The Apparel & Adornment of Women and Men

[SirWhit]

What in your mind is acting like prostitutes? Showing any skin? Including the neck? I mean you have literally said you cannot look at a picture of a woman whose neck is exposed. Do women have to literally cover everything but their face? And why is leaving their face exposed okay? Could that tempt men too?

I must have exaggerated or something. A woman can expose her face and neck. Her hands and arms even to the elbow (though, depending on the case sometimes it is all right to wear shorter sleeves i.e. at home). Her legs even to the knee.

What makes the face and neck, hands and arms to the elbow Holiness Movement-sanctioned skin?

[Renae]

So then shorts and a t-shirt would be more inappropriate than pants and a tank top.

I said nothing of the sort. If you really want my opinion, I would say that in both cases you are revealing a little too much skin.
I don't understand why you all have to complicate yourselves with technicalities of this sort.

[Spoon]

What about shorts and a t-shirt seems inappropriate to you? What are you basing this on?

[Renae]

I would say that in both cases you are revealing a little too much skin.

I stated my reasons in the above sentence.

[Spoon]

I'm asking *why* you think showing your forearms would be inappropriate. What are you basing this on?

[Renae]

I think the problem here is the amount of skin you are revealing. One guy told me that sometimes (only sometimes) its not exactly what you're revealing (ex. arms, legs, or belly) but how much you are revealing. He said that when guys see a lot of skin, it often turns them on.

I also stated by reasons in the above sentence.
But you obviously did not understand.
I will repeat.

I have a guy friend, a cousin, and a dad who all told me that when guys see a lot of skin it often turns them on. They also said that this doesn't necessarily need to be skin seen as décolletage, it can be simply seeing a woman's uncovered arms, legs, or belly.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Maybe if men saw women as more than objects to be lusted after they wouldn't have an issue. After all rape still happens in Muslim countries with burqas.

[Spoon]

If a man/woman has trouble with lust when just seeing a forearm, there's a huge issue. And not one that can be solved by 'not wearing t-shirts'.

[Renae]

If a man/woman has trouble with lust when just seeing a forearm, there's a huge issue. And not one that can be solved by 'not wearing t-shirts'.

I think you should be careful, honey, before you so easily condemn something you don't know so much about. Do you know the workings of a man's mind? No.
What really is the issue is that women nowadays do not have enough self control to actually cover up a little more. I'm not saying that it's all up to us. But, if we can do something to help the male race with this struggle, why not?

[Eleventh Doctor]

As a man, my solution for this is to view women as people and not objects to be lusted over. When I do have impure thoughts it is in no way the fault of the women around me or a lack of self control on their part. Men who say that are projecting their inadequacies on women.

I am in no way saying modesty is a bad thing but do it because you want to be humble before God not because you think all men are sex crazed lunatics who go crazy at the sight of any skin (yes this is hyperbole, I'm using it to prove a point).

[Renae]

As a man, my solution for this is to view women as people and not objects to be lusted over.

Please do so.

I am in no way saying modesty is a bad thing but do it because you want to be humble before God not because you think all men are sex crazed lunatics who go crazy at the sight of any skin (yes this is hyperbole, I'm using it to prove a point).

Never in my entire post did I refer to men in such a way. Your hyperbole is ridiculous.

When I do have impure thoughts it is in no way the fault of the women around me or a lack of self control on their part. Men who say that are projecting their inadequacies on women.

It is never the entire fault of one race. Women SHOULD have self control. As should men.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I have a guy friend, a cousin, and a dad who all told me that when guys see a lot of skin it often turns them on. They also said that this doesn't necessarily need to be skin seen as décolletage, it can be simply seeing a woman's uncovered arms, legs, or belly.

Then this is ridiculous hyperbole as well, because I don't think I'm too far off the mark from what you said here. Uncovered arms and legs?

Also it is entirely my fault when I have these thoughts, one for thinking of women as objects and two for not giving my thoughts over completely to God.

[Spoon]

Renae, do you believe it is a woman's fault (to some degree) if a man lusts after her?

[Renae]

I have a guy friend, a cousin, and a dad who all told me that when guys see a lot of skin it often turns them on. They also said that this doesn't necessarily need to be skin seen as décolletage, it can be simply seeing a woman's uncovered arms, legs, or belly.

Then this is ridiculous hyperbole as well, because I don't think I'm too far off the mark from what you said here. Uncovered arms and legs?

Do you know the definition of the word hyperbole? I'm beginning to think you don't.

Renae, do you believe it is a woman's fault (to some degree) if a man lusts after her?

Look. If the woman is too uncovered, she is sinning in and of herself.
If the man lusts he is sinning in and of himself. It is HIS fault entirely that he lusts, but it could have been prevented if the woman had not dressed that way.

I really don't want to come off as mean or nonsensical. Please understand where I am coming from. I am so distressed about this topic because I have younger brothers who are smart enough to look away but also cannot help but notice when a lady is obviously waayy too uncovered (and lets not try to pretend that there is no such thing as being too uncovered. You may find the line different than I do, but what matters is that THERE IS A LINE.)
Their stumble could have been prevented if the women they had seen had had a little more discretion. This is all I am trying to say.

"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea."

[Spoon]

Do you have any thoughts on why sexual assault still happens when women are covered head to toe in clothing? If it could have been prevented by covering up, it seems it wouldn't have happened.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I'm sorry Renae for getting out of hand, I should be trying more to understand where you're coming from. I'm not arguing against modesty I just want to make sure that it isn't done in a legalistic way, I'm not saying you're legalistic. I'm just saying there is a lot of legalism out there over this issue.

You're talking about a line though and I wonder what is that? I mean it sounds like from your personal example it can be as little as an uncovered arm or leg. Unless I'm just totally misunderstanding the example you gave and yes I know what the word hyperbole means and I'm not using it now.

As for saying it is man's fault entirely that rings a bit hollow when you add the "but" to the end of that sentence.

[Renae]

@Spoon
That is not the point. I was discussing uncovered women. Nothing else. Not burkas, not head to toe covering.
And please please don't put words in my mouth. I said absolutely nothing about sexual assault. Neither did I say that ALL lust can be prevented by covering up.

@Eleventh Doctor
Don't worry about it. I just think we should all know where we're coming from because to some extent it does make a difference.
As to the line. I don't wear pants that come higher than midthigh and no sleevless shirts. Is that what you were asking about?

That is of no concern to me. It IS man's fault. The situation could have been prevented by the woman. Is that better?

[TigerShadow]

I think I get what you're saying Renae (correct me if I'm wrong, though). Basically, are you saying that a man should still be able to get around the obstacle, but a woman should not place the obstacle there in the first place?

[Spoon]

My point is that it *can't* be prevented, or there wouldn't be assault when women wear burkas. If covering up could prevent it, it wouldn't be an issue.

[Eleventh Doctor]

That is what I'm asking. So where does that standard come from? Because by the standards of 70 years ago that would be very immodest.

That's really not much better, as Spoon was trying to say if the situation can't be stopped even with a burqa how could a woman prevent it? And where do you draw the line of how discrete women need to be? You seem to draw it at midthigh and elbows but why stop there if even a burqa won't stop all lust? Shouldn't you be going for the maximum discretion?