Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

But that doesn't change the message being given to girls and women that they are responsible for males' thoughts.  

Are you sure this is really what is being said?  If so, I have a problem with that.  Do you have any examples you could show me?

[Tacenda]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

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)

Super brain-dead after a day with crazy 4th graders, not sure what you mean here. I hate the word slut so bad, that either male/female shouldn't be called it. And if a woman is promiscuous, I think it could be that she just wants to be loved, not even in the physical sense, but if it's the only way she can get it, she'll do anything for it. And my husband doesn't use the word often, because of how much I hate that word. He hopefully learned how it hurts me. To be honest, we just need to quit watching the dumb batchelor/batchelorette realty shows. Sorry to derail with this. ETA: I mean't to say some women might, not all. (bold)

Edited October 25, 2019 by Tacenda

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

And how much responsibility do we have for learning and using the symbols of those around us?

A similar argument could be used for standardized English vs. whatever language has been used in someone's home.  Is it appropriate to insist everyone must use the same words, same definitions, same interpretations?  In language we recognize that people use words/symbols differently (even in the same language as demonstrated by the dictionaries).  There is also a recognition that just because we might hear someone talking with a friend, that doesn't give us the right to dictate to them what language they should speak.  It would be ridiculous, for example, for a stranger to walk up to a group of tourists speaking Welsh and have them say "you need to speak English so I know what you are saying".

Just because a woman or man is walking down the street in public, does that give any right to anyone there to insist they dress in the appropriate symbolic way that person understands?  What if the woman/man had no desire to communicate with anyone on the street and was just thinking of the influence she/he would have on the group of friends meeting up later?

Edited October 25, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

 

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sorry to derail with this.

When things bother you, it can help to talk them over with others who may help you look at things a new way or help you trust your own feelings.  I don't see it as a huge derail myself.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Are you sure this is really what is being said?  If so, I have a problem with that.  Do you have any examples you could show me?

I have to take off by 3 if I intend to get all the errands done (and-on:  braindead as one of those errands is pick up the car which means wait till van gets home, not take off in van to go get)...and .I have managed to get caught up on the thread finally, so choosing now to take a break.  Maybe others can give example prior to my return, but .I am pretty sure I mentioned how the message can get processed into this by how it is delivered, so even if not explicit (which it not as often these days, it is implied).  Just thought of one, so will at least give you that before running off...The walking pornography comment is one easily translated into the accountable for males' thoughts because of the purpose of pornography is to intentionally arouse others.

Ach, my obsession not to misquote pulls me back.  Pres. Oaks did not say "walking pornography", that is the label given it by some others...here is the actual quote:

Quote

Y]oung women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you." - Elder Dallin H. Oaks

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/Pornography.aspx

Quote

Pornography Definition:

The portrayal of sexual acts solely for the purpose of sexual arousal.

"Art and pornography are distinguished as follows: True art conveys a thought, a speculation, or a perception about the human condition. Pornography is the pictures of sex organs and their usage devoid of all other meaning-the personality having no place. They bear in upon one a sense of increasing ugliness and degradation of the human being."

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

2 hours 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. 

You're a wonderful mom for not relaying the conversation or request from your bishop to your daughter, Peacefully!

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

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.

I don't condone having sex before marriage, and I don't condone making those that do, out to have committed a sin next to murder either. I believe some women have been taken advantage of or even abused sexually and then go on to becoming promiscuous because of it and therefore I hope they won't be judged so harshly. There might be some background to how people behave, is all. ETA: And I will try not to judge those that have sex before marriage as well. I'm a product of my culture, and teachings. I guess I have to soul search on so many levels. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You're a wonderful mom for not relaying the conversation or request from your bishop to your daughter, Peacefully!

Oh...I so agree.  As a larger breast young girl..I had a hard time with clothes and being comfortable...the weight of a young man being uncomfortable.rests on him. 

[Jake Starkey]

Too much judging, by men and women both, is going on.

We need to do better ourselves and pray for others.

I have no doubt that those people who put romance at the center of their lives, man or woman, will more likely be used than the one who puts his/her self-esteem at the center of life.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[juliann]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Perhaps we are both falling short on the listening, because I don't feel like my point and purpose here is to defend men.

Help me understand what I am misunderstanding?  Am I misunderstanding the sense of anger? Or, the part about women accusing our prophets about letting men off the hook and placing all accountability and blame for men's actions on women?  

If anger is not the right word, help me understand what it is you are all feeling then?  Is it just frustration? It has already been expressed that women feel "pain" and "immense burden" and that it is all getting "old and tiring".  I personally would feel anger towards my leaders if they placed what I perceived as an unrighteous burden on my shoulder - but if that is not the case with you, I will accept that; but it might help to be aware that it comes off that way, at least to me.  My purpose is to both understand what women are experiencing and why, and perhaps share a different perspective that might help alleviate some of that suffering. But I would also like you to understand why I, and our prophets, think that women (and men) have a moral responsibility and accountability in how we dress.  While I don't agree with our leaders in their approach with everything, I can at least appreciate the why, and I am trying to communicate that why in a fair and reasonable way - you perceive that as me defending men, but I see it as defending true core principles that I believe with all my heart.  I live by principles, and try to always speak up for those principles, even if it is unpopular. 

I understand your questions but I think you have to look at this from a woman's perspective. I think that is where the breakdown is. The women on this board have been explaining this for years. Over and over and over and over. And yet the response is the same. That is what is tiring. Meanwhile, the horse has left the barn when it comes to women putting up with it anymore. 

After this many years of this, the response that I see from a lot of women now is that it isn't our job to make you all understand. You (plural) can see there is a problem, you have been given logical explanations, you have been asked to stop being insulting no matter how unintentional it is. So if you  (singular) truly want to understand, go back and read the pages of explanations you have been given.

Edited October 25, 2019 by juliann

[juliann]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you sure this is really what is being said?  If so, I have a problem with that.  Do you have any examples you could show me?

This has probably been explained on every page. Why won't you accept those explanations? Why would repeating them help?

[juliann]

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Men are visual.   

The expiration date on this excuse has long since passed.  Assumptions:

1. Men can't help themselves cause they their eyes see things.

2. Women can cause they don't see things.

 

[juliann]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Thank you for this. 

Just to explain what I am seeing - I have seen over and over from many different posters that modesty dress standards places all accountability on women and little to no accountability on men for how they react. I am trying to correct that misconception.  We absolutely are held accountable and are taught better than that. 

 

 

This is why you can't understand. Men are not held as accountable. I am surprised to even see someone say that. 

Quote

I see the double standard and understand the frustration, and I agree that the message and delivery needs some work.

This cancels out your first statement and is correct. If there is a double standard, then one of those being measured is getting a pass, aka men. 

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, juliann said:

I understand your questions but I think you have to look at this from a woman's perspective.

Honest to God I am trying to.  I don't think there is a woman's (plural) perspective however.  I am trying to understand your perspective, and Bluedreams, and Calms, and bluebells, etc. individually... I don't think all of your perspectives and feelings are the exact same, certainly not compared against all women in the church.  There are women, or at least woman, on this board who agrees with my perspective it seems. 

If men are misunderstanding women, does it seem logical to assume that the misunderstanding only goes one way?  Is it possible that many of the frustrations and annoyances you feel towards many of the teachings would be alleviated with a deeper understanding of our leader's perspectives?   Would it be too far a stretch for you to consider that perhaps women are misunderstanding men in many ways too.  I certainly feel misunderstood, and I see many accusations and interpretations of many teachings from our leaders that I don't think are justified and are very misunderstood.  

 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

This has probably been explained on every page. Why won't you accept those explanations? Why would repeating them help?

You are right, repeating your interpretations of our leader's messages over and over wont help.  I want to see the actual source and have the privilege of interpreting it for myself.  I strongly suspect that the way their messages have been interpreted are inaccurate and unfair in some cases, because I can't fathom our leaders teaching such nonsense.  Local leaders - wouldn't surprise me, but not the GA's. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

Ok first, you can't have an application of an application.

Second, what specific doctrine or principle are you talking about? 

But, as you said, we can apply an application.

If I understand correctly, Elder Bednar's definitions were cited as a resource for us to distinguish between doctrine, principle, and application.

Sister McConkie's talk specifically addresses the doctrines, principles, and applications of modesty.

The abstract:

Quote

Why is modesty so important? Why would a hemline, a neckline, or a T-shirt matter to the Lord? I am the mother of five daughters and two sons, and as you can imagine, the topic of modesty has come up in our home once in a while. But over the years, I have learned that modesty is taught best by teaching the doctrine and setting a positive example. The doctrine will help our children understand why modesty is so important, and our example will demonstrate the blessings of modesty in happy ways.

The doctrine:

Quote

I love this scripture: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? … The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Corinthians 3:16–17). Our bodies are the temples of our spirits. It is to this bodily temple that we invite the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

The definition of modesty in True to the Faith is “An attitude of humility and decency in dress, grooming, language, and behavior.” Modesty is not vain or boastful. Modest people do not use their bodies or their behavior to seek approval from the world or to draw attention to their own real or supposed accomplishments or desirable attributes.

Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught: “By choosing to be in His kingdom, we separate—not isolate—ourselves from the world. Our dress will be modest, our thoughts pure, our language clean.”

The principle:

Quote

Modesty is a principle that will help keep us safely on the covenant path as we progress to the presence of God. Modesty in dress and appearance and in thought and behavior will help prepare us to make and keep sacred temple covenants.

Modesty is a witness of our testimony of the Savior and of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

One of the most deceptive weapons used against all of us is the socially accepted attitude that morality is old-fashioned. Modesty is a defense against such evil influences and a protection of chastity and virtue. Listen to these words in For the Strength of the Youth:  “Before marriage, … do not do anything … that arouses sexual feelings.” Immodest appearance and behavior will often arouse sexual feelings and will break down barriers and invite increased temptation to break the law of chastity.

Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught, “To those who know and understand the plan of salvation, defiling the body is an act of rebellion [see Mosiah 2:36–37] and a denial of our true identity as sons and daughters of God.”

Elder Hales has taught: “Modesty is at the center of being pure and chaste, both in thought and deed. Thus, because it guides and influences our thoughts, behavior, and decisions, modesty is at the core of our character.”

The application:

Quote

If we desire to stand for the Savior and do His work, we must ask ourselves, If the Savior stood beside us, would we feel comfortable in the clothing we wear?

One of the challenges of modest dress is that fashions and socially accepted behaviors change regularly. The standards of the Lord never change. Teach young men and young women to be sensitive to the Spirit as they make choices about what to wear, say, and do. As they live close to the Spirit, they do not need to be like the world.

Our children have received the gift of the Holy Ghost, and they are traveling the covenant path that leads to the temple and will return them to the presence of God. They need us to assure them and exemplify for them that they will be guided, protected, comforted, and purified as they live worthy of the Holy Ghost.

Teach and exemplify modesty to help our young men and young women be prepared to defend and protect the procreative powers within them. Help them hold sacred and preserve the expression of love between a husband and wife for marriage.

As we have covenanted to follow the Savior and desire to receive the fulness of the blessings of His Atonement in our lives, there is really only one outfit that matters. Moroni records, “Awake, and arise from the dust, … yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion; … that the covenants of the Eternal Father … may be fulfilled” (Moroni 10:31; emphasis added).

The beautiful garments are the robes of righteousness, worn by those who have kept their covenants. Are we preparing our children to put on these beautiful garments?

I understand "the beautiful garments" in her application to mean the temple garments.

Is her approach helpful or just another part of the problem? If it is helpful, where do we go from here? If it is part of the problem, is there a better exposition?

[Bernard Gui]

6 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.

In my experience, the Church did not teach me to think of women that way. I have always understood that the law of chastity is serious business, but that it applies to everyone equally. 

[cherryTreez]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh huh. I am also sure that's why I models who are 6ft tall wear them.

Pardon me for apparently hitting a sore spot, which as usual will remain henceforth unmentioned.

 

that's why I wear high heels! I am super short and love my heels.  it's not a sore subject to me. I also know many men who wear 2-4 inch heels. cowboy boots, some other boots.   

[Rain]

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

But, as you said, we can apply an application.

If I understand correctly, Elder Bednar's definitions were cited as a resource for us to distinguish between doctrine, principle, and application.

Sister McConkie's talk specifically addresses the doctrines, principles, and applications of modesty.

The abstract:

The doctrine:

The principle:

The application:

I understand "the beautiful garments" in her application to mean the temple garments.

Is her approach helpful or just another part of the problem? If it is helpful, where do we go from here? If it is part of the problem, is there a better exposition?

Trying to be clear here.  Is this what you meant to ask when you asked:

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What would the best application of this doctrine, principle, and  application look like? Is something like this a possible solution, or just part of the problem?
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2014/10/courage-to-choose-modesty?lang=eng

 

[ttribe]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are right, repeating your interpretations of our leader's messages over and over wont help.  I want to see the actual source and have the privilege of interpreting it for myself.  I strongly suspect that the way their messages have been interpreted are inaccurate and unfair in some cases, because I can't fathom our leaders teaching such nonsense.  Local leaders - wouldn't surprise me, but not the GA's. 

Here's what you just did -

Women: We have been taught about modesty in ways that we feel are harmful to us and our daughters all of our lives.  Those teachings have mostly come from men in the Church and have come from leaders at all levels.

You: You must be wrong, and let me tell you why, because I'm a man and I know.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 I get so upset and he is too immature I guess to keep his mouth shut.

...An interesting statement that invites inquiry 

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

Trying to be clear here.  Is this what you meant to ask when you asked:

 

Yes. Sorry I wasn’t clear. 

[Calm]

Pogi, for teachings that women are in part accountable for men's thoughts, do you want recent ones (if so, please give a cutoff year) or just want to see how things have been taught that created and maintain the culture.

Here is an oldie but goodie:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1977/10/young-women-real-guardians?lang=eng

Quote

My remarks this morning are directed to the young women of the Church, particularly those who are dating our young men. I desire to be appropriate and correct in what I say, but because of necessity and the urgency concerning this matter, I must be very direct and candid.

Some young men cannot go on missions because they are not worthy.

I challenge the young women of the Church who associate with and date our young priesthood bearers to become real guardians of their morality. You can. You must. Many of you are. Please do not underestimate your role. I am aware that the total responsibility is not yours. However, on a date you can set the proper atmosphere to encourage your companion to honor the commandments of God. In fact, you have the opportunity to emphasize the Mormon ideals of womanhood in all their honor and glory. I know the Lord expects it to be so.

You young ladies have a profound influence on young, masculine behavior. Young men wear clothes they think you like. Their hair will be cut to please you. You can control how fast they drive their cars if you want. They will dress as grubby as you like. You need not dress in the extreme fashions of the world. Are you aware that fashions and styles are promoted because someone has a product to sell? The rightness or appropriateness or effect on a youthful society does not matter as long as it sells. But the day will come when the world will follow the ways of the Church. Its influence will be as though flowing from the stars to affect the actions of men. Your influence with young men is important. You encourage Church standards and dress and conduct....

Most missionary concerns are worthiness concerns, the product of their dating and social activities. ...You young women have a vital role in this preparation and pretraining of our young men. If you live worthily and develop a strong, positive self-image of your divine role of joint-inheritor of the fulness of all things, you will be a blessing to the young men who may come under your influence....

When you are clean and pure, the young men you date will be clean and pure...

You young women have a vital role in converting the world to the gospel of Jesus Christ. You can encourage, influence, and even shield a young man at a critical time in his life...

Let there radiate from you young women a spirit and influence that will have the power to cause “a mighty change” (Alma 5:14) when needed in the hearts of our young men.  May there come forth through your efforts generations of young men in the Church who have spiritually been born of God, who reflect his Spirit in their countenances. You possess a divine key given by the Creator to lock or unlock, destroy or bless, that can make young men become as great as they ought to be.

"Control" is bolded as it makes clear the entire point of the talk, imo.  Young women can control men...and if you are controlling something, you are accountable for it.

He is clear it is only in part, but that does not negate the idea of control.

A lot of what he says is great, especially where he suggests the couple work together in establishing boundaries rather than implying the young men will live with any boundaries the young woman sets, so it is her role to be the chastity guardian.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

On 10/24/2019 at 7:16 PM, pogi said:

I'm not sure I follow.  We are sexual beings. The problem is not in sexualizing women (they are innately sexual already), the problem is in using dress to emphasize sex. That is the opposite of what the church is doing. 

Actually, promoting dressing a way to emphasize sex AND promoting dressing a way to de-emphasize still makes dress about sex. It connects how we dress to sex regardless of our intent or lack of intent when we dress.

And I said females, not just women. Young women in the church and little girls are taught to cover up more to help males to not experience sexual temptation.

"I'm sorry, but I am going to have to CFR that one. 

Edit to add:  You seem to be conflating beauty with objectification.  Are you suggesting that beautifying oneself is the same as objectifying oneself?  I don't think that appreciating beauty in the opposite sex is the same as sexually objectifying them. "

No, beauty in itself is not objectification. Valuing a person for their beauty, and  valuing them as a reward for righteousness is objectification. Even valuing virginity as a measure of a person's worth is a form of objectification.

Such patterns are visible in LDS scripture and teachings, including doctrine and practice. The doctrine of polygamy inherently objectifies women specifically. It's practice in Brigham Young's Utah treated plural wives as rewards for righteous priesthood holders.

Prophets in our day have emphasized female beauty as a valuable asset of which righteous males should strive to be worthy. Even when used as only as part of a woman's value, making beauty an important feature does demean and objectify females.

I think it is helpful to see how our history impacts current ideas, and the more awareness of that impact, the better chance of making corrections.

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Here's what you just did -

Women: We have been taught about modesty in ways that we feel are harmful to us and our daughters all of our lives.  Those teachings have mostly come from men in the Church and have come from leaders at all levels.

You: You must be wrong, and let me tell you why, because I'm a man and I know.

No, those are your words not mine.

I said, not all women feel the way you do, and in all of my years in the church, I have never heard such nonsense taught, is it possible you are interpreting their message wrong? Please provide me with a source so I can see for myself.  All the gender BS is your own adding.  My doubt has nothing to do with my gender, my leaders gender, or the gender of some women who hold these interpretations on this forum.  My doubt is entirely based on my understanding of gospel principles as taught to me by my leaders my entire life.  What is being said simply doesn’t fit.

Interesting to see so much defense for these interpretations and so much resistance to simply posting a source to clear things up.

Edit: I just noticed Calm posted some references.  Thanks, I’ll take a look.

Edited October 25, 2019 by pogi