Mad at Modesty

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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

I have literally, in real life, gotten chewed out for wearing "immodest" clothing and "giving" this guy sexual thoughts while wearing capris.  I'm sorry, but that guy having sexual thoughts is his problem, not mine. 

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

but that guy having sexual thoughts is his problem, not mine.

This much is certainly true. Generally speaking, we are not at fault for our brother's weaknesses. But it does not follow that therefore we have no responsibility to help him. Specifically, if immodesty in dress hurts a weak brother, I believe there is a moral imperative to quit being immodest.

But what if the brother gets all hot and bothered because you're wearing that nice flowered print dress? Surely that's just his problem and not yours, right? Well...yes, right. It is his problem and not yours. And you cannot go around taking everyone's problems on yourself. But in some certain situation, it might just be the kind thing to do to help him out. it may not be a moral obligation, exactly. But if you take seriously the idea that you are your brother's keeper, then you might well avoid the flowered print dress for his sake -- even though it's not immodest per se.

The ancient apostle Paul exhibited this attitude when talking about eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols: It may not be immoral to eat such food, but if it offends a brother, he will refuse to eat that meat while the world stands. Perhaps it would behoove us to take Paul's example and adopt such an attitude, where reasonable.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

This much is certainly true. Generally speaking, we are not at fault for our brother's weaknesses. But it does not follow that therefore we have no responsibility to help him. Specifically, if immodesty in dress hurts a weak brother, I believe there is a moral imperative to quit being immodest.

There is nothing immodest about capris and I am under zero obligation to "help" this man.  

1 minute ago, Vort said:

But what if the brother gets all hot and bothered because you're wearing that nice flowered print dress? Surely that's just his problem and not yours, right? Well...yes, right. It is his problem and not yours. And you cannot go around taking everyone's problems on yourself. But in some certain situation, it might just be the kind thing to do to help him out. it may not be a moral obligation, exactly. But if you take seriously the idea that you are your brother's keeper, then you might well avoid the flowered print dress for his sake -- even though it's not immodest per se.

No.  Just no.

1 minute ago, Vort said:

The ancient apostle Paul exhibited this attitude when talking about eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols: It may not be immoral to eat such food, but if it offends a brother, he will refuse to eat that meat while the world stands. Perhaps it would behoove us to take Paul's example and adopt such an attitude, where reasonable.

There is nothing reasonable about these examples given here.  

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

There is nothing immodest about capris and I am under zero obligation to "help" this man.  

No.  Just no.

There is nothing reasonable about these examples given here.  

Your attitude is one of defensiveness. I understand why teenage girls might say, "It's not FAAAAAAAIR!" But as adults, we should have a broader view.

I believe that my examples are perfectly reasonable. If you think they are not, then please explain why, instead of just making the claim.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Your attitude is one of defensiveness. I understand why teenage girls might say, "It's not FAAAAAAAIR!" But as adults, we should have a broader view.

I believe that my examples are perfectly reasonable. If you think they are not, then please explain why, instead of just making the claim.

The only person who can govern their own thoughts is that person.  If a person indulges sexual thoughts, no one else can mindjack in there and stop it- it's literally impossible.  It's the person's responsibility to govern their own thoughts.  

Now, to state the obvious: there nothing sexual about capris or flower patterns, and they in no way makes a person immodest or have LoC issues.  If a man chooses to indulge sexual thoughts over a non-sexual outfit, that's his choice and there nothing anyone else can do about it and no one else bears any responsibility.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The only person who can govern their own thoughts is that person.  If a person indulges sexual thoughts, no one else can mindjack in there and stop it- it's literally impossible.  It's the person's responsibility to govern their own thoughts.  

Now, to state the obvious: there nothing sexual about capris or flower patterns, and they in no way makes a person immodest or have LoC issues.  If a man chooses to indulge sexual thoughts over a non-sexual outfit, that's his choice and there nothing anyone else can do about it and no one else bears any responsibility.

You know what would solve this? Burkas. The church should dictate that women can only wear burkas. Period. 

[Sunday21]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You know what would solve this? Burkas. The church should dictate that women can only wear burkas. Period. 

You first! We will cut a hole for your tail!

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

You first! We will cut a hole for your tail!

Eh, burkas would look weird on the beach. In particular with the beaches that I go to. 

[Just_A_Guy]

I think (hope?) we are all on board, as Mormons, with the idea of making *reasonable accommodations*  for the weaknesses of others.  The  issue, of course, is what constitutes "reasonable".  It seems to me that that's part of what the church is try to accomplish with its standards on modesty.  Asking people to wear sleeved shirts seems reasonable to me.  Asking people to wear long sleeves, long ankle-length pants, burkas, etc. all the time; clearly isn't. 

Once one has wholly subscribed to the idea that clothing is expressive; it becomes nigh-unto impossible to suggest that a God who cares about how we express ourselves generally, wouldn't care about our clothing choices.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Now, to state the obvious: there nothing sexual about capris or flower patterns, and they in no way makes a person immodest or have LoC issues.

Agreed. Did you think I suggested otherwise?

14 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

If a man chooses to indulge sexual thoughts over a non-sexual outfit, that's his choice

Agreed. Did you think I suggested otherwise?

14 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

and there nothing anyone else can do about it

Clearly, this is not so. One can choose not to wear the "triggering" outfit.

15 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

and no one else bears any responsibility.

Responsibility for what? For his thoughts? Obviously. For his well-being? Not so clear.

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

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.

Interestingly, my mom was a teenager in the 1960s and her recollection as a California Mormon was that there was no taboo then against sleeveless clothing.  (Strapped/strapless, sure; but she says high-necked sleeveless dresses were quite a common sight at church each Sunday for girls or women who hadn't been to the temple.)

Edited August 30, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Bini]

19 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.

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.

I agree with you 100% that girls and women are in no shape or form responsible for the thoughts and actions of their male counterparts. We are not distractions and it is unfortunate that our self-worth and self-respect is directly linked to how we present ourselves in attire. How I choose to cover my body does not take away from my self-worth or self-respect. I am no less valued or have less respect for myself than any other woman who chooses to cover her body differently. This is a toxic concept that continues to perpetuate within certain groups. How you treat others and how you contribute to the world - that is what determines the kind of person you are - not what you put on your body. Again, you are not responsible for the thoughts and actions someone else has. Sadly, society has a long history of victim blaming, and while the dialogue has become better, lots of education and awareness still needs to come to light. If a man (or anyone) is having unclean thoughts and acts upon them (sexual harassment or sexual assault) - it is on him - it is not on the other party, period.

[mdfxdb]

5 minutes ago, Bini said:

I agree with you 100% that girls and women are in no shape or form responsible for the thoughts and actions of their male counterparts. We are not distractions and it is unfortunate that our self-worth and self-respect is directly linked to how we present ourselves in attire. How I choose to cover my body does not take away from my self-worth or self-respect. I am no less valued or have less respect for myself than any other woman who chooses to cover her body differently. This is a toxic concept that continues to perpetuate within certain groups. How you treat others and how you contribute to the world - that is what determines the kind of person you are - not what you put on your body. Again, you are not responsible for the thoughts and actions someone else has. Sadly, society has a long history of victim blaming, and while the dialogue has become better, lots of education and awareness still needs to come to light. If a man (or anyone) is having unclean thoughts and acts upon them (sexual harassment or sexual assault) - it is on him - it is not on the other party, period.

This sounds good.  All women should walk around topless.  I for one will take responsibility for my own thoughts.  I will not hold any woman responsible for my thoughts if she chooses to associate with me with no shirt on.  Modesty is completely over-rated........

[The Folk Prophet]

50 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

 All women should walk around topless.

I heartily agree.

 

[eddified]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

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.

Ah, this is refreshing. Saying it like it is. Preach!

3 hours 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?

Bingo. The hyper-individualism taught by modern culture doesn't mix so well with teachings of "love each other and be mindful of their weaknesses", does it?

1 hour ago, Vort said:

This much is certainly true. Generally speaking, we are not at fault for our brother's weaknesses. But it does not follow that therefore we have no responsibility to help him. Specifically, if immodesty in dress hurts a weak brother, I believe there is a moral imperative to quit being immodest.

But what if the brother gets all hot and bothered because you're wearing that nice flowered print dress? Surely that's just his problem and not yours, right? Well...yes, right. It is his problem and not yours. And you cannot go around taking everyone's problems on yourself. But in some certain situation, it might just be the kind thing to do to help him out. it may not be a moral obligation, exactly. But if you take seriously the idea that you are your brother's keeper, then you might well avoid the flowered print dress for his sake -- even though it's not immodest per se.

The ancient apostle Paul exhibited this attitude when talking about eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols: It may not be immoral to eat such food, but if it offends a brother, he will refuse to eat that meat while the world stands. Perhaps it would behoove us to take Paul's example and adopt such an attitude, where reasonable.

Yes, my ultra-strict uncle judges me when I wear a button-up shirt of the wrong color (i.e. not white) to church. As someone who doesn't sit on the stand, nor serve the sacrament, I don't really think it should matter what color of shirt I wear. That said, I now choose to only wear white shirts to church so as not to offend/distract others sitting in sacrament meeting. It's not just about me, it's also about who will be seeing me and what I'm wearing.

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Eh, burkas would look weird on the beach. In particular with the beaches that I go to. 

In all seriousness, perhaps you'd be surprised how many people think "modest clothing" (by church standards) "looks weird at venue X". Sometimes we don't like what the church teaches - in those cases it's up to us to do careful introspection about submitting our will to God's.

[eddified]

From the Church's website:

https://www.lds.org/topics/modesty?lang=eng

Quote

Our clothing ... sends messages about us, and it influences the way we and others act.

Quote

Revealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord's law of chastity.

Quote

Like our dress and grooming, our language and behavior are expressions of our character. Our words and actions can have a profound influence on us and on others. We should express ourselves through clean, positive, uplifting language and in actions that bring happiness to those around us.

In addition, the Bible teaches us in Matthew 15:11:

Quote

Not that which goeth into the mouth ^adefileth a man; but that which cometh out of the ^bmouth, this defileth a man.

I personally think this can be related to language. Filthy language coming out of a man's mouth "defileth a man".... which I would say reflects on an individual's self-respect. In like manner, as language is an expression of one's character and state of mindfulness, so too is one's manner of dress. So in my opinion, the Matthew 15:11 scripture also applies to what we wear. And similarly, what we wear does in fact say something about our self-respect.

[Snigmorder]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Eh, burkas would look weird on the beach. In particular with the beaches that I go to. 

@Sunday21

Edited August 31, 2017 by Snigmorder

[Backroads]

Speaking of the flower-print dress... how much of my worry am I supposed to devote to "help out" the guy who gets all frazzled over my floral skirt? At some point we become unreasonable. Modesty is a wonderful concept we should all strive for, yet becomes difficult to quantify without resorting to Gator-approved burkas. Are those of curvier body shapes supposed to strive for the same modest lines as someone who is flatter as not to arouse the poor guy down the pew who needs someone to help him not be distracted? Who is in charge of recommending the ladies of the community rid their closet of the floral-print dresses? At what point do we become Pharisees of modesty? 

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Speaking of the flower-print dress... how much of my worry am I supposed to devote to "help out" the guy who gets all frazzled over my floral skirt? At some point we become unreasonable. Modesty is a wonderful concept we should all strive for, yet becomes difficult to quantify without resorting to Gator-approved burkas. Are those of curvier body shapes supposed to strive for the same modest lines as someone who is flatter as not to arouse the poor guy down the pew who needs someone to help him not be distracted? Who is in charge of recommending the ladies of the community rid their closet of the floral-print dresses? At what point do we become Pharisees of modesty? 

Immediate excommunication (and possible jail time) for any woman who works outside the home, walks her dog outside the home,  even one who goes to the mailbox without wearing a full burka. I'm dead serious. We need to look into this. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Whereas the church is highly, HIGHLY interested in it's young men and women getting married and procreating, I do not believe the point of modesty is to remove sexual attraction from the mix entirely.

[Anddenex]

34 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Speaking of the flower-print dress... how much of my worry am I supposed to devote to "help out" the guy who gets all frazzled over my floral skirt? At some point we become unreasonable. Modesty is a wonderful concept we should all strive for, yet becomes difficult to quantify without resorting to Gator-approved burkas. Are those of curvier body shapes supposed to strive for the same modest lines as someone who is flatter as not to arouse the poor guy down the pew who needs someone to help him not be distracted? Who is in charge of recommending the ladies of the community rid their closet of the floral-print dresses? At what point do we become Pharisees of modesty? 

Modesty has nothing to do with the print, hue, or pattern of any dress or skirt, so I am really puzzled by the connection. If a person is dressing modestly, and a man/woman is unable to keep their thoughts clean that is solely with the individual to remember the following counsel regarding lust.

If we are defining "modesty" by the print, hue, or pattern then we have already become Pharisaic. Now, if the "floral skirt" is a mini-mini skirt (which isn't modest -- you know the booty skirts), then yes, this is something any woman can choose not to wear.

How we choose to cover our body does indeed take way from our self-worth and self-respect. Women in "Playboy" choose to cover their body very little, does this determine their self-worth or self-respect. Yes, it does. To say otherwise is denying basic truths. A woman that covers herself modestly, does indeed have more self respect and value for herself then a woman who walks to work in a string bikini. If I were to wear standard swim short in comparison to a man g-string to the beach, yes, this does say something about my personal self-value and self-respect for myself. It doesn't matter how good I might look in a g-string. The notion of "how we choose to cover our body doesn't determine self-worth or self-respect are values of the Great and Spacious building seen in Lehi's dream.

The same principles of modesty applies to all humans, curvy or non-curvy, muscular or non-muscular, skinny or big.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Anddenex

[zil]

And, if all the wasn't enough, there's always money.  If you're in the habit of buying clothes that can't be worn over garments, unless you're already rich enough to replace your entire wardrobe at the drop of a hat, what are you going to do when you receive your endowment?

And no, marrying rich or getting rich by then does not count because that plan never works out.

[zil]

PS: if you are already rich, what are you going to do to overcome the mental difficulty many seem to have with changing the way you dress? Cuz boy are there a lot of people who seem to struggle with that. I say save yourself the headache and just dress now and always as if you already wore garments. 

[Backroads]

6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Modesty has nothing to do with the print, hue, or pattern of any dress or skirt, so I am really puzzled by the connection. If a person is dressing modestly, and a man/woman is unable to keep their thoughts clean that is solely with the individual to remember the following counsel regarding lust.

If we are defining "modesty" by the print, hue, or pattern then we have already become Pharisaic. Now, if the "floral skirt" is a mini-mini skirt (which isn't modest -- you know the booty skirts), then yes, this is something any woman can choose not to wear.

How we choose to cover our body does indeed take way from our self-worth and self-respect. Women in "Playboy" choose to cover their body very little, does this determine their self-worth or self-respect. Yes, it does. To say otherwise is denying basic truths. A woman that covers herself modestly, does indeed have more self respect and value for herself then a woman who walks to work in a string bikini. If I were to where standard swim short in comparison to a man g-string to the beach, yes, this does say something about my personal self-value and self-respect for myself. It doesn't matter how good I might look in a g-string. The notion of "how we choose to cover our body doesn't determine self-worth or self-respect are values of the Great and Spacious building seen in Lehi's dream.

The same principles of modesty applies to all humans, curvy or non-curvy, muscular or non-muscular, skinny or big.

Earlier in the thread we spoke of helping out the person who can't handle what is otherwise a reasonable standard of modesty. I'm sure @Vort was merely using it as an example of whatever other thing we can do to do make another comfortable. Yet that seems to be leading to problems.

I'll put it out there: I'm more endowed in the chest than others. I get to boast classic hourglass measurements.  I will never, ever look less curvy than my, well, less curvy fellow females. While I can easily avoid wearing skintight cocktail dresses and plunge biki tops and what have you, the guy who needs help controlling his thoughts at the sight of someone not flat is just going to have to deal.

Modesty is a very good standard. Getting weird about the details of modesty and trying to apply them across the board gets tricky.

[Jojo Bags]

"... Modesty is the foundation stone of chastity."  Ensign, April 2007.

I guess it must be pretty important after all.