Mad at Modesty

[Backroads]

A side story on modesty, or at least appropriate clothing: 

When I was working summers at Scout Camp, many of LDS staffers would overwhelm each Sunday the ward of a little farming community down the mountain. Some of our boys decided to nix the classic church appropriate "modest" white shirts in order to get out of being asked to pass the sacrament by wearing their Venturing uniforms. 

Didn't work. Didn't work one stinkin' Sunday.

[Backroads]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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.

You're right. I'm being a stinker here.

[mordorbund]

On 8/30/2017 at 7:17 PM, MormonGator said:

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

Oh? 

[a mustard seed]

I was in agreement until the weird flower print dress discussion and the Cain comparison. I'm a believer in cognitive behavioral and exposure therapy. I'm not a doctor but trigger warnings for things that aren't applicable to more than an individual, innocuous things like arms, boats, daisies, etc. are not my responsibility to dole out. You could encounter these trauma triggers at any moment, quite randomly, or more pervasively in the right environment and circumstances. Exposure to things desensitizes us to them the more exposure we get; we adapt to the trauma it causes and we get better able to handle and deal with situations when our innocuous triggers come up. I think if Brother John is aroused by shins or daisies, it would be a blessing for me to wear those things occasionally when around him, so that he can become stronger, able to develop the healthy habits he needs in order to survive in a world FULL of shins and daisies. I'm not saying that applies to things the Lord has commanded me, specifically to do with my body and clothing style, but I agree with the idea that if the LORD ever commanded me to not show my shins or wear daisies, I'd burn the applicable clothes that day and buy new if necessary. Again, in case that wasn't clear: I will not wear immodest things because "Oh, you should be desensitized to pornography; I'm helping you." Lord's rules are the Lord's rules. But in my mind, there is not charity NOR respect in catering to a weakness of such broad and specifically individual states, unless that person is mentally incapable of developing the healthy resistance I'm talking about. And I'm also not saying it's my job to go around firing off a weapon at the sky to help the poor brother who suffers from PTSD from being in the war. But I'm not going to mentally and physically censor myself for every possible situation that brother with the daisy/shin fetish to cross paths with me.

If we want to have a discussion about mental capabilities and how much consideration is afforded to people of varying mental capacity, then I'll say right here, it's an "I know it when I see it" line for me; I'm not completely heartless, so, if a guy with mental retardation has a weakness for something I find innocuous, you can bet I'll be sensitive to that. Someone at the common threshold? You can discuss it with your therapist on how to cope when I occasionally show up to church in the dreaded daisies or with my shins bared. And you can pray for Christ's Atonement to strengthen you so that all the frigging daisies in the world you see can stop being such a big problem that daily life is affected.

What can sometimes happen with particular traumas that have these certain innocuous triggers is that particular trigger is a reminder of something specifically related. So, Brother John might get aroused by daisies because he watched an explicit video where daisies were a central theme or object in relation to it(or maybe he's just really into flowers, I don't know!). Let's say I say to myself, "Okay, Brother John doesn't like daisies. I can wear dresses with lilies and roses on them, though." Then Brother John, because he's trying so hard to keep himself from thinking of this explicit video, one day, he suddenly can't look at any flower print dresses. Okay....so I stop wearing flower prints and just stick to polka dots and stripes. Brother John is trying really hard, and everybody around him has started wearing different patterns to help him, feeding into this mental incapacity he has, so, suddenly, he can't look at any patterns without being affected(I'm assuming, if it is so "charitable" not to wear a daisy print dress to help this brother, then he must be so affected that such a mental affect can logically occur; afterall, if you're saying he needs my help with this weakness, to be hidden from all daisy print, then he has some larger issue and could be susceptible to such evolving mechanics, in much the way others develop ever increasingly specific triggers for traumas so far removed from the triggers themselves as for it to be difficult to follow the pathway they used to get to the point; which is why most therapists will suggest exposure therapy as treatment for phobias and other anxiety and trauma related maladies). Or how about this, Brother John only ever has a problem with daisies. Fine, we're good. But then Brother Paul has an issue with purple. And Brother Steve has an issue with jean fabric. And Brother Dennis has a problem with plaid. When do I just start listening to the Lord rather than worrying about all these porn addicts who have weird triggers and fetishes? When do they get peace from daisies, purple, jeans, and plaid from their Savior? Will they think to lean on Him more readily if they keep getting exposed every time I'm around or if I shelter them will they think they can put that prayer off for another day, because at least ole mustard seed won't wear it and they won't have to deal with it right this moment. And they surely won't be able to receive that same amount of peace and relief from me.

[anatess2]

19 hours ago, Vort said:

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

The thing is, though... we don't have to strain the example for the young women to take umbrage.  They already take umbrage at the teaching that the standard of modesty itself is BOTH an attitude of respect for one's body AS WELL AS sustaining the priesthood.  The OP seems to point to a lament that I have started to notice as a common theme in lds.net - that people don't want women's modesty to have anything to do with the men at all.

The fact that you felt inclined to have to strain the example is already a sign of the issue.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching young women to dress modestly for boys.  Young women know what this means just as any young woman knows the meaning of dressing to attract boys.  After all, it is a natural instinct of females that ensure the survival of the species.  Any details as to the tightness of clothing or the amount of exposed skin or, gasp, the print of said clothing that constitute modesty is an argument of Pharisees.  Young women know when they're catching the attention of the boys in the room.  Self reflection as pertains to modesty is to come with humility and not the prideful attitude of "not my brother's keeper" as you say.  Faithful LDS should know the difference.

19 hours ago, Vort said:

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.

I present to you the damage that has been done to American society by 3rd wave feminists.  That is why I call it a cancer.  Even faithful Christians have not been able to escape its reach.  It is so bad that it becomes the normal reaction for women, and even men, in this culture to reject outright any sense of societal responsibility for the strengthening of men.  You said it yourself - "the morality of a man is his own responsibility and no one else's".  That is contrary to the great commandment to LOVE OTHERS as yourself.  Feminism needs to DIE.

Edited September 1, 2017 by anatess2

[Vort]

None are so blind as they who refuse to see.

[a mustard seed]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The thing is, though... we don't have to strain the example for the young women to take umbrage.  They already take umbrage at the teaching that the standard of modesty itself is BOTH an attitude of respect for one's body AS WELL AS sustaining the priesthood.  The OP seems to point to a lament that I have started to notice as a common theme in lds.net - that people don't want women's modesty to have anything to do with the men at all.

The fact that you felt inclined to have to strain the example is already a sign of the issue.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching young women to dress modestly for boys.  Young women know what this means just as any young woman knows the meaning of dressing to attract boys.  After all, it is a natural instinct of females that ensure the survival of the species.  Any details as to the tightness of clothing or the amount of exposed skin or, gasp, the print of said clothing that constitute modesty is an argument of Pharisees.  Young women know when they're catching the attention of the boys in the room.  Self reflection as pertains to modesty is to come with humility and not the prideful attitude of "not my brother's keeper" as you say.  Faithful LDS should know the difference.

I present to you the damage that has been done to American society by 3rd wave feminists.  That is why I call it a cancer.  Even faithful Christian women has not been able to escape its reach.  It is so bad that it becomes the normal reaction for women in this culture to reject outright any sense of societal responsibility for the strengthening of men.  Feminism needs to DIE.

 

It's a Byproduct 

 

I agree with you to an extent and I do love when you talk "Feminism is Cancer" because it is a drum that beats in my heart as well. So, let's switch it and see if it truly is a Christlike attribute or if it's just something we think we can tell women to do. A sister has a problem with lustful urgings and thoughts when she sees men wear ties. Do the men who go to church with her extend the brotherly consideration and stop wearing ties? What if its just ties of a certain color?

 

[Vort]

30 minutes ago, a mustard seed said:

So, let's switch it and see if it truly is a Christlike attribute or if it's just something we think we can tell women to do. A sister has a problem with lustful urgings and thoughts when she sees men wear ties. Do the men who go to church with her extend the brotherly consideration and stop wearing ties? What if its just ties of a certain color?

A reasonable question. Let's look at an example, and then you (mustard seed) tell us what you think.

Mom: Junior, can I talk to you about something?
Junior: Sure, Mom. What's up?
Mom: I just learned today that...um...a young woman in our ward has a certain...problem...
Jr: What kind of problem?
Mom: She, um, has a hard time with...green floral ties.
Jr: What, you mean like my favorite tie I inherited from Grandpa?
Mom: Yes, like that one.
Jr: Well, what's her problem? What does she have against my tie?
Mom: It's sort of complicated...
Jr: Seriously, Mom, how can a girl dislike a tie?
Mom: It's not that she dislikes it. It's that...well...to tell the truth, it fills her with barely controllable lust.
Jr: [stunned silence] [followed by raucous laughter]
Mom: Now, Junior, really. Is that necessary?
Jr: What? You mean you're SERIOUS?
Mom: Yes, I'm serious.
Jr: Oh. Well, okay. That's weird. Who is it? I bet it's Makayla. Or Kacie, Yeah, she's kind of like that. Or Sandra! It's always the quiet ones!
Mom: Stop it! It doesn't matter who it is.
Jr: So, um, what do you want me to do?
Mom: We were thinking that, you know, maybe you could avoid wearing Grandpa's tie.
Jr: For how long?
Mom: Probably for as long as you and she are both in the ward, or until she can get a handle on things.

POSSIBLE RESPONSE #1:
Jr: That's HER problem, not mine! What kind of a weirdo loses it because of a TIE? That's Grandpa's tie, I like it, and I have no intention of letting some weirdo pervert sicko female dictate my sartorial choices! Yes, I'm going to wear my tie, and right in front of her! Maybe this girl could exercise a little SELF-CONTROL, ya think? Tell her to unwad her undies and grow a pa-, uh, grow up!

POSSIBLE RESPONSE #2:
Jr: Wow. It's really a problem, huh? Of course I won't wear Grandpa's tie for a while. Maybe I'll save it for my mission. I can go without wearing the tie, no big deal.

Which of the two sounds more Christlike and charitable? Which of the two sounds more compassionate? Heck, which of the two sounds more reasonable and sane? Which of the two would you hope your son would respond with? I know my choice, but I'll save it until I hear yours.

[a mustard seed]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

A reasonable question. Let's look at an example, and then you (mustard seed) tell us what you think.

Mom: Junior, can I talk to you about something?
Junior: Sure, Mom. What's up?
Mom: I just learned today that...um...a young woman in our ward has a certain...problem...
Jr: What kind of problem?
Mom: She, um, has a hard time with...green floral ties.
Jr: What, you mean like my favorite tie I inherited from Grandpa?
Mom: Yes, like that one.
Jr: Well, what's her problem? What does she have against my tie?
Mom: It's sort of complicated...
Jr: Seriously, Mom, how can a girl dislike a tie?
Mom: It's not that she dislikes it. It's that...well...to tell the truth, it fills her with barely controllable lust.
Jr: [stunned silence] [followed by raucous laughter]
Mom: Now, Junior, really. Is that necessary?
Jr: What? You mean you're SERIOUS?
Mom: Yes, I'm serious.
Jr: Oh. Well, okay. That's weird. Who is it? I bet it's Makayla. Or Kacie, Yeah, she's kind of like that. Or Sandra! It's always the quiet ones!
Mom: Stop it! It doesn't matter who it is.
Jr: So, um, what do you want me to do?
Mom: We were thinking that, you know, maybe you could avoid wearing Grandpa's tie.
Jr: For how long?
Mom: Probably for as long as you and she are both in the ward, or until she can get a handle on things.

POSSIBLE RESPONSE #1:
Jr: That's HER problem, not mine! What kind of a weirdo loses it because of a TIE? That's Grandpa's tie, I like it, and I have no intention of letting some weirdo pervert sicko female dictate my sartorial choices! Yes, I'm going to wear my tie, and right in front of her! Maybe this girl could exercise a little SELF-CONTROL, ya think? Tell her to unwad her undies and grow a pa-, uh, grow up!

POSSIBLE RESPONSE #2:
Jr: Wow. It's really a problem, huh? Of course I won't wear Grandpa's tie for a while. Maybe I'll save it for my mission. I can go without wearing the tie, no big deal.

Which of the two sounds more Christlike and charitable? Which of the two sounds more compassionate? Heck, which of the two sounds more reasonable and sane? Which of the two would you hope your son would respond with? I know my choice, but I'll save it until I hear yours.

Well, if you want to twist my position to be an aggressive and attacking one like response number one, then maybe I truly didn't make myself clear.

Here is a just as Christlike and charitable response:

POSSIBLE RESPONSE #3:

Jr. Wow, it's really a problem, huh? Maybe someone should sit down with her and tell her how much the Bishop loves her and will be available to help her find Christ in this trying time. Has anyone looked up therapists for her? Maybe we could start an anonymous fund in the ward if she or her family cannot afford it. I know, mom! Me and the guys in YM can have a car wash to help get this thing started! Oh, she doesn't want to get help for this issue? She won't talk to the Bishop or seek some measure of counseling? Hm, this seems like a burden I shouldn't have to carry, especially if she's not willing to work on it. After all, there is nothing immodest or against the Lord's wishes in my simple green tie.

POSSIBLE RESPONSE #4:

Jr: Is she mentally retarded or autistic in some fashion? Okay, I guess I won't wear that tie anymore.

Those are the more reasonable options when you're not exaggerating me or what I'm saying. Either the person can work on it or they can't. If they absolutely can't that is the only time I should go above what the LORD has instructed me to do. If they can but they won't? How is that being charitable? Explain it to me. This young, lustful sister has all her faculties, is very capable of living life normally regardless of this tie issue. She has avenues and opportunities available to her in order to get herself right with the Lord and regain control of this one area of her life. She won't. She refuses. And she continues to come to church and complain how all the guys wearing this particular tie are being unthoughtful to her by wearing them. How???? How?????????????????????? How is it charitable to say, "okay, we won't wear those ties. You go on being you. Any other demands, sweetheart?"

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, a mustard seed said:

POSSIBLE RESPONSE #3:

Jr. Wow, it's really a problem, huh? Maybe someone should sit down with her and tell her how much the Bishop loves her and will be available to help her find Christ in this trying time. Has anyone looked up therapists for her? Maybe we could start an anonymous fund in the ward if she or her family cannot afford it. I know, mom! Me and the guys in YM can have a car wash to help get this thing started! Oh, she doesn't want to get help for this issue? She won't talk to the Bishop or seek some measure of counseling? Hm, this seems like a burden I shouldn't have to carry, especially if she's not willing to work on it. After all, there is nothing immodest or against the Lord's wishes in my simple green tie.

This is none of Junior's business. Not an iota. He might wonder what's being done, but really, he has not the least say whether some girl goes to a therapist or gets help with the bishop or whatever. It is not his place to suggest any such thing. The last two sentences are the only relevant part of this response, and they boil down to, "No, I won't forego wearing my favorite tie for her sake." Is that how you would want your son to respond?

9 minutes ago, a mustard seed said:

POSSIBLE RESPONSE #4:

Jr: Is she mentally retarded or autistic in some fashion? Okay, I guess I won't wear that tie anymore.

Again, the first sentence is none of Junior's business. (Although clearly there's something going on with the girl.) He has no standing to ask what is causing her problem. He has received a request, and his only duty is to answer the request, yes or no. Again, the last sentence is the only relevant part.

So in the end, your two choices are pretty much identical with my two choices. Which of those two would you prefer your son to give in this situation?

11 minutes ago, a mustard seed said:

Those are the more reasonable options when you're not exaggerating me or what I'm saying.

I was exaggerating neither you nor what you were saying. I was providing a framework by which the two things might happen. I included some context to demonstrate mindset. You did the same thing; in your first example, the boy was clearly meddling in things that were none of his darn business, and in the second example, well, more of the same.

In both cases, the response comes down to: No, I refuse to make the requested sacrifice to help my sister, or Yes, I will quit wearing the tie to help my sister out.

14 minutes ago, a mustard seed said:

Either the person can work on it or they can't. If they absolutely can't that is the only time I should go above what the LORD has instructed me to do.

So, therefore, unless you absolutely can't do EVERYTHING that you are supposed to do, that is the ONLY time that your visiting teachers (or home teachers, or bishop, or the lady next door) SHOULD go above and beyond what the Lord has instructed them to do? If you have not done every last thing you possibly could, these people should not help you?

Really, mustard seed? Do you really believe this? I think you do not, but maybe I'm wrong.

16 minutes ago, a mustard seed said:

If they can but they won't? How is that being charitable? Explain it to me.

The same way that if you can clean your hoarding mess of a house, but do not, it is still charitable for your visiting teachers to help you. The same way that if you can pay your tithing, but do not, it is still charitable for the bishop to try to look out for your best and send the elders quorum to help you out. The same way that if you can avoid sin, but choose not to, it is still charitable for the Lord to try to reclaim you and guide you gently back to him.

In what way is it charitable not to help someone who isn't doing all he can to help himself? This appears to be your position, but I confess I don't understand it at all.

20 minutes ago, a mustard seed said:

This young, lustful sister has all her faculties, is very capable of living life normally regardless of this tie issue. She has avenues and opportunities available to her in order to get herself right with the Lord and regain control of this one area of her life. She won't. She refuses.

How do you know any of this? How do you know she doesn't have a brain tumor? How do you know she wasn't horribly abused as a little girl by a man in a green floral tie? How could you possibly know her reasons for her perversion?

And what difference does it make? Your son is being asked to do something to help. Either he does as requested or he does not. What does all the other stuff you're bringing up have to do with whether he should do the Godly thing or not?

22 minutes ago, a mustard seed said:

How???? How?????????????????????? How is it charitable to say, "okay, we won't wear those ties. You go on being you. Any other demands, sweetheart?"

Okay, mustard seed. You have made your position clear. Unless a person is doing literally every last thing he or she possibly can, s/he is not worthy of help and should not be helped by his/her fellow Saints. Suffice it to say I disagree with this position. Having read your participation on this list for some time now, I also suspect that you disagree with your stated position.

Perhaps you're a bit too caught up in this conversation and need to take a step back and rethink things. Or perhaps you really do think as you've stated above. If you insist that you do, I'll take your word for it.

[a mustard seed]

The discussion was in regards to modesty and clothing. Do I agree in helping others and being charitable? Uh, yeah. You're calling this "don't wear X because of someone else" charity. I don't believe that it is. If the mom is going to tell the boy why the girl needs him to stop wearing the thing, I think it is reasonable for him to ask if she's being helped other than by him not wearing this thing and waiting for her to add to the list of demands. I've been to church where the Bishop asks members to attend church or to take a calling if they ask for monetary or food help from the church. I am not saying they have to do it by themselves and they will earn so much more from me helping them become self-sufficient than just writing a blank check or submitting to their whims. Even Jesus Christ asked those whom he helped to "sin no more and follow me." Even His Atonement requires participation on our part to receive this gift. It's not a "do whatever you want" party.

If I truly love someone, I help them in every way I can not just in the way that they ask. An alcoholic can be suffering and in pain and say that a drink will make it better. I know better. You can call that prideful or whatever but in regards to CLOTHING(otherwise appropriate and temple worthy) and what this tie girl or daisy guy need, it may not necessarily be what they ask me for.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

Which of the two sounds more Christlike and charitable? Which of the two sounds more compassionate? Heck, which of the two sounds more reasonable and sane? Which of the two would you hope your son would respond with? I know my choice, but I'll save it until I hear yours.

I was thinking:

Junior: Ok, so, why would I want to stop wearing the tie?

Mom: I told you.  It fills her with uncontrollable lust.  She literally can't control herself around you when you wear that tie!

Junior:  And... that'ssss.... bad?

Mom: Junior, I don't think you're taking this seriously.

Junior: Well, if you really do mean this, then I've got to consider what my prospects are.  I'm an awkward sciency geek who's waist is slimmer than his pant length.  I have no fashion sense.  My social skills are utterly non-existent.  But I've got an edge because of my tie. (let's admit it.  Only a geek would wear a green floral tie.)

Mom: But that's not fair.  You're using her weakness against her.

Junior: Mom.  I'm an only child.  Do you want grandchildren, or not?  I mean, who else am I going to marry?

Mom:  You make a good point, son.  The tie stays.  I'll start the wedding arrangements with her parents for after your mission.  But remember to wait until your wedding, OK?

Junior: You got a deal.

Mom: I'm so proud of you! (hug, kiss, tear)...

Edited September 1, 2017 by Guest

[Midwest LDS]

Once again though, I have too respectfully disagree with you @Vort. Without going deep into your analogy, you never really explain how the Mom has found out about this problem. Did this young lady stroll up and announce this too them? What is this young lady supposed to do the 40 hours she is in the workplace every week surrounded by men who will never stop wearing green ties? Is 2 hours a week in Sacrament meeting and combined activity so overwhelming she can't possibly control herself here when she can the other 6 days a week? I believe you are building a strawman argument to support your position. I don't believe there is any situation where a young man (and let's be honest as I said before modesty is mostly a problem our  women have to worry about not our men) is surrounded by inappropriately dressed women 6 days a week at the grocery store, at work, at school, at the pool, walking down the street but he is overwhelmed by the sight of a young woman's shins for 30 minutes at a combined activity and that's what sends him over the edge to commit sin? As I said earlier, the young man should be counselled by priesthood leaders and given tools to control his desire before he does something stupid because he is surrounded all week by women who couldn't care less about his problem. What is he going to do on his mission when a woman opens the door in her underwear (happened to me)? Or he's married and home alone and the internet starts its siren song? Once again we absolutely should teach our young women modesty, it's important and I think it's important for leaders and parents to teach them why young men are different from them. No one is arguing otherwise. But rather than teach them a completely worthless skill ("if you're feeling tempted junior, go talk to Sister Jones and ask her to change what she's wearing) teach him one that can legitimately help him ("if you're feeling tempted junior, sing a hymn to yourself, or take a walk, or read your scriptures, or go talk to your friends"). That's how we help the young men. Especially when they leave the church building and are surrounded by a sea of women who, unlike the woman at church, don't care about modesty and will never change what they are wearing.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[zil]

I feel compelled to leave this here.  Think of it what you will.  In all probability, what you think of it will change in a few decades...

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/5.38-48?lang=eng#p37

[Midwest LDS]

Oh and FYI I enjoy discussions about church doctrine and practice. While I have some disagreements with some things said, please no one take anything I am saying in malice as absolutely none is intended☺

Edited September 1, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[a mustard seed]

46 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Once again though, I have too respectfully disagree with you @Vort. Without going deep into your analogy, you never really explain how the Mom has found out about this problem. Did this young lady stroll up and announce this too them? What is this young lady supposed to do the 40 hours she is in the workplace every week surrounded by men who will never stop wearing green ties? Is 2 hours a week in Sacrament meeting and combined activity so overwhelming she can't possibly control herself here when she can the other 6 days a week? I believe you are building a strawman argument to support your position. I don't believe there is any situation where a young man (and let's be honest as I said before modesty is mostly a problem our  women have to worry about not our men) is surrounded by inappropriately dressed women 6 days a week at the grocery store, at work, at school, at the pool, walking down the street but he is overwhelmed by the sight of a young woman's shins for 30 minutes at a combined activity and that's what sends him over the edge to commit sin? As I said earlier, the young man should be counselled by priesthood leaders and given tools to control his desire before he does something stupid because he is surrounded all week by women who couldn't care less about his problem. What is he going to do on his mission when a woman opens the door in her underwear (happened to me)? Or he's married and home alone and the internet starts its siren song? Once again we absolutely should teach our young women modesty, it's important and I think it's important for leaders and parents to teach them why young men are different from them. No one is arguing otherwise. But rather than teach them a completely worthless skill ("if you're feeling tempted junior, go talk to Sister Jones and ask her to change what she's wearing) teach him one that can legitimately help him ("if you're feeling tempted junior, sing a hymn to yourself, or take a walk, or read your scriptures, or go talk to your friends"). That's how we help the young men. Especially when they leave the church building and are surrounded by a sea of women who, unlike the woman at church, don't care about modesty and will never change what they are wearing.

This is another thing about it that I disagree with. How the mother knows. If I were the mother in this situation, I wouldn't even go to my son with it. If I were a leader over this girl in some capacity, I'd talk to the Bishop about how bad this problem is for the young woman. If I wasn't, then I'd simply tell the leaders in her life, you know her stewards, the folks who will be inspired by God to make the right decisions on how to help her. If the Bishop then turned around and asked me if I could tell my son not to wear the tie, then I would not hesitate to sit down with my boy and he'd not know the reasons why except that the Bishop, the Lord's appointed servant, had requested this of him and me.

I do have the right to get involved and actually help this person rather than this bizarre excuse of a temporary solution masquerading as charity.Yeah, you know, I can give some money to some folks I never see at church because they complained to someone or even me about not having enough money to survive and yet I go to their house and they're cooking lobster and opening Amazon packages of whatever. I can walk away patting myself on the back for helping them no questions asked like I'm such a good person but I'd be delusional. We are counseled to be wise just as much as we are told to give of ourselves. And this circumstance with these parameters (someone at church has asked you indirectly or directly to not wear X because they have a problem controlling themselves) does not fit the criteria of wise help, either in regards to the simple logistics of it and the mental health criteria for actually helping someone with this "exposure" problem. If the Lord told me to through either the Spirit or the Bishop, I would gladly hop to it because my thinking is done at that point. I don't have to ask reasons or logic it out. I'd know the Lord was on it and handling it and all I need to do is obey in order to help. So, that is to say if I prayed about it and I was led to zil's provided scripture and felt the prompting of the Spirit, I'd know this scripture specifically applied to this situation and this was what the Lord needed of me.

[Dillon]

Its always amusing to hear a woman cry foul about how its not her problem a man cant keep his eyes off of them or that she distracts them with her clothing, or lack there of.  The same reason she cries foul is the same reason she is dressed the way she is.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Dillon said:

Its always amusing to hear a woman cry foul about how its not her problem a man cant keep his eyes off of them or that she distracts them with her clothing, or lack there of.  

Clothing doesn't strip away another person's agency, so your statement above has never occurred.  It would be more accurate to say: 

"I, Dillon, find it amusing to hear a woman cry foul about how its not her problem a man refuses keep his eyes off of them."

You always have a choice what you look at.  No one has removed it from you.  How you choose to use that agency is up to you and no one else.  

.  

 

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, a mustard seed said:

I agree with you to an extent and I do love when you talk "Feminism is Cancer" because it is a drum that beats in my heart as well. So, let's switch it and see if it truly is a Christlike attribute or if it's just something we think we can tell women to do. A sister has a problem with lustful urgings and thoughts when she sees men wear ties. Do the men who go to church with her extend the brotherly consideration and stop wearing ties? What if its just ties of a certain color?

 

Pharisees, a mustard seed, pharisees.  How many feet can I drag an ox before I start to break the Sabbath.  Do you understand?

[Dillon]

23 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Clothing doesn't strip away another person's agency, so your statement above has never occurred.  It would be more accurate to say: 

"I, Dillon, find it amusing to hear a woman cry foul about how its not her problem a man refuses keep his eyes off of them."

You always have a choice what you look at.  No one has removed it from you.  How you choose to use that agency is up to you and no one else.  

.  

 

The point is a woman wants a man to look, its why she is dressed that way.  She wants the attention.

[Guest]

No one is talking about the reality of biology here.

We think that because we humans have intellect and reason, that we always use our brains to make every decision.  WRONG!  We often do things on an instinctual level and we don't even realize it.  If we do that, then how are we to "be responsible" when we don't even know we're doing something?

It is scientifically proven that women will wear more revealing clothing during days of ovulation.  Why?  Because they generally have elevated surface body temperatures.  All they know is that they're feeling warmer.  So, they dress lighter.  They don't even realize that they're doing it to attract a mate.  That's not even their intention.  But they do it nonetheless.

And let's face it.  PLENTY of women do it on purpose.  But instead of wondering what is going on and why, the feminist movement simply says,"It's the man's responsibility!"

The male has coding in his DNA to respond to such sights (women wearing less clothing) with an aroused response.  Does this really surprise anyone?  Does anyone deny this?  Does anyone think this is just a sign of an immoral man?  No.  It is in our DNA.  It is what we do with that feeling that makes us moral or immoral.  Do we entertain it?  Do we relish in the thoughts?  Or do we immediately look away, shake it off, and try to obey the LoC?

The fact that we don't even understand this underlying instinct is what makes us particularly vulnerable.  Asking a man to look away and shake it off is good advice.  It is EXACTLY the same as telling a woman to not dress in revealing clothing.  They are conjugate parts of the mating dance of human beings.  You can't simply put it all on one side.  Both sides are responsible.

That, my friends, is the difference between the issues of "modesty" and "fetish".  If someone has a "shin fetish" that is not instinctive.  It is abnormal.  We don't do everything for everyone with every weird fetish.  We do things to address the instinctive reactions.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Guest

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

Without going deep into your analogy, you never really explain how the Mom has found out about this problem. Did this young lady stroll up and announce this too them? 

That's because it is irrelevant. Maybe the girl's mother complained about how the priests were wearing distracting ties. Maybe the girl herself went off on a rant, or meekly squeaked out a confession of lust. Maybe the girl's father pulled the boy's parents aside and fumbled through an embarrassed explanation. Maybe the bishop himself discreetly met with Mom and asked her to talk with Junior.

What difference does it make? The point is clear: Junior is being asked to do something for the benefit of some girl. Does he do it, or does he not? Junior has no business asking whether the unknown girl has made sufficient (in his view) effort toward controlling herself before he will condescend to act in her behalf. Junior doesn't even know who the girl is, nor is he in any position to query about the girl's work with or standing before the bishop.

Is this what you and mustard seed think when a girl is asked to wear a less revealing blouse or a longer skirt? Do you think that she then has the right -- nay, the obligation -- to ask whether the distracted young men have been sufficiently repentant, are working closely with the bishop, and have otherwise taken all the requisite steps that they must take (in her view) to be worthy of her aid? Because that is absurd, perhaps beyond absurd.

Remember, the tie-wearing scenario was mustard seed's idea for an equivalent gender switch. To now pick that idea apart is a criticism of the gender switch -- but that's what we are trying to explore. If you think the whole idea is just ridiculous, talk to mustard seed.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Vort

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, a mustard seed said:

This is another thing about it that I disagree with. How the mother knows. If I were the mother in this situation, I wouldn't even go to my son with it. If I were a leader over this girl in some capacity, I'd talk to the Bishop about how bad this problem is for the young woman. If I wasn't, then I'd simply tell the leaders in her life, you know her stewards, the folks who will be inspired by God to make the right decisions on how to help her. If the Bishop then turned around and asked me if I could tell my son not to wear the tie, then I would not hesitate to sit down with my boy and he'd not know the reasons why except that the Bishop, the Lord's appointed servant, had requested this of him and me.

I do have the right to get involved and actually help this person rather than this bizarre excuse of a temporary solution masquerading as charity.Yeah, you know, I can give some money to some folks I never see at church because they complained to someone or even me about not having enough money to survive and yet I go to their house and they're cooking lobster and opening Amazon packages of whatever. I can walk away patting myself on the back for helping them no questions asked like I'm such a good person but I'd be delusional. We are counseled to be wise just as much as we are told to give of ourselves. And this circumstance with these parameters (someone at church has asked you indirectly or directly to not wear X because they have a problem controlling themselves) does not fit the criteria of wise help, either in regards to the simple logistics of it and the mental health criteria for actually helping someone with this "exposure" problem. If the Lord told me to through either the Spirit or the Bishop, I would gladly hop to it because my thinking is done at that point. I don't have to ask reasons or logic it out. I'd know the Lord was on it and handling it and all I need to do is obey in order to help. So, that is to say if I prayed about it and I was led to zil's provided scripture and felt the prompting of the Spirit, I'd know this scripture specifically applied to this situation and this was what the Lord needed of me.

If there was this girl in our ward (we actually do have this girl in our ward... I wish it was just an issue with a tie.  She thinks she is in love with my son.  She has some kind of mental illness that makes her difficult to teach and she likes to be very touchy/feely and has no tact-filter.)... anyway, if this tie-challenged girl was in our ward, it would be my son telling me to make sure grandpa doesn't take offense when he comes to church never seeing him wear grandpa's tie.  Seriously.  A tie is such a non-issue that my son will gladly wear a different one to help a fellowman.  This actually happened in our ward.  When my son was a deacon, the young men went through this bow-tie phase.  They all wore bow-ties like it was some kind of bow-tie club.  The bishop took my son to his office and told him he wants him to wear a regular tie.  No big deal to him.  He never wore his bow-tie to church again.

Now, as far as how he's dealing with the touchy-feely girl... he tries to avoid her but he won't run off when he's already sitting and the girl comes rushing to sit with him.  But he does constantly remind her - please don't do that.  It's not appropriate.  I've asked him - are you okay, do you need me to run interference - and he always says, no mom, she's cool.  She doesn't come to church often and my son sometimes asks me if it's bad that he feels relieved she didn't come to church.  I just tell him we all have our crosses big and small and it's not bad to give them to Simon for a while.

But then, that's just how I'm teaching my sons.  It's pretty straight forward and simple.

Edited September 1, 2017 by anatess2

[Midwest LDS]

@Vort I think I see where you are coming from. Honestly I feel like we are more or less on the same page. In this instance where your parent is asking you to do something different because of a personal response from someone (in this scenario most likely a bishop or young men's leader or something) yes I think it's appropriate to try to help out. I'm thinking more about coping skills long term than a personal appeal for help. In that instance I can see helping out the person asking rather than analyzing it.

[Dillon]

No woman, ever, has tried on clothes and said "does this outfit make me invisible, does it make me look plain so no one will notice me?"

 

No, what she says is "does this outfit make me look sexy, cute, skinnier, etc."