Huntsman daughters are NOT molly Mormons!

[_Molok]

Can someone make a poll on this?

Why would we need a poll about something that stupid?

I'll have you know that a poll almost exactly like that was responsible for the formation of Facebook, godammit.

[_Quasimodo]

My burning bosom tells me that it is not a sin.

Mine too. And now I'll tell you who I think is the hottest. Looking at the bottom pic, the woman in the blue dress is the hottest. The woman in the red dress is second, white dress is third. None of them has anything to worry about though I thought the ranking was easy to make.

The woman in the red dress is pulling her dress up a little. This gives her extra points.

[_sethpayne]

They look like typical twentysomethings out having a good time. I suppose it's their fault if some guy sees them and gets a boner.

Here's a question for you (giving this thread actual purpose). Would it be a sin, according to the LDS Church and in and of itself, for a man to see a woman and become aroused?

Well the sin wouldn't be on the man at all. These, and other girls who dress similarly are, after all, "walking pornography."

[_Quasimodo]

Well the sin wouldn't be on the man at all. These, and other girls who dress similarly are, after all, "walking pornography."

Looks like dancing pornography to me... I quite like it.

[_Drifting]

Romney's daughters are not following the standards that their Religion requires of them.
If he can't manage his kids, what chance America's economy?

The "kids" in question are ages 24-27. I think they can make their own decisions about whether or not they need to hide their shoulders and clavicles from the fearsome gaze of men.

Wrong.
They should, by now, be married to an RM, have had at least three offspring, be expert in making cookies and have significant callings in either Primary or Relief Society.

Personally I say good on 'em.
We're not here for a long time, we're here for a good time.

(Blue dress, but you'd have more fun with white dress...)

[_bcspace]

Here's a question for you (giving this thread actual purpose). Would it be a sin, according to the LDS Church and in and of itself, for a man to see a woman and become aroused?

Well the sin wouldn't be on the man at all. These, and other girls who dress similarly are, after all, "walking pornography."

Are you saying a man can't be aroused by a modestly dressed woman? You must not be a man. What immodesty suggests to the subconscious mind imho, is more than just attractiveness, but also that such a person is advertising his or her readiness and availability for sex (with the right person or if the price is right).

[_sethpayne]

Are you saying a man can't be aroused by a modestly dressed woman? You must not be a man. What immodesty suggests to the subconscious mind imho, is more than just attractiveness, but also that such a person is advertising his or her readiness and availability for sex (with the right person or if the price is right).

I'm certainly not saying it but Elder Oaks certainly implies it.

[_bcspace]

Are you saying a man can't be aroused by a modestly dressed woman? You must not be a man. What immodesty suggests to the subconscious mind imho, is more than just attractiveness, but also that such a person is advertising his or her readiness and availability for sex (with the right person or if the price is right).

I'm certainly not saying it but Elder Oaks certainly implies it.

I'd be interested in seeing your reference.

[_sethpayne]

I'd be interested in seeing your reference.

Two words:

"Walking Pornography"

Obviously we men can't control our thoughts and thus, when we see a scantily dressed young lady our thoughts immediately turn vile. But again, this isn't our fault. If only women would dress as they should we wouldn't have this problem!

[_bcspace]

I'd be interested in seeing your reference.

Two words:

"Walking Pornography"

Did a search on LDS.org. Lots of articles with those two words, nothing with those two words combined like that that I could see. Do you have an actual reference or a link?