- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think any kind of feedback — given in a kind way, would be welcome to me personally — particularly if it made the woman uncomfortable because I was staring. I had one woman who totally dressed me down (speaking figuratively) in an elevator full of people. Not about staring at her breasts but about a term I used that she considered sexist, and which I never thought of as sexist, but realized it WAS after she called me on it and told me what it meant. Unfortunately, the way she did it — publicly, disrespectuflly, and harshly rang louder than the message itself.
So, yes, I wouldn’t mind if someone said something about it. Perhaps in a fun way like “oops, look up here for a second!” – points to her face — redirecting the stare. It would come down to what was consistent with each person’s personality, comfort level etcetera how they get the point across.
**Note, I spoke to my wife about the modesty thing and she too thinks the church culture has gone WAY overboard with it too. We didn’t talk much about how but she said its all over Pinterest, discussion forums and other discussions out there….***
Silent Dawning, I really like that suggestion. Cracked me up. I am going to share it with my friends that are struggling with this. They might as well have a little fun with this. Dax wrote:Also for girls/ women it is just one more way to be judged by others. I coach and it is unfortunate to see a group of girls covered to their knees and double layered tshirts trying to move around the court. Then I don’t feel so bad for them when said group of girls pick on and mock the few other lds girls that did not “dress modestly”. Really just a sad frustrating situation for most females these days.
DAX, I so agree with you on this. The girls need to be able to dress appropriately to play their sport.
Orson wrote:Jumping into this conversation between SD and Dax – I often wonder if part of the problem is the difference between what we are taught is modest dress and what the norm of society views as modest dress. For example the smell of brownies will be that much more difficult for the dieting person that rarely encounters it. If you work in a bakery you will probably become a little more immune to the effects of aromas. Granted everyone is different, but my thought is a long time bakery worker will probably not respond in the same way to the smells as someone that rarely encounters it.
Applying this to the topic at hand I see the potential for trouble when we make our standards starkly different than those of society. If our young men grow up hearing that tank tops should be seen as provocative – then they will see them that way. My impression is if you take a man out of a society where women were always covered including their faces, and you plant him on any American city street, you will see an extreme reaction. The problem could be seen as the American women are under-dressed, or it could be see as that man is not equipped to handle reality.
I hope that makes a little bit of sense. Yes it is a two way street, let’s look for cars from both directions.
Orson, I was going to just quote part of this, but every word is so fitting!
This is a complex situation that includeds cultural and evolutionary routes. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=our-brains-see-men-as-whole-women-as-parts “There could be evolutionary reasons that men and women process female bodies differently, Gervais said, but because both genders do it, “the media is probably a prime suspect.”
“Women’s bodies and their body parts are used to sell all sorts of products, but we are now for everyday, ordinary women, processing them in a similar way,” she said.
Fortunately, the fact that the simple letter-mosaic task swept the effect away suggests that it’s an easy habit to overcome, Gervais said.
Being in a happy mood is related to global processing, she said, so avoiding blue funks could help you see people in a holistic way, as could simply reminding yourself to step back and look at the bigger picture.“ I had a talk not to long ago with my Orthdox Jewish friends on why it is they could not walk behind a women. It was argued among the Rabi that a man could not walk behind a women without feeling aroused. I simply didn’t agree and told him I never remember feeling aroused. They assured me I was very abnormal and a freak of nature and the rest of humanity males don’t feel that way. While most of my European or Asian friends didn’t have a problem with it. It is a cultural thing. American society has been obsessed with it since our Victorian routes. When a person is told not to do something constently or reminded not to think of something constently, what do they do? Have a desire to do or think about it of course. Naturally since they spent so much time fixating not to think or do it. Like the probation period. Same thing applies here.
I use this as an example that both parties are responsible here but men do need to learn how to not objectify. It isn’t something you can tell a person not to do. The process has to be taught and learned. I hope both sexes can recognize and learn this. So we may each help each other to achieve equality here.
Roy wrote:I remember being a YM leader and picking up a group of boys from the pool after a swim. Several of the boys were staring at a woman in a bikini. I remember trying to draw a contrast and get the boys to recognize the value of a YW that respects herself by dressing modestly. The boys’ response? “Uh, huh” as they continued to stare open mouthed out the windows of my van.
😳 The problem is in subjectivity. We dress well with hair and make-up because we want to get noticed. Studies show that physical attractiveness does influence success. I have noticed myself that I am reluctant to tell an attractive female “no.” Should an attractive female salesperson dress unattractively to not exploit an unfair advantage or to prevent me from buying unnecessary products. How much “distraction” is good and reasonable and how much is too much? I believe the answers are subjective.
Yes,Roy, so much of it does seem to be subjective. I have heard YW complain about the boys at church. They hate to go to water parks with them because of this very thing. They often feel like nothing as our church boys are attracted to the girls at school and elsewhere. I think many of them suffer from low self esteem that then follows them into adulthood.
Forgotten_Charity wrote:
I use this as an example that both parties are responsible here but men do need to learn how to not objectify. It isn’t something you can tell a person not to do. The process has to be taught and learned. I hope both sexes can recognize and learn this. So we may each help each other to achieve equality here.F_C: Do you have any specific suggestions on how to teach this? Do you think SD’s suggestion to use a little bit of humor to redirect a gaze would be effective to start with?
I have some communal responsibility for the messages I send through the actions I choose.I have no argument whatsoever with that principle.
I am responsible, ultimately, for what I think and how I act – no matter what messages are being sent by others.I have no argument whatsoever with that principle.
Modesty is a concept that embraces both of the principles above –
an attempt to create a reasonable “middle way” that doesn’t emphasize the communal OR the individual above the other. It’s not about being “true” or “right”; it’s about being “reasonable” and “charitable”. Once reason and charity leave the equation, modesty no longer exists – and modesty can be very different things in very different cultures. It’s not the exact line that is drawn that is important; it’s if that line works for reasonable men and women within their community.
Overall, I have little passionate argument with the general idea of how modesty of dress is approached at the top levels of the LDS Church – meaning that I accept as a reasonable balance attire that covers garments for general, non-specific, public appearance as the standard for adults. That leaves exceptions for differing activities where deviations from that norm make sense, while it also allows for those who want more restrictive guidelines for themselves to be able to dress as conservatively as they want.
Where my passionate argument exists is when the general, non-specific, public appearance norm is applied to non-adults, non-LDS members and to situations outside that norm – and when the more strict norm becomes a
de factonorm by dint of majority insistence. I also object to how it is almost exclusively women who bear the brunt of the responsibility – when male communal input outweighs communal female input, and women become walking pornography but men never hear about their effect on and responsibility toward women. I also object when women who actually are dressed “modestly” are seen as walking pornography, since that situation is a problem with the men who see them in ways they need not be seen. We are so steeped in a Victorian view of sex that we collectively see lots of things as wrong and pornographic that are only wrong and pornographic because we make them so. Nudity is not the same as pornography – but we are close to the point where we are collectively equating the two. That, to me, is the heart of the issue – and decoupling the two is the most important, effective “solution” I know.
I believe in the power of proper humor. At the time I joined the Church, we were building an addition to the Chapel. We were putting a new roof on the addition.
It was very hot so I took my shirt off without thinking anything about it.
It wasn’t long before someone (I forget who) told me that I should put it back on.
I then got a brief lesson on the church standards for modesty in reverse.
There’s a joke somewhere in here. I going to restrain myself from going further.
Mike from Milton.
afterall wrote:Forgotten_Charity wrote:
I use this as an example that both parties are responsible here but men do need to learn how to not objectify. It isn’t something you can tell a person not to do. The process has to be taught and learned. I hope both sexes can recognize and learn this. So we may each help each other to achieve equality here.F_C: Do you have any specific suggestions on how to teach this? Do you think SD’s suggestion to use a little bit of humor to redirect a gaze would be effective to start with?
This is a example.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080715114145.htm ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080715114145.htm Men simply are not trained to not look. We just are told not to but we are not told how to. “Men may not see their flirtations with an attractive woman as threatening to the relationship while women do. Researchers found that women protect their relationship more when an attractive man enters the picture but men look more negatively at their partner after they’ve met an available, attractive woman. Men can learn to resist temptation when trained to think that flirting with an attractive woman could destroy their relationship, said lead author John E. Lydon, PhD, of McGill University in Montreal.”
I think the same applies even when not married or just single. If we train ourselves to not just stare while talking but shift our eyes occasionally. To think about how it Negtively effects them when we catch ourselves staring. That goes for both sexes. If we train ourselves to think in this matter it becomes more easy to focus. Trainijgn ourselves to stay focus is a learned and trained ability to challenging situations in general.
Humor applied well and with genuine love works well. When helping people overcome problems they themselves might not be aware of it’s important to approach the situation in a helpful loving meaningful way so as to not activate a defensive posture in which they would stop listening.
In my experience there aren’t many women inside the LDS faith who dress provocatively. Some do. I like my fathers rule of thumb here. Each of us has a right to express ourselves unless we do it in a way that harms others in a emotional or physical manner. “our rights end where another’s begin”. It applies here to. I would say a tshirt over a 1 piece is extreme. On the other side a to small or to revealing clothing just helps create a atmosphere I hope each of us is trying not to create.
Wow..amazing post throughout! Look what happens when you are the one human on the planet without access to a computer. Afterall, thank you for starting this discussion. Interesting that the Jewish Rabbis version of immodesty included walking behind a woman, backs up Orson’s point that we tend to make what we are told is inappropriate immodest and then are shocked and desire it. Also great example about how the world would seem to the man from the veiled world vs a man in US society. Thank you Ray for the perfect synopsis on how and why modesty should be approached ie reason and charity by the church and its people. Thank you also for acknowledging that the burden of these things usually falls on women without our contributing input. Thanks to all the guys that stated that it is ultimately up to the individual to control his actions, but we women can help. As far as things going back to the way it use to be in the lds culture I don’t think that will happen for 5 reasons. I am just talking about lds culture here not the world which could definitely use some more fabric!
1. The men in power do not see the problem with limiting/controlling what women wear without any input from the women themselves in order to protect men. Also why would lds women want or need a say in these things? They should know and accept that this is from the Lord.
2. The cultural shift in the mormon zones has already occurred so therefor it is becoming law by defunct regardless of how ODD one looks in the non lds areas.
3. This extreme shift is in part due to a backlash to current female attire which is extremely immodest quite often. This leads to the “oh i’m scared….quick if we don’t take action then all of our girls will dress like stripper” mentality.
4. GA’s are trying to get a control on boys/men’s porn habits/addictions and figure this will help in some way.
5. This may also be an attempt by the GA’s to control how women view/make the transition to garments. If females have been dressing like grandma’s from childhood I think they are hoping that the garments will not be so completely foreign and shocking to wear.
What the GA’s don’t realize is that as you make lds women’s clothes look more odd against any semblance of societal norm, than as others have stated, it has the potential to make even a shoulder seem like an exotic piece of forbidding fruit. Forget about the self esteem issues women go through having to look so different in society.
This is the analogy I used to explain lds modesty to my father inlwaw, he finaly got it. Lets start off that appropriate lds men’s clothing would be determined by a small group of elderly women who claim to hold the keys for your enternal salvation. These women decide that mens/boys wardrobe should consit only of capri pants and turtle necks in order to help women control thier thoughts. Now dont despair, you can pick any color combination you would like so you shouldnt have any concerns what so ever. Now regardless if you are going to a buisness meeting, the beach, to the gym or a speical event with your wife this will be your attiire if you are a faithful member. Don’t worry about the fact that you will look odd compared to all the other men in the world. Oh and then lets throw in the fact that due to evolution your wife cnan’t help but be attracted to the normal societal males dressed in suits and kahkis. Its ok though because for spiratual reasons your wife tolerates the fact that you aren’t doing it for her anymore and accepts that this is how you will look for the rest of your life. Oh and after all this, don’t forget that you’re rightnouss is going to be judged by other men if your capris are not the correct length because by george if we have to dress that way than all men should, and well women just can’t help themselves.
Good times!!
Any thoughts about the likely hood of the lds standard going back to what it use to be?
Ps sorry about spelling! Got distracted at the end! This is a really great post. I do believe some standards of good are good even if too many people take it to the extreme. It’s not just about covering up. It’s all about keeping good hygiene and avoiding looking extreme. I’ve seen a quote on Facebook by an LDS person that said when women dress immodestly they are compared to pigs wallowing in mud. That is just wrong. Nobody (women or men) should be condemned for not dressing according to the church standards. The Savior would not be so harsh in his judgements. Although I do wear my garments in most circumstances, I don’t wear them when I work out. If I was ever into acting and if in certain roles my garments wouldn’t be appropriate to be worn I wouldn’t wear them. I’m really interested in the fitness industry and most of the clothing there isn’t modest by church standards. Women tend to be more sexualized, but the men normally don’t wear much neither. Sometimes the people do wear wear shorts and tee shorts, but not the majority of the time. Either way, I believe you can be too modest and too immodest.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.