Walking porn? Why not teach men self control?

[Guest]

...

[_RockSlider]

I've not reached zee's level of appreciation for clothing, but I do of late see various dresses on women that truely highlight their beauty.

Just eariler today, while watching TV with my wife and seeing such a dress (sleeveless black, low cut back and showing just a bit of cleavage, very classy)

I became a bit angry about G's and all the years wasted that my beautiful wife could have enjoyed some nice dresses.

[_Fiannan]

I don't mind the walking porn. If you've got it, flaunt it. But if you don't got it, cover up.

Where's the Walmart tattoo?

[_Some Schmo]

Can you imagine if women said to men, "Maybe you shouldn't drive your Porche around town with the top down, wearing your tight muscle shirt. And the toddler car seat is way too much. It turns women on. You're basically walking (driving) porn." How quickly would men acknowledge the point being made in this thread?

That any man would argue against this simple, common sense point just goes to show how screwed up mo culture is (and how oblivious certain males can be).

[_sock puppet]

Can you imagine if women said to men, "Maybe you shouldn't drive your Porche around town with the top down, wearing your tight muscle shirt. And the toddler car seat is way too much. It turns women on. You're basically walking (driving) porn." How quickly would men acknowledge the point being made in this thread?

That any man would argue against this simple, common sense point just goes to show how screwed up mo culture is (and how oblivious certain males can be).

Porsche sales would go up.

[_Some Schmo]

Can you imagine if women said to men, "Maybe you shouldn't drive your Porche around town with the top down, wearing your tight muscle shirt. And the toddler car seat is way too much. It turns women on. You're basically walking (driving) porn." How quickly would men acknowledge the point being made in this thread?

That any man would argue against this simple, common sense point just goes to show how f****d up mo culture is (and how oblivious certain males can be).

Porsche sales would go up.

Exactly.

ETA: Well, Porsche sales among Mormon males... They're the ones who would take it face value.

[_Fionn]

This thread makes me feel like I've fallen into an episode of Mad Men.

Sheesh.

[_Fiannan]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 3308_n.jpg

Control yourselves guys, the one on the right isn't wearing sleaves and seems unconcerned with the message she is sending out with those tight pants.

[_cinepro]

Can you imagine if women said to men, "Maybe you shouldn't drive your Porche around town with the top down, wearing your tight muscle shirt. And the toddler car seat is way too much. It turns women on. You're basically walking (driving) porn." How quickly would men acknowledge the point being made in this thread?

That any man would argue against this simple, common sense point just goes to show how f****d up mo culture is (and how oblivious certain males can be).

Just so I'm clear, is the disagreement over whether or not immodest clothing can (or should) be "enticing" to other people, or whether or not that is a bad thing?

In many ways, "mo culture" is very odd when it comes to clothing. How many churches still ask their members to dress in their "Sunday best" when they come to church? The idea that how we dress and present ourselves to the world actually means something is becoming rarer and rarer.

Maybe how we dress shouldn't mean anything, and mo's have it all backwards. If I wear a dirty t-shirt, bermuda shorts and flip-flops to a job interview for an executive position at a company, it is the interviewer's fault if they react badly to how I am dressed; I should be able to wear whatever I want, whenever I want, and how people react to it is their problem, not mine. If I wanted to go to certain neighborhoods in downtown Los Angeles in the late 1980s and wear a blue-bandana on my head, it would be very good to understand what kind of message I am sending. Sure, I could argue that it's not my fault that others interpret that to mean something, but it would still be very important to understand what the message might be, regardless of whose fault it is.

Maybe Oaks was inelegant in using the "p" word in conveying his message (to be clear, he never used the phrase "walking porn"), but the idea that our clothing and manners do send a message about ourselves is an important one, and we should be aware of (and in control of) that message. Not because it will invite rape or sexual assault, but because the sending of the message is itself important.

[_Some Schmo]

Just so I'm clear, is the disagreement over whether or not immodest clothing can (or should) be "enticing" to other people, or whether or not that is a bad thing?

No, the disagreement is over suggesting that women are in any way responsible for any inappropriate actions men might take in reaction to the way the woman looks. That's it.

In many ways, "mo culture" is very odd when it comes to clothing. How many churches still ask their members to dress in their "Sunday best" when they come to church? The idea that how we dress and present ourselves to the world actually means something is becoming rarer and rarer.

Maybe how we dress shouldn't mean anything, and mo's have it all backwards. If I wear a dirty t-shirt, bermuda shorts and flip-flops to a job interview for an executive position at a company, it is the interviewer's fault if they react badly to how I am dressed; I should be able to wear whatever I want, whenever I want, and how people react to it is their problem, not mine. If I wanted to go to certain neighborhoods in downtown Los Angeles in the late 1980s and wear a blue-bandana on my head, it would be very good to understand what kind of message I am sending. Sure, I could argue that it's not my fault that others interpret that to mean something, but it would still be very important to understand what the message might be, regardless of whose fault it is.

Maybe Oaks was inelegant in using the "p" word in conveying his message (to be clear, he never used the phrase "walking porn"), but the idea that our clothing and manners do send a message about ourselves is an important one, and we should be aware of (and in control of) that message. Not because it will invite rape or sexual assault, but because the sending of the message is itself important.

Obviously the way we dress sends a message. That's a given.

Still, we aren't responsible for any actions that result from the way the message is received, since we have no control over those. Sure, you dress nicely in a job interview to maximize your chances of getting the job. But if you did go to the interview in flip flops, you wouldn't be responsible if the guy said, "Son, I don't like the way you're dressed. It's disrespectful," pulls out a gun and shoots you.