-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Men in tights
- Thread starter SaggyWoman
- Start date
- Status
North Carolina Tentmaker
New Member
Well obviously because us guys are more concerned the inner beauty of our fellow man’s mind and soul.abcgrad94 said:
Either that or we are to busy ogling the girls and watching what they have on to care about other guys.
This thread is hilarious!!!
I cant say that I have ever seen a man wearing tights (except on tv)
My wife asked me one time "If women ballet dancers are called ballerinas?, then what are men ballet dancers called?"
I told her "homosexuals"
AJ
Oh wait a sec...I have been to live professional wrestling matches, and those guys wore tights!!!!
I cant say that I have ever seen a man wearing tights (except on tv)
My wife asked me one time "If women ballet dancers are called ballerinas?, then what are men ballet dancers called?"
I told her "homosexuals"
AJ
Oh wait a sec...I have been to live professional wrestling matches, and those guys wore tights!!!!
Salamander
New Member
The subjectivity of the definition of "tights" has everything to do with our impressions of men wearing them.
"Tights" are associated with femininity as belonging to the attire of women, yet, as observed, many situations demand a usefulness in the wearing of "tights".
"Tights" are not necessarilly always feminine, as the previous examples would show. These applications are associated with their use as to enhance operability. This is not an application of the moral aspect as to whether or not it is effeminant.
Not to rehash an issue, but in the definition of "breeches" we find an association with "tights". But this is limited to apparel that is worn covering from the waist to just below the knee. It is also associated with the term "trousers", but not exactly as so.
"Trousers" have a distinction as to being also to the ankle, BUT! within the moral aspect as to NOT be revealing of any "PRIVATE PARTS". [(please leave your profane ideas of the operation of any private parts APART from this discussion)( as to why it was allowed to stay in the public eye while other comments were deemed "crude", I don't know, well, except to the viability and villany of perspective)]
The morality of attire is rooted in modesty/ modesty being the attribute that does NOT reveal "privates". It is more viewed as a revealing of "privates" for a woman to wear trousers than for a man due to the thought processes: men having a more noticing of this than most women.
So, go ahead, argue with the facts of morality; joke about it; make your jest. The depraved nature has done it since the Garden of Eden.:tongue3:
"Tights" are associated with femininity as belonging to the attire of women, yet, as observed, many situations demand a usefulness in the wearing of "tights".
"Tights" are not necessarilly always feminine, as the previous examples would show. These applications are associated with their use as to enhance operability. This is not an application of the moral aspect as to whether or not it is effeminant.
Not to rehash an issue, but in the definition of "breeches" we find an association with "tights". But this is limited to apparel that is worn covering from the waist to just below the knee. It is also associated with the term "trousers", but not exactly as so.
"Trousers" have a distinction as to being also to the ankle, BUT! within the moral aspect as to NOT be revealing of any "PRIVATE PARTS". [(please leave your profane ideas of the operation of any private parts APART from this discussion)( as to why it was allowed to stay in the public eye while other comments were deemed "crude", I don't know, well, except to the viability and villany of perspective)]
The morality of attire is rooted in modesty/ modesty being the attribute that does NOT reveal "privates". It is more viewed as a revealing of "privates" for a woman to wear trousers than for a man due to the thought processes: men having a more noticing of this than most women.
So, go ahead, argue with the facts of morality; joke about it; make your jest. The depraved nature has done it since the Garden of Eden.:tongue3:
Salamander
New Member
And ashamedly, many of "them" are just what you told your wife men in tights are. Sad to say, many male ballet dancers are not innocent of same.ajg1959 said:
I believe it has to do with the association of the Greek gods and goddesses where we get the term "gymnasium".
It comes from "gymnos", meaning to excercise naked. Nakedness is directly associated with lust and lust is not limited to gender.
To reveal ones nakedness is to subject same to being lusted after, and by either gender.
SaggyWoman
Active Member
Men in tights? Lusting?
Sometimes it is an athletic thing. It is called mental gymnastics. Our minds are twisting and turning in all the wrong directions.
Now look what you are doing. Getting wot'shername all excited!
By the way, it is perfectly fine and even good for a man to wear trousers. Much better than wearing pants, I should say. I never wear pants. I leave them to wife.
Cheers,
Jim
Now look what you are doing. Getting wot'shername all excited!
By the way, it is perfectly fine and even good for a man to wear trousers. Much better than wearing pants, I should say. I never wear pants. I leave them to wife.
Cheers,
Jim
Salamander
New Member
Deny it? May I sugest you do NOT get off the plane in San Franciso in tights.:tongue3:SaggyWoman said:
Men in tights? Lusting?
Salamander
New Member
No "joke" Ed, our football coach in highschool advised us to shave our ankles so the tape wouldn't pull the hair off your legs.EdSutton said:There's gotta' be at least a half-dozen jokes "rolling around inside" this thread, that I'm not going to pursue any further, for now!
Ed
Pantyhose, worn under the clothes for obvious avoidance of people "poking fun", reduces chafing. Why should it be jesting if one advises to wear them to help reduce the chance of blisters?
But back to men in tights: why hasn't anyone, tried to, refute the evidences of "tights" being breeches, breeches being trousers, and trousers being pants?
Salamander
New Member
How long shall I bear with thy refusals to investigate and without your spouting off in ignorance!
Just look up the definitions as MOST people do and you MIGHT see what I said and have "validated" PROOF!
Just look up the definitions as MOST people do and you MIGHT see what I said and have "validated" PROOF!
JeaniMarie
New Member
I don't believe men should wear tights in the same manner women do. Women use them as leg covering when (for example) wearing a dress. I've told a man that I work with to wear tights under his uniform pants to help keep warm in the winter. Yes, believe it or not, it gets pretty cold in Florida. In the Northwest Panhandle, it's about the same as lake effect, so I've been told. The cold goes right through to your bones. To keep warm, no prob. For normal dress, that's just messed up.
No Doubt!
Like Henry VIII, and the Famous Explorers Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Francis Drake, you mean.
Ed
Harold Garvey
New Member
I have often run across this issue.
My observations is clothing manufacturers make apparel to "fit" the gender, usually on the female side to be tight and revealing. Since about the early 80's it has been commonplace for even men, especially young men to wear tight fitting jeans.
I guess if anything should be gained in understanding of this issue is the more immorality runs on its rampage, the tighter and more revealing the clothing.
As far as the examples given from days gone by, I see no comparison to the issue in today's thinking. Henry the VIII wasn't revealing any sexuality, neither Sir Walter Raleigh.
The example of "Rocky" expresses nudity of the male figure and should be edited by its removal.
Isn't just plain sense to know if the clothing allows one to express sexuality as in to attract anyone is just plain wrong.
I know already my words will be taken and torn to shreds, it's just a common thing in this type of discussion for the ones who object to do so. Sad.
My observations is clothing manufacturers make apparel to "fit" the gender, usually on the female side to be tight and revealing. Since about the early 80's it has been commonplace for even men, especially young men to wear tight fitting jeans.
I guess if anything should be gained in understanding of this issue is the more immorality runs on its rampage, the tighter and more revealing the clothing.
As far as the examples given from days gone by, I see no comparison to the issue in today's thinking. Henry the VIII wasn't revealing any sexuality, neither Sir Walter Raleigh.
The example of "Rocky" expresses nudity of the male figure and should be edited by its removal.
Isn't just plain sense to know if the clothing allows one to express sexuality as in to attract anyone is just plain wrong.
I know already my words will be taken and torn to shreds, it's just a common thing in this type of discussion for the ones who object to do so. Sad.
The problem isn't your words. The problem is that your thought processes are warped by your high-mindedness.
Harold Garvey
New Member
Let be the first to commend your Christian efforts to point out what you disagree with in such a kind and courteous manner.
I reported your reply.:thumbs:
- Status