LDS Freedom Forum

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;

My question is where do you all think the line is when somebody dresses too inappropriately, or is their a line? Should people be able to dress however they want and others are responsible for how they respond to it, or is there a line where the wearer bears some responsibility too?

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;

My question is where do you all think the line is when somebody dresses too inappropriately, or is their a line? Should people be able to dress however they want and others are responsible for how they respond to it, or is there a line where the wearer bears some responsibility too?

In a perfect world a woman should be able to go jogging naked and not have to worry about getting raped. Sadly we don't have such. However, if a woman did choose to go naked then any form of sexual crime perpetrated against her should be prosecuted without her lack of clothing being any sort of consideration in the court's proceedings. The responsibility ultimately is with the criminal.

Fiannan wrote:

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;

My question is where do you all think the line is when somebody dresses too inappropriately, or is their a line? Should people be able to dress however they want and others are responsible for how they respond to it, or is there a line where the wearer bears some responsibility too?

In a perfect world a woman should be able to go jogging naked and not have to worry about getting raped. Sadly we don't have such. However, if a woman did choose to go naked then any form of sexual crime perpetrated against her should be prosecuted without her lack of clothing being any sort of consideration in the court's proceedings. The responsibility ultimately is with the criminal.

There is no such "perfect world" where a woman or man can jog naked and not "affect" others in a wrong way. It's not a sad thing it is a "good thing" we have "fig leaves" to cover our nakedness in a mortal word that has fallen from "gods," "Gods" presence. In another world where the ego and the fallen nature or carnal nature has been sacrificed on the alter and no longer exists... I am sure even on those future worlds of glory, the inhabitance will wear clothes made out of "spun light" that fits their moods/glory B-)

There is no such "perfect world" where a woman or man can jog naked and not "affect" others in a wrong way. It's not a sad thing it is a "good thing" we have "fig leaves" to cover our nakedness in a mortal word that has fallen from "gods," "Gods" presence. In another world where the ego and the fallen nature or carnal nature has been sacrificed on the alter and no longer exists... I am sure even on those future worlds of glory, the inhabitance will wear clothes made out of "spun light" that fits their moods/glory B-)

True, Satan was the first fashion designer in the world and told Adam and Eve that they were offending the Gods by being naked.

Fiannan wrote:

There is no such "perfect world" where a woman or man can jog naked and not "affect" others in a wrong way. It's not a sad thing it is a "good thing" we have "fig leaves" to cover our nakedness in a mortal word that has fallen from "gods," "Gods" presence. In another world where the ego and the fallen nature or carnal nature has been sacrificed on the alter and no longer exists... I am sure even on those future worlds of glory, the inhabitance will wear clothes made out of "spun light" that fits their moods/glory B-)

True, Satan was the first fashion designer in the world and told Adam and Eve that they were offending the Gods by being naked.

Were his words true? ;)

I find it interesting that from a scriptural perspective, "modesty" doesn't seem to be mentioned much at all, but having fine clothing does.

Wouldn't it be ironic if God considered the the classism implied in nice clothes a bigger sin than showing a little skin?

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

God also tells us that we are to love Him and our fellow men, that on these 2 laws hang all the laws and the prophets. I think how we dress is deeply personal, but ask yourself, does how I dress affect those I am around in a negative way? Are my actions of how I dress showing true thoughtfulness for others and Christlike love?

I am not at all implying we blame those that dress in a showy way, but if you are at a spiritual level where you would be willing to consider others in how you dress yourself then I say please do so.

If someone I know is coming to visit and I know they are a recovering alcoholic then I am not going to intentionally leave achohol around my house, that would thoughtless of me, even unloving, but at the same time if I left some unintentionally around the house and my friend found it and drank it, that is not my fault and I should not be held accountable for his choice.

My question is, should we teach our children to be "modest"? Why? Why not?

I say definitely yes. I am curious what other think.

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

Yes, He did give them coats of skins.

Imagine giving your daughter a jewel crusted hair pin for her eighteenth birthday party. Then, later at the party when you are not present a pretentious friend tells her to cover the hair pin with a hat because its ugly and embarrassing (or pick any lame reason). So your daughter wears a hat and later you find her wearing the hat. Not good.

Muerte Rosa wrote:The girls in my Sunday school class have a modo "modest is hottest "

If it really were would that mean that showing no skin is going to increase the temptations in the minds of the young priesthood holders and the bishopric who are having to sit there and see the congregation in full view?

Check the two guys on the bike...you can imagine what is going on in their minds. ;)

http://i.dawn.com/large/2014/03/531335b35a1db.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

Muerte Rosa wrote:I think how we dress does affect others just like everything else in this world does. The key word is AFFECT, but does not CONTROL or DETERMINE.

....people can do things that upset you but it's up to YOU how YOU CHOOSE to react to it. If we react in the way they were trying to get us to react we give them power.

Whole-heartedly agree with this!

Although it is important to be appropriate in your dress, the fact is people around you will never be 100% satisfied. Some might think your outfit is attractive, while in said outfit others think you're "showing too much skin". So, what is the answer? Should women wear a pioneer dress, burlap sack or strangling turtleneck because some can't take the way they look in clothes?

On an extremely personal level (and I'm hoping this comes across in the right way), I have a very large natural chest...yes, this is the way God made me and I have gotten several dirty looks in and out of church, even dressed "modestly". There have even been occasions where perfect strangers have come up to me and asked "Are those real?". In other situations, people have stared so much that my husband or family members have gotten really angry/upset. I have come to accept that this is the reaction that I get sometimes and instead of being angry or resentful, simply feel sad and realize that they are the ones responsible for their own feelings/reactions and to not let it affect me in a negative way.

-delete-

I get to roll this one out again. Yay!

jbalm wrote:I get to roll this one out again. Yay!

Sexy.jpg

Jbalm, how dare you post toe porn. I have a good mind to photoshop some shoes on that women who is shamelessly being an example of walking porn. =))

I'm surprised it got past the mods.

Satan is clearly in control.

jbalm wrote:I'm surprised it got past the mods.

Satan is clearly in control.

Absolutely! :))

Daryl wrote:

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

Yes, He did give them coats of skins.

Imagine giving your daughter a jewel crusted hair pin for her eighteenth birthday party. Then, later at the party when you are not present a pretentious friend tells her to cover the hair pin with a hat because its ugly and embarrassing (or pick any lame reason). So your daughter wears a hat and later you find her wearing the hat. Not good.

Well, that kind of works, except God gave us bodies AND the coverings to go with them (he did not invite Adam or Eve to display their "jewel crusted hair pins"), interestingly the coats of skin were only necessary after "their eyes were opened." In the garden it did not seem to be an issue, but in our fallen state, it is an issue.

jbalm wrote:

Sexy.jpg

Wait! I know that guy.

I do not think in any way shape or form we can justify a man or woman lusting after another just because of how he or she is dressed or shaped. That responsibility lies in the heart of the observer. Christ let us know that, who ever looketh upon another...to lust after them has already committed adultery with them in their heart.

On the flip side I challenge anyone to argue the point that we do not have serious issue in our society today because of our lack of virtue (manifest, but not limited to how we wear our clothing). If I were to lay blame to anyone it would be the media for pushing sex appeal.

My husband had a short-lived partnership with 2 great men, one in the stake presidency and on in a bishopric. He was their head designer. They had big contracts with big names, like Time-Warner, S&K menswear, and others. These good men told my husband his work needed to be more edgy, because sex sells. They told him not to mess things up with his "standards" with these big contracts... They compared it to his having an aversion to clowns, and they would protect him from clowns if that is what he thought he needed, but please don't fail on the big contracts.

You see our society is using "edgy" to sell things and what we are really selling is ourselves as humanity, our children into a world that has been carefully trained to lust. The consequences of this can be seen in our schools, teacher molesting students, in our homes, parents molesting children and on the streets with strangers doing all manner of horrific things often to satisfy their lusts.

Where is the virtue? What is virtue? Even on this forum I think we often digress.

Romans 14:13 "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

.

I was thinking of this issue just the other day.

When I was a teen, I had a bishop teach me what I think was probably the most valuable lesson I ever learned on modesty. He said that if you are tugging at your clothes, then they are not modest. This makes so much more sense than taking out measuring tapes or using finger widths.

At the time he taught me, I thought to myself that the rule would work great on me, but not someone who was used to dressing skimpily. However, much to my surprise, years later as I was flipping channels on TV, I caught Brittany Spears tugging! There she was, surrounded by cameras, bending over to put her kids in her car, and tugging at the back of her shorts that were revealing more than just her thighs. I was stunned.

Is modesty about other people? Yes, it is. It is entirely about what other people will think when they look at you. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but it does.

Because we seem unable to completely shake off what other people think of us, we are spiritually affected by dressing in ways that make us feel comfortable around others. How would you feel going to a formal dinner at the White House dressed in jeans? How would you feel wearing a formal to serve at the local homeless shelter? Some people feel entirely comfortable lounging at home in their underwear. Others feel comfortable wearing nothing at all at home. In that environment, they are not being immodest, are they?

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.

passionflower wrote:I suppose you could say that a person should be able to wear or not wear anything they want, and if someone reacts to it, that's their problem, and in this world today you could get away with that.

But on the other hand, just how charitable and unselfish is it really, when a person wears clothing (or doesn't wear it) solely for the purpose of getting a reaction? Or knowing that a certain reaction will be inevitable? And then turn around and blame the other person for that reaction?

In all human relationships, responsibility needs to be placed on both sides for any successful outcome, not just on the male side because women want the "freedom" to dress as they please. A big part of your interaction with others, concerns the choice of your clothing, or lack thereof.

This is a post virginal world we live in today. Men, women, adolescents, and even children are all highly sexualized by the media. Rigid dichotomies between gay and straight behaviour are disappearing. This is sexually NOT the same world that existed in 1964. Western society has since abandoned christianity, with its sexual morals, and replaced it, not by any sexual ethics--meaning a coherent philosophy about what is FAIR and EQUITABLE, in the 'realm of the intimate' for BOTH men and women, but instead by politically manipulated feminist ideologies that favor women over men, and downplay christian morals. Translation: "I can wear any provocative or innappropiate outfit I want, and how you feel about it is YOUR problem, and YOUR responsibility."

This attitude is manipulative, and did I ever feel jacked around, with my intelligence being insulted at the same time by that video in the OP.

What video? The article I linked to didn't have one, at least but when I look at it on my phone

Lots of great responses. It's given me a lot to think about. I think there is some responsibility on both sides. I also think so much of modesty is cultural, so it's hard to pin it down.

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).