How gendered clothing makes more problems for all of us

[Not David]

@Hazelelponi I mean, some women wear head coverings during the service at the church.

 

[Dave-W]

some women wear head coverings during the service at the church.

Wow. the one on the left looks like an Orthodox or Conservative Jewish woman lighting candles for Sabbath or Yom Tov.

 

[Paidiske]

When you get right down to it, a headscarf is a headscarf...

 

[Dave-W]

My take on it is that we're supposed to focus more on doing good than looking good.

VERY well said!!!!

 

[Phil 1:21]

I feel stressed out. like I have to bear responsibility for mens lust

You shouldn't. No one should bear responsibility for another's sin...unless that person intentionally draws them into it. Simply dressing in a way that someone else finds attractive and decides to have lustful thoughts regarding does not qualify. However, if that person intentionally dresses or acts a certain way for the purposes of eliciting that reaction, then morally they share blame. For example (and I'll use women here, although the same applies to men):

Two women, both in identical bikinis, one is at the beach with her friends, the other is waiting on tables at a sports bar. Which one of the two do you think chose her attire to provoke lustful reactions from the opposite sex. While it's possible the first one did (although there is nothing to suggest that), it's almost certain the second did.

 

[bekkilyn]

You shouldn't. No one should bear responsibility for another's sin...unless that person intentionally draws them into it. Simply dressing in a way that someone else finds attractive and decides to have lustful thoughts regarding does not qualify. However, if that person intentionally dresses or acts a certain way for the purposes of eliciting that reaction, then morally they share blame. For example (and I'll use women here, although the same applies to men):

Two women, both in identical bikinis, one is at the beach with her friends, the other is waiting on tables at a sports bar. Which one of the two do you think chose her attire to provoke lustful reactions from the opposite sex. While it's possible the first one did (although there is nothing to suggest that), it's almost certain the second did.

The second woman probably didn't have a choice of attire though since her employer probably chose it for her and if she refused to wear it, she wouldn't have the job. So while she might share moral blame for taking such a job in the first place, would she really share moral blame specifically for the choice of clothing in this case?

I do get the point though that one was chosen without provocation in mind and the other was not, but since the woman may not have chosen her own clothing in the second case, it may muddy the water a bit.

 

[Phil 1:21]

The second woman probably didn't have a choice of attire though since her employer probably chose it for her and if she refused to wear it, she wouldn't have the job. So while she might share moral blame for taking such a job in the first place, would she really share moral blame specifically for the choice of clothing in this case?

Absolutely. If I choose a job that requires me to sin, am I not responsible for the sin I commit in the course of that job?

 

[bekkilyn]

Absolutely. If I choose a job that requires me to sin, am I not responsible for the sin I commit in the course of that job?

But what sin is she committing providing that she's solely serving her customers food and drink and nothing else on the side? If she's just there for the paycheck like any other job and is just wearing the uniform that is provided to her? (I'm pushing back a bit because I think this situation may be a bit different than someone who intentionally chooses provocative clothing for the *purpose* of going out on the town and seducing people.)

Would it make a difference if she was just doing the job for fun, for some extra spending money vs. it being the only job available for her in an economically devastated town and she has a couple of children to feed?

 

[Phil 1:21]

But what sin is she committing providing that she's solely serving her customers food and drink and nothing else on the side? If she's just there for the paycheck like any other job and is just wearing the uniform that is provided to her? (I'm pushing back a bit because I think this situation may be a bit different than someone who intentionally chooses provocative clothing for the *purpose* of going out on the town and seducing people.)

What is the purpose of having waitresses wear bikinis in a sports bar? Safe bet is it's not to save money on running the air conditioning.

Would it make a difference if she was just doing the job for fun, for some extra spending money vs. it being the only job available for her in an economically devastated town and she has a couple of children to feed?

We can always find ways to justify our sin if we look hard enough.

 

[bekkilyn]

What is the purpose of having waitresses wear bikinis in a sports bar? Safe bet is it's not to save money on running the air conditioning.

Yes, but is the responsibility of the sin for that hers or the employer's, provided that she is just doing her job as a server and nothing else?

We can always find ways to justify our sin if we look hard enough.

Isn't that a cop-out sort of response though? There are many reasons why a woman might be working in a sports bar and oftentimes not for the purpose of provoking lust. That might be the *employer's* reason, but not hers.

I get where you're going with this and I do agree with you that we can find ways to justify our sins, but even if the woman is sinning by working in a sports bar, I don't necessarily believe she shares the blame for someone else's sin.

Here's the thing though. Whether or not she is sinning or not isn't really the point. Whether or not the employer is sinning isn't really the point.

The men with lust in their hearts have full responsibility for the lust in their own hearts regardless of what someone else is doing or not doing, or whatever other sins are being committed. No one can really share the blame for it. God didn't accept Eve's excuse when she told him that the serpent caused her to sin, and God didn't accept Adam's excuse when he told him that the woman YOU (God) gave me made me do it.

I just don't see that God would look at the man's sin of lust as being less because the female server in the sports bar was wearing a bikini. Also, the woman had a non-sinful purpose for being there. Did the man just go there simply to eat, or because he wanted his lust to be stoked?

We could go in all sorts of directions, but I think that we, all of us, simply need to take responsibility for our own sins, whatever they may be, and whether anyone else may have been involved, and then just give them over to God rather than trying to force everyone else not to tempt them into sin. We need to be like Jesus and put our trust in God and be able to respond to temptation in a non-sinful way.

 

[Dave-W]

What is the purpose of having waitresses wear bikinis in a sports bar? Safe bet is it's not to save money on running the air conditioning.

LOL!!!!

The bar wants to sell more, and if their waitresses can draw enough guys' attention (even the wrong kind) they can sell more booze and food.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Isn't that a cop-out sort of response though?There are many reasons why a woman might be working in a sports bar and oftentimes not for the purpose of provoking lust. That might be the *employer's* reason, but not hers.

Let's stay with the hypothetical example I gave to which you are responding. If someone takes a job that requires them to dress a certain way for the purpose of eliciting lustful (sinful) response in others, then they are responsible for the sin they commit by provoking sin in others.

 

[bekkilyn]

Let's stay with the hypothetical example I gave to which you are responding. If someone takes a job that requires them to dress a certain way for the purpose of eliciting lustful (sinful) response in others, then they are responsible for the sin they commit by provoking sin in others.

But does that somehow take away from the sin of the one who was tempted? Is it a reasonable excuse if they felt they were provoked into it?

 

[Phil 1:21]

But does that somehow take away from the sin of the one who was tempted? Is it a reasonable excuse if they felt they were provoked into it?

Of course not, nor did I ever say it did.

 

[bekkilyn]

Of course not, nor did I ever say it did.

But see this is what you said:

You shouldn't. No one should bear responsibility for another's sin...unless that person intentionally draws them into it. Simply dressing in a way that someone else finds attractive and decides to have lustful thoughts regarding does not qualify. However, if that person intentionally dresses or acts a certain way for the purposes of eliciting that reaction, then morally they share blame.

It seemed to suggest that the person being tempted wasn't fully responsible for his/her own sin for acting on the temptation.

 

[Phil 1:21]

But see this is what you said:


It seemed to suggest that the person being tempted wasn't fully responsible for his/her own sin for acting on the temptation.

Well, I can’t help it if you want to read more into it than what was posted.

 

[bekkilyn]

Well, I can’t help it if you want to read more into it than what was posted.

Well that's a reason why I wanted clarification and to push back on it a bit.

 

[teresa]

@Hazelelponi I mean, some women wear head coverings during the service at the church.

Thank you David, these are just beautiful aren't they. I love the reverence shown before God.

 

[teresa]

Isn't it interesting that a woman covers her head to show respect, but a man takes off his hat?

 

[bekkilyn]

Isn't it interesting that a woman covers her head to show respect, but a man takes off his hat?

Well think about it, some men would never take off their hats if it weren't for church. They practically sleep with them on their heads, and don't even think about putting those dirty hats through the wash!