Misshalfway Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 I once heard a good thought provoking quip, something along this line; "it's what we do when we believe we are private and believe no one is watching us that defines our true character."I appreciate this quote for many reasons, but in light of what Bini was saying about being less modest in privacy of her home and inside the fidelity of the relationship with the husband, I guess I'm worried about the inference that being less modest in private is somehow an indictment of someone's character. If my kids are out, you might just find me walking naked in the living room. But this doesn't make me evil. It makes me relaxed when it's appropriate to be relaxed.Now, I'm not saying this doesn't come with risks. In high school, I walked into my boyfriends kitchen only to find his father making pancakes in the buff! His father could have cared less. I was, however, scarred for life. But it doesn't make the man evil. It just makes him stupid for not locking the door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 Now, I'm not saying this doesn't come with risks. In high school, I walked into my boyfriends kitchen only to find his father making pancakes in the buff! His father could have cared less. I was, however, scarred for life. But it doesn't make the man evil. It just makes him stupid for not locking the door.Or maybe you for not knocking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Heavenly Father and our Savior care.Is this a should be wearing garments issue? Because if not, I don't think they do given the hypothetical. Edited September 10, 2012 by Dravin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hala401 Posted September 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 Or maybe you for not knocking...The issue with my getting caught in the buff in my own house at my own pool would not be one of lust but of "Ick, someone hide that!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misshalfway Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 Or maybe you for not knocking...I suppose I would have had my boyfriend not been leading me by the hand into his own house and into his own kitchen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applepansy Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 Is this a should be wearing garments issue? Because if not, I don't think they do given the hypothetical.No its not a garment issue. My point is that They do care about our character. They care of we're honest. If we are the same person alone as we are in the company of another person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) No its not a garment issue. My point is that They do care about our character. They care of we're honest. If we are the same person alone as we are in the company of another person.Hala was talking about being naked alone or with your spouse. Yes, God cares about your honesty, yes, he cares about your character. No he doesn't care, baring if you should be wearing garments, if you're naked while all alone or only with your spouse. Edited September 11, 2012 by Dravin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applepansy Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 Hala was talking about being naked alone or with your spouse. Yes, God cares about your honesty, yes, he cares about your character. No he doesn't care, baring if you should be wearing garments, if you're naked while all alone or only with your spouse.:) No he doesn't care if you're naked with your spouse. but...well I won't go there. I'm derailing. sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmarch Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) With all due respect, we were born buck naked, so if no one is watching, other than your husband, who cares?Ultimately who cares will be between the individual and God, and possibly the spouse.That depends. It may matter or it may not, depending on the person, and depending on what they do and how they do it. but whenever the phrase "it doesnt matter that...<insert situation>" comes up, it generally pops a warning flag for me. Sometimes it really doesnt matter but other times it turns out that small things can become big things further down the line.In the case of what we do when we are alone i've found out turns out to have more impact than what I/we realise.Combine that with what the world is trying to push on us- indulging yourselves, be more exhibitionistic, hedonistic, focus on yourself, be more 'wild', carefree, there is no wrong, with things like that, it makes it always a good idea to take step back (sometimes two or three) and ask.. is this really what i want? does this really help me? does this really help us come closer together and closer to God?Unfortunately i dont do that as often as i should and i end up in places i do not want to be. Edited September 11, 2012 by Blackmarch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pahoranite Posted September 13, 2012 Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 Thankfully the position has changes such that boys no longer have to swim naked like they did at swimming pools across the country in the olden days, including the old Deseret Gym. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 Ultimately who cares will be between the individual and God, and possibly the spouse.That depends. It may matter or it may not, depending on the person, and depending on what they do and how they do it. but whenever the phrase "it doesnt matter that...<insert situation>" comes up, it generally pops a warning flag for me. Sometimes it really doesnt matter but other times it turns out that small things can become big things further down the line.In the case of what we do when we are alone i've found out turns out to have more impact than what I/we realise.Combine that with what the world is trying to push on us- indulging yourselves, be more exhibitionistic, hedonistic, focus on yourself, be more 'wild', carefree, there is no wrong, with things like that, it makes it always a good idea to take step back (sometimes two or three) and ask.. is this really what i want? does this really help me? does this really help us come closer together and closer to God?Unfortunately i dont do that as often as i should and i end up in places i do not want to be.I find these posts about nakedness while alone in the house a highly conflicting response when just a couple months ago I posted a thread on my shock in finding out that guys walk around naked in gym lockers... and in that thread, most everybody says, "What's wrong with that?".I find no problem with walking around naked in the privacy of your own home. I find it highly problematic to bare yourself infront of others in a gym locker... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 I find these posts about nakedness while alone in the house a highly conflicting response when just a couple months ago I posted a thread on my shock in finding out that guys walk around naked in gym lockers... and in that thread, most everybody says, "What's wrong with that?".I find no problem with walking around naked in the privacy of your own home. I find it highly problematic to bare yourself infront of others in a gym locker...I am confused about some of the posts about nudity in one's own home, but from a different perspective, at least for those who are endowed. We are to wear the garments day and night, except for certain circumstances such as showering, etc. I don't see anything in the instructions about it not being necessary to wear garments if we happen to be at home alone. With that mindset, while living on my own, I could spend more time out of my garments than in them. After all, if I just don't feel like wearing my garments, I can just lounge around at home naked and it's all good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 I am confused about some of the posts about nudity in one's own home, but from a different perspective, at least for those who are endowed. We are to wear the garments day and night, except for certain circumstances such as showering, etc. I don't see anything in the instructions about it not being necessary to wear garments if we happen to be at home alone. With that mindset, while living on my own, I could spend more time out of my garments than in them. After all, if I just don't feel like wearing my garments, I can just lounge around at home naked and it's all good.I envisioned it more like, if I'm at home alone with my wife and just get out of the shower, is there a problem with me running to the kitchen or the basement or something au naturel? Assuming I don't track water everywhere, I say no, no problem. But if the question is if it's acceptable to run around nude as a matter of course, then I would agree that our temple covenants seem to prohibit that by the nature of the garment being a more or less constant covering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I like this little poem about how times have changed regarding swimsuits: Once when girls went out to swim They dressed like Mother Hubbard. Now they are not so prim They dress more like her cupboard. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I envisioned it more like, if I'm at home alone with my wife and just get out of the shower, is there a problem with me running to the kitchen or the basement or something au naturel? Assuming I don't track water everywhere, I say no, no problem. But if the question is if it's acceptable to run around nude as a matter of course, then I would agree that our temple covenants seem to prohibit that by the nature of the garment being a more or less constant covering.There was more than one person who stated that as long as we are at home, and no one is going to see us other than perhaps our spouse, then there is nothing wrong with lounging about the house naked. They were not talking about the normal moments of nudity that happen during the process of showering, dressing, etc. For me, that doesn't square with the instruction of wearing garments day and night.I once stumbled upon an website for "LDS nudists". I cannot see how that squares with proper garment-wearing, either. If either of these situations is okey-dokey as regards garment-wearing, then I guess I will not have to give up my (almost) life-long habit of sleeping in the nude once I am endowed (which will be happening shortly).These views don't mean that I disagree with a previous post of yours regarding a different sort of "sleeping in the nude" that involves married couples.I made that clear as mud, didn't I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 There was more than one person who stated that as long as we are at home, and no one is going to see us other than perhaps our spouse, then there is nothing wrong with lounging about the house naked.Hala made a comment that could be interpreted that way, I must have missed the other comments. Could you kindly point them out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Hala made a comment that could be interpreted that way, I must have missed the other comments. Could you kindly point them out? http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/48584-swim-suits-seriously-4.html#post696266 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/48584-swim-suits-seriously-4.html#post696266Thank you. @Leah: If those are the posts you have in mind I offer up that Bini frames her statement within the context of modesty. A failure for an endowed member to wear the garment night and day because they're walking around the house alone (or with just a spouse) naked is not a modesty issue. Hala's comment follows behind a statement (which in turn flows from Bini's comment which is framed in the context of modesty) the basically concludes, 'Well, if you'd not walk around naked in public but you walk around naked in private that says something about your character.' It's a statement of rejection that private nakedness informs your character (presumably negatively), as garments weren't mentioned and Hala is unendowed I doubt she had them in mind.That is to say neither of them were trying to claim, "There is no need for endowed members to wear the garment night and day as instructed." It's akin to me saying, "There is nothing wrong with eating the occasional donut." It's not a claim that eating the occasional stolen or alcohol filled donut is acceptable, it's just not exhaustively qualified. Either through oversight or because of the assumption that context sufficiently constrained the statement. Edited September 21, 2012 by Dravin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Thank you. @Leah: If those are the posts you have in mind I offer up that Bini frames her statement within the context of modesty. A failure for an endowed member to wear the garment night and day because they're walking around the house alone (or with just a spouse) naked is not a modesty issue. Hala's comment follows behind a statement the basically concludes, 'Well, if you'd not walk around naked in public but you walk around naked in private that says something (detrimental) about your character.' It's a statement of rejection that private nakedness informs your character, as garments weren't mentioned and Hala is unendowed I doubt she had them in mind.That is to say neither of them were trying to claim, "There is no need for endowed members to wear the garment night and day." It's akin to me saying, "There is nothing wrong with eating the occasional donut." It's not a claim that eating the occasional stolen or alcohol filled donut is acceptable, it's just not exhaustively qualified. Either through oversight or because of the assumption that context sufficiently constrained the statement.I am sure if either poster has an issue with how I interpreted their posts, they are perfectly capable of further articulating THEIR posts. However, I did not say that that was what they specifically intended to say with their posts.Saying it is okay to lounge about the house naked because you feel like being naked can leave the impression to some that that means we can discard our garments simply because we feel like being naked. I was addressing that.If you are saying that we can choose to lounge about naked simply because we feel like it - in effect, discarding our garments simply because we feel like doing so (for whatever period of time) - than you have either had different instructions regarding the garments than others or you have chosen to interpret the instructions in a different way. Which is a common occurence here for various teachings of the church.I am sorry that you do not understand MY posts, but I cannot help you further on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) Saying it is okay to lounge about the house naked because you feel like being naked can leave the impression to some that that means we can discard our garments simply because we feel like being naked. I was addressing that.Bini's comment is placed within the context of it being a modesty issue. Hala's is much more open.If you are saying that we can choose to lounge about naked simply because we feel like it - in effect, discarding our garments simply because we feel like doing so (for whatever period of time) - than you have either had different instructions regarding the garments than others or you have chosen to interpret the instructions in a different way. Which is a common occurrence here for various teachings of the church.1- I guess you haven't read my other posts in this thread.2- We can choose, though our choices can violate instruction, but I suspect you mean to the effect that we can choose without going against instruction.3- Where did you get that I'm saying that lounging about all day naked wouldn't be a violation of the instructions to wear the garment night and day? Or is this a highly random "if" which doesn't necessarily bear on what I've said?I am sorry that you do not understand MY posts, but I cannot help you further on that.You said you were confused by the posts, I was attempting to explain them to you. Edited September 21, 2012 by Dravin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misshalfway Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I am sure if either poster has an issue with how I interpreted their posts, they are perfectly capable of further articulating THEIR posts. However, I did not say that that was what they specifically intended to say with their posts.Saying it is okay to lounge about the house naked because you feel like being naked can leave the impression to some that that means we can discard our garments simply because we feel like being naked. I was addressing that.If you are saying that we can choose to lounge about naked simply because we feel like it - in effect, discarding our garments simply because we feel like doing so (for whatever period of time) - than you have either had different instructions regarding the garments than others or you have chosen to interpret the instructions in a different way. Which is a common occurence here for various teachings of the church.I am sorry that you do not understand MY posts, but I cannot help you further on that.I had a friend a few years ago who was getting married. She was asking all sorts of questions about sex and garments...you know simple questions to help her get the lay of the land before her big day. She asked if I felt compelled to put my garments back on the second sex was over. My answer was, "well...it depends on the day. If we are at a hotel for the anniversary, probably not. If it's a 'christmas quickie' then most likely yes." My overall point was that there is a lot of flexibility in how we keep our covenants. There is no need to put ourselves in a straightjacket to meet the demands of obedience.I think that at some point we've got to allow people their autonomy, privacy, and preferences rather than trying to legislate every jot and tittle. That doesn't mean I disregard proper boundaries. I don't see a lot of harmony between nudist lifestyles and covenant living. It just means that I'm worrying about my obedience and how God works with me inside my context and I try to leave others to do what works best for them. I can't measure out "your shower is over and you've got 5.3 seconds to get those garments back on." This thinking breaks my brain. Maybe there is some space in all that obedience for some "lounging". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) I am sure if either poster has an issue with how I interpreted their posts, they are perfectly capable of further articulating THEIR posts. However, I did not say that that was what they specifically intended to say with their posts.Saying it is okay to lounge about the house naked because you feel like being naked can leave the impression to some that that means we can discard our garments simply because we feel like being naked. I was addressing that.If you are saying that we can choose to lounge about naked simply because we feel like it - in effect, discarding our garments simply because we feel like doing so (for whatever period of time) - than you have either had different instructions regarding the garments than others or you have chosen to interpret the instructions in a different way. Which is a common occurence here for various teachings of the church.I am sorry that you do not understand MY posts, but I cannot help you further on that.Okay, I'm confused. I thought we were talking about modesty - not necessarily garments.Bini and Hala (who opened the thread) don't wear garments. I don't look at garments as the end-all be-all of modesty rules for those who did not make that covenant. So I really don't know where the garments have a play in whether lounging around naked by your own lonesome is modest or not for Bini and Hala? I mean, I get that we made a covenant to wear garments so our modesty rules are governed by it. But should this apply to those who didn't make that covenant? Would it be that their modesty rules are governed by the social mores of the environment they are in? I mean, was it modest for that English Princess to swim topless in a what-she-thought-was-private pool? I'm thinking - maybe not, because she knows she's hounded by photographers everywhere and nothing for her is really private, so her environment is the whole wide world. But, if it was Bini lounging topless in her own private pool - would that be modest? Her environment is her own private world and so the mores of Bini and Bini alone applies, right? And Bini, having grown up in Europe where modesty is a lot loser than the US, I would think it is perfectly fine for her to apply what she knows is modest, right? I'd love to hear everybody's take on this. Edited September 21, 2012 by anatess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Bini and Hala (who opened the thread) don't wear garments. I don't look at garments as the end-all be-all of modesty rules for those who did not make that covenant. So I really don't know where the garments have a play in whether lounging around naked by your own lonesome is modest or not for Bini and Hala?My take: I don't think wearing or not wearing the garment is in itself a modesty issue. So if Mr. Endowed is naked alone or with his spouse he's not being immodest. If Mrs. Unendowed is naked alone or with her spouse she's not being immodest. However while Mr. Endowed doesn't have a modesty issue he may, depending on circumstances such as lounging versus interrupting his shower to run out to the garage and get more shampoo, have a wearing the garments according to instruction issue.As far as the rest, I look at modesty like I do adultery. The law is what it is regardless of local understanding of the law. But where there is no law there is no condemnation. But that does not make, in my view, a topless beach modest, it just means the people there may not know better for lack of a more artful way to phrase it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davies Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 · Hidden Hidden Many factors would contribute together to make a Mens suit perfect and appealing. The main important thing is the quality of the wool fabric. For getting the best quality mens suit, it is necessary to have the fabric that contains 100% wool. I In addition to being 100% wool and superfine quality fabric, the best suit would be produced from the finest wool made in Italy. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.