Modesty, yoga pants and myths.

[rsc2a]

I haven't seen prostitutes in ages (or if I have, I didn't recognize them as prostitutes).

If you want to see how prostitutes look,  you can turn on C-Span.

 

[ALAYMAN]

ok........ but you still did not answer my question......... .... concerning how you would feel if a fellow christian with a stricter set of "sensibilities" than your own..... and who demanded women folk in his family or society cover up even more of themselves than you do........ came to you and told you that the way your women folk were dressed was immodest and that they were dressing like whores?...........

I'd consider the source.

Seriously, I don't think Tarheel was saying that all women that don't subscribe to his standard of dress for modesty are dressing like whores.  I don't want to speak for him, and would rather he clarify for his own sake of defending his intent and meaning, but if I were to hazard a guess I would say his point in making that reference is that the Bible at least alludes to the fashion statement that clothing *can* make.  Where he and you would differ (per your "high heels" reference) is that intent of the wearer should be the ultimate arbiter.  The subtle difference of opinion, I would surmise, is that though Tarheel would probably agree that the intent is the most serious consideration, that there are other factors that would come into play in determining the sexualization that occurs via certain fashion statements, intentionally or not.
do any of the women in your church wear high heel shoes? .......... any of the women in your family wear them?.... ..... ya know what?...... never mind... forget i asked ......  i;m not the kind who would say anyone wearing such foot wear is dressing like a harlot.... ... nor would i align myself on the issue with someone else who did........... it;s just something for you and tarheel to think about and consider -  while you are obsessing over daisy duke shorts and "yoga" pants........

my point is this....... regardless of whatever else a modern day worker in the sex trade is wearing.... or not wearing..... they are always wearing high heeled shoes..... 

do any of the women in your church wear high heel shoes? .......... any of the women in your family wear them?.... ..... ya know what?...... never mind... forget i asked ......  i;m not the kind who would say anyone wearing such foot wear is dressing like a harlot.... ... nor would i align myself on the issue with someone else who did........... it;s just something for you and tarheel to think about and consider -  while you are obsessing over daisy duke shorts and "yoga" pants........

Me, obsessing?  Why the unnecessary heat?  I'm not obsessing over anything, and that is loaded language intended to inflame. ALAYWIFE wears them to her physical therapy exercise, so I'm not nearly as judgmental as you'd imply.  Funny thing is, and I don't control what my wife wears, but she asked me to check her out when she put them on.  She had two pairs of differing sizes, and the looser one would not work well for moving around (too loose) strenuously.  The other showed her shape a bit too much for my taste, but I didn't say anything, at least until she asked me what I thought about their form-fitting nature.  When I said they are a bit revealing she bought a workout top/shirt that covered her posterior.  I didn't make her do that, but she did it out of a sense of modesty.

Having gotten that out of the way, the prostitutes preference of high heels is only one part of the picture and you know that.  I know what hookers and seductresses look like too, and they aren't usually wearing high heels along with a long flowing katastole on the street corner.  Modesty isn't measured by one singular apparel assessment, but rather a variety of factors like posture, facial expression, make-up, activity, and amount of skin shown.  All the OP was trying to do IMNSHO was ask the ladies (and gentleman should be included) to consider their actions and their consequent effects on the opposite sex.  Nothing wrong with having the discussion.

 

[ALAYMAN]

ok........ but you still did not answer my question......... .... concerning how you would feel if a fellow christian with a stricter set of "sensibilities" than your own..... and who demanded women folk in his family or society cover up even more of themselves than you do........ came to you and told you that the way your women folk were dressed was immodest and that they were dressing like whores?...........

I'd consider the source.

then i guess i;ll just consider the source from here on out too....... 

you are really one to talk about "unnecessary heat".... and "loaded language intended to inflame"....... ...it has been your style in every disagreement we have gotten into here...... ..  it;s never been good enough for you to just  say we have a disagreement and let it go at that........ oh you will say it to avoid answering my questions...... but then you always have to make some degrading and often downright insulting comparisons of my beliefs to something you know i;ll find reprehensible..... .... and if you don;t come right out and say something like that yourself you quote someone or openly align yourself with someone who did...... ..... and i;m really tired of it....... ....so believe what you want and say what you want......... i don;t care anymore......

I just told you that my wife wears them.  The obvious conclusion you should draw is that I don't think that those who wear them look like whores, but if you would rather be offended then so be it.  I can't control your reaction to what I said, and what I said (which you never really addressed at all) was that the Bible talks about the attire of a harlot, so there must be something (besides nakedness, which is your admitted baseline for immodesty) that a person can wear that cues men that sex(uality) is being advertised.  I never state or implied (and I don't think Tarheel did either) that spandex or yoga pants makes one look like a whore (which is what you've implied by connecting dots that weren't intended the way you connected them).

Oh, and I did answer your questions.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

then i guess i;ll just consider the source from here on out too....... 

you are really one to talk about "unnecessary heat".... and "loaded language intended to inflame"....... ...it has been your style in every disagreement we have gotten into here...... ..  it;s never been good enough for you to just  say we have a disagreement and let it go at that........ oh you will say it to avoid answering my questions...... but then you always have to make some degrading and often downright insulting comparisons of my beliefs to something you know i;ll find reprehensible..... .... and if you don;t come right out and say something like that yourself you quote someone or openly align yourself with someone who did...... ..... and i;m really tired of it....... ....so believe what you want and say what you want......... i don;t care anymore......

And those are some of the many reasons I have ALAYMAN on ignore.

 

[ALAYMAN]

And those are some of the many reasons I have ALAYMAN on ignore.

lol, thanks for the rent-free space in your head.

 

[HeDied4U]

I gave up my yoga pants. I gave up my thong. What is next?

Underoos?

LOL!!

 

[ALAYMAN]

.................  I can't control your reaction to what I said, and what I said (which you never really addressed at all) was that the Bible talks about the attire of a harlot, so there must be something (besides nakedness, which is your admitted baseline for immodesty) that a person can wear that cues men that sex(uality) is being advertised.

i don;t rmember being asked what i thought the attire of a harlot in biblical times looked like....... but i know both you and tarheel were asked to clarify it and all he could do was make another reference to daisy dukes and porn stars...... while all you did was imply it probably had something to do with showing skin..........

but you are both wrong..........

now.... are you asking me what i know about it?......... .......

according to historians - prostitutes in biblical times wore very expensive jewelry and the finest clothing they owned...... and it was usually fashioned to resemble garments a noble women would wear or something a priestess in a pagan temple would wear.......  ... why?..... because when men in biblical times paid money for sex they wanted to imagine they were going to bed with a queen...  or a goddess.... or at the very least a wealthy woman far above their means.... .... and some prostitutes even wore veils over their faces to conceal their identity or hide what they really looked like ....  playing on the whole "mystery woman" thing.....

you might think you know something about what prostitution looks like today...... but it sounds to me like the only thing you have seen of it is the crack addict ho mamas that hang out on the street corner........ which is only a small percentage of them..... ...... but there is an entire and much bigger.. but less visible... prostitution industry out there where women dress in the modern equivalent of what they might have worn in biblical times..... and for the same reasons.....

some of them wear fine jewelry and fine clothing..... some of them might go to their "dates" dressed like they are going to a ceo board meeting - and others dress in knee length skirts and white blouses with their hair in braids like japanese school girls.... anything they think men will find attractive or alluring.... .....but none of them hang out on street corners being watched by a pimp......  ...... they are set up through professional escort brokerages and sometimes their own personal websites with all kinds of clients ...  some of whom are very high profile and who don;t want to draw attention to themselves by driving up to a street corner holding a hand full of bills or a hit of meth out the window....

point is.... you can find prostitutes anywhere you want to look and dressed in every way you can imagine...... and the only thing in the way of dress they all have in common....including the crack addict ho mamas.... is their high heeled shoes.......

I don't disagree with anything you wrote regarding prostitutes.  What I would add to the conversation is that the passage in question isn't necessarily dealing with a prostitute, but a whore.  As such, it defines one who fornicates and seeks others to seduce in that fornication.  The manner in which that happens is wide and varied, but one of the implications is that it occurs through the outward adorning of the body to appeal to the man.  That goes back to the visual concept.  Accentuation of the figure, clothed or not, can be the trigger to the thoughts of lust.  Again, that is in essence, what the sister in the OP was saying, and that a considerate Christian will ponder these things and not flaunt their liberty as if they live in a vacuum.

alayman....  I never state or implied (and I don't think Tarheel did either) that spandex or yoga pants makes one look like a whore (which is what you've implied by connecting dots that weren't intended the way you connected them).

tarheel has started no less than a half dozen threads in the past 2 years on the issue of lust and womens modesty..... and in every one of them he has placed the majority of the blame on what a woman wears for the lust in a mans heart......  and when his argument is countered he comes back with some sarcastic quip about the attires of harlots.... or does what you did and mention the responsibility of men in passing when you said ....(and gentleman should be included).... while continuing to focus on the issue of what women wear.......

and in addition to starting his own threads he interjects the topic into threads where it doesn;t even belong....

this was thrown into a discussion yesterday about yoga pants being comfortable to wear.... ......

tarheel... The only thorn one could possibly have would be attempting to label something as sinful....apart from men lusting after porn stars who just seek to dress comfortably while on the job!

you can make what ever you want of that..... connect or disconnect any dots you like...... rationalize it away like you usually do... or even ignore it all together...... like i said... i don;t care anymore........ .... i know how i believe it was meant to be taken.... and that is exactly the way i took it.......... ...you can accuse me of choosing to be offended if you want .....  but i doubt very seriously you would have let that remark slide if it was thrown in to you or someone in your family that was discussing what we were in that thread........ ....... like i said..... the man has an obsession with this issue of womens immodesty causing men to lust...... and whether it;s your obsession too or not... i really don;t know..... all i do know is you said you aligned yourself with him.......... ......... that;s good enough for me......... i don;t need to hear any more..........

As I already said, Tarheel can speak for his own words.  Where I agreed with him is that common sense dictates that this world uses sex to sell products and they do it well.  They know how to use the power of seduction, clothed or nearly naked.  There's a reason that the phrase "sex sells" is so universally known and accepted in marketing.  The sort of eye candy they use to peddle their wares might likely see the use of skimpy clothing like Daisy Dukes.  It's intuitive and shouldn't need explaining.  I could cite recent studies of how the sexualization of culture through media has trickled all the way down to the tweens, in their use of reduced clothing as well as the choreography of their bodies.  In that respect, it is common sense that says that a Christian and modesty won't try to appear in similar fashion as Madison Avenue and Victoria Secret commercials.  I'm not going to draw up some legalistic list, and neither did the OP, for good reason.  We depend on the Holy Spirit to do His work in a more effective manner.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Quote
alayman....  I never state or implied (and I don't think Tarheel did either) that spandex or yoga pants makes one look like a whore (which is what you've implied by connecting dots that weren't intended the way you connected them).

Oh, and I did answer your questions.

tarheel has started no less than a half dozen threads in the past 2 years on the issue of lust and womens modesty..... and in every one of them he has placed the majority of the blame on what a woman wears for the lust in a mans heart......  and when his argument is countered he comes back with some sarcastic quip about the attires of harlots.... or does what you did and mention the responsibility of men in passing when you said ....(and gentleman should be included).... while continuing to focus on the issue of what women wear.......

and in addition to starting his own threads he interjects the topic into threads where it doesn;t even belong....

this was thrown into a discussion yesterday about yoga pants being comfortable to wear.... ......

Quote
tarheel... The only thorn one could possibly have would be attempting to label something as sinful....apart from men lusting after porn stars who just seek to dress comfortably while on the job!

I don't recall starting threads to place blame on women for dressing 'immodestly'.
I'm not inclined to do the research, but I don't recall starting threads with that intention.

And, the quote about porn stars was sarcastic and hyperbolic.

you can make what ever you want of that..... connect or disconnect any dots you like...... rationalize it away like you usually do... or even ignore it all together...... like i said... i don;t care anymore........ .... i know how i believe it was meant to be taken.... and that is exactly the way i took it.......... ...you can accuse me of choosing to be offended if you want .....  but i doubt very seriously you would have let that remark slide if it was thrown in to you or someone in your family that was discussing what we were in that thread........ ....... like i said..... the man has an obsession with this issue of womens immodesty causing men to lust...... and whether it;s your obsession too or not... i really don;t know..... all i do know is you said you aligned yourself with him.......... ......... that;s good enough for me......... i don;t need to hear any more..........

It seems you have taken this as a personal insult...but it was not my intention to accuse you of anything, personally.
And, I did not state that wearing yoga pants made one a harlot...my daughters wear yoga pants when they go to the gym.
I referenced the scripture speaking of the attire of a harlot, and acknowledged that the definition of such would change with the culture. I did state more than once that porn stars and prostitutes dress to purposely cause men to lust after them but didn't say that yoga pants were a part of that wardrobe.
I have not changed my mind on this subject, and neither have you...I'm absolutely good with that and an hope you are as well.

 

[Ransom]

. . . what I said (which you never really addressed at all) was that the Bible talks about the attire of a harlot, so there must be something (besides nakedness, which is your admitted baseline for immodesty) that a person can wear that cues men that sex(uality) is being advertised.

"When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face" (Genesis 38:15).

Looks like the "attire of a harlot" meant covering up.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

. . . what I said (which you never really addressed at all) was that the Bible talks about the attire of a harlot, so there must be something (besides nakedness, which is your admitted baseline for immodesty) that a person can wear that cues men that sex(uality) is being advertised.

"When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face" (Genesis 38:15).

Looks like the "attire of a harlot" meant covering up.

Those women wearing burqas are all harlots!!!

 

[subllibrm]

I wonder if "Johns" ever request the escort service to send someone dressed in a denim jumper and keds.  ???

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I wonder if "Johns" ever request the escort service to send someone dressed in a denim jumper and keds.  ???

It actually wouldn't surprise me.  People have strange fetishes.

 

[subllibrm]

I wonder if "Johns" ever request the escort service to send someone dressed in a denim jumper and keds.  ???

It actually wouldn't surprise me.  People have strange fetishes.

It would really screw up the whole dress modestly or the guys will lust narrative wouldn't it?

 

[brianb]

I wonder if "Johns" ever request the escort service to send someone dressed in a denim jumper and keds.  ???

you mean like this one who just got made by the cops and is about to be arrested?.....

Is that in Russia? I noticed the Cyrillic letters on the squad car.

 

[ALAYMAN]

and you are oblivious to what that "sister" was really saying...... ..  <snip>

to put all that in a nutshell........... i realize that when you and tarheel read that womans article you saw a christian sister growing in her faith.......but what i saw was a primadonna using faith as an excuse to continue her prima routine..... even as the curtain was closing on her pinnacle moment........ 

How do you know that her motive was to be the prima donna fashion police?

It's a fact that when people are younger they are more idealistic, na?ve, and liberal in thought.  Age has a way of taking people towards more conservative principles.  Why can't it be that she recognized the folly of expressing her liberty a bit too much for her conscience sake?

and you both completely disregarded what i said about how what can make common sense in one part of the world .... and with regards to certain activities.... might be totally different somewhere else and under other circumstances........ the decisions can be vastly different about what to allow a teenager to wear when she goes out with members of the opposite sex....  but both can be based on common sense.......

no........ you can;t accept that........ you have to believe that your opinion and only your opinion is the one based on common sense and anyone disagreeing with you is void of it....... or worse... lacking the Holy Spirit..... which is a judgement i don;t think you are qualified to make concerning another christian..... whether you approve of their choice of apparel or their reasons for wearing it when they do or not......... 

There's a reason that men's magazines show women in less clothes, not women in hollowed out oaken barrels.  That's common sense.  If you don't see it that way then okie-dokie, we can agree to disagree.  My statement about the Holy Spirit was in reference to what I'd already said in this thread, that every person should be persuaded in their own mind.  I won't stand before Christ and answer for you, nor you for me.  I'm good with my beliefs in this department and it's obvious you're convinced in your mind as well.  And while I concede that some contextual situations call for attire that may be inappropriate in some situations but not others, the fashion statements that are trending today on TV and western cultures at large are largely dismissive of any real sense of Christian considerations towards virtuous living.

 

[ALAYMAN]

. . . what I said (which you never really addressed at all) was that the Bible talks about the attire of a harlot, so there must be something (besides nakedness, which is your admitted baseline for immodesty) that a person can wear that cues men that sex(uality) is being advertised.

"When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face" (Genesis 38:15).

Looks like the "attire of a harlot" meant covering up.

Well obviously the Bible is teaching us that everybody should be nudists if we want to avoid that association.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

. . . what I said (which you never really addressed at all) was that the Bible talks about the attire of a harlot, so there must be something (besides nakedness, which is your admitted baseline for immodesty) that a person can wear that cues men that sex(uality) is being advertised.

"When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face" (Genesis 38:15).

Looks like the "attire of a harlot" meant covering up.

Well obviously the Bible is teaching us that everybody should be nudists if we want to avoid that association.

Well, God didn't knit me in my mother's womb wearing jeans and a polo shirt...

(Sorry, had to crack a joke!)

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Alesh:
this is one is from not even a year ago.........

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/modesty-immodesty-men-and-women/

This was my last post on that thread, to you:
Modesty' is subjective.
I don't assume because you wear shorts or short skits you are immodest and certainly don't think you dress like a harlot. My daughters also regularly wear shorts and on occasion have worn dresses I deemed too short....but I'm their Dad! 

and then a year before that.......

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/modesty-and-the-evolution-of-the-bikini!/msg76417/#msg76417

I referenced the fact that although I thought she might have a popint, it came across as a plug for her swimsuit line. Never did i accuse women of being immoral in their dress.

and then a year ago this past september....

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/you-just-have-to-love-our-culture's-pursuit-of-fame/msg88943/#msg88943

That was a hoax story about a woman claiming to have 3 breasts....and posted in jest....about our culture's desire for fame and attention.

and this was the just other day........ .... and yes i know..... you were just being "sarcastic".... ..but what;s the point?........ to me it just looks like another stab at blaming women as much as possible while exonerating the men with a lust problem.......

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/sin-is-almost-becoming-extinct-but/msg147374/#msg147374

Yes, I was being sarcastic...and the sentiment still stands.

there are more.... including one that posted the very same magazine article already posted in this one....... but i don;t feel like doing any more research on this either........

So, I guess the answer is yes!!!, you took it personally.
I'm sorry...but I did not mean it as a personal insult...but I still believe what I believe...as do you.
The lady who posted the OP's article has posted other articles on the same subject and they are getting re-posted on other sites...I think she has hit a nerve among some ladies in our culture....that use uncommon sense in the area of dress.
I would point out that common sense was used by me in relation to how my daughter might dress on a date...not going to the beach!

But, as I have stated here before, the beauty of personal freedom is that everyone can have his/her own opinions, act upon them and only give an account for themselves.

 

[ALAYMAN]

and you are oblivious to what that "sister" was really saying...... ..  <snip>

to put all that in a nutshell........... i realize that when you and tarheel read that womans article you saw a christian sister growing in her faith.......but what i saw was a primadonna using faith as an excuse to continue her prima routine..... even as the curtain was closing on her pinnacle moment........ 

How do you know that her motive was to be the prima donna fashion police?

It's a fact that when people are younger they are more idealistic, na?ve, and liberal in thought.  Age has a way of taking people towards more conservative principles.  Why can't it be that she recognized the folly of expressing her liberty a bit too much for her conscience sake?

and you both completely disregarded what i said about how what can make common sense in one part of the world .... and with regards to certain activities.... might be totally different somewhere else and under other circumstances........ the decisions can be vastly different about what to allow a teenager to wear when she goes out with members of the opposite sex....  but both can be based on common sense.......

no........ you can;t accept that........ you have to believe that your opinion and only your opinion is the one based on common sense and anyone disagreeing with you is void of it....... or worse... lacking the Holy Spirit..... which is a judgement i don;t think you are qualified to make concerning another christian..... whether you approve of their choice of apparel or their reasons for wearing it when they do or not......... 

There's a reason that men's magazines show women in less clothes, not women in hollowed out oaken barrels.  That's common sense.  If you don't see it that way then okie-dokie, we can agree to disagree.  My statement about the Holy Spirit was in reference to what I'd already said in this thread, that every person should be persuaded in their own mind.  I won't stand before Christ and answer for you, nor you for me.  I'm good with my beliefs in this department and it's obvious you're convinced in your mind as well.  And while I concede that some contextual situations call for attire that may be inappropriate in some situations but not others, the fashion statements that are trending today on TV and western cultures at large are largely dismissive of any real sense of Christian considerations towards virtuous living.

ok.... i get it....... it;s all fine and good and when you interpret what she is saying your way.. then go about slandering women who don;t adhere to your dress standard... and laying on the guilt trips all over the forum...... but i;m not supposed to be in the least bit upset over that.... or take any of it personal...  right?........ ... 

but when someone else sees her article in a different light and points out... from personal experience... what she thinks might be really going on your get all righteously indignant and act like you are taking it personal yourself... ..... as if questioning the integrity of that author is the same thing as questioning your own......

for your information..... the thing you call "western culture".... is actually taking place east of where i live.....  when people steeped in western culture come to hawaii for any period of time longer than a 2 week vacation they go into cultural shock........ so you really don;t know beans about the culture i live in....

and for your further information.....  i don;t even watch tv that much....... hardly at all..... i can;t stay interested in it for more than 5 minutes.... plus the obnoxious and overbearingly intense commercials give me a pounding headache and then start causing symptomatic problems any time i try to.... ...  so i really couldn;t tell you what is trending on television.... .. what kind of effect it has on your culture.... or whether it is considerate of anything other than the virtue of blasting you with endless commercials to try and sell you things you never thought about wanting and thus separate you from your money.....

but you obviously know a lot more about both television and your western pop culture than i do.... ...  as is evidenced in the many threads you start here are on both subjects and all the things wrong with them.... ... and in fact ...quite often you bring up things about television and western pop culture i would not have even known about if i hadn;t read your post...... .... so i have no problem conceding that when compared to someone who studies it like you do... i don;t know beans about television or western pop culture either.......

but i do know about the cultures and customs in the place i live.... many of which have not changed since the days before the first european-american invaders came from the east and put their first dirty foot down on the beach here........ and which make the same sense now that they did back then..... ... and if i am influenced by anything..... then it;s the influence of this culture i live in and have grown up in..... it makes sense to me... and it makes sense to the descendants of the people who have called this place home for longer than easterners with a different sense of things even knew it existed.......  ...

and though this is a friendly place that welcomes any who want to come here... learn about the culture ....and be agreeable....... ... those who come in refusing to learn... or even to accept what was already here... and then take it upon themselves to start changing things are welcome to get on their boat and go back home..... ... .........

in the course of these discussions in recent days you have come across to me in exactly that same way.....  like someone who refuses to accept that there is a culture different from your own - with a different ... but just as valuable ... set of sensibilities than yours..... and who see and do things very differently than you do.. ... ..... ..

and so you try to change it.... to force your own sensibilities onto it....  and when that doesn;t work you go about slandering it...shaming it....  comparing it to the most disgusting things you can think of that have absolutely no relation to it.....  ..... .... but i guess i;m not supposed to get upset or take any of that personally either ...... right?.............. it;s just you being you.... getting your fundy thing on and flashing your Xer card ........... .........ok.... whatever............ ........

Okay, if you say so.

I've already said that your beliefs and mine in this arena are different, and that we will both account for our own beliefs.  I'm not offended by your beliefs, but just disagree.  No sense in spilling more ink talking past one another.  Be blessed.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Okay, if you say so.

I've already said that your beliefs and mine in this arena are different, and that we will both account for our own beliefs.  I'm not offended by your beliefs, but just disagree.  No sense in spilling more ink talking past one another.  Be blessed.

this post is a rare exception...... but in others you have done far more than simply say that our beliefs are different....... you have said it in a way that elevates yours above mine and equate what i believe to be based on a lack of common sense..... and sometimes things much worse.........

and if you can;t see that..... or see what it wrong with it...... .. or talk to someone without feeling the need to lord your self appointed spiritual superiority over them... then yes..... i agree........ far more than enough ink has been wasted..........

I don't think I'm superior to you, or anybody on here, well, with exception of rsc2a, and he's an obtuse rat for cryin' out loud.   Yes, I do think, as a generality, that your philosophy on this is wrong (though you have some valid points about certain contextual reasons to wear things that may reveal the form and otherwise IMNSHO be considered subjectively immodest).  And as you've told me recently in a different thread, you are more likely to stand up for what you believe rather than patronizing and "going along to get along".  I'm the same way.  I don't mean to offend, and I certainly respect you too much to try to yank your chain, but in stating my beliefs as accurately as I can to you I think it shows the most respect to an individual to not condescend to them by patronizing them just to agree.  Besides that, it is a lie to present things in a light that a person doesn't actually believe.