven this over and over.  In western European culture, to which most of us subscribe, men have been trained to not be drooling Neanderthals, at least in public.  Hopefully, not in private, either.  But I will posit to all of you that this is often not the case.  Other societies take great care to mitigate the problems that the male of our species have by imposing extreme modesty in Muslim nations for example.  Many other societies follow similar strictures.  An Indian actor was arrested not long ago for kissing a woman in public for example.  I could go on.

Edited October 25, 2019 by mrmarklin

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I actually don't disagree with any of this at all which suggests that we are probably in more agreement than disagreement and are simply not communicating well. 

Absolutely agree!  But I think you would also understand and agree that you are accountable for your influence on your child for good or evil.  You are not accountable for their use of agency, but you are accountable for your influence and messages you teach them.

I'm not sure about that. Your post has me questioning. I will have to look up some scriptures, but timing is not good. Feel free to remind me if I forget to get back to this.

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

 Exactly! And it is the same with dress and modesty, I agree.  Clothes are symbols not much different from words.  We teach through how we dress, we send messages with how we dress, etc. and we are responsible and accountable to teach and send good messages to others.  We absolutely should be conscious of others and the messages we send and teach when we dress, just like we are conscious of others in the messages we teach through words.  

 

 

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not often.  But then, it seems like clothing choices for men are far less in scope, and far less likely to be designed to be sexually provocative or otherwise inappropriately revealing.

By way of example, look at my previous posts about ABA articles addressing proper dress for attorneys.  It's almost entirely about women.  This is because the expected attire for men (in court) is a suit.  Women have a lot more options, some of which are inappropriate for court.  It's not a religious thing.  It's not even a sexual thing.  It's about propriety and decorum.

When I shop for clothes, modesty isn't really a concern for me.  Pretty much all the clothes options for me are "modest."

It is quite different for my wife and daughters.  Not because of them, mind you, but because of the expansive clothing selections available to them, some of which are inappropriately revealing.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have my doubts you have any idea what women find sexually provocative if you believe this.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I think we all know intuitively that they would answer in the affirmative

Sure, but that you have to go to "intuitive" while we can easily remember examples for women 'women dress for the man they marry' off the top of our head speaks to the frequency and level of importance in our lives such things are addressed towards women....and that makes a big difference.

Quote

The church clearly does NOT place all the blame on the women.    

There is however a difference between telling someone they need to control their thoughts and telling someone they need to control how they look because of what others think of them.  One is a purely internal experience which is under personal control; the other is an external experience that is highly dependent on others' reactions which the girl or woman often can't control, but is being told she can.

I believe there are unhealthy messages boys and men get at time from our leaders that can lead many to feel they are unloved, doomed, hate themselves.  Feel free to start threads on those subjects.  I don't see this as a competition where we are trying to find out who has the hardest time in the Church, but rather dealing with this specific issue of how modesty is taught in the church and what messages it can give to all members, but especially young girls which set them up to hate their own bodies or try to divorce themselves from sex completely out of shame and then they get to feel like failures in marriage when they don't enjoy or desire it as much as their husbands.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

The one thing I have noticed is that many women on this thread are very angry

Can we please stop being labeled as "very angry", emotional, unhappy, must be that time of the month when women disagree, even emphatically?

The topic is very, very important to us, but we are fully capable of keeping our emotions under control, thank you very much.

PS:  annoyance is not anger

Edited October 25, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

I’ve been reading this thread with much interest. A bishop called me into his office once and said my daughter needed to wear shirts that weren’t so tight to church because it made his son uncomfortable. I told him that my daughter was just more well endowed than other girls but still wanted to wear cute, trendy clothes. I don’t think we ever agreed on the best course action and I don’t remember talking to my daughter about it. It didn’t sit well with me at that time but I wasn’t one to make waves. It would be a different conversation now that I’m older and more sure of myself. I would let the Bishop know that my daughter is not responsible for his son’s thoughts.

On another note, I’ve found out that at least one object lesson that was used in YW caused my daughter to equate someone being raped with being a chewed up piece of gum. She has only recently told me how that message messed her up for a long time. Please make sure you know what is being taught to your YW and YM. 

Thank goodness the bishop chose to talk to you and not your daughter.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, longview said:

Because women want to be sexy or appear to be feminine.   Because men want to be businesslike  or appear to be competent (sometimes to appear reverent).

Shame on you women for being such a tease.  

Come on!  Tell us your innermost motivation.  To test your wow power?  

Can you be any less attractive right now?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I did tell you my inner most motivation.  I wear heels when I want to.  When I don't want to I wear flats.

When I could wear heels, I wore them because I liked being tall.  I stopped wearing them because being tall wasn't worth the pain andctwisted ankles.  I admire women who have the balance and foot structure.  I did not.  It is similar to my experience with toe shoes in ballet.  Man, they look beautiful from the outside with that line, but when you see the cost...no thanks.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, longview said:

Because women want to be sexy or appear to be feminine.   Because men want to be businesslike  or appear to be competent (sometimes to appear reverent).

Shame on you women for being such a tease.  

Come on!  Tell us your innermost motivation.  To test your wow power?  

Translation:

“Women want hormonal male attention while men are dignified and just want respect.

You clearly want all this attention I am creepily flourishing on you.

if that is not true what do you really want? To see many guys you can tease?”

 

Ewwwwww.

Edited October 25, 2019 by The Nehor

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This may or may not be on topic. I love my husband dearly but something that makes me want to run out the door is when he reacts badly to women in movies or what not, that have sex w/o marriage. He calls them slutty. I put down the gauntlet every time and get so irate over it that I'm ready for a divorce. It's because I think women are more than their chastity. But in the church we were taught it's a sin next to murder. Well whomever taught my husband really drilled in some crazy stuff. Because every show or movie, he'll say something. I get so upset and he is too immature I guess to keep his mouth shut.

Does he think the men are sluts as well or studs?  Because there are two people in that bed and if he is only condemning one, that is a double standard.  You might ask him how he feels about the men the next time he reacts that way and then if different, ask him to explain why.  

The Church is clear that men who 'lose' their chastity (I hate that phrase as if chastity is misplaced like carkeys) are sinning as much as the women.  I think in that area (conscious choice to fornicate/commit adultery) men and women are treated pretty much the same as far as I have seen.  If he is picking up ideas that it is okay for men to sleep around, but not women I think he is locking into the older standards of the greater society (now it is pretty typical to present sleeping around as being empowered though I see shows more often showing young women and women being used and tosses aside and therefore feeling bad about it than young men or men, so the old standard still gets played if not so obviously as in the women should have known better or the women made themselves cheap).

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

If their other option is to wear excessively baggy underwear, I can see some women seeing it as a nice sidebenefit of buying garments that fit them.  I don't doubt there are women who choose garments that are skin tight in order to wear shorter dresses or sleeveless 'legally'.  But I have had women tell me they are frustrated by too high garment legs, etc, so it makes sense to me for some cases, but certainly not all.  You are in the best position to know if it is bragging or just making observations.

They need to publicize that you can get alterations for fitting then.  I have been informed a couple of times over the decades by those who should know it was not allowed.  When I checked into custom made for health, there was never a hint that custom made was also done for fittings.  I am glad to hear that and will share the info with others in the future.

Garment sizing is weird. At least men’s sizing. It seems designed to either be incredibly loose or it is pure vanity sizing. I wear a small now and I am not a small guy (5’11” and 170 lbs). I wear medium or large shirts depending on fit. I could never fit into a small.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Clothes are symbols not much different from words.  We teach through how we dress, we send messages with how we dress, etc. and we are responsible and accountable to teach and send good messages to others.  We absolutely should be conscious of others and the messages we send and teach when we dress, just like we are conscious of others in the messages we teach through words.  

 

I think part of the problem is that, while we do send messages by the way we dress, the message we are trying to send and the one received are two different things, and while we have control over ourselves we have no control over the way we are interpreted.  

For example, a popular comedian, who is covered in tattoos but is otherwise a real book nerd, makes jokes about how a lot of people assume that he's been in prison or grew up in a gang or something. He hasn't.  He loves Harry Potter and whole food.  That's not the message that he is sending, but that is the message that is sometimes being received, and he doesn't really have any control over that.  Likewise there is no reasonable way to hold him accountable for the message that some people are getting because those messages are coming from the people themselves, not from him.  Yes, they are using his appearance to create the messages, but they have sole control over what they create.

Likewise, a girl (or boy) might be sending a message with the way she dresses, and she's accountable for that message that she is sending.  However, she is not accountable for the message that someone else receives.  That message will be made up of the quirks, weaknesses, strengths, experiences, and prejudices of that individual person.  That message, the one that is received, is owned by the person that received it, not the girl.  

So yes, we should be conscious of the message we are sending, because that's helpful in personal communication.  No kid should be taught that they are responsible for the message that someone else get's from them though.  Nothing good comes from teaching kids that they are responsible for things that they have no control over.  That's how you cause emotional and mental harm.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think part of the problem is that, while we do send messages by the way we dress, the message we are trying to send and the one received are two different things, and while we have control over ourselves we have no control over the way we are interpreted.  

Agreed 100%  This is basically what I have tried to emphasize throughout this thread.  Apparently unsuccessfully.  This in no way removes the accountability we have for our influence through dress.  We in no way are accountable for how others interpret things or react however.

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by pogi

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

This is a really interesting idea. I wonder if anyone has looked into it.

I think there are several ideas that are separate but feed into each other to create a complicated, mixed message sometime disaster for both males and females.  I don't think they started all from the same core idea, but the concept that men are carnal and women (good women, that is) are spiritual is likely to be found in each.

One of these is how modesty is taught in the Church.

Another is porn which has led some young men I have heard (mostly from mothers or themselves when they are older) to feel they are so far gone there is no hope of coming back to righteousness.

A huge one to me is the imbalance seen between how good women are vs. men, some men when expressing their gratitude for the righteousness of their wives talk as if they aren't worthy of their wives and would be hell bound except that their wives keep them in check (testimonies I have heard), while women tend to be more about how great it is to have a partner that works with them when extolling the righteousness of their husbands.  I think the latter is a much healthy view, less likely to lead to excuse making or despair or self hate and instead increases a desire to communicate and see oneself and the other as positive contributors.

Another one is how Priesthood has been taught in the past, where in Primary classes the boys get to stand up and the girls are pretty much instructed to look at them in awe because one day they will have the Priesthood.  Thankfully this is changing now with the teachings in conference and elsewhere recognizing that women operate with Priesthood authority as well.

I probably could come up with several more teaching methods/attitudes in the Church that shaft one or both sexes because the fundamental messages of the Gospel are forgotten or muddled up with nonGospel worldly standards, but I have errands to run and I hope my support for my first paragraph is sufficient.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Agreed 100%  This is basically what I have tried to emphasize throughout this thread.  Apparently unsuccessfully.  This in no way removes the accountability we have for our influence through dress.  We in no way are accountable for how others interpret things or react however.

 

I think it's a hard concept because it's hard to define 'influence through dress.'  For example, if a girl wears shorter shorts, and one boy is influenced to have sexual thoughts about her, and another boy isn't sexually influenced at all, then which influence is the girl responsible for?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The push back I keep getting is on principle #1, accountability, as if we are not somehow responsible or accountable for our positive or negative influence on others through how we dress.  I simply don't understand it.

The principle itself imo is not wrong, though it is often misapplied by inflating the level of influence imo.  The pushback is coming, imo, because the principle is on the topic not equally applied to males and females....which ends up teaching something very different than the actual principle.

So it makes little sense to keep pointing to the principle as the solid foundation we should be accepting when that isn't the actual message being sent.  The message when it comes to modesty as taught to females isn't a "we" in the sense of males and females, but a "you" females.  

Men may not be receiving the same sort of messages, they may be getting the correct one or their own imbalanced one.  This doesn't change the problem with the message too often taught to girls and women.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 4:35 PM, cinepro said:

There seems to be some sensitivity to the rules and guidelines in the Church about how women dress, especially when these rules are implicitly (and sometimes overtly) tied to how men think. 

The most famous quote on this subject is obviously from Elder Oaks, who said this:
 

In my recent thread about the stricter dress guidelines in my daughter's mission (they must wear sweaters or jackets when at the Church in the presence of Elders), this was said:
 

So I need someone to answer this question:

If it turned out that the ways women dress does have an influence on men's thoughts and they way they see them, why would it be wrong to tell women that?

With that question in mind (and assuming that simply telling girls and women how the world works isn't a bad thing), what is the problem with letting women know, or reminding them, that dressing in certain ways does affect men's thoughts (and in ways they might not appreciate)?

First, if anyone wants to argue that it isn't the case, they are welcome to do so.  I believe it is the case that the way women dress affect men's minds, so I'll proceed on that assumption.  Here's one example of the science on that:

Second, I will note that I do recognize the idea that it would be great if this weren't the case.  And I suspect Oaks would agree.  If the Church had a magic wand or rock that it could wave and get all teenage boys to stop being affected by how women dress, I think they would use it. 

Third, there appears to be an argument that by somehow mentioning this to women, it is giving license to or encouraging men to have those thoughts (or somehow creating those thoughts).  I do not see how that is the case.  Especially in the Church, boys are pleaded with to not have those kinds of thoughts.

I suppose we could argue about whether or not those ideas are genetics vs. environment.  As with most things, it's probably a bit of both.  But at the end of the day, I'm willing to bet that any 15yo heterosexual boy is going to physically react to a pretty woman in a bikini the same way, regardless of the society or culture they were brought up (their feelings about how they reacted will probably vary, of course).

When people got the vapors about Oaks' comment, one thing that no one seemed to point out was, that for all the hubbub, he was right.  I think that's what upset people the most. It's like at some point society decided that if we just pretended this wasn't the case, men would change and women would be empowered. 

I think we can all agree that we wish this was the case, but at the end of the day, what's the honest, rational and scientific thing to tell women about the way they dress?

 

If we're being honest I think we would all admit that what people wear affects us, positively and negatively, male and female. So Elder Oaks had a point about that.

But I think most of us would also agree that telling someone that their dress causes them to "becom[e]ing pornography to some of the men who see you" is extremely harsh & judgmental. A woman does not "become pornography" based on my opinion about her clothing. It's absurd.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

am trying to correct that misconception.  We absolutely are held accountable and are taught better than that. 

That is good (assuming it is taught in positive ways).  But that doesn't change the message being given to girls and women that they are responsible for males' thoughts.  We women aren't in the room all the time to hear the teachings given to the men.  We hear what is taught to us though.

Think of it this way. One group of students are taught they are responsible for ensuring any combined activities are a successful because the other group isn't capable enough to contribute on their own, they have to be helped.  The other group of students is taught they are obligated to contribute their fair share to the success of the combined activity just as the other group will be doing.  Even if the second  group sees themselves as capable, that isn't the message the first group got.  It will take time for the first group to stop processing their contributions as something extraordinary and instead just come to expect it as natural and the others as equals.  And if the first group keeps getting fed the same message over and over again, when failures do occur are they going to be assuming there is equal blame or instead assume they personally responsible for the failures (with all that implies for their self perception).

It is good to inform girls and women that males are being taught that they can and should be responsible.  But that doesn't remove the often much louder message that girls and women get that shift the accountability to them because their female bodies are a land mine for males, either implicitly or explicitly....messages that start even in preschool (that Friend article for example)

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

AKA CFM pumps.  You do the analysis.

Because all women think alike and have only one thing on their wee brains when they get dressed.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, both, but I take it personally, because I'm female, I guess.

Maybe you have the double standard then?  Think it is more insulting for women to be called sluts than men?  (Not accusing, just that if it bothers you, you might want to look at why it upsets you more for the women than the men so as to remove pain if possible)

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Garment sizing is weird. At least men’s sizing. It seems designed to either be incredibly loose or it is pure vanity sizing. I wear a small now and I am not a small guy (5’11” and 170 lbs). I wear medium or large shirts depending on fit. I could never fit into a small.

I found a perfect fit in one type and so ordered the same size and style in two other fabrics.  One I couldn't even get over my hips, the other I had to fold over the waistband.  Took me two tries to finally get the right size in the too large one.  The use of small-extras large is confusing as it isn't consistent with either nonchurch clothing or just with other garment styles.

Not sure how to fix it though for those of us who are too lazy to take measurements and match by that.

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Does he think the men are sluts as well or studs?  Because there are two people in that bed and if he is only condemning one, that is a double standard.  You might ask him how he feels about the men the next time he reacts that way and then if different, ask him to explain why.  

The Church is clear that men who 'lose' their chastity (I hate that phrase as if chastity is misplaced like carkeys) are sinning as much as the women.  I think in that area (conscious choice to fornicate/commit adultery) men and women are treated pretty much the same as far as I have seen.  If he is picking up ideas that it is okay for men to sleep around, but not women I think he is locking into the older standards of the greater society (now it is pretty typical to present sleeping around as being empowered though I see shows more often showing young women and women being used and tosses aside and therefore feeling bad about it than young men or men, so the old standard still gets played if not so obviously as in the women should have known better or the women made themselves cheap).

If he thought that way, I probably would have left him for sure. No, he thinks bad of both of them.