I saw this crap on my facebook feed. To suggest that you lose value if you don't wear the "right" clothes is ridiculous. I want to respond in an appropriate manner. I am just ragging inside and can't put together a response that won't be all caps.

"A girl bought an iPad, when her father saw it, He asked her "What was the 1st thing you did when you bought it?
"I put an anti-scratch sticker on the screen and bought a cover for the iPad" she replied.
"Did someone force you to do so?" "No" "Don't you think it's an insult to the manufacturer?" "No dad! In fact they even recommend using
a cover for the iPad" "Did you cover it because it was cheap & ugly?"
"Actually, I covered it because I didn't want it to get damage and decrease in value."
"When you put the cover on, didn't it reduce the iPad's beauty?"
"I think it looks better and it is worth it for the protection it gives my iPad."
The father looked lovingly at his daughter and said, "Yet if I had asked you to cover your body which is much more precious than the iPad, would you have readily agreed???" She was
mute.....

Indecent dressing and exposure of your body reduces your value and respect.

Parents/grandparents teach your ladies their value .

May God guide us all ."

It also promotes fear that they're likely to be harmed if uncovered....by men who can't control themselves. Bullshit. Men are responsible for their own actions - and what you wear doesn't change them. I was always well endowed...and even though I chose hideously ugly modest choices as a good little morgbot, I was still objectified by those who chose to respond to the world in that way.

Now I wear whatever I want and have the attitude that I don't take bullshit - and I receive the respect that I ask for...even if I'm not wearing sleeves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2016 02:59PM by idahobanana.

Rape is a crime that stems mainly from a need to control and overpower others. Many rapists have attacked little old ladies in orthopedic hose mainly because they are easily overpowered and not because they were scantily dressed. It is the same reason for child abuse. Children are more helpless and less able to resist being abused.

Many violent acts are first detected when the abuser starts hurting dogs and other small animals. It is where they first feel safe to harm others. I doubt anyone would ever say their dog or kitten got kicked to death because it was asking for it by any particular way it looked. Only the abuser says "they were asking for it" because they can give no other excuse. Somehow in their own sick mind they excuse their actions because, as usual, the victim is to blame, not them.

+infinity

If you believe the news (big if) Muslim men commit more rapes than European or American men and Muslim women are practically vacuum packed in "coverings!"

Sexual beauty for Mormonism is like sexual attraction - it doesn't define you so hide it behind the nonsense of sexual purity for Jesus.

He likes to view your sexual beauty and only share it with your spouse.

How come only girls and women get this kind of $Ħ!††¥ message?

After a lifetime of being blamed and shamed (but never tamed, or so I've been told) I am getting to really, really, really H8 religion!

Do NOT worry, MORmONISM has tons of crappy messages and insults and shame for EVERYONE. Its only when a person reaches the lofty station of elite MORmON leader that they are beyond criticism. Just ask Dallin Oaks.

One possible response: so this doesn't apply to men?

No. And part of the whole point of this type of thinking in Mormonism is that women are responsible for men's inappropriate thoughts because of the way they dress and therefore, are in the end, also responsible for the men's inappropriate actions.


Dark Ages.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2016 03:18PM by blueorchid.

"A girl bought an painting, when her father saw it, He asked her "What was the 1st thing you did when you bought it?
"I bought a cover for the painting" she replied.
"Did someone force you to do so?" "No" "Don't you think it's an insult to the artist?" "No dad! "Did you cover it because it was cheap & ugly?"
"Actually, I covered it because I didn't want it to get damage and decrease in value."
"When you put the cover on, didn't it reduce the painting's beauty?"
"I don't care how it looks, it is worth it for the protection it gives my painting."
The father looked lovingly at his daughter and said, "Yet if I had asked you to completely cover your body which is much more precious than the painting, would you have readily agreed???" She was
mute.....

See how stupid and pointless this analogy is?

Yes, these are the people who put clothing on Rodin sculptures. They see no difference between a human being and a manikin.

Their ideal human bodies are temples which need veils.

My response is, "I would never be so arrogant as to assign a value to others--especially a value decided by something as meaningless as dress and appearance. When I do appreciate or notice something about someone else it is because of their actions, their empathy, and their reciprocity."

Mormons are all about appearance and facade. The heart and soul don't really concern them.

Women and girls are always presented as inanimate objects in these silly analogies. This time, she's an iPad instead of a cupcake, a stick of gum, or an apple. But she's always a possession, something that exists only for the use and enjoyment of men. In this case, her father owns her the same way she owns her iPad. He doesn't want her scratched up, because he's afraid it will damage the resale value.

Exactly what I was thinking. Always an object. Never a thinking individual who deserves authority over her own life.

Exactly. They view girls as property, first owned by their fathers before given to their new owner, the husband. They don't consider females to be human beings, but chattel for breeding.

The main thing that bugs me when I read stupid stories like this is that it makes girls and women look like they all have some uncontrollable, burning desire to dress inappropriately in slutty clothing. They need someone (usually a man) to talk some sense into them with a dumb story about an ipad.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2016 04:49PM by want2bx.

Another thing I hear Mormon's repeating is that it's so hard to find "modest" clothing. This is utterly ridiculous. I can walk into any store and find clothes that cover my body as much or as little as I want. I made that comment on an KSL newspiece once about a new "modest" clothing company, and of course they didn't post the comment.

What Mormon's call modest, I have discovered, is clothing that not only covers the body, but also has a least a tiny bit of the "frump factor". THEN it gets thumbs-up as being "modest."

That's true, it's really not that difficult to find clothing that covers as much of the body as you want. It's just that Mormons have the regulation underwear that they have to hide so they need the frump factor in order to appear "modest" enough so the RS hens won't gossip about them.

I was dressed a lot like this, and a Mormon freaked out. That's why I found this place.

http://images.asos-media.com/inv/media/9/7/0/7/3287079/black/image1xxl.jpg

Love the outfit!

I can't see a problem, that outfit is adorable.

Dress is cultural in nature. There was a time when if women exposed their ankles, they would have been considered immodest. Right now there is fairly broad cultural agreement in the Western countries about what is acceptable dress for various types of work and recreation. Do people sometimes push the envelope? Sure. But most people have a pretty good idea of how to dress for a job interview vs. a wedding vs. seeing a movie on Saturday night.

Mormons want women somewhat more covered up than the rest of Western culture so that they can make a virtue of their Mormon "modesty." But it's all relative.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2016 05:46PM by summer.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Mormons want women somewhat more covered up than
> the rest of Western culture so that they can make
> a virtue of their Mormon "modesty." But it's all
> relative.
>

Which is patently obvious when you review the history of the design of the holy garments. The church wants to be attractive, and having to look too different (a la Amish) is off putting to potential converts.

I am better than an ipad so I don't need clothes.

Are you saying you want to resale me?

ipads can't protect them selves like I can.

I heal ipads don't. However we both can be fixed.

ipads look better with clear protection. So I must look better with shear clothes.

If the ipad gets damaged you can buy another. If I get damaged you can make another.

And doesn't Salt Lake rank first in the nation for plastic surgery? How does that relate to the push for modest (ie frumpy) clothing?

maizyday2 said:
What Mormon's call modest, I have discovered, is clothing that not only covers the body, but also has a least a tiny bit of the "frump factor". THEN it gets thumbs-up as being "modest."

That is a conundrum, isn't it. I think the plastic surgery is all part of "appearances". It's hard to be the perfect mormon family if you look less than perfect.

Mommy, why can't girls walk safely in a Mormon neighborhood?

Well honey, it's because All the males are priesthood holders, and they're just waiting for word to come down that polygamy is reinstated.

I didn't realize women were objects that men carried around, poked and swiped with their grubby fingers, and risked dropping on a hard surface. If that's the case, we should wrap women in bubble wrap.

Not covered: what happens to the iPad a year later when the girl, in a fit of frustrated anger, throws it against the wall, cracking the screen, and subsequently sends it to a landfill (because man has dominion over the earth, so why the hell should we recycle?).

Where's that part of the analogy?

And it's still a fact that women forced to wear burquas are raped at the same or higher percentage than those who don't.
It doesn't matter about how much protection you put on your iPad. Ipads treated with respect remain undamaged alot more than iPads that are not treated with respect. Let's try a respectful culture than one that gives the appearance of protection.

Anon1500 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And it's still a fact that women forced to wear
> burquas are raped at the same or higher percentage
> than those who don't.
> It doesn't matter about how much protection you
> put on your iPad. Ipads treated with respect
> remain undamaged alot more than iPads that are not
> treated with respect. Let's try a respectful
> culture than one that gives the appearance of
> protection.

Yes. The BBC did a story about sexual harassment of women in Muslim countries a few years ago and were surprised to report that there was no difference in whether the women harassed were wearing the Muslim headscarf or not--any and all younger women were subject to harassment if they were without a male relative in public. What they wore made no difference. There is also an extremely high rate of rape, including gang rape, in Iran, where all women *must* wear very modest clothing.

Promoting this bs only gives an excuse to rapists and harassers.

Mormons don't make the distinction between being attractive and dressing attractively, and the assumption that every male that will find a women attractive-based on her outfit or not- will act on it, and if he does it is the woman's fault. Thus women should dress modestly at all times as some arbitrary 'safeguard'.

In the Mormon's world, it is a woman's responsibility to guard every man and woman's virtue, not each individual man and woman, boy and girl. Also, their idea of virtue is incredibly narrow, chauvinistic, misogynistic, and plain wrong. Men are capable of finding something attractive without BEING attracted, and certainly without acting on it, consensually or otherwise. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. I have found a woman attractive, or the way she dresses appealing, or a woman is some other way attractive without being attracted to her, if that makes sense. Like, she's wearing a nice skirt, her shoes are trendy, etc. etc.

Mormons seem completely incapable of making these delineations.

If men are such weak-willed creatures that they can be driven to horrendously inappropriate behavior by something as silly as women's clothing choices, why on earth would God or a Deity put such ineffectual beings in charge of everything?

I mean, shouldn't The Great High Muckity-Muck Male Priesthood Boss be equipped with a factory-installed spine?

In related news I went on a massive facebook friend purge. I went from somewhere around 500 to just under 200.

I went to therapy as a child and the head psychologist had the mind frame that all men are pigs. She was the worst. I was berated along with my brother and told that we were going to be just like all the horrible men that she knew. I tried to reason with her but that only got me in more hot water. We were both happy to leave and never looked back due to lack of financing.

Growing up I hated how Mormon culture breeds false and damaging views, including gender. Not only are they preconceived biases they are disgusting.

The analogy reminds me of the misguided object lessons that involve irreversible damage: chewed gum, fist in the chastity cake, etc. iPad scratches do not heal and cannot be "cleansed" by the blood of Zombeezus, so this approach will inevitably lead to psychological scars on teenagers that transgress or are pressured/forced into having "scratched" souls.

So, his daughter was made in a Chinese sweatshop by a worker who still has rug burns from the cargo net strung at the bottom of her high-rise dorm.