Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 24, 2013, 06:15:AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
 
Author Topic: Question about modesty  (Read 4338 times)
DeoDuce
Guest
« Reply #40 on: September 30, 2011, 09:10:PM »

I have no problem with wearing shirts which cover my collar bone and up to my elbows, and I always wear pants.  I don't know why it's difficult for women to wear clothing with similar coverage.

I will take your example and bring out my pants to wear.

There's that special brand of sarcasm unique to FE again.

Obviously "clothing with similar coverage" means "ankle-length skirt."  Now why is it so hard for women to have their legs completely covered, upper arms completely covered, and chests covered up to the neck if it's easy enough for men?  Is it sexy to show off one's shins now?

If seeing a girls shins is going to send you into a lustful frenzy that's your problem and you should seek spiritual direction.   

I think I would be directed to accept girls in Daisy Dukes, given the situation here.

But my point is to try to find an explanation for the double standard.
Logged
Mithrandylan
Banned for promoting sedevacantism
Regular

Gender: Male
Location: Tundra
Personality type: Melancholy- a point below phlegmatic
Posts: 10,141


Divínum auxílium ✝ maneat semper nobíscum.


« Reply #41 on: September 30, 2011, 09:14:PM »

I have no problem with wearing shirts which cover my collar bone and up to my elbows, and I always wear pants.  I don't know why it's difficult for women to wear clothing with similar coverage.

I will take your example and bring out my pants to wear.

There's that special brand of sarcasm unique to FE again.

Obviously "clothing with similar coverage" means "ankle-length skirt."  Now why is it so hard for women to have their legs completely covered, upper arms completely covered, and chests covered up to the neck if it's easy enough for men?  Is it sexy to show off one's shins now?

If seeing a girls shins is going to send you into a lustful frenzy that's your problem and you should seek spiritual direction.   

I think I would be directed to accept girls in Daisy Dukes, given the situation here.

But my point is to try to find an explanation for the double standard.

I speak for all of men when I say it's ok if a girls shins aren't covered. 
Logged
DeoDuce
Guest
« Reply #42 on: September 30, 2011, 09:20:PM »

I have no problem with wearing shirts which cover my collar bone and up to my elbows, and I always wear pants.  I don't know why it's difficult for women to wear clothing with similar coverage.

I will take your example and bring out my pants to wear.

There's that special brand of sarcasm unique to FE again.

Obviously "clothing with similar coverage" means "ankle-length skirt."  Now why is it so hard for women to have their legs completely covered, upper arms completely covered, and chests covered up to the neck if it's easy enough for men?  Is it sexy to show off one's shins now?

If seeing a girls shins is going to send you into a lustful frenzy that's your problem and you should seek spiritual direction.   

I think I would be directed to accept girls in Daisy Dukes, given the situation here.

But my point is to try to find an explanation for the double standard.

I speak for all of men when I say it's ok if a girls shins aren't covered. 

This answers nothing.
Logged
verenaerin
Member

Posts: 2,501



« Reply #43 on: September 30, 2011, 09:27:PM »

You wear pants to your ankles because that is the fashion of today. If this were another culture, or another time period would you be able to claim the same thing? No. Your disordered way of thinking is not the product of women wearing sleeveless shirts or skirts that show shins.
Logged

I cough for my own amusement...

I fight for the rights of the sleeveless!
DeoDuce
Guest
« Reply #44 on: September 30, 2011, 09:37:PM »

You wear pants to your ankles because that is the fashion of today. If this were another culture, or another time period would you be able to claim the same thing? No. Your disordered way of thinking is not the product of women wearing sleeveless shirts or skirts that show shins.

This answers nothing.
Logged


Someone1776
"The Derailer"
Member

Posts: 10,406


Neo-Candylander


« Reply #45 on: September 30, 2011, 09:39:PM »

I have no problem with wearing shirts which cover my collar bone and up to my elbows, and I always wear pants.  I don't know why it's difficult for women to wear clothing with similar coverage.

I will take your example and bring out my pants to wear.

There's that special brand of sarcasm unique to FE again.

Obviously "clothing with similar coverage" means "ankle-length skirt."  Now why is it so hard for women to have their legs completely covered, upper arms completely covered, and chests covered up to the neck if it's easy enough for men?  Is it sexy to show off one's shins now?

If seeing a girls shins is going to send you into a lustful frenzy that's your problem and you should seek spiritual direction.   

I think I would be directed to accept girls in Daisy Dukes, given the situation here.

But my point is to try to find an explanation for the double standard.

You mean the double standard where it's okay for a trad man to wear shorts and a polo shirt, but it's a sin for a trad woman to expose her arms or skins?

Just because you have decided to wear long sleeve shirts during the heat of summer doesn't mean I am going to. 
Logged

"Christianity lies in achieving greatness in the face of the world's hatred." - Saint Ignatius of Antioch
Someone1776
"The Derailer"
Member

Posts: 10,406


Neo-Candylander


« Reply #46 on: September 30, 2011, 09:42:PM »

I have no problem with wearing shirts which cover my collar bone and up to my elbows, and I always wear pants.  I don't know why it's difficult for women to wear clothing with similar coverage.

I will take your example and bring out my pants to wear.

There's that special brand of sarcasm unique to FE again.

Obviously "clothing with similar coverage" means "ankle-length skirt."  Now why is it so hard for women to have their legs completely covered, upper arms completely covered, and chests covered up to the neck if it's easy enough for men?  Is it sexy to show off one's shins now?

If seeing a girls shins is going to send you into a lustful frenzy that's your problem and you should seek spiritual direction.   

I think I would be directed to accept girls in Daisy Dukes, given the situation here.

But my point is to try to find an explanation for the double standard.

I speak for all of men when I say it's ok if a girls shins aren't covered. 

I think I am going to start up a pornographic magazine for trad men. Here is my first pornographic image:



I am going to be a rich man!
Logged

"Christianity lies in achieving greatness in the face of the world's hatred." - Saint Ignatius of Antioch
verenaerin
Member

Posts: 2,501



« Reply #47 on: September 30, 2011, 09:42:PM »

DD,

Because I don't see sleeveless shirts as immodest you assume I approve of Daisy Dukes? Please give me an example of where I lead you to believe this.  
I have no problem with wearing shirts which cover my collar bone and up to my elbows, and I always wear pants.  I don't know why it's difficult for women to wear clothing with similar coverage.

I will take your example and bring out my pants to wear.

There's that special brand of sarcasm unique to FE again.

Obviously "clothing with similar coverage" means "ankle-length skirt."  Now why is it so hard for women to have their legs completely covered, upper arms completely covered, and chests covered up to the neck if it's easy enough for men?  Is it sexy to show off one's shins now?

If seeing a girls shins is going to send you into a lustful frenzy that's your problem and you should seek spiritual direction.   

I think I would be directed to accept girls in Daisy Dukes, given the situation here.

But my point is to try to find an explanation for the double standard.
Logged

I cough for my own amusement...

I fight for the rights of the sleeveless!
DeoDuce
Guest
« Reply #48 on: September 30, 2011, 09:44:PM »

I have no problem with wearing shirts which cover my collar bone and up to my elbows, and I always wear pants.  I don't know why it's difficult for women to wear clothing with similar coverage.

I will take your example and bring out my pants to wear.

There's that special brand of sarcasm unique to FE again.

Obviously "clothing with similar coverage" means "ankle-length skirt."  Now why is it so hard for women to have their legs completely covered, upper arms completely covered, and chests covered up to the neck if it's easy enough for men?  Is it sexy to show off one's shins now?

If seeing a girls shins is going to send you into a lustful frenzy that's your problem and you should seek spiritual direction.   

I think I would be directed to accept girls in Daisy Dukes, given the situation here.

But my point is to try to find an explanation for the double standard.

You mean the double standard where it's okay for a trad man to wear shorts and a polo shirt, but it's a sin for a trad woman to expose her arms or skins?

Just because you have decided to wear long sleeve shirts during the heat of summer doesn't mean I am going to. 

That's not it either.

Quote from: verenaerin
Because I don't see sleeveless shirts as immodest you assume I approve of Daisy Dukes? Please give me an example of where I lead you to believe this. 

I didn't say that you did.
Logged
verenaerin
Member

Posts: 2,501



« Reply #49 on: September 30, 2011, 09:45:PM »

DD

Then who was that comment directed towards?
Logged

I cough for my own amusement...

I fight for the rights of the sleeveless!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC