Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I wonder how many men posting on this board have spent more than a cumulative 2 minutes in their lifetime worrying about how their dress and actions are causing inappropriate thoughts in the women around them. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Maidservant]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

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?

First of all, not in answer to the question or neither here nor there except wherever it is, but I just did a quick search of modesty as covering up women's (and men's) bodies, in the Bible and as near as I can tell it is not a biblical principle. One of the few/only places that English word is translated in the NT, it is in reference to not dressing ostentatiously with riches and trends, perhaps that not everyone can share because of financial constraints, so that everyone may be more equal. Now, we are of course, not a Bible-only church, but I still am always a little dismayed to find things we hold to quite a bit as if they were in the Bible and they are not. Of course, culturally, Jewish persons may have had some women's (and men's) dress rules that were so ingrained that it didn't need to be said. But also something I would challenge if we are 2000 years later, as not the gospel.

To go on to answer the question.

The trouble with this subject is that it has so many layers of (mutual) conditioning and cannot be a one line question.  To turn it into one, and start it with a presumption is like anyone starting with any presumption just for the hey of it, and then going on that presumption. "If it turns out that aliens are making the crop circles, would it be wrong to [ fill in the blank ]?"  "If it turned out that { fill in the blank } fired the first shot in {fill in the blank } war, why would it be wrong to try them as a war criminal?" Well, I guess not, but there's no understanding there about why would somebody be firing a first shot? Especially so that we don't come back around to a first shot in a new war. Anyway, my articulation here (which I admit is a little muddy) is not about modesty but about setting out a question.

Influence and agency of any kind or subject, not just regarding women's (and men's) bodies, is a grand paradox. Obviously, as human beings we have influence in many ways on one another, even to the point of causing damage or to the point of uplifting someone to a more peaceful direction they might not otherwise have had. I look at the world as completely composed of energy, and this energy interacts in many ways, including the energy of our bodies, and this is influence.  Also, perhaps not so obviously, the principle of forgiveness and agency and other principles such as having healthy boundaries, etc (gospel and 'psychological' principles, which I would also fundamentally cast as energy principles), teach us that we MUST, in order to experience peace (+), mature to a point to NOT be in a position to be damaged by others' influence (i.e. protected), at least not permanently, to be transformed. We might call this redemption, as well. Regardless of someone's intent or lack thereof of wanting to damage us or doing so inadvertently.

I am only interested in the celestial law of managing influence and agency; damage versus peace; life and liberty versus captivity and death. I trust that everyone here is; we only perhaps disagree exactly what that might mean. I am not interested in making concessions to telestiality and creating some of kind of law of Moses and the dampening of agency. The celestial law of managing influence is the culmination that can be said like this: D&C 76:60 "They shall overcome all things." All things become subject to them. This is not the overcoming or subjection of what is on the outside and of other people, which is oppression, and the Way of death and captivity-captivity is done not by the evil, but by the afraid. But the overcoming / sacrifice of what is of what is IN us so that we are innocent and like children again, without conditioning. The removal of the beam so that the mote is also no longer there. Children are capable of being naked without any sin or conditioning about what the body means other than a suit for enjoying life.

So for me the presumption is really "Women's dress does have an influence on (not yet celestial) men's thoughts and the way they see them." Even more accurately the presumption is: "[ANYTHING, ANYONE] does have an influence on (not yet celestial) [ANYONE] and the way [WE] see them." Is this the sentence we want to find ourselves in? This flow? This deflecting of responsibility to the mote instead of the beam? Is this maturity and redemption?

Obviously, we take cues from the meaning of dress in a lot of contexts (professional/unprofessional, etc). It's not whether we do or not. Sure we do, but it doesn't mean it isn't a dumb way to hold on to. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but ought it? Today in a conference I was in, we learned about how minorities often have to do professional dress and signalling according to dominant culture. Nothing from home culture fits into professional as we have it now. Yes, the hairdo makes a difference in getting hired. So it IS a thing. But OUGHT it to be? We can't get to anything other place where we widen what professional means to cross more cultural dress or completely outgrow our need for a 'professional' category at all (which is a deeper layer of question and historical forces, and thus harder to see that 'professional' is just an invention like anything else and we don't have to be doing this universe-wise or celestial-wise, we just happen to be right now in history, earth, telestiality).

If the science and the final gospel does turn out to be "Women's dress is un-overcomable as a factor in how men's thoughts go and see them," then again, why are we offering such a weak protection of only dress? Why even try to put women and men together at all unless a child needs to be conceived? We could live in different towns? But if we are coming together at all (a Zion of brothers and sisters), it must be because it is possible to live together in peace based on inner skills. And to say another reason, because (some) men want to uncover women some time for their own pleasure, when they have a woman that's theirs (at worst, ownership). So women do need to be nearby for that--we can't leave completely! So it's about what's good for the timeline of the man, when a woman's body can be seen, not the timeline of the woman (like if she needs to breastfeed), thus it's not her body, it doesn't belong to her, in this paradigm version.  And women are also looking at how men are physically, but the cost of admitting that socially is too high (i.e. what someone said earlier, that women cannot freely be sexual). So it's not that men look more or need more; it's that there's very little cultural cost to admitting. I'm not talking necessarily only today's world, but over thousands of years.

I feel like I haven't even got to what I really want to say; this is more like a prologue. And I don't have more time right now.

[Editing because I got a 403; wait for the whole thing!]

Edited October 24, 2019 by Maidservant

[Hamba Tuhan]

28 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From an evolutionary perspective (or simply the natural man if that offends you), men are biologically driven to objectify women.

Which is obvious from the fact that men who live in societies where the female body is open to their gaze are in a constant state of sexual arousal? 

The objectification of women is not innate. It's learnt behaviour.

I will be forever grateful for parents who never taught it to me, and for a father who never modelled it in word or action.

[bsjkki]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The objectification of women is not innate. It's learnt behaviour.

I worry we inadvertently teach young men girls are to be judged by their dress. That it is the woman's fault for what they are thinking. This is not healthy. 

I had a young man tell my daughter at a church activity her shorts were too short. They were not. School approved, mother approved but not to her knee. Do shorts have to be to the knee on a girl? Why did he think he had the right to do that? 

Turns out he had a huge porn problem. I think His addiction was the culprit. His actions led his thoughts to inappropriate places and he had learned it was okay to objectify women.

 

[filovirus]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

😏 Are you male? Cause it would be unusual for a woman to say that, which goes back to how women are almost always perceived through a male gaze, even when it comes to what they are supposed to think. Of course suits can be sexy!! It depends on how they are cut, how tight they are, and what is under them. Why do you think women are attracted to men in uniforms?

This goes back to the idea being promoted here that women are asexual or something....so it is just fine for men to go about topless.

 

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.

[Maidservant]

continuation of above because I could no longer edit the comment . . . .

 

But if you think about a full agent woman--which is a deeper question and paradigm, who is safe to walk the planet, naked or full burka, or anything in between; who decides whether or not when her body gets entered, how many times, by whom, for what purpose, how many pregnancies, what gets put on her feet, on her shoulders, on her head OR NOT, what her time gets used for. etc,  . . . . we haven't even seen that woman yet. You don't know what she is. We don't know who she is, because we haven't been able to be that yet; only perhaps in pockets of culture. The Goddess has not yet arrived, has not yet been unveiled.  Women need to be UNcovered in order to arrive at 'celestiality', not covered up tighter. The veil needs to be LIFTED.

And, of course, men have their version of agency challenges as well with whatever plagues them so they can feel free and full as men and that women need to continue to have their eyes opened in order to be allies.

And how about if it's okay for a man to be aroused? (And women.) What if that's not a sin? What if there was actually a way to have more peace around all of it? What if we are marrying too early? Too late? What if we actually have classes where we taught young ppl how to make love, like really, as a part of an entire relationship, not mechanically?

Whether or not what a woman wears is not about s**. It is about agency. And the latter is more important than if an instance of the former took place, mentally or in real time.

[filovirus]

28 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I wonder how many men posting on this board have spent more than a cumulative 2 minutes in their lifetime worrying about how their dress and actions are causing inappropriate thoughts in the women around them. 

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

[Calm]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I think we all understand that there is a line, but defining that line is impossible -

IMO, it is impossible to defend the line that any sex outside of marriage between a man and woman is a sin and yet we continue to do that, we keep that standard for ourselves even if we realize the majority of the rest of our greater culture sees it differently...at least for men pretty much worldwide and often for women now too.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

always love when that bit of utter stupidity is interjected into a conversation; nothing like shutting down one's brains in favor of a Feminist agenda

And yet you mirror it and take it into overdrive so perfectly with your continual rant against the "Feminist agenda".

[Calm]

2 hours ago, filovirus said:

It is hard to say that a suit elicits sexual thoughts for females.

You have no clue what a good suit does for a man in a woman's eyes.  Why do you think Cary Grant was popular and some of the most romantic scenes have the men all dolled up?

Why is James Bond almost always in a suit?

Quote

So which of the two is the easiest to change dress standards?

Pretty easy to require the elders to always wear their suit coats around the sisters, but iirc cinepro said this step was not taken.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

41 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Which is obvious from the fact that men who live in societies where the female body is open to their gaze are in a constant state of sexual arousal? 

The objectification of women is not innate. It's learnt behaviour.

I will be forever grateful for parents who never taught it to me, and for a father who never modelled it in word or action.

I would point out also that violence is completely natural and evolutionarily driven. That said I also think that any adult that hasn’t figured out how not to hit people has problems that are not the responsibility of those around them. 
 

I would also point out that I said nothing about continual arousal, and if you think that nudists never get aroused you have another think coming. 
 

overall I’d say we agree more than disagree. We are responsible for what we do with what pops into our head. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[filovirus]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

You have no clue what a good suit does for a man in a woman's eyes.  Why do you think Cary Grant was popular and some of the most romantic scenes have the men all dolled up?

Why is James Bond almost always in a suit?

I'll ask you as well. 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.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I promise you my imagination can go WILD with that,

Crisp white suits and dark pants are sweet.  Sunday was much more fun in my youth than high school and looking at the guys in grubby T-shirts and often baggy jeans.  I advise the young men to learn how to iron properly though if they want to use them for sex appeal.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 minutes ago, filovirus said:

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

And you worry about the looks? I didn’t say aware. 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, filovirus said:

I'll ask you as well. 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.

I would advise having them keep their suit coats on if trying to cut down on attraction between the sexes is really a concern.  If it were women I were talking to, my personal taste say wear big floral patterns to distract the eye from the form.  Totally unappealing.

A dark suit on a young, relatively healthy, clean young man doesn't have to be that well cut, btw to be attractive.  Now make those suits plaids or checks...what a shame.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Calm

[bsjkki]

27 minutes ago, filovirus said:

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

So, did you change your attire to avoid these looks in the future?

[filovirus]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would advise having them keep their suit coats on if trying to cut down on attraction between the sexes is really a concern.  If it were women I were talking to, my personal taste say wear big floral patterns to distract the eye from the form.

I don't know about other missions, but mine in humid, hot El Salvador, we were instructed to keep our suit coat on at all times during church services unless given permission to remove it from the presiding official in the room. We sweated out the majority of our Sundays.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

IMO, it is impossible to defend the line that any sex outside of marriage between a man and woman is a sin and yet we continue to do that, we keep that standard for ourselves even if we realize the majority of the rest of our greater culture sees it differently...at least for men pretty much worldwide and often for women now too.

It is a sin, whether one “sees it differently” or not. In view of the importance of a solid family to the well-being of individuals, and the harm visited upon the family by the betrayal that constitutes sex outside of marriage, it’s pretty easy for me to justify that boundary, at least in my own mind. 
 

It has not always been the case that “the majority of the rest of the culture sees it differently.”  The fact that it is the case now is one of the conditions that signifies the creeping degeneracy of the broader culture. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[filovirus]

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So, did you change your attire to avoid these looks in the future?

I don't wear those types of clothes into the church building, even if coming straight from the gym. I'll change in the gym or go home first.

An exception: I may wear an arm sleeve and or tights under shorts if I go to play some ball with our elders quorum or on our church ball team. Usually there are not many women present.

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, filovirus said:

I don't wear those types of clothes into the church building, even if coming straight from the gym. I'll change in the gym or go home first.

An exception: I may wear an arm sleeve and or tights under shorts if I go to play some ball with our elders quorum or on our church ball team. Usually there are not many women present.

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

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, filovirus said:

I don't know about other missions, but mine in humid, hot El Salvador, we were instructed to keep our suit coat on at all times during church services unless given permission to remove it from the presiding official in the room. We sweated out the majority of our Sundays.

Bet it wasn't over worry about being more attractive to the young women in the congregation though.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is a sin, whether one “sees it differently” or not. In view of the importance of a solid family to the well-being of individuals, and the harm visited upon the family by the betrayal that constitutes sex outside of marriage, it’s pretty easy for me to justify that boundary, at least in my own mind. 
 

It has not always been the case that “the majority of the rest of the culture sees it differently.”  The fact that it is the case now is one of the conditions that signifies the creeping degeneracy of the broader culture. 

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?

[filovirus]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Bet it wasn't over worry about being more attractive to the young women in the congregation though.

No. But if it were a distraction to the women in the ward, I'm sure we would have been instructed on what of our attire we needed to change. 

But the required change from the OP post most likely was brought on by either 1) a complaint or 2) an incident. I'd put my money on #2. And since (I'm guessing) elders are instructed to keep their suit coat on during church services, the next line of thought was that the sisters needed to wear some type of extra cover up.

Again, I am not agreeing with the conclusion, just sharing that I can see how a person, such as a mission president, could just be taking some extra precautions.

 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, filovirus said:

But if it were a distraction to the women in the ward, I'm sure we would have been instructed on what of our attire we needed to change. 

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?

Quote

nd since (I'm guessing) elders are instructed to keep their suit coat on during church services, the next line of thought was that the sisters needed to wear some type of extra cover up.

But the rule was just being in the building and not just church services.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

How often even these days do you hear women complimenting men on attractiveness  while the reverse is not uncommon?

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