Crazy Article On Modest Dress

[debrand]

There is just too much crazy in this one article for me to know where to start quoting it.

achristianhome.org/ModestFeminine/sin_of_bathsheba.htm

But if it is equally wrong for a man to expose his nakedness as it is for a woman, it is not equally dangerous, for the passions of women are not so easily or thoroughly aroused by the sight of a man's body—and many women affirm, that the sight does not arouse them at all. A man therefore may (though he ought not to) go three fourths naked, and not do much damage by it. But when a woman exposes herself only a little, she becomes a fiery dart to tempt the heart of every man who sees her. Like it or not, this is the plain fact. And because this is a fact, you are not at liberty to dress any way you please. "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body" (1 Cor. 6:19-20). But if you dress in such a way as to expose your body, and if you fear God and love your neighbor, your dare not use the temple of the Holy Spirit as an instrument of unrighteousness to allure the eyes and tempt the hearts and tantalize the passions of men.

Many men are wicked, and will lust after you in spite of anything you can do to prevent it. They have "eyes full of adultery and that never cease from sin" (2 Pet. 2:14). Should you therefore help them to sin? Should you put further temptation in their way? Will God excuse you if you do?

Other men, godly men, are not wicked, but only weak. David was not wicked. He was a man after God’s own heart. But in the presence of an unclothed woman, he was weak—and it would be a rare man who was not. Your brethren in Christ are not wicked, but they may be weak. And the devil does all he can do to weaken them further. They are forced to live in a world where they are continually bombarded with sights which are designed by the enemy of their souls to weaken their morals and destroy their purity of heart. And must Christian women help the devil to do his work? Must they make themselves a temptation to their brethren even in the congregation of God? Oh, that you could understand the fierce and bitter conflict in the souls of your brethren, when you arouse their desires by the careless display of your feminine beauty. Oh, that you could hear their pleadings with God for help and deliverance from the power of those temptations. Oh, that you could see their tears of shame and repentance when the temptation has overcome them, and they have sinned with eyes and heart and mind. Never again would you plead for your right to dress as you please.

The fact is, you have no such right. You have no right to destroy by your careless dress the brother for whom Christ died.

and

But consider: you are a woman and cannot experience the passions of a man. You have your own passions, but they are not the same as a man's. They are (generally speaking) not so strong as a man's. Neither are they so easily excited or inflamed as a man's. Nor are they excited in the same manner as a man’s. If you would understand the workings of a man's passions towards a woman, you must take a man’s word for it

and

The same is true, of course, when you dress with the top two or three buttons of your blouse unbuttoned. This looks provocative, even if nothing were actually exposed by it. It looks seductive. It looks to a man as though you must design to expose yourself and tantalize his passions. What else can he think? For what other purpose could you leave two of three buttons of your blouse unbuttoned? Do you say it is for comfort? Because you cannot bear a tight choking collar? I believe you could learn to bear it, as the men of the world do in order to display their stylish neckties.

[debrand]

achristianhome.org/ModestFeminine/sin_of_bathsheba.htm

Sleeveless blouses always reveal too much. Little as you may be able to understand it, you underarms, and the parts of your chest and of your back which immediately adjoin them, are very attractive to a man; and a sleeveless blouse cannot help but display these parts.

and

And you must take a man’s word for it that the shape and form of a woman’s body, even though it is covered with clothing, will draw his eyes, inflame his passions, or arouse his imagination, just about as quickly and surely as the sight of her actual skin.

and

He knows only too well that it is a snare to a man's heart to have displayed before his eyes the form of a woman’s thighs and buttocks and crotch. Your crotch—your "private part’s"—you ought by all means to keep carefully concealed at all times, and there is nothing that will do it so well as a dress. A loose-fitting skirt or dress, provided it is not too short, is also the best possible clothing with which to conceal all of the tempting parts of the anatomy which reside between your waist and your knees.

But some women suppose that because their slacks are not skin-tight, they are therefore modest. Well, now, suppose that your slacks are loose enough that they leave a little space between the material and your skin. Still they basically display the form of your legs and thighs and buttocks. This is the nature of the garment, and can hardly be avoided. And further, as soon as you bend over, or sit or squat, those "modest slacks" of yours will be stretched just as tightly, over parts of your form, as the skin-tight slacks which other women wear. So unless you are so thin that you have no form with which to attract a man, or so fat that your form will only disgust him (and you are no competent judge of this), you had best leave slacks alone. Though you may not be able to understand it (for the sight of a man will probably not affect you in the same way), it is the sight of the form which will arouse a man's passions. What a man's touch is to a woman, the sight of a woman is to a man.

[Witsec7]

So does she think burquas will solve the problem?

[darkplumaged]

Same old ideas, but with a slightly more breathlessly crazy tone than usual.

If only I had known in my single days that all I had to do was leave a few shirt buttons open to inflame the passion of every man around me, I would have done it more often! Oh, wait. I always did leave a couple buttons open--just like everyone else--and somehow, the men around me managed to control their overwhelming lust.

Considering the brevity and tightness of clothing many young women wear these days, you're going to have to do a lot more than leave a couple buttons open to be a stumbling block. And why would some dude look at my slightly chunky 35-year-old bod when he could be looking at a stunning 22-year-old in a tank top and short skirt? Why do I care if he does? I wouldn't even notice.

[BravaAmica]

Oh, goody. Another modest-is-hottest bullshit blog entry that explains how the menfolk just can't control themselves.

[Convicted Blossom]

I think experiencedd had better remove her armpits from her avatar -- we can't have Steve lusting after her each time he checks in to FJ.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Hahahaha seriously? He thinks women cant be aroused by nakedness or people in hardly any clothing like men can? I know loads of women who love looking at shirtless men (or women in revealing clothing), just as much as men do when seeing partial nudity?

Im guessing he thinks that all women should be covered from head to toe because of weak willed men who may be tempted to have sex with them instead of teach men to have self control?

And its not like covering up affects attraction. If a womans ankle is taught as something defrauding and forbidden, people will think of it in that way. Im sure in countries where women cover every inch of them except their eyes, there are men who find beautiful eyes attractive.

What if someone has a frumper/burqa fetish? Im sure with the wide range of fetishes that exist, it can happen.

[Guest Anonymous]

If I was a guy, I would be extremely insulted by what this cow has written. Underneath all the flowery verbiage, she's basically asserting that men have the morals of tapeworms, and the libidos of sex-deprived minks. Oh, and it's women's fault for opening the door to their untrammeled lust. I'm thinking of showing this article to Mr. Snarky, AFTER I soften him up for the kill by plyiing him with his favorite foods. I'll owe him that much for making him feast his eyes on this pigswill.

[snarkbillie]

Shouldn't men have to conceal their crotches too? Skirts for all!!!!!!

[JukeboxLucky]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately (because I have nothing better to do?) and I'm starting to think that fundie/overly-conservative Christian women really get a kick out of thinking of themselves as such a huge "stumbling block" to the men around them. Like, they're all so stoked over how much power they assert over their men-folk by simply possessing a pair of breasts.

Really, it's basically a form of pride or vanity on their part. Which I think... is a sin?

[E Street Fan]

Sleeveless blouses always reveal too much. Little as you may be able to understand it, you underarms, and the parts of your chest and of your back which immediately adjoin them, are very attractive to a man; and a sleeveless blouse cannot help but display these parts.

So by her reasoning, it's better to wear something form-fitting that covers me from chin to fingertips, while sweating in the summer, than to wear a fairly modest, weather-appropriate sleeveless shirt? And I really wasn't aware that the half-inch of the back of my shoulder that shows in my favorite sleeveless shirt was so arousing. Maybe I should wear it more often.

[NurseNell]

Shouldn't men have to conceal their crotches too? Skirts for all!!!!!!

Specifically kilts! :D

[Emme]

Specifically kilts! :D

Traditionally you don't wear underwear under kilts... heh. :dance:

[BravaAmica]

Shouldn't men have to conceal their crotches too? Skirts for all!!!!!!

Nah, let's make men wear kilts. Yes, that's the ticket. Every last one of them in kilts.

[theologyofyourface]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately (because I have nothing better to do?) and I'm starting to think that fundie/overly-conservative Christian women really get a kick out of thinking of themselves as such a huge "stumbling block" to the men around them. Like, they're all so stoked over how much power they assert over their men-folk by simply possessing a pair of breasts.

Really, it's basically a form of pride or vanity on their part. Which I think... is a sin?

I think you're right. I guess when you're so powerless in your own home and community, it's comforting to think you at least have the ability to affect men by unbuttoning the top of your shirt.

[Sobeknofret]

Bathsheba committed no sin; the sin was on the part of David. She was bathing on the roof, a very common practice for men and women at the time. David was the one who committed the sin by coveting her and then having her husband killed. I wish fundies would get a clue about poor Bathsheba. :evil:

[MissA]

JukeboxLucky, I totally have been thinking that same thing! Like, I personally assume that if I wear a low cut shirt, men will notice, think "Yay, there are some breasts! I like breasts!" and then just go about their day, forgetting the whole incident five seconds later.

Whereas a fundie woman is operating under the assumption that she is completely sexually irresistible. The cleavage of her toes can distract a man from the Lord. Her ass, even though it may be saggy and middle aged, is so tempting that even mom jeans will draw the eye of every man in the room. And should any hapless male glimpse her collarbones, well, he'll be driven into such a priapic frenzy that he will embrace damnation itself.

Or something. Basically you are just Helen of Troy in a frumper. It could in theory feel pretty good for the women.

The problem with this of course is that the rest of their culture actually encourages men to have those sort of hypersexualized adolescent thought processes rather than developing the emotional maturity of a normal grown man.

[Sola]

According to the fundies, it's the men who have the problem. To me that means then that men should be the solution. Instead of limiting and dictating what women wear, all men should be forced to wear these http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ation.html

After all, it's the men's problem isn't it?

[Closed Womb]

But when a woman exposes herself only a little, she becomes a fiery dart to tempt the heart of every man who sees her. Like it or not, this is the plain fact.

This guy needs to look into the meaning of "Facts".

So unless you are so thin that you have no form with which to attract a man, or so fat that your form will only disgust him (and you are no competent judge of this)

Fat shaming AND thin shaming. Wow. Just fucking wow. (And someone is not aware of the Fat Admirer community, not to mention the men that do not judge a woman's worth on her body [apparently, men that do not judge women based solely or primarily on physical appearance do not exist in the fundie community]).

Here's a little logic: maybe if women were allowed to dress normally, and these poor manly creatures devoid of self control were to see, say, a collarbone or a knee every now and again, this would become normalized and no longer be a reason to drive these pathetic people who have penises but nary a shred of willpower or character to become crazed with lust.

Oh, and fuck you.

[NurseNell]

According to the fundies, it's the men who have the problem. To me that means then that men should be the solution. Instead of limiting and dictating what women wear, all men should be forced to wear these http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ation.html

After all, it's the men's problem isn't it?

You are correct Sola. I think the glasses are a fine solution. :geek:

[OohLaLa]

Oh bullshit (yet again) on men being SOOOOOO much more visually aroused than women. I don't even have a very high sex drive at all, yet the sight of a cute butt in a nice pair of jeans in the vicinity and I may have trouble concentrating. I really don't understand their horror at what comes to human beings (not just men) naturally. Unlike them, normal people don't beat themselves up about it for hours afterward, we have our brief sexual thought, then go on about our day. Proving yet again what people have said on here many times, that fundies are far more sex-obsessed than the average "wordly" person.

For further evidence of this, I'd like their explanation why women were going in droves to see Magic Mike recently. I'll even give a hint-- it wasn't for Oscar-winning plot.

Also? I have the "right" to display my body in any measure I choose because it's MY body. NOBODY fucking "owns" my body, not even my husband. That line made me incredibly angry.

[JukeboxLucky]

Here's a little logic: maybe if women were allowed to dress normally, and these poor manly creatures devoid of self control were to see, say, a collarbone or a knee every now and again, this would become normalized and no longer be a reason to drive these pathetic people who have penises but nary a shred of willpower or character to become crazed with lust.

Right? The quickest way to make a person want something is to make it off limits.

Don't know how to directly quote a person's post...

[Jinger Jar]

This author is more sex obsessed than the typical 15-year-old boy. I could easily imagine him typing that modesty missive with one hand while he masturbated with the other.

[Just_Jane]

I always laugh when I read stuff about how women don't get visually aroused from seeing someone who is attractive. For me he can be wearing jeans and tee, a well fitting suit or a kilt. Oh how I love a man in a kilt. I see the man, I have my little thought or day dream, and then I go about my day.

[NurseNell]

Reading this I wondered how my male breast cancer surgeon makes it through each day! He examines breasts daily, he operates on them almost daily; he can't get away from them if he tries! :o