Eternal Significance Of Grooming Choices

[LeSellers]

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.

All stereotypes are based on observations. They may be (but not necessarily so) overstated, but they are not fabrication.

Thus, whether my adolescent observation that only whores wore earrings in the 1950s (when I was a child) is a stereotype, it is nonetheless based on what I saw.

As to whether there was a difference between daytime and nighttime standards, At ten or twelve, I was rarely out at "night" where high-fashion women were congregating, so I would not be able to observe that. And, it doesn't make a lot of difference to me in any case. If we look at "high fashion" we see things in any such event that would make our mothers blush. High fashion is no excuse.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

Okay, I take it back. Daytime earring were okay too. Were Ethel and Lucy prostitutes?

[bluebell]

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.

Pierced ears might have been a sign of something in the 1950s, but earrings were quite popular beginning again in the 1950s (they had previously been very popular in the 1700s i guess but had fallen out of fashion for a while) and piercing became popular in the 1960s (from what i've read).

Whether or not the woman's ears in the picture is actually an indication of anything is impossible to say without asking Rockwell himself.

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.

As both dresses are worn in the pictures, neither is modest by LDS standards. They are both equally tight and of equal length. One is open low enough to show cleavage and the other doesn't have sleeves.

And i honestly can't see the earrings on the girl in the pink dress. Maybe you have a higher resolution of the original but in the copy shown here, i can't see them.

[bluebell]

Okay, I take it back. Daytime earring were okay too. Were Ethel and Lucy prostitutes?

Obviously whores, both of them.

[LeSellers]

Okay, I take it back. Daytime earring were okay too. Were Ethel and Lucy prostitutes?

Lucy was, at least she was not above adultery (nor was Desi, who seemed to be an early Bill Clinton in that regard). Read her biographies.

I know little or nothing about Vivian Vance except she intensely disliked William Frowley, and, by contract, had to weigh at least ten pounds more than Mrs. Arnaz..

Lehi

Edited December 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[bluebell]

June Cleaver also wore earrings.

[frankenstein]

It's probably about time to stop beratting lehi about his childhood observations. As of 6 years ago my sisters told me they knew of mothers who taught their daughter thatonly unvirtous girls called boys or initiated communication with boys.

[LeSellers]

[Along with Lucy and Ethel,] June Cleaver also wore earrings.

Television is not real life.

It was probably a cinematic effort to make them appear "high fashion". It likely contributed to the change. Don't forget, advertisers, including jewelers, influenced a lot of product placement in those old shows (Harriet Nelson had the milk in her refirgerator in a pitcher so as not to give free advertising to any dairy).

Lehi

[Senator]

Thus, whether my adolescent observation that only whores wore earrings in the 1950s (when I was a child) is a stereotype, it is nonetheless based on what I saw.

Frankly, I'm a bit amazed that you even have remeberance of women's fashions of the 50's, let alone knowlege of what a whore was at ten years of age. I'm a bit tempted to just let this one go with a..... "whatever and a role of the eyes".

[bluebell]

Television is not real life.

Neither are norman rockwell pictures but you're using two to prove your point.

And June Cleaver was the most influential woman in the 1950s. She was one of the woman who determined what was appropriate in fashion and what wasn't.

[katherine the great]

You might as well accept defeat Lehi. You made a statement that was blatently false. Prostitutes were not the only women who wore earrings in the 1950's. Your statement did not say "my observation of women is that..." You made a false accusation that is actually quite insulting to many of our mothers...

[bluebell]

.

Edited December 21, 2011 by bluebell

[LeSellers]

Frankly, I'm a bit amazed that you even have remeberance of women's fashions of the 50's, let alone knowlege of what a whore was at ten years of age.

It comes from my fascination with the 50s. Then, in the mid-to-late 60s, I served a mission in France. Whores were omnipresent. I had to "replay" my memories of childhood to place them, but a hooker is ahooker in any city.

Lehi

[bluebell]

It's probably about time to stop beratting lehi about his childhood observations. As of 6 years ago my sisters told me they knew of mothers who taught their daughter thatonly unvirtous girls called boys or initiated communication with boys.

My best friend is married to a man who's mother believed such a thing. They dated in highschool and it was hilarious to see his mother freak out about the silliest things.

Edited December 21, 2011 by bluebell

[Senator]

You might as well accept defeat Lehi. You made a statement that was blatently false. Prostitutes were not the only women who wore earrings in the 1950's. Your statement did not say "my observation of women is that..." You made a false accusation that is actually quite insulting to many of our mothers...

You tell'em KtG!!!

[katherine the great]

June Cleaver also wore earrings.

We all know how loose she was...

[katherine the great]

You tell'em KtG!!!

You tell'em KtG!!!

It's very hard for me to let something that outrageous slip by...

[LeSellers]

You might as well accept defeat Lehi. You made a statement that was blatently false. Prostitutes were not the only women who wore earrings in the 1950's. Your statement did not say "my observation of women is that..."

While the original statement was not modified, I made it clear later that it was my observation.

Whether it was false, it was my observation; based, it seems, on too small a sample.

You made a false accusation that is actually quite insulting to many of our mothers...

I did not observe your mothers.

Lehi

[Cobalt-70]

For anybody interested...

Dress and Appearance

This is an example of my earlier point, that there is, at least to a significant extent, a body/spirit dichotomy between modesty as applied to girls versus modesty as applied to boys. This brochure states, "Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance." In other words, girls are given a detailed list of specific regulations that mention clothes in relation to their various body parts. Boys, by comparison, are given a broad, general principle, and are more readily trusted to properly apply that standard depending on the circumstances.

Within Mormonism, as within Western society as a whole, masculine modesty is written in the spirit, and the body is a reflection of the spirit. Feminine modesty, however, is written on the body, and the spirit is a reflection of the body.

[Cobalt-70]

Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were in the Lord’s presence?”

Right now I am wearing blue jeans a polo shirt and flip-ops (no socks) would I feel comfortable wearing this in Christ presence... No I would not . Do I have anything other than temple clothes that I would feel comfortable wearing in Christa presence ...No I do not. In Christ presence is not a good measure as it is overly and unnecessarily restrictive.

Again, that is not the standard, either, because Christ wouldn't be welcome on the BYU campus because of his dress and grooming.

[LeSellers]

Again, that is not the standard, either, because Christ wouldn't be welcome on the BYU campus because of his dress and grooming.

Why would He, Who knows everything, need to go to BYU as a student?

'Cause they're (along with faculty) the only ones to whom the dress code applies. Visitors can dress or shave as they please (within modest constraints). Besides, when the Owner shows up, temporary regulations may (and will) change.

Lehi

Edited December 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[bluebell]

This is an example of my earlier point, that there is, at least to a significant extent, a body/spirit dichotomy between modesty as applied to girls versus modesty as applied to boys. This brochure states, "Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance." In other words, girls are given a detailed list of specific regulations that mention clothes in relation to their various body parts. Boys, by comparison, are given a broad, general principle, and are more readily trusted to properly apply that standard depending on the circumstances.

This illustrates the differences between the fashions and therefore the temptations of boys and girls.

I'm in young womens as part of my church calling. That also means that i spend a fair amount of time with the young men. In my area at least, i can attest to the fact that the guidelines above accurately reflect the problem spots for the different sexes in being modest.

[Sky]

This is an example of my earlier point, that there is, at least to a significant extent, a body/spirit dichotomy between modesty as applied to girls versus modesty as applied to boys. This brochure states, "Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance." In other words, girls are given a detailed list of specific regulations that mention clothes in relation to their various body parts. Boys, by comparison, are given a broad, general principle, and are more readily trusted to properly apply that standard depending on the circumstances.

Within Mormonism, as within Western society as a whole, masculine modesty is written in the spirit, and the body is a reflection of the spirit. Feminine modesty, however, is written on the body, and the spirit is a reflection of the body.

I don’t think this reflects a greater trust of boys than of girls. I think it is simply a reflection of the fact that girls clothing styles tend to show more skin than boys clothing styles. Girls have to work a little harder at being modest than boys do as a direct result of the current fashion trends, and that is the reason why they have been given more specific guidelines.

[Cobalt-70]

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

I disagree, but with a subtle distinction: masculinity is written in the spirit, and reflected on the body. Femininity, on the other hand, is written on the body, and reflected in the spirit.

[Yirgacheffe]

I disagree, but with a subtle distinction: masculinity is written in the spirit, and reflected on the body. Femininity, on the other hand, is written on the body, and reflected in the spirit.

I disagree, both masculinity and femininity are written on body and spirit, they are fundamental to us, written on the whole person.