DiscussMormonism.com

ludwigm wrote:

Fiannan wrote:When LDS young women toss their razors ...

http://thoughtcatalog.com/dan-hoffman/2 ... -wig-nsfw/

As You check the link's URL, it is NSFW.

Interesting. Still though the way to get young women to cover up is to tell them not to shave. Few if any, except maybe Mormon gals in Portland and San Francisco, would dare go out exposing hairy legs and underarms.

I passed by the Drudge Report today and noticed a link to Camille Paglia's latest commentary in Time magazine. After reading it, it appears that Camille (of all people!) is more or less "on board" with at least some orthodox LDS views of unique standards of modesty for females in our world.

Interesting ...

Hi Will,

Paglia doesn't endorse LDS views for standards of dress. She takes the position that women should take some responsibility to not dress provocatively so as not to provoke sexual assault. She doesn't define provocatively in her article and at no point endorses LDS notions of modesty, driven by the need to hide garments, such as no bare shoulders. The implication of her writing is that women should take responsibility to not expose any skin when that is viewed as sexually enticing by males who would be predators. I suppose bare shoulders might count in LDS dominated areas in the same way that "visible ankles" or "face" might count in highly fundamentalist Islamic cultures. If you want to run with her bare flesh and sexy clothes comment, then what she is really on board with is a fully headed burqa.

Paglia trades in being contrarian to prevailing thought. The first half of her essay, where she points out that campus sexual assault statistics are egregiously exaggerated by loose definitions, is exactly correct. The second half walks right up to the border of the offensive cliché' "Dressing that way is asking for it" without coming out and explicitly saying it. Instead, we're left with "It's a good idea to dress conservatively to avoid provoking predators" which is not in any way an endorsement of LDS notions of conservative dress. The idea of visible shoulders being highly sexy is really weird outside of Mormondom.

EAllusion wrote:Hi Will,

Paglia doesn't endorse LDS views for standards of dress. She takes the position that women should take some responsibility to not dress provocatively so as not to provoke sexual assault. She doesn't define provocatively in her article and at no point endorses LDS notions of modesty, driven by the need to hide garments, such as no bare shoulders. The implication of her writing is that women should take responsibility to not expose any skin when that is viewed as sexually enticing by males who would be predators. I suppose bare shoulders might count in LDS dominated areas in the same way that "visible ankles" or "face" might count in highly fundamentalist Islamic cultures. If you want to run with her bare flesh and sexy clothes comment, then what she is really on board with is a fully headed burqa.

Paglia trades in being contrarian to prevailing thought. The first half of her essay, where she points out that campus sexual assault statistics are egregiously exaggerated by loose definitions, is exactly correct. The second half walks right up to the border of the offensive cliché' "Dressing that way is asking for it" without coming out and explicitly saying it. Instead, we're left with "It's a good idea to dress conservatively to avoid provoking predators" which is not in any way an endorsement of LDS notions of conservative dress. The idea of visible shoulders being highly sexy is really weird outside of Mormondom.

Hi EA.

by the way: you can call me Roger. Every one else does. Well .......... except my ex, who prefers "Cheating Bastard". lol.

Anywho, I don't take exception to anything you wrote. You seem to have assumed that I was being serious about Paglia defending LDS modesty standards. I wasn't. I was just trying to present an interesting alternative perspective on the central question of the thread. You, on the other hand, always seem preoccupied with wanting to "expose" what you are convinced is my "real" identity. That is probably due to your continuingt assumption about me being someone who you obviously did not like. Anyway, I get that you really detested Will Schryver. Fine. But isn't it about time you moved on? Cases of mistaken identity make for really good theater, but they just get boring if they go on forever without resolution.