Today’s guest post is from frequent commenter Martin.
I’ve read a lot of articles lately that reject the idea that women should be expected to dress modestly. I don’t think it’s necessary to link to any — anybody who’s likely to read this post has undoubtedly read several, but the one that set me off most recently was this one. Every time I read one of them, my feelings seem disproportionately negative considering I usually agree with 70-95% of what they write. If I reduce these posts to what I consider to be their primary point, it is that requiring women to dress modestly in order to protect men suggests that men are unable to control themselves, which is not only untrue, but leads to
- men justifying their bad behavior (all the way up to rape) by blaming it on women (eg., “she asked for it by how she dressed”)
- women feeling responsible for things truly outside their control, being ashamed of their bodies, and excusing boorish behavior by men (“boys will be boys”)
There are other secondary themes, such as
- the patriarchy controlling women for the benefit of men
- how women are told to be modest but men aren’t [1]
- how fetishizing modesty actually objectifies women
- how naked bodies aren’t intrinsically sexual [2]
- whether modest dress makes any difference in how men see women [3]
I don’t entirely agree with all of them (see footnotes), but in the end, these secondary themes are secondary. The primary issue boils down to women’s safety and freedom. Instead of women being told to govern their behavior, they want men to govern theirs.
I whole-heartedly and unreservedly embrace the idea that men can control themselves and must be expected to treat women with decency and respect regardless how they dress. There is no circumstance or act of any other person that can be used to justify sexual assault. I know a lot of people haven’t yet come to this realization, which is probably why these articles keep getting written, but I am not one of them.
And yet… I object mightily to the conclusion, implied or explicit, that women shouldn’t be expected to dress modestly.
I feel I’m rapidly becoming an old man, and I’ve watched what’s considered normal and acceptable with respect to human sexuality change dramatically over the course of my lifetime. You can argue about what’s been good and what’s been bad, but there’s no question that entertainment and advertising have pushed the boundaries of “edgy” far from where they were. Titillation sells. Nothing is more titillating than sex, and nothing can spice up the mundane like sexual tension in the background. But what’s exciting in one decade doesn’t have enough kick for the next, so the envelope has been pushed to the point that mainstream popular shows hire porn actors for their orgy scenes. Society has moved with the media. A bikini just isn’t sexy enough any more so girls wear thongs. It’s ironic that some of the same women decrying the idea that women should dress modestly are the same ones arguing for women to accept themselves with their varying body types, as though putting them on display side-by-side like that works to anybody’s advantage other than those most closely matching society’s ideal. But that’s beside the point. I just can’t see how the steady desensitization to sex is healthy. I’ve read several variations of “It’s just a body. There’s nothing sexual about it” in these articles. Ask yourself, do you want your spouse de-sensitized? Or do you want your spouse turned on by your normal, average, everyday self?
Besides, I think the primary reason we ought to teach girls to dress modestly is about them, not about boys. It’s about what’s going to form the basis of their self-esteem, and making sure that basis is healthy, in spite of all the images and messages they see around them. [4]
But, as I said, that’s actually beside the point, so let me get to it. At a recent high school graduation (for my nephew), the students’ elected “favorite teacher” gave a little speech, the highlight of which was essentially “Your future is yours and yours alone. You are your own person. You don’t owe anything to anybody. Don’t let anybody tell you what you can and cannot do.” I was dumbfounded. Don’t owe anything to anybody?! These kids, some of the most privileged in the history of the world, are being told by someone they look up to that they had no debt to society, no duty to their community, no obligation to those who came before and to those who were coming after? That everything was truly about them? To me, that kind of thinking is opposite to everything virtuous, honorable, or praiseworthy. The leader of any drug cartel in the Americas could have told them the same stuff.
I feel that some of the sentiments expressed in articles decrying modesty expectations are very similar. We have very few words directly attributable to Jesus Christ, but among the few we have, He was quoted as saying “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” There are a lot of ways to interpret this scripture, but as one who believes sex is a gift of God to bind husbands and wives in love and tenderness, I cannot interpret it as meaning that sexual attraction is a bad thing. But turning another person into a sexual object and the subject of sexual fantasies is. This is a temptation that many men (and women) have. In fact, I would argue that our society and our media train them to do exactly that. Yes, they can control themselves and should. I completely agree that men should be able to treat women with respect and dignity regardless how they’re dressed or whether they’re dressed at all. But to suggest that women shouldn’t dress modestly or that they have no obligation to their fellow beings is contrary to the ideas of common decency. And that IS the point. Everything we do affects someone else, and therefore, should figure into whether we choose to do it.
I’m not defending the creepy guy who takes it upon himself to let a woman know her skirt is too short [5]. Nor am I interested in debating skirt lengths or acceptable amounts of cleavage. I’m not even debating standards of sexuality at this point. It’s the self-centered, not-responsible-to-anybody way of thinking that I object to, and which I believe promotes all sorts of uncivil and uncivilized behavior. I’m arguing that as women continue to throw off their shackles, that they don’t get to entirely abdicate responsibilities they didn’t choose and still remain decent members of society.
Notes:
[1] Women’s and men’s dress is not symmetric in our society — for example, when men and women dress up, men put on more cloth and women put on less. Also, there appears to be some difference in how men and women are sexually aroused, judging by how the market for porn is dominated men and the market for romance novels is dominated by women. That doesn’t mean that men shouldn’t also be taught to dress modestly, it’s just that the emphasis toward women can be justified.
[2] Context does matter, but the eye of the beholder probably matters more. That doesn’t imply that it’s completely subjective, though. Nudity most definitely is associated with sexuality.
[3] For example, cultures in which women are most expected to dress modestly are often those in which women are most likely to be assaulted. It’s also been argued that since men can get still get aroused and objectify a woman in a hijab, it doesn’t matter what women wear. Valid observations, but it’s also undeniable that the way women dress can significantly affect the likelihood of a man becoming sexually interested/aroused, so those observations are somewhat beside the point
[4] True story — years ago when my early-teen daughter and I were doing dishes, the topic of Britney Spears’ mental meltdown came up. She’d loved Britney when she was younger. I asked her what she thought had happened to Britney, and after a pause, she said “I think it started when she started dressing immodestly.” I’d already been influenced the anti-modesty messages from Mormon feminist bloggers, so my first reaction was that my daughter had been drinking too much of the YW KoolAid. But I just asked why she thought that. “Well,” she answered, “they told her that if she wanted to be a star, she needed to dress that way, so she did, because she wanted the attention, and then they asked her to dance that way, and then they asked her to do more and more stuff that wasn’t good, and she did, because she wanted people to like her, and then nothing she did was good enough anymore, and… and now she’s lost herself and is very sad, and I feel bad for her.” She’d thought about this stuff a lot, and she concluded it was because Britney only liked herself when other people liked her.
[5] Though I have been tempted to ask my kids’ classmates, “Do you know your butt cheeks are hanging out of your shorts? Really…the bottom of your buttocks are hanging right out! Wanted to make sure you knew. I’d hope you’d say something if my fly were unzipped or if I’d forgotten to wear pants.” But I never would. Somebody would charge me with sexual harassment or something.
Wheat & Tares 
Nice post Martin. I agree with much of what you say. I too have lived long enough to see (over) reactions in society, church, work, etc. It seems that even America has less and less people that are considered “moderates” along the political spectrum. I heard a podcast not too long ago that suggested that if we didn’t have military-minded conservatives, we might have been overrun by another country by now in a war. If we didn’t have progressives/liberals we might still have slavery. Many (most) things taken to an extreme are not good.
I hope to see more posts from you in the future!
[2] Context does matter, but the eye of the beholder probably matters more. That doesn’t imply that it’s completely subjective, though. Nudity most definitely is associated with sexuality.
As a member of the LDS nudist/naturist community I wouldn’t say “most definitely”. Being on a beach seeing someone in a dental floss thong has a very different effect on the beholder that at a nude beach or in a nudist park or resort where nudity is the rule. How something is worn and the person’s attitude wearing it does much to determine modesty vs. immodesty. You might want to check out http://www.ldssdf.org/v2/ and consider spending an afternoon at a clothing optional beach or club. I think you’d be surprised.
I think if we want to teach modesty in the church, we need to stick to the definition of modesty in the scriptures which says little to nothing about the “sexuality” of clothing. (Sleeve length, above or below the knee, etc.). Dressing in clothing to be noticed for your status or to put yourself above others is what the scriptures warn about. Firthermore, humility is a standard that applies equally to men and women.
Martin, I think that sometimes the immodest clothing boundaries are pushed precisely because our culture is trained to view the body as sexual and as such, a tool to manipulate. If there was a less “Protestant” view of the body (more like the European attitude of nudity), we wouldn’t be uptight clothing police. However, I also think that the boundary pushing has to do with provocative wealth. As a society, we have the luxury of wearing different outfits everyday and many times more than one a day. Clothing has become an expression of our wealth not just our sexuality. Again, the scriptures seem to be more concerned about that. Perhaps the “I don’t owe anyone anything” attitude you speak of in your article is also a symptom of pride and wanting to display our wealth. We need more humility toward life, earth, others, God.
I’m an old woman so I grew up with modesty standards — both within and outside of church — that were far more restrictive than the current secular standard. I am covered up because 1) I’m more comfortable mostly covered (altho if I feel like it I will wear a tank top in my backyard in 100˚ Southern California) and 2) no one — most certainly me wants to see the jiggly stuff I’ve got going on in more than a couple places.
That said, I completely agree with the article our guest poster finds so offensive — if only in part. Small children should be free to run around naked when they are at home and with trusted friends. Young people with healthy bodies should not be ashamed of any part of them. Nor should they lust — a carefully chosen word, I’ll have you know — after others’ parts. And if they do it’s their problem and a problem they have a clear and urgent responsibility to deal with. That’s what therapists are for.
That is not to say — and the author of the offensive post says it clearly — that we may not come to conclusions about others’ dress: that person is advertising sex, that person doesn’t look good in that, that person looks really good in that, etc. We all have opinions about other people’s cars and homes. That doesn’t entitle us to steal or vandalize. And I’ve never heard anyone say cover up that Jag or your affluence is showing.
Get a grip people! Be an example of comfortable decorum in your dress and the way you control your impulses. Exercise good judgment but keep your opinions and hormones about how other people dress to yourself and the minor children living in your own home!
This is a complex subject. My husband and I were debating on it a few months ago. His view was pretty similar to yours, Martin. The problem, as we concluded, is that are too many variables to create simple solutions.
1. Socio-cultural – when I went to study abroad in Israel, I was instructed to avoid looking into the eyes of men, otherwise I would put myself at higher risk of sexual assault. In the same vein, women were never allowed to go out alone – there always had to be a guy in the group. Here in the U.S., I would not be considered risking sexual assault if I were in a group of only women. I would also not be considered risking sexual assault by looking into eyes of passersby. But if I were walking around naked in the U.S.? Definitely considered risking sexual assault – unless I were in one of GBSmith’s clothing optional clubs.
2. Religious culture – do we feel we can judge someone’s “righteousness” based on outward appearance? If we can designate someone as an unrighteous harlot like Isabel, then can we really blame young men for their actions around her? In most Christian religions, women have been traditionally idealized as either virgins or whores/seductresses – no middle ground.
3. Individual preference – some people will sexually assault weaker people, no matter what their culture or religion says. Dressing more modestly won’t change that. Some people will never feel okay about sexually assaulting weaker people, no matter what their culture or religion says. Dressing less modestly won’t change that.
My husband emphasized that asking women to dress modestly to help the young men isn’t about preventing sexual assault. Those men who sexually assault weaker people are jerks who have something wrong with them mentally. When we refer to men’s thoughts in asking women to dress modestly, it’s supposed to just be a recognition that most men get turned on easily by physical cues. It’s not implicitly suggesting men will (or are allowed to) turn into rampaging rapists if they see skin.
He could understand why I (as an anthropologist) would point to surrounding culture to explain why sexual assault was more prevalent in some places than others. Ultimately, we agreed that certain cultures/religions might allow potential assaulters more justification/permission in following through with those temptations, where others might curb those toeing the line a little better.
The question is, how can we ensure our Mormon culture engenders enough respect among all members to recognize our actions affect each other, yet recognize that ultimately we can’t surrender our agency to others?
I wish when we focused on modesty we let go sexuality as a byproduct and instead focused on vanity. Particularly the line between vanity and cultural branding of oneself through outward markers.
Mary Ann, I think if you start in the right place, I don’t think the problem is that complex. Talking about modesty vs. sexual assault is like taking about better nutrition in the US vs. malnutrition in Somalia — they may seem similar or related, but they’re really not. Before it makes any sense to talk about better nutrition, you’ve got to have a food supply. Likewise, before you talk about modesty, you’ve really got to understand that men don’t get to assault women. It really can’t be part of the culture to think that sexual assault can be invited or justified. It would make little sense to me to emphasize modesty for women in the Israel you describe if eye contact is considered an invitation to sexual assault.
Where I come cross-wise with a lot of Mormon feminists is that I argue that within the Mormon culture, the foundation that sexual assault cannot be justified is already there, and therefore the topic of modesty matters. They’d argue that the foundation isn’t there and give their personal experiences to illustrate it. To them, teaching modesty is complicit in creating a rape culture. But just because we have rapists (who’ll justify themselves regardless) does not mean that within the church there is any room or excuse for sexual assault. In fact, there is so little room for it that many of us assume it’s happening far less often than it is.
I take issue with the idea that women should feel beholden to society to dress modestly. It is imbalanced. Yes, clothing is not symmetrical between the sexes, but neither is the burden of social expectation. For a simple thought experiment, imagine all the places a man is considered perfectly dressed in chinos and a polo shirt. Now break down the different style expectations for women in those same venues and scenarios.
But that’s not the truly unequal burden. The truly unequal burden is that even in the United States in 2017, my body is not legally always mine. I was legally barred from lifesaving emergency surgery until they could get the results on a pregnancy test, despite the fact that I hadn’t had sex recently enough for that to be a question. And without the surgical procedure, my death was imminent. But I wasn’t legally allowed to waive the wait time on the test, because in accessing emergency medical care, my life isn’t fully legally mine. If I want to do anything medical that could permanently end my fertility, some states will not allow that without the consent of my fictional, hypothetical husband. So perhaps the pendulum is swinging a little too far toward “it’s my body and I’ll dress it how I want, thank you very much. Please keep your hands, laws, and opinions off of it.” But I’m not interested in mitigating that pendulum until I have full legal authority over myself at all times.
And I support the idea that we need to teach young women self esteem that isn’t based on male attention and the male gaze, but I don’t think modesty does that very well. The way we currently teach it does much more to foster body based shame than self acceptance.
The natural man is an enemy to God….
Can we honestly ignore hundreds of thousands of years of human history and wickedness? A question I would like to understand better is how have men and women treated each other in pre-agricultural societies? In ancient societies? How much is biological and how much cultural? How realistic was it in the past to change these behaviors? How can we change them today?
We might imagine a wonderful fairy-land world, a bubble as the church society or culture close to a Zion on earth. We can discuss what is right and wrong in this context. But we still have to deal with the realities on the street and in the public schools and on line.
Example:
Recently a 14 year old scout in my non-LDS troop was being disruptive using his cell phone. His elected patrol leader was the smallest scout in the patrol and couldn’t deal with it. (Probably why the elected him). The older more mature scouts were elsewhere. So I violated our troop’s interpretation of boy leadership practices and confiscated the phone.
He immediately pointed out, I was committing a crime. I replied, I am certain your parents who actually own this phone would not agree with you. He said, stealing my phone is not the problem. He explained that his girlfriend sent him nude selfies and I was in possession of child porn, (his words were more graphic).. It would reasonably be expected that I could guess I might find such material on his phone and that was my motivation for taking it and I couldn’t prove I wasn’t looking at it. I immediately gave him his phone back.
I asked him, since he is normally a good trustworthy scout, (except he wants to be an attorney) what percent of the scouts had similar images on their phones? He replied, past about age 12-13; at least 60%, maybe 75% of them.He further explained, remember when we all started laughing in your minivan on the way to the last camping trip for no reason? So and so had just received a nude selfie on his phone and was showing it to the rest of us.
This is the new reality of the digital age . Everyone has a phone and is on it full-time and there are no boundaries as to what one might be looking at. What they wear is almost irrelevant in comparison to what they snap and send in private, rendering the very concept of private obsolete. The discussion we are having here is like straining at gnats while a herd of camels is already trampling across our youth.
I have problems with the hyper-focus on modesty–primarily female clothing in our church and how it is taught. I do think the obvious subtext (whether stated or not) to teaching young girls and young women about modest dress is about male arousal. Recently modesty was the topic of Sharing Time in Primary, ages 3-12. The Primary leader asked the question “what parts of our body should we cover with clothing?” Egads! None of the children responded–what kinds of answers were they mulling over?
Very few young people under the age of 16 purchase their own clothing with their own money. The clothing decisions are largely made by the parents. So how many modesty lessons are taught to parents in the church?
Another issue is if modesty is a primary concern then why are slacks not acceptable wear for women attending church? It isn’t easy being a nursery leader in a dress or skirt. When I taught squirmy, antsy 3-5 yr old girls in Primary it often was a battle to get them to keep their dresses/skirts down so their underwear wasn’t showing. My job would’ve been much easier had they been dressed in pants.
I like Jan’s point about taking a broader view of modesty rather than defining it as whether women are showing their shoulders etc.
Jan makes a good point here: If there was a less “Protestant” view of the body (more like the European attitude of nudity), we wouldn’t be uptight clothing police. However, I also think that the boundary pushing has to do with provocative wealth.
Nonetheless, I recall several conversations from my (European) mission in which young men (members, converts, and non-members alike) discussed going to topless-allowed beaches, which was forbidden to missionaries of course, not because they had a more casual, less “Protestant” view of nudity and the body, but precisely because they enjoyed being titillated by what they saw at the beach. Now, granted, I was in a Catholic country and from a religious standpoint they certainly aren’t less uptight than the Proddies, but it’s also a very secular country in practice, where religion is culture and not belief.
As in most things, there must needs be moderation and balance. Women are not responsible for what men think or do, regardless of how they are dressed – but they do have an influence, like any human being has an influence on any other whom they encounter. I had a similar conversation with our YM once many moons ago regarding the hairstyles then in fashion. Yes, you can wear your hair any way you want to. No, it isn’t right that you be judged for the shoulder-length locks or the Mohawk. But you will be. Your observer, depending on age, history, attitude, etc., can no more help it than s/he can help any other deeply rooted psychological reaction. All the observer can control is visible reaction, comments, and so on, and we’d expect them to do so. That observer can choose to not dwell on it, not comment on it, and (hopefully) not act on the initial reaction by denying a good worker a job. But that reaction is very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.
The human reaction to the object of one’s sexual desire is deeper than psychological; it goes to tens of thousands of years of evolutionary development. (YECs need not apply.) We still expect people to control their reactions and keep their rude mouths shut and tend to their own knitting, even if we’re often disappointed in this expectation. Sometimes finding words to express this in English is very difficult, because everyone has very strong feelings about it and there is frequently a strong will to misunderstand.
Sometimes I pray for an assignment to speak on modesty, so I can offer that talk on “provocative wealth.” I’d like to smoke out the “prosperity gospel” adherents in my ward so we know who they are and can keep them away from the youth. But perhaps I’ve already alienated a large enough chunk of the active members of my ward. 🙂
While we’re on the subject of modesty One. More. Time. I think we should discuss the church’s culpability in using attraction as a carrot-and- stick device to control young people. The girls, of course, are programed from childhood to see marriage and motherhood as their highest and only calling. They are encouraged to be just so attractive but not one iota more. Meanwhile, young men are baited (another carefully chosen word) with the prospect of hot wives as the reward for honorable mission service. They are feeding a flame here.
I don’t think this is coincidental and I think the church could do its part in making clear that women are NOT “prizes”. I believe if they did that there wouldn’t be the same need for the obsession about modesty.
I disagree with the OP on both main points. Females should be entirely in control of the way they dress and present themselves, regardless of what that means to others or to society. If a woman wants to dress in a manner that is sexually alluring, as long as she understands the consequences of that, so what? We’re still a LONG way in our society from allowing, let alone encouraging women to be as sexual as they want to be. If a woman wants to dress in a way that’s explicitly sexual, she should absolutely do that, and it has nothing whatever to do with anyone else. I don’t think that has anything to do with inherent morality or immorality. Secondly, and as a corollary, I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that we should be teaching young people that they don’t owe anything to anyone else. So many of our societal problems stem from young people doing things they don’t want to do because they’ve been conditioned to feel they owe it to other people or institutions. I don’t think encouraging youth to make decisions based on what they feel is best for them is in any way mutually exclusive with altruism or community involvement.
alice: “I don’t think this is coincidental and I think the church could do its part in making clear that women are NOT “prizes”. I believe if they did that there wouldn’t be the same need for the obsession about modesty.” For that change to happen (and I heartily agree it’s needed) the church would have to start listening to women and taking women seriously, and I simply don’t think that’s going to happen any time soon. I wish it would happen, but don’t see much evidence that it will.
BRJones, THANK YOU for saying exactly what I was thinking. You said it perfectly, and I agree completely. And Angela C, I honestly don’t think any of the changes you mentioned will ever happen in the church.
Rounds of applause for Alice and Brother Jones.
The scripture where Christ warns against looking upon women to lust after them is always used to justify enforced modesty, but what about the 2nd article of faith? “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” If the reason for modesty is to prevent men from lusting, then we are holding men’s transgressions against women and girls. I find that contrary to our stated belief.
As the title implies, I think this subject has been talked to death already and I’m not sure anyone is changing anyone else’s mind (clearly, as all the men who commented on this, aside from brjones, agreed that women should think about how their dress affects men before they put anything on – or take anything off – and all the women who commented said basically the opposite). However, there were a couple of claims made in this article that made my blood boil a bit.
“Instead of women being told to govern their behavior, they want men to govern theirs.” This takes the worst view of women who are sick of the current modesty rhetoric. Most women are perfectly happy governing their own behavior (none of these women are claiming that they will rape any man who dresses to turn them on). Yes women want men to not use a woman’s dress as an excuse for bad behavior. That is all we want. You govern your behavior, we’ll govern ours.
Which brings me to this tidbit: “Also, there appears to be some difference in how men and women are sexually aroused, judging by how the market for porn is dominated men and the market for romance novels is dominated by women.” Ok, ignoring the fact that I’m not sure your cause and effect here are correct, let’s assume women are aroused by different things than men. When was the last time any man was encouraged NOT to do the things that turn women on in romance novels so that they could protect women from their sexual urges? Never. Basically all modesty rhetoric is about how women should think about men before they dress or act, but men don’t have to think about what turns women on before they dress or act. I honestly would be interested to know if there are men in the forum who have been taught in an official setting not to do certain things so that they wouldn’t tempt women into sexual sin. As you said, “Everything we do affects someone else, and therefore, should figure into whether we choose to do it.” Do you ever think about how what your doing may be affecting the sexual desires of the women around you?
“Ask yourself, do you want your spouse de-sensitized? Or do you want your spouse turned on by your normal, average, everyday self?” A few things here: first, my spouse served a mission in a third world country where he saw topless women multiple times a day. Some of these were poor women breastfeeding or without proper clothing. Some of these were advertisements that were using sex to sell with very voluptuous women bearing it all. He is still attracted to my normal, average, everyday self. Second, I don’t want a spouse that is so uncomfortable with skin that the slightest hint of a shoulder or thigh turns him on. I also would like to be able to do everyday normal things like take a shower, get dressed, put lotion on without him being so turned on that I’m unable to get ready. Being so turned on by skin that you can’t control yourself when you see it does not make for a happy, healthy marriage.
“It’s ironic that some of the same women decrying the idea that women should dress modestly are the same ones arguing for women to accept themselves with their varying body types, as though putting them on display side-by-side like that works to anybody’s advantage other than those most closely matching society’s ideal.” This is not ironic at all. What you are saying is that women cannot accept the body that they are in if they don’t cover it up so no one can tell what kind of body it is. Hiding your body so that people do not shame you for it is not body acceptance. Loving your body whether or not other people thinks it fits the standard ideal IS body acceptance. It makes absolute sense that people who want all women to accept their bodies where they are at are unhappy with men telling those same women they should cover up those bodies because they are either sinful (for skinny women) or gross (for fat women).
Finally, I think you had one comment in here that gets to the heart of what modesty should really be about (hint, it’s the one where we stop telling women to dress for men): “Besides, I think the primary reason we ought to teach girls to dress modestly is about them, not about boys. It’s about what’s going to form the basis of their self-esteem, and making sure that basis is healthy, in spite of all the images and messages they see around them.” THIS is what modesty is about. It is about not drawing attention to yourself. It is about not dressing and acting in ways to get attention from others, but instead dressing and acting for yourself and for God. Covering up skin so that your bishop and young women’s leaders will think you are righteous is NOT modest. Using clothing as a way to judge someone else’s righteousness is NOT modest.
EBK
“..dressing and acting for yourself and for God”
Modesty.definitions
1.) the quality or state of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one’s abilities.
“with typical modesty he insisted on sharing the credit with others”
synonymes : self-effacement, humility, unpretentiousness;
2) the quality of behaving and especially dressing in ways that do not attract sexual attention.
I think I agree but are you suggesting that God doesn’t want to see our bodies and therefore we should dress modestly for him?
Jan,
No. Definitely not, sorry it came off that way. I mean that we should consider direct revelation from God to us in our choices in both dress and behavior. God made us naked, and technically if God sees all, then God sees me naked every time I shower or change my clothes. It seems silly that God wouldn’t want to see our naked bodies since God made them.
I had no illusions that the majority of readers here would agree with me. As I read through the comments, though, many of the objections raised seem to be against an overall package of attitudes in the church, in which they include modesty, rather than anything I said in the OP. Women wearing pants in church, girls being taught that motherhood is their one and only calling, and male missionaries being promised hot wives for diligent service (I’ve never realized this was a widespread problem) are presumably all topics for that overall package, but I don’t consider them to be direct responses to anything I wrote regarding modesty or my beef with the “self-centered, not-responsible-to-anybody” attitude I find in the anti-modesty posts.
Also, I think I should point out that teaching modesty, expecting modesty (a social expectation), and enforcing modesty are each rather different things, even if they’re not sharply delineated. Teaching modesty is just that — explaining what and why. Expecting modesty is is just making it the norm, similar to expecting people to come to church in their Sunday best — it shows respect, but not everybody will or can and they’re still completely welcome. Enforcing modesty would involve shunning and excluding. I advocate for the first two. I get the sense that as people disagree, they’re picturing me as promoting the third, which kind of distorts the discussion.
EBK, I wasn’t trying to promote the worst view of women tired of the modesty rhetoric. I’m not convinced we disagree as entirely as you seem to think. You did ask an interesting question, though — have I ever considered whether anything I did might sexually arouse women. The answer is yes, I was aware that certain kinds of physical closeness and touch would arouse girls I danced with or dated, but it seemed there generally had to be some sort of personal connection. I think this actually reinforces my point about the assymetry between sexual arousal between men and women. But I also chose (and choose) not to run in public areas with my shirt off specifically because I feel it is immodest. I honestly try not to be too much of a hypocrite.
brjones, we clearly disagree strongly about something so fundamental that neither of us would let our kids play at the other’s house.
Elizabeth St. Dunstan, I don’t understand the logic of your second comment at all. If a woman chooses to dress immodestly, then she’s responsible for dressing immodestly. She’s not responsible for anyone else. There’s no transfer of blame.
Martin: Your comment about the asymmetry in what attracts women and men is interesting. I would say that touch and personal connection can help make up for a lack in physical attraction, but it’s certainly possible for women to be strictly visually stimulated. If all men looked like Liam Hemsworth or Ryan Reynolds mowing the lawn shirtless in white tennis shorts, if men tried as hard as women do to be attractive, then women would be as susceptible as men are. Women are instead told to do many things to be physically attractive (not only in society at large, but E. Ballard in particular likes to comment on the efforts toward attractiveness of unmarried women in the church), but not so many things that men lust after them. It’s a narrow swath of acceptability women have to maintain. If both sexes tried equally hard or received the same frequency and urgency of messages about their physical attractiveness, maybe this asymmetry would rectify.
I realize this is not specifically addressed in your OP, but bear with me a moment. Too often what is “modest” or “immodest” in the eyes of the beholder is nothing more than a person being more attractive in some way. For example, a busty or curvy girl is disproportionately targeted by men for unwanted attention (as we saw in the skinny jeans debacle at BYU-Idaho). This attention may also rouse jealousy among some female cohorts who don’t get the same attention and decide to shame her for her dress (the thing in her control). But if you are curvy, you’re going to attract a specific kind of attention from a specific kind of person, regardless of what you do or what you wear. You’re not going to hide the fact that you’re a girl. And that’s enough for some creeps to target you.
I tend to agree with you (perhaps an unpopular opinion here) that young people shouldn’t be told to be anti-social and selfish to the extent they are. On a continuum, Mormonism probably tells young people to be too worried about social capital, but society in general probably errs on the other side right now. There’s got to be a happy medium. Doing things strictly to please others is a bad idea, but I wouldn’t advocate for being completely unconcerned about it either. Social awareness and social skill will go a long way toward success in life and is a part of emotional intelligence.
For the record, Martin, I would let my kids play at your house. I recognize the risk is probably higher for someone in your position letting their kids play at my house, although I would never dream of trying to teach my children’s friends the rights and wrongs (as I see them) of modesty or morality.
“Doing things strictly to please others is a bad idea, but I wouldn’t advocate for being completely unconcerned about it either. Social awareness and social skill will go a long way toward success in life and is a part of emotional intelligence.”
Angela C, I completely agree with this. I guess the distinction I would draw here is that my goal would be to make sure my children understand the consequences of not being socially aware or skilled, or of rejecting participation in social norms, and then let them decide for themselves whether those are consequences they want to bear. Obviously parents have to decide when children are old enough to make those decisions; (I wouldn’t let my 7-year-old go to a friend’s house in her underwear, because she isn’t capable yet of appreciating and analyzing the consequences of her behavior). As a rule, though, I’d prefer my children feel, as they make choices in their lives, like they have made every effort to gather as much information as is possible, and then made their own decisions as to how to act. I wish my parents had had that level of respect for me as an autonomous human being. If we do anything less than that, how can we expect our children to fully own the consequences of their choices?
Martin,
I think it is likely that we agree on a lot of aspects to this, but you do seem to hold the a belief that has become quite common in Mormon land. Women are not responsible for men’s thoughts, BUT they should still dress as if they are. Maybe I’m misinterpreting you. The quote I pulled out of the OP that I agreed with I think could have stood on its own to make a point about modesty, but the OP had many instances that contradicted that quote by saying that although women shouldn’t dress for men, these are all the reasons women should dress for men.
As far as my question goes: “The answer is yes, I was aware that certain kinds of physical closeness and touch would arouse girls I danced with or dated, but it seemed there generally had to be some sort of personal connection.” Now I want you to picture that instead of having to worry about how you’re making your dance partner or girlfriend feel by touching them, you have to worry about how you are making literally every single female who might catch a glimpse of you feel by existing. You have to consider this when shopping for clothes, when choosing what to wear each morning, when bending over, when reaching up high, when sitting down, when standing up, when walking, when running, when doing jumping jacks, when carrying screaming children who for some reason always want to rip your shirt off, when slumping, when folding your arms. Now, most of these females who may see you do all these things may be fine with no matter what you’re wearing or how you’re conducting yourself, some will be turned on if there are certain parts of the body showing, some will be turned on no matter what. It is your job to take each of these differing mindsets into consideration, even if you do not know what they are, and worry about them on top of all the other activities you need to get done and act in a way that will not offend or turn on the sensibilities of even the most sensitive because it is important not to be a stumbling to your sisters in the gospel. This is not an exaggeration. This is what I have been taught regarding modesty. It is absolutely an impossible standard that is placed only on women, not because of the differing ways men and women dress, but because church culture teaches us that women are responsible for men’s sexual feelings and men are not responsible for women’s sexual feelings because they don’t have any.
I agree that we live in a society full of people and part of being in that society is being considerate of other people. I disagree that we should only consider our own wants and needs when making decisions. That being said, I have never heard modesty taught in the church as a way of a community mutually considering each others wants and needs in a way that uplifts everyone. I also don’t think they way you describe it in the OP teaches that men and women need to mutually consider each others needs and balance personal comfort with societal comfort. It feels like a justification of why modesty only applies to women. That may not be what you actually believe, but that’s how it came across in the OP.
Angela,
“Social awareness and social skill will go a long way toward success in life and is a part of emotional intelligence.” Agreed, but social awareness and social skill should not be taught as a prerequisite for salvation. Just like the ability to change a tire and an understanding of credit scores will go a long way toward a young adult’s success but are not requirements to counted among the saints.
EBK, I wish I could give you a thousand thumbs up. Your comments eloquently reflect my own view.
I’m totally with Martin on this. I think dressing in tight and skimpy clothing is sexually stimulating to most guys. If it wasn’t media wouldn’t have women dressed this way to sell there non-sexual products, nor would women believe they need to be dressed this way to be attractive. If gunny sacks and ratty hair turned men on that’s how women would dress.
Doesn’t mean men aren’t responsible for how they respond to sexual stimuli. But women dressed in tight, skimpy clothing is sexual stimuli for most men. Dr. Kurt Mitch, a marriage and family therapist tells of a 69-year-old man who works out in a gym where he sees young scantily clad women dressed in second skin-clothing that causes him to think about sex a lot more than he normally would. This puts pressure on his wife which causes friction in their marriage. Dr. Smith says it’s biological to see stimulating things which then cause sexual thoughts and desires in most men. Regular stimulation without relief causes uncomfortable build up and frustration that can be very uncomfortable physically to the point of interfering with daily activities and mood.
When I was dating I wanted to be alluring and always made sure I dressed just shy of what we called “slutty” in my day. Of course, nowadays it would look down right provincial. But when I had my sons I saw things in a whole new light. I began to see things from their perspective and I made sure to teach them to act like gentlemen at all times, even though they were swimming in stimuli and hormones all day long. But they were often grinding their teeth in frustration.
I taught my kids to think of Jesus when dressing–would you wear this in front of him? My daughters left the house every morning with scripture study, a prayer, and a hug and promptly removed their outer layers of clothing the minute they got to school I later learned. They really couldn’t care less about Jesus seeing them in their chosen outfits. They had boys to attract! And when they married they still wanted to be attract-ive. Then…when their sons hit puberty they, too, saw everything in a whole new light.
I guess what I’m saying as I ramble here is just because you don’t mean to dress in sexually stimulating ways doesn’t mean you aren’t doing so. It’s biological dear ladies. And if guys see women so dressed, always be a gentleman. But I feel for your uncomfortable buildup of desire if you don’t have enough opportunities to find relief. And because I care about your genuine male plight, I now try to avoid dressing just shy of slutty.
Rockies GMa, Your thinking sounds remarkably similar to my bishops’s when he made me write an apology letter to my rapist (I had been kissing him before the rape.) (BTW, he got off without any punishment and went on a mission while I had to avoid taking the sacrament for 6 months.) The whole thing stinks of rape culture, which has its roots in the people who treat a man’s sexual desires as if they are almost impossible for him to control.
Excuse me, but I think that the idea that biological desire is to be pitied and pandered to, is ridiculous. If a man feels desire at the gym, he can look away, distract himself, stop going to the gym; it’s on him to figure out how to control his own appetites. It is not a woman’s job to make sure a man has control over his desires any more than it’s a bank’s job to stop dealing in money, so that it’s tellers don’t experience the temptation to steal. Every man is here to learn self-control, so let them learn it; instead of reinforcing the idea that sexual desire is nearly insurmountable, reinforce the idea that, while we all experience various desires, we can choose to be decent and not act on those desires in inappropriate ways.
“I think dressing in tight and skimpy clothing is sexually stimulating to most guys.” And?
I think the conversation about whether or not men are sexually stimulated by seeing parts of a woman’s body, and the differences between the way men and women are stimulated, is completely beside the point. I don’t think it’s fine for women to dress in revealing or provocative clothing because I don’t think it has any effect on men. I think it’s fine because how a woman’s dress affects a man is completely, totally, and in all other ways irrelevant to what a woman should be doing with herself, UNLESS SHE DECIDES THOSE CONSIDERATIONS ARE IMPORTANT. If a woman decides she doesn’t want to do that to poor men, or fears it will disappoint god, or some similar concern, she should follow her conscience. But that should be the absolutely only constraints on how she presents herself: her conscience. She owes nothing to the men who will see her, or the other members of society who might feel uncomfortable at her choices. Those are all 100% those people’s problems. For me this is front and center with respect to the issue surrounding what people “owe” other people specifically, and society generally. For the entirety of human history women have been coerced, shamed, guilted, and essentially forced to make decisions based on the feelings or sensitivities of other people. Well not my daughters. I’m exponentially less concerned with what my children choose to do with and for and to themselves, than I am that they’re pursuing paths with an unfettered eye toward their own happiness.
EBK: “social awareness and social skill should not be taught as a prerequisite for salvation” No argument here, and neither should modesty!
I live where mormons are less than half a percent of the population. Most of the women I see dress without our concerns about modesty. Their comfort, and then apropriate for the situation, seem to be the main interest. Going out at night they might take mens view into account.
There is a generational thing too. My grandsons are much more accepting/resptfull of however women present themselves. We have walked on the beach, and they do not look twice where I do. I must comment that I do not see looking twice as sexual arousal. Perhaps apreciating beauty with some little extra.
Well Rachel, if you think I sounded like your Bishop you are well, way off what I said. Your rapist didn’t act like a gentleman at all, did he?? Please really read what I said and if you come down off your high horse you’d see that I said very clearly that men are responsible for their own reactions to stimuli–not women! I get really tired of the I-have-zero-responsibility-toward-others-i can-do-whatever-I-want mentality of men and women. We’re all in this together and we can, and ought, to be considerate of each other. All I said was men are biologically reactive to sexual stimuli—which is no secret—which makes them think of sex more—which is also no secret—which creates more desire, as countless therapists have studied and stated. So saying a man can look away is correct. Gentlemen always look away. Rapists don’t. Rapists are filthy, disgusting scum. I was sexually assaulted. So don’t tell me I support rapists! But don’t tell me tight, skimpy clothing doesn’t turn guys on either. Why do women wear it? It’s to be alluring. It’s to be arttractive. It’s to be sexy. If you’ve got it, flaunt it! Own it. Women have a lot of power from it. And I don’t buy the “it’s more comfortable” fallacy. Glory, there’s tons of comfortable stuff to wear anywhere, including the gym, that isn’t tight and skimpy. But to be utterly clear: if you showed up fully naked for a date, the guy should be a gentleman and look away, and keep you safe. He has zero rights to your body unless you say clearly otherwise. His thoughts, erection, and response are his, alone, to control. Yet it is true that in that instance, you definitely contributed to his arousal. That’s my point–we do things that effect those around us. We should care about helping each other through the mazes, men and women alike.
Martin, I think you’ve written a pretty balanced argument, but since I’m left of balanced on this topic, I’ll argue with a couple of your ideas.
“Context does matter, but the eye of the beholder probably matters more. That doesn’t imply that it’s completely subjective, though. Nudity most definitely is associated with sexuality.”
I’d argue it IS completely subjective. We rightly expect people in the medical profession to not sexualize nudity. When one of my male high school classmates cheered at the prospect of nudity in Schindler’s List — Jewish women forced to run naked in front of their captors — our class rightfully voiced disgust with him. I haven’t asked, but I assume the sight of a wife naked on a toilet does not turn men on. For every state of dress and undress that exists, there is a context when it could and could not be sexual.
“Everything we do affects someone else, and therefore, should figure into whether we choose to do it.”
I agree with this to a point. The common MoFem argument is that women can’t possibly know what turns on each man they will encounter in a day, therefore we shouldn’t have to bother trying. It IS a dilemma; even following the FSOY standards and/or covering our garments will not prevent lustful thoughts. When we define modesty as X, we are simply saying that the corresponding Y percentage of men who will lust after a woman at a given state of dress is acceptable (and there is no X value that yields a 0 Y value). But that’s not enough reason to throw out attempts at modesty altogether (if we agree that reducing lust is not the main point of modesty).
On the flip side, taking your sentence at face value, men asking women to cover up is one of those “everything we dos” that “affects someone else.” How much can men ask women to sacrifice for them? Is it any less charitable to ask women to cover their shoulders than for women to bare their shoulders?
“I just can’t see how the steady desensitization to sex is healthy….Ask yourself, do you want your spouse de-sensitized? Or do you want your spouse turned on by your normal, average, everyday self?”
I don’t know how to argue with this because I don’t see how desensitization to a certain amount of skin showing is at odds with my husband being turned on by me. (I get that “porn kills love,” but a Playboy bunny posing suggestively isn’t the same as a wholesome mom in a bikini with her kids on the beach.) Neither my husband nor I can control how much skin he is exposed to in a day no matter what our opinions are on modesty, so it would be best for him to build immunity to it rather than see himself as a victim of it.
Modesty would be better sold to someone like me as sticking it to a patriarchal society that only sees value in a woman’s sexuality. (Maybe this is similar to the “self-esteem” angle you mentioned.) It would also be a better sell if the focus was on appropriateness rather than setting ourselves apart from society’s depravity, since society IS what determines what is appropriate. I do see the media as responsible for pushing the envelope, but once the envelope has been pushed, society moves with it; once the bikini becomes accepted by society as “just not sexy enough,” it is no longer immodest. Modesty is one of those few things where “everyone’s doing it” does actually change the morality of the act, if fashion is really a moral issue to begin with.
Rockies GMa, I didn’t say you were advocating rape in any way. I would never dream of accusing you of such a thing. I said your line of thinking was similar to the one that my bishop gave me (that women had to be the guardians of virtue because men had such overwhelming sex drives that we must pity them and strive to ensure their minds stay pure.) The fact that this idea (of men’s overwhelming sex drives) was and maybe still is so enforced in our culture, I think contributed to this 17 year old actually believing that he couldn’t control himself in the face of my protests.
I agree with Laurel that if doctors (even gynecologists!) can do it, so can everyone else. It might not be easy, but believing deeply that it’s nearly impossible for all men to do will certainly make it much harder in actuality than it would be if a man knew that people can and do control their thoughts and actions all the time.
(Incidentally, I don’t think a person needs to feel shame for initial attraction or desire, all of which is perfectly natural; it’s what we choose to do with it that matters.)
In our house, I never once taught, expected or enforced modest dress. I just modeled it.
That’s all we can do at home or church. (Schools and business can have dress codes that they may or may not enforce.)
Something in how you say more than once, “women should be expected to to dress modestly,” throws me off. I read along like I’m in a conversation between equals, and then run up on that. I agree with you that we have big problems in this arena (yikes, that story about the scouts and their phones?!?), but talking about what “women should be expected” to do when we’re right here in the room…
I can’t explain myself well, but have this vague sense that it adds to the problem.
And I’m okay with some of those tasteful (I think) Dove soap or underwear ads, or whatever they are, showing women of all shapes and sizes. No, it does NOT disadvantage or embarrass the non-ideally shaped women. They’re all smiling. It’s not a competition. Perhaps not an advertising point that needs to be made again and again, but I think making it for the first time is important.
The ‘Women should be expected to…’ bothers me too. I wonder if it is because it’s no longer self-governing, but some outside force insisting on making the choices for a woman. And while this is a natural part of belonging to a society of people, womanhood has a long history of having her agency removed by outside forces. Perhaps it pushes me into feeling like chattel rather than a human that can make my own choices. Perhaps the rhetoric we use is a big part of the problem. “Women should be expected to…” certainly isn’t empowering to women.
“They’re all smiling. It’s not a competition.” I love this observation. That’s really at the heart of the problem with modesty rhetoric, IMO. It pits women against men and women against women by creating a single acceptable narrative for women’s behavior and dress. Instead, why don’t we treat everyone kindly like an individual, respecting their choices. Social norms will emerge, shift, etc. Women dressing for comfort and appropriateness to the activity seems like the best guide because it doesn’t require any outside intervention to define it. That’s just what people would do naturally.