"Immodesty"=pornography(!?)

Recently, there was a letter to the editor in the Daily Universe in which the author spoke of girls sunbathing in the quad of Helaman Halls. Innocent enough, but these girls were *gasp* wearing short shorts and tank tops.

What harlots! How dare they even own such clothing! Didn't their mothers teach them better!!

The author then accused these girls of being pornography, and that they were detracting from him preparing to serve a mission.

Obviously, I have a few things to say about this.

I was lucky that, through most of my years in the Young Women program, I had teachers who taught me to dress modestly out of respect for my body for God. I hadn't heard the whole "you're pornography if you don't" until I was 16.

The idea that girls should dress modestly simply so they aren't pornography (which, by the way, tank tops and short shorts showing shoulders and knees are pornography?) perpetuates the idea that women should make decisions and take actions only with how they will affect men in mind. This concept is part of the whole idea that women are only here to serve men.

As I'm sure the Daily Universe has received an overwhelming wave of letters responding to this particular letter, I'd like to respond to the author here.

Dear Sam Speer,
I was completely unaware that you aren't the gate keeper of your own sexuality. On behalf of my gender, I apologize for not being more responsible for your thoughts. You are absolutely right; girls have the ability to control your actions. We'll be more careful in the future. In fact, I'm in the process now of writing to the Honor Code Office asking for burkas to be mandatory for all female students.