Coming Soon to a Strip-ping Mall Near You - Topless Women

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think many (any?) girls are getting taught in church that we cover breasts because they are filthy or obscene so I don't think we need to expend much energy combating that message.

No, they are not being taught that directly, but that is what you all (many of you) suggest that it implies.  It seems like 4 or 5 people have said that here.  So, why wouldn't YW come to the same conclusion?  IT seems many here are on the free-the-nipple band wagon precisely because "that is what it suggests".  Why shouldn't that be addressed then?

Edited November 25, 2019 by pogi

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, they are not being taught that directly, but that is what you all (many of you) suggest that it implies.  It seems like 4 or 5 people have said that here.  So, why wouldn't YW come to the same conclusion?  IT seems many here are on the free-the-nipple band wagon precisely because "that is what it suggests".  Why shouldn't that be addressed then?

Utah law defines the exposed female breast below the top of the areola as lewd.

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why the snarky push back on this?  

Yes, I'm aware that the proclamation talks about the sacredness of procreation, but you have been talking specifically about the sacredness of breastfeeding and childbirth, which are different than the sacredness of sex.  Where does the church teach that breastfeeding and childbirth are sacred as well?

I am being snarky because it seems like people are arguing just for the sake of arguing when our doctrine is beyond clear on this point.  It is absolutely central to the plan of salvation. You asked specifically about childbirth.  Procreation = childbirth.  Sex is not sacred just because it feels good, it is sacred mostly because it leads to childbirth.   

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

Utah law defines the exposed female breast below the top of the areola as lewd.

We have been through this already.  I asked for a CFR and you never were able to answer it.  The law clearly states that actions are lewd, not the body.   What we are talking about right now has nothing to do with the law anyway.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

What I posted directly and irrefutably refutes what you posted about modesty and the sacredness of “the body”. 

So the manual is lying that the counsel of modesty is founded on the truth that the body is sacred?

What is the foundation for their teachings of modesty (including covering female breasts)?  What is “the truth”?

 

No it doesn't because I didn't say anything about the sacredness of 'the body' as one of God's creations.  

I spoke against your idea that we should teach the YW that they cover certain body parts because those body parts are sacred.  Obviously, that's not what the quote is teaching because if it was, we would also require men to cover their chests (which the quote says are just as sacred as women's chests).  But we don't teach that.  And we don't teach that because "our bodies are sacred" does not mean "we ask women to cover their breasts because female breasts are more sacred than male breasts."

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, they are not being taught that directly, but that is what you all (many of you) suggest that it implies.  It seems like 4 or 5 people have said that here.  So, why wouldn't YW come to the same conclusion?  IT seems many here are on the free-the-nipple band wagon precisely because "that is what it suggests".  Why shouldn't that be addressed then?

I think you might be misunderstanding what some posters were saying.  Speaking for myself, I've said that I don't think women should be walking around bare-chested, but I also don't believe that the reason they shouldn't is so that other people aren't exposed to their breasts.  

[provoman]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

We have been through this already.  I asked for a CFR and you never were able to answer it.  The law clearly states that actions are lewd, not the body.

Potato, potatoe, tomato, tomatoe

You cant have lewdness without the body part.

[provoman]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What if the children who were exposed to this were not family but just friends visiting the home?

The law refers only to the female breast, the law makes no mention of the relationship.

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No it doesn't because I didn't say anything about the sacredness of 'the body' as one of God's creations.  

This is exactly what you said:

Quote

I would not appreciate any member teaching my kids that girls are supposed to be modest because their bodies are sacred

This directly addresses that:

Quote

Prophets have always counseled us to dress modestly. This counsel is founded on the truth that the human body is God’s sacred creation. We must respect our bodies as a gift from God. Through our dress and appearance, we can show the Lord that we know how precious our bodies are.

 Their counsel on dress (including covering the breasts is "founded on" principles of the sacredness of the body.  Period.  They must view the woman's chest as not being equal to the men's chest obviously.  

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

Potato, potatoe, tomato, tomatoe

You cant have lewdness without the body part.

Nope, big difference.  I can show me privates to my wife and it wont be lewd at all.  I can show them to a little girl on the street and it will.  It is not the body part that is lewd, it is the behavior, action, and context. 

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am being snarky because it seems like people are arguing just for the sake of arguing when our doctrine is beyond clear on this point.  It is absolutely central to the plan of salvation. You asked specifically about childbirth.  Procreation = childbirth.  Sex is not sacred just because it feels good, it is sacred mostly because it leads to childbirth.   

It kind of seems like you are being snarky because some have disagreed with your conclusions.   

Procreation is not the same thing as childbirth, and as far as I can find (sounds like you can't find anything either) our doctrine is silent on childbirth.  Procreation requires two people (because it's another term for sex, or more specifically reproduction).  Childbirth doesn't.  Only the mother has to go through that.  Reproduction (procreation) is not the same thing as childbirth, though it's usually (though not always) a necessary prerequisite.   From what I've been able to find,  every time procreation is mentioned on lds.org, it's called 'the power of procreation' as it applies to both men and women.  That's more evidence that procreation isn't being used to refer to childbirth.  

And yes I agree that the ability to create mortal bodies is sacred, but in my opinion that still doesn't mean that everything related to sex and pregnancy is sacred.   Are c-sections sacred, for example?  Not in my experience.  (If other women had sacred experiences during their c-sections then i think that is wonderful).

Edited November 25, 2019 by bluebell

[provoman]

Prophets have always counseled us to dress modestly. This counsel is founded on the truth that the human body is God’s sacred creation. We must respect our bodies as a gift from God. Through our dress and appearance, we can show the Lord that we know how precious our bodies are.

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Their counsel on dress (including covering the breasts is "founded on" principles of the sacredness of the body.  Period.  They must view the woman's chest as not being equal to the men's chest obviously.  

The quote you reference does not distinguish between male or female modesty.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is exactly what you said:

This directly addresses that:

 Their counsel on dress (including covering the breasts is "founded on" principles of the sacredness of the body.  Period.  They must view the woman's chest as not being equal to the men's chest obviously.  

I'm sorry if confused you by not referring directly to your many earlier posts.  I assumed you would know the context of my reply without me having to type out all the previous things that you had stated.  But to be clear, I was speaking specifically about your idea that we should teach girls that they should cover their breasts because their breasts are more sacred than a man's chest.

And no, I don't think the bolded part of your statement makes any sense or is at all obvious.  But I know that you are very attached to that belief and it's fine that we agree to disagree on that.  No reason to continue to go around in circles on it.  

Edited November 25, 2019 by bluebell

[Calm]

On 11/23/2019 at 10:04 PM, pogi said:

Even my heart melts at the sight of my wife holding my baby girl in her bosom, listening to the gentle and soft sounds of suckling and swallowing, angelic coos, with breaks of breaths through her nares and eyes gently closed, as my wife gazes down with a smile of pure agape and soft eyes.  I am witnessing something profoundly sacred that reminds me of my relationship and unbreakable bond with God.

My understanding of your argument is that it is breastfeeding that gives an extra level of sacredness to female breasts and that this extra level is why female breasts need to be covered to protect this level of sacredness.

Is this correct?

If so, how do you explain that the only time public exposure (limited to full depending on where you are in the world) of the female breast is acceptable in our religious culture is when women are breastfeeding?  If sacredness implies protection from viewing by others, then it should be this act that is most protected by that reasoning. 

Edited November 25, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And yes I agree that the ability to create mortal bodies is sacred, but in my opinion that still doesn't mean that everything related to sex and pregnancy is sacred.

Then why ask for references if you agree?

Quote

 

It was essential that God’s spirit children have mortal birth and an opportunity to progress toward eternal life. Consequently, all things related to procreation are prime targets for the adversary’s efforts to thwart the plan of God. …

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/birth-control?lang=eng

 

Maybe they should specify that c-sections are not sacred?

 

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, provoman said:

Prophets have always counseled us to dress modestly. This counsel is founded on the truth that the human body is God’s sacred creation. We must respect our bodies as a gift from God. Through our dress and appearance, we can show the Lord that we know how precious our bodies are.

The quote you reference does not distinguish between male or female modesty.

Why are you all being so difficult, you KNOW what the church teaches about modesty.  I don't need to quote manuals when it is a given.  Their teachings on modesty for dress are different for YM and YW, but they are ALL founded upon sacredness of the body.   What does that say about men's chests vs womens chests in regards to sacredness if all teachings are founded on sacredness?  What other conclusions can be made?

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Then why ask for references if you agree?

Maybe they should specify that c-sections are not sacred?

 

You said that childbirth was sacred.  Those are the references that I'm seeking.  That procreation is sacred was never in dispute.

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And no, I don't think the bolded part of your statement makes any sense or is at all obvious.  But I know that you are very attached to that belief and it's fine that we agree to disagree on that.  No reason to continue to go around in circles on it.  

If you want to disagree, that is fine.  But you have not yet given a reason to disagree with me.  What other conclusions can we come to if teachings of modest dress are all founded on sacredness of the body?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

What does that say about men's chests vs womens chests in regards to sacredness if all teachings are founded on sacredness? 

Do you believe a woman’s face is more sacred than a man’s because of the temple veiling?

I am trying to understand why you equate covering with sacredness.  

Edited November 25, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You said that childbirth was sacred.  Those are the references that I'm seeking.  That procreation is sacred was never in dispute.

Procreation includes childbirth.  Sex without childbirth is not procreation.  In fact, one can procreate without sex but one cannot procreate without childbirth. 

[bluebell]

Just now, pogi said:

If you want to disagree, that is fine.  But you have not yet given a reason to disagree with me.  What other conclusions can we come to if teachings of modest dress are all founded on sacredness of the body?

The most simple conclusion is that our teachings on modesty mostly follow the dominate culture of the time.  Thus, it used to be immodest to show your knees, but now it's not.  And it didn't used to be immodest to show your shoulders (old pictures from BYU formals are a great example of this) but now it is.  

Our culture impacts what we view as modest or immodest way more than our beliefs about bodies being sacred impacts it.

 

[Ahab]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm sorry if confused you by not referring directly to your many earlier posts.  I assumed you would know the context of my reply without me having to type out all the previous things that you had stated.  But to be clear, I was speaking specifically about your idea that we should teach girls that they should cover their breasts because their breasts are more sacred than a man's chest.

And no, I don't think the bolded part of your statement makes any sense or is at all obvious.  But I know that you are very attached to that belief and it's fine that we agree to disagree on that.  No reason to continue to go around in circles on it.  

I think his reasoning for his statement that "They must view the woman's chest as not being equal to the men's chest obviously" is based on how they (the brethren) don't seem to have any problem with men showing their bare chests, as they do in that BYU swim team photo, but they do seem to have a problem women showing their bare chests like those men did.  Can you imagine that?  Imagine women on the women's swim team exposing their bare chests like those men did in that photo. Do you think they see them as equal?

Edited November 25, 2019 by Ahab

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Procreation includes childbirth.  Sex without childbirth is not procreation.  In fact, one can procreate without sex but one cannot procreate without childbirth. 

It seems like we are going around in circles again.  Probably another thing to agree to disagree on.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

I think his reasoning for his statement that "They must view the woman's chest as not being equal to the men's chest obviously" is based on how they (the brethren) don't seem to have any problem with men showing their bare chests, as they do in that BYU swim team photo, but they do seem to have a problem women showing their bare chests like those men did.  Can you imagine that?  Imagine women on the women's swim team exposing their bare chests like those men did in that photo. Do you think they see them as equal?

Yes, I'm assuming that's his reasoning.  I don't think the reasoning stands up well.  It seems obvious to me that the leadership in the church view male and female anatomy differently because our culture does and our modesty standards are culturally based.  I don't think it has much to do with God viewing women's chests as inherently more sacred then men's.  

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Procreation includes childbirth.  Sex without childbirth is not procreation.  In fact, one can procreate without sex but one cannot procreate without childbirth. 

Oh come on now pogi.  Surely you can see that you are being unreasonably stubborn about this.  There is a connection between procreation and childbirth but they are not the same thing.  Procreation is about making a body for a spirit to inhabit.  Childbirth is about a woman sending that body out into the world with a spirit merged with that body.