Gospel Liberty

[Aaron]

Are speaking to me?
Goodness, no. I'm not legalistic. This has just been such a volitile subject this week I was just injecting a little humor. Hope I didn't offend anybody.

I know you're not being legalistic. I was joking when I said that.

 

[Aaron]

Transvestite brings to mind a man...

The interesting thing to me is that it didn't bring to mind a woman.

What would you say of women in business suits? Yes, they're cut a little differently, but the reason for women's business suits (with trousers, not skirts) is to break down gender differences in the corporate environment. (Trousers are traditionally men's corporate apparel in. Trousers for women is a relatively new development.)

http://www.raffaello-network.com/raffties/detail.php?itemid=70470&rangeid=729

 

[menageriekeeper]

Nice suit Aaron! To bad I can afford it.

Now if I put that suit on, you would immediately know without a doubt that I'm a woman. I'd have to go far beyond putting on even a men's suit in order to look like a man.

If you put that suit on, folks would immediately wonder about your sexual identity.

You see, just because there are trousers doesn't make a suit necesssarily men's clothing. You mentioned that the "cut" on a woman's suit was a little different, but I'm here to tell you that the "cut" of a woman's suit is more than a little different. Women's suits are made differently from the first cut of the fabric all the way to the final hem. (Just as centuries ago women's robes were made differently from men's)

How do I know? Well you just happen to be speaking with a woman who has 27 years experience in making and altering both women's and men's clothing.

Men's clothing will always be cut wider and longer than's women's, even when it is something "unisex" like t-shirts and sweats. A small in mens will be quite a bit bigger than a small in womens. It's just the way it is. A man, even a small man couldn't fit into a small pair of womens sweats. It wouldn't fit correctly in places where comfort is a man's main concern, if you catch my drift. As much as they look a like, these items are not alike, with very few exception. Even down to a men's socks being made differently that a womans. And sock's don't count on the modest scale. :laugh:

Now let me answer the transvestite question. How many times have you ever heard that word in relation to a woman? It does happen, but women are in the far minority when it comes to this sort of thing. There is a reason. It is far easier to fit a man into a woman's clothing and make him look like a her than it is to put a woman into a man's clothing and end up with the woman looking like a him. It's hard, very hard, to make a woman's bodily attributes disappear while it is quite easy to add those attributes to a man.

As for breaking down gender differences in the work place, that is a whole different topic. Perhaps it is time for gender differences to BE broken down. Why is it that a woman gets paid less money for doing the same office job as a man?

 

[av1611jim]

But Aaron has a very valid point.
Why is it that when you say "man in a dress"; perverted images come to mind.
But when you say "woman in trousers"; no such images come to mind?

I'll tell you why. It is because this society has worked very very hard for a very long time to destroy such distinctions FOR WOMEN. But society still has a taboo for men. Why?

The church has let society down, that's why. We have lost our saltiness.

Don't believe it? Then explain why it is that the divorce rate in and out of the church is the same. And this is just the first example that came to mind for illustration. I am sure you could think of others.

 

[menageriekeeper]

The thing is, the distinction of women in trousers as being perverted was a false distinction to begin with. It was held only in the minds of men.

We could all still go around in animals skins as did Adam and Eve. After all, if there was one set of clothing that God actually put his stamp of approval on it was that that He made Himself. (wouldn't the animal rights activists love us then? :laugh

While I agree that the church isn't doing it's job, it is not the issue of pants or even divorce that makes me think so. No, it's the issue of the church no longer displaying the fruits of the spirit that concerns me. You know, love, joy, peace, longsuffering.......Those trait aren't being striven for anymore. When the church gets back to them, then all this fussing about clothing styles will cease.

But while we are on the subject of divorce and since you brought it up, do you have any stats that prove that the divorce rate inside the church was ever lower than that outside the church? I know this is a popular theory, but I've never seen any real numbers to back it up.

 

[Aaron]

Nice suit Aaron! To bad I can afford it.

Now if I put that suit on, you would immediately know without a doubt that I'm a woman. I'd have to go far beyond putting on even a men's suit in order to look like a man.

That's only because of the shape of your hips, and that takes us back to the issue of modesty. The cut on this suit says, how can I work to break down gender distinction in the corporate environment and still maintain some sex appeal?

You see, just because there are trousers doesn't make a suit necesssarily men's clothing. You mentioned that the "cut" on a woman's suit was a little different, but I'm here to tell you that the "cut" of a woman's suit is more than a little different. Women's suits are made differently from the first cut of the fabric all the way to the final hem. (Just as centuries ago women's robes were made differently from men's)

Trousers are nothing new.

Mummified Europeans over 3000 years old have been uncovered in China wearing trousers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2502chinamum.html

And, as was pointed out in the Modesty thread, trousers were common among the Parthians

http://www.arkamani.org/arkamani-library/christian/vantini.htm

And, not to be excluded, the parade of corpses dug up out of the bogs of Europe dating back to Roman days.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/regional_review/vol4-2f.htm

How do I know? Well you just happen to be speaking with a woman who has 27 years experience in making and altering both women's and men's clothing.

Men's clothing will always be cut wider and longer than's women's, even when it is something "unisex" like t-shirts and sweats. A small in mens will be quite a bit bigger than a small in womens. It's just the way it is. A man, even a small man couldn't fit into a small pair of womens sweats. It wouldn't fit correctly in places where comfort is a man's main concern, if you catch my drift. As much as they look a like, these items are not alike, with very few exception. Even down to a men's socks being made differently that a womans. And sock's don't count on the modest scale. :laugh:

And male transvestites will choose women's clothes that fit them. My wife tells me that I don't have the frame for something belted. (oo! Did I say that?)

Now let me answer the transvestite question. How many times have you ever heard that word in relation to a woman? It does happen, but women are in the far minority when it comes to this sort of thing. There is a reason. It is far easier to fit a man into a woman's clothing and make him look like a her than it is to put a woman into a man's clothing and end up with the woman looking like a him. It's hard, very hard, to make a woman's bodily attributes disappear while it is quite easy to add those attributes to a man.

I think we usually think of men as transvestites because transvestism is more acceptable among women than men, and the reason for that is because it's sexy to the heterosexual male. So is watching women engage in physical intimacy.

As for breaking down gender differences in the work place, that is a whole different topic.

But that's still the reason for trousers in women's suits.

Perhaps it is time for gender differences to BE broken down.

Gender differences were God's idea, not mine. But if you're going to blur the distinction, putting on trousers is the way to do it.

Why is it that a woman gets paid less money for doing the same office job as a man?

In the past it was usually because a man was supporting a family, and a woman was earning extra spending money. But that's beside the point.

 

[Aaron]

We could all still go around in animals skins as did Adam and Eve. After all, if there was one set of clothing that God actually put his stamp of approval on it was that that He made Himself. (wouldn't the animal rights activists love us then? :laugh.

A leather suit would be considered a luxury today. Besides, why do we think that the clothes God made Adam and Eve were anything like what we usually think cave men wore? I'm sure they fit well and looked good.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Oh boy, this is going to be long.

From the top:

That's only because of the shape of your hips, and that takes us back to the issue of modesty. The cut on this suit says, how can I work to break down gender distinction in the corporate environment and still maintain some sex appeal?

Actually, what the cut of this suit says, is "how can I dress so that I will get the respect I deserve while still maintaining my feminity?"

Men and women have very different viewpoints. So while your view is valid (perhaps) mine might be too! We simply view things differently.

As for modesty, you show your hips when you wear a pair of trousers, why can't I? Didn't God make us both in His own image? Then how can you say that what is immodest for me isn't immodest for you?

Trousers are nothing new.

Yes, I know. You think folk back then argued about who could wear them like we do?

And male transvestites will choose women's clothes that fit them. My wife tells me that I don't have the frame for something belted. (oo! Did I say that?)

Yes, but the point was that most women will NOT choose a man's clothing simply to make themselves more masculine. It's too much work. Now if you just wanted too, we could build you up right and you could wear something belted.

I think we usually think of men as transvestites because transvestism is more acceptable among women than men, and the reason for that is because it's sexy to the heterosexual male. So is watching women engage in physical intimacy.

It's not acceptable to most women. It's men who allow this to be acceptable. (another one of those differences in the thinking of men and women)

Quote:
Perhaps it is time for gender differences to BE broken down.
Gender differences were God's idea, not mine. But if you're going to blur the distinction, putting on trousers is the way to do it.

You left out the part of the quote that gives context to the statement:

As for breaking down gender differences in the work place, that is a whole different topic. Perhaps it is time for gender differences to BE broken down.

Somehow I don't think it was God that decided what women could do or not do in the workplace. I don't remember those verses in the Bible.

 

[av1611jim]

The thing is, the distinction of women in trousers as being perverted was a false distinction to begin with. It was held only in the minds of men.

We could all still go around in animals skins as did Adam and Eve. After all, if there was one set of clothing that God actually put his stamp of approval on it was that that He made Himself. (wouldn't the animal rights activists love us then? :laugh

While I agree that the church isn't doing it's job, it is not the issue of pants or even divorce that makes me think so. No, it's the issue of the church no longer displaying the fruits of the spirit that concerns me. You know, love, joy, peace, longsuffering.......Those trait aren't being striven for anymore. When the church gets back to them, then all this fussing about clothing styles will cease.

But while we are on the subject of divorce and since you brought it up, do you have any stats that prove that the divorce rate inside the church was ever lower than that outside the church? I know this is a popular theory, but I've never seen any real numbers to back it up.

I do not want to hijack the thread so I offer you this and will let it go...


http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=170

 

[Aaron]

Now let me answer the transvestite question. How many times have you ever heard that word in relation to a woman? It does happen, but women are in the far minority when it comes to this sort of thing. There is a reason. It is far easier to fit a man into a woman's clothing and make him look like a her than it is to put a woman into a man's clothing and end up with the woman looking like a him. It's hard, very hard, to make a woman's bodily attributes disappear while it is quite easy to add those attributes to a man.

What of men who do what is in the parody mentioned in the OP? That's not seen on the outside. Is that still transvestitism?

I have in my possession an old photo taken sometime in the 30's of a lesbian couple. I have this photo because one of them was a family member. One is in a print dress, and the other is in a T-shirt and overalls. Which one in the photo is a transvestite?

 

[menageriekeeper]

Perhaps neither, depending on the original context of the photo. I think perhaps you hold to to strict a view of what constitutes transvestism. It's not merely dressing in jeans and a t-shirt, but it's dressing in jeans and a t-shirt with the intent to fool others into believing that one is a member of the opposite sex.

In your photo, one woman may be wearing jeans and a t-shirt because she was out doing chores that aren't expedient for a woman to do in a dress. Even in the 30's it wasn't unheard of for a woman to wear such attire when doing "men's" work, especially if there wasn't a man around(to do the work).

Now, as you have personal knowledge of the sexual orientation of both women, and you can actually see the photo, it may be that the woman in jeans was actually participating in tranvestism. But since they are both perverted, does it realy matter? what matters more is that at sometime they were presented with Christ. To simply condemn someone because of their sin is something not even Christ did. Remember, He said they were condemned already, no need for more. Instead, He came to save them from condemnation. You think someone maybe told them of Christ love for them or were they simply subjected to more condemnation because of the way one of them was dressed on top of the condemnation they already recieved because of their lifestyle?

 

[Aaron]

Oh, please! When you create a definition so narrow, hardly anyone can be guilty of this vice. The woman in the photo who is assuming the "male" role in the relationship is dressing for the part. She is engaging in transvestitism. Overalls are generally regarded as male attire, so she put them on.

But back to my original observation. The reason we usually think of a man when the word transvestite is used is because transvestitism and even a certain degree of homosexual behavior among women has become acceptable in our society so much more than it has among men. Therefore, men in dresses are not as acceptable.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I believe I left that option open, Aaron. It is very possible that the woman in your photo was practicing transvestism. I can't see the photo.

But, just because one woman in one photo from the 30's was engaging in tranvestism doesn't mean that every woman wearing overalls in every photo from the 30's is engaged in the same behavior.

Just how far have we gotten from the OP anyhow?

 

[Allan]

Actually, what the cut of this suit says, is "how can I dress so that I will get the respect I deserve while still maintaining my feminity?"

...snip...

As for modesty, you show your hips when you wear a pair of trousers, why can't I? Didn't God make us both in His own image? Then how can you say that what is immodest for me isn't immodest for you?

This is the crux of the whole problem. That the embolded question for instance - Dress does not give respect, it is earned. This is a false and worldly understanding created to help bring forth the unisex paradigm and establish the feminism. I have no problem with women having rights and being treated on an equal basis of knowledge and skill. But we all know this is not what mostly happens but by that same token women are offered jobs and positions solely based on their gender to maintain federal status quo and or they obtain jobs based on their looks while others (men and women) who are better qualified get passed over. The world is unfair and always will be yet many christians will seek the worlds view to give them an edge rather than trust in the Living God to give them what they need (I am speaking job wise and or promotional aspects)
Just to finish this part, you get respect that you deserve ONLY when you have earned it. Just having a degree doesn't mean you have earned respect that sets you apart from others with that same knowledge or experience toward that employer, you must show you are distinguished by your work NOT your dress (albeit it should be professional)

God made us in His image - So you assume I guess that God is both male and female since you are contrasting Him to our physical appearance (ie. hips and our showing them) The whole argument of "You can do it why can't I?" is based soley on the desire or lust of a person in the context of modesty. If a man dresses in a way that intentionally is showing off his body - this is sin. If he dresses in things that are sensual or are designed to bring forth that sensuality but he likes them him and isn't doing it for the benifit of others - This TO is sin as he is neglecting the responsibility of not causing others to lust after him. He has a certain modesty to hold to as well - BUT... It is the woman who is the one who will cause more to stumble in this area because of the way God designed the mind of most (not all) men and our attraction to that which is physical. This is why throughout scripture you see God tell women to be modest and men to guard their eyes. This principle applies to all people on both aspects but is more a prevelent situation with men concerning the desire to look upon the physical nature and beauty of a woman. Women and men look differently in most cases upon one another, but both CAN look at each other in the same sinful way. SO...in order to reduce that sinful urge God commands ALL to dress modestly and according to gender but to also guard their eyes as well.

 

[menageriekeeper]

For an answer to the second paragraph of the thread, I'm going to refer you to the modesty thread in the General Discussions forum. You'll want to especially look for post that talk about the responsibility of men to control their own thoughts. (ie, if it is not immodest for a man to show his hips why is it immodest for a woman too. It's not selfishness on the part of the woman, but rather men do not want to take responsibility for their own thoughts. Much easier to put off on a woman the responsibility for never provoking a man's interest than for the man to see to it his "interest" never strays to the unholy.)

First paragraph: If you had a man come in to your office looking for a job and he wore a dirty t-shirt and torn jeans, would you give him the respect that you would give a man who came into your office wearing a nicely pressed dress shirt and pants? Are you really going to look at the first man's resume? Get real, you know it doesn't work that way.

Now, let's say that two different people come into your boss's office. One is a man in a nice 3 peice suit, tie and the works and the other is a woman wearing this:

Who are you going to recommend for the office next to yours? Are you really going to look through both resumes or is your decision already colored by the way the woman was dressed?

 

[Allan]

For an answer to the second paragraph of the thread, I'm going to refer you to the modesty thread in the General Discussions forum. You'll want to especially look for post that talk about the responsibility of men to control their own thoughts. (ie, if it is not immodest for a man to show his hips why is it immodest for a woman too. It's not selfishness on the part of the woman, but rather men do not want to take responsibility for their own thoughts. Much easier to put off on a woman the responsibility for never provoking a man's interest than for the man to see to it his "interest" never strays to the unholy.)

First paragraph: If you had a man come in to your office looking for a job and he wore a dirty t-shirt and torn jeans, would you give him the respect that you would give a man who came into your office wearing a nicely pressed dress shirt and pants? Are you really going to look at the first man's resume? Get real, you know it doesn't work that way.

Now, let's say that two different people come into your boss's office. One is a man in a nice 3 peice suit, tie and the works and the other is a woman wearing this:

Who are you going to recommend for the office next to yours? Are you really going to look through both resumes or is your decision already colored by the way the woman was dressed?

You don't read much beyond your emotionalism do you...
I have seen the Modesty thread. But unfortunately your understanding that you ARE your brothers keepers is far removed from any biblical perspective. We are to do our part to keep ourselves from sin but you are to do your part so as not to tempt men into sinning - and this is a vise versa situation. Just so you remember that in the scriptures it shows it is also your responsiblity not to be a temptation for a man either which is why you like us are to be modest and humble towards each, living differently than the world. Your emotional argument regarding "it's not my fault men lust after my body, its their. I can wear what I want as long as it doesn't offend me"... is as feministic as you can get. God doesn't care if you are offended or not it is the fact that God said do something because the consequences that result in sin are offensive to Him.

Again, you ARE just as responsible for how a man sees you as he is when seeing you.
You are still stuck with the biblical mandate that you seem to rail against. What is seriously wrong with being modest and why do you think modesty equates with being ugly. My niece is faced with this SAME argument frommany other girls in school and the other one that is just as prevelent as your argument is Virginity is as undesirable as that of modesty. They tell her to throw off the chains age old mythical religion and be the woman of today... Now let me tell you who is encouraging this almost verbatum discussion - Her cheerleading Coach and her Human Health teacher.

Now I'm NOT saying you are equating the same but you are in first of the argument as modesty is equated to being ugly when God states it is the beauty of a Godly woman to be such.

As for your ridiculous picture and stating who would I choose to work for me... I again say... you don't read past your emotionalism do you?? I stated very plainly that they both should dress professionally but again you equate modesty with that which is ugly and undesirable. I'm not saying dress like the 40's or the 20's I'm simply saying women need to take responsibilty in how they dress, because all that we do is to and for God AND the benifit of other believers for their spiritual growth.
You seem to have a very bad misunderstanding of what modesty constitutes toward a woman. That sister is a very sad for those girls who watch and will eventually emulate you in that respect. IMO

 

[Allan]

Let me set the stage a little better.

What do boys, teenagers, and men deal with in American society with regard to what they see that not only encourages lustful thoughts and glances but instills in them BEFORE They are saved by the grace of Almight God those tendencies and mind set TO lust after women.

What do they see - Women immodestly dressed due to being in the publics eye:
Woman in lingerie, undergarments or with no under garment barly covering and 'uncovered' part of her body.

On bilboards
Magizines
books
cartoons
ads
commercials
Tv - Programs
movies
Pre-views for movies
music (words that depict specificly styled images)
on Poster boards
...... In malls, stores, on the ailes in most stores
Video games
Computer games
Websites
Toys
Dolls
Board Games

Now let us include thost other immodestly dressed aspects like, Belly shirts, mid buttom blouses, lowrider pants and shorts. 'Tight' Jeans and shirts, (these spesifically are designed to show physical attributes to DRAW attention to them) Short skirts, mini skirts, Micro-Mini Skirts, ect, ect, ect....

Again see above for the listing of places guys from boyhood are subject to these and are conditioned from within society BEFORE salvation to automatically desire in a lustful way at the sight of certain clothing worn by women. I say BEFORE salvation because it has become apart of the mind set and automatic reactions to what they see and therefore it takes much time for most and an instant for some to create again within themselves this NEW defence mechinism which leads them to look away with pure thoughts rather than that which has always been their mind set.

SO when you flippantly state men should basically 'mind' their own business and keep themselves, cause you are not responsible for what they look at. You absolutely fail to see just how much you fit into the aspect that draws them away into the very lust you are saying they need deal with themselves. It is your choices that cause many to stumble and fall in Christ.

The same goes for men.

 

[J.D.]

SO when you flippantly state men should basically 'mind' their own business and keep themselves, cause you are responsible for what they look at. You absolutely fail to see just how much you fit into the aspect that draws them away into the very lust you are saying they need deal with themselves. It is your choices that cause many to stumble and fall in Christ.

Allan, we agree on this. Women do not understand male sexuality. They have to be told in no uncertain terms what it means to uncover the female body to the eyes of a man. It's been my experience that if girls get a good understanding of the man's sinful eye-gate, they cover up. At least they do if they have any concern for Godliness. Most girls dress for other girls anyway - to make fashion statements. They often don't understand the controversy they're causing.

 

[menageriekeeper]

SO when you flippantly state men should basically 'mind' their own business and keep themselves, cause you are responsible for what they look at. You absolutely fail to see just how much you fit into the aspect that draws them away into the very lust you are saying they need deal with themselves. It is your choices that cause many to stumble and fall in Christ.

Allan, we agree on this. Women do not understand male sexuality. They have to be told in no uncertain terms what it means to uncover the female body to the eyes of a man. It's been my experience that if girls get a good understanding of the man's sinful eye-gate, they cover up. At least they do if they have any concern for Godliness. Most girls dress for other girls anyway - to make fashion statements. They often don't understand the controversy they're causing.

Whoa Allen and J.D., hold tight a minute and go back and read those threads a bit more thoroughly. I'm a married woman and understand quite well the effect a woman's body has on a man. I believe I brought that up in one of those threads, that girls are not only not being taught modesty, but more importantly they are not being taught why modesty is important.

The question here was not bare mid drifts, but pants and more specifically pants in the office environment and whether the wearing of pants by a woman constitutes transvestism. Nudity is a whole nother issue and guess what, I'm with you on the issue.

Now, I don't what you men find ugly about the dress I posted. It is a perfectly good example of a modest dress (can't help that the model is not a professional) and the pic came from a site that specializes in modest clothing for women! But you have proved my point. You wouldn't hire a woman wearing a dress of this sort, but yet you rail against us for immodesty when we wear something more professional and up to date!

Ya'll need to take a good long look at your own opinions before you accuse me of not being able to see further than my own emotions. (this is yet another comman man trait. If you can't beat a woman's arguement chalk it up to pure emotionalism. Give me a break!)

Let me see if I can show you the pic of the suit Aaron and I were discussing. Sorry you'll have to settle for a link the pic is to big to bring over: http://www.raffaello-network.com/raffties/detail.php?itemid=70470&rangeid=729

This is how the discussion got started, nothing was said about nudity. However, ya'll feel free to jump into the "pants in a can" thread.

 

[Allan]

Whoa Allen and J.D., hold tight a minute and go back and read those threads a bit more thoroughly. I'm a married woman and understand quite well the effect a woman's body has on a man. I believe I brought that up in one of those threads, that girls are not only not being taught modesty, but more importantly they are not being taught why modesty is important.

The question here was not bare mid drifts, but pants and more specifically pants in the office environment and whether the wearing of pants by a woman constitutes transvestism. Nudity is a whole nother issue and guess what, I'm with you on the issue.

Now, I don't what you men find ugly about the dress I posted. It is a perfectly good example of a modest dress (can't help that the model is not a professional) and the pic came from a site that specializes in modest clothing for women! But you have proved my point. You wouldn't hire a woman wearing a dress of this sort, but yet you rail against us for immodesty when we wear something more professional and up to date!

Ya'll need to take a good long look at your own opinions before you accuse me of not being able to see further than my own emotions. (this is yet another comman man trait. If you can't beat a woman's arguement chalk it up to pure emotionalism. Give me a break!)

Let me see if I can show you the pic of the suit Aaron and I were discussing. Sorry you'll have to settle for a link the pic is to big to bring over: http://www.raffaello-network.com/raffties/detail.php?itemid=70470&rangeid=729

This is how the discussion got started, nothing was said about nudity. However, ya'll feel free to jump into the "pants in a can" thread.

When I came into the discussion of this thread I specifically designated two opinions set forth to justify immodesty of any sort. Your engaging the specific article dealing with 'pants' has not been apart of 'our' (much less mine) conversation and NEVER been apart of what I was contending. Nudity was not anything I was speaking of so don't really know how you are trying to tie that into your problem. I used lingerie, underware, and other things as the preface for WHY men are as they are AND that lead into me speaking about the outer clothing.

However with due regard to women and pants in the work place. There is noting wrong with it as long as it is for the right reasons. If a woman is wearing a pants suit in order to get better respect by dressing like a man, this is sin. If she is wearing the pants suit cause it is professional but it sure does look good on her (shows off her figure) again this is sin. And if she is wearing the pants suit for any reason other than it is womanly and modest, it is considered sin.

About the dress...please stop with your bouncing back and forth of ungly and then looks good. You state in Post #35:

Now, let's say that two different people come into your boss's office. One is a man in a nice 3 peice suit, tie and the works and the other is a woman wearing this:
......
Who are you going to recommend for the office next to yours? Are you really going to look through both resumes or is your decision already colored by the way the woman was dressed?

You establish here that the dress of the woman is unappealing and has already influenced my desecion for hire.
Then you state in Post #:

Now, I don't what you men find ugly about the dress I posted. It is a perfectly good example of a modest dress

But you have proved my point. You wouldn't hire a woman wearing a dress of this sort, but yet you rail against us for immodesty when we wear something more professional and up to date!

Then you accuse us of thinking the dress is ugly. Strange huh... However a woman doesn't goes to get a job interveiw dressed in a Sun dress. If you will again look back at the one of my last postes which states quite plainly. BOTH need to be professionally dressed. No a Sun dress wont cut it for proper business attire. You point is completely unproven and improveable as the hiring is condusive to a business type of clothig and therefore professional attire.

However - Your pic of a woman in a suit made my wife laught for quite a while. She pointed out the butt is tailored to accsentuate certain qualities in that women certain lower extremities. Pants were to tight and designed to show off the the legs and buttocks, the jacket/ blouse were to low cut (mid-button shirt with full view of mid chest - and what ever you do don't lean down)

Your emotionalsim isn't due (nor was it stated or insinuted) to you being a women. But that you cling to a view point and begin putting down others who state and show biblically where you are wrong. Like here where you;

Ya'll need to take a good long look at your own opinions before you accuse me of not being able to see further than my own emotions. (this is yet another comman man trait. If you can't beat a woman's arguement chalk it up to pure emotionalism

Emotionalism is most basically when your argument is based on that which you FEEL most right regardless of the truth.