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!!! :)
asbestosman wrote: The most attractive thing for me is brains, but then I'm hardly normal. I'd hate it if women were modest in the brains department. I'd feel way too deprived.
I do think Don's "sexy modesty" story is pretty hilarious. He's 100% spot on. Modesty is supposed to be about not emphasizing one's body parts in one's dress. To call it modest just because the skin is covered with fabric, but still being emphasized, is not modest in the normal sense.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
If I recall correctly, the LDS modesty standards state that tight clothing is also immodest. I'm pretty sure that was in the For the Strength of Youth booklet. It may or may not also be in the BYU Honor code.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
asbestosman wrote:If I recall correctly, the LDS modesty standards state that tight clothing is also immodest. I'm pretty sure that was in the For the Strength of Youth booklet. It may or may not also be in the BYU Honor code.
Good point. I'm not sure whether it's in the honor code. However, it's certainly not as easy to 'quantify' or draw definite lines on as something like skirt length. This is probably one reason clothes that show off the figure by hugging it just right are popularly considered more modest than are clothes that reveal skin.
DonBradley wrote:"Attractive" and "sexy" don't have the same connotations. And being well-dressed, wearing make up, doing one's hair, etc., aren't the same as accentuating the things you're supposedly trying to get men to not think about!
I do think there are more and less tasteful ways to highlight one's sexual attractiveness, but I also see a double-mindedness to many of the attempts to be sexily 'modest.'
I don't know that I want men to think one thing or another with the way I dress. I've been in flip flops, baggy jeans, and t-shirts and had guys whiplash.
Moniker wrote:I don't know that I want men to think one thing or another with the way I dress. I've been in flip flops, baggy jeans, and t-shirts and had guys whiplash.
Moniker wrote:I don't know that I want men to think one thing or another with the way I dress. I've been in flip flops, baggy jeans, and t-shirts and had guys whiplash.
That's their deal. Not mine...
Ah, I suppose beauty has its price...
If admiration from strange men is a problem for anyone, I suggest avoiding the possibility of begetting a beautiful girl. It is disconcerting to be the object of stares and drooling, when walking with one's teenage daughter down the mall. Even missionaries, who should know better, are not exempt.