Modesty, yoga pants and myths.

[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?

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.

Yes there is immodest dress.

Simply put it is dressing for the occassion or not over dressing (as in wearing over expensive clothing).

When I go to the beach I wear shorts, shirt and Sperry's. When I go swimming the shirt and Sperry's come off.  I think wearing shorts, shirt and Sperry's is modest or appropriate for the beach.

One could wear a three piece suit to the beach and they would be immodestly dressed.

Also wearing $775 Armani shorts or  Thom Browne?s seersucker man-skorts at $1,495, would be immodest too.

Why then do you have dress guidelines for your children's home?
So that they don't overdress?
And, you have no standard or preference as to how your wife would dress in public? Your Pastor has no standard for the Christian School?
Are your uniform choices a mini dress and halter top?
You have NO standard as to modest dress apart from flaunting ones wealth?
You think a prostitute wearing gaudy gold earrings is the current attire of a harlot?

Do you think there is a sin that a Christian can commit, at all?

You don't read very well so let me 'splain it again to you Lucy.

To dress modestly means appropriate for the occasion. This means that when the Children's Home goes to a fundamentalist type church (think Tom Brennan) we would dress appropriately for that church. The girls would wear long dresess or skirts with nice tops. The boys would wear dress shirts and pants (some with ties). I would wear a suit or sportcoat with a tie.

If we went to a contemporary church (think Billy Grooms) my girls would wear jeans and an appropriate top while my boys wore jeans or khakis with polo or t-shirt. I would wear a polo with Children's Home logo and casual or jeans.

For us to not dress modestly or appropriately it would be sin (I said that before but you must have missed it, maybe some remedial reading is in order ).

Now as far as suits go the $10,000 Armani are immodest but the Jos A Bank would not be (especially on sale).

If you would like to define modest/immodest I would love to read it.

As far as the attire of a harlot goes please explain in the context of Jewish culture.

Explain to me the dress code you have, other than attending all the church services, for the ladies. You do have standards of dress for them. And I'm sure you and your wife also have a standard of dress.
Do the teen girls wear Daisy Duke shorts?
Do they wear mini dresses and halter tops for casual outings?

Of course they don't and rightfully so....and you have a standard of dress for students and staff at your  Christian school.

The attire of a harlot is different in each culture, but the point is prostututes dress to 'allure or entice' to put it in KJV Proverbs language. As do porn stars in this culture.
This isn't rocket science, just common sense....which isn't so common among some people, I guess.

Lust is sin
Each man or woman is responsible for their own sin.


Most Christians confess their sins to restore right relationship with God.
Others don't feel the need....

You know, like confessing the sin of wearing a suit to the beach.....

Since it isn't rocket science and so much common for you, would you care to take a stab at defining modest/immodest I would love to read it.

My dress code for work (at the Children's Home and at the church) is shorts, t-shirt or polo and Sperry's with no socks. I wear that about 95% of the time. The other 5% I wear dress pants or casual dress pants with a polo or dress shirt (normally with the Children's Home logo on it) with socks and dresss shoes.

My dress code for church is Sunday AM suit or sportcoat with a tie. Sunday PM no tie or sportcoat and Wednesday night casual dress pants and polo shirt. I would prefer to wear what I wear 95% of the time to church but I don't want to offend folks so I dress appropriately.

I am sure all that sin you confess comes from within and not from without.

 

[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.

Yes there is immodest dress.

Simply put it is dressing for the occassion or not over dressing (as in wearing over expensive clothing).

When I go to the beach I wear shorts, shirt and Sperry's. When I go swimming the shirt and Sperry's come off.  I think wearing shorts, shirt and Sperry's is modest or appropriate for the beach.

One could wear a three piece suit to the beach and they would be immodestly dressed.

Also wearing $775 Armani shorts or  Thom Browne?s seersucker man-skorts at $1,495, would be immodest too.

Why then do you have dress guidelines for your children's home?
So that they don't overdress?
And, you have no standard or preference as to how your wife would dress in public? Your Pastor has no standard for the Christian School?
Are your uniform choices a mini dress and halter top?
You have NO standard as to modest dress apart from flaunting ones wealth?
You think a prostitute wearing gaudy gold earrings is the current attire of a harlot?

Do you think there is a sin that a Christian can commit, at all?

You don't read very well so let me 'splain it again to you Lucy.

To dress modestly means appropriate for the occasion. This means that when the Children's Home goes to a fundamentalist type church (think Tom Brennan) we would dress appropriately for that church. The girls would wear long dresess or skirts with nice tops. The boys would wear dress shirts and pants (some with ties). I would wear a suit or sportcoat with a tie.

If we went to a contemporary church (think Billy Grooms) my girls would wear jeans and an appropriate top while my boys wore jeans or khakis with polo or t-shirt. I would wear a polo with Children's Home logo and casual or jeans.

For us to not dress modestly or appropriately it would be sin (I said that before but you must have missed it, maybe some remedial reading is in order ).

Now as far as suits go the $10,000 Armani are immodest but the Jos A Bank would not be (especially on sale).

If you would like to define modest/immodest I would love to read it.

As far as the attire of a harlot goes please explain in the context of Jewish culture.

Explain to me the dress code you have, other than attending all the church services, for the ladies. You do have standards of dress for them. And I'm sure you and your wife also have a standard of dress.
Do the teen girls wear Daisy Duke shorts?
Do they wear mini dresses and halter tops for casual outings?

Of course they don't and rightfully so....and you have a standard of dress for students and staff at your  Christian school.

The attire of a harlot is different in each culture, but the point is prostututes dress to 'allure or entice' to put it in KJV Proverbs language. As do porn stars in this culture.
This isn't rocket science, just common sense....which isn't so common among some people, I guess.

Lust is sin
Each man or woman is responsible for their own sin.


Most Christians confess their sins to restore right relationship with God.
Others don't feel the need....

You know, like confessing the sin of wearing a suit to the beach.....

Since it isn't rocket science and so much common for you, would you care to take a stab at defining modest/immodest I would love to read it.

My dress code for work (at the Children's Home and at the church) is shorts, t-shirt or polo and Sperry's with no socks. I wear that about 95% of the time. The other 5% I wear dress pants or casual dress pants with a polo or dress shirt (normally with the Children's Home logo on it) with socks and dresss shoes.

My dress code for church is Sunday AM suit or sportcoat with a tie. Sunday PM no tie or sportcoat and Wednesday night casual dress pants and polo shirt. I would prefer to wear what I wear 95% of the time to church but I don't want to offend folks so I dress appropriately.

I am sure all that sin you confess comes from within and not from without.

You continue to dodge:
According to what I have read, you do have dress standards for the children/teens in your children's home. Are they allowed to wear, for instance, 'Daisy Duke' shorts and halter tops for social activities? Of course not and rightfully so. Your Christian School also has dress standards for students and staff, and rightfully so. Not legalism, common sense.

Even you have it...or its at least mandated for you...by those with common sense.

 

[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?

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.

Yes there is immodest dress.

Simply put it is dressing for the occassion or not over dressing (as in wearing over expensive clothing).

When I go to the beach I wear shorts, shirt and Sperry's. When I go swimming the shirt and Sperry's come off.  I think wearing shorts, shirt and Sperry's is modest or appropriate for the beach.

One could wear a three piece suit to the beach and they would be immodestly dressed.

Also wearing $775 Armani shorts or  Thom Browne?s seersucker man-skorts at $1,495, would be immodest too.

Why then do you have dress guidelines for your children's home?
So that they don't overdress?
And, you have no standard or preference as to how your wife would dress in public? Your Pastor has no standard for the Christian School?
Are your uniform choices a mini dress and halter top?
You have NO standard as to modest dress apart from flaunting ones wealth?
You think a prostitute wearing gaudy gold earrings is the current attire of a harlot?

Do you think there is a sin that a Christian can commit, at all?

You don't read very well so let me 'splain it again to you Lucy.

To dress modestly means appropriate for the occasion. This means that when the Children's Home goes to a fundamentalist type church (think Tom Brennan) we would dress appropriately for that church. The girls would wear long dresess or skirts with nice tops. The boys would wear dress shirts and pants (some with ties). I would wear a suit or sportcoat with a tie.

If we went to a contemporary church (think Billy Grooms) my girls would wear jeans and an appropriate top while my boys wore jeans or khakis with polo or t-shirt. I would wear a polo with Children's Home logo and casual or jeans.

For us to not dress modestly or appropriately it would be sin (I said that before but you must have missed it, maybe some remedial reading is in order ).

Now as far as suits go the $10,000 Armani are immodest but the Jos A Bank would not be (especially on sale).

If you would like to define modest/immodest I would love to read it.

As far as the attire of a harlot goes please explain in the context of Jewish culture.

Explain to me the dress code you have, other than attending all the church services, for the ladies. You do have standards of dress for them. And I'm sure you and your wife also have a standard of dress.
Do the teen girls wear Daisy Duke shorts?
Do they wear mini dresses and halter tops for casual outings?

Of course they don't and rightfully so....and you have a standard of dress for students and staff at your  Christian school.

The attire of a harlot is different in each culture, but the point is prostututes dress to 'allure or entice' to put it in KJV Proverbs language. As do porn stars in this culture.
This isn't rocket science, just common sense....which isn't so common among some people, I guess.

Lust is sin
Each man or woman is responsible for their own sin.


Most Christians confess their sins to restore right relationship with God.
Others don't feel the need....

You know, like confessing the sin of wearing a suit to the beach.....

Since it isn't rocket science and so much common for you, would you care to take a stab at defining modest/immodest I would love to read it.

My dress code for work (at the Children's Home and at the church) is shorts, t-shirt or polo and Sperry's with no socks. I wear that about 95% of the time. The other 5% I wear dress pants or casual dress pants with a polo or dress shirt (normally with the Children's Home logo on it) with socks and dresss shoes.

My dress code for church is Sunday AM suit or sportcoat with a tie. Sunday PM no tie or sportcoat and Wednesday night casual dress pants and polo shirt. I would prefer to wear what I wear 95% of the time to church but I don't want to offend folks so I dress appropriately.

I am sure all that sin you confess comes from within and not from without.

You continue to dodge:
According to what I have read, you do have dress standards for the children/teens in your children's home. Are they allowed to wear, for instance, 'Daisy Duke' shorts and halter tops for social activities? Of course not and rightfully so. Your Christian School also has dress standards for students and staff, and rightfully so. Not legalism, common sense.

Even you have it...or its at least mandated for you...by those with common sense.

Speaking of dodging...

Since it isn't rocket science and so much common for you, would you care to take a stab at defining modest/immodest I would love to read it.

I've defined modest/immodest but have yet to see you post your definition on it.

But on a side note I have had many a Pharisee comment on the girls in the home dress (they thought it wasn't modest enough). Same folks who never put into the girls or talk to the girls or offer to take them shopping but have all the answers for them. Their own kids and grandkids is a whole different story.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Modesty definitions are subjective.  There, I stated the obvious.  Having said that, Tarheel has an obvious point.  Daisy Dukes for a girl/woman ain't modest and I'll go on record with common sense Christianity on that matter.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I wore "daisy dukes" (cutoff jeans) most of my teenage life.  It was a good way to keep using a pair of jeans that were too worn out around the knees (jeans with tears and open knees weren't in style then).  They weren't as short as daisy dukes, but they were short enough. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Modesty definitions are subjective.  There, I stated the obvious. 

took you long enough......  8)

Having said that, Tarheel has an obvious point.  Daisy Dukes for a girl/woman ain't modest and I'll go on record with common sense Christianity on that matter.

and ya know what?....... i actually had to look that up..... and guess what i found out.......  ???.... ... there is actually a version of daisy duke shorts for men..... they are the original version of those shorts that have been around since world war 2....... ... they are called utd shorts.......or... (underwater demolition team shorts... )...

they are cut in a very similar way to what you call daisy dukes....... and they even make a version cut for women....( which i often wear to the archery range coz they have pockets and i need pockets when i;m there) .... .....  the term daisy duke is an old slang phrase which came from a television show..... (but i am certain none of you ever watched it........ right?.....  :) ......

but long before i knew what the alternate name for these shorts for ..... and actually started wearing them myself..... i saw navy seals wearing them on ford island at pearl harbor.. and i can guarantee you a whole lot more was hanging out of theirs than is even possible to hang out of mine........  :-\

so tell me great stator of the obvious ........... why are these "daisy dukes"... immodest for girls/women ... and not immodest for men?........ ......  8)

I don't know if other people in this thread have said that modesty is a one-way street for women only, but if you read back through my posts (which I think totals either three, or four now) you'll find that I have stated that both sexes are potentially guilty of immodesty.  If, as you alluded to, genitalia is viewable I'd say common sense ought to take over, and if butt cheeks can be easily viewed, ditto that.  No sense in making things like that complicated.

 

[brianb]

This is the kind of reasoning I've been seeing in this thread:

It is a sin to commit murder, but we must also acknowledge that a woman is responsible for how she dresses.

i think it was also established.... from the picture you posted.....  that
if you are morbidly obese or you don;t look particularly appealing to
the men of the culture at hand..... then you can pretty much wear
whatever you want..... .... and nobody will say anything.......






but there is another way to keep them quiet...........  8)

That looks like one of those gay test pictures. I didn't notice the rifle until after I looked at the photo the second time.  Lol.

 

[brianb]

It all started when they took out the King James Bibles out  of the schools, now we are seeing the destructive behavior of yoga pants and what it had done for our society now. Men are now gazing at wimmins bottoms now! Because men have never done that before until these ungodly yoga pants came about!!

What's the point them saying women shouldn't wear yoga pants when they already forbid pants? Really this issue is more in the broader evangelical camp not the Hyles type crowd. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

so then i;m guessing it might take more than one look at
this picture to notice the expensive designer bag and
keys to a range rover on the bench in front of the lockers?......  ??? .

Actually, what I find most attractive in that picture is the hair.  That's where my eyes focused first. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Modesty definitions are subjective.  There, I stated the obvious. 

took you long enough......  8)

Having said that, Tarheel has an obvious point.  Daisy Dukes for a girl/woman ain't modest and I'll go on record with common sense Christianity on that matter.

and ya know what?....... i actually had to look that up..... and guess what i found out.......  ???.... ... there is actually a version of daisy duke shorts for men..... they are the original version of those shorts that have been around since world war 2....... ... they are called utd shorts.......or... (underwater demolition team shorts... )...

they are cut in a very similar way to what you call daisy dukes....... and they even make a version cut for women....( which i often wear to the archery range coz they have pockets and i need pockets when i;m there) .... .....  the term daisy duke is an old slang phrase which came from a television show..... (but i am certain none of you ever watched it........ right?.....  :) ......

but long before i knew what the alternate name for these shorts for ..... and actually started wearing them myself..... i saw navy seals wearing them on ford island at pearl harbor.. and i can guarantee you a whole lot more was hanging out of theirs than is even possible to hang out of mine........  :-\

so tell me great stator of the obvious ........... why are these "daisy dukes"... immodest for girls/women ... and not immodest for men?........ ......  8)

To piggyback on aleshanee's post, were the ABA and NBA players being immodest when they dressed like this in the 70s?

 

[HeDied4U]

This is the kind of reasoning I've been seeing in this thread:

It is a sin to commit murder, but we must also acknowledge that a woman is responsible for how she dresses.

i think it was also established.... from the picture you posted.....  that
if you are morbidly obese or you don;t look particularly appealing to
the men of the culture at hand..... then you can pretty much wear
whatever you want..... .... and nobody will say anything.......






but there is another way to keep them quiet...........  8)

That looks like one of those gay test pictures. I didn't notice the rifle until after I looked at the photo the second time.  Lol.

so then i;m guessing it might take more than one look at
this picture to notice the expensive designer bag and
keys to a range rover on the bench in front of the lockers?......  ??? .

There were lockers??

 

[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.

Yes there is immodest dress.

Simply put it is dressing for the occassion or not over dressing (as in wearing over expensive clothing).

When I go to the beach I wear shorts, shirt and Sperry's. When I go swimming the shirt and Sperry's come off.  I think wearing shorts, shirt and Sperry's is modest or appropriate for the beach.

One could wear a three piece suit to the beach and they would be immodestly dressed.

Also wearing $775 Armani shorts or  Thom Browne?s seersucker man-skorts at $1,495, would be immodest too.

Why then do you have dress guidelines for your children's home?
So that they don't overdress?
And, you have no standard or preference as to how your wife would dress in public? Your Pastor has no standard for the Christian School?
Are your uniform choices a mini dress and halter top?
You have NO standard as to modest dress apart from flaunting ones wealth?
You think a prostitute wearing gaudy gold earrings is the current attire of a harlot?

Do you think there is a sin that a Christian can commit, at all?

You don't read very well so let me 'splain it again to you Lucy.

To dress modestly means appropriate for the occasion. This means that when the Children's Home goes to a fundamentalist type church (think Tom Brennan) we would dress appropriately for that church. The girls would wear long dresess or skirts with nice tops. The boys would wear dress shirts and pants (some with ties). I would wear a suit or sportcoat with a tie.

If we went to a contemporary church (think Billy Grooms) my girls would wear jeans and an appropriate top while my boys wore jeans or khakis with polo or t-shirt. I would wear a polo with Children's Home logo and casual or jeans.

For us to not dress modestly or appropriately it would be sin (I said that before but you must have missed it, maybe some remedial reading is in order ).

Now as far as suits go the $10,000 Armani are immodest but the Jos A Bank would not be (especially on sale).

If you would like to define modest/immodest I would love to read it.

As far as the attire of a harlot goes please explain in the context of Jewish culture.

Explain to me the dress code you have, other than attending all the church services, for the ladies. You do have standards of dress for them. And I'm sure you and your wife also have a standard of dress.
Do the teen girls wear Daisy Duke shorts?
Do they wear mini dresses and halter tops for casual outings?

Of course they don't and rightfully so....and you have a standard of dress for students and staff at your  Christian school.

The attire of a harlot is different in each culture, but the point is prostututes dress to 'allure or entice' to put it in KJV Proverbs language. As do porn stars in this culture.
This isn't rocket science, just common sense....which isn't so common among some people, I guess.

Lust is sin
Each man or woman is responsible for their own sin.


Most Christians confess their sins to restore right relationship with God.
Others don't feel the need....

You know, like confessing the sin of wearing a suit to the beach.....

Since it isn't rocket science and so much common for you, would you care to take a stab at defining modest/immodest I would love to read it.

My dress code for work (at the Children's Home and at the church) is shorts, t-shirt or polo and Sperry's with no socks. I wear that about 95% of the time. The other 5% I wear dress pants or casual dress pants with a polo or dress shirt (normally with the Children's Home logo on it) with socks and dresss shoes.

My dress code for church is Sunday AM suit or sportcoat with a tie. Sunday PM no tie or sportcoat and Wednesday night casual dress pants and polo shirt. I would prefer to wear what I wear 95% of the time to church but I don't want to offend folks so I dress appropriately.

I am sure all that sin you confess comes from within and not from without.

You continue to dodge:
According to what I have read, you do have dress standards for the children/teens in your children's home. Are they allowed to wear, for instance, 'Daisy Duke' shorts and halter tops for social activities? Of course not and rightfully so. Your Christian School also has dress standards for students and staff, and rightfully so. Not legalism, common sense.

Even you have it...or its at least mandated for you...by those with common sense.

Speaking of dodging...

Since it isn't rocket science and so much common for you, would you care to take a stab at defining modest/immodest I would love to read it.

I've defined modest/immodest but have yet to see you post your definition on it.

But on a side note I have had many a Pharisee comment on the girls in the home dress (they thought it wasn't modest enough). Same folks who never put into the girls or talk to the girls or offer to take them shopping but have all the answers for them. Their own kids and grandkids is a whole different story.

You dodge the question because you have subjective standards for the girls in the home. You would not allow the teen girls to go on a date or cocial outing wearing Daisy Duke shorts and a halter top! And rightfully so...
You have subjective standards for students and staff at your Christian school.
You therefore define acceptable....it's not anything goes.
Not legalism, common sense.
So, you do believe there is a 'line' or at least someone in your ministry does.

And, I am not proposing a universal standard of 'modesty' I'm simply saying that everyone has one. Let every man be satisfied in his own mind because everyone will give an account of himself to God.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

It all started when they took out the King James Bibles out  of the schools, now we are seeing the destructive behavior of yoga pants and what it had done for our society now. Men are now gazing at wimmins bottoms now! Because men have never done that before until these ungodly yoga pants came about!!

What's the point them saying women shouldn't wear yoga pants when they already forbid pants? Really this issue is more in the broader evangelical camp not the Hyles type crowd.

But the evangelical view doesn't fit their narrative.....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Modesty definitions are subjective.  There, I stated the obvious. 

took you long enough......  8)

Having said that, Tarheel has an obvious point.  Daisy Dukes for a girl/woman ain't modest and I'll go on record with common sense Christianity on that matter.

and ya know what?....... i actually had to look that up..... and guess what i found out.......  ???.... ... there is actually a version of daisy duke shorts for men..... they are the original version of those shorts that have been around since world war 2....... ... they are called utd shorts.......or... (underwater demolition team shorts... )...

they are cut in a very similar way to what you call daisy dukes....... and they even make a version cut for women....( which i often wear to the archery range coz they have pockets and i need pockets when i;m there) .... .....  the term daisy duke is an old slang phrase which came from a television show..... (but i am certain none of you ever watched it........ right?.....  :) ......

but long before i knew what the alternate name for these shorts for ..... and actually started wearing them myself..... i saw navy seals wearing them on ford island at pearl harbor.. and i can guarantee you a whole lot more was hanging out of theirs than is even possible to hang out of mine........  :-\

so tell me great stator of the obvious ........... why are these "daisy dukes"... immodest for girls/women ... and not immodest for men?........ ......  8)

To piggyback on aleshanee's post, were the ABA and NBA players being immodest when they dressed like this in the 70s?

If those basketball pix caused you to lust, you may have other issues....

 

[ALAYMAN]

took you long enough......  8)
ok... fair enough......

is there anything in scripture that said the attire of a roman soldier was immodest?

where is it specifically addressed in the bible?.....

There are inferences to be made from passages dealing with "nakedness", but any hard and fast rules leads to a subjective standard that trends towards legalism.  It's up to the individual to do as Tarheel said, make their own mind up based on a variety of factors.  All I know is that the problem of people doing sex the wrong way is old as the Good Book, and I'll err on the side of caution on this subject because of the many indicators that point to the fact that the more skin that shows generally leads to an incitement to lust.

 

[ALAYMAN]

To piggyback on aleshanee's post, were the ABA and NBA players being immodest when they dressed like this in the 70s?

Absolutely.


No self respecting man should be caught anywhere, indoors or out, with a FRO!

 

[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?

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.

Yes there is immodest dress.

Simply put it is dressing for the occassion or not over dressing (as in wearing over expensive clothing).

When I go to the beach I wear shorts, shirt and Sperry's. When I go swimming the shirt and Sperry's come off.  I think wearing shorts, shirt and Sperry's is modest or appropriate for the beach.

One could wear a three piece suit to the beach and they would be immodestly dressed.

Also wearing $775 Armani shorts or  Thom Browne?s seersucker man-skorts at $1,495, would be immodest too.

Why then do you have dress guidelines for your children's home?
So that they don't overdress?
And, you have no standard or preference as to how your wife would dress in public? Your Pastor has no standard for the Christian School?
Are your uniform choices a mini dress and halter top?
You have NO standard as to modest dress apart from flaunting ones wealth?
You think a prostitute wearing gaudy gold earrings is the current attire of a harlot?

Do you think there is a sin that a Christian can commit, at all?

You don't read very well so let me 'splain it again to you Lucy.

To dress modestly means appropriate for the occasion. This means that when the Children's Home goes to a fundamentalist type church (think Tom Brennan) we would dress appropriately for that church. The girls would wear long dresess or skirts with nice tops. The boys would wear dress shirts and pants (some with ties). I would wear a suit or sportcoat with a tie.

If we went to a contemporary church (think Billy Grooms) my girls would wear jeans and an appropriate top while my boys wore jeans or khakis with polo or t-shirt. I would wear a polo with Children's Home logo and casual or jeans.

For us to not dress modestly or appropriately it would be sin (I said that before but you must have missed it, maybe some remedial reading is in order ).

Now as far as suits go the $10,000 Armani are immodest but the Jos A Bank would not be (especially on sale).

If you would like to define modest/immodest I would love to read it.

As far as the attire of a harlot goes please explain in the context of Jewish culture.

Explain to me the dress code you have, other than attending all the church services, for the ladies. You do have standards of dress for them. And I'm sure you and your wife also have a standard of dress.
Do the teen girls wear Daisy Duke shorts?
Do they wear mini dresses and halter tops for casual outings?

Of course they don't and rightfully so....and you have a standard of dress for students and staff at your  Christian school.

The attire of a harlot is different in each culture, but the point is prostututes dress to 'allure or entice' to put it in KJV Proverbs language. As do porn stars in this culture.
This isn't rocket science, just common sense....which isn't so common among some people, I guess.

Lust is sin
Each man or woman is responsible for their own sin.


Most Christians confess their sins to restore right relationship with God.
Others don't feel the need....

You know, like confessing the sin of wearing a suit to the beach.....

Since it isn't rocket science and so much common for you, would you care to take a stab at defining modest/immodest I would love to read it.

My dress code for work (at the Children's Home and at the church) is shorts, t-shirt or polo and Sperry's with no socks. I wear that about 95% of the time. The other 5% I wear dress pants or casual dress pants with a polo or dress shirt (normally with the Children's Home logo on it) with socks and dresss shoes.

My dress code for church is Sunday AM suit or sportcoat with a tie. Sunday PM no tie or sportcoat and Wednesday night casual dress pants and polo shirt. I would prefer to wear what I wear 95% of the time to church but I don't want to offend folks so I dress appropriately.

I am sure all that sin you confess comes from within and not from without.

You continue to dodge:
According to what I have read, you do have dress standards for the children/teens in your children's home. Are they allowed to wear, for instance, 'Daisy Duke' shorts and halter tops for social activities? Of course not and rightfully so. Your Christian School also has dress standards for students and staff, and rightfully so. Not legalism, common sense.

Even you have it...or its at least mandated for you...by those with common sense.

Speaking of dodging...

Since it isn't rocket science and so much common for you, would you care to take a stab at defining modest/immodest I would love to read it.

I've defined modest/immodest but have yet to see you post your definition on it.

But on a side note I have had many a Pharisee comment on the girls in the home dress (they thought it wasn't modest enough). Same folks who never put into the girls or talk to the girls or offer to take them shopping but have all the answers for them. Their own kids and grandkids is a whole different story.

You dodge the question because you have subjective standards for the girls in the home. You would not allow the teen girls to go on a date or cocial outing wearing Daisy Duke shorts and a halter top! And rightfully so...
You have subjective standards for students and staff at your Christian school.
You therefore define acceptable....it's not anything goes.
Not legalism, common sense.
So, you do believe there is a 'line' or at least someone in your ministry does.

And, I am not proposing a universal standard of 'modesty' I'm simply saying that everyone has one. Let every man be satisfied in his own mind because everyone will give an account of himself to God.

Lets see if we can clear up some of your "common sense" misconceptions.

I don't have a Christian school nor do I set policy in that Christian school.

What are the dress standards I have for the girls in the home? You keep asserting I have them. Please list them for me.

You say there is not a "universal standard" yet the girls not wearing daisy dukes "is rightfully so". Sounds like you just set a universal standard to me.  Of course if they believed that it was right in their own mind to wear them (the daisy dukes), then we should let them according to your "common sense" approach. Would that be correct?

Of couse you continue to avoid answering and defining modest/immodest according to the Scriptures. Come on take a shot at it. Unless the "common sense" approach you advocate of every man "doing that which is right in his own mind" is a good biblical position to take on modesty.

 

[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.

Yes there is immodest dress.

Simply put it is dressing for the occassion or not over dressing (as in wearing over expensive clothing).

When I go to the beach I wear shorts, shirt and Sperry's. When I go swimming the shirt and Sperry's come off.  I think wearing shorts, shirt and Sperry's is modest or appropriate for the beach.

One could wear a three piece suit to the beach and they would be immodestly dressed.

Also wearing $775 Armani shorts or  Thom Browne?s seersucker man-skorts at $1,495, would be immodest too.

Why then do you have dress guidelines for your children's home?
So that they don't overdress?
And, you have no standard or preference as to how your wife would dress in public? Your Pastor has no standard for the Christian School?
Are your uniform choices a mini dress and halter top?
You have NO standard as to modest dress apart from flaunting ones wealth?
You think a prostitute wearing gaudy gold earrings is the current attire of a harlot?

Do you think there is a sin that a Christian can commit, at all?

You don't read very well so let me 'splain it again to you Lucy.

To dress modestly means appropriate for the occasion. This means that when the Children's Home goes to a fundamentalist type church (think Tom Brennan) we would dress appropriately for that church. The girls would wear long dresess or skirts with nice tops. The boys would wear dress shirts and pants (some with ties). I would wear a suit or sportcoat with a tie.

If we went to a contemporary church (think Billy Grooms) my girls would wear jeans and an appropriate top while my boys wore jeans or khakis with polo or t-shirt. I would wear a polo with Children's Home logo and casual or jeans.

For us to not dress modestly or appropriately it would be sin (I said that before but you must have missed it, maybe some remedial reading is in order ).

Now as far as suits go the $10,000 Armani are immodest but the Jos A Bank would not be (especially on sale).

If you would like to define modest/immodest I would love to read it.

As far as the attire of a harlot goes please explain in the context of Jewish culture.

Explain to me the dress code you have, other than attending all the church services, for the ladies. You do have standards of dress for them. And I'm sure you and your wife also have a standard of dress.
Do the teen girls wear Daisy Duke shorts?
Do they wear mini dresses and halter tops for casual outings?

Of course they don't and rightfully so....and you have a standard of dress for students and staff at your  Christian school.

The attire of a harlot is different in each culture, but the point is prostututes dress to 'allure or entice' to put it in KJV Proverbs language. As do porn stars in this culture.
This isn't rocket science, just common sense....which isn't so common among some people, I guess.

Lust is sin
Each man or woman is responsible for their own sin.


Most Christians confess their sins to restore right relationship with God.
Others don't feel the need....

You know, like confessing the sin of wearing a suit to the beach.....

Since it isn't rocket science and so much common for you, would you care to take a stab at defining modest/immodest I would love to read it.

My dress code for work (at the Children's Home and at the church) is shorts, t-shirt or polo and Sperry's with no socks. I wear that about 95% of the time. The other 5% I wear dress pants or casual dress pants with a polo or dress shirt (normally with the Children's Home logo on it) with socks and dresss shoes.

My dress code for church is Sunday AM suit or sportcoat with a tie. Sunday PM no tie or sportcoat and Wednesday night casual dress pants and polo shirt. I would prefer to wear what I wear 95% of the time to church but I don't want to offend folks so I dress appropriately.

I am sure all that sin you confess comes from within and not from without.

You continue to dodge:
According to what I have read, you do have dress standards for the children/teens in your children's home. Are they allowed to wear, for instance, 'Daisy Duke' shorts and halter tops for social activities? Of course not and rightfully so. Your Christian School also has dress standards for students and staff, and rightfully so. Not legalism, common sense.

Even you have it...or its at least mandated for you...by those with common sense.

Speaking of dodging...

Since it isn't rocket science and so much common for you, would you care to take a stab at defining modest/immodest I would love to read it.

I've defined modest/immodest but have yet to see you post your definition on it.

But on a side note I have had many a Pharisee comment on the girls in the home dress (they thought it wasn't modest enough). Same folks who never put into the girls or talk to the girls or offer to take them shopping but have all the answers for them. Their own kids and grandkids is a whole different story.

You dodge the question because you have subjective standards for the girls in the home. You would not allow the teen girls to go on a date or cocial outing wearing Daisy Duke shorts and a halter top! And rightfully so...
You have subjective standards for students and staff at your Christian school.
You therefore define acceptable....it's not anything goes.
Not legalism, common sense.
So, you do believe there is a 'line' or at least someone in your ministry does.

And, I am not proposing a universal standard of 'modesty' I'm simply saying that everyone has one. Let every man be satisfied in his own mind because everyone will give an account of himself to God.

Lets see if we can clear up some of your "common sense" misconceptions.

I don't have a Christian school nor do I set policy in that Christian school.

What are the dress standards I have for the girls in the home? You keep asserting I have them. Please list them for me.

You say there is not a "universal standard" yet the girls not wearing daisy dukes "is rightfully so". Sounds like you just set a universal standard to me.  Of course if they believed that it was right in their own mind to wear them (the daisy dukes), then we should let them according to your "common sense" approach. Would that be correct?

Of couse you continue to avoid answering and defining modest/immodest according to the Scriptures. Come on take a shot at it. Unless the "common sense" approach you advocate of every man "doing that which is right in his own mind" is a good biblical position to take on modesty.

You are a fundy Clinton in parsing your words.
Rightfully so, means that the standard you or someone above you HAS SET for your home was within your right and responsibility to set.
The church that sponsors your home also has a Christian school. But you know that, didn't you Bill?

I stated in my last post, that you didn't read because you were too busy parsing your next post, that Every man or woman should be satisfied in his or her own mind as to their standards because every man/woman will give an account of themselves to God.

Now, IF you have NO standards, guidelines or convictions as to dress for the teen girls under your care, your church family and many doners will be shocked!
But you do....and rightfully so! You absolutely would NOT allow a teen girl at the home to wear Daisy Dukes and a halter on a date...and rightfully so!

I'm not voting for Hillary, though!
Because I have standards.

 

[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?

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.

Yes there is immodest dress.

Simply put it is dressing for the occassion or not over dressing (as in wearing over expensive clothing).

When I go to the beach I wear shorts, shirt and Sperry's. When I go swimming the shirt and Sperry's come off.  I think wearing shorts, shirt and Sperry's is modest or appropriate for the beach.

One could wear a three piece suit to the beach and they would be immodestly dressed.

Also wearing $775 Armani shorts or  Thom Browne?s seersucker man-skorts at $1,495, would be immodest too.

Why then do you have dress guidelines for your children's home?
So that they don't overdress?
And, you have no standard or preference as to how your wife would dress in public? Your Pastor has no standard for the Christian School?
Are your uniform choices a mini dress and halter top?
You have NO standard as to modest dress apart from flaunting ones wealth?
You think a prostitute wearing gaudy gold earrings is the current attire of a harlot?

Do you think there is a sin that a Christian can commit, at all?

You don't read very well so let me 'splain it again to you Lucy.

To dress modestly means appropriate for the occasion. This means that when the Children's Home goes to a fundamentalist type church (think Tom Brennan) we would dress appropriately for that church. The girls would wear long dresess or skirts with nice tops. The boys would wear dress shirts and pants (some with ties). I would wear a suit or sportcoat with a tie.

If we went to a contemporary church (think Billy Grooms) my girls would wear jeans and an appropriate top while my boys wore jeans or khakis with polo or t-shirt. I would wear a polo with Children's Home logo and casual or jeans.

For us to not dress modestly or appropriately it would be sin (I said that before but you must have missed it, maybe some remedial reading is in order ).

Now as far as suits go the $10,000 Armani are immodest but the Jos A Bank would not be (especially on sale).

If you would like to define modest/immodest I would love to read it.

As far as the attire of a harlot goes please explain in the context of Jewish culture.

Explain to me the dress code you have, other than attending all the church services, for the ladies. You do have standards of dress for them. And I'm sure you and your wife also have a standard of dress.
Do the teen girls wear Daisy Duke shorts?
Do they wear mini dresses and halter tops for casual outings?

Of course they don't and rightfully so....and you have a standard of dress for students and staff at your  Christian school.

The attire of a harlot is different in each culture, but the point is prostututes dress to 'allure or entice' to put it in KJV Proverbs language. As do porn stars in this culture.
This isn't rocket science, just common sense....which isn't so common among some people, I guess.

Lust is sin
Each man or woman is responsible for their own sin.


Most Christians confess their sins to restore right relationship with God.
Others don't feel the need....

You know, like confessing the sin of wearing a suit to the beach.....

Since it isn't rocket science and so much common for you, would you care to take a stab at defining modest/immodest I would love to read it.

My dress code for work (at the Children's Home and at the church) is shorts, t-shirt or polo and Sperry's with no socks. I wear that about 95% of the time. The other 5% I wear dress pants or casual dress pants with a polo or dress shirt (normally with the Children's Home logo on it) with socks and dresss shoes.

My dress code for church is Sunday AM suit or sportcoat with a tie. Sunday PM no tie or sportcoat and Wednesday night casual dress pants and polo shirt. I would prefer to wear what I wear 95% of the time to church but I don't want to offend folks so I dress appropriately.

I am sure all that sin you confess comes from within and not from without.

You continue to dodge:
According to what I have read, you do have dress standards for the children/teens in your children's home. Are they allowed to wear, for instance, 'Daisy Duke' shorts and halter tops for social activities? Of course not and rightfully so. Your Christian School also has dress standards for students and staff, and rightfully so. Not legalism, common sense.

Even you have it...or its at least mandated for you...by those with common sense.

Speaking of dodging...

Since it isn't rocket science and so much common for you, would you care to take a stab at defining modest/immodest I would love to read it.

I've defined modest/immodest but have yet to see you post your definition on it.

But on a side note I have had many a Pharisee comment on the girls in the home dress (they thought it wasn't modest enough). Same folks who never put into the girls or talk to the girls or offer to take them shopping but have all the answers for them. Their own kids and grandkids is a whole different story.

You dodge the question because you have subjective standards for the girls in the home. You would not allow the teen girls to go on a date or cocial outing wearing Daisy Duke shorts and a halter top! And rightfully so...
You have subjective standards for students and staff at your Christian school.
You therefore define acceptable....it's not anything goes.
Not legalism, common sense.
So, you do believe there is a 'line' or at least someone in your ministry does.

And, I am not proposing a universal standard of 'modesty' I'm simply saying that everyone has one. Let every man be satisfied in his own mind because everyone will give an account of himself to God.

Lets see if we can clear up some of your "common sense" misconceptions.

I don't have a Christian school nor do I set policy in that Christian school.

What are the dress standards I have for the girls in the home? You keep asserting I have them. Please list them for me.

You say there is not a "universal standard" yet the girls not wearing daisy dukes "is rightfully so". Sounds like you just set a universal standard to me.  Of course if they believed that it was right in their own mind to wear them (the daisy dukes), then we should let them according to your "common sense" approach. Would that be correct?

Of couse you continue to avoid answering and defining modest/immodest according to the Scriptures. Come on take a shot at it. Unless the "common sense" approach you advocate of every man "doing that which is right in his own mind" is a good biblical position to take on modesty.

You are a fundy Clinton in parsing your words.
Rightfully so, means that the standard you or someone above you HAS SET for your home was within your right and responsibility to set.
The church that sponsors your home also has a Christian school. But you know that, didn't you Bill?

I stated in my last post, that you didn't read because you were too busy parsing your next post, that Every man or woman should be satisfied in his or her own mind as to their standards because every man/woman will give an account of themselves to God.

Now, IF you have NO standards, guidelines or convictions as to dress for the teen girls under your care, your church family and many doners will be shocked!
But you do....and rightfully so! You absolutely would NOT allow a teen girl at the home to wear Daisy Dukes and a halter on a date...and rightfully so!

I'm not voting for Hillary, though!
Because I have standards.

So every man does that which is right in his mind. I got it.

Does this apply to those who work for you on staff or volunteer in your church or do they have to conform to the universal standards set by the senior pastor (you) or the church?

I have given you my standard for modesty. Why do you insist I don't have any? How political of you Bill (hello pot, meet Mr kettle).

For a person advocating individual soul liberty and not one of a universal modesty standard. It seems  that the daisy dukes are a universal standard that you are setting as being immodest. More political speak from you I guess.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Bill Ward:
Every man does that which is right in his mind. I got it.

Evidently you don't because you misquoted me, I used a verse of Scripture.
Every man sets his or her own personal standard.

Does this apply to those who work for you on staff or volunteer in your church or do they have to conform to the universal standards set by the senior pastor (you) or the church?

I have given you my standard for modesty. Why do you insist I don't have any? How political of you Bill (hello pot, meet Mr kettle).

For a person advocating individual soul liberty and not one of a universal modesty standard. It seems  that the daisy dukes are a universal standard that you are setting as being immodest. More political speak from you I guess.

We do have standards, just like you and the ministry you serve....which is my point!

You dodge Bill, your home has a standard of dress for the girls, and the Daisy Dukes are merely an illustration, Bill. And you WILL NOT allow a teen girl in your care to wear Daisy Dukes and a halter on a date. Rightfully so.
Eastland Christian School has a standard of dress for students and staff.

And THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!
The only reason you dodge it is that you've backed yourself into a corner and your fundy mentality can't admit that you and your ministry have standards of dress and they are partially based on 'modesty'.

If you have a daughter one day, you'll also have a standard for her...but don't worry, that doesn't mean you're a fundy (except in demeanor), it means you have common sense. Your next post can be the last word...fundy always need that!