Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[2BizE]

On 10/23/2019 at 3:35 PM, cinepro said:

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

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

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

So I need someone to answer this question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Yes, men and boys are affected by how women dress. Yes, men and boys have the responsibility to control their own bodies and emotions. 

Ps. The church does have a magic rock in its possession,  but I’m not sure it actually works.

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.  

Not necessarily.  There is more than just "sex" involved in modesty.  Propriety and decorum.  Avoiding causing distractions.

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

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).

So a valid precept (health and exercise) can be taken to an extreme.  I agree.  That doesn't mean we ditch the valid precept.  It means we correct the extreme and inappropriate application of it.

Can't we do the same thing with that other valid precept (modesty)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I just do not know how to avoid harming those who are insecure and preventing what is meant to be helpful from creating insecurity while still drawing some guidelines.

Imo, Set up standards that are reasonable churchwide so local leaders aren't imposing weird interpretations and have them taught the same for boys as the girls.  Garments cover the same area of each so this is not unreasonable.  (Standards might need to be regional as there are some countries this might not be possible standards for women are too extreme.) And explain in writing any deviation from those standards as well as why the standards in the first place, don't just assume kids or leaders will understand or teachthem properly without inserting too much interpretation, so be precise.

The only difference in standards would be swimming as far as I can think of (leaders should stop getting freaked out by seeing the female belly button if they have no issue with the male), but if leaders don't want to trust the girls after teaching them the difference between form flattering and emphasizing sex, then solve it by t-shirts or swimming shirts (whatever they are called) for everyone.

[bsjkki]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

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.

🤦‍♀️ 🤷‍♀️ 🧘‍♀️

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would go there to live there but I do not feel comfortable going to just see the sights and reconnect. I am in no way saying it is wrong to do that. It just feels wrong for me.

I think I understand.  It could shift your current impressions from experiences of missionary work to tourist and made lead to feelings of loss.  It is why I don't really want to visit Canada unless I can do it frequently as I don't want to lose the sense of it being home and instead it becoming a place I don't belong to.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

🤦‍♀️ 🤷‍♀️ 🧘‍♀️

I can't figure out what that third emoticon is. 

I haven't seen consensus on this issue so the horse is still very active and worthy of debate in my mind. 

[filovirus]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Imo, Set up standards that are reasonable churchwide so local leaders aren't imposing weird interpretations and have them taught the same for boys as the girls.  Garments cover the same area of each so this is not unreasonable.

My wife would have an issue with this. She is a whopping 5'2". When she buys garment bottoms they hang to just above the knee. And she buys petite. She knows many women in our ward who are 5'8" or taller who also buy petite garment bottoms. It only goes to mid thigh for them. This is one of her pet peeves.

Edited October 24, 2019 by filovirus

[Storm Rider]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

How is using the term 'patriarchy ' any less utterly stupid than using the term 'feminist agenda'.  Either it's dumb and counterproductive to use emotionally loaded terms like that, or it's not.  To think that one is o.k. to use and the other isn't is hypocritical. 

And no one is saying the bolded sentence.  We need more people will to sincerely communicate in these discussions and fewer martyrs.

That patriarchy tripe is rolled out with consistency on this site by specific individuals. It is a tired accusation. 

Sarcasm is used when tired, silly accusations are made. I think you can tell the difference even with a poor medium as the written word on a website. 

You might want to go back and reread some of the posts. The bolded sentence is exaggeration, but it is hardly made from new cloth. Those seeds of thought are common on these types of threads.  What is odd is that you see the exaggeration of a man and completely excuse the same tired accusations of women. Why is that?  Why is it that women don't correct women when they made silly comments?  

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

That patriarchy tripe is rolled out with consistency on this site by specific individuals. It is a tired accusation. 

Sarcasm is used when tired, silly accusations are made. I think you can tell the difference even with a poor medium as the written word on a website. 

You might want to go back and reread some of the posts. The bolded sentence is exaggeration, but it is hardly made from new cloth. Those seeds of thought are common on these types of threads.  What is odd is that you see the exaggeration of a man and completely excuse the same tired accusations of women. Why is that?  Why is it that women don't correct women when they made silly comments?  

Maybe, the only ones who are tired of it are the ones who are consistently trying to defend the patriarchy.  Just a little food for thought.

[bsjkki]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

I can't figure out what that third emoticon is. 

I haven't seen consensus on this issue so the horse is still very active and worthy of debate in my mind. 

Beating a dead horse does not require consensus. Kind of like Democrats and Republicans debating President Trump. At some point, you realize all discussion is pointless, hopeless and a complete waste of time. The 3rd is a woman in lotus position. Somehow, after reading through all these comments, I will find peace. It just might  take some effort.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But I also don't think this is a fair characterization of the Church's overall approach.

Except because of the way the Church approaches modesty standards it opens up this possibility that gets repeated over and over again as demonstrated by the personal stories being told here.

From what I have seen the Church has come down to some extent on people teaching their hobby horses with respect to the Word of Wisdom.  With modesty, instead we get Friend articles, mission presidents, stake leaders, and even occasional GAs adding their 'personal touch'.  The overall approach allowing for extremes rather than controlling them contributes to the problem, imo.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

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.

So how do you respond in these cases, not to those you have no contact with, but the men and women discussing it in your presence?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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

It was true for me.  And it is not an attitude I have been able to dispense with now it has been decades since catcalls, inappropriate touching, and out of the blue gifts and marriage proposals from guys I barely knew were thrown my way.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Beating a dead horse does not require consensus. Kind of like Democrats and Republicans debating President Trump. At some point, you realize all discussion is pointless, hopeless and a complete waste of time. The 3rd is a woman in lotus position. Somehow, after reading through all these comments, I will find peace. It just might  take some effort.

I guess I have more hope in our abilities to find deeper understanding (in the bare minimum) if not consensus in this topic.  Bluedreams was just joining the discussion after all, perhaps a little more patience and lenience is warranted.

peace be with you 🧘‍♂️

Edited October 24, 2019 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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.  

I think the main problem is women are generally the only ones getting this message.  Therefore it becomes reasonable to assume since men aren't seen as responsible or accountable it must not be an inherent condition after all and therefore women shouldn't be held accountable either.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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. 

It needs to be approached differently if so as what it leads to if done as it has been done for the past 50 years is self hatred, not wisdom and being safe.

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not necessarily.  There is more than just "sex" involved in modesty.  Propriety and decorum.  Avoiding causing distractions.

When you include words like pornography it sure does.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

My wife would have an issue with this. She is a whopping 5'2". When she buys garment bottoms they hang to just above the knee. And she buys petite. She knows many women in our ward who are 5'8" or taller who also buy petite garment bottoms. It only goes to mid thigh for them. This is one of her pet peeves.

If they buy it for that reason, that is their issue.  However, given limited choices, they may have to buy them that way because of the fit around the waist or hips.  If you want a certain fabric and cut, you get one choice.  With all cotton, I currently have to fold over the waistband or have it come up way too high.  The right height would be too tight (I hate tight).  That is on the Church, but is likely a necessity in order to keep prices down, so I am personally okay with doing that, but making those kinds of adaptions doesn't work for everyone.  This could be resolved by allowing alterations in raising the length to whatever average standard the Church wants them to be at.  By saying absolutely no alterations, these kinds of misunderstandings will occur.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

6 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

There it is. 

Biology is offensive to you.

 

Uh- 

I was being sarcastic.  Sorry that wasn’t more clear. 

By the way, I am a woman. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by MustardSeed

[Rain]

On 10/23/2019 at 2:35 PM, cinepro said:

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

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

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

So I need someone to answer this question:

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

 

 

It's a time and place thing. 

Quote

 

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

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

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

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

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

When people got the vapors about Oaks' comment, one thing that no one seemed to point out was, that for all the hubbub, he was right.

I love President Oaks. He was probably the first apostle I connected with. I love his logical mind and how he lays points out. I also see a side to him like Nephi that loves people so much - he truly wants us to obey the commandments so we can be happy.

That said, I think he was dead wrong on this and if he truly understood how many young girls and women feel about this he would have worded it differently.

Women and girls are never pornography. Even those in magazines, websites and videos are never pornography. We are daughters of Heavenly Parents who love us. We are not objects to be lusted over. 

Now those magazines, websites and videos are pornography which uses the the children of God in vile ways, but God's children are not and we can never become it either. 

Quote

  I think that's what upset people the most. It's like at some point society decided that if we just pretended this wasn't the case, men would change and women would be empowered. 

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

 

The scientific and rational thing to do is to actually talk to our children and sex and how our bodies respond sexually to visual, audio, touch etc cues.  To be open with them and not hide when they ask questions. If they have an understanding about how our bodies work then we won't have to narrow it down to the not truthful "girls dress modest or boys will have bad thoughts". 

We also teach them how our Parents love us. How they gave us these awesome bodies and just like in school there are appropriate places to talk or not talk, play or not play ball etc there are appropriate places with what we do with our bodies sexually and what cues we send out. 

Make this a matter of introspection, give them questions they can ask themselves - something along the lines of "how do you feel you are doing with this?" This should be about how they are acting in relationship with God, not about how someone else is lusting.

"True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior”

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by Rain

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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.

I disagree. Mothers are totally sexy. What they aren't, however, is sexually available.

I'm speaking in generalities here (there are obviously exceptions) but being pregnant / recently having a child signals that you are likely in a committed relationship and not interested in a new partner. I think that's likely the bigger driver in attention fall-off - more so than the cultural status change of becoming a mother. YMMV.

 

[Maidservant]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

 naked is inappropriate.

maybe in the historical moment; but not a sin

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Every Young Women's standard night. Every dress code for EFY and swim trips. The example shown in the OP. That is the Church to the young women. All the personal stories here. And it wasn't so long ago, someone help me out here, wasn't there a brouhaha about an article in the New Era, like only two years ago, where a comment from a general leader (but I don't think apostle) said that young women needed to dress a certain way to attract the kind of man they wanted in marriage. (i.e. her dress is for the man, not herself). I'm sure we would have even had a thread about that one.

The idea and real time operation that a woman's appearance is primarily or entirely about a degree of sexuality, either from 0 to 100, 0 being best for religious folk, 100 being best for others who want to see their women presented sexily or in certain situations. But it's never about getting her off the dial completely, because that's the primary if not only signal of her body. So saying that that because the church wants women to wear in the 0-10 portion of the dial doesn't mean they aren't sexualizing the female appearance, it means that they are.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Except because of the way the Church approaches modesty standards it opens up this possibility that gets repeated over and over again as demonstrated by the personal stories being told here.

 

31 minutes ago, Rain said:

Women and girls are never pornography

This.

 

 

I came back to this thread because this found me; somewhat tangential by now, but still may be of interest.

The pantsuit

[Calm]

I think there are two main issues the Church should be addressing and can be with only changes to teaching methods.

1) Pointing out that clothing that women wear has an impact on men is realistic and it probably isn’t a good idea to ignore on principle. So actually be realistic and don’t ignore the impact that how boys and men dress has an impact on women’s thoughts as well even if it isn’t usually a safety issue for young men.  It is, imo, the overemphasis on the one sex coupled with the almost total absence of direction for the other that sends a corrupted message to girls and women that it is their fault if men have inappropriate sexual thoughts about them. 

2) I think the Church has allowed too much extreme thinking to enter into the common church environment in this case with little to no sense of trying to control it that can be pointed to in order to combat extreme approaches.  I think it would be best to immediate come out with as parallel as possible guidelines for males and females with huge warnings to stick to that and an explanation that to do otherwise risks interfering with teaching the gospel messages in a healthy way. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by Calm

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If they buy it for that reason, that is their issue.  However, given limited choices, they may have to buy them that way because of the fit around the waist or hips.  If you want a certain fabric and cut, you get one choice.  With all cotton, I currently have to fold over the waistband or have it come up way too high.  The right height would be too tight (I hate tight).  That is on the Church, but is likely a necessity in order to keep prices down, so I am personally okay with doing that, but making those kinds of adaptions doesn't work for everyone.  This could be resolved by allowing alterations in raising the length to whatever average standard the Church wants them to be at.  By saying absolutely no alterations, these kinds of misunderstandings will occur.

I am only five feet tall and I’ve had a number of very tall women brag to me that they buy the petite sizes so they can “legally” wear short clothing. I’ve never known a woman to buy petite for the reasons you state. It really doesn’t make any sense. 

If someone truly cannot find garments that fit right , they can have garments custom- made for the same price as regular garments. You just need to provide the appropriate measurements.  I know women who have done this for years. 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I am only five feet tall and I’ve had a number of very tall women brag to me that they buy the petite sizes so they can “legally” wear short clothing. I’ve never known a woman to buy petite for the reasons you state. It really doesn’t make any sense. 

If someone truly cannot find garments that fit right , they can have garments custom- made for the same price as regular garments. You just need to provide the appropriate measurements.  I know women who have done this for years. 

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

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

Edited October 25, 2019 by Calm