What they wore

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Sliceitup
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:54 pm
Affiliation: Keystone, for now

Re: What they wore

Post by Sliceitup »

GaryK wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:19 pm
Sliceitup wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 6:29 pm
Neto wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 6:24 pm It is simply a human problem - sin.

Also, there are exceptions to every "generalized rule" that someone creates, and I would imagine that it is probably true that the degree of dress or undress does, at least in some cases (perhaps even a large percentage), factor into the 'likelihood" of sexual violence of this type (rape) taking place. Maybe I wasn't suppose to say that, because people will think I'm terrible, or trying to dismiss the importance of cases where it DOES happen to someone who is even very modestly dressed. Not at all. I just do not agree with the idea that it is not a factor at all. It seems to me that the unspoken reason for this line of argument is that dress (or undress) matters not at all. In a sinless world, that would be true, but we do not live in such a world.
I would suggest that dress, or rather undress, makes a difference only in places where men/perpetrators have been taught that a women with few clothes is ‘not valuing herself.’ So, I think maybe the problem then is not undress, but improper teachings. If people can see humans, rather than the amount of clothing, then the dress will never be the issue.
It seems you are suggesting that men in general do not lust after scantily dressed women unless they've been taught that women should dress modestly. Is that your view?
Oh I’m guessing they also lust. They just aren’t more likely to rape them based on their dress.
0 x
Neto

Re: What they wore

Post by Neto »

GaryK wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:19 pm
Sliceitup wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 6:29 pm
Neto wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 6:24 pm It is simply a human problem - sin.

Also, there are exceptions to every "generalized rule" that someone creates, and I would imagine that it is probably true that the degree of dress or undress does, at least in some cases (perhaps even a large percentage), factor into the 'likelihood" of sexual violence of this type (rape) taking place. Maybe I wasn't suppose to say that, because people will think I'm terrible, or trying to dismiss the importance of cases where it DOES happen to someone who is even very modestly dressed. Not at all. I just do not agree with the idea that it is not a factor at all. It seems to me that the unspoken reason for this line of argument is that dress (or undress) matters not at all. In a sinless world, that would be true, but we do not live in such a world.
I would suggest that dress, or rather undress, makes a difference only in places where men/perpetrators have been taught that a women with few clothes is ‘not valuing herself.’ So, I think maybe the problem then is not undress, but improper teachings. If people can see humans, rather than the amount of clothing, then the dress will never be the issue.
It seems you are suggesting that men in general do not lust after scantily dressed women unless they've been taught that women should dress modestly. Is that your view?
No, although some others have suggested something similar to that (in my understanding of what was said), I do not agree. I am only suggesting that the degree of modesty does affect the lust response to some degree. That is, although modest dress will not PREVENT being the object of a lustful gaze, it is my impression that it HELPS diminish that likelihood. Or, another way of expressing it, is that clothing does matter. But I also think that the way a person "carries themselves" also affects it IN SOME CASES.
0 x
Sliceitup
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:54 pm
Affiliation: Keystone, for now

Re: What they wore

Post by Sliceitup »

Neto wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:57 pm
GaryK wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:19 pm
Sliceitup wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 6:29 pm

I would suggest that dress, or rather undress, makes a difference only in places where men/perpetrators have been taught that a women with few clothes is ‘not valuing herself.’ So, I think maybe the problem then is not undress, but improper teachings. If people can see humans, rather than the amount of clothing, then the dress will never be the issue.
It seems you are suggesting that men in general do not lust after scantily dressed women unless they've been taught that women should dress modestly. Is that your view?
No, although some others have suggested something similar to that (in my understanding of what was said), I do not agree. I am only suggesting that the degree of modesty does affect the lust response to some degree. That is, although modest dress will not PREVENT being the object of a lustful gaze, it is my impression that it HELPS diminish that likelihood. Or, another way of expressing it, is that clothing does matter. But I also think that the way a person "carries themselves" also affects it IN SOME CASES.
If there were studies that showed that very modestly dressed women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than the average woman, would you change your mind?
1 x
GaryK

Re: What they wore

Post by GaryK »

Neto wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:57 pm
GaryK wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:19 pm
Sliceitup wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 6:29 pm

I would suggest that dress, or rather undress, makes a difference only in places where men/perpetrators have been taught that a women with few clothes is ‘not valuing herself.’ So, I think maybe the problem then is not undress, but improper teachings. If people can see humans, rather than the amount of clothing, then the dress will never be the issue.
It seems you are suggesting that men in general do not lust after scantily dressed women unless they've been taught that women should dress modestly. Is that your view?
No, although some others have suggested something similar to that (in my understanding of what was said), I do not agree. I am only suggesting that the degree of modesty does affect the lust response to some degree. That is, although modest dress will not PREVENT being the object of a lustful gaze, it is my impression that it HELPS diminish that likelihood. Or, another way of expressing it, is that clothing does matter. But I also think that the way a person "carries themselves" also affects it IN SOME CASES.
I was responding to Sliceitup's post, not yours. But I agree with what you are saying.
Last edited by GaryK on Tue May 10, 2022 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
GaryK

Re: What they wore

Post by GaryK »

Sliceitup wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:40 pm
GaryK wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:19 pm
Sliceitup wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 6:29 pm

I would suggest that dress, or rather undress, makes a difference only in places where men/perpetrators have been taught that a women with few clothes is ‘not valuing herself.’ So, I think maybe the problem then is not undress, but improper teachings. If people can see humans, rather than the amount of clothing, then the dress will never be the issue.
It seems you are suggesting that men in general do not lust after scantily dressed women unless they've been taught that women should dress modestly. Is that your view?
Oh I’m guessing they also lust. They just aren’t more likely to rape them based on their dress.
But raping them based on their dress doesn't seem to be the point you were making. The point you seemed to be making is that men hearing teaching that women should dress modestly is the problem that makes men lust. Is that your view?
0 x
joshuabgood

Re: What they wore

Post by joshuabgood »

The Bible usually associates nudity with shame rather than lust or coveting.
0 x
GaryK

Re: What they wore

Post by GaryK »

joshuabgood wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 8:37 pm The Bible usually associates nudity with shame rather than lust or coveting.
As in it is shameful for women to be nude? Or that they feel shame when choosing nudity over modesty?
0 x
joshuabgood

Re: What they wore

Post by joshuabgood »

GaryK wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 8:51 pm
joshuabgood wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 8:37 pm The Bible usually associates nudity with shame rather than lust or coveting.
As in it is shameful for women to be nude? Or that they feel shame when choosing nudity over modesty?
It is shameful for people (men and women) to be nude.
1 x
GaryK

Re: What they wore

Post by GaryK »

joshuabgood wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 9:01 pm
GaryK wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 8:51 pm
joshuabgood wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 8:37 pm The Bible usually associates nudity with shame rather than lust or coveting.
As in it is shameful for women to be nude? Or that they feel shame when choosing nudity over modesty?
It is shameful for people (men and women) to be nude.
What do you believe is the reason it is shameful?

Why does Paul say that women should be dressed in modest apparel?
0 x
Sliceitup
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:54 pm
Affiliation: Keystone, for now

Re: What they wore

Post by Sliceitup »

GaryK wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 8:17 pm
Sliceitup wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:40 pm
GaryK wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:19 pm

It seems you are suggesting that men in general do not lust after scantily dressed women unless they've been taught that women should dress modestly. Is that your view?
Oh I’m guessing they also lust. They just aren’t more likely to rape them based on their dress.
But raping them based on their dress doesn't seem to be the point you were making. The point you seemed to be making is that men hearing teaching that women should dress modestly is the problem that makes men lust. Is that your view?
Neto made a comment saying that they think dress does factor into sexual assault sometimes.

My comment was in response to that: I don’t think that dress factors into sexual assault unless a person has already been taught to value a person by the degree of modesty.

Then you wondered if I think men don’t lust after scantily clad women if they haven’t been taught that modest dress is important.

My response: yes they lust, they just aren’t inclined to rape them on that basis.
0 x
Post Reply