Quote:
Originally Posted by DividedThigh
well she may not even mean to but she is saying that the ignorant man who said that in a message is right, how sad for her, and all she judges , dt  |
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgcraig
If I was a betting woman, I'd bet she doesn't.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne
I think she was saying that the 'other' position is, not her position on the matter.
|
You guys know me well! You are correct...I was playing the 'debil's advocate' there for a bit. DT, I was just saying what some would probably like to be saying, but for some reason, aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
She and I are good friends and were talking in IM. She is just pointing out the actual meaning of being immodest, which is correct. She can come explain her statement about the dresses vs. the pants. I'm thinking she meant that we view a dress as always modest and pants as not.
|
My thoughts were directed toward the modest/immodest argument for/against dresses and pants. There are some that choose to wear dresses only because they want to be modest, and think that dresses are more modest than pants. If you look at WHY they think that, then you HAVE to conclude that pants are viewed as
immodest. When you look at the definition of immodesty, you HAVE to conclude that a woman who would dress immodestly would be lascivious or licentious (sleazy), ergo: a w**** (in the minds of some).
I'm a little surprised that nobody will just come right out and say this. It's probably what they are thinking. :sshhh
I just can't agree with the 'modesty arguement' for these reasons. I DON'T believe that a woman wearing a pair of pants is immodest OR trying to attract male attention. They are a
normal article of clothing in our society and culture, and I can wear them WITHOUT the thought of attracting male attention.
Linear Mode
