Mormon Women And A Challenge To Lds Modesty Norms

[bluebell]

Many have asserted that the "Mormon Women Bare" website is unnecessary, even pornographic. Perhaps a few examples of why I think the website is needed:

1. My daughter, when she became a Beehive (recently), went to a YW activity that involved a trip to the mall to see examples of modest and immodest clothing. The night was spent comparing outfits and talking about what clothing choice says about a girl. My daughter, who already had one foot out the church door, said that some of the descriptors used were "skank", "slutty", and "trashy". Odd, how an exercise in choosing clothing quickly became an exercise in judging girls who dress outside the Church standards, based solely on how much of their bodies they chose to reveal.

2. My daughter wore a tank top to her LDS BFF's house last summer, after leaving the church. Unfortunately, my daughter's "friend" took it upon herself to tell my daughter that her choice of clothing made her feel uncomfortable. My daughter was judged based solely on the fact that her top only had straps, not sleeves. My daughter now feels self-conscious whenever she visits her LDS BFF. Never mind the fact that they are both young teens, and her LDS BFF is 50lbs overweight (a fact that my daughter would never bring up).

3. Stake Girls Camp, and my wife attended as a camp counsellor. Many a debate was had between YW leaders concerning every single girl who wore a two piece bathing suit. But, the more tragic part is that the girls would gossip amongst themselves concerning who's suit showed the most skin. My wife said none of the girls wore anything immodest; they were simple two-piece suits, not thongs and bikinis. Yet, conditioning had taught these girls to judge appearances.

So, ultimately, I do understand why a Mormon woman would want to make a statement with her body. Posing nude is a way of reclaiming what is their own, a way of saying, "Go ahead, judge me, but know you have no power over me".

It's sad that it's a message that is needed.

So you would be ok with your wife or daughter (after she turned 18) being on this site nude if they wanted to?

And you think doing so would stop young girls from being judgmental of each other?

[mercyngrace]

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.

Maybe they are holding an Open House.

Only partly kidding... We do expose our temples to visitors for the express purpose of educating others and taking control of our image in the community. People are invited into our sacred space so that they can see who we are. The altars of our temples are also on display. And the celestial rooms are photographed. We don't allow the public to witness ordinances being performed (and sex in a marriage is a sacrament in my mind) so obviously performing some acts for public viewing is degrading and objectifying.

Really, for most women, the difference between these photos and the ones we've taken every summer at the beach is just a bit of fabric so we are essentially bothered by the fact that sexual organs are on display. Is that the result of shaming? I really couldn't say one way or the other. Nor could I guess where responsibility lies for each individual who deems that it is.

I will say this, having bumped into the topic here today, some thoughts have been provoked and some valuable questions raised in my mind about how I approach teaching my children about their bodies. And that, regardless of this project's particulars, is a good thing.

Edited July 28, 2013 by mercyngrace

[The Grimace]

So you would be ok with your wife or daughter (after she turned 18) being on this site nude if they wanted to?

And you think doing so would stop young girls from being judgmental of each other?

If either felt it would help them move beyond any feelings of oppression and body shame they still held on to as a result of a lifetime in the church, who am I to say they ought not do it?

[bluebell]

If either felt it would help them move beyond any feelings of oppression and body shame they still held on to as a result of a lifetime in the church, who am I to say they ought not do it?

I'm wondering if you would be supportive about them doing it, especially knowing members (men) from your ward or people you work with, or young men your daughter knows, will have access to the photos and that millions of people will have the ability to save the pictures to their own devices and/or alter them however they want.

[BlueDreams]

A lot of this is kinda late, but wanted to say some things anyways.

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.

I see nudes all the time, so it wasn't much of a sacrifice to begin with. I'm a painter, the human form is intriguing to me and I enjoy seeing all forms. People are beautiful. I would not call any of these women nitwits. And I'm aware that they don't have to look like models (in the fashion sense)....but usually most people do not find sagging breasts, stretch marks to wazoo, sagging skin, pregnancy, or breastfeeding inherently sexual. I'm still a very visual person and as having seen these, I just can't imagine the vast majority of men (or women) finding them inherently sexually arousing. That someone might isn't much of a point. There's people that find just about anything sexually arousing. I prefer not curtailing my behavior just on the off chance that I run into those who do.

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.

I don't know if that entirely works. After all, we take pictures of the rooms (when they're not in use) to show for the public. I don't want to stretch the analogy out of uselessness and I think the images of the temples/our bodies, should be done with care. But I think, in general, there can be tactful nudes/partial nudes, that are beautiful and would not be degrading. The pics alone would not, in my mind, constitute something degrading.

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.

Mercy and Cal already mentioned this....it's not just that they're normal female bodies, it's the intent. There will always be pervs "enjoying" all sorts of things that most normal people would not find in the least arousing. I do not use their reactions as a litmus test for what is socially acceptable to view or not.

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.

funny, that you missed that message. I got that from the temple. I have rarely felt at odds with my physical image.

If their point was to get people to quit objectifying women, in other words think of women as primarily sex objects built to reproduce and nurture children, and to think of women as individuals, you do not approach that goal by creating of yourself what will even more strongly identify you as a sex object.

It would work if your separating sex from nudity. I feel that the idea was more to normalize the body as it is: a body....a part of you....and telling stories about who you are and where you've been. None of these women come off as sex objects.

I have more to write, but on a more general sense.

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

Then your daughters must not have attended Young Women's or primary.

Anytime a woman is told what to wear by a man (or not to wear) she is not free.

It is completely possible for inner beauty to shine through while in every possible variation of dress/undress. I see vast quantities of inner beauty in the photographs on this blog. Beauty, bravery, strength, courage, femininity, composure, delight, motherhood and confidence are all evident in these women.

My mind keeps thinking of the African women in National Geographic. They weren't covered on top. Probably because boobs were meant for babies.

But still can't say I support the women that did this, mainly because of their kids and if they will get flack.

[Garden Girl]

2. My daughter wore a tank top to her LDS BFF's house last summer, after leaving the church. Unfortunately, my daughter's "friend" took it upon herself to tell my daughter that her choice of clothing made her feel uncomfortable. My daughter was judged based solely on the fact that her top only had straps, not sleeves. My daughter now feels self-conscious whenever she visits her LDS BFF. Never mind the fact that they are both young teens, and her LDS BFF is 50lbs overweight (a fact that my daughter would never bring up).

Yes, but you did Grimace... being a little judgmental are we? Tsk Tsk...

GG (who grew up a little surfer girl on So Cal beaches and... watch for it... wore a regular 2 piece bathing suit which, I should add, was quite modest in that the top was about the size of a sports bra, and the bottoms like shorts with fitted legs.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Garden Girl

[Calm]

But still can't say I support the women that did this, mainly because of their kids and if they will get flack.

they have no way of predicting the impact on their children, even if they discussed it with them beforehand. Kids react unpredictably, especially if other kids are around.

If they are childless and will stay that way or have all adult children and discussed it ahead of time with them, then any fallout will fall on them (wondered if they considered how it might effect their work future or their spouses?) and their spouses which I assume they discussed it beforehand (if not, that is sad) so I would be less likely to think them careless as long as they thought through what was likely to happen to the pictures besides being used for their own goal...but throw kids into the mix and they may have just made their kids' lives hell on earth.

Edited July 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[omni]

Many have asserted that the "Mormon Women Bare" website is unnecessary, even pornographic. Perhaps a few examples of why I think the website is needed:

1. My daughter, when she became a Beehive (recently), went to a YW activity that involved a trip to the mall to see examples of modest and immodest clothing. The night was spent comparing outfits and talking about what clothing choice says about a girl. My daughter, who already had one foot out the church door, said that some of the descriptors used were "skank", "slutty", and "trashy". Odd, how an exercise in choosing clothing quickly became an exercise in judging girls who dress outside the Church standards, based solely on how much of their bodies they chose to reveal.

2. My daughter wore a tank top to her LDS BFF's house last summer, after leaving the church. Unfortunately, my daughter's "friend" took it upon herself to tell my daughter that her choice of clothing made her feel uncomfortable. My daughter was judged based solely on the fact that her top only had straps, not sleeves. My daughter now feels self-conscious whenever she visits her LDS BFF. Never mind the fact that they are both young teens, and her LDS BFF is 50lbs overweight (a fact that my daughter would never bring up).

3. Stake Girls Camp, and my wife attended as a camp counsellor. Many a debate was had between YW leaders concerning every single girl who wore a two piece bathing suit. But, the more tragic part is that the girls would gossip amongst themselves concerning who's suit showed the most skin. My wife said none of the girls wore anything immodest; they were simple two-piece suits, not thongs and bikinis. Yet, conditioning had taught these girls to judge appearances.

So, ultimately, I do understand why a Mormon woman would want to make a statement with her body. Posing nude is a way of reclaiming what is their own, a way of saying, "Go ahead, judge me, but know you have no power over me".

It's sad that it's a message that is needed.

I don't necessarily agree with the direction the website is going, but IMO we tend to be a little obsessive in our modesty. It is constantly talked about in church and it seems the Deseret News can hardly go a few days without an articles extolling the virtues of dressing modestly. No where is this more apparent than in Utah County where I live. We recently attended a youth conference where one of the activities was going to a swimming pool. Everybody, both male and female were required to wear shirts and shorts while swimming.

This is not an uncommon occurrence, when I go to the community pool there are always a number of women swimming in shirts and shorts. Walking around town in the middle of summer it is quite rare to see a girl not wearing knee length shorts or shirts with sleeves on them. Not necessarily a bad thing, just an observation.

Edited July 29, 2013 by omni

[Calm]

You would see me in shirts and shorts, but not for modesty's sake but because it is more comfortable and I am less likely to get burned...which is very uncomfortable.

You must be in a different part of Utah County than I am (down toward the south), I see tank and string tops, short shorts, guys with their pants looking like they are about to fall off and other stuff all the time.

[The Grimace]

Yes, but you did Grimace... being a little judgmental are we? Tsk Tsk...

No I didn't; I've never mentioned it to her once. Nor has my daughter. Which is the point I'm making. My daughter would never say, "BFF, your over-eating and lack of exercise exposes me to parts of your body excessively, and I am uncomfortable". Yet her friend seemed to feel as though it was appropriate to comment on my daughter's bare shoulders.

GG (who grew up a little surfer girl on So Cal beaches and... watch for it... wore a regular 2 piece bathing suit which, I should add, was quite modest in that the top was about the size of a sports bra, and the bottoms like shorts with fitted legs.

You are a seasoned lady, I think you've mentioned you are a little older than most of us here (I intend no disrespect). I suspect the age of Correlation has done much to change the standards of modesty from where they were when you were a lass.

[omni]

Lol, yeah I think southern Utah County is a little more redneck.

[The Grimace]

I'm wondering if you would be supportive about them doing it, especially knowing members (men) from your ward

Why would men from my ward be looking at pictures of my nude wife or nude daughter?

But aside from that, of course I'd talk about the downside, but ultimately, it's their decision to weigh.

Edited July 29, 2013 by The Grimace

[Sleeper Cell]

Anytime a woman is told what to wear by a man (or not to wear) she is not free..

So it is OK for a women to tell another woman what to wear? How about a women telling a man what to wear?

People tell me to do or not do things all the time. That doesn’t mean that I am not free to choose whether or not to do them.

[EllenMaksoud]

Hello,

I've come across a photography project called 'Mormon Women Bare'. It is to be presented at Sunstone this year, and involves women who identify as Latter-day Saints posing sans clothing, in a challenge to LDS modesty norms.

I won't post the link here, as it is against board rules and is NSFW and NSF minors. What I'm hoping for is a discussion regarding how appropriate this type of activism is and if it has gone too far.

Thanks,

Grimace

I don't get this at all. While converts deal with many things in adapting to the church, (the church is most certainly not going to change for them), my own issue with the church has been adapting to "The Mormon Woman's Uniform". Finally, it was clear that I would have to define my own path and have returned to my own comfort zone, looking much like a Muslim woman attending an LDS church. So, for me, nude pictures prove nothing at all. I object!

All of us have a so called, "dark side", however.

[Calm]

Why would men from my ward be looking at pictures of my nude wife or nude daughter?

Could they not come across it accidentally just by googling on their names if their names are associated with the pictures? Edited July 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Garden Girl]

No I didn't; I've never mentioned it to her once. Nor has my daughter. Which is the point I'm making. My daughter would never say, "BFF, your over-eating and lack of exercise exposes me to parts of your body excessively, and I am uncomfortable". Yet her friend seemed to feel as though it was appropriate to comment on my daughter's bare shoulders.

You are a seasoned lady, I think you've mentioned you are a little older than most of us here (I intend no disrespect). I suspect the age of Correlation has done much to change the standards of modesty from where they were when you were a lass.

Grimace... you make me chuckle... a seasoned lady... you can say that again! I'm 72... but standards haven't changed that much since I was a teen back in the 50's... I heard the same counsel on modesty, and chastity, that our youth hear today.

And as I said before, at no time... no time... were we made to feel ashamed or that our bodies were bad or shameful. I just don't get where this comes from... it certainly wasn't taught to me, or, I didn't get that impression from the talks/lessons, and there were plenty. When I was a senior, my prom formal was a strapless dress... bare shoulders... my mom made me wear a shawl around my shoulders... but (to be honest) being a kid, I soon abandoned that at the dance because it was too inconvenient. And, also to be honest, while I felt slightly uncomfortable it in no way was guilt or shame. It was more to do with my mom, because I spent enough time in bathing suits at the beach to be perfectly comfortable.

The thing about my era of growing up, the fashion was that skirt lengths were mid-calf to begin with... we also wore full skirts with about 3 or 4 stiff crinolin slips that made them balloon... it was easier to keep the Church standards from modesty to the WoW to chastity, etc. And, we didn't have to search and search to find appropriate clothes, unlike today's fashions...

from the beach... GG

Edited July 29, 2013 by Garden Girl

[MorningStar]

I'm having a hard time putting my feelings into words here, but I'll try. If Playboy girls were doing the same exact poses, would it be sexual? Is it not sexual because these women aren't considered especially attractive or have flaws on their bodies? Are Playboy girls called "brave" or are these women the brave ones because they're putting their (in comparison) grotesque bodies on display How is that not degrading?

[The Grimace]

And as I said before, at no time... no time... were we made to feel ashamed or that our bodies were bad or shameful. I just don't get where this comes from... it certainly wasn't taught to me, or, I didn't get that impression from the talks/lessons, and there were plenty. When I was a senior, my prom formal was a strapless dress... bare shoulders... my mom made me wear a shawl around my shoulders... but (to be honest) being a kid, I soon abandoned that at the dance because it was too inconvenient. And, also to be honest, while I felt slightly uncomfortable it in no way was guilt or shame.

The thing about my era of growing up, the fashion was that skirt lengths were mid-calf to begin with... we also wore full skirts with about 3 or 4 stiff crinolin slips that made them balloon... it was easier to keep the Church standards from modesty to the WoW to chastity, etc.

You are a lucky lady, GG. I think what I'm hearing, though, is that there is more of a focus on the details of modesty, almost a prescriptive mentality - "Wear this, don't wear that, don't expose this..."

When I was a stake YM president, I'd go to youth dances all around the region, and the attention to modesty was just over the top. I mean, if a skirt was a hair above the bottom of the knee, that young lady was not getting in to the dance. I watched a bishop scream at a stake YW president because his daughter was turned away for having a skirt that was the proper length when standing, but came a couple of inches up when sitting.

I dunno, GG, it seems times have changed.

[The Grimace]

I'm having a hard time putting my feelings into words here, but I'll try. If Playboy girls were doing the same exact poses, would it be sexual? Is it not sexual because these women aren't considered especially attractive or have flaws on their bodies? Are Playboy girls called "brave" or are these women the brave ones because they're putting their (in comparison) grotesque bodies on display How is that not degrading?

I think calling these women 'grotesque' is degrading. But aside from that, I don't find anything sexual about these pictures. Perhaps the reason I don't is because I understand the motive behind the pictures, and in a couple of cases, I know who the women are.

[MorningStar]

I think calling these women 'grotesque' is degrading. But aside from that, I don't find anything sexual about these pictures. Perhaps the reason I don't is because I understand the motive behind the pictures, and in a couple of cases, I know who the women are.

I didn't say they were grotesque. I said in comparison, which would be competing against the impossible standards our society sets. To say something isn't porn because the women are real or have body flaws is degrading. As was mentioned, one lady is sitting on a lawn naked. If a Playboy model were sitting on the lawn naked, would that seriously not be arousing to most men?

[MorningStar]

"Hot" women posing nude = When you got it, you gotta flaunt it!

Not hot women posing nude = Wow, you're brave! That's art!

[Calm]

I think it depends on where you live. Not too long ago I watched a young lady get her seminary graduation at church wearing a dressing with string ties that went down her back, something that apparently would have caused a scene at your wards. No one said a think at mine.

[The Grimace]

I didn't say they were grotesque. I said in comparison, which would be competing against the impossible standards our society sets. To say something isn't porn because the women are real or have body flaws is degrading. As was mentioned, one lady is sitting on a lawn naked. If a Playboy model were sitting on the lawn naked, would that seriously not be arousing to most men?

There are men who, undoubtedly, are aroused by the photos in question. But, there are men who are aroused by the underwear advertisements in the weekly circular. Are both pornography because of the response they evoke? Or is one meant to be a message of freedom and the other a message to purchase underwear?

If men can't control themselves and we allow that lack of control to be a primary influence in how women dress, isn't that a norm worth challenging?

[The Grimace]

"Hot" women posing nude = When you got it, you gotta flaunt it!

Not hot women posing nude = Wow, you're brave! That's art!

Isn't this an example of the very thing that many here say doesn't exist - body shaming (Hot vs Not Hot)?