Burkas, modesty rhetoric and where do we go from here

[Fether]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Just a woman’s issue?

No, she has a series of podcasts that are focused on woman’s issues. It’s just the title of the series.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Fether said:

No, she has a series of podcasts that are focused on woman’s issues. It’s just the title of the series.

Yeah, I bet you would be hard pressed to find a Christian men’s broadcast with a modesty episode.

[Fether]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I bet you would be hard pressed to find a Christian men’s broadcast with a modesty episode.

I know right? I think the main issue is that we don’t define modesty correctly. Ask anyone in the church what modesty is and they will almost always talk about how someone dresses and emphasize woman’s dress.

she talks about this in the podcast

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I bet you would be hard pressed to find a Christian men’s broadcast with a modesty episode.

Unless it was to complain about how the women aren't being modest enough.

[Calm]

Haven’t watched the whole thing yet, but if I wait I will forget my idea.  While I really like her, the podcast does suffer from her working some of the ideas through as she speaks, so just be prepared for that.

She is Latter-day Saint, FYI  

 

At one point she refers to women/girls as being used as the sober drivers for men and boy’s sexuality. I think that is an excellent analogy.
 

The framing of women and girls needing to be careful in their clothing choices so as not to arouse men and boys in essence is teaching the men and boys it is okay to lose self control, to ‘go out’ and don’t worry too much about your personal limits because someone else will be sure you get home safe (get to the temple as a virgin, etc).  And if you don’t, that is on them for failing you.

The only unfortunate thing about the analogy is we don’t allow alcohol drinking, so we can’t compare the analogy to actual teachings. 

And my brain isn’t indulging in wandering enough right now to come up with another option. Maybe someone else can?

PS:  as I watch more in a bit, I may edit this post, but feel free to respond to it it as is. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Makes the approved answer to this song seem slightly sexist.

 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Haven’t watched the whole thing yet, but if I wait I will forget my idea.  While I really like her, the podcast does suffer from her working some of the ideas through as she speaks, so just be prepared for that.

She is Latter-day Saint, FYI  

 

At one point she refers to women/girls as being used as the sober drivers for men and boy’s sexuality. I think that is an excellent analogy.
 

The framing of women and girls needing to be careful in their clothing choices so as not to arouse men and boys in essence is teaching the men and boys it is okay to lose self control, to ‘go out’ and don’t worry too much about your personal limits because someone else will be sure you get home safe (get to the temple as a virgin, etc).  And if you don’t, that is on them for failing you.

The only unfortunate thing about the analogy is we don’t allow alcohol drinking, so we can’t compare the analogy to actual teachings. 

And my brain isn’t indulging in wandering enough right now to come up with another option. Maybe someone else can?

PS:  as I watch more in a bit, I may edit this post, but feel free to respond to it it as is. 

I like how the first question she reads is from a man who is just now understanding how the way that modesty was taught to him (where men and their needs were the reference for how women should dress and act) has had a real negative impact on him, and how he's working to change the way his brain processes his visual relationship with women.

And I love how Finlayson-Fife talks about how looking pretty, or being beautiful or handsome, even visually, is not an aspect of 'babylon' (to quote another poster).  That the visual parts of our bodies are just as valid as every other part, and that wanting to look physically attractive is not immodest.

And finally, I loved her sharing her experience when she was in Turkey, where she was modestly dressed by our standards but where she was leered at and otherwise felt in danger due to the male gaze because their modesty standards were different than ours.  It's a great example of how modesty is subjective.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

Well, thanks a lot. Thanks to that video I am pretty sure I am now a rapist. I blame women.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Well, thanks a lot. Thanks to that video I am pretty sure I am now a rapist. I blame women.

I worried when I posted that something like that would happen.

[pogi]

If we could change the way modesty is taught in the church, what would it look like?  I agree that there are problems with how it has been taught. 

Should dress ever be included in teachings on modesty?   If so, how would you approach it?  I think we all probably agree that there is a line, but that line is so subjective and culturally based that it becomes impossible to define.  

How should teachings on modesty deal with the societal problems we see in media and elsewhere of the objectification of women?  I think we all agree that this is true for men as well, but the degree to which women are portrayed as mere objects of men's desire in the media far overwhelms what is true for men.  It becomes a social status thing, to where women start dressing more for other women then they do for men.   I think we all probably agree that this can generally affect the well-being of women and may lead them to feel that their self-worth is derived from being sexual objects of appearance - leading many to take extreme measures of surgery to maintain their sexual appearance because that is what society values, and is often where their self-worth is derived.   Worldly social pressures to appear a certain way is so much greater for women then men, which is why I think the church has historically made modesty more of a female issue.  Unfortunately, in attempting to combat worldly pressures, the church has created their own opposing pressures which are also so much greater for women then men in the church, placing women uncomfortably between two HEAVY and opposing social pressures and expectations with no escape. 

How does the church combat corrupt worldly social pressures of objectification which erode a women's self-worth and identity without exacerbating the issue with their own pressures of appearance?  Perhaps the church has been too hyper-focused on the symptoms (dress) thinking that will solve the problem (social values).   

How does one raise a young women to live in the world but not of the world in terms of society's appraisal of her value (sexual and image driven), while still giving value to wanting to appear attractive?   

My 2 year old daughter was born with albinism.  This is a serious concern for me because I worry about her self-esteem due to society's corrupt values on image.  I have become hyper-aware since my children have albinism of things that I always considered innocent before.  I can't count how many times I have cringed at seemingly innocent jokes or comments about "pasty white legs" or someone being too "pale", one show I watched recently made a joke about a Robin Williams looking like an "albino" with the other actor looking at him with disgust at his whiteness.   This kind of stuff never would have affected me before, but now it breaks my heart for my son and daughter and what they will face as they age.  What do I do about that?  How do I raise my son and daughter to develop self-worth and self-esteem independent from societal estimations based on appearance?  Unfortunately, the same issues that may affect my children due to their albinism will affect all children in different ways.  It seems that the people most endowed with natural beauty often feel the most pressure and self-esteem issues of not being beautiful enough.  That to me is the core of modesty issues that needs to be addressed by the church, with less emphasis (without ignoring it completely, however) on the symptoms that present in how one dresses. 

 

[Calm]

On 8/20/2021 at 4:47 PM, bOObOO said:

I will be taking sabbatical leave now.  I will most likely return later.

Back already. Will you now explain why you are not heading towards the ‘border’ of MDDB singing “all is well” since you have rejected Nemesis as your ruler?

[Rain]

On 8/23/2021 at 9:38 AM, pogi said:

If we could change the way modesty is taught in the church, what would it look like?  I agree that there are problems with how it has been taught. 

Should dress ever be included in teachings on modesty?   If so, how would you approach it?  I think we all probably agree that there is a line, but that line is so subjective and culturally based that it becomes impossible to define.  

How should teachings on modesty deal with the societal problems we see in media and elsewhere of the objectification of women?  I think we all agree that this is true for men as well, but the degree to which women are portrayed as mere objects of men's desire in the media far overwhelms what is true for men.  It becomes a social status thing, to where women start dressing more for other women then they do for men.   I think we all probably agree that this can generally affect the well-being of women and may lead them to feel that their self-worth is derived from being sexual objects of appearance - leading many to take extreme measures of surgery to maintain their sexual appearance because that is what society values, and is often where their self-worth is derived.   Worldly social pressures to appear a certain way is so much greater for women then men, which is why I think the church has historically made modesty more of a female issue.  Unfortunately, in attempting to combat worldly pressures, the church has created their own opposing pressures which are also so much greater for women then men in the church, placing women uncomfortably between two HEAVY and opposing social pressures and expectations with no escape. 

How does the church combat corrupt worldly social pressures of objectification which erode a women's self-worth and identity without exacerbating the issue with their own pressures of appearance?  Perhaps the church has been too hyper-focused on the symptoms (dress) thinking that will solve the problem (social values).   

How does one raise a young women to live in the world but not of the world in terms of society's appraisal of her value (sexual and image driven), while still giving value to wanting to appear attractive?   

My 2 year old daughter was born with albinism.  This is a serious concern for me because I worry about her self-esteem due to society's corrupt values on image.  I have become hyper-aware since my children have albinism of things that I always considered innocent before.  I can't count how many times I have cringed at seemingly innocent jokes or comments about "pasty white legs" or someone being too "pale", one show I watched recently made a joke about a Robin Williams looking like an "albino" with the other actor looking at him with disgust at his whiteness.   This kind of stuff never would have affected me before, but now it breaks my heart for my son and daughter and what they will face as they age.  What do I do about that?  How do I raise my son and daughter to develop self-worth and self-esteem independent from societal estimations based on appearance?  Unfortunately, the same issues that may affect my children due to their albinism will affect all children in different ways.  It seems that the people most endowed with natural beauty often feel the most pressure and self-esteem issues of not being beautiful enough.  That to me is the core of modesty issues that needs to be addressed by the church, with less emphasis (without ignoring it completely, however) on the symptoms that present in how one dresses. 

 

For me with my daughter I have tried to help her understand doctrine verses teaching applications she could do.  The doctrine helps her know who she is and her worth.  Because of that she knows how to dress without being told.

[bluebell]

On 8/23/2021 at 10:38 AM, pogi said:

If we could change the way modesty is taught in the church, what would it look like?  I agree that there are problems with how it has been taught. 

Should dress ever be included in teachings on modesty?   If so, how would you approach it?  I think we all probably agree that there is a line, but that line is so subjective and culturally based that it becomes impossible to define.  

How should teachings on modesty deal with the societal problems we see in media and elsewhere of the objectification of women?  I think we all agree that this is true for men as well, but the degree to which women are portrayed as mere objects of men's desire in the media far overwhelms what is true for men.  It becomes a social status thing, to where women start dressing more for other women then they do for men.   I think we all probably agree that this can generally affect the well-being of women and may lead them to feel that their self-worth is derived from being sexual objects of appearance - leading many to take extreme measures of surgery to maintain their sexual appearance because that is what society values, and is often where their self-worth is derived.   Worldly social pressures to appear a certain way is so much greater for women then men, which is why I think the church has historically made modesty more of a female issue.  Unfortunately, in attempting to combat worldly pressures, the church has created their own opposing pressures which are also so much greater for women then men in the church, placing women uncomfortably between two HEAVY and opposing social pressures and expectations with no escape. 

How does the church combat corrupt worldly social pressures of objectification which erode a women's self-worth and identity without exacerbating the issue with their own pressures of appearance?  Perhaps the church has been too hyper-focused on the symptoms (dress) thinking that will solve the problem (social values).   

How does one raise a young women to live in the world but not of the world in terms of society's appraisal of her value (sexual and image driven), while still giving value to wanting to appear attractive?   

My 2 year old daughter was born with albinism.  This is a serious concern for me because I worry about her self-esteem due to society's corrupt values on image.  I have become hyper-aware since my children have albinism of things that I always considered innocent before.  I can't count how many times I have cringed at seemingly innocent jokes or comments about "pasty white legs" or someone being too "pale", one show I watched recently made a joke about a Robin Williams looking like an "albino" with the other actor looking at him with disgust at his whiteness.   This kind of stuff never would have affected me before, but now it breaks my heart for my son and daughter and what they will face as they age.  What do I do about that?  How do I raise my son and daughter to develop self-worth and self-esteem independent from societal estimations based on appearance?  Unfortunately, the same issues that may affect my children due to their albinism will affect all children in different ways.  It seems that the people most endowed with natural beauty often feel the most pressure and self-esteem issues of not being beautiful enough.  That to me is the core of modesty issues that needs to be addressed by the church, with less emphasis (without ignoring it completely, however) on the symptoms that present in how one dresses. 

 

I would say that we need to learn to teach modesty separately from the law of Chastity and approved sexuality, and that we teach our youth that modesty is about their relationship with God, not a girl's relationship with the boys around her.

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would say that we need to learn to teach modesty separately from the law of Chastity and approved sexuality, and that we teach our youth that modesty is about their relationship with God, not a girl's relationship with the boys around her.

Bingo!

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would say that we need to learn to teach modesty separately from the law of Chastity and approved sexuality, and that we teach our youth that modesty is about their relationship with God, not a girl's relationship with the boys around her.

I think you are right that a personal intimate relationship with God, in knowing who you are and of your own personal worth, despite social appraisal of appearances would be the most beneficial thing to help young women (and men) not cave to social pressures and expectations to sexually objectify themselves, and womanhood in general, through dress.

 

 

 

 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think you are right that a personal intimate relationship with God, in knowing who you are and of your own personal worth, despite social appraisal of appearances would be the most beneficial thing to help young women (and men) not cave to social pressures and expectations to sexually objectify themselves, and womanhood in general, through dress.

 

 

 

 

 

Ironically, the way that modesty has been taught sometimes has helped to sexually objectify young women. 

When you teach a YW that showing her shoulders is immodest, for example, and then you teach her that she should dress modestly to help the YM stay chaste and control their sexual thoughts, you are teaching a YW that her shoulders are sexual objects.

The sooner we get away from that kind of stuff, the better.

[mfbukowski]

On 8/20/2021 at 3:12 AM, bsjkki said:

I’ve found some of the dress guidelines have created an unhealthy judgmental attitude about girls and clothing choices. It’s time to end this. Leave the girls alone.

I agree but best wishes on changing it.

Men enjoy looking at girls.

That phenomenon has been around for a while.

I don't know how to stop it.

Edited August 25, 2021 by mfbukowski

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree but best wishes on changing it.

Men enjoy looking at girls.

That phenomenon has been around for a while.

I don't know how to stop it.

That is not what we are discussing.

[bsjkki]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ironically, the way that modesty has been taught sometimes has helped to sexually objectify young women. 

When you teach a YW that showing her shoulders is immodest, for example, and then you teach her that she should dress modestly to help the YM stay chaste and control their sexual thoughts, you are teaching a YW that her shoulders are sexual objects.

The sooner we get away from that kind of stuff, the better.

Thank you for saying this so well. I agree, we inadvertently are objectifying the young women with the way some of these lessens are taught. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by bsjkki

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Ironically, the way that modesty has been taught sometimes has helped to sexually objectify young women. 

When you teach a YW that showing her shoulders is immodest, for example, and then you teach her that she should dress modestly to help the YM stay chaste and control their sexual thoughts, you are teaching a YW that her shoulders are sexual objects.

The sooner we get away from that kind of stuff, the better.

The difficulty arises in the fact that it is not the body part that objectifies a woman or man, rather how it is used or displayed in suggestive ways - and that can vary culturally and individually.  For example, shoulders absolutely can be displayed in sexually objectifying ways - if a woman wants to be suggestive by purposely slipping her shoulder strap off of her shoulder instead of leaving it on her shoulder, for example.   Subtle, but intentionally suggestive and can be sexual in nature.   A perfectly modest swim suit, appropriate at the beach would be more sexually objectifying if worn to their college class or work.   Or, for example, a woman wearing lingerie on the beach may be completely immodest while a swimsuit which covers the exact same body parts and amount of skin may not be immodest.   So, I think teachings about modesty would be better directed around what we are trying to say and portray by how we dress rather than giving strict objective rules of attire.  It is a messy and difficult subject when there is no objective or clear distinction between dressing to appear attractive (ok), and dressing to appear sexy (probably not ok in most contexts of a young woman).   The potential down side to removing objective guidelines in dress is that many young (and adult) women and men would be all too happy to exploit the subjective nature of it - playing the innocent card.  It would make it very difficult for a parent who has no objective basis to forbid a certain piece of clothing.  We all know it when we see it, but it is impossible to define or say it's wrong because it is exposing ____ body part.

Edited August 25, 2021 by pogi

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

The difficulty arises in the fact that it is not the body part that objectifies a woman or man, rather how it is used or displayed in suggestive ways - and that can vary culturally and individually.  For example, shoulders absolutely can be used as sexually objectifying ways if a woman wants to be suggestive by purposely slipping her shoulder strap off of her shoulder instead of leaving it on her shoulder.   Subtle, but intentionally suggestive and can be sexual in nature.  

But this is true of every body part.  So if we teach modesty because it is necessary to inhibit sexual desire (or to keep those evil seductresses from harming men), then we are the ones that should be wearing burkas, because that is the logical end to the "difficulty" you have put forth.

If we separate modesty from sexuality, then that difficulty vanishes.  And, we get the added bonus of not harboring double standards where we allow some body parts that can be used in suggestive ways to be shown, while saying that showing other equally suggestive body parts is a sin. 

Quote

A perfectly modest swim suit, appropriate at the beach would be more sexually objectifying if worn to their college class or work.   Or, for example, a woman wearing lingerie on the beach may be completely immodest while a swimsuit which covers the exact same body parts and amount of skin may not be immodest. 

Exactly.  Deep down inside we recognize that modesty is not about how much skin is covered or not covered.  But then that understanding gets lost in translation when we try to teach it, mostly because--not to beat a dead horse--we are determined to tie modesty to sexuality and when you do that, then the coverage of body parts becomes the main focus.

Quote

The potential down side to that is that many young (and adult) women and men would be all too happy to exploit the subjective nature of it - playing the innocent card.  It would make it very difficult for a parent who has no objective basis to forbid a certain piece of clothing.  We all know it when we see it, but it is impossible to define or say it's wrong because it is exposing ____ body part.

If we are teaching modesty correctly to our kids, then that can become the objective basis for forbidding certain pieces of clothing.  It is the harder road (not wanting to deal with that road is probably why the other road exists) but look at where taking the easy road has gotten us. 

Messed up girls and women who are still dealing with the baggage of their old modesty lessons.

 

[bsjkki]

Apply this to modesty.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If we separate modesty from sexuality, then that difficulty vanishes. 

I don't know, I think I agree with the church's definition on modesty, which mirrors many dictionary definitions:

Quote

Modesty is an attitude of propriety and decency in dress, grooming, language, and behavior.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/modesty?lang=eng

Merriam-Webster:

Quote

propriety in dress, speech, or conduct

"Propriety" is all about conforming to conventional standards and perceptions of decency in society  - in that sense, modesty is all about the messages we send to others (sexual and otherwise) and is subjectively based on conventional cultural standards and norms.  The messages we knowingly send to others about ourselves are of concern to God - hence the principle of modesty.  Otherwise, I don't think God would really care about how we dress, or speak or act, if it had no impact on others and didn't negatively impact ourselves.  

Of course, these "conventional standards" are subjective and cultural and change generation to generation, even within the church.  So, I do think it is right to keep modesty about how we portray ourselves to others (including sexually), I just think it would be more helpful to address it with a less objective standard, which can send confusing messages about our bodies and conflicting ideas.  I think it would be best addressed by losing the objective standards and instead focus on the principles of intention in communication.  Sure, we cannot control how others interpret our words, but we can for sure control our intentions and try our best to communicate in effective and kind ways.  Regardless of how we speak, others are going to misunderstand our intentions from time to time, and may chose to be offended.  That is on them.  What is on us, however, is that we consider the feelings and perceptions of others and try our best to communicate in a morally decent way.    It should be no different with clothing and dress, in my opinion.  We absolutely should care about the feelings and perceptions of others in how we dress.  Regardless of how we dress, some will chose to be offended or gawk at us - that is on them.  What is on us, just like in our speech, is that we are considerate of the feelings and perceptions of others, in a general cultural sense, and do our best to communicate in a morally decent way, even in how we dress.  That is the definition of modesty. 

You mention that modesty should be about our relationship with God.  I don't disagree, but our relationship with God includes our relationship with our fellow men/women.   We cannot intentionally dress immodestly with the purpose of immoral messages and not offend God in that.  God cares about the messages we send to others.  He cares about how we treat others.  That is the second great commandment.  We cannot have a good relationship with God without striving to have a good and morally based relationship with our fellow men.    Otherwise, I don't think God would really care how we dress.   Spirituality in general deals with our relationship with God, but modest specifically addresses how we present ourselves to the world in dress and behavior according to social norms. 

By separating modest from sexuality, we still are faced with the problem of sexual objectification. 

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Apply this to modesty.

I agree that we shouldn't take responsibility for how other's react.  We are often misunderstood.  But we absolutely should take responsibility for how we try to present ourselves (which is different from how we are perceived) and how we try to communicate with others. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by pogi

[Danzo]

Wearing clothing is a form of communication.  The clothing I choose to wear reflects how I want to communicate to the world. I believe we are accountible to our choices in communication as well as our reaction to that communication.

There are words that I could say that would offend people in my culture and in certian contexts.  For example there is a word that would offend most people here that is non offensive to dog breeders.   There is another word which could be offensive to certain people but is just the name of a color in another language that I use quite often. Doesn't really offend people.

Its the same with clothing.  Some choices of clothing communicate inappropriate things in certain contexts. 

If I am smart I will be aware of the company and the context that I am in and make appropriate choices of my words and my clothing.  Even when I am careful, my words and clothing could be misintrepreted.

If I am smart, I will also try to not to be overly sensitive to others choice of both words and clothing. 

Edited August 26, 2021 by Danzo