Burkas, modesty rhetoric and where do we go from here

[Vanguard]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't think any line because they will feel inside if something doesn't feel comfortable, I'm thinking. Joseph Smith said something about governing ourselves right?

But that's assuming there is sufficient agreement between adult & adolescent regards to what should be acceptable within any given venue, correct? My experience with the church youth groups tells me this might be a bit difficult. What happens when there is disagreement?  

[The Nehor]

I think C.S. Lewis’s distinction is worth considering.

“The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of ‘modesty’ (in one sense of that word); i.e. propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally ‘modest’, proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). Some of the language which chaste women used in Shakespeare’s time would have been used in the nineteenth century only by a woman completely abandoned.”

“When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable.”

“I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing. At its present stage, however, it has this inconvenience, that people of different ages and different types do not all acknowledge the same standard, and we hardly know where we are. While this confusion lasts I think that old, old-fashioned, people should be very careful not to assume that young or ’emancipated’ people are corrupt whenever they are (by the old standard) improper; and, in return, that young people should not call their elders prudes or puritans because they do not easily adopt the new standard. A real desire to believe all the good you can of others and to make others as comfortable as you can will solve most of the problems.”

 

Also a good reminder that older adults have always freaked out over ‘what the kids are wearing these days’.

Edited August 21, 2021 by The Nehor

[Vanguard]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think C.S. Lewis’s distinction is worth considering.

“The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of ‘modesty’ (in one sense of that word); i.e. propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally ‘modest’, proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). Some of the language which chaste women used in Shakespeare’s time would have been used in the nineteenth century only by a woman completely abandoned.”

“When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable.”

“I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing. At its present stage, however, it has this inconvenience, that people of different ages and different types do not all acknowledge the same standard, and we hardly know where we are. While this confusion lasts I think that old, old-fashioned, people should be very careful not to assume that young or ’emancipated’ people are corrupt whenever they are (by the old standard) improper; and, in return, that young people should not call their elders prudes or puritans because they do not easily adopt the new standard. A real desire to believe all the good you can of others and to make others as comfortable as you can will solve most of the problems.”

 

Also a good reminder that older adults have always freaked out over ‘what the kids are wearing these days’.

You beat me to it! Absolutely beautiful quote and I agree with it entirely. : )

[secondclasscitizen]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The bold made me think back on the day I showed up to play church volley ball and was sent home for wearing a sleeveless shirt. Luckily I had a sweet young women's leader that made it not be so traumatic.

I got sent home from a stake dance for dress code. I wasn’t wearing socks with my topsiders… no one did then. Anyway we left and just went to the cruise instead and drank beer all night. They sure showed us. 
 

Also the wife of the Bishop who was assigned the purity inspections called my mom about an hour later because we didn’t come back. That said I got in trouble at 2am when I got home for not going back to the dance but I didn’t get an earful about being drunk.. ⁉️ 

one must always use an interrobang when appropriate. 

socks were more important 

Edited August 21, 2021 by secondclasscitizen

[Vanguard]

11 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

I got sent home from a stake dance for dress code. I wasn’t wearing socks with my topsiders… no one did then. Anyway we left and just went to the cruise instead and drank beer all night. They sure showed us. 
 

Also the wife of the Bishop who was assigned the purity inspections called my mom about an hour later because we didn’t come back. That said I got in trouble at 2am when I got home for not going back to the dance but I didn’t get an earful about being drunk.. ⁉️ 

one must always use an interrobang when appropriate. 

socks were more important 

But this is an appeal to what many believe is a ridiculous standard. It says nothing about a theoretically appropriate standard to be enforced. If there is one, how would this standard be enforced without running afoul of many of the complaints on this thread?

Edited August 22, 2021 by Vanguard

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

I got sent home from a stake dance for dress code. I wasn’t wearing socks with my topsiders… no one did then. Anyway we left and just went to the cruise instead and drank beer all night. They sure showed us. 
 

Also the wife of the Bishop who was assigned the purity inspections called my mom about an hour later because we didn’t come back. That said I got in trouble at 2am when I got home for not going back to the dance but I didn’t get an earful about being drunk.. ⁉️ 

one must always use an interrobang when appropriate. 

socks were more important 

Sounds like you showed them!

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Traela said:

A compassionate and practical mission president told his missionaries that one inadvertent look was just seeing, a second quick look just confirmed that they saw what they thought they saw.  Anything more was “looking at a woman to lust after her” and should not happen.  I believe this is how we should be teaching all the young men, and women, to deal with their hormones.

My companion and I had a dinner appointment one evening with a part-member family in our ward. The kids ranged in age from high school to an infant. During the meal, the member mum pulled up her top and fed the baby. I never even noticed. I grew up in a culture where, in harmony with the Church's teaching that female breasts are 'intended to nourish and comfort children' and are not supposed to be 'sexual enticements', seeing women feed babies was just a regular part of life -- in homes, at church, basically wherever.

When our visit was over and we got in the car, my poor companion had a complete freak-out. He was appalled that she would do that in front of him. He had no idea where to look. Etc.

The mission president's advice may have been useful for my companion? I honestly don't know. The clear message that politely and innocently looking up from my plate whenever this mum spoke to me was somehow 'lustful' would have confused me.

[secondclasscitizen]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Sounds like you showed them!

Nope they showed me. The standard is unwavering.  No man shall pass without socks. I mean who would want to go to the cruise and drink beer instead right?

 

[secondclasscitizen]

On 8/20/2021 at 11:58 AM, bOObOO said:

The dress code thing is not a big deal to me.  Seems to be like a dress code requirement for women to wear a burqa in that country.  If I was a woman and didn't like the burqa requirement then I would just leave that country while wearing a burqa until I crossed the border out of that country.  To be safe, until I could leave.  But when in Rome I would expect to do as Romans are told to do, by Roman law..

So while the burqa doesn't upset me, there are some things which do.  Like being raped or forced into being the wife of some man against a woman's will.  Those are definitely some things which would inspire me to want to get out of that country.

I hope every woman who wants to leave a country is able to leave.  Even if leaving a country was against the law, though, I would still find a way to leave that country.  To live in a country with laws I am willing to live by.

Women are not allowed to travel freely in Afghanistan in most areas. If her husband or adult relative isn’t escorting her she will be enslaved, kidnapped, murdered, raped, stoned etc. not as easy as just walking away. Where she gonna go packistan??? Lol same crap there too

[secondclasscitizen]

6 hours ago, Vanguard said:

But this is an appeal to what many believe is a ridiculous standard. It says nothing about a theoretically appropriate standard to be enforced. If there is one, how would this standard be enforced without running afoul of many of the complaints on this thread?

They were not enforcing the theoretical standard tho. Bishop (Pharisee) at the door just making up his own rules for the stake youth because he can. Find me a strength for youth book or whatever they had 40 yrs ago and show me where they were waxing poetic about socks. Sure wasn’t on the church dance card dress standards. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My companion and I had a dinner appointment one evening with a part-member family in our ward. The kids ranged in age from high school to an infant. During the meal, the member mum pulled up her top and fed the baby. I never even noticed. I grew up in a culture where, in harmony with the Church's teaching that female breasts are 'intended to nourish and comfort children' and are not supposed to be 'sexual enticements', seeing women feed babies was just a regular part of life -- in homes, at church, basically wherever.

When our visit was over and we got in the car, my poor companion had a complete freak-out. He was appalled that she would do that in front of him. He had no idea where to look. Etc.

The mission president's advice may have been useful for my companion? I honestly don't know. The clear message that politely and innocently looking up from my plate whenever this mum spoke to me was somehow 'lustful' would have confused me.

My husband took his glasses off.  At least now he doesn’t describe looking as lustful and he never thought it inappropriate on the woman’s part, just something he wasn’t comfortable with because he grew up in a different culture.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Calm

[Rain]

12 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

I got sent home from a stake dance for dress code. I wasn’t wearing socks with my topsiders… no one did then. Anyway we left and just went to the cruise instead and drank beer all night. They sure showed us. 
 

Also the wife of the Bishop who was assigned the purity inspections called my mom about an hour later because we didn’t come back. That said I got in trouble at 2am when I got home for not going back to the dance but I didn’t get an earful about being drunk.. ⁉️ 

one must always use an interrobang when appropriate. 

socks were more important 

There is definitely something to be said about how you go about the dress code. My husband chaperoned a stake dance once and one of his young men came in that didn't meet the dress code. 

I don't remember the problem.  Something like the code was Sunday best and he had a leather jacket and chains?

Anyway, the other leaders wanted to send him away, but my husband wouldn't and showed him love instead.  In the years that followed you could tell what this meant to the young man.  He didn't rush back to church thinking, but when my husband suggested things he was so much more apt to listen because he knew it was done out of love.

That said, there has to be more going on here. It's going to be highly unusual that someone gets turned away for socks and heads out to go drink.  The socks thing was stupid, but deciding to drink would have been your own choice.  I'm not saying that you said something otherwise.  Just that there is a wide gulf there that can't all be blamed on the leaders.   

[BlueDreams]

On 8/20/2021 at 4:12 AM, bsjkki said:

*For girls camp, my daughter did not receive detailed guidelines for her packing list. They referred girls to the strength of youth. No more t-shirts over swimsuits. No ban on shorts. No requiring capris be two inches below the knee. No one sent home for ‘inappropriate’ attire. It’s hot outside.

Haven’t had time to read the whole thread but I wanted to mention that for our ward young women’s camp there wasn’t anything mentioned on attire. Clothes guidelines were practical. As in bring a sweater for cold mountain nights. 
We have girls with anxiety, girls with mental health concerns, girls who’ve felt ostracized by the larger lds and/or white/conservative community in our area (ward is a Spanish speaking ward), girls who are obviously struggling to fit in and making other poor decisions doing so. The least of our concerns were whether they wore a tank top or a t-shirt, long shorts or short ones. 
 

I refuse to teach them modesty as I was taught it. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[secondclasscitizen]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

There is definitely something to be said about how you go about the dress code. My husband chaperoned a stake dance once and one of his young men came in that didn't meet the dress code. 

I don't remember the problem.  Something like the code was Sunday best and he had a leather jacket and chains?

Anyway, the other leaders wanted to send him away, but my husband wouldn't and showed him love instead.  In the years that followed you could tell what this meant to the young man.  He didn't rush back to church thinking, but when my husband suggested things he was so much more apt to listen because he knew it was done out of love.

That said, there has to be more going on here. It's going to be highly unusual that someone gets turned away for socks and heads out to go drink.  The socks thing was stupid, but deciding to drink would have been your own choice.  I'm not saying that you said something otherwise.  Just that there is a wide gulf there that can't all be blamed on the leaders.   

I’m not saying this caused me to go out and drink. That’s what I did every weekend anyway. I was just at the dance because every single church activity my parents required me to attend whether I wanted to or not. Being the stake pres kid that is part of the game so I was just following orders. 
 

That being said I just happened to get turned away because of the socks. I’m sure there were others before and after me as that was how topsiders or boat shoes  were worn. It was not part of the dress code and never was. That particular bishop elected to play Pharisee that night. This isn’t Utah so most didn’t just live a short walk or a block away from the building. I was a 20min drive. We just decided to go do what we normally do. 

i got in trouble for disrespecting the bishop by not going home and putting socks on. 

[Logan]

The real question for me is why LDS women and girls want to dress immodestly.

And the only answer I can think of is that they want to fit in with the world and look attractive by worldly standards. 

Deemphasizing modesty in the church isn't helping our young women and adult women. It's doing them a disservice. And it's doing a disservice to everyone.

Our goal should not be to be like the world. Our goal should be to rise above the world and be willing to be mocked and scorned for the cause of Christ.

The church should be a refuge from the storm of worldliness. When I send my kids off to their weekly youth activities my hope is that they are being taught to be different. My teenage kids are exposed to the world almost everywhere they go. Is it too much to ask that at church things are different and they have a support system of fellow believers who have higher standards than Babylon. 

 

[Vanguard]

9 minutes ago, Logan said:

The real question for me is why LDS women and girls want to dress immodestly.

And the only answer I can think of is that they want to fit in with the world and look attractive by worldly standards. 

Deemphasizing modesty in the church isn't helping our young women and adult women. It's doing them a disservice. And it's doing a disservice to everyone.

Our goal should not be to be like the world. Our goal should be to rise above the world and be willing to be mocked and scorned for the cause of Christ.

The church should be a refuge from the storm of worldliness. When I send my kids off to their weekly youth activities my hope is that they are being taught to be different. My teenage kids are exposed to the world almost everywhere they go. Is it too much to ask that at church things are different and they have a support system of fellow believers who have higher standards than Babylon. 

 

Nicely said. And welcome to the board. ; )

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Logan said:

The real question for me is why LDS women and girls want to dress immodestly.

And the only answer I can think of is that they want to fit in with the world and look attractive by worldly standards. 

Deemphasizing modesty in the church isn't helping our young women and adult women. It's doing them a disservice. And it's doing a disservice to everyone.

Our goal should not be to be like the world. Our goal should be to rise above the world and be willing to be mocked and scorned for the cause of Christ.

Instead of being mocked by the world the kids get insulted and humiliated by church leaders and then as soon as they have the option many of them leave and do not return.

The modesty standards are not some unimpeachable eternal standard of what is allowed. In New Testament times Christians were both more and less modest in different areas. There is a battle between Zion and the world but you are worrying about a backwater theater of the war at best.

8 minutes ago, Logan said:

The church should be a refuge from the storm of worldliness. When I send my kids off to their weekly youth activities my hope is that they are being taught to be different. My teenage kids are exposed to the world almost everywhere they go. Is it too much to ask that at church things are different and they have a support system of fellow believers who have higher standards than Babylon. 

I have no idea if it is too much to ask but you are going to have a bunch of leaders and kids with various standards. We should strive to have a standard of virtue for the kids at all personal levels to emulate. Meeting what is often the local arbitrary dress code is not a good indicator of worthiness.

[Logan]

15 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Nicely said. And welcome to the board. ; )

Thanks

[secondclasscitizen]

6 hours ago, Logan said:

The real question for me is why LDS women and girls want to dress immodestly.

And the only answer I can think of is that they want to fit in with the world and look attractive by worldly standards. 

Deemphasizing modesty in the church isn't helping our young women and adult women. It's doing them a disservice. And it's doing a disservice to everyone.

 

I think ( I’m just a man so just my uneducated opinion) some of the girls and women just want to look prettier or sexier. That said a tank top for a girl isn’t really all that whorish and neither are shorts that go two inches above the knee. 
 

if the modesty thing is really a thing we need to quit placing women who have bolt on boobs in leadership positions over the youth. They are meant to be proudly displayed and even in modest clothes they look pretty good except for a few outrageous cases.  What screams immodesty louder than that? Still get a temple recommend though. The youth know that. My ward had a swim party a few weeks ago and we have ohhhh let’s say a dozen women approx with after market add ons. A sight to see even in modest swim suits. 

Lots of fat dudes in t shirts and swim trunks and several moms with one piece suits and fake gear. Ohhhh and before I forget not even any masks. 

Poster removed

[Logan]

6 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

I think ( I’m just a man so just my uneducated opinion) some of the girls and women just want to look prettier or sexier. That said a tank top for a girl isn’t really all that whorish and neither are shorts that go two inches above the knee. 
 

if the modesty thing is really a thing we need to quit placing women who have bolt on boobs in leadership positions over the youth. They are meant to be proudly displayed and even in modest clothes they look pretty good except for a few outrageous cases.  What screams immodesty louder than that? Still get a temple recommend though. The youth know that. My ward had a swim party a few weeks ago and we have ohhhh let’s say a dozen women approx with after market add ons. A sight to see even in modest swim suits. 

Lots of fat dudes in t shirts and swim trunks and several moms with one piece suits and fake gear. Ohhhh and before I forget not even any masks. 

Yeah our women and girls do want to look "prettier and sexier." That's exact what Babylon is telling them to do everywhere they turn. 

But instead of continuing to compromise and embrace the latest immodest styles, as a Church we need to hold the line and stand firm in our standards of modesty. We need to teach our women that being modest and virtuous is what is attractive, not dressing like Daisy Duke or worse. 

I totally agree with your boob job thoughts. Many of our young women leaders are setting a horrible example for our young women in this regard. 

[Logan]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Instead of being mocked by the world the kids get insulted and humiliated by church leaders and then as soon as they have the option many of them leave and do not return.

The modesty standards are not some unimpeachable eternal standard of what is allowed. In New Testament times Christians were both more and less modest in different areas. There is a battle between Zion and the world but you are worrying about a backwater theater of the war at best.

I have no idea if it is too much to ask but you are going to have a bunch of leaders and kids with various standards. We should strive to have a standard of virtue for the kids at all personal levels to emulate. Meeting what is often the local arbitrary dress code is not a good indicator of worthiness.

You can teach and maintain high standards of modesty without "insulting and humilating" people. 

Our basic standards of modesty (and everything else) should be the same. There shouldn't be different standards for everyone. 

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Nope they showed me. The standard is unwavering.  No man shall pass without socks. I mean who would want to go to the cruise and drink beer instead right?

 

You showed them that a little teaching by the spirit rather than the made up rules, would have prevented you from cruisin and beerzin!

[BlueDreams]

22 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

In my opinion, in this setup we are destructive to the very institution we uphold as most precious: marriage.  I am all for the changes I am beginning to see and mourn that I missed that window as a youth raised in the era just following the sexual revolution- the purity era, the modesty era etc.  I trust myself entirely to be classy, appropriate, etc when left to my own device.

I feel like I got a bit of the tug-of-war between two culturally extreme messages. It reminded me of that cartoon with a woman in a burka v a woman in a bikini both judging each other on sexual objectification and repression. 
At church I got the messages of the “modesty era” and saw many of its short comings. I’m the larger culture I got more the over-sexualizing of women and some of it’s fallouts and problems as well (it still often focused on male sexuality than female embracement of their own bodies and self-expression…just on the other end of purposely trying to attract them)

neither message allowed me to be me. Someone who genuinely enjoys her body for myself but also really enjoys attracting my husband (or when I was younger a person I’m interested in). Obviously since I grew up with the (US) church community playing a disproportionate  role in my life it’s the modesty/purity message that’s been more of a direct annoyance. The flaws were obvious to me…in part because I’m usually deemed on the pretty end of people. So some of the common rationales around it fell flat. What was the point of “helping the young men” when no matter what I dressed in I could attract unwanted attention? It also meant when rules were enforced I was more likely to be noticed. Some rules were confusing and arbitrary like the ones at BYU’s swimming pool when I was a student. Several times my swimsuit was deemed inappropriate even after I bought one that I thought met their standards (that were definitely stricter than the usual…this was when I only wore tankinis or one-pieces that completely covered my belly). They’d offer a huge t-shirt which is antithetical to swimming laps…which was all that I was there for. 
in some ways I actually likely having garments because it simplified the set of rules. All I had to do was cover up my g’s. My shorts and dresses actually got shorter, because most of my g’s got to my mid thigh (I’m long legged but petite). I didn’t have to care about some pamphlet’s guidelines. I was doing the one thing that was now expected of me. When there was a reason not to wear g’s I also didn’t care what I wore as long as it made sense for the occasion. Like many of my married friends, I bought a bikini for the first time this year, because we like flirting with our spouses and why not? The reasons not to don’t make sense. Because more than my husband’s eyes will see me? Yeah, welcome to my daily existence. My husband caught a dude at my bro’s wedding checking out my butt over and over again in a knee length skirt and a loose blouse that covered my wrists. 
More than one of my (pornography related) clients have noted sexual attraction to me and blamed it on my professional outfits as opposed to their poorly managed drives. I don’t care about men outside of my spouse at this point. So if they check me out they check me out. And if they can’t manage their thoughts, that’s theirs to work through and be accountable to, not mine. I don’t even notice them at this point unless they’re SUPER obvious about it. 

to me there is a big difference between being my brother’s keeper and being my brother’s enabler. When I’ve dressed to manage other people’s expectations of me I wasn’t really helping anyone. Their anxieties around bodies were now just pushed onto mine. When I’ve helped people manage their feelings and learn to accept their desires while helping them to reorient people as people with separate desires instead of solely objects, I’m helping them function healthily in society. Society is full of people they’ll find attractive or arousing. Finding ways to Avoid that fact helps no one. 
 

my problem outside of church culture is one that can lean to over-sexualizing women for men’s pleasure. It’s often enabled unwanted attention and ignoring women’s actual desires for their own. 
and for both cultures the insistence on clothes as markers of social status and over consumption/materialistic bends are still a huge problem either way. That to me goes more against the scriptural definition of modesty. Where our excess consumption and focus on looks can come at heavy spiritual and environmental costs. 

EDIT: I should note that I wouldn’t expect YW to live up to wearing garments before going for their endowments. A) that’s not their covenant b) how they fit on them will likely differ from me and c) that’s not the point of garments to me anyways

with luv, 

BD 

Edited August 22, 2021 by BlueDreams

[secondclasscitizen]

Just now, Tacenda said:

You showed them that a little teaching by the spirit rather than the made up rules, would have prevented you from cruisin and beerzin!

Perhaps but just for that night. Also taught me the other ward’s bishop was a jerk but that’s not a unique trait. 

[secondclasscitizen]

19 minutes ago, Logan said:

Yeah our women and girls do want to look "prettier and sexier." That's exact what Babylon is telling them to do everywhere they turn.

Then we need to start banning makeup, earrings, dresses above the ankle, hair coloring, perms and make them all just like dudes. 

and then there is this gem

 

https://missedinsunday.com/memes/sexism/ugly-knees/