Women are raped in every country. Doesn't matter if it's North Korea, Sudan, Israel, Nigeria, US, UK, Saudi Arabia.

It's not about the women. Not every erection must be acted upon. Soap is always an alternative.

uj_sizzle:
Going by popular opinion here, I'm never to walk out of my house in a slipper again so that men with foot fetish won't be tempted to come a-nibbling.

Hell, I'm probably not allowed to leave my house either. Someone asked if we are allowed to 'display' what beauty God has endowed us. It's a strange question for anyone to ask
A man says the sight of my face can make a pastor sin(and he was a pastor) and another says staring at my eyes makes him imagine it all fogged up when he has me in his bed kissing every inch of my skin. My, how many men are thinking things like this women? Should we all borrow the dressing of our Arab neighbours? Seriously guys let's face it, something about a woman's body will always tempt someone out there. It's why men learn to exercise self control.
I must say though that it is shocking that someone here doesn't think the intent of a person should be considered when an act is carried. What did God say again about judging from the heart of man? If I wear my mini skirt and a jacket to work, it's because i like the way it looks on me, and i love the way it makes me feel. If i wear it with the intention of getting men to stumble, then I'm wrong for causing a brother to stumble. If I am aware that Mr A gets a hardon whenever I wink or blow him a kiss, and deliberately continue to do that, then i am guilty of being uncharitable(or lacking love if you please). We cannot eliminate intent in this discussion, and we cannot eliminate the culture of people whole at it.


That said, let me just add that men should package themselves well too.
I like hairy legs, and chests. In fact i just love hairs on a guy. So please for my sake and that of every girl like me out there, go get yourself waxed if you plan on coming out in shorts or shirtless In short I'm even bothered by your hairless chest and abdomen too so please wear a shirt--and no form fitting one.
Thank you!

I realise not many women talk about their sexual fantasies--better self control or self deceit? It isn't helping in any way though, because now some men think we can't pepper spray them into submission and have our merry way with their bodies

Hahahaha. Funny post


However, you have touched on some items that are important.

At least, if people dont listen to me because I'm the atheist here, they would listen to you.

I hope more women can read your post and think for themselves instead of allowing themselves to be controlled by patriarchal society and men.

Happy new month. Team July

ihedinobi2:

Netotse. Good one. Thanks.

Here are two things though: the whole point of discussion is to precipitate our wrong notions as well as share our journey so far in any particular issue. I consider it a pity that we sort of dove into a squabble this time around but some of these discussions will do that because we all have pet sins and habits that we won't give up without a fight.

Not that arguing will make us give it up but it shows us how much the thing in question matters to us. You could say that these exchanges uncover the hidden errors in our hearts and our pride. Some of us leave these discourses to travail in prayer because of the things God has shown us here. Others might not. But a good thing does happen no less.

Good point, the discussions help no doubt, the difficult part is knowing when to stop.

ihedinobi2:
Second. Sometimes it may be necessary to appear to pick a side to enable another person see just how far out they're leaning. As you said here, it seemed that the focus was on women and how they should dress. Yes it was. Even the Bible spoke exclusively to women on the matter. It does not mean that men have no responsibility to dress modestly as well, it is merely compensation. Some of us are more prone to some things than others. In this case, the more vulnerable ones are men. Therefore Scripture focuses on women in order to help men.

Here on this thread there was a strong bias to a woman's right to dress as she pleases. That is one of the big points of conflict for feminism. The perceived polarisation of opinions is due to the need to balance that right out with the attendant responsibilities. As you must know, Christ is all about new rights or freedoms and responsibilities as well. And we tend to pick one and despise the other making it necessary to compensate in the manner that you see on this thread.

Both parties have responsibilities, focusing only on the other party's side will only cause them to dig trenches.

I'd rather look at things from the perspective of your right hand causing you to sin and the responsibility you have to cut it off(as a Christian). Modesty in dress and behaviour cannot be limited to women.

@uj
I have one story to type for you, let me go and find food first I'm coming.

Hapi nu month...Be better this time.

netotse: @uj
I have one story to type for you, let me go and find food first I'm coming.

So long there aren't shirtless men in it, I'm good.

Haven't seen you around here before though, so welcome

uj_sizzle:
So long there aren't shirtless men in it, I'm good.

Haven't seen you around here before though, so welcome

uj_sizzle:
So long there aren't shirtless men in it, I'm good.

Haven't seen you around here before though, so welcome

Cheeky Miss!

texanomaly:

Cheeky Miss!

Hypocrite!!!

When I joked (decently and harmlessly) about boobies, you were

But now, shirtless men is cheeky funny

dagr8: Where is Sal C.....NL is back for posting on a Friday ....

Mehn it's not funny. Btw how are you?

Anyhoo,

Judas Muskeeto aka Amanfrommars has deactivated
The beans seller avoids this chatbox like hell
The nasty princess is in ghost mode


#my work is done here.

The.Big.Urban:



Hypocrite!!!

When I joked (decently and harmlessly) about boobies, you were

But now, shirtless men is cheeky funny

Awww sorry LB. I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings by ignoring you.

texanomaly:
Awww sorry LB. I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings by ignoring you.

You couldnt hurt my feelings. I already believe that your intelligence is far inferior to mine.

btw...you did respond to me. Apparently, ignoring means responding?


Also.....Judas deactivated So happy!!!!!


Goodbye

The.Big.Urban:
Anyhoo,

Judas Muskeeto aka Amanfrommars has deactivated
The beans seller avoids this chatbox like hell- Ishilove
The nasty princess is in ghost mode- ATMC


#my work is done here.

^^^^
Guy, I have no idea why you are remixing my comments


*runs commot chatbox*

Uj sizzle,I love ur explanation very well.
How I wish ladies can be this outspoken in real life.

Kudos.

Hello house!

uj_sizzle:
Flowers are beautiful, bees are attracted to it.
Should the flower in the field choose not to bloom because it doesn't like the bees?

Should people hide what God their creator has given to them because there are people who choose to have disgusting thoughts about something beautiful?

Note I'm not talking about wearing clothes that expose your privates here, I'm speaking decent but flattering clothes..

And erm everybody has something to display. It doesn't have to be physical, could just as well be material or intellectual.

Exactly!

*claps*

RedClay:

No E-soul, I'm Not a feminist
She said something improbable and I wanted to know more.

Okie-doke, Red

tandj: Uj sizzle,I love ur explanation very well.
How I wish ladies can be this outspoken in real life.

Kudos.

Hello house!

@Enlightenedsoul

netotse:
Good point, the discussions help no doubt, the difficult part is knowing when to stop.

You see such a difficulty in evidence right now?

netotse: Both parties have responsibilities, focusing only on the other party's side will only cause them to dig trenches.

I'd rather look at things from the perspective of your right hand causing you to sin and the responsibility you have to cut it off(as a Christian). Modesty in dress and behaviour cannot be limited to women.

I'm assuming you're a Christian like most of those on this Chatbox. Christians are not intellectualists although being Christian necessarily means you will be intelligent, observant, wise. I say this because this is the age of emotional intellectualism where everything is open to question and the basis of judgment is emotion and because the Scriptures necessarily limited direct admonitions concerning modest dressing to women, a fact that does not count for much with emotional intellectualists.

I believe that the Bible is entirely accurate because I believe that God is able to produce a perfectly accurate document regardless what resources are available to Him (He created everything out of NOTHING, it can't be a difficulty for Him to override human weakness to produce perfection). Thus I think that if the Bible limits instruction on modest dressing to women, it is deliberate and worthy of acceptance in so doing. I do not subscribe to any perceived need to adjust the Bible to accommodate anything at all.

So I would very happily and unrepentantly limit instruction on modest dressing to women even though in truth I have not even done so on this thread. I have no apologies for believing God over the fickle emotions of unreliable and generally surprisingly ignorant human beings.

Finally, I have not skimped on details regarding the responsibilities that both genders have in the matter at hand. It shouldn't be doubtful that I hold men responsible for their actions and behaviors toward women and even for their own dressing nor is there really any call to point out to me that men do have responsibility. That is tantamount to saying that I have not recognized that fact. However popular being contrary is, it is always wiser to take a step back before stepping into the crowd.

Mynd_44:
And this is so simple. Forget the "feminazis" sef. There is no point giving em names. We know that in every group or society, there will be people who deviate from the plan and have their own ideals and make up their constitution.

Look at the Muslims, there are Muslims who just want to be Muslims and worship Allah without being violent and mind their business but there are some who go violent in the name of religion hence they kill and destroy. Do we call all Muslims evil cos of that?

In Christianity, the church was known to kill scientists in the old days, hell in their quest for the holy land, they committed sins even I am ashamed of. Are they Christians? Yes but can you hold me responsible for their crimes? Even now, there are Christians who commit crimes in the name of God like Killing their mum cos "God" told them she is a witch. Are they Christians? Is that person a murderer? Can we call all Christians Muderers?

We need to learn to take the good points and treat people for who they are not just generalise and say all Femnists believe in something

What people believe is the foundation of their very identity as humans. Whether some Muslims bomb people and others don't is not as important as whether Islam itself is about bombing people. We can be very obtuse and blind when it comes to accurately judging the things we want. So we learn to turn a blind eye to the down sides of everything we desire and claim that we can cut out whatever we don't like without any respect for the fact that cutting certain things out would necessarily mean destroying the thing itself. Some generalization is merely identification.

Feminism is a big subject obviously and all we've done since Sunday or so is discuss appearance which we will conclude today by the mercies of God. We should have concluded yesterday to start in on another topic today but it didn't work out like that after all.

We will continue with another issue that emanates from Feminism this evening. A thread will be created to crystallize the discussions and conclusions drawn here and, if necessary, sustain any further discussions on modesty in appearance. But we will be ending all discussions touching the subject per this exercise on this thread effectively today so that we can move into new spaces for growth.

To follow beginning this evening until Saturday will be discussions on the economic rights of women.

For those who were not with us just before the site was attacked and data was lost, we are running an exercise to enable us grow and expand in understanding as Christians in a world ruled by confusion. This exercise has us examining popular subjects in the light of the Bible. The idea is to get us to bring out into the light our pet misconceptions about life and give God a chance to "undeceive" us about them. This is obviously not the simplest of tasks as the soon-to-end discussion on "modesty in appearance" should evidence. It is not nearly a pleasant thing to let go our pet peeves, habits and sins. We hold tight for as long as we can manage. And that means rebellion and a discounting of any authority that does not derive from our own selves or agrees with us.

But the Lord our Father is merciful. He does not give up on us. This exercise is not designed to itself snatch us out of the grasp of our favorite lies. It is designed to help us even further along the way to knowing the Truth and being set free thus. This is why no discussion runs indefinitely here. There would be no point in doing so. The only need here is to bring our misconceptions to the light and shine the light of the Scriptures on them. The Lord Spirit will do the rest.

Thank you for coming along on this ride. If you have been or are offended in some way by anything so far, please be assured that that is not the intent of any of the organizers and proponents of this exercise. It is merely an unavoidable consequence. Hopefully, in time you will have less cause to be offended.

God bless you. May your day today be fruitful.

ihedinobi2:
You see such a difficulty in evidence right now?

when people start to resort to insults, it's usually a good time to re-evaluate.

I'm assuming you're a Christian like most of those on this Chatbox. Christians are not intellectualists although being Christian necessarily means you will be intelligent, observant, wise. I say this because this is the age of emotional intellectualism where everything is open to question and the basis of judgment is emotion and because the Scriptures necessarily limited direct admonitions concerning modest dressing to women, a fact that does not count for much with emotional intellectualists.

this your 'necessarily' sha...it's just. . .somehow. The angle that I'm looking at it is from causing your brother or sister to sin, so for me the issues we are discussing are applicable beyond the subject of the clothes we wear.

I believe that the Bible is entirely accurate because I believe that God is able to produce a perfectly accurate document regardless what resources are available to Him (He created everything out of NOTHING, it can't be a difficulty for Him to override human weakness to produce perfection). Thus I think that if the Bible limits instruction on modest dressing to women, it is deliberate and worthy of acceptance in so doing. I do not subscribe to any perceived need to adjust the Bible to accommodate anything at all.

So I would very happily and unrepentantly limit instruction on modest dressing to women even though in truth I have not even done so on this thread. I have no apologies for believing God over the fickle emotions of unreliable and generally surprisingly ignorant human beings.

I wholly agree with you. One small question though, what do you mean when you say God can override human weakness to produce perfection? IMO for the fact God made something, it's already perfect (remember the scene about counting fingers in bruce almighty?).

BTW, you wouldn't happen to be implying I'm trying to adjust the bible would you?

Sal C: Mehn it's not funny. Btw how are you?

Sal C you are a lab scientist right

yetseyi:

Sal C you are a lab scientist right

Yes dear, Good morning...

netotse:
when people start to resort to insults, it's usually a good time to re-evaluate.

Under certain circumstances, yoy would be exactly right. However, that point when we get to insults is exactly the point here when you know that the battle is won. You don't relax then, you never do that in a spiritual engagement, you push until your enemy is completely destroyed, incapable of ever rising again. Civility is much desired in our conversations here, especially considering that we are supposed to be a gathering of Christians but for now I allow for rebellion and certain displays of anarchy. They simply prove that the message has been driven home. It may be distasteful at first, but we all know that there's always more going on underneath the surface.

And for my part, there are times when you must call a thing by its name to provoke it to look in the mirror.

netotse: this your 'necessarily' sha...it's just. . .somehow. The angle that I'm looking at it is from causing your brother or sister to sin, so for me the issues we are discussing are applicable beyond the subject of the clothes we wear.

About the first, the "necessarily" uncertainty, I assure you that I understand. However, if the Spirit of the Fountain of Wisdom, the All-Knowing, the All-Seeing One Himself has become one with your spirit, you can hardly remain unintelligent, blind and foolish, can you?

About the second part, I'm sorry that I did not explain the exercise to you when you first showed up. We actually are limiting our exercises here to the topics in discourse. So whatever you said would very likely be read entirely in the light of the issue being discussed. And the issue here was about female dressing. Please forgive me for that oversight.

netotse: I wholly agree with you. One small question though, what do you mean when you say God can override human weakness to produce perfection? IMO for the fact God made something, it's already perfect (remember the scene about counting fingers in bruce almighty?).

BTW, you wouldn't happen to be implying I'm trying to adjust the bible would you?

I see what you mean. However, Bruce Almighty was a movie, not quite the Bible itself It did stay admirably close to the truth about God but it still took liberties so I would not judge God all by what I find in Bruce Almighty. Yes, I've seen they movie too and I absolutely loved it. Anyway, the Bible itself says that even though God had looked at the work of His Hands and pronounced it all good, at some point He couldn't call it good anymore. As Jesus's Parable about the wheat and tares point out, an enemy came in and spoilt the work. So there really is such a thing as human weakness and it is not in itself a good or perfect thing although God's Purposes cannot be hindered by even it.

No. I was not, in fact. In my response to you I spoke both generally and particularly. The sentiment that the Bible needs adjusting has been expressed before on this thread and I was addressing that because it fit into what I wanted to say to you as well. I needed you also to appreciate that the Bible was not mistaken when it focused its admonition on dressing on the woman and said very little indeed to the man. It was only that that I addressed with that statement. You yourself did not attempt to adjust the Bible as far as I saw but you were close enough to occasion that answer that I expanded to accommodate those who have already fallen into that error.

uj_sizzle:
So long there aren't shirtless men in it, I'm good.

Haven't seen you around here before though, so welcome

Thanks...I wrongly assumed the religion section in NL was all about pointless arguments. I have learnt otherwise so...


My story (it's an anti-climax)
I work in manufacturing so the ratio of men-to-women is something in the order of 30 to 1. in fact most of the women in my plant are married(like 90%). To make things worse, we're located in a rural area so it's safe to assume we're a group of very lustful men...lol.

For some reason, we needed to get an interpreter and here comes along this hot girl(or lady if you will), she's been working with us on or off since november. Early this year we run into each other at the estate and we get talking and somewhere along the line she mentions that engineers are "pervs" (her words not mine). She said she had worked with two engineering companies(one in lagos) and it was the same experience.


Scene 2, we were discussing another day(like most translators she's very friendly) and I asked why she wore her hair the way she did and she says her church doesn't subscribe to processing hair, we talk a bit further and I get she's not into make up and all that but she believes in looking good(she complained about us constantly giving her ugly uniforms...lol). From the discussion I can tell she believes in God beyond the sunday, sunday schedule that a lot of us subscribe to.

Scene 3, In April, it was her final day(or one of them) and she was walking past and one of the technicians she was working with was telling her bye through the glass windows, after they finished talking he kept staring, I had been behind him throughout the entire episode and the bros didn't notice me, we sha used him to "cure" in the office as per it's bosoms you were looking at throughout the whole time she was here, you didn't learn anything that's why the equipment is still spoiling, one of the senior engineers let's call him John, now remarks that Jane girl sef, she will now pack the thing very well, she knows what she is doing, someone now tells him to calm down, he now continues, twice I've given her larger uniforms so that her breasts will not be that obvious but she doesn't wear them. The babe is at least a D-cup and she wears medium t-shirts. (all this was light-hearted banter)

End of story.

Now I dont think she is deliberately trying to seduce guys but for me after John said he had stylishly tried to get her to wear less form fitting clothing which she probably considers as not being stylish I began to see how easy it would be for her to conclude engineers were "pervs", you have a friendly, hot babe working with you, of course you would be tempted to try you luck. She didn't mention any bad experience though.

when next she comes around I plan to ask her what her idea of balance between the pervy attention and the fashionable dressing is.

For me I think toning down on the dressing e.g. not wearing tight jeans and wearing t-shirts one size larger would more than half the number of pervs she has to deal with(maybe two sizes in the case of tshirts she...she's that set...lol). That's before we even go to her being a christian and having a duty not to deliberately cause her brothers to sin. what do you think?

@Ihedinobi2
no worries.

Of which, I dont like the film (Bruce Almighty) in any way, shape or form (Jim Carey's form of comedy doesn't appeal to me). That scene just struck a chord with me. Once God says it, it comes into being, it doesn't matter whether it defies logic or not.

this is a 23 second clip of the scene, it's the scene where Jim Carey character is playing how many fingers am I holding behind my back with the "God" character and Jim tries to be smart.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sE1IsAPK90

if you cant view the video, this is what happens after.

http://www.moviefancentral.com/images/pictures/review56017/jim-carrey-7-fingers.jpg

netotse:
Thanks...I wrongly assumed the religion section in NL was all about pointless arguments. I have learnt otherwise so...

You are not wrong Sir. Here looks cool because it's just a chatbox.

netotse: @Ihedinobi2
no worries.

Of which, I dont like the film (Bruce Almighty) in any way, shape or form (Jim Carey's form of comedy doesn't appeal to me). That scene just struck a chord with me. Once God says it, it comes into being, it doesn't matter whether it defies logic or not.

this is a 23 second clip of the scene, it's the scene where Jim Carey character is playing how many fingers am I holding behind my back with the "God" character and Jim tries to be smart.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sE1IsAPK90

if you cant view the video, this is what happens after.

http://www.moviefancentral.com/images/pictures/review56017/jim-carrey-7-fingers.jpg

I remember the scene. Oddly though, somehow it was the scene I thought of when you talked about God's perfection. I still can't tell how I made the connection.

So sorry you hated the movie. Irreverence is totally unappealing no matter where you find it and it poisons the best things. I only loved the movie for the parts of it that honored God. Jim Carey's art in itself holds no interest for me.