Mormon Women Bare

[Anonymous]

QuestionAbound wrote:

And…so now I’m wondering…where is the “man bare” page?

Surely we believe in equal posing opportunities, right? :clap:

I agree.

[Anonymous]

HSAB wrote:

I think this is a great project. In the whole modesty and chastity rhetoric women are socialized to be ashamed of their bodies. These women have show that they are not ‘walking porn’, just women. In all different shapes and sizes. There’s something i find really comforting in what these women are doing.

I really feel that you “get” what I am trying to say here HSAB. Yes, there is the element of making a public statement and there are pros and cons to such a statement.

However perhaps the bigger impact of this project is on a personal level. I understand that much of the dialogue in the church about women’s bodies are from the “lens” of how they are perceived by men. They should be attractive, yet not so attractive as to invite unwanted thoughts…wholesomely attractive? Cute? And attractive to attract what exactly? A man? And then the woman’s body is in the service of her husband and should be maintained attractive to keep it pleasing for him? And what about fertility? How many women have their self-image tied up in providing babies?

I know that these issues are not exclusive to the LDS church but I do believe that the LDS environment does tend to exacerbate many of these issues.

When do women get to take complete ownership of their bodies? To take joy in the miracle of their own skin – a well oiled machine that serves them with every breath and every pump of the heart?

I see these women in this project as taking a therapeutic act to reclaim their bodies. It is about changing the “lens” through which they see their bodies and, by extension, themselves. This is my understanding from the writings of the women themselves. The message of this project has also resonated with many other individuals.

Quote:

I grew up in Utah and am very much a “product” of the Utah Mormon culture. I was sort of a poster child in my youth – held leadership positions in Young Women’s, attended seminary, happily participated in church activities, dressed modestly; never realizing, however, the negative affect it would have on my sexuality and the intimate relationship with my husband. I have always felt like a pretty girl – thought I had nice hair and a pretty face. But, I never learned to embrace my sexuality, and my body was something to be covered and not celebrated. As a result, I have been extremely uncomfortable in my own skin. My view of what I should be, based on what the culture of the church teaches, who I think I should be, and who I think my husband wants me to be, causes a lot of anxiety and lack of confidence because I haven’t felt like I am “being” anyone of those and disappointing all of them.

Your work has dramatically helped that insecurity. Seeing these brave women has helped me feel normal and beautiful. I see their bodies and I think, “Wow, they are really beautiful”. Then I realize I look very similar to them. It has been a helpful reflection. Hearing their stories have helped me feel like there is someone that can relate to me. Seeing their confidence, despite all their own imperfections, has boosted mine. I love that they love their bodies. I hope I can learn to love and celebrate mine. I hope to be more confident in my own skin like these women are in theirs. -JENNA

Quote:

As a faithful LDS woman and psychologist, I am profoundly moved by this project. As a counselor at a religious institution (where I also received my Ph.D.) I heard stories of many women who felt ashamed of their bodies. Most had never seen their parents around the house naked. And the idea of exposing their bodies when/if they married brought up a large amount of anxiety and dread. I love how these women pictured look so empowered and at peace. A project like Katrina’s gives me hope for LDS women’s mental health. -KRISTY

Is there a need for the message of the project? I believe that there is! :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

I think the problem for women is divided into two parts, the sexualization of their bodies and the guilt and shame that may accompany that and the feeling of being deficient given the unrealistic image society presents. Mormon Women Bare along with http://www.thecenturyproject.com and http://www.thenuproject.com/‎ are sites that aim to show women as they are and to dispel the false image of what women are supposed to look like. One of the most common comments that women make when they go to a nude beach or a club for the first time is how amazing it is to see how different people are. The November 10th podcast on the Naturist Living Show http://www.naturistliving.bareoaks.ca/ speaks to this directly. As far as sexualization goes I see myself as responsible for my own thoughts and actions. Years ago people complained to Pres. McKay about girls in swim suits on floats in a parade in Provo and his reply to them was that he didn’t see anything that wasn’t beautiful.

Sorry if the nudity offends but we are what we are and accepting our bodies goes a long way to being healthy.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

QuestionAbound wrote:

And…so now I’m wondering…where is the “man bare” page?

Surely we believe in equal posing opportunities, right? :clap:

I agree.

So, you’ll be first in line when that opportunity comes along, right?

[Anonymous]

QuestionAbound wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

QuestionAbound wrote:

And…so now I’m wondering…where is the “man bare” page?

Surely we believe in equal posing opportunities, right? :clap:

I agree.

So, you’ll be first in line when that opportunity comes along, right?

I suppose if anyone wants to look at the body of a slightly chubby 53-year-old man, sure.

[Anonymous]

I did have a look at that website briefly there! Not worksafe!!!

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

I did have a look at that website briefly there! Not worksafe!!!

I agree. I really do have to call it soft porn, sorry to those who might disagree but that is my opinion.

[Anonymous]

The front page is alright but I made the mistake of looking at another one… breasts fully on display… and I was in a public place at the time. (I thought it would be a site in which the naughty bits would be strategically covered/out of view)

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

The front page is alright but I made the mistake of looking at another one… breasts fully on display… and I was in a public place at the time. (I thought it would be a site in which the naughty bits would be strategically covered/out of view)

That’s what I thought when I first visited, too.

[Anonymous]

I don’t see porn when I see this project. I see natural nudity.

I think the point is not to cover – to show that nudity need not be porn – to show that it’s okay to see people who are “real” and “average” (not just airbrushed, posed, sexually active and/or “enhanced”) as beautiful. I think it is direct response, frankly, to the entire idea that there are “naughty bits”, particularly in simple pictures of natural nudity.

I see absolutely no intent to increase sexual desire or cause sexual stimulation. It simply is to present the idea that modesty and nudity are not opposites – that there is nothing “naughty” about our bodies or our body parts, in and of themselves – and I agree with that conclusion and almost anything that helps teach it.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I agree. I really do have to call it soft porn, sorry to those who might disagree but that is my opinion.

That’s ok. We can disagree. I do wonder though, would you classify all nudity as porn? Even if it is in a project that is enobling to the spirit? If you do not see the enobling benefit of the project, I am interested in that perspective as well.

What about paintings and sculptures?

My hope is that exposure to the human body in non-sexual contexts (like medicine and art and sports) might make the body more normal and less taboo. My daughter is a swimmer and I hope that regular locker room experience from a young age helps her to be ok with bodies in general.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I don’t see porn when I see this project. I see natural nudity.

I think the point is not to cover – to show that nudity need not be porn – to show that it’s okay to see people who are “real” and “average” (not just airbrushed, posed, sexually active and/or “enhanced”) as beautiful. I think it is direct response, frankly, to the entire idea that there are “naughty bits”, particularly in simple pictures of unstaged nudity.

I see absolutely no intent to increase sexual desire or cause sexual stimulation. It simply is to present the idea that modesty and nudity are not opposites – that there is nothing “naughty” about our bodies or our body parts, in and of themselves – and I agree with that conclusion and almost anything that helps teach it.

Let the church say amen. One of the interviews on the podcast speaks to this directly and is well worth listening to.

Roy wrote:

Even if it is in a project that is enobling to the spirit? If you do not se the enobling benefit of the project, I am interested in that perspective as well…

My hope is that exposure to the human body in non-sexual contexts (like medicine and art and sports) might make the body more normal and less taboo. My daughter is a swimmer and I hope that regular locker room experience from a young age helps her to be ok with bodies in general.

Seeing the women as people with lives and feelings goes a long way to ending the objectification of the body. As far as locker rooms goes, that ‘s a great idea along with an open door policy at home. it helps kids see what’s normal and natrual and helps dispel the “naughty” way of seeing the body.

My feelings about this come from being a card carrying nudist/naturist so I’m happy to see some thoughful discussion about it.

[Anonymous]

One last thought about Ray’s comment about modesty and nudity not being mutually exclusive. Which would you say is more immodest, someone nude playing volleyball or Miley Cyrus on stage at the MTV awards?

[Anonymous]

Our New York textbooks only show David from the chest up. I have no doubt that if I or a student were caught looking at this site on a school computer we would be disciplined and the site would be blocked. I get art, and I get Catholicism covering up historic art in the interest of “modesty.” And I think we Americans, and maybe especially Mormons, are a bit too Puritan in some ways (modesty and sex in general), especially compared with Europeans, Africans, and South Americans. While this site doesn’t appear to be pornography in the sense that it isn’t designed to elicit erotic feelings, I don’t really see it as “art” either. Although I believe children are beautiful and innocent in their nudity, if this site showed naked children I believe it would be counted as kiddie porn – because those who seek out such things may find it erotic. My bet is likewise that most 13-year-old boys (I’ve known quite a few in my life) might pretty much find any bare breast scintillating, and therefore this would be “porn” (although of the soft variety). All that said, I do not personally find that this site fits the definition of porn for me, but it certainly may be for others.

And can “Morman” be fixed in the title?

[Anonymous]

I respect that, DJ.

Quote:

And can “Morman” be fixed in the title?

Wow, how did we miss that? Done.

[Author]

Posts