Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[bsjkki]

9 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

The  attempt to regulate the interaction of the younger members has been prevalent for a long time in the church.  The St. George Stake leadership in the 1880s put out the following regulations for St. George dance parties.

 

The opening address was delivered by Pres-ident M^cAllister giving report of Stake matters, temporal and spiritual; among other things referred to dancing and read [“1887.” in margin] the following which was passed upon in session of S^t. George Stake High Council on Saturday, 10^th Dec 1887: -

“Rules which should be observed in dancing parties in S^t George Stake of Zion.

I.                    It is recommended that all Public Dancing Parties be held and conducted under the management of the Bishop of the Ward, or of a Committee appointed by the Bishop, or by the High Council, as the case may be. 

II.                  That all Public Dancing Parties be opened and closed by prayer.

III.                It is recommended that Public Dancing Parties be opened at as early an hour in the afternoon, or evening, as practicable, and that no Dancing Party, as a rule, be kept up after midnight.          49.   

IV.                A list of the names who are desired to be invi-ted of all names morally eligible to be invited to Pub-lic Dancing parties should be submitted to the Bishop of the Ward, on any other person, or persons, duly appointed, for revisions, or approval; and no others than those whose names in said list are approved shall be invited, or allowed to attend such parties.  Provided: - special visiting friends may be added to the list, by the approval of the Bishop, or other duly appointed person or persons.

V.                  Where it becomes necessary to avoid confusion in filling the floor for dancing, and to give all the guests an opportunity enjoy themselves, we would recom-mend that a non-transferable number be issued to [“1887.” in margin] each guest; and that the observance of these numbers in filling the floor be strictly maintained.

VI.                Loud, or boisterous talking, or other unseemly noise should be avoided; and all double, or excessive, swinging, in cotillions, quad-rilles, or contra-dances are hereby disapproved; as, gentlemanly and lady-like deportment, should be observed by all; in the Ball-room or elsewhere.

VII.             We are opposed to round dancing, and in regard to Waltz, Schottische, or Polka, or any other dance embracing the features of these dances, we quote the Words of the Epistle of the Apostles, signed by President John Taylor, 1877: “We do not wish to be too restrictive in relation to the matters, but would recommend that there be not more than     50.     one or two (Round Dances] be permitted in an evening.’ 

VIII.             No person should be allowed to take part in any Dancing Party, who shall be under the influence    of wine or other strong drinks.             

IX.               That the Presidency of the Stake, the High Council, and the Bishopric of the several Wards, have a standing invitation to all Public Dancing Parties, and should be cordially invited to take part in,      and use their moral influence in needful instruction at those parties.

By order of the Presidency and the High Council of S^t. George Stake of Zion.  S^t. George, Utah, 24^th. Dec., 1887.”

1887. Annals of the Southern Utah Mission: 1887. Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.  MS 318.

This is amazingly gender neutral and doesn't mention dress standards at all. I guess the church was  more progressive in 1887.  But up until the 1940's or so, sleeveless dresses for formal dances were completely okay too. I'd have to go read my 'history of church dress standards' go to paper to get the right date. 

[ksfisher]

32 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

I think it is improper.  So, if you disagree, why?

I think we should always be concerned about how we effect those around us.  Whether that is words, behavior, or the way we look.  

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

If his standards never change, then nakedness is not a violation of God’s standards. 

Yet when his children realized they were naked he assisted them in obtaining clothing.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

President Oaks does seem to have a way of stating thing in a way that leaves no doubt what he means.  Perhaps if he taken a softer tone no one would remember what he said.

It is not tone here, but the idea of women as porn. 

Added much later:  Nor am I all that certain he said what he meant given what he said (there was an implication of becoming porn by mistake, imo, because he seemed to believe he had to explain to the young women what was happening with the men) and the typical legal definition of pornography as intended to produce sexual arousal.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Yet when his children realized they were naked he assisted them in obtaining clothing.  

Because they were ashamed apparently. He did not shame them himself for being naked (he was not happy with who they had listen to about it) or tell them they needed to be dressed. 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I think we should always be concerned about how we effect those around us.  Whether that is words, behavior, or the way we look.  

Yes, I agree, but maybe not with the same results. Recognizing that how we prioritize needs of some over the needs of others can have a profound effect.

[Jake Starkey]

Here is a lighter approach.

 

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

If GA talks state that girls who dress immodestly are becoming pornography, then, yes, it is influencing others to lust.

Is this type of teaching influencing others to lust?

Quote

We can teach our sons and daughters that modest appearance and behavior helps protect us from the destructive influences of the world. 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 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 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.” 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.

Carol F. McConkie, BYU Women’s Conference, May 2013

 

[Jake Starkey]

I hope such inappropriate language disappears from GA talks.  Tell me what good it does to use such poor-choiced language.

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Which says nothing about dressing to attract. Provocativeness is not judged by percentage of uncovered skin. You would be hard pressed to get a crowd of women to pay money to watch an 18 year old male in a jockstrap dance on a pole (though a few would pay to see it) but reverse genders and it works. Give that 18 year old charisma and confidence and impressive clothing and women might start fantasizing. Put them in an erotic vampire movie and you might have hordes of them following him.
 

Bernard Gui says (Can’t get it to format correctly): I’m simply pointing out the fact that in some sports, men’s gear is far more modest (by any definition of modesty)  than women’s. Would dressing male beach volleyball players in Speedos attract more viewers?

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

People should be aware of how things are viewed but they should not pander to the least common denominator. Young men should definitely not be trying to correct Young Women on this (or vice versa). It is aggressive creepiness in a veneer of righteous indignation. It comes across as “Stop making me fantasize about you” which is just disturbing and even thinking of saying it shows an incredible lack of self awareness. If done right by wise parents and wise adult leaders they can give guidance on clothing with little chance of harm.

Is this an example of a wise adult leader? I’m trying to find an example of what we could all agree on as an appropriate way Church leaders teach about modesty. FTSOY is apparently not.

Quote

We can teach our sons and daughters that modest appearance and behavior helps protect us from the destructive influences of the world. 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 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 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.” 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.

Carol F. McConkie, BYU Women’s Conference, May 2013

 

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

I hope such inappropriate language disappears from GA talks.  Tell me what good it does to use such poor-choiced language.

Are you referring to Sister McConkie?

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is this type of teaching part of the solution or does it contribute to the problem?

 

You'd have to ask Calm why she asked the question.  For my part, I think it can sometimes show a hyper-focus on sexuality in the church that isn't always healthy or easy for young people to process (without created some emotional baggage that causes problems later in marriage).

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This is assuming it is not, among others, a valid reason to teach modesty.

How could this be rewritten to not send the message?

 

Leaving out the opposite sex when teaching modesty would probably be a good start.

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is this because the dress standards were too strict, too ambivalent, or too open to adult interpretation?

There is assistance available for poor families. We bought our kids’ camp clothes at thrift stores.

Everyone knows there is assistance available.  I'm of the opinion that no family in the church should feel like they need to go to the bishop and ask for money so that their kid can attend a church activity.  I know others disagree.  And I believe it was because the dress rules were very subjective, and worked differently depending on body type, development, and even the height of the girl they were being applied to.

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I wonder if youth have matured to that level.

I have experiences where they have self corrected their own dress so I would say they very much can.  

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Leaving out the opposite sex when teaching modesty would probably be a good start.

My kids were probably the only ones to ask, “Why?” when we taught them certain things. 

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

True, it is. But compare BYU teams with others. They are caught between a rock and a hard place. Does more modest clothing put the, at a competitive advantage? Google Muslim women athletes images.

The fact remains that in those sports and others men dress more modestly than women even when the skills needed, the safety required, and the playing conditions are virtually the same.

I won’t  ask why. That is verboten here.

Hopefully you aren't suggesting that a woman needs to dress like a muslim woman to be modest. I agree with you that women sports do tend to be on the skimpier side, which makes sense because that is the culture we live in.  Women's clothing is usually on the skimpier side in general.  You'd have to ask the sportsing people though to know why different sports require different clothing.  I have no idea.   

As to the bolded part, that's a silly and passive/aggressive thing to say.  

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

I am in no way justifying bad examples of leadership.  It is not fair to dismiss my argument as somehow condoning that.

I didn't say you were condoning it.  I suggested that you were ignoring it, and we can't do that in this discussion.  It's the bad examples that have gotten us here.   We can't pretend they don't exist and we can't ask questions that don't take the bad examples into account.  

Quote

We all agree that things need to change in church culture and practice.  Can we please accept that and move on to how it should be practiced?  Because leaders have messed up the application of modesty in the past and present, doesn’t mean we should abandon all modesty standards.

Is it fair to suggest that anyone is condoning abandoning all modesty standards?  I certainly have seen anyone suggest that.  Could you point it out?  

Beyond that, I think part of the point of what a lot of women are saying on here is that until those leaders acknowledge their mistakes and want to change, there is no way to 'move on to how it should be practiced.'  We aren't to that place yet, as a church.   We're still at the point where we have to spend 40+ pages convincing some men that the problem even exists.  

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Everyone knows there is assistance available.  I'm of the opinion that no family in the church should feel like they need to go to the bishop and ask for money so that their kid can attend a church activity.  I know others disagree.  And I believe it was because the dress rules were very subjective, and worked differently depending on body type, development, and even the height of the girl they were being applied to.

I have known many people who have observed and helped others discretely.

Sister Gui and I discussed this over dinner last night with her sister and brother-in-law. Both have longer legs and shorter torsos. They talked about In the 60s when mini-skirts were the rage. It was hard for them to find styles that would meet Church standards, especially at youth dances. In their area, the rule was that skirts had to touch the floor if they were kneeling. They said that they did not find that offensive because they knew what the rules were ahead of time and could check if they were in compliance in the privacy of their homes before a dance.

Can you suggest an example of a non-subjective rule that would apply to that situation?

 

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My kids were probably the only ones to ask, “Why?” when we taught them certain things. 

You've misunderstood.  I didn't mean that we shouldn't teach a why.  It's imperative to teach a why.  What I'm saying is that the why should not be 'because you will make boys/girls uncomfortable or influence them to sin'.  

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Can you suggest an example of a non-subjective rule that would apply to that situation?

 

I'm not sure what you are asking,  Examples of the subjective rules that our girls have had to deal with at different church camps are tightness of clothing, length of shorts, whether or not something is considered low-cut, etc.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Before marriage, … do not do anything … that arouses sexual feelings

Is this even possible? I would add the word 'purposely.' I think we all know, through puberty sexual feelings can be aroused easily (while sleeping) and even when you are not seeking them.

*you may scoff at this as being ridiculous...everyone knows what they mean with this statement but that is not a safe assumption. This book is given to 11-year-olds. They will not have the maturity to 'read intent' and could end up feeling really guilty through middle school for how their changing bodies react to stimuli. 

Edited November 2, 2019 by bsjkki

[Bernard Gui]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Hopefully you aren't suggesting that a woman needs to dress like a muslim woman to be modest.

BG:Not at all. Simply to point out that some religious women do not compromise their religious beliefs about modesty in order to participate in sports. Women of other religions may do the same thing, Orthodox Jews for example. One might ask if they are happy about it or feel they are compelled to comply. 

 I agree with you that women sports do tend to be on the skimpier side, which makes sense because that is the culture we live in.  Women's clothing is usually on the skimpier side in general.  You'd have to ask the sportsing people though to know why different sports require different clothing.  I have no idea.   

BG: This article looks at the issue from various points of view. I found it helpful.

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/2016/11/05/skimpy-difference-womens-athletic-uniforms-vs-mens/91405172/

As to the bolded part, that's a silly and passive/aggressive thing to say.  

BG:Yeah. We all indulge in a bit of passive/aggressive silliness now and then. When the mantears fail to assuage the pain, it is something to turn to.😉
 

What do you think of this discussion from the January 2014 New Era?

Quote

 

Questions & Answers
“I take modesty seriously, but some sports teams require us to wear short shorts or shirts without sleeves. Is this OK?”

For the Strength of Youth teaches that we “should choose appropriately modest apparel when participating in sports” ([2011], 7). Think about why your uniform is the way it is. Is it designed for specific safety reasons or to allow for necessary movement? How do you feel wearing it?
Consider what options you have for modifying or requesting changes to the uniform. In politely speaking up, you may be surprised to find that others agree with you. Look for athletes—both within Church membership and those of other faiths—who have found ways to pursue their athletic ambitions while maintaining a certain standard of dress.
As you strive to be modest in all aspects of your life, the Spirit will help you know what to do, and Heavenly Father will bless you for caring for the body He has given you.

Cover Up When You Can

I do Irish dance, and the special attire we wear requires short shorts. I always try to wear longer shorts when I’m practicing on my own at home, and I always wear spandex or something to go under my uniform shorts at practice. When I attend competitions, I put pants over my uniform when I’m not dancing.
Miranda O., 14, Wyoming, USA

Set Standards within the Sport

Modesty is very important and can send a strong message about who you are. I am involved in ballet and dance, and when I’ve talked to my coach about my modesty standards, the costumes have been modified for me. I don’t wear costumes and other clothing where my belly would show, and this is very important to me and my dancing. Certain clothing is required for each sport, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have standards.
Meghan Z., 16, California, USA

Prayerfully Decide

The gospel counsels us to “consider [our] ways” (Haggai 1:7) and ensure that our actions don’t detract from our relationship with God. The standards of the Church are meant to edify us, or build us up, as opposed to restricting us by sets of rules. Consider how the uniform affects your sport, your relationship with the Holy Ghost, and your ability to maintain virtue, and then prayerfully decide which factors outweigh the others.
Alex B., 18, Utah, USA

Don’t Make Exceptions

I think that in these circumstances it’s OK as long as you wear the uniform only while playing the game and don’t make exceptions for other events. Ultimately it’s up to you, and praying for guidance is always a good way to go.
Liesl K., 17, Washington, USA

Talk to Your Coach

See if you can wear something underneath. If it’s a school team, then talk to the coach and the principal. There should be guidelines in the school rule book. If they refuse, tell a parent or guardian that you feel uncomfortable and see if he or she can talk to them. Your body is a temple, and you shouldn’t be forced to wear immodest clothing.
Molly J., 14, Illinois, USA

Consider the Purpose

As long as it’s appropriate for the activity, it also depends on the uniform and the kind of message it gives. It should not be used to bring attention to our bodies. If shorter shorts and sleeves are there simply for looks, then oftentimes it’s inappropriate. But if the lack of length and sleeves are used to make the sport easier to play, then it may have a purpose that makes it appropriate.
Rhiannon A., 17, California, USA

Do Everything You Can

Talk to your coach. You never know what will happen when you “dare to stand alone,” as President Monson taught (“Dare to Stand Alone,” Ensign, Nov. 2011, 61). When you take action for what you believe to be right, others may follow. Our bodies are a gift from God, and we need to respect them. This includes dressing modestly. If your first course of action doesn’t work, then try another route. Good things happen when you do everything you can to keep your standards.
April H., 18, Utah, USA

 

“Members of the Church need to be involved in the world in a positive way. How then do we balance the need to positively contribute to the world and to not succumb to the sins of the world? (See D&C 25:10; 59:9.) Two principles will make a significant difference.
1. Let people know you are a committed Latter-day Saint. …
2. Be confident about and live your beliefs.”
Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Lessons from the Old Testament: In the World but Not of the World,” Ensign, Feb. 2006, 54–55.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You've misunderstood.  I didn't mean that we shouldn't teach a why.  It's imperative to teach a why.  What I'm saying is that the why should not be 'because you will make boys/girls uncomfortable or influence them to sin'.  

Got it. What would be a better “why?” answer?

[bsjkki]

22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Don’t men go topless in beach volleyball? How is that more modest than a bikini!?

They actually don't. Here is a good article about the beach volleyball sports attire. I found it interesting even if it doesn't have much to do with how modestly is taught or enforced at church. https://www.insider.com/why-do-women-beach-volleyball-players-wear-bikinis-olympics-2016-8