Who is responsible in situations like this?

[oldzimm]

I'm not locking any thread. I'm sorry that explaining yourself is really all that difficult, but you started the thread.

Explain how far the vice police should go please. Should we also circumsize women so that they won't experience pleasure during sex?

I'm not a female, but lets forget about that muslim stuff.

[winsomebulldog]

A young woman dresses provocatively, goes out and encounters several young men. They all look, and when she leaves their presence, they all start discussing in great detail what they'd like to do with her if they could. Obviously, this is sin. But just who is responsible? The woman or the men. Obviously, had she not dressed as she did, the discussion never have started (at least about HER in particular), but then the men have the responsibility to exercise a certain degree of self control. Whom does God hold responsible?

I think one needs to define provocatively. bikini's are not really provocative to me, but that full length green silk dress that my wife used to wear just drove me over the edge. Excites me just to think about it. (hope it's OK to lust over your own wife) And that was back when I was about 23 or 24 years old, so it's not just my age.

We all have different tolerances and drawing lines in the sand in a free republic just isn't an easy thing to do. I do believe that the vast majority of women and men who dress toward the provocative side are doing so for attention....

Our society is kind of hyper sexed this time in our history and so if you want to blame anyone, you might attack our media and advertising...... for it's they that set the tone for what inexperienced young ladies wear. Most guys are just hormone crazed beings that will get excited over something no matter what the norm is. My grandfather used to tell me that when he was a boy they used to get excited over ankles. If it weren't so cold we might be better off in the long run to just go back to the buff..... everyone would get used to it and we'd not have this probllem..... at least that's what my nudest acquaintances tell me, and they should know.

My husband said something similar when we talked about this thread. Basically, his response was that an attractive women is going to get attention no matter what she has on. Period.

So that's it then?

Whatever she can get away with exposing until all the decency laws catch up with her?

I am married to a head turning blond who in her 60's still gets the looks of lust from men and even boys and the look of jealousy and envy from women. And she's not dressed like a floosey. In fact she does not wear the fashions she wore as a youth in the 1960's (old photos are quite sexy from the bouffant on down that is).

So are we to just twiddle our thumbs and shake our heads as the hem line of discretion (which has long surpassed the waistline) simply vanishes?

Oh well, says people like you and your husband.... what can we say or think or do?

I may not be the most innocent angel on the block but I know when its about time to get the angels on the block rallying for truth and decency.

You seem to be getting a little upset with me over this, though I am not at all sure why. You are suggesting that if we just brought back the laws that forced women (and men) to wear more clothing, it would solve the problem of lusting. I cannot believe anyone actually would think that. As has been mentioned multiple times before, more clothing is not the answer. When women were clothed from neck to ankle, men lusted if they caught a glimpse of the ankle. When women are completely clothed from head to toe in a burka, men still lust after them. Having a law that would make it illegal for women to show a certain amount of skin or for men to appear in public with no shirt will do nothing but add laws to the books. Human nature is what it is. People will be tempted with lust for others. And no, it is not somehow more the fault of the one doing the tempting than the one who gives in to the temptation. That's just absurd.

Now, if you are trying to send out a clarion call for people of faith to somehow stand up and try to change the direction the world is heading as a whole, then I can understand that. As Christians, it is our responsibility to be light in an increasingly dark world. As such, we ought to make an effort to resist the downward slide of society. HOWEVER, implying that stopping women from dressing scantily will somehow fix all these ills is hardly rational. It is a symptom of a far larger problem and I am afraid will not be solved until the Lord returns.

As to my husband and I sitting around "twiddling our thumbs," I suggest that you have no idea what we do or don't do, since we do not truly know one another. I do not make a habit of dressing provocatively. Nor does my husband make a habit of running around in public with no shirt. (He won't even wear shorts in public, mostly because his legs are so pale. ) On the other hand, we don't feel it is our job to call out every single person we see who we happen to think is dressed inappropriately. Frankly, I am continually disturbed by the growing trend where people go out in public in their pajamas. This offends my sensibilities, having been raised to believe that one ought to at least be dressed before leaving the house. Apparently, that is no longer the case. In my opinion, it demonstrates a lack of respect for oneself and others, not to mention a marked streak of laziness, which is a sin. Perhaps the "angels on the block" should be "rallied" to confront this sin as well?

[winsomebulldog]

A young woman dresses provocatively, goes out and encounters several young men. They all look, and when she leaves their presence, they all start discussing in great detail what they'd like to do with her if they could. Obviously, this is sin. But just who is responsible? The woman or the men. Obviously, had she not dressed as she did, the discussion never have started (at least about HER in particular), but then the men have the responsibility to exercise a certain degree of self control. Whom does God hold responsible?

I think one needs to define provocatively. bikini's are not really provocative to me, but that full length green silk dress that my wife used to wear just drove me over the edge. Excites me just to think about it. (hope it's OK to lust over your own wife) And that was back when I was about 23 or 24 years old, so it's not just my age.

We all have different tolerances and drawing lines in the sand in a free republic just isn't an easy thing to do. I do believe that the vast majority of women and men who dress toward the provocative side are doing so for attention....

Our society is kind of hyper sexed this time in our history and so if you want to blame anyone, you might attack our media and advertising...... for it's they that set the tone for what inexperienced young ladies wear. Most guys are just hormone crazed beings that will get excited over something no matter what the norm is. My grandfather used to tell me that when he was a boy they used to get excited over ankles. If it weren't so cold we might be better off in the long run to just go back to the buff..... everyone would get used to it and we'd not have this probllem..... at least that's what my nudest acquaintances tell me, and they should know.

OK...if I can see any part of her chest, or the dress qualifies as a belt, that's provocative. If her shorts get confused with her panties, that's provocative. If her shorts SHOW her panties, that's provocative. If her tukhus cheeks hang out of her shorts, that's provocative. If her pants are so tight they look like someone painted them on with an airbrush, that's provocative. If her clothing outlines her sexual area, that's provocative.

Men, you're not immune to this. If your pants show off ********, you need to consider changing. If your bare chest shows, you need to cover up, some women get excited over that.

These things should be obvious. I apologize in advance if I offend anyone, but since some have no clue what's wrong....

Perhaps you should lock yourself up in your own home and never go out? Yes, I see women dressed inappropriately all the time. It's my responsibility in a lost and fallen world to express Christ.

How's about we not let those dastardly women wear shorts in the summer?

Here's the Law of Christ though. If your eye offends you pluck it out.

In a proper society, decorum is maintained. When America was ruled by Christian thought, we had decorum. There was a standard and we for the most part abided by it. But now, anything goes in the name of alleged freedom. I have learned what I needed to know. You can lock the thread.

Decorum is hardly the same thing as modesty. And as I and others have already said, returning to some notion of what was modest opens up an entirely different can of worms. Just how modest is modest enough? Where will that line be drawn? At skirts that at least reach the knees? Then what happens when men begin lusting after women because they can see their calves and ankles?

[winsomebulldog]

So that's it then?

Whatever she can get away with exposing until all the decency laws catch up with her?

I am married to a head turning blond who in her 60's still gets the looks of lust from men and even boys and the look of jealousy and envy from women. And she's not dressed like a floosey. In fact she does not wear the fashions she wore as a youth in the 1960's (old photos are quite sexy from the bouffant on down that is).

So are we to just twiddle our thumbs and shake our heads as the hem line of discretion (which has long surpassed the waistline) simply vanishes?

Oh well, says people like you and your husband.... what can we say or think or do?

I may not be the most innocent angel on the block but I know when its about time to get the angels on the block rallying for truth and decency.

Clothes line preaching. What do you want to do? Enact some kind of draconian clothing laws? The fact remains that the woman is only responsible for what she wears. Her responsibility ends there. What a man does with his thoughts are all on him, 100%. A fact you don't seem to be able to grasp.

Well said.

[winsomebulldog]

Modesty is disappearing. There is no doubt about that. And it's even more appalling that it is happening within the body of Christ as well. However, civil laws to dictate what people should wear are not going to fix anything. And the erosion of modesty is not some kind of "pass" to be used to explain our inability to control ourselves. Self-control begins "at home." Meaning, "Lead by example." Nowhere are we (Christians) told to go out and force others to observe our way of life or belief system. We are instead told to go out into the world and be salt and light. We are told that if we demonstrate true Christian love, then it will draw others in. We are not told to insist that the world conform to us so that our "walk" through it will be easier or more "comfortable." It is part of that walk that we must learn to resist the temptations this fallen world has to offer. To suggest that rampant lust is the fault of whoever triggered it (either intentionally or not) is to say that God should be blamed for Adam and Eve's fall in the garden because, after all, He put the tree with the pretty fruit in there for them to lust after. If He hadn't done that, then they wouldn't have been tempted and we'd all still be living it up in Eden. [i hope everyone here sees the terrible flaw in this sarcastic notion.]

Adam and Eve were tempted by the fruit hanging on that tree, just like a man looking at a provocatively dressed woman might be tempted to lust after her. But, just like Adam and Eve, the fault for surrender to that lust isn't with the fruit or the One who put the fruit in front of them. It is born entirely by Adam and Eve who chose to give in to the temptation rather than to resist it.

Again, as has been said dozens of times by now, the woman who chooses to dress in a provocative manner is in sin for doing so, but that is where it stops, plain and simple.

[JohnD]

"Modesty is disappearing."

How do you know it is?

Based on what?

[ayin jade]

To suggest that rampant lust is the fault of whoever triggered it (either intentionally or not) is to say that God should be blamed for Adam and Eve's fall in the garden because, after all, He put the tree with the pretty fruit in there for them to lust after. If He hadn't done that, then they wouldn't have been tempted and we'd all still be living it up in Eden. [i hope everyone here sees the terrible flaw in this sarcastic notion.]

Funny you should mention that. In the biblical account, Adam tried to blame Eve. Eve tried to blame the serpent. You know how well those excuses turned out.

God didnt accept them then and He wont accept them now. Each person is accountable for their own sins. The lusting man is also responsible for his sin. He doesnt get to pass the blame solely on the alluring woman.

[oldzimm]

"Modesty is disappearing."

How do you know it is?

Based on what?

Don't you have a TV, you can see it there or just by sitting on a street bench for a couple hours.

[other one]

Geesh, if you guys think things have gone to heck just lately, you should have been around in the mid to late 60s' when I was in college.... Skirts got to high that they didn't cover it all and when they reached that height, they split and showed tummy's.

Back in the 20's things were crazy... Vaudville has been naughty since the civil war. It runs in cycles

After going to several of our class reunions and taling abou it, it seems that I was one of the very very few that was not sexually active in hich school, but that wasn't because I didn't have the oppertunity.

I really don't think the morals have gone down as much as they are just out in the open again.

There are not any more gay people, they just are not hiding it any longer. I suppose porn has gotten worse, but that's not something I deal in so I wouldn't know but that's what I'm told.

[oldzimm]

Geesh, if you guys think things have gone to heck just lately, you should have been around in the mid to late 60s' when I was in college.... Skirts got to high that they didn't cover it all and when they reached that height, they split and showed tummy's.

Back in the 20's things were crazy... Vaudville has been naughty since the civil war. It runs in cycles

After going to several of our class reunions and taling abou it, it seems that I was one of the very very few that was not sexually active in hich school, but that wasn't because I didn't have the oppertunity.

I really don't think the morals have gone down as much as they are just out in the open again.

There are not any more gay people, they just are not hiding it any longer. I suppose porn has gotten worse, but that's not something I deal in so I wouldn't know but that's what I'm told.

How old did you say you were?