#1 Swim shorts with full coverage tops are two-piece swimsuits and are therefore immodest as per LDS standards. If I were to stare hard enough, I might be able to see the navel or lower back of a woman wearing what you describe. You have made pornography for me with your licentious suggestion.

(Sarcasm mode off.)

Seriously, when is the memo going to get out that swim shorts and full tops are more modest (and often more flattering) than one-pieces?

#3 That too. It’s an unfortunate addition to otherwise worthwhile teachings on modesty.

I’ve known LOTS of LDS women who have no problem wearing 2-piece swimsuits that I absolutely consider immodest. There are a ton of 2-piece suits, however, that are very modest and much more comfortable than one-piece suits. I really don’t think string bikinis are the way to go if you’re trying to be modest at the beach but do we really have to resort to the offerings of “Simply Modest Swimwear” to maintain our dignity? I’ve never worn a bikini in my life (even in my thinner, more fit days) and consider myself to be a very modest dresser but still wouldn’t wear one of those get-ups. Are we returning to the old mentality that garments must be worn at all times without excpetion? Because that seems to be what these styles of “swimwear” seem to be offering up.

It’s interesting to note that in the letter on BYU NewsNet that “Sam Speer of Ogden” thinks that wearing shorts and tank tops qualifies as “half-naked.” Once again, I’m pretty modest and don’t own anything I can’t wear with my garments (I was a little more liberal in my short lengths pre-endowment but not much) but have we held ourselves so high that a tank top qualifies as lingerie? Maybe those boys at BYU are a little too repressed. Not that I wouldn’t have taken a little more modesty at my own college campus… But in that case, the girls really were walking around in bikinis!

I think the burquini passes as relevant to an institutional modesty, but the others caused me to wet myself laughing. Simply modest has a long way to go in taste.

At least there is some humor to the letters to the editor lately (see skateboarding bit).

I think that the BYU swim and diving team should set the standard by using these suits in competition. I mean for both men and women. That way nobody will ever be tempted. Or win.

When is the memo going to get out that the scriptures are not a memo? Or was there a memo that the scriptures are, in fact, a memo? If so, please disregard my first memo question.

ESO, I agree with you. 100%.

My impression is that Orwell is using the swimsuits to make fun of the notion that woman are responsible for men’s bad thoughts.

DKL–I know–I lost my sense of humor on this one

It’s “the old mentality” to remember the covenant we make in the Temple about wearing the garment day and night?
Why do we object to that? If a man or woman who does heavy physical labor is expected to wear the garment while at work, I have never understood why we think it necessary to remove it to PLAY!

Personally, I appreciate the great blessings of protection promised me and I choose not to give that up!

And, yes, I do believe we do have a responsiblity in our personal conduct to help, not hinder, others’ struggles. Perhaps I am weaker than others, but I find that others’ actions, speech, etc., do affect me for good or ill.

Pretty dorky looking outfits, even the fabric looking like tarp material, but who cares, we can always watch porn.

arJ—apparently not one that many people have read. I’m fully prepared to admit to irritation at seeing others’ religious beliefs held up in mockery and, yes . . . judgment. Particularly when such people are not here to defend themselves. I’m fully prepared to admit to judging such behavior to be insensitive and rude.

I have not, however, judged a person’s worthiness. Only pointed out the bad taste of this post without claiming to be free of occasional bad taste, myself. Discuss the ridiculousness of some LDS members’ assertion that women are responsible for men’s thoughts, by all means, but don’t hold up the beliefs and practices of other religions to do so.

…I say that, being the type who judges people all the time.

1) I admit to being tempted by the Burqini. Just think — no more worries about tan lines, bikini lines, or thunder thighs! No one can see my body to judge it. Ah, freedom. I actually went so far as to buy a wetsuit once. Now I’m digging my tankini with skirt bottom. I took it with me to Girl’s Camp a couple years ago. There was initially some concern about two-pieces but the leadership were persuaded to consider the KIND of two piece.

2) The rational of “don’t be a stumbling block to [anyone]” has never bothered me much, nor seemed like something to mock. It’s like laughing at the idea you shouldn’t drink around your on-the-wagon alcoholic friend. People have buttons. This doesn’t excuse them from controlling their actions but it shows (a) basic self-preservation instincts and (b) what should be basic concern for the comfort of others to be aware of that and to push those buttons with care.

Swedish swimmer Therese Alshammar was recently stripped of her world record in the 50 meter butterfly because she was wearing two swimsuits during the race. Why was she wearing two swimsuits? According to her it was for modesty. She claims the skintight regular suit did not cover her chest completely so she put on a second old cut down suit underneath. I know nothing about swimming and whether her explanation is as credible as Roger Clemens denying he ever took steroids. According to “Sports Illustrated” wearing two swimsuits improves bouyancy which improves performance. Score one for modesty, I think.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about laughing at ourselves. Whether or not I’m reading too much into it, I don’t know. I do know that from the perspective of someone who is laughed at for my desires and attempts to be modest within an LDS setting (garment-appropriate clothing), that there is nothing wrong with other people taking it a step further, should they wish and choose to do so, and that mocking them for it is not something that we, as LDS, should do. It smacks of hypocrisy.

Steve—If you want to call it judging someone’s worthiness, and can’t tell the difference between calling out a behavior and calling out an individual, than feel free to do so. But I would hope that someone would tell me if I were mocking someone else for their sincere attempts at virtue, whether I agreed with them or not.

Look, the last two suits are just funny.

The attempt at modesty is just fine, in fact it is laudable- the burquini is a good example of that.

What we can laugh at is 1) our obsession with declaring a narrow sort of institutional modesty in our Church according to our own perceptions and 2) the pioneering attempts at said modesty. They may be outright false doctrine, they may be good doctrine, whatever- the point is that so far the attempts are more funny than anything. What’s more, it is debatable at best as to whether they are representative of our modesty doctrine, whatever it is.

Where Islam has pulled it off it very stylish and tasteful ways, not to mention representative of their doctrine; whatever institutional modesty we have in our Church for swimsuits or otherwise has not been represented or produced very well commercially, or in the DU.

SilverRain,

You say:

Steve—If you want to call it judging someone’s worthiness, and can’t tell the difference between calling out a behavior and calling out an individual, than feel free to do so. But I would hope that someone would tell me if I were mocking someone else for their sincere attempts at virtue, whether I agreed with them or not.

Yet I’ve seen you do similar things again and again. You might not mock (tone is hard to perceive in blog comments) and don’t name names but everyone knows who you are talking about when you post about how you can’t believe how awful some people in the bloggernacle are and how they clearly don’t understand basic aspects of the gospel. Rather than engage people’s ideas it is my opinion that you attack people.

I’ll admit that this is a hastily formed opinion based on some incidents that are probably years in the past and on your participation on this thread. People have different blogging and conversational styles and perhaps mine is just not compatible with yours. For me this makes it difficult to have productive interactions with you. The pattern I see is to swoop in, say that people here are bad, and not offer any argument that people can engage with. You are likely to get negative reactions if you do this.

I believe that by making this comment I am fulfilling your wish for someone to tell you when you are behaving badly. The alternative is that this is all in my head, which is pretty likely.

Modest chicks are hot.

DKL #35,

Goodness! first time i actually agree with what you say.

I’d only add that bikini’s just work better on females than men, so only women should use them.

Mark D, you’re dealing in a bunch of irrelevant hypothetical situations. These swimsuits are the actual output of societies and cultures that denigrate and destroy women.

Mark D: If any religious sect wishes to promote any standard of voluntary modesty that does not require covering the head, face, or hands, more power to them.

More power to them? Excuse me? Modesty is not important enough to encourage all women to cover everything but their hands, feet, and face every time that they’re seen in public. Any society that encourages such things for all women is awash in wickedness — whether it’s run by women or by men. Extreme modesty is Satan’s counterfeit for real values that matter.

Victorian England is the perfect example — read The Subjugation of Women by John Stuart Mill if you have any doubt. And it’s no coincidence that the years following the abolition of slavery in the US saw an era that introduced votes for women and a loosening of the restrictions on female dress.

All of the worst evils of history — all of them — were perpetrated in times and places when standards of modesty were much more strict than they are now in the industrialized world.

DKL, I might think that a religion that promotes severe standards of modesty is odd, but if such practices have religious and spiritual merit to voluntary participants, I am not only not going to complain, I am going to applaud.

For what it’s worth, Steve and arJ, I came here to read this because I thought it would be funny, based on the title. Just because I don’t comment on many funny posts, nor make many funny comments myself, does not mean I don’t appreciate and laugh at them. You don’t have to be a concert pianist to enjoy music.

However, I found a post mocking Muslims and fundamentalist Christians for their values, not one mocking LDS members for their silliness. It is one thing to point out follies or hypocrisy in a group one belongs to, and another to mock another group for their values. I stand by my call that this is in poor taste. There is a thin line between ridicule and genuine humor, and this crossed it. Do I think Orwell a bad person for it? Not in the least. Do I agree that I have made similarly bad-taste observations in the past? Most probably. Do you need to convince me that I’m also just as, if not more, fallible? Not at all. That doesn’t make this post any more laudable or humorous. Whatever my behavior is or is not, this post is independent of me. In my opinion this post is still rude and mocking rather than clever and humorous. When I make a post similarly mocking and denigrating of someone’s sincere desires to be righteous, then I am more than willing to discuss it on that post, and to apologize for what I say in it.

Please direct any further discussion of my character flaws to my blog, so we aren’t cluttering up this one with me. I’ll even provide a post for that very purpose.

“Just because I don’t comment on many funny posts, nor make many funny comments myself, does not mean I don’t appreciate and laugh at them. You don’t have to be a concert pianist to enjoy music.”

Sure. But if you clearly know absolutely nothing about music and have zero musical ability, one might question your ability to dictate what music is or is not appropriate. Similarly, as someone who just doesn’t understand humor your “call that this is in poor taste. There is a thin line between ridicule and genuine humor, and this crossed it” ought to be dismissed entirely.

As for cluttering up this blog, I’ll follow DKL’s lead.

“Being able to dictate what is appropriate or not appropriate has nothing to do with how much you know about something.”

Jen, no offense, but that is just stupid. Read that sentence aloud.

I’d say my comments were very germane to the topic of this thread. And God provides us with some very spectacular forms of beauty, like diamonds in His crown. Are we then to denigrate them by shrouding them in frumpy clothes? The Puritans of our country used to make love with a sheet between the married couple – now that is funny!

The rest is just graduated examples of the same Puritan extreme.

Jen, don’t be so naive, you’re letting him play you just the way he wants

steveshark-

I actually know that and I am done responding to him, but it is disappointing that not one single man on this post says anything to him. I get the idea that any attention, whether it be negative or positive, is attention and he doesn’t deserve either, but it would be nice to see at least one man say something to show some respect for women.

Also, I am not naive, I knew exactly what I was getting myself into…thanks though.

A few things come to my mind that seem to be overlooked in relation to this post:

First – The fact that the standards of societal modesty are driven culturally.

In other words, would I expect to find a post similar to this one by an Islamic blogger mocking the “extreme” and “wicked” standards of immodest dress that are culturally acceptable in the United States (less the photographic depictions as they might deem them to offensive)? Absolutely. Or for that matter, a blogger from a culture with a more moderate view of modesty mocking both of the aforementioned standards. It’s easy to mock things that don’t run parallel to the standards of the society you belong to or your own personal standards, but it’s only funny when it’s not your standards that are being mocked.

Second – The fact that standards of societal modesty are almost always dictated by men, but more especially when it comes to extremes.

Is the “Burquini” example above really any more insidious than the hyper-sexualized fashions that are being marketed in other parts of the world (i.e. the USA, etc.)? Hardly, yet both are driven by the expectations of men with the caveat that in the case of Islam the standard is entrenched in their religious beliefs concerning modesty. Here in the USA and elsewhere in the “civilized” western world the standards seem to be more driven by lust (instant gratification) and relative morality. Until men in general are willing to show more respect for women (i.e. “choose” to see them correctly and change what they expect of them) nothing will really change.

Third – Shouldn’t our understanding of modesty be based on an acknowledgement of the carnal tendancies of being human (i.e. lustfulness, vanity, etc.), a show of gratitude and respect for our bodies and more importantly, a willingness to submit to God’s expectations rather than our own personal interpretation?

As long as we’re going to condemn the extremes of covering everything while condoning the appeasement of our own carnal appetites, there can really be no understanding of what modesty really means or its purpose. When you’re looking for pleasure, dressing for attention or comparison and participating in either of these things for some other personal rationalization, you’re missing the whole point of modesty.

One last thing. I have to agree with some of the other commentors on this post that some things, like modesty and showing respect for women, are about conscience, common sense and common decency.

In other words, would I expect to find a post similar to this one by an Islamic blogger mocking the “extreme” and “wicked” standards of immodest dress that are culturally acceptable in the United States (less the photographic depictions as they might deem them to offensive)? Absolutely. Or for that matter, a blogger from a culture with a more moderate view of modesty mocking both of the aforementioned standards. It’s easy to mock things that don’t run parallel to the standards of the society you belong to or your own personal standards, but it’s only funny when it’s not your standards that are being mocked.

your examples aren’t analogous to this one. this is Mormons “mocking” other Mormons, not Mormons mocking Muslims, etc

while condoning the appeasement of our own carnal appetites

if you are implying that this is what is going on here, you haven’t been reading very carefully

theres lots of other things i would contest about what you wrote, but I just thinking abotu the effort makes me tired

this is the problem with ever bringing up this topic. People have all kinds of axes to grind so they start seeing the straw men that they want to beat everywhere they look

#55-
“It’s idiotic to suppose that these ridiculous swimsuits are something that people choose to wear. As numerous others and I have pointed out, you can cover yourself without looking like a Taliban refuge or appearing that came off of a polygamous compound.”

To respectfully clarify, I was referring to the swimsuits in the middle by Simply Modest Swimwear and other companies that sell swimsuits that have UV protection and more coverage, not the first and third swimsuits on the post. Women can cover up with other things when they go swimming but it makes it challenging to swim in sweat pants or overalls. People do choose to wear swimsuits that cover their bodies for other reasons than modesty and that was what I was referring to.

“And at this point, it’s offensive for you to pretend that this is about whether or not any single woman chooses to cover herself. At this point, you’re using the fact that some women do choose to cover themselves to defend elements of cultures that hate women”

I am sorry you are choosing to get offended, but I am not pretending about anything. I don’t defend elements of culture that hate women, including American culture. If your response to me is supposed to be in defense of not hating women, you have some work to do yourself. You have shown little to no respect for the comments made on this post by women. The least you can do is have a healthy discussion rather than ranting and raving. It looks like that is the nature of this entire blog though so I am bowing out. I prefer discussing issues in a respectful manner and learning from others rather than being treated like I am stupid and idiotic.

#58 “your examples aren’t analogous to this one. this is Mormons “mocking” other Mormons, not Mormons mocking Muslims, etc.”

Then why use the “burquini” example as it has nothing whatsoever to do with Mormons or what they are espousing? Are there Mormons on this post that are suggesting this to be their standard even though DKL seems to think this the case in #55?

#58 “you haven’t been reading very carefully”

Actually, I read through the whole post before commenting. What I saw wasn’t humorous and certainly didn’t show much respect for women. Speaking up about that isn’t an “axe to grind” or something imaginary, it’s simply recognizing that something needs to be said.

End of my comments.

Jen – WE is those who establish dress codes, or those who foster them by looking down on women who like to flaunt their good looks. I’m not at all sure what God would have in that He obviously created quite a hand full when He created women. Did He create something (object I suppose in your mind) that is so incredible attractive, artistic etc. to be covered up? I like to see a little sparkle in beautiful young women, the knowing smile that says they know they are beautiful and the willingness to give us just a little peek, a small sample of paradise perhaps. Lust and admiration are two separate things, and I find that I can admire without becoming lustful, though I suppose there are some who can’t.

To me a radiant smile is as beautiful as any of the other “parts”. A radiant smile can be a come on, I suppose, so should we have all women keep their mouths closed? And what about the striking hair, the curvaceous legs? Yes, a beautiful lady is something special to be admired. Oh yes, some would have women keep their hair in a bun, or cover it with a bonnet, and some demand mission garb of dresses down to the toes – where is the line to be drawn? It is all pretty stupid to my way of thinking. Let women enjoy their beauty in a natural sort of way, without having to cover up from head to foot as the Muslim ladies are required to do. The dress codes are objectifying.

As to objectifying the lady in the tiny bikini, I suggested she cover up, then when she did, felt it a shame that she should have to do so because of one errant neighbor who couldn’t keep his hands to himself. I don’t happen to believe that being modestly clothed has much to do with what men will do or think.In the case of my bikini lady, I don’t think I ever objectified her, though I did enjoy her extreme good looks, but also I helped her through one very difficult time in her life. We are friends, but were never lovers. A relationship of considerable respect.

I have noticed that often someone who takes a certain view of things, is negative toward something, often has a problem with that themselves. Not accusing you Jen of having a lustful streak (heaven forbid) but to me modesty has never been an issue. I’m not, as I implied, generally a lustful person at heart, but I have an artistic background and greatly appreciate what our God has created, and hope that I can create too.

That’s what everybody says.

DKL -

Wireless network…mulitiple computers. Jen doesn’t need me to speak for her or vice versa. Is our writing style really that similar? Not that I’m offended by that.

Aside from your sarcasm (first, second, third), I recognize the connection you are trying to make between what you are terming “standards of extreme modesty” and “all of the worst evils of history” and I am not arguing that they are right or justifiable. I was simply pointing out that the “extreme immodesty” of our society is just as sinister, if not moreso. Surely you recognize that to be just as much of a “palpable evil of which we must rid the world”. Also, you’ll notice that in my first comment under “Third”, I tied modesty and the associated guidelines for such back to God’s standard rather than man’s.

In any case, neither of us seem to have found much humor in this post. Orwell’s acknowledgement that he “1) [supports] modesty 2) [abhors] the repression of women”, seems to speak to both our points.

Pretty judgmental Jen, a bit of light humor is often misconstrued, and you seem to like doing so. Overly serious sort, I would assume.

If anything, our Church, by its ways, as DKL has carefully pointed out, is doing the objectifying to the point of putting women “in their place”.

I have never commented before, but ABJ’s comments in #43
“If you notice, the two young ladies in the middle swimsuits are pretty chubby and that might be the virtue of cover-up swimsuits in that the cover might just be better looking than what it covers. True especially in over weight America.”
That kind of talk and thinking is part of the problem. Those that may not be the perfect size 2 are made to feel less than what we are, and you perpetuate that by a stupid comment about women that are beautiful not matter what their size. Grow up

“Pretty judgmental Jen”

If the shoe fits….

Perspective: I recognize the connection you are trying to make between what you are terming “standards of extreme modesty” and “all of the worst evils of history” and I am not arguing that they are right or justifiable.

Historically, extreme immodesty has never been correlated with great evil. Un the scheme of things, it isn’t any worse than neglecting to shave. Gossiping, for example, is much, much worse than extreme immodesty. Extreme immodesty may be a sin, but if it’s a sin, then it’s among the most minor.

What you are obviously going out of your way to miss is an understanding of what I am trying to say, or I’m not making myself clear. Let’s take the two girls in the swimsuits. It is unusual for a swimsuit advertisement to feature chubby models. These girls are obviously very good looking, but also quite chubby. Now I believe there are some catalogs that feature the overweight models for the overweight, and that is what is occurring here. Do you doubt that those two girls would look sort of, well, not so pretty shall we say (being diplomatic) if they were wearing two pieces. And that was my only point, a cover up type of wrap in many cases (increasingly more and more as America takes on weight)might be better than a more revealing type of swimsuit – read into that what you wish.

My comments are not out of keeping with what the Lord might make – he had a sense of humor too. If I don’t wear my religion on my sleeve, acting like Mr. Goody Two Shoes, that is more in keeping with the Lord’s ways, as I understand them. He was, after all, very opposed to religiosity as seen in some of the Pharisees, for example.

Now, if you are talking about immodesty in the wider society, then I question you statement that it is more immodest than it was, say fifty years ago. Certainly there is a high incidence of internet porn, but that is a segment of society and doesn’t relate to most of us. Although I joked about porn above, that was in reference to the threads on it in this website generated by the amount of porn in Utah, but that was a joke. Otherwise, I don’t see things as worse than they were. Perhaps they are better in fact. The incidence of pregnant youth is way down in Utah (though the incidence of violent rape is high). You throw out generalizations in your posts above, and really I fail to see where you get your information.

There are saints and there are saints, there are priests and there are priests, There is some degree of conformity, but some can enjoy a little intellectual freedom while trying their best to be good guys. It would be sad if we all came out cookie cutter style. I don’t intend to defend myself any further.

Ann, I think you are referring to my comment (while asking DKL if it is OK to use the F word). Well smoking and drinking “hot drinks” is considered a sin, why would not gluttony leading to obesity be seen in the same light? There are more health risks in obesity (being fat) than in most other abuses we do to our bodies. These include especially type II diabetes, leading to heart and kidney disease. So yes, I think it is sort of sinful, maybe showing a lack of self control. After all, there are some good side affects coming out in favor of caffeine, but I doubt there is any study in favor of “fat”. But I think maybe the objections here and above are coming from the “fat” set, so probably you don’t like it one little bit.

Please refrain from even thinking the F word in my saintly presence – please.

Said by one who is in pretty fair shape. Easy to judge when you aren’t secretly munching on pretzels in bed at night!

I don’t agree with either of you – so who is right? Majority rule?

DKL-

“Historically, extreme modesty has not been correlated with great evil.”

You mean “has” rather than “has not” I assume. Still, you must admit that “extreme modesty” was the byproduct of “great evil” rather than the catalyst. Isn’t it really just another means of subjugating women – an evil in and of itself?

As for your comparison of extreme immodesty to neglecting to shave, I really don’t know what to say. In consideration of the Lord’s several declarations to men in relation to “looking upon a woman to lust after her” and the immense issues with pornography even in the church, I’m having a lot of difficulty imagining any justification for your comment. I continue to assert that men’s expectations are the driving force behind the problem, but choosing to participate in that evil isn’t without its accountability or it’s consequences. When you have an influence and you choose to use it to illicit or satiate carnal thoughts, desires and/or actions it is a sin (see Alma’s comments to his son Shiblon).

Thanks DKL – but I will have to take the time to make my case that allowing one’s self to become obese is a sin. I just don’t have all the scriptures at hand and will do some study on it and get back to it.

Maybe in the past, when scriptures were written, it wasn’t such a problem. That isn’t true now – it is a problem, even in young children.

It also relates to having self control as well as maintaining the temple. If we do harm to ourselves through gluttonous eating, I can’t see how that wouldn’t be a sin. If people find that offensive, I didn’t mean it to be, but I will say that I get a bit offended at seeing fat people gulping down the food.

I will also admit that since everyone is becoming fat, maybe it isn’t seen as being fat.

There should in any healthy life style be a degree of moderation.

But I need to review what is written.

I have enough real sins to worry about to give even a moment’s credence to some idiot’s pretensions about made up sins designed to induce shame.

This is getting cumbersome, ABJ. Your claim that The Word of Wisdom require maintaining the body is a joke. It wasn’t even a commandment until the 1930s, when it became a de facto commandment as a consequence of becoming a temple recommend question. Joseph Smith drank beer, wine, and liquor his entire life. Brigham Young chewed tobacco the last 11 years of his life. Pioneers were given rations of coffee.

As I pointed out, it’s not even a good health code — you should read my comments before you write something purporting to respond to them. All the Word of Wisdom does is recites the nutritional prejudices typical of the mid-19th century frontier and says that they’re good advice.

Rest assured, all of your blather about heavy people sinning is much more offensive than people “stuffing their face.”

And Ann is 100% correct. There is no polite term to describe it: Your contention is utterly idiotic.

Jen: [Regarding my statement that gossiping is much worse than immodesty] According to the gospel of DKL? How and where did you come up with this?

No. According to D&C 42:27: “Thou shalt not speak evil of thy neighbor, nor do him any harm.”

I’ve seen gossip destroy friendships, testimonies, and families. The only real problem with immodesty is that it violates cultural taboos regarding sex that are still clung to in a church that is run primarily by very old men raised out in rural America.

What is the source of your concern for fat people–that health problems are preventing them from leading full lives, or that they’re not worth ogling in very tiny bikinis?

It sounds like you think the sin fat people are committing is not being worth ogling.

ABJ, I’ve withdrawn from this argument with you about the casuistry of weight, because you’re in Kiskilili’s very capable hands, and she’s doing a better job than I was. In case you haven’t picked up on it, you’re out of your league with her.

You have to worry when DKL and I agree on something! (Actually, it’s far from the first time.)

ABJ, might I suggest that one reason you’ve “never found it necessary to obsess” over weight is that you’re male? Sure, you might not pant after some body ideal for yourself, but you certainly seem to pant after an ideal in women. You assume Very Tiny Bikini Girl got her stunning figure from God, where the “chubby” girls in the second photograph got their figures, apparently, from “stuffing their faces.” And then you implicitly associate health with the former.

Actually, very often, the Very Tiny Bikini Girls of the world got their figures from some combination of living on lettuce, vomiting, and ingesting x-lax, and your verbally salivating over they’re being jewels in God’s crown contributes to our cultural obsession. Just in this thread–the original topic of which was modesty, not body image–you’ve obsessed at some length over people’s (especially women’s) weight, and now you’re wondering aloud why anyone would obsess over their weight.

I agree with you that there’s value in diet and exercise. I just disagree that health has anything to do with fitting yourself into a very tiny bikini and allowing yourself to be molested.

Great article on being fat here at Salon:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2009/01/24/kate_harding/

Money quote:

Thin women don’t tell their fat friends “You’re not fat” because they’re confused about the dictionary definition of the word, or their eyes are broken, or they were raised on planets where size 24 is the average for women. They don’t say it because it’s the truth. They say it because fat does not mean just fat in this culture. It can also mean any or all of the following:

Ugly, Unhealthy, Smelly, Lazy, Ignorant, Undisciplined, Unlovable, Burdensome, Embarrassing, Unfashionable, Mean, Angry, Socially inept, Just plain icky

So when they say “You’re not fat,” what they really mean is “You’re not a dozen nasty things I associate with the word fat.”

Being fat is not a moral failing. Your insistence that only lazy, selfish, gluttonous people are fat is itself stupid, arrogant, and vicious. Stop being an asshole.

“Being fat is not a moral failing. Your insistence that only lazy, selfish, gluttonous people are fat is itself stupid, arrogant, and vicious.”

You are so off the wall, Ann. You would have to twist things around with what I did say, as well as bringing in a rather stupid article to get that out of it all. Much of what you and your simplistic article say is gross generalization. I did hang with some very beautiful people at one time, and I also had a girlfriend who was fat. The reason she was fat is that she couldn’t sit down to a meal without over eating. She tried jogging, then would come back and over eat again. We broke it off not because she was fat, but because we were different in other ways.

There are some people who can over eat and not get fat, it is true. They would probably have a high rate of metabolism, burning off the excess calories. But by and large I would say that people are fat because they eat too much of the wrong foods. That is just the way things are, no viciousness intended. It has become a sort of disease in America because of all the rich foods available. But it is also something that a person can do something about.

For reference, here’s where (I think) we disagree:

(a) The cultural context in which you’re addressing your comments is this: thinness is held up as the ultimate redemption. Being thin is holier than Jesus. So in general, fat people are very aware that they’re apparent “abject failures,” moral, physical, and social, and frequently guilt and shame are driving compulsive overeating. Therefore, berating fat people for eating too much is roughly the equivalent of berating suicidal people for being too selfish. In both cases there’s some truth to it and in both cases it’s probably just exacerbating the problem.

As a culture, I think we probably feel waaaaaaaaaaaay more guilt over weight than over a number of other behaviors that are considerably more problematic. It’s time to rein this nonsense in.

(b) It’s simply impolite to lambast other people for their failings while holding yourself up as a model. This is true even when you genuinely are a shining example.

As a sidenote, I would add that there’s a bit of class prejudice operating here as well. Wealth and beauty are closely linked. In most cultures throughout history, fatness has been a hallmark of beauty because it signals that someone has material abundance and leisure time. In our culture of superabundance, the reverse is true–thinness signals wealth since it often indicates people have the time and resources to invest “heavily” (ha ha) in their physical appearance.

And now I’m getting bored of this conversation. Ta ta.

Being overweight, to the extent it is cropping up, is probably a greater sin than not covering up, or covering up, in that it affects the “temple”.

What is sin, if not a moral failing?

Now that comments have cooled, I would just like to say how proud I am to have been the supplier of these pictures in the SCIENCE post at BCC.

If this is my one and only mark left on the bloggernacle, then it is well with me.

Calling some one an idiot is beyond me and is toxic and contentious and is filled with pride . How many quotes can we find among the Brethren where the body is a temple physically and spiritually and we should treat it with reverance.

When people agrees the Word of Wisdom is out dated and is archaic does not know the meaning and purpose of the scripture. But hey!When someone states in this group that Jesus Christ has moral fallacies and the Law of Conscreation is a failed program , anything is fair game to go after.

Modesty is a state of mind.

I have a friend who I consider one of the most modest people in the world and in the summer she wears tank-tops and short shorts and no one she is around at the institute building or at church seem to notice. She just gets hot in the summer.

I allowed myself to spend my teen years tediously wrapping myself with all kinds of fabric, in my early twenties doused myself with several sweaty layers of down east clothing, and I still remain the most obscene active mormon I’m sure most people have met. My clothes aren’t really helping my state of mind, to be perfectly honest. I must not be wearing enough clothes yet.

What an interesting dichotomy we have created for ourselves. We are admonished to overcome the natural man by concealing the challenge.