- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Lately my facebook has been filled with people posting the following video about modesty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtzIcz7MOkchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtzIcz7MOkc” class=”bbcode_url”> the video really bothered me. I hate how it focuses on the male perception. The argument that a bikini is like running around in underwear makes me laugh. aren’t male swim trunks like boxers? Do girls not get aroused when a guy with nice abs walks around shirtless? Why aren’t men made to wear tank tops then? Anyways that’s just one ofthe issues i have with the clip. Then a friend posted this article
http://www.alternet.org/belief/153227/how_creepy_conservative_christian_modesty_doctrines_harm_young_women?page=1 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.alternet.org/belief/153227/how_creepy_conservative_christian_modesty_doctrines_harm_young_women?page=1 While I think she is a bit extreme she has valid points.I clearly remember at girls camp having a leader come up and grab my hips and tell lme i swayed them to much when walking. whaaa?!? I was at girls camp, no boys around, just walking. If I didn’t have a great mom or enough self confidence this could have been an awful experience. It was also inforced that for yw basketball or volleyball we needed tot wear knee length shorts and tshirts. For a girl who loved sports but had long legs this was hard to do so I didn’t bother attending.
Why do we have to teach modesty from a scare tactic approach or from a male centered view. Why can’t it be more about respecting yourself. Someone who commented on this idea put it better then I could, “It was the primary message of the New Testament that an emphasis on appearance lead to pharisaical codes that miss the mark, where an emphasis on God’s love and message of spiritual worth makes everything else come naturally. By emphasizing looks as a core part of the LDS identity, we are reaffirming a pernicious sin that has long plagued western society: that women are mere objects, and their appearance is what determines their relationship to society. By saying that women must cover up in order to not tempt men influences, ironically, men to believe that a woman’s body is, in fact, something to be tempted. By telling women that they will only feel comfortable in front of men if they are dressed properly only reinforces in their mind an already subversive belief that how they look is what matters most. Young women already have an infatuation with how they look–we don’t need to add to that.”
Thanks for letting me rant
I am of the opinion that modesty is not a real commandment, even though I do believe in the law of chastity. Modesty is a hedge about the law, and that hedge is getting more and more restrictive in the church over time. Adding “modesty” into the chastity mix takes responsibility for boy behavior and puts it on girls. It also creates too much focus on outward appearance and judging others. And lastly, it creates a lot of weirdness in our church: weird people, weird behaviors. It’s bad PR, and I don’t like being associated with it. It also places an undue (and unwarranted) burden on women, and talks to women in terms that don’t make a whole lot of sense to us because it assumes we have motives and feelings we don’t. It’s a great example of why we need more female representation in church leadership (although I would add that the women who judge other women over modesty are probably even worse than the men.) I agree with the title of the “creepy conservative” article more than the content – I consider it going a bit too far trying to pin eating disorders on modesty (there’s got to be much more going on there).
doubting mom wrote:Why do we have to teach modesty from a scare tactic approach or from a male centered view.
Probably because the theory and curriculum comes from males who are scared, who feel they are not in control of their desires (or have a dysfunctional experience of them). Just sayin’ … If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might be a duck.
There are cultures where women walk around nearly buck nekkid, and men there don’t seem to have any problem with it. I served a mission in Germany, and it was a bit of a culture adjustment walking down the street and seeing nude advertising in store windows, or topless sunbathers in public parks (especially as a 19 year old missionary). It was just a much different cultural norm and body comfort level.
Brian Johnston wrote:There are cultures where women walk around nearly buck nekkid, and men there don’t seem to have any problem with it. I served a mission in Germany, and it was a bit of a culture adjustment walking down the street and seeing nude advertising in store windows, or topless sunbathers in public parks (especially as a 19 year old missionary). It was just a much different cultural norm and body comfort level.
There’s series of interesting threads on this topic at
http://www.ldssdc.org Quote:Modesty is a hedge about the law.
Yes, but it is an important hedge, as long as it’s kept well-trimmed.
The ideal is to be able to walk around naked and not have lust be a factor.
That’s not reality, however, and it’s silly to ignore reality when dealing with topics like this.I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with modesty as a standard. None. Zilch. Nada. Zero. I really like the general statement, “Moderations in all things” – although there are times when extreme measures are warranted. It’s when the hedge obscures the path itself and the ideal disappears from sight that I am concerned – and we have many, many, many members who have lost sight of the ideal, imo.
The BYU-I example is classic. The Church and the college don’t ban skinny jeans, but an administrator and an employee stretched the law so badly that it made the entire organizations look stupid – and necessitated a general statement reaffirming that, in deed, skinny jeans are not forbidden. (and the incident wasn’t about skinny jeans in the first place) The young woman in question was the RELIEF SOCIETY PRESIDENT in her ward and had gone straight from a meeting with her Bishop to the testing center. She was covered from neck to toe in clothes that weren’t even tight, but one guy was distracted by her curves and exercised his right to justify his stupidity / attraction in a ridiculous way.
*sigh* Sometimes, we really are our own worst enemies.
😳 Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Modesty is a hedge about the law.
Yes, but it is an important hedge, as long as it’s kept well-trimmed.
I’m not sure talking about well-trimmed hedges as a metaphor for modesty is modest.
😆 I had the same thought – but I thought I was the only one twisted enough to think it! 
Remember, brethren, to the pure, all things are pure. Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Modesty is a hedge about the law.
Yes, but it is an important hedge, as long as it’s kept well-trimmed.
Oh, dear.
Quote:The BYU-I example is classic. The Church and the college don’t ban skinny jeans, but an administrator and an employee stretched the law so badly that it made the entire organizations look stupid – and necessitated a general statement reaffirming that, in deed, skinny jeans are not forbidden. (and the incident wasn’t about skinny jeans in the first place) The young woman in question was the RELIEF SOCIETY PRESIDENT in her ward and had gone straight from a meeting with her Bishop to the testing center. She was covered from neck to toe in clothes that weren’t even tight, but one guy was distracted by her curves and exercised his right to justify his stupidity / attraction in a ridiculous way.
Actually, I was prepared to think the worst of the person or persons who decided to single out ‘skinny jeans’ as a no-no in the BYU-I testing center. But, frankly, after reading some of the accounts, I have to admit that I see their side of the issue, and even agree with them. If I am of the mindset that ‘this is the Lord’s University’, and if I am bound by my word to obey, protect and enforce the honor code, the FTSOY pamphlet, or instructions based on things I have heard in general conference, etc, and particularly since I am living in a culture that puts so much emphasis on obedience and outward appearance, I would have a hard time NOT protesting about articles of clothing that are the essence of tight and form-fitting, in direct contradiction to the rules I am committed to upholding. So, I would say that the university and the church DO ban skinny jeans, but that they are too timid to do so explicitly. In effect, the ban applies to some people and not others. The employee at the BYU-I testing center recognized this disparity, was frustrated by it, and acted out in the only way he knew how. I am confident that he felt ‘prompted by the spirit’ to take this action.
I think he felt prompted by an emotion, but I don’t think it was the spirit. 😈 Of course, I might be wrong, but it’s been my experience that those who complain the most generally are the ones who . . . notice . . . the most.
doug wrote:So, I would say that the university and the church DO ban skinny jeans, but that they are too timid to do so explicitly. In effect, the ban applies to some people and not others. The employee at the BYU-I testing center recognized this disparity, was frustrated by it, and acted out in the only way he knew how. I am confident that he felt ‘prompted by the spirit’ to take this action.
Sorry but I don’t recall the church leadership ever being “timid” about telling membership about right and wrong. What I have seen in the past is someone that decides to be more mormon than the prophet and takes it upon themselves to call someone to repentance when there was nothing to repent of, in other words exercise unrighteous dominion. People claim all the time that the “spirit” prompted there actions when in fact it was only that persons need to establish dominance.
Back in the 40s people came to President Mckay complaining about some girls in swimsuits that were on floats in a parade in Provo and his response to them was that he didn’t see anything that wasn’t beautiful. We need to get out of the mindset that lines have to be drawn in order to catch someone in sin if they cross it. It would be far better to teach people to be resoponsible for their own thoughts and their own actions and to use their heads in the things they say, do and wear.
GBSmith wrote:Sorry but I don’t recall the church leadership ever being “timid” about telling membership about right and wrong.
Perhaps ‘timid’ was the wrong word. ‘Politically savvy’ would have been more to the point. At some point the ‘Hey, I’m a regular person and I’m a Mormon’ campaign and
explicitrules that make it a mighty struggle to achieve that would be too obviously in conflict. I don’t mean to sling mud at the church’s overt goal to promote modesty. I think that’s a worthy aim. I benefit from it directly. But at some point I have to ask, how do I interpret things like FTSOY within the context of LDS culture without going a little bit crazy? Here we have a somewhat general rule promoting modest dress. General guidelines seem to make sense in a world that is constantly changing. Then I am confronted with the church’s leader and de facto spokesman for god making it a commandment to have at most one pair of earrings for females, none for males, etc. I know he didn’t use the word ‘commandment’, but there is no meaningful distinction between his instructions and a commandment as far as most members of the church are concerned. So now what? can I assume that it’s okay to concentrate on outward appearances, to make rigid rules of what’s considered appropriate behavior and dress? Apparently. Okay, what could be easier?
I have seen the serious deleterious effects of this, as it relates to ‘morality’ in general, on my more sensitive children, so I both benefit and suffer from the way the church approaches these topics.
So, back to ‘skinny jeans’ for a moment. The honor code forbids ‘tight’ clothing. Is it considered okay to take general principles of modesty and distill them into specific do’s and don’ts? Based on the precedent set by a former prophet and leader of the church, yes. Are ‘skinny jeans’ and tops that reveal the outline of your navel tight? Yes, by definition. Is the wearing of these kinds of clothing therefore a violation of the honor code? Yes. If I am in a position of some authority (as I see it) and have the opportunity to prevent what I perceive as overt violations of the honor code, is it my prerogative and am I duty-bound to do so? Arguably, yes.
So that’s what you get.
How about instead of teaching women they are mere sex objects that at any move could make a man get aroused…we teach men not to rape women. Men could travel in pairs and if they feel like they are getting aroused by a womans body part moving then their friend can tell them…don’t rape a woman. If a man sees a woman in a swimming suit and can’t help but be aroused he can then blow a whistle and the other men can remove him from the premises. At what point do men actually get to be held accountable for their own actions and thoughts? I mean us wicked wicked women have been walking around all hip slinging boob bouncing for 6000 years so I know it’s gonna be tough on men to stop thinking it’s ok to see us as mere sexual objects when we let our figures be womanly and all.
Quote:only in general men wearing less clothing is not as effective for picking up women
It would work for Ryan Gosling. I think this is just evidence that men are more slovenly about their appearance. You’re damn right we’re not swooning!
doug – if you really read up on this, you would see that the girl in question was not even wearing skinny jeans (which are tight fit from hip-hugging waist to ankles). She was just wearing normal boot cut jeans. Other employees of the testing center and her fellow students came to her defense, but the proctor who turned her away said he had made his ruling and disregarded everyone else’s opinion. She was tried and convicted by some random guy, and the consequences were she didn’t get to take the test. The consequences to all of us is that the story went viral and now Mormons look like idiots once again because some zealot lacking in self-awareness dug in his heels in self-righteousness. She came straight from a correlation meeting with her bishop, for crying out loud.
If you want to see her picture (in the outfit she was wearing) I blogged a recap of this incident and its implications here:
http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/12/13/peer-review-skinny-jeans/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.