Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Perhaps you need to learn the difference between wisdom and knowledge/talent. Wisdom is knowing how to use what you know in the most profitable way - didnt motzart die young as well from overwork - couldnt pay his bills and make poor decisions? I rest my case.Wisdom comes with age??????
Maybe yopu need to learn your history.
Mozart published is fisrt opera at 14. Eward Rutledge signed the Declaration of Independence at the ripe old age of 26. Jonathan Dayton was also 26 when he signed the Constitution. And Albert Einstein had his most productive year in 1905 when he was--you guessed it--26.
Now can we PLEASE get back to the OP??????
It is not STIGMA, if it were, porn wouldn't continue to sell, people buy porn becuz they get off to it - THOSE BODY PARTS AROUSE THEM NATURALLY.Of course it isn't. The stigma attached to it, however, is. Again, this is undeniable fact.
We never suggested that the breasts aren't seen as a sexual stimulus. But so are the pectorals in a male.
It is not STIGMA, if it were, porn wouldn't continue to sell, people buy porn becuz they get off to it - THOSE BODY PARTS AROUSE THEM NATURALLY.
Yes I did go thru this on another level --For the second time, none of us are denying this fact. Whatever you're reading into our position is a complete misunderstanding. Our argument is that there is no descriptive standard for modesty found in Scripture, and that which is present in our society is simply a construct. This is evidently clear when you consider the examples Archivist brought up (which you shrug off as irrelevant).
Um, I don't recall calling you an unrepentant sinner, did I?Two things: Why is it that when I'm desensitized to nudity it's because I'm an unrepentant sinner or whatever was said, but a male gynecologist is desensitized to it it's a gift from God? That doesn't make sense. And it doesn't matter anyway, because the entire point is: If you are desensitized, you do not think lust upon seeing someone naked simply because they are naked.
On this silly age/wisdom debate: Didn't Jesus start preaching at the tender age of twelve? You know, when his parents accidentally left him behind and had to go back and get him and found him sitting and preaching to a bunch of adults who marveled at his wisdom? I can find a verse if no one knows what I'm talking about.
Clothing protects our bodies from the elements and from external irritants which can be harmful to us. I agree with the first woman who posted about clothing essentially being necessary after the fall. On so many levels, clothing just makes sense.The point that is being ignored in this thread is that if no one covered up and we all walked around naked except when it's too cold, then guess what? No one would care. It would no longer be a lust issue.
Chajara said:I also believe that women are not responsible for men's sexual desires.
Chajara said:But then, I also have a different definition of lust. I don't believe a man looking at an attractive woman and wanting to sleep with her is wrong. It's natural, and how they were made. It's when they allow that desire to override their self control and actually go after her with the intention of sleeping with her that it becomes lust. That's my opinion, anyway. But when they notice a woman, appreciate her beauty, and then shrug it off and go back to what they were doing? How is that wrong? Don't we all do that, even women?
agreed - I also made a comment earlier about sunbathing. Anyone laying out in the sun these days is asking to need leather conditioner in a few years time instead of body lotion.Clothing protects our bodies from the elements and from external irritants which can be harmful to us. I agree with the first woman who posted about clothing essentially being necessary after the fall. On so many levels, clothing just makes sense.
I disagree with this to an extent. When we put our clothes on or buy our clothes, what are we thinking?I agree. We're not responsible for men's desires and their responses to us - just as we are not responsible for anyone's response to us. However, we are responsible for either encouraging people to stumble or working to build them up in a Christ-like mannner. We are well aware of the temptations out there in this world. Forgoing all of that speaks of naivate.
I disagree with this to an extent. When we put our clothes on or buy our clothes, what are we thinking?
"this will get me attention"? If so, our motive in wearing and buying it was to lure a guy to look at and take interest in our body -
It's all about our motives - and that is what God judges Christians on. We are responsible for how we might lead others to be tempted if we're purposely showing our cleavage or wearing skin tight pants or short mini skirts with spiked heels...
What is our intent in wearing that? comfort? for our relatives? friends?
That's where stumbling comes into play and we are responsible for that.
When we aren't responsible is if we wear a common pair of flip flops and some guy with a foot fettish is having sick fantasies about our feet as we innocently sit there reading a book.
Im wondering why it matters what the world thinks compared to what God thinks or would have for His children?
Speaking of feet it used to be considered risque for a man to see a woman's ankles.
Elbows were considered erotic that is why it's considered rude to put them on the table now.
So I imagine a pair of women's bare breasts would be alot more appropriateI am sure The Victorians believed God would be upset if a man saw a woman's ankles or a person's elbows.
It shows you how men lust and are visually stimulated by women; they were HONEST back then, that more skin that was shown, the more they were enticed.Speaking of feet it used to be considered risque for a man to see a woman's ankles.
Elbows were considered erotic that is why it's considered rude to put them on the table now.
Exactly - this was my point earlier, all they keep doing is pointing to other people & cultures that go topless,Im wondering why it matters what the world thinks compared to what God thinks or would have for His children?
I doubt God will be up in heaven judging them saying "you didn't show enough skin, I'm dissappointed and taking rewards away for your stupidity and prudishness"Good for them - im sure that God was quite pleased that they worried more about what He thought than the world thought.
LOL oh how sick.I think that we both agree on this, actually. I hinted along these lines in my earlier post - at least, I hope that's how I came across.
We can't -and should never think that we can- control other people's actions... but we have a say when it comes to our own. We can control the positive or negative influence we impress on other people, which affect their subsequent reactions - considering everything; human nature/sinful nature/spiritual maturity/heart/mind/body/everything. Being sensitive to other's needs and putting others ahead of ourselves is very important - within reason of course.
Good point on the sunbathing! Oh and it's funny you mention the foot fetish. I know someone who was at the store, shopping... when some guy just walks up to her and thanks her for having such beautiful feet. Her feet really made his day...
Well, I'm a woman and I've always wondered why there was such a double standard when it comes to modesty. Why are women held to much stricter standards than men are? If a woman wishes to go topless on the beach, I don't see a problem with it. Men do it all the time, and no one says anything about it. If the men can do it, why can't the women?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?