Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Wrong. Just because men are more likely to glance at an attractive female doesn't mean women are responsible for unclean thoughts. Men are, that's the point

Have you ever listened in on a young women’s lesson on modesty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Note that this suit shows as much or more of the male contour as a speedo. Yet this sort of form fitting suit was acceptable in 1900. Why are we so much more prudish about the male form today?

Here is another photo of men’s swimwear from the early 20th century. 

7DAF9F7E-9C38-4A65-88A5-2F1C907E3367.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
6 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Have you ever listened in on a young women’s lesson on modesty?

No. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth: As long as there are young guys being taught how to act in society, there will be threads by young guys complaining about double standards and mentioning genitals and leveling accusations of hypocrisy.  It's pretty much part of the deal as a young guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Truth: As long as there are young guys being taught how to act in society, there will be threads by young guys complaining about double standards and mentioning genitals and leveling accusations of hypocrisy.  It's pretty much part of the deal as a young guy. 

In fairness @NeuroTypical I probably had hypocritical views back then, and you probably did too. Heck, we still probably do. And I've heard many young women complain about how their boyfriend is a pervert because his head turned looking at a pretty girl at the football game. So it's just life. When someone gets more experience, they hopefully see it more clear. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BJ64 said:
1 hour ago, unixknight said:

Not like men do.  It's a psychological fact that males are far more stimulated visually than females are. 

This is the thinking that leads us to teach women that they are responsible for the unclean thoughts of men rather than teaching men that they are responsible for their own thoughts. 

So whatever you do, DON'T teach psychological facts! They are politically incorrect and evil!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unixknight said:
1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

I guess her shoulders were more alluring than his girlfriend’s shoulders. 

He ain't lookin' at her shoulders, buddy.  ;)

"Would you LOOK at those lats?!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

Here is another photo of men’s swimwear from the early 20th century. 

7DAF9F7E-9C38-4A65-88A5-2F1C907E3367.jpeg

Ah. The good old days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
40 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh absolutely.  I've documented my 180 degree turn on such matters here

I've changed on many, many issues as well my friend. Rare is the person who thinks the same way at 44 as they did at 21. To some degree if you do think the same, that's a bad sign because it means you aren't learning anything from your life experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh absolutely.  I've documented my 180 degree turn on such matters here

I read your post and I think it’s very well written. I very much believe there is a big difference between art and porn. 

I also believe there is a big difference between true immodesty and perceived immodesty. 

You may not agree but to me a woman in a bikini and a man in a speedo is art not porn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

In fairness @NeuroTypical I probably had hypocritical views back then, and you probably did too. Heck, we still probably do. And I've heard many young women complain about how their boyfriend is a pervert because his head turned looking at a pretty girl at the football game. So it's just life. When someone gets more experience, they hopefully see it more clear. 

I never had a hypocritical view.  I always understood males are different than females. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

I read your post and I think it’s very well written. I very much believe there is a big difference between art and porn. 

I also believe there is a big difference between true immodesty and perceived immodesty. 

You may not agree but to me a woman in a bikini and a man in a speedo is art not porn. 

😳

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
Just now, Grunt said:

I never had a hypocritical view.  I always understood males are different than females. 

You are certainly a more wise man than I ever was @Grunt. While not on this issue in particular, I had many hypocritical views as a younger man. Sure, I was right about certain things but many of my views have changed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You are certainly a more wise man than I ever was @Grunt. While not on this issue in particular, I had many hypocritical views as a younger man. Sure, I was right about certain things but many of my views have changed. 

Easy now.  I didn’t say I wasn’t, then or now, a foolish man.  I just said I had no issues on that subject.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Exactly. That's why more people can relate to this meme about a distracted boyfriend rather than the meme about a distracted girlfriend. 

 

MemeLoveTriangle_297886754.jpg 

Virtually every girl here has seen her boyfriend/husband do this before. 

Sorry, just had to do this.

Image may contain: 2 people, beard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2018 at 10:26 AM, Vort said:

Ah. The good old days.

I would say those suits show much more that the briefs I wear. 

Its sort of funny that at BYU-I swim briefs are not allowed but jammers are. For those who are not aware jammers are skin tight knee length swimsuits. 

I wore jammers today and I can absolutely attest to the fact that they reveal as much or more male shape outline than swim briefs. 

I guess the administration at BYU-I didn’t get the memo that jammers are revealing. Revealingly in the same sort of way that wrestling singlets are revealing. However I don’t hear protests over wrestlers wearing them. 

I would explain this by comparing a swim brief to a woman’s sports bra and jammers to a woman in a skin tight shirt with no bra. Which is more modest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2018 at 9:41 PM, BJ64 said:

Just curious why it is that women are counseled to not show their stomach but men can. 

Hey, I am wondering the same thing too. Many families in my ward have sons who go shirtless at the beach, but also have daughters who have to shield people from their midriff. This is honestly causing me to ponder long and hard. If anything, the part of a woman’s body that should be covered is the chest area, and that can be easily covered with high cut bikini top, even paired with high waisted bottoms to shield people from the horror of seeing a woman’s entire stomach. But my point is last time i checked, both men and women have midriffs. And i don’t agree with the picture of the man or woman below. That’s very untrue. Guys will not always look like that and most cases they have and or something close to abs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, krmarangi5 said:

Hey, I am wondering the same thing too. Many families in my ward have sons who go shirtless at the beach, but also have daughters who have to shield people from their midriff. This is honestly causing me to ponder long and hard. If anything, the part of a woman’s body that should be covered is the chest area, and that can be easily covered with high cut bikini top, even paired with high waisted bottoms to shield people from the horror of seeing a woman’s entire stomach. But my point is last time i checked, both men and women have midriffs. And i don’t agree with the picture of the man or woman below. That’s very untrue. Guys will not always look like that and most cases they have and or something close to abs. 

I see nothing wrong with women showing their stomachs in swimwear as men do however I also know ther are parents who won't let their boys go or wear tank tops while swimming or otherwise because they say if it's immodest for girls it's immodest for boys too. I think that's really going overboard though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2018 at 9:04 AM, MormonGator said:

Thanks bud. Remember, we ignore science when we disagree with it but we love science when we agree with it. That's how life, and in particular, the internet work. 

It also needs to be said that there is a huge difference between a quick glance at an attractive female and then acting obnoxious. Catcalling, making comments, etc is very disrespectful. Virtually all men (yes, including you reading this, even if you won't admit it) have done the first (taking a look) , while only a cad does the second (making comments). 

Indeed, a true scalawag of a scoundrel!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, krmarangi5 said:

Hey, I am wondering the same thing too. Many families in my ward have sons who go shirtless at the beach, but also have daughters who have to shield people from their midriff. This is honestly causing me to ponder long and hard. If anything, the part of a woman’s body that should be covered is the chest area, and that can be easily covered with high cut bikini top, even paired with high waisted bottoms to shield people from the horror of seeing a woman’s entire stomach. But my point is last time i checked, both men and women have midriffs. And i don’t agree with the picture of the man or woman below. That’s very untrue. Guys will not always look like that and most cases they have and or something close to abs. 

We could forget clothes all together... so everyone is... equal....

By devine design men are to preside. That means they’re ideally supposed to know and want and do the RIGHT things and lead a family that way. In courtship it’s ideal the man take the lead. If woman were the ones inviting and proposing all the time, men would be the ones in the position of marketing themselves to the highest “bidders” and would undoubtedly be the ones with traditions of makeup and shaven armpits. (Haha)

So it is, that the woman that markets her body, will get the body-hungry.

Kapish?

The man that markets his body, will get a WO-MAN after him...;)

(We could be marketing other more meaningful things.)

Extra: Men leading, is just practical. A man often has more strength, and more spatial cognitive ability which usually provides an advantage over woman to dominate. But that doesn’t mean men don’t need woman. It just means they generally need woman sightly less then woman need men. (Really, just in different ways)  I’m saying, our traditions of letting men lead, has practical advantages even if you ignore the statements and power of God.

Edited by Behemoth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2018 at 9:05 AM, BJ64 said:

Have you ever listened in on a young women’s lesson on modesty?

Yes. It's true that church members are taught to take responsibility for how they dress. Just as the sisters are taught that the way they dress can influence how other's think of them, the brothers are taught to keep their thoughts clean. This goes both ways, but as has already mentioned the visual appeal aspect has a more pronounced effect from the perspective of male eyes looking at female form than the other way around. Whether people like it or not the way we dress does influence how people think of us. 

@anatess2 was making a great point earlier about how modesty is not just limited to how much skin is showing, but needs to take into consideration things such as context and intent. She did a great job covering some points on context. I'd just like to add a little about intent. When a young woman is going out swimming or otherwise and she is dressed such that she is confident that she will be getting attention from the young men - she knows exactly what she is doing. The hypocrisy is to then turn around and suggest that when she gets attention that she didn't want that it's all those nasty boys fault. It goes both ways. Yes, the young men need to control their thoughts (as does everyone), but intentionally making it hard for them to do so and then being upset when they fail is ridiculous.

Caution*** somewhat passionate rant follows***

Honestly though, the part of what I'm reading into what I see you posting about this (and I may be wrong about your intent) that I get bothered about is that it feeds into this whole idea of rape culture and that we just need to teach boys not to rape and women can wear whatever they want without consequence. The problem I have with this is that anyone who teaches modesty, and often the church in particular, is seen as feeding into this rape culture business and yet I've never seen any other organization do more to teach young men to be respectful of women and keep their thoughts pure, than the church which is villainized for promoting these "backwards ideas on modesty." It just makes sense to teach both sides of the coin.

It's like someone going into an area known to for theft while advertising to everyone there is a fat wallet available to take and then being surprised when the fat wallet is stolen. Absolutely, the wallet would not be stolen if the thief was not a thief, but knowing that there are thieves out there and intentionally showing off what they want is going to attract the wrong kind of attention just as immodest dress will. There is a fine line between victim blaming and teaching reasonable precautions and responsibility.

Running around crying that we should teach thieves not to steal isn't going to have any real impact in the here and now, and arguably is a wasted effort in general, but taking precautions to avoid shady places and to conceal valuables will actually have an impact in a persons day to day interactions and safety. Why not equip the young with the same value of concealing their valuables except in safe and appropriate circumstances when it comes to modesty? Crying that boys should just not think those thoughts isn't going to change the biological wiring innate to man that drives the perpetuation of the species. Modesty in dress and action, considering context and intent will actually equip young women with something empowering that they can influence. Sure there are guys that may still think impure thoughts and possibly act out on them even when a girl is dressed in a potato sack that covers her completely, but it's false to suggest that running around in lingerie in public exerts the exact same effect. So while modest dress can't control how other's think, it absolutely does exert an influence on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now