Eternal Significance Of Grooming Choices

[katherine the great]

No. It is just an observation. Observations are neither harsh nor benign, they simply are accurate or not.

And yours is not. There has never been a time in American history (since the Puritan era perhaps) that only "whores" wore earrings. Seriously Lehi.

[Storm Rider]

Possibly, but that has nothing to do with my premise, i.e., that earrings (tattoos, bangs, neck stretching, lip disks, ear disks, bouffant hairdos, toe rings, wimples, etc.) have no measurable value. They're fashion—by definition, transient and wasteful.

Lehi

You have a very puritanical position that many would not find uncomfortable. I prefer to see my wife in earrings as I do my daughter. Some like to see their wives in long hair, while others don't have a preference. Everyone observes some form of fashion that they themselves find preferable with or without earrings.

On a side note, I have never heard of a time in the USA when only "whores" wore earrings. That is not a realistic statement of our culture and it is offensive.

[Sky]

No. It is just an observation. Observations are neither harsh nor benign, they simply are accurate or not.

Okay.

Why?

Does a woman with earrings have greater value than one without them?

Absolutely not! I'm just saying that equating a woman with earrings to being a whore is wrong.

[Senator]

No. It is just an observation. Observations are neither harsh nor benign, they simply are accurate or not.

So in your case, the observation and/or the attendant societal prejudice was inaccurate.

[LeSellers]

You have a very puritanical position that many would not find uncomfortable. I prefer to see my wife in earrings as I do my daughter. Some like to see their wives in long hair, while others don't have a preference. Everyone observes some form of fashion that they themselves find preferable with or without earrings.

You're overstating my position. That's called a strawman (or straw ox). Have fun knocking it down.

I have never heard of a time in the USA when only "whores" wore earrings. That is not a realistic statement of our culture and it is offensive.

Now you have. If you disagree, that's fine, you are entitled. I stand by it, however.

Your choice to be offended is yours, and I am not responsible for it.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

I'm just saying that equating a woman with earrings to being a whore is wrong.

I didn't say that, so I have no reason to defend the position you staked out for me.

Lehi

[bluebell]

True, and that is my point.

Just because the current fashion requires women to wear earrings, and men too, by many standards, is no reason that she or he should do so.

I agree. But if a woman wants to wear earrings because they make her happy, and she can do so and still follow prophetic counsel, then that IS a reason that she should do it. No one else should care.

It's a waste of resources that could be used to much better effect elsewhere.

Just because that is your opinion, shouldn't impact the woman's decision to wear earrings.

But this raises the point of what the individual values: earrings v. education, $600 prom dress v. mission fund. I neither claim nor desire to force anyone to set his values by my standards, but the fact is that every choice requires the person to give up other things.

Not always.

I manage to have earrings AND get an education, I had a prom dress (more than one) and went on a mission.

Is current fashion so important that the eternal is foregone in its service?

Lehi

I agree with you there. Fashion should never come at the price of things more important. For many people though, fashion is not a harmful vice.

[Senator]

I didn't say that, so I have no reason to defend the position you staked out for me.

Lehi

Did you, or do you now agree with your observation?

[katherine the great]

As I agreed.

The thing is here, it is apparent that the young man was being observant of qualities he considered important. It sounds very much like he did what I did, looked for a woman with the qualities he considered important, and then and only then circled in for the win. It's likely that she was doing similar legwork, and he didn't measure up. Or because he chose to go slow perhaps she decided he was not particularly interested. It didn't sound like in Elder Bednar's story that they had been in an exclusive dating arrangement at any time -- but perhaps they were. It doesn't matter.

I think the thing to take away from Elder Bednar's story is that if you are looking for a spouse you really ought to be careful in your selection, because you're going to have to live with it for better or for worse. Marry in haste, repent at leisure, as they say.

I think you probably said it better to the young people than Elder Bednar did.

[Sky]

I didn't say that, so I have no reason to defend the position you staked out for me.

Lehi

You said it in a way that makes it appear like you endorse the notion that women with earrings should be regarded as whores.

You said:

"When I was a small child, only whores wore earrings. My mother never owned a pair."

"Things have changed, but one wonders if that change has improved anything. Are women (or men, for that matter) happier or better off in any way because the fashion ("... a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." — Oscar Wilde) has now made most women look like the whores of my youth?"

[katherine the great]

I guess you could say there is a list of different contributing factors, including imitation of youth, imitation of sexual arousal, and (according to https://docs.google....N2HojYPbp_nqOiw), exaggeration of sexual dimorphism.

Interesting, well documented paper. I'm currently a grad student studying anthropology. While anthropologists used to look for universals in human behavior, they now focus on cultural influences in behavior (since the evidence that there are very many universals in human behavior beyond the most basic proved elusive.) Since these things are largely cultural, I think it is very appropriate that the church leaders issue grooming counsel to the members. I might object to that counsel being worldwide though.

[LeSellers]

Did you, or do you now agree with your observation?

With my observation that when I was a kid, those who wore earrings were prostitutes.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

You said it in a way that makes it appear like you endorse the notion that women with earrings should be regarded as whores.

Appearances may be deceiving. In this case, they are.

And, as I said, the charges that I equate women with earrings to whores is a gross overstatement of my position. I did not say that, nor did I imply it. I asked if the change had any value (i.e., made people happier. I don't see that it has, but that does not mean I do not recognize the change.

Lehi

[frankenstein]

Of no measurable value is what 99% of attire rules are; color of shirt and a necktie have zero measurable value.

[Yirgacheffe]

Maybe there is a feminist criticism here: is this just another example of the fact that femininity is written on the body, whereas masculinity is written on the spirit?

Masculinity is most certainly written on the body, yeah for that!

[Senator]

With my observation that when I was a kid, those who wore earrings were prostitutes.

Lehi

So whether you personally held that mindset, or are just reporting on the then cultural mindset, the statement "those who wore earrings were prostitues", was/is wrong. Correct?

[frankenstein]

My own incidental measures when dating was whether or not the gal would unlock my door after i let her the car , if not I deemed her to be self centered and I was not interested after that

[LeSellers]

So whether you personally held that mindset, or are just reporting on the then cultural mindset, the statement "those who wore earrings were prostitues", was/is wrong. Correct?

No. That's what I remember seeing at the time. If I took all the women wearing earrings when I was ten years old, the number would be trivial, and of them, those who were not whores would have numbered so few as to have been negligible.

Here's a Norman Rockwell painting c. 1960.

No earrings. Here's another

She's wearing them. I leave it to you to decide if she fits my observation. As thesometimesaint said: "If you're not selling, don't advertise."

Here's a photo.

I don't see an earring in the bunch (but my eyes are not great). Here's Sophia Loren in Two Women. No earrings.

Earrings were not a universal part of upright USmerican women's fashion in the 50s, but they were for others.

Lehi

Edited December 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[bluebell]

No. That's what I remember seeing at the time. If I took all the women wearing earrings when I was ten years old, the number would be trivial, and of them, those who were not whores wold have numbered so few as to have been negligible.

Here's a Norman Rockwell painting c. 1960.

No earrings. Here's another

She's wearing them. I leave it to you to decide if she fits my observation.

Here's a photo.

I don't see an earring in the bunch (but my eyes are not great). Here's Sophia Loren in Two Women. No earrings.

Earrings were not a universal part of upright USmerican women's fashion in the 50s, but they were for others.

Lehi

The woman in green is wearing a shockingly low-cut dress.

[Sky]

Earrings aside, the paintings of those women are so form fitting, Lehi! And the dresses aren't exactly what I would call modest.

[LeSellers]

Earrings aside, the paintings of those women are so form fitting, Lehi! And the dresses aren't exactly what I would call modest.

The woman in green is wearing a shockingly low-cut dress.

Which has what to do with earrings?

That asked, however, I wonder why, with her "shockingly low-cut dress", she isn't wearing earrings?

Lehi

Edited December 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[bluebell]

Which has what to do with earrings?

It doesn't have anything to do with earrings, it had to do with the implication that the woman wearing the earrings looked more like a "whore" than the one without.

That asked, however, I wonder why, with her "shockingly low-cut dress", she isn't wearing earrings?

Lehi

Probably because earrings were not an indication of whether or not a woman would wear immodest, fashionable, clothes at the time the paintings were done.

[katherine the great]

Earrings were not a universal part of upright USmerican women's fashion in the 50s, but they were for others.

Lehi

Absolutely false. They were not a part of upright American women's daytime fashion perhaps (not even sure about that), but most certainly were perfectly appropriate for evening wear.

[Senator]

No. That's what I remember seeing at the time. If I took all the women wearing earrings when I was ten years old, the number would be trivial, and of them, those who were not whores would have numbered so few as to have been negligible.

Now you are just being evasive.

Your "obveration" is nothing more than an expression of steriotypical (and need I say prejudical) behavior. While there may be some truth to the statement, it cannot be said that it is entirely true.

Here's a Norman Rockwell painting c. 1960.

Heh, that's dress is unbuttoned pretty low. I might have to judge that there's some "advertising" going here. WITH NO EARRINGS EVEN! Probably a whore. A shapley secretary, sitting well postured, taking dictation from a wealthy, powerful businessman of the 50's after all.........

Actually she seems to be somewhat rigid, independant to the sailor's advances. Certainly wouldn't say she's a whore.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Senator

[LeSellers]

Probably because earrings were not an indication of whether or not a woman would wear immodest, fashionable, clothes at the time the paintings were done.

Still, she chose to "wear immodest, fashionable, clothes" but no earrings in an office environment. Because earrings were "an indication of" something. At least it seemed so to me in the era the painting was done.

And, BTW, I do not find the green dress to be "shockingly low-cut" (even though she could have done up one more button, to be sure), nor form-fitting. The red dress, on the other hand, is very much so (and its owner wears earrings we might note), and, I might add, not in conformance with LDS standards as we might have heard in General Conference in 1958. The photo shows something more in line with the counsel we would have received.

One sermon I heard about that year was very short (another General Authority had gone well over time): "Why will a woman who is afraid of a mouse get into a car with a wolf?"

Lehi