Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Jul 12th 2013 new
Nay
Jul 13th 2013 new
Return to 1960s Red China when men and women wore trousers. Wearing a dress? Come on. What if a jihadist sets the place on fire? Men can climb [whatever it is they have to climb to get out of there] with dignity. Dresses do not cater for emergency requirements and are therefore inherently discriminatory against women. Who invented the first dress? Probably a leering male. Nope. A tube that goes around the waist and spokes into two tubes, one for each leg, trouser legs, pyjama legs, whatever you want to call them. Safe during jihad episodes and OK to be slouched in without giving anything away.

Jul 13th 2013 new
(quote) Roystan-340472 said: Return to 1960s Red China when men and women wore trousers. Wearing a dress? Come on. What if a jihadist sets the place on fire? Men can climb [whatever it is they have to climb to get out of there] with dignity. Dresses do not cater for emergency requirements and are therefore inherently discriminatory against women. Who invented the first dress? Probably a leering male. Nope. A tube that goes around the waist and spokes into two tubes, one for each leg, trouser legs, pyjama legs, whatever you want to call them. Safe during jihad episodes and OK to be slouched in without giving anything away.

In emergency situations I don't think anyone would be thinking about what they or anyone else was wearing. Besides, a true gentleman would never let a situation deteriorate to point of emergency for a lady. And if alas, the lady were on her own, she could well go about extreme (her "birthday suit") because after all who else would be there to see what she was wearing.

BTW, I am pretty sure pants were not invented until relatively recently in human history. Dresses well preceded pants. Men wore kilts, and other forms, but not pants. Yes, to slouch in without giving anything away.
Jul 13th 2013 new
Should a Christian man look at a woman in a bikini? Yes, we women should dress modestly, even when swimming. However, men have to take responsibility to control themselves at the sight of an ankle , an arm, or a curve. Those burkahs don't look very comfortable.
Jul 13th 2013 new
Trousers are ancient. Those of both sexes living in the Near East/Middle East wore them: the German pagans, Arab pagans and Persian pagans. The problem with treating modesty as a dress code rather than as a virtue is that you end up with a woman wearing any split-legged garment as "immodest". Palazzo pants, riding skirts and harem pants all per se can be worn alone as a leg covering by a woman without injuring her modesty. It's when women in general start wearing in public masculine clothing in the ordinary or the garb of the harlot (i.e., appealing to either extreme of indecency: androgyny or whorish-ness/slutish-ness) that attire can be called specifically and objectively immodest. It's also when women in general start to dress with the internal purpose to convey venereal or morose delectation that the behaviour can be called specifically and subjectively immodest.

A woman wearing a bikini in intimate settings for her husband is violating no moral. She may, in fact, be violating morals, if her husband wished her to wear a bikini for him intimately, by her refusal to do so.
Jul 13th 2013 new
(quote) Chelsea-743484 said: A woman wearing a bikini in intimate settings for her husband is violating no moral. She may, in fact, be violating morals, if her husband wished her to wear a bikini for him intimately, by her refusal to do so.
I have to disagree. It is not immoral to refuse to wear a bikini at any time. Ever.
Jul 13th 2013 new
(quote) Mary-847286 said: I have to disagree. It is not immoral to refuse to wear a bikini at any time. Ever.
Then, I presume, your opinion would also be that it is not immoral to refuse to appear naked for her husband. And Vice Versa, for anyone who might object that I hold one standard for women and another for men.
Jul 13th 2013 new
(quote) Mary-847286 said: I have to disagree. It is not immoral to refuse to wear a bikini at any time. Ever.
I get what Chelsea is saying and was initially inclined to agree. But having read your comment, I understand what you also say, Mary.

So, if a husband truly knew that his wife had total disdain for bikinis, he would be wise enough to never request his wife wear it. I am coming from the basis of always looking to be most loving toward her and not be purely selfish at her expense. So this "refusal" need not be presented over and over, and become a source of repeated conflict.

Chelea's comment I took as coming from a wife's point of view of always wanting/needing to please her husband.
Jul 13th 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: Then, I presume, your opinion would also be that it is not immoral to refuse to appear naked for her husband. And Vice Versa, for anyone who might object that I hold one standard for women and another for men.
An excellent observation Paul.

Thanks to Chelsea, as usual, to get matters to deeper levels.
Jul 13th 2013 new
Exactly. Why not expect women to wear a French Maid costume or sexy school girl attire? It is for their husband, after all. If a woman wants to wear something for her husband, then go for it. But it is not a sin to have self respect or not want to be objectified in marriage.

Wanting/needing to please one's husband should not include anything a woman finds demeaning.
Posts 11 - 20 of 164