MennoNet.com

I can give you an example of a friendly smile that I lived to regret. At a church my sister and I had visited for a while (our own church is an hour away, so we were looking for local night services). A man looking less than dapper sat by himself each time, although he would contribute sometimes in prayer request time. So I smiled across the aisle at him once. Then one of the men in the church who knew us spoke up to recommend us two as sisters with whom to spend godly time. As soon as the service was over, this guy was behind me, asking us to dinner sometime. I couldn't think how to get out of it, so accepted against my better judgment.

At the restaurant, when the man was in the restroom, the cashier told us he had a bad reputation, and she had herself witnessed him attempting to talk a woman into coming to live with him.

That's the kind of smiling at strangers that is not wise.

Joy, would it be fair to say it was not the smile that was the problem, but accepting to spend time with this man? A simple smile is not crossing a safe boundary. Boundaries is something conservative people in general seem to really struggle with. And maybe this is why so many go to the reactive extreme of saying "no smile until you know someone is safe".

In the more conservative circles of Eastern, bare feet in adults are seen as provocative (something about toes suggesting cleavage, an idea I could never wrap my mind around). The Scriptures talk about the bare leg, specifically the bare thigh, needing to be covered. But never feet. I've listened to numerous men expound on how church ladies going barefoot in their gardens, etc. is the root of moral issues in the church. Ahem.

Really, are simple smiles or bare feet the issue? Or is it something deeper we really don't like to own up to?

Verity wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 8:20 am something about toes suggesting cleavage

That's a new one. Sounds like one more case of someone trying to strengthen a position/opinion/tradition/preference and instead making a fool of themselves and a mockery of what they intended to support. Goes right along with sleeves needing to cover the elbow because on a tightly bent arm the elbow could remind a man of a breast.

Verity wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 8:20 am Joy, would it be fair to say it was not the smile that was the problem, but accepting to spend time with this man? A simple smile is not crossing a safe boundary. Boundaries is something conservative people in general seem to really struggle with. And maybe this is why so many go to the reactive extreme of saying "no smile until you know someone is safe".

In the more conservative circles of Eastern, bare feet in adults are seen as provocative (something about toes suggesting cleavage, an idea I could never wrap my mind around). The Scriptures talk about the bare leg, specifically the bare thigh, needing to be covered. But never feet. I've listened to numerous men expound on how church ladies going barefoot in their gardens, etc. is the root of moral issues in the church. Ahem.

Really, are simple smiles or bare feet the issue? Or is it something deeper we really don't like to own up to?

This is particularly interesting since in Amish culture, being barefooted is basically the norm. Same for Holdeman circles, too, although not quite to the degree of Amish (or Beachys and other Amish-background people).

There have been a few old codgers who didn't like things like flip flops on women, who have mostly been ignored.

I prefer the elbows covered. Reminds me too much about work when they aren’t covered. All that elbow grease…

On men and women.

Toes should be covered, I don’t want to see your toe lint.

I haven't worn a short sleeve shirt in nearly twenty years. One, I think it's more practical, I can roll long sleeves up but not short sleeves down. Two, I don't think it is right to require sisters to wear sleeves that come below the elbow and not have the same requirement for brethren.

Bare feet? Fine with me, as long as dresses are long enough and they are actually bare feet. Apparently I'm an old codger who thinks flip-flops and sandals aren't really bare feet.

eccentric_rambler wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 9:04 am I haven't worn a short sleeve shirt in nearly twenty years. One, I think it's more practical, I can roll long sleeves up but not short sleeves down. Two, I don't think it is right to require sisters to wear sleeves that come below the elbow and not have the same requirement for brethren.

Bare feet? Fine with me, as long as dresses are long enough and they are actually bare feet. Apparently I'm an old codger who thinks flip-flops and sandals aren't really bare feet.

I don’t wear short sleeves out with the exception of work… unfortunately they really don’t sell decent scrubs in 3/4 length and full length is terribly impractical for nursing.
I prefer my wife to wear shoes but not from some view on modesty but rather to follow what was agreed to.

eccentric_rambler wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 8:35 am

Verity wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 8:20 am something about toes suggesting cleavage

That's a new one. Sounds like one more case of someone trying to strengthen a position/opinion/tradition/preference and instead making a fool of themselves and a mockery of what they intended to support. Goes right along with sleeves needing to cover the elbow because on a tightly bent arm the elbow could remind a man of a breast.

I have never heard of anyone who actually believes that bare toes and a bent elbow resemble anything of the sort. Yet I have heard of such things, but always with an urban legend style. Something that people occasionally will share. I'd love to meet someone who actually started these connections.

I think that these two things (and dually pickup stuff) may have only two reasons for lasting, neither of which is genuine to the purported reasons.
1. They are perpetuated by those who shake their head at it, and are shared as examples of the ridiculousness about sexuality that exists in ultra conservative groups.
2. They are used by ultra conservative preachers who are trying to get people to wear shoes and long sleeves. In this case these similarities may be shared not because the preachers themselves actually believe them but instead are presented as something that "other" people might believe.
When in reality (I am proposing) there really exists no "other" people who believe anything of the sort. No one believes it at all, the accounts just serve as a tool, and a titillating apocryphal tale that is not allowed to die.

I agree with your assessment, RZehr. The elbows came from a discussion someone close to me had at Bible school. It is thought the girl doing the explaining believed it, but maybe she was enjoying toying with the gullible.

RZehr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:33 am

Josh wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:28 am Last I checked perverted men don’t let the lack of smile stop them.

I still would not advise girls to smile at perverted men, or to wear revealing clothes around perverted men.

Watch out for those church going Mennonites...