Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

http://theboard.byu.edu/?area=viewall&id=56946
http://theboard.byu.edu/index.php?area=viewall&id=57001

I have to say that I completely agree with the writers on this one. It sounds to me like this girl is trying to be modest already, but she just has a different definition of modesty. And that's okay! There is nothing inherently sexual about a woman's shoulders. We in the church (especially those of us who have been to the temple) choose to cover our shoulders. For us that is modest. For other people it is immodest to have their forearms uncovered, or for a woman to have her hair uncovered. But for the most part, those people realize that in a multicultural country, people have different definitions of modesty and we do not judge people because their beliefs are different than ours.

I have friends in other Christian denominations who feel very strongly about dressing modestly. It is very important to them. They have standards and they work hard to keep those standards. But their definition of modesty does not include having to cover their shoulders at all times, just like my definition of modesty does not include having to cover my hair. I don't tell them that they are immodest for wearing tank tops, and my Muslim and Hutterite friends don't tell me that I'm immodest for having my hair uncovered.

I think that the dress standards in For the Strength of Youth are partly about modesty but are also designed to get youth in the habit of wearing clothes that they would be able to wear over the temple garment. The temple garment is something with a lot of symbolic religious meaning, not merely a piece of underwear that forces us to dress modestly. It has also evolved over the last two centuries as people's clothing has evolved. While I don't think it will ever become sleeveless, I also don't think that the purpose for the sleeves has to do with anything inherently sexual about shoulders. I think it's possible for a non-Mormon girl to be dressed modestly in a sleeveless or even strapless prom dress, just like it's possible for a non-Muslim girl to be dressed modestly without covering her hair. There are plenty of strapless dresses out there that don't show any cleavage, and that are long and don't cling to every curve.

It may sound like moral relativism to say that the definition of modesty is different for different people, but I don't think it is. Modesty is something that is very context-dependent. There are certain minimum standards that are common to all cultures, but the specifics that go beyond the minimum vary depending on the culture and the situation. No one goes around sewing little sleeves on the traditional Polynesian clothing that the students who work at the Polynesian Cultural Center wear, because it is not immodest for them to be wearing those clothes in that situation. It would be immodest for me to go to a service at an Orthodox Jewish synagogue without covering my hair, but in most other situations hair covering is not something I need to worry about.

About the young women who get upset when they see young men with girls who are dressed "immodestly": This is a good opportunity to teach them that people have different beliefs and that's okay. Dating in the teenage years isn't supposed to be serious. It's a time for youth to start getting to know members of the opposite sex. We should be friends with people who have all kinds of beliefs. Most of the young men will be going on missions soon, and going on a non-serious date with a girl who has different beliefs will give them some great experience that will hopefully help them be more sensitive to the diversity of beliefs that they will encounter on their missions. It also goes a long way in showing the world that Mormons aren't a closed-off group who do weird things and think we're better than everyone else.

Absolutely. I feel really bad for this poor girl. I mean, I hope that the guy who asked the question is being nice about it, but . . . no matter how he says it, it is still wrong of him to impose HIS standards on HER dress. I know this happened to my husband once- he asked a girl he liked to a dance, and was rather uncomfortable that evening when she didn't wear a modest dress like everyone else (he grew up in Provo). But having grown up as the only Mormon in my school, I can tell you that when they say there aren't options with sleeves in the store, they mean NONE. I made my prom dress because it was important for me to feel comfortable.

But, I also decided not to date much in high school. Because I knew my standards, and I knew that the guys in my school didn't believe in them. My ward was really clicky, I was the nerd, so I didn't date. I don't regret that. If this guy is going to be so stuck up on only dating girls with his standards, he needs to pick girls that had his standards to begin with. Otherwise- just have fun for one night and enjoy HER and ignore her dress (that looks just like every other dress there)!

I went to a dance, once, with a girl who wore a mini-skirt (and a garter, for emphasis) with a halter top. My mother wasn't very happy about it. And I felt awkward the whole night. Since it was here in Utah and she was an active LDS girl, I completely wasn't expecting it. Had I known that was going to happen, I would've made her a bargain. She can wear that dress if I get to wear a powder-blue Tux with tails, make her corsage out of Froot Loops, take a U-Haul instead of a limo, and eat KFC on a merry-go-round at the park. I wouldn't make a fuss about bare shoulders, though.

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 think that there an LDS movie where the Big Man on Campus (maybe the Captain of the football team, or such) says smugly to the good LDS girl, "I'd take you out on a date if you just lowered your standards."

Her reply was a classic: "If I went out on a date with you, I would be lowering my standards!"

I love how the classic LDS films extract dialogue to the point where it becomes absurd. No one would actually talk like that.

I love how the classic LDS films extract dialogue to the point where it becomes absurd. No one would actually talk like that.

". . . He called me a chicken . . . that's a bad word . . . "

They are classic, aren't they?

"We only have an earthquake when Daddy blows his nose!"

bismark wrote: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 this is over-caricaturing what most sane people actually believe (or what "our culture" teaches). I don't know anyone who actually advocates the idea that a man has animal-like agency when they see the female body. However, "our culture" (whether that be LDS or the American popular thought, I don't know) does emphasize that seeing more of a girl's skin arouses emotions in boys. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of science. What ought to be taught is that a respectful young man will not focus on that, but that, quite honestly, is against his physiological nature to move his mind away from it. Especially in a situation where he will be in close quarters with the girl the entire night. (On the flip side, LDS leaders focus on girls dressing modestly because it helps not elicit the natural, hormonal response of the young man she is with.)

That being said, I agree with everyone else. The girl seems to be reaching to help this young man feel comfortable. The boy ought to be respectful enough to take her out and feel completely comfortable with his date.

There was another pro-making-the-girl-wear-sleeves comment submitted, but it wasn't allowed to post as it said pretty much the same thing as the last one. In case that commentor comes over here...

The biggest disagreement seems to be whether making the girl wear sleeves is in keeping with Promoted's standards or not. If his standard is, in fact, to never go on a date with a girl who isn't wearing sleeves (and we can agree or disagree with that standard all we like - if he's set it for himself, he should keep it), then I'd rather have him not go on the date with the girl at all than force his standards upon her. He should set high standards and keep high standards...for himself.

wired wrote:That's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of science.

reference?

bismark wrote:reference?

Wait a second, you need a reference to say that seeing bare female skin causes an instinctual response? How about the entire pornography industry? I don't think we need any sort of reference to agree that men are far more visually stimulated than women. That is common knowledge.

Wait, so how is it possible that men in African tribes aren't walking around in a constant state of sexual arousal?

I would also like to see a reference here.

I didn't really like some aspects of the young man's attitude. However, as krebscout said, it is fine for him to have certain standards, which may include that he will not go out with a girl who is immodestly (according to Church standards) dressed. If more young men had that attitude then perhaps stores would supply more modest dresses, or young women (or their mothers) would learn to sew. And as habiba said there are options for coverups.

I don't think the young man has a right to force his date to wear certain clothes, but I do think he is entitled to explain to the young woman his standards. She can choose to dress according to his standards, or find another date. If he said it kindly and in an understanding way I don't think she would be offended. I don't think he should have put her through a lot of trouble getting his answer before he explained how he felt about prom attire. I think he owes her something. But she might be impressed by his high standards and think even more highly of him.

As far as the bare skin and male response goes it is, of course, a cultural thing that changes with time and place. I think the relevant question is whether his date's bare shoulders is likely to encourage the young man in question to lust after her. We don't need to consider arousal in African tribes. And my opinion is that it very likely will stimulate lust in that individual, judging what what he said.

In doing some research on pornography it was interesting to read how some scientists did not find pornography sexually stimulating. Of course, the results might have been compromised by having the men in the study strapped down with numerous sensors all over their bodies to monitor their response, as the scientists stood by and watched. Not exactly typical conditions for viewing pornography.

As Dr. Laura says (and we all love Dr. Laura, don't we) the biggest sex organ you have is your brain. In other words, what stimulates you is what your mind makes of the situation.

bismark wrote:

wired wrote:That's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of science.

reference?

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/in ... r--1-3.pdf

There's one that took me about 15 seconds to find using Google. I am positive I could go to almost any textbook on human sexuality and find references to the fact that men are more easily stimulated by visual stimuli than women. (And, that men, in general, ARE stimulated by women's bodies.) JSTOR is probably replete with references.

I first heard about it in Psych 110 and have heard the fact cited by professors in other disciplines (Art History and Marriage Prep among them).

Wired, that study just shows that men had a bigger response in their amygdala to sexual stimuli. The reported arousal of men and women was the same. Of course, there are issues of self-report - mostly that men's reporting of their arousal is more accurate than women's (women tend to underestimate their arousal). My point is: the article does not support your hypothesis that men are more sexually aroused by bare skin than women are (is that what we're debating?). And I haven't found ANY articles studying the effects of bare shoulders on men's arousal. I know I'm overreacting, but I just hate it when people throw around psychology terms and studies without actually reading them.


In another "here's an interesting article" front (it's not an actual experiment, but it does discuss this issue):
Gender Differences in Sexual Interest
John D Baldwin, Janice I Baldwin. Archives of Sexual Behavior. New York: Apr 1997. Vol. 26, Iss. 2; pg. 181, 30 pgs
Abstract (Summary)

A common gender stereotype is that males are more interested than females in sex for purely physical reasons. Sociobiologists claim that this difference is biologically determined. In contrast, many sociologists and anthropologists claim that the difference is cultural. The debate about nature versus nurture regarding sexual interest has been long-standing without resolution. We propose a biosocial model that integrates data about nature and nurture to show (i) how several biological factors tilt males and females in different directions related to sexual interest, and (ii) how numerous social factors influence the way the biological tilts can be redirected in countless different ways as individuals grow up in subsets of their culture and subculture. This interactionist approach does not down-play the importance of either biological or social factors: It avoids nature-nurture debates that pit nature against nurture by showing how biological and social factors act in concert, combining their influences. The resulting work contributes to both the theoretical and practical literature, not only showing how sexology can deal with issues of nature and nurture but also providing information useful to people who are troubled about common gender differences in sexual interest.

To be clear on what I think we're debating, I think we are debating whether or not more skin has a greater tendency to illicit a sexual response from males. (The paper I used as a comparison of men and women was meant primarily to show that, but is a poor example.) This is because I stated that "seeing more of a girl's skin arouses emotions in boys. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of science." I still stand by that as a statement (where emotions would more accurately be replaced with "sexual physiological response.")

I should also clarify that I think there is a difference between seeing a girl's wrist because she wear's a short-sleeved shirt, and seeing a girl's leg because she wears a mini-skirt or her chest because she wears a low-cut top. I thought my original statement in that conveyed that term. If I really need to find something to back up that assertion, I am sure I can find something. I simply thought it would be a common sense assertion.

bismark wrote:

wired wrote:That's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of science.

reference?

Also, I think you side-stepped my entire response to look at just a tiny part of what I was saying. I feel your post misrepresents what is actually taught by the Church and what the majority of people who want girls to dress modestly believe.

You seem to be saying that it is taught that men are uncontrollable beasts who can't control themselves the moment they see any female skin.

I am saying it is taught that girls out to dress modestly because women dressing unmodestly can elicit a physiological response in men. Men are still responsible for what they do with that physiological response, but it would be better if that stimuli was never presented.

wired wrote:I feel your post misrepresents what is actually taught by the Church and what the majority of people who want girls to dress modestly believe.

Then I think we will have to disagree given our different experiences in church. I've sat through too many BYU ward chastity talks to think differently about they way male sexuality is treated by many people in our culture.

wired wrote:I am saying it is taught that girls out to dress modestly because women dressing unmodestly can elicit a physiological response in men.

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

Men are still responsible for what they do with that physiological response, but it would be better if that stimuli was never presented.

Perhaps the growing obesity trends in the US are actually a blessing in disguise?