- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
Interestingly, Callister’s original talk was lightly edited for the Ensign. This excerpt was removed from his original devotional:
Quote:“If it is too low or too high or too tight it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure. Elder Matthew Cowley once commented on the long flowing dresses of the Native American Indians—as I recall he said, “
How beautiful—how modest—they leave everything to the imagination.”” Now perhaps that passage was deemed racist and therefore removed. But I would like to point out the utter creepiness of the bolded passage. It’s like saying “My fantasy of you is oh so much better than your reality of you.”
It’s slightly troubling that they took a knife to the original talk and still left in the line about “women get the man they dress for” !!!!
My facebook thread’s developing a very interesting life of its own. I’ve stepped back a little from it.
There are several people (including old mission buddies I never hear from) who have joined and said how much they appreciate opening the discussion. Someone’s really worn their heart on their sleeve and has started talking about the abusive marriage she escaped from. Another person, a member and therapist, has made some very constructive comments and observations. It’s encouraging.
I have had quite a few people “Like” my posts comment on them, relative to how much response I normally get. Nearly all of it has been positive – and some of it has come from people who surprised me in their passionate acceptance of it. On the other hand… If a woman has her cleavage showing it is difficult for most men to look elsewhere. It’s our evolutionary programming.
I remember some years ago there was a nasty fashion for people to have their butt crack showing. I was visiting the south of England, at least ten years ago, and every time I looked over to the electronic timetable, all I could see was this middle aged woman with her small child, and a large chunk of crack showing (as a fashion statement seemingly). It was pretty revolting. I’m not usually a prude in this direction, but I told the woman to pull her trousers (pants) up! Now that IS bad fashion.
I am so happy to hear all of the positve responses. I have seen some postings from some serious TBM family members who talked about how sad it is that men are treated like animals that can’t control their own instincts and how ridiculous it is to put it on the woman’s dress. I was pleasantly surprised. Sambee Wrote
Quote:On the other hand…
If a woman has her cleavage showing it is difficult for most men to look elsewhere. It’s our evolutionary programming.
I remember some years ago there was a nasty fashion for people to have their butt crack showing. I was visiting the south of England, at least ten years ago, and every time I looked over to the electronic timetable, all I could see was this middle aged woman with her small child, and a large chunk of crack showing (as a fashion statement seemingly). It was pretty revolting. I’m not usually a prude in this direction, but I told the woman to pull her trousers (pants) up! Now that IS bad fashion.
My personal fav is the whale tail. (Thong sticking out of the jeans.).. haha But I agree.. A few years ago there was a woman bearing her testimony who had THE TIGHTEST shirt on.It was one of those “Mod bod” shirts.. you know the one that encourages modesty, yet all the Utah women wear them as regular shirts that are about 50 times too tight. Her nipples were showing (can I say that here.. haha?). I couldn’t quit staring and I felt really bad for the men b/c if I felt uncomfortable I know they must have!!!
Quote:It’s our evolutionary programming.
I agree with that. I also don’t think a man should be ashamed of this either. I think it is normal. I mean, I think one shouldn’t let there thoughts get away with them… but according what was cut from an article, it doesn’t matter what a women wears. The imagination is the best device for “impure thoughts”.
I’m toying with an idea that I believe to be relevant. Ok, the broad outline is that in church we sometimes set up the women to be sexual gatekeepers and to use their powers of feminine persuasion to motivate the men to do certain things (mission, chastity, temple marriage). I know of at least one conference talk that said this rather explicitly.
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4682&hilit=secondary+sexual+characteristics&start=10 If true, then this might provide context to the concepts of Modest is Hottest and “he who knocks on the most doors will have the hottest wife” and
Quote:Elder Matthew Cowley once commented on the long flowing dresses of the Native American Indians—as I recall he said, “
How beautiful—how modest—they leave everything to the imagination.”” The pursuit of/promise of sexual access may be much more motivating than actually having sexual access.
We might want our YM to be most attracted to or “turned on” by our YW (as opposed to the YW of the world).
I’m not saying that is necessarily bad – there is always a cultural sexual dynamic and this one isn’t the worst possibility.
I have also said repeatedly that the LDS church seems to do a better job than many at keeping the YM engaged.
What are your thoughts on the idea that the church might leverage the women (and sexual access to them through temple marriage) to engender church commitment from the men.
Oddest is the Hottest. A good expression for StayLDS’s who are usually unorthodox or different from the norm in some way. Sorry about the used of the word Hottest, but it rhymed
Interpret Hottest to mean the best (in a shallow way).
Hi Curtis! I totally agree with your post. Modest (which in LDS-speak means covered up) is not always non-provocative, and immodest (revealing) is not always provocative. Which is more sexually provocative to a 20-year-old male missionary passing by: a young woman dressed in a black tank top and short shorts and flip flops on a hot summer day, with very little makeup and plain straight hair pulled back with a scrunchie, and her bare legs are ewww not worthy of being bare; or a middle-aged woman with Farrah-Fawcett-era hair and perfect makeup to go with her botox and other cosmetic ahem enhancements, dressed in a satin blouse and knee-length pencil skirt with four-inch black pumps, who knows how to act and walk in a sexy way?
convert1992 wrote:Hi Curtis!
I totally agree with your post. Modest (which in LDS-speak means covered up) is not always non-provocative, and immodest (revealing) is not always provocative. Which is more sexually provocative to a 20-year-old male missionary passing by: a young woman dressed in a black tank top and short shorts and flip flops on a hot summer day, with very little makeup and plain straight hair pulled back with a scrunchie, and her bare legs are ewww not worthy of being bare; or
a middle-aged woman with Farrah-Fawcett-era hair and perfect makeup to go with her botox and other cosmetic ahem enhancements, dressed in a satin blouse and knee-length pencil skirt with four-inch black pumps, who knows how to act and walk in a sexy way? Are you talking about many of the women I see at church on Sunday?
opentofreedom wrote:A few years ago there was a woman bearing her testimony who had THE TIGHTEST shirt on.It was one of those “Mod bod” shirts.. you know the one that encourages modesty, yet all the Utah women wear them as regular shirts that are about 50 times too tight. Her nipples were showing (can I say that here.. haha?). I couldn’t quit staring and I felt really bad for the men b/c if I felt uncomfortable I know they must have!!!
I’m only in Utah a couple times a year, so it took me a long time to catch on to what was going on there. This is so true.
:crazy:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.