Garden Girl Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Isn't being ashamed of our bodies of the devil?Who says we have to be ashamed of our bodies if we choose to follow the modesty standards of the Church??? What do these women want to do... attend church in clothing showing cleavage? Skirts so short that when they sit they end up mid-thigh? Etc Etc...I've always dressed fashionably... yet modestly... Coldwater Creek and J. Crew my favorites... and I don't feel the least bit ashamed of my body... nor do I feel oppressed or that modesty is "inflicted" on me by the Church... rather, I like the feeling I have with my dress standards...GG 3
Storm Rider Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) Each woman that was photographed without clothing provides a reason why she was photographed nude; each explanation carries a thread of oppression and body shame that they feel was inflicted by the LDS Church's teachings. Hence, they are choosing a radical action to reclaim their bodies from the Church.H.I knew a individual many years ago that went by the name, Coyote. She was completely plugged into activism and protests and seldom did a protest occur where she was not present. It was her whole life. What I learned from her is that the cause became an incidental issue; the mere fact that an opportunity to rail against society was of prime importance for her. This type of photography and the type of responses that these women gave demonstrate, more than anything, how strangely some individuals understand the concept of modesty. They have twisted it so far out of kilter that it has nothing to do with modesty. This is a sad case of how deranged individuals can become. It is a pitiful. Edited July 28, 2013 by Storm Rider
jim_mason Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Who says we have to be ashamed of our bodies if we choose to follow the modesty standards of the Church???What do these women want to do... attend church in clothing showing cleavage? Skirts so short that when they sit they end up mid-thigh? Etc Etc...I've always dressed fashionably... yet modestly... Coldwater Creek and J. Crew my favorites... and I don't feel the least bit ashamed of my body... nor do I feel oppressed or that modesty is "inflicted" on me by the Church... rather, I like the feeling I have with my dress standards...GGThat is great for you and I am genuinely glad you are comfortable with how you dress and your body. Obviously though, some woman and men have felt they should be ashamed of their nude bodies.
jim_mason Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 This type of photography and the type of responses that these women gave demonstrate, more than anything, how strangely some individuals understand the concept of modesty. They have twisted it so far out of kilter that it has nothing to do with modesty. This is a sad case of how deranged individuals can become. It is a pitiful.what is immodest? and why is it immodest?
Storm Rider Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 what is immodest? and why is it immodest?Do you really think we do not understand what is immodest? Are really sure we need to become so obtuse about a simple principle? Do not get the idea that I think that nudity is bad or cannot be art. These women demonstrate the absolute stupidity of some humans. They have twisted the simple concept of modesty so out of all proportion and then blame the Church for their perspective. They are responsible for their won perspective; there are not victims here. To rebel against their own twisted perspective, they then have tried to be as immodest as possible. It could have been art and they could have been the models; but that was not their motivation or choice. I tend to quickly reject those who play the victim card. I also will not play word games about those things that are so simple.
MorningStar Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Some people miss the big picture and zero in on one aspect of the Gospel. This would be an example of that. The Gospel teaches that our bodies are something to be celebrated and respected! 2
Storm Rider Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Some people miss the big picture and zero in on one aspect of the Gospel. This would be an example of that. The Gospel teaches that our bodies are something to be celebrated and respected!That is my feeling. We can each get out there in our thinking at times, but what is annoying are those who choose to blame everyone else but the one in the mirror for their own problems. Modesty is not implemented due to a horror of the human body or an attempt to cause one shame for having a physical body, but it has a great deal focused on how to demonstrate respect for our bodies and for our personal relationship with our spouse. I appreciate sculpture and enjoy several different pieces in my office; one is a bust of Jesus; another is of Joseph with Hyrum standing behind him; another is Michelangelo's "David" and another is the "Venus de Milo". Modesty is something we taught our children, but we also taught them that the human form is beautiful. 1
beanboots Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 And of course, the cretin behind this project is none other than Katrina Barker Anderson, a MoSto lurker, wife of the hipster doofus who hosts the MSS podcast. I don't get it. Correlate yourselves with teachings/standards of the church or get out. 1
beanboots Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 If they have received their endowment, I'm pretty sure this counts as breaking their temple covenants.Indeed it does.
mercyngrace Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 "I have low self-esteem and it's someone else's fault, so I'm going to fix that by degrading myself."MS, I think you've hit on one of the main questions this project seems designed to raise and it's this:Why is posing nude automatically considered degrading?(That's rhetorical, I suppose, I certainly don't have an answer...) 2
Storm Rider Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Is pornography degrading? Why? If I have a personal problem and don't feel good about my body, why shouldn't I have some pornography pictures made? It would be a liberating experience because I would be demonstrating how happy I was with my body by sharing its beauty with others? What if I had was embarrassed by having never tasted alcohol? Should I go out and drink excessively just to show others that I no longer am constrained by a desire obey the Word of Wisdom? The same for drugs; maybe I need to snort a kilo of cocaine to demonstrate that I am really a very liberal fellow. I think that a human can rationalize any behavior, any action, and fulfill any desire when (s)he wants. What if I wanted to have some pictures taken, drink alcohol, and take drugs all in the name of art; is that acceptable? It is as if we have abandoned any concept of anything being intrinsically evil. Of course, little johnny do whatever you want if you do it with love, it is great and God is happy. Doesn't this make Reason stare? 1
BlueDreams Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) If they have received their endowment, I'm pretty sure this counts as breaking their temple covenants.1. a number of them are not currently LDS2. Not necessarily. It doesn't break temple covenants to wear uniforms, clothes for certain sports, or swimsuits. It doesn't break covenants if I pose in an art class at BYU bikini. Etc.Is pornography degrading? Why? If I have a personal problem and don't feel good about my body, why shouldn't I have some pornography pictures made? It would be a liberating experience because I would be demonstrating how happy I was with my body by sharing its beauty with others? What if I had was embarrassed by having never tasted alcohol? Should I go out and drink excessively just to show others that I no longer am constrained by a desire obey the Word of Wisdom? The same for drugs; maybe I need to snort a kilo of cocaine to demonstrate that I am really a very liberal fellow. I think that a human can rationalize any behavior, any action, and fulfill any desire when (s)he wants. What if I wanted to have some pictures taken, drink alcohol, and take drugs all in the name of art; is that acceptable? It is as if we have abandoned any concept of anything being intrinsically evil. Of course, little johnny do whatever you want if you do it with love, it is great and God is happy. Doesn't this make Reason stare?Though, as i mentioned, many of their reasons are distorted and I disagree with this I do not find any of the the images pornographic or degrading. If it is, they could have certainly chosen better models and shots (many of these women have definite signs of childrearing across their bodies, one is currently pregnant, another has twin infants in each shot, none of them are in sexually suggestive poses). A nude photo does not equal pornography in and of itself.And calling these women deranged or their actions evil seems over the top and unnecessary. I might disagree with their approach. For a number, the symbols that they found confining, I find redeeming and empowering. Others I could see their points....not all were entirely negative but more of an explanation of their complicated relationship with modesty, chastity, sexuality, and their self-image. Some pointed out good things in LDS beliefs as well and their own growth and development with their bodies. One doesn't even mention LDS specific beliefs, just a general love for her form.And, as I mentioned, I certainly disagree with a number of their portrayals, but I can recognize the feasible pitfalls and struggles in each of their experiences because (in part) of culture and a general misunderstanding of points of doctrine. A number of these experiences are going to be outside the norm....and I think it's these moments that are most likely to stretch and indicate some of the problems that come from differing portrayal, ideals, and beliefs. For example one woman talked about the deep depression, struggle, and shaming that came from a pregnancy out of wedlock and her own decision to keep it mixed with excess guilt and inadequacy based on this. The norm in this circumstance is to give the child up it's the ideal....but for those who don't or can't meet up to this it can be an upward battle.Though I personally wouldn't do this for the reasons they give at least, I wouldn't go so far as the descriptions you've rendered of those that have.With luv,BD Edited July 28, 2013 by BlueDreams 2
jim_mason Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Do you really think we do not understand what is immodest? Are really sure we need to become so obtuse about a simple principle? Do not get the idea that I think that nudity is bad or cannot be art. These women demonstrate the absolute stupidity of some humans. They have twisted the simple concept of modesty so out of all proportion and then blame the Church for their perspective. They are responsible for their won perspective; there are not victims here. To rebel against their own twisted perspective, they then have tried to be as immodest as possible. It could have been art and they could have been the models; but that was not their motivation or choice. I tend to quickly reject those who play the victim card. I also will not play word games about those things that are so simple.No, it is not so simple. Modesty has morphed over the centuries. 1
MorningStar Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 MS, I think you've hit on one of the main questions this project seems designed to raise and it's this:Why is posing nude automatically considered degrading?(That's rhetorical, I suppose, I certainly don't have an answer...)What I think is interesting is that people don't consider it porn unless there are perfect bodies and certain poses, but I guarantee there are some perverts out there "enjoying" this and now that those images are out, they can never be taken back. It's not porn because they're regular women? That seems to reinforce the idea that our bodies are our identity.For me, what's most awesome about my body is what my brain can make it do. 1
bluebell Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 MS, I think you've hit on one of the main questions this project seems designed to raise and it's this:Why is posing nude automatically considered degrading?(That's rhetorical, I suppose, I certainly don't have an answer...)Perhaps the answer lies in the temple. We know that temples are to be held sacred and part of keeping them holy requires limiting access to only those authorized. To allow free access to the public to a temple would degrade it. We also know that God has taught that our bodies are temples and holy. Perhaps allowing free access to our bodies also degrades that which is supposed to be holy. Certainly it is reasonable to believe that after one has gone through the temple and covenanted to wear the garment, removing them to allow the public to view our bodies would degrade them. 4
Garden Girl Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 That is great for you and I am genuinely glad you are comfortable with how you dress and your body. Obviously though, some woman and men have felt they should be ashamed of their nude bodies.C'mon Jim_Mason...When has the Church ever... ever... taught modesty in terms of being ashamed of our nude bodies? "Shame" of our bodies has never been a part of our stance regarding modesty... It's about respecting our bodies... respecting them as being, according to scriptures, a temple for the Holy Ghost...Consider a moment... what would a woman have to do to dress immodestly or against Church standards... and, more to the point, what would her motivation behind such action be? 1) She'd have to lower her neckline to reveal her cleavage... now what would be her motivation in doing that? Who would she be trying to impress by showing cleavage... men in general and/or other than her husband? Why? 2) She'd have to wear tighter sweaters and/or skirts in order to show off her curves and/or the size of her breasts... Now, what is her mindset in doing that... and why? Who is she trying to impress with the size of her breasts? 3) She'd have to wear shorter skirts to reveal her shapely legs... again, for whom? Men in general and those other than her spouse? Why? On TV, the news shows have the women sitting in chairs vs behind the desk... their skirts are short and thus when they sit the skirts ride up... one gal had her legs crossed and I could actually see up to her crotch... my, my, isn't that liberating...It is said that the Savior looks into our hearts... just what is in the heart of these women who choose to think that flaunting one's body is some sort of victory over the Church's standards of modesty... I can just picture the Savior standing and watching them pose nude... hmmmm....As an artist, I'm well familiar with nudity portrayed on canvas and in sculpture... and none of it is done with the same mindset as these women... at least not true art of the Masters, or even most artists today...GG 2
thesometimesaint Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 As a wise man once told me. If you're not willing to sell, don't advertize. 1
The Grimace Posted July 28, 2013 Author Posted July 28, 2013 I wonder if the Holy Ghost appreciates the women posing nude or if he flees from them...Why would the Holy Ghost need to flee from a nude woman? 2
jim_mason Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) Gardengirl, it does not matter what has not been explicitly taught, what matters is the perception. Just look at your last post, you ridicule the hypothetical person who would dare to wear a skirt that is 1.5inches above her knee; or exsposes bare shoulders. And even if chewed gum, quoted rose, stick with a hole in it, are not found in Church lesson manuals such things were taught in a Church setting and people have, apparently, developed views that there bodies are something to be ashamed of. Now, I do not think we should run out and make calendars of ourselves. Edited July 28, 2013 by jim_mason 1
The Grimace Posted July 28, 2013 Author Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) As an artist, I'm well familiar with nudity portrayed on canvas and in sculpture... and none of it is done with the same mindset as these women... at least not true art of the Masters, or even most artists today...What do you think of "The Origin of the World" by Gustave Courbet? Edited July 28, 2013 by The Grimace
The Grimace Posted July 28, 2013 Author Posted July 28, 2013 C'mon Jim_Mason...When has the Church ever... ever... taught modesty in terms of being ashamed of our nude bodies? "Shame" of our bodies has never been a part of our stance regarding modesty... It's about respecting our bodies... respecting them as being, according to scriptures, a temple for the Holy Ghost...Consider a moment... what would a woman have to do to dress immodestly or against Church standards... and, more to the point, what would her motivation behind such action be? 1) She'd have to lower her neckline to reveal her cleavage... now what would be her motivation in doing that? Who would she be trying to impress by showing cleavage... men in general and/or other than her husband? Why?2) She'd have to wear tighter sweaters and/or skirts in order to show off her curves and/or the size of her breasts... Now, what is her mindset in doing that... and why? Who is she trying to impress with the size of her breasts?3) She'd have to wear shorter skirts to reveal her shapely legs... again, for whom? Men in general and those other than her spouse? Why? On TV, the news shows have the women sitting in chairs vs behind the desk... their skirts are short and thus when they sit the skirts ride up... one gal had her legs crossed and I could actually see up to her crotch... my, my, isn't that liberating...It is said that the Savior looks into our hearts... just what is in the heart of these women who choose to think that flaunting one's body is some sort of victory over the Church's standards of modesty... I can just picture the Savior standing and watching them pose nude... hmmmm....As an artist, I'm well familiar with nudity portrayed on canvas and in sculpture... and none of it is done with the same mindset as these women... at least not true art of the Masters, or even most artists today...GGThis post is an example of how women who chose to dress how they'd like are made to feel less worth than those who decide to follow a religious standard. 2
thesometimesaint Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 This post is an example of how women who chose to dress how they'd like are made to feel less worth than those who decide to follow a religious standard.It is not the state of dress, but the state of undress, depending on context, that is the question. It is perfectly fine to be naked when taking a shower, not so much when walking down the street.
Calm Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 MS, I think you've hit on one of the main questions this project seems designed to raise and it's this:Why is posing nude automatically considered degrading?(That's rhetorical, I suppose, I certainly don't have an answer...)It is not the posing nude that is degrading I IMO, it is the posting it on the Internet that basically gives control over the image of one's body to millions of strangers including those who will do perverse things with it and repost their image....possibly for your friends, neighbours, parents and children to come across....especially if your name gets linked with your picture.If for whatever reason one wants a nude photo in the privacy of one's home where one controls access to it as one controls access to one's body itself....if someone wants to do that, I don't see that as automatically degrading.
Calm Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 What I think is interesting is that people don't consider it porn unless there are perfect bodies and certain poses, but I guarantee there are some perverts out there "enjoying" this and now that those images are out, they can never be taken back. It's not porn because they're regular women? That seems to reinforce the idea that our bodies are our identity.For me, what's most awesome about my body is what my brain can make it do.I think porn is in the intent even more than it is in the content, both on the maker's end and the observer. There are plenty of nude sculptures and pictures that are not porn in my view, but could certainly be used for porn by someone else. People with fetishes might find a fully dressed individual's photo pornographic.
Calm Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Why would the Holy Ghost need to flee from a nude woman?You left out the word "posing" and as GG made it clear in other posts, she means posing for inappropriate reasons.
Recommended Posts