- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
I respect that, DJ.
Quote:And can “Morman” be fixed in the title?
Wow, how did we miss that?
I know it was just a little thing but little things bug me after a while.
🙄 Surely Morwoman more appropriate? I had a look at the website finally, in private (!). I originally viewed it in public briefly. As I say, not worksafe!
* The most interesting part is the comments that the women put at the end. Note some claim our church made them incomfortable with their bodies.
* It makes a change to see ordinary women I suppose, not supermodels or pneumatically inflated women.
* The woman with the twins was endearing rather than erotic. She said she had had her first child outside marriage, and the church had tried to force her to get it adopted, but she refused and still has it. Interesting.
* Finally… Mormon women look much the same bare as non-member women!!!
I have mixed feelings about the whole thing,
SamBee wrote:I have mixed feelings about the whole thing,
That’s what it really boils down to for me, SamBee. I certainly won’t be frequenting the site, and in fact I’ll probably never visit it again.
Quote:I know it was just a little thing but little things bug e after a while.
Then I will fix the “e” above and make it “me”.
🙂 )DJ, I do agree that adding little children into the mix would be an additional wrinkle. Say a family has bath pictures of young kids. At what point does this become kiddy porn? Is it the manner of dissemination? I’m not advocating this – just wondering where to draw the line. DarkJedi wrote: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.
I find this definition of porn troubling. I remember puberty. I know that I found many things “scintillating,” including underwear catalogues, certain paintings and sculptures, swimsuit models, and many of the teenage females around me. I feel that this is a slippery slope until we are right back with a definition of some women as “walking pornography.”
I remember a story of a big chested teenage girl that was told by some parents or local church leaders that she couldn’t be modest in any swimsuit because her chest was still quite noticeable (especially by teenage boys who tend to notice these kinds of things). As I remember the story, she was shamed into not swimming with her fellows at the swim party.
I don’t expect that everyone will need to agree with the path this particular project has taken, but we do seem to agree that these types of conversations should happen -these types of assumptions should be reexamined.
P.S. My own position on the subject has changed in the last few years – so nothing’s permanent!
😆 Roy wrote:I remember a story of a big chested teenage girl that was told by some parents or local church leaders that she couldn’t be modest in any swimsuit because her chest was still quite noticeable (especially by teenage boys who tend to notice these kinds of things). As I remember the story, she was shamed into not swimming with her fellows at the swim party.
That story reminded me of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathing_machinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathing_machine” class=”bbcode_url”> I found it an interesting idea, and was interested in the stories of these women. It seems healthy to be able to look at a regular naked body and be okay with that. It sounds like a liberating event for these women. Having been to a few clothing optional beaches years ago (I did wear swimwear) it was really not a sexual environment. Being okay with our bodies is a good thing IMHO. I didn’t find the pictures to be offensive or inappropriate. That said, not a workplace environment website. I remember my mom, who was from a small town, telling me that growing up in their ward it was totally normal for women to breastfeed during church, and no one made a fuss. I found that surprising, but it is a natural event, and maybe the attitude was a bit healthier in a small country town many years ago.
To me it also seems like a website created by women, for women primarily, to help us have healthier attitudes towards our bodies. Harmony wrote:I found it an interesting idea, and was interested in the stories of these women. It seems healthy to be able to look at a regular naked body and be okay with that. It sounds like a liberating event for these women.
Hence the mixed feelings….
Men view women’s bodies very differently from how women (including lesbians) view them. Naked ones even more so. I don’t think the female form is ugly, but I’m going in the other direction. Have seen numerous naked people one way or another (try staying in a Dutch youth hostel – everything on display). Have seen sexualized nudity in one form or another many times too, not always by choice! I’m trying to get away from it. But a balance whereby I can accept modesty and nudity in contewxt would be great.
However, there’s no doubt about it – the three main draws for men are face, chest and legs!
Funnily enough what I would love to see more of is the women’s backs. Not for some weird whatever, but because I think female backs are beautiful without being erotic, and nothing dubious need be shown.
I personally would have liked to see a more arty approach. I found the writing interesting, but like DarkJedi won’t be visiting it again!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.