Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
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>
- 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>
>for sake of this thread, do we agree that males are more visually oriented than females are?
No
No
Sometimes eloquence is laconic.
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.
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.
caffiend seems to have done a good deal of research on this topic.
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
I just wear clothes To Stay Out Of Trouble ♡
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>
<grin>
mg:
If God / HF / jesus wanted us to be nude, we would have been Born that way...
If God / HF / jesus wanted us to be nude, we would have been Born that way...
Adam, who told thee that thou wast naked?
Just be age and place appropriate. Goes for guys too. The rest is not your problem. Easy.
>>- 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.
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.
Let he who has eyes, see.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T doesn't have a (vitamin) D in it.
If that isn't the naked truth.
it is too bad we cannot get a nudist group together here in Orem or Provo
any ideas how we would go about it?
any ideas how we would go about it?
Set one up on meetup.com and be sure to tell people about the free pizza.
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-
Based on what they see, what lengths will men go to? I think there's some data on that-
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.
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.
I couldn't agree more BoJ. Spot on. Standing ovation!