Should Women be Held Accountable for Men's Sexual Feelings?

[Robert.Evans]

Maybe some people once they take a stand can't HEAR. IT IS YOU (I am yelling) who make modest mean covered. Actually why doesn't the Bible say people should not LOOK at other people if they don't have enough clothes on? Also, how much on according to WHO by the way?

Who decides how much is enough?

1 Corinthians 11:10 It is for this reason that a woman ought ...
biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-10.htm

It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels

Was that not to do with covering?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Women should dress so that men don't get aroused is God's law according to some people.
Then what does this mean?
1 Thessalonians 4:4
that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable,

No one is saying women shouldn't be careful not to dress like the woman in the video who is "what all woman should be". We are saying God says for her to dress herself, not dress so that other people will remain "chaste". She should dress in a way that protects her chasteness, not the man's chasteness. Swimming won't damage a woman's chasteness. It's THOUGHTS of doing it naked under water that might.

And does not 4.4 mean how we effect one another also/ Did not Paul show that in the eating of meat?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I wish men and women would stop blaming each other for their short comings. If you 'sin,' (or however you wish to view it).... OWN IT.
Don't blame anyone but yourself.

We live in a world where there are temptations everywhere. If you think the world around you is going to change because you can't handle temptation, it isn't going to happen.

A recovering alcoholic shouldn't go into a bar, for example. If he does...he shouldn't blame the bartender if he gets drunk, and he shouldn't expect there to be a shut down of all bars, so he can master his addiction better.

Own your own life choices.

And getting aroused because you find a woman sexy...is not such a bad thing. Sexuality isn't shameful. It can be a problem if you act out your arousal in ways that infringe on other's rights, etc. But, no one should feel ashamed for having a biological reaction towards someone of the opposite sex, whom you find smokin' hot.

Well I agree with most of that I think. But I don't see anyone saying that they will think of someone else. There seems to be a couldn't care less attitude to everyone else, which I think has been slowly building for some decades now. You are right, we are responsibe for our actions, and I don't know anyone who is not saying that. But surely we could just think of someone else as well, eh... please.... pretty please... what do you think?

Perhaps the bartender would be wise not to build his pub by the local AA.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Because the OP specifically inquired about feelings and you've opted to focus on actions.



What makes me think that you haven't read the thread's title?



I'll keep that in mind the next time a doctrinal issue flares up between two theists.



But only if the other allows themselves to be led.



Allow me to reiterate: People should be held accountable for their own feelings. They should also be held accountable for their actions. If your actions have harmed someone, you should be taken to task for it.

However, I see no reason to hold mere feelings to the same standard as actions. If I were (for some unimaginable reason) to call you a name ... who has consented to have their feelings hurt if there are in fact any hurt feelings involved?



Organisms are machines. I cannot help it if you don't like that fact, but that's what they are. It doesn't mean that organisms don't have feelings.

...

Tread carefully. Holding one person accountable for the feelings of another person isn't all that different from holding gun manufacturers liable for the damage done by gun nuts.

How do you manage to answer every sentence of mine yet say nothing? It is puzzle to me.
The last sentence is not remotely similar.
I agree that people should be held to account for their actions, yes. I don't know anyone who is not saying that. But I am saying we could think of others also, and how are actions might effect them. And to be clear, we do that all the time anyway. It is this subject which seems to be a problem, and always is when women are involved. There just seems to be certain topics that must not be mentioned, and not judged.
Why should we not consider others? Is it not selfish to not do so?

 

[savagewind]

'Morning Savage!
OK..... It's time to turn this around.
A biceps and pectorals man, masculine in the extreme, announces that he will no longer wear a T shirt in public because he feels that it is arousing women and drawing their hearts away from God (etc etc)

I have always thought you have all your screws. But now? I do not know what you are talking about. He takes off his shirt to draw people away from God????

What would be the kind of responses we might hear about his message? Some would laugh, some would accuse him of attention seeking, some would call him a vanity stricken idiot, some would declare that he just does not turn them on, others might say that he looked positively ugly.

If I saw any person without a shirt I would think he/she doesn't have a shirt on. I might wonder what happened to his or her shirt. If it was a woman with no shirt I might pray "God please watch over me to keep me sane" If she was gorgeous I might think "I'll never look like that". OK?

Now, all you have to do is apply the 'not a turn-on' one to Veronica and you've got the gist of my reaction. But the whole lot of reactions as shown could apply.

Did Veronica ever say she dresses to turn men on?

And so, turned around, it looks sad.... to me.

It is sad that still people believe God tells people to dress, not for themselves but for other people. SOCIETY which Jesus says we are not to be a part says to dress for others.

Is there stuff about Veronica I should know before I can talk about it?

 

[savagewind]

There used to be a thing call streaking. If I saw it I would not be turned on by those people. Who would? Haha

 

[savagewind]

1 Corinthians 11:10 It is for this reason that a woman ought ...
biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-10.htm

It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels

Was that not to do with covering?

If you could pay attention you would see I am not arguing that. I am arguing
1. Modest means covered when it really means appropriate
2. God says for us to dress for other people's consciences, not our own consciences.

Go ahead and answer for the hundredth time totally ignoring what I just said.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If you could pay attention you would see I am not arguing that. I am arguing
1. Modest means covered when it really means appropriate
2. God says for us to dress for other people's consciences, not our own consciences.

Go ahead and answer for the hundredth time totally ignoring what I just said.

Number 2 sounds the same as what I am saying!
Look, let's not make this complicated eh. I think we should be covered well, which is traditional in the middle east, and, as far as I am concerned, has been corrupted by the west with their immorality.
You don't it seems.
I have no problem with that. I have no problem with what any woman wears. It is not me you answer to, it is God. We all take our chances here, and then we see.

 

[savagewind]

Number 2 sounds the same as what I am saying!
Look, let's not make this complicated eh. I think we should be covered well, which is traditional in the middle east, and, as far as I am concerned, has been corrupted by the west with their immorality.
You don't it seems.
I have no problem with that. I have no problem with what any woman wears. It is not me you answer to, it is God. We all take our chances here, and then we see.

Come on! Give it some thought. I am arguing #2, not agreeing. LOL
It is in the West since Mohamed. What about Esther? You did not comment.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Come on! Give it some thought. I am arguing #2, not agreeing. LOL
It is in the West since Mohamed. What about Esther? You did not comment.

I think you should re-read your post again. It does not say what you think it says.

What about Esther?

What about the law?

 

[savagewind]

Can no one consider the evolution of MIND? I can. Make a rule that women should cover and of course they don't want to, then you have minds judging those who won't. Say there is a law to be covered and what have you? No woman can be seen. So I say again what about Esther? If she was a righteous woman she could not have done God's WILL when she did.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Can no one consider the evolution of MIND?

Yes I can.

I can. Make a rule that women should cover and of course they don't want to,

Why don't they want to? Tell me.

then you have minds judging those who won't.

We all judge something, you are doing that now.

Say there is a law to be covered and what have you?

Decency.

No woman can be seen. So I say again what about Esther? If she was a righteous woman she could not have done God's WILL when she did.

You will have to explain. I am not that familiar with out re reading

 

[savagewind]

I think you should re-read your post again. It does not say what you think it says.

If you could pay attention you would see I am not arguing that. I am arguing against (Sorry about that). I forgot against. I know how to read with understanding. I assume other people do too.
1. Modest means covered when it really means appropriate
2. God says for us to dress for other people's consciences, not our own consciences.

Go ahead and answer for the hundredth time totally ignoring what I just said.

What about Esther?

She was dressed by the king's servant. A worldly king.

What about the law?

I do not know but I know you explain it like a Pharisee does.

 

[savagewind]

Yes I can.

But do you put it into practice?

Why don't they want to? Tell me.

I suppose you never imagined wearing a burqa and I wonder why?

We all judge something, you are doing that now.

And your idea is that God judges us for our dress.

Decency.

I agree but I disagree God says decency matters not for the person deciding decency over indecency but for the people judging decency and indecency . That is actually the last time I am going to say it (I hope)

You will have to explain. I am not that familiar with out re reading

Esther dressed for the king to be beautiful in public and I have to believe she wasn't wearing a burqa.

 

[Robert.Evans]

She was dressed by the king's servant. A worldly king.

I do not know but I know you explain it like a Pharisee does.

So what are you saying? How should people dress?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Christian Blogger Swears Off Leggings in Order to Honor God

Should women be held accountable for men's sexual feelings? Why or why not?

Obviously not. There is a difference however between being provocative and being responsible for innate feelings within other individuals. The same applies for men.

 

[savagewind]

So what are you saying? How should people dress?

Some people read God says "cover up women". God does not say how much cover is right so man says cover all of her. Every inch just to be safe. So one woman is claustrophobic and one woman is hot. It matters not because? They're just women. That is what I hear. So tell me, why doesn't it matter that a woman does not like to do God's will which is to cover up every inch like you say it does? Tell me please.

On another note what do you think evolves from women being physically hidden? Tell me if you can think.

 

[savagewind]

I think that women ovulating attract men more than skin does. Maybe world should have a law that ovulating women should stay out of public places where there are men. What do you think? Why didn't God think of it?

 

[savagewind]

The question is why is there no scripture forbidding ovulating women from going out in public? I do not know. Maybe under a burqa men don't know.

 

[oldbadger]

I have always thought you have all your screws. But now? I do not know what you are talking about.

My God.... you thought I had all my nuts and bolts? I need more than a service and oil change....... !!
You don't know what I'm talking about?
Savage..... I don't know what I'm talking about.

He takes off his shirt to draw people away from God????

No! He says he won't go about in a T shirt anymore because it makes him too attractive and sexy, causing unnecessary arousal in women. Which is what Veronica said...

Did Veronica ever say she dresses to turn men on?

She implied that. She said, 'I must no longer wear leggings because they arouse men and .... etc'

It is sad that still people believe God tells people to dress, not for themselves but for other people. SOCIETY which Jesus says we are not to be a part says to dress for others.

I don't mind what V wears, but clearly she is worried about attracting men and turning their hearts from God.

Is there stuff about Veronica I should know before I can talk about it?

No... you've got it all....... but my man analogy was close (ish) and it made him look vain and big headed, so..... that's what I thought of Veronica's proposal.