To everyone who has watched the recent video by Jessica Rey, former White Power Ranger, current Hepburn-Inspired-Swimsuit Peddler,
Rey’s suits are stylish–she doesn’t want no “frumpy-dumpy” sister-wives getups.
Naturally, many people, including many of my friends, are posting the video with comments like, “love this” and “this is neat” and “modest is hottest” (actually, no one has said the last one yet, thank goodness).
Unfortunately, Rey is very misleading in her use of the research. She claims that researchers (at Princeton!) found that men who viewed women in bikinis saw them as objects, and as having less power, in comparison to women who were dressed “modestly” (in her opinion). Of course she also plugs her own swimwear line during this speech. Create a problem, and then sell people the solution – basic marketing.
In reality, the study found that bikinis per se were not the problem, but the attitudes held by the male viewer.1 In the study, hostile sexism (HS) is defined as “a combative ideology maintaining that women seek to control men to use sexuality or feminist ideology as a means to achieving status.” Men with high HS scores are “more likely to deny that women possess positive, uniquely human, secondary emotions (e.g., compassion…).” Here’s a key conclusion from the study:
“…male participants with high HS scores were faster to associate sexualized female targets with first-person action verbs and clothed female targets with third-person action verbs than the inverse. This suggests that sexualized women are more closely associated with being the objects, not the agents, of action as compared to clothed women, but only for men who possess hostile sexist attitudes.”
In other words, if you are a man, and you feel like women try to control men using their sexuality or feminism, if you see a woman in a bikini (or whatever might be “immodest” in your culture), you are more likely to objectify her, and see her as having less agency than a “modest” woman.
One thing this says to me is that the men who are most harshly critical of what women wear may indeed also be the men who possess the most sexist attitudes toward women. Perhaps we should be teaching young men to, in the very least, not be threatened by feminism, or “scantily clad” women, as if they were out to get them. Apparently this could go a long way toward increasing virtue.
A more recent study may also lend support to this idea.2 Male participants viewed non-nude centerfold images (women in bikinis and lingerie), and were measured according to how much these images impacted their attitudes about rape. These images DID have a negative impact on *some* of the men! Some of the men actually did become more accepting of rape.
What made the difference?
Those who became more accepting of rape also had reported having fathers who were “progressive” (not in the political sense) in that they espoused sexist attitudes about women, they treated women as objects and as means to sexual gratification. Participants who reported their fathers were “conservative” or “traditional” in the sense that they had respectful views of women, were NOT negatively impacted by the images.
Articles of clothing are not inherently immodest or modest. Our best bet at increasing virtue in the world and in the church is to teach young men to be respectful, to not be sexist, to see women as equals, to NOT be threatened by a woman’s body or how she chooses to display it. Heterosexual males are responsible for making a bikini or a shoulder or an ankle or a neck or a navel immodest.
Women, if you want to wear a bikini or a tankini or a Jessica Rey Hepburn Swim Dress, or a burqa swimsuit, go right ahead (not that you need my approval). Yes, it is true that if you choose to wear something more revealing than is the cultural norm, guys who are already sexist jerks will think of you as a hammer or wrench or some other object. We don’t need to base our actions on the lowest common denominator, however. Real men see women as people, as powerful agents unto themselves, REGARDLESS of the size of their swimsuit. Modesty is a factor of the mind, not the body. When one is “modest” in thought, outward dress reflects that doesn’t matter.
Discuss.
Notes:
1. Cikara, M., Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2010). From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 540-551.
2. This study was fairly recent, and should be published in the near future. The results reported here are from a presentation by a professor at a large Midwestern university.
Wheat & Tares 
It is impossible to be immodest if you are ugly, fat or otherwise undesirable. Impossible. By definition, only the attractive can be immodest.
Shenpa warrior, thank you for debunking this video. I knew that it couldn’t be giving the whole story on the study it referenced, but hadn’t had the stomach to research it further. Great piece. Kudos.
Well said.
I didn’t think you had satire in you, Will. Well done.
Ditto, brjones. Now, how about Jared?
Will: “only the attractive can be immodest” http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/photos/top-rated/page/3/ See #7.
RE: Articles of clothing are not inherently immodest or modest… Women, if you want to wear a bikini or a tankini or a Jessica Rey Hepburn Swim Dress, or a burqa swimsuit, go right ahead (not that you need my approval). Yes, it is true that if you choose to wear something more revealing than is the cultural norm**, guys who are already sexist jerks will think of you as a hammer or wrench or some other object.
I once had a friend who hailed from a far country. He had great pride in the English t-shirt he owned: they were cool. I was humored (and he horrified) to find that one of his shirts had, in large block letters, a derogatory obscenity one should never call a woman. I told him its meaning and advised him not to wear it – or say it. Ever.
I see now that I was wrong. After telling him the meaning I should have said, “But do not worry. An article of clothing is not inherently offensive, bigoted, or obscene. If you want to wear a t-shirt that calls women sluts, denounces God, or suggest you sympathize with the white power movement, go right ahead. (Not that you need my permission). Heck, you know that all of the words you have that I warned you not to say? Forget I said anything. Go ahead and use them. Yes, it is true that if you choose to use words cruder than the cultural norm (or put them on your clothes), the easily offended or priggish people you meet will consider you a contemptible bigot. But that is their problem. They should just focus on judging others less. It’s what Christ would do.
Thank you for the education. I will do better next time.
**Because wearing bikinis is so much more revealing than the cultural norm. It is a well known fact that only a small minority of American women wear bikinis when they go swimming. Only a few libertines dare show up at an America beach so scandalously dressed.
T. Greer: So, cutting through your sarcasm, you’re arguing that women’s bodies are in the same moral realm as bigoted, obscene, and offensive language, and should be treated with equal disapproval. You realize that you’re proving the exact point this blog post is making, right?
What beaches are you going to where bikinis are not the norm? They are 50% of the female swimwear on most US beaches I go to, higher in Hawaii. In Europe, they are 90% of the swimwear and often worn with no top. I wear them myself because I hate the disgusting feel of wet lycra on my stomach, and as a woman it is really difficult and sloppy to wriggle out of a wet one piece swimsuit to pee. I can assure you I am not attempting to seduce or tempt anyone. I dress in what is appropriate to the activity based on cultural norms and my own comfort.
“Because wearing bikinis is so much more revealing than the cultural norm. It is a well known fact that only a small minority of American women wear bikinis when they go swimming. Only a few libertines dare show up at an America beach so scandalously dressed.” – I’m not sure I follow your point here. Are bikinis really the norm for Mormon circles? Maybe I’ve been out of Utah too long.
Either way, yes, thank you T. Greer for being a live example of the post! 🙂
Re: cultural norms – my intent was to use the term for ANY style of dress outside the norm relative to any culture… e.g. Rey’s swimsuit line would be immodest/outside the norm in some cultures, just as a bikini would be (I assume!) at a ward pool party in Utah County.
I do agree bikinis are decidedly no longer the norm for Mormons, but last I checked, Utah has no beaches.
Um, hello! Utah has, um, Bear Lake… and uh… pools and stuff.
RE: “you’re arguing that women’s bodies…”
Curious. I never did make that argument. The concern was not so much with the human body as it was the clothing one chooses to cover it with. (Nor did I claim that both immodest clothing and vulgar language “should be treated with equal disapproval” – just that the logic used to excuse one applies equally as well to the other. Any opinions as to which of the two is worse than the other were left happily unstated).
But sure, I will cut the sarcasm and restate the case.
Modesty is a social construct. Perhaps heaven has an unchanging law that dictates where celestial hemlines must fall, but no such law has yet reached the ears of man. Men are left to their own devices. Thus what is modest and what is not changes with culture, with time, and with place. Ms. Rey’s swimsuits are positively puritan in the eyes of your average American living outside the Jello belt; the same swim wear would have been the height of scandal to the average American living in 1910. What the modest-is-hottest chicks wear to Church today would have given Brigham Young a heart attack. Times change. Standards often change with them. Our good author is correct: clothes don’t have any inherent moral meaning. They are just pieces of fabric. The only meaning they have is what we give to them.
But the same thing can be said about words.
Words are really just that – they are words. Sounds really. A collection of phonemes placed together in a distinctive, recognizable fashion. Units of lexical meaning. “Lets table the motion!” A strange configuration of lexical meanings. What does it mean? “Ok, we shall put it aside,” says the American. “No, I mean we should discuss it immediately!” replies the Englishman. Who was right? Depends on who you ask. The trouble with words and metaphors is that they just don’t unpack in other’s minds the way you wanted them to. If our American was Mormon and our Englishman Anglican, yet more hilarity would ensue. Calling. Ward. Minister. Bishop. Bear a testimony. Sacrament. Atonement. Confusion abounds – And this with two gentlemen living in the same day and age! Meanings of days past make it an even more difficult matter.
And these are not words bigoted, offensive, or obscene.
What makes a word so? Bitch is a female dog. Damned is a Biblical verb. “Jim was monstrous proud about Land he got so he wouldn’t hardly notice the other niggers” wrote Mark Twain. Truth is, a word is only profane if we deem it so. There is nothing inherently profane about the sounds, or even about the meaning – the last example being a particularly apt case in point. Meanings – or at least, our feelings about them – change with time. Not unlike the 36 inches of fabric some wear as swim suits.
Another story: Missionaries must do something for fun. I, my companion, and our room-mates liked to rap before we went to bed (10:30 sharp!). One night I heard, “And we then when we come back, nigga goin’ –
“Don’t say that.”
They looked skeptical, but I was serious. “It is a racial slur. Profane. Like a swear word.
“Nah. Rappers use it all of the time. To refer to themselves. It is a part of the culture. You can’t rap without saying it.”
“Well, if you can’t rap without saying it, then maybe you shouldn’t rap. It is not the kind of word a missionary should say.”
“It isn’t a swear word. People use it every day without getting offended. If you are upset about the word, it is your problem, not ours.”
And right they were! Offense is a choice, not an affliction. “If a thing does not harm your soul it does not harm you” said Seneca. Adds Marcus Aurelius, “If thou art pained by any external thing, it is not this that disturbs thee, but thy own judgment about it. And it is in thy power to wipe out this judgment now.” This Stoic doctrine was expressed by Christ in slightly different terms:
What truer words could be said? Others sins, faults, or judgements do not harm my soul unless I let them. I cannot blame my sins on others’ faults. The vulgar word heard is not my vulgar word spoken. Violence seen gives no excuse for cruelty done. The bikini worn does not justify lust.
How we react to others outside the “cultural norm” – be they scantily clad, swearing like a sailor, smelling like an ash tray, or genuinely sexist, racist and bigoted to their core – is clear. We love them! If we have trouble loving then we pray and we pray and we pray hoping with faith that God can accomplish that which we cannot do alone. We love them, we accept them, we instruct them, and if instruction is declined, we keep loving them anyways. And perhaps most importantly (certainly most practically), we never, ever give them reason to think that our worship, Christ’s Church, or the living gospel has no place for them. Because it does. If there is anything worth fighting for it is this truth.
But life is about more than deciding how to react to other’s choices. We must choose many things ourself. So how to choose? Should a word be used? Should a thing be said? Should the clothes be worn?
I could say that it does not matter. I can use a word as I will; it is not my fault if people have an adverse reaction to it. A word is just a word. I’d be right. But this would miss the mark.
Better to realize that words have meaning. Socially construed, culturally contingent, time specific meaning, but meaning none the less. If I want to be someone who can be trusted to love, respect, and hold an open hand out to every child of God I may meet – well, then there are certain words that simply should not be said or jokes that should not be told. Even if a fair amount of the populace would not mind them. Or if they would be perfectly ok to say in some other place or in some other time.
So for words (and many, many other things), as for clothes. For woman and men. But since bikinis are the theme we will rework it for them: if a woman does not want to be objectified, if she does not wish to be pulled along with the currents of our hyper-sexualized and image conscious society, and wanting instead to be someone who shows the respect she feels for a body built in God’s image and the counsel of Christ’s chosen prophet, then there are things she won’t wear.
What are those things? It is not my place to tell people where to draw the line. They should think about it, see what recent prophets have advised, and then – if questions remain – take the matter up to the Lord. Who am I to judge past that point? But pretending like the question doesn’t matter?
Well that is just silly.
I also ought to apologize for the ridiculous sarcasm of my first comment. I broke my own rule and allowed another’s words to irk me. (More foolish still, I wrote something on the internet while irked.) Hopefully this second comment explains my thoughts in a kinder tone and less easily confused manner.
“Perhaps we should be teaching young men to, in the very least, not be threatened by feminism, or “scantily clad” women, as if they were out to get them. Apparently this could go a long way toward increasing virtue.”
That would be wonderful. Unfortunately, much of our current teaching and practice seems to be headed in the other direction, at the very least isn’t at all balanced.
“fathers who were “progressive” (not in the political sense) in that they espoused sexist attitudes about women”
I’m having a hard time working out in what universe, even leaving out politics, these attitudes could ever be defined as progressive…
So what exactly is the purpose of the Bikini?
So what exactly is the purpose of the Bikini? It ia a wrap designed to showcase the natural beauty of the female form when it is healthily toned and it does so as if it were a walking Venus de Milo.
she
@Hedgehog – Re: “I’m having a hard time working out in what universe, even leaving out politics, these attitudes could ever be defined as progressive…” – I know! Some other profs in the audience actually raised the same question. Apparently the college students who participated in the study viewed it this way, e.g. “my dad is cool and will go out cruisin’ and call women sluts with me” etc. Or something like that. Apparently those participants saw their fathers as liberal and/or progressive because they weren’t old fuddy duddies. Kinda backwards.
@T. Greer – Thank you for the apology. I’m finding the fact that you were irked pretty interesting for the discussion here. Writing the post itself, I didn’t feel much like I was saying anything controversial or irksome really… and I certainly wasn’t saying “the question doesn’t matter” or else I wouldn’t have written the post in the first place.
Re: logic – I see your thinking there, but there is more to it than that – a bikini on a woman is not THAT comparable to using racist or demeaning terms. Wearing a bikini (or any other article of clothing, really, that is outside the norm–as I assume a bikini is at Mormon pool parties, ha) may or may not involve issues of power, discrimination, etc. I suppose it really COULD, if a woman feels like she HAS to wear one (even unconsciously, in a sort of Foucauldian way), or feels like if she doesn’t wear one then she is shamed for it… But there are (I think) many many other situations that others could attest to–even here, as Angela gave an example–where wearing something that is culturally typical, does not involve those same problems. On the other hand, you have racist language, as you brought up. I have a hard time seeing when, for example, a white person could EVER use (outside of a purely intellectual discussion) certain terms like the n-word, without there being greater issues of power and racism and etc. involved.
I would also add that a bikini could definitely be used in a hypersexualized way (e.g. watch any of the Fast & Furious movies, haha). That is also problematic, I think. It need not be though.
The purpose of the bikini is to cover one’s sexual bits while allowing her to swim. It’s the same purpose of any swimsuit.
“So what exactly is the purpose of the Bikini?”
What’s the purpose of a speedo? Or a tankini? Or board shorts? Or any other swimsuit? It seems to me that there are many purposes, that may not be the same from person to person.
The world is full of natural beauty made by our creator *including* the healthy female form. LDS prudishness is a cultural a backlash caused by the embarrassment of polygamy and an attempt back then to deny it out of existence, not the revelation of some important cover it up and don’t touch your or your partner’s little factory “eternal” law. Alma 39 has been taken out of context and stretched well beyond any intended meaning as a proof texting justification that sex is bad, next to murder even! B.S. All this while ignoring what Jesus clearly said to the adulteress; neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more. The psychologically dysfunctional sexual repression of the LDS church via the layered use of shame and guilt is responsible for much of this nonsense including males heightened arousal and mistaken belief that a breast or crotch peek will dive them uncontrollably to masturbation, rape or hell! Please, get a grip!
Sex is sacred, our bodies are sacred! Fair enough, without reusing sacred or becoming circular what exactly does that mean? Holy? What does holy mean? Relating to divine power. Okay, how? Exactly how does nudity, masturbation or sex out of wedlock defile our “sacred” bodies yet too much green jello or a extra pieces of pie leading to jumbo sized garmies doesn’t? Who can answer this?
Wonderful article, thanks for this! I swear if I see that video in my facebook feed one more time, I’m going to lose it!
T. Greer, I appreciate the greater nuance in your second response, but here’s where you lose me:
“if a woman does not want to be objectified, if she does not wish to be pulled along with the currents of our hyper-sexualized and image conscious society…”
To me that fundamentally misattributes the problem. Like the OP says, the subjects of the study whose brains were most likely to “objectify” women were ones with unhealthy attitudes towards women. That suggests the best way to address the problem is to focus on, you know, the actual problem. How women dress is incidental to the issue of how men (or other women) view and treat them, which is why women in burqas are still sexually harassed. I think Carl’s Jr./beer commercial “bro” culture is driving a lot of our society’s objectification of women these days, and that’s more of what you’re reacting against–it’s definitely a major problem. But conservative religious hyper-modesty does the same thing in a more subtle and, since religion deals in matters of eternal salvation, more insidious way. Given the Mormon culture blogs like this are steeped in, it makes sense to try and clean our own house first!
“The purpose of the bikini is to cover one’s sexual bits while allowing her to swim. It’s the same purpose of any swimsuit.”
At its basic level, I understand this, however, with the mindfulness that it was, in fact, created by a man. The evolution of the bikini is also quite an interesting story from the original. It is meant to be more than a swimming suit…..
Here’s a great way to get Mormon men to quit objectifying women: put them in positions to work side by side with women and hear their ideas and see their leadership skills. Lowering the mission age will do wonders for the rising generation at combating this issue.
“Here’s a great way to get Mormon men to quit objectifying women”
Damn, those men, it’s always all their fault!
It’s worth considering that in Joseph Smith’s day the British were in the Victorian Age and women’s ankles were objects of fetish. Garments of his day reflected that.
There is no quad scriptural basis for a divine or eternal dress code, that came from old conservative Utah centric men, some of who’s sex lives were likely a distant memory when they conceived it. Coats of skins were precursors to garmies? Really? Do you suppose they wore those fir coats in the peak of summer? No, common sense dictates those would have been used to keep warm in the winter. But be sure to ware your garmies night and day and expressly while gardening or something murky and ill defined but obviously bad might happen.
There’s a case for modesty and modesty can be very elegant even eye candy but to draw cap sleeve to knee lines via uncomfortable sloppy fitting garments is very Pharisaical.
Here’s another thought: what does it say about the power of the priesthood if it can vanquish disease, lead saints to celestial glory and unleash the power of Heavenly Father on earth but not curb the priesthood holder’s unjust libido?
It’s not *always* the man’s fault, Jeff. But sometimes it *is* and it’s unseemly to blame the women on those occasions. It just doubles the unrighteousness, don’t you think?
I used to keep a ski boat on Lake Havasu, AZ where summer highs routinely exceed 100F. So imagine an endowed priesthood holder working the boat dock in his garmies and “modest” attire. Does God look at him and say bless you my son for your obedience? The glory of God is intelligence! I think he looks at this guy and thinks; “Boy are you stupid!”
Alice,
“But sometimes it *is*” Sometimes, it definately is.
But it cuts both ways, Alice, but it is politcally incorrect these days to blame the women for anything. They are just objects in the hands of men.
Jeff, when exactly do you believe that it’s a woman’s fault that a man objectifies her? Are you suggesting that an item of clothing that may be used to encourage sexual desirability necessitates objectification?
I know dozens of women very personally because I life coach them. With few exceptions they know very well what they are doing with dress and makeup as they literally create the image they choose to display. Often it has little to do with men directly and more to do with how they will be seen by other women both competitively and non-competitively. But when they want to, they also know very accurately how to get men’s attention and how to ignite a man’s libido. It’s an art form. It’s also a form of play that can escalate to filtration and fore play.
So what?
What does this have to do with a man’s prudish sexual repression? His immaturity and inexperience with self control of his own body and mind? If he had an adequate sexual outlet he wouldn’t act like he is starving all the time. If he truly knew his body he would be able to easily and casually control it and his mind.
LDS males as a group tend to be remedial when it comes to knowledge of women and self knowledge and the church perpetuates this ignorance with it’s gender separation guidelines and it enables this ignorance by shifting the blame to females. These policies are clearly old school, unenlightened and counter productive.
Jeff – “Damn, those men, it’s always all their fault!” It’s their fault IF they are objectifying women. Whose fault would it be?
Casey,
“when exactly do you believe that it’s a woman’s fault that a man objectifies her?
I’m not sure that even exists. Women are only in control for their actions. However, as i stated before the bikini was created by a man. If women didn’t like it or do not like it now, why would they wear something created by a man, which has the potential of objectifying them?
“Are you suggesting that an item of clothing that may be used to encourage sexual desirability necessitates objectification?”
suggested no such thing. But I an in agreement with Howard about in number 37 that “With few exceptions they know very well what they are doing with dress and makeup as they literally create the image they choose to display.” And that it has very little to do with what men think.
Hawk or Angela or whatever name you are using these days… 🙂
“It’s their fault IF they are objectifying women. Whose fault would it be?”
All I said was that it cuts both ways. Women at some point have to take some measure of responsibility for the image they project. It would be naive to think that dress does not project that image.
I do not remember the last time I told my wife or daughter or any other female what to wear.
@Shepna Warrior/Casey – A response to your query I have, but (as I will be camping this week end) it must wait until Monday to be typed and written up. See you then.
Well, here’s what I think. People are responsible to God for what they intentionally do, because the Lord looketh on the heart. Beyond that, I think mercy applies.
I do think men who hate women because they think women are out to get them are pretty screwed up, especially when those women are choosing to wear culturally normative clothing that is appropriate to the activity. When I was a young teen, age 13-15, I wasn’t in any way trying to attract sexual attention, and I still sometimes got gross comments from older men despite being dressed “modestly,” people who felt free to comment about my budding body or new curves. That’s not right, no matter what I was wearing. I thought I was a person with thoughts and feelings, but some of them did not see me that way.
Beating girls over the head constantly with these messages that they are responsible for all of society’s ills and the leering glances of men and have to cover up or they are tempting others to sin only result in guilt or disaffection. These things ought not to be. Let’s teach girls to expect to be treated like people. Let’s teach them the value of their ideas (not the value of their unseen bodies). Let’s teach our young men the value of the girls’ friendship and partnership in the church.
I would never, in a million years, send my daughter to participate in an organization that would teach her that it’s her responsibility to make sure males don’t get horny. Do you people realize how sick that is?
I completely agree Brjones! The church is simultaneously one of the healthiest clutures to raise children in due to it’s stellar family values and one of the most dysfunctual due to it’s sexual repression and sublimination. Since I can create the family values without the church my 9 year old daughter is being raised Christian without the very, very screwed up dysfunctional sexual programming the church intrusively layers into the innocent particularly innocent females.
Sexual topics are emotionally charged and thoughts about sex naturally come into our minds even when we don’t intend them to. Now attach negative connotations to these uninvited thoughts like evil, bad, etc. Next repetitively (without end) override a person’s own judgement delivering the message THE church is OK so obviously you’re not OK. This is a potent formula for creating shame. This is the church’s method of choice for controlling it’s members regarding things sexual. It is both sick and abusive.
The test that was used to assess the levels of hostile sexism and benevolent sexism of the subjects of the experiment is available here: http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/results
It’s quick and folks here might like to see how they compare to other populations on a purely objective basis.
My results were nearly identical to the average male who took the test.
I wanted to go back to Will’s comment before (oft-repeated) that an unattractive woman cannot be immodest. That the exact problem at play here because we are judging a person (a woman) based on some random person’s (a man’s) attraction to her, not on her intentions. Some are assuming that she intended to be objectified because her manner of dress “has an impact.” If she does not intend to seduce, how can we label her a temptress and bad influence? Yet, an unattractive woman who tries to seduce is often repulsive (played to great comic effect by two well known contemporary comediennes: Kristen Schaal and Kristen Wiig).
That thinking leads us down the path to hajib and burqa. And yet, there are photos of men leering at an exposed ankle in these cultures.
And I would never let a bigot be my life coach Howard! Which is what you are– as evidenced by your derogatory language and comments about a well-respected world religion. Sorta surprised no one has called you out before now!
Emily, I agree that some of Howard’s critiques are negative, but does criticism make someone a bigot? Do you feel it is possible to hold and share negative attitudes toward the church (or any organization, really) without being bigoted or derogatory?
Surely there are more options than “respect” and “derogatory and bigoted.”
Case in point: there are tons of nudist colonies across the country and the guys don’t walk around constantly aroused. So clearly the amount of skin showing on a woman’s body can’t be blamed for a man’s arousal. Additionally, women’s bodies are beautiful and very appealing to men. So men are probably going to think sexual thoughts when they see an attractive woman. So what? I think one of church’s major flaws is spending so much time suppressing and demonizing sexual thoughts and feelings. They’re part of life so embrace them as a wonderful part of being human! For the men who are rumor disrespectful, judgemental, or belittling to these women, they clearly have deeper issues and no woman should have to concern herself with the when getting dressed in the morning.
This study just reinforces what I already thought……the onus is on MEN. It is up to them to control their attitudes, educate themselves, etc. Now for the bigger question….why is it okay for LDS women to wear skin tight clothing, so long as they aren’t revealing skin…?
Emily, call me blunt, call me an ark steadier but bigot I’m not, nor am I antiMormon, I am a 5th generation Mormon a Willie Hand Cart and polygamy descendant. The church does many things well, they also do a few things poorly and I generally point those out without varnish as a means of consciousness raising. Thanks for your attack.
Shenpa Warrior:
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
—
There are many differing opinions expressed in this thread. Most are respectful.
Having a different opinion, even being critical of a point of view, absolutely does not make someone a bigot. Our tone and the words we use to describe an entire religion, however, can.
I don’t troll blogs of religions I disagree with and use derogatory language or slang to describe their teachings, scared clothing, traditions, or their leaders. I wish others would show Latter-day Saints the same respect.
Howard,
I apologize for the attack. It would have been more circumspect for me to say this:
In my humble opinion, it seems bigoted to use the term “garmies” to describe scared religious clothing and to accuse the LDS church of “dysfunctional sexual programming” and “sexual repression and sublimination”, etc. etc. etc.
Shenpa: Sorry for the comment hijack. Won’t happen again.
Emily,
Aren’t the majority of people devoted to their own opinions? Are the majority bigots? Obviously not so that doesn’t seem to be enough to qualify one as a bigot, does it?
I do not treat Mormons with hatred or intolerance, I AM a Mormon, my family of origin are Mormons and I like Mormons. I’m not describing an entire religion only individual aspects of it. The slang I used is commonly used by members.
This is an exclusive blog that invites a wide range of opinion including yours and mine.
Emily,
We cross posted. Typo correction: This is an inclusive not exclusive blog.
“Garmies” is commonly used as an endearment, not necessarly derogatory at all!
Sorry but I stand by the dysfunctional sexual stuff and I’m not the only one who believes this it has been similarly stated by more than one psychotherapist.
“Magic underwear,” which I often hear, IS pejorative – I don’t think “garmies” is necessarily on either side.
Also, I am an active member, and I agree with Howard that there is plenty of dysfunctional sexual programming that occurs for many members of the church. This is not how it happens for everyone, but there are a significant number of people who get pretty messed up sexually through their church experiences. That is not bigoted, it’s just discussing facts: we, as a people have problems that we need to address. If anything, that critique (at least from me, and ostensibly from Howard) comes from a place of care and concern for the church and our fellow members. If I didn’t care about the church, I wouldn’t be talking about it. That’s just me though.
Bikinis are appropriate for appropriate activities that require a bikini. Eg beach volley ball player, diver, men’s water polo, beach in Hawaii or vacation in so cal. It’s not appropriate at a ward activity, family picnic, shopping, or a business meeting. But they are fine at appropriate time, culture and place.
My wife wears a bikini when we vacation together, or occasionally when we go swimming together
It depends on the activity we are doing. Water skiing = one piece, suntanning =2
Anything in the sand =2 piece.