RE: Women's clothes?
January 16, 2016 at 8:20 pm
(This post was last modified: January 16, 2016 at 8:22 pm by MTL.)
(January 16, 2016 at 7:36 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:(January 16, 2016 at 7:21 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Are you sure you're up for this MK? We're discussing how a woman's curvaceous body looks under yoga pants. Or is your being up the reason you're here? (Pro tip: no unsolicited dick pictures.)
I live in the west. I've been to beaches. I don't think evil of women who dress that way, but I do think more of women who dress more modestly. I don't judge woman to be bad character or anything for how they dress, but there are virtues, there is light, there is unseen beauty and glory to human, that if people want to walk the higher path, have to adopt certain way to dress.
(bold, mine)
Oh, bullshit.
What doesn't sit well with me is the less-than-nuanced line you draw between "Modest" or "Immodest".
I don't dress sexy, most of the time.
that doesn't mean that I NEVER dress sexy at all.
I am not dressing modestly, during the day, for the sake of modesty, but for practicality.
But, like I said, I will go to a fetish night, and dress very sexy, indeed.
So I take issue with this hamfisted, clumsy, black-and-white method of labeling women
as being either "modest" and "immodest"
because it doesn't allow that THE SAME WOMAN might dress demurely, at one time, for one reason,
and then dress in a confident, sexy way, at a different time, for a different reason...
(and NEITHER of those might be for the sake of a man)
and just because she is dressed modestly, that does NOT necessarily mean that she is virtuous,
and just because she is dressed sexy, that does NOT necessarily mean that she is NOT virtuous.
I've known uptight, straightlaced librarian types who would put poison in your tea,
and I've known some very liberated people in the fetish scene and LGBT community
who would jump in front of a train to save a stranger.
Virtue has nothing to do with dress. Nothing.