- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Also, as happened at the camp, it always disproportionately affects women who are more curvy than straight. Same clothes, different responses = discrimination through a double standard. It says, in effect, that men can dictate what women wear from the following foundation:
Quote:Women who don’t tempt me can where whatever they want, but women who tempt me need to wear something that won’t tempt me. If I find you plain or ugly, I’m not going to say anything about what you wear; if I find you attractive or stimulating, I’m going to tell you what to wear.
That is wrong on multiple levels – even if it is nearly historically and culturally omnipresent.
The more I watch this modesty issue, the more I replay the scene from Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame. The town Priest has a death crush on the gypsy Esmeralda, who happens to be friends with ugly Quasimodo, the Priest spurns Esmeralda and Quasimodo in public, but in private, before a fire he has a fierce fantasy about Esmeralda.
I wonder how many closet fantasize-rs we have, and who is doing the most harm?
Enforcing modesty via clothing is an arms race. Enforce knee length shorts, any portion of leg above the knee start to titillate. Enforce long pants or floor length dresses, showing calf start to titillate, etc. Might as well cut to the chase and poke men’s eyes out… or lean on the men a little bit and teach them self control/not to look at women as objects. [tongue-in-cheek]Banning yoga pants? If it was a male leader it’s probably a case where he gets turned on by yoga pants. If it is a female leader it’s probably a case where she is jealous of how good someone else looks in yoga pants.[/tongue-in-cheek]
Shawn wrote:Joni wrote:Because Girls Camp is a camp for young women, run by adult women, under the supervision of adult males. The girls who the camp is FOR must be careful not to titillate the men who are there serving a figurehead purpose.
It may be titillating to men, but I think there is noble intent when church leaders teach about modesty.Sorry to disagree but it’s not about teaching, it’s about control. Taking your own view of what’s moral and forcing someone else to conform because if they don’t it will unleash feelings and actions that can’t be controlled. It comes from a repressed and unhealthy view of the body, the place and importance of sexuality, and the worth of someone else based solely on their appearance. It’s a practice that’s existed as long as one person has power over another and believes that they have the right, for the other person’s own good, to enforce it. The example given is about as silly as when back in the 50’s and 60’s girls weren’t allowed at girl’s camp with zip from jeans. The only other thing that comes to mind is that someone needs to get a life. IMHO.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Count me in the opposite camp from Shawn. I don’t get the vitriol against yoga pants in the slightest. To me, they are like sweatpants – perhaps needlessly casual, but I don’t see them as in any way intentionally flaunting one’s body. They cover you. They are frankly too hot to wear 8 months of the year here in AZ. But they are just casual pants. Jeans can be equally form fitting. Either way, you aren’t allowed to touch someone else without permission, so what is the big deal? It’s a dumb restriction IMO no matter where it’s being restricted (unless because they are too casual), but beyond stupid for an all-girls camp. That is fricken ridiculous. Let the girls wear what they have that’s comfortable, including tank tops, shorts, two piece swimsuits, etc. They should be able to be themselves without judgmental eyes. How can the male gaze STILL be relevant at a GIRLS CAMP????
Not to rant here, but I will wear whatever I damn well please.
-like-Wow Hawk, you’ve been on a roll today. Kicking a$$ and taking names.
Carry on.
There are women and young girls in my area that wear the full niqab. If covering the head shows faith then going even further and covering the entire body except for the eyes shows greater faith. The body is private and not to be shown. In some ways the church is very similar in how and what it teaches about modesty for women and girls. Modesty is a good thing IMO, but the way it’s handled and what is considered modest and immodest is not helpful. I teach high school and I do get tired of seeing my girls hanging out. I ask them to cover up when it’s just too distracting. But there’s a proper way of handling it. Privately and with respect without judging. So it’s back to teaching our YW that their only true power (for good or evil) or individual value is their sexual appeal to men. That the men of the church will decide how THEIR bodies should be covered and place the responsibility of males thoughts and actions on the women of the church. We are teaching the YW that their is something shameful and sinful in their intrinsic personhood simply because of their female form. This is beyond destructive to internalize as girls and women but we continue to threaten and place labels on what is and is not “honoring the priesthood” when it comes to women’s bodies and clothes. We are teaching the exact same message the “world” is to our daughters that their only real value/power is their sexual appeal to men. We just flip it into a “therefore your shameful lust causing bodies must be covered always and if YOU cause me to lust then it’s your fault not mine” guilt trip. Either way the message is learned just the same, you are actually nothing more than your bodies and how they make men feel. Maybe the church’s teachings about modestly are not man-made hedges around the law, but are from God. It’s possible. I strongly disagree with the sentiment that teaching modesty supports the idea that the body is something shameful. We are taught that bodies are sacred and should be respected. The standards don’t damage anyone; the way they are taught and enforced might do damage, though.
I don’t buy the argument that yoga pants are worn only because they are comfortable and casual. Sweatpants are also comfortable and casual, so there’s more to it. There must be a degree of vanity involved.
GBSmith wrote:Sorry to disagree but it’s not about teaching, it’s about control. Taking your own view of what’s moral and forcing someone else to conform because if they don’t it will unleash feelings and actions that can’t be controlled. It comes from a repressed and unhealthy view of the body, the place and importance of sexuality, and the worth of someone else based solely on their appearance. It’s a practice that’s existed as long as one person has power over another and believes that they have the right, for the other person’s own good, to enforce it.
great point GB – I’ll have to think about that for awhile.
Shawn wrote:I don’t buy the argument that yoga pants are worn only because they are comfortable and casual. Sweatpants are also comfortable and casual, so there’s more to it. There must be a degree of vanity involved.
I suppose you are onto something there Shawn. People don’t dress only for functionality they also dress for style. Surely we are not telling our YW to be unattractive. It can be really hard to walk the line between looking good and being attractive but not so much as to be distracting. On the web there is something about a teenage volleyball player that is “too beautiful” for volleyball and that it can be a distraction.
For me it goes back to the intent. Is a person intentionally cheapening their body as a sex object or are they just trying to play volleyball?
I don’t think anybody here, except perhaps GB 
Rather, I think most people here, if not all, have a HUGE problem with the WAY modesty in dress is framed and taught currently in the Church. I personally agree 100% that modesty in dress should be part of what we teach – but I think we screw up badly the “why” and the exact “what” of that concept.
I also hate that we have turned a general concept like modesty into a very narrow focus on how we dress, while, for example, in so many cases, ignoring modesty in other things – like the size of our houses, how much we spend on ourselves that could be spent helping the poor, etc.
My question is who and how is what is considered modest determined? Why are strapless dresses at BYU in the 50’s considered modest even for the endowed, but in 2014 knee caps have somehow become akin to legs with exposed breast when shown? If your chest and butt are covered your ..your sexual reproductive parts are covered period. We need to teach what is appropriate to wear for the situation, not draw lines in the sand on visible “righteous markers”. Why do the lds men decide and determine what lds women are allowed to wear and set that standard? If I turn on brother Bill with my elbows is that next up for coverage to “help him”? It is never ending and women do not have input when it comes to the church changing standards. So now leggings and yoga pants are taboo because they turn you on? Well yes it’s called human sexuality….it’s normal, acknowledge it and move on with your day. Quote:I don’t buy the argument that yoga pants are worn only because they are comfortable and casual. Sweatpants are also comfortable and casual, so there’s more to it. There must be a degree of vanity involved.
There’s more to any clothing choice. I favor yoga pants because they appear less casual than sweatpants, and sweatpants are much hotter than yoga pants. Yoga pants also provide more support when you wear them. They are not shapeless. They actually fit without a drawstring holding them up.
Shawn, frankly, women, including me, don’t care one ounce what you do and don’t
buyabout why we wear what we wear. It’s none of your business, and your comments repeatedly demonstrate your complete ignorance of how women think on these matters. I’m not saying this in anger; I’m trying to help you see how completely ridiculous your assertions about what women think sound to actual women. My clothing choices have NOTHING to do with you or any other man, including my husband. I’m not going to a nightclub to pick up strangers when I wear yoga pants to the grocery store. Why is it any of your or anyone else’s concern? Simple answer: it’s not. If you’re going to sit back and say “Oh yeah, sure. Those women are trying to get male attention,” then you are not worth me wasting my time trying to convince otherwise. I have a hard time seeing your comments as anything short of misogynistic in their lack of understanding of how women think. Likewise, I have been mystified when I heard that men thought women wore ponytails to attract men. No, sorry, as a woman, I wear a ponytail because my hair is dirty that day or it’s windy out or it’s hot out. Women, for the most part, do not dress for men. Exceptions are when they are on a date or going to a club, neither of which has been in my calendar for over 2 decades. The women here can attest that most of why we choose what we wear is not about men at all. I realize the church doesn’t seem to understand this, but it’s one of the problems with the church being run by men. I wear yoga pants when they are comfortable (as I said, it’s too hot here most of the year) and I’m doing something that is mundane and requires low effort on my appearance. I literally
neverwear sweatpants because I simply don’t own any. To me, they look like men’s clothing. They are also way too hot year round here. If I need to be that warm, I just throw on some jeans. There are times when men probably should just shut up and listen, myself included. This might be one of those times. Maybe we will learn something.?
Old-Timer wrote:I don’t think anybody here, except perhaps GB
Just a quick aside from one who’s seen it both ways, being dressed doesn’t make you modest anymore than being undressed makes you immodest. It just all depends.
🙂 Back in the 50’s some people complained to President McKay about girls in swim suits on floats in a parade in Provo and his reply was that he didn’t see anything that was not beautiful.
Like Ray said, teaching modesty is fine, it’s just all in how you do it. And hawkgrrrl, right on sister!!! (imagine raised clenched fist).
I think it’s not simply about the relative appropriateness or inappropriateness of yoga pants. There’s also something incredibly infantilizing about instructing girls over the age of 12 how to dress. How about trusting adolescent girls to know how to cover their bodies in a way that is appropriate for the situation, the culture, and the weather? When the YM go on one of their fabulous Hgh Adventure trips, are they given lengthy detailed instructions on how to cover their bodies?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.