- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is a topic that has been weighing on me for quite some time. I have been plagued by my own judgmental tendencies regarding the topic, which is part of the reason I had to get out of Utah (where my mind goes into “Mormon by default” mode and I judge everyone as if they were members). I’ve had this obsession with modesty/immodesty for as long as I can remember, honestly. Even today, I find it hard to avoid looking at immodesty for immodesty’s sake- not even for sexual stimulation. It’s a problem I struggle with daily. It isn’t particularly alarming or destructive, but it does show that I am still very judgmental of modesty. As an outsider to the female world, it always seemed to me that modesty was a simple/straightforward rule to me; you just buy/wear longer shorts and get t-shirts with sleeves. I’ve started to learn more recently that it isn’t so simple to follow due to the challenge in finding modest clothing and somewhat because of peer pressure or attention-seeking. I know it’s more complicated than that, but I’ll just keep things simple for now.
And now I find myself questioning why it really matters at all- particularly when it comes to showing shoulders or what you wear for exercise or swimsuits. I have determined that the underlying principle is to be careful about the messages you send by the way you present yourself… But that has little to do with whether your shoulders are showing. If women’s professional dress typically allows for bare shoulders, what is so bad about it for Mormons? Aside from garments, I honestly see no compelling reason. Bare shoulders are still sensible and do not draw attention to any part of the body associated with sexuality. I see no reason why tank top garments wouldn’t exist sometime in the future. I wouldn’t push for it; I just wouldn’t be surprised one way or the other. It would really help women a lot with stylistic expression even in cases where they cover their shoulders.
I won’t beat the dead horse on how it’s taught. We all probably agree it’s bad. Modesty is often backed with the rhetoric of “the female form is sexual/evil and must be covered” or “men can’t control themselves” which are both sexist, wrong, destructive ways of thinking. Moving on.
In my forays into the philosophies of nudism, I have come to confirm a truth I have known all along, but with a new depth in perspective: the human body is a beautiful and good creation of God. Sexuality is beautiful and God-given for the happiness of mankind. There are no ‘naughty’ parts of the body. No one part is more sacred than another and there is no need to be ashamed of what you have. Of course, you can always work to renovate your temple (e.g. losing weight, getting muscles) and feel free decorate and adorn it with clothing and/or makeup. Bodily, sexuality, and even nudity taboos are largely counterproductive.
I feel the underlying principle of modesty is more about the messages your clothing sends than about what skin is exposed. Some clothing draws attention to certain body parts, usually those associated with sexuality- thus elevating those parts of the body to a higher status, thus sexually objectifying said person. Clothing that does this is immodest. The rules we set for the most part line up with this… Except for shoulders. Bare shoulders draw attention to… nothing in particular. If anything, they’re really only possibly an issue for muscular men (and women). If we taught the principle rather than a bunch of rules, individuals could make that judgement themselves.
Modestly concerns messages of status. A diamond studded suit would be immodest for men (or women) because it sends the message “Look at me! I’m filthy stinkin rich!” Same for expensive designer clothing and fancy purses. I could even apply this to unnecessarily owning fancy luxury cars or bigger-than-is-practical mansions. It’s okay to be rich, but you need to be careful about how you show it.
I’m rambling a bit. Shoulders. Not a big deal. We often depict Nephite women with bare shoulders- even in official church movies like The Testaments. Then why is it part of the FTSOY standards?
My best guess is that it’s a pushback to current trends backed by an us vs them mentality. Our church just loves the “look at us; we’re different” mentality and I think it has bitten us in the ass plenty of times before. Mormons are “not Christian” from overfocusing on the BoM is a good example.
There is no TR question of “do you dress modestly?” Even if there were, does God really care that much about the minutia? Or is it more about the messages we send by what we show off to others?
Beefster wrote:In my forays into the philosophies of nudism, I have come to confirm a truth I have known all along, but with a new depth in perspective: the human body is a beautiful and good creation of God. Sexuality is beautiful and God-given for the happiness of mankind. There are no ‘naughty’ parts of the body. No one part is more sacred than another and there is no need to be ashamed of what you have. Of course, you can always work to renovate your temple (e.g. losing weight, getting muscles) and feel free decorate and adorn it with clothing and/or makeup. Bodily, sexuality, and even nudity taboos are largely counterproductive.
I feel the underlying principle of modesty is more about the messages your clothing sends than about what skin is exposed. Some clothing draws attention to certain body parts, usually those associated with sexuality- thus elevating those parts of the body to a higher status, thus sexually objectifying said person. Clothing that does this is immodest. The rules we set for the most part line up with this… Except for shoulders. Bare shoulders draw attention to… nothing in particular. If anything, they’re really only possibly an issue for muscular men (and women). If we taught the principle rather than a bunch of rules, individuals could make that judgement themselves.
Let the church say amen!
Yep. In trying so hard to avoid sexualization, we act immodestly (in an extreme manner) and, this, naturally, end up sexualizing. Modesty means moderation (and includes the proper behavior for individual situations) – and it applies to almost every aspect of life, not just how we dress.
We have lost that full understanding, generally speaking.
On one end of the clothing spectrum, immodesty is nudism; on the other end, it is a full body covering, exposing nothing. There are appropriate times and places for either extreme, as long as those extremes are employed in moderation and at appropriate times and in appropriate situations.
Defining “appropriate” is the issue – and it is there that we screw up the teaching the most, I believe. It requires teaching correct principles and then having people govern themselves, as you said – and we tend to do neither well.
I have been considering something that Ray once said. It was that the appropriateness of our clothing can vary depending on the activity. In thinking about this I have been toying with different categories. External
1)Climate – This is fairly self explanatory. What is appropriate for the Sahara is not appropriate for Antarctica.
2)Activity – What is appropriate for swimming is not appropriate for yard work.
3)Culture – I do believe that there is value in consideration and respect for the people around you and their cultural values. Therefore, if a woman is visiting a beach in Saudi Arabia she may dress differently than she would at a beach in California out of respect for those around her.
Internal
1)Personal Values – I believe that this would take into account the healthy respect that one should have for the body as a complete and amazing organism. This also factors in the personal standards and values of the individual. I believe that this can serve as a balance to the external factors listed above. One should usually not act or dress in a way that violates their conscience – despite the circumstances.
3)Intent – I also believe that intent can be an important element. Where is the heart behind dressing a certain way? Is the intent to aggrandize yourself and diminish others? Is the intent to provoke a response?
I could talk all the live long day on this topic. Women didn’t even wear underwear as we know it for most of history, at least not between their legs (they wore a shift or lightweight dress under their clothing), and this was mostly because of hygiene and health as well as bathroom convenience. I was talking to the women at Beehive clothing about the unhealthiness of some of these choices – Carinessa doesn’t even breathe, like at all, you might as well be wearing a scuba suit under your clothes (which is kind of the point because women don’t like all the bunching of fabrics, and it leaves a smooth line). They agreed. Women who are doctors or nurses are aware that we are putting women at more risk for yeast infections, heat rash, and other problems, not to mention the issues with maternity garments. Regular underwear is better, although no underwear is probably most healthy of all. Personally, I think part of the problem is that the endowment was secretive when it first started. It was all men at first, and the garment symbolized that they were involved in polygamy. The women didn’t want to be excluded, so they asked for a female endowment, and basically, ever since, women have been wearing men’s underwear. Men’s outdated underwear. It’s been modified and feminized since the 1930s or so (maybe the 40s), but up to that point, it was just like the men’s. And yet women’s fashions and women’s health are very very different from men’s. Women could save money by sewing their own clothes until around the 1970s when sewing using patterns became a wealthy woman’s hobby rather than a poor woman’s saving trick. But nowadays, we buy our clothes off the rack, and people making them aren’t thinking about the needs of a minority religion. I’ve even tried to use Stitch Fix, where they send you 5 items of clothing & accessories in a box, and despite instructions that “sleeveless is not an option,” I continued to receive clothes that didn’t really have a “cap” sleeve because to most conservatives, a wide shoulder strap is totally fine – some object to a spaghetti strap or halter style.
Another issue is that all our current leaders are hopelessly conservative and loath to change anything to the status quo, even when the changes are common sense. They don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and they seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the two. And the irony is that church members are primed to embrace ANY change the church throws at them because of our obedience-to-leaders culture. But women are simply not a priority because our needs are not understood, and our discomfort is rationalized as an easy sacrifice. Women’s whole lives are supposed to be about sacrifice anyway, so it doesn’t matter to decision makers. My two cents.
My views are doubtless colored by inside information I had that when they voted to kill the cap sleeves, there was only one hold out (Packer), so we kept them.
Perhaps if Packer was the holdout on cap sleeves, he was also the one behind the shoulder standard in FTSoY… With him dead, I wonder what other changes might be in store… Maybe women will get the priesthood? 
If the endowment wasn’t originally for women, that explains why the women’s covenants and such are worded differently.
FTSoY is pretty much the only one-shot publication that is against showing shoulders. It’s rather strange.
The present FTSoY is the first one with the shoulder issue. Earlier ones (1950’s) warned about not being seen in public with curlers in your hair. (Which for the record they stole from Cary Grant.) It was never even brought up when I was a teen. Bare-midriffs was the big no-no. You could Dazy Duke and sleeveless all you want. Then some one got the bright idea that we should teach girls to dress temple ready, even when they are six years old. Everything went down hill from there. Judgement reined supreme. Now look at us. We send our girls to drown at girls camp wearing more clothing than you use for Red Cross Lifesaving Lessons.
To adapt an old Catholic quote I used to hear, “If God wanted you to keep your shoulder’s covered, he would have made you with out them.”
And really – what are boys supposed to keep covered. I still haven’t heard that lesson yet. At least Jewish boys cover their heads.
As I see it the emphasis on modesty in dress is to try and keep people from seeing others in an unhealthy, sexualized way and in doing that help to reduce pornography and eventually immoral and unchaste behavior. To whit Elder Oakes comment that immodest dress in girls makes them pornography to young men. IMHO the best way to achieve that end is to start with an open door home and exposure of all family members to normal healthy nudity. Seeing the body as it is without the stigma of sexualization would go a long way to help people, especially children, see the human body as normal. The next step for me is chaste social nudity where people can enjoy the benefits of being nude without the judgment that goes with comparing yourself to an unrealistic social standard while in a safe and welcoming environment. Nudism/naturism is a great social leveler, a real education, and a lot of fun and if indulged in with the right frame of mind, not even remotely sinful. Pornography 
= Nudity. Sure, you can look at nudity with the intent of arousal even with non-sexual nudity, but it’s very context-dependent outside that. It’s a bit too close for comfort for some people and that is fine, but I think you’re spot on about children. Naked shame is learned. Nudity is also physically and mentally healthy. I seem to be on the path toward nudism and I kinda like it. I hope I can get my future wife on board and create a home where nudity just isn’t a big deal because we see each other naked all the time. At the very least, I’ll have a clothing-optional hot tub (assuming I have a hot tub).mom3 wrote:
The present FTSoY is the first one with the shoulder issue. Earlier ones (1950’s) warned about not being seen in public with curlers in your hair. (Which for the record they stole from Cary Grant.)
Much like how in Corinthians, Paul tells the women to cover their hair. It made sense at the time- it was mostly the prostitutes who would attract men with their hair- but obviously this does not apply to today’s world. Standards change.I just find it funny the FTSoY says something like “The world will change its standards and fashions, but the Lord’s standards do not change.” FTSoY must not be the Lord’s standards then…
It would be true, however, to say that the underlying principle has never changed; be careful about the messages you send by the way you dress.
Beefster wrote:
I’ve had this obsession with modesty/immodesty for as long as I can remember, honestly. Even today, I find it hard to avoid looking at immodesty for immodesty’s sake- not even for sexual stimulation. It’s a problem I struggle with daily.
Blame Sharing Time and FHE lessons from your childhood. Nothing makes me cringe so much as a lesson where we teach kids to judge people based on appearances, as if that isn’t already human nature. Kids need to grasp the idea that “God loves everyone” and “we are all brothers and sisters” LONG before we try to teach them to be “righteous judges in Zion”. Doing it backwards just makes it harder for them to be Christlike in the long run.
For me, as a female, when wearing garments, dressing modestly as defined by the church has gone one of two ways: 1) acceptably attractive yet uncomfortable and bunchy due to awkwardness of so many layers, or 2) comfortable and not bunchy, but dumpy-looking. I usually went with #2 (before I stopped wearing garments).
Old Timer wrote:
Modesty means moderation (and includes the proper behavior for individual situations) – and it applies to almost every aspect of life, not just how we dress.We have lost that full understanding, generally speaking.
BINGO.
Modesty should refer to more than clothing, and dressing modestly should refer to more than hemlines.
🙄 Modesty is an internal state. It will naturally often manifest in external ways such as clothing, but that external manifestation will vary widely, dependent upon cultural variables. We really do ourselves a disservice by trying to make Law-of-Moses style rules about it, because when people focus on the black-and-white rules in order to LOOK modest, they forget to shift themselves internally and BE modest people.I try hard to teach “modesty” to my kids in the broader, internal sense. I really want them to understand it correctly, and not in the narrow Pharisaical sense into which our church culture has regretfully corralled it. Modesty means not posting excessive selfies with the
intentionof getting as many “likes” as possible. It means not bragging or cutting others down. It means not using words, actions, or wearing clothes that might make your peers feel sad or jealous or inferior. It means not behaving (including dressing) to get attention or praise. (And how all of this manifests will depend very heavily on CONTEXT: WHERE we live and WHO our peers are.) Modesty means our lives are swallowed up in Christ. It’s not about US. Our identity is just an extension of Him. We live for others, not for ourselves. Modesty includes humility such that we know we have no right to judge someone because they wear something frumpy, ripped, cheap, stained, “immodest” or “inappropriate”, or because they swear or drink or act differently from how we would act. It includes acknowledging that only God knows the heart of another, and looking at someone’s physical appearance is NOT a reliable way to know that person’s heart. It’s been a frequent topic lately for us, because my kids just went back to public school after four years of homeschooling, and there’s social pressure there to appear a certain way, because they’re at the middle school in grades 6 and 8 (everyone’s favorite grades, right? lol). And we’re in one of the more affluent school districts in town. Noticeable contrast from homeschooling and getting all their clothes at the thrift store. I also vehemently object to the hemline rules and the garments covering so much surface area, and that is the fact that Vitamin D deficiency is rampant and autoimmune illness rates are skyrocketing, and those who variables are intimately connected such that the more sun hits a person’s skin the less likely she is to EVER get a debilitating autoimmune illness. Likewise, autism is intimately linked to low Vitamin D level in the mother during pregnancy. So with the combination of post-Victorian excessive clothing and post-industrial service economy where we collectively spend too much time indoors, we are making ourselves ever more ill, and Mormon hemline rules are NOT helping. I’ve lived in Utah a few times, and during one of those times, some coworkers and I came up with the proposition that we should get the symbols tattooed on and do away with garments. It can’t happen soon enough for me, as I can’t currently attend the temple due to sensory processing issues that prevent me wearing garments anymore, which sensory issues only became debilitating enough to cause me to stop wearing garments after four years in upstate NY where the short summers didn’t supply enough sun on my “modestly dressed” bod to last me through the endless winters! Coincidence? Who knows.
I’d forgotten the issues with increased likelihood of infection until hawkgrrl’s post reminded me, but clearly there are multiple health reasons for adjusting the current garment and clothing rules/guidelines.
Modesty is one of several words that have taken on a completely different meaning for Mormons than what they typically mean to everyone else. To most people modest would simply mean something like not extravagant. And many non-Mormons that would certainly feel uncomfortable about their teenage daughters wearing relatively provocative clothing would find nothing wrong with many clothes that would still be considered “immodest” by LDS standards. That’s because in the LDS subculture “modest” has come to mostly mean clothing that would cover garments which is apparently especially important for women for whatever reasons. To me it looks very similar to the Word of Wisdom in that it basically functions as a loyalty test to see who will do what they are told to basically separate the in-group from the out-group as a form of externally visible virtue signalling. So to most of the world there is nothing wrong with drinking coffee or tea but in the LDS Church it is treated as a deliberate show of disobedience and therefore heavily frowned upon and it is the same way with sleeveless dresses, short shorts, tattoos, crosses, and whatever other current LDS taboos. The interesting thing about this to me is that this one (covering shoulders and legs practically down to the knees) is a relatively new development at least as far as being expected of members that have not gone through the temple yet.
squarepeg wrote:
I try hard to teach “modesty” to my kids in the broader, internal sense. I really want them to understand it correctly, and not in the narrow Pharisaical sense into which our church culture has regretfully corralled it. Modesty means not posting excessive selfies with theintentionof getting as many “likes” as possible. It means not bragging or cutting others down. It means not using words, actions, or wearing clothes that might make your peers feel sad or jealous or inferior. It means not behaving (including dressing) to get attention or praise. (And how all of this manifests will depend very heavily on CONTEXT: WHERE we live and WHO our peers are.) Modesty means our lives are swallowed up in Christ. It’s not about US. Our identity is just an extension of Him. We live for others, not for ourselves. Modesty includes humility such that we know we have no right to judge someone because they wear something frumpy, ripped, cheap, stained, “immodest” or “inappropriate”, or because they swear or drink or act differently from how we would act. It includes acknowledging that only God knows the heart of another, and looking at someone’s physical appearance is NOT a reliable way to know that person’s heart.
I love everything you said squarepeg.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.