Modesty, yoga pants and myths.

[Mathew Ward]

On a side thought.

TB since "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."

Did you allow your teens that you raised to practice this or did you set a universal standard for them? I know you set a univers standard for them so I guess you don't practice this in your home, church or school.

Why advocate for something and then not practice it?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

well then there should be no problem with either of the two pictures i posted..... ..... there is only the skin on one hand showing in the first one....... and only the skin of a pinky finger on the other one...... (how many of you guys saw that?....  )

if seeing skin is what gives rise to lust in the mind of the male...... and the degree of intensity of that lust was truly proportional to the amount of skin a male sees...... - and considering that everyone here agrees the goal for the christian male is to forsake all lust...... then it would stand to reason the christian male should not allow himself to see any skin at all...... ...... right?....... ??? .... ....... one would then conclude the islamic fundamentalists have a better handle on this thing than the christian fundamentalists do........... ...

......... but they don;t........ we know just from the news reports alone of women being raped in muslim countries who had been wearing full burkas when they were targeted.... that the inability to see skin does nothing to inhibit the excitement of lust in the male brain ... .....  ... and i also happen to know that seeing skin doesn;t necessarily or arbitrarily excite it either........ .....

in hawaii skin is seen everywhere...... more skin is seen here than probably anywhere else in the united states....... yet hawaii has a very low incidence of rape per capita compared to other parts of the u.s..... ... and it;s even low compared to muslim countries where no skin is seen at all..... . . a fundamentalist preacher who came through hawaii many years ago even commented himself that he was shocked to learn how low the rate of rape here was considering how much skin was visible everywhere he looked.......

so what is it?........ is there some other factor... or factors.. at work that the fundamentalists of either faith haven;t figured out yet?....... ....... ...

yes there are ........ there are 3 of them in fact ....... the first is awareness..... the second is deprivation .... and the third is simple curiosity

i submit..... and i firmly believe..... that the only thing required to incite and exacerbate lust in the heart of a man who harbors it is simply becoming aware that a female is present....... if he can;t see her or doesn;t know anything about her then that makes him all the more curious to find out who she and what she looks like....  ...... and then dwelling on those unknown factors works to exacerbate his lust all the more..... ...... add to that the other male obsessions with always needing to try out new things... .. his desires to kick in doors.... break down walls.... and conquer or kill everything that moves.... or take on and beat down anything he hasn;t taken on before and you have the full recipe for what has made men what they are ...........  . creatures controlled by their own lust....

and the day they begin to take responsibility for it..... rather than continually try and blame it on someone else.....  is the day they become able to begin dealing with it effectively.. even conquer it.... ......  and become able to truly begin walking in the spirit .......... but before that day all they are doing is ignoring and living in denial about something that is constantly burning inside them...... but which they may have learned to forget about,  until the thing burns hotter and rises to levels they can;t ignore......... the amount of stimulus required to fan that fire to uncomfortable levels is different in every man...... and it even changes for the same man from time to time....... ... but it;s always there and always smoldering ... waiting to flare up the moment they simply become aware a female is present..... regardless of how she is dressed... ..... the extent is goes to after that depends on whether not he has conscious to balance out his desires .......... that balance has to be established internally.....  not dependent on something that is outside......

so women may be the focus of a mans lust...... . and the thing they like to blame....... .  but women are not the problem............. men are...... 

"Amount of skin revealed" is an insane measurement of what produces lust, and has easily been proved false in studies.  I'm too lazy to find those studies, though.  Doubters can google it for themselves. 

 

[Mathew Ward]

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!

I guess only in your mind you backed me into a corner.

But I will explain my position again to you. That I live by for me and what I ask the kids in the home to live by.

Modest is simply appropriate for the occasion while not being overly expensive.

When the girls and boys go to the Christian school I ask them to dress appropriately for school. So they follow the guidelines the school has. One of those guidelines is that the girls cannot wear pants to school. Which is a standard that I don't hold to. So if I applied your standard of modesty they would wear pants. It almost looks like you backed yourself in the corner, but your common sense approach doesn't seem to see it. Maybe it isn't so common So I ask them to dress modestly or appropriately for school and they wear the school uniform.

When we go to church, either Eastland or others, we all adhere to the same biblical standard of modesty that is appropriate for the occasion. Sometimes they wear dresses, skirts, pants or shorts. It really isn't rocket science.

I hope this helps you understand my position on modesty and how I ask the girls (who I treat as I would my own daughters) to dress accordingly.

BTW you introduced the article with the fff in mind. Maybe that makes you more of a fundy in demeanor and action than me.

 

[subllibrm]

<snip>

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.

Then why go on and on as if everyone else has the line in the wrong place?

 

[subllibrm]

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....

Which puts us right back to square one; that modesty is all about preventing lust.

BTW the gal in yellow is showing way too much leg!  ;D

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

<snip>

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.

Then why go on and on as if everyone else has the line in the wrong place?

If you would point out where I have told anyone their line was in the wrong place, I'd appreciate it. My problem is with those who say there should be no line. That's ridiculous, because everyone has a line or a standard. If you have daughters, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I have stated many times exactly what I believe about this.
Don't wear yoga pants so I don't have to defend them.....

As to the line, I repeat:
Every person does indeed have a line, a standard....everyone does.
Every person must set their own standard.
Every person is responsible for themselves before God.
Men lust after women and it's a sin and is there own fault, not the woman's.

Some women deliberately dress to cause a man to lust, prostitutes and porn stars and once in awhile regular women, for whatever reason. IMO, that is a sin as well, but that's just me.

I won't answer for you, Alesh or anyone else here, thank the good Lord!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

<snip>

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.

Then why go on and on as if everyone else has the line in the wrong place?

pulling out the psychology couch and inviting questioner to make himself comfortable.....

because..... though he will never admit it..... his way of thinking is not that much different than the writer of the article he posted........... ..... in her "5 myths about modesty" paper she makes it very clear that in her own mind anything she doesn;t understand or personally believe in is a myth......... .....

and with tarheel....everything he doesn;t agree with is simply not based on common sense.........

neither one can bear to imagine that they might be wrong.... or that they have the wrong idea......  or even that they are not necessarily wrong at all .... (with regards to their own lives)..... and that other people holding conflicting opinions might also be right when it comes to their lives.....

no..... they must always be right..... and you must always be wrong......  or else you must concede to living a life based on mythology or of having no common sense.......... .... they will continue to pound you on the subject until you get tired of answering.... and once they perceive your silence on the matter..... they will take it as their win.......

the choice we all have is clear.....  do we continue to argue back at them in hopes they will change their mind?....... or do we let it go and leave them to enjoy their own world of mythology and imagined common sense?.....

that is the question.............

ok.... kicking said questioner off the couch and pushing it back behind the curtains out of sight.....  8)

My common sense argument seems to upset you and I'm sorry...but this does involve using common sense, IMO.
If my daughter is going on a date, common sense warns me that she shouldn't wear Daisy Duke shorts and a halter top. If she's a teen, I have a say so in what she wears.

You seem to be taking this personally, and I have not singled you out, in fact I basically agree with you. Now, as to the lady that wrote the article, I'm not her apologist. The article has been around awhile and keeps getting picked up by different sites, I just saw this one on my FB feed this week and posted it here because of the ongoing argument we have here....nothing personal intended.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

My common sense argument seems to upset you and I'm sorry...but this does involve using common sense, IMO.
If my daughter is going on a date, common sense warns me that she shouldn't wear Daisy Duke shorts and a halter top. If she's a teen, I have a say so in what she wears.

You seem to be taking this personally, and I have not singled you out, in fact I basically agree with you. Now, as to the lady that wrote the article, I'm not her apologist. The article has been around awhile and keeps getting picked up by different sites, I just saw this one on my FB feed this week and posted it here because of the ongoing argument we have here....nothing personal intended.

it;s your smug insinuation that your view... and only your view...  is the one based on common sense while mine is not ... that i take personally........ and also the way you keep saying your argument is only against those who say there should be no lines..... as if anybody said that....

everybody here has said they draw lines where modesty and dressing appropriately is concerned...... and they adhere to those lines they have drawn... ....  you keep bringing up teens going out on date wearing daisy dukes and halter tops ... but who here has said they would ever send a teenager out on a date dressed like that?......... ... but if you are asking about sending that same teenager to the beach dressed in that manner then that is a different story.......but is that what you are asking?..... and do you consider that a date? .....

there is this thing called dressing appropriate for the occasion.......  and it;s not a standard always based on whether not such apparel might incite or discourage lust either....... most of the time it;s simply based on a type of apparel agreed on by all participants before hand, to keep everybody on the same page and best prepared to do whatever it is they are there to do........ 

if you are attending a business meeting.... even if that room is filled with nothing but men..... but you are all wearing shorts.. tank tops and rubber slippers how well are you going to be able to keep your mind on the business at hand?........ you won;t be ........ you will be thinking of going to the beach..... ....  and that;s the same concept behind having people at work and students in a school dress in as close to a businesslike or scholarly manner as possible ..... even if the school or business is all boys or all girls......... nobody is concerned about lust rearing it;s head when they tell students to dress appropriately..... they are concerned with education and taking care of business......

but leave it to the fundamentalist.... or the fundamentally minded.... to strip everything down to the lowest common denominator and make every thing an issue of sex and immodesty....... or of liberals versus conservatives.... republicans vrs democrats.....  healthy minded vrs bitter.......whatever..... . ......... yes..... the constant reliance on binary - flip a coin it;s either one side or the other - arguments does get old after a while.... ... and it becomes personal when you constantly take one side and assume everybody else is on the other.... ... things are much more complicated than that..... life is more complicated than that..... 

the writer of ecclesiastes  wrote to everything there is a season.... and a time to every a purpose under heaven.... .... but the modern fundamentalist seems to want to X out "everything"... and "every" in that passage the same way the calvinist Xes out "all" in the gospel of john..... and rewrite it to his own purpose without any regard for what heaven might say about it....... ....... why is that?........ can you explain it?..... 

From this point on, on this thread, I will refer to common sense as uncommon sense.

 

[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.

well then there should be no problem with either of the two pictures i posted..... ..... there is only the skin on one hand showing in the first one....... and only the skin of a pinky finger on the other one...... (how many of you guys saw that?....  )

if seeing skin is what gives rise to lust in the mind of the male...... and the degree of intensity of that lust was truly proportional to the amount of skin a male sees...... - and considering that everyone here agrees the goal for the christian male is to forsake all lust...... then it would stand to reason the christian male should not allow himself to see any skin at all...... ...... right?....... ??? .... ....... one would then conclude the islamic fundamentalists have a better handle on this thing than the christian fundamentalists do........... ...

......... but they don;t........ we know just from the news reports alone of women being raped in muslim countries who had been wearing full burkas when they were targeted.... that the inability to see skin does nothing to inhibit the excitement of lust in the male brain ... .....  ... and i also happen to know that seeing skin doesn;t necessarily or arbitrarily excite it either........ .....

in hawaii skin is seen everywhere...... more skin is seen here than probably anywhere else in the united states....... yet hawaii has a very low incidence of rape per capita compared to other parts of the u.s..... ... and it;s even low compared to muslim countries where no skin is seen at all..... . . a fundamentalist preacher who came through hawaii many years ago even commented himself that he was shocked to learn how low the rate of rape here was considering how much skin was visible everywhere he looked.......

so what is it?........ is there some other factor... or factors.. at work that the fundamentalists of either faith haven;t figured out yet?....... ....... ...

yes there are ........ there are 3 of them in fact ....... the first is awareness..... the second is deprivation .... and the third is simple curiosity

i submit..... and i firmly believe..... that the only thing required to incite and exacerbate lust in the heart of a man who harbors it is simply becoming aware that a female is present....... if he can;t see her or doesn;t know anything about her then that makes him all the more curious to find out who she and what she looks like....  ...... and then dwelling on those unknown factors works to exacerbate his lust all the more..... ...... add to that the other male obsessions with always needing to try out new things... .. his desire to kick in doors.... break down walls.... and conquer or kill everything that moves.... or take on and beat down anything he hasn;t taken on before and you have the full recipe for what has made men what they are ...........  dangerous creatures controlled by their own lust....

and the day they begin to take responsibility for it..... rather than continually try and blame it on someone else.....  is the day they become able to begin dealing with it effectively.. even conquer it.... ......  and become able to truly begin walking in the spirit .......... but before that day all they are doing is ignoring and living in denial about something that is constantly burning inside them...... but which they may have become accustomed to or learned to forget about,  until the thing burns hotter and rises to levels they can;t ignore.........

the amount of stimulus required to fan that fire to uncomfortable levels is different in every man...... and it even changes for the same man from time to time....... ... but it;s always there and always smoldering ... waiting to flare up the moment they simply become aware a female is present..... regardless of how she is dressed... ..... the extent is goes to after that depends on whether not he has conscious to balance out his desires .......... that balance has to be established internally.....  not dependent on something that is outside......

so women may be the focus of a mans lust...... . and the thing they like to blame....... .  but women are not the problem............. men are......

There are multiple triggers for what encites lust, and I did not mean to imply that showing more skin is the sole trigger.  The revealing of the  form of the body and particular parts are as a generalization also triggers, which of course is why this topic was posted.  As has been stated many times in this thread, the man's lust is his sin, but immodesty is the woman's (or whichever gender the case may be) sin.  To pretend that there is no such thing as immodesty is na?ve (not saying you are making that claim) and to make modesty merely a principle of cultural subjectivity is too relativistic for my sensibilities.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

lust doesn;t need triggers........ have you been paying attention to anything i said?........ the only thing men who harbor lust need to get that lust smoldering inside them is to simply be aware of a females presence....... and the more he sees of them or the more he thinks about it.. the hotter the flame grows........

I agree that lust doesn't NEED triggers, but that doesn't mean triggers don't exist.  I'm pretty low libido at my age, but there are rare occasions when a sense of lust is stirred up by some woman I come across.  But I don't blame the woman, even if she's intentionally trying to stir up lust.  I take responsibility, look the other way, and douse the (tiny) flame. 

Here, I'll quote a book I don't believe belongs in the canon, because the quote is, in fact, true.  The problem is their own evil desire, not the woman.

"each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin"

 

[ALAYMAN]

lust doesn;t need triggers........ have you been paying attention to anything i said?........ the only thing men who harbor lust need to get that lust smoldering inside them is to simply be aware of a females presence....... and the more he sees of them or the more he thinks about it.. the hotter the flame grows........  ... men with a healthy understanding of themselves are well aware of that and deal with it responsibly.... .. they don;t blame the object of their lust and then make an obsession out of pointing out everything they think that object they lust for is doing wrong .... or what it is representing.... that they can;t handle......... and they don;t pretend forcing everybody to cover everything they can;t handle seeing will fix their problem either....  ..... that is what the sick minded men of the taliban are known for

the only thing your buddy tarheel has accomplished with his multiple threads and obsessive posts on the subject here is to prove he is not in that category of healthy minded or responsible men........  he is as sick inside as men get........ and i really hope you are not setting out to try and prove the same thing........

but pardon me if i don;t set my hopes too high on that account....... all through this thread you and your friend pointed out - specifically named - and then described in detail what i and every other female on this island wear daily... which is part of the accepted culture here....  and called it everything from immodest to dressing like a prostitute ....... you admitted different people could draw the lines between modesty and immodesty in different places..... but then you say you reject the idea that those lines can be determined by culture... due to your sensibilities..... .............  so you are right back to square one judging others according to the sin in your own heart... and trying to make your sin their problem......

.... i don;t know what kind of future travel plans either of you have but i can assure you of two things...... nobody i know here where i live is dressing the way they do to make anybody lust..... we dress the way we always have and just like everybody else does...  and nobody here has ever had a problem with it.....  ... but if you really feel the way you do about everything you said... then you should both stay as far away as you can from this chain of islands... ... and away from every other place in the world like them...... for your own wellbeing........

Are the following statements true about your beliefs on this subject.....

1) Modesty is completely a cultural concept
2) If a person has no intent to tempt or incite lust then it does not matter what they are wearing (assuming they are not completely naked)

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

i agree ... we all have triggers with regards to certain things..... i certainly do ...... and the more triggers we have about something is generally related to how big our problem is with that particular thing.....  ... ... i also agree that if a person is dressing with the intent of causing lust..... or acting in a way to intentionally set someones triggers off.... . then that person is definitely committing sin...... ..... but those are things that are intentional and easily recognized as being intentional...... .. the person doing it should be confronted it about if it can;t be ignored .......  .. within reason....

but to go to a place and make a blanket statement and say every female dressed in such and such way is immodest and dressed like a whore.....  especially when your talking about a group that is simply following the norms regarding dress of the culture they live in.... and not acting with intent to cause lust...... is doing nothing more than revealing ones own corrupt heart......... as well as setting himself for a major pounding if the local brothers hear it...........  and sadly enough that is actually something i have been witness to more than once...... 

I was pondering the issue of guilt and responsibility without bringing sex into it, and came up with this...

1. A well-dressed (obviously wealthy) man walks down the street.  Nothing remarkable happens. 

2. A well-dressed (obviously wealthy) man walks down the street with $100 bills hanging out of his pockets.  People look at him like he's crazy, but nothing remarkable happens, because it's a safe street. 

3. A well-dressed (obviously wealthy) man walks down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood.  Some ne'er-do-wells see him and think, "This guy's got money, let's mug him."  So they mug him.  The muggers are guilty, and the rich man was probably stupid, but innocent. 

4. A well-dressed (obviously wealthy) man walks down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood with $100 bills hanging out of his pockets.  He gets mugged.  The muggers were guilty AND the rich guy was either brain-dead or asking for it.  But the muggers aren't guilty BECAUSE the rich guy was asking for it.  The muggers are still responsible for their actions.  No judge is going to let them off because the rich guy was tempting.

I don't know how this translates into the lust and clothes debate, but I just thought I'd have some fun with a non-sex illustration.

 

[BALAAM]

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

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

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

I'm giving up my thong, too; giving it away as a gift. 

It's a little bit funny, this feeling inside
I'm not one of those who can easily hide,

I Don't have much money but boy, if I did
I'd buy a big house where we both could live

If I was a sculptor but then again, no
Or a man who makes potions in a traveling show

Oh, I know it's not much but it's the best I can do
My gift is my thong
And this one's for you

And you can tell everybody this is your thong..

 

[ALAYMAN]

Are the following statements true about your beliefs on this subject.....

1) Modesty is completely a cultural concept
2) If a person has no intent to tempt or incite lust then it does not matter what they are wearing (assuming they are not completely naked)

assuming they are not completely naked?....... then yes..... that is pretty much what i believe.......  but there are also other factors ..... like time and place.... and dressing appropriately for an occasion or activity.....  .. don;t jump to the extreme and assume i mean it;s ok to wear spandex shorts and a tank top to church... or daisy dukes to sunday school.... .. not all issues concerning dress are related to modesty as you and tarheel define it..... .....  even in cultures where less clothing is acceptable at most times proper dress wear is still expected for others......

in other words..... you can be dressed in an appropriate way for one thing but completely wrong for another...... and that too is often determined by culture........ the important thing is that a person is doing what they can to be appropriate for whatever the occasion or activity is and they are not acting or dressing in a way with the intention of inciting lust.... or any other sinful reaction....


in the thread about instrumental music you said this........

ALAYMAN - - I'd say that the author's intent is the most germane point for determining a music's intended message.

why is that same concept hard for you to apply to this issue as well?......... .....

i know some hyper-fundies who are hardliners when it comes to music.... and they would say if you like any rock and roll at all then you are compromised in your music..... and they would say it is because you have found certain rock and roll songs you like.... and which you want to listen to..... so you make room for those songs by refusing to accept a blanket statement that all rock and roll music ... or forms of music with a certain beat or certain style...  is wrong.......

would you agree with a statement like that?......

how do you think middle easterners.... or the puritans of a few centuries ago...  would feel about the standards regarding womens dress that you have no problem accepting as completely modest today?.............. would they ask you the same question you asked me about your beliefs regarding culture and nakedness? ...... do you think you could answer it in a way they would accept?.......

but most importantly..... how would you feel if they said your view exhibited a lack of common sense.... or if they pointed to women in your family dressed in a way you feel is modest ...and used the same words to describe them tarheel uses to describe me and other women who dress the way we do where i live?........

My intent in discussing this is not to try to call names, stir anybody up, or apply guilt.  I think that modesty, as defined scripturally means a shamefacedness.  That could apply, as you pointed out, to ostentatious displays of a variety of kinds, but not limited to gaudy clothing.  Where that line is for each person is indeed a subjective decision because the Bible doesn't give explicit definitions for clothing lengths and restrictions.  I tend to align with what Tarheel is saying about common sense because the more decadent and immoral a society tends to get the more they become with sex and sexuality, particularly of a perverse kind(Romans 1).  There is no doubt that our society is running wild with its preoccupation with displays of skin and seduction.  The two go hand in hand.  I don't doubt for a second that there are people who wear things that I believe common sense should dictate not be worn but they aren't intending to incite lust, nor are they persuaded in their mind that they are immodest, but I say let each person be fully persuaded in their own mind that they are honoring God with their behavior, and furthering the gospel, not causing others to stumble.

 

[rsc2a]

Let all the dirty whores be persuaded in their own mind. I won't judge!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Let all the dirty whores be persuaded in their own mind. I won't judge!

So, your mind is made up and you're afraid someone might judge you???

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

These are hot.  And they're perfect for the Chinese prostitute trade, since the Chinese refer to prostitutes as "chickens". 

 

[bgwilkinson]

My intent in discussing this is not to try to call names, stir anybody up, or apply guilt.  I think that modesty, as defined scripturally means a shamefacedness.  That could apply, as you pointed out, to ostentatious displays of a variety of kinds, but not limited to gaudy clothing.  Where that line is for each person is indeed a subjective decision because the Bible doesn't give explicit definitions for clothing lengths and restrictions.  I tend to align with what Tarheel is saying about common sense because the more decadent and immoral a society tends to get the more they become with sex and sexuality, particularly of a perverse kind(Romans 1).  There is no doubt that our society is running wild with its preoccupation with displays of skin and seduction.  The two go hand in hand.  I don't doubt for a second that there are people who wear things that I believe common sense should dictate not be worn but they aren't intending to incite lust, nor are they persuaded in their mind that they are immodest, but I say let each person be fully persuaded in their own mind that they are honoring God with their behavior, and furthering the gospel, not causing others to stumble.

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?...........

but for the sake of argument...  and since you didn;t actually say that yourself.... ...... suppose it wasn;t your friend that said it... but someone else in his theological camp  .... and your friend says he "aligns" with that individual........ is he going to continue to be a friend after that?........

tarheel loves to compare modern forms of dress he find uncomfortable to look at with being "the attire of a prostitute".......... he seems to lump everything from spandex pants to shorts and halter tops with whoredom... and he loves referring to scripture that refers to the attire of a harlot.... (but which i point out never actually describes what that attire is).. ... ...

i have no idea what harlots in biblical times wore.... but i have seen modern day workers in the sex trades dressed in all kind of things....  and you are well aware of why i know this....i grew up a first hand witness ........ ....... and  would you like to know what the most consistent article of clothing used by modern day harlots - prostitutes - exotic dancers... and other workers in the sex trade is?............

high heeled shoes...........

specifically spiked high heels...... ... for one because they make the legs appear to be longer than they are..... but also because of the way they force the leg muscles to tighten thus accenting the shape of them.......  there are other reasons too having to do with the angles the legs are forced into when moving around on your feet in high heeled shoes....... .... but i;ll just leave it at that for now.........

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........

You nailed it, high heeled shoes were invented to make women look more attractive.

They could legitimately be considered the attire of a harlot.

They serve no other use that I can figure.

Quote

"Ancient Roman & Greek Platform sandals called ?kothorni? or ?buskins? were shoes with high wooden cork soles worn during ancient Greek and Roman era. They were particularly popular among the actors who would wear them to differentiate the social classes and importance of each character. In ancient Rome, where sex trade was legal, high heels were used to identify those within the trade to potential clients and high heels became associated with prostitution."


Well there you go. They are the attire of a prostitute. Now you know.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You nailed it, high heeled shoes were invented to make women look more attractive.

They could legitimately be considered the attire of a harlot.

They serve no other use that I can figure.

I see lots of non-harlot women wearing them.  That doesn't change the fact that they could be considered the attire of a harlot.  There's a saying that goes, "If you want to know what next year's women's styles will be, look at this year's prostitutes."

I haven't seen prostitutes in ages (or if I have, I didn't recognize them as prostitutes).  But back when I used to take the bus into New York City, Port Authority dumped me right out at 42nd street, where all the prostitutes hung out at that time (things have changed since then). 

And I do recall that this saying was mostly true.  I remember when hookers started wearing tube tops and hot pants, and sure enough, college kids were wearing them the next year. 

Okay, I've sufficiently revealed what an old fart I am.