Modesty Police verses Doctrine

[Guest]

Is this accurate? If so, then the question for me is whether or not it's a valid reason. If it is, then why the discomfort? If it is because it is only a partial treatment of the subject, then we need to ensure that the topic is addressed more fully. If I'm teaching, that means I need to discuss other valid reasons as well. If I'm a member of the class, that means I should be prepared to mention some of the other valid reasons as well, or provide a simple reference for others who are interested to study in their own time.

 

I can't imagine that this teaching can be taught in isolation without any of the other reasons for modesty.  It is much too easy to counter... "if this is the reason, then I guess it's okay to be immodest when there are no males present within 100 miles" - do you see what I'm saying?

 

The presence or absence of males does not change the teaching on Modesty.

[omegaseamaster75]

I disagree.  It is an integral part of doctrine for women to sustain the Priesthood.  HELP is very much their responsibility.  We are equal partners here.

So Women are to "help" me control my urges and emotions? As a man I must disagree and in relation to the talk and impure thoughts I am in control of what I entertain in my mind. 

[omegaseamaster75]

Maybe it's because I'm neither female nor athletically inclined; but I fail to see why it's necessary to wear skin-tight clothing to work out.

 

Because it is comfortable and in yoga for example posture and poses should be exact, wearing baggy sweat pants does not allow for an instructor to critique or help.

[yjacket]

The spirit was not present in the lesson. She turned to her scriptures and previous talks on modesty, she then felt the spirit and wrote her thoughts.

 

From her optic.  Is it that the spirit wasn't present or that she wasn't receptive to the spirit that was there.

[yjacket]

To me this boils down to the underlying feminist message of something akin to. I can wear whatever I what and do whatever I want and if you have issues with it it is your problem.

 

Men are generally more visually oriented, while women are more emotionally oriented.  It is why in general men have issues with pornography and women have issues with "romance novels".

 

We are responsible to some degree with how our actions influence and affect others.  Group psychology is very interesting, sometimes all it takes is one person in a group to influence for good or evil the rest of the individuals.  To teach a child otherwise is to ignore social mores and is an extremely self-centered un-Christlike attitude.

 

When I drive my car into sketchy neighborhoods, I make darn sure I have a clean car, i.e. no laptops, CDs, valuables, etc. are visible, it is a plain 'ol boring car.  I do not want my car to become interesting for some would-be thief.  Now if I had a laptop on the dash and someone stole it, it would be ludicrous to claim that I caused them to do it.  However, do I bare some responsibility . . . you better believe it; I'll think to myself (dang it) I should have put it away so it wouldn't have been a temptation for someone and so they would have moved on.  Sometimes, even if you have a clean car it still gets broken into . . .the idea is to lower the risk.

 

A female and in a sketchy part of town, wearing a low-cut dress, mini-skirt etc, is doing herself no favors in presenting a low target of opportunity.  I personally think these ultra-feminists are really doing women a disservice by not recognizing the actual reality of the situation, rather they want to make the world to conform to their perceived reality.  All I can say is . . . good luck!

 

So yes both men and women have responsibilities, it is shared.  Women certainly should not be dressed provocatively and men shouldn't be thinking certain thoughts.

[yjacket]

So Women are to "help" me control my urges and emotions? As a man I must disagree and in relation to the talk and impure thoughts I am in control of what I entertain in my mind. 

 

So you are telling me you can look at pornography and be totally fine?  Trying to be like Gandhi?

[SpiritDragon]

 

I was recently hearing about how awful it is for people to suggest that someone dress a certain way because of thoughts it could cause others to have (ie wrong to suggest girls are not to dress skimpy because it might make boys have sinful thoughts). While I do tend to agree that there are better reasons such as simply respecting your body and so forth, I also hear the words of Elder Oaks, "And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you."

 

I felt like this excerpt from the body-shaming thread applies to this conversation.

 

I would say that Elder Oaks is certainly authorized to speak doctrine and more or less laid it out there that part of the reason not to dress immodestly is to avoid being objectified (by those around, encouraging problems for them).

 

Also in a similar vein I ask the question, is violence wrong because of the act of pulling a trigger or throwing a punch or because of the impact such acts have on another? To me it seems obvious that it isn't wrong to target shoot or practice martial arts, but it is wrong to do so unprovoked on another human being. So what makes modesty different... it is fine to be naked in private in the tub and fine to practice marital arts, but what about using immodesty as a tool on innocent bystanders?

[The Folk Prophet]

I would say that Elder Oaks is certainly authorized to speak doctrine and more or less laid it out there that part of the reason not to dress immodestly is to avoid being objectified (by those around, encouraging problems for them).

 

The quotes I posted were to this make this point as well. They elicited a *head slap*. Still not quite sure why.

[Urstadt]

I feel like this concept is degrading to both men and women.

Its degrading to women because its like saying that a victim of rape is at fault for the rape because she dressed provocatively. Sure, it probably didn't help things, and it may have made her a target, but she certainly isn't at fault. Likewise, women who don't dress modestly may make themselves the target for inappropriate thoughts, but it certainly doesn't automatically make them responsible or at fault for those thoughts.

Its degrading to men because it teaches them that they have no control over or responsibility for their own thoughts. That is as laughable as it is false. The only one who can control your thoughts is you, meaning that the only one responsible for the things you think is you.

 

This guy ^ deserves a medal!

[Urstadt]

While agreeing with Jenamarie's post, I think there's also a component of bearing one another's burdens (see, e.g., Romans 14) that--with reasonable limits--should come into play as well. The unfortunate thing is that as a Church, a lot of times we don't really think about how that underlying concept applies above and beyond the specific topic of modest apparel.

 

I am in agreement here. There is a degree--"with reasonable limits"--where we all have a responsibility to each other. One of my favorite quotes about this is in my signature (from the book Persons In Relation). I think it may be worth teaching all children that they have a responsibility to others (don't dig a pit for thy neighbor) while drawing a healthy balance between bearing responsibility towards others and feeling guilt for the thoughts and actions of others. Where that balance is, though, may be a rather personal matter.

[Urstadt]

I have a question for the men.  If a very beautiful woman is dressed modestly, does your mind still "go there"?  It doesn't necessarily matter what she is wearing?  I know some women who are very well endowed, etc., and it doesn't matter what she wears, her physical attributes are still visible. Do men's minds still "go there"?  And, I'm not even sure what "go there" means. I know with my husband, it doesn't matter what I'm wearing. I could be dressed in some dowdy outfit, and he is still attracted to me.

 

 

Not as easily; but it's possible, yes.

 

Well, there are other ways for me to look at this, which come from my own experiences. There were many beautiful woman my YSA wards before I got married. Some of these women were so attractive in the face, hair, skin tone, height, overal physique that it never mattered to me that they dressed modestly enough. I would be sexually attracted to them in the two coldest months of the year when they were layered in winter clothing.

 

For me: If I desire the things of Heavenly Father, then women walking in His ways (i.e., dressing modestly) will be attractive to me in two of the four dimensions of attraction (physical and spiritual) and can elicit a sexual attraction. Put otherwise, that she desires the things of God makes me attracted to her, sometimes even sexually. Especially if she's gorgeous despite how modestly dressed she is. It's just how I am.

 

What? I have enough confidence in myself to admit it.

 

But, I still agree with what others are saying on here that it then becomes my responsibility to control my thoughts. Especially because what attracts us to others is hardwired into us for the most part. It's ingrained in our personality. Sure we have control over some things, but many of them are hardwired and we have little control over it. Having said that, we can still manage those attractions by letting virtue garnish our thoughts unceasingly.

[EarlJibbs]

In speaking only on dress...

 

A beautiful woman walks in the room dressed modestly - Yes there still could be impure thoughts but one would have to use their imagination.

 

A beautiful woman walks into the room dressed immodestly - The chances then become far greater since the imagination is snatched from me or taken to a whole new level if I dwell.

 

Multiple beautiful women walk into a room dressed immodestly - Vastly more difficult. I personally would need to leave. (human shaped cloud where I once stood). This doesn't mean I am weak, just that I accept what a situation like that COULD do to me.

 

Yes yes, self control. But the day that people can have that much self control is the day that the prophet announces that dressing immodestly is acceptable. Are they responsible for my thoughts? Nope. Can they help or hinder my thoughts? Of course. I understand that ultimately I am accountable for my own decisions and thoughts. God will judge us all in the end.

[SpiritDragon]

The quotes I posted were to this make this point as well. They elicited a *head slap*. Still not quite sure why.

 

I also found that to be a pointless and confusing response to your comment. Not sure why it was given either.

 

Because I don't know crossfitdan's daughter at all I cannot call her out on what I think is likely at play here. Nine times out of ten when I don't feel the spirit in a lesson at church (related event) it is not the lesson or the teacher who is to blame. the other one time out of ten it is actually still not the lesson or the teacher it just takes me longer to realize I'm the one who is not spiritually prepared to be taught that lesson. For instance I can't count the number of times I've been given lessons on doing family history that feel like a terrible brow beating and rub me the wrong way. I feel brow-beaten because I struggle with the subject matter, I feel guilty that I really don't know the first thing about it, never mind that I don't do it. Likewise when any of us find something being taught that we haven't developed a strong testimony of, or aren't living the commandment to the fullest extent, we can tend to feel uneasy because we are either being rebuked by the spirit or simply resisting the spirit due to lack of preparation and humility going in.

 

 

And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

 

This is not meant to level judgment against anyone but it is meant to give a perspective to any humble enough to admit we are all sinners and therefore all subject to taking the truth to be hard on points we don't want to hear.

[The Folk Prophet]

sometimes all it takes is one person in a group to influence for good or evil the rest of the individuals.  To teach a child otherwise is to ignore social mores and is an extremely self-centered un-Christlike attitude.

 

 

Some examples of people influencing others for bad...we'll just go with the Book of Mormon...

 

Laman and Lemuel

King Nephi

Nehor

Amlici

The Sons of Mosiah (pre-repentance)

Amalakiah

Korihor

Isabel

Corianton

Amalakiah

The Daughter of Jared

 

That's just off the top of my head. And the list of those who influenced others for good is even longer, of course.

 

I cannot fathom how this very obvious concept can be viewed as despicable and degrading.

 

What we do influences others -- and that includes how we dress.

 

Moreover, it makes no sense to me that if a woman purposefully dresses to make herself more sexually alluring to men that it somehow plays no role in actually causing the men to be allured. Even if the intent of dressing that way is not to be alluring (I'm just wearing short-shorts because it's hot), one would have to be pretty dense to not realize that it is still highly alluring to many men for a woman to do so.

 

The rest of the argument against this teaching is based in nonsense logic -- it has nothing to do with rape (non-sequitur if ever there was one), nothing to do with men's ability to choose, and nothing to do with other's responsibility.

[Guest]

So Women are to "help" me control my urges and emotions? As a man I must disagree and in relation to the talk and impure thoughts I am in control of what I entertain in my mind. 

 

YES!  Not only women but EVERYBODY that made the covenant.  I have a specific calling - SUSTAINING THE PRIESTHOOD.  Everybody have a specific covenent - LOVE THY NEIGHBOR.  But just like I am not responsible for Adam's transgressions, I'm not responsible for yours either.  But, I am responsible for what I have done with my own calling in life - that of sustaining and loving the children of God.  We are all our brother's keepers - but yes, I can choose to be Cain and tell God I am not.  This is like... Gospel 101.

 

Man, I feel like you go to a different church!

[MrShorty]

I'm actually in that area between being funny and being serious.  I have no objection to clothing as fashion disappearing.  I think the nudists have the right idea.  Wear clothing when it is functional.  

 

 

If we were not in this fallen mortal state, I'd go with the nudists.  It's the same sentiment I have for Communists.  If we were not in this fallen mortal state, Communism is perfect.

 

Did we just concede here that nudists are living some kind of "higher law"??? :)

[applepansy]

Whenever I read these discussions anymore or whenever I hear the lesson at church and the talk about the lesson afterwards I have reminded of the following:

 

Luke 8:5-8

 

5 A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.

 6 And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.

 7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.

 8 And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

 

So often we (me included) hear something taught that hits home in my heart.  Instead of saying how can this apply to me I get defensive.  We all do sometimes.  Then instead of stopping and saying "how can I make it easier for my brothers" I hear and read threads like this.  

[Guest]

Did we just concede here that nudists are living some kind of "higher law"??? :)

 

Wasn't Eden a nudist colony? 

[omegaseamaster75]

So you are telling me you can look at pornography and be totally fine?  Trying to be like Gandhi?

I wouldn't look at pornography that is a conscious decision, and a topic for another discussion.

 

I can however go to the beach with women running around in bikinis and not be sexually aroused, I can shop at Fredricks of hollywood to buy sexy stuff for my wife with out being aroused, I can watch the victorias secret runways show every year with my wife not start stalking supermodels.

 

The point being I can go through my normal everyday life and be in control of my sexual desires. When I see an attractive woman I notice, if she is wearing a low cut top or short shorts I might notice sooner. Heck I might even look twice (I am a guy) but that does not mean I want to have sex with these people or that I am not in control of my urges

[mdfxdb]

I wouldn't look at pornography that is a conscious decision, and a topic for another discussion.

 

I can however go to the beach with women running around in bikinis and not be sexually aroused, I can shop at Fredricks of hollywood to buy sexy stuff for my wife with out being aroused, I can watch the victorias secret runways show every year with my wife not start stalking supermodels.

 

The point being I can go through my normal everyday life and be in control of my sexual desires. When I see an attractive woman I notice, if she is wearing a low cut top or short shorts I might notice sooner. Heck I might even look twice (I am a guy) but that does not mean I want to have sex with these people or that I am not in control of my urges

You obviously are a pillar of self-control.  

 

I think the point is that women do have a responsibility to dress modestly.  Men have a responsibility to respect women.  Women have a responsibility to respect themselves, and their covenants.  This isn't about self-control as much as it is about people respecting themselves and one another.  That's not to say certain things can't be considered arousing, or alluring no matter how covered up someone is. 

 

I do not want to see women having to go full coverage head to toe like in some other countries just because men can't behave/control themselves.  Teaching women that they are somehow responsible for the lascivious thoughts of a man isn't correct.  Teaching women that they need to respect themselves, and those who observe them is correct.  

 

I, much like Omega am a pillar of self-control.  

[Guest]

I think the point is that women do have a responsibility to dress modestly.  Men have a responsibility to respect women.  Women have a responsibility to respect themselves, and their covenants.  This isn't about self-control as much as it is about people respecting themselves and one anoTther.

 

This.

 

Modesty is not just skimpy outfit.  It's tattoos, piercings, pants that is halfway down one's butt, etc.  And even one's attitude, language, manners.  All these teachings go beyond self.  It is teaching respect and care for others as well.

 

One does not walk into the office in skimpy outfit or in ungroomed hair or unwashed bodies or in coarse language and attitudes.  This is not for the self.  This is to show respect to one's customers.  If we believe that one must attain certain behaviors for customers, how much more for God's spiritual children?

[pam]

This.

 

Modesty is not just skimpy outfit.  It's tattoos, piercings, pants that is halfway down one's butt, etc.  And even one's attitude, language, manners.  All these teachings go beyond self.  It is teaching respect and care for others as well.

 

One does not walk into the office in skimpy outfit or in ungroomed hair or unwashed bodies or in coarse language and attitudes.  This is not for the self.  This is to show respect to one's customers.  If we believe that one must attain certain behaviors for customers, how much more for God's spiritual children?

 

I think modesty is attitude as well.

[Palerider]

I think modesty is attitude as well.

I agree with that remark.

[yjacket]

I wouldn't look at pornography that is a conscious decision, and a topic for another discussion.

 

I can however go to the beach with women running around in bikinis and not be sexually aroused, I can shop at Fredricks of hollywood to buy sexy stuff for my wife with out being aroused, I can watch the victorias secret runways show every year with my wife not start stalking supermodels.

 

The point being I can go through my normal everyday life and be in control of my sexual desires. When I see an attractive woman I notice, if she is wearing a low cut top or short shorts I might notice sooner. Heck I might even look twice (I am a guy) but that does not mean I want to have sex with these people or that I am not in control of my urges

 

To each his own, I guess . . . .the question is how did you gain that self-control?  During your teenager years would you have the same self-control as today?  

 

What teenage boy would be able to go into VS or Fredrick's, etc. and not be aroused.  What teenage boy would not be aroused by going to a beach and seeing a lot of very attractive young women in bikini's?

 

And the line between lingerie model photographs and pornography is IMO very, very small.  In fact, one could make the claim that lingerie photographs do more to enhance arousal vs. simply naked pictures.  So if you are saying you can walk into Fredrick's and be okay, then you are in essence saying you can look at naked pictures and be okay.  More power to you, but do recognize that that expectation of the younger male population in general is pretty unrealistic.

 

Dollar's to donuts, I bet a significant portion of the LDS population who has porn issues, started through seemingly innocent things.  I sure know I do not want my 16 year old son (when he gets there) watching VS shows and going into Fredrick's.

 

In general talks on modesty are aimed at the youth, why, because they are the most vulnerable to the trappings of the temptation.  They do not have the wisdom, experience, or age to be able to walk into Fredrick's and be totally okay.  

 

So I have no problem for the Church or adult leaders to teach that a) we should be modest, b ) it is a shared responsibility both on the viewer to "garnish their thoughts" but also on the viewee to not be walking lingerie model that would encourage the viewer to not garnish their thoughts.  And when individuals say that wearing modest clothes is a form of self-respect, it is, b/c as my wife says "if you don't want to be thought of as a particular type of person, then don't dress like one."

 

I have no idea of your age, but men's libido on average drops as they get older and if they are married, thereby making it easier to reset temptation.

 

If a dress didn't affect a significant portion of the male population then what Cameron Russell does at the beginning of her TED talk wouldn't matter:

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/cameron_russell_looks_aren_t_everything_believe_me_i_m_a_model

 

Why did she change clothes from a very good looking and fairly modest (in today's standards, but certainly not garment enabled) outfit into something different?

 

To deny the why of her decision to change outfits is to deny reality.

[omegaseamaster75]

To each his own, I guess . . . .the question is how did you gain that self-control?  During your teenager years would you have the same self-control as today?  

 

What teenage boy would be able to go into VS or Fredrick's, etc. and not be aroused.  What teenage boy would not be aroused by going to a beach and seeing a lot of very attractive young women in bikini's?

 

And the line between lingerie model photographs and pornography is IMO very, very small.  In fact, one could make the claim that lingerie photographs do more to enhance arousal vs. simply naked pictures.  So if you are saying you can walk into Fredrick's and be okay, then you are in essence saying you can look at naked pictures and be okay.  More power to you, but do recognize that that expectation of the younger male population in general is pretty unrealistic.

 

Dollar's to donuts, I bet a significant portion of the LDS population who has porn issues, started through seemingly innocent things.  I sure know I do not want my 16 year old son (when he gets there) watching VS shows and going into Fredrick's.

 

In general talks on modesty are aimed at the youth, why, because they are the most vulnerable to the trappings of the temptation.  They do not have the wisdom, experience, or age to be able to walk into Fredrick's and be totally okay.  

 

So I have no problem for the Church or adult leaders to teach that a) we should be modest, b ) it is a shared responsibility both on the viewer to "garnish their thoughts" but also on the viewee to not be walking lingerie model that would encourage the viewer to not garnish their thoughts.  And when individuals say that wearing modest clothes is a form of self-respect, it is, b/c as my wife says "if you don't want to be thought of as a particular type of person, then don't dress like one."

 

I have no idea of your age, but men's libido on average drops as they get older and if they are married, thereby making it easier to reset temptation.

 

If a dress didn't affect a significant portion of the male population then what Cameron Russell does at the beginning of her TED talk wouldn't matter:

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/cameron_russell_looks_aren_t_everything_believe_me_i_m_a_model

 

Why did she change clothes from a very good looking and fairly modest (in today's standards, but certainly not garment enabled) outfit into something different?

 

To deny the why of her decision to change outfits is to deny reality.

 

 

Since your post was addressed to me I feel like I should respond. It is not appropriate for a 16YO to shop at VC or Fredricks. 

 

Teenage boys do however go to the beach, go to school (I've seen how teenagers dress these days). They are exposed to scantily clad women. There is no way around this, can't be avoided. I suppose if you went though life with blinders on or never watched TV or left your house you would be ok.

 

Was I aroused as a youth sure who isn't. It is a natural reaction to external stimulus. My growth in the church and teachings from my parents however kept me grounded. A talk about real life from my parents and what I would see and witness in the real world helped. Sure I made mistakes in my youth who doesn't.

 

I have self control because I know at my age of 39 what is and what is and what is not appropriate (for me).  If I am at the beach and there are bikini clad girls running around I am not immune to noticing how attractive they are. However I do not want to leave my wife and have sex with them. Self control is a mindset, in my old place of employment my friends at work were smokers and drinkers, we would play golf and they would be smoking and drinking the whole time. I was not tempted. If an attractive girl throws herself at me I will say no. 

 

I disagree with your assessment of the thin line between lingerie and nudity, lingerie being as bad or same as porn this should be for a later discussion.

 

I will quote you again "So I have no problem for the Church or adult leaders to teach that a) we should be modest, b ) it is a shared responsibility both on the viewer to "garnish their thoughts" but also on the viewee to not be walking lingerie model that would encourage the viewer to not garnish their thoughts.  And when individuals say that wearing modest clothes is a form of self-respect, it is, b/c as my wife says "if you don't want to be thought of as a particular type of person, then don't dress like one.""

 

I agree with this statement 

 

As for Cameron Russell I have seen that video, she could wear a potato sack and still be hot. Was she treated differently because she was attractive sure, are less attractive people treated the same.. no way....no one in that room felt sorry for her, it's called real life, she was born super hot, others are born rich some ugly some poor. It's just the way it is.