Swimsuits, Dresses, Garments, and Modesty

[justaname]

Hmmm, how to explain this w/o sounding apostate? My wife and I are married in the temple, and are very active members. I just bought some tickets to a musical this summer as a surprise for the wife. I wanted to go all out so I got a sitter, a hotel, the tickets, dinner, and thought Id go the extra mile and buy her a formal dress for the night too. I found dress shopping difficult. Surfing the web for a modest dress did not yield many results. Most of them expose the shoulders and some of them were a bit short. But man, would she look good in them! In the end, I did end up buying one that will allow her to wear her garments. But I couldnt help but wonder what the big deal is about a dress that exposes the shoulders or may rest a bit above the knees.

We have been told that we dont need to wear the garments when going swimming. So, say a woman puts a very modest swimsuit. Even a modest one piece is going to show all of the shoulders, the upper leg, will be tight fitting, and possibly a bit of cleavage. But all of this is ok, right? Take a look at this dress:

Donna Ricco One Shoulder Ruched Satin Dress - Hourglass - Nordstrom

It shows some shoulder, and might be a bit short, but does this not cover more skin than a one piece swimsuit or a typical exercise outfit? What are your thoughts?

BTW, this is the one I ended up getting:

Modest By Design - Sale

[john doe]

I think we've had this discussion more than a few times here.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I know people who would even consider the second one to be immodest! My 18 year old would wear something under that dress.

Swimming is not the same as going out for the evening.

[Wingnut]

It matters because we've made a covenant to wear the garments in a certain way.

[Gwen]

i can't speak for your wife but for me... yes i wear a swimsuit at the beach but i would feel uncomfortable wearing a dress that does not allow me to wear my garments. personally i think the one you ended up with looks nicer.

[WmLee]

It’s amazing that you can’t find a really nice dress for your wife that isn’t “modest”. Your wife doesn’t look good without showing off some skin??

I worked with a doctor from India, she had the tattoo dot thing on her forehead, (sorry but the correct name escapes me right now). After working together for about a year she started asking about my faith. I asked about her dot thing. She said it was placed there so a man will have his attention drawn to her mind, not her body. I asked where I could get a dote thing for my girls!!

The garment is to be worn, it has a purpose. Remember you are respecting the covenant it represents when you wear it; it reminds you of a covenant you made in/with your heart.

A bathing suit is a different issue, don’t try to mix ‘em to justify your actions.

[WmLee]

Ps. The one you got looks great! :)

[hordak]

i can't speak for your wife but for me... yes i wear a swimsuit at the beach but i would feel uncomfortable wearing a dress that does not allow me to wear my garments. personally i think the one you ended up with looks nicer.

My views on modesty couldn't be any different then the typical member if i owned Victoria Secret, But on this i actually agree.

The first dress doesn't "bother me" due to the exposed shoulder. But because it looks like Tarzan meets hefty bag.

Ooooooohhhhh ohohohoooooooo

[marts1]

What you ask is not unreasonable at all, but if we were to be allowed something a little more revealing, would we not after some time then ask for something more? Things are fine just as they are.

[MarginOfError]

Here's an idea...buy two dress. The first is one she can wear with her garments to the play. The second she can wear without her garments at the hotel. Problem solved and everyone's happy.

[annamaureen]

It’s amazing that you can’t find a really nice dress for your wife that isn’t “modest”. Your wife doesn’t look good without showing off some skin??

I don't know if that's what the OP was implying. I tried to find a really nice, formal dress recently and had a difficult time. It's pretty easy to find modest clothing but if you want something a little more elegant and formal, it gets harder.

[justaname]

John Doe, you are right, it probably has been discussed on here. I guess we should only talk about things once and be done. Pass that idea on to all the GA's for the next General Conference and see what topics they come up with that havent been discussed.

WM, my wife would look great in anything, even in a sack of burlap.

Gwen, can you explain why you feel comfortable revealing more skin in a swimsuit than in a dress? (I promise Im not trying to be hostile, Im just wanting more explanation).

I understand the covenants that we have both made, which is why I bought the other dress. (I was not considering the other dress. I think its rather ugly, but it was a good dress for the purposes of the example.) Im simply wondering why sometimes portions of our bodies are ok to expose when at other times it's not.

Is it not reasonable to have a hard time understanding this? Is it ok for women to wear swimsuits and men to go without a shirt because that it is the cultural norm, or is there some supporting doctrine behind why swimsuits are ok?

[justaname]

Here's an idea...buy two dress. The first is one she can wear with her garments to the play. The second she can wear without her garments at the hotel. Problem solved and everyone's happy.

Haha, good idea, but I already have an outfit for the hotel =).

[john doe]

John Doe, you are right, it probably has been discussed on here. I guess we should only talk about things once and be done. Pass that idea on to all the GA's for the next General Conference and see what topics they come up with that havent been discussed.

There's nothing wrong with discussing new thoughts and ideas. But there's also nothing wrong with using the search functions to see what has already been discussed ad naseum either. People are constantly trying to claim that their special situation is different than the rest, but in the end, it's not. Some people want to push the lines of modesty to justify what they choose to do, and others want to hold the line where it is.

[Wingnut]

Gwen, can you explain why you feel comfortable revealing more skin in a swimsuit than in a dress?

Context. Setting. Attitude.

[justaname]

There's nothing wrong with discussing new thoughts and ideas. But there's also nothing wrong with using the search functions to see what has already been discussed ad naseum either. People are constantly trying to claim that their special situation is different than the rest, but in the end, it's not. Some people want to push the lines of modesty to justify what they choose to do, and others want to hold the line where it is.

So rather than the GA's giving new talks on Faith and Repentance, why dont they just get up and say, "Hey everybody, go look at the 18xx talk given by Joseph Smith. That says all you need to know."

Im also interested to know why you are inferring I am trying to push the modesty line? No where did I say we should make it ok to wear strapless dresses, or did I say that my situation is unique. Its not. I did pick the modest dress because it does work with garments. Im wanting some explanation as to why the setting, context, or attitude matters.

Wingnut, so if context, setting and attitude makes all the difference, what if my wife wanted to do some nude modeling for a college art class? Is that ok?

[Gwen]

aside from the simple answer wing gave lol

i'm actually not comfortable revealing skin in a swim suit.... just don't really have an option on that. my swim suit covers fairly well compared to others. when i'm not in the water or trying to get some sun (we all need the vit d) then i put a shirt on. "normal" clothes just don't do well when soaked through, not to mention i would look more like a freak than i do with my body exposed. lol i will admit when i had the body (before 5 pregnancies) for swim wear i did show a little more skin. it was never really my goal to show skin so much as figure though. unfortunately swim wear leaves you with few choices.

when it comes to dresses i find (maybe i'm wrong but experience says i'm not) that i feel better and the guys liked it better with less skin showing. even when i had a good body i focused more on silhouette. skin doesn't equal elegant or sexy.

[Just_A_Guy]

It strikes me that "modesty" is closely tied to "moderation" or "avoiding excess". So, it's inherently going to be a bit of a slippery concept; but I think a fundamental aspect is "blending in". And that's going to be tied with (as Wingnut said) context, setting, and attitude. A one-piece swimsuit is not modest in the middle of priesthood meeting; but it's very modest among a sea of bikinis at the local pool.

With regard to the garment: quite bluntly, knowing what it is and what it represents--why would I want to take it off when, by exercising some creativity and/or diligence, I could find outer clothing that would allow me to keep it on?

Edited March 15, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Wingnut]

Im also interested to know why you are inferring I am trying to push the modesty line?

Because you did:

But I couldnt help but wonder what the big deal is about a dress that exposes the shoulders or may rest a bit above the knees.

(emphasis added)

Wingnut, so if context, setting and attitude makes all the difference, what if my wife wanted to do some nude modeling for a college art class? Is that ok?

I personally see a difference and distinction between nude art and other immodesty and nudity. I do not, however, think that it's okay for an endowed member of the church who has made specific covenants to pose nude for a college art class.

[john doe]

So rather than the GA's giving new talks on Faith and Repentance, why dont they just get up and say, "Hey everybody, go look at the 18xx talk given by Joseph Smith. That says all you need to know."

I'm reminded of the story about when Pres. Kimball one Sunday just popped in on a ward unannounced for sacrament meeting. The bishop asked him to enlighten them with a new message, and the Prophet got up and asked them why they thought they should get something new when they weren't living up to what they had already been counseled to do.

Im also interested to know why you are inferring I am trying to push the modesty line? No where did I say we should make it ok to wear strapless dresses, or did I say that my situation is unique. Its not. I did pick the modest dress because it does work with garments. Im wanting some explanation as to why the setting, context, or attitude matters.

I did not say anything about you pushing the modesty line, but if the shoe fits, feel free to wear it. Quit taking this so personal, unless it applies to you.

[justaname]

Wingnut, I didnt realize that 'wondering' about a subject was = to advocating it. Im curious as to why you feel there is a distinction between nude art and immodesty?

And to Just_a_Guy, I see your point and thank you for your response, especially the comment about wanting to take the garment off. Much appreciated. But just for the sake of reason and debate, would you consider a woman in a string bikini to be 'very modest' at a nudist beach? Should we judge modesty based on our surroundings or should modesty be judged independent from environmental factors?

And Mr. Doe, you should consider being more welcoming to people when you are acting as a 'senior moderator'. Shouldnt you be encouraging people to post and making it 'safe' for people to ask a question or respond? I hope you arent like this around actual people. God forbid you ever have a calling as a ward missionary.

[Wingnut]

Im curious as to why you feel there is a distinction between nude art and immodesty?

Because I studied classical art for a few semesters and I see a difference. I don't push it on other people, and if others aren't comfortable taking their children to a museum that houses Renaissance-era art that features nudes, that's fine. I see a distinction, though.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Wingnut.

Because I studied classical art for a few semesters and I see a difference. I don't push it on other people, and if others aren't comfortable taking their children to a museum that houses Renaissance-era art that features nudes, that's fine. I see a distinction, though.

But, what is the distinction?

[Bluejay]

Hi, Marts1.

What you ask is not unreasonable at all, but if we were to be allowed something a little more revealing, would we not after some time then ask for something more? Things are fine just as they are.

This sort of slippery-slope argument is quite pessimistic.

People draw their lines in different places for different issues all the time, but the failure of their line to line up with ours doesn't mean they aren't drawing a line.

Isn't the whole point of life for us to learn the principles behind the rules, so we can understand how to live our lives in a manner conducive with godliness?

Doesn't this require us to ask questions about the rules, and about why the rules are the way they are?

How can we ever reach the point of moral, spiritual maturity requisite to make the responsible decisions that we are expected to make in our next life if we don't ever ask the questions necessary to understand the principles behind the rules we are asked to live by?

I think Justaname's question deserves serious consideration. Sweeping it under the rug in the name of obedient conservatism is not going to help anybody progress toward the enlightenment required of the gods we expect to become in the next life.

My personal opinion is that we are not morally, spiritually responsible enough, as a whole, to live our lives according to the actual principles of the Gospel, so we are simply given metrics by which to judge our progress, and, just like the Hebrews of the OT, we apply all of our energy toward comparing ourselves with the metrics, and no energy toward comparing ourselves with the standards requisite of Godhood.

[/soapbox]

[marts1]

I have no desire to argue.