I am not going to comment on most Mormons because they are all over the place on this. But man, are we modest. Not only are we covered up all the time, but I never buy ANY clothing unless it’s on sale. I favor tees @ $10/each from Avenue. Jeans and slacks are the same. I own two skirts and all the blouses and tops that go with one go with the other. We DO buy expensive shoes, but find they last much longer. I’ve had the same pair of black loafers for three years, and just bought new tennies, seven years after the last time I bought tennies (admittedly I’m not good about exercising.) The kid has to wear uniforms to school, so that’s what we buy him. He’s needed uniform t-shirts for summer camp, too, so aside from some sweats and church clothes, all his clothing is mandated by his occupations – student and camper. Left Field is not required to dress up for work, so he has a large collection of colored casual shirts and several pairs of cargo pants.

My “good” furniture was handed down from my parents (they’d had in for 15 years) in 1994. I drive a 1993 Dodge Spirit. The paint is peeling. DH drives an ’04 Corolla. My older son drives our ’02 Cavalier and he’s kept it in immaculate condition. Our house is spacious but needs a lot of sprucing up. Our back door blew open during Katrina, so we were able to buy new carpet.

The only really luxurious, top of the line, heirloom quality thing we own is our bed. Left Field made it. It’s made of solid cherry. We bought a really good mattress. It is the best bed in the world. I really don’t like to travel much because my bed is so wonderful.

Modest? Heck yeah. Is it lame to boast about how modest you are?

Is it lame to boast about how modest you are?

Kind of.

I think the clothes problem is a real issue in our ward in Sandy, Utah (along with cars, houses, and plastic surgery). It feels like very week is a fashion show, with the bishop’s wife leading the collection. It occurred to me how bad it was getting last week when I didn’t go to an enrichment thing because I didn’t want to dress up but knew I couldn’t go in what I’d been wearing all day.

We live in a modest house. I bought my car at Carmax and my wife’s is a freebie from her part-time employer. Our one big indulgence is vacation time — we love to go on road trips (and sometimes people assume that we spend a ton of money, but we don’t).

I’m a minimalist when it comes to pants and shoes — generally, I’ll buy two pairs of jeans/casual slacks and just wear them out. I have one pair each of dress, casual, and tennis shoes. I have enough dress shirts to get by (one white, 2 blue). I’m in jeans/shorts/tee shirts as much as possible…

My sense is that “costly apparel” doesn’t mean quite the same thing that it did before mechanization of sewing and textile manufacture. It’s a different world than the one that gave us fairy tales about poor tailors laboring for weeks to dress the king.

I think anyone who is trying to call attention to themselves through outward appearance has got some issues to deal with, whether it is costly, extravagant, goth, tattoos, tight wranglers and turkey plate belt buckles, my personal least favorite, the black leather fringed harley branded, or what ever. I think that walking around as a living spectacle is not spiritually healthy, particularly after the teen years, when one would hope that one’s personality would have gelled sufficiently to preclude having to put one on like a costume every morning.

I don’t know that I am comfortable grouping consumerism with provocative dress, the arguments against either are not the same as with the other.

I think some of the comments are pretty indicative, conspicuous, self-congratulating modesty is really just dressed up cheapskatedness, and I wonder if if really delivers the same benefits and it certainly doesn’t indicate where any money saved is actually going.

The problem with being down on costly clothes in general is the clothes I have the cost more LAST longer. I need to buy professional clothes for work, and I can tell the difference between the tailored wool pants from Dillards and the cheap ones from New York and Company. Things like fit and quality make a difference if you wear an article of clothing one or two times every week.

When it comes to outer clothing, it is even more worth it to buy the best you can afford. As I have been able to afford more expensive clothes, I find that I go shopping considerably less often, in part because they last longer, and in part because they fit better so I don’t hate how everything I own looks on me and go out to get something else to wear.

John Mansfield–really? So now that clothing manufacturing is not as tedious, we are free to buy outlandishly expensive clothes rather than buying modestly and, for example, donating money to the Perpetual Education Fund? The idea that this guideline might be out of date has never occured to me. Anything else I don’t need to worry about anymore (aside from eating kosher?)

anon bishop’s wife–I thought the inclusion of that detail simply served to make the writing more interesting. Substitute “Primary Chorister” for “Bishop’s Wife” and it has the same feel. No harm intended, I’m sure.

MAC–good point that being frugal is not necessarily modest–if the spare money is being used for a nice cause, great, but it might just be beefing up the retirement. Still, I don’t think frugality is problematic, and riches (and the love thereof) can be. Do you not think that living a modest lifestyle (re:consumerism) is important? It seems like a great goal to me, but I would love to hear a defense of consumerism if you would like to write one up.

Peter LLC–good point. In my neighborhood, I feel really self-righteous driving an 8 year old car, but if I move, it might well be the nicest one on the block. So can I measure my modesty against those around me? Probably not. Yet it is really hard not to.

Katie P.–I guess just avoid the gold emroidery?

annegb–I don’t know about heaven–I’m hoping for no possessions there.

“Anything else I don’t need to worry about anymore”

You don’t have to worry about toiling most of the day to merely feed and clothe your family. Lamentable that the advantages of the industrial revolution have been lost on you.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Consumer Expenditures in 2006 reports that for that year households averaged $48,398 of total expenditures, $1,874 of which went to apparrel. That’s four percent of spending.

I think way too many people are too prideful and snobbish about how little they care about looking nice, having nice cars, etc. I work and have a great wardrobe. Probably most people think I spend a fortune on my clothes but that’s relative. What’s a fortune for some is nothing for somoene else. Almost all my clothes are purchased at huge clearance sales. I’ve purchased suits at Off Saks (the Saks Fifth Ave outlet) that were $1000 retails for $150. Amen to another poster that nicer clothes usually fit better, hang better, and last a lot longer. Shoes… I get them at clearance, too, but I buy really high quality shoes that last forever– Uggs, Stuart Weitzman, Coach, Donald Pliner… My car is a late model Volvo that will last for 200,000+ miles. I got it Volvo certified from the dealer at a great price. Travel is an enormous priority for our family, but we travel off season and often use frequent flyer miles. This year alone we took our kids to Europe and a cruise and are going to Maui in a few months but you’d be surprised at how little we paid. The reality is that I feel better in a nice home, wearing nice clothing, driving a nice reliable car. It might be prideful to one, but for others its about just feeling good each day and reaping the rewards of working really hard and enjoying the spoils. If outward appearance means nothing, why do we care how people dress to church on Sunday or in the temple? Outward dress does mean something, even to those who profess to not care. I have had some nips and tucks, too. I could afford it, it made me feel better, and why should anyone care? What’s the difference between a little plastic surgery and wearing makeup and getting your hair colored?

The comments thus far have all been very interesting…

I think we tend to judge those around us who we view as being “extravagant” in their dress, car choice, or home purchase. But what about our criticism of those who are fairly homely in their appearance? I know several women who have inspired the thought, “It’s a shame she doesn’t take more care with her hair/makeup/clothes. She’s attractive but looks so dowdy!” These women probably feel they’re being very modest in their appearance but where does modest become sloppy or worn out?

I probably fall in the middle of modest dress and purchases. My husband and I are working toward finally buying a home and while we can “afford” one at the $300K mark (not really all that impressive in the Boston area), we’re looking for houses about $50K under that so that we are at a lower risk for losing our home at some point due to illness or unemployment but also because we don’t feel the need to purchase the ultimate house we can afford. When it came to buying baby accessories, furniture, and toys for our first child we also decided to be more conservative in our choices and chose to forgo any baby furniture other than a co-sleeper and a baby swing. But this is more because we lean toward minimalism in general and not because of extreme efforts to be “modest” in our purchases. And then last summer we dropped a few thousand dollars to go to Aruba for a week. Was that also a “modest” purchase? For us it was. We got an extremely good deal and didn’t have to go into debt for any of our trip. But it could easily be deemed as extravagant by others.

I believe the “judge lest ye be not judged” is one of the more challenging commandments out there. It’s human nature to evaluate those around us and use that information to frame our own choices. In fact, learning from the experiences of our peers could be deemed necessary. But when we’re judging the appearance of others and placing ourselves in the More Righteous category because of it, I think we probably earn a little black mark in our record in heaven (and I probably have more than my fair share at this point).

Do you not think that living a modest lifestyle (re:consumerism) is important? It seems like a great goal to me, but I would love to hear a defense of consumerism if you would like to write one up.

I am not defending consumerism, I just don’t like the idea of saying that dressing slutty and buying a Beemer are morally equivalent. It is more complex than that and I the last thing we need to hear is one of the YM saying that he will discuss not getting a tattoo when Sister so-and-so reduces the number of shoes in her closet.

And while I understand that displaying wealth for the sake of displaying it presents some real problems it hardly encompasses the anti-consumption argument. We all consume to some degree, consumption drives a huge percentage of successful economies and is responsible for creating wealth and alleviating poverty disproportionate to its share of the worlds GDP.

But really what is your gripe? Why is a modest lifestyle a goal? I don’t disagree, I just don’t think saying McMansion = bikini is an argument.

If I buy a big old house and restore it because I am passionate about the restoration am I less culpable for a larger mortgage and more living space than I really need. What if I am glad to finally purchase a post-graduation/first real job new car after spending my teen years being picked up in mom’s 20 year old minivan with three hubcaps and a mismatched quarter panel, am I wrong?

I am saying that I think we still need to be thoughtful about all of our consumption,

That’s an empty argument. We should be thoughtful about everything that we do. You still haven’t said why consumption requires any special attention.

So far all I see is fluffy feel-good anti-commercialism smugly couched in a reference to modesty.

What is the spiritual benefit to a reduced-ostentatious lifestyle?

Is it to better direct our financial resources? Is it to be less Kenneth Copeland and more Siluan Kolesnikov? What?

I am saying that I think we still need to be thoughtful about all of our consumption, including something as minute as clothing (because it is a very visible aspect of our consumption).”

How about light bulbs as in Long Day’s Journey into Night? “There’s no reason to have the house ablaze with electricity at this time of night, burning up money!” “I’ve proved by figures if you left the light bulb on all night it wouldn’t be as much as one drink!” “To hell with your figures!”

I agree fully with MAC’s 2 paragraphs. I nominate him as the most “modest” blogger in this thread.

ESO,

I would be curious to see a poll where you can pick which idea of modesty is more spiritually dangerous.

Dressing/body issues

or

Possessions

They are both dangerous of course but for different reasons.

Without having read the comments, I’m guessing I’m not the only one to say so, but I’m actually pretty immodest right now… Don’t need to elaborate more, but you asked a private question so you get a private answer!

I think the “costly apparel” thing is pretty meaningless. Who here is willing to say that a member cannot be faithful if she owns a Rolex instead of a Timex, or wears Bobby Brown makeup instead of Revlon, or has an expensive and recognizably designer brand handbag or wallet instead of a knock-off from Target, or wears Johnston Murphy or Allen Edmunds shoes instead of Payless?

There’s an element of class envy that runs through the entire scriptures, and it is unfortunate because it creates sinful dispositions such as envy and distrust, like when Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to go to heaven (perhaps this isn’t true of rich women). It’s pretty obvious to any dispassionate reader that Jesus (or whomever put these words in his mouth) doesn’t know the first thing about economics or about rich people. If it weren’t for the willingness of people to buy costly apparel, clothing would still cost a mint — like John Mansfield’s stats that show that clothing cost 3 times more 100 years ago than it does today. The economic principle that Jesus never grasped is gloriously simple: Without demand, there is never any appreciable supply. Thus have vain rich people improved the lot of the average clothing buyer more than anything accomplished by those who divested themselves of riches to follow the foolish admonition put into Christ’s mouth when he told the rich man to sell everything he owned.

Man is that he might have joy, and Mormons do not believe in asceticism. If we interpret our obligations to our family, our community, and our fellow man to entail that we must be materially miserable, then we show disrespect for the wonderful bounties of this world that God has blessed us with.

That said, the implied correlation between righteousness and wealth that underlies so much of the Utah Mormon mindset is more detestable than costly apparel. In my opinion, Mormons should try to eliminate the belief that material riches correlate to righteousness and focus on being less showy about the material things they enjoy.

I have,my entire sentient life, hated hated hated hated (sufficient repition?) these discussions about modesty, because the bulk of beauty is out of any given girl/woman’s hand. A stunner is modest in a burkha. She can wear anything she wants and is understood by all and sundry to still be desirable, beautiful,temple-worthy, imminently child producing, and so it goes. Those of us of modest looks must parse very carefully betwen “modesty” and the much more dire damning options to get so much as noticed. I call foul. Also fowl, but that’s a different post. Bah humbug.

Anon for this, nonsense.

Djinn reminded me of a Dilbert comic strip. Dilbert and Dogbert were walking along, and their conversation went something like this:

“I think what is inside a person is more important than outward appearances.”
“What would cause other people to bother to learn what’s inside someone else?”
“The person has to look for opportunities to throw out hints about his wonderful internal qualities.

“It’s pretty obvious to any dispassionate reader that Jesus (or whomever put these words in his mouth) doesn’t know the first thing about economics or about rich people”

And, of course, there’s the less heterodox interpretation that Jesus–an all-knowing deity–had a perfect knowledge of market-based economics, but chose to express to the affluent that there are serious spiritual dangers in loving your wealth in a simple way they could understand.

The problem with “anon for this”‘s list of recommendations to djinn is that most of them are, well, superficial. But not all.

Nasamondele, that is a truly ugly comment. I hope you don’t have anything to do with with the young women in your ward. Be decent; is it so difficult?

John Mansfield, I never thought I’d say this, but thank you.

One word:
Escalade

#50,
You need to watch “What not to Wear”. Heavy girls, not so attractive girls, all types end up looking amazing with some attention to clothes, makeup, and hair.

It’s a start.

Anon, let me get this straight. You’re claiming that Marilyn Monroe wasn’t especially pretty and that her appeal to the world had nothing to do with purposefully highlighting her sexual appeal, including loud suggestions of availability. You think that people noticed her because of a happy, confident demeanor. Can you point to a single photograph of the woman that supports this unusual idea of yours?

anon for this, I can’t believe I’m saying this. Your remarks are offensive to humans, to females. Get this through your head. My remarks were not about me. I feel unclean for even having to mention this, but, let’s just say, not my issue. But, by your attitude you actually hurt others whose issue it is. It is so difficult to be female in this society. The church should be a sanctuary, not somewhere where you’re lectured about painfully childish issues about personal hygiene which you have known since your early teen years. Be decent, be kind, get a clue, get Bro. Mansfield’s phone number, and let him set you straight

It may surprise you, anon for this, that those of us who draw the male gaze have problems too, just not those you mention.

I’m feeling worse. You all are feel free to think of me as ugly as you wish.

#58 djinn,

You’re way off base. You just repeated what anon has been saying. Anon has been saying there is more to “attractive” than good looks, and therefore- sex appeal/flaunting immodestly.

You’re the one that has been disagreeing with that idea. Anon has said that people have control over whether they are attractive or not. You denied that.

And calling out men and the Church(?!).

Honestly, WTF?

Poor sisters, indeed.

# 62 read this from comment #57:

The church should be a sanctuary, not somewhere where you’re lectured about painfully childish issues about personal hygiene which you have known since your early teen years.

And what exactly are my weak arguments? And what are the things I am thinking?

That women have some control over their appearance and that such controls do not need to include immodesty? That behavior factors into attractiveness, which is a controllable variable?

What arguments are you making MB? That you’re either born hot or you’re not? That women, or men for that matter, have no control of whether they are attractive, as djinn has said? Its all on the inside that matters? Exterior is just that- superficial? We’re saying (forgive me if I’m wrong to include you, Anon) that is B.S. Internal character and external characteristics combine to for “attractiveness”. There are numerous, numerous scientific studies to support that argument.

#58- “Heavy girls, not so attractive girls”- I suppose I should have spelled this out a little more, like using clinical terms: obese, overweight and otherwise-commonly-assumed-to-be-unattractive girls. But I assumed I was speaking to adults.

People in such situations who by some life choices have neglected their appearance can be beautiful people, indeed, but I’m sure they would all tell you what they tell the people giving them makeovers: (i.e. Oprah) “I feel different. I feel beautiful.” And Oprah would say, “You look absolutely incredible. You’re glowing.” Of course that’s anecdotal evidence of the effect of external attention on internal spirit (confidence, self-image, self-esteem, self-worth).

That’s the story of a complete person. Someone who understands the value of the exterior as well as the interior. And those things are not mutually exclusive, we are arguing. Unless some surgery was involved, those people have the same features and same weight. But they feel different-better.

And you deny the power of that. So let the pseudonym insults cut both ways, and worse when your real name exhibits little desire for understanding.

You’re right. I suppose makeover shows are rather indulgent. “Little House on the Prairie” is more appropriate.

What’s stupid is that you take such a strong stand against it. I don’t see a reason to. What exactly rubs you wrong?

I think appropriate and savvy style is a huge plus in a person. It shows they care about their own appearance, but are not obsessed with appearance. That, in turn says something about what they think of themselves. Would you disagree?

And one more woman who turns from Goth/skull ‘n crossbones/sequins to a more mature and appropriate approach to fashion/makeup/hair and generally- themselves- is a good outcome, regardless what show produces it.

Frankly, MB, I don’t have a clue where you’re coming from in this discussion.

I apologize if anyone thought I was calling out the Church. I was calling out those on the thread that gave “boy” advice that us “girls” know in spades and dollars, and brands, and etc etc etc. that we are forced to deal with. Because we are humans. Any unkindness towards the church as an institution (as opposed to individual people who have written on this thread–nowhere near the same) is completely unintentional. Forgive me.

ESO,

Certainly not, but if I were, I’m quite sure that I could get a screaming deal on one at the moment as all the faux-rich in the area dump their bling as fast as they can.

djinn, I’ll thank you not to feel for my daughters (or mention them). I don’t trust you to.

I’ll take your comment as agreement, though- What Anon and I have been saying this whole time is that people are more than the sum total of their looks. Especially if that were a sentence that made sense. Its like three cliches jumbled together into one jello salad of a statement.

It’s not rocket surgery, you know.

No, you have explicity with references, very conveniently referring to a woman’s value as directly related to how well you think she looks. I find this appalling, I will give you credit for dealing kindly with your daughters, as I have no reason to believe otherwise; other women, not so much. Please esp. reference comment #40. You really are a psychologist? I am honestly horrified.

Happy Valentines day, one and all.

Happy Valentines day, one and all.

Drive on, mfranti.

Against my better judgement, I’m going to wade back into this discussion.

nasamomdele, I’m going to take you at your word and believe that you are sincere when you say that you want to treat women as whole persons and not just judge them on the basis of outward appearance. But you can see, I hope, how people might have misread you. When you give advice to watch “what Not to Wear”, when you tell women to pay attention to their hair, makeup, and clothes, you are accentuating the superficial and, conciously or not, emphasizing it. Even the appeal to personality and smile and style doesn’t work, because we are still placing great importance on a woman being attractive, even if we differ on the source of that attractiveness. Do you understand how that can be a message that makes life hard for women, particularly young women?

I just found out today that a friend’s daughter died, DIED, because of anorexia. She was 16 years old, 5’4″, 135 lbs and decided she was too fat. She went into a spiral from which she was unable to recover.

Comments about attractiveness are easy to misread, and I think those have been taken in the wrong way. But #40, “Spoken like an ugly person,” is very hard to misread- it was a very effective self-poisoning of the well for every comment that came after.

nasamomdele,

I just wanted to make sure you know that I think your comment #84 speaks very well of you. I also want you to understand how much I appreciate it.

Thank you!

nasamomdele, to do my best to speak clearly (which, I confess, is quite the stretch) you, I am taking from your comments are male. Females feel a tremendous (like actually life-threatening) pressure to be beautiful. Girls die. Girls die. Girls die. trying to meet your ideas of beauty. Stop it now. Accept them however they look, just do. This is a matter of life and death. The “glow” business is nonsense. Every girl on the planet knows where she fits on the beauty scale. Really. If there is a girl in your vicinity who has serious problems, it’s probably because she’s seriously depressed. Don’t talk about her looks. Don’t suggest any stupid television programs. Believe me, she knows what the problem is; telling her, or treating her as an invisible creature will only make matters worse. Appreciate her for who she is, regardless of her looks. Capiche? I really don’t think you’re evil, just clueless. I remember going to a swimming pool and seeing all these overweight ugly guys strutting around in speedos, thinking they were “it.” Same pool, in Utah, beautiful young girls wearing beyond modest into shape hiding swimsuits–clearly to hide whatever outline of their body that might be visible.

The last sentence is to clue you in to the difference between men and women. Men really don’t care. For girls/women, we care so much we might die. Got that? DIE. Don’t contribute to the pain around you that you don’t see, not I believe because you are uncaring, just because you suffer from never having been a teenage girl.

Shutting up now.

Men don’t DIE from eating disorders, suicide, or other untimely demises because of self-image/esteem/confidence issues?

It’s getting impossible to take you seriously.

OK, you’re no longer off the hook; nasamomdele. How many men die from anorexia, compared to women?

Your hook is the absolute least of my worries.

The degree of one’s emotion varies inversely with one’s knowledge of the facts: the less you know the hotter you get.
– Bertrand Russell.

Bertrand Russell was wrong, in his quote, as he was in the Principia, Phhhhfffft. I really loved his philosophy book, plus his view that no one should ever rewrite. Unfortunately I find rewriting, in all but blog posts a necessity. Plus what was the deal with him and Wittgenstein anyway?

I realize that I left off one important point; the reason not to mention those shows is that it tells the girls in question that you think something is wrong with them. As a guy, you may find this information helpful and even kindly; us females see things differently. I actually believe you that you meant no harm, neither do I. Mostly.

I agree with Mark Brown on pretty much all counts.

(I ought to hotkey that phrase.)

I would like to apologize to nasamomdele, I feel I have been too harsh, and have an excuse (and feel I should use it while it remails valid) This is obviously a hot-button issue for me and I am actually in a post-op state right now; future djerky comments by me will require other excuses, taking suggestions…… or maybe I’ll actually get well and be able to somethinig other than annoy random readers-by.

A bit more on Russell; no never mind.

I’m a plain jane. My daughter is beautiful, the head turning, men stop walking and stare, kind of beautiful. I think she was switched at birth or is a fortunate mutation. We traveled together for three weeks in Europe. Until I traveled with her I never fully understood the advantages of female beauty. Rooms were upgraded, seats offered, free desserts brought after meals. Still, she sometimes hates her beauty. Men think she’s a dumb blonde, she graduated college at 18, girls don’t want to be her friend, she sometimes is lonely.