Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

I thought the question was serious until I got to the second line. (It helps that I read the first couple words and then did something else before reading the rest.) From that point forward, it sounded exactly like satire, although there was still a tiny lingering doubt in my mind. The problem is that satire, if well-done, is almost identical to the thing it is making fun of except for an element of extremity or ridiculousness (anyone remember the "sinboards" letter in the Universe a few years ago?). This question had the exact nature of a sincere modesty question combined with an extreme situation, but didn't admit in any way that the situation was unusual. That's the exact recipe for satire. It's unfortunate if the asker is genuinely angry now, and it would be nice in that case if the question had been taken more seriously, but I can't blame any of the writers for misinterpreting it.

yayfulness wrote:This question had the exact nature of a sincere modesty question combined with an extreme situation, but didn't admit in any way that the situation was unusual. That's the exact recipe for satire.

That's it, exactly. That's what I was thinking but hadn't figured out how to articulate.

(Also, the use of phrases like "flip flops and other immodest footwear" didn't help. Even if you have a foot fetish, that doesn't change the commonly-accepted definitions of modesty, it only changes your reaction to seeing bare feet. If you're going to go around calling people immodest because they wear flip-flops in the summer, you can't be too surprised if people don't realize you're being serious.)

That said, I'm sure there really are people struggling with this sort of thing...and hopefully they do find good ways to cope with it, along the lines of the answer that Just Being Nice gave.

I once read an expose of a journalist who almost became a foot fetish model/worker. So strange!

And a pair of killer stilettos aren't sexy? They're certainly Honor Code-approved. Sorry, dude, you're surrounded by women in their sexual prime, you're probably going to be turned on at some point in time. This is up there with Claviclegate.

ETA: I have absolutely no satire detector. Nothing surprises me any more; this seems pretty mild on the ridiculousness scale (after some dude in Sunday School spouting off that the family is a dictatorship with the father as its Kim Jong-Il).

I just want to say I'm tired of people blaming others for what goes on in their brains. It's not a guy's fault if he's got gorgeous blue eyes that make me think dirty things. What's he supposed to do, walk around with his eyes closed just because his eyes may cause someone to think something lustful?

Well yeah, you can't blame somebody else for what goes on in your brain. But as a man, I will say that it is very difficult to not focus on a nice pair of breasts if they're presented for the whole world to see. It's my fault if I turn them and their owner into objects, but the whole "look at the eyes" concept is hard, especially when you make a conscious effort not to look at anything else. Guess what you're thinking about? Yep. The Twin Girls. Imagine if every man you saw wore a skimpy Olympic Speedo around campus all day and expected you to act like they were perfectly covered, and thought you were an awful person for even looking at their Little Friend.

So yes, I believe that some people take it to a ridiculous level and try to blame others for their inappropriate thoughts. But it's also impractical to act as if men are horrible for not being able to turn off their libidos when a girl walks into the room wearing clothing that deliberately/accidentally sexualizes her.

So, how is it that guys at universities where women are generally wearing a lot less manage to objectify women less than BYU guys do to BYU girls?

Katya wrote:So, how is it that guys at universities where women are generally wearing a lot less manage to objectify women less than BYU guys do to BYU girls?

Reminds me of Persepolis. The more the Islamist regime cracked down, the more the male students objectified what little was visible. Marjane points out the hypocrisy that men can wear skin-tight eighties jeans, but women can't wear baggy pants.

Katya wrote:So, how is it that guys at universities where women are generally wearing a lot less manage to objectify women less than BYU guys do to BYU girls?

Evidence?

Fredjikrang wrote:

Katya wrote:So, how is it that guys at universities where women are generally wearing a lot less manage to objectify women less than BYU guys do to BYU girls?

Evidence?

Personal experience at three universities, for starters. This situation wouldn't be tolerated at a secular university.

My frank and honest opinion? I'm quite capable of feeling aroused when I'm not even in the physical presence of a girl. Yes, immodestly dressed women make it harder, but that's not the point. It's always going to be hard. You just have to learn to deal with it. Constructing elaborate rules about what is and is not acceptable and trying to block out anything that makes you feel tempted is extremely Pharisaic, and it doesn't solve the core problem of how you handle the temptation itself.

Modesty is about self-respect. Reducing temptation for other people is a favor. I appreciate that favor every time I benefit from it, but it's not something I can demand of other people.

Katya wrote:So, how is it that guys at universities where women are generally wearing a lot less manage to objectify women less than BYU guys do to BYU girls?

I disagree. I'd amend this statement by saying that at other universities, it is more of a conscious decision when to become sexualized. There are unspoken norms as to when it is acceptable to sexualize (or if you prefer, 'objectify,' though I don't like that word in this context, it acts as though it is immoral to ever be aroused by or attracted to a woman's body) a woman in any context. In a typical university, a woman would expect some sexualization to occur poolside tanning in her bikini, for example. A woman who wanted to swim without this would wear a more covering suit. Simply put, in that specific cultural subset, a bikini is one of the most revealing articles of clothing one can wear. Or let's take it to the club. A woman who wants to attract men (or a specific man) would dance in suggestive ways that maybe he might find more alluring.

At BYU, someone 'wears less' than everyone else in a short skirt and leggings. This girl has sexualized herself in the given context by doing something that is forbidden (whether by fiat or cultural norm, it isn't critical) but is probably far less aware of it than the girl at the pool in the bikini. She hasn't consciously chosen this, and therefore is offended that any man would see her in a way she didn't consciously set out to be seen.

I guess, long story short, a woman has every option to dress in whichever way she pleases. BUT she must do this with the understanding that men will see her based on the rules and cultural norms that surround her, and when it is in a more sensual way than is typical, she can expect to draw attention to less covered parts.

(Before anyone throws the straw man argument out there, I'm talking about looking, flirting with, etc. Sexual assault/rape are never acceptable under any circumstances, regardless of how someone is dressed.)

Marduk wrote:I guess, long story short, a woman has every option to dress in whichever way she pleases. BUT she must do this with the understanding that men will see her based on the rules and cultural norms that surround her, and when it is in a more sensual way than is typical, she can expect to draw attention to less covered parts.

So, in the Middle East, it's a woman's fault if she draws attention to her (sexy!) ankle by wearing an ankle bracelet? What about the issue that it's men who are defining that cultural norm in the first place?

Well, that's certainly an issue to be discussed. I never suggested that any cultural norm was moral or immoral per se, all I did was point out that a woman has to make choices based on existing norms, and not intentionally break them, and then act surprised at the result.

Again, no matter the cultural norm, there will always be sexual attraction of men to women, and it will always be based at least partly on how the woman dresses (when dress is not standardized.) This exists in all cultures.

Marduk wrote:Well, that's certainly an issue to be discussed. I never suggested that any cultural norm was moral or immoral per se, all I did was point out that a woman has to make choices based on existing norms, and not intentionally break them, and then act surprised at the result.

Again, no matter the cultural norm, there will always be sexual attraction of men to women, and it will always be based at least partly on how the woman dresses (when dress is not standardized.) This exists in all cultures.

There will always be a most attractive woman in the room. That woman will probably be distractingly attractive, because attractiveness is distracting. But it's distressing when that woman is treated like an evil temptress by men who are uncomfortable with their own sexuality and who have internalized the message that the point of women's modesty is to not distract men, therefore any woman who is distracting a man must be immodest. (And even if you get rid of that woman or force her to dress differently, all you've done is move the second most attractive woman in the room into her place.)

I agree completely. It isn't a justification of oppression through dress. All I'm suggesting is that there are, in fact, cultural norms of which we ought to be aware, and those cultural norms will dictate what is "sexy" and what isn't. A woman is free to disagree, or request that it be different, or work to change those norms, and a man is free to request that it be different, work to change those norms, or defy them. Certainly in that regard a woman is more restricted than a man, since her defying them will always make her a sexual object.

yayfulness wrote: Yes, immodestly dressed women make it harder, but that's not the point. It's always going to be hard.

This was so unintentionally dirty sounding that I had to laugh.

This doesn't really add to the discussion, but I just hopped over to the beard discussion, where I myself said "beards fo sho" because I find beards attractive. What exactly does it mean to sexualize someone? And is it possible to appreciate attractiveness on a purely aesthetic level?

Here's the thing though, a person can't help what another finds attractive. I am well endowed. I take a lot of care to cover up, not because of any religious reasons, but because I have some personal body issues. The times I get catcalled the most? When I'm wearing pull over hoodies. So, even when a person is dressed modestly, that doesn't guarantee that a person won't have lustful thoughts.

In other words: Self-control, peeps! It's the name of the game!

Genuine Article wrote:

yayfulness wrote: Yes, immodestly dressed women make it harder, but that's not the point. It's always going to be hard.

This was so unintentionally dirty sounding that I had to laugh.

I should not find this so funny... but I am still laughing every time I think of it now that you've pointed it out.