BYU Students Making a Difference

Post by **_Infymus** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:54 pm

Awesome. BYU made the FARK list (see http://www.fark.com) Some of the best pics?

And of course an old favorite:

Post by **_harmony** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:19 am

Infymus wrote:Awesome. BYU made the FARK list (see http://www.fark.com) Some of the best pics?

And of course an old favorite:

[img]farm1.static.flickr.com/45/175866636_d86626afc4.jpg[/img]

Why would they post that picture? That family isn't LDS.

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:10 am

Moniker wrote:There's always a few that stare at all the bosoms and bottoms.

Isn't that the whole point of going to a gym?

Post by **_moksha** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:41 am

From tonights news, I suspect if these students would only be willing to fork over the costs for the Utah Attorney General to take another expense paid vacation to the Bahamas, that he might help them pursue this lack of morality in on the TV screens at Gold's Gym. Both ethics and lobbying demands can be had for a price of airfare and hotel accomodations.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:37 am

Dr. Shades wrote:
Moniker wrote:There's always a few that stare at all the bosoms and bottoms.

Isn't that the whole point of going to a gym?

Shush.....are you trying to get gyms banned in Utah outright?

Post by **_DonBradley** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:53 am

The Nehor wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:
Moniker wrote:There's always a few that stare at all the bosoms and bottoms.

Isn't that the whole point of going to a gym?

Shush.....are you trying to get gyms banned in Utah outright?

Ironically, I think that even to BYU students that is a great part of the reason for going to the gym. A number of BYU girls flout the school's dress standards to showcase their bodies, and this is taken significantly further at the gym. And even among those who try to be "modest," this generally has a very limited definition. Witness the two different billboards, for two different clothiers, now posted on I-15, which advertise that "Modesty has never been sexier." The ads show women clothed in "modest" attire that covers all the bases but all accentuates them, such that while very little skin is revealed, the result is the same: LDS guys are going to be committing adultery in their hearts.

Whatever one may think of the respective ideals of sexiness and modesty, it seems clear that the two are opposites, or at least stark contrasts. To be "sexier" is to draw attention to and enhance the appeal of the sexually attractive parts of the body, while to be "modest" in this context is to downplay these same aspects to avoid arousing libidinous thought in others or being seen primarily as a sex object. Whatever is done to increase modesty decreases sexiness, and vice versa.

So, given the apparent appeal of clothing that promises greater sexiness and modesty, "modesty" is understood only in the very restrictive sense of technical compliance with church and BYU standards. No guy will see the "modest" LDS girl's back, navel, thighs, or cleavage, but he will be led to notice and long for these as if he had seen. That is "sexy" "modesty."

This isn't a criticism, just an observation on the double-minded state of the LDS culture of modesty-and-sexiness.

Don

Post by **_Moniker** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:41 pm

I actually think that covering up while accentuating is much sexier than revealing too much.

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:36 pm

Moniker wrote:I actually think that covering up while accentuating is much sexier than revealing too much.

And how! I'd rather see an attractive shapely woman in a dress suit or a sweater/jean outfit than in some tube top. I have a good imagination...so let me use it!

Post by **_Moniker** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:00 pm

Bond...James Bond wrote:
Moniker wrote:I actually think that covering up while accentuating is much sexier than revealing too much.

And how! I'd rather see an attractive shapely woman in a dress suit or a sweater/jean outfit than in some tube top. I have a good imagination...so let me use it!

Yes! I think suits and snug turtlenecks (in winter) are incredibly attractive on women. When I first started my divorce proceedings I went out and bought various "sexy" clothes. I never wore them out of the house! I felt so "nude"! I must be a prude!!! :)

Post by **_The Nehor** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:10 pm

Bond...James Bond wrote:
Moniker wrote:I actually think that covering up while accentuating is much sexier than revealing too much.

And how! I'd rather see an attractive shapely woman in a dress suit or a sweater/jean outfit than in some tube top. I have a good imagination...so let me use it!

I have a healthy appreciation for both. Variety is the spice of life. Finding someone attractive does not mean you're committing adultery in your heart. Now if you mentally undress them in great detail then.....yeah.