What I'm thinking: "Oh yay! Another modesty post! Yesssshh!"
Seriously, I have so much material on this stuff that it's not even funny. Someone needs to take the printer away and lock me up to prevent me from killing another couple hundred trees, or preventing another serious paper jam like the one that almost broke the printer last week (true story, here).
I think that this "modesty double-standard" is pretty obvious, even to people who don't seek stuff like this out such as I. But come on! Have you ever heard of the Deacons or Teachers or Priests having a lesson about modesty? I don't think so. That would be a pretty short lesson: "Don't wear baggy pants, show your checkered boxers and please, we beg of you, keep your shirt on unless you're swimming." I actually think that it's kind of funny how no one really cares if the guys wear sleeveless shirts. Even the Bishop's sons wear them while exercising. Apparently their shoulders aren't sexy enough to be considered a threat :)
But all joking aside, it's seriously starting to get on my nerves. Women and girls are treated like they have the weight of the world on their shoulders to prevent men and boys from having sexual thoughts about them. I mean, for heaven's sake! Our shoulders must look pretty dang good to cause guys to have sexual thoughts about them.
I found an interesting podcast from mormonmatters.org. I haven't actually listened to it yet, but I read the anecdote to it. Again, I really hope they don't mind me copying-and-pasting it... I seriously still have no idea about how the copyright thing works. I'll probably want to read up on that...
3: Healthy Approaches to Teaching Modesty
"In today’s LDS youth programs, especially those for young women,
modesty has become even more of an emphasis than in years and decades
past. Of course modesty is important, but are some of the ways modesty
is being taught today more harmful than helpful for youth who are
undergoing important transitions in their lives? Is modesty being taught
too often as an end in itself rather than as a fruit that flows from a
life and self-image rooted in healthy spiritual, emotional, and physical
confidence?
Furthermore, is modesty being taught too early, becoming an emphasis far ahead of when it is healthy and appropriate to discuss, causing an unconscious sexualizing of even pre-pubescent girls and boys? Finally, are subtle and not-so-subtle messages being conveyed to our youth that modesty is just about sexuality, skin, and arousal, that their bodies are something to be ashamed of and covered? And especially for young women, are they being taught that it is primarily their responsibility to control whether or not boys or men have sexual thoughts?"
Uh, yeah. We are seeming to be taught that. I know that guys don't really have as much of an issue with the whole modesty thing, mostly because they don't wear tank tops, prom dresses, etc. But still, it seems that this kind of mindset is being pressed upon the population of LDS female teenagers more than it should. There is no reason that we should be blamed for the thoughts of others.
Sure, I guess an argument could be made that wearing a bikini in contrast to a hijab could cause more sexual attraction when you compare and contrast the two. But it is not entirely the fault of the girl, especially when we come to something such as a sleeveless shirt or shorts. I know, I went over the whole "sleeveless shirt" thing in my first modesty post, but I'm going to state this again: If a young man is having sexual thoughts about a young woman because she is wearing a shirt with no sleeves, there's probably nothing you could do about it even if she was wearing sleeves. If you're having thoughts like that over something so small, there's probably something else going on, and the lack of sleeves probably didn't create it.
Please stop completely blaming sexual thoughts on us girls and our clothing choices, unless they're very revealing. "Let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly" (I'm too lazy to look up that scriptural reference). And please don't say that sexual actions can stem from lack of modesty, because it takes two to tango, even though revealing clothing can help it along.
I could get into the belief that revealing clothing can definitely be different from immodest clothing. Sort of like that square and rectangle thing, you know. "A rectangle is a square but a square isn't a rectangle." Revealing clothing is immodest clothing, but immodest* clothing is not necessarily revealing** clothing.
Please, enough of this double-standard. Guys can cause plenty of thoughts to girls also, not just the other way around.
Well, I suppose I'd better get to bed now... I've got a long day of writing ahead of me tomorrow.
-Kelsey
*I use the term "immodest" in correlation to the clothing not okay by Church's standards
**I use the term "revealing" in the meaning of low cut/cleavage showing tops, mini-shorts & mini-skirts
Furthermore, is modesty being taught too early, becoming an emphasis far ahead of when it is healthy and appropriate to discuss, causing an unconscious sexualizing of even pre-pubescent girls and boys? Finally, are subtle and not-so-subtle messages being conveyed to our youth that modesty is just about sexuality, skin, and arousal, that their bodies are something to be ashamed of and covered? And especially for young women, are they being taught that it is primarily their responsibility to control whether or not boys or men have sexual thoughts?"
Uh, yeah. We are seeming to be taught that. I know that guys don't really have as much of an issue with the whole modesty thing, mostly because they don't wear tank tops, prom dresses, etc. But still, it seems that this kind of mindset is being pressed upon the population of LDS female teenagers more than it should. There is no reason that we should be blamed for the thoughts of others.
Sure, I guess an argument could be made that wearing a bikini in contrast to a hijab could cause more sexual attraction when you compare and contrast the two. But it is not entirely the fault of the girl, especially when we come to something such as a sleeveless shirt or shorts. I know, I went over the whole "sleeveless shirt" thing in my first modesty post, but I'm going to state this again: If a young man is having sexual thoughts about a young woman because she is wearing a shirt with no sleeves, there's probably nothing you could do about it even if she was wearing sleeves. If you're having thoughts like that over something so small, there's probably something else going on, and the lack of sleeves probably didn't create it.
Please stop completely blaming sexual thoughts on us girls and our clothing choices, unless they're very revealing. "Let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly" (I'm too lazy to look up that scriptural reference). And please don't say that sexual actions can stem from lack of modesty, because it takes two to tango, even though revealing clothing can help it along.
I could get into the belief that revealing clothing can definitely be different from immodest clothing. Sort of like that square and rectangle thing, you know. "A rectangle is a square but a square isn't a rectangle." Revealing clothing is immodest clothing, but immodest* clothing is not necessarily revealing** clothing.
Please, enough of this double-standard. Guys can cause plenty of thoughts to girls also, not just the other way around.
Well, I suppose I'd better get to bed now... I've got a long day of writing ahead of me tomorrow.
-Kelsey
*I use the term "immodest" in correlation to the clothing not okay by Church's standards
**I use the term "revealing" in the meaning of low cut/cleavage showing tops, mini-shorts & mini-skirts
Good point!
ReplyDelete