Modesty Revisited

I’ve made it pretty clear, on this blog and elsewhere, that I have no problem with tank tops and other shoulder-baring attire. You can even see on my “About” page that I’m wearing a sleeveless shirt, one with flaps around the shoulder which drape off of it. Recently I got involved in a discussion over at MarkCares which has devolved into one of the LDS participants arguing that I am, in fact, immodest and therefore in violation of 1 Timothy 2:9-10 for wearing tank tops. This topic has been hashed around the Bloggernacle over and over again (see this thread here at fMh, for example), but I do have a slightly different perspective on this. I lived under the BYU Honor Code for 6 years of my life wherein I faithfully refused to bare my shoulders, then immediately reverted back to my old ways as soon as I left Provo. Guess what? It wasn’t because of my sinful desire to be immodest. I’m honestly unconvinced that shoulders and clavicles are eeevil to show off.
Styles and cuts which are on my “okay” list:
  • Tank tops. This includes the sleeveless tee as well as the more skinful spaghetti strap.
  • Other stylish shoulder-baring designs like the black one in my “About” page.
  • Off-the-shoulder sweaters.
  • Sleeveless dresses and spaghetti strap dresses.
  • I’ll wear skirts as high as mid-thigh, like this one here, but I infinitely prefer ankle-length skirts as a matter of style.
  • Long skirts with slits as high as mid-thigh.
  • The two-piece tankini. I am absolutely convinced that this style of swimwear, which shows off a little belly button, is far more modest than the traditional one-piece which can easily show off your entire ass and a good deal of cleavage. The fact that so many conservative religious groups absolutely prohibit any kind of two-piece while letting any and all styles of one-piece run rampant is nothing short of bass ackwards.
  • On a hot day I may wear a tasteful corset top or a halter top in the sun. For more formal occasions like church or class, I’ve only ever worn those with a jacket or button-down shirt over them.
Some of these cuts and styles are only on my “okay” list because, well, let’s just say I’m not very well-endowed. If I had more cleavage to show off, I’d show less. A cut which is immodest on one body type can be modest on another. That’s just the way it works.
Styles which are on my “not okay” list:
  • Midriff-baring attire, including the half-tee and the tube top. I have a very deep personal testimony that this type of dress attracts the wrong kind of attention from the wrong kind of men.
  • Plunging backlines.
  • Mini-skirts. I had my share of these in junior high and high school, and I certainly have the legs for them, but again, they attract the wrong kind of attention from the wrong kind of men.
  • Precariously high-cut slits in skirts. I had one of these in high school when they were really in style. One day I got brave and wore it to school without my signature ankle-length black trench coat, the weather being nice enough when I went to school in the morning. When school let out later that day, it was one of the windiest days I had ever seen in my life—and I had a mile to walk home in a skirt with slits that would have made Jessica Rabbit blush. It was not at all like Marilyn Monroe’s sexy pose on the steam vent! I decided it was God’s way of punishing me for being immodest and threw the skirt out.
  • Low-cut cleavage-baring shirts. Not that I have cleavage to bare anyway.
  • Bikinis.
Pushbacks / Objections
1. “Jack, I’m okay with wearing some of the styles on your no-no list. R U judging me???”
Not at all. Culture and climate can play a huge role in what is considered immodest and what isn’t. For example, in the coasts of southern Florida, I’m sure it’s quite natural and common for women to walk around in midriff-baring attire and isn’t considered immodest at all. You should go by your conscience and the Spirit’s guidance. 
2. “Jack, I’m a man and I think some of the styles on your ‘okay’ list would inspire me to impure thoughts.”
There’s a few responses to this. On my last mission to Mexico, in 2001, I was out for a walk alone as it was getting dark (not smart of me, I know) when a man approached me. My Spanish was rather lacking, but I understood enough to know that he wanted me to have sex with him. This was the dress I was wearing:The high conservative neckline, the ample t-shirt sleeves, and although you can’t tell from this picture, the hem came down to my ankles. Obviously he propositioned me because I was dressed like a total whore. Or not.
Point being, just because a man has impure thoughts doesn’t mean a woman is dressed immodestly. Yes, I think women have some level of obligation to not deliberately try to arouse the men around them, but where it stops being her fault and becomes entirely his is a blurry line to draw.
I also think that any man who wants to have sex with me at the sight of my bony shoulders (seriously, I could slice bread with these things) but would be able to control his thoughts if I were wearing a t-shirt has serious issues.
Final point: most people notice that talk of modesty and having regard for the thoughts of others is almost entirely directed at women. What about men? What obligation do they have to help keep their sisters’s thoughts pure?
I can’t speak for all women, but I can honestly say that for 99% of men, I would rather not see them with less clothes on. A well-chiseled man like Jason Statham or my husband can look great in just his boxer shorts, but I’m a realist, and most men are not well-chiseled. The thought of them in less clothing absolutely terrifies me.
You know what does turn me on though? A man in a well-kept suit.
So, men, do you think you could help me keep my thoughts pure by only wearing blue sweatsuits from Wal-Mart to church from now on? Bonus points if they have BBQ sauce stains on them. Nothing will be further from my mind than sex with you, I guarantee it. 
3. “Some of the things on your ‘okay’ list sound awfully skin-tight.”
This is true, but complaints about “skin-tight” clothing are generally confusing to me. I have a body, and it does feature a slender waist and these bumpy things we call “bewbs.” If I’m supposed to hide these features, why don’t I just wrap duct tape around my breasts every morning like Christina Ricci did in Now and Then? (Skip to 3:45 for the clip)
I only really own two types of tops: ones which accentuate my figure and ones which hide it in mounds of tent-like fabric. I know which one I get a more positive (and not necessarily sexual) reaction from when I go out, so that’s what I wear. I’ve never seen a top which can’t be called “skin tight” and still accentuates the female figure. 
4. “I’m a Mormon and I think it’s modest to wear knee-length skirts and t-shirts, but most of the stuff on your ‘okay’ list is immodest.”
So? I’m not Mormon and I think all of the things I listed are perfectly modest, both by my own standards and by that of my religious culture. I’ve worn most of them to plenty of evangelical services and functions and never been told that I need to be more modest. The only people who have ever complained about the way I dress have been Mormons. 
5. “God’s standards for modesty and dress are completely independent of what is culturally acceptable!”
Bullcrap. If you’re an evangelical and you think this, please open your Bible to 1 Corinthians 11:5 & 1 Timothy 2:9-10, then explain to me why evangelicals don’t teach that women need to wear head coverings in church and not braid their hair. While you’re at it, check out Genesis 24:22 and tell me if you think a nose ring is appropriate attire for a woman.
If you’re a Mormon and that’s your position, you’re in even more trouble because you have to explain those passages AND you have to explain why the garment went from a one-piece number that extended to the wrist and ankle to the current short-sleeved, knee-length, two-piece option. The answer is pretty obvious: leaders prayerfully decided to adapt it to fit the changing, less-modest trends in American fashion.
While you’re at it, you also have to explain why the washing & anointing portion of the temple ceremony changed in 2005. I’m not going to say more about it than that, but a good case can be made that it was a culturally-induced change. There is no major strain of Christianity which teaches standards for dress and modesty must remain the same regardless of changing cultural trends.
6. “I’m a Mormon. Are you saying you have some problem with me teaching my children that they must have sleeves on their shirts?”
Not really. They’re your children and by all means you have the right to teach them whatever you want. However, I hope you would have the common sense to teach them that your rules about sleeves are in accordance with the standards of your religion, and that people who show off their shoulders aren’t necessarily being immodest. Unless you want your kids to grow up to be judgmental little Pharisaical twerps, in which case go for it.

Comments

Modesty Revisited — 60 Comments

  1. I totally agree about the shoulders/arms thing. I’m LDS and wear garments, and I can easily show a good amount of cleavage while wearing them, but my shoulders/arms are always covered. That’s weird to me. Since I live in the hot humid East, I hope and pray for the day when garment tops accommodate tank tops.
  2. It’s the frog in the frog in the pot. Sure, you think you’re fine now with your bared shoulders–but before long, you’ll be blogging in a tube top and a thong.
    ;)
    I do find shoulders sensual, but does that mean they are verboten like primary sexual zones? Is my wish that I could see my wife wear a sundress more lascivious than I think? I think the Church is probably a little too up tight about that sort of thing, but I think I’ll let that battle go.
  3. So basically you’re saying that you like being immodest.
    /ducks
    No seriously, your arguments are all too rational to sway the judgmental mind.
  4. There are three women in my life who couldn’t give a fig what other people think is modest or not.
    They’re just not comfortable unless the neckline is high and the sleeves are longer than those capped things on most of the women’s T-shirts at Wal-mart. Lessons about modest dress are lost on them; they’re already doing it anyway beyond anyone’s standards.
    –
    Your Mexican “friend” probably propositioned you because of your youth, which no matter the size is more attractive to some than anything else about a person’s body shape.
    –
    I think mainstream Mormons are in agreement about 1 Corinthians 11:5 & 1 Timothy 2:9-10, with respect to standards of dress.
    Big shrug there; thump the error prone at will. (You’ve also indirectly supported my apologetic with respect to gender roles in the Church. For that I offer you sincere thanks!)
    Of course, between 40 and 80 years ago that was not at all the case, and even among certain Baptist and some of the Russian/Ukranian sects around here, you still see women with a head covering when they go to church. I wouldn’t judge too harshly.
  5. Religion used to play a much more significant role as a teacher of morals than it arguably does today. This chicken and egg game between culture trends and religion have shifted in modern America, and in a lot of ways I would say it’s shifted to the worse. Yet still there is the notion of the role of women and the role of their dress, rooted in past notions that women were temptresses who didn’t know anything but tempting.
    As much as this is true of some women choosing to dress in a deliberately provocative fashion, I’d like to think we’ve come to a point in time where we can be mature enough as a society to say that a woman in a tank-top is not deliberately attempting to get sexual attention because her shoulders are showing. Really, folks. We CAN control ourselves, somehow.
    I’m a modest dresser, but that’s because I think that suits my dumpy body type. If I thought I could get away with it, then heck yeah I’d wear that sleeveless top or thigh-length skirt. In general, all my guidelines fall just about in line with yours. It’s a matter of a woman choosing to dress TASTEFULLY however she so chooses. When I see a woman who’s got too much skin showing (in my opinion), my general thoughts aren’t on how slutty she is, but rather how tasteless it is.
    If you ask me (and this is your blog, so no one really did ask me but I’ll say it anyway), there’s nothing more appealing than someone who is dressed with class versus someone peddling their own flesh, either for fashion or for sex. The good things about this are plentiful. Where I draw the line with no religious authority to guide me has been where I feel respect for myself.
  6. I find it a bit unfortunate that we have come to equate “modesty” with “baring skin or accentuating the human form.” In the Bible passages you referred to, Paul isn’t talking about that at all, but rather about propriety and not calling undue attention to oneself.
    When Paul told the women of his day not to wear pearls or fix their hair a certain way, it didn’t have to do with the inherent nature of pearls or of hair but with the message they sent in that culture.
    So when we’ve talked to our kids about attire (which hasn’t been all that often), we haven’t framed things much in terms of “modesty” or “garment friendliness” but more about the principles of how they wish to present themselves and the image they wish to convey.
    Of course, if you think about it that way, things definitely are culturally relative and relative to time and place. A bikini (maybe I’m more liberal than you here) may not be inappropriate or immodest on most beaches in suitable weather, but it would be at the shopping mall. Knee-length shorts such as those I wore to Walt Disney World were perfectly appropriate there, but they would be inappropriate, and therefore immodest as I’m using the term, while visiting the Western Wall in Jerusalem.
    It drives me batty when I hear people talk about the things that are OK for you to wear as “immodest.” They aren’t. Your views sound reasonably conservative to me. True modesty is more a matter of why than what.
  7. Oh, the clothes I miss the most are my sleeveless tops and tank tops. I grew up in Mormondom – Rexburg, ID – and wore sleeveless tops until the day I was married. Nobody ever said they were bad and every girl that I remember wore tank tops all through the summer.
    And for the rest of your list? I completely agree, especially with the skirt thing. I’m also 6′ tall, and finding a knee-length skirt is hard. (Especially when my G’s barely come to mid-thigh anyway. And no, they aren’t petites. The normal ones come to mid-thigh and the mid-calf ones come to my knee.)
  8. I don’t think there’s anything inherently immodest or shameful in the human body, but it’s all related to the way we’re conditioned to respond to it.
    So here’s a thought. If we’re judging by cultural standards, don’t you think it might be immodest to wear tank tops in, say, Provo, Utah, where the sight of a woman’s shoulders sends 95% of the population into panic-induced fits? Or would you just say those guys need to get over it? ;)
    I often wore tank tops before I went to the temple. I liked them. I said that in a Relief Society class once, and the teacher tried to turn it into a “teaching moment.” She said, “Now that you dress modestly on a regular basis, surely you can tell the difference. How did it make you feel when you were dressing inappropriately?”
    I said, “To be honest, it made me feel fantastic.” (Then I hastily added something about how I am equally happy to dress the way I do now…but I didn’t mean it. I was just trying to spare her feelings.)
    Also, I don’t think nose rings are immodest if they’re small and tasteful.
  9. Chelsea ~ I hope and pray for the day when garment tops accommodate tank tops.
    Personally, I predict that the garment will be sleeveless before the end of my lifetime. I could be wrong, but that’s what I think.
    Derek ~ Sure, you think you’re fine now with your bared shoulders–but before long, you’ll be blogging in a tube top and a thong.
    Heh. What’s the fun in blogging if I can’t do it in my underwear?
    Rob ~ You’ve also indirectly supported my apologetic with respect to gender roles in the Church. For that I offer you sincere thanks!
    Eh? How so?
    even among certain Baptist and some of the Russian/Ukranian sects around here, you still see women with a head covering when they go to church.
    Want to see a web site which will freak you out? Wendy’s Modest Dress. Seriously, prepare to be freaked.
    Laura ~ there’s nothing more appealing than someone who is dressed with class versus someone peddling their own flesh, either for fashion or for sex.
    I completely agree. And here’s the thing: modesty and class are also a matter of how one carries herself, body language, behavior, etc. Some of the outfits I wear could be immodest if a woman acted like a slut. The way I act when I wear them in public? I really don’t think so.
    Nicole ~ You’re 6’0″? Truly you are my sister.
    Thank you for the feedback everyone.
  12. LOL. That’s totally how I used to tell people my height. “Oh, I’m 5’12″.”
    One day I said that to someone and he was like, “Oh, so you’re almost 6’0″, eh?”
    I had to bite back a snicker as I said, “Yup, just about.”
    EDIT: Oh, great web site, I like their suits. I’ll add it to my “tall clothes” post.
  13. Katie ~ So here’s a thought. If we’re judging by cultural standards, don’t you think it might be immodest to wear tank tops in, say, Provo, Utah, where the sight of a woman’s shoulders sends 95% of the population into panic-induced fits?
    Or would you just say those guys need to get over it?
    I think you can make a case either way in this situation. When I lived in Provo I was under the Honor Code, so I never got to experiment with it.
    I’m probably in the same situation when I choose to wear shoulder-baring attire to visit the LDS ward with my husband. Am I being immodest because that isn’t the norm there? Or am I pushing the Latter-day Saints around me to accept that showing off shoulders can be modest? I like to think that I’m doing the latter. I’ll admit that part of it is that I hope I’m pissing off some uptight Mormons, because nothing delights me more than pissing people off.
    And wow—I can’t believe you were as nice to your RS teacher as you were. I would have been like, “Sorry, God is not offended by the sight of my clavicles.”
  14. Stop such brazen talk of cl–of certain upper abdomenal bones, you strumpets! Don’t you realize that all this talk of flaunting your bodies is inciting urges?!
  15. In all seriousness, our society needs to realize that all this worrying about body parts merely fetishizes them. Humans are innately sexual beings. If the person is attractive by your standards, they can be wearing a burlap bag and you’ll still be turned on. We will find the sensuality in it. No amount of prescription–or proscription–will change that. All we can do is to learn to control our own urges, and carry ourselves in a classy and chaste demeanor.
  16. Now we know why Jack likes men in suits. I think modesty is a turn-on for her!
    I remember having no problems with Provo’s dress standards. I’d dress like a nun if they brought a Cafe Rio to Nebraska. Chipotle is good, but it’s a distant second.
    Though now I wish I had thought of wearing a tanktop in Provo… Darn you mind for your innocence!
  17. And wow—I can’t believe you were as nice to your RS teacher as you were.
    LOL. Well, I was nice to her face anyway… :evil:
    Incidentally, I’m digging this whole “men in suits give me dirty thoughts” line of reasoning. Suddenly I have a wonderful excuse for the ways my mind wanders when I’m bored in church. And it’s totally not my fault. I can’t help it if they’re like walking pornography for me.
  19. That evil face is evilling its evil all over this wicked, wicked blog. Evil! ;-)
    Jack — It supports my notion that gender role divisions in the Church are in motion towards egalitarianism, because the claim is that Paul’s admonitions about women are culturally specific.
    And please: Tanktops in Provo? All over the place. Just not on the campus. And lets not forget the topless sunbathing on the roof of the now demolished U-Hall. Now you know why they demolished it! ;-)
    (Or the bikini sunbathing on the lawns around Heritage Halls! Ah, BYU memories!)
    I would make the claim that all you ladies here are undeniably attractive in any kind of dress or undress, if that were not completely inappropriate. So, um… yeah.
  21. Wow. Here I thought I was being outrageously satirical, but this guy said about the same thing, presumably with a straight face. Amazing.
  22. Jack,
    I admire that you faithfully lived the honor code while at BYU, at least re: modest clothing.
    I think Mormons who tell you you are immodestly dressed are out of line.
    One question I do have, is when does the Christian liberty argument of Paul take over. “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” I’m suggesting, that sometimes wearing a tank-top to an LDS service, when one knows that they think it is wrong, may be like “eating meat” (eating food offered to idols in Pauls day.) I could imagine an Evangelical who loved their Mormon friends well enough that, when at a church or activity or service thing, would dress how they do so as not to offend. Of course Mormons should also be charitable and non-judgemental as well.
  23. MadChemist ~ I have actually considered that scripture, and it’s the one thing that has given me pause and almost made me re-think my attire at LDS sacrament meetings.
    I decided against dropping the practice for a couple of reasons:
    ~ I dislike being fake around people. I feel like, if they want a relationship with me, they need to know what I’m really like.
    ~ If they’re going to judge me for wearing shoulder-baring attire when all my other clothes fit their standards for “modest” and my conduct is appropriate, they’re probably stumbling over a lot more than just my shoulders.
    ~ I think it makes a pretty bold statement that I’m not LDS and I’m comfortable with that.
    ~ My husband encourages me to do it. Seriously, that is part of it.
    FWIW, I have never had anyone show any kind of judgmental behavior toward me at my husband’s ward, not for my attire or anything else. I think the bishop is put off by me for some reason, but other than that, I have zero complaints about the ward. They’ve been great people.
    In the future, I may re-think this depending on where the Spirit leads me. It’s been working out for now.
  24. It’s possible you confound your Bishop (the man in the office, that is) by merely breathing in and out and simultaneously not causing your husband to become a raving apostate.
    Or something like that.
    Sister Gruning, ‘way back in the Ravensburg branch in eastern Wuerttemburg, Germany, would do something similar to her cohort, by wearing collotes or slacks to Sacrament Meeting.
    At the time I think she was something like 72 years old. Never cross the opinionated German crone. It would not surprise me at all if I were to learn that she is still alive today.
    MC, you’ve just eloquently described the reasoning I was given behind the “clean shaven” rule for priesthood holders in certain positions in the Church.
  26. Jack, Ooh, I hope you’re right about sleeveless garments! Although with my luck I can imagine it happening when I’m 85 with loose arm skin as big as an elephant’s ear.
    I do wear slacks to church from time to time, just to keep it real. Especially when I used to help in the nursery. Bending over and sitting on the floor work much better in pants!
  27. Derek, I have no idea. But the Sunday I appeared in church after shaving clean for the first time in ten years, an old lady came up to me and literally gushed with approval about how much better I looked now that the hair was gone.
    Since I’m very fond of that old lady, and the act made her smile, I count it as worthwhile that I did it.
    I guess it’s a generational offense, and I imagine that as an imperative it will go away once those older folks are gone from us. Baby boomers and earlier, I imagine.
  28. I think we need to re-direct this conversation back to how sexy men look in their fine, fine suits and how that is a stumbling block to me, so they should knock it off. I mean, walking past the MTC is the same for me as walking past a shop full of Victoria’s Secret models is for men.
  29. Usually, walking past VS, I’m a bit put off. Those women are airbrushed, and the salespeople just a bit too vapid…
    Anyway, those are Mr. Mac suits! How can you possibly… ah Jack. They’re all just such littleboys!
  30. Rob,
    That may just be the first time I’ve ever been accused of eloquence on the web. Thanks, LOL
    MC => PC
  31. Rob, the fact that when I grow out my beard really bushy, many people from my parent’s ward or from Utah County ask “What in the world do you have that for? You know you can’t be a bishop with that, right?” personally makes me count it as worthwhile. But to each their own…
    ;)
    (The fact that I am potentially disqualifying myself to be called as bishop is a bonus…)
    Besides, the facial hair typically helps keep women from stumbling. No one wants to kiss a wire brush (or so my wife tells me). Now I’ll have to reconsider my stylish colored shirts and suits in favor of sweats to help Jack and those like her.
  32. I would not aspire to be a Bishop. There’s joy in it, but no free time.
    But, I wholeheartedly believe in making as many denizens of the Happy Valley as uncomfortable as possible, without sinnin’.
  33. Facial hair. I think facial hair can look great on some men, but kissing a man with a beard is like making out with a scouring pad.
    Rob ~ But, I wholeheartedly believe in making as many denizens of the Happy Valley as uncomfortable as possible, without sinnin’.
    This is why I like you, Rob.
  34. Facial hair. I think facial hair can look great on some men, but kissing a man with a beard is like making out with a scouring pad.
    Totally depends on the facial hair.
    My husband grew a long, almost pioneer-looking beard a couple years ago–and though it wasn’t my favorite look for him (to put it mildly)–it was actually nice and soft.
    The problem is you have to get through the scratchy period before you get to the soft stuff.
    Fortunately, I was like 8 months pregnant at the time, so let’s be honest, there wasn’t much making out going on anyway.
  36. Ah yes, I actively encouraged the ex to grow out his beard when we were dating because it looked goooood. (And Katie’s right, once it’s long enough it’s nice and soft.)
    Needless to say, once he broke away from my gentile influence, he shaved it off and fits right back in with his ward.
  37. Glad you like the new blog header too, Jon.
    Katie and Whitney, damn, now you’re making me reconsider having my husband grow his goatee out, just so we can annoy more uptight Mormons. Hmm…
  38. I like the header too. And my wife likes my beard, says she wouldn’t want me to be any other way.
  39. When it comes to facial hair, I actually think a couple day’s growth is the sexiest. And I don’t even mind kissing it, because it makes me feel kind of dangerous to kiss a man with stubble. ;)
    Oh, and Whitney? A guy who would shave his beard just to fit back in with his ward is obviously nothing like polygamy Jesus–every woman’s true ideal–so I wonder if perhaps it was a good thing it didn’t work out after all.
    P.S. Annoying uptight Mormons is fun.
  41. How about, “It’s fun to provoke annoyingly uptight Mormons, and then appear alongside them in the Celestial Room three weeks later.”?
    Jack, I wonder. In my ward, which is just as paleo politically as any other, and as conservative, nobody bats an eye if a goatee appears on one of the men. As long as he’s not in the Bishopric. I lived in peace with those people for years before shaving, so I don’t know if your husband’s goatee would be sufficiently apostate to get a “well I never!” instead of an “amen, Brother!”
    And it won’t get him out of subbing in the Nursery. Sorry; I tried that once.
  46. I think it’s awful that they call the story “Modest Contestant Wins.” Way to encourage idiots like GB to judge people in sleeveless dresses as “immodest.” Fail, Church News, fail.
    OTOH, that’s sweet that she found a dress which “reflected her standards.” I’m glad the judges didn’t think that dress was hideous like I do.
    And BTW, I was pleased to recall that the First Lady of our country numbers herself among usharlots. You’d think that if the First Lady does it, maybe we could see it as a mode of dress that does in fact have class?
    Also, one of my favorite youth events growing up was called “Creating a Godly Woman.” It involved rounding up all of the teenage girls at our church, letting us dress up in our prom dresses and giving us all make-overs, then throwing a big banquet for us at which the localDaffodil Queen and the most recent Miss Washington (both of whom were Christians) gave their testimonies, the point of it all being that it’s okay to be both Christian and beautiful. I thought it was awesome stuff, a welcome break from all of the youth talks which tell you to please cover up and try not to look too nice so that you don’t give the boys naughty thoughts. I’m sure sleeveless dresses were in abundance.
  47. If the boys weren’t looking at naked night elf toons on World of Warcraft, (and porn!) they would not have so many dirty thoughts. ;-)
  48. Hardly a surprise that the Church which draws such a hard line on modesty would label the contestants that way.
    Anyone else think that this “modest” dress (which I agree is rather ugly, Jack) shows quite a bit of chest? If she likes that, fine, but how is it more modest to show chest than to show shoulders?
    You’d think that if the First Lady does it, maybe we could see it as a mode of dress that does in fact have class?
    Not in my neck of the woods, I’m afraid. After all, this first lady is a Democrat. She’s virtually a harlot along the Wasatch Front no matter what she wears…
  49. I’m always a little baffled by the (minor) celebrities the Church News is willing to publicize and those they are not.
  51. I thought of the chest/clavicles thing too, Derek. It’s ironic to me that shoulders are bad to bear, but a wide neckline is labeled “modest.” I think that a sleeveless high-necked item like this is just as modest as what she has on (though both dresses are ugly to me). The 3/4 length sleeve thing is just horrible on a dress though.
    It’s no secret that I’m hardly a fan of the Obamas, but damn. Even I can see that if the First Lady does it, maybe it’s because it’s culturally acceptable.
  52. Brian, the Church sets the standards which DesNews/Church News follows.
  53. I think Michelle Obama is a beautiful, well dressed woman. As a libertarian I don’t care much for a lot of her politics, but she is classy.
  58. I went back and looked at the modest pageant dress… Yeah. There’s no way that top covers her garments – it’s too wide, too low. Unless, of course, she employed the safety-pin-through-the-corners-and-around-the-bra-strap trick. Not like I’d know what that is.
  59. I went to the Mrs. Texas web site and checked out the pageant pictures. Check out the picture of the four runner-ups.
    Now I’m not saying they’re ugly women, but their arms are kind of flabby to be rocking sleeveless dresses, and I do think the winner is much prettier than them, ugly dress not withstanding.
    So I’m not sure I would call this a triumph of modesty over immodesty so much as a triumph of a very beautiful woman in an ugly dress over less-beautiful women in the wrong kind of dresses to really flatter their body type.
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity