Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[Calm]

5 hours ago, filovirus said:

So going shirtless is purely to address my own comfort post-run.

So it is okay for you to put comfort first, right?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

middle of Harlem is intending to provoke or incite others to anger or violence (that, I think, was the intention of the terrorist who set up the whole thing).  

So women can incite men to commit criminal acts by wearing certain clothing in your view?  And because of that sister missionaries should wear sweaters and coats inside buildings?  Because in context with how modesty is discussed on this board, that seems to be where this logic is going.

[ttribe]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  Please provide, say, 3-5 examples of the Church "sexualiz{ing} females' appearance."

I'd like to see examples of these "issue."

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, I am pointing this out - You are issuing a "CFR" for something that is CLEARLY an opinion.  You want to challenge that opinion? Go for it.  But invoking a rule with the weight of revocation or ban behind it is an abuse of the rule and bad form, counselor.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

So to the extent Person A has, or needs to have, a "conversation" with Person B about Person B's sartorial expressions, would you endorse Person A emphasizing things like "propriety and decorum," rather than "anything sexual?"I

In that scenario i would advise that person A has say nothing to person B and to do what you did and find ways to handle their own personal feelings about person B's clothing without getting person B involved.  

Really?  If Person A is the parent of Person B, and if Person B is dressing in inappropriately revealing clothing, the parent should "say nothing?"

There are no circumstances under which a youth should receive guidance about proper dress and deportment from a parent (or, perhaps, an aunt, or grandmother, or a YW president, or perhaps even a bishop)?

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's very very good that person A has a personal code of conduct for themselves and attempts to live by it, doing what is necessary to retain integrity in that regard.  It would be inappropriate though for person A to try to make person B follow their personal code of conduct in regard to dress though.   

I quite understand your position if Person A lacks any sort of cognizable stewardship over Person B.  I'm right there with you

But what if Person A does have some sort of stewardship over Person B?

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm struggling to see the relationship between a judge speaking about the rules of decorum in his courtroom and a bishop handling modesty issues in his ward.  

The former is an analogy for the latter.  Our society has largely devolved into taking a laissez-faire approach to clothing.  In the main, I'm pretty good with that.  However, it appears there are still some measures of dress and deportment that should be observed.  Attorneys and other participants in court.  Applicants at job interviews.  Attendees at funerals, or weddings, or church services.  

Matters pertaining to dress, grooming and deportment are covered in the Church's For the Strength of Youth pamphlet.  I think youth often need instruction in these matters (just as some attorneys need instructions as to what to wear to court, or invitees need instructions on what to wear to a wedding, etc.).  It so happens that one substantial and persistent problem with a laissez-faire approach to clothing is that the options available are often "immodest."  Inappropriately revealing.  Some are plainly intended to be sexually provocative.  And they are all right there, on public display in the mall or on Amazon.com. 

And then the youth turn on the TV, or else go to YouTube, and see singers and actors and such dressing in clothes that are immodest / inappropriately revealing / sexually provocative.

Doesn't the Church have some responsibility to teach moral and ethical conduct as pertaining to these things?  

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Decorum is about following the rules of society for whatever the activity is, and more so, the Judge is the final authority in his courtroom about what is appropriate. 

Well, sort of.  The standards of courtroom attire are more a matter of "everyone knows" than "Judge So-and-So has said..."

Moreover, "decorum" refers to "behavior in keeping with good taste and propriety."  So there is "decorum" in terms of dress, but also in grooming, and speech, and behavior, and so on.

Again, doesn't the Church have some responsibility to teach its youth that standards exist for dress / grooming / speech / behavior, and that these standards should be followed by members of the Church?

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Bishops, on the other hand, are not usually interested in decorum when it comes to modesty and neither are they the final authority on what is modest and what isn't.  

I pretty much agree.  If a bishop has a concern about how a young woman is dressing, I think he should address it, if at all, circuitously (through the parents, or the YW president, for example).

I think bishops can be capable of handling such things with tact and decorum, but a mother or a YW prez is usually going to be better situated.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Serving in the military and proclaiming the Restored Gospel were worthy endeavors, and worth the risks.

While it is unfortunate our members are exposed to danger, I do think it important for us as a whole to understand the blessings we have including relative safety and to desire to share them with others....and few things can do that better than sharing hardships.  We can escape them, but others can't.

As far as being instructed not to write home about it, I don't think that is wise as it may set up a lack of trust of the church in missionaries and their families.  Instead it likely would be better to prepare families with the understanding the world is a dangerous place and sharing the Gospel may mean sharing hardships. And this is not something to be avoided at all cost, but rather use wisdom to minimize it. Classes on basic self defense and safety measures for youth and missionaries would be a good idea, imo.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, filovirus said:

For others, they feel the women need to cover up more and that a sports bra is just too revealing.

So how do you respond to those who think the women should cover up?

[truth a la carte]

This happened ten years ago, during our ward’s Evening of Excellence (the closest equivalent on the boys’ side would be Court of Honor, I think?). All the young women were in attendance with their parents. Displayed around the room were pictures of their personal accomplishments as well as hand-made items and other artwork. During the event, girls who had reached goals during the year were given awards and ribbons. The evening was beautiful. The final speaker was the stake Young Women’s president. This is what she had to say at the event (paraphrased): “The stake president has asked me to attend each of the wards’ Evenings of Excellence and tell all the girls and their parents that girls need to stop wearing immodest swimsuits and bikinis to the stake pool parties. It is causing the boys to have bad thoughts. Girls, you need to cover up with a t-shirt.” 

I think this one experience highlights many of the issues for girls. First, all of the girls’ accomplishments were not just minimized but completely ignored. Second, their bodies were the only thing discussed by this authority figure (and the stake president, apparently). Third, their bodies were vilified. Fourth, their guilt was pronounced. I would also add that the whole speech seemed to imply that the girls' primary area of influence was not their personal growth and accomplishments, but the way they looked. And, let’s be clear, the way they looked had been assessed by everyone from boys to the stake president and the auxiliary heads, and was pronounced to be bad.

It is VERY important that we consider the effects these discussions can have on girls, and not just the effect that girls' clothing may have on boys.. 
 

Edited October 24, 2019 by truth a la carte

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Really?  If Person A is the parent of Person B, and if Person B is dressing in inappropriately revealing clothing, the parent should "say nothing?"

There are no circumstances under which a youth should receive guidance about proper dress and deportment from a parent (or, perhaps, an aunt, or grandmother, or a YW president, or perhaps even a bishop)?

I quite understand your position if Person A lacks any sort of cognizable stewardship over Person B.  I'm right there with you

But what if Person A does have some sort of stewardship over Person B?

The former is an analogy for the latter.  Our society has largely devolved into taking a laissez-faire approach to clothing.  In the main, I'm pretty good with that.  However, it appears there are still some measures of dress and deportment that should be observed.  Attorneys and other participants in court.  Applicants at job interviews.  Attendees at funerals, or weddings, or church services.  

Matters pertaining to dress, grooming and deportment are covered in the Church's For the Strength of Youth pamphlet.  I think youth often need instruction in these matters (just as some attorneys need instructions as to what to wear to court, or invitees need instructions on what to wear to a wedding, etc.).  It so happens that one substantial and persistent problem with a laissez-faire approach to clothing is that the options available are often "immodest."  Inappropriately revealing.  Some are plainly intended to be sexually provocative.  And they are all right there, on public display in the mall or on Amazon.com. 

And then the youth turn on the TV, or else go to YouTube, and see singers and actors and such dressing in clothes that are immodest / inappropriately revealing / sexually provocative.

Doesn't the Church have some responsibility to teach moral and ethical conduct as pertaining to these things?  

Well, sort of.  The standards of courtroom attire are more a matter of "everyone knows" than "Judge So-and-So has said..."

Moreover, "decorum" refers to "behavior in keeping with good taste and propriety."  So there is "decorum" in terms of dress, but also in grooming, and speech, and behavior, and so on.

Again, doesn't the Church have some responsibility to teach its youth that standards exist for dress / grooming / speech / behavior, and that these standards should be followed by members of the Church?

I pretty much agree.  If a bishop has a concern about how a young woman is dressing, I think he should address it, if at all, circuitously (through the parents, or the YW president, for example).

I think bishops can be capable of handling such things with tact and decorum, but a mother or a YW prez is usually going to be better situated.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you missed the part where I said "in that scenario," meaning the type of scenario you described with your students.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

middle of Harlem is intending to provoke or incite others to anger or violence (that, I think, was the intention of the terrorist who set up the whole thing).  

So women can incite men to commit criminal acts by wearing certain clothing in your view?  

No.  As I said previously:

Quote

{I}f a woman were to wear a conspicuous piece of jewelry while strolling alone through Central Park at 3:00 a.m., and if she is robbed, has she "solicited" or "incited" the theft?  Technically, no.  But did she increase the risk to herself by putting herself into a situation where the risk of misconduct by others was reasonably foreseeable?  I think so.  So while she's certainly not culpable for the crime against her, I think it would be absurd to, say, criticize the police for encouraging her to not wear jewelry while strolling alone through Central Park at 3:00 a.m., or to vilify the police for giving her sensible advice.

I hope this clarifies things.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

And because of that sister missionaries should wear sweaters and coats inside buildings?  

No.  I think that story reflects an inappropriate, and unreasonable, perhaps even absurd, approach to "modesty."  But I also don't think this is a fair characterization of the Church's overall approach.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because in context with how modesty is discussed on this board, that seems to be where this logic is going.

I don't think so.

Modesty is a good thing.  Immodesty is not a good thing.  People can and do err in approaching this issue, either through excess of zeal, or lack of tact, or an inappropriate emphasis on "sex," or intrusiveness, or some combination of these.  These extreme overreaches can and should be corrected.  But surely there is also a risk of an extreme reaction going the other way (which would be near-total abdication of any responsibility to teach general and sensible principles of modesty to our youth)?  Because in context with how modesty is discussed on this board, that seems to be where this logic is going. 😁

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

CFR, please.  Please provide, say, 3-5 examples of the Church "sexualiz{ing} females' appearance."

I'd like to see examples of these "issue."

Again, I am pointing this out - You are issuing a "CFR" for something that is CLEARLY an opinion. 

Nope.  She is attributing specific conduct to the Church.  She is claiming that the Church "sexualizes females' appearance."

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You want to challenge that opinion? Go for it. 

I am.  Via CFR.

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But invoking a rule with the weight of revocation or ban behind it is an abuse of the rule and bad form, counselor.

I have no interest in her being banned.  I just want the accusation to be substantiated.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

think that girls are raised by the media and society to believe that their worth is connected to their appearance and sexual appeal, while boys are raised to believe that their worth is connected to success, power, and wealth

The Friend had a five? year old girl, not a boy, being applauded by her mother for insisting on wearing a tshirt under the sundress her grandmother gave her so she could be modest.  We have church leaders telling girls to wear tshirts and shorts in activities now instead of the one piece swimsuits required in my youth.  Were we immodest back then and the Church just didn't care?  I doubt that given how much time was spent on hammering get in the modesty standards back then.

It is not just the media pushing the message, imo..  Becoming more restrictive as the culture becomes less demonstrates acceptance and fear of the greater culture's standards, imo.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  She is attributing specific conduct to the Church.  She is claiming that the Church "sexualizes females' appearance."

I am.  Via CFR.

I have no interest in her being banned.  I just want the accusation to be substantiated.

Thanks,

-Smac

[sigh] I think you know better, but it seems your feet are dug in.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think you missed the part where I said "in that scenario," meaning the type of scenario you described with your students.

Your comment was in response to mine, as follows:

Quote

So to the extent Person A has, or needs to have, a "conversation" with Person B about Person B's sartorial expressions, would you endorse Person A emphasizing things like "propriety and decorum," rather than "anything sexual?"I

As a college professor, I felt no need to have a "conversation" with my female students about their choice in clothing.  To the contrary, I felt that any such conversation would be quite out of bounds.

But what about my subsequent questions?

Quote

There are no circumstances under which a youth should receive guidance about proper dress and deportment from a parent (or, perhaps, an aunt, or grandmother, or a YW president, or perhaps even a bishop)?

I quite understand your position if Person A lacks any sort of cognizable stewardship over Person B.  I'm right there with you

But what if Person A does have some sort of stewardship over Person B?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, ttribe said:

[sigh] I think you know better, but it seems your feet are dug in.

I think an accusation that the Church "sexualizes females' appearance" is one that can, and therefore should, be substantiated.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Calm]

 

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

If people only knew the incredibly horrible sexual things that some men (strangers and not) will say to girls in passing.  It's really scary to be young and the focus of someone who feels like it's o.k. to say such things in public.  Who knows what else they are capable of. 

And then we get taught at church we choose to become walking porn....how can we possibly avoid making the connection when we get treated as if we are porn for just existing that it is our own fault and responsibility for being harassed and not end up hating how we look because of that.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Calm

[filovirus]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

So how do you respond to those who think the women should cover up?

The problem doesn't stem from the running community. Rarely does a male runner say a female should not run in just a sports bra. And I agree.

The complaints come from outside the running community. People who don't understand that it is appropriate attire for hot sweaty outdoor events.

It's more that we just complain with each other that some people just don't understand.

One of the biggest complaints is that they (women wearing sports bras only) feel as if they are being gazed at incessantly by "creeps". And complaints of the obnoxious cat calls they get all the time that they usually don't get while wearing a shirt.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your comment was in response to mine, as follows:

As a college professor, I felt no need to have a "conversation" with my female students about their choice in clothing.  To the contrary, I felt that any such conversation would be quite out of bounds.

But what about my subsequent questions?

Thanks,

-Smac

No offense Smac but there are countless different options for how someone with authority should handle dress issues with those they have authority over.  I don't have the time or inclination to go over them.  I don't really see the purpose, and I have kids getting home from school that need help with homework.  

I feel that what i've already said on good ways to handle such conversations is sufficient.  

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

 

And then we get taught at church we choose to become walking porn....how can we possibly avoid making the connection it is our own fault and responsibility for being harassed and not end up hating how we look because of that.

I think this is true for kids, who have no real ability to interpret these adult situations. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I haven't followed this thread so some of this has likely been repeated. 

For me this question isn't hypothetical. I had to confront it head on with one of my first clients who was a p*rn addict. I still remember what I was wearing when the guy hesitantly acknowledged that I was triggering him. It was one of my favorite shirts as it was flattering to my figure (but appropriate enough for work, church, professional gatherings, etc.....I'd worn it at all three. And Modest enough to cover my usual pair of garments). I knew this guy well enough to know that he was trying (and failing often) to rearrange his thoughts and behaviors to cut out porn and it's never flattering to have a married man admit he's being triggered by you when you also work with his spouse. So for a session or two I thought....maybe I'd shift my behaviors to accommodate his problem.* 

Until I realized that was stupid. Not only stupid, but counterproductive to him actually healing. If he couldn't handle a woman professionally dressed in therapy, how would he manage any woman in the world around him?  

My absolute biggest problem with this is that it shifts accountability for managing one's s*xuality onto another human being. It becomes someone else's burden to manage some other person's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. 

With that, it also lays a heavier burden on people who fit cultural ideals of being s*xually attractive. I've fit that category for a very long time. I'm young, thin, and attractive. Which meant I received unwanted attention a good amount of the time. It was actually one of the big perks of being pregnant: no one cared what I looked like. I could walk down the streets of a city and knew that no one would honk at me. No one would look me up and down. No awkward attempts of pick ups in super unwanted places. I was a pregnant lady. And it still works pretty well as a mom. I haven't changed my attire or my looks really. I changed my cultural status as a woman. In our culture (much of the US) Mommy ain't s*xy. It worked better than being a freaking missionary in the drabbest outfits prior to the ward robe changes. I mean I looked like a nun, I swear, and there was still some strange part of humanity who'd hit on me. But as a mom -- NADA. Sometimes men even run away from me or try to maintain eye contact with me AT ALL COSTS when I'm breastfeeding .  And it is nice. The thing is, when you do fit the expectations you already are told in one way or another that men find you s*xually appealing and that that's now somehow my business. It's not helpful, comfortable, or uplifting. More often than not, it's intrusive, objectifying, and awkward. Sometimes it's unnerving and frightening. And this is before you get into horrifying justifications for assualt and rape. 

Lastly it often makes women uncomfortable with their s*xuality. Look up good girl syndrome. A large part of that is being told that we're not supposed to be a turn on and trying to be s*xually appealing is not okay. So normal healthy and good s*xual behaviors by spouses are often view as gross, lustful, or wrong by those who bought these messages. They can't escape them even in the one place we're supposed to be able to.  

 In short, I get we're supposed to help each other. But in my line of profession, helping them was more tied to teaching them how to work past their natural man and stop s*xualizing everyone who moved (within an age range, usually) and learn to treat them as people. Far more effective than asking women to read their minds and decide if what they're wearing would contain other's impulses  

 

 

With luv,

BD

*Ironically, my attitude about the situation was enough to shift his trigger. Confident women who knew they were attractive was a turn off. Not my last one either who would later be de-triggered by separating a moment of fantasy from reality. 

I agree with a lot of this, but I think that we need to acknowledge that while some men will be triggered by almost anything (we can't please everyone), I think you would likely acknowledge that there is still a line that you wouldn't and shouldn't cross.  Some outfits would absolutely be inappropriate for you to wear to work because of what it says about you, and how it might influence men - and we absolutely are accountable for not crossing that line.  I get it, the line is different for everyone, and you can't read minds, and you are not accountable for how some men might react etc., but I think we all know that there is still a line.  I think we all know and understand that, which is why I am confused at the seeming lack of any moral accountability for how we dress on the part of some women.  I don't think that it is true that we can say and/or do whatever we want, and if it affects others negatively, that we will never be accountable for our influence.  If it is true in other areas, why not with how we dress?   It absolutely is our burden to be our brothers keeper, to the best of our ability and according to our own conscience.  This in no way shifts the burden from the man in managing and being accountable for his own thoughts, words, and actions. 

I think this is where a lot of people keep getting hung up.  The general idea I keeping hearing on this thread from women is that because we can't please everyone, we shouldn't try to please anyone - that we are not accountable or responsible in ANY way for how we might influence or trigger others through our dress.   I think that is wrong.  

Quote

 In short, I get we're supposed to help each other.

I am glad you acknowledge that, but why does that apply in every area except how we dress?

Edited October 24, 2019 by pogi

[Calm]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

the problem is in using dress to emphasize sex. That is the opposite of what the church is doing. 

By sending out the message girls and women need to cover up to hide their bodies, that draws attention to sexuality and thus emphasizes it.  It is similar to how people can become obsessed with weight even when healthy because of parents or others drawing constant attention to negative aspects (a relative is a victim of this, she remembers from her youngest years being told not to take that second helping when hungry...looking at her pictures there is no hint of being even close overweight, she became anorexic in her college years and copes with her need to nighteat by buying her dinner every night so there is little food in the house).

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Friend had a five? year old girl, not a boy, being applauded by her mother for insisting on wearing a tshirt under the sundress her grandmother gave her so she could be modest.  We have church leaders telling girls to wear tshirts and shorts in activities now instead of the one piece swimsuits required in my youth.  Were we immodest back then and the Church just didn't care?  I doubt that given how much time was spent on hammering get in the modesty standards back then.

It is not just the media pushing the message, imo..  Becoming more restrictive as the culture becomes less demonstrates acceptance and fear of the greater culture's standards, imo.

I am not suggesting any specific dress code or more restrictive standards.  I was simply suggesting a reason for the disparity between the focus on how men and women dress in the church. 

I don't think what some church leaders are doing (I am not saying I agree with them by the way) shows "acceptance" of the world's standards as much as it simply acknowledges that it is a thing, and that we shouldn't be indifferent or apathetic about it.   Personally, I think that a healthy dose of fear or appreciation for what the wold's standards can do is a good thing.  A blase (with accent over e) attitude and being indifferent of our influence on others is a recipe for disaster.  I am simply trying to get people to acknowledge that we are accountable for how we dress and we should care about how it might affect others to some degree. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by pogi

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

Yes! Not to mention that our priesthood holders should be in front of society in protecting women. Instead, here we having to say again and again that women are not here for men’s gaze and men’s thoughts are their own. 

When will we know Mormon men have matured? When their first response to any hint of asking a girl to dress for a boy’s benefit is to  turn his attention to the boy instead. 

Fortunately, we are seeing some of those men here. Hopefully others will benefit by their example because I guarantee that women will not stop saying “enough!”

I like this article in Common Consent in March of this year. https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/03/19/modesty/ I believe it's content would have done wonders for my self esteem growing up. I love the quotes and the second to last quote in bold is something I never thought of:

 

"Everything in a girl’s world teaches her that her body is an object, to be dressed (or not), starved, admired (or not), flattened into images to be posted/texted/insta-ed, exercised, displayed, hidden, surgically “improved,” flaunted, given, withheld, chosen (or not), loved (or not)… by other people, especially male people. Church should be a refuge from that relentless pressure to construct the body as an object of someone else’s gaze–the place where we treat girls as whole human beings, growing to be good and wise agents of their own destiny. There are too many things they need to know that they won’t hear anywhere else; we don’t have time to talk to them about how to be a slightly different kind of object of the male gaze than Teen Vogue suggests!*

If we tell them their lives matter, and are their own, which they can choose to share with a spouse and children when they are ready, they will spend less time thinking about how to get boys to like them (not a lot less, probably, biology being what it is, but at least we will not be sacralizing makeup tutorials!). We might start by letting them see women treated as whole human beings, even if they are not attached to a man… We could even let them see women at church leading and making decisions that don’t depend on getting a man’s approval. If we give them real power, they won’t need to use their sexual power to get men to give them a little.

If we teach them who they are, they’ll figure out what goddesses wear."

 

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

By sending out the message girls and women need to cover up to hide their bodies. 

 

I hope that we can both agree that we should cover our bodies. 

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

...that draws attention to sexuality and thus emphasizes it. 

Sure it emphasizes sexuality.  That is a good thing.  It acknowledges that we are sexual beings and teaches us how to appropriately and inappropriately manifest that side of us. 

That is like saying that talking to our kids about pornography and discouraging its use, draws attention to it and thus emphasizes its use and therefore we should even talk about it or discourage its use.  I don't agree.  

 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

I hope that we can both agree that we should cover our bodies. 

Sure it emphasizes sexuality.  That is a good thing.  It acknowledges that we are sexual beings and teaches us how to appropriately and inappropriately manifest that side of us. 

That is like saying that talking to our kids about pornography and discouraging its use, draws attention to it and thus emphasizes its use and therefore we should even talk about it or discourage its use.  I don't agree.  

 

IMHO, I believe the overemphasis causes porn addictions. And the shaming for those first, second or third timers.

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

IMHO, I believe the overemphasis causes porn addictions. And the shaming for those first, second or third timers.

Toxic shame is a problem.  Talking about its potentially destructive powers is no more shaming than talking to your kid about playing with fire.  Toxic shame is a very different thing.  Kids need to know it is wrong.  That instills a healthy sense of respect for it, it helps them feel a healthy sense of guilt which causes one to turn to God and turn away from sin - toxic shame is a totally different beast that causes one to hide from God instead of turn to him.