Read it again, a little more slowly. What spirit was behind the introduction, into the world of fashion, of pants for women?
Your reaction proves my point. Women aren't usually 'stimulated' visually. Often what they see disgusts them.
If it helps you. But I already did. Please read what I wrote again.
You are certainly free to take that meaning from it, since it is demonstrating a principle, not offering a commandment.
However, a man is visually stimulated by the shape and form of a woman's leg and thigh, not just the sight of bare skin in that region. Tight jeans are designed to reveal just that: a woman's shape and form. The skin is covered, but the flesh is revealed to a man's eye.
Godly people are willing to make an effort to not be or not make occasion for their brother to stumble.
It is a principle, not a legality.
I know that the vast majority of women who pulled on a pair of pants this morning weren't doing so with plans of seduction or enticement. But they also did so in ignorance of why these garments even exist for them.
That bolded portion is the problem in discussions like these. Not all women wear tight pants, but the pants they do wear, while modest, are preached against all the same.
Is it possible to have a general discussion without the extremes?
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
So, elder, the Chinese women working in the rice paddies many years before the English-speaking peoples began wearing pants, wore pants to entice the men as well?
Lust is not generic, elder. Some men are more excited about the possibility of what they cannot see, than what is clearly evidenced by form-fitting apparel.
The problem with lust is environmental also.
For instance, the tribal people who dress modest wearing only necklaces and loincloths think nothing of the women walking around bare chested, but American men would look at nothing else were they to visit the jungle!
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
Modesty is important for both men and women right? And trousers were not common apparel for either men or women in Biblical times, right? Well, men have more visible pieces/parts below the waist... why is it modest for them to wear something MORE form-fitting.
huh? Men have more visible pieces/parts below the waist? I don't know what pants you are wearing but mine cover everything and are not form fitting. But if you feel the need to hide yourself, feel free to wear a very baggy dress.
Quote:
Even the baggiest trousers are more form-fitting than a robe. If baggy trousers are modest for men, then why aren't they modest for women? Is it because you can see daylight between their legs? If so, why isn't the same immodest for men?
That's what you think. I don't know what your concept is of a robe or pants but robes can be just as immodest depending on the fit.
Additionally I don't see anyone making an argument that pants aren't modest for women (except for womens pants that are intended to be tight) but rather that it's a matter of the distinction in sexes.
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Perhaps the 'pants' issue isn't all about modesty. Perhaps many view pants as distinctively male clothing, and dresses/skirts as distinctively female clothing, and therefore they conclude that women ought not to wear pants, and men ought not to wear dresses/skirts.
As for modesty, whatever a person wears ought to be modest, meaning it ought not to accentuate the form so as to draw undue attention to it, whether pants, skirts, dresses, or whatever.
But........
If the 'form' is there, it's there and you can't help but notice regardless of the gender.
__________________ Smiles & Blessings.... ~Felicity Welsh~ (surname courtesy of Jim Yohe)
I'm in favor of all women being locked up in their houses myself. Men are just so weak, the very presence of a woman leads to wrong thoughts. Keep those women out of sight and you'll keep a man's mind pure! What was God thinking anyway when He made women attractive to men? One doesn't know who to blame the woman or God!
I'm in favor of all women being locked up in their houses myself. Men are just so weak, the very presence of a woman leads to wrong thoughts. Keep those women out of sight and you'll keep a man's mind pure! What was God thinking anyway when He made women attractive to men? One doesn't know who to blame the woman or God!
Lets hope the liberal minded woman who would be opposed to this movement would be one who shaves her armpits and legs, and is not a arabian conformist.
Linear Mode
