Extremism Is Not Modesty - and Extremism Hinders Perfection

A friend once asked me why women's clothes are more revealing than men's - in the context of a conversation about modesty and how it is taught in the LDS Church.

It's an interesting question, and I think it's an important one to ask as a launching pad for any discussion about dress standards and why they tend to fall more heavily on women than on men.  The following response is nowhere close to exhaustive, and it is a bit generalized, but I want to include it in this post to make a broader, more important point about modesty and how we talk about it - and ought to talk about it differently - in the Church:

It's evolutionary (a survival of the fittest instinct to attract men and ensure protection), cultural (look at the fashion and celebrity industries, where "innovation" and "attention" are paramount), biological (there is a physiological difference between women's breasts and men's chests), power-political (most communal leaders throughout history have been men, and they think more about women's bodies than about men's bodies), etc.  It's a complex, fully human issue, and it is influenced by just about every aspect of communal life. 

It's not a simple issue that can be fixed easily, but I like the concept of leadership teaching the correct principle, without specifics (modesty meaning moderation in all things, not just those related to sex and how we clothe our bodies), and governing ourselves. In that way, this topic is no different than tithing (individuals determine how to pay, based on a general principle), Word of Wisdom (individuals determine how to be spiritually and physically healthy without unnecessary addiction), church attendance (individuals determine how much time they can spend in church-related meetings while maintaining a proper balance with family, job, community, personal health, etc.), and on and on.

True modesty allows us to do and be more than we can at any extreme - and that's interesting to consider when our ultimate goal is to be "perfect" - meaning "complete, whole, fully developed". Extremism inhibits that type of perfection, while modesty allows it.

Reverence vs. Silence

Reverence in Sacrament Meeting is a hot topic among lots of people.  Of special concern for some is the fact that children are allowed to attend in the LDS church, and that means there are times when the noise level in Sacrament Meeting is obvious and, sometimes, distracting.  Some people argue that every child who makes any noise should be removed from the meeting, while others allow their children to play and be noisy to an extreme degree.

I believe neither extreme (forced, complete silence, through the removal of children, if necessary and bedlam) is charitable, desirable, uplifting, enlightening, etc.

I also believe that we do a grave disservice to the principle of reverence when we tie it strictly to and define it simply as silence. Reverence is an attitude of respect and awe, and it can be present amid noise and activity just as much as total silence.  It’s just like the simplification of modesty (moderation) to only a dress code. Neither aspect is the entire principle – and our over-simplification of them is more of a problem than anything else, in practical terms.

It’s not that we fail to enforce silence; it’s that we fail to teach and value reverence fully. That failure is just as much in the laps of the silence Nazis as it is in the laps of parents who struggle with non-silent children. In fact, I would argue that many of those parents are struggling explicitly because they understand the fuller meaning of reverence better than many of the silence Nazis – and that they are trying to teach their children reverence, not just silence.

A Response to "Children Cant' Dress Immodestly"

At By Common Consent, Matthew wrote a post in 2012 entitled, "Children Can't Dress Immodestly".  I disagreed strongly with his premise and the post itself, so I wrote the following comment:

Modesty is based on the concept of moderation – in all things. While I agree with much of what is said in the OP, it is more than just a bit ironic to attack one version of modesty in an completely immodest manner. Using one inaccurate extreme (“Children can’t dress immodestly.”) to attack another inaccurate extreme (“Children who expose their shoulders are sluts.”) is no more modest than the extreme being attacked. It simply is the other extreme of the immodesty coin.  

Again, I agree with the concern about how modesty is taught in our culture, especially the obsession over narrowing it exclusively to clothing and females, but this post is no more modest than what it attacks. I would love to read a modest response to such an important issue.

Matthew responded with the following comment:

You’ve created a false equivalency rather than responding to the argument and I know you can do better because I’ve seen you do better. If you want to explain with examples why you believe children can be immodest, you are welcome to do so. If you want to explain why you believe my statement is extreme you should do it.

At the time, I felt I would need to write an entire counter-post in order to explain why I believed the post was extreme, so I didn't respond in a comment.  I thought of writing an official response for a while but never got around to it.  Two weeks later, Paul wrote a responding post on "Real Intent" - and it expressed my concerns very well. 

I came across that discussion again recently and decided today to post the link to Paul's article as my own official response to the idea that children can't be immodest, even though it has been three years since the original post.  It is a bit lazy of me, but Paul's post said almost everything I would have said in a post of my own. 

With that LONG introduction, here is the link:

In Defense of "The Orange Shirt"

"How to See a Woman": A Great Blog Post from a Protestant Pastor

The Deseret News reprinted a blog post back in September 2013 from an Indiana pastor at Christ's Community Church (Nate Pyle) entitled, "How to see a woman: A conversation between a father and son". I love the post, but I also love that the Deseret News reprinted it.  (From sad experience, I never read the comments on newspaper articles, especially with Utah newspapers.  There are too many extremists on both ends of any discussion.) 

I recommend the article highly - and I am excerpting a couple of quotes just to show the general tone and view expressed in it:

"I know why you did. I get it. But we have to talk about it because how you look at a woman matters."

"It is a woman’s responsibility to dress herself in the morning. It is your responsibility to look at her like a human being regardless of what she is wearing. You will feel the temptation to blame her for your wandering eyes because of what she is wearing — or not wearing. But don’t. Don’t play the victim."

"There are two views regarding a woman’s dress code that you will be pressured to buy into. One view will say that women need to dress to get the attention of men. The other view will say women need to dress to protect men from themselves. Son, you are better than both of these."

Evolving, Generational Understanding of Modesty: I am Glad Views are Changing

Some time ago, I was reading an online thread in response to a post about modesty, and one commenter shared an experience where the young men at a church activity were not concerned about how she was dressed but, instead, it was their mothers who objected and made this young woman feel attacked and rejected.  She stressed that she was dressed modestly by any normal standard - but her breasts were larger than the other girls', and she couldn't hide her figure.  I was saddened that someone dressed properly, even by a standard that is more conservative than what I would advocate would be judged and made to feel bad in a situation like that - but what I found interesting is that it wasn't the young men who were concerned; it was their mothers.

This experience happened decades ago, but it reinforces one thing that is encouraging:

Youth tend to be more open and less dogmatic than adults.

I think we all know that, but the encouraging thing to me is that our youth right now (and I am including young adults in that category) simply see the world differently than their parents and grandparents and are moving into "adult" roles in the Church at an earlier age than previously - especially the young women. I really like that movement, because I believe it will change the way we talk about things like modesty.

One simple yet important example of that is missionary attire for young women. My oldest daughter served a mission in 2013-2014.  She sent pictures regularly, and her mission had a mission blog where pictures were posted regularly. What the young women were wearing in those pictures was modest, by the best definition of that word - but much of what they were wearing would not have been allowed back when I served my mission. The colors, the way the clothes fit, the styles - almost everything about their clothing was different than when I served, and that is a very, very good thing. Seriously, my daughter was able to wear a stylish pencil skirt and blouse combination that didn't hide her figure in any way, and she was seen as modest - as she is. My daughter didn't have to worry about the reactions of "the mothers", even while she was serving a mission.

If such attire now is approved for missionaries, it won't be taken away when they return. Most of them won't allow that, and the young men who serve missions with them will be used to seeing them dressed that way.

It seems like a little thing, but when it comes to culture, it's not as little as it seems.

Jesus' Private, Intimate, Romantic and/or Sexual Life - and a Tribute to the Woman I Love

My 28th anniversary is today, so I have been thinking a lot the last few days about my marriage and how grateful I am that I met my wife 32 1/2 years ago - and the life we have shared since then.

I linked previously to a post by Jacob on By Common Consent entitled "Men, Sex and Modesty".  I came across an exchange I had in that thread with another commenter and felt like I should copy it as a separate post.  

The other person said:

“To the best of our knowledge, Christ loved women in a non-romantic way. He wasn’t dating them, trying to get their attention, wooing them, courting them, much less marrying and eventually having sex with them.”

I responded: 

We have nothing (absolutely nothing) to tell us one way or the other whether the assumption above is correct or not. Given our actual historical record, “to the best of our knowledge” can mean that Jesus did every single one of those things – and every argument I have heard that claims he did none of them is based on prior assumptions and not grounded in historical reality. Sure, he might have been celibate and lacked natural attractions – but that would deny an important part of how we view and talk about the Atonement, in my opinion.

Thus, I reject it and the argument flowing from it. 

The other person then accused me of being snarky, to which I replied (edited to combine three comments into one comprehensive comment): 

My response contains no snark whatsoever. None.

I reject the statement I quoted simply because it is based on an assumption that is not supported in the scriptural accounts we have. There literally is no way to say one way or the other, or anywhere in between, what Jesus thought, felt and did in regard to those things (how he loved women [romantically and/or non-romantically] and how he felt about “dating women, trying to get their attention, wooing them, courting them, much less marrying and eventually having sex with them"), since there is no context given of his life prior to his ministry. In fact, without the reference to Peter’s mother-in-law being sick, we would have nothing whatsoever about the intimate, private, romantic and sexual lives of any of Jesus’ closest disciples. We simply don’t know, and we ought to admit that rather than claiming we do to some degree.

In other words, there is no “to the best of our knowledge,” since there is no knowledge at all about those specific things. Lack of knowledge does not equal knowledge of anything except its lack – so there is nothing that can be extrapolated knowledgeably about things for which we have no detail.

Thus, “to the best of our knowledge” is useless when talking about how Jesus approached women romantically or sexually. The best of our knowledge in that field is the same as the worst of our knowledge – non-existent.

I personally believe Jesus was married and that he had a romantic, intimate and sexual life that he "laid down for his friends" when he became a minister and went on a mission, so to speak.  I might be wrong about that, since there simply is no way to know for certain, but I believe he experienced all we experience, in some way, and I believe that means he experienced our greatest joys as well as our greatest sorrows and sins.

Looking back on the last 32 years of my life, since I met my wife, and the last 28 years, since we were married, I choose to believe he experienced my greatest joy - that of being married to a woman whom I love with all my heart and soul.  I don't believe his life could be "perfect" (complete, whole, fully developed) without that experience. 

I Believe in the Principle of Modesty, but Not in the Way It Is Interpreted By Some

I have some communal responsibility for the messages I send through the actions I choose.

I have no argument whatsoever with that principle.

I alone am responsible, ultimately, for what I think and how I act - no matter what messages are being sent by others.

I have no argument whatsoever with that principle.

"Modesty" is a concept that embraces both of the principles above - an attempt to create a reasonable "middle ground" that doesn't emphasize the communal OR the individual above the other. Modesty is not about being "true" or "right"; it's about being "moderate", "reasonable" and "charitable".

Once moderation, reason and charity leave the equation, modesty no longer exists - and modesty can be very different things in very different cultures. It's not the exact line that is drawn that is important; it's if that middle ground line works for reasonable men and women within their community.

Overall, I have little passionate argument with the general idea of how modesty of dress is approached within the official standards of the LDS Church - meaning that I accept as a reasonable balance attire that covers garments for general, non-specific, public appearance by church members as the standard for adults. That leaves exceptions for differing activities where deviations from that norm make sense, while it also allows for those who want more restrictive guidelines for themselves to be able to dress as conservatively as they want.

Where my passionate argument exists is when the general, non-specific, church member, public appearance norm is applied to non-adults, non-LDS members and to situations outside that norm - and when the more strict norm becomes a de facto norm by dint of majority insistence. I also object to how it is almost exclusively women who bear the brunt of the responsibility - when male communal input outweighs communal female input, and women become walking pornography but men never hear about their effect on and responsibility toward women. I also object when women who actually are dressed "modestly" are seen as walking pornography, since that situation is a problem with the men who see them in ways they need not be seen.

For example, "more modest" really is being "immodest" - being out-of-balance. That's a great example of what I mean when I say that we collectively don't understand what modesty really means.

We are so steeped in a Victorian view of sex that we collectively see lots of things as wrong and pornographic that are only wrong and pornographic because we make them so. Nudity is not the same as pornography - but we are close to the point where we are collectively equating the two. That, to me, is the heart of the issue - and decoupling the two is the most important, effective "first step" I know.

One of Best, Most Poignant Comments about Modesty I Have Read

Someone who posted under the name "Mother-of-Three-Sons" wrote a comment in a thread on By Common Consent last year (to which I linked earlier) about modesty that touched me deeply.  It is a beautiful statement about our responsibility to teach modesty better than we typically do - to change the foundation of how we approach this topic in the LDS Church. 

I am sharing it here as a separate post, with some parts in bold, and I wish it could be read and discussed in every teenage, young adult and adult third-hour meeting the the Church:

As a mother of three sons, two of which are now married, I know the goal to help them respect women and themselves. Recently, my son finished a mission to Peru. His native companions from various parts of the country seemed to look passed half-dressed or ‘what we consider -to-be-immodestly-dressed-females’ and stay focused on their work as missionaries. The American, especially, Utah / Idaho natives serving missions there were in a constant state of anxiety and fear. The Peruvian native missionaries revealed their secret.

It is reverence and respect.

The body is a beautiful masterpiece. It is deserving of reverence and respect. It is most beautiful as it comes into the world, naked, newborn, fresh from Heaven.

Have reverence. Respect your feelings. To look, turn your head, and stare at anything God has created, because it is so beautiful, is healthy.

As a young teenager, at age 16, I was banned from the end of summer – Seminary Swim Party — unless I came wearing a thick, long t-shirt over my one piece bathing suit. My swimsuit was a very modest, racer back, high necked bathing suit made by Speedo. I was a surfer, and a gymnast, but had large breasts. The mother’s of the guys in my seminary class complained about the size of my breasts and how I was immodest in anything I would wear.

When I received the message from my seminary teacher, I cried. I loved to swim. The guys in my seminary class were all good friends. None of them ever made flirty or lascivious, or even remarked about the size of my breasts. They were respectful. They taught me to surf.

I went to the seminary party, but decided to wear a new dress I had bought for the coming school year. I sat at a table poolside and watched with incredible jealousy as other girls swam, played and had fun with all the guys.

That fall, my senior year, I was nominated and came in second place for ‘best figure’ among the girls in my class. I dreaded that title. I wished so badly, I had been voted, ‘most talented’ or ‘most likely to succeed’.

I am 50 years old now, and a grandmother of four. I hope to continue to teach reverence and respect. As an artist, my favorite study has been portrait and drawing of the human figure.

God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

And they were naked.

And not ashamed.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Commandments - Measurable or Subjective; and, Changing Our Discourse about Modesty

While putting the finishing touches on my Sunday School lesson prep tonight, I realized that it has been a few weeks since I've posted a summary here. We had Stake Conference; my wife taught the following week; we had General Conference last week; I forgot to post the summary from the last time I taught the class. Here is a VERY abbreviated summary of that last lesson:

With the topic being "commandments", we talked about the difference between commandments that are fairly objective and easily measured and those that are more subjective and impossible to measure consistently or universally. Since the students had mentioned the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity in the first week's lesson, we focused on those commandments again - and added modesty as another discussion point.

First, I asked the students to list the things that are part of the Word of Wisdom. All of the first answers they gave were the things from which we abstain, with the things that are encouraged coming after the forbidden things. We talked about how easy it is to define and quantify the prohibitions in the Word of Wisdom - how they are easily enforced - and how that contributes to them being the focal point of most discussions about it. We talked about how impossible it would be (or how bad it would be) if local leaders had to try to enforce the more ambiguous aspects of meat, fruit, vegetable and grain consumption, for example.

We then talked about the Law of Chastity and how there are some things that clearly are forbidden for everyone, while there are other aspects that are more open to individual interpretation - and how local leaders often view and enforce the more subjective aspects differently, especially with respect to teenagers.

We spent most of our time talking about the principle of modesty and what it means in its fullest, purest sense - moderation, in all things. We talked about how we focus almost completely on how we dress when we talk about modesty- and how we focus inordinately on how women dress. Every student, male and female, understood that distinction and thought it was wrong without any need for convincing from me - and their conservative / liberal orientation didn't make any difference in that regard. We talked about how there is almost no way to "measure" modesty of dress universally and have a definition that everyone will accept and upon which they will agree. (As a simple example, I had the shortest and the tallest students stand and asked how long a modest skirt would be that both of them could wear. That caused some serious laughs, but we talked about how even anatomy-focused measurements [like covering the knee] are arbitrary standards that are culturally-based.) We talked about modesty in language - and in house size - and in car purchase - and in cost of clothing - and in any other way that deals with moderation as a principle.

I finished the lesson with a direct statement to all of them. I told them flat-out that we need to quit blaming women (of any age) for the thoughts of men (of any age). I told them that I believe in the principle of modesty, but that I do NOT believe in it as a way for one group to control the thoughts of another group. I told them that if a man lusts after a woman he is not justified in blaming the woman for it, no matter what she wears or how she acts. I told them the way we often talk in the Church seems to blame the women and/or put the responsibility on them to keep the men's thoughts in line - and that such statements are wrong, and the students need to help put a stop to it in their own spheres of influence.

Two of the young women in the group thanked me specifically after the class for that part of the lesson.

Men, Sex & Modesty

Men, Sex and Modesty - Jaccob (By Common Consent)

Modesty: There are So Many Lessons in This Picture

I have said often that I am not comfortable with the idea that women are responsible for the thoughts men have when looking at women.  I believe in the concept and principle of modesty in dress for men and women, but I believe the responsibility for one's thoughts ultimately lies with each person - not the person on whom the thoughts are focused. 

The picture in the link below is perhaps the best example of why I feel that way:

"A picture is worth 1,000 words" (Patheos)

Modesty: Extremism Is Not a Good Thing

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with modesty as a standard.

 None. Zilch. Nada. Zero.

 I really like the general definition of modesty as, "Moderation in all things" - although there are times when extreme measures are warranted on either side of the continuum. It's when modesty becomes an obsessive focus on one aspect (in this case, how people dress), as well as a hedge about the law (moving the lines to avoid coming anywhere near the edge of the law), and the hedge obscures the path itself (so people lose sight of what modesty in dress really means), and the ideal disappears from sight (when extremity in dress is seen as modesty) that I am concerned - and we have too many members who have lost sight of the ideal, in my opinion.

For example, more clothing that covers more of one's body is not modesty when it moves past moderation; rather, it becomes extremism (like a full-scale burkha), which is the opposite of modesty.  Complete, shapeless coverage when in public is simply the opposite extreme of full nudity in public - and both are equally "immodest". 

The BYU-Idaho example that occurred a few years ago is a classic one.

The Church and BYU-Idaho didn't ban anything the young woman was wearing, but an administrator and an employee stretched the definition of modesty so badly that it made both organizations look stupid - and necessitated a general statement reaffirming that, in deed, nothing she was wearing was forbidden. Furthermore, the young woman in question was the RELIEF SOCIETY PRESIDENT in her ward and had gone straight from a meeting with her Bishop to the testing center. She was covered from neck to toe in clothes that weren't even tight (not skinny jeans, but standard boot-cut jeans), but one guy apparently was distracted by her curves and exercised "a little authority, as (he) suppose(d)," to define modesty in a ridiculous way.  *sigh*

Sometimes, we really are our own worst enemies - and sometimes it's because we restrict meaning and build such high hedges about the law.

An Expansive View of "Chastity"

Each month this year as I have focused on a particular characteristic of godliness listed in the Sermon on the Mount, one thing that has become apparent is that developing a characteristic of godliness as the underlying foundation can eliminate multiple sins. For example, developing humility (becoming poor in spirit) reduces pride, which in turn can lessen or eliminate a natural tendency to take offense, lose one's temper, say or do harmful things to others, etc. This month's resolution was taken from the injunction in Matthew 5:27-28, particularly the statement: "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

I decided to make my resolution for the month "Become More Chaste in Thought and Deed" specifically because I believe the godly characteristic of chastity is the one highlighted in this passage. Rather than being hyper-sensitive to any and all possibilities for sexual stimulation and avoiding all such exposure, I believe the godly way to avoid the type of temptation embodied in "looking upon a woman to lust after her" is found in an expansive definition of "chastity" - one that goes beyond the more limited definition of avoiding sexual activity.

One definition for "chaste" that fits this construct is:

Pure in thought and act; innocent; free from lewdness and obscenity, or indecency in act or speech; modest (as, a chaste mind; chaste eyes).

The interesting association in this definition is the use of the word "modest" - which in context is defined as: "limited or moderate in amount, extent, etc." In other words, taking both of these definitions in the context of the admonition in Matthew, the underlying characteristic that Jesus appears to be addressing is "moderation" - being able to see and appreciate physical beauty without going to any extreme, without including "lewdness, obscenity, indecency, lust, etc." This is a much more comprehensive and fundamentally empowering / liberating view of "chastity" than a simple abstinence from proscribed activities. Also, and this is critical, the definition highlights being "chaste" as something primarily within the individual.

I am reminded of a story I heard once. I don't know if it is historically accurate, but it illustrates this characteristic in a very simple and direct way. According to this story, a woman notorious for traveling in the nude (Lady Godiva, perhaps) was passing a group of religious leaders (the Pope and some Cardinals, perhaps). One of the Cardinals told everyone to cover their eyes and look away, but the Pope did not do so. The woman saw the reaction her passing had created, including the fact that the Pope did not look away - and she asked him why he did not do so. His response was something like:

You are a daughter of God, and he has blessed you with great beauty. I appreciate that gift God has given and praise him for his gracious gift.

I believe it is important to remember that Adam and Eve covered their nakedness only after Satan pointed out that they were naked and that others would see it. I mention this simply to stress that the typical restrictions we employ as a part of this mortal existence are in place NOT because physicality and sexuality are bad things, but because we do not want to place undue temptation and stimulation in the path of others. However, if all were "chaste" in their thoughts and deeds, such restrictions would not be necessary. In other words, we seek "modesty" (moderation) in dress as an attempt to strike a proper balance between the ideal and the practical - between where we wish we were and where we are.

True "chastity," therefore, includes not only conforming to the societal constraints intended to avoid placing temptation in the path of others but also having our hearts changed to not be tempted no matter our surroundings - to not "lust after her" even when "looking upon a woman" cannot be avoided. I don't have a simple solution or suggestion for each person. I know it is neither the extreme conservatism of the Taliban in Afghanistan nor the extreme liberalism of South Beach, Florida - but I know that I must be able to walk in either world and be free of "lust" in order to fulfill the standard Jesus holds up in these verses.

In summary, my being chaste in thought and deed is MY responsibility. I can't blame the environment around me - or those whose appearance "naturally" might tempt me - or claim the devil made me do it. I must change myself ultimately, even as I change my exposure and environment and actions until I reach the point where they no longer matter. I can't dive into tempting situations in order to test my control, but rather I can change my thoughts and actions until I can face such situations without temptation. If I never reach that ultimate objective, I must continue to structure my environment to reduce temptation, but eliminating all possible temptation can never be the default. In the passage being discussed, the woman is NOT at fault for her beauty; the man is at fault for how he reacts to it. At its most fundamental level, "chastity" is NOT imposed externally; it is developed internally.

The Taliban is not correct in its interpretation of chastity; Jesus is.