Ponderings on nudity and modesty


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Mike said:

I bristled at the 99.999% statistic cited above. But I realized my discomfort may have been an unwarranted knee-jerk reaction to having my normal sexual desire lumped in with men who suffer from uncontrollable and/or aberrant desires.

I don't really get what you meant by this.  It sounds like you're interpreting the opposite of what I said.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't see how that changes the thrust of my point.  Change the "Mike" to your friend and the issue is still the same.

You mention something "contrary to (God's) kingdom.  You're assuming wearing a bikini is inherently immodest.  My position is that what you wear is only immodest because of how you feel about it and how others react to it.  If no one were to become aroused by it and if your intent has nothing to do with arousal, there is nothing immodest about it.

While it is a fact that 99.999% of heterosexual men will become aroused at seeing a shapely woman clad in a bikini, it is only the fact that arousal exists that makes it immodest,not the bikini wearing itself.  And while I believe you when you say your friend was deceiving himself, it still doesn't change my point.

I consider immodest things immodest per se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

I consider immodest things immodest per se.

This is clearly wrong, as a general rule. A nude baby is not immodest. A nude corpse is not immodest. A nude patient in surgery is not immodest. A nude spouse is not immodest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

This is clearly wrong, as a general rule. A nude baby is not immodest. A nude corpse is not immodest. A nude patient in surgery is not immodest. A nude spouse is not immodest.

I never said those things were immodest. I mean that there are things which are immodest regardless of what anyone thinks, like women in bikinis. A group of ultra-straight men in the middle of nowhere wearing Speedo's, with no one else to see, are still immodest. I disagree with the idea that modesty is relative to the observer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
56 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

 I disagree with the idea that modesty is relative to the observer.

To some degree it is. A prig with enough time on their hands and interest in feeling superior to others can make anything sound immodest. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't really get what you meant by this.  It sounds like you're interpreting the opposite of what I said.

I didn't mean it that way. I was only saying that my reaction to the statistic was unwarranted on my part. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When one considers that it is a real fact that how one generally dresses when they go out is largely influenced upon sexual appeal and desire its no wonder why we are where we are at. We may in fact be doing it for our spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend but that signal gets put on a billboard for others to notice also. Its thus paramount that we arent dressing to send the wrong message intentionally (as in flirting through dressing chouce) to others other than our mate. Theres nothing wrong with dressing to look good and holy unless we flaunt it intentionally in unrighteous ways to others.  In truth, the clothing market is built largely around sexual appeal that in ever increasing ways is becoming more and more immodest. We could, in many ways, take lesson from the Amish in proper modesty. Thankfully we do have garments that when worn correctly under our clothing help keep our dress choice modest and holy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Carborendum @Snigmorder @Vort @Mike

Your conversation really started to help me think more about modesty, and I thank Vort for bringing up the conversation topic to allow me this small insight. As I was reading through your comments particularly around the subject of modesty and arousal I questioned how I define modesty, or what it means. I was thinking in terms of housing how a modest home would seem to be unpretentious and humble. Such a home doesn't draw a lot of attention. When it comes to dressing modestly, I've always thought about it in terms of covering up everything the garments do. What I gleaned from this new perspective is the drawing attention piece. A baby or primitive tribal member without clothing doesn't draw much attention by lacking clothing. Keeping the garnering of attention in mind when making wardrobe decisions one needs to assess both their personal motivation for choosing a certain outfit and how that decision is likely to be perceived by others. While I'd assume it is fine to dress to be noticed, whether trying to make an impression at work or in the dating scene, there is obviously a distinction where the line is crossed into immodesty or being pretentious, prideful, or showy. 

Obviously there are differing social norms that influence perception within varying cultures as wearing what ladies do at my gym would definitely be considered immodest in a society where the expectation is for women to be fully veiled and don burkas. Could it not be equally attention grabbing though to wear a burka to the swimming pool where everyone else is in traditional western swimwear? Could the wearing of something simply inappropriate for the occasion be immodest? It certainly seems that in our culture a persons sex-appeal is a very valuable commodity and if you have an abundant supply of said commodity you flaunt it - in this case by dressing provocatively to inspire sexual thoughts in others. Could it be equally immodest to dress in such a way as to flaunt one's wealth? Perhaps very large diamond rings, designer clothing and so on. Anyhow, I think that from now on I won't quite look at modesty the same. Rather than just how revealing an outfit (or lack thereof) is, how likely is it to draw excess attention.  

Edited by SpiritDragon
spelling/typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On occasion, I have seen people wearing ostentatiously expensive clothing at the temple, e.g. a white dinner jacket ensemble or an ornate white evening gown modified to satisfy minimal temple standards. I tend to think these are oversights made in ignorance and don't otherwise think too much about it. especially when the people involved are young, typically getting married. But if and when such a thing is done for the purpose of showing off or drawing attention to oneself, it is undoubtedly immodest. We don't usually think or speak of immodesty in such terms, but we should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

@Carborendum @Snigmorder @Vort @Mike

Your conversation really started to help me think more about modesty, and I thank Vort for bringing up the conversation topic to allow me this small insight. As I was reading through your comments particularly around the subject of modesty and arousal I questioned how I define modesty, or what it means. I was thinking in terms of housing how a modest home would seem to be unpretentious and humble. Such a home doesn't draw a lot of attention. When it comes to dressing modestly, I've always thought about it in terms of covering up everything the garments do. What I gleaned from this new perspective is the drawing attention piece. A baby or primitive tribal member without clothing doesn't draw much attention by lacking clothing. Keeping the garnering of attention in mind when making wardrobe decisions one needs to assess both their personal motivation for choosing a certain outfit and how that decision is likely to be perceived by others. While I'd assume it is fine to dress to be noticed, whether trying to make an impression at work or in the dating scene, there is obviously a distinction where the line is crossed into immodesty or being pretentious, prideful, or showy. 

Obviously there are differing social norms that influence perception within varying cultures as wearing what ladies do at my gym would definitely be considered immodest in a society where the expectation is for women to be fully veiled and don burkas. Could it not be equally attention grabbing though to wear a burka to the swimming pool where everyone else is in traditional western swimwear? Could the wearing of something simply inappropriate for the occasion be immodest? It certainly seems that in our culture a persons sex-appeal is a vary valuable commodity and if you have an abundant supply of said commodity you flaunt it - in this case by dressing provocatively to inspire sexual thoughts in others. Could it be equally immodest to dress in such a way as to flaunt one's wealth? Perhaps very large diamond rings, designer clothing and so on. Anyhow, I think that from now on I won't quite look at modesty the same. Rather than just how revealing an outfit (or lack thereof) is, how likely is it to draw excess attention.  

Hmm. In a neighborhood of mansions a "modest" house in their midst would draw lots of attention. Would that change the definition of that house so it was no longer "modest"?

Obviously intent plays a part -- if one built the "modest" house as a holier-than-thou-look-how-modest-I-am sort of thing then yeah...not modest at all. But the girl wearing the modest swimming suit at the pool when every other girl is wearing a thong bikini may stand out...but she's still being modest.

And we are commanded as a people to stand apart from the world, etc. Being the only one not drinking, smoking, swearing, etc., makes us stand out. Does that mean we're not modest in our behavior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
9 hours ago, Vort said:

On occasion, I have seen people wearing ostentatiously expensive clothing at the temple, e.g. a white dinner jacket ensemble or an ornate white evening gown modified to satisfy minimal temple standards. I tend to think these are oversights made in ignorance and don't otherwise think too much about it. especially when the people involved are young, typically getting married. But if and when such a thing is done for the purpose of showing off or drawing attention to oneself, it is undoubtedly immodest. We don't usually think or speak of immodesty in such terms, but we should.

Make sure your (generic, not you meaning @Vort) immodesty isn't based in jealousy. Like you saying "I'm jealous I don't have nice clothes or a bigger house, so I'll just label them as immodest so I can feel good." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. In a neighborhood of mansions a "modest" house in their midst would draw lots of attention. Would that change the definition of that house so it was no longer "modest"?

Obviously intent plays a part -- if one built the "modest" house as a holier-than-thou-look-how-modest-I-am sort of thing then yeah...not modest at all. But the girl wearing the modest swimming suit at the pool when every other girl is wearing a thong bikini may stand out...but she's still being modest.

And we are commanded as a people to stand apart from the world, etc. Being the only one not drinking, smoking, swearing, etc., makes us stand out. Does that mean we're not modest in our behavior?

Excellent points! One nice thing in the church is having clear guidelines on appropriate dress. There is no doubt that intent is a critical piece, however, certain choices seem likely to be closer to inherently immodest. For instance, a person might prefer to wear more revealing clothes because it's hot (the weather, not the style) but this intent doesn't change how others are likely to receive the choice of clothing. Thus it becomes important to assess one's own desire and how others will perceive the choice.

As far as standing apart from the world based on behaviour, I think you nailed it with attitude and intent. Choosing not to drink may or may not stand out, perhaps people will just think someone prefers other beverages. Quietly going about one's business is completely different than making a big issue of the behaviour in question and expressing judgment about others engaging in such practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the OP, Vort. I used to think nudity=bad. I don't see nudity as evil anymore. It just is. As you say, God created Adam and Eve naked, tabernacled only in flesh. We are spirits experiencing a temporal existence wherein the flesh is to be crucified (lusts, appetites, etc). It reminds me of what Paul wrote:

Quote

15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

God is pure and therefore created Adam and Eve as pure. It was they who disobeyed and became fallen, aware of their "nakedness." Worse still is if we are brought to stand before the Lord in our "nakedness" as so many passages in scripture suggest. I am more concerned about being clothed in "righteousness" and "glory." These are the "garments" that ought to become spotless. The "skin" we live in is just a vehicle to accomplish this and is susceptible to scrapes, cuts, bruises, disease, etc.

When Moroni visited Joseph Smith in his room, Joseph could notice that Moroni wore nothing underneath. All my life, I supposed that Joseph was trying to peek under Moroni's robe with a boy's curiosity. When I told this to my wife, she told me that she had always thought that Moroni's robe was translucent. That makes much more sense to me. I do not consider celestial beings to be self righteous, pious/sanctimonious beings, but simply just celestial beings with no thought whatsoever of their bodies. "Nakedness" to me is to be clothed without glory, light, righteousness, etc and completely unrelated to all the traditional and fashionable coverings we put on every day to go to work, etc. I went to church today in the traditional priesthood uniform (white shirt, tie, etc, as my bishop describes it, but I am still "naked" until the Lord clothes me in glory at the last day.

Edited by skalenfehl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

I never said those things were immodest. I mean that there are things which are immodest regardless of what anyone thinks, like women in bikinis. A group of ultra-straight men in the middle of nowhere wearing Speedo's, with no one else to see, are still immodest. I disagree with the idea that modesty is relative to the observer.

And a woman wearing a bra and panties in her bathroom is immodest? What if she's handicapped but getting help from her gay male Butler?

Are either of those against God's kingdom?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

It is immodest which is why she's doing it in the bathroom.

I asked: Is it against God's Kingdom (which was your phrase that really got me on this line of reasoning in the first place).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I asked: Is it against God's Kingdom (which was your phrase that really got me on this line of reasoning in the first place).

That's something of a strawman.  Obviously it's not against the kingdom to get dressed in your bathroom. Obviously it is against the kingdom to go out in public essentially naked in a bikini.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

That's something of a strawman.  Obviously it's not against the kingdom to get dressed in your bathroom. Obviously it is against the kingdom to go out in public essentially naked in a bikini.

That's not a straw man.  It may be a red herring.  But it is because of a statement you made.  It is that statement that I have the biggest problem with in your line of reasoning.  "Against the Kingdom" and "immodest" may not necessarily be the same thing.

The rest of it... If you made the right arguments and gave the proper perspective... I might be persuaded to believe it's not completely off.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's not a straw man.  It may be a red herring.  But it is because of a statement you made.  It is that statement that I have the biggest problem with in your line of reasoning.  

The rest of it... If you made the right arguments and gave the proper perspective... I might be persuaded to believe it's not completely off.

I will admit my representation of this principal has not been well stated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

For instance, a person might prefer to wear more revealing clothes because it's hot (the weather, not the style) but this intent doesn't change how others are likely to receive the choice of clothing.

Really?  I live down the street from a college, so it's pretty common during the hotter months to see women in tank tops and short shorts.  The ones still wearing those when it's 40F or below, particularly when they're wearing short shorts and a heavy coat, definitely are received differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2017 at 4:32 PM, NeuroTypical said:

I used to be a lot more passionate on the subject than I am today.  I've basically done a 180 on breastfeeding in public.  I have no problem with folks being enthusiastic or zealous about modesty, it's just that I don't really care as much as I used to.

You realize that many cultures breastfeed in public and no one thinks twice? I have had mothers nurse in my classrooms; I have seen sisters nurse in RS - as long as they are covered (and in many cultures they do not cover), what is the issue? It is how God made woman to feed babies. In fact, in countries with uncertain water safety, they are better off nursing than using expensive Western formulas to feed kids. 

As for Snigmorder's post about  all depictions of nudity in art as being pornography - what. the.heck? I guess you can think what you want, but people who see the world differently are not complacent or tolerant of immodesty and nudity. Wow. No art classes for you, huh? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
23 minutes ago, dahlia said:

As for Snigmorder's post about  all depictions of nudity in art as being pornography - what. the.heck? I guess you can think what you want, but people who see the world differently are not complacent or tolerant of immodesty and nudity. Wow. No art classes for you, huh? 

Totally agree. I think calling a Degas nude or The David anything but masterpieces and beautiful works of art shows more on the person making the accusation then the works of art themselves. It's very silly to call them "immodest" but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The leaders of the Church have stated to avoid pornography in all forms.  I know also that we are the temple of God, and thus should be dressed modestly, and any depictions of people, etc, I feel should be the same way.  I really think the Lord expects modesty to be everywhere.  We live in a telestial world, but are preparing for a celestial one.  I can't see that there would be any immodesty displayed in any form there, so we should avoid it hear, as well, and be an example for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, dahlia said:

As for Snigmorder's post about  all depictions of nudity in art as being pornography - what. the.heck? I guess you can think what you want, but people who see the world differently are not complacent or tolerant of immodesty and nudity. Wow. No art classes for you, huh? 

I have no reverence for art and I am therefore unbothered.

Edited by Snigmorder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

I have no reverence for art

Audible gasp!  Have you told the artist that did that stylized Beethoven for Dorsey's album, which you are using as your profile photo?

Some art rocks.  Some art teaches, and challenges, and evokes, and edifies.  Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of bad art out there, and a neverending flood of useless or boring art.  And artists are a totally separate discussion.  But if you haven't found some art to reverence, your life is not as full as it could be.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share