Calm 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.Is it being taught that what they are doing is inappropriate or turning themselves into an "object" that cause the sense of less worth? (if you don't know what I mean by the latter, watch the video).
Deborah Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Wow. What is wrong with women that they have to do such extreme things because they felt the church has done them wrong. I love how they all blame the church rather than their own family dynamics. Whether the photos themselves are erotic or not, the issue is women thinking they are freeing themselves by doing such a silly thing. 3
Calm Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) I would agree that many in the Church have overdone the modesty aspect or have taught it in ways that emphasize shame rather than respect....but before doing something drastic as a protest against the Church itself, I think it wisdom to find out if the Church is actually the cause or the errors of men and women that creep in at times.This reminds me to a certain extent the protest that pushed for women to be able to wear pants at church....only to find out they already could as far as the church was concerned. Now imagine if they had taken their nonissue so far as to change from skirts to pants in front of everyone and then having to face the reality that the protest was based on a misunderstanding? There would have been unintended consequences they would have had to live with the rest of their lives for no good purpose. Edited July 28, 2013 by calmoriah
Nemesis Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Everyone this is a good discussion. Please refrain from going to extremes and getting personal. If we see that some can't have a meaningful discussion we will ban them from the thread. Nemesis
Alvino Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 It is unfortunate in my view that they have exchanged one form of objectification for another. To see what I am talking about and how perhaps they should have approach empowerment as they say, do a goggle for "the sexy lie" YouTube vid of a TED presentation.I have to wonder if you looked at the pictures. A woman meditating in the grass, one breastfeeding two babies, several of them with bodies that show scarring and effects on the skin of pregnancies, etc... this suggests to you a sexy form of objectification?
Calm Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) Not all forms of objectification are obvious.And not all forms of objectification are sexual. Edited July 29, 2013 by calmoriah 1
Alvino Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) I would agree that many in the Church have overdone the modesty aspect or have taught it in ways that emphasize shame rather than respect....but before doing something drastic as a protest against the Church itself, I think it wisdom to find out if the Church is actually the cause or the errors of men and women that creep in at times.This reminds me to a certain extent the protest that pushed for women to be able to wear pants at church....only to find out they already could as far as the church was concerned. Now imagine if they had taken their nonissue so far as to change from skirts to pants in front of everyone and then having to face the reality that the protest was based on a misunderstanding? There would have been unintended consequences they would have had to live with the rest of their lives for no good purpose.But the point of the photographs isn't to change a rule but an attitude that may or may not be a rule (or it could be just a social, not institutional, rule).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. Why aren't pictures of today's 'fully-clothed women' used for these purposes at least to the degree to which you worry these pictures of nude women might be? Because fully-clothed women of today aren't particularly sexualized (in comparison to being naked), i.e., it is the norm. It wasn't the norm at times before and what they are trying to do is to make a new norm, one in which the female body is not something to treat with fear. Edited July 28, 2013 by Alvino 1
Stargazer Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) I found their pictures mostly tactful nudes of real bodies that ranged aesthetically and were not in positions most would find sexually appealing (for example, with twin infants). I'm not a dude though, so what do I know on that count?Well, I'm glad you took a look so I don't have to.Speaking as a guy, a woman does not need to look like, say, Kate Upton, to provoke a sexual response in a guy. Especially in revealing (or no) clothing.These women are nitwits. Edited July 28, 2013 by Stargazer
Stargazer 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.Ummm. I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Alvino Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) Not all forms of objectification are obvious.Please point me to the not-obvious because it just looks non-existent at this point. Maybe you are proving their point by thinking even the most benign images of a nude female body are too sexual and it even verges on objectification it any adult can look at them on the internet. Edited July 28, 2013 by Alvino
Calm Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Please point me to the not-obvious because it just looks non-existent at this point. Maybe you are proving their point by thinking even the most benign images of a nude female body is too sexual and it even verges on objectification.Please read my posts. What you have said makes no sense in regard to them.
Stone holm Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Not all forms of objectification are obvious.True, but have a very sincere doubt that this is the answer to the situation. Its not going to get the point across to the people involved in gender stereotyping and the undue aiming of modesty injunctions at women or stop the shaming of women because of dress standards. There are better ways to go about that than putting nude photos on the internet which will just wind up branding the women who do so and reinforcing what they are trying to tear down.
Alvino Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) Please read my posts. What you have said makes no sense in regard to them.Done and I still can't understand in what way those pictures are objectifying. You certainly didn't just want to say that some people will objectify them through those pictures, I hope. Edited July 28, 2013 by Alvino
Calm Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 If their target audience for change was supposed to be the typical church member/leader, I would agree their choice of protest was not well thought out.
Alvino Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) True, but have a very sincere doubt that this is the answer to the situation. Its not going to get the point across to the people involved in gender stereotyping and the undue aiming of modesty injunctions at women or stop the shaming of women because of dress standards. There are better ways to go about that than putting nude photos on the internet which will just wind up branding the women who do so and reinforcing what they are trying to tear down.Come on, Stone. No one really expect this to be "the answer" to what they criticize, not even them, I'm sure. But no single movement probably will be anyways. They are contributing and whether you think this is a good strategy or not is missing the point. Or at least missing their point. We don't criticize great works of literature because they have failed to change the world. Edited July 28, 2013 by Alvino
Alvino Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) If their target audience for change was supposed to be the typical church member/leader, I would agree their choice of protest was not well thought out.The Lord works in mysterious ways and people end up changing enough to change others from movements now thoroughly dead. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's too early to say it was a bad strategy anyways. Edited July 28, 2013 by Alvino
why me Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 I doubt this was the right approach, but the obsession with sexual morality and gender stereotyping tends towards objectifying women, and some LDS women are getting tired of it. As a result we are likely to see more protest, not less until there is some cultural changes in the Church. Welcome to the 21st Century.We are in the 21st century already. The young women in my ward wear tight dresses, somewhat short skirts, make up, etc. I see no hatred of the body. I think that today's lds young women have been influenced by H&M and other clothing outlets when they were teens. And such clothing is far from modest.No of course, the church teaching on modesty should be a body enhancer by telling young girls that they are more than just a body...that their inner beauty is important. Teenagers today have all sorts of body issues because of advertising and the media. But the lds church teaches girls not to be too concerned with outer looks. I see nothing wrong in this message. 1
why me Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Done and I still can't understand in what way those pictures are objectifying. You certainly didn't just want to say that some people will objectify them through those pictures, I hope.The intent of the project was to slam the church and its stress on modesty. They wanted people to believe that the lds church is responsible for some mormon women hating their bodies. Their comments about the church are not that positive. Thus, the lds church objectifies women. 2
divinenature Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 This website is beautiful! I feel a kinship with these women. They are brave souls. I never truly lived in my body until leaving the church and garments behind. I spent almost all my time living in my head. I was taught that my body was just an imperfect glove for my "real" self; my spirit. I felt more objectified as a garment wearing believer than I have since I left.Now I know that body and spirit are one and the same. I am my body. I am my mind. This is the real me. Gen 2:25 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. 1
divinenature Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Thus, the lds church objectifies women.I would agree. The teachings of the LDS church really do objectify women. Object lessons of chewed gum and crushed roses just underscore this. 1
WmLaw 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.Which covenant(s) are your referring to?
Popular Post bluebell Posted July 28, 2013 Popular Post Posted July 28, 2013 This website is beautiful! I feel a kinship with these women. They are brave souls. I never truly lived in my body until leaving the church and garments behind. I spent almost all my time living in my head. I was taught that my body was just an imperfect glove for my "real" self; my spirit. I felt more objectified as a garment wearing believer than I have since I left.That's too bad if that's what you were taught because its not actually what the church teaches on the subject. Gen 2:25 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.And then they learned the difference between good and evil and realized they were naked, at which point God provided covering for them and expected them to use it. 6
cinepro Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Hey, I hope this helps me get some visitors to my blog about LDS ballet dancers:Mormon Women Barre 1
jim_mason Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Why make the point that they were not ashamed? Is shame of nudity of good or does the shame come from evil?
divinenature Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 That's too bad if that's what you were taught because its not actually what the church teaches on the subject.You never had a lesson about how our bodies are like gloves and our hands represent the spirit? You have never heard the teaching that our mortal bodies are imperfect and will be perfected in the resurrection? Huh. Interesting.You were never taught that you needed to cover yourself carefully to be sure boys didn't get Those Feelings when looking at you?You weren't taught that your purpose in life was to be a mother and wife?Well, maybe I went to a different church.And then they learned the difference between good and evil and realized they were naked, at which point God provided covering for them and expected them to use it. What does nudity have to do with good and evil?
Recommended Posts