Modesty, yoga pants and myths.

[bgwilkinson]

Honest question for men:  Does a modestly-dressed woman (yes, according to YOUR standards of modesty, wherever that may fall on the spectrum) eliminate lust on your part toward that woman?

Modest dress can never eliminate lust in the heart of man. The lust is a part of the sin nature possessed by all humans.

If modest clothes could eliminate lust a full burka could stop rape in its tracks, of course it does not.

What one cannot see can be more enticing than that which one can see.

Women in burkas are lusted after by middle-eastern men continually, it seems all they think about is lust and rape.

The middle-east is a culture of rape.

 

[HeDied4U]

Honest question for men:  Does a modestly-dressed woman (yes, according to YOUR standards of modesty, wherever that may fall on the spectrum) eliminate lust on your part toward that woman?

Eliminate as in totally eliminate lust? I wish, but nothing will totally eliminate lust. As bgwilkinson said, "...lust is a part of the sin nature possessed by all humans."

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Saw this and immediately thought about the FFF: 

http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/175460-phylicia-masonheimer-modesty-yoga-pants-and-5-myths-you-need-to-know.html

It still causes me to think of the FFF....

 

[ALAYMAN]

This thread's lesson:

"If thine eye offend thee, share part of the blame on the object of the eye and preach at them about it."

As with many things in life, there are often more than a single lesson taught.  And in this case, it may also be "it depends on whose ox is being gored as to how I view the pot stirring".

 

[ALAYMAN]

Honest question for men:  Does a modestly-dressed woman (yes, according to YOUR standards of modesty, wherever that may fall on the spectrum) eliminate lust on your part toward that woman?

There are many varying triggers for lust, and scantily dressed women are only one.


Of course in all my years of listening to men in the break room I've never heard them use bawdy locker room language in referring to the latest issue of Women's Home Burka, but MANY  talking about SI's Swimsuit Issue.

 

[ALAYMAN]

That has absolutely nothing to do with my question, but, OK.

Ok.

Does a modestly-dressed woman eliminate lust on your part toward that woman?


No.

 

[HeDied4U]

Honest question for men:  Does a modestly-dressed woman (yes, according to YOUR standards of modesty, wherever that may fall on the spectrum) eliminate lust on your part toward that woman?

There are many varying triggers for lust, and scantily dressed women are only one.


Of course in all my years of listening to men in the break room I've never heard them use bawdy locker room language in referring to the latest issue of Women's Home Burka, but MANY  talking about SI's Swimsuit Issue.

That reminds me, I need to renew my subscription.    ;D

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Mmmm... yogurt, and the satisfaction of knowing I posted a white T-Shirt first, then deleted it, then replaced it with a black T-Shirt.  And when I went to this post in Tapatalk, all I saw was the black T-Shirt.  Tapatalk didn't magically "remember" the white T-Shirt after I deleted it.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

do you know what that comment on that black t-shirt means?.......

i never saw the last pic you posted that got you temporarily banned..... but if it was a photograph of full nudity whether artistically inspired or not....  then i agree it should have been removed..... and i also agree with the decision admin made..... .. .....

but vulgarity goes far beyond just imagery and pornographic photographs........ suggestive comments and statements ... whether or not they contain profanity or obscene words.... can also be considered vulgar and indecent based on what they imply..... and in many ways can even be worse than visual imagery.....

there are times you can be a lot of fun to interact with here...... but why do you feel the need to constantly push this issue of vulgarity and skirt the boundary of what is decent?........ ..... do you realize that even teenagers in christian circles are familiar with street language and urban definitions .... and that some of them probably also see this forum?...

i;m asking you as a friend....... please remove that picture.......

I'll remove it.  I don't know what it means in a vulgar sense.  I take it to mean I want yogurt, not yoga, as in "Yoga pants?   Give me YOGURT pants!" 

EDIT: Okay, I figured it out now that you called my attention to the fact that it's vulgar.  Sorry, I really wasn't thinking in those terms.  I just looked for any picture that seemed related to the topic of yoga pants, and chose one without a picture of a woman in yoga pants.

 

[Ransom]

  Sorry, I really wasn't thinking in those terms.

That's a change.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I'll remove it.  I don't know what it means in a vulgar sense.  I take it to mean I want yogurt, not yoga. 

EDIT: Okay, I figured it out now that you called my attention to the fact that it's vulgar.  Sorry, I really wasn't thinking in those terms.  I just looked for any picture that seemed related to the topic of yoga pants, and chose one without a picture of a woman in yoga pants.

thank you for deleting it.....

No problem.  I make jokes all the time, some of which have a sexual innuendo, but that was gross, and totally unintended. 

EDIT:  It's actually kind of funny that in my effort to avoid posting a controversial picture of a woman in yoga pants, I ended up picking a picture that's much more controversial.  D'oh.

 

[subllibrm]

You learn something new everyday around here.  :-\

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You learn something new everyday around here.  :-\

And it's not always something you wanted to learn.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Honest question for men:  Does a modestly-dressed woman (yes, according to YOUR standards of modesty, wherever that may fall on the spectrum) eliminate lust on your part toward that woman?

The responsibility for lust always falls on the one doing the lusting....always.

But, I haven't read where anyone has argued otherwise.

 

[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)

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

Honestly, I looked at the hair first, the gun second, and the waist third.  My eyes weren't drawn to her butt, which is what I assume you're talking about.  Hey, I'm weird, what can I say?

Yeah, that was an old post to reply to -- I was just browsing the thread again.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

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

Where's that Joker meme, seriously. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You ladies in Hawaii or beach towns have no excuse.  This is what you should be wearing at the beach. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

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

Another shining example of the inability of ALAYMAN to allow a brother or sister in Christ to make their own choices in what they wear....

Alayman must have had a crush on "Daisy". I have to admit. I might have myself. What is bad for one isn't necessarily bad for another.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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

Another shining example of the inability of ALAYMAN to allow a brother or sister in Christ to make their own choices in what they wear....

Alayman must have had a crush in "Daisy". I have to admit. I might have myself. What is bad for one isn't necessarily bad for another.

If you read the entire thread, ugh, you will find that Alayman stated more than once the opposite of what you accuse him of....modesty is in the eye of the beholder. Fortunately, nobody here gives a rat's hiney what anyone else thinks, or how they vote. But, in spite of that we sometimes use the ignore feature.

Having said that:
What would you say if David Duke endorsed Donald Trump while wearing Daisy Dukes? And naturally,Trump calls a news conference, on CNN of course, to renounce Duke while wearing a pair of his line of Donald Trump Yoga Pants?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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

Another shining example of the inability of ALAYMAN to allow a brother or sister in Christ to make their own choices in what they wear....
......

and that has been his "double speak" assertions throughout this argument....... that while modesty definitions are subjective..... "common sense" christianity says we should all be subject to his definition..... or else be subject to his insults on the matter.........

and here is a post from another thread that illustrates how that subjective opinion of his progresses to those insults..........

I'm being offensive? lol

In this thread ALONE she's called me a liar, Pharisee, hypocrite, and misogynist.  Try to find anything close to provocative that I've said to deserve that.  It ain't there, except in her creative imagination and over-sensitivity to the topic under discussion.

I agree with you that she is a good person, and a respectable forum member, but the vitriol that is being hurled in this latest fiasco is one-sided, all because of an unintended perceived slight regarding attire that made Catherine Bach an international sex symbol.

in a single sentence he claims he is not being offensive then compares the clothing in question to the attire that made a soft core porn star into an international sex symbol...... ....... double speak at it;s finest......  and denial at it;s finest too since he still maintains that statement was somehow not offensive...... .....

but all you have to do is follow the logic according to other things he has said in other threads - where he has defended himself for making abusive statements...... or talked about how if certain people do certain things.... (which by default would include wearing certain things).... then they deserve the negative attention and negative consequences of that action....... even when it comes from a fine "common sense" christian like him..... . ... and there you have it.......... the victim is responsible for being victimized..... responsible for her own abuse.....  and responsible for the lust in the mans heart that led to that abuse and victimization..... ... why?....... because... in alaymans subjective opinion... she dressed like a porn star...... or...  in tarheels words.... like a harlot....

but point any of this out and alayman will deny it all day long then call you a liar.......

just because something is said in a clever way that gives the speaker plausible deniability in his own mind.... it doesn;t stop the true meaning and intentions behind those words from coming through loud and clear to the person who hears it......... words mean things....... even twisted words....... ....




 

bumped ahead so the two liars tarheel and alayman can;t pretend it got buried on the last page and ignore it.......

Bump!