The prom dress question and follow-up comment

[Marduk]

Bismark's last statement notwithstanding, I think dressing modestly isn't an either/or issue; just like almost any issue with our moral standard, it is intended to reflect inward dedication as well as outward manifestations. That is to say, dressing modestly isn't just to show the girl that she has self worth, and is not merely to be objectified, as well as to show respect to those around her. It would be far more difficult to maintain the spirit if women walked around topless here; whether this is a cultural conditioning to see breasts as sexual that is not so conditioned elsewhere, or whether it is an innate physiological response is immaterial. The fact that it happens at all means we should take steps to prevent it. Now before I'm attacked for saying that it is all women's fault, I'm not. Men have responsibility over keeping their thoughts pure. But sexual desire is innate. It is something all of us are predisposed to. It is all of our responsibilities to place as many restraints as possible. As the saying goes, sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a thousand restraints, lest it destroy us.

[vorpal blade]

I think it is a terrible thing that our culture teaches that male sexuality is like an untamed beast that can easily break from it's leash the second it sees an inch of bare female skin. Such thinking only exacerbates problems like premarital sex and pornography.

I agree with wired that this is a highly exaggerated claim of what is actually taught in our culture.

I think this is the wrong reason to teach modesty. Modesty is about respecting your own body, not about others.

You can't separate "respecting your own body" from the effect showing your body has on others. The only reason immodesty shows disrepect for your own body is that you know, or should know, how calling attention to your body affects others.


So, I'm pretty much with wired and Marduk on this issue.

[Marduk]

So, I'm pretty much with wired and Marduk on this issue.

SWEET MERCIFUL CRAP! VORPAL AND I AGREED ON SOMETHING! END OF DAYS! SIGNAL THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE!

[bismark]

SWEET MERCIFUL CRAP! VORPAL AND I AGREED ON SOMETHING! END OF DAYS! SIGNAL THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE!

don't get too excited, he's just doing it to make sure he doesn't agree with me.

[Imogen]

Bismark's last statement notwithstanding, I think dressing modestly isn't an either/or issue; just like almost any issue with our moral standard, it is intended to reflect inward dedication as well as outward manifestations. That is to say, dressing modestly isn't just to show the girl that she has self worth, and is not merely to be objectified, as well as to show respect to those around her. It would be far more difficult to maintain the spirit if women walked around topless here; whether this is a cultural conditioning to see breasts as sexual that is not so conditioned elsewhere, or whether it is an innate physiological response is immaterial. The fact that it happens at all means we should take steps to prevent it. Now before I'm attacked for saying that it is all women's fault, I'm not. Men have responsibility over keeping their thoughts pure. But sexual desire is innate. It is something all of us are predisposed to. It is all of our responsibilities to place as many restraints as possible. As the saying goes, sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a thousand restraints, lest it destroy us.

so should men stop wearing suits and ties because i find that incredibly sexy and have sexual thoughts about them DESPITE the fact that they're fully covered? should i tell my boyfriend to stop wearing sweater vests and button downs because it makes me want to kiss him a lot? should i stop wearing my hair in an afro because he thinks it's sexy and it makes him want my body?

i mean, where does it end? i think social conditioning has a huge influence on what we think is sexual or sexy. our society thinks of breasts as sexy, but in many societies they're totally utilitarian. should we stop hiding the sexy parts of our personalities, like humor and intelligence, lest someone have a sexual thought? having sexual thoughts is going to happen no matter what someone is wearing. mr. duggar obviously finds his wife sexy,and she certainly dresses modestly. demanding that someone who asked you out wear something YOU want them to wear just sends up a lot of red flags to me about his potential to be an abuser, honestly. demanding that someone wear what you want them to is a classic abuser tactic to make sure that person isn't drawing the "wrong" kind of attention. not to mention, rape apologists use that all the time: "well, if she hadn't been wearing outfit xyz, i never would've raped her" you know, a man in new york was ACQUITED of taking pictures up women's skirts, purely because they were WEARING SKIRTS. when does the blame stop falling on the woman and fall on the man. when is the man responsible for his thoughts and actions? why do i have to make sure some guy keeps his mind out of the gutter? i think what bismark said extends to society at large, not just mormon culture.

[bismark]

As the saying goes, sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a thousand restraints, lest it destroy us.

I rest my case.

[Imogen]

As the saying goes, sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a thousand restraints, lest it destroy us.

I rest my case.

well then i must have burst into flames a long time ago.

[bismark]

I rest my case.

well then i must have burst into flames a long time ago.

I just pictured a lawyer finishing up his/her closing statement and someone in the audience spontaneously combusting.

[Imogen]

I rest my case.

well then i must have burst into flames a long time ago.

I just pictured a lawyer finishing up his/her closing statement and someone in the audience spontaneously combusting.

well if sexual thoughts make us combust, and he was wearing a suit and tie, i probably would.

[Dragon Lady]

I'm not sure who I agree with here. So I'll just state my thoughts. I think girls have a responsibility to be modest a) to respect their own body b) to help out guys and their hormones and c) because the prophet said so. I think guys have a responsibility to a) dress modestly b) control their own thoughts despite what girls around them are wearing and c) surround themselves with girls that dress modestly, especially if (b) is more of a struggle for them.

I am not saying that girls have a responsibility for what a guy thinks and does. However, I think everyone has a responsibility to help others on their quest for eternal life. That could mean not being sarcastic around someone who is trying to stop being sarcastic. Or it could mean not having alcohol around a recovering alcoholic. Or it could mean dressing modestly around a recovering porn addict. And the simple fact that you have no idea who fits into that last category means that you should just dress modestly all the time.

I had a really good friend that was a recovering porn addict. He hadn't viewed porn in over a year, but he was still tempted often. It was a constant battle for him. A battle he was winning, sure, but a battle nonetheless. The day that he confessed his struggle to me he also thanked me for always dressing modestly. He told me that he took full responsibility for his thoughts and actions, but being around girls that were modest made it much easier on him. With a personal struggle that he had to fight every time he went to a public place, he greatly appreciated when he was able to take a bit of a rest around modest girls.

That conversation made a big impact on me. He thanked me because he knew he could trust me with his secret. But he couldn't thank all modest girls. He couldn't tell them how much of a difference they made in his life. I've thought of that every time I try on new clothes that might be slightly more immodest than I'd usually wear. I especially think of it any time I hear a girl argue, "Well, it's not my fault if a guy has bad thoughts when I'm wearing this shirt that shows much cleavage. It's my own decision what I wear. It doesn't affect anyone else but me." No, hon. It affects much more than you. You may not be causing someone to have bad thoughts, but it's quite possible that you're making repentance that much harder on someone else.

We all have an effect on everyone around us. We can build people up or tear people down by what we do, say, and yes, even by what we wear.

[Tao]

I think it is a terrible thing that our culture teaches us that law enforcement officers are violent untamed beasts that will snap the second they see a hand go to where there might possibly be a weapon. I mean, they're my hands, in my car. I can do what ever I want with them. Why should I be held responsible for the overreactions of officers who should know better?

Is the advice to keep your hands visible throughout a roadside stop really such a limiting thing? (Try it sometime, just as an officer is approaching your window, reach under your seat. See how the officer reacts. If you survive, report back and see how their reaction could offer parallels or suggestions for our somewhat over-zelous young man here.)

Granted, there are degrees of everything. But I think we'd agree that if I see a SWAT team at a standoff, and run toward them snarling and shouting while pointing a pistol at them, I cannot be considered guilt-free if shot and/or killed? At that level, I don't think there would be much argument that a fully (modestly) clothed woman can randomly gave a man an unwanted lapdance and then press harassment charges should he react. (Micheal Crichton's Disclosure, anyone?) But if you admit that our actions/appearance have a direct causal effect on those around us, then the rest of the argument is a matter of degree.

Of course societal influences factor in significantly. I've known people whose high school graduation ceremony was entirely topless. The arab states take what we would call an extremist view, while in places in China it is considered socially acceptable to be unclothed in front of a close friend of the family, so long as your feet are hidden. Our standards of modesty are merely reflections of those of our culture. Perhaps if we were to see an increase in the foot fixation, we'd be recommended to cover our feet while in public as well.

Or it could mean dressing modestly around a recovering porn addict. And the simple fact that you have no idea who fits into that last category means that you should just dress modestly all the time.

Well said.

Odd little anecdote, make of it what you will: After a high school soccer game, a group of my friends got together for a bonfire. Concerned that the fire would damage my jersey I stripped out of it, as did the other players there. Not long thereafter everyone present was topless. The next day, I was approached by one of my friends apologizing for her indiscretion. Now, accepting that this is an indiscretion, where does culpability lie? With her? Or with me?

I'd say, yes.

As I understand it, we should be responsible for that which we have control over. Our own actions/reactions are always in this sphere, as is the general image we project.

[bismark]

I think it is a terrible thing that our culture teaches us that law enforcement officers are violent untamed beasts that will snap the second they see a hand go to where there might possibly be a weapon. I mean, they're my hands, in my car. I can do what ever I want with them. Why should I be held responsible for the overreactions of officers who should know better?

Is the advice to keep your hands visible throughout a roadside stop really such a limiting thing? (Try it sometime, just as an officer is approaching your window, reach under your seat. See how the officer reacts. If you survive, report back and see how their reaction could offer parallels or suggestions for our somewhat over-zelous young man here.)

Did this have anything to do with my original post? If this was not directed at me, then my bad. If it was, then huh?

Or it could mean dressing modestly around a recovering porn addict. And the simple fact that you have no idea who fits into that last category means that you should just dress modestly all the time.

Here is my problem with this: porn addiction is not about sexual attraction or even just being horny.

Anyway, I have this feeling that some people here think I am advocating relaxed modesty standards or something, which is far from the case.

Here's what I was trying to say in my original post: the idea that being around someone who is dressed immodestly can/will lead to losing control shows an unhealthy understanding of sexuality. Now, porn addicts and perhaps even the boy asking the question already have unhealthy understandings of sexuality, so they must do what they must do to handle their problems. But I think better, clearer teaching of sex, to both boys and girls, is the key to a healthy understanding and relationship to ones own sexuality.

Just an example: why do we still use words like petting and necking in church? Do those words even mean anything anymore? Can any two people on this board independently come up with the same definition of what those even mean? Have any of you ever heard words like penis or orgasm at church? I know I haven't. How many of you can have non-awkward conversations about sex with your parents/children?

Porn addiction, the inability to see others dressed immodestly, fornication, adultery, etc come from an unhealthy understanding of sexuality.

I am going to have to disagree with Elder Holland's use of the Will Durant quote. I think a much better version is "the improper use of sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a thousand restraints, lest it destroy us."

[krebscout]

How many of you can have non-awkward conversations about sex with your parents/children?

Me! My parents have always been very open to talking and teaching about such things, and now that I'm old and married I'm glad they were that way, and I plan to be the same with my children.

[NerdGirl]

I'm gonna agree with bismark here. Our society often acts like men are just victims of their hormones. Just turn on the TV. That can translate into a lot of different attitudes, from religious people worrying that we need to make sure we don't tempt them because they can't control their reactions to popular entertainment that says men can't control their urges so they should just give in to them. I think these attitudes are insulting to men's intelligence.

And imogen made a really good point about telling a date what to wear being a sign of potential abusive tendencies. I don't necessarily think that's the case here, but it's something more young Mormon girls need to be aware of. There are unfortunately some pretty creepy guys in the church (not just in the church, but some people think all Mormon guys must all be safe), and some girls don't realize that and get themselves into dangerous situations. I've seen it happen too many times, and telling the girl how to dress or how to look is often the first warning sign.

If I had to guess what was going through this guy's mind, though, I would imagine that he's just very worried about what people will think of him if he goes out with a girl who's not wearing sleeves, and not that he's intentionally trying to be controlling. But he shouldn't worry, because it sounds like the girl wants to be pretty covered up even without the sleeves, and there's nothing wrong with having friends with different beliefs. I wonder if this kid has any idea that we're all still talking about this!

[Tao]

Did this have anything to do with my original post? If this was not directed at me, then my bad. If it was, then huh?

While not directed at any one individual, I used the phrasing of your original post as a template due to what I see as its major fallacy. Giving good advice and/or guidelines is not anything at all like the extreme view you describe. Perhaps the imagery doesn't come across as well as I intended, it was the first example I could think of where you could use your same views to turn good advice into frenetic frothing.

Anyway, I have this feeling that some people here think I am advocating relaxed modesty standards or something, which is far from the case.

Yup, that's pretty much how it came across.

Here's what I was trying to say in my original post: the idea that being around someone who is dressed immodestly can/will lead to losing control shows an unhealthy understanding of sexuality.

I think it's that "can/will" that might be throwing us for a loop. Your original post sounded more like an "immodesty will lead to loss of control" post. ("our culture teaches that male sexuality is like an untamed beast...") Um. No. No it doesn't. I'm not sure what culture you're pulling that from. Unless you've had some rather interesting teachers, this comes across as an extremist view on your part.

By making such an outrageously extremist statement, you imply satire (an understandable conclusion, looking at the hyperbolic language), and if satirical, then you seem to advocate the opposite: immodesty (can't/)won't affect those around them, so we need to stop teaching modesty. (Sparking my response: "Yes, your appearance can affect those around you, and you can be held responsible for some of that effect" and perhaps part of the reason you appear to advocate relaxed modesty standards or something.)

Just an example: why do we still use words like petting and necking in church? Do those words even mean anything anymore? Can any two people on this board independently come up with the same definition of what those even mean?

My turn: Um. What? It's not like these words are remnants of archaic speech. That is, unless you want to call BYU archaic as well, or consider Groucho Marx ancient. (Sorry vorpal, looks like your age just got even more complicated).

Have any of you ever heard words like penis or orgasm at church? I know I haven't.

Have you needed to? The church doesn't teach sex ed. that's up to parents. Which leads us to:

How many of you can have non-awkward conversations about sex with your parents/children?

Was the first "Birds and bees" talk awkward? Sure, I guess. Seeing as how the first time you do anything it tends to be awkward. Subsequent discussions? Not as much. Again, I have to ask: From whence do you get your assumptions?

I am going to have to disagree with Elder Holland's use of the Will Durant quote. I think a much better version is "the improper use of sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a thousand restraints, lest it destroy us."

So, as long as you keep your improper use of sex within proper restraints, it's fine? I would assume that the propriety is implied by the image of the river under restraint.

[wired]

I don't have time to respond in depth, just to say I think Dragon Lady has it perfect. (And that I always feel good when I hold the same opinion as Tao and DL.)

[Dragon Lady]

Dear bismark ~

I know you have traditionally been a very controversial part of the Board community and so whenever you said something opinionated, everyone jumped down your throat. However, that doesn't mean that every time you state an opinion, everyone who replies is attacking you. Especially now that you're all grown up and engaged and a bit more mellow on here.

Personally? I had no idea whatsoever who I was siding with when I made my opinion known. I had read them all, but exact names and arguments became fuzzy. I wasn't specifically countering or agreeing with anyone. I was making my (kind of soapboxy) opinion known. Period.

To add to that, I didn't get the impression that people were attacking your argument. I got the impression that we were having a discussion, everyone talking about their own perspectives and here and there trying to clarify what other people said. And yes, even disagreeing when our opinions don't match up. But I think that's a matter of opinions clashing (which is normal and to be expected) and not a matter of, "Ugh! bismark's crazy rantings again!"

Perhaps I am reading too much into this? It's possible. It's past my bedtime. Mostly I just wanted to tell you that I hope you don't feel like your place in the message board is to be the outcast that we all pick on. Because I know you're wanting to change your image and not just say things to rile people up. And like I said earlier, we should all be trying to help build each other up in their efforts to change and be better. So, hugs?

~ Dragon Lady

[Dragon Lady]

Also, in response to your question to me in here, I'll post what I said to you in chat so that other people can see.

I never said a porn addict couldn't have normal sexual relationships. Perhaps we both spoke in stereotypes. "porn addiction has nothing to do with attraction or being turned on." I don't think you can say that it has nothing to do with that for everyone that has a porn addiction. Obviously that was not true for my friend. However, perhaps I was too quick to say that was true for everyone.

So sorry for over-generalizing, folks. I only speak from the perspective that I am familiar with. But I still think it's a valid one.

[bismark]

While not directed at any one individual, I used the phrasing of your original post as a template due to what I see as its major fallacy.

Let's not mince words.

Anyway, I have this feeling that some people here think I am advocating relaxed modesty standards or something, which is far from the case.

Yup, that's pretty much how it came across.

Well, my bad. Glad I can clear things up.

Um. No. No it doesn't.

Obviously we have experienced different chastity talks, different super Saturday devotionals, different tv shows, different books, etc. Untamed beast? Ok, a bit hyperbolical to get across my point. But are men treated as if they have less control than they really do and that their sexuality is something to be approached as nearly hostile? My experience says yes.

outrageously extremist statement

Oh my.

Then you seem to advocate the opposite: immodesty (can't/)won't affect those around them, so we need to stop teaching modesty.

Nope. But I do advocate teaching our boys that they can control their own sexuality no matter what situation they find themselves in.

My turn: Um. What? It's not like these words are remnants of archaic speech. That is, unless you want to call BYU archaic as well, or consider Groucho Marx ancient.

Ok, so let's hear your definitions. Am I really the only one in the dark to these commonly used phrases that have universal meaning to everyone? Or am I the only one who sees that these, dare I say it, yes, archaic terms keep sexual acts and indiscretions nebulous and undefined in the minds of LDS youth, therefore only leading to more confusion, guilt, and secrecy?

Have you needed to?

I would have certainly preferred to hear penis and orgasm instead of hearing about how I have a little built in factory that needs to release itself on occasion or how I have a built in stop sign that pops up so I know when I should stop kissing a girl. Yup, I've heard both in priesthood classes.

Subsequent discussions? Not as much.

Good, be grateful.

So, as long as you keep your improper use of sex within proper restraints, it's fine?

Obviously not what I meant by my less than perfect edit.

I would assume that the propriety is implied by the image of the river under restraint.

Here is the major difference: the original quote implies sexuality is inherently destructive to the human soul and I strongly disagree with that.

[bismark]

Me! My parents have always been very open to talking and teaching about such things, and now that I'm old and married I'm glad they were that way, and I plan to be the same with my children.

Good, I am glad to hear that, and I certainly plan on doing the same.

Sadly I don't think many people are as lucky. I think that's why books like these [1] have a market. Maybe the author is just as crazy as me though.. Just read the first paragraph for a nice example:

Sex, to Janet, was dirty, immoral and wrong, something she'd been taught NOT to do. She wondered about the appropriateness of sexual relations even within marriage. Sex was okay if she and her husband were trying to have a baby, but any "extra-curricular" or "recreational" sex for pleasure felt dirty and unrighteous.

Outrageously extreme to the max!

[1]http://www.amazon.com/They-Were-Not-Ash ... 1587830345