What has changed?


Janice
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok, before I begin the real topic of this thread, I want to state unequivocally (I had to look up the spelling of that word) that I am NOT taking sides on this issue one way or the other. I am only stating that it seems, in the last 50 years (or even less?) our attitude has changed on this subject, and I'm really curious if you agree that it has, and if do, why.

If the moderators deem this topic unfit for this forum and want to close it or remove it, I won't be in the least bit offended. But I hope they wont! :)

Ok, here goes....

I often read the blogs over at Feminist Mormon Housewives. Here's an excerpt from a recent blog entitled "Locker Rooms and Aging".

I’ve noticed that in the gym locker room, it seems the older women, the ones that have a few years of accumulated fat around the belly and gray hair, don’t care as much about changing and showering in full view of others. They appear to be comfortable. Unlike the youngish, and firm, women and girls who not only don’t shower and change where anyone can see them, but go to great lengths lest one catch any glimpse of their forbidden bits.

That in and of itself is an interesting topic for another discussion. But it's not what I want to bring up here. In reading the replies I came across this (reply # 66):

You’re right about the generational nudity thing. Skinny dipping or being naked in the locker room was just how it was. On a hot day by the river near my house, the lagoon was teeming with naked kids…we just peeled the clothes off without a backward glance. On the lake, at my pepere’s cottage, all the cousins were sent out back after supper with a bar of Ivory (because it floats)and cloths to wash- every age was naked and many of the adults would wander out to wash too. It was just how it was out in the country.

Again, I AM NOT saying this is okay, or that everyone (or anyone) should start letting this happen in their house. Not at all! But, I've heard from multiple sources that this used to be very common.

My dad grew up on a farm in the heart of the "other" Mormon heartland, southern Alberta, where 99% of the population was LDS. (Still mostly is). He tells me that when he was a kid, the swimming hole in the local creek would be full of naked kids swinging from ropes, diving into the river, etc. Most were boys but girls would often join, some of whom would leave on their underwear, some would leave nothing on.

I've heard older adults tell of both co-ed and single-gender swimming lessons at the YMCA where swim suits were prohibited.

On a more "tame" subject, but still along the same lines, I recently learned that about ten years ago my high school removed the group showers in both the girls and boys locker rooms and installed individual showers. The dorms at BYU have done the same. I have heard the MTC did as well in the Elder's showers... the Sisters showers have been private for many decades already.

Thus the subject of this thread... what has changed? Why has skinny dipping down in the creek become anti-cultural, co-ed or not? Why are single-gender group showers quickly becoming a thing of the past? Have we become more enlightened? Have we realized how immoral and immodest we used to be? or is this due to outside influences like media?

I honestly don't have the answer, but would like to hear your input. Assuming the moderators allow this discussion to persist, I will refrain from taking any "sides".

Thanks,

Janice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting phenomenon- and a good change, I think. I don't know the reasons for the paradigm shift, but I think the advancement of technology has made individual showers in public areas feasible. Personally, I believe the human body is something that is, in and of itself, sacred. The exposure of it to others should be done as little as feasibly possible, even just to members of the same sex. Personally, I see the shift as a good thing.

BTW, 'Feminist Mormon Housewives' sounds like an awesome blog... I can't visit it unfortunately, because my home computer blocks blog groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting phenomenon- and a good change, I think. I don't know the reasons for the paradigm shift, but I think the advancement of technology has made individual showers in public areas feasible. Personally, I believe the human body is something that is, in and of itself, sacred. The exposure of it to others should be done as little as feasibly possible, even just to members of the same sex. Personally, I see the shift as a good thing.

BTW, 'Feminist Mormon Housewives' sounds like an awesome blog... I can't visit it unfortunately, because my home computer blocks blog groups.

In addition to the bolded part: I also think advancement of technology has made private showering and no-skinny-dipping necessary for our own protection. Camera phones are easy to use without anyone knowing what you're doing. No flash, just pretend like you're talking on the phone or texting and take a picture of someone's naked body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would chalk down this cultural change to two major influences. First is the massive increase of child predators in the United States since 1960. One could easily imagine that if you were the local child molestor, and statistics tell us that in today's world there is always one, he or she would be hanging out at the local swimming hole. The other influence is the rise and general emergence of the homosexual culture in America. Note that both influence stem from the 60s counter-culture which promoted, whether intentionally or not, every form of sexual deviancy.

I know this is not a very popular opinion, but hey maybe hemlock is tasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When my Dad was a boy (he was born in Salt Lake City in 1932) the Deseret Gym was for men only. It was finally opened to women when I was a teenager. The women's shower's were not open. There were individual shower stalls. (This was back in the 60s.)

My grandparents were born in 1901 and 1903 ... skinny dipping outside was not allowed for girls, period. Women were never naked outside. This attitude went back quite far in my family tree. When my ancestors crossed the plains places for women were blocked off on the river or stream and women went separately.

In my family older women not caring about being naked in a locker just didn't happen.

If there is a change I see it as a good one. There needs to be more modesty in our world. Today its a safety issue for our children.

applepansy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be worth noting (but not discussing in detail) that even temple ordinances not too long ago were altered in such a way as to increase modesty. (Not that the ordinances were inherently immodest beforehand; but some additional "safeguards"--if you will--were introduced.)

I'd say that it's mostly a wheat-tares thing. Society isn't as innocent as it used to be--as the libertines become more openly hedonistic, the rest of us become more puritanical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be worth noting (but not discussing in detail) that even temple ordinances not too long ago were altered in such a way as to increase modesty. (Not that the ordinances were inherently immodest beforehand; but some additional "safeguards"--if you will--were introduced.)

I assume you're referring to the initiatories. That was changed sometime in the last three years or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that it's mostly a wheat-tares thing. Society isn't as innocent as it used to be--as the libertines become more openly hedonistic, the rest of us become more puritanical.

Brilliant analysis. I had never formulated that phenomenon into words, but I like the way you did.

I hadn't thought of almost any of the other points brought up. They make me wonder...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a growing same gender attraction and recruitment going on in our society. Those that have been burned by experience will avoid any possible repeat. Those that have not experienced anything may be blind to what is going on around them. Older people are often left out of the loop.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Agreed.

My grandfather and I had a discussion about this a few years ago. He didn't understand why gay people would admit they were gay. Because as he said, "back in my day there were plenty of gays, they just kept their mouth shut about it".

Homosexual tendencies weren't invented in 1969. People just didn't practice it, and if they did practice it they didn't talk about it.

I think the main reasoning for this change is a declining innocence in society. Others don't view kids running around naked as innocent fun anymore, it's considered indecent. We as a society tend to turn even the most innocent thing into pornography. Even if we don't personally see it as such, we have to respond to it accordingly because people have bastardized the most innocent things.

One thing i've noticed, is that i've always been more comfortable in immodest clothing in front of men than I have been women. I know i'm not the only one either. My senior year of high school was only 5 years ago. The girls in my class wouldn't undress in front of one another in the locker rooms, at all. We didn't even have showers in our locker rooms.

But they didn't have a problem sleeping with half of our male classmates. So nudity was only a problem around other girls. Part of it is the fact that girls are so amazing vicious to one another, and we certainly weren't going to give each other the opportunity to find imperfections in our bodies to use later as ammunition. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. We as a society tend to turn even the most innocent thing into pornography. Even if we don't personally see it as such, we have to respond to it accordingly because people have bastardized the most innocent things.

This reminds me of a "contraversy" that came up a few years ago with a popular baby magazine (one that many OB offices give away for free). They had on their cover a close-up picture of a baby breastfeeding. It was taken from a side-angle, so you saw a profile of the baby's face, and the side of the breast. No areola was visible as the baby's mouth was covering it.

The magazine was innundated with mail about it, and I remember one of the letters they published that was written by someone who was offended by the cover, said that she "didn't want such pornography appearing in her mailbox". All I could think was :huh:??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of a "contraversy" that came up a few years ago with a popular baby magazine (one that many OB offices give away for free). They had on their cover a close-up picture of a baby breastfeeding. It was taken from a side-angle, so you saw a profile of the baby's face, and the side of the breast. No areola was visible as the baby's mouth was covering it.

The magazine was innundated with mail about it, and I remember one of the letters they published that was written by someone who was offended by the cover, said that she "didn't want such pornography appearing in her mailbox". All I could think was :huh:??

It's the slow polarization of good and evil, and the interesting social phenomena that are created when that polarization is introduced to society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the slow polarization of good and evil, and the interesting social phenomena that are created when that polarization is introduced to society.

Huh?

What does that have to do with Jenamarie's post?

If anything, it shows a tilt to the other extreme. When our society says a picture of a mother nursing her baby is obscene, what progress is that?

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no more homosexual behavior in locker rooms than there ever were. People are just more aware today that gay people exist, and they are more paranoid. Gays do not "recruit" anybody.

Gays don't recruit anybody, huh? You sure about that? A few years back the local high school girls softball team got into trouble for "recruiting". It was quite a game to see how many girls they could "turn".

As for locker rooms, they may not recruit, but I am sure a bit of "trolling" goes on. I am all for putting a towel on in the locker room while heading for the shower......but there are always lots of old gents who don't seem to care and walk around without....:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gays don't recruit anybody, huh? You sure about that? A few years back the local high school girls softball team got into trouble for "recruiting". It was quite a game to see how many girls they could "turn".

As for locker rooms, they may not recruit, but I am sure a bit of "trolling" goes on. I am all for putting a towel on in the locker room while heading for the shower......but there are always lots of old gents who don't seem to care and walk around without....:eek:

Yes, I am sure about that. You can't take a single incident and judge a people by it. Look, missionaries travel in pairs, they are not to teach a woman without a fourth person present. Does that mean that missionaries are predatory? Recently the church changed the rules so that male Sunday school teachers could not be alone with the children, ever. Does that mean LDS Sunday school teachers are predatory? Some cities have laws against men without children hanging around playgrounds. Does that make all men pedophiles? No, I think our society has simply become way to paranoid for their own good.

As for "trolling" in the locker room, there is probably an equal amount of "trolling" at the mall, the workplace, the carwash, the beach, wherever people mingle. Maybe you feel more vulnerable when wrapped in a towel, but 20 years ago, the same people were around doing the same thing. In fact, probably moreso, because now they don't have to be covert about their intentions.

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First is the massive increase of child predators in the United States since 1960.

I would state it differently. It's the massive increase of public awareness of child predators. They've always been there, we just were clueless.

Gays do not "recruit" anybody.

Gee, I guess that incredibly awkward episode in my teen years, getting hit on by the gay guy at work in the restroom was just my imagination.

Do you want to rephrase your statement? Mine is the 2nd anecdote on this thread, proving it wrong. You wanna change it to "some gays don't recruit" or "most gays" or something like that?

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would state it differently. It's the massive increase of public awareness of child predators. They've always been there, we just were clueless.

Gee, I guess that incredibly awkward episode in my teen years, getting hit on by the gay guy at work in the restroom was just my imagination.

Do you want to rephrase your statement? Mine is the 2nd anecdote on this thread, proving it wrong. You wanna change it to "some gays don't recruit" or "most gays" or something like that?

LM

How about, gays make up 10% of the population. You had one incident in your entire life. So, of the probably thousands of gays you have associated with (but probably didn't know were gay), one of them acted inappropriately.

Ladies! How many of you have been hit on by a man? How often? Does that make heterosexual men more predatory than gay men? I would actually say yes.

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about, gays make up 10% of the population. You had on incident in your entire life. So, of the probably thousands of gays you have associated with (but probably didn't know were gay), one of them acted imappropriately.

Ladies! How many of you have been hit on by a man? How often? Does that make heterosexual men more predatory than gay men? I would actually say yes.

I know from personal experience that gays recruit boy scouts and the military (surprised?). Because I looked 13 when I served in the army I was approached many times on almost every leave – usually I was approached by groups of 3 or 4. If for any reason I was alone on leave I learned to carry a canceled weapon. That was over 40 years ago and I have not observed any efforts in society to prevent such things especially in the gay community. Has there ever been a gay in the news for turning in another gay for predatory behavior. If there has been any change in the last 40 years it has favored the predatory gays. There is every kind of sexual predator including of course heterosexual.

The most appalling thing to me is that those that support homosexuality as beneficial to society for the most part will not acknowledge a predatory threat exist or is probable. If there is any acknowledgement at all there will never be any effort to do anything about it – except make excuses and try to transfer blame.

There are gays that are not predatory - I know many personally and include non-predatory gays in my social circle.

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many rapes are done by gay men vs. straight men? How many pedophiles (of both boys and girls) are married to women or consider themselves straight? Sorry my friend, but the gay community is far less of a threat than the underworld of straight men engaging in sexual criminal behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I am sure about that. You can't take a single incident and judge a people by it. Look, missionaries travel in pairs, they are not to teach a woman without a fourth person present. Does that mean that missionaries are predatory? Recently the church changed the rules so that male Sunday school teachers could not be alone with the children, ever. Does that mean LDS Sunday school teachers are predatory? Some cities have laws against men without children hanging around playgrounds. Does that make all men pedophiles? No, I think our society has simply become way to paranoid for their own good.

As for "trolling" in the locker room, there is probably an equal amount of "trolling" at the mall, the workplace, the carwash, the beach, wherever people mingle. Maybe you feel more vulnerable when wrapped in a towel, but 20 years ago, the same people were around doing the same thing. In fact, probably moreso, because now they don't have to be covert about their intentions.

So, some bears eat people and some don't. Your statement that gay people don't recruit is false. Some "gay" people do recruit and some don't. As for the rest of your comments about missionary rules and Sunday school teacher rules .........????? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, some bears eat people and some don't. Your statement that gay people don't recruit is false. Some "gay" people do recruit and some don't. As for the rest of your comments about missionary rules and Sunday school teacher rules .........????? :huh:

You are being hypocritical. Gays "recruit" just as much as straights do. Straight men rape women. Straight men molest children. Just because you don't appreciate being hit on by a man doesn't make it any different than unwanted advances toward a woman. They are both inappropriate social behavior. When a man hits on a woman is he "recruiting" her to heterosexuality?

:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is only a homosexual is gonna hit on somebody in the bathroom or the locker room because a straight member of the opposite sex isn't gonna be allowed in there to do it. If a woman snuck into the locker room and hit on me I'd be extremely uncomfortable not so if she did so in the mall. Same thing with if a man hit on me, though to be honest I'd probably be slightly uncomfortable with a man hitting on me in the mall, just nowhere near if I was walking around naked or toweled in the locker room and such happened*.

Most people (LDS at least... I hope) don't like the thought of anyone looking at their naked body in a sexual manner except their spouse. That is why people are concerned about homosexuals looking at them like a slab of meat in a locker room, because no matter how likely that event is (being looked at like a slab of meat), it's gonna be a homosexual person doing it by definition, no matter how slim the odds.

Me personally? I'm not particularly concerned I tended to putt around the locker room nekkid. *shrug*

How about, gays make up 10% of the population. You had one incident in your entire life.

Doesn't matter if they make up 10% or 90%, if you made an absolute statement (which I'm not entirely sure you did, or even if you did, intended), that gays do not recruit all it takes is one to prove that statement false. That said I gotta kinda side with you on this one, if I said missionaries don't have sex most wouldn't bat an eye, but I know from personal experience that some do, and if made into an absolute statement it fails. If I said, "Missionaries have never had sex on their missions, or no missionary has ever broken the law of chastity on their mission!" then I would expect to have to duck from incoming fire. Why? Because the statement is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are being hypocritical. Gays "recruit" just as much as straights do. Straight men rape women. Straight men molest children. Just because you don't appreciate being hit on by a man doesn't make it any different than unwanted advances toward a woman. They are both inappropriate social behavior. When a man hits on a woman is he "recruiting" her to heterosexuality?

:confused:

I am not being hypocritical, I merely stated that some gay people do in fact recruit and NOW, you are in agreement with my statement. The rest of your comments are irrelevant to the discussion. I am not bashing gays and I am not defending inappropriate behavior by anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share