Extended families were basically destroyed in the first half of the 20th century.  We need them back.  We don't need to go back to family farms to do that.  

Men need to grow up.  The image of their wife and the blessed mother should be able to obviate all other things. Immoral dressing is immoral. but so is acting upon it by the guy--this post makes it sound like men are just barn animals with no control.

Quote from: Marcelino

Extended families were basically destroyed in the first half of the 20th century.  We need them back.  We don't need to go back to family farms to do that.  

We had no farms, but I grew up with 4 grandparents and 4 great grandparents within three blocks of my home. My daughter grew up within a mile of all grandparents two great grandparents five aunts and uncles...you don't need the farm to continue that extending, fortunately.

Loriann, first, thank you for your post to me.   I'm sorry your original one was eaten.

Quote from: Loriann

Men need to grow up.  The image of their wife and the blessed mother should be able to obviate all other things. Immoral dressing is immoral. but so is acting upon it by the guy--this post makes it sound like men are just barn animals with no control.

On this comment, I have to say I think you're over simplifying the issue. In some situations men are responsible for the company they keep and the places they frequent.  If you go to a bar that you know will have servers in immodest dress, well--avoiding that establishment is good idea.   I don't think that is what Marcelino is talking about though.  

If you go to a shopping mall that has Aerie, Victorias Secret, or Abercrombie, you simply cannot avoid being exposed to gigantic images of nearly nude models.  It's sad.  Custody of the eyes is important, but would be hard for anyone to completely miss it.
 
There are many other situations where people can't control what they are exposed to. The park, the beach, even the library.  Immodesty is an accepted norm.  I was very much a "good girl" in high school and I am ashamed of the way I dressed. In my mind it was preppy and cute...in reality...not so much.

 When I first really thought about modesty it was because a priest brought it up to me.  I was always dressed fine for mass, but one time I had catechism class and didn't choose wisely. After the class we were talking and he presented the idea that maybe my disastrous dating history (inability to find a guy who didn't expect intimacy right away) had something to do with the type of man I was attracting in the first place. It was embarrassing and sort of offensive, but sadly I knew exactly why it was being brought up at this moment.  

 He later gave me some things to read and one of them talked about how the person who administers the poison, might actually be even more at fault than the one who drinks it.  While modesty has been a process, I really did start to think about it differently right from that statement.  I came to understand it even more after coming on this board and realizing that there really are guys who appreciate purity.  It was a sad but important discovery. It came a little too late for me in some ways, but it is hard to have complete "regret" when you have a child.  

I think the disconnect might be in the idea of "acting upon it"  sin can be as simple as an impure thought.  I don't envy men that have to be exposed to immodesty against their will all.the.time. and then have to keep from impure thoughts.

Besides the provocative clothing there are other situations that lead people to sin, such as dirty movies, filthy magazines, blasphemous books, romance novels, pornography, the soaps, television, the local drugstore with porn on the magazine rack and handing out condoms to teenagers, sɛҳuąƖ education in school, the school and even churches handing out condoms, Hollywood celebrating teenage pregnancy, the local videostore with porn, etc.

Quote from: Raoul76

Hunding in Die Walkuere said:

Quote

Sacred is my hearth:
sacred hold thou my house.
(He takes off his armor, and gives it to Sieglinde.)
(to Sieglinde)
Set the meal now for us!
(Sieglinde hangs the arms on the branches of the
ash tree, fetches food and drink from the storeroom,
and prepares supper.)

Hunding is not supposed to be a sympathetic character, Tele... Not that Wagner's opinions mean much.

That's not the point.  Watch the end of The Quiet Man.

In just a couple generations we've gone to the man of the house being expected to supplicate for his wife to do her duty.

As if he doesn't walk on pins and needles he doesn't deserve it.

Quote from: PenitentWoman

I was sharing my feelings, I never once referenced you. You have personalized my words and applied them to yourself. If you know you are joyful and obedient, why be defensive? Why are you so bothered by me sharing my opinion?  It is the one thing I feel like I have really figured out and you just keep blasting everything I say. I wish we could discuss this differently. It is hard for me to be open minded when you instead of giving good reasons why my view is flawed, you take it as an attack on yourself. That isn't productive, but I'd love if you could be more specific so I can learn.

You don't have to say my name. It's implied by statements like "This isn't the first board where I've nauseated women by stating things like this." Then when I say we aren't nauseated by the ideals you express just the attitude that you know better than anyone else, you switch it again to us being nauseated by the ideals. It's a shifty and terribly annoying little word game.

When discussing why a man should not pick up a dish your reply is "why can't you welcome him?" and going on and on about other things as if a husband doing a dish means the wife (me, as it's my example) is not obedient or submissive or joyful etc... Let's not insult the intelligence here. There are ways in which you manage to imply these things in every post you make.