LDS Freedom Forum

IV got to be perfectly honest hear. Lets say I seen a girl that was barely dressed trying to reveal too much. I would consider it an deliberate attempt to hide something about their personality.

SAM wrote:Some satire about how what women wear influences men's thoughts:

http://www.sugarfreeearcandy.com/moresu ... lats-again" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hilarious post. Thanks for sharing it. :))

Original_Intent wrote:I feel that whenever two intelligences interact, be it thru the internet, actually meeting, etc. that both intelligences both act and are acted upon. Thee are millions of factors that go into how one intelligence affects the other, when it is in person dress and appearance in general is a large factor, at least in this telestial sphere.

I believe that in the celestial sphere, we will know each other so much more intimately, in a spiritual sense, that whether our resurrected bodies are clothed at all or how they are clothed will be highly irrelevant to us. That's of course just a personal opinion. I feel that clothed and modest will be the norm, but I also think we will be cleansed of many of our social taboos and false traditions. I think someone will be able to compliment a member of the opposite sex without it being interpreted as hitting on them, or even admire someone of the same sex without it being labeled same sex attraction or being gay.

I did like C.S. Lewis' portrayal in "The Great Divorce" where people in heaven are wearing different amounts of clothing, including nothing at all, and it did not seem to be anything that would "raise an eyebrow". Not saying he was being literal, and he says the book was not a vision but simply a story, but I could see it being that way.

Good points!
In person, most communication is nonverbal and includes choice of clothing.

Personally, I didn't like being stared at when I wore blouses that show too much. So I don't wear immodest blouses. All it takes is one bad experience and you learn to dress on the cautious side.

About your comment regarding being able to give compliments without people getting the wrong idea...

Esther wound up the king's favorite wife,after his initial #1, Vashti, refused to join him in a party in the nude so all his friends could see how good she looked.

Are we safe to assume that Esther had no problems with such requests?

If you want an example to promote modesty might I suggest a new heroine -- Vashti?

http://www.jewishjournal.com/purim/arti ... clothes_on" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Random Phrase wrote:

Kitkat wrote:God did give Adam and Eve a coat of skins, so obviously thought they should be covered, for modesty or protection.

I vote "for protection." I mean, who else was there but them? And they had seen each other naked ever since they were "born." And they were going out into a world that had thorns, bullheads, and other evil plants to tug at them and rip their skin. They were probably going into a world that had too much sun and could burn them or dehydrate them - and that got cold and could give them frostbite or make them sick.

The devil told them they were naked and that it was a bad thing. Imo, God gave them a covering as a symbol of Christ covering their sins. The covering made them feel better, since they'd been told by a person who "was a liar from the beginning," that being naked was bad. No doubt, they also felt bad because they had disobeyed God and the realization of nakedness was a constant reminder, but the clothing was a constant reminder of the atonement (especially if, as I have heard, the animal(s) sacrificed was one of Adam's favorite animals. Male and female animal, I suspect, if the story is true).

I think you are right. Sometimes in Korea I would let my toddlers run around the house naked to help them learn to potty train. We had all laminate floors there so it wasn't a problem (except when someone slipped in a puddle, but that's a whole other issue.) I learned, however, that they were much more prone to getting hurt when they didn't have any clothes on and so I stopped doing that. So it was important to keep them dressed so they didn't get hurt, but not a single person in the family had an issue with their modesty.

Can anyone define "modesty" outside of a cultural context?

Jezebel wrote: It's about what other people think, but at the same time, what's really important is how others' thoughts affect us. If you really could go to a formal dinner in jeans and not care a bit, feel entirely comfortable, then there would be no reason I can see not too. But most of us don't have that ability and so it can relieve a lot of stress and heartache, and even engender confidence in us, to learn to dress appropriately and to cover ourselves in ways that keep us comfortable.

I can see and partially agree with this point, but I think a better way to look at modesty is this:

The word "modest/modesty" can apply to more than just clothing, and in my opinion when you think of all the ways it applies, you come up with the best definition. Modesty simply is:

Lacking the desire or intention to draw too much admiration or attention. Possibly arranging to avoid such.

Of course this may not always be possible, and many duties/convictions should trump modesty. Such as: being a missionary requires the casting aside of many inclinations to not "put yourself out there".

But, refocusing on clothing/body:
Yesterday I listened to a non-mormon bible sermon about "sexual modesty in apparel" (cuz seriously, many of those guys do a better job of laying out a topic purely from scripture than we do) And I felt they pretty reasonably laid out a case for, thighs, crotch/behind, breasts. Modesty says we don't draw attention to them. (@Fiannan, these standards were drawn from the bible, not from society) Drawing attention can happen in multitude of ways: full or partial baring, form fitting, translucency, or even by covering them but leaving much of the rest bare (which still lends extra distinction). Hollywood/music industry are pros at finding ways to draw attention, but honestly you don't need their instruction in "what not to do". Your honest desire to not draw too much admiration or attention, will instruct you just fine.

You might imagine a case where sexual modesty as supportable by scripture, is pretty well in hand; and yet the person is still using their body as a display, for attention. Grotesque weightlifters come to mind. The way I see it, FULL modesty in body/apparel, (not merely sexual modesty) should not draw overly much attention to any of the body. It should be obvious to someone with the spirit, that Body/flesh focus is a sketchy business at best, and that it can easily become a huge stumblingblock to the guilty parties.

And as others have pointed out, modesty as defined in the scriptures includes not drawing attention/admiration with overly rich or fine clothes. "Rich and gaudy" are meant just as much to draw admiration as "skimpy" is.

Now that I've laid out so many pitfalls, some disclaimers:
It is good to look good if possible. Modesty should not trump neatness, cleanliness, healthiness, friendliness, and "stylishness within limits". If you look good, you will draw some admiration even if you are modest. Some of the admiration will be right. Some of it will be wrong, and you'll just have to ignore it. It is never right for society to try to fix this with a burka. A burka is an overfocus on the body, and sexualizes the whole body rather than just the parts. It is a matter of nature that sexuality must be expressed and felt to some degree, and a burkuh just corrupts it. That's my opinion.

Fiannan wrote:Esther wound up the king's favorite wife,after his initial #1, Vashti, refused to join him in a party in the nude so all his friends could see how good she looked.

Are we safe to assume that Esther had no problems with such requests?

If you want an example to promote modesty might I suggest a new heroine -- Vashti?

http://www.jewishjournal.com/purim/arti ... clothes_on" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting read! I've never heard that take before. Some of the comments at the bottom, however, suggest that it's not so cut and dry.

One wonders, is "modesty" to keep the guys under control or the gals?

I ask this because a lot of my female acquaintances are going to go watch "50 Shades" this weekend. I work with one woman who commented today when the subject came up that she preferred real porn to Hollywood teasers.

Study after study shows that women are as sexual as men, maybe even more so -- and just as visual. The notion that women are more into emotion rather than the sex itself is a relic of an era that females were not even supposed to enjoy sex, much less lust after it. Here is a summary of studies that help shoot down many absurdities:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/j ... nt-extract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have noticed something interesting about women when they wear more revealing clothes -- they often complain about men staring at them. Weird, huh? Actually no. What such women are really complaining about is the quality of the man who they catch looking at their chest or legs. They are offended when the wrong men look. Women are programmed to find the best mate to give them superior offspring. This may be repressed but many studies show that no matter the woman she will wear her most attractive clothing when she is ovulating and the most "modest" when she is on her cycle. Ovulating women, not on the pill, will also flirt with more the alpha males. And males prefer such things as the voice of a woman when she is ovulating. Okay, back to the clothing, if a woman walks down the street and some geek sneaks a peek she will be offended as she does not want such a male (consciously or subconsciously) but if that same geek changes into a 2000 dollar Armani suit and drives up in a BMW and takes a look her reaction will likely be far different. Of course not all is based on money, there are other factors involved in reproductive success. An alpha male might be a mechanic who is extremely fit, or a photographer who displays higher cognitive and creative abilities. Human females want babies that will survive and thrive - so money, intellect or brawn can catch their attention.

So when males make a huge deal about female "modesty" are they afraid of losing control of either their mate or the females in their community as the female is primed to seek mates once they reach reproductive age? This would be an extremely interesting sociological issue to explore, although there are so many variables involved that it would be a daunting task.

@fiannan
Sexual modesty is about appropriate focus: in other words an intention to not draw overmuch attention or admiration of the body during normal interactions.

Whatever evolutionary theory, or natural theory, etc, has to say about modesty and sexuality... we know this from scripture: sexuality outside the bonds of marriage, is damaging. Dissolved marriages are damaging. Focus on the flesh is damaging.

I attended a psychology class in high school, hated it. The teacher turned the whole thing into a gossip mill, kids sharing things and discussing how they felt about them. I tried to tune most of it out, but it was still educational. Story after story backed up the damaging effects of "low fidelity" either before marriage or after, or whatever.

Combine scripture and observable reality into this statement: People need and want the effects of high fidelity. Everybody. Men, women, children. In the interest of proper focus and healthy attitudes all across the board, modesty (when not taken to a bizarre extreme), is very advisable. And it is best implemented as an understanding and desire to not draw overmuch attention and admiration to the body, especially when the person has an idea of the worth of their mind and spirit.

If you want to devalue modesty into fears of one party or another, that's your business; but I believe it has a bad influence.

Fiannan wrote:One wonders, is "modesty" to keep the guys under control or the gals?

I ask this because a lot of my female acquaintances are going to go watch "50 Shades" this weekend. I work with one woman who commented today when the subject came up that she preferred real porn to Hollywood teasers.

Study after study shows that women are as sexual as men, maybe even more so -- and just as visual. The notion that women are more into emotion rather than the sex itself is a relic of an era that females were not even supposed to enjoy sex, much less lust after it. Here is a summary of studies that help shoot down many absurdities:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/j ... nt-extract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have noticed something interesting about women when they wear more revealing clothes -- they often complain about men staring at them. Weird, huh? Actually no. What such women are really complaining about is the quality of the man who they catch looking at their chest or legs. They are offended when the wrong men look. Women are programmed to find the best mate to give them superior offspring. This may be repressed but many studies show that no matter the woman she will wear her most attractive clothing when she is ovulating and the most "modest" when she is on her cycle. Ovulating women, not on the pill, will also flirt with more the alpha males. And males prefer such things as the voice of a woman when she is ovulating. Okay, back to the clothing, if a woman walks down the street and some geek sneaks a peek she will be offended as she does not want such a male (consciously or subconsciously) but if that same geek changes into a 2000 dollar Armani suit and drives up in a BMW and takes a look her reaction will likely be far different. Of course not all is based on money, there are other factors involved in reproductive success. An alpha male might be a mechanic who is extremely fit, or a photographer who displays higher cognitive and creative abilities. Human females want babies that will survive and thrive - so money, intellect or brawn can catch their attention.

So when males make a huge deal about female "modesty" are they afraid of losing control of either their mate or the females in their community as the female is primed to seek mates once they reach reproductive age? This would be an extremely interesting sociological issue to explore, although there are so many variables involved that it would be a daunting task.

You keep citing these studies but I know of studies that say the opposite. Since I can't depend on studies to tell me the truth, what can I do? Well, I look at real life and in real life I know several men who want more sex and several women who really don't. I can't think of a single example of the opposite.

Wake up to reality, Fiannan.

Jezebel wrote:Well, I look at real life and in real life I know several men who want more sex and several women who really don't. I can't think of a single example of the opposite.

I know a few.

Fiannan wrote:Can anyone define "modesty" outside of a cultural context?

Probably not. Pretty much every word people use is defined within their own culture.

A Random Phrase wrote:

Jezebel wrote:Well, I look at real life and in real life I know several men who want more sex and several women who really don't. I can't think of a single example of the opposite.

I know a few.

Hmmm . . . do they seem to be an equal number or do they seem to outnumber the rest?

We are responsible for our thoughts. Nobody else is. It isn't hard to remove ourselves from people, and places, that make it difficult to control them. But ultimately, what we think is nobody's problem but our own.

Jezebel wrote:

Fiannan wrote:One wonders, is "modesty" to keep the guys under control or the gals?

I ask this because a lot of my female acquaintances are going to go watch "50 Shades" this weekend. I work with one woman who commented today when the subject came up that she preferred real porn to Hollywood teasers.

Study after study shows that women are as sexual as men, maybe even more so -- and just as visual. The notion that women are more into emotion rather than the sex itself is a relic of an era that females were not even supposed to enjoy sex, much less lust after it. Here is a summary of studies that help shoot down many absurdities:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/j ... nt-extract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have noticed something interesting about women when they wear more revealing clothes -- they often complain about men staring at them. Weird, huh? Actually no. What such women are really complaining about is the quality of the man who they catch looking at their chest or legs. They are offended when the wrong men look. Women are programmed to find the best mate to give them superior offspring. This may be repressed but many studies show that no matter the woman she will wear her most attractive clothing when she is ovulating and the most "modest" when she is on her cycle. Ovulating women, not on the pill, will also flirt with more the alpha males. And males prefer such things as the voice of a woman when she is ovulating. Okay, back to the clothing, if a woman walks down the street and some geek sneaks a peek she will be offended as she does not want such a male (consciously or subconsciously) but if that same geek changes into a 2000 dollar Armani suit and drives up in a BMW and takes a look her reaction will likely be far different. Of course not all is based on money, there are other factors involved in reproductive success. An alpha male might be a mechanic who is extremely fit, or a photographer who displays higher cognitive and creative abilities. Human females want babies that will survive and thrive - so money, intellect or brawn can catch their attention.

So when males make a huge deal about female "modesty" are they afraid of losing control of either their mate or the females in their community as the female is primed to seek mates once they reach reproductive age? This would be an extremely interesting sociological issue to explore, although there are so many variables involved that it would be a daunting task.

You keep citing these studies but I know of studies that say the opposite. Since I can't depend on studies to tell me the truth, what can I do? Well, I look at real life and in real life I know several men who want more sex and several women who really don't. I can't think of a single example of the opposite.

Wake up to reality, Fiannan.

You haven't met my wife.

You must be an awesome husband, Steve.

I try, but suck at so many aspects.

Jezebel wrote:

A Random Phrase wrote:

Jezebel wrote:Well, I look at real life and in real life I know several men who want more sex and several women who really don't. I can't think of a single example of the opposite.

I know a few.

Hmmm . . . do they seem to be an equal number or do they seem to outnumber the rest?

They appear to be a minority.

I can think of 5 instances of close friends where the wife wishes the husband put out more. I can't think of any men who complain about the same thing, but there are probably other explanations for this not excluding the reluctance of talking about things like this with an idiot like me.

we should do a poll, six choices:

I'm male and want more sex than my wife
I'm male and want sex equally as my wife
I'm male and want less sex than my wife
I'm female and want more sex than my husband
I'm female and want sex equally as my husband
I'm female and want less sex than my husband

Of course, the only ones allowed to answer would be those in current intact marriages

Well, given my personal experience, I still lean to believing that women are generally not as interested in sex as men. But that comes from more than just counting heads of who wants sex and who doesn't.

I read an awesome book called, "Making Love the Joy of Marriage." I recommend it if anyone is having issues with sex in marriage, even women. The point of the book was to teach men why their wives were turned off of sex and help them fix it. The book significantly affected me.

Through the things taught in that book and through many of my personal experiences and conversation with women, it seems to me that women are turned on mainly by spiritual influences. In other words, they want sex more when they feel loved and appreciated. And they want it less when they don't. "Sex starts in the kitchen." It's what men do outside of the bedroom that makes their wives want to go to bed with them.

For me, I was all fired up before marriage but found myself years later with more desire to do the dishes than spend time in bed with my husband. I thought about it and learned a few things. By that time, the only time he ever had a good word for me was when he wanted sex. But the moment he was satisfied, even before he had even rolled out of bed, he would treat me more like a dirty dishrag than a person. But when we were engaged, before he could jump into bed with me whenever he wanted, I was his treasure and he had nothing but good to say about me, even behind my back.

The way he thought of me, the way he treated me, made me either want to sleep with him or not. It had very little to do with my libido. Incidentally, once I learned these things I started talking to him about the way he was treating me and not putting up with a lot of the crap. It made a significant difference in how much I enjoyed being with him.

So Steve, maybe you forget to take out the garbage every so often, but it sounds like your wife is convinced you love her. Or maybe my experience is not normal. It doesn't seem that way, though, from conversations I've had with other women.

braingrunt wrote:we should do a poll, six choices:

I'm male and want more sex than my wife
I'm male and want sex equally as my wife
I'm male and want less sex than my wife
I'm female and want more sex than my husband
I'm female and want sex equally as my husband
I'm female and want less sex than my husband

Of course, the only ones allowed to answer would be those in current intact marriages

Do it, braingrunt, and don't forget to post the link.

Steve Clark wrote:I can think of 5 instances of close friends where the wife wishes the husband put out more.

Make that 6.

Actually, I thought of a few more since I posted that. Got to be at least 10.