[b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] [quote]That clears the first part of my statement, that it must be material. From what you wrote it seems you agree, except that you want to lump mental images into this category. Once again, this is in no way a made up definition. Wiki again, just to show how easy it is to find this information: "Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter [b]for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction[/b]." This is the very definition at its most basic, and nothing that I came up with. However do you consider a woman's breast a sexual organ? It's not involved in the sex act, and of course men also have nipples. Maybe I missed a part of your post (easy to do since they're so long) that argued men should also keep their shirts on? I'd actually respect that position somewhat since it would at least be consistent.[/quote] As you admitted, the definitions you are basing these opinions on are from modern (ever changing) secular sources (such as Wiki) and not on the root original meanings of these terms based on the Word of God. And to be clear, I said either you are making up your own definition or perhaps based on "a popular idea in our culture"...which you now concur the later is the case. Simply put, it's not the physical "material" picture (paper and paint) that are pornographic in say a Playboy photo (which you already admitted you at least agree that is pornoghraphic)...but rather it's the image you are seeing in your mind that is pornographic in nature. It just so happens to be getting projected from shapes found on paper and paint, but it is the image IN YOUR MIND that is pornographic. It's only by realizing that IT IS the very image in your mind that is pornographic in nature, that you will then be able to discern those material objects in life that are broadcasting or projecting such images (visual thoughts) into your mind. The physical object itself is not pornographic or evil...it's the image (visual thought) that is translated from that object and into your mind. That's what I'm referring to when I say "image" and one can -then- even associate certain pictures as being objects in a design or shape known to produce vivid pornographic imagery in your mind. These pictures should then be described as pornographic, but that should in no way be confused to mean that the physical picture is somehow evil/pornographic...no, it's the image (visual thought) itself that is produced by that physical object which is the root of where we are touched by the porn. You can have a sexually explicit dream about someone else's wife, without any physical picture or video being in front of you, and yes those very images in your mind will be pornographic. Enough said on that. Regarding women's breasts...the Bible very clearly links a woman's breasts directly with her sexuality and as being something precious for her husband on many different occasions. Over and over, Scriptures state that a woman sharing her breasts with another man is a form of harlotry (porn/fornication). Now let's have a look at many of the Scriptures which not only directly and intimately link a woman's breasts with her "waste to thigh" nakedness, but that also show that a woman's breasts are sensual/arousing or holy (set apart as precious for marriage) in nature. [Genesis 49:25] "Blessings of the breasts and of the womb." [Proverbs 5:19] "As a loving deer and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; And always be enraptured with her love." [Hosea 2:2] "Bring charges against your mother, bring charges; for she is not My wife, nor am I her Husband! Let her put away her harlotries from her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts" [Ezekiel 23:3] "They committed harlotry in Egypt, they committed harlotry in their youth; their breasts were there embraced, their virgin bosom was there pressed." [Ezekiel 23:21] "Thus you called to remembrance the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians pressed your bosom because of your youthful breasts." [Song of Solomon 8:8] "We have a little sister, And she has no breasts. What shall we do for our sister in the day when she is spoken for?" Nakedness is "shameful" in front of the opposite sex (outside of marriage) according to God's Word. This happened after the Fall of man and is still the same today. Please carefully consider that following verses and let them shape your view toward public nakedness from the Lord's perspective, rather than the popular and ever changing customs/trends of this world. [Genesis 3:7] "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings." [Genesis 3:10] "So he said, I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself." [Genesis 3:21] "Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them." [Genesis 9:23] "But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness." [Exodus 20:26] "Nor shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it." [Exodus 28:42] "And you shall make for them linen trousers to cover their nakedness; they shall reach from the waist to the thighs...that they do not incur iniquity and die. It shall be a statute forever to him and his descendants after him." NOTICE: nakedness is, at the very least, from our waist to thighs...according to Scripture. [Leviticus 20:17] "If a man takes his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a wicked thing." So, let me reiterate this verse: he sees her nakedness, she sees his nakedness, they're not married, and so God says that it's a wicked thing. I didn't see any exceptions there for nude beaches or nudist camps...did you? Let's continue. [Isaiah 47:3] "Your nakedness shall be uncovered, yes, your shame will be seen." [Ezekiel 16:36] "Thus says the Lord GOD: Because your filthiness was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your harlotry with your lovers..." [Ezekiel 23:18] "She revealed her harlotry and uncovered her nakedness. Then I alienated Myself from her, as I had alienated Myself from her sister." [Micah 1:11] "Pass by in naked shame..." [Nahum 3:5] "Behold, I am against you, says the LORD of hosts; I will lift your skirts over your face, I will show the nations your nakedness, and the kingdoms your shame." [2 Corinthians 5:2-4] For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed... if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked... For we who are in [this] tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed..." [Revelation 3:17] "Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'--and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked--I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed" [Revelation 16:15] "Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame."

Now, how about those who would dismiss their responsibility (to guard their own heart) by saying that they would feel legalistic or pharisaic in doing so? I agree with you that God is more interested in the condition of a person's heart (in the judgment of what is good in a man's life)...and that's exactly what I'm targeting in this writing. What's inside the white washed cup? [Matthew 23:25] What seeds are we allowing to be sown into our hearts that are not good for us? In other words, are we keeping our heart pure by guarding it [Proverbs 4:23] and taking every thought captive that exalts itself against the Lordship of Christ? [2 Corinthians 10:5] I'm simply trying to point out where we are allowing unhealthy things into our heart (because our conscience is seared in this area) and we need to be sensitive again- so that we can reverse the damage being done (in our heart, soul, life, church, and culture). [Hebrews 5:13] "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." Please take note of the bold words in the passage from Hebrews. How can we make a judgment as to what is "good and evil" (porn or not, for example)? Is it to be based on whatever is acceptable in the culture around us? What's wrong with watching a married couple on TV (being intimate within their marriage bed)? There's nothing in the Word of God that covers that issue, it seems. Or is there? I submit to you that just because the Church in one area agrees that something seems good, does not mean that it is. [1 Corinthians 5,14] It just so happens that we, the Church in America, have become so lukewarm that we are now in agreement with the world on most of these issues. As many readers may have already realized by now, based on the Scriptural definition of porn...yes, this does mean that those National Geographic pictures (containing adult nakedness) and that many of us probably grew up with on our own home magazine racks are indeed pornography by nature. I don't know about you, but I did many things (out of ignorance before I came to Christ) that I'm now ashamed of. For someone to take a picture of me in one of those states and place it in a magazine...well, that would just be a shame. My point with paintings and such is that the image being on the picture is by nature "sexually sinful." I think the reason some people's paths of understanding are not meeting here is that they are focusing on personal sin, while I'm talking about the general sin principle that is present on the earth (from Original Sin). Some things are sinful in nature, but that sin is not always counted to the account (so to speak) of the person directly involved. For one example...what if a mentally handicapped man, who did not know any better and was just going by impulse, raped a comatose woman (who is not even aware)? Who is that counted to as sin? It could be argued that neither party was directly guilty of sin, but the act was still sinful (sex outside of a marriage covenant) in nature. If anything, the sin is counted against Adam and Eve (and ultimately against Christ on the cross). So, not all sin or guilt is intimately associated with the parties directly involved. Just the same, I would say that an image (being on a picture) that shows two people having marital relations is (by nature) sinful- more specifically...pornographic. Why? It's not because of what's in the picture (that is only part of the equation), but it's that there is no way we (unless we are God) can guarantee that the picture won't wind up being viewed by someone other than those who are members of that same marriage. Because we don't have this guarantee, we should then apply the principle of "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." [Romans 14:23] You cannot have honest faith (backed up by Scripture or reason) that this image won't wind up in the wrong hands; so therefore, it is a sinful expression (on a picture) of the image- by nature. To treat such a picture any other way would not be walking by true faith (based on a confidence in evidence consistent with reality and the Word of God). Another example...what if a man accidentally drops his camera on the ground and it happens to take a picture up a young lady's dress? Well, he has no idea, she has no idea, and the film developer has no idea. So, when the film is developed...are we to say that it isn't a pornographic picture just because no purposeful personal sin was directly involved? Or would it be more accurate to say that the reason things like this happen (death, decay, thorns, violated nakedness, and so on) are due to the effect of Original Sin and can be traced back to that? The latter is obviously correct. So, because of Original Sin, there are also now sinful expressions of words (curse words) and sinful expressions of images (on pictures). I'm not saying that the very raw materials of sound waves or picture ink are sinful... I'm saying that the thought or image they express is sinful by nature, because they are being casually (in the case of curse words) or publicly (in the case of pornographic images) expressed. Someone could come to our country and unknowingly pick up a bad (sinful expression) word, but his innocence and ignorance does not change that it is a sinful expression in word. Yes...you could try to argue that the same words sometimes mean something different in a different language and that's fine (this was not meant to be a perfectly similar example), but that cannot be paralleled with the image meaning something different. Child pornography (pictures in which pre-pubescent girls/boys are involved in unnatural sexual actions), for example, is just that. It's a sinful (pornographic) image by nature and there's no cultural bias that can change that. Now, to further elaborate on a point brought out earlier in this chapter: some thinking that it is an issue of so called "maturity" as to whether it's healthy to be passive toward porn or not. Although that is a popular view which has developed in our culture, it is a dangerous lie of the Enemy. The Bible instead tells us to be immature in evil things and mature in only good. [1 Corinthians 14:20] You see, what the world currently calls "mature" (an accepted age or level of education which makes it seem appropriate to be able to view pornographic materials...such as a lot of rated R films and so on) is in reality a state achieved after years of being desensitized to what we naturally were created to be sensitive to. This is not a healthy development in the life of a believer, but is actually quite the opposite. Just because you can't feel the effects of a burning hot substance, due to your nerve endings already having been seared (like your conscience is when you are "mature" as the world calls it), does not mean that your skin is free of getting burned. You may be able to smile and go about your business while holding that hot iron against your scarred chest, but as the Word says..."can a man hold fire in his bosom and not be burned." [Proverbs 6:27] Also, the Word says (David speaking)..."I will set no base {or} wicked thing before my eyes." [Psalm 101:3] Whether a picture (such as in National Geographic or Play Boy) is pornographic should not be considered dependent on whether it is the object of someone's lust. Pedophiles DO lust after pictures of naked children...of course those pictures are NOT pornographic. Further, sex education students are also supposedly so "mature" (according to the World's current mindset) that they DON'T lust after classroom XXX videos that actually ARE even obviously pornographic in nature. Or is your argument that pictures of nude children are pornographic and XXX videos are not? If you want to argue that it's all relative and in the eyes of the beholder, then we cannot argue with any man who posts Play Boy pictures up in the church lobby. After all, he's just allowing everyone to "admire the beauty of God's feminine creation" and if people lust..."that's their fault." Right? No, that's not the right attitude to have at all. Yet, that's what this logic leads us to conclude. You would have to say that it's ok for a church to have nude services (as a number of Unitarians do) because they are so "mature" that they do not actually have any struggle to lust after one another. Do you believe that nudist churches are ok? If not, you must ask yourself, why not? Again, some might say that it is fine to have immodest pictures of ourselves (or others) as long as we are "responsible" enough to guard those personal pictures from those who should not see them. Yet again, the Bible is quite clear that we cannot expect our earthly possessions to be safe from others getting a hold of them. [Matthew 6:19] "Do not gather {and} heap up {and} store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust {and} worm consume {and} destroy, and where thieves break through and steal." According to God's Word, your personal property is relatively fair game in this world. Next, some may sarcastically argue that we also can't reasonably guarantee that (for example) our children will not stumble upon us during an intimate encounter- if this Scriptural principle is true. That line of reason is set up with many similarities, but the object of their argument is completely different. Our bodies are not objects that are separate from our being. Food, drink, and clothing (notice all connected with the body) are needs that God has given us permission to place our faith in Him to provide- if we will seek Him for it. "Therefore, if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? Therefore, do not be anxious, saying, what shall we eat or what shall we drink or with what shall we be clothed?" [Matthew 6:30-31] You see, we should walk by faith in God's Word, knowing that He will be faithful to lead and protect us by His Spirit- to be "responsible" enough not to reveal our naked bodies to the public (as WE SEEK "HIM" DILIGENTLY to do so). We have no such promise, from the Word, regarding our treasures (pictures, videos, etc.) here on Earth. Therefore, we are being presumptuous (based on our own carnal and not Spirit led or Word based desires), if we try to claim that we do have such a promise to base our faith on. For, whatever is not of faith is sin. [Romans 14:23] The Devil will take full advantage of that abuse toward God's Word (stepping out of God's hedge of promised protection) and the Thief will find a way to steal it. Now, regarding those who suppose that they're "okay" because "at least I'm pretty good compared to other worldly people in this area." That pretty much says morals are relative in this case and that you are a pretty good person compared to others...but why are you comparing yourself and what you watch to others (and what they watch) in order to determine what's right or wrong? We need to compare our lives with the Holy standard of our Heavenly Father. We're supposed to be conforming to the image of Christ, not to the image of whatever is slightly better (in our own eyes) than the people around us. As for those who argue, "what if we don't really have a choice as to whether we're naked (unclothed) in public"...well, our responsibility is to use our will (choice) as much as we honestly can before the Lord. The Lord sees our heart and whether we are using circumstance as an excuse to make lazy, fearful, or less than caring choices regarding our modesty (as well as our level of exposing ourselves to porn). Such fear is not becoming of a believer. [Revelation 21:8] Let's not forget that God told us to place our faith in Him to provide for our every need (food, drink, and clothing) if we seek Him for it. [Matthew 6:28-33] He promised that no temptation could overtake a believer, but with every temptation He will provide a way of escape- if we will DILIGENTLY SEEK HIM for it. [1 Corinthians 10:13] Sure there may be those who will be persecuted for righteousness sake and who may lose these things (which is still even a debatable point). Yet, God's general promise to his people (spelled out clearly in His Word) is that He will provide and protect these needs in our life. We can place our faith in that. For those who think they may have found themselves in such a situation, do you remember having your mind set and specifically placing your total faith in the fact that God would give you a way of escape from having (for example) to be naked in front of another of the opposite sex? If you say yes (unless you were unconscious or being violated/persecuted for your faith), I have to believe you're most likely not being entirely truthful- because the Word is very specific about this. Could it be that you were so desensitized ("mature" by the world's standards) that you didn't even really put much thought or effort into it at all (instead just going with the flow), though perhaps battling off whatever natural embarrassment that did manage to rise to the surface? If you would have known this Word and placed your faith in it ("faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God...faith without works is dead"), then you would have believed and earnestly sought the Lord- searching for His way of escape. You do have a choice and you have God's Word on that. Seek with all diligence to guard these things and to find His Way of escape...and you can have faith that He will provide. Try it next time. For those who still believe that they have been put in such a place where they had no choice, but to expose themselves (in public) ...here is the real symptomatic test to see if our hearts are truly seeking the Lord for an escape. Did we grieve the loss after the situation occurred? Or did we just tuck it inside and go about our business like nothing really significant occurred? If the latter mindset more relates to how we were...then the problem was not that the Lord refused to meet our needs, but rather that our heart and conscience was not prepared or sensitive to care enough to seek His way of escape. I once heard someone try to use, as an example of a seemingly hopeless situation, an unbelieving man who refused to have his wife seen naked or touched privately by a doctor (while she was in labor). This person was trying to say that the man was endangering his wife because of his feelings about the matter. Well, there is a partial truth here and this is the sad thing about the World's fallen state. Men still have that God given desire to protect their wives privacy from other men, yet they are powerless (without the Lord in their lives) to be the man they ought to be- without the possibility of their wife or their child being injured. It's sad what life without the Lord can be like..."the Thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy"...but, praise the Lord, Jesus has come so that we "might have life, and have it more abundantly." We cannot use the desperate, perilous, and fearful condition of this lost world to justify our lack of faith, carnally compromised standards for holiness, or our reasoning for what is right or wrong. In Summary, I'm just attempting to bring some things to our attention that are not healthy for us to be passive about. This message is not about earning righteousness with God, but rather how we might free ourselves from an unclear (unhealthy) conscience. Otherwise, damage is being done to us that we're not even conscious of (because we no longer feel the pain of our conscience warning us about these things)- yet, the damage is still occurring nonetheless. Apart from all of that, even from a practical standpoint, we have to be sure that our definition of pornography (or lack thereof) can truly be applied in any real and practical way. For instance, using your current stance toward pornography, please consider if you would be able to handle the following real situation and still be in good conscience: A group of "Unitarian Christians" (who believe it glorifies God to come to church nude) decide to film a video of their service for a PBS documentary. Now, there is no lust intended here and the fellow members do not lust after each other. So, is that video pornographic or not? And if you can't say that it is pornographic, what argument do you have for them to not show it on TV for all to see? You can't tell them that they shouldn't due to the fact that some viewers may struggle with lust, if you are of the mindset that "we should not be held captive by someone else's lust problem." The Unitarians could say "we must serve God rather than man." So, what do you have to stand on that will persuade them that they should not show (or even record) this film? For that matter, what legitimate (Scripture based) argument do you have against them coming into your own church in the nude? We, as believers, have to realize that prostitution {from the Greek word "porne" and often translated as "harlotry"} is rampant in our society. This is the next step in the progression of all of this...every person that is willingly participating in the pornographic image/public display, by logical extension, is prostituting himself or herself. Harlotry (porn) by obvious definition (and based on how it is used in Scripture) is fornication (Greek porneuo or porne) for ungodly gain (whether that be for money, attention, affection, to worship a false god, self gain, someone else's gain, or whatever other form). So, here again, our focus has to be not on wrangling over words, but rather in what the root of these words and the underlying principles are. All of these words (harlot, fornication, porn, porne, porneia, porneuo, pornos) are just different expressions of the same root. I can stop using the word "pornography" (per se) if that would help anyone get past the mental hurdle and move on to the principles involved. Perhaps, I could say "images of fornication" or "sexually immoral images." That should serve to extinguish some of distractions by this word, which has come to represent only the most horrible of images in our current culture...rather than what the Word of God spells out for this term. Jesus dealt with this very same mindset commonly found in the world many times during his earthly ministry. He would broaden our limited and superficial understanding/standards for what certain moral terms actually meant from the Word of God. For a man to commit adultery was commonly held by the world (as well as the carnally religious minded) in those days to just mean a man having physical marital relations with another man's wife. Yet, Jesus exposed their desensitivity of heart and conscience by saying that if a man so much as even lusts after such a woman (in his heart), he has committed adultery already. [Matthew 5:28] Now, to everyone who still holds to the idea that lust is the determining factor of whether an image is pornographic or not.....let’s see just how sloppy this generic take on pornography can get. According to that flawed definition of porn: "Porn is created to stimulate sexual desires based on lust" "An image does not have a direct link with sexual sin unless lust exists in the heart and mind of the onlooker." Let me show how easily disproven these two false statements are. So if a group, who happens to have a fetish for...feet, were to distribute pictures of toes to people who they knew would lust over them; then those feet photos, by the so called "lust based" definition, are pornographic photos? A silly example I know, but some people have pretty crazy lust problems. This example is actually a known fetish, that has had some following on the Internet, so don't laugh too hard at the concept. Also, someone with pedophilic desires might distribute pictures of a child (a person before puberty) in a bathing suit- for the purpose of causing lust in other pedophiles. Now, according to the so called lust centered definition of porn, that picture would apparently be pornography as well (since it's "intended to and is causing lust"). Do you really believe this is the case? It would, of course, be silly if you did. I couldn't hold on to such strange ideas without ignoring clear principles in nature and in the Word of God. I believe what I've laid out here (the Scriptural definition of porn, rather than the man made "lust centered" definition of porn) is much more reasonable and does properly line up with what nature itself reveals to a person with a healthy conscience in this area. Let me draw you another parallel so that we can see why it's so needful that these principles be taught in the way being laid out in this work. You see, the reason I'm being so detailed is because most believers in America are so desensitized (in their conscience) that these areas need to be specifically dealt with and brought to the forefront of our minds. Just less than 100 years ago, these principles were mostly common knowledge (and conscience) even among the lost. If I were to present my case back then...I would not need to be nearly as detailed, because they were already sensitive to most of the points I've made. These are like hidden wounds that I'm just attempting to bring to the surface (even though most people prefer to stay desensitized to avoid dealing with the pain of what's there). That being said, let me present another parallel situation that would require the very same methods I'm using (and Paul used) to prove something as being wrong or unhealthy in the life of the believer. Have you noticed that Pedophilia is never directly condemned in the Bible? Does this mean that we are using so called "Pharisaical exegesis" (as some critics suggest) when we say such behavior is wrong? No. If that argument is correct...then we should not voice our opposition to this lifestyle simply because, according to that interpretation, "the way of Truth may be ill spoken of" (as some critics have also misused such verses to convey their opposition). The principles (from Scripture) that such proponents of this way of thinking so try to apply to this topic, just aren't relevant. I believe that using these verses in this fashion is very dangerous and could render us impotent as believers to stand up against some things that a clear conscience, the Word of God, and nature itself teaches us to be wrong (as well as unnatural and unhealthy). I fear that such so called "intellectual and scholarly focus" may be getting in the way of true discernment here. Do not the Scriptures teach that some issues of right and wrong can be discerned (just by reasoning from the God-given Law within us and evidenced around us) through examining nature it's self: [Romans 1:26-31] "Because of this, God gave them up to dishonoring passions, for even their females changed the natural use for that which is unnatural. And likewise the males also forsaking the natural use..." [Romans 2:14-15] "For when nations not having the Law, do by nature the things of the Law, they not having the Law are a law unto themselves; who show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience witnessing with them; and the thoughts between one another accusing or excusing..." [1 Corinthians 11:14] "Or does not nature herself teach you that if a man indeed adorns the hair, it is a dishonor to him?" [2 Timothy 3:3] "...without natural affection (feeling, sensitivity)..." You see...I'm trying to appeal to our natural (God-given) sense of right and wrong- by giving specific examples (and questions) that we know are wrong by nature, but that we are not applying the same principle across the board in every other area of our belief. I too often find that believers think one thing is wrong, but they call the very same thing (in a different form) acceptable. It usually directly parallels whatever is accepted in the culture around them or in the world around them during that time period. That's what the world calls "hypocritical." We all do this to an extent, but we should try to rid ourselves of such inconsistencies and live with as clear (healthily sensitive) a conscience as possible.

Do me a favor: Define how you would wish a woman to dress so as to not be "pornographic" in nature. I know in your first post you told us women folk what "not to wear" but never what would be appropriate at all that is practical in today's culture. See, the arabic countries in this world had this same problem. How do we fix this "boob/butt" problem that's running rampant? Well, we saw what they did to fix it. Hide all the skin under burkas and scarves. Is this what you dare to suggest? Because, with long skirts AND pants, AND covering, loose fitting tops up to the neck (because the fleshy part of a woman does start there for many, many people) to avoid seeing form of breast which can cause lust or to see any part of the chest... a burka is exactly what you have described, minus the religiously required headgear.

Yeah, I'm with Chelsea. Quite frankly, I have absolutely no problem with a tiny amount of cleavage. What's the rule, a hand below the collar bone?

[b]THeMadHatter wrote:[/b] [quote]Do me a favor: Define how you would wish a woman to dress so as to not be "pornographic" in nature. I know in your first post you told us women folk what "not to wear" but never what would be appropriate at all that is practical in today's culture. See, the arabic countries in this world had this same problem. How do we fix this "boob/butt" problem that's running rampant? Well, we saw what they did to fix it. Hide all the skin under burkas and scarves. Is this what you dare to suggest? Because, with long skirts AND pants, AND covering, loose fitting tops up to the neck (because the fleshy part of a woman does start there for many, many people) to avoid seeing form of breast which can cause lust or to see any part of the chest... a burka is exactly what you have described, minus the religiously required headgear.[/quote] It's always an easy out, when someone is suggesting that women dress modestly, to bring up the most radical versions of women covering themselves and somehow paint that person as supporting the same. In reality, I'm not suggesting anything different than the way Christian women have dressed for thousands of years (up until the early 1900's that is). And, contrary to what we may have been taught in secularized versions of history...these women (at least the Christians) dressed this way out of a personal desire to be modest, feminine, and virtuous. Even most worldly women dressed as modestly as I'm proposing, but only those women who followed worldly trends would wear outfits that ever showed cleavage. Up until recently, most all Christian woman were very diligent to make sure such areas as you have described (cleavage) were always covered. Such modesty has always been intimately tied to true femininity since even ancient Biblical times. It's only this last generation that has fallen away from this and followed more the way of a prostitute (being very forward, lacking discretion, and un-bashful about these aspects of her body). This is the opposite heart and manner of dress than we see which lines up with what it means to be feminine, according to Scripture (1 Peter 3:4; 1 Timothy 2:9 and so on). At any rate, since you seem to have a genuine desire to know more about what is and is not modest (from the Word)...I'm going to start another thread on that subject in particular. I'll call it...What Is & Is Not Modest. I should have it posted tonight. I hope it will help you to better understand my perspective. __________ [i][Song of Solomon 4:10-12] "How fair is thy love, my sister, my wife! how much better is thy love than wine!"[/i] [url]http://spiritledintimacy.com[/url]

Whoever taught you that about fashion history told you a very big lie. As a costumer whose job it is to study peoples, cultures, and time periods, I will have you know that bearing cleavage has been extremely popular for many many centuries. The breast has always been something to be proud of. In fact, no century has really gone by that didn't have some years or seasons of chest showing. In fact, in greek and roman times, it was popular for even the men to walk around entirely in the buff for the sake of showing off their manliness. They had no such thing as underwear for men or women in this time era. It was also common in this time for women to wear draped clothing that easily showed the entire breast if positioned a certain way to give pride to their men by showing what their possession possessed. The only "new" thing in recent history has been women wearing pants, miniskirts, bras instead of corsets which, in the end, wound up giving women MORE cleavage to show off than recent times, swimwear styles such as bikinis, thong underwear, and specific colors in clothing such as obnoxious neons. To use your phrase: it is an "easy out" to claim that modern women are fully at fault for these kinds of styles when the breast, arms, and shoulders have been the basis and inspiration of women's fashion history. In short, barely any of the worldly women in history dressed as you are suggesting. You are basing your information of falsehood and pictures that you may have taken from illustrations of winter wear, portraits of elderly royalty, or Bible stories. Turning around on that fact, you failed to answer my question. What to you is an outfit that is not "pornographic" by any means, or that would fail to cause any kind of lust for men such as yourself?

[b]THeMadHatter wrote:[/b] [quote]Whoever taught you that about fashion history told you a very big lie. As a costumer whose job it is to study peoples, cultures, and time periods, I will have you know that bearing cleavage has been extremely popular for many many centuries. The breast has always been something to be proud of. In fact, no century has really gone by that didn't have some years or seasons of chest showing. In fact, in greek and roman times, it was popular for even the men to walk around entirely in the buff for the sake of showing off their manliness. They had no such thing as underwear for men or women in this time era.[/quote] You said it correctly..."to be proud of" her breasts...which is the opposite of what the Word of God tells us we should be in our own flesh (especially and specifically this is the case for women, who would be operating in the spirit of prostitution to be proudly displaying their breasts to the public). I have no doubt that the "bust" was always used by worldly women to show off "their goods" (ie, prostitution) and even much worse...as prostitution is a way some women have chosen to express themselves or even make a livelihood since the beginning human existence. You just need to study a bit more into genuine Christian history and you will find that women whose heart was to follow Christ were very careful not to expose their breasts in public. You're moreso referring to fads and fashions of this world, which are often a subtle form of prostitution and, yes, have always been around...which is why Paul and Peter warned women not to follow the fashions of this world if they led to such immodesty. I have no doubt that the world has been able to influence some Christian women to follow their fads and to expose themselves in such ways in the past...but I'm saying that most discerning and self respecting Christian women did in fact cover their breasts in public. As well, it was much more common for most women of the world (in generations past) to dress even more modestly than the average American Christian woman dresses today. Regardless of what the percentages of worldly women were who covered their breasts or not...the real point that you are missing is that the world and its fashions were never supposed to dictate your standards of modesty in the first place. I don't care if 100% of worldly women and 70% of Christian women have proudly exposed their breast/cleavage to the public throughout the entirety of human history...I'm hear to state that God's Word should be your standard of modest dress, not the world. And actually, to correct you a bit...they did have underwear for men in those eras...they were called loin cloths and every Jew basically wore one. Even if there was a period in which such undergarments did not exist...the Bible clearly states that such individuals were responsible for guarding their movements as to not expose their nakedness to the public. Again...like I said in the first place, you are speaking from a very secularized/worldly perspective of history. Of course the Greeks didn't care about such things...they also were into a whole host of other immoral lifestyles on top of that. They are hardly a good example for a Christian woman to use as a basis for reasonable or modest dress. Based on many of the comments you've made, I'm finding it hard to believe you have read my prior posts in their entirety...or you would have known much of what you already are trying to figure out. I'm answering your question regarding modesty more specifically in the "What Is & Is Not Modest" thread. I need to explain the principles behind how to discern what is modest...not just give you some legalistic stagnant examples. We need to be able to apply certain principles so that, no matter what item of clothing or style we are looking to wear...we will be able to discern them without having to look at Forcedelune's cheat sheet or some chart of modest outfits. I'd rather you be able to discern for yourself what is truly modest to wear, rather than my dictating which specific outfits come to mind.

You're avoiding my question. You have such a high standard that you obviously have an ideal in mind, but are refusing to share that with us at all. Just saying negatives, No you don't want this, No, not that either, No you aren't saying that... So what ARE you getting at? It's a simple question: To YOU PERSONALLY, what does the ideal modest woman look like? You're not dictating anything in giving that, the only thing you have been dictating is your obvious fascination of anything depicting the female or male body being pornographic. We get that point. That's nice. Now we're asking your opinion.

[b]forcedelune wrote:[/b] [quote]I'm finding it hard to believe you have read my prior posts in their entirety...or you would have known much of what you already are trying to figure out.[/quote] Word. [url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3B+dr]tl; dr[/url]. To quote Bill, brevity is the soul of wit. And I think her comment about the heathen worldly standard of dress being consistently in favor of breast-displaying was in reply to this comment: [quote][b]Even most worldly women dressed as modestly as I'm proposing[/b], but only those women who followed worldly trends would wear outfits that ever showed cleavage.[/quote]

Thanks, Ben. :)