I agree. In fact, if I were there, I'd have encouraged her to just get rid of the bathing suit altogether.
I draw the line at birthday suits. Anyone who refuses to at least wear that is going way over the line for modesty. Just because I say I like what's inside doesn't mean I prefer looking at it very deeply.
If someone is not wearing even that first aid may be in order.....why am I now worried this could be a fashion trend of the future?
"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
Scottie wrote:I seriously doubt that the sexual urge would have been that much less even if she were in a modest bathing suit.
Hell, I say we go back to the time when a woman showing her ankle was considered porn!! The middle east has the right idea. Lets get the burka's out and cover them temptresses up!!
Mormons wear burkas, but they wear them under their clothes. And this is exactly the problem with this particular lady, she should have left her garmies (burka) under her bikini. Had she had complied with the rules this would not be a thread, no one would have had urges and the world would just keep going around and around.
Well what I mean is if you saw naked women all the time you probably all wouldn't be such horn dogs when you see a little flesh.
Amen. Add to that the masturbation ban, and you have young men who grow stiffies if the breeze "blows" too hard. (snicker)
Oh well, perhaps God will soon speak in a small quiet voice to his prophet and tell him to roll out the burkas.
And what of men who grow stiffies from a stiff breeze who already are free of masturbation bans and have seen tons of naked women???? What of those poor bastards???
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
rcrocket wrote: I think that you epitomize the intellectual capacity and vulgarity of most of the denizens of this Board. Or, maybe I'm wrong and judgmental. Take your pick.
And what of men who grow stiffies from a stiff breeze who already are free of masturbation bans and have seen tons of naked women???? What of those poor bastards???
Enjoy it. You'll be fifty before you know it.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Can someone please enlighten me who or what evergreen is??
Scottie---
Evergreen is the LDS-owned (or managed? or sanctioned? in any case, the Church "oversees" it somehow) organization which is used to "re-educate"? homosexuals. Basically, if somebody in the Church as got a "problem" with same-sex attraction, s/he (I would assume that women are sent to, but the people I've met who've been through the Evergreen experience have all been males) is shipped off to Evergreen in order to be "re-aligned." I really think the most honest assessment of Evergreen is this: it is essentially a Church-approved sexuality brainwashing camp. I believe there is a website you can go to in order to learn more. I don't know that many details about it, though I have heard that they run "drills" wherein the male attendees learn to "hug another man without getting aroused." The whole of Evergreen just strikes me as being enormously sinister and disgusting.
I heard someone call in on a Dr. Ruth radio show years ago and said that he was LDS and gay and his Bishop wanted him to go through shock therapy.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
