Reader comments
'Naked' guest bares her soul

Further proof that the mental patients are not only running this show (and many many others), but are also dumb enough to be on them.

Luckily for me, I have never watched this show. I'm just not that dumb.

Unfortunately, I did read this article... Maybe I am.

I think that this show is utterly stupid! Let me get this straight: You are appalled at this girl walking into work in just her underwear....But she appeared on national tv in her underwear in front of the whole world and you are okay with that?
You the writer of this article must be a male chauvinist pig! The whole premise of this show is stupid and demeaning to women!

Kelli above got it totally wrong. This snow is NOT demeaning to women - the opposite is true. It is about how women should not be valued because of their perfect bodies, but should find value in themselves and be valued for what is inside.

That is immodest. Why is immodesty promoted in the Deseret News?

Better yet, why is immodesty being applauded at work?

This article should be rated NC-17. I wouldn't want my daughters to read it. Thanks for keeping your content family friendly.

So goes the decline of Western Civilization. TV programing has turned into one mindless show after another. We're all idiots.

A couple points about the comments on the blog: First, Mr. Bass, the Deseret News isn't promoting immodesty, this article is reviewing/reporting on a television program--understand the difference.

Second, it's inappropriate for a person to go around in just underwear either on TV or in the work place. There's also the impropriety of showing up that way at work because it's a)unprofessional, b)you're in 3D when you're in person, and c)people at work don't have the option to turn the channel or turn off the TV. Even if she would have worn a swimming suit to work (which would be more modest), it's still inappropriate.

Ah! "inappropeiate" the magic word used to exact conformity in the great state of Utah.

"How to Look Good Naked" is demeaning to all those who watch TV. Seriously...somebody created a reality show, that features unattractive women, in various states of undress, and you watched it! Suckers! I pray my life never sinks so low that I could ever justify that show as entertainment.

... TMI (too much information) is what a number of Hollywood producers believe makes "good TV" these days. They want to show skin--and they're not only doing it, but they're telling us we want to see it. Well, I certainly don't--and I'm sure a number of us here don't, either.

I also don't want to see female colleagues walking into work in their underwear. However, it's apparently what passes for "empowerment," "self-esteem," and "feeling good about myself" these days. Who cares if it's appropriate? Professional? Decent? Or, heaven forbid, the right/wrong thing to do? If YOU'VE done what makes YOU feel good, you're OK!

That's the message we're getting from Hollywood these days. No surprise more than a few people are acting accordingly, though most aren't quite this extreme about it.

And so, "Reality," only half-right. (And "Oy Vay," spot on.) It's the TV shows of this kind that are rated NC-17. Scott Pierce is only the messenger. Don't shoot him, OK? If you don't like these shows or the mentality they promote, speak out against THEM. As is Scott himself.

I have to comment on this one. Someone commented that the DN was only reporting and not promoting.Shame on DN.They should NOT be reporting this. Any organization associated with the church should not be reporting this.Reporting IS promoting!!!!I think we are heading down a ugly path.It would be like a GA telling a group of youth in explict detail what constitutes immoral behavior.If you cant turn to the DN for wholesome reporting then where can you go?????

This article should not be on this web site.I can here it now: "But Mom, the church newspaper ran the article on the web. Dont be a prude!!!!!!!!" I call this type of reporting doing something that is unbecoming of a Latter Day Saint "in order to sell newspapers".Does this sound a lttle familiar.

Why am I spending my time on a blog??? Anyway, to "Social Control": "conformity in Utah"?! Society, whether it is in Utah, Bangkok, or NYC, requires certain rules of what is right and how we all respect ourselves and each other. Some things are appropriate in certain situations, but not in other situations. Apparently, you have issues or baggage beyond the topic of this article. Next time that you show up at work in just your underwear, we'll know who you are. Be sure to wear full make-up and high heels.

And to "kenny": The DN shouldn't be reporting this because it is promoting it??? Then the DN can't report on gang violence, babies left in hot cars, or either side of any issue. Let's all take a breath and stop knee-jerk reactions.

"Reality" TV. Yeccccch!

I demand that the DN immediately close its eyes to anything and everything that is happening in the outside world contrary to my own standards.

I don't approve of anything on TV or in the movies. Therefore, the DN shouldn't be writing about either of them--even if we live in a media-saturated world and we ignore the implications at our peril. (The DN should also fire reporters who astutely point out such implications.)

I don't approve of violence. Therefore, the DN shouldn't write about violent crime--even if it happens in my neighborhood.

I don't approve of Obama Barack for President--so the DN shouldn't cover his campaign. Even if there's something of a chance he might be my president anyway.

I don't approve of University of Utah sports--so the DN shouldn't even be allowed to mention their teams. Even if they (shudder) beat BYU. Reporting that glorifies evil, you know.

What should the DN cover? General Conference, Church News, and BYU firesides and sports. That's it! Nothing else meets my standards! Nothing else matters! We don't need to know anything else about our world.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll put my head back in the sand.

This dimwit woman will do anything to get attention and get on TV. What's next?

Who here besides me hates Ernest T. Bass?

Civilization has truly gone downhill - from accepting this behavior (had she shown up in underwear at MY place of employ, she would have been sent IMMEDIATELY home and suspended for 3-5 days WITHOUT pay - shame on her!) to promoting same sex marriages (how can we recall those idiot legislature judges in California?), we are becoming blind to the high moral standards that once were the social norm.

No matter where you live, stand up for the moral minority (because we aren't the majority anymore) and let people KNOW that you will NOT accept such deviant behavior. Sex belongs in the bedroom, not on the tv or in magazines. Self improvement can be shown in ways that aren't as revealing - such as how you treat others and how you handle yourself. Where does it say we need to be totally (or even partially) nude to show we love ourselves?

Come ON, people! Shake off the world - let go, let God!!

I was once told I looked good naked! Not anymore.