Thursday, January 11, 2007

Should a Woman show Cleavage?

Whenever I see a woman showing cleavage I feel she is insulting womanhood. I feel it a slight on my sisters (meaning all women). I also think to myself, "I didn't want to see that." I feel that this has been thrust upon me, and my choice has been taken away. If I wanted to see that I could buy pornography.

I also feel this is a thorn in the side of those men and women trying to straighten their lives out after lust problems.

Some women will use the excuse that the temperature is hot, and so it keeps them cool. Well, hey, why wear clothes at all? Why not just turn up naked and resolve the problem? I wear a shirt with a collar. At church I wear a tie. So am I to accept that it is right with God that women come partly clad but not me? What if I walked around showing the top of my bottom at church? After all, it would be cooler.

Spence W. Kimball said, "I wonder if our sisters realize the temptation they are flaunting before men when they leave their bodies partly uncovered or dress in tight-fitting, body-revealing, form-fitting sweaters." (Miracle of Forgiveness, 16:226)

Brigham YOung said, "I am ashamed to see the tight clothes -- to see the shape of the ladies." (Discourses of Brigham Young, 19:75). How would Brigham get on with cleavage, do you think?

In Matthew 5:28 Jesus says that anyone looking on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."- is that what you women want in a husband: An adulterer? Or in other women's husbands.

I think it is about time that women started respecting their womanhood far more. I am not talking to all women, as I notice some with respect for their bodies and womanhood. But I'm talking to those who perhaps haven't thought about it, or those who just don't care.

Before commenting, let me make it clear that I reserve the right to edit or delete your statement if it is unrelated to the post topic. I'm not interested in non-scriptural assumptions about any person's character.


Concerned Latter-day Saint said...

But Doug, forgive me for saying this and this will probably be deleted, but aren't you the KING of non-scriptural assumptions?

Where I am from, we call the kid of stuff you spout off here "space doctrine". In fact, in my opinion, someone ought to take church disciplinary action against you for preaching false doctrine.

In Utah, the doctrine you teach would be more considered aligned with "fundamentalist mormonism"- you know, the sorts that separate themselves from the Church eventually because they think they have more revelation than the prophet and that the Church has "fallen away" and "needs restoring".

You are standing on very shaky ground, my friend. Not necessarily in this post on cleavage, but in many, many of the posts I have seen here and elsewhere. Pray that your bishop or stake president never stumble across this blog!

Doug Towers said...

concerned latter-day saint

Which quote didn't you like, Brother Kimball's, Brigham Young's or Jesus Christ's? Was I in opposition with GAs, God or you?

I would ask you, brother, considering were man is on earth religiously, shouldn't we all be accused of having "space doctrine"? Doesn't "fundamentalist" mean not giving way to modern trends?

My bishop has read this blog, and some other religious things I've written. one in the stake presidency has read some of those other things also. He was very impressed by one particularly.

One thing the church believes in is freedom of opinion. Provided I don't speak in opposition of the principles required to be accepted for baptism, how can my baptism be removed for doctrinal error? Which of the doctrinal requirements do you find me opposing?

I appreciate you expressing your opinion. But hopefully we can discuss your areas of concern to come to a better understanding. If you just leave it at this one bomb you dropped no one learns anything.

Sister Mary Lisa said...

I figure if God didn't appreciate cleavage, he would never have created it in the first place, nor would he have created men in such a way as to make cleavage sexy to them.

Some people find eyes enticing. Should everyone cover their eyes in public because some people find them enticing or sexy?

Women should not be ashamed of their bodies. Their bodies come from God. They are a temple. We would no more think to cover up the exterior beauty of our beloved temples than we would the exterior beauty of our bodies.

Doug Towers said...

sister mary lisa

Thanks for your comments. It seems to me that God created breasts so that women could form a bond with their children. Also that the child could feel the security of the mother. The baby spends months in the mother's womb. It gets used to the sounds in there, and the feelings of the mother and surroundings. The time of breast feeding gives security to the baby by allowing the child to feel and hear these same things.

I, therefore, don't see that God created cleavage, as such, at all. Mankind took what God had created for good and turned it.

"nor would he have created men in such a way as to make cleavage sexy to them"
What is regarded as sexy is totally in the mind of the individual. Some guys like firm breasts, some floppy, some small, many large, some white, some tanned, some black. It has nothing to do with God creating sexy. God didn't invent lust. Good and evil are eternal principles that existed long before he was God.

"Women should not be ashamed of their bodies"
Using wisdom in what you wear doesn't constitute shame.

Some people find eyes enticing.
You are right that no matter how you dress someone can get warped ideas. I think a smart woman would think, "if I were going to walk through a prison yard of rapists, what would be wise to wear"? Because all of those rapists were once out on the streets you walk. One saying I think women should understand is that if you go out "dressed to kill", that could be exactly what happens to you. I hate to be morbid, but the things I say here are more with concern for women as men.

Doug Towers said...


I have removed your question as you asked me to. I would like to anwser your question, but you didn't leave an email address. If you look toward the top of the main page I have a link for people to go to for asking questions. If you could leave your name, email address and the last name of your good friend (to identify it is you) at that site I can answer you.

Sister Mary Lisa said...

By the way, I never formed a bond with my kids while breastfeeding. It was tedious and frustrating and painful, and not the bliss you described.

Also, why did you delete the other guy's comment? I thought his comment was good. He was right in pointing out that men are accountable for their actions, and women should not be blamed if some guy acts on his base urges if he finds a woman attractive.

Jordan said...

I deleted my own comment because I felt I was unnecessarily harsh on Doug, personally, though I believe the underlying principles are true.

Doug Towers said...

sister mary lisa

I'm sorry to hear that you didn't feel good about breast feeding. I guess everyone has different experinces. My wife used to say how good she felt about it all. And how much easier it was than all the people having to prepare bottles.

I totally agree with Jordan that each person is responsible for their own actions. It is an interesting thing, because the law regards provoking as an action. If a person provokes a person and they respond with violence, the law regards the violence to be justified (within certain parameters). It regards the provoking to be counted as if the person had struck out first. Yet moral law doesn't make this claim. The person who provokes is guilty of provoking, and the person who is violent is guilty of violence. Neither action justifies the other in any degree.

Sister Mary Lisa said...

I also think God created us all as we are. I think he DID create lust, not Satan. Satan might use our lust to try to tempt us to sin, but lust is there inside us all. Some of us lust after different things, to be sure, but I feel like it's there because God created us that way. He gave us our weaknesses, don't you think? And lust could be one of those weaknesses.

And nice mental pic of all the different kinds of breasts you described so well. :) Nice.

Doug Towers said...

sister mary lisa

Thanks for the compliment on the depiction.

We are eternal beings. God only had our physical body made (by our parents). He didn't give us any qualities. We are what we have made of ourselves before God ever got here, what he helped us become during the spirit time, and what we are making of ourselves now. He is trying to help us, but we are manufacturing ourselves. We have complete and total free agency. And always have had. Anything that is in us we allowed to grow, whether good or evil.

Lust has always existed throughout all eternity. No one invented it. It is an opposition to love. A fake love. If you become full of love, you will be devoid of lust.

We have weeknesses. But God can help us turn them into strengths. If we are weak with lust, he can make us strong with love. Etc.

Anonymous said...

Lets just all move to Iraq and make our women wear burqas then.

Doug Towers said...


Who talked of extremes for our society? If a woman goes to such a country I would strongly advise her (for her OWN saftey) to wear what is worn by women.

As sister mary lisa stated in regard the affect cleavage has on men, "as to make cleavage sexy to them."

The point is that cleavage creates lustful feelings that aren't conducive to real love. Christ spoke against lusts of the flesh, along with many others. Only bad will come from accepting some evil (regardless of how small WE declare it to be).

I would strongly advise caution.

Anonymous said...

Aside from religion, there is an appropriate time for everything, some in appropriate times would be "family gatherings, church, school,most work sights, funerals,if you are looking for attention by exposing yourself there are those places you can go to do that also, when people start avoiding you might want to reevaluate your exposure!