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.

Scott, I don't share your take on this story, but it would seem from your perspective that you've now made her story even more TMI by sharing it with thousands of DesNews readers. Something doesn't add up here.

Kenny, reporting is not promoting. If you extend that argument, than it would follow that by reporting on, say, the atrocities in Darfur you are accusing news media of promoting it--rather than exposing it in hopes of saving lives. If you want to live inside your turtle shell, go ahead. But the rest of us would like to know what's going on in this world (not that I needed to know about this woman going to work in her undies, but I'm just saying...)

Kenny writes: "I call this type of reporting doing something that is unbecoming of a Latter Day Saint "in order to sell newspapers".

Well, Kenny, again your reasoning confounds me. I will bet you my 2008 income that newstand sales of the DesNews did not increase on account of this story.

Further, just who do you suppose it is that buys the DesNews in the first place? A hint: mainly Latter Day Saints. But maybe you were aware that you were chastising your brothers and sisters when you made your comment.

I would suggest that Scott wrote this story more in the serivice of his ego, which needs to feel superior, than in the service of his readers--though I suppose those who are like-minded will band around him, as they have in this forum.

Please, live and let live, even just a little, OK?

"Too much information" is in the eyes (or ears) of the beholder. Particular behaviors may be ill-timed at best or inappropriate at worst, depending upon situation and circumstance and social norms, but shackle not a person's right to self-expression, no matter how much you may disagree with what that person says or does.

Anyone who considers this story rated NC-17 must instruct their children to close their eyes as they get dressed and never to look at themselves in a mirror after stepping out of the shower.

These comments are a perfect example of why DN should not allow comments on stories: people actually think this story is demoralizing civiliztion?!? DN, at least provide a function to hide stupid comments. Please!

I stand with all of you who consider yourselves faithful LDS members but some sense of reality needs to be shared folks. Reporting that a woman wore nothing but underwear to work is not inappropriate. Now if Scott Pierce suggested we all do the same or provided pictures of him following this fool's example, we'd all have a case to argue.

Do you feel the Deseret News is suggesting we all become graffiti artists when they report "Provo breaks up major graffiti ring" on July 22 '08? Do you believe the DN is urging us all to commit fraud in the 7/22/08 "Man pleads guilty in Utah County mortgage fraud case" story? Maybe we should all stick our heads in the sand as proposed in the "Mudslide forces evacuation of Taylorsville apartment complex" story.

i don't hate the idiot, i just just hate the fact that he always says stupid things.

I can't resist the temptation to stir the pot a little bit. I really think LDS culture has gone overboard on the modesty thing. At least in the sense of modesty in regards to nudity or provacative dress. Modesty in it's true sense means not bringing undue attention to one's self. So as far as I am concerned the person who satifies her ego doing solo's in church every third week because she is sure nobody can sing as well as she can is as guilty of immodesty as a woman who comes to church showing some cleavage in the hopes of turning some heads.

Here goes. This woman has nothing on the Apostle Peter. He showed up at work naked. John 21:7 or Moroni who came to Joseph Smith with only a robe on that was open down the front. JS-H 1:31.

Modesty can become a gospel hobby. Don't get too extreme with it.

I'm sorry if stretch marks are so offensive or if you think they should be hidden away. I myself don't think that they are pretty or anything, but they aren't shocking or anything if you remember what they are - they're the result of a woman's sacrifice to bear a child. Just had to say that. I'm not planning on showing mine off, but stretch marks are not anything to be shouting about.

Part of learning to live and let live is not judging others so harshly. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you've never met Scott Pierce. But I have. Interesting news for you: He's actually a regular guy. No ego any bigger than anyone else's, as far as I could tell. But by all means, "Served," if you can shed some more light on just how you've determined the size of Scott's ego while you've been so busy living and letting live and all, go for it!

Another point strikes me--could it be that the "like-minded" have banded around, as it were, because some people in this forum don't appear to understand the purpose of the very newspaper they read?

Covering this story of thoughtless over-exhibition and TMI, thanks to a modern TV trend shown by this misguided-at-best program, doesn't glorify it. It marks it as the deviant behavior that it is.

Everyone has ego. When you learn to recognize it in yourself you can see it in others. For example, your ego is what is speaking when you use the word "deviant" to describe the behavior Scott writes about. By such judgment you lift yourself up by putting someone else down. Ego does not live and let live.

Likewise, my ego was on display when I wrote that comment. I'm working to not do such things.

The common definition of ego, which you seem to hold, does not fully define this state of being.

Scott Pierce is reporting on this because of two things.

1. If he didn't report on it and someone stumbled onto it while channel surfing, Scott would get criticized for not informing people about it.

2. He is doing it because he is informing people about it.

The sad thing is Scott will never win. The people who are reading this and who are informed are mad that he even reported about it. But those same people would probably get angry if they accidentally tuned in and weren't warned about it.

Think about this. He is doing everyone a favor.

A commenter above wrote "Part of learning to live and let live is not judging others so harshly" and then proceeded to do just that in the last sentence. Nice.

John, I'm that commenter. The fact is: Saying a given act is deviant behavior is merely calling it what it is. Deviance is departing from an accepted norm of society--i.e., we expect you to dress professionally for work instead of wearing only your underwear. If most people don't accept the behavior, consider it unusual or repulsive, or wouldn't approve of it--it's deviant. Dictionary definition. Look it up, man.

Making that observation is not necessarily the same thing as judging others--weighing the merits of their inner worth and character. We humans sometimes do that very harshly, and too rashly. Yet we forget that someone can have deviant behavior and still have good inner qualities. I'm convinced Christ thought so when He provided the Atonement for us.

Besides, in that quote, I was actually referring to the REAL irony in "Who is Being Served?". Read back a bit and you'll see that. Thanks, man.

Thank you to the DN for reporting on this story. I like to be kept up to date on topics of interest to Americans, whether or not they share my morals or ideas about appropriateness. The Puritans believed that anything that is pleasurable is evil. Some Mormons share that attitude. I believe women should be proud of their bodies and though they should dress modestly they also should stand proud, not hiding their assets with multiple folds of loose clothing but walking tall. I've seen a trend in the past few years toward showing normally shaped women in a positive light. It used to be that anybody with more than 5% body fat was considered unattractive on TV, and the popular media glamorized the Twiggy or heroin-addict look, which fortunately is not as popular now that we know about anorexia and cocaine-caused malnutrition. I also think that those who judge others should take a good look at themselves first.

Wow people seriously grow up. But this is utah what do I expect...

Rich--I largely agree with your thoughts. True, some Mormons do think that way--though it's disputed that the Puritans actually did. We get much of our modern-day view of Puritanism from Nathaniel Hawthorne, who HATED Puritans. See Bruce Daniels' Puritans at Play for a whole other view.

ANYWAY--Agreed. Yes, pleasure isn't evil at all--just needs to be enjoyed in the appropriate context.

Women should be proud of their bodies, even if they're carrying a few more pounds than a chart in the doctor's office says they should.

The media have long promoted a too-thin ideal for women, going back at least to the original Barbie doll.

Finally, when we're guilty of unrighteously judging others, we should take a look in the mirror to see what's true about ourselves first. I fully agree!

HOWEVER--None of that means that I, too, should walk into work dressed only in my underwear, because I've been empowered to think so positively about myself on a TV program that caters 100% to the surface image and the honors of men (Whoo! Wink, wink!), and 0% to the soul and what will truly bless my life in the long run.

I fully believe that as well!