A Modesty Article that is going around.


Queolby
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LadyGunnar said:

Boys never heard anything modesty.

False.

1 hour ago, LadyGunnar said:

They never had to struggle to find modest clothes. 

Hardly the church's fault.

1 hour ago, LadyGunnar said:

I had no control over that.

False.

1 hour ago, LadyGunnar said:

People are responsible for thie own actions.

Like what we wear.

1 hour ago, LadyGunnar said:

It's the only thing you can control. 

I guess it's useless to preach. Useless to teach. Useless to set good examples. Useless to let our light so shine.

What a crock.

Of course we can manipulate, coerce, tempt, mock, connive, corrupt, tease, injure, lead astray, and destroy others. There are literally hundreds of scriptures that discuss these ideas and how sinful they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

This just seems extreme to me. Are we really going to say that women can't wear a standard t-shirt (or sweatshirt or sweatpants) with the word Pink on it (because Pink is associated with Victoria's Secret which sells women's underclothing)? I can accept that it is good for me to take some thought about how my clothing choices might affect others, but it seems like there should be reasonable limits on that concern.

Shouldn't the limit be what Christ would/would not do?

I mean obviously there's some level of interpretation there, whereas Christ was male and wouldn't, if alive today, wear certain things that He might were He female (bras, dresses, nylon stockings, earrings, etc.) But it doesn't seem too far a stretch to me to consider a general "if" related to this. If Christ lived today and if He were female, what t-shirts with what logos might he wear?

Obviously everyone might come up with a slightly different answer, and making such choices requires the Holy Spirit's guidance. But it doesn't strike me as an unreasonable standard for consideration.

I think there are some neutrals, of course. And I'm not suggesting a "pink" t-shirt falls on one side of the line or the other. But I'm pretty sure this consideration is not one most young women or men ponder when selecting their daily wardrobe choices. Maybe it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MarginOfError said:

Pink, (or PINK, to portray the branding more accurately), is a line of clothing and accessories sold by Victoria's Secret. It's target demographic is young adults (usually less than 30). It isn't just lingerie, but casual wear, sports wear, fragrances, etc. (at least, uh, that's what my friends tell me). In essence, they realized they would have trouble building brand recognition if all of their products were worn under people's clothes, so PINK is the line that gets to the outer layers.

But that makes it kind of an odd example for you, because it's like saying we shouldn't wear shirts that have the JCPenney logo because they sell women's underclothing. But if you aren't familiar with the PINK brand, I can excuse the choice in example. Just trying to explain why you might be getting some push back on that particular example.

If you were to ask me, having PINK on a shirt seems fine, however, if I see “Victoria Secret” my mind is going straight to hot blond models in underwear that I lust after. Not ok. I would argue this would be most people’s first thought. 

But this isn’t about making a list of what to wear and not to wear. Modesty is about the principle questions “what am I trying to say with my clothing” AND “is what I’m wearing making it difficult for others to have pure thoughts”

additionally, I would include the about statements to clarify more that no, woman are not responsible for man’s thoughts. But are also not innocent when they spitefully wear immodest clothing.

50 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
52 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I'd say that there's a point where someone aroused by reasonably modest clothing should take responsibility. Speak candidly to those close to them. Limit their venturing into society. Seek counsel and therapy.

Yes, if a person is dressing modestly and male/female is aroused -- practice self-control. Just because I look good in a suit doesn't mean I am going to stop wearing one if someone besides Ms. Anddenex is aroused. :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

If you were to ask me, having PINK on a shirt seems fine, however, if I see “Victoria Secret” my mind is going straight to hot blond models in underwear that I lust after. Not ok. I would argue this would be most people’s first thought. 

But this isn’t about making a list of what to wear and not to wear. Modesty is about the principle questions “what am I trying to say with my clothing” AND “is what I’m wearing making it difficult for others to have pure thoughts”

additionally, I would include the about statements to clarify more that no, woman are not responsible for man’s thoughts. But are also not innocent when they spitefully wear immodest clothing.

 

That settles it.  Next time we meet, I'm going to wear every last piece of Victoria's Secret clothing that I own.  Just to be spiteful. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

That settles it.  Next time we meet, I'm going to wear every last piece of Victoria's Secret clothing that I own.  Just to be spiteful. :D

I’ll wear all mine too and we will see who is more uncomfortable ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

That settles it.  Next time we meet, I'm going to wear every last piece of Victoria's Secret clothing that I own.  Just to be spiteful. :D

 

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’ll wear all mine too and we will see who is more uncomfortable ;)

I will raise the bar and join you two in my birthday suit and then we will truly see who is uncomfortable! :P (Probably me)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The article and this thread reminds me of this Conan episode (who holds responsibility here?):

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fether I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line. Perhaps it is like @marginoferror says -- it is about the message it sends. I don't think I would want to wear a shirt with a strip club logo on it, because that sends the message that I patronize strip clubs. Something with an underwear vendor's logo (Victoria's Secret, Jockey, Hanes, other) sends the message that I patronize vendors who sell underwear. Since all* of us wear underwear and, therefore, buy underwear, it doesn't seem like it should be an offensive message to send (though I'm not sure why I want to advertise that I buy and wear underwear, but everyone should accept that I do).

Maybe that is the real difficulty I see with the modesty discussion. We an usually agree on the extremes. It's trying to navigate the middle ground where personal judgement and choice are at play. How should one navigate this middle ground? When it doubt, don't wear it? When it doubt, wear it? When in doubt, descend into choice overload paralysis where you end up staying home because you can't decide?

* I guess I should be careful with the "all" here. I have no way of knowing if every last person reading this buys and wears underwear. For those readers who are not buying and wearing underwear, I think a don't ask don't tell kind of approach would be best. I am also reminded of this brief exchange from a couple of years ago when @Mordorbund claimed to have been buying @Neurotypical's underwear online that still makes me laugh when I think about it:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

False.

Hardly the church's fault.

False.

Like what we wear.

I guess it's useless to preach. Useless to teach. Useless to set good examples. Useless to let our light so shine.

What a crock.

Of course we can manipulate, coerce, tempt, mock, connive, corrupt, tease, injure, lead astray, and destroy others. There are literally hundreds of scriptures that discuss these ideas and how sinful they are.

Boys were never taught modesty in my ward growing up. My son said that he all he was taught in church about modesty is to wear a white shirt and tie to church. To not have long hair and look nice.

 

The only person you can control is yourself.  You are the one responsible for what you think and entertain.   Teach the simple and basic things. Don't teach girls that they are responsible for ANYONE else's thoughts. They are not.  It's  pretty simple when you think of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I will raise the bar and join you two in my birthday suit and then we will truly see who is uncomfortable!

One of the interesting claims I have seen come out of the nudist community is that, once you get comfortable with nudity, you no longer see nudity as automatically immodest. How do these questions of modesty apply across culture and community? Obviously some cultures and communities are more comfortable with different levels of nudity in everyday interactions. This can make it even more difficult to find The One True standard of modesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Fether I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line. Perhaps it is like @marginoferror says -- it is about the message it sends. I don't think I would want to wear a shirt with a strip club logo on it, because that sends the message that I patronize strip clubs. Something with an underwear vendor's logo (Victoria's Secret, Jockey, Hanes, other) sends the message that I patronize vendors who sell underwear. Since all* of us wear underwear and, therefore, buy underwear, it doesn't seem like it should be an offensive message to send (though I'm not sure why I want to advertise that I buy and wear underwear, but everyone should accept that I do).

Maybe that is the real difficulty I see with the modesty discussion. We an usually agree on the extremes. It's trying to navigate the middle ground where personal judgement and choice are at play. How should one navigate this middle ground? When it doubt, don't wear it? When it doubt, wear it? When in doubt, descend into choice overload paralysis where you end up staying home because you can't decide?

* I guess I should be careful with the "all" here. I have no way of knowing if every last person reading this buys and wears underwear. For those readers who are not buying and wearing underwear, I think a don't ask don't tell kind of approach would be best. I am also reminded of this brief exchange from a couple of years ago when @Mordorbund claimed to have been buying @Neurotypical's underwear online that still makes me laugh when I think about it:

 

Well I think we all agree that what the church says is true:

Central to the command to be modest is an understanding of the sacred power of procreation, the ability to bring children into the world. This power is to be used only between husband and wife. 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.”

where the argument comes is the idea of it being the girls fault if men have bad thoughts. 

Which we all agree is false, but we’re often times taught in a way that suggests that.

here is where the sins lie in a generic situation of a man listing after an Latter-day Saint woman who is dressed immodestly (and I am very confident in this).

1) the dozens of men who lust after her sin in their own lustful thoughts. The woman is clean of all their sins.

2) the Latter-day Saint woman sins because she is more worried about comfort, style, or social norms than she is about the struggles of the men around her and the commandments from the prophet.  

3) a third potential occurs later when/if she says “I can wear what I want, these men need to deal with their own thoughts”. Which is just another way of saying “am i my brother’s keeper?” As spoken by the Man called perdition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LadyGunnar said:

Don't teach girls that they are responsible for ANYONE else's thoughts. They are not.  It's  pretty simple when you think of it. 

Nobody Is advocating for this. We are just such bad teachers that it comes off this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fether I think I can agree with the overall principles in the Church's statement. The devil is in the details that the Church's statement leaves up to our own judgement. How short is too short? How tight is too tight? What makes clothing "revealing" or "sexually suggestive"? Are stomachs really that erotic that they merit special mention? It seems like a lot of the times we are butting heads over how to interpret these principles. I don't think I want (and the Church likewise does not want) the Church to publish a detailed list of what they mean by short or revealing or suggestive. Perhaps we as Church members need a way to dialog around these differences of opinion that is more constructive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LadyGunnar said:

Boys were never taught modesty in my ward growing up.

How on earth could you possibly know that?

13 minutes ago, LadyGunnar said:

My son said that he all he was taught in church about modesty is to wear a white shirt and tie to church.

Boys tend to not absorb everything they're taught. I'm not sure I'd take your son's report as fully reliable. I can show you many examples in lesson manuals on modesty given to boys if you want.

I'm not saying that boys have it stressed as much as girls do. And I'll reiterate the obvious here now: Of course.

16 minutes ago, LadyGunnar said:

The only person you can control is yourself.  You are the one responsible for what you think and entertain.   Teach the simple and basic things. Don't teach girls that they are responsible for ANYONE else's thoughts. They are not.  It's  pretty simple when you think of it.

Everything you've said here is false. You're simplifying it into the nonsensical. You're dumbing it down to the downright dumb.

Anyone with any level of thought on the matter at all can easily understand: You can control other people. You are responsible for the ways in which you control other people. Girls and boys are, indeed, responsible for the thoughts they put into other people's heads. And none of that has anything to do with the reality that we are all responsible for our own thoughts, actions and choices.

This should be obvious if you'd take any time to think about it reasonably. The first time some pervert flasher exposes himself to you against your will are you going to try and tell me he's not responsible for that? He would obviously be responsible. And how would you like it if every time you had a memory of his junk flash through your head you were told that, "YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE! IT'S YOUR FAULT, NOT HIS! WHY CAN'T YOU JUST CONTROL YOUR THOUGHTS"? Likewise I hold women who expose themselves to me against my will accountable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

One of the interesting claims I have seen come out of the nudist community is that, once you get comfortable with nudity, you no longer see nudity as automatically immodest. How do these questions of modesty apply across culture and community? Obviously some cultures and communities are more comfortable with different levels of nudity in everyday interactions. This can make it even more difficult to find The One True standard of modesty.

I think you bring up an excellent point and thought pertaining to "societal cultures" or "country cultures"; although, in order for modesty to be a true principle it must be true among all cultures.

1) Modesty isn't based upon culture perspectives and lives. If we believe it does, then I agree finding the one true standard of modesty is difficult.

2) The first thing God did with Adam and Eve -- after partaking of the fruit -- was clothe them. I would say that speaks volumes regarding "nudist" communities and modesty.

3) I find the description of Moroni from Joseph Smith's History to be revealing pertaining to God's wear, "His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom."

The part that has intrigued me is how Joseph could see a portion of Moroni's bosom. How much of his bosom we don't know. I personally don't like v-necks, but that is because I am self-conscience of a particularly aspect -- chest hair. I hate chest hair and I don't like showing it.

As we are in a world, the natural world, we have to teach correct principles and govern ourselves according to those correct principles. Here are some principles that seem common sense to me:

1) What we wear says more about who we are, what we believe, and how we feel about our divine nature.

2) We are responsible for our own thoughts.

3) We have responsibility to make sure we aren't not opening the path of temptation in others. For me, this principle is common sense regarding properly clothed (#4). The Youtube video I share is supposed to highlight this dichotomy of modesty and personal responsibility for what we think and what we wear.

4) If we are dressing modestly (i.e. for males in a suit) and another individual is aroused/lustful, they need to practice self-master and let virtue garnish their thoughts unceasingly.

 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

3) I find the description of Moroni from Joseph Smith's History to be revealing pertaining to God's wear, "His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom."

Just think how that description would have come across had Moroni been a female. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Just think how that description would have come across had Moroni been a female. :D

Well, I think I can kinda get the right picture of how this would have come across. Let me take a moment to portray:

"[Her] hands were naked, and [her] arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were [her] feet naked, as were [her] legs, a little above the ankles. [Her] head and neck were also bare. I could discover that [she] had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could [not] see into [her} bosom."

This would have brought up a question like, "How do you know you couldn't see into her bosom"?

Response, "As I shared, I looked." :P

Remember, if you don't look once your not a man. If you look twice, your not a Saint. :D

P.S.

I am not sure this is as funny as I am finding it right now. Give me a day, I might think differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Fether said:

Nobody Is advocating for this. We are just such bad teachers that it comes off this way.

I was told that as a teenager. It was my job to dress in such a way that the boys didn't get turned on.  I was told that by the Bishop, young women's leaders.  My dad told that they they were full of crap and to not listen to them. I guess it was my fault that I was born with the genes I was.

 I have dealt with men/boys coming on to me since I was 14. I could dress down, no make up, sports bras, baggy clothes and it still happened.  I was told that it was my fault for being pretty and that I needed to be extra careful how I dressed. 

I was told by another Bishop to use my looks to get boys on missions. To tell them that we had a chance if they went on a mission. That I was their best tool to get the boys to serve.  It all kinda runs together. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LadyGunnar said:

I was told that as a teenager. It was my job to dress in such a way that the boys didn't get turned on.  I was told that by the Bishop, young women's leaders.  My dad told that they they were full of crap and to not listen to them. I guess it was my fault that I was born with the genes I was.

 I have dealt with men/boys coming on to me since I was 14. I could dress down, no make up, sports bras, baggy clothes and it still happened.  I was told that it was my fault for being pretty and that I needed to be extra careful how I dressed. 

I was told by another Bishop to use my looks to get boys on missions. To tell them that we had a chance if they went on a mission. That I was their best tool to get the boys to serve.  It all kinda runs together. 

But no one is saying you are responsible for their thoughts. Only to be aware that your appearance can effect their thoughts.

Nobody is saying that boys are innocent of lust because it’s the girls fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I normally don't get involved in with these discussion, because I feel that it's a subject that's been beaten to death a million times over.  But against my better judgement, here I go--

1) "Modesty" is not defined as "what clothes you wear".  Rather it is the attitude of meekness and humility, by which we carry ourselves and work with others & God.  What clothes a person wears is part of that, but only one small part of the picture.   While clothes should be talk about some, it should only be a small part of discussion, not >90%.

2) A disciple of Christ's first and foremost by modest because it is what Christ commanded them.  The secondary reasons for yourself and proper self respect.  The third-ary being mindful of interactions with people-- no you're not responsible for any else's thoughts or how they feel!  But that also doesn't mean you have license to be complete jerk and oblivious to those around you.  Let's just be reasonable and mindful of others-- basic courtesy type of things.

3)  In the past, we've done a pretty poor job culturally teaching modesty.  Neglecting majority of the picture, some downright awful lessons/teaching strategies, lack of personal responsibility, and a lack of focusing on God first and foremost.  I'm speaking of general trends here, obviously some people/teachers were a lot better and some a lot worse.

4) Nowadays I do feel like the general trend of church culture has gotten a lot better about staying focused on the real focus and definition of modesty.  With again, some folks being way better than the average and some way worse. 

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, LadyGunnar said:

I was told by another Bishop to use my looks to get boys on missions. To tell them that we had a chance if they went on a mission. That I was their best tool to get the boys to serve.  It all kinda runs together. 

And that would be an example of a much worse person.  I'm sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LadyGunnar said:

I was told that...

 

1 hour ago, Fether said:

But no one is saying...

This, I think, illustrates part of the problem with these kinds of discussions. It goes beyond modesty into other sexual areas (good girl syndrome type topics). We can insist left and right that no one at church taught ______, but there seems to be a lot of people who learned _______ from Church. I sometimes think that one of our challenges in the church is how to deal with this sort of thing. Some insist that the Church needs no introspection -- its all the learners' (or a few teachers who went off the rail) fault. Some insist that the Church is terrible at developing curriculum and teachers and the Church bears the responsibility for the false doctrines they learned. Could this possible work better if we met in the middle.

If the Church and teachers were introspective enough to ask questions about how to best teach these kinds of topics -- not only so that truth is taught -- but so that truth is not misconstrued? I sometimes think it would help if the Church and its teachers were more willing to point out cases where these kinds of things were poorly taught or easily misunderstood.

Can we as learners simply accept that enough false doctrine is taught at church so that we approach our lessons and other claims made by our coreligionists with enough skepticism to filter those teachings through our own discernment filters and other teachers and sources?

An additional dimension to these kinds of topics is that they are often aimed at our youth who are often in the early stages of learning teaching skills and learning learning skills and learning discernment skills so that it is easy for them to misconstrue things.

I don't know how to do these things -- my own senses of skepticism and faith and discernment are still developing. There are things in that process that I must unlearn. There are things in that process that I must understand better so I can teach them better.

Edit to clarify: When I write about "Church" in this post, I am thinking more of the institution than membership. Thinking more of the lesson materials and directions given to teachers for preparing lessons.

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
1 hour ago, LadyGunnar said:

I was told by another Bishop to use my looks to get boys on missions. To tell them that we had a chance if they went on a mission. That I was their best tool to get the boys to serve.  It all kinda runs together. 

And that would be an example of a much worse person.  I'm sorry.

Sounds to me like a Bishop with a great sense of humor and a girl with none and a big chip on her shoulder to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share