Originally posted by Abiyah:
In all seriousness, I have never understood when
people say that men are visually stimulated but
women are not.
This is coming from someone with no experience with the opposite sex in a romantic context. . .
but I believe the theory is that boys are more physically stimulated while girls are more emotionally/mentally stimulated. Not that girls aren't physically stimulated, but not as much as boys. Boys are incredibly driven by their senses. And that seems to be generally accurate from my limited experience. I don't think most girls have the slightest clue just how potent their looks are to guys. I'm trying to think of how to describe it, but I can't. Most guys I know, both Christian and non, seem to care about a girls looks first, and second is stratospheres behind. OTOH, my girl friends seem to be more interested about the "inside."
Another thing I do not understand is why pants on
a woman are deemed more sexually stimulating to
men and thus not allowed by some, but pants on a
man are all right. I am not being facetious; I don't
understand. If a particular item of outside clothing
is not stimulating on the one, why would it not be
stimulating on the other? To me, dresses seem that
they would be far more stimulating to a man, unless
they are particularly ugly or bulky.
I always found that funny too. To me, dresses are more stimulating then pants(assuming that we're comparing loose pants to loose dresses or tight pants to tight dresses, not combining the two). I'm curious whether this is the general consensus or I'm an anomaly.
If I'm in the majority, then shouldn't women be wearing pants instead of skirts???
Su Wei said:
I guess we can't tell what Joseph was wearing. I think we can guess he was physically attractive. But the point was that women DO lust too.
Nice find Su. I guess we can agree on something outside of music.
We know that whatever Joseph was wearing wasn't held on too tightly, because Potipher's wife was able to grab it and it came off. Anyone know what the high ranking slaves would have worn in that day in Egypt? I believe it would have been a simple robe/cloak type garment with a loin clothe underneath.
Abby said:
Interesting topic. I think Aaron and Head Covered Lady covered it for me. I will say this:Men, cover yoursleves up, PLEASE. We don't wear shorts at church, but since it's getting warmer the guys at school are wearing their shorts, and YUCK! I just want to cringe!
Isaiah 43:2-3; dosn't that descibe what is considered naked? The thigh? Wouldn't that end at the knee?
Well if the guys at your school wear the same style as the guys here, then they would be following your interpretation of Isaiah 43, most high school guys' shorts go down to, and usually past, the knee. I wear shorts whenever it starts to get warm, and all of mine go down that far. Not because of modesty, just because that's the style I like. I'd like to wear shorts to church during the summer, but my parents won't let me. Oh well, I'll live for one more summer.
God bless,
`JD