More Mo’ Modesty

The modesty debate rears its head for another round of discussion over at T&S. Wheat Woman wins the prize for best comment thus far at #120.
But look, an article on how other Christian churches are dealing with their own harlotsimmodest women! Can I just say that I would never darken the door of a church that had posted a sign like this?
Well, back to lounging around in my spaghetti string tank tops. The summer air on my bare shoulders and upper back feels sooo good.

Comments

More Mo’ Modesty — 38 Comments

  1. “At church swimming activities, my 12 year-old daughter is encouraged to wear a Mormon-modest bathing suit. But at our local pool, there are 12 year-old girls who wear Muslim-modest bathing suits that cover everything but the hands, feet, and face. It’s obvious that Mormons and Muslims both value female modesty, but it doesn’t take a genuis to figure out that the modesty standards themselves are artificial contructs.”
    I suppose you could take this argument in the reverse direction as well. Why shouldn’t pornography be more commonplace in our media and public settings? Why shouldn’t a couple be able to copulate in public if they want to? If modesty standards are just an “artificial construct” then there is really no point in ever being modest again. I just don’t know why someone would think these standards are “artificial” when it has been proven that lustful thoughts are harder to avoid when viewing an evocatively clothed individual.
    The answer to this question is far more complex than simply deciding that “anything goes” and men just need to control their thoughts better. The question is whether a society believes that there is a moral line you shouldn’t cross. If there is none, then morals cease to exist.
    The LDS modesty standards are never going to be perfect for everyone, but they are pretty good.
  2. Jack — I’m asking merely out of curiosity: At your church for the Sunday morning worship service, how common are the types of clothing that would violate that Catholic church’s dress code? How common are the types of clothing that would be in accord with what is considered socially acceptable at an LDS service in your region? Just wondering.
    CF — I have no quibble with the LDS “modesty standards” (your phrase, not mine). My complaint is when we get judgmental about it and label as immodest (and therefore morally suspect) anything that doesn’t meet those “standards,” even when the prevailing culture would deem something as nonprovocative.
    And to suggest that because someone calls something a social construct that the person is saying anything should be OK … well, that’s just silly.
  4. Its funny but I really don’t have a problem with that. I’ve been to churches where a sports jacket and tie is iffy and really you are expected to wear a suit. Similar codes for women as far as office / presentation attire. I’ve also been to churches with simple rules like no short pants, no open toe shoes for men, no short skirts, a least a 1/4 sleeve for women and a full length sleeve for men.
    People act differently in more formal clothing. It really comes down to what kind of church experience you want to create.
  5. @CF: Actually lustful thoughts are caused by what is provocative in THAT culture. In the 19th century, women always wore long dresses. Seeing an ankle of a woman was deemed to be sexually stimulating to the boys because they hardly ever got to see that part of a woman’s body. Now boys don’t even notice girl’s ankles. Likewise, in nudist colonies people get so used to seeing each other naked that they aren’t stimulated any more by it (or at least no more than they would be if they saw eachother clothed).
    The point of controlling lust, in my opinion, is for two reasons: A) to stop from having kids before you are ready to care for them and B) to stay loyal to your spouse. It is up to each individual person to decide what they can do and still satisfy those two requirements.
  7. True, I guess each community has to respect each other’s standards. Free speech must be defended, but we need to find a way to merge that with public decency.
  8. @Jack
    “I have no quibble with the LDS “modesty standards” (your phrase, not mine). My complaint is when we get judgmental about it and label as immodest (and therefore morally suspect) anything that doesn’t meet those “standards,” even when the prevailing culture would deem something as nonprovocative.”
    FYI, the standards of modesty are church doctrine, I’m not just pulling this stuff out of the air.
    http://lds.org/manual/for-the-strength-of-youth-fulfilling-our-duty-to-god/dress-and-appearance?lang=eng
    Leaders and sometimes members of the church DO get judgmental about it because it IS immodest and morally suspect according to the official rules.
  9. #5 Eric ~ As a rough estimate, I would say that 75% of the women on any given summer Sunday in my congregation are wearing attire that would be considered “modest” by Mormon standards. The reason that number is not higher is because sleeveless shirts and tank tops are so widely accepted by the predominant culture (we have a First Lady who wears them in public!) and especially popular in the summers, so those are pretty common at my church. I’d say 95% are attired in a way that Our Lady of Guadalupe Church would not find objectionable.
    #4 & #11 CF ~ Eric (#6) made that comment, not me. But as Eric pointed out, acknowledging that modesty is a social construct that slides according to cultural standards is hardly the same as disregarding the matter altogether.
    Leaders and sometimes members of the church DO get judgmental about it because it IS immodest and morally suspect according to the official rules.
    Certain Muslim groups have rules for their women, too, and they view these rules as inspired. They think it’s immodest for women to leave their hair uncovered, or their forearms, or their legs below the knee. What makes the Mormons right and the Muslims wrong? And if the Muslims behaved in a judgmental fashion towards Mormon women and called their clothing morally suspect based on their own standards, how would you feel about that?
    #7 CD-Host ~ I don’t mind churches wanting to promote a certain type of dress code. I just draw the line at posting gauche pictures of the no-no fashions. What if someone looking for God who is accustomed to dressing like that walks in off the street and sees that? They might just turn around and walk the other way. I’ve heard stories of fundamentalist churches in the Bible belt with hem rulers propped up in the doorways to make sure the women are wearing skirts to their ankles. This sounds like a slightly more high-tech version of that.
    I am sort of bothered by the inclusion of the pencil skirt on the no-no list. Really now, what does a pencil skirt show off that a pair of jeans does not?
    Anyways, if a church wants to promote a dress code, I think the best way to do that is to consistently ask the members to dress a certain way. Visitors will catch on.
  10. Jack –
    I only know the men’s version of this. What they do is have an usher that says something like, “in the coat room we have a loaner jacket and tie let me get you one”. As an aside I was looking at the local LDS site and they were pretty clear with “most men wear a suit”.
    For men I think the judgement is: you are slovenly, disrespectful and lazy
    For women I think the judgement is: you are a slut
    So there is somewhat different tone to it.
  11. Did anyone else notice that the lady parishioner in the photo that Jack linked seems to be wearing a top that is not allowed according to one of the pictures? Or am I missing a finely nuanced difference between her top and the one in the picture?
    CF said, “FYI, the standards of modesty are church doctrine, I’m not just pulling this stuff out of the air.”
    I beg to differ. The LDS standards of modesty are policy, not doctrine. There is quite a difference there, and we have been repeatedly warned against mistaking the former for the latter. The “For Strength of Youth” pamphlet has changed considerably over the years.
    I remember a time when a new convert in our university ward went to the Temple for the first time to do baptisms. Ark (yes, that really was her name) did not own a skirt or dress or even women’s slacks, so she wore her nicest blouse and nicest pair of jeans. One of the sisters working in the Temple took her aside and kindly said something about it. All of us who were with her were quite annoyed and assured Ark that she was dressed just fine. It drives me crazy when someone decides that he or she has been called to be a member of the Modesty Police. Surely we have more important things to worry about then that.
    And, honestly, people will notice what is and is not acceptable among a group and will usually adjust their dress and grooming accordingly. At least, that has been my experience.
  12. CF: Am I understanding you right? You think that a woman who wears a sleeveless dress is morally suspect?
    Alex: I agree, most people pick up pretty quickly on what the norms are for attire and prefer to fit in. And if they don’t? I’d rather have them in church anyway.
  13. “Doctrine” from Merriam-Webster:
    a : something that is taught
    b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief
    The Church’s stance in the Strength of Youth, and current stance is Doctrine. Period.
    Eric: I never said that. I have no idea what the hell you’re even talking about. Try quoting me next time before making accusations.
  14. Eric: Are you referring to this?
    From SoY:
    “Immodest clothing includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and other revealing attire. Young women should wear clothing that covers the shoulder and avoid clothing that is low-cut in the front or the back or revealing in any other manner.”
    Immodest according to Church Doctrine? Yes.
    “Morally suspect”? I’m not sure what you mean by that. Is the bishop going to haul the young woman into his office and take away her temple recommend because she wore a sleeveless dress on Sunday? No, of course not.
    Morals are defined as “of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;”. So, yes, you would be going against a principle of “right conduct”, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to be banned from going to the temple or church, or become subject to hate and scrutiny from presiding officers with whispers of, “OH NOESS!, she is MORALLY SUSPECT!”.
  15. CF said to me:
    Try quoting me next time before making accusations.
    No accusations from me. I was only seeking clarification, which you have provided. Thanks.
  16. an article on how other Christian churches are dealing with their own harlots immodest women!
    You gave me a good snicker, especially with the cross out! I did here something in High School about one teen woman was at a Young Life event in my area in a type of dress without underwear. Yikes.
    Some men will be “horndogs”, no matter how women dress.
    We had a great discussion about some pictures of LDS YW in a calendar for Missionaries & Servicemen, dressed modestly, at fMh:
    I guess they wanted the LDS Servicemen to not look at the nude calendars of others in the Military. But, you also wonder about the unsaid messages there, like busts being often obstructed in the pictures. Even a bare ankle crack, by me.
  17. “Much care is exercised to make certain that the official publications of the Church carry messages that are sound in doctrine and fully in harmony with currently approved policies and procedures.” ~Elder Dean L. Larsen, Managing Director of Curriculum Resources (1977).
    If policies and procedures were synonymous with doctrines, there would be no need to point out that publications are in harmony with doctrines and approved policies/procedures. Our doctrines, found in the scriptures, inform the policies/procedures, found in various official publications.
  18. Tracy M just nailed this issue over at BCC in a must-read post:
    I love this from the comments:
    [Modesty is] about how one carries oneself, lives one’s life. It’s about dignity and self-respect—and myopically focusing on clothing, (relegated almost entirely to females, which is another aggrivating discussion entirely) is actually the opposite of true modesty. We’ve lost the very definition of the word.
    Amen, Tracy. Amen.
  20. Thanks for that link, Mike. What a great post by Kerry. I love the reason she gives for why she keeps the LDS standard of modesty:
    As I have noted previously, I adhere to LDS standards of modest dress. I do this because of a promise God made to His people.
    Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
    And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.
    Exodus 19:5-6
    If I am to be a member of a kingdom of priests, I need to dress the part. I have been clothed in the Garment of the Holy Priesthood, and it is sacred to me. Because the garment is a personal reminder of the covenants I have made, I wear clothing that covers it. It has nothing to do with those around me and everything to do with my relationship with God.
    I wish more Latter-day Saints approached the issue like this, as a matter of holiness to God and self-respect.
  22. You should watch this video Jack, it would do you some good I think:
    Because I need some examples to point to when I want to explain what strawmen, slippery slope, and guilt by association arguments look like? Or how to belittle a diverse, multifaceted movement by picking out some of its more extreme members and pretending that they speak for the entire body?
    Or in other words, I think that the “slut walk” idea is dumb, but so was that video. Sounds like the slut walk people and the YouTube patriarchy dupe deserve one another.
    I did a bit of Googling on the uproar and I’m disappointed to see that Christian singer Rebecca St. James made a stupid comment on the matter at Fox News. Shame on you, RSJ.
  23. I agree that St. James’ comment was stupid. So were some of the things Tamara Holder was saying in that same interview.
    I hate those interviews on Fox (CNN does it too, although not always as egregiously) where they get two unreasonable people to debate each other.
  24. “Or how to belittle a diverse, multifaceted movement by picking out some of its more extreme members and pretending that they speak for the entire body?”
    Hahaha! Oh come on, Jack. The video was an indictment of the entire, kooky feminist movement. These members exemplify the entire movement perfectly. They need a little belittlement from time to time.
    It’s sad that so many of them have been sold such a load of BS for so long.
  25. Eric ~ So were some of the things Tamara Holder was saying in that same interview.
    /agree
    CF ~ You’re ignorant, CF. There’s just no other word for it.
    There are over 100 million women missing from the human population because so many cultures do not value women as much as they value men (for comparison, we still seem to think it was pretty awful that Hitler killed 6 million Jews). “Kooky feminists” are the ones trying to do something about it. People like you aren’t.
    I agree that the “SlutWalk” feminists are silly, but they represent feminism for me about as much as Warren Jeffs represents Mormonism for you. If I did a YouTube video acting like Jeffs was representative of the entire Mormon tradition and bashing Mormons for it, I imagine you wouldn’t like it.
  26. You can debate whether the “slut walk” protest was wise, but the basic idea is a good one. How a woman dresses does not give anyone the permission to sexually abuse or rape them (and contrary to what the video says, if the first thing you focus on after someone gets raped is what she was wearing, then yes you are blaming the victim)
    Right wing Fundamentalists hate slut walk because many of them view sex outside of marriage as evil. Left wing second wave Feminists hate slut walk because many seem to accuse any expression of female sexuality as objectifying women (because they don’t believe women have sexualities? Because they believe sexuality to be naturally degrading? They never say)
    Third wave feminism, I think, has a much better view of this. Women should be respected, but sexuality is not immediately seen as a bad thing. The main criteria is that it be safe, sane, and consensual. As long as it is responsible, sex is not demonized, as it unfortunately is in many communities.
  27. The comment that began the “SlutWalk” protests was Constable Michael Sanguinetti saying that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.” His comment was problematic for two reasons: (1) There isn’t any hard evidence that “covering up” helps prevent rape. There are some logistical ways in which certain types of clothing are more “rape-resistant” than others, but that’s hardly the same as avoiding “slutty” attire. (2) “Slut” has traditionally been an extremely derogatory term that men have used for women, and contra what his defenders insist, it reeks of victim-blaming.
    Imagine if an officer were addressing a car-jacking problem in the city and told citizens that they “should avoid driving around unarmed like dumbasses in order to not be victimized.” It may or may not be true that having a gun in your car is likely to deter potential carjackers, but even if it is, (1) Not everyone agrees with and is comfortable with the philosophy of owning a concealed weapon, and (2) Calling the victims “dumbasses” implies that they are, at least in part, to blame for what happened to them. Likewise, not every woman is going to agree with Sanguinetti’s take on what constitutes “not slutty” dress, and calling the victims “sluts” implies that they are, at least in part, to blame for what happens to them.
    That’s why Sanguinetti and his defenders are dumb. Why are the SlutWalk people dumb?
    We could argue all day about the reasons for the prevalence of rape in our culture and the way people react to it, but I believe a significant factor is that we’re coming out of a culture that has historically valued women in terms of their bodies and their ability to reproduce instead of respecting them as people. Rape happens for a lot of reasons, and I disagree with the conventional feminist wisdom that “it’s not about sex, it’s about power” because I think sex is a factor as well as power. An instinctive drive for sex is part of it and there is scientific data showing that sexually frustrated men are more likely to commit rape. However, rape is also about power over someone else’s sex and power over someone else’s body. Or in other words, rapists are merely continuing society’s trend of viewing women in terms of their sexuality and their bodies rather than viewing them as people.
    The people who tell women to “cover up” and be “modest” aren’t helping because they’re continuing society’s trend of valuing women for their bodies rather than who they are as people; they’re just doing it in a different way. The SlutWalk people who are encouraging women to bare as much as possible are likewise playing into the problem. That is why the “SlutWalk” campaign is a bad idea.
    The only solution I see to the problem is to take the emphasis off women’s bodies altogether, and the only advice women need about clothing is to dress in such a way as to command respect for themselves. They don’t need legalistic guidelines on how much shoulder or leg is too much. They need to be taught to have respect for themselves and their own abilities—as people, not as sex objects for men to enjoy—and men need to be taught that, too. Likewise, men need to be taught to take responsibility for their own thoughts and actions and to not believe their sexual impulses are at the mercy of how women dress.
  28. I’ve always thought it strange that boys are more likely to want sex than girls and yet the people mocking the girls who have sex a lot by calling them ‘sluts’ are often boys. Seems counterproductive to their stated goals.
    I agree with you that rape is about both sex and power. Rape is most likely to happen to women at their peak fertility years. It is also about power because it allows someone to have sex with a person who otherwise would refuse. Rape will likely always be a potential problem because rape allows a man to potentially have a child that he wouldn’t have had otherwise. While most rapists do not care whether the victim has a child or not, the fact is that rape sometimes leads to pregnancy (though less now because of birth control pills and abortion). As long as rapist have at least a slightly higher chance of producing children (through normal means plus rape) than those who play by the rules, then men more inclined to rape will remain in the population. With the increase in reproductive choice and a country that punishes rape, it is likely that the number of men more inclined to rape will go down, but only if these characteristics stay in place for a long period of time.
    I don’t agree, however, that current culture is increasing the problem of rape. Current rape rates are not higher than in the past. If anything, they have gone down. The National Crime Victimization Survey shows an 85% decrease in rape over the last 30 years. (Regardless of what one thinks of the result, the survey has used the same methodology since the late 80s which means that no matter what the true rates are, the change between the rates of the late 80s and today should be accurate). This is the same period of time that millions of online porn sites came into existence. Some have argued that the increase in porn and the decrease in rape are connected, but I’ll leave that to the statisticians.
    (data in 7th paragraph)
    I agree that we need to remind people that a person’s worth is not connected to their physical beauty. At the same time, like you said, we shouldn’t demonize those who don’t wear what religious leaders deem appropriate. However, that includes the people who participate in slut walk. They aren’t forcing anyone to wear clothing that they don’t want to. They aren’t saying that women in society should dress more like them. They are just saying that they should have the choice. If that is what they want to wear and it isn’t causing them to have children before they are ready, then it isn’t our job to judge. It is similar to how you can serve drinks at a party without being accused of aiding alcoholism (although admittedly this comparison might not work as well for the Mormons reading this comment ;) )
  29. I’ve always thought it strange that boys are more likely to want sex than girls and yet the people mocking the girls who have sex a lot by calling them ‘sluts’ are often boys. Seems counterproductive to their stated goals.
    Things may have a changed a bit but at least going back a generation this makes sense.
    Consider all high school kids classified into popularity groups A, B, C, D and E with A the most desirable. Under normal circumstances A boys want to date A girls. However, a B girl who “puts out” will regularly get invited to A events and quite often have an A boyfriend. Even a C girl who is a guaranteed lay will get invited to A events so long as she provides sex.
    Same thing if we drop the desired group to B with C and D girls.
    When a B girl is accepted into the A group, its not uncommon for both the boys in that group to make it clear that unless she is a natural A that sex is expected, to make it clear to her she is there because of sex and only because of sex. The message is she should understand her place, she’s not a natural A she’s being given the privileges of being an A because she is providing sex. That’s often what the “slut” name calling stuff is about.
    As far as girl to girl name calling she’s likely to be extremely hostile to the C’s that put out randomly since they undermine her whole schtick. She’s also likely to feeling pressure from the lower end of the A girls since they can demoted if they can only land B boyfriends and they might call her that.
    Its possible the rules have changed in the last generation.
  30. CD-Host, thank you for your post. You make a lot of sense. I can see how the A level boys could make fun of the B level girls who have sex because they know that the B level girls will lose their spot in the A level crowd if they complain.
    Yes, I think the rules have changed some in the last generation. Because modern day high school and college girls are more likely to have sex than girls in the past (I’ve seen polls that say that 72% of 24 years olds have had sex) this means that A level boys don’t have to go outside the A level girls to find sex. That means that the B level girls have less leverage to get themselves into the A level group. The sexually promiscuous B level girls don’t stand out as much and thus don’t get called sluts as much.
    I had another theory that it was a battle between generations of males. The younger boys want sex. The older men are protective of their daughters and don’t want them getting pregnant with just any guy. So the older men mock girls who have sex by calling them sluts, hoping that their daughters will get the idea that what they do is bad. The younger boys absorb some of this cultural shaming of the promiscuous girls even though they actually want the girls that they are with to have sex.
    Maybe it is a combination of our theories. It would be interesting to see how views and social structure have shifted.
  31. Yes, I think the rules have changed some in the last generation. Because modern day high school and college girls are more likely to have sex than girls in the past
    I’m not sure how old you are, but what makes you think that millennials are having sex more? I’d say the millennials are more virginal if anything during high school. Where I think there has been a change is anal sex, but I see that as essentially related.
    I’d be shocked if the number at 24 is anywhere near as low as 72%. But remember the ages we are talking about are 14-18, high school. College this whole idea of “slut” didn’t really exist in the same way anymore. As far as modern college culture the whole “hookup not dating” thing sounds like the same pattern we had in high school just with much more polite language.
  32. I can only judge from my own experience, but at my high school (suburban Knoxville, Tennessee from 1993-1997), social status/the social hierarchy really was not strictly tiered. It always seemed more like a big set of fuzzy social clusters.
    Certainly some were more socially prestigious than others, but there would have been no way to rank all of them in a clear hierarchy, and even a lot of the social prestige broke down when you considered that the “rules” for prestige in a given cluster were different than those of other clusters. What made you popular in one group would not necessarily make you popular in other groups.
    Again, that’s nto to say that you couldn’t broadly identify some groups that had, generally speaking, more social cache than others, but a group-perspective shift would make a lot of difference. For a lot of social circles, the jocks and cheerleaders just weren’t on their radar at all.
    On top of that, it always seemed like the borders were fuzzy and overlapping. There wasn’t this sort of strict in/out division or clear borders to a given clique. Some people were clearly more in than out, and soe people were clearly out, but there was definitely a mutable spectrum as to howin or out you were with respect to a given cluster.
    So the idea of buying your way into a tier or clique with sex doesn’t fit my experience of high school at all.
    Just my two cents.
  33. Yeah, in my high school experience, popularity was more of a spectrum than a group of layers. There were the unpopular kids, who hung out together because they could only find friends within that group. We did have clics like the goths, the rednecks, and the African American students. But I still think a person broadly knew how popular another person was even if you had to factor in popularity within a clic. So, while the social fabric was more complicated than suggested above, I still think the theories could, in a broad sense, still work.
  34. Just to point out Columbine was in 99. I think schools have gotten way better. I love the fact my daughter has never seen bullying.
    As for being popular in one group vs. another. A – E does have that. The idea was which groups are harder to get into and which groups would someone be moving up or down.
    Heathers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathers does a great job on this, one of the reasons Winona was elevated to eternal Gen-X goddess. We all watched it and it was close enough to true that….
    If you think about the movie Winona is moving up from B to A during the early part and being abused a middle class female version of being “jumped in”. Once in she picks a B boyfriend but because she’s an A she has sexual responsibilities for A guys (the football players)….
    Anyway I’m nothing but happy that this system had died enough that people can’t related. Good riddance.
  35. Yeah, I watched Heathers in high school, and noted that like a lot of movies about high school, it didn’t seem to bear much resemblance to my actual experience.
    I think media portrayals of high school–which color everyone’s perceptions of high school–are based largely on the narrow set of experiences of the group “people who go on to write and produce mass media,” and I’d wager their experiences are strongly biased and unrepresentative.
    Maybe high schools are/were like that in some times or places, I dunno. Just, not mine.
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity