Modesty, yoga pants and myths.

[subllibrm]

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

Pretty much.

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

ok......... so where are they?...... where do you personally think the lines should be drawn?....

Naked in public is over the line. A burka too far the other way.

Because it is ultimately an issue for each believer to work through, I don't believe that the line I drew for my daughters is applicable for all. My wife is more modest than I might like. There have been outfits that I felt were appropriate but she felt crossed her "line" and I certainly won't make her dress beyond her comfort zone.

So the short answer is I don't know. And since my exposure to the yoga pants phenomena is severely limited, I will have to excuse myself from that as a point in question as well.

 

[subllibrm]

FTR I have never put a rolled up pair of socks down my pant leg.  8)

 

[praise_yeshua]

FTR I have never put a rolled up pair of socks down my pant leg.  8)

What a conversation starter...

 

[ALAYMAN]

and did you read what i wrote to tarheel about that?........ did you understand what i was getting at?......... would you like to me to go into more detail to explain why women approaching their late 20s and early 30s.... who have worn spandex all their lives.... but have now been married a number of years.... perhaps even had children... and are working on starting a career... suddenly come to the conclusion that wearing spandex is wrong for them?........

the thing that seems to have gotten legally minded men here in a mood to beat their drums is the fact she simultaneously decided wearing spandex is wrong for all other women too..... irregardless of their age shape or form.... .......... there is a very good reason for her coming to that conclusion too..... (especially if she is married).... .. which i could also explain..... and it has nothing to do with a sudden internal revival of latent christian mores... .. ....

it will take a lot more typing to explain it fully.... not sure anybody here wants to see do that..... and even less sure anybody would read it if i did.... ... .... but ..... just saying....... 

Yes, I saw what you wrote to Tarheel, but no, I wasn't certain what you were getting at.  I am willing to hear what you have to say is their motive (besides "internal revival of latent Christian mores"), but at the same I would be suspicious that you may be overgeneralizing in your speculation as to what you might believe to be universally every middle-aged woman's convictions.

 

[subllibrm]

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

Pretty much.

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

ok......... so where are they?...... where do you personally think the lines should be drawn?....

Naked in public is over the line. A burka too far the other way.

Because it is ultimately an issue for each believer to work through, I don't believe that the line I drew for my daughters is applicable for all. My wife is more modest than I might like. There have been outfits that I felt were appropriate but she felt crossed her "line" and I certainly won't make her dress beyond her comfort zone.

So the short answer is I don't know. And since my exposure to the yoga pants phenomena is severely limited, I will have to excuse myself from that as a point in question as well.

but......  ???.... wait a minute... ??? .... you can;t do that.......... you are the one who posted the question saying you needed a visual example - which in turn led rogue tomato to post his picture and challenging others to lust away..... ... i even dragged one up too.... but decided not to post it since it couldn;t possibly compete with rogue maters..... .....  : ........  .... .... ....so......  ...no...... you don;t get off that easy....... whether you like or not.... you are in this one for the duration.......  .........

In the example provide by the fruit that people think is a vegetable, I must admit that lust was not my reaction. Was this a case of immodesty? I still don't know but I will say that is was very unfortunate sartorial choice on that ladies part.  ???

 

[rsc2a]

So the short answer is I don't know. And since my exposure to the yoga pants phenomena is severely limited, I will have to excuse myself from that as a point in question as well.

I know it's your go-to weekend wear.

 

[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.

 

[Mathew Ward]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah I believe you've forgotten where you are!

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

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

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

If I were to rephrase this truth it could be said if I am not walking in the spirit then I will be fulfilling the lust of the flesh.

When I am fulfilling the lust of the flesh then if a women is wearing spandex or a t-length dress doesn't matter. I am going to fulfill the lust of the flesh.

All of this arises from my heart or from within me and not the things from without that defile me.

 

[Bruh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah I believe you've forgotten where you are!

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

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

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

If I were to rephrase this truth it could be said if I am not walking in the spirit then I will be fulfilling the lust of the flesh.

When I am fulfilling the lust of the flesh then if a women is wearing spandex or a t-length dress doesn't matter. I am going to fulfill the lust of the flesh.

All of this arises from my heart or from within me and not the things from without that defile me.

I 100% agree with you.

If anyone on here "trust" their walk with God that much, they may be caught up in a whirlwind, here pretty soon.

I'll readily admit, I myself must put up parameters and must not cross them.  I may be ok for awhile but I know eventually...............yeah I'm human, and I'm scared of myself and surely do not want to destroy what God has given me with my precious wife.

 

[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?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

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.

 

[rsc2a]

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

Wearing white after Labor Day. This fashion abomination doth make the LORD God most greatly wroth.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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 would say that I probably agree with you on this issue....I repeat:
Lust is a sin.
Lust doesn't always involve sexual sin
Sin is always sin and I am responsible for my sin, no matter the circumstances.
Men can lust after women without the woman being aware of it.
Women can and sometimes do purposely dress in an attempt to cause a man to lust. Prostitutes, porn stars and sometimes just regular women.

Men and women will give an account of themselves to God.
I believe as a Christian I can sin and hurt my fellowship with God...causing me to confess that sin....Matthew doesn't believe that which is what the last line of my post to him was about.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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

Wearing white after Labor Day. This fashion abomination doth make the LORD God most greatly wroth.

And some people think you are a scorner...not me but....

 

[Matthew1323]

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

Wearing white after Labor Day. This fashion abomination doth make the LORD God most greatly wroth.

This timely admonition is what I chose to accept above all the other opinions on this thread! Hahaha....

 

[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.

 

[Mathew Ward]

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 would say that I probably agree with you on this issue....I repeat:
Lust is a sin.
Lust doesn't always involve sexual sin
Sin is always sin and I am responsible for my sin, no matter the circumstances.
Men can lust after women without the woman being aware of it.
Women can and sometimes do purposely dress in an attempt to cause a man to lust. Prostitutes, porn stars and sometimes just regular women.

Men and women will give an account of themselves to God.
I believe as a Christian I can sin and hurt my fellowship with God...causing me to confess that sin....Matthew doesn't believe that which is what the last line of my post to him was about.

Mathew believes you have to repent of your sin...but that is another issue.

 

[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.....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

.......


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

but what do you call those that also feel the need to confess other peoples sins?.......... you know... like the writer of the article you linked to?........  ???

You would have to ask that lady, I can't speak for her and don't have to defend her. I didn't say I agreed with it, I simply posted the link and said that when I saw it I thought of the fff and added  .

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

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)

I dare you guys to mess with THAT yoga pants girl.