Starting with your last question, I know which one makes for a more beautiful and exhilerating world. I’ll go with that one.

And ending with this: I’ve never been comfortable with the marriage of religion and business … and this seems to have been one of the primary forces behind the Reformation; kind of a Sherman Act for religion. But Mormonism does this marriage with so much more subtlety than Catholicism did. First you have the most basic concept of tithing as “fire insurance” and then as a kind of club dues. Then all the business interests of the church and its people … and especially the whole MLM economy. It makes the LDS clothing business (other than the temple garment monopoly) look very innocent. Almost sweet and naive.

But you point is well taken. And yes, that sexuality with relies on hiding behind god’s view of appropriate sexuality is both deviant and profound … but mostly just unduly complicated. Sex can be so much more and free. Just takes a little creativity.

I’ll take the world’s version.

I keep wishing that the LDS church would open up its books so that contributors could see what they’re getting for their money, but like you, I imagine there’s a lot of things that at least appear unsavory. There’s a reason that they don’t open their books. Neither do the ultra-rich purveyors of the prosperity gospel.

There has been an interesting discussion about the effect of sexual repression at de-conversion.

chandelle,

Agreed. I was actually going to mention that. I don’t think Hustler has any more deviant than heterosexual or lesbian sex, not that I’m an expert on Hustler.

I want to add that I’m not exactly pro-porn either. Much of what’s out there does objectify and perpetuate unhealthy attitudes. I don’t think all of it does, however. I recently heard someone say that porn stars “obviously” enjoy their jobs. I think it’s more likely that they enjoy the money. The intersection of sex and money is probably about as unhealthy as religion and money.

I think the reference to “childhood morality” in the discussion you linked to was particularly interesting. And it’s true, the church doesn’t encourage morality in adults, it encourages child-like adults. This is supposedly a greater virtue this child-like world-view. What it is actually is a fine recipe for blind obedience. The side-effects seem to also include extremely conservative and even fearful sexuality. Not to mention the whole concept of Jesus as the third person in your bed.

Ah, hold ‘me by the balls and you have them or life. The Scientologists have nothing on Mormonism.

Your last sentence is rather provocative and there’s probably not a simple answer. Of course, it depends on who you ask and what you value. I’ve seen the infamous A & F Christmas catalog. It’s not nearly as bad as he makes it sound in the article. There are no sex acts depicted, and there are no genitalia shown if I remember right. But it is pretty racy, and it struck me as pretty dumb because they were pretty blatantly using sex to sell clothes.

So your question is essentially, is it any better for Mormons to use modesty, prudery, and sexual guilt to sell clothes? Maybe not.

I thought his description of the girls at the gym was interesting. Notice that he emphasized how her clothes were loose and baggy, and therefore modest. He implies that to dress otherwise while exercising or engaging in sports is immodest. From this and from other things he says, I suspect that his views of modesty are pretty extreme, even for Mormons. After all, at BYU cheerleaders, dancers, and female athletes aren’t wearing loose, baggy, non-spandex clothing.

I have to agree with you that it’s all about perspective. People wear “immodest” clothes when they exercise because they are more comfortable and more amenable to exercise. They wear things that the wouldn’t wear to church or to work. Context matters, and he doesn’t really get that, either.

It also bugged me how he focused on girls’ modesty, as evidenced by that story about the girls at the gym. It’s always about how girls need to be more modest, for guys like this.

Thanks for backing me up on Hustler. I suppose I could have researched it easily enough for myself by simply going to the website, but I didn’t think about it. Chalk it up to my purity and innocence.

Stephen,

I hadn’t noticed the bias in directing modesty only at girls. It really plays into the stereotype of sexually repressed Mormon male who puts the blame for their barely controlled urges on the women around them and Satan who advises them on what to wear. (I’m OK throwing that stereotype around because I was once one of those guys.)

Along with what you’re saying about context, culture is extremely relevant to what is considered appropriate attire, of course. Kirikou and the Sorceress with its openly topless but non-sexual women helps me appreciate that. Perhaps this is too much information, but the first time I watched the movie, my eyes were unconsciously drawn to the cartoon breasts. It’s like I couldn’t help but stare. It’s not like I’d never seen a National Geographic, but I couldn’t keep my eyes away for long.

But that is a cultural effect. It’s something that I have learned since birth. Topless women aren’t immodest in other cultures, and I doubt men in those cultures go around staring at breasts all day. It’s got to get boring some time.

This concept of doing business on god’s behalf is is the main difference I see between making money by exploiting human sexuality and exploiting religious beliefs.