Modesty, yoga pants and myths.

[subllibrm]

But yet, they blame the immodesty of the harlots

Nope it's the our own hearts that is to blame.

Then why is this thread continuing?

But, but, but ...

Or should I say:

butt, butt, butt ...

 

[Bruh]

True.  There is that song, "I like big butts and I cannot lie".

You other brothers can't deny.

Hey! Where you been?



When a girl walks in with a ity bitty............

 

[brianb]

I cannot properly discern the issue without some photos of said yoga pants.

are you serious?...... ??? ..... .... coz i can do that........ 8) .... i can post a spandex pants picture that not only shows you why some people like them and some people don;t...... but also sends a message from those of us who wear them... on our preferred way of responding to people who complain about our spandex pants........ ....




but don;t worry...... it;s a totally acceptable and modest picture....... . by hawaii standards......  8)

I'm from yoga pants country (Vancouver)  so I'm used to seeing them and have adapted to it kind of like Hawaiians have adapted to skimpy bikinis and what not.  There pretty much worn by the younger generation but not every one. It's a matter of personal style. It's become more popular with many women who found skinny jeans uncomfortable hence why skinny jeans have all but disappeared.  I'm sure there are Christians who wear them in my area but I personally don't know any who do.

 

[Mathew Ward]

I may take some flack for this, but here goes...

Based on just my own reactions to yoga pants, a major factor in how my mind reacts is the shape and size of the person wearing said yoga pants. I'll be the first to admit that I've let my gaze linger a bit too long at a "cute, young thang" wearing tight yoga pants and thinking to myself, 'hmmmm, nice booty.' (Never did it around my wife however. I'm crazy, but I wasn't stupid LOL)

Then on the other hand, I've seen 250+ pound women trying to pull off the yoga pants look and thought to myself, 'what on earth was she thinking? I have seen things I can never un-see.'

I don't know if others react / feel the same way, but I thought I'd toss in my observations on the subject.

It seems you've forgotten where you're posting.

There are a few men on here that DO NOT fight their flesh on here.

They can go out to eat 5 days a week with some "sweet thang" in "yoga pants" for 5 years and they would never not one time "sin" in their mind. Or attempt to flirt not one time, nope, not the men on here. They really got it it together.

They also have no issue whatsoever  with their wife's best friend being a young buck from work and them going out to eat 5 days a week for lunch.

Yeah I believe you've forgotten where you are!

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Galatians 5:16

Seems like the issue is me walking in the spirit so I don't lust.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Aleshanee,

You are doing a wonderful example of illustrating the absurdity of taking a one-sided position. And it is as equally unbalanced of you as it would be of a man who took the position that it is the woman's fault for how she dresses. The proper response to an imbalance is not the opposite imbalance. It is balance.

In this balanced position of yours, could you define immodesty please?

For example, would you allow your wife and daughter to wear pants? Or would you consider them immodest?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Aleshanee,

You are doing a wonderful example of illustrating the absurdity of taking a one-sided position. And it is as equally unbalanced of you as it would be of a man who took the position that it is the woman's fault for how she dresses. The proper response to an imbalance is not the opposite imbalance. It is balance.

In this balanced position of yours, could you define immodesty please?

For example, would you allow your wife and daughter to wear pants? Or would you consider them immodest?

Defining modesty or immodesty is where the problem arises.
Do you believe it is possible to be dressed immodestly?
I assume the answer would be yes, although here you never know.
If you do, then then loaded question would be 'what is immodest dress'?

And, then the reasoning simply follows its tail.

It amuses me that on the fff, freebirds, not you specifically, almost always argue against the extreme IFB-X positions irregardless of whether anyone in the thread believes them.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Let's assume that Hyles, Schaap, Gray, et al, ad nauseum, had modestly-attired women on staff, in school, at church, etc.  They still fell into sexual immorality.  Was it the modestly-dressed woman (or child, in Gray's case) who sinned, or was it the man who didn't have his thought life and urges under the control of the Holy Spirit?  Was it HER fault she dressed appropriately?

(Let's try to stay on this topic, rather than meandering off into "well, Satan was trying to take Pastor down, so he used that MODESTLY-DRESSED WOMAN to do it!!")

How does modesty protect or excuse these perverts?

Has anyone on this thread made that....excuse these perverts....argument?


There is NO excuse for sin. Period.
Lust is a sin.
Lust doesn't always involve sex or sexual thoughts.
A woman's dress can exacerbate lust in a man...often without her knowledge.
In that case, a man is still responsible for his sin.
A woman who deliberately attempts to incite/create lust in a man is also committing 'sin'.

Where am I going wrong?

when you put it that way, you are not wrong at all......

now if we could just get you to understand the real reason why women like the one who wrote the article you linked to.. who after wearing spandex most of their lives.... .. (but who now after approaching their their late 20s - early 30s - - and having been married a few years - are on the verge of starting a career etc.)..... suddenly come to the conclusion that not only should they stop wearing spandex.... but so should every other female in the world too........ .... then there might be hope for you yet.....

I appreciate that!
If maintaining hope requires me to adhere to the extreme fff freebird position, I'd just as soon maintain some common sense, and abandon all such hope. 

 

[Recovering IFB]

Genesis 3:12 The man said, ?The woman you put here with me?she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.?
Yup, Adam learned quickly how to throw the woman under the bus; seems like many here are still doing it today.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Genesis 3:12 The man said, ?The woman you put here with me?she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.?
Yup, Adam learned quickly how to throw the woman under the bus; seems like many here are still doing it today.

Again, how Freudian....

 

[Bruh]

I may take some flack for this, but here goes...

Based on just my own reactions to yoga pants, a major factor in how my mind reacts is the shape and size of the person wearing said yoga pants. I'll be the first to admit that I've let my gaze linger a bit too long at a "cute, young thang" wearing tight yoga pants and thinking to myself, 'hmmmm, nice booty.' (Never did it around my wife however. I'm crazy, but I wasn't stupid LOL)

Then on the other hand, I've seen 250+ pound women trying to pull off the yoga pants look and thought to myself, 'what on earth was she thinking? I have seen things I can never un-see.'

I don't know if others react / feel the same way, but I thought I'd toss in my observations on the subject.

It seems you've forgotten where you're posting.

There are a few men on here that DO NOT fight their flesh on here.

They can go out to eat 5 days a week with some "sweet thang" in "yoga pants" for 5 years and they would never not one time "sin" in their mind. Or attempt to flirt not one time, nope, not the men on here. They really got it it together.

They also have no issue whatsoever  with their wife's best friend being a young buck from work and them going out to eat 5 days a week for lunch.

Yeah I believe you've forgotten where you are!

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Galatians 5:16

Seems like the issue is me walking in the spirit so I don't lust.

Hey, if you think ur spiritual life is that in check, more power to ya my man!

 

[Bruh]

Aleshanee,

You are doing a wonderful example of illustrating the absurdity of taking a one-sided position. And it is as equally unbalanced of you as it would be of a man who took the position that it is the woman's fault for how she dresses. The proper response to an imbalance is not the opposite imbalance. It is balance.

In this balanced position of yours, could you define immodesty please?

For example, would you allow your wife and daughter to wear pants? Or would you consider them immodest?

No, again, I believe you should be giving us your definition of immodesty.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Actually, I asked you first on page 7. It's in you to give us a definition, through the Scroptures of course.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Genesis 3:12 The man said, ?The woman you put here with me?she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.?
Yup, Adam learned quickly how to throw the woman under the bus; seems like many here are still doing it today.

Again, how Freudian....

I'm actually proud if you TB, you actually found time during this news cycle to dig your nose out of Fox News to find a story.

 

[Bruh]

Actually, I asked you first on page 7. It's in you to give us a definition, through the Scroptures of course.

So, I asked you second.

 

[subllibrm]

How do the preacher men who go into the jungles control themselves with all those naked boobies?!?!?!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Aleshanee,

You are doing a wonderful example of illustrating the absurdity of taking a one-sided position. And it is as equally unbalanced of you as it would be of a man who took the position that it is the woman's fault for how she dresses. The proper response to an imbalance is not the opposite imbalance. It is balance.

In this balanced position of yours, could you define immodesty please?

For example, would you allow your wife and daughter to wear pants? Or would you consider them immodest?

Defining modesty or immodesty is where the problem arises.
Do you believe it is possible to be dressed immodestly?
I assume the answer would be yes, although here you never know.
If you do, then then loaded question would be 'what is immodest dress'?

And, then the reasoning simply follows its tail.

It amuses me that on the fff, freebirds, not you specifically, almost always argue against the extreme IFB-X positions irregardless of whether anyone in the thread believes them.

be amused all you want...... but the fact is the positions held by many of those in the ifb camp here - whether extreme or not...  still draws from the same poisoned well as the xer-camp that makes the killer koolaid..... ...... they might not toss their buckets as deep into that well..... but they still come up with the same idea that if a man has lustful thoughts after looking at a woman.... then somehow... and in someway.... she shares the blame for it..... ........

and the big question... in fact the only question....  that seems to separate the regular ifb from the extreme on this issue is where to draw the line between what constitutes being dressed modestly and being dressed immodestly .....  ..... we know what the extremists believe on that account...... but so far the ones claiming they are not extreme but still believe there is a gold standard of modest dress out there, have been unable to tell us just exactly what that is......... ...... in their mind... and according to their arguments..... if they look at a woman and start to get lustful ideas then whatever she is wearing must be it......... ........

but the problem here....  is....  that way of looking at it is no less a subjective and unscriptural argument as the one those on the extreme sides make......  and like i said it all comes out of the same well........ that of their own personal preference - and not of scripture...... it takes the weight of responsibility for capturing and surrendering their wayward thoughts to God off their shoulders and puts it onto a woman who may not even know they are looking at her and might be clueless as to what thoughts are happening inside them...... ....... ..

I don't know if you've actually read my posts word for word, but I have basically stated the same things you articulate.
As to extreme views, I think it extreme to believe that a woman has NO responsibility, ever for the way she might dress.
But, that's just me and a few others and we can agree to disagree, but that is exactly what/how I believe.

 

[subllibrm]

<snip> As to extreme views, I think it extreme to believe that a woman has NO responsibility, ever for the way she might dress.

Pretty much.

In my mind, the argument is not about having lines as much as about where they are.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Men are visual creatures.  God made us that way, so it's the woman's fault when we see too much of what excites us.

 

[ALAYMAN]

...but i also do not believe in this concept that is continually thrown around here, implying men are the ones who should determine whether a woman met that responsibility to dress appropriately or not......  .... ... and since even among the men who believe they should determine what;s appropriate ...no two of them can agree with each other on what that actually means.......i have no problem rejecting the concept entirely...... 8)

The article in the OP was from a woman, not a man.  I liken her sensitivity to the same sort of argument we often have on the FFF about the freebirds who like to flaunt their liberty.  There's no Bible verse that says that "thou shalt not wear form-fitting clothing that accentuates the body parts men tend to focus on", but a sensitive sister (or brother, as it goes both ways to a large extent) will at least consider how their behavior shapes the thinking and behavior of those around them.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

... but a sensitive sister (or brother, as it goes both ways to a large extent) will at least consider how their behavior shapes the thinking and behavior of those around them.

Which is why you will never see me in a Green Bay Packers jersey!