quote: If they and their parents consider your perspective, and then decide on a different understanding of "short," then they ought not be harassed about it.
Taking out the inflammatory word "harassed," and replacing it with "taught" or "talked to," do you feel the same way about too low cut?
We had a parent's/youth joint meeting in November where I talked to them about, among other things, standards I expected at activities and on Sunday. I put the youth on one side and the parents on the other. At one point, on a screen in the front, I flashed a picture from the internet of a young woman showing just a tiny bit of cleavage and the edge of a bra strap, for just a few seconds. When I took the picture away, I asked the young men, "What did you notice first about that young woman." I got hair color, eye color, braces, etc. Not one mentioned cleavage. So, I asked "not one of you noticed her low cut top first?" No one raised their hand. I then asked the dads. "How many think your son's are lying?" Every one of them raised their hand. So I asked the boys, "All right, what color was her hair." Half guessed correctly. So I pointed out to the girls, "When a boy passes you in the hall at school and you are wearing a top like this, guess what he is looking at for those couple of seconds."
In an interview, I had one 15 year old young woman ask me "what is too low cut." I told her that if I can see cleavage if she is sitting, standing, lying down or tying her shoe, it is immodest. (A modified "head shoulders knees and toes" standard.) She said she would have to throw away all of her tops. And you know at 15 she is not buying all her own clothes.
I think it is a much harder standard to teach than short and skirt length. Because the mom's don't help as much with their personal examples.
quote: OR...we could simply do our best to teach the Lords standard.
Quite. So let's teach the Lord's standards rather than our own. If it isn't stipulated by the Lord or his duly appointed representative, the Prophet, what we are doing is pushing our opinions.
quote: I would certainly do my part to help save that child from the lack of parenting.
If you are called upon to do so by those with authority to do so, fair enough. Otherwise, not your call.
Posts: 1482 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are called upon to do so by those with authority to do so, fair enough. Otherwise, not your call.
I think he was "called upon to do so" in his church calling as a Sunday School teacher, wherein he teaches the standard, without regard to what the parents are teaching or doing at home.
Posts: 8601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, somehow when that argument is brought up, we never hear its corollary: women are attracted to wealthy men because of a biological imperative to find a good provider for their offspring, blah blah blah.
posted
Yes, it does count, Jim. Thanks for that. (In my own defense, that thread was before I came.)
I think we all agree that the world has taken two things that are reasonable: finding your spouse attractive, and wanting basic needs provided for, and gone WAY over the top with them, so they become the be-all and end-all.
Posts: 1905 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW, isn't that the point? We teach the standard, not our opinion. The discussion is what the standard actually is.
Some here believe that the standard is that required to accommodate garments, others believe that the standard is not specific. There isn't a specific standard on hemlines, there is a requirement to dress modestly.
We can offer a range of options and let the students discuss what is appropriate, letting them set the standard amongst themselves but making it clear that there is a requirement for modesty. However, if we say to them that there is a particular length of skirt is modest, that is not the Church of Jesus Christ, it is the Church of Scruffydog, and believe me that is a church no one wants to belong to!
As soon as the Church says that it is a requirement that girls wear hemlines below the knee, then all teachers need to teach that standard. Until then, it is a matter of opinion as to what modest clothing actually consists of. I would assume that we are all in the same ballpark, though.
Posts: 1482 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Taking out the inflammatory word "harassed," and replacing it with "taught" or "talked to," do you feel the same way about too low cut?
"Too low cut" is going to be harder to quantify than "too short." And what might be problematic on one person might be just fine on another. But it's all a judgment call anyway.
As far as when someone should be talked to about their clothing, I'm all about trying to find ways of including rather than excluding. We don't want to give people a shove out the door in the name of upholding "standards." So I always will prefer to err on the side of being accepting rather than taking a hard line. That's not to say that there isn't some point beyond which I feel uncomfortable about a person's clothing choices, or some point beyond that when "someone" perhaps ought to speak to them about it.
I am pretty sure however, that that "someone" isn't me. I'm just a humble, lovable high priest's secretary. I don't want the job of monitoring the exposure level of teenage girls' chests or talking to them about their cleavage. That sounds a bit creepy to me. And I am scratching my head to think of when I might have ever seen anyone at a church function whose clothing was so over the top that talking to them would do more good than harm. It just doesn't seem that common to me. But of course, I'm not one who thinks that exposed shoulders, patellas, or clavicles merit the modesty alarms going off.
I would suggest on those rare occasions when there's an ongoing problem and someone needs direction on the subject, that it not be done on an individual ad hoc basis. We don't want eight different people ganging up on the poor kid, thinking they need to be the one to address the situation. If it's a young woman, perhaps the bishop can assign one of the YW leaders to give some advise (hopefully not a lecture) in some non-threatening way. And then let it go.
For investigators or one-time or first-time visitors, I wouldn't say anything at all. People are usually pretty good a picking up on accepted norms and then making adjustments.
Posts: 949 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This makes me curious. In another thread about temple dresses, someone linked to some dresses marketed to members as "temple dresses" but not sold by the Church. The necklines on most of them were lower than on any dresses you could get at the Church distribution center. Now, they were not, by my standards, immodest -- but we all know there is a different standard for what you wear inside the temple.
Anyway, my question is this -- where are the designers getting the qualifications for temple dresses? Since they're not sold by the Church, presumably no one from Church hq or from a temple presidency has approved them before they're sold. So if a sister buys one of these dresses, assuming it meets temple standards because it's marketed that way, and wears it to the temple, would anything be said about it? (Presuming, of course, that it is outside the temple standards. I could be wrong.)
I cannot imagine having the job of telling someone her temple dress doesn't meet temple standards. Like you, LW, I would not want to make someone uncomfortable -- I wouldn't want them to feel chased away. At the same time, if there are companies out there making dresses that are not overseen by the Church, someone has to let people know if they really don't meet the standards. Otherwise the standard just slips and slips because people see others wearing them and think they must be fine, all because no one wanted to scare anyone away.
Anyway, this topic just made me curious how that would work. We had a young woman come to church with a VERY short skirt on. Maybe she figured her tights made it OK. I did not say anything to her, for that same reason -- I want to be inclusive and make sure she feels welcome. But if she's under the impression that since no one said anything to her then her skirt is fine and fits the modesty standard, she is mistaken.
Posts: 5841 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: We had a young woman come to church with a VERY short skirt on. Maybe she figured her tights made it OK. I did not say anything to her, for that same reason -- I want to be inclusive and make sure she feels welcome. But if she's under the impression that since no one said anything to her then her skirt is fine and fits the modesty standard, she is mistaken.
This is what irritates me so much about this thread. HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO KNOW IF NO ONE EVER TELLS THEM? We can pass the buck all day, but seriously...if the adage "when we know better, we do better" is true, then someone has to be willing to TEACH.
Does no one have an idea of the images and attitudes that these young people are bombarded with every day? The world is NOT subtle...and the world doesn't care about anyone's feelings or if they will be offended. We have to be brave enough to stand up and say, "We see things differently, and here is why."
There are many ways to talk to a young woman and her parents about what is appropriate without being harsh or inflicting your own personal standards, and there are people who have stewardship for such things. The bishop, his counselors, and the YW leadership. I've done it. I will more than likely do it again. It's part of what I am asked to do by my priesthood leadership, and I don't have a problem with it. And so far, no one has run crying from the church never to be seen again.
What the girl and her parents do after they are talked to is all up to them. They have agency, and can choose to ignore any counsel they receive. It won't become a topic we personally discuss again unless she tries to wear something that has been specifically outlined as not allowed for a church activity.
Now: go and be glad I am not your daughter's YW leader, lest I tick you off with my directness.
Posts: 4319 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
about the modest police- I agree for church!
But in the nursing home, I HAD to appoint myself the modest police...I've helped ensure quite a few patients were appropriately covered up (ie their gowns falling off, thus showing their bottom or too much of their side,etc etc...they almost always appreciate it. (I tell them "i am the modest police" so usually they respond well)
posted
My good friend is in the YW presidency. This was an issue in our ward. She said the leaders were going to show up to an activity in short skirts et. al. to make a point. I don't know if they actually did (I'll ask her), but I have noticed that the girls are dressing much more modestly. I told her if I were called to YW, I would have a few big mens' shirts with me, because I wouldn't want someone sitting in my class unless they're willing to cover what needs covering. That's probably a little heavy-handed, I admit. Maybe that's why I haven't been called to YW.
I did rant a little on my FB status about tights. I said essentially that, however opaque one's tights may be, they are NOT pants. We had a couple of grown, endowed women in our ward wearing very short dresses and skirts with opaque, footless (because that makes them more modest?) tights. Including a couple of RS teachers. It was getting my gourd so I said something about it on FB, get several "amen"s, and haven't seen such dress at church since. I don't know if I can take credit, or if I want to, really. But what a cruddy example for girls who were already struggling with modesty.
Posts: 4343 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jen, your comment reminded me of the flow-chart "Am I Wearing Pants?" It makes fun of the current trend of women wearing leggings/jeggings/yoga pants as pants. I'd link to it, but a couple of the questions in the flowchart might be too frank for Nauvoo, so you'll have to google this one on your own.
Posts: 1905 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quid, jeggings = leggings that look like jeans and even have painted-on "stitches" like jeans; but are, in fact, leggings. Yoga pants = modern sweatpants. No elastic at the legs, but generally more fitted and thinner fabric than the sweat pants I grew up wearing.
Posts: 4343 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
low sling painted on jeans ( not literally folks) are the rage here, teamed with a tattoo across the top of the butt and an underwear elastic and 4 inch needle heels. oh and then a wide belt and a short jacket. Makes the butt look like it is 7 feet wide if you have any meat at all. and most have meat. Don't people look at their back view in the mirror these days? It isn't modesty it's tacky taste. Those girls are now inactive so whew.
Tacky by our standards is above the knee cord or chino skirt with calf length boots, leggings, a snug t shirt, and a shawl wrapped around the neck and shoulders. maybe a cropped denim jacket. And thats what the YW leadership wear like a uniform. on Sunday.
Else trots in an elegant tailored grey suit, skirt just above the knee, panty hose, dress pumps, hair in a french knot. Her choice. No wonder they don't meet her needs.
Then she comes home and asks why the leadership let their garments show- they use the chemise as a filler for their low necked t shirts.
[ January 09, 2012, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: jana at jade house ]
Posts: 5505 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
I made a remark about poor white trash one day ( I am still my Mother's daughter ) and Andries was very clear about his aversion to that description...I wonder what he's make of tramp stamp.
There is a series of auto commercials here: the newest: Mother picks up daughter from school, daughter flashes said type of black tat when she climbs into the car. Mother: what is that on your back? what were you thinking? That's not a tattoo ( leans forward unzips her back zipper on slacks- exposing a much larger multi-colored tat) THIS is a tattoo. YUK> I will never buy that car.
Posts: 5505 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looked up the Am I Wearing Pants flowchart. Found it at Huffington Post. Thought one of the comment flows was hilarious.
quote:"You do not have to wear pants in the kitchen." "Unless frying bacon..." "Second that! Yow. (Great...now I'm craving bacon...better go put on some pants...)"
But then maybe I just have a strange sense of humor
The last comment though caused me to wonder, it said across the pond pants refers to underwear. So, pants are ... slacks?
Posts: 10902 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Coming from the Huffington Post, it's the American usage. So pants are slacks, trousers, jeans, anything you could wear with a shirt and still be covered. Pants (according to this article) are not leggings, tights, "jeggings", or anything that might be so tight or see-through that you would have to still wear a dress over them to cover yourself properly.
Posts: 5841 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was wondering what term is used "across the pond" for what Americans call pants.
We call them trousers. Or if you are married to Princess Kate, tryzzers. I was raising an eyebrow to the Am I Wearing Pants element till I remembered that you chaps call trousers 'pants'. It makes it all very different if you can speak the Queen's English.
Not that I can, being a Jock. And a commie pinko subversive.
Posts: 1482 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was absolutely floored, when I learned that Americans have more closely preserved the English accent of the 17-1800's, while the English went about changing it from what it was.
(Not really off topic, because the thread title is "Irony" after all)
posted
LoudmouthMormon, I agree that that is interesting, if true. Do you know where you saw that claim? I'm curious to know how they would even determine that, given that we don't have any recordings from that period.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard it across the years from three different sources.
First was a historical movie on the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The director's commentary afterword discussed why the Brits sounded like New Englanders and how that was intentional.
Second was on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, where Hugh was interviewing some scholarly type with an expertise in the english language.
Third was a Youtube video called something like "The History of English in 10 minutes", which mentioned several words that the US kept unchanged while the UK changed them.
quote: I was absolutely floored, when I learned that Americans have more closely preserved the English accent of the 17-1800's, while the English went about changing it from what it was.
That may just be true for a small part of the USA - but for the most part it can not be. I having spent 12 year visiting GA, SC and NC I can say with certainty that no preservation of the English Language, let alone the accent, has taken place. And when I spent time in MA the aural landscape had my brain thinking I wasn't in the US since it I was not hearing what I hear in the US - and that too was nothing like English.
The US accents have been so influenced by other foreign language speakers learning english that there is no uniform accent. But then, there isn't in any language. French in the North is very different from the South. Same is true in Spain.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(In my own defense, that thread was before I came.)![[Clap]](graemlins/clap.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
) and Andries was very clear about his aversion to that description...I wonder what he's make of tramp stamp. 
