Teaching Modesty

[priesthoodpower]

39 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

If you go onto east Colfax Avenue in Denver/Aurora, and leave your car unlocked, there is a very high likelihood of its being stolen or, at the least, broken into and its contents stolen. Do you have the right to leave your car on the street, unlocked? Yes, you do. But it's just not very wise.

Ignoring the probably result of your right to park your car or re-wire your house, and then complaining about the outcome anyway is ridiculous. And it's exactly the same when a woman wears tight/revealing/alluring clothing. It's her right. It is not wise.

 

I have 3 daughters oldest is 13 so im in the transition of trying to see the world as they (females) see it instead of forcing them to see the world as I (a man) see it.

There is a time and a place for everything...use your judgement. I leave my car unlocked all the time when Im in areas that I think are safe, but when Im downtown or at the mall I always lock it. Women understand that too and they usually dress to the occasion.

You also need to think about local cultural fashions. In Utah its cold for half the year and everyone wears long pants, when the sun come up in the summer its a big shock to see the bare legs of your neighbor wearing his/her shorts. I live on the coast and tanned bare legs are normal.

39 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Lastly, I believe it was @MormonGator who said that women wear such clothing each for her own reasons. Yea, verily. But I'd argue that the most prevalent reason is precisely to capture the attention of men; some women also want to make other women jealous.

The attention that women seek from men is to be admired and not to be lusted upon. Women dont understand that but this is basically what this thread has turned into, us men explaining that immodest dress causes a man to lust.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

 

The attention that women seek from men is to be admired and not to be lusted upon. 

As men let's not act like we know the intentions of women.  

[MrShorty]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Well, you're probably a much better man than I am.  Recently, I went to a neighbor's house to arrange some play time for our kids to play together.  I came across the mom who was working outside in "very thin clothing".  I was about to turn away and come back when she was more appropriately dressed, but she already spotted me and called me over to see what I wanted.

The problem here was that my mind was distracted with two other things where I couldn't really converse with her very well. (no not those two things) 

1. Her face.  Look at her face.  Don't let your eyes drop. Nope.  Her face.  She's up here.  Her face.  Her face.
2. Finish and get out. Finish and get out.  Get out.  Get out.  <insert Amityville> GET OUT!!!

How productive was the conversation there?  Not very.  Is that really my fault for being "so weak" as to be unable to dismiss her state of dress (as apparently she did)?  I guess you could argue that.  But I don't.

I don't want to call you out personally, because I probably would have had similar difficulties. But I am reminded of those in native African and South American tribes, and in other cultures (nudist cultures) where people can carry on normal conversations without completely losing "productivity" because they are not dressed. I think it would be interesting to look at some of this so-called "built in distraction" that we claim nudity creates. I sometimes wonder if it is as innate as we claim it is, or if it is as much learned as part of cultural norms as it is inherent sexual interest.

 

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

my mom would sometimes walk around the house naked.  Trust me, that is not a sight anyone wanted to see.

Why do you say that? Do you not think your dad may not have enjoyed seeing his wife less than dressed?

[MrShorty]

On 6/20/2016 at 4:27 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

It's too bad more women can't see inside my head when I was a teenager. And I was a good Mormon boy! It's too bad more women can't see inside the heads of men in general. They (well...any but the true harlots) would, certainly, run shrieking from anything immodest ever again.

This is something I am trying to be careful with. I no longer want to believe that my sexuality is some kind of "monster" to be feared and "ran shrieking from"? I don't want my wife to think that my sexuality is a thing to feared or despised. I don't think I want to teach my sons that their sexual thoughts and desires make them near monsters to be shunned and feared. I don't think I want to teach my daughters that men are near uncontrollable monsters that are universally and constantly leering at them. And I also don't want to teach my daughters that any "pleasure" they feel from thinking that men might be attracted to them makes them monsters to be hated and despised either.

The real challenge I see with the modesty discussion is akin to something tesuji has said here -- modesty gets tied into sexuality and sexuality is not something to be hated and despised, but an expression of our eternal natures (see Elder Bednar Apr 2013). This discussion, to me, often seems to dance around some of the issues around what it means to be sexual, to be attracted to each other sexually and to seek out sexual attraction in others, and figuring out how God wants that to work. I don't think it is about making it a thing to be feared.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, MrShorty said:

This is something I am trying to be careful with. I no longer want to believe that my sexuality is some kind of "monster" to be feared and "ran shrieking from"? I don't want my wife to think that my sexuality is a thing to feared or despised. I don't think I want to teach my sons that their sexual thoughts and desires make them near monsters to be shunned and feared. I don't think I want to teach my daughters that men are near uncontrollable monsters that are universally and constantly leering at them. And I also don't want to teach my daughters that any "pleasure" they feel from thinking that men might be attracted to them makes them monsters to be hated and despised either.

The real challenge I see with the modesty discussion is akin to something tesuji has said here -- modesty gets tied into sexuality and sexuality is not something to be hated and despised, but an expression of our eternal natures (see Elder Bednar Apr 2013). This discussion, to me, often seems to dance around some of the issues around what it means to be sexual, to be attracted to each other sexually and to seek out sexual attraction in others, and figuring out how God wants that to work. I don't think it is about making it a thing to be feared.

In the ideal I agree with you. In reality, and to my point, even being a good, faithful LDS young man I struggled with not being said "monster" in my thoughts (that is a bit extreme of a word, but there it is). I can only imagine, therefore, that those who do not make efforts to control their "monster" selves are/were significantly worse.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I don't want to call you out personally, because I probably would have had similar difficulties. But I am reminded of those in native African and South American tribes, and in other cultures (nudist cultures) where people can carry on normal conversations without completely losing "productivity" because they are not dressed. I think it would be interesting to look at some of this so-called "built in distraction" that we claim nudity creates. I sometimes wonder if it is as innate as we claim it is, or if it is as much learned as part of cultural norms as it is inherent sexual interest.

I don't feel called out.  I'm absolutely convinced that it is 90% cultural.  It was Satan who made Adam and Eve feel "ashamed" for being naked.  There are some innate characteristics.  But, yes, it is largely a cultural thing.  And Europe is more hypocritical about it than the US is.

But I admit that I'm partly a product of the culture I was brought up in.  And my parents weren't a good example either.

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Why do you say that? Do you not think your dad may not have enjoyed seeing his wife less than dressed?

No, he did not enjoy it.

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by Guest

[LeSellers]

11 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

The attention that women seek from men is to be admired and not to be lusted upon.

I don't believe this is true for many, maybe most, perhaps a vast majority of women. I've commanded women in the military, and have unwillingly overheard enough conversations about clothes and why they choose to wear what they do (not uniforms, obviously) to know that "cute" describes, at least often, something specifically designed entice men to look at them, and …. Sometimes, "cute" means something that will make other women jealous, but the original intent for 99.9% of those discussions pointed to "it'll make 'em wild".

It is her business entirely what she wears. But it is not for comfort (high heels, etc.). In the words of a fashion designer from back in the 60s, "fashion is about sex!"

Lehi

[Guest]

I was in the bookstore and saw a copy of Erin Brokovich (the book) with a picture of her face on the cover.  I found her significantly in the less attractive camp. My reaction was,"No wonder she has to dress skimpy.  She wouldn't get men to look at her otherwise".  Shallow?  Yeah, probably.  But since then, I've noticed a pattern in many women which mimics hers.

Women do want to be thought of as attractive (by men and women alike).  But most women also have a tremendous inferiority complex with regard to their appearance.  A coping mechanism they have is that they will draw attention to some aspect of their bodies that they feel more confident about.  If they feel their face is less attractive, they'll draw attention to their other assets by dressing with less cover.  That way people won't see that they have facial features that make them look less attractive.

A similar phenomenon happens between self-worth and physical appearances.

If this daughter wants to dress less modestly, could it be because she feels less self esteem in other aspects of her life?  For example, many young women raised in the church come to the conclusion that the standards are simply too high and expectations are too demanding, and they'll never measure up.  Why bother with modesty since there's just no way that "daughter of God" describes me?  But she is a daughter of God with a Divine destiny.  If she could catch that vision, then she would dress more appropriately all on her own.  She wouldn't debase herself with dressing for Babylon.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Guest

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

The attention that women seek from men is to be admired and not to be lusted upon. Women dont understand that but this is basically what this thread has turned into, us men explaining that immodest dress causes a man to lust.

 

13 hours ago, MormonGator said:

As men let's not act like we know the intentions of women.  

 

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

But I am reminded of those in native African and South American tribes, and in other cultures (nudist cultures) where people can carry on normal conversations without completely losing "productivity" because they are not dressed. I think it would be interesting to look at some of this so-called "built in distraction" that we claim nudity creates. I sometimes wonder if it is as innate as we claim it is, or if it is as much learned as part of cultural norms as it is inherent sexual interest.

 

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

I don't believe this is true for many, maybe most, perhaps a vast majority of women. I've commanded women in the military, and have unwillingly overheard enough conversations about clothes and why they choose to wear what they do (not uniforms, obviously) to know that "cute" describes, at least often, something specifically designed entice men to look at them, and …. Sometimes, "cute" means something that will make other women jealous, but the original intent for 99.9% of those discussions pointed to "it'll make 'em wild".

It is her business entirely what she wears. But it is not for comfort (high heels, etc.). In the words of a fashion designer from back in the 60s, "fashion is about sex!"

 

The historicity of cultural psychology differs from age to age and culture to culture.  For example, back in the Roman era, plump women were attractive, skinny women were not, an opposite psychology than today.  In Saudi Arabia, the decoration on the hands is a big deal, in the US, the body shape is the big deal, in the Tasadays before civilzation influenced women to cover their tops, the width of the hipbones.

But in any age and culture, this points to the exact same mortal condition - in the human species, the female attracts the male, the male provides.  Other species are different - the peacock male gets to attract the female, etc.  One mortal human male can repopulate the planet all by himself while it takes a whole slew of females.  The male has virtually his entire life to prevent extinction while females only has a few decades.  These mortal instincts are, therefore, imprinted on the human DNA to give the human species its chance for survival.  The female instinctively competes with other females to attract the male, the male instinctively protects and provides for the female.  At the same time, the male is also instinctively susceptible to female attraction, the female is instinctively susceptible to male providence.

And of course, because the human species gets to be the vessel of the eternal Spirit, the Spirit has the free will to override its mortal instinct.  So there is a lot of argument on why men and women do the things they do because we've been fighting our mortal natures since time immemorial.

The problem with our ability to transcend our instincts is we end up doing things like - putting women on the draft, putting women in a basketball team with the men, etc... that end up killing those instincts that guarantee our species' survival.