Comments about ‘Letter: Pageants should raise standards of modesty’

re Majorie

Moslem swim suits for women are even more modest. Have you seen these? Why make use of an American style one piece swim suit which aren't all that modest anyway? In the 1970's Farah Fawcett posed in one of these and it was considered quite sexy.

This letter is absolutely correct. The producers of this decidedly left-wing pageant and all those associated with it should be condemned for their denigration of women.

This pageant is a slap in the face to Utah and its values. Utah values women and treats them with respect. On the other hand, this pageant is no different from the typical production from left-wing Hollywood which conveys the idea that a woman's entire worth is determined by her outward appearance.

This prurient display leads to a lowering of moral standards. We already have too many who behave with no more restraint than a pack of excited rabbits on a spring day. We don't need things like this pageant to create any more.

No swimsuit is modest. A paid of long shorts (to the knee) and a full cover shirt with a bra that doesn't show when shirt is wet is modest. When married a married woman can swim with her husband nude if she wants and their pool is private but otherwise stay away. A girl in a bikini might as well be wearing her underwear to swim. I bet you young women would never do that but will wear a bikini. Women in the world do not recognize that men look at them in a sexual manner even in modest clothes sometimes. We need to teach our girls and boys to obey God.

I am not LDS and don't believe in it as a way of salvation, but I do agree with modesty.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. Whining because you don't look good in a swimsuit will get you nowhere.

Why couldn't the local pageant directors encourage more modesty? Must they be bound to the standards at the national level?

Marjorie Wilson

=============

Umm, yes.
Becasue the whole criteria of them being judged and selected is to advace to the NATIONAL level - that's why.

These young ladies all know what to expect.
The rules are published, no secret, no surprises.
and they all choose to participate by their own freewill and choice.

If they choose their vanity, praise of the world, and special recognition over their personal standards of modesty, then who are you to say otherwise?

Besides, in reality you don't have to win a beauty contest to be considered beautiful.

What is the purpose of life? Is it to "advance to the national level" or is it to do the right thing all the time?

Is there such a thing as "part time obedience"?

Is there any excuse that allows "part time obedience"?

It's all a question of values. Each of us chooses the values that are important to us. If "flesh" is cheap in our portfolio of values, then we'll use flesh and reap the rewards of those for whom flesh is cheap.

Virtue is priceless. A "crown" that requires "part time virtue" is too costly to ever justify, even at the national level.

JCS: "Utah values women and treats them with respect."

That's why only eight of over 60 signatures of civic and business leaders on the full page paid ad for Orrin Hatch in today's DesNews were from women (and one was one of those immodest leftist beauty pageant winners!). That's why only a miniscule fraction of the legislature is female. That's why there has only been one female governor in over a century of statehood (and she was unelected to the post). That's why women are systematically excluded from top positions of leadership in the two largest religious denominations in the state. Utah women are so valued and respected they're not allowed to do anything.

Are the leftist pageant organizers you speak of the same leftists who have been protesting these very pageants since at least the 1960s as exploitative and sexist? I get confused without a playbook. Leftism must be one of those Big Tent philosophies if it can embrace such polar opposites.

How about we just get rid of the entire pageant? How about we just admit that Miss America is an embarrassing anachronism? How about we, in Utah, just agree not to participate in this preposterous exercise in institutionalized sexism?
I know: it's about college scholarships. So great. Why not just hand out more college scholarships? Why make young women parade on-stage half-dressed in order to win a scholarship? What on earth does swim wear have to do with college?
Oh, and John Charity, I'm a liberal--I think I'm one of those horrid critters you rail against every post. In what possible way is Miss Utah/America a left-wing thing?

John Charity --- A LEFTIST thing? Wait a minute. Isn't Donald Trump supposed to be a conservative's conservative?

Isn't The Donald a prime mover and funder of several beauty pageants?

The human body was created by God in his image.

Why are we so ashamed of it? (The fact that some people view the human body as a sexual object is a perversion of God's will and purpose. And that those people are so proud of that perversion that they write letters to the papers about it and put their name to those letters shows just how far from God's purpose those people have gotten. Immodesty and sexual objectification are in the eyes of the beholder - not the Creator.)

You would not place a fine piece of art created by a human under a curtain - you would display it.
Arches National Park is not hidden.
Why should we have to hide God's most perfect creation - life in his image?

And if we are going to go with the ultimate level of modesty, burqas should be the standard.

If beauty pageants are leftist -

and Donald Trump owns a beauty pageant -

does that mean The Donald is a leftist?

And if The Donald is a leftist, and he supports Mitt Romney -

does that make Mitt Romney a leftist?

And if we are only supposed to associate with things that reflect our values, and Mitt associates with Donald, does that mean they have the same values? Since Mitt is taking money from Donald and money is fungible and so some of the money given to Mitt comes from the beauty pageants, does that mean Mitt supports beauty pageants and the immodest women who participate in them?

@majorie

How about we stop objectifing women all together?

@J Springs

leftist" really? a bit if a stretch even for you. The leftist have been fighting against this disgusting objectification of women for more the 50 years. covering up their bodies may make you feel more comfortable but it is still a disgusting practice.

We should only have pageants for home makers. They can all major in home making at The BYU.

You're asking for modesty in a contest where one of the major scoring categories is grading physical beauty? Pretty sure there's still a problem either way...

It seems that the leftists who see pageants as the "objectification of women" and the conservatives who object to the immodesty of pageants are united, and should be able to take care of this problem.

I see that the confusion between modesty and shame has not been understood or completely resolved. Am I ashamed of my body if I choose not to flaunt it in its entirety, or OTOH am I ashamed of my body if I choose not to clothe it partially yet in a consciously alluring way?

Hands up if you actually watched the Utah beauty pageant.
Yeah, I thought so.
Fussing about a problem that nobody saw.

Who needs pageants. It is a thing of the past and no one cares any more.

Check --
another Vote for Sharia Law.

Go - Utah-liban.

=============

On another note...

Which is it Ultra-Cons?
Freedom and let the Market decide as you claim
or
Restricitions?

Personally - I'd like to see some restrictions,
but that makes me Liberal.

Mike Richards calls my restrictions Anti-Freedom,
and yet his call for the exact same thing is twisted into a Patriotic call based on greater Moral-values.

While John Charity Spring sees me as the one promoting it,
while it's Donald Trump and the Free Market that sponsors and promotes it?

We may not agree, but at least I show integrity.
Your hypocarcy, however is killing me.

@ Gildas: It is - and should continue to be - your choice how you dress. If you believe that the way you dress honors God and you are pleased with your appearance and you allow others the same agency to make those decisions, then, IMNSHO, you are using and clothing your body the way God intended.

If, OTOH, you see sex and sin in those who dress differently than you, then you are perverting God's masterpiece and objectifying others.

I'm not saying people have to (or should) wear skimpy clothes.

Some people read the Bible and see the word of God. Others read the Bible and see wars, famine, destruction, and horror.

The words haven't changed - just the perspective of the reader.

It is the same with the human body. Some people look at it and see wonder and beauty and the image of God. Others look at it and see sexual perversion and something of which to be ashamed.

The image is the same - but the perspective of the viewer is different. One perspective honors God. The other perspective has been corrupted.

What you see and feel is a reflection of your thoughts - good or bad.

LDS Liberal,

So, you're opposed to the whole concept of the LDS's Young Women's program. You're against the whole concept of virtue.

Does the "market" determine virtue or does God? When God tells us to be virtuous, is He restricting our freedom?

Are you telling us that the phrase, "Let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly", is politically motivated?

When did Christ EVER suggest that being scantily clad in public was proper?

Virtue is an absolute. There are not shades of virtue any more than there are shades of honesty. You're either virtuous or you're not. You're either honest or you're not. You either follow Christ as soon as you become aware of His will or you don't.