Bras and Society

[Whistler]

can we please not define women as being some kind of male accessory? I'm not God's gift or bane to men, I'm my own person!

[thatonemom]

I second Uffish so, so much.

This thread is giving me an ulcer, you virtual-ulcer causers! No, in all seriousness, I just wanted to add a couple of scriptures. As it seems like this has turned into slut shaming in the name of God, or something. And that makes me mad and I'd like to refute it. First, Alma 38:12, "and also see that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love" I always hear this explained in the context of love vs. lust, but I think it can also mean love vs. hate/anger/rage. I get tired of the "modesty notes" and "virtual rape" style comments that seem full of so much hate and anger towards women. Bridle your passions, people, and quite hating on others for your sexual response. It is your response, it is your responsibility, it is within your power.

Second, from Matthew 18:9, "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee" The Savior did *not* say, if something offends you, go around and shame/blame all the offending things for being offensive and feel superior about it. He said, if part of you is causing you to stumble, get rid of it. Find out what it is about this whole topic of women and their form that is so offensive and disempowering to you, and then cast it out. Because it's not women's fault. Or problem. Or responsibility.

The Savior constantly taught people the importance of learning to control themselves. Satan is big on the whole trying to control other people. Let's not pretend like we are helpless, or that our feelings of weakness are someone else's responsibility.

[TheBlackSheep]

I have nothing to say that hasn't already been said, except that to answer your first question, Vorpal, the Black Ram and I met in a coffee shop.

[The Black Ram]

Whistler I certainly didn't mean that you were an accessory or anything less than a man. My comment “God’s one gift designed specifically for man” was not meant in a possessive way merely that we are designed companions, and I find no shame in that.

[mic0]

can we please not define women as being some kind of male accessory? I'm not God's gift or bane to men, I'm my own person!

AGREED!

I second Uffish so, so much.

This thread is giving me an ulcer, you virtual-ulcer causers!

ALSO AGREED!

(just wanted to make sure you all knew you were heard and agreed with)

[Whistler]

I didn't think you meant it that way, but it certainly read that way. Maybe it is literally true... does this mean God is sexist? this is so depressing.

[vorpal blade]

Thank you for answering my questions, The Black Ram. And thank you, Black sheep.

As you all know I believe that a man is 100% responsible for his own thoughts and actions. Of course I believe in individual responsibility.

But allow me to make an analogy that I hope will be helpful. Suppose a man and a woman are having a discussion and it becomes a little heated. Now, intellectually, we know that each of them has a responsibility to be polite, civil, and keep the anger in check. Each of them has the power to calm down, or if necessary to walk out until calm feelings return. Wouldn’t it be unfair to say that only the man has to control his thoughts and words? Wouldn’t it be wrong for the woman, as well as the man, to continue to escalate the discussion with provocative words and actions? Why insist that the man must control his thoughts, but not require the woman to stop shouting insults, and trying to provoke the man? Why should either one get a free pass? Why can’t both take 100% responsibility for their own actions, and still have a responsibility to behave in a decent way with regard to the other?

I have another question for you, The Black Sheep. It would seem from your comments that you see nothing wrong with pornography. Or is there some line somewhere that defines, for you, what pornography is okay and what is not okay?

[The Black Ram]

Vorpal, I see your analogy and I agree that it is reasonable to hold both parties to the same expectation. I still do not see what offence you choose to take in nudity, it’s not like the breasts are flying out and slapping you in the face.

[thatonemom]

But allow me to make an analogy that I hope will be helpful. Suppose a man and a woman are having a discussion and it becomes a little heated. Now, intellectually, we know that each of them has a responsibility to be polite, civil, and keep the anger in check. Each of them has the power to calm down, or if necessary to walk out until calm feelings return. Wouldn’t it be unfair to say that only the man has to control his thoughts and words? Wouldn’t it be wrong for the woman, as well as the man, to continue to escalate the discussion with provocative words and actions? Why insist that the man must control his thoughts, but not require the woman to stop shouting insults, and trying to provoke the man? Why should either one get a free pass? Why can’t both take 100% responsibility for their own actions, and still have a responsibility to behave in a decent way with regard to the other?

I'll take this on, as I feel like it is (at least in part) in response to my post. This is a great analogy, because it illustrates the same problem. Does each of them have a responsibility to be polite, or civil, or keep anger in check? I don't think so. Have they made some kind of agreement on this before their discussion? Not everyone you meet is going to be polite/civil/whatever, and that's a fact. (Just like not everyone is going to dress in a way you find appropriate) You still have to learn to deal with all types of people in every type of situation you're in. And the only behavior you can control is your own. If you find yourself heated, or impolite, it's up to you to do something about yourself - not cry foul that other people aren't following "the rules."

Also, who defines what politeness or civility looks like? (Or "appropriate" dress?) Your definition may be very different from mine. You have no right to blame other people for not following your mental picture of how the world should be. You only have the right to control yourself and your response. Women dressed in a way that is provocative to you aren't "shouting insults" or "escalating" anything. They got dressed. If you have a problem with that, it remains your problem. And that's the only thing that matters in the situation. No one is "getting a free pass." The idea that women need to focus on any possible response a man might have to their dress/actions reeks of male privilege.

[Integrating Editor]

Whistler, there is another, very important, reason that very small-chested women wear bras sometimes, myself included. I can wear boys' size 12 clothes without adjustment, I am in a male-dominated major, I sing bass, and in the past year at least four people have assumed I was 12 or under, so it's difficult for me to see myself as the adult woman that I am. Bras help me feel like a sexy woman when I need reassurance. It's particularly hard given that most bras that fit women like me are labelled as "training" bras, indicating that someone that small is a little girl who wants to pretend to be a woman. One of the biggest markets for small-breasted women online is extremely lacy lingerie bras for that very reason. Given how difficult the feeling is to achieve, it feels awesome to don a bra that makes me look adult and, yeah, a bit sexy. So when I'm walking around without a bra, it doesn't in the slightest mean I'm trying to be sexually appealing, let alone trying to virtually rape any men. I'm actually putting comfort over a sexy feel or look, not the other way around.

Incidentally, I hate the virtual rape metaphor. It's like the kid who compared the BYU police to the Nazis. Sorry, but a girl who is fully covered (or even not) but could be identified as braless is not on par with the perpetrator of a traumatic and horrific crime. I am not on par with the perpetrator of a traumatic and horrible crime just because I don't always wear one, even if there's a possibility someone could notice. And I don't know any woman who goes braless to attract attention: every one I know dislikes the feeling or doesn't have the money to spend for a comfortable, well-fitting bra. They are simply doing what makes sense to them, and if thought goes into it, it is into how to not make it obvious to everyone around them.

When it comes to modesty, I've never been willing to buy the idea that women need to be modest because men are not able to control their thoughts if we're not. It never has been my responsibility to police someone else's morality. However, I do dress modestly out of respect for my own body. I want certain parts of my body to be seen only by people I choose to allow, not random people on the street. I want to be dressed so that my actions and my words will be the focus, not my body or my appearance (and that means not wearing really distracting, bizarre, or inappropriate clothing which would cover garments as well, not just traditionally immodest clothing). And that applies just as well to men as it does to women. What constitutes modest, appropriate clothing is determined by culture. As cultural ideas change, so does what makes appropriate, non-distracting clothing. In our culture, something that shows nipple is considered distracting. I don't think it's anything but an arbitrary cultural standard that gets in my way, but I don't completely ignore it. In European films, I've frequently noticed women who are definitely braless, and the settings and implications are definitely non-sexual. So in the U.S., it's seen as a problem. Many other places, not so much. So yes, men do not need to be culturally conditioned to mentally strip women if they see a hint of nipple. That's just plain creepy. And unfair to women with really erect nipples bras don't cover. Something intended as or undeniably provocative, sure. It's not something a woman should be doing. Not wearing a relatively recently produced garment while fully covered? Not something I think I need to stop doing. Because it's not wrong.

[The Black Ram]

Epic +1

[Katya]

Whistler I certainly didn't mean that you were an accessory or anything less than a man. My comment “God’s one gift designed specifically for man” was not meant in a possessive way merely that we are designed companions, and I find no shame in that.

The idea of being mutually designed companions is certainly less offensive than the idea of being a designed accessory, but women are much more often described as being companions to men than the other way around, so it might be wise to be aware of that cultural bias when choosing your words.

[Emiliana]

A scantily clothed woman may be inconsiderate, as someone who is eating ice cream in front of someone who is lactose intolerant may be inconsiderate, but she is not attacking him, and he may not play the victim for it, especially to equate the experience with something as horrible as rape.

Exactly.

[TheBlackSheep]

thatonemom and Integrating Editor, I super appreciated your comments. Ditto to the ladies of the Board on this thread. A+ work, all around.

Vorpal, I'm not sure why you asked me my views about pornography, as I'm not sure I've ever really shared them, but hey, I'm open. As with anything, I think that if it feels wrong to you, you shouldn't participate in it. I do not feel that much of the behavior represented in pornography constitutes a healthy first education in sex, though unfortunately many kids get their first introduction to sex through porn. I have worked with many children who have been traumatized due to being inappropriately exposed to pornography at far too young an age, either through neglect or abuse. I am aware that some people develop an unhealthy compulsive relationship with pornography, and the compulsive aspect of their behavior can damage their relationships and impair their ability to meet responsibilities. (Though, it's worth saying, I believe that the problem that leads to any sexual compulsion is not the fault of the porn/sex, but some other issue in the person's life.) Obviously, none of these are good things.

But do I think that mature, consenting adults can healthily view most porn? I do. As long as it depicts people who can consent (meaning adults), is legal, and it doesn't make you feel sinful or dirty or uncomfortable, then I think people can responsibly view porn.


**I'm also aware of prevalent issues in the porn industry, such as substance abuse and people who feel coerced into continued participation. However, I feel that porn probably attracts people who are already vulnerable to these situations, and I have read about steps the porn industry is taking to help fix these problems.

[Whistler]

Whistler, there is another, very important, reason that very small-chested women wear bras sometimes, myself included. I can wear boys' size 12 clothes without adjustment, I am in a male-dominated major, I sing bass, and in the past year at least four people have assumed I was 12 or under, so it's difficult for me to see myself as the adult woman that I am. Bras help me feel like a sexy woman when I need reassurance. It's particularly hard given that most bras that fit women like me are labelled as "training" bras, indicating that someone that small is a little girl who wants to pretend to be a woman. One of the biggest markets for small-breasted women online is extremely lacy lingerie bras for that very reason. Given how difficult the feeling is to achieve, it feels awesome to don a bra that makes me look adult and, yeah, a bit sexy. So when I'm walking around without a bra, it doesn't in the slightest mean I'm trying to be sexually appealing, let alone trying to virtually rape any men. I'm actually putting comfort over a sexy feel or look, not the other way around.

Hmm, I guess I see your point. I'm pretty small-chested myself, but most of the time I find bras annoying, so I'll go with any excuse to be rid of this excess.

[Portia]

Corsets are important to society and must be worn at all times.

See what I did there?

[vorpal blade]

Thank you thatonemom for giving me this opportunity to clarify my opinion. I’m glad you like the analogy. I’ll make use of it again to try to explain things, and then I’d like to introduce another analogy.

First, I apologize for the excessive rhetoric of the phrase “virtual rape.” I have offended some of you by using it, and I am sorry for that. What I was trying to do was call attention to the fact that we were discussing why women should wear a bra. I explained that whether we like it or not, agree with it or not, some men are going to feel victimized by a woman wearing no bra or wearing revealing clothing. The response to my observation then centered on what was wrong with men for feeling this way, and ended up concluding that women were the real victims here in so many ways. Those who criticized me seemed to forget that men also were victims.

Going back to the discussion analogy; my office roommate told me yesterday about an article he had just read listing some things a woman should never say to a man. I’m not sure where he got the list, but he told me that his ex-wife regularly said at least eight of the ten things, and some of them she said every day. There are just some things that a woman shouldn’t say to a man, just as there are some things that a man shouldn’t say to a woman. In addition, if we are married we likely know many “hot button” topics that we should avoid if we value our marriage. We may stumble upon these topics ignorantly, but we need to learn from experience. Once we know that something we say is going to provoke a strong negative reaction, it is unkind and unloving to deliberate provoke our spouse with it. Of course, some topics do need to be brought up, and in those cases you need to do the best you can to bring it up in the right way, at the right time.

Now we know that the man or the woman should not take offense when the wrong thing is said. When provoked he ought to rise above it. He ought to be patient, kind, and understanding. He should be proactive, and not reactive. He needs to take responsibility for his own actions. He is never justified in losing his temper because the woman said something she never should have said, or his hot buttons were pushed. And, of course, it goes without saying, that he should never be violent even if she is deliberately trying to provoke him.

That said, when the question is asked what is wrong with a woman going braless, and I say that you have to understand the hot button you are pressing, I am not excusing the man from taking responsibility for his actions. Of course I am not suggesting that sexual assault or rape or adultery in his heart is justified because she provoked him. Nor am I saying that men are unable to control their thoughts and women need to police someone else’s morality. I don’t know any reasonable person who believes that, though I admit that the world is full of unreasonable people.

There are people who believe in the battered wife syndrome, in that if a man is constantly belittling and demeaning his wife and one day she snaps and kills him then she is justified. While I abhor his actions and think he will be accountable to God one day for them, I don’t believe in the excuse that “the devil made me do it.” In spite of all the provocation I don’t believe we should excuse her for killing the heartless creep.

I’m surprised that you don’t think that everyone has a responsibility to be polite, civil or keep anger in check. I would think this is just common decency, and it is certainly taught by our Church leaders. True, we know that many people will not live up to this standard, but don’t most people know they should? And if they don’t know, isn’t it our responsibility to tell them? Granted, it is not my responsibility to tell every inappropriately dressed person the way I feel, but in this case where Integrating Editor asked me for my opinion I feel it is justified.

I completely agree that you can only control your own behavior (and maybe for a time you have something to say about the behavior of your children.) Naturally you have to learn to deal with all types of people. I’m just saying that we can also talk about the responsibility of a person not to say impolite, uncivil, or provoking things. We can also talk about why you should wear a bra if not wearing a bra is noticeable. Being a civilized people it is okay to talk about what the rules are or should be which define civility.

None of us get to unilaterally define what the rules are for politeness or civility. It is our responsibility to learn the rules, even if we don’t agree with them. We can advocate for change, but to flaunt the rules can be unkind and unloving. I’m not blaming people for not following my mental picture; I’m merely trying to explain what I see as the way our society operates. I don’t approve of the way things are. I didn’t make the list of the ten things women ought not to say to a man. As I said at the first, we don’t have to agree that this is the way things ought to be, or we wish them to be. I just give as my opinion and observation that this is the way things are.

In case it needs to be said, I don’t call women who go braless demons, evil, temptresses, rapists, or sluts. I think they are naïve and influenced by the philosophies of those who would like to gratify their lusts seeing more semi-naked women running around, or would like to remake our culture into a sort of genderless egalitarian feminist society. Once they know the assault they make on men women are at the least being unkind, inconsiderate, and selfish to think only of themselves and what they want to do.

[vorpal blade]

Perhaps my second analogy will put my thoughts in a perspective where you can better see my point of view.

Second analogy.

I may get a lot of flak from this one, but I will try to be as sensitive and civil as I can be. In our society there are certain words that white people should not use to describe blacks. In particular there is the n-word. Today the reaction is so strong that a person can lose their job talking about food if they had used the word forty years ago.

Now suppose someone comes to me and asks, what is wrong with using the n-word? They say they just don’t get it. They point out that blacks sometimes use the n-word, and apparently that is okay. Why do the rules say that white people can’t say it, but blacks can?

I try to answer the question by explaining the powerful reaction you will get in some blacks. I do not say whether or not blacks ought to react that way. I do not lecture the blacks on how Jesus would tell them to turn the other cheek, or that they ought not to take offense. I do not tell blacks that this is merely an arbitrary cultural standard that gets in a white person’s way, and therefore can easily be dismissed or ignored.

The reaction I get from my explanation is that there is something wrong with me for saying you should not use the n-word. The implication is that I personally have some uptight and reactionary feelings. I’m told that I am excusing blacks from taking responsibility for their own thoughts and actions. I’m told that my thinking frightens and angers people. I’m told I’m blaming whites for the thoughts and actions of blacks, which is a kind of racism. I’m told that apparently what I am teaching is that whites are to blame for racial violence incited by the use of the n-word, because it is thought that I am advocating that blacks should not be blamed for their thoughts and actions caused by the use of a racial pejorative said by a white person. I admit it leaves me a little bewildered. And then everyone applauds the ones who criticize me.

Now, how do you characterize a person who uses the n-word, either knowingly or without caring to know how it will affect many blacks? Is it out of the question to call him a racist? Some might call him a demon out to tempt blacks into violence and hate, though I would not. Do you say that he has no responsibility for using the n-word, ALL the responsibility lies in the blacks? Do we ask how a black can feel assaulted by the use of the n-word by a white man, or do we lecture him about how he should just notice the word without having such strong feelings about it? Do you say the use of the n-word is the problem of the black, not the white person? Does it really matter how pure your motives are for using the n-word after you have been warned about the effect it is going to have on blacks?

It is not all one-sided, though to hear the rhetoric of some you would think so. People should not use words that are offensive, and people shouldn’t let those offensive words control their thoughts and actions.

No analogy is perfect. Just something to think about.

[thatonemom]

Oh dear, vorpal. I don't even know what to say to you. I know myself, and my ability to say things that I will not regret, and then will feel slightly guilty for not regretting them. I suspect we just both see the world, and our responsibilities in it, very differently. I don't know how else to explain my position in a way that will be understood, and my feelings are strong enough that no argument on your part will change them.
And it's probably best if I left it at that.

[Portia]

Oh dear, vorpal. I don't even know what to say to you. I know myself, and my ability to say things that I will not regret, and then will feel slightly guilty for not regretting them. I suspect we just both see the world, and our responsibilities in it, very differently. I don't know how else to explain my position in a way that will be understood, and my feelings are strong enough that no argument on your part will change them.
And it's probably best if I left it at that.

<hugs>