Can Christians be Sexy?

[mpok1519]

some people say that one's appearance is a very good indicator of their self-esteem; this seems to me to be true for the most part; I've never met someone with a haggard or haphazard apearance who also had a high self-esteem. They always seemed kinda down in the dumps for the most part.

A good outward appearance is generally an indicator of good self-esteem.

 

[reverend B]

What soul of what thing? By "thing" are you referring women?

the point being that appealing to the sexuality in the woman helps to objectify her, and she brings it on herself.

Which is? And, exactly what scripture?


i don't think that is particularly obscure.

"Selfish"? Do you mean that in trying to appeal to a man a woman should what, gain attention for things that are not what we are called to be attracted to in a mate for all women? Exactly where does selfishness come into the picture? And, just who is doing all this "calling" you speak of? As it appears to me, sexuality is exactly one of the things men are innately attracted to. Do you have some scripture that says men are not suppose to be sexually attracted to women?

sexual attraction is not the issue. context is the issue. sexual attraction being part of the bond, not the cause for it.

Ah, I don't think the real objective in dressing sexy is to help men fantasize about oneself, but rather to attract personal attention; like one-on-one real life stuff. This isn't to say some women wouldn't be pleased as punch to have men fantasize about them, but I hardly think they go to the bother and expense to do so. It's more of a secondary or tertiary result.

i agree it isn't the objective, but it is more often than not the result. you are having a very typical knee-jerk reaction to my post. the problem isn't in the women, it is in the men. my stance is an appeal to women to help men maintain a certain sobriety when it comes to their sexuality.


Really! A bare midriff does it for you, huh. To each his own. *shrug*

condescending and not worth comment.

And just what is that service, a relationship devoid of sexual attraction? "Hey hun, we got to do that s - e - x thing again if we're going to have another baby. You know, that thing we did four years ago!" Do you actually believe that women are so obtuse that they can't see beneath sexual attraction? You seem assume that women are incapable of demonstrating their other attributs while exhibiting their sexuality, and that men are so blinded by female sexuality that they cant pick up on these other attributes. Believe me, I, for one, can chew gum and pat my belly at the same time.

you are naive about the blinding quality of a woman's sexuality for many men. this is about men's weakness.


A culture driven by sex in its entertainment and marketing, huh. Care to cite the statistics that back this up? Our culture, like all cultures, is multi dimensional and driven by a slew of factors, only one of which is its entertainment and the marketing of products. You grossly exaggerate the situation, although I'm not surprised.

again condescending and curiously so, as it is women being objectified. not sure where your attitude is coming from, but i don't think my post is deserving of it.

First thing you've said that's somewhat on the mark. But, not all women dress provocatively, although considering that you're turned on by a bare midriff I understand where you're coming from.

more of the same.

If Madison Ave can talk women out of "scriptural encouragement" this obviously says little for scripture. But I think it's a mistake to lay the blame, as you seem to regard it, on Mad Av.. Women have always used their sexuality to attract men., and way before advertising came into existence. Moreover, it's interesting that you equate sexiness with being randy: of a lustful or lecherousness nature. Not saying that some women aren't lustful or even lecherous, but sexiness is not the equivalent of randiness. At least not among those who understand the distinction. A woman can be quite sexy without being randy.

being sexy is an implied promise of things to come. if she does not fulfill the promise then shame on her for false advertising. yes, there has always been advertising. this is not a knock on scripture, by the way, but on people's willingness to sacrifice what seems the natural way to go.


Good grief, another trite play on words.

non-substantive.

"I'm only keeping my long sleeved blouse buttoned at the neck, and am wearing an ankle-length skirt so you can see how much I love you. If I didn't love you I'd be in a thong and pasties. Aren't you happy? I said, AREN'T YOU HAPPY? HEY, WHERE YOU GOIN'"

hyperbole makes poor argument and is for those that can't formulate a cogent one. no one is talking about being buttoned up to the neck.

So what's the deal here, celibacy? Forget about flesh and blood men altogether? Excuse me, I thought your remark was going to be relevant.

once again, my post isn't about the women. it is an appeal to be considerate of the men. they are as weak as many women lament them to be, and my view is that Christian women might want to take that into consideration and choose to help men in their plight to be Christ-like. appeal to them on a different level. sex is great and can be a wonderful exploration between two people, but relationships that start with that appeal are immediately endangered. it is a powerful and blinding force at times. you express a women's need to use her sexuality to attract a man, but when that is the attractant you get what you troll for.

In any case I do thank you for your input here. Without hearing from people like yourself we would never know what the other side of the coin looked like. A sincere thanks for your contribution.

save your disingenuous sincere thanks. the attitude that is expressed throughout your post is not one of polite discourse, but rather of self-righteous rudeness. stay true to yourself through the end. at least then i can admire your consistency.

 

[Washington]

Washington: What soul of what thing? By "thing" are you referring women?

Reverend B: the point being that appealing to the sexuality in the woman helps to objectify her, and she brings it on herself.

I asked you two questions. Why can't you answer them?

W: Which is? And, exactly what scripture?

RB: i don't think that is particularly obscure.

I didn't ask you what you thought, I asked two every simple questions. Obviously there is no scripture or you wouldn't be tap dancing here.

W: Selfish"? Do you mean that in trying to appeal to a man a woman should what, gain attention for things that are not what we are called to be attracted to in a mate for all women? Exactly where does selfishness come into the picture? And, just who is doing all this "calling" you speak of? As it appears to me, sexuality is exactly one of the things men are innately attracted to. Do you have some scripture that says men are not suppose to be sexually attracted to women?

RB:sexual attraction is not the issue. context is the issue. sexual attraction being part of the bond, not the cause for it.

Again with the tap dancing. Four questions and not one answer that addresses any of them. And now double talk. Exactly what . . . . never mind, I now realize that you don't answer direct questions.

W: Ah, I don't think the real objective in dressing sexy is to help men fantasize about oneself, but rather to attract personal attention; like one-on-one real life stuff. This isn't to say some women wouldn't be pleased as punch to have men fantasize about them, but I hardly think they go to the bother and expense to do so. It's more of a secondary or tertiary result.

RB: i agree it isn't the objective, but it is more often than not the result. you are having a very typical knee-jerk reaction to my post.

"Knee jerk"? Not that your appraisal is at all important, but I thought my remarks had been most thoughtful. I made 12 individual responses to your rather modest post, all of which were quite sincere. Anyway, to continue . . . . . . . .

RB: the problem isn't in the women, it is in the men. my stance is an appeal to women to help men maintain a certain sobriety when it comes to their sexuality.

Not particularly relevant, but okay.

W: Really! A bare midriff does it for you, huh. To each his own. *shrug*

RB: condescending and not worth comment.

As if all of a sudden you would start making comments relevant to my remarks. I've given up hope, RB. Your avoidance tactics are obviously well practiced and quite healthy. But hey, I can't help what you consider to be provocative. If you don't find a bare midriff to be provocative then why use it as an example?

W: And just what is that service, a relationship devoid of sexual attraction? "Hey hun, we got to do that s - e - x thing again if we're going to have another baby. You know, that thing we did four years ago!" Do you actually believe that women are so obtuse that they can't see beneath sexual attraction? You seem assume that women are incapable of demonstrating their other attributes while exhibiting their sexuality, and that men are so blinded by female sexuality that they cant pick up on these other attributes. Believe me, I, for one, can chew gum and pat my belly at the same time.

RB: you are naive about the blinding quality of a woman's sexuality for many men. this is about men's weakness.

I know that's what you want to make the issue; "men's weakness," but sexual attraction is far more complex than that. That you see the response to sexual attraction as a weakness is saying volumes about you, RB. Did you know that? I suspect you don't like the idea that people are sexually attracted to one another, but it is one of the driving forces that makes the world go around. Think god looks down his nose at human sexuality? Sex ain't all that bad, yeah know. (Note: all questions are rhetorical)

W: A culture driven by sex in its entertainment and marketing, huh. Care to cite the statistics that back this up? Our culture, like all cultures, is multi dimensional and driven by a slew of factors, only one of which is its entertainment and the marketing of products. You grossly exaggerate the situation, although I'm not surprised.

RB: again condescending and curiously so, as it is women being objectified. not sure where your attitude is coming from, but i don't think my post is deserving of it.

You want to take offense because I happen to find your remark to be a gross exaggeration? Anyone who claims our culture is "driven by sex in its entertainment and marketing" is either a dolt or is simply exaggerating. I think I gave you the benefit of the kinder doubt.
As to why I don't find it surprising: You've made a number of unsubstantiated claims, all couched in the language of fact. After awhile the picture forms of how you deal with your beliefs: they emerge in your mind as fact. At least that's how you present them. So it comes as no surprise that you would use another faulty form of presentation: exaggeration.

W: First thing you've said that's somewhat on the mark. But, not all women dress provocatively, although considering that you're turned on by a bare midriff I understand where you're coming from.

RB: more of the same.

And still no denial.

W: If Madison Ave can talk women out of "scriptural encouragement" this obviously says little for scripture. But I think it's a mistake to lay the blame, as you seem to regard it, on Mad Av.. Women have always used their sexuality to attract men., and way before advertising came into existence. Moreover, it's interesting that you equate sexiness with being randy: of a lustful or lecherousness nature. Not saying that some women aren't lustful or even lecherous, but sexiness is not the equivalent of randiness. At least not among those who understand the distinction. A woman can be quite sexy without being randy.

RB: being sexy is an implied promise of things to come. if she does not fulfill the promise then shame on her for false advertising. yes, there has always been advertising. this is not a knock on scripture, by the way, but on people's willingness to sacrifice what seems the natural way to go.

Really! You actually think that "sexy is an implied promise of things to come."? I'm at a loss for words.

W: Good grief, another trite play on words.

RB: non-substantive.

Which makes us even.

W: "I'm only keeping my long sleeved blouse buttoned at the neck, and am wearing an ankle-length skirt so you can see how much I love you. If I didn't love you I'd be in a thong and pasties. Aren't you happy? I said, AREN'T YOU HAPPY? HEY, WHERE YOU GOIN'"

RB: hyperbole makes poor argument and is for those that can't formulate a cogent one. no one is talking about being buttoned up to the neck.

And this coming from the guy who tap dances like Gene Kelly. In any case, it wasn't an argument, but what I thought of as an amusing poke at nonsense. Want to play the nonsense card then you have to be ready to be called on it.

W: So what's the deal here, celibacy? Forget about flesh and blood men altogether? Excuse me, I thought your remark was going to be relevant.

RB: once again, my post isn't about the women. it is an appeal to be considerate of the men. they are as weak as many women lament them to be, and my view is that Christian women might want to take that into consideration and choose to help men in their plight to be Christ-like. appeal to them on a different level. sex is great and can be a wonderful exploration between two people, but relationships that start with that appeal are immediately endangered. it is a powerful and blinding force at times. you express a women's need to use her sexuality to attract a man, but when that is the attractant you get what you troll for.

I assume you're talking form personal experience here.

W: In any case I do thank you for your input here. Without hearing from people like yourself we would never know what the other side of the coin looked like. A sincere thanks for your contribution.

RB: save your disingenuous sincere thanks. the attitude that is expressed throughout your post is not one of polite discourse, but rather of self-righteous rudeness. stay true to yourself through the end. at least then i can admire your consistency.

My, my you are thin skinned, aren't you. The truth is, I gave you all the respect you deserved, which is quite a bit by the way. But I know anything more I say will come off as just so much disingenuousness so I'll refrain from further explanation.

 

[reverend B]

I asked you two questions. Why can't you answer them?




I didn't ask you what you thought, I asked two every simple questions. Obviously there is no scripture or you wouldn't be tap dancing here.



Again with the tap dancing. Four questions and not one answer that addresses any of them. And now double talk. Exactly what . . . . never mind, I now realize that you don't answer direct questions.




"Knee jerk"? Not that your appraisal is at all important, but I thought my remarks had been most thoughtful. I made 12 individual responses to your rather modest post, all of which were quite sincere. Anyway, to continue . . . . . . . .

Not particularly relevant, but okay.




As if all of a sudden you would start making comments relevant to my remarks. I've given up hope, RB. Your avoidance tactics are obviously well practiced and quite healthy. But hey, I can't help what you consider to be provocative. If you don't find a bare midriff to be provocative then why use it as an example?




I know that's what you want to make the issue; "men's weakness," but sexual attraction is far more complex than that. That you see the response to sexual attraction as a weakness is saying volumes about you, RB. Did you know that? I suspect you don't like the idea that people are sexually attracted to one another, but it is one of the driving forces that makes the world go around. Think god looks down his nose at human sexuality? Sex ain't all that bad, yeah know. (Note: all questions are rhetorical)




You want to take offense because I happen to find your remark to be a gross exaggeration? Anyone who claims our culture is "driven by sex in its entertainment and marketing" is either a dolt or is simply exaggerating. I think I gave you the benefit of the kinder doubt.
As to why I don't find it surprising: You've made a number of unsubstantiated claims, all couched in the language of fact. After awhile the picture forms of how you deal with your beliefs: they emerge in your mind as fact. At least that's how you present them. So it comes as no surprise that you would use another faulty form of presentation: exaggeration.




And still no denial.




Really! You actually think that "sexy is an implied promise of things to come."? I'm at a loss for words.




Which makes us even.



And this coming from the guy who tap dances like Gene Kelly. In any case, it wasn't an argument, but what I thought of as an amusing poke at nonsense. Want to play the nonsense card then you have to be ready to be called on it.




I assume you're talking form personal experience here.




My, my you are thin skinned, aren't you. The truth is, I gave you all the respect you deserved, which is quite a bit by the way. But I know anything more I say will come off as just so much disingenuousness so I'll refrain from further explanation.

you have chosen not to take any responsibility for the tone of your posts. that is your choice. you make me being "thin skinned" the scapegoat for your rudeness. you might check galatians to see if being rude is one of the fruits of the spirit. it may disappoint you, but there you have it. you make assumptions about me that are based on your previous experience, not on who i am. i am not anti-sexual, i am a devout liberal (meaning i will defend your right to dress any way you choose) and my theology is actually quite liberal as well. my point is that what you appeal to is what you will get. if you wish to be defined by your sexuality, go for it. don't be surprised when your are valued for that.
as for exagerating or being called a "dolt" or a tap dancer, et al, i will leave you to that. not acknowledging that sex is an enormous influence culturally is simply arguing to argue and not dealing with something that very few people would not recognize. you chose to address my comments as if they were simply my personal issues. so be it. hack away. my appeal to women for consideration of Christian men in this matter is frequently met by the greater desire to be hot, so there it is. there is plenty of scriptural support, but i don't think anyone with a passing familiarity with the bible would not know that, as it is quite recognizable and not the least bit obscure. if i list oodles of chapter and verse, what difference would it make to someone that isn't that into the scriptures in the first place? to win an argument? the kindness, gentleness and self control (fruits of the spirit) that you have exhibited suggest to me that my argument is irrelevant to you, and that is why you seem disingenuous. my appeal comes from an acknowledgment of the weakness of man. yours comes from the desire to empower the women. who did scripture appeal to? the powerful or the weak?

 

[Washington]

you have chosen not to take any responsibility for the tone of your posts.

Do not mistake a lack of agreement for a lack of responsibility. Of course I'm responsible for the tone of my response. It's just that what you evidently perceive as rudeness is a more pointed response due to your refusal to answer simple questions-- hardly polite behavior. You say X, and I ask you about X, but you reply to Y, which wasn't even on the table. You also seem to take for granted that whatever you say, no matter how off the wall, will be accepted at face value, and that the discussion will proceed on from there. That's just not how I work, rB. You make a claim and I figure it's open for discussion. As for looking up anything in the Bible to see how I should conduct myself, please note that I'm an agnostic (note the symbol by my name) which means . . . . . . . .

if you wish to be defined by your sexuality, go for it. don't be surprised when your are valued for that.

The world really is black and white to you, isn't it. No in-betweens. If one has any degree of sexuality in their character then that's the sum total of their character. Swipe an apple from your neighbor's tree and you are defined by your criminality. *Sheessh*

not acknowledging that sex is an enormous influence culturally is simply arguing to argue and not dealing with something that very few people would not recognize.

Well, if you explained what you meant by "enormous influence" I might agree, or perhaps disagree, but that's one of the problems. You throw out these terms without elaborating on them and expect the reader to know what you have in mind, and when they don't and ask you to clarify you clam up. I asked you quite a few questions (14, in fact) and you refused to answer or even acknowledge any of them---now THAT is rude---and instead chose to go on about something else. Is this what you expect when you ask a question? (I'm not really expecting an answer to that)

if i list oodles of chapter and verse, what difference would it make to someone that isn't that into the scriptures in the first place?

What do you think?

the kindness, gentleness and self control (fruits of the spirit) that you have exhibited suggest to me that my argument is irrelevant to you, and that is why you seem disingenuous. my appeal comes from an acknowledgment of the weakness of man. yours comes from the desire to empower the women.

Your argument might have merit it I could understand it, but in as much as you refuse to answer any questions to clarify your points, it's a waste of time for both of us.


A note on your posting practices. Please consider the rest of us and Capitalize the beginning word of each sentence.

 

[mpok1519]

Sex doesn't really have an enormous influence on our culture; we, as sexual creatures and sexual beings, have influence on our culture. I don't know if its the sex influencing us, but rather, I think its us doing the influencing.