Women's fashion has a complicated history. Traditionally, until about the 1920s, the norm was for women to be very modest. When the flappers started showing much more of their legs than previous generations, their parents and grandparents were shocked. Then came the rise of the mini-skirt during the 60s, which was also met with astonishment. Throughout history, women have worn every length of skirt imaginable yet society never fails to take issue with some aspect of their attire. We tend to judge a woman's modesty based on her clothing choices, but nobody can agree on what is "acceptable" and what is not. Even in 2016, debates abound on what women ought to wear when at school, at work, or even on the beach. Let's look at a few examples.
School Dress Codes
Dress codes are strictly enforced in our schools. In the classroom, school administrators regularly scold female students regarding their attire, claiming that it's a distraction to the male students. Many schools have a policy of taking girls out of class to make them change their clothes if their outfit is deemed to be indecent. Critics oppose this policy, arguing it sends a message that modesty is more important than education.
Prom season is another source of discontent; every year there are reports about female students admonished over their revealing prom dresses. Girls deemed in violation of school policy are forced to wear their date's jacket, or, in some cases, are even turned away at the door undoubtedly a humiliating experience.
In the schools' defense, it's clearly necessary to establish some set of rules regarding dress. Unfortunately, the standards for appropriate attire are, by nature, highly subjective. Beyond that, the policies appear to be quite one-sided. As it has throughout history, the burden of modesty again falls on women. You don't hear anyone talk about how men should men control themselves. Instead, we always hold women responsible for not becoming "a distraction" to others. Is this right?
The Burkini Conundrum
While schools want girls to cover up, on the beaches of France the opposite is happening. The French are well known for their nude beaches, and their society has a very different attitude toward exposed skin than we do in the U.S. In fact, problems have arisen in France because women are being too modest. Recently, a specific item of beachwear has come under fire: the burkini. A type of full body swimsuit worn by Muslim women seeking to cover their skin at the beach, the burkini has been banned by a number of French cities in just the past week. These aren't isolated cases, either. The majority of French citizens, when polled, support the burkini ban. Even the Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, has endorsed it.
In reality, the objection to Muslim beachwear is not a modesty issue. Instead, it stems from traditional French attitudes toward religion. France has a long history of being fiercely secular, a societal trait that has resulted in numerous controversial laws most notably one that bans head-coverings in public places. This has led some to believe that Muslims are being specifically targeted by French legislators. However, there is little evidence that France is singling out Muslims in particular; the country has strict laws against any public display of religion. And it just so happens that adherence to Islamic custom involves highly recognizable pieces of attire.
It's worth noting, though, that the political atmosphere in Europe has been significantly impacted by the recent wave of terrorist attacks. French citizens are feeling vulnerable and more on edge these days. They may view the burkini as a symbol of the ideology which has driven some individuals to commit horrific acts of violence. However, the main motivation is likely to preserve France's cultural identity, which is characterized by a secular society free from religious symbols in the public sphere.
While the ban does have significant support, it also has its critics. Some have argued that burkinis are hardly distinguishable from the wetsuits worn by surfers and divers the only difference being the hood which covers the woman's head. Others say that despite the French belief that a secular society is superior, burkinis don't cause anyone harm. In fact, they point out, the ban really just hurts Muslim women who will likely stay home instead of violating their religious beliefs just to enjoy the water.
Then there was the mayor of one French town, who justified his support of the ban using a bizarre claim. He argued that the burkini itself was "unhygienic", and thus shouldn't be allowed at the beach. He decided not to elaborate on what he meant by that.
What's a Woman to Do?
Maybe it's time to rethink our attitudes toward women's dress. School dress codes expect women to restrict their attire in order to avoid distracting men. Would a better solution involve teaching men not to focus on how women dress? Take a moment to reflect on your own beliefs about modesty and women's fashion. Do women need to be modest in order to not be a distraction? Or should we, as a society, allow women the freedom to dress as they choose?
Regarding the burkini ban in France do you think it's justified? Obviously people have strong feelings on this issue, as it involves both women's rights and national identity. But when compared with school dress code policies, it would seem that sometimes women just can't win. Do societies have the right to reprimand women for wearing too little, and too much? We'd like to hear your opinions.
A court in Nice, France has overturned the city's ban on burkinis, explaining that the full-body swimsuits do not "pose a risk to public order". However, burkini bans remain in place in many other cities along the French coastline. It's yet to be seen if these controversial policies will face a challenge in federal courts.
Burkinis....hilariius! But if you want to cover up by all means cover up. No one has the right to tell you to wear less...unless of course you are travelling through high security places that need to see identifecation. In schools however i agree they stop women from being too exposed. School is a place of knowledge, not fashion. I probably would of been smarter if i didnt have to deal with an uncontrollable boner all yhe time lol
Or we can teach our sons not to objectify girls and then the whole shorts and spaghetti strap thing wouldn't be a problem.
Heterosexual human males are genetically programmed to find the female body attractive and therefore to desire it. It is custom and legislation that keeps the desire under some sort if control. Asking such males not to objectify is comparable to asking gay men to deny their gayness.
I'm a straight male who's lived most of his life in Miami and Fort Lauderdale, and I've been able to keep it in my pants for 39 years. Managed to never "accidentally" sleep with women throughout high school and college, never had an affair with coworkers or the neighbor's wife, never did a one-night-stand.
Do I enjoy the sight a of a woman's form? Absolutely -- I do illustration work, and my favorite artists are Vargas, Vallejo, and the crew at Heavy Metal Magazine. The human nude form is a true work of art, regardless of that form being male, female, transgender, hermaphrodite, or amaphrodite, skinny, athletic, curvy, thick, doesn't matter.
They're still people, and at the end of the day I have to put up with every part of them. So I don't know how you'd define "objectify", Chris, but if an idiot like me can control his libido by choice... then I'm sure that the much smarter guys in this world need to step up and man up.
love this comment! very on point!
Well said, thank you!
I agree, masturbation IS powerful in this use case.
To objectify does not mean "to get a boner". Getting boners is not a gateway to objectification. This is why boys and girls are not allowed to be scheduled in the same weight room. Imagine all those young one ticked boys having to deal with those damp girls.
Bravo to a real man
There is a difference between being distracted and sex or infidelity. It is much more reasonable to ask someone to act a certain way than it is to ask them to think a certain way. I agree with Chris.
Good point, David. Anyone can think but to act on how one thinks is an active, intentional decision based on short and long term judgment.
Mostly on if the end result is worth the consequences, based on how uniformly they're applied... which is often not the case in the Western world.
And that makes things more difficult, when we end up arguing about things that don't affect or impact our lives, like a burkini.
Any suggestions or ideas on how to resolve that part?
Can you provide links to any of your illustrations, DS?
Sh1nedown.DeviantArt.com is my older stuff. Some newer work is on Behance.net/projectasylum, but in addition to three "Heavy Metal-esque" graphic e-novels on Google Play there's probably a copy of a toddler swimming safety book out there somewhere on Amazon...
...that was my first illustration gig through an established local publisher, back in 2010. She was awesome.
Ask yourself why a girl or woman would want to wear spaghetti straps or really short and though shorts to school rather than, say, to a bar? Or both?
And the answer I keep getting in return is "advertisement and marketing campaigns, aimed towards potential customer demographic groups who are encouraged to remain ignorant and self-destructive through peer pressure and shaming."
Someone on Madison Avenue was clearly well-read on indoctrination tactics, even Goebbels is taking notes from the Great Beyond.
While I am aware this is an old thread I just felt it worth noting mad Ave has been making slaves since its inception and the "minister of enlightenment" Goebbels is quoted saying "slavery works best when the slaves believe they are doing it of their own free will" not for nothing, you understand, and btw dreamsinger, I really like the cut of your jib so to speak but that may just be cause im a west Hollywood boy myself although I live in Alabama lately from county line to Oakland park Blvd from a1a to 27 will always be home, go 'canes! West Hollywood 4 life!
hat tip Sir. :)
When I was in Grade school (ya, lucky me, first boner there), I'd spring when the wind stopped, when the wind blew, if someone turned the lights on, or someone turned the lights off. All that somewhat subsided for me around age 25, but still, to this day, I get a boner just thinking about a breeze or looking at a light switch.
"If it makes you happy, then it can't be that bad." -- Sheryl Crow
I totally agree with you, , , We The People need to speak out against these types of codes, laws and regulations that are only design to harass and increase funds for the nanny state. They need to ban men wearing speedo and spandex shorts of any kind on the beach.
that should be your own choice if mary the mother of jesus went swimming what would she weare?
Probably nothing. Jews bathed in outdoor or covered baths. Early Christians were baptized naked in the presence of the congregation. Much like today, the proper coverage depended on the circumstances. Labourers worked almost naked, just covered their penises to prevent injury. They wore more clothes to suit the season and the weather. Slaves went naked I'm balmy weather. The wealthier or higher your social status, the more clothes you wore to showcase that you could afford more and finer clothing.
Time for 'the boys' to 'man up'! Control yourselve, fellas, and stop blaming others for your inability to act prudently. Admittedly, some girls/women dress as if they are one short walk to the stripper pole, but being an adult means to look beyond temptation. There is still a 'blame the victim' mentality when it comes to rape. Enough! As for the Islamic shame-dressing of women: I am an American female and to me this is akin being told I should be 'ok' with a man dressed in a white sheet and a pointed hat...I find both repugnant.
It is just as much an act of terror to force a woman to remove her burqa as it is to force her to wear one.
And if clothing is such a problem for people, then I suggest we all just forgo clothes altogether during daily life. Problem solved.
But what if she's hiding a bomb under the burqa? banning them is really the safest answer. Can't be too careful these days.
Richard Reid, who was British, tried to blow up a commercial airplane in December 2001 with a bomb in his shoe. Banning shoes is really the safest answer. Can't be too careful these days.
I think there was another guy who tried to blow up an airplane with a bomb in his underwear in 2012, Umar Abdulmutallab from Nigeria, but since he was working for the Saudi and U.S. intelligence agencies I guess we don't have to ban Calvin Klein boxers or Victoria's Secret thongs, right?
I think the bottom line is as long as nobody is forced to wear anything, what's the issue? As a matter of fact banning the burkini is a repressive act, as long as this is a matter of personal choice, all very well and good. The subject of traditional Muslim dress comes up over and over again, however I don't see too many people objecting to nuns, or Amish people for example, both of whom wear "modest" outfits. For me it's a question of personal freedom, which is too often curtailed by religion or the state.
If the French want to ban the burkini, then it's only fair that the rest of the world bans speedos. There's too many guys walking around the beach with half their junk hanging out of their 2-sizes-too-small swimwear, and that tends to ruin a lot of happy moods at the beach.
Regarding the burkini: I agree with Pastor Pete; I would only add that my full wet suit (including head hood) covers as much a burkini, and is not as fashionable. Additionally, I speculate that many of us have seen the humorous posts often entitled with "Keep the Burkini; Ban the Speedo".
Speedos bother you? One who loves the natural, nude form of all shapes and sizes? Those women in their microkinis! Shameful breasts almost calling out!
Do you have something against the male form, dreamsinger? Does God's work make you uncomfortable?
I'm from Miami, Randy. The human male form is as much a masterpiece as the human female form...
...that being said, speedos were created by pure evil. It's not very flattering to the male genitalia, mostly because guys can't figure out the proper cup size (let alone even know what size it may be). If you're gonna be stuffing your codpiece, it's a good idea to present "the whole package", not something like the chest-bursting scene from "Alien".
It's not that I'm uncomfortable, Randy, but there's a reason I have to wear boxers instead of briefs. There's no way I can pack it into a Speedo.
Every male, except for a few eunuchs, has the same thing in his crotch, in various sizes, proportions, colors and hairiness. What is people's problem? Are the guys who have little pinky penises offended by the sight of the bell-clappers? Are the women offended to see what they don't have? Most women can borrow one for a while when they want, and don't have to deal with little kids grabbing it and pulling, having to reach down and lift their ballsack when they sit down. Women all have variants of the same thing between their thighs, so what is the big deal about that? Why-the-hell-does-anyone-care??
As long as it works BOTH ways (which it usually doesn't), we don't tell you to wear less, AND YOU DON'T DARE TELL US TO WEAR MORE!!!!
Do we need to be more tolerant of radical Islamic intolerance??
Be thankful some of us have been extremely tolerant of radical Christian intolerance.
There's a reason vengeance isn't a Pagan's to give.
Merry meet and blessed be!
It is known that Pagans and Heathens love their women strong and vibrant. May they all be free to ware what they want when they want. Leave intolerance to the intolerant.
That's how we roll, baby: Life's short, party naked.
It isn't really Christian intolerance. It's "Christian" intolerance. The "modest" (1 Timothy 2:9) doesn't have to do with what square inches/cms of skin are exposed or covered, rather, it condemns ostentatiousness in clothing and ornamentation. The true obedience to this passage would be to be naked, for that is the least ostentatious possible. Next would be a plain, undyed poncho or tunic (long shirt) to protect the skin from sun, rain, cold, insects. Open sandals in warm weather, plain boots in cold and wet. In the day when the New Testament was written, slaves, the very poor and the labourers wore as little as they needed, saving their tunics, cloaks and boots for inclement weather, for even the simplest clothing was entirely handmade and therefore very expensive. Men wore loincloths or jocksacks to protect their penises and ballsacks from injury. Women wore aprons and loincloths. Those who went about wore sandals to protect the soles of their feet, throwing on a tunic. Paintings of ancient times have been "sanitized" with clothes painted over the originals, which had slaves naked or with loincloths.
Dress codes should apply equally to men as well as women. However, some schools go to the extreme in what they will allow a female student to wear. As long as it does not reveal her breasts or crotch, there is no reason to condemn anything that a student wears. Girls should not be excluded from any activity, even classes, just because the school administration is so prudish as to insist that they wear clothes that they think is too distracting to the male students. They should not be banning any female clothing. They should be insisting that the males behave themselves. If they are "distracted" by a girl's clothing, they need to be taught proper manners. Evidently, their parents are biased towards male children and blame female children just because they were born the "wrong sex"!
Actually, these same schools do have dress codes for the males, specifically that they where their pants where they are meant to be worn instead of showing their boxers and half their ass. Personally, I believe in school uniforms as this solves this whole problem. However, there is no need for girls to wear booty shorts to school. The reality is they are doing so to draw attention to their bodies, so where is the logic in arguing that they are being targeted for being a distraction? They are intentionally trying to be distracting and draw attention to their bodies. School simply isn't the place to be doing this. Neither is on the job, in church, in a court room. Have you ever heard of "proper time and place?" This all falls under that umbrella. How our young people choose to dress today, the girls nearly naked, the boys in improperly fitting pants ready to fall to their ankles (which I have had the entertainment of actually seeing happen) is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that, as someone who has worked with young people, young girls have such a lack of self esteem, this is a partial cause for their dressing inappropriately. Yes, I have the nerve to use the word inappropriately. School isn't the place.
For the record, I couldn't care less what a young girl (depending on her age) wears in public to the mall, the beach or where ever such freedom should apply. But there is a time and place where both males and females should be showing a little respect. Not for others, or even themselves, both of which is lacking, but for the place they are in. Are you going to church in daisy dukes and showing cleavage to your belly button? Hopefully, someone taught you that it was inappropriate to do so. What about working in an office? Is this appropriate? Why do we suddenly believe that anyone should be able to dress any way they choose any place they feel like? That is really the bigger issue with school dress codes. Since parents are failing to do so, schools are forced to take up the responsibility of trying to teach young people that not everything and anything is appropriate where ever and whenever you choose.
Pastor Deb, the problem isn't the schools' lack of enforcement. That's just one of the glaring symptoms of it. You're right in that booty shorts aren't appropriate outdoor wear for underage teens, and even more so for the kids in elementary school -- there's a line being marketed towards 6-year-olds!
Parents need to make the rules, and they need to stop trying to be their kids' friends. It doesn't matter if the kid absolutely goes nuts and runs off to DCF or CPS to claim child abuse because their parents said "no", the parents' job is to do whatever's necessary to keep the kid safe, healthy, and able to make better decisions when they become adults.
It's extremely difficult to keep kids from dressing like strippers and gang leaders when that's the only types of role models they see as celebrities on tv, in music, and in movies. Parents need to teach the kids about other options to consider, that may be possible for success in life. And friends don't do that -- family does!
I took my children to XXX theater productions when they were very young - these are graphic and racy shows, but I'll be darned if they don't do the trick. Now, my daughter will only dress in long skirts and other type of conservative clothes. The key is to teach them that these people are NOT role models.
Great idea. But what we considered XXX when I was a kid is now PG-13 by today's standards, and vice versa.
"The Breakfast Club" wasn't R-rated in the 80s.
Pants on the ground and booty shorts are intentionally worn to draw attention, to offend and to excite. Go naked and everyone is exposed the same. Wear a "back apron" cape-like cloth down the back where contact is made with chairs. Open in front. Teachers and staff, too. All the argument over clothes would be eliminated by eliminating clothing. Might inspire people to keep themselves in better shape!
In court, you forgot in court. There are two places, in the US (generally), where dress codes are strictly managed and designed for that purpose: prison and the military. How strict and how well designed must schools' dress codes be? I am not being rhetorical; design it now, tell us.
The design is simple: use common sense! You don't go to a professional job fair looking like you just stepped out of a South Beach music festival, you don't go to court dressed like a laundry pile, and as Will Smith's mom said in "Parents Just Don't Understand"...
...you go to school to learn, not for a fashion show!
It's becoming more uncommon to read sensible comments, DS. Thanks for the flashback.
Of course, you can't possibly be suggesting in any way that "control themselves" means don't get a boner, amiright? Let's not skirt that issue.....hmm, Kilts!
My high school principal was a bit of a control freak, until our senior year in 1995 when he tried to expel one of our male classmates for showing up in a kilt.
It must've been an interesting phone call, when Board Administrator called for an explanation as to the "Be A Man, Wear A Dress Day" story running on the local news stations.
The principal decided it was easier to just leave us alone after that.
I think they should be left alone.frankly I think they look sexey.lol
What difference does it make what anyone wears at the beach, if anything at all. If anyone objects, just don't go to the beach, or, close your eyes. The human body, in good proportions, is very beautiful, Show it and respect it.
The burkini ban is a religious objection, of course. The French have a rather amusing amount of nude beaches, topless beaches and parks.
Both men and women should be modest in their clothing and actions/words! Men/boys need to be more aware of how their immature demeanor belittles the opposite sex. Women are not responsible for your rude, sexist actions and words, in most of the cases. But I feel that women need to not dress in a way that shows off certain body parts in public. I love women as much as the other guy but I really don't want to see your ass or breasts in public. I am not against breast feeding but just to show them off to draw attention is immature and asking for attention. (No I DO NOT condone the idea that women ask to be raped by their clothing or words) We as a world have become way to over sexual and deprived of moral decency. We say we believe in God but do not follow Him.
Well, at least you aren't trying to tell other JLC ordained how to think or feel. Just heathens, right?
As a heathen, I have to side with Chris' last two sentences. The rest is just his personal observation.
Going stark naked isn't showing off to draw attention when everyone is naked. Nakedness isn't "asking to be raped," either. Girls get raped anyway no matter what clothes they're wearing. Or not wearing. You don't have to be naked to have sex.
Everyone should be allowed to wear whatever they want. We need to change our attitudes on what we feel is a "right" for us and stop giving others our opinions on how they should be allowed to live. It doesn't matter what we think, if they are happy.
Unfortunately the United States kinda frowns upon walking around naked in public on a daily basis, but other than that I agree. The money I'd save!
Except for legal nudist colonies, of course.
Hey, it may not be a huge win, but a win's a win and I'll take it!
Clothes were adopted for protection against the elements, then futhered by wars for protection. Funny how in nudeist societies we have virtualy no rape or murder. Is it possibly clothes drive the attitudes and not the lack of.
Modesty can also be very as unattractive as bikini on the wrong woman.
Well, that didn't paste right. It's supposed to read, "Modesty can also be as unattractive as a bikini on the wrong woman."
I can't wait to see what you paste here as a definition of a "wrong" woman.
Really?!?! The world is going to hell in a bucket, and we're concerned about what people wear on the beach? Who cares?!?! Wear everything, or wear nothing. Whatever makes you happy. How about we focus on issues that some may consider to be just a tad more important.... like terrorism, a failing education system, failing economies around the world, homelessness, hunger, and so on, and so on. Tell me, where does the burkini controversy rank on the list of problems in the world?
I think the haters are just jealous, Jim, because Jack's right... burkinis really are figure-flattering.
Figure-showing if tight enough, sure. But, remember the Wrong Woman formula.
Yoga pants are the reason God had to rest on the 7th Day. He needed to bring his A-game on the 8th Day to create them, as evidence that there is no such thing as "Wrong Woman formula".
Can I get an amen?
the only way.to fix this problem.is to way for the coming of christ.amen
Jesus hung out with strippers, prostitutes, and con men.
The only thing he'd fix is getting the stick out of everyone's backside.
But isn't that why we're all walking upright, DS?
Yes, and He told the woman taken in the act of adultery, "Go, and sin no more." He even ate with tax collectors, who were more despised than whores. They were almost as loathed as homosexuals.
It's going to be a long wait, Luis.
I just dont care. Celebrate yourself however you choose.
I'm sorry i am personally repulsed but the burkini.But i believe people should be able to wear whatever they want though. Lots of people wear clothes i find unappealing so how is this any different?
Over the past few years clothing styles for both men and women have become the center of attention - some styles are good on younger adults and maybe not appropriate for the older adults. Some styles no matter what age can leave nothing to the imagination for both males and females. Regardless of one wears whether for enjoyment - a night out - work - beach or wherever we need to be mindful on how we look not only to ourselves but to others. We cannot judge a bathing suit whether it be bikini, full cover or Burkini - if your religion requires you to wear a certain item then the rest of us need to respect that! Remember the times gone by when women and men wore fully covered bathing suits!
Not if you are racing.
Hey, JLC, nice try with the copyright range, but the www didn't start until 1991.
What is the real issue re the burkini? Fear of the 'other'? Women have been subject to criticism for what they wear or don't wear since I can remember. Women need to be free of this garbage of how we dress and I am at the age of 75 beginning to feel it may be time to go naked!!! Or covered up!!
I do not understand why the French would purposely bait the Muslim people with stupid laws such as the "burkini ban." The burkini is appropriate swimwear: my Christian niece, aged 10, ALWAYS wears a swimsuit at the beach and outdoor pools, which has a pair of long leggings, skirt, and long-sleeved shirt. Then she wears water shoes, a swim cap and goggles. Sometimes foot or hand-flippers. It's a "THING." The difference is....? You know, some people are also concerned about ultraviolet radiation. These full-body coverups are very chic among the cognoscenti in the U.S., for health reasons. To constantly provoke a segment of the population, such as they are doing in France, and use the excuse of "secularism," is also immoral and arbitrary, creating divisiveness and alienation. And then they wonder why the Muslims feel demoralized and misunderstood and bitter??? In France, there are nuns who still wear head coverings, robes, and outfits which look so very similar to various Muslim coverings. Why is this ok? What about the Babushka, or the shawl or hoodcloak or hoodscarf, such as I crochet for winter gifts in the U.S.? In the U.S., we have "Black Muslims," which are a completely different, headscarf-wearing group. And it's just fine. We have Amish and Mennonite and Sikh and Orthodox Jewish and other people who may clothe themselves differently. OK!!! If the burkini allows those of us who do not want to risk skin cancer to enjoy the beach and outdoor pool, wouldn't it be great? Hurray, someone's been listening to the oncologists!! We can save lives!! Such a slap in the face to the medical community, which has been begging us to cover up outside... The entire French fiasco shows insensitivity and systemic racism hiding under the guise of secularism. As a minister, I decry their actions. Freedom of religion AND freedom of secularism are BOTH important, and not mutually exclusive!!!
That's why, as a Pagan reverend, I love atheists. They just do their best to do right by others, because they know what it's like to be done wrong by others. And that takes a lot of guts.
I think we have a lot bigger problems than what anyone is wearing. God made the beach, sand, ocean he did not say there is any attire you have to wear. Why don't we spend our time on giving to someone else who really needs us.
The opposition to the 'burkini' is based on the fact that Muslim women are MADE to wear it..their religion and male kin insist they wear it. It is not really an option if you have no choice. Secular law in France forbids any outward manifestation of religious symbols..hence the ban of the burkini. Islam demands it, therefore it is a religious symbol. By the way, you also cannot wear a cross or star of David if it is visible.
According to the Bible (1 Cor. 11:6), women must also cover their heads to show piety and humility before God. Which sucks if you're a scarfmaker in Paris.
There are a number of passages that should concern all Christian women. I'm all for the open participation of women on this forum, the Universal Life CHURCH, but these NT passages don't seem to agree.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 ESV / Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 ESV / The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
With all due respect Brother John, herein lies the danger of adhering literally to a ancient text that has been translated many many times to accommodate the culture that is reading it. This chapter/verse from the English Standard Version reads today as if women are to be submissive, However, this version makes no mention of the Gospel of Mary, as this transcript has not been included in any complete bible. So where is the completeness that the original Hebrew and Christian authors intended? As one god maintains the peace and harmony of the world, it s up to the humans who occupy this world to use the bile as a learning tool and not the begin all and end all for all forms of religion, faith, and types of worship for everyone. Tolerance denotes one being above or better than others. To accept all forms of worship and traditions, we, as humans, are enlarging the realm of belief and faith in something more powerful than ourselves. Clothing choice is definitely not in the to 10 issues that my church considers "most in need of prayer and action".
The Bible is so contradictory from one verse to the next, that it's simply not possible to take it literally. Now, if you take it from an allegorical perspective, like a Bronze Age-era "Aesop's Fables", then you might get better results on understanding what it's saying. Very difficult when you're not even reading the original version.
Even the Old and New Testaments don't agree with each other; one's war and death, the other's peace and love and enslavement by conformity. But in reality, it does make sense from a higher-level viewpoint: a life of rabblerousing and mayhem (OT), enlightenment (Gospels), and a greater sense of structured authority (NT).
Still, the Bible should be taken with a Lot of salt. (Too soon?)
The quotes I provided were very similar in different translations including the KJV, Cal. No interpretation is necessary and the obvious intent is the subjugation of women. I heartily agree that there is danger in adhering literally to ancient texts. As I write this religious based hatred and slaughter continues, spurred on by literal believers.
I agree with Dreamsinger that perhaps there is allegorical value to them, but there are also thousands upon thousands of more contemporary writings that provide enlightenment without dogma, confusion and the need for "professional interpretation".
"Still, the Bible should be taken with a Lot of salt. (Too soon?)" It's never too late or too soon for some humour, Dreamsinger. Carry on, my friend!!
It is ridiculous to ban these. People should be allowed to wear what they want as long as their naughty bits are covered. I think they look stupid, but it is NOT a religious piece of clothing. It is for modesty. But it's France. Nuff said.
You know things are getting bad when the French are demanding modesty of others.
...."You don’t hear anyone talk about how men should men control themselves. Instead, we always hold women responsible for not becoming “a distraction” to others. Is this right?"... ~ Article above... Then bring this to the sharia law practitioners. You've just screwed the pooch by asking something that doesn't make sense where it is. Would you go to Zimbabwe and preach baby seal saving in North Canada? No because it doesn't make sense to them or the reader.
I didn't realize these comments are censored for content. I will remove my self from the mailing list. Thank you.
”You don’t hear anyone talk about how men should men control themselves. Instead, we always hold women responsible for not becoming “a distraction” to others. Is this right?”… ~ Article above… Then bring this to the sharia law practitioners. You’ve just scrood the pooch by asking something that doesn’t make sense where it is. Would you go to Zimbabwe and preach baby seal saving in North Canada? No because it doesn’t make sense to them or the reader.
A couple months ago, I had an informative coffee chat with a Muslim-American friend on G+. One of the things that he and I discussed was the meaning behind "Sharia"; turns out that the misunderstanding between the Western Christian nations and Islam is being caused by a translation issue. The Qu'ran is written in Arabic, and those of us who are non-Muslims are going by the English perspective of the original term.
In the Western English version, "sharia" is described as a form of religious enslavement of the world, and all who dare speak ill of Allah and the Prophet (PBUH). But in the original Arabic version, "sharia" is described as a philosophy of living one's life towards spiritual enlightenment. It is literally a "Path" towards peace, which is why Islam keeps telling the Christian religious extremists that it is a religion of peace!
No offense, but I really wish that Christians would stop claiming they're being persecuted for their beliefs, simply because they aren't being taken seriously anymore. Seriously, grow a pair and act like adults. I mean Jesus took a lot worse, he even got nailed to a crucifix and he never complained.
Why is a swimsuit the end of the world for you guys?
Thanks for the clarification, DS. There's no doubt that the Bible has also been mistranslated and misinterpreted as well (often with a purposeful agenda). Fundamentalists who insist it's the inerrant word of God are responsible for so many people not taking it, or them, seriously.
I am all in favor of women wearing what they want when they want. It is not their responsibility to answer for the actions of males. I grew up in the 60's & 70's , found the clothing of young women to my male liking. In short let us leave repression to the personally repressed and let the free and open minded be themselves. So says the conservative Heathen.
As an American citizen, I'm reading this article with a eye towards a Country legislating religion. The 1st Amendment includes the Establishment Clause which prohibits a joining between government &religion, such as no official state religion, no preference by government of one faith over another or religion generally, no taxes to support religion, &no government support for religious worship or practice. The Free Exercise Clause provides each individual with the right to freely practice the religion of his/her choosing. What I see as concerning is the Country of France legislating away all expressions of religion. With the upcoming U.S. Presidential election of 2016, Mr. Trump is a potential future president who promotes the anti Choices & Freedoms that are essential for a healthy society to flourish and grow as a culture. As a Minister of Faith, this is disheartening that merely expressing one's belief viaa the clothing he/she chooses to wear could be considered breaking the law.
What happens in France, is France's to deal with. We have enough to deal with here in America, and politics is irrelevant when it's the people who have the ability to make the changes in what the government does.
We shouldn't just represent, we should be the best example of what we represent and we're refusing to acknowledge that we're not even bothering to show up in the first place.
Well ladies, don't you like to be admired, or even loved. Adam and Eve can tell you what the Christian GOD thinks about being covered up and being ashamed of our nakedness.
Lets not confuse SEX with NUDITY because love happens between like minds.
The Christian GOD claims to have made "Men" in his Image.
Do you think it is a good idea to call his image, PROFANE, or anything less than beautiful. Go to a nearby planet and try to be admired or to find living beauty.
Nakedness is not a sin, RATHER, the animosity, jealousy, and anger nakedness generates is a sin, because it is anti-love for GODs work.
You choices are males loving beauty where it can found, is better than men taking no interest at all, ask any lady.
Men have a lot of energy to love with, channeling it properly, instead of just walling it off, is how love needs to move.
As Above, so Below, if all of your dreams is all that you know, then As Above, So Below
Well, it seems we have come full circle. At one time, women were covered up at the beach & bikinis were not worn, then later, looked down upon, then became the norm. Women should have the opportunity to wear what they feel is most comfortable. Does nature (ex: the beach) have a dress code? silly humans
I couldn't agree more. As a woman who is sensitive to the sun, I often wear swim shoes, leggings, a tshirt, ballcap, and sunglasses. I also have my service dog with me and have doggies on her, to protect her eyes from the suns glare, so she doesn't get cateracts.
Should have read "doggles" not "doggies". Doggles are sunglasses for dogs, in the shape of goggles.
Why is it that men dictate how women should dress in order to be socially and religiously proper? Why are women denied the right to determine how men should dress while at the beach or swimming pool? Why do women live lives of absolute subservience and conformity to the societal mores that men have formed? Why do women tolerate this life of second class freedoms dictated by men who are permitted multiple wivees and marriage to pre- teenage girls...all in the name of "morality"? Sounds more like legalized and societally accepted perversion and the rights of men to have unfettered access to women for sexual gratification, as well as an expression of social power than a "religion" to me. A God who gives a religious "martyr" 24 virgins at death sounds pretty durn funky to me. If God is love, sounds like his logic is skewed on this one.
Reverend Don the Revelator
What is offensive to me is women wearing bras (unless they've had a mastectomy) and underpants. If a woman's skirt flies up, it's refreshing to see a nice thicket. And from that, please, women, no shaving or waxing. Don't pander to the paedophiles with a bare mountain of delights!
Which culture ?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
One really must laugh sometimes.
Absurdity and humor are good for the soul.
Clothing to fit the function & up to the individuals choices, No One elses.
EXCEPT While on the job, steel toe boots, hard hat, & chemical resistant cover-alls may be required. Uniforms or protective gears as needed.
But off the clock and not at work, wear or do not wear what you please.
Free Will means Free Choice.
Equality for all, and ANY Clothing harrasment is just that : a crime of simple assault or intimidation / threat of force. Arrest any person assaulting any person because of their clothing.
The only exception are heads & faces. Most government buildings, banks, and some other places of business require removal of masks and hats and sun glasses. A.I. Security cameras can quickly identify people. No problem.
Walk into a bank wearing a face covering or mask & you run into immediate trouble with Armed Security Guards. Please avoid trouble with law enforcement !
One word about the subject; assimilate!