Gospel Liberty

[J.D.]

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.

Maybe I did pick up the conversation mid-stream and missed something. It seemed like you were saying the old "I can ware any thing I want to and if men can't control their eyes that's their problem" line.

But I still agree with Allan on his last post. I think the pants are immodest too, for the reasons he cited.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Somehow Allen, I missed your post yesterday until it was to late for me to respond:

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.

I think what we have here is a good example of having two separate conversations going on at the same time and getting them mixed up. I'm somewhat dyslexic so it's not hard for me to do. Aaron, Allen both begin with the same letter which makes it so much easier for me to confuse the two. The confusion is probably on my part. My conversation with AARON was entirely about whether or not a woman should wear pants, especially in the office environment, and whether or not the wearing of such constituted a woman trying to look like a man.

I will go back a reread your posts and see if I can clear up the confusion. (not right this minute though, I have kids to get to school)

Back to the dress I posted, it is not ugly nor was I posting it as an ugly dress. It is simply a dress of the sort so many here think modest women should wear constantly, Sunday or not. It is a perfectly modest, neat dress, but it does NOT give the same impression that a man in a business suit can profer.

As for the suit, you should know that that in the fashion industry, items will be modeled and photographed for it sex appeal because that is what sells. The suit was about 2 sizes to small for the model, which accounts for the high crotch. A real woman wouldn't be able to sit down in those pants much less wear them all day while working. Properly sized those pants would look very different. I laughed a bit myself at the photos, but they are to be expected from an industry that recognizes no God.

As for the low cut neck: any woman who fails to put at least a camisole under the jacket deserves to fall out of it. The photo was meant to sell the suit, not what was worn under it.

I see those things because I've worked so long as a dressmaker and in the fashion industry. My first market (wholesale market for supplying clothing stores and boutiques) was an eye opener to say the least. A modeling career is NOT in my daughters futures!

 

[menageriekeeper]

Okay, I think I've figured it out, and it seems you and I don't actually have anything to debate. I think we might agree more than it seems.

Here is I confused the issues:

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)

While I sent you to the modesty threads for the second paragraph of this post (not quoted) I applied this paragraph to Aaron and my conversation about pants, transvestism and the office environment. What it seems I should have done is applied the first paragraph to the second as a separate conversation.

I will still disagree that how you dress earns respect. I will agree, however, that dress is not the only item that affects the respect a man or a woman is given. Dress is a starting point, not the end of the conversation. However, first impressions are the ones that stick the longest. If someone is dressed inappropriately for the position, the idea is going to stick that a) this person doesn't present the image our company wants to project or b) this person can't be as smart as their resume or they would be dressed differently. Here it is not an issue of modesty as much as appropriateness.

When Aaron brought up that pants on women were an attempt to look like a man and therefore fit the definition of tranvestism, I didn't agree. That led to this quote which you used in your post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by menageriekeeper
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 doesn't mean I can wear anything I like, but if the only thing standing between me and a pair of pants is that the pants show the shape of my body (without revealing my body) in the same manner that pants show the shape of a man's body, then pants are perfectly acceptable. We all have legs. Mine might be prettier than yours, but you aren't going to be able to tell that under a pair of well cut, well fitted pants. Nor does my wearing a pair of nicely cut ladies pants (or even jeans) mean I am attempting to make myself look more like a man, which would be the defintion of transvestism.

 

[Aaron]

I'm just going to summarize my points here and be done.

1. Gospel liberty is often cited to justify masculinity and immodesty in women's clothing, but it's never cited to justify men in dresses.

2. And the reason for that is that despite all the lip-service and certain concessions made in society to Feminism, men still rule the world, and what is attractive to men will be more readily accepted.

Now, one comment in regard to the new turn taken in this discussion. I live in the low-rent district. Prostitution is sometimes a problem. The last prostitute I saw walking the street was dressed in a tank top that exposed her midrif, and in tight, short cut-offs. She made sustained eye-contact with me and smiled. At first my thought was, "Do I know this girl?" When I saw her on the same stretch of road the next day dressed the same way and making the same gestures toward drivers, it dawned on me that she was a prostitute. It was then that I realized how far down we've come in our standards of dress for women. As Dennis Miller's character said in his guest stint on Boston Public, "Do all teenage girls dress like prostitutes?"

 

[menageriekeeper]

Actually, I think it is to your credit as a man that the word prostitute wasn't the first word that crossed your mind. :applause:

I absolutely agree with number 2, but don't discount that women dress to please other women too. This is not perverted. Women value other women's opinions and approval because if the outfit is acceptable to other women it will most likely be acceptable to men. And if it's not then we know exactly what impression we are going to leave on the minds of the men we come in contact with.

As for teenage girls and their dress, no not all dress like the prostitutes, but the vast majority of them are coming close. If you don't have a teenage daughter, then you have no idea how much the issue of sex is on the minds of these young girls. From the girls my daughter comes in contact with, I'd say the girls were worse than the boys when it comes to constantly talking/thinking about sexual issues. I've been dumbfounded when talking to girls I've known since they were first graders at the kinds of subjects/thoughts they are willing to entertain and think it is okay.

 

[Rufus_1611]

I absolutely agree with number 2, but don't discount that women dress to please other women too. This is not perverted. Women value other women's opinions and approval because if the outfit is acceptable to other women it will most likely be acceptable to men. And if it's not then we know exactly what impression we are going to leave on the minds of the men we come in contact with.

It is perverted, for they ought to value God's opinion and God's approval.

PERVERT''ED, pp. Turned from right to wrong; distorted; corrupted; misinterpreted; misemployed.(Source: Webster's 1828)​

 

[Aaron]

My brush with transvestitism...or...Where's My Hairbrush?

This is 14 years ago. I'm in the center. They're ladies wigs that were in the garage sale.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Rufus, you tryin' to cause trouble? We all just did manage to come to an agreement.:1_grouphug:

Aaron,

 

[J.D.]

My brush with transvestitism...or...Where's My Hairbrush?

This is 14 years ago. I'm in the center. They're ladies wigs that were in the garage sale.

Oh, I thought that was a worship leader with his praise band.

 

[Aaron]

Funny you should mention worship leader. The fella on my right (your left) is this guy...

http://www.lancewinkler.com/

I knew I shoulda bought 'im that wig!

 

[J.D.]

Funny you should mention worship leader. The fella on my right (your left) is this guy...

http://www.lancewinkler.com/

I knew I shoulda bought 'im that wig!

Move over Pat Robertson, a new prophet has arrived -- ME!

 

[Rufus_1611]

Rufus, you tryin' to cause trouble? We all just did manage to come to an agreement.:1_grouphug:

Aaron,

Nope. Just trying to encourage folks to hold fast the form of sound words (2 Tim 2:13).

 

[menageriekeeper]

In that case : Do you not have a more up to date dictionary than one from 1828? Do you not have any idea how language changes during a time period of 175 years.

From Webster 1993: Perverted- 1: that has been perverted : TWISTED CORRUPT, VICIOUS <a custom as perverted as any ever recorded> 2: marked by perversion esp. sexual <a still more perverted form of behavior>

So when I say that women dress to please other women and it is not in a perverted sense, I mean that women dress to please other women in the sense that you dress to please your mother, not that they are dressing in order to arouse the sexual desires of another woman.

You need a more up-to-date dictionary. You wouldn't much appreciate it if your doctor used technology from 1828 so why would you rely on a dictionary that is pretty much an artifact?

 

[Rufus_1611]

You need a more up-to-date dictionary. You wouldn't much appreciate it if your doctor used technology from 1828 so why would you rely on a dictionary that is pretty much an artifact?

For the same reason that I read a Bible that is pretty much an artifact. Noah Webster, while imperfect, cared for the Holy Bible and cared for words being defined according to this Bible. The newer dictionaries do not share this same concern, they adjust to the culture. Thus, as people improperly use words, the contemporary dictionaries change to adapt to the improper usage. Then we have meanings of words in our minds that are inconsistent with God's use of those words. The word pervert, or variations of, are found in the Holy Bible 21 times and never in the context that women lusting after other women as being perverted. If they concern themselves with what women think more than God, I would submit that this is perverted, if they desire other women, then that would be sexually perverted.

"And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King." - Luke 23:2​

 

[menageriekeeper]

Then we have meanings of words in our minds that are inconsistent with God's use of those words.

Ah, but I wasn't trying to convey a thught from scripture. I was making a contemporary remark based on contemporary language.

If you are going to use a Bible translation that is centuries old, then I agree you need a dictionary from the same time period if you can't distinguish from the context what the meaning of a particular word is.

Here is where you and I differ on our thoughts about Bible translations. (I know this from reading some of your posts in other threads) While I use and enjoy the KJV, I can discern the meaning of the word perverted as it is used there while still recognizing that perverted means something entirely different to most of society. But most people aren't like me and will apply today's meaning of the word in inappropriate places.! Therefore, when discussing scripture with someone who barely knows there is such a thing as a Bible, I perfer to use a version with more uptodate language.

Just ask any teacher who has to teach Shakespeare to a class of teenagers. First they have to have a vocabulary discussion! It's sad. When you and I were kids, the average kid learned Shakespeare, now, it's for advanced placement kids and the average kid doesn't get beyond watching a play on TV. Memorizing and repeating it? hahahahahahaha! I memorized whole passages. My advanced placement daughter never considered memorizing one line.

We live in a different world!