Modesty in dress:

[Archaea]

a question.

Now, in this matter, I'm certain to be a liberal, hailing from Las Vegas, but inately, what is immodest in showing a woman's back or shoulders. I realize it's related to garments, but I wonder if the garment weren't developed solely to cover when that's how people dressed.

If you study the human form, I still don't understand the obsession with covering it. Sexual parts, okay, that makes sense for protection and to avoid more than constant dwelling on it.

I don't even worry too much about midriffs, as last time I checked they weren't reproductive organs.

Set a brother adrift on the narrow path. Is our current definition of "modesty" just a device or means to an end that could change?

[BigFatMeanie]

I think the definition of "modesty" is something that changes over time. I offer the following evidences (not an all-inclusive list):

- Women at BYU weren't allowed to wear pants in the past
- Men and women at BYU weren't allowed to wear shorts in the past
- Garments used to be "ankles and wrists" in the past
- Swimming suits used to be a complete set of clothes in the past. A one-piecer is generally considered modest by everyone nowadays and many LDS sisters wear bikinis.

Although the Brethren define the current standards of modesty in general terms (as evidenced by the "Youth" pamphlet - can't remember it's official title), I think the evidence indicates there is no such thing as an absolute standard of modesty that never changes over time or that the Church has an absolute standard that doesn't change over time.

As far as backs, midriffs, and shoulders go: I personally don't think revealing them is innately modest; however, those that wear garments have covenanted to wear them both day and night which makes reveleaing the backs, midriffs, and shoulders a little more difficult to do given current garment patterns.

Perhaps someday in the future garment patterns and attitudes about modesty will evolve (or "devolve" depending upon your point of view) to the point where women can wear garments that reveal their backs and shoulders (midriff is a little more problematic given the markings) and still be considered "modest".

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

a question.

Now, in this matter, I'm certain to be a liberal, hailing from Las Vegas, but inately, what is immodest in showing a woman's back or shoulders. I realize it's related to garments, but I wonder if the garment weren't developed solely to cover when that's how people dressed.

If you study the human form, I still don't understand the obsession with covering it. Sexual parts, okay, that makes sense for protection and to avoid more than constant dwelling on it.

I don't even worry too much about midriffs, as last time I checked they weren't reproductive organs.

Set a brother adrift on the narrow path. Is our current definition of "modesty" just a device or means to an end that could change?

One thing we're always in danger of doing in the never-ending quest for modesty is perpetuating the human body as a fetishized object (or as a collection of such objects). The prudes and perverts always reconstruct each other. When the concealment of a body part simultaneously indicates its presence, like with lingerie or a Muslim woman's mouth covering, we fetishize and objectify that part and participate in the fragmentation of the human body. The fascion industry (intentional mis-spelling) knows this and uses it to sell us products.

To clarify, I'm not against attractive dress or lingerie. I just have a problem with the social construction of sexuality for profit that depends on prudes who despise their own bodies (a kind of objectification) and perverts who worship them (another kind of objectification) going round and round in endless conflict.

Healthy sexuality avoids the extremes of both kinds of objectification.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

As far as backs, midriffs, and shoulders go: I personally don't think revealing them is innately modest; however, those that wear garments have covenanted to wear them both day and night which makes reveleaing the backs, midriffs, and shoulders a little more difficult to do given current garment patterns.

I have an aunt who never saw an outfit that she didn't think could worn with garments. I swear she could wear a Daisy Duke outfit and find a way to tuck and fold the garments out of sight. At least she thinks she's tucking them out of sight.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

This is kind of a strange spiral in my mind.

Is there anything wrong with showing a little skin? If yes... Why? Because it gives little boys bad ideas?

If that is our rationale then shouldn't anything that gives little boys bad ideas be outlawed?

The way Mrs. Hippie looks in a few of her sweaters gave me bad ideas when we were dating. Does that mean she was dressed immodestly? Does it matter that the sweater is a wool turtle neck?

Where does it end?

Then you consider the other side. None of this would be a problem if boys didn't always have dirty little thoughts running thru their minds.

I think tagging immodesty in dress is like spotting pornograpy in art. Obviouosly there are some gray areas and there are some black and white areas.

I think the only way this issue can be resolved is by each young woman honestly seeking to be modest in her dress. And by each young man trying to be pure in his thoughts.

No dress code will ever solve the problem.

[fusnik11]

Modesty in clothing = overrated

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

No dress code will ever solve the problem.

What problem?

I see modesty in dress as highly overrated because sexual attractiveness varies so drastically depending on the individual.

I will tell you this much, my fiancee looks 100% more sexier, desireable when she comes home from work in her small professional dress and shirt that shows her curves than when she is working out in her spandex shorts and sports bra.

[MikeWaters]

for those of you guys who are still single. If you notice your girlfriend is wearing a somewhat loose top with a decent cutout at the neck, I recommend that you immediately change your date plans and say "let's go play pool."

You know the rest of the drill.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

for those of you guys who are still single. If you notice your girlfriend is wearing a somewhat loose top with a decent cutout at the neck, I recommend that you immediately change your date plans and say "let's go play pool."

You know the rest of the drill.

Isn't a woman's posture playing pool similar to a woman's posture riding a bicycle? Archaea's fascination with biking is starting to make sense to me.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Isn't a woman's posture playing pool similar to a woman's posture riding a bicycle? Archaea's fascination with biking is starting to make sense to me.

One small detail though, the more she bikes, the less she has to show. And that really doesn't matter to me.