Mad at Modesty

[GirlNextDoor]

Growing up, I was the obly mormon in my family. I started coming to church around the age of 7 and was baptized at the age of 9. With any aspect pf the church, I was on my own. I didnt have parents telling me what was and wasnt okay for mormon standards. It wasnt until I was 12 years old that I learned about modesty. I was actually quite upset that my sunday school teachers didnt find it important that I knew this. I had gone my whole lds life wearing tank tops and shorts above the knee.

But at the same time, I am almost grateful for not finding out sooner, because it gave me a new outlook on modesty. As I was making changes to my wardrobe to fit lds standards, I came across a question. Why do I need to do this?  I went ahead and googled it and found an answer from the lds website (lds.org) It said that our bodies are temples and they should not distract or in any case not be able to contain the spirit and/or draw away from us as a person.

As my research continued I found many people saying it was to help men so they would bot be distracted.

Now wait. Slow down. It is MY responsibilty as a woman to make sure that I dont distract men?

Um no thanks! And why would it be a problem anyways? When you are too young to wear garments, you probably havent even sexually developed, therefore you should not be "distracting" to men in that way. If a young man can not control something like that, then he needs to be the one to change, it is not a girls responsibilty!!

I understand that once you wear garments you will need to cover them up with certain vlothing, and that I understand. But young girls should not feel the need to hide their shoulders and thighs in worries that they might distract boys or have God not love them as much or not see them as a good person. The church should be encouraging young girls to be confident and know that their body is nothing to be ashamed of, God created that body just for you!

I know that Heavenly Father is not shallow enough to judge a person by what they wear because that is not what they are. And I want you to understand that too.

 

This is not ment to offend someone, I am just expressing my opinion.

[Sunday21]

Welcome to the forum!

Modesty is about:

Self-respect.

Your body is sacred so you show your body respect. You are of value. 

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by Sunday21

[Jane_Doe]

I'm going to take any ideas about "the reason a girl should be modest is for guys" and shove them out the door.  Yes, that might be a side benefit, but it's not the reason a person should be modest.  So they can be shoved out the door.

Modesty is about respecting yourself. You mind, your soul, and your body.  You are beautiful.  You mental beauty is for everyone to see, though we shouldn't obnoxiously brag about it.  Same with your spiritual beauty.  Sometimes part of are beauty is not to be shoved in random people's face at random times.  For example, there may be times where you shouldn't share a super-special-spiritual part of your beauty with a.... uncharitable person (to put it mildly).  Don't cast pearls before swine.  Some parts of your physical beauty are not for random people viewing, but that admiration is reserved for a special bond with your spouse.  Therefore, like we don't cast spiritual pearls before swine, we don't display some parts of a physical beauty casually.  Hence, "modest" clothing: to help us show different parts of are beauty at appropriate times. 

(Notice how none of the above was gender specific-- modesty applies to both genders).

While modesty does apply to both genders equally, unmodest men's clothes aren't really "fashionable".  Women's clothes though... yeah unmodest is a really popular thing.  Doesn't mean it's a good thing.  If you want to talk more specifically about certain things, such as teenage or younger girls clothes, we can.  

[Blueskye2]

1 hour ago, GirlNextDoor said:

Growing up, I was the obly mormon in my family. I started coming to church around the age of 7 and was baptized at the age of 9. With any aspect pf the church, I was on my own. I didnt have parents telling me what was and wasnt okay for mormon standards. It wasnt until I was 12 years old that I learned about modesty. I was actually quite upset that my sunday school teachers didnt find it important that I knew this. I had gone my whole lds life wearing tank tops and shorts above the knee.

But at the same time, I am almost grateful for not finding out sooner, because it gave me a new outlook on modesty. As I was making changes to my wardrobe to fit lds standards, I came across a question. Why do I need to do this?  I went ahead and googled it and found an answer from the lds website (lds.org) It said that our bodies are temples and they should not distract or in any case not be able to contain the spirit and/or draw away from us as a person.

As my research continued I found many people saying it was to help men so they would bot be distracted.

Now wait. Slow down. It is MY responsibilty as a woman to make sure that I dont distract men?

Um no thanks! And why would it be a problem anyways? When you are too young to wear garments, you probably havent even sexually developed, therefore you should not be "distracting" to men in that way. If a young man can not control something like that, then he needs to be the one to change, it is not a girls responsibilty!!

I understand that once you wear garments you will need to cover them up with certain vlothing, and that I understand. But young girls should not feel the need to hide their shoulders and thighs in worries that they might distract boys or have God not love them as much or not see them as a good person. The church should be encouraging young girls to be confident and know that their body is nothing to be ashamed of, God created that body just for you!

I know that Heavenly Father is not shallow enough to judge a person by what they wear because that is not what they are. And I want you to understand that too.

 

This is not ment to offend someone, I am just expressing my opinion.

 "Appearance arouses yearning in fools"

Modesty, is an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity. 

Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one's choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet. 

There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies. 

The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, GirlNextDoor said:

Growing up, I was the obly mormon in my family. I started coming to church around the age of 7 and was baptized at the age of 9. With any aspect pf the church, I was on my own. I didnt have parents telling me what was and wasnt okay for mormon standards. It wasnt until I was 12 years old that I learned about modesty. I was actually quite upset that my sunday school teachers didnt find it important that I knew this. I had gone my whole lds life wearing tank tops and shorts above the knee.

But at the same time, I am almost grateful for not finding out sooner, because it gave me a new outlook on modesty. As I was making changes to my wardrobe to fit lds standards, I came across a question. Why do I need to do this?  I went ahead and googled it and found an answer from the lds website (lds.org) It said that our bodies are temples and they should not distract or in any case not be able to contain the spirit and/or draw away from us as a person.

As my research continued I found many people saying it was to help men so they would bot be distracted.

Now wait. Slow down. It is MY responsibilty as a woman to make sure that I dont distract men?

Um no thanks! And why would it be a problem anyways? When you are too young to wear garments, you probably havent even sexually developed, therefore you should not be "distracting" to men in that way. If a young man can not control something like that, then he needs to be the one to change, it is not a girls responsibilty!!

I understand that once you wear garments you will need to cover them up with certain vlothing, and that I understand. But young girls should not feel the need to hide their shoulders and thighs in worries that they might distract boys or have God not love them as much or not see them as a good person. The church should be encouraging young girls to be confident and know that their body is nothing to be ashamed of, God created that body just for you!

I know that Heavenly Father is not shallow enough to judge a person by what they wear because that is not what they are. And I want you to understand that too.

 

This is not ment to offend someone, I am just expressing my opinion.

This isn't the first time someone has been frustrated by the notion of "it being to help men." I for one have never come across this besides seeing others complain about so I don't think it is true at all.

Many boys and girls start thinking about sex at a young age. Many will come across pornography as early as 9 (I did).

Now in no girl, but I feel confident in telling you that you will find more joy in your life if you choose to be modest.

[Snigmorder]

Forget about men.

Men and women are theomorphic. This means they look like God the Father. In the restored gospel, we know that Man is theomorphic because Man is the actual offspring of the Father. It is not a respectful or righteous thing to adorn and array, to dress this body, in clothing that is trashy, disgraceful, irreverent, or even clothing that's too expensive  or impractical. 

Now let's come back to men. Like it or not, when you show skin, men notice, and you have made yourself an object of immorality, whether you like it or not (I don't necessarily include or exclude LDS men.) Would you look your Father in the face and tell him "I didn't dress to please you because I didn't want men to control me?" 

Or a different way "I care more about my pride than Your wishes."

Edited September 2, 2017 by Snigmorder

[NeuroTypical]

10 hours ago, GirlNextDoor said:

Now wait. Slow down. It is MY responsibilty as a woman to make sure that I dont distract men?

It's your responsibility as a PERSON to dress appropriately.  This isn't a woman/man thing (although there are absolutely gender aspects to it).

It's just as inappropriate for a woman to walk around in skimpy attire, as it is for a man to do so.  Behold:

[Grunt]

The main reason I haven't been baptized is I look so good in a speedo.   I can't deny that to the world.  

[Anddenex]

I am going to begin with your finishing statement, "This is not ment to offend someone, I am just expressing my opinion."

11 hours ago, GirlNextDoor said:

Growing up, I was the obly mormon in my family. I started coming to church around the age of 7 and was baptized at the age of 9. With any aspect pf the church, I was on my own. I didnt have parents telling me what was and wasnt okay for mormon standards. It wasnt until I was 12 years old that I learned about modesty. I was actually quite upset that my sunday school teachers didnt find it important that I knew this. I had gone my whole lds life wearing tank tops and shorts above the knee.

But at the same time, I am almost grateful for not finding out sooner, because it gave me a new outlook on modesty. As I was making changes to my wardrobe to fit lds standards, I came across a question. Why do I need to do this?  I went ahead and googled it and found an answer from the lds website (lds.org) It said that our bodies are temples and they should not distract or in any case not be able to contain the spirit and/or draw away from us as a person.

First off, I applaud your willingness at such a young age to go to church on your own. That is commendable. As pertaining to your Sunday school teachers, I would caution being upset as you don't know their heart. They may have actually taught you through correct principles and through the lessons taught at church. I know I heard, not always listened to, the dress code given by the Church. The strength of youth pamphlet would have been at your finger tips which would have provided you with this information also. Sunday school teachers aren't there to reprimand your dress, and most of the time Sunday school teachers (especially if they knew your household) may have been just glad you were there, rather than possibly pointing out immodesty and causing you to be offended and never come back.

Our bodies are temples, and should be treated as such.

11 hours ago, GirlNextDoor said:

As my research continued I found many people saying it was to help men so they would bot be distracted.

Now wait. Slow down. It is MY responsibilty as a woman to make sure that I dont distract men?

Um no thanks! And why would it be a problem anyways? When you are too young to wear garments, you probably havent even sexually developed, therefore you should not be "distracting" to men in that way. If a young man can not control something like that, then he needs to be the one to change, it is not a girls responsibilty!!

True, and the same with boys. Boys should dress modestly such that "girls" aren't distracted by the way they dress. The principle is not geared toward women alone. This should be self-evident. You ask a great question, "Why would it be a problem anyways?" If you step outside yourself for a moment, you will see how the principle applies to both men and women. I don't anymore; however, in high school (because I was an athlete) I knew exactly how wearing a tank top distracted the girls around me. The moment I started wearing tank tops and taking off my shirt, it was amazing to me how much more I was being noticed (I was the same person, just with all of my top showing or partly with tank tops). When I read the "Miracle of Forgiveness" I realized the truth of how we dress truly affects other people, and may provide others the opportunity to "sin".

We know, even when we are not taught, exactly how we dress attracts or distracts people. Girls aren't wearing bikinis at the beach because it is comfortable. Let's be honest with ourselves. I remember LDS girls growing up who would wear one piece at home, put bikini in bag (change at the beach), and they weren't wearing bikini because it made them more comfortable. They wore bikini because they knew the reaction they would receive from boys.

So yes, you and I, have a responsibility to the opposite sex in how we dress. We don't want to reject wisdom merely because we don't like it.

11 hours ago, GirlNextDoor said:

I understand that once you wear garments you will need to cover them up with certain vlothing, and that I understand. But young girls should not feel the need to hide their shoulders and thighs in worries that they might distract boys or have God not love them as much or not see them as a good person. The church should be encouraging young girls to be confident and know that their body is nothing to be ashamed of, God created that body just for you!

I know that Heavenly Father is not shallow enough to judge a person by what they wear because that is not what they are. And I want you to understand that too.

This is not ment to offend someone, I am just expressing my opinion.

What you are expressing is the knowledge of the world, not the knowledge of God. This statement here is a half truth, "he church should be encouraging young girls to be confident and know that their body is nothing to be ashamed of, God created that body just for you!" is why "Playboy" exists. Don't be ashamed of your body, and if you got it, flaunt it! It isn't your responsibility to keep "men's" minds clean. It isn't your responsibility to keep "girl's" minds clean. This is the philosophy of the world, not of God.

The Church is encouraging young men and young men to be confident, and to recognize confidence does not come by how you look, but in your knowledge of who you are and how you represent that knowledge in the way you dress, talk, and act.

I don't think you understand the mind of God with this statement, "I know that Heavenly Father is not shallow enough to judge a person by what they wear because that is not what they are." God, our Heavenly Father, does indeed make judgements with regard to what we wear. If not, there would be no counsel or commandment to dress modestly. The whole notion of dressing modest requires a judgement to know a person is being modest or immodest. If God wasn't concerned with how we dress he would have never counseled nor commanded his children to be modest, let alone providing clothes for Adam and Eve after they left the garden to cover their nakedness. Right? Because a naked body is nothing to be ashamed of, and we should all just be naked, God doesn't care (at least this is what a few of my facebook friends uphold -- I have to be a little cautious when they make a post). How we dress, according to our knowledge, is indeed who we are. It is an outward manifestation of an inner belief and choice.

This isn't meant to offend you; however, it is to help you see in a more correct light.

[Anddenex]

25 minutes ago, Grunt said:

The main reason I haven't been baptized is I look so good in a speedo.   I can't deny that to the world.  

Ya, me too, totally -- except I have been baptized -- and it isn't my responsibility to keep "girls" mind clean even when I look so good.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Anddenex

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

11 hours ago, Fether said:

This isn't the first time someone has been frustrated by the notion of "it being to help men." I for one have never come across this besides seeing others complain about so I don't think it is true at all.

I joined the church at 12, the only church messages I received were from church and I got the be modest so you don't give guys bad thoughts ALL the TIME. That's the only reason I was given.  I'm 51, so maybe younger people have a different experience.

I chalk it up to church culture, not the gospel. This is one of the reasons we need to do our personal study of the scriptures and words of our leaders and not rely on the sometimes false cultural ideas promoted by people in our wards.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I chalk it up to church culture, not the gospel.

I chalk it up to an age before "Gender Studies".  You know, that age when we were still free to point out the obvious differences between male and female.  You know... that men are generally visually aroused while women are generally emotionally aroused?  That.

In today's day and age it became so... pooh pooh'd to point out that fact that a Church teaching that alludes to this basic differences in males and females becomes ohhh sooo bad!

It is a statistical FACT.  Women display their cleavage - big or small, black or white, fat or skinny, rich or poor - because men are attracted to the physical female.  It's a biological natural man response.  A man displaying his body attributes don't attract women in the same manner.  A woman is not attracted to a man's abs because it's a part of the male body.  Women are attracted to a man's abs because of it's implication of strength.  So you don't hear too much of this - help women bridle their loins by keeping your abs covered as much.

So yes.  The teaching is entirely appropriate unless you work hard to eliminate gender differences in society.  You know, like this:

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by anatess2

[Grunt]

I made it through about 2 minutes of that video.

[The Folk Prophet]

I really don't understand the complaint about modesty being for other. Why should that be a problem for anyone? Should we not relish the ability to help those who are weak? Shouldn't it be part of who we desire to be to bear one another's burdens -- even if those burdens are a weakness for exposed flesh? Wouldn't part of bearing that burden be ensuring that we don't bear flesh in front of said individuals(s)? What does the fact that they are accountable for their choices and actions have to do with our choices to either support and help or give the virtual bird to someone who is so struggling? Are we our brother's keepers or not?

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I really don't understand the complaint about modesty being for other. Why should that be a problem for anyone? Should we not relish the ability to help those who are weak? Shouldn't it be part of who we desire to be to bear one another's burdens -- even if those burdens are a weakness for exposed flesh? Wouldn't part of bearing that burden be ensuring that we don't bear flesh in front of said individuals(s)? What does the fact that they are accountable for their choices and actions have to do with our choices to either support and help or give the virtual bird to someone who is so struggling? Are we our brother's keepers or not?

The primary reason you should be modest (in mind/body/spirit) is because YOU desire to do it.  Helping out others can be a great side benefit, but that shouldn't be the main reason.

An example that can come up about this: "Mike" is major porn addict.  He sees ANY part of a female and he goes into sex-crazed mode.  ANY could be "I saw her shins!"  Should all women in Mike's life be required to never show any shin?  Like even the random women at the grocery store?  No!!!!  Mike has a problem, and Mike needs to deal with it.  The random female cashier is not obligated to cover her shin's are part of being "Mike's keeper".  

(I wish I could say that the above was a hypothetical example, but it's not.  I really had to deal with that as the cashier and got lectured by some random guy for wearing capris).

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The primary reason you should be modest (in mind/body/spirit) is because YOU desire to do it.  Helping out others can be a great side benefit, but that shouldn't be the main reason.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say it should be the main reason. But I think "side benefit" is weak sauce.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm pretty sure I didn't say it should be the main reason. But I think "side benefit" is weak sauce.

If you want to label non-primary reasons something else, go ahead.

[NeuroTypical]

I desire to keep my shirt on when mowing the lawn.  It's a desire that springs from me wanting to not offend the neighbors or embarrass my children.  Does that still count as me desiring it?

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

If you want to label non-primary reasons something else, go ahead.

Will do. I so label the doing of things for others: imperative, necessary, required, of greatest worth, and all that jazz.

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Will do. I so label the doing of things for others: imperative, necessary, required, of greatest worth, and all that jazz.

*rolls eyes* It's totally not required/necessary/etc for me to cover my shins because "Mike" has a mega-porn problem and gets aroused by shins.  

Edited August 30, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I desire to keep my shirt on when mowing the lawn.  It's a desire that springs from me wanting to not offend the neighbors or embarrass my children.  Does that still count as me desiring it?

 I think you raise a good point. Motives and desires are sort of pointless. IE-I only do service projects because they make me feel better about myself. Should I not do them until I desire to do them because they help my fellow man, instead of my own selfish reasons? 

Edited August 30, 2017 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

*rolls eyes* It's totally not required/necessary/etc for me to cover my shins because "Mike" has a mega-porn problem and gets aroused by shins.  

*rolls eyes back* It's always very useful to use extreme outliers as if they're the reality.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

*rolls eyes back* It's always very useful to use extreme outliers as if they're the reality.

Still reality.  I literally got chewed out for wearing capris.  

[Snigmorder]

11 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Still reality.  I literally got chewed out for wearing capris.  

If they were skin tight he wasn't looking at the shins.

[The Folk Prophet]

46 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Still reality.  I literally got chewed out for wearing capris.  

I'm not sure what you're trying to debate here.