Burkas, modesty rhetoric and where do we go from here

[bsjkki]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

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 present ourselves and how we try to communicate with others. 

And we are discussing how things are taught and where lines get drawn. The women on this board have discussed personal stories of how this has been interpreted and taught in harmful ways. Some of men on this board argue their interpretation of attire is more important than the the harm this has caused girls and women. 
 

They should try and listen. This stubborn ‘help a brother out’ is demeaning and controlling. 

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If I am smart, I will also try to to be overly sensitive to others choice of both words and clothing. 

Speaking of communication, I think you meant:

...try not to be overly sensitive..

 

 

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

And we are discussing how things are taught and where lines get drawn. The women on this board have discussed personal stories of how this has been interpreted and taught in harmful ways. Some of men on this board argue their interpretation of attire is more important than the the harm this has caused girls and women. 
 

They should try and listen. This stubborn ‘help a brother out’ is demeaning and controlling. 

I agree that the approach to modesty needs to be reexamined and can improve significantly to avoid harm to girls and women.  I don't discount the harm that has been caused. 

I don't think that each individual man's interpretation of attire should be an objective guide for how women should dress.  I get that, and I think it is inappropriate for men to respond in such ways.  We can't please everyone, nor should we try.  I think modesty should however be more about respecting conventional norms of decency and trying to present ourselves in a morally decent way, in general.  That is very subjective, but I think we all have a general idea.   There will always be grey areas, and I do think men (not women) will be held accountable for how they react to those areas, if women are trying with integrity to conform to those social standards and portray themselves in a morally decent way.  That is why I suggest that morality should be more about intention behind our messaging, and less about objective guidelines for attire and exposure of shoulders and skin above the knee, etc.  I can see why that is damaging.     

It should be no more anxiety inducing to consider others when we dress than it is to consider others with how we speak in trying not to offend.  It is all modesty.  Dress, speech, and behavior.   We do our best, but it is largely subjective.  The intention and care and love for others (and self) (and God) is what matters. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by pogi

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

Wearing clothing is a form of communication. 

How do we separate this perspective, from the 'she was asking for it' perspective that so many rape victims have to deal with?  Serious and sincere question.

Often men use the 'i'm just reacting to the communication of her clothing' justification for sexually mistreating women.  I don't think we can really talk about clothing as a form of communication, and people being responsible for what their clothes are "saying", without confronting that.

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How do we separate this perspective, from the 'she was asking for it' perspective that so many rape victims have to deal with?  Serious and sincere question.

Often men use the 'i'm just reacting to the communication of her clothing' justification for sexually mistreating women.  I don't think we can really talk about clothing as a form of communication, and people being responsible for what their clothes are "saying", without confronting that.

We have to understand and accept that we can't control how others interpret what we say, do, or wear.  We are not accountable for how other misinterpret us if we are in good faith trying to dress modestly.  Some men will use any excuse as justification to mistreat women.   But, that makes us no less responsible for how we try to present ourselves in communicating to others through our speech, dress, and actions.  

I think it is self evident that we communicate to others by how we dress in lots of different ways.  In job interviews, we communicate that we are professional, neat, and respectable (or not) by how we dress and groom.  At church, we communicate respect and reverence through our dress.  At the temple we communicate purity, unity in oneness, and covenants by our dress.  At the dance club, some may intentionally try to communicate other things in other ways.  We simply do our best, and we are accountable and responsible for our efforts to speak clearly and with respect/kindness.    There are times when I have had to clarify my meaning with some people on these forums who misinterpreted what I was saying, who in return were graceful in accepting my clarification.  At other times, it doesn't how much I try to clarify, some people refuse to be graceful and will believe what they want to believe about me and what I am saying.  In those instances I run - unless I'm in the mood for a fight.    It is no different with dress.   Clarify when needed, and run/fight when necessary.

Edited August 26, 2021 by pogi

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

How do we separate this perspective, from the 'she was asking for it' perspective that so many rape victims have to deal with?  Serious and sincere question.

Often men use the 'i'm just reacting to the communication of her clothing' justification for sexually mistreating women.  I don't think we can really talk about clothing as a form of communication, and people being responsible for what their clothes are "saying", without confronting that.

I don't really see a conflict. 

Imagine a scenerio which unfortunately isn't uncommon where someone uses a racially derogatory or other offensive statement and then gets seriously injured or even killed because he said it.  

Everyone, I hope can agree.  

1. The person who said it didn't deserve to get what happened to him.

2.  The person said something inappropriate.

Many times the thing said wasn't intended to offend, or was innocent, and wasn't guilty of anything intentional.  We can still benefit from learning how to communicate better.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Danzo

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

Duplicate

Edited August 26, 2021 by Danzo

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't really see a conflict. 

Imagine a scenerio which unfortunately isn't uncommon where someone uses a racially derogatory or other offensive statement and then gets seriously injured or even killed because he said it.  

Everyone, I hope can agree.  

1. The person who said it didn't deserve to get what happened to him.

2.  The person said something inappropriate.

Many times the thing said wasn't intended to offend, or was innocent, and wasn't guilty of anything intentional.  We can still benefit from learning how to communicate better.

Wow.  I did not expect this answer.  Can't even think of a reply.

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

We have to understand and accept that we can't control how others interpret what we say, do, or wear.  We are not accountable for how other misinterpret us if we are in good faith trying to dress modestly.  Some men will use any excuse as justification to mistreat women.   But, that makes us no less responsible for how we try to present ourselves in communicating to others through our speech, dress, and actions.  

I think it is self evident that we communicate to others by how we dress in lots of different ways.  In job interviews, we communicate that we are professional, neat, and respectable (or not) by how we dress and groom.  At church, we communicate respect and reverence through our dress.  At the temple we communicate purity, unity in oneness, and covenants by our dress.  At the dance club, some may intentionally try to communicate other things in other ways.  We simply do our best, and we are accountable and responsible for our efforts to speak clearly and with respect/kindness.    There are times when I have had to clarify my meaning with some people on these forums who misinterpreted what I was saying, who in return were graceful in accepting my clarification.  At other times, it doesn't how much I try to clarify, some people refuse to be graceful and will believe what they want to believe about me and what I am saying.  In those instances I run - unless I'm in the mood for a fight.    It is no different with dress.   Clarify when needed, and run/fight when necessary.

How does all of this work with "The world looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart"?  You are right in that people are judged by what they wear, but is that something God condones or condemns?  

[rongo]

I'm having a hard time seeing **any** teaching of modesty, going forward hypothetically that the critiques in this thread are implemented, that address clothing **at all** in any way. I was looking at the entry for "modesty" in True to the Faith

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/modesty?lang=eng

and it seems that much of it would be on the chopping block, based on this thread's critiques. 

What should the Church replace guidance and counsel on modesty with? I would be interested in suggested hypothetical specifics to replace what we currently (and formerly) have. 

ETA: I do agree with @bsjkki really far upthread that without heavy Church guidance, most LDS (and many non-LDS) women and young women would choose on their own to dress in a manner pretty consistent with current Church modesty standards. Maybe we really do need to "teach correct principles and let them govern themselves" more. I just think we're still going to get bogged down on the "teach correct principles" part.  What would the "new correct principles" really look like, in writing? How different would it be from, say, TttF above?

Edited August 26, 2021 by rongo

[bsjkki]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

I don't really see a conflict. 

Imagine a scenerio which unfortunately isn't uncommon where someone uses a racially derogatory or other offensive statement and then gets seriously injured or even killed because he said it.  

Everyone, I hope can agree.  

1. The person who said it didn't deserve to get what happened to him.

2.  The person said something inappropriate.

Many times the thing said wasn't intended to offend, or was innocent, and wasn't guilty of anything intentional.  We can still benefit from learning how to communicate better.

This is very offensive.  This is a perfect example of why modesty teachings based on skin coverage are so harmful. 

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm having a hard time seeing **any** teaching of modesty, going forward hypothetically that the critiques in this thread are implemented, that address clothing **at all** in any way. I was looking at the entry for "modesty" in True to the Faith

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/modesty?lang=eng

and it seems that much of it would be on the chopping block, based on this thread's critiques. 

What should the Church replace guidance and counsel on modesty with? I would be interested in suggested hypothetical specifics to replace what we currently (and formerly) have. 

ETA: I do agree with @bsjkki really far upthread that without heavy Church guidance, most LDS (and many non-LDS) women and young women would choose on their own to dress in a manner pretty consistent with current Church modesty standards. Maybe we really do need to "teach correct principles and let them govern themselves" more. I just think we're still going to get bogged down on the "teach correct principles" part.  What would the "new correct principles" really look like, in writing? How different would it be from, say, TttF above?

Isn't there a way to divorce modesty from how much skin our clothes are showing, so that we could teach both in our homes? 

Why are we stuck with this idea that if we can't teach modesty with a focus on cleavage, thighs, belly buttons, and shoulders, then we can't teach our kids that dressing in too sexual a fashion is harmful?

 

[pogi]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

How does all of this work with "The world looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart"?  You are right in that people are judged by what they wear, but is that something God condones or condemns?  

Lets contextualize this passage.  This was about the Lord sending Samuel to Jesse to anoint a king among his sons.  Samuel thought that Eliab should be king because of his stature.  The Lord had someone else in mind because of his heart - David.

Some points that need to be established about this passage:

1) This passage is not saying that we should not engage in, or try to interpret, non-verbal communication.  We can't function in a world where a significant chunk of communication is non-verbal.  This passage is more about the Lord calling whom he will call, and it is not based on the stature of a man.  

2) "Outward appearance" also includes verbal communication.  These are all external evidences we base our judgments on, but they do not always reveal the heart, and can be misleading and deceiving.  The Lord cannot be deceived by it.  That is part of the point of the passage as well.    The Lord sees past outward evidences (including dress, actions, appearance, and language) and looks at the heart.  Fancy dress and smooth talking will not fool the Lord.  Likewise, the Lord sees through to the heart of the homeless and downtrodden in clothing and appearance.  Despite being rejected by the world and thrown out of their synagogues, the Lord sees the heart of the humble and hungry for righteousness.   

3) We do not have the capacity to look on, or judge others by the contents of their heart - only God does.  

4) We need to distinguish between righteous judgment and condemnation.  The Lord condones righteous judgment based on outward appearances.  We make those judgments everyday, and have to in order to function in society and for our own safety.   For example, if you went on a blind date and your date showed up with a play boy hat on, couldn't keep eye contact with you, and wouldn't look away from your chest - I think the Lord expects you to make a judgment here based on outward appearances, for your own safety and well-being.  The Lord condones that.  What the Lord does not condone is condemnation of others - precisely because we can't see or judge the heart. 

As a hospice nurse, a huge part of my job was assessing outward appearances and non-verbal cues.  Those often speak louder than words.  The Lord is not asking us to ignore or overlook them.  He expects us to make a righteous judgment based on them to the best of our ability, which will always fall short of the Lords ability to look on the heart.  

The Lord cares about appearances in our communication.  He expects us to try and communicate modestly with others. 

I think this passage actually strengthens my point about how modesty should be taught - my point being that modesty should be all about our good intentions to communicate in a moral and modest way, and to be mindful and honest with ourselves about the underlying reasons for why we choose what we wear.  What are we trying to say?  What kind of attention are we trying to receive? Should I be comparing myself to other men/women and compete for status in such a way?  Is it centered in pride?  Is it centered in shame? Or, is it centered in self-respect and love/concern for others and for decency.  In other words, it focuses on the heart, and the intentions thereof.  

 

 

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Isn't there a way to divorce modesty from how much skin our clothes are showing, so that we could teach both in our homes? 

Why are we stuck with this idea that if we can't teach modesty with a focus on cleavage, thighs, belly buttons, and shoulders, then we can't teach our kids that dressing in too sexual a fashion is harmful?

I agree that teaching a "higher law" of modesty is better, but I'm having a hard time envisioning in detail how one would write Church guidelines for "teaching our kids that dressing in too sexual a fashion is harmful" without bringing up at all "cleavage, thighs, belly buttons, and shoulders" (or sagging pants, muscle shirts, tight/form-fitting clothes for boys). It seems like there has to be some lines in the sand spelled out in writing, somewhere and somehow, but the second that happens, then flags immediately go up. 

I would really be interested in an attempt to write some sort of rewrite by some of the "past modesty teaching" critics here (maybe a rewrite of the True to the Faith entry). I think it would be really hard in practice, and while we all aspire to "teach correct principles and let them govern themselves," that doesn't really work if the Church is putting out guidelines. There have to be some guidelines, don't there? How could those "new" ones hypothetically be phrased?

ETA: I like how TttF also emphasizes language and behavior. Those are often neglected in favor of solely dress standards, and they are really important (arguably more important than the dress standards).

Edited August 26, 2021 by rongo

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree that teaching a "higher law" of modesty is better, but I'm having a hard time envisioning in detail how one would write Church guidelines for "teaching our kids that dressing in too sexual a fashion is harmful" without bringing up at all "cleavage, thighs, belly buttons, and shoulders" (or sagging pants, muscle shirts, tight/form-fitting clothes for boys). It seems like there has to be some lines in the sand spelled out in writing, somewhere and somehow, but the second that happens, then flags immediately go up. 

I would really be interested in an attempt to write some sort of rewrite by some of the "past modesty teaching" critics here (maybe a rewrite of the True to the Faith entry). I think it would be really hard in practice, and while we all aspire to "teach correct principles and let them govern themselves," that doesn't really work if the Church is putting out guidelines. There have to be some guidelines, don't there? How could those "new" ones hypothetically be phrased?

ETA: I like how TttF also emphasizes language and behavior. Those are often neglected in favor of solely dress standards, and they are really important (arguably more important than the dress standards).

The teachings would focus more on mindful self-reflection and intention.

I will repeat my last post for an example:

Quote

I think this passage actually strengthens my point about how modesty should be taught - my point being that modesty should be all about our good intentions to communicate in a moral and modest way, and to be mindful and honest with ourselves about the underlying reasons for why we choose what we wear.  What are we trying to say?  What kind of attention are we trying to receive? Should I be comparing myself to other men/women and compete for status in such a way?  Is it centered in pride?  Is it centered in shame? Or, is it centered in self-respect and love/concern for others and for decency.  In other words, it focuses on the heart, and the intentions thereof.  

Often, immodest dress is only a symptom of a deeper issue of insecurity or poor self-esteem, or pride, envy, etc.  A higher law of modesty teaching would focus more on the core issues and teaching principles of self-respect and effective communication to get what we really want - which is not to be sexually objectified.  It would focus more on the "whys" rather than the "what's".  It would hyper-focus on self-worth and how to identify it, which when recognized causes us to act, speak, and dress in ways which inspire others to treat us as subjects of respect rather than objects of desire.  It would teach us how to get what we really want out of life (love, acceptance, respect) by focusing on self-love first through accepting and acknowledging the love of God for us and his estimation of our worth. 

Edited August 26, 2021 by pogi

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree that teaching a "higher law" of modesty is better, but I'm having a hard time envisioning in detail how one would write Church guidelines for "teaching our kids that dressing in too sexual a fashion is harmful" without bringing up at all "cleavage, thighs, belly buttons, and shoulders" (or sagging pants, muscle shirts, tight/form-fitting clothes for boys). It seems like there has to be some lines in the sand spelled out in writing, somewhere and somehow, but the second that happens, then flags immediately go up. 

What I'm saying is that we can teach those things (or rather, parents need to teach those things with light support from the church) but that we don't need to connect it so heavily to modesty.  We can teach them as two different issues.

Quote

 

I would really be interested in an attempt to write some sort of rewrite by some of the "past modesty teaching" critics here (maybe a rewrite of the True to the Faith entry). I think it would be really hard in practice, and while we all aspire to "teach correct principles and let them govern themselves," that doesn't really work if the Church is putting out guidelines. There have to be some guidelines, don't there? How could those "new" ones hypothetically be phrased?

ETA: I like how TttF also emphasizes language and behavior. Those are often neglected in favor of solely dress standards, and they are really important (arguably more important than the dress standards).

 

How does the church teach these guidelines to adults?  That might be one place to start.

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What I'm saying is that we can teach those things (or rather, parents need to teach those things with light support from the church) but that we don't need to connect it so heavily to modesty.  We can teach them as two different issues.

I am having a hard time understanding your concern about it being tied to modesty.  Can you explain your concern?  I don't see how still teaching those things, but not tying it to modesty, would resolve any issues.   If anything, it is just giving the issue a new name. 

Edited August 26, 2021 by pogi

[rongo]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What I'm saying is that we can teach those things (or rather, parents need to teach those things with light support from the church) but that we don't need to connect it so heavily to modesty.  We can teach them as two different issues.

How does the church teach these guidelines to adults?  That might be one place to start.

But we would still teach some sort of dress standards, then, right --- even if separately from modesty? Even if we "don't connect it so heavily to modesty," it would still be connected in some way. What I'm saying is that I don't think critics of how it's been done in the past can really give examples of what that would look like, where the line of demarcation would be, and how that would actually be done.

As far as adults, it's almost exclusively done in the context of what is taught in the temple and in the temple recommend interview (wearing garments night and day, not failing to wear garments when garments can reasonably be worn, etc.). To the extent that dress standards are taught at all to adults, it orbits the garment as a standard. To the extent that this is taught to adults, I would say this is true even of unendowed adults. 

[Danzo]

10 hours ago, bsjkki said:

This is very offensive.  This is a perfect example of why modesty teachings based on skin coverage are so harmful. 

I don't remember mentioning skin coverage in my post.  I appologize for any offence I have caused you.  Obviously, how I communicate does seem to cause harm, even though I assure you, no harm was intended. 

[ttribe]

Is it just my perception, or does it seem like 90%+ of the time it's men who are "teaching" women about what constitutes "proper" modesty?

[bsjkki]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

But we would still teach some sort of dress standards, then, right --- even if separately from modesty? Even if we "don't connect it so heavily to modesty," it would still be connected in some way. What I'm saying is that I don't think critics of how it's been done in the past can really give examples of what that would look like, where the line of demarcation would be, and how that would actually be done.

As far as adults, it's almost exclusively done in the context of what is taught in the temple and in the temple recommend interview (wearing garments night and day, not failing to wear garments when garments can reasonably be worn, etc.). To the extent that dress standards are taught at all to adults, it orbits the garment as a standard. To the extent that this is taught to adults, I would say this is true even of unendowed adults. 

You can dress with your garments in an entirely immodest way. Teen girls can be modestly attired without needing to dress like they already are wearing garments. So much in the Book of Mormon and Bible verses on modesty are more about costly attire to set oneself above others. Intent matters. I had a 'free agency' win today in my house. My daughter wanted to wear a thick strapped tank top to school and match her friends outfits for a senior day. I said that was fine (in the past, I wold have prohibited it outright). She got the tank top. Put in on this morning and decided she was not comfortable wearing that. Instead of battle royale and her resenting me and church standards, she was able to make the decision for herself. Double win, happy day. Her friends had no intent to be sexy or alluring. The tank tops were not scandalous. Very modest in the overall sense of a tank top. It's hard when we use words that 'other' those not of our faith. There is a disconnect then for our youth whose friends dress not to our standards but have no intent to be alluring. My very Catholic sister-in-law is very modest. She likes sleeveless business dresses and church attire. No one would say she is not modest in attire...except for those in our faith.

Edited August 26, 2021 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Is it just my perception, or does it seem like 90%+ of the time it's men who are "teaching" women about what constitutes "proper" modesty?

This does seem to be an overarching theme.

[bsjkki]

34 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't remember mentioning skin coverage in my post.  I appologize for any offence I have caused you.  Obviously, how I communicate does seem to cause harm, even though I assure you, no harm was intended. 

If I read your intent incorrectly, I would be relieved. But, it seemed you were saying girls who dress a certain way would be 'asking for it.' I have a very big problem with that. I hope I was wrong.

Edited August 26, 2021 by bsjkki

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Is it just my perception, or does it seem like 90%+ of the time it's men who are "teaching" women about what constitutes "proper" modesty?

Modesty is not just a woman issue.  We can't lose sight of that.  That is part of the problem with how it is currently taught, because we often do lose sight of that.  Men and women should have equal voice in this matter, because it affects them both.  

Edited August 26, 2021 by pogi

[Danzo]

21 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

If I read your intent incorrectly, I would be relieved. But, it seemed you were saying girls who dress a certain way would be 'asking for it.' I have a very big problem with that. I hope I was wrong.

That was not my intent at all.  I was actually intending to remove "Girls", "Clothing", and "dress" Completely from the discussion and focus on Communication in general, and our responsibilities for our communication and how we aren't responsible for overactions to such communication (Intended or not). 

Modesty and dress, is (or should be) a much broader subject than the percieved sexuality of the clothing (or lack thereof).

my point is that ones choice of clothing should be viewed as a form of communication that communicates many different things (sexuality being a small subset of what could be communicated). 

Often, a big part of modesty in clothing has to do with communicating status and using that status to make others feel inferior.  I think the scriptures refer to that type of modesty in dress more than dressing sexuality modest.  Also I think much immodest dress is immodest because it calls too much attention to the wearer (Not saying that attention is sexually, mostly it isn't, the clothing is loud, overly formal, overly informal or just different).  Often  when I see someone dressing to call attention to oneself (male, female, sexually or not) I think to myself "that person wants me to look at them"

 I think the same when someone has their hair a bright pink or other unusual loud color.  There is nothing sexual about it, but it seem to scream "Look at me".

Communication can be  a dificult thing (as demonstrated from my post and the responses to it). 

I am trying to remove sexual assult from the subject of modesty, clothing and communication from clothing, but it may be impossible.  If it is then just let me know and I will stop trying to comment in this thread.