- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
When the YM go on one of their fabulous High Adventure trips, are they given lengthy detailed instructions on how to cover their bodies?
Yes. Absolutely. It’s important to acknowledge that both sexes are instructed about what is appropriate to wear for various activities. Also, it’s not just men creating the instructions. Often, it’s women leaders who go beyond what male leaders would instruct and add restrictions.
The issue, again, isn’t in giving instructions. It’s the focus and appropriateness of and messages received by the actual instructions that is the issue. I dislike the exclusion of yoga pants from Girls’ Camp – not because I want no practical guidelines but because of the reasons for that particular requirement and the fact that it wasn’t communicated clearly in the first place.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:When the YM go on one of their fabulous High Adventure trips, are they given lengthy detailed instructions on how to cover their bodies?
Yes. Absolutely. It’s important to acknowledge that both sexes are instructed about what is appropriate to wear for various activities. Also, it’s not just men creating the instructions. Often, it’s women leaders who go beyond what male leaders would instruct and add restrictions.
I would not use the word absolutely and apply it to my stake. The YW in my stake’s girls camp were not allowed shorts, capris, 2 piece swimsuits because of the slippery slope idea. Leaders didn’t want to get into measuring shorts length and saying they were ok for one and not for another. I happen to know the girls camp director got upset about the no short rule because as she said “those girls haven’t covenanted to cover up anything yet” – referring to garments. The stake YW president overruled her and made the no shorts rule. The rule in my stake was made out of a misguided attempt at modesty.
The boys get instruction about clothing not because of modesty but so they don’t freeze at night or so they don’t get cut up while hiking. Two entirely different reasons in my mind – boys are not subject to modesty policy like girls are. I’ve been on sanctioned church hikes where the boys literally stripped down to boxers and ran ahead mostly naked. The leaders just grinned and shook their heads. This would not fly with the young women stripping down to sports bras and boy shorts.
As I said, roadrunner, both get instructions. It’s the differing type of instructions and reasons for them that is the issue – a HUGE issue, imo. We all know that there is a double standard. I helped some one move today. It was very hot and a few young men showed up to help also, mostly leader’s sons and they were wearing shorts and tank tops. It wasn’t really a church activity but it does show that boys can wear whatever they want and the parents don’t care because they are not taught to care about boy’s dress standards unless it is a white shirt on Sunday. It is not as extreme as in the Middle East but the same principle applies. I’ve stayed out of this because it wasn’t the case in our stake. My (feminist) adult daughter went to girls camp as a cottage mom for second year girls. She told me the rules were essentially the same as when she was a girl. Knee length shorts allowed and capris certainly allowed (even somewhat encouraged). I haven’t asked her specifically about the yoga pants, but I know she she has some and I’m pretty sure she wore them at camp – she’s really only here visiting before she starts grad school and has a fairly limited wardrobe. I have been the priesthood guy at camp before and we did nothing – quite literally. At our camp the same guy does the waterfront every year (it’s on a lake) and he’s one of the required two and is very laid back (and has never been in a leadership position higher than ward mission leader). Others are asked to rotate through if no one can go for a week. On a couple occasions over the years I have gone for a day/night. We sleep in cabins separate and away from the girls cabins. We eat meals with the girls. Otherwise we are pretty much away from them, and the sisters seem to have everything under control and have no need for us. I have felt on both occasions it was a waste of time for me to be there, and have spent the day fishing, hiking, or just lazing around. Again, because of leadership roulette, I’m sure it’s different in different places.
So my contribution to the conversation is something that has been said but maybe not emphasized – much of this depends on leadership roulette, in this case the leadership being women. My daughter would have been the first to complain about what she considered to be unreasonable rules as a youngster, and she would have spoken up this year if she felt suppression. She did mention that she talked to the camp director (an older single sister I know very well but she doesn’t know) about one of the workshop sessions there where a woman talked about the woman’s role as producing babies. She said the director agreed with her, and didn’t know the subject was going to come up (it was a question/answer forum), and that she had already spoken to the sister who said it. I should note here that our girls attend camp with those from another stake, and the sister who said this was from the other stake.
A further thought on edit: I don’t know that either scenario presented in this thread is the “norm.” They both may be extremes. However, I think it much more likely that we would get a post like the OP on a forum like this than an experience like our stake’s camp. I’m not belittling the OP, I agree – it’s a problem. However, I’m not sure that more stakes aren’t more like mine but we wouldn’t hear that here. Just saying.
I love yoga pants! So comfortable! My girls had girls camp last week, and they had this ridiculous rule also. I really dislike the fact that my girls are constantly taught that the only power they have is power over men’s thoughts. I was sexually abused from a boyfriend, and I blamed myself for a long time, believing I must have done something wrong to deserve that. Why? Because this was the crap I was taught in Young Women’s, along with how we are used pieces of chewing gum if we are not virgins. I am sick and tired of the modesty police.
With that being said, I understand why these kinds of rules may be enforced, especially by women leaders. My husband is a recovering sex addict. Lots of men in the church are. It can be extremely triggering for a woman to see women scantily clad, even if men are not around. It took me years to learn that I needed to place the responsibility of my husband’s thoughts on him, not those around him. We live in a very hot and humid state. Women dress in mini shorts, tank tops, and plenty of them show off their cleavage. Here I am, standing next to my husband, in line, at Walmart, (or anywhere, really), and we are not only surrounded by barely dressed women and girls, but magazines that leave little to the imagination. I am wearing shorts down to my knees, or Capri’s, and my shoulders and cleavage are covered completely. This used to cause such discomfort with me that I wanted to run out the door and hide. I believed that they had a lot more power over my husband than I. I was threatened. I let their sex appeal make me feel worthless and unsexy.
The fact is, I now have trained myself to view people as children of God. This can be done. It takes work. I had to do a 12 step program in order to get myself out of the codependent cycle if believing I, or other women, were the reason my husband was addicted. I believe the church does not help in this area, because teaching that women are responsible for men’s thoughts, is teaching codependency. I am rarely triggered anymore, but if I am, I know I need to work my program better. I focus less on what people are wearing, and more on myself. I do not know why people dress the way they do. It is not my place to judge. I put it in God’s hands.
A few stats I gathered for a post on Girls Camp modesty guidelines. http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/09/09/drowning-in-modesty-guidelines-at-girls-camp/ Quote:53 respondents:
General guidelines. Only 17% said that they were told to just follow the guidelines in For the Strength of Youth. 22.6% required girls to wear full length pajamas with sleeves, prohibiting short & tank top sets commonly worn by teen girls in summer. Tops. A full 86.8% stated that tank tops or sleeveless tops were not allowed. This restriction was definitely not in place when I was a teen, but we’ve already discussed in other posts that even small children are being policed for shoulder coverage in many wards. Bottoms. 84.9% prohibited shorts that weren’t at least knee length. Of those, 35.8% allowed only capris or longer, which is even more restrictive than garments. 7.5% were in wards or stakes that fully outlawed anything shorter than pants for girls at Youth Conference or Girls Camp. Swimwear. Perhaps it is not surprising that 100% stated that bikinis were not allowed (which are also outlawed at BYU, although as I pointed out was not prohibited when I was a teen attending Girls Camp). 13.2% required that girls cover their swimsuit with a tee shirt while swimming. 5.7% also required that they wear shorts over their swimsuit, and 1.9% stipulated that their shorts be at least knee length while swimming. Also, a few comments revealed double standards:
Quote:“Our stake said no shorts on girls, but the boys can wear them.” (11.3% of respondents specifically stated that the requirements for the YM were less restrictive).
“In one ward where I was in the YW presidency the girls were harassed by someone in the stake YW presidency for not wearing a modest coverup when walking to and from the pool at camp. She made them go back to their cabins and put on baggy t-shirts and knee length shorts over top of their swimsuits. In that same ward, the YM posted pictures on the bulletin board in our building of several of the boys wearing nothing but hot pink booty shorts with one of the YW’s name on the butt. Apparently this was the attire of choice for most of scout camp. Everyone thought it was hilarious.”
“Our girls were told their shorts had to touch the ground if they were kneeling. I found this absurd I mean I get shorts should be long and people break the rules and this is one way to make sure everyone has long shorts BUT I don’t ever see YM having this test done.”
“In San Francisco, no shorts allowed. No swimsuits. But my husband who is the stake YM councilor reported the boys [wore] shorts and [even participated in] skinny dipping fun. I’m livid.”
“I can handle having rules. But not having the rules the same is what makes me mad. No shorts at girls camp. Fine. Great. Then no shorts at a scout camp. No shirtless hikes.”
Wonderful comment, riversong14. Thank you!
Old-Timer wrote:Wonderful comment, riversong14.
Thank you!
+1 We are all vulnerable in some ways. Some men (including parts of myself at times for it is easy and natural to cast blame) blame women for being distractingly attractive. Some women do the same.
hawkgrrrl wrote:“In San Francisco, no shorts allowed. No swimsuits. But my husband who is the stake YM councilor reported the boys [wore] shorts and [even participated in] skinny dipping fun. I’m livid.”
What does one do when shorts and swimsuits are outlawed – go skinny dipping!!!
😆 As an aside, my uncles and grandfather took all the boy cousins to a swimming hole for skinny dipping when I was young. It was my first impression (that I can remember) of what grown men look like naked.hawkgrrrl wrote:Swimwear. Perhaps it is not surprising that 100% stated that bikinis were not allowed (which are also outlawed at BYU, although as I pointed out was not prohibited when I was a teen attending Girls Camp).
What about 2 piece tankinis that cover the bellybutton/midriff? My daughter has a few of these. DW and I feel that they cover the same as a 1 piece.
Roy wrote:What about 2 piece tankinis that cover the bellybutton/midriff? My daughter has a few of these. DW and I feel that they cover the same as a 1 piece.
My stake outlawed all 2 piece swimsuits no questions asked – the rule was 1 piece for girls camp. My youngest daughter is tall and super skinny and cannot find a 1 piece that fits her well, they sort of gape open at her bottom if she doesn’t sit just right, so the 2 piece swimsuits actually fit her better and are more modest. My wife was livid because my daughters’ 2 piece swimsuits are quite modest. She probably ordered 20 different 1 piece swimsuits over the internet and looked in all the local stores until she finally found one. I think the 1 piecers can show as much or more skin than a 2 piece – we almost bought a kim kardashian style 1 piece just to spite the stake.
Ugh. It just gripes me.
On a separate but related note. We recently had a stake fireside about how YW are walking pornography for YM when they don’t dress modestly. My daughters ate it up and loved it and even though I tried to explain to them it’s not their responsbility to police men’s thoughts they bought into it 100%.
We’ve got to do a better job with modesty. I don’t know what to do except that in my ward we don’t have a dress code at ward level events.
Roadrunner wrote:On a separate but related note. We recently had a stake fireside about how YW are walking pornography for YM when they don’t dress modestly. My daughters ate it up and loved it and even though I tried to explain to them it’s not their responsibility to police men’s thoughts they bought into it 100%.
RR,
No offense, but I am somewhat amused at how you attempt to teach your kids a more moderate approach and yet are undermined by the church fairly often (it seems like you have mentioned this a few times in a few different posts)…i feel like you should change your name to thecoyote instead of RoadRunner
🙂 Roy wrote:[ What does one do when shorts and swimsuits are outlawed – go skinny dipping!!!
😆 As an aside, my uncles and grandfather took all the boy cousins to a swimming hole for skinny dipping when I was young. It was my first impression (that I can remember) of what grown men look like naked.
Let the church say amen!!! Skinny dipping for boys taking swimming lessons was common even at the Deseret Gym up into the 50’s and as a result kids grew up with some understanding of what the body is an how it changes. It’s all a thing of the past now and even group showers after gym are becoming less common. As I mentioned earlier clothes don’t make a person modest anymore than nudity makes a person immodest. It just all depends.
Road Runner….the stake fireside about “YW being walking pornogrpahy” is such a dangerous message! An entire stake of YM learned that they are not truly responsible for their own selves and thoughts. That it is a females “fault” if they have natural sexual urges at the most harmless level and that the “girl was asking for it by what she wears” at the most dangerous level. An entire stake of YW heard the message AGAIN that their bodies are naturally bad and sinful in some way (though most can’t express this verbaly yet they just internalize it on some level). Say hello to eating disorders, inability to enjoy sex with future husbands etc.. Oh and don’t forget that they are also responsible for YM/men’s actions/sins. Talk about setting up an entire stake of youth to view a victim of sexual assault as having some responsibility in what happened to her. Even the girl herself will assume that somehow she brought this on herself when we teach our youth that YW can be and are walking pornography that is guys are not responsible for themselves. This is very very dangerous territory for both YW and YM!
DW and I were talking about the yoga pants thing last night and she brought up an interesting point. The leadership may see girls camp as a time to teach and enforce proper modesty standards to the YW. By clothing restrictions high (despite there being no YM present) the YW leadership may be modeling proper dressing standards for co-ed activities. Unfortunately, this makes extreme modesty – even in situations where it is not justified by the setting or the activity – into a virtue. It removes the ability for individual adaptation based on personal circumstance.
Quote:Unfortunately, this makes extreme modesty – even in situations where it is not justified by the setting or the activity – into a virtue.
I agree that this is unfortunate – and it is sad that people can miss the fact that it is extreme, and that those people can miss the fact that extremism is NOT modest.
Requiring people to dress inappropriately for the situation is not modest; by definition, it is immodest. Also, defining modesty exclusive as how we dress also is immodest, since it narrows a broad concept into one application – another form of extremism. Thus, what is taught so much is immodesty in the name of modesty.
If only that was understand by all the membership, it would change things in a fundamental and good way – so I would LOVE to hear it taught over the pulpit in General Conference. Everyone still wouldn’t get it and change immediately, but the foundation would be there for a “faithful” rebuttal to the too common crap with which we deal now.
So, on a personal level, I teach that simple concept – the real meaning of modesty. It’s what I can do, proactively, in my own sphere of influence.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.