Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: GNPE ( )
Date: October 10, 2021 09:13PM

Facts First:

- As most long-term posters know, I count myself as a nudist, I enjoy skinny-dipping & free-hiking whenever possible/appropriate.

- each-all of us make many personal choices each day, including what to wear, this, of course, includes females, women & girls

- females Can dress provocatively. Some do, some don't

- for sake of this thread, do we agree that males are more visually oriented than females are?

When there's company or someone sensitive, I wear clothing, to me it's a matter of respect for others, not a loss of my choices.

So, (knowing ChurchCo can ruin any good thought), isn't it a matter of respect to others (known & unknown) for women Not to dress provocatively?
<Yes, I know that each male has a different threshold, that makes this a bit more complicated>

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: October 10, 2021 09:33PM

>for sake of this thread, do we agree that males are more visually oriented than females are?

No

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 10, 2021 11:12PM

Sometimes eloquence is laconic.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: caffiend ( )
Date: October 10, 2021 10:07PM

It is a matter of respect.
If you're at a cocktail party, then yes, you do want to draw attention to yourself, ladies. But if it's church, the worship service should be the focus of people's attention. So as a believer, I see it as a matter of respect for others--the men, especially--but also for the congregation in general, but especially to God.

Incidentally, provocative clothing not necessarily a matter of how much skin is exposed. Sometime ago there was a spirited thread about yoga pants. Yes, those can be extremely distracting, especially when worn under a sheer or light dress/skirt.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 10, 2021 11:11PM

caffiend seems to have done a good deal of research on this topic.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: caffiend ( )
Date: October 10, 2021 11:52PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 10, 2021 11:58PM

Just as long as you don't whip out yours uh thesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLKTUrWcTMA

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Nightingale ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 04:48PM

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So as a believer, I
> see it [modest clothing in church] as a matter of respect for others--the men,
> especially--but also for the congregation in
> general, but especially to God.

So we show respect to God in church but outside of that it's a free-for-all and that's not disrespectful to God? :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2021 04:48PM by Nightingale.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ~ufotofu~ ( )
Date: October 10, 2021 10:53PM

I just wear clothes To Stay Out Of Trouble ♡

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: messygoop ( )
Date: October 10, 2021 11:10PM

When children are born into the covenant, they are born with clothing. They are not born naked or nude. That would be very un-Christlike for such a true church which shuns acts of immodesty.

<grin>

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: GNPE ( )
Date: October 10, 2021 11:47PM

mg:

If God / HF / jesus wanted us to be nude, we would have been Born that way...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 12:08AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: bradley ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 12:23AM

Adam, who told thee that thou wast naked?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Susan I/S ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 12:37AM

Just be age and place appropriate. Goes for guys too. The rest is not your problem. Easy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ~ufotofu~ ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 01:37AM

By Going Naked in her

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: GNPE ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 02:22AM

++++++

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: summer ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 06:33AM

>>- for sake of this thread, do we agree that males are more visually oriented than females are?

Nope.

>>isn't it a matter of respect to others (known & unknown) for women Not to dress provocatively?

Nope.

I agree with Susan I/S that everyone (men and women) should dress appropriately for a given occasion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Done & Done ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 10:40AM

Let he who has eyes, see.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Elder Berry ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 11:03AM

R-E-S-P-E-C-T doesn't have a (vitamin) D in it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: caffiend ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 11:10AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Elder Berry ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 02:30PM

If that isn't the naked truth.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: thedesertrat1 ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 02:27PM

it is too bad we cannot get a nudist group together here in Orem or Provo
any ideas how we would go about it?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Elder Berry ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 02:29PM

Set one up on meetup.com and be sure to tell people about the free pizza.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jay ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 11:31PM

lol . . . . what kind?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jay ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 11:37PM

I think if you expound on what visually oriented means, you may get a few yeses.

Based on what they see, what lengths will men go to? I think there's some data on that-

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 10:24PM

First: GNPE hiking nude. Now there's an image I can't unsee. Perhaps it explains the sasquatch sightings.

Second: since I didn't see a lot of expansion on my two letter reply, I'll try and connect a few more dots for those who may have missed my point. Summer looks like she got exactly what I meant, which doesn't surprise me.

When I saw the statement "for sake of this thread, do we agree that males are more visually oriented than females are", the red warning flag immediately went up that I should brace myself for a tsunami of sexist cliches.

And no, I don't agree with the premise. I suspect quite a few women of a certain age thought the bad boy played by Brad Pitt (the role that started him on the path to riches and fame) in Thelma and Louise (30 years ago - argh!) was visually provocative. Same for a number of James Bonds, though that was a somewhat more abstract provocation, and what about all those superhero characters with ripped bods and skin tight outfits. Sure, it is done to impress tenth grade boys, but it is also trying to hook the girls too.

Which brings up another point: OP assumes women dress "provocatively" to ensnare poor defenseless men (yes, believe it or not, OP played the "men are the real victims" card, and thought they should be shown more respect!)

It's not all about the poor men, however much they may consider themselves the center of the universe. Sometime women dress provocatively to impress or intimidate other women, or to annoy/impress mom, or they are just a bit narcissistic, and enjoy the attention. Narcissism can pay well. One word: Kardashian.

Yes, women do sometimes try to provoke interest from the opposite sex (or from the same sex, come to think of it). Up until 50 years ago, they were at such an economic disadvantage, that they used the tools they had - cleavage, flirting, Feregamos (which required money), etc. Men also do things to provoke sexual interest in women (and men) - ripped bods, tight clothes, fancy cars, like Bond's Astin Martin, expensive restaurants, sophisticated martini's, shaken, not stirred, and the rest of the list.

And I bet it would never occur to OP and those for whom the feminist movement may have been a "Whoosh" that they should tell men to maybe forgo the expensive clothes and fancy cars, because they might be too "provocative" (their purpose, after all, is to provoke interest) for women, and therefor disrespectful.

Men don't get chastised for flaunting wealth and power and bod, they are admired and deemed successful. It is only women who are expected to apologize, and show more "respect". [I suppose I should note that men can go way overboard, even by male chauvinist standards and are finally being called to account for it - Epstein, Roger Ailes, Peter Nygard. I lived in Winnipeg back in the 1980s where Nygard was from (and where he is now in a jail awaiting extradition to the US), and even then he had a spectacularly bad reputation that still took another third of a century to catch up with him, sadly. Until recently, men with enough money and power just got away with it.]


I realize some of the posters here formed their worldview about women in the 1950s and 60s, but you really should have picked up some additional points in the ensuing 50 years. This rant is my way of showing that I think it is not too late. The bar can still be raised.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 10:31PM

Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Susan I/S ( )
Date: October 11, 2021 10:40PM

I couldn't agree more BoJ. Spot on. Standing ovation!

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  ******   **     **  ********   ******   **       
 **    **  **     **  **    **  **    **  **       
 **        **     **      **    **        **       
 **        **     **     **     **        **       
 **        **     **    **      **        **       
 **    **  **     **    **      **    **  **       
  ******    *******     **       ******   ********