Mad at Modesty

[eddified]

2 hours 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. 

Well, I can think of some designs that are immodest. For example, I've seen lots of designs that outrageously flaunt the female chest, and basically call attention to the breasts in a very immodest way. I'm not talking about size or shape of the chest, I'm talking about thinks like words saying "Why don't you look at my face?" right across the chest, or other such nonsense. Then there is the large, oversized shirt which has a cartoonish curvaceous torso wearing a bikini printed on it. ..basically a funny shirt when juxtaposed with the actual figure of a large person wearing it.

Edited August 31, 2017 by eddified

[SpiritDragon]

I think there is a lot of food for thought here.

On the topic of why we keep commandments:

My first impression when confronted with the idea of "why" we have any commandment is first and foremost because God has said so. Other "reasons" beyond that are not likely, in my opinion at the moment, any more or less important than others. Should we dress modestly because it shows respect to god, ourselves and our fellow-humans? Sure. Should we dress modestly because it can help protect us from the elements? Sure. Should we dress modestly because it is more professional? Seems like a good reason to me.

Take the Word of Wisdom as an example: Should we follow the word of wisdom to be healthy? It would seem so. Should we follow the Word of Wisdom to avoid making fools of ourselves in a drunken state? Sounds reasonable. Should we keep the Word of Wisdom because our spouse (insert whomever you like) is struggling to do so and when we don't it creates temptation... Hey now, that's not why! It seems as good a reason as any, really. 

Ultimately, according to my understanding, God gives commandments that he knows will bring us happiness in the long run. I'm sure we can ask almost any forum member about one of their most challenging sins to overcome and how they wish they'd never been caught up in it in the first place, since wickedness never was happiness.

On the topic of being our brother's keeper:

Let me indulge in a little parable of sorts - I have a sweet tooth and absolutely love to eat XYZ treat. My best friend also has a sweet tooth and finds XYZ treat nearly irresistible. I'm blessed not to struggle with weight, but my friend is several pounds overweight and would very much like to reduce (maybe for health reasons, maybe for self-esteem, maybe vanity, doesn't matter). While trying to reduce with the approach of moderation in all things, my friend discovered that XYZ treat sets him/her off on a feeding frenzy, just a look at this treat and his/her best intentions are utterly wasted and junk food is going down the hatch. Knowing that my friend has this struggle I choose not to eat XYZ treat in his/her presence. This doesn't mean i can never do so, it just means that I have learned that in regard to this friend it isn't a helpful or nice thing to do. Sure I could be selfish and eat it in front of my friend, and tell him/her that s/he really needs to just get over it, it's not my problem, but that seems terribly un-Christlike. So I enjoy my XYZ treats at appropriate times when it's not causing my friend strife.

I don't really think the comparison needs to be spelled out just now, so I'll leave it at this.

On the topic of where do we draw the line:

This one for me seems really reasonable, we already have counsel on what is acceptable dress. Simply follow the counsel. If you're dressed as modestly as the church guidelines dictate and someone is still having trouble keeping their thoughts in check, you can at least be confident that you have done your part not to exacerbate the problem.

 

[eddified]

9 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

On the topic of why we keep commandments:

My first impression when confronted with the idea of "why" we have any commandment is first and foremost because God has said so. Other "reasons" beyond that are not likely, in my opinion at the moment, any more or less important than others. 

I love this. I'm very sympathetic to this line of reasoning. 

[SpiritDragon]

59 minutes ago, eddified said:

I love this. I'm very sympathetic to this line of reasoning. 

I should add that I believe because he said so it is a commandment, or counsel, but that we do it to show love for Him. 

I'm partial to this line of reasoning because any number of other reasons that haven't been directly revealed can change, or at least appear to do so. For instance, If I only lived the word of wisdom for health benefits I might easily be swayed by a scientific study that suggests that drinking wine is good for my heart or drinking coffee will improve my athletic performance. If, on the other hand, I simply do so to show my love for the saviour, then I've got a solid foundation of a reason. Of course it doesn't hurt to have multiple other reasons, just as long as they are not what one's faith is based on.

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

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

What part of Love OTHERS as you love yourself is so hard to understand?  YOU are not the primary reason.  YOU AND OTHERS are equal in that regard.

[Midwest LDS]

I do believe in dressing modestly and I am glad the church teaches this concept as it think it's an important part of living the commandments and maintaining self respect. However, I think it's hard for me to take such a minutely detailed stance on the subject because I'm male. Since I don't stroll around town shirtless nor do I wear a banana sling to the beach, modesty does not affect 99% of my day to day life. It's much more difficult for sisters as many of them have pointed out. This is a constant and daily concern for our sisters as we live in a world that does not care about the subject. Let me posit a different scenario for you to help my fellow men gain some perspective. A sister spends days or even weeks trying to find something nice to wear. I've watched my mom, sisters, and wife go through this. She has to sift through a dozen stores, all who for some reason size everything differently, and pick out something modest from a veritble sea of immodest clothing. She finally finds a dress that she feels is flattering but respectful to her body with a nice floral print and goes to church with it that Sunday. Only at church a certain brother strolls up to her and says, "I'm sorry sister, but I am intimately aroused by daisies, could you wear something different?" and now she's expected to go through that entire process again over a request that ridiculous? I'm sorry but it's our responsibility to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling before the Lord, not someone else's. For heaven's sake most of us work or go to school with non members who can dress very provocatively and we have to control ourselves there. Why should we be allowed to drop our self control at church amongst women who are genuinely trying to live the commandments and nitpick their almost universally more modest choices? Modesty is important and we should dress modestly but unless your area has a problem with women coming into church topless, deal with your own problems and leave the sisters alone.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[Anddenex]

10 hours ago, Backroads said:

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.

Correct @Vort and @Jane_Doe held a conversation about clothing and modesty. It was pretty clear to me that Vort was mentioning how one dresses can indeed distract, and that we do have responsibility. No one here ever stated (including Vort) that if a person is dressing modestly, and someone has "lust", that the person dressing modestly should change attire. No one here even eluded to this -- thus my puzzlement and confusion with this line of thinking. If someone is turned on by a modest clothing with flower patterns, then that individual need to check themselves. If a person is dressing immodestly, the print, hue, or pattern doesn't matter, then yes they have responsibility to dress modestly. It would be the same silly discussion if a man was turned on by "long-hair" and then came up to a woman with long hair and said, "I find your long hair lustful, you need to cut it." We all would look at him and laugh (Maybe the girl should slap him to try to help him come to proper senses). But for some reason with modesty, if a woman is dressing immodestly, and a man comes and says, I am lusting, then it turns into -- It is not my responsibility, as if in totality it isn't. The notion is false.

The principle is easy. If you are dressing modestly, then the other individual (male or female) needs to remember the commandment regarding lust. If you are dressing immodestly (yes we all know modesty vs. immodesty if we are honest with ourselves), then indeed you and I have a responsibility to change our attire (by commandment, and by self-respect and self-value for ourselves).

My mother is one who is more curvy (now older she is more droopy ), and she wore modest clothing that fit her curves (still does). If a man came up to her and lusted -- his issue -- not my mothers (my mother dressed modestly). If my mother was wearing immodest clothing to show off her curvy nature, with intent to get attraction from men, yes, she has a responsibility before the Lord and herself to change attire.

[Midwest LDS]

I agree with you more or less @Anddenex. I've been reading this forum for a while and I don't think anybody was advocating blaming women for men's problems. Honestly I was more taking exception to the idea that a man should walk up to a woman and criticize her clothing. To me that smacks of being a Pharisee, and my argument was mostly that unless it's an extremely bad case (ie topless) or you have some sort of responsibility for the ward or part of it (Bishop, Relief Society President, Young Women's President) you shouldn't be walking up to people in your ward and criticizing their clothing.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[Anddenex]

13 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I agree with you more or less @Anddenex. I've been reading this forum for a while and I don't think anybody was advocating for blaming women for men's problems. Honestly I was more taking exception to the idea that a man should walk up to a woman and criticize her clothing. To me that smacks of being a Pharisee, and my argument was mostly that unless it's an extremely bad case (ie topless) or you have some sort of responsibility for the ward or part of it (Bishop, Relief Society President, Young Women's President) you shouldn't be walking up to people in your ward and criticizing their clothing.

I agree.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

I do believe in dressing modestly and I am glad the church teaches this concept as it think it's an i portant part of living the commandments and earning self respect. However, I really think it's hard for me to take such a minutely detailed sttance on the subject because I'm male. Since I don't stroll around town shirtless nor do I wear a banana sling to the beach, modesty does not affect 99% of my day to day life. It's much more difficult for sisters as many of them have pointed out. This is a constant and daily concern for our sisters as we live in a world that does not care about the subject. Let me posit a different scenario for you to help my fellow men gain some perspective. A sister spends days or even weeks trying to find something nice to wear. I've watched my mom, sisters, and wife go through this. She has to sift through a dozen stores, all who for some reason size everything differently, and pick out something modest from a veritble sea of immodest clothing. She finally finds a dress that she feels is flattering but respectful to her body with a nice floral print and goes to church with it that Sunday. Only at church a certain brother strolls up to her and says, "I'm sorry sister, but I am intimately aroused by daisies, could you wear something different?" and now she's expected to go through that entire process again over a request that ridiculous? I'm sorry but it's our responsibility to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling before the Lord, not someone else's. For heaven's sake most of us work or go to school with non members who can dress very provocatively and we have to control ourselves there. Why should we be allowed to drop our self control at church amongst women who are genuinely trying to live the commandments and nitpick their almost universally more modest choices? Modesty is important and we should dress modestly but unless your area has a problem with women coming into church topless, deal with your own problems and leave the sisters alone.

But then, this is not what we are talking about.

What we are talking about is that Young Women are taught to dress modestly not just to respect one's body but also to respect men's work in chastity.  We are not talking about what arouses individual men.  We're talking about the LDS standard of modesty.  So, if it so happens that daisies become a general struggle of man kind, then yes, the prophets would most likely make "don't wear daisies" a standard.  Until then, the daisy triggered man will have to deal with that struggle on his own, hopefully with the help of his bishop.

As it comes to modesty standards and the teaching thereof, it is just as important for women to be taught modesty as a means of treating one's body as a temple as it is being part of sustaining the priesthood.

Edited August 31, 2017 by anatess2

[Midwest LDS]

Agreed @anatess2 I should have been more direct in my post about what I was talking about instead of jumping in the middle. And I do think the OP needs to respect herself and dress modestly in order to follow the commandments and respect herself.

[Jojo Bags]

19 hours ago, Backroads said:

Getting weird about the details of modesty and trying to apply them across the board gets tricky.

How is it weird and tricky?  Modesty is pretty simple and it applies equally to men and women.  No tight clothes, no low cut tops - front and back, no clothes above your knees when you sit down; simple and easy to understand, nothing tricky.  I had a bishop jacked me up because my garment bottom stuck out from the bottom under my shorts when I sat down.  I changed my shorts out.  No big deal.  Something to think about: Sister Elaine S. Dalton said our attitude towards modesty is an accurate indicator of our testimony.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Jojo Bags

[anatess2]

20 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

our attitude

Is really where it's at.

[mordorbund]

One other point that I don't this has been brought up yet is the context of the OP: Namely, counsel given to the youth.

These Young Men are at an age where a surprising amount of sexuality bursts in upon them. Wise parents will often teach their teenagers to drive without the radio on first so they can master the fundamentals. As @Vort mentioned, I think wise leaders try to set up an environment for young men to learn without damaging themselves or others. Kind young women can assist in this.

These Young Women are at an age where a surprising amount of sexuality bursts in upon them. With it comes a great amount of power previously unknown. Wise parents frequently restrain a child's physical and temporal freedoms, only granting them more as they prove trustworthy. I think wise leaders try to set up an environment for young women to learn without damaging themselves or others. Disciplined young men can assist in this.

[zil]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

2 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:

our attitude

Is really where it's at.

No, really, it is.

[Vort]

16 hours ago, Backroads said:

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'm using Backroads' post as a springboard for discussion, but my comments are directed generally, not targeted at Backroads.)

You are correct about my intent. But the idea does not lead to problems. Rather, the idea is inherently nebulous. Once we have satisfied the minimum bar of modesty in dress, thought, and action, then we go about trying to see if we can help our sisters and brothers in their weakness.

"Oh, but that's not FAIR! It's THEIR problem, not MINE!"

Yes, true. Obviously. We all know this. But that is beside the point. Can you imagine if our Father or the Christ were to take this attitude with us? We would be forever lost. Should we follow Cain's insolent hatefulness in sarcastically asking, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Or should we see if we can help, despite their weakness?

"Well, there's nothing I can do! If some guy is such a pervert that the sight of female shins sends him into a tizzy, he's a lost cause!"

Possibly. But this is a variation of the previous attitude of "not my problem". It is that attitude that concerns me.

Should we tell our teenage daughters, "You must not wear that perfectly modest outfit, because you will tempt the boys!"? No, of course not. That is putting the onus where it does not belong.

Should we tell our teenage daughters, "That's a beautiful dress and makes you look great. But when you look great, the boys get all hot and bothered, so you should probably tone it down and try to look a little dumpier"? No, that's silly. While it's not as inappropriate as the previous example, it's dumb to tell a beautiful young woman to be less beautiful because it somehow "helps" the young men. The whole attitude is wrong, though not as much so as the previous example.

Should we tell  our teenage daughters, "Your shorts and blouse are perfectly modest, and you look great. I have found out that there is a certain person who has a weakness he's struggling against, and when he interacts with attractive young women in shorts, his thoughts tend to go down a path he doesn't like and wants to avoid. What would you think about wearing something else, like those nice capris?" You know, this seems reasonable to me. It doesn't put the onus of the anonymous young man's weakness on her. It doesn't make it her problem. But it does offer her the opportunity to do a favor for a brother in his weakness. I think that is perfectly appropriate.

Is my example strained? Yes, perhaps a little. Is it utterly unrealistic? I think it is not.

Previous generations have perhaps taught their daughters that they (the daughters) had responsibility over the impure thoughts of the young men of their time. They were told, implicitly or sometimes explicitly, that modesty in dress was to help the poor young men -- who after all were at the mercy of their libidos and could hardly be expected to remain chaste when so sorely tempted by a young woman's bare shoulder or (shudder) cleavage.

The solution to this is, of course, to put the onus where it belongs. To a first approximation, a young man's libido is the young man's responsibility, and no one else's.

What I hear being preached by many on this forum is an unwarranted extension of this philosophy. Remember the "to a first approximation" caveat above? Not only is a young man's libido his own responsibility, but no one else has any responsibility at all to help him.

When we teach this to our daughters, we are teaching them to be narrow, uncharitable, and selfish. That is my beef with this conversation. I'm all for putting the blame where it belongs and keeping the onus on the correct parties. But when I write something as seemingly obvious as I wrote -- that in some cases it might be worthy that a young woman go beyond the minimal demands of modesty and choose to make a small sacrifice to help out someone weaker and struggling -- and others take umbrage at it, that indicates to me that there is a problem. That might be a problem with reading comprehension, or it might be a problem with basic charity for our fellow man. Or maybe something else, though I don't know what that would be.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Vort

[Midwest LDS]

I see where you are coming from @Vort and I think I can agree with you somewhat. After all, we shouldn't approach a problem with Cain's attitude and if there is anything we can reasonably expect to do to help one another we should. But how are you supposed to know, in this instance specifically, if there is something you can do to help someone out? Forgive me if I'm not thinking broadly enough, but the only way I can think of being made aware of such a problem is someone coming up and saying "you shouldn't where xyz because it tempts me." I find that approach to be inappropriate especially because if they are encouraged to do that it could lead to severe problems in say a workplace where doing so could lead to complaints about creating a hostile work environment. While I think it's completely appropriate to teach specifics in a class setting about how to dress modestly or how differently men and women view the exposure of the body, it seems excessive when done from person to person as in your example. Although I can foresee instances where priesthood or female leaders could gently correct someone who is dressing immodestly, I just don't see how this is a good idea on an individual basis. Far better, in my opinion, to teach our young men how to control and redirect their thoughts since usually they will be surrounded by non LDS women who will not care if they are struggling. 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[Guest]

22 hours 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.

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).

Well, your "Mike" example is an extreme example.  Consider the opposite extreme.  Should a woman walk around naked in any public place at any time she chooses?

[Guest]

On 8/30/2017 at 9:52 AM, 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.  

So, was that you?

I'm afraid my closet homosexuality is coming out now.

[Guest]

20 hours ago, MormonGator said:

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

No, the real question is: Do they make burkas in Bright Orange with a Blue "F" on the front?

[Bill (Papa) Lee]

GirlNextDoor

It is your responsibility to conduct and dress yourself in a manner befitting entering into God's house. How you made get effect others is secondary. It is true that modesty is the means by which the Lord has given you to show that respect, and to not draw attention away from the business of worship. It's one Sunday a week, we should all be asking ourselves is that too much for the Lord to ask of us, one day and n seven? 

I did not grew in the LDS Church, but one Sunday, my brother was driving me to Church, soI changed into Jeans. My Nanny (my Grandmother) stop me and asked where I was going. Before I began to answer, she asked, "are you going to Theron's house?" I replied "no", she then asked if I "were going to Mark's house"; I said no. I told her I was going to the "Lord's House", she said, "I thought so", and she made me dress for Church. She has been gone for 45 years now, but every Sunday, I dress as if she was watching. Such was the lesson she taught me. And I act as a watchful eye for my grandchildren should they to decide to go off plantation.  

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

So, was that you?

I'm afraid my closet homosexuality is coming out now.

I'm irresistible.

[Backroads]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

(I'm using Backroads' post as a springboard for discussion, but my comments are directed generally, not targeted at Backroads.)

You are correct about my intent. But the idea does not lead to problems. Rather, the idea is inherently nebulous. Once we have satisfied the minimum bar of modesty in dress, thought, and action, then we go about trying to see if we can help our sisters and brothers in their weakness.

"Oh, but that's not FAIR! It's THEIR problem, not MINE!"

Yes, true. Obviously. We all know this. But that is beside the point. Can you imagine if our Father or the Christ were to take this attitude with us? We would be forever lost. Should we follow Cain's insolent hatefulness in sarcastically asking, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Or should we see if we can help, despite their weakness?

"Well, there's nothing I can do! If some guy is such a pervert that the sight of female shins sends him into a tizzy, he's a lost cause!"

Possibly. But this is a variation of the previous attitude of "not my problem". It is that attitude that concerns me.

Should we tell our teenage daughters, "You must not wear that perfectly modest outfit, because you will tempt the boys!"? No, of course not. That is putting the onus where it does not belong.

Should we tell our teenage daughters, "That's a beautiful dress and makes you look great. But when you look great, the boys get all hot and bothered, so you should probably tone it down and try to look a little dumpier"? No, that's silly. While it's not as inappropriate as the previous example, it's dumb to tell a beautiful young woman to be less beautiful because it somehow "helps" the young men. The whole attitude is wrong, though not as much so as the previous example.

Should we tell  our teenage daughters, "Your shorts and blouse are perfectly modest, and you look great. I have found out that there is a certain person who has a weakness he's struggling against, and when he interacts with attractive young women in shorts, his thoughts tend to go down a path he doesn't like and wants to avoid. What would you think about wearing something else, like those nice capris?" You know, this seems reasonable to me. It doesn't put the onus of the anonymous young man's weakness on her. It doesn't make it her problem. But it does offer her the opportunity to do a favor for a brother in his weakness. I think that is perfectly appropriate.

Is my example strained? Yes, perhaps a little. Is it utterly unrealistic? I think it is not.

Previous generations have perhaps taught their daughters that they (the daughters) had responsibility over the impure thoughts of the young men of their time. They were told, implicitly or sometimes explicitly, that modesty in dress was to help the poor young men -- who after all were at the mercy of their libidos and could hardly be expected to remain chaste when so sorely tempted by a young woman's bare shoulder or (shudder) cleavage.

The solution to this is, of course, to put the onus where it belongs. To a first approximation, a young man's libido is the young man's responsibility, and no one else's.

What I hear being preached by many on this forum is an unwarranted extension of this philosophy. Remember the "to a first approximation" caveat above? Not only is a young man's libido his own responsibility, but no one else has any responsibility at all to help him.

When we teach this to our daughters, we are teaching them to be narrow, uncharitable, and selfish. That is my beef with this conversation. I'm all for putting the blame where it belongs and keeping the onus on the correct parties. But when I write something as seemingly obvious as I wrote -- that in some cases it might be worthy that a young woman go beyond the minimal demands of modesty and choose to make a small sacrifice to help out someone weaker and struggling -- and others take umbrage at it, that indicates to me that there is a problem. That might be a problem with reading comprehension, or it might be a problem with basic charity for our fellow man. Or maybe something else, though I don't know what that would be.

 

4 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

I see where you are coming from @Vort and I think I can agree with you somewhat. After all, we shouldn't approach a problem with Cain's attitude and if there is anything we can reasonably expect to do to help one another we should. But how are you supposed to know, in this instance specifically, if there is something you can do to help someone out? Forgive me if I'm not thinking broadly enough, but the only way I can think of being made aware of such a problem is someone coming up and saying "you shouldn't where xyz because it tempts me." I find that approach to be inappropriate especially because if they are encouraged to do that it could lead to severe problems in say a workplace where doing so could lead to complaints about creating a hostile work environment. While I think it's completely appropriate to teach specifics in a class setting about how to dress modestly or how differently men and women view the exposure of the body, it seems excessive when done from person to person as in your example. Although I can foresee instances where priesthood or female leaders could gently correct someone who is dressing immodestly, I just don't see how this is a good idea on an individual basis. Far better, in my opinion, to teach our young men how to control and redirect their thoughts since usually they will be surrounded by non LDS women who will not care if they are struggling. 

Vort, I better get what you're saying now. I'm afraid I interpreted your prior post as a sort of policing philosophy.

But, Midwest is right. The more specific bits of modesty tailored for Brother Wakeen is an incredibly difficult thing to make practical. For one thing, Brother Wakeen will need to make his problems known. Next thing, the right people will need to hear it.

Sure, it's a kindness and a favor to save the floral skirt or whatever for a non-Wakeen event, but... how does this come about without implicating Brother Wakeen? How does this come about without ward overbusybodiness?

I might be missing something, but I don't see how to make it a practical bit of advice. 

 

[Backroads]

7 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:

How is it weird and tricky?  Modesty is pretty simple and it applies equally to men and women.  No tight clothes, no low cut tops - front and back, no clothes above your knees when you sit down; simple and easy to understand, nothing tricky.  I had a bishop jacked me up because my garment bottom stuck out from the bottom under my shorts when I sat down.  I changed my shorts out.  No big deal.  Something to think about: Sister Elaine S. Dalton said our attitude towards modesty is an accurate indicator of our testimony.

You are strongly failing to understand the finer points of modesty in appearance. I can point out plenty of people who manage to still look immodest with looser clothes, higher cut tops, and knee-length shorts/skirts. 

If modesty is so simple, no one should ever be called out for still wearing such measurable clothes. 

If you had read my post, you would have noticed I mentioned in casuality "getting all weird" about modesty, expecting silly things that go beyond the seemingly practical stuff you suggested.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Backroads

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, Backroads said:

 

Vort, I better get what you're saying now. I'm afraid I interpreted your prior post as a sort of policing philosophy.

But, Midwest is right. The more specific bits of modesty tailored for Brother Wakeen is an incredibly difficult thing to make practical. For one thing, Brother Wakeen will need to make his problems known. Next thing, the right people will need to hear it.

Sure, it's a kindness and a favor to save the floral skirt or whatever for a non-Wakeen event, but... how does this come about without implicating Brother Wakeen? How does this come about without ward overbusybodiness?

I might be missing something, but I don't see how to make it a practical bit of advice. 

 

The point is the principle. It's not about finding out the individual proclivities of any given individual. That is merely an example. But the principle remains. There are well known alluring applications that don't need to be scrutinized in any degree. Men like cleavage on the whole, for example. And they're all implicated in this already.

Edited August 31, 2017 by The Folk Prophet