(Controversial content) a letter to girls in the pew in front of us...

[SKL]

Or stated otherwise, the boys could go topless.

 

They didn't say the girls could not go topless.  Though I doubt anyone would test that.  I believe the camp was for ages 6+ and most girls want their chests covered in public at that age.

[mommaduck]

When my son was four we were at the airport for a 6am flight, so the lights were still low and it was the sun was just starting to peak out outside the terminal.  The windows were about four rows in front of us.  As this poor woman walked past the darkened windows, with early morning light backlighting her, in full black garb and full face veil completely covering her head, walking at a good clip so she had a little material flowing behind her, my delight morning bird of son who wouldn't know a quiet voice if it hit him over the head announced to the still echoie terminal

 

"MOM LOOK!!! IT'S DARTH VADAR!!!"  And he was completely serious. 

 

In the end, while I could have briefly died on the spot, I ended up cracking up.  I figured either the woman wouldn't understand him, notice him, or had heard worse things and let's face it, from a four year, DV is pretty high praise. 

 

I ended up feeling worse for the poor woman sitting right across me. When he said it she started choking badly on her cereal and yet couldn't stop laughing at the same time.  She had 8 and 10 year old boys.  I am sure she had BTDT....

 

So see even at that young age, you turn their heads and make them fixate on you!!  LOL!!  

 

XD That's great! I'm sure, if she heard, she was smiling underneath.

[LucyStoner]

I don't see this as a problem though, at least not in the case of a one-piece bathing suit, which is not an oppressive article of clothing. It seems preferable to being reactive after girls have been victimized.

 

A girl's swim suit, or other clothing choice, can not prevent her from being victimized.

 

I do see it as a problem that our culture spends more time telling girls to not be attacked rather than telling everyone not to attack anyone. "Don't rape people" should be a louder message than "don't get raped."

[stripe]

Still the same thing applies- why wouldn't men be required to wear old fashioned men's swim suits that cover their chest.

Those are so cute!

 

A lot of boys nowadays are wearing swim shirts. I think for sun protection. And to keep warm, so say my kids. Mine do. But I like those wrestler style tops. Roar!

 

I hate the bikini suits for men. Sorry but no. Especially if tufts of hair are coming out. Seen that many times from old guys.

[Jean in Newcastle]

They didn't say the girls could not go topless.  Though I doubt anyone would test that.  I believe the camp was for ages 6+ and most girls want their chests covered in public at that age.

A local (ish) woman recently won a case in court allowing her to go topless at the swimming pool because she had a double mastectomy and shows less than a topless man.  

[SKL]

A girl's swim suit, or other clothing choice, can not prevent her from being victimized.

 

I do see it as a problem that our culture spends more time telling girls to not be attacked rather than telling everyone not to attack anyone. "Don't rape people" should be a louder message than "don't get raped."

 

What is wrong if the organizers just don't want to deal with "pantsing" and other bikini bottom issues and it's easier just to say "wear a one piece"?

 

Again, it has nothing to do with blaming/shaming anyone and everything to do with prevention.  The kids don't even have to know the reason for the rule.

 

Of course a clothing choice cannot prevent every thing that can be done to a girl, but that doesn't mean a simple clothing rule that does prevent some things is a bad rule.

 

And, nobody said they should spend "more time telling girls not to get attacked rather than telling everyone not to attack anyone."  There are plenty of rules about people not touching other people.  Lots of time is spent telling people the rules of proper conduct.  In comparison the amount of time laying out dress codes is much less I'm sure.  Nobody is saying they are going to have a dress code so they don't have to put effort into teaching boys not to be a$$holes.

[Joker]

I've yet to find a one piece bathing suit that fits my youngest dd. She isn't comfortable and doesn't look modest in any of them. There are many two piece suits that do the job, though. So, I would love to see how those in charge of events that stipulate one piece suits (thankfully our parish does not) would handle my dd showing up in one.

 

 

[Shahrazad]

I don't see this as a problem though, at least not in the case of a one-piece bathing suit, which is not an oppressive article of clothing.  It seems preferable to being reactive after girls have been victimized.

 

I don't understand this at all. When I've heard people make arguments that hijab or abaya or the clothes that I choose to wear are somehow oppressive, they're linking it to the ideas behind it (or at very least their perception of those ideas as someone feeling compelled to cover parts of their body or hide their beauty as a deterrent to male attraction especially when they feel the woman is not making that choice freely and independently), not the actual yardage of cloth the woman is wearing. If the message behind it is the same (or worse), how is a one-piece any different than a burqa? As for the latter part of your statement, it is independent of girls being victimized because the emphasis has to be on guys not to assault and humiliate a woman by undressing her against her will as a prank in order to work as a preventative and there has to be punishment for that as a reactive. Even if she DOES wear a one-piece, if the mindset is still there, the guys will still find ways to do similar things.

[SKL]

I don't understand this at all. When I've heard people make arguments that hijab or abaya or the clothes that I choose to wear are somehow oppressive, they're linking it to the ideas behind it (or at very least their perception of those ideas as someone feeling compelled to cover parts of their body or hide their beauty as a deterrent to male attraction especially when they feel the woman is not making that choice freely and independently), not the actual yardage of cloth the woman is wearing. If the message behind it is the same (or worse), how is a one-piece any different than a burqa? As for the latter part of your statement, it is independent of girls being victimized because the emphasis has to be on guys not to assault and humiliate a woman by undressing her against her will as a prank in order to work as a preventative and there has to be punishment for that as a reactive. Even if she DOES wear a one-piece, if the mindset is still there, the guys will still find ways to do similar things.

 

As to the first part of your paragraph, I am not sure what you are getting at but I think you are reading too much intent into what I said.  As to the second point, particularly the bolded, why does it have to be one or the other?  To prevent theft, we have a commandment against theft, and criminal laws and enforcement, but we also lock our doors unless we live in a very safe area.  To prevent being injured in a car accident, we have driver's ed, testing/licensing, laws and enforcement for reckless driving, and we ourselves drive carefully / defensively, but we also wear seat belts.  If I ask people to put on a seat belt, does that equate to saying that other people can drive as recklessly as they want to?  If I lock my door, does that mean I am switching all accountability from thieves to victims?  No, it's just adding another layer of safety.

[Arctic Bunny]

Speedos- the male equivalent of the yoga pant.

 

So will One Step Closer To Whoredom have male dancers sporting these?

We already agreed they'd be wearing kilts, and having speedos under the kilts seems contrary to the natural (ha!) order of things.

[Free]

As to the first part of your paragraph, I am not sure what you are getting at but I think you are reading too much intent into what I said.  As to the second point, particularly the bolded, why does it have to be one or the other?  To prevent theft, we have a commandment against theft, and criminal laws and enforcement, but we also lock our doors unless we live in a very safe area.  To prevent being injured in a car accident, we have driver's ed, testing/licensing, laws and enforcement for reckless driving, and we ourselves drive carefully / defensively, but we also wear seat belts.  If I ask people to put on a seat belt, does that equate to saying that other people can drive as recklessly as they want to?  If I lock my door, does that mean I am switching all accountability from thieves to victims?  No, it's just adding another layer of safety.

 

But why do only girls need this extra layer of safety and not the boys?

 

[*Lulu*]

But why do only girls need this extra layer of safety and not the boys?

 

I've never seen a girl pantsed in a pool.

 

I've seen plenty of boys pantsed though.

 

I've also seen girls with suits that tie behind the neck have the ties undone.

[MrsMommy]

But why do only girls need this extra layer of safety and not the boys?

 

 

Seriously. The day I start dressing in order to keep from getting pantsed (or worse), is the day I stop leaving the house. No one should ever have to think "Hey, I better not wear this, because if someone decides to try to take my clothes off when I don't want them to, it will come off easily."

 

It's just nothing like locking your door or wearing a seat belt. All people, girls and boys, should have the expectation that their clothes will stay on if they want them to. No safety net necessary, or we'd all be wearing one-piece jumpsuits. Not that some people don't wear those anyway, but at least that's their choice.

[Joanne]

As to the first part of your paragraph, I am not sure what you are getting at but I think you are reading too much intent into what I said.  As to the second point, particularly the bolded, why does it have to be one or the other?  To prevent theft, we have a commandment against theft, and criminal laws and enforcement, but we also lock our doors unless we live in a very safe area.  To prevent being injured in a car accident, we have driver's ed, testing/licensing, laws and enforcement for reckless driving, and we ourselves drive carefully / defensively, but we also wear seat belts.  If I ask people to put on a seat belt, does that equate to saying that other people can drive as recklessly as they want to?  If I lock my door, does that mean I am switching all accountability from thieves to victims?  No, it's just adding another layer of safety.

 

For the love of all that is, please tell me we are NOT suggesting that sexual assault is caused by wanton women instead of a twisted, unwell mind on the part of the attacker?

 

Please tell me that in this thread on TWTM board we have not set victims (by the numbers, especially women) back 50 years?

 

Just to be clear, there is NOTHING a woman wears or doesn't wear that makes her in any way responsible for being attacked.

[GailV]

I've yet to find a one piece bathing suit that fits my youngest dd. She isn't comfortable and doesn't look modest in any of them. There are many two piece suits that do the job, though. So, I would love to see how those in charge of events that stipulate one piece suits (thankfully our parish does not) would handle my dd showing up in one.

 

Yep, my dd's choices in one piece suits will either be sawing into her pubic symphysis due to lack of enough length in the torso OR flapping around her hips and bust with several inches of width to spare.  Either way everyone is going to get more of an anatomy lesson than they bargained for, and she isn't going to be able to swim.

[Laura Corin]

Still the same thing applies- why wouldn't men be required to wear old fashioned men's swim suits that cover their chest.

 

If Lord Peter can wear one, then I'm all for it.  There's a great description of how sexy Harriet finds him in his swim suit as he walks towards the sea in Have His Carcase.

 

L

[*Lulu*]

The bolded sounds eerily like the mindset you are fighting against. Perhaps what you were taught while young is still guiding your thoughts and reactions. Perhaps since I never accepted this mindset while young (though I certainly was exposed to it), I am not disposed to accept it now either.

 

It sounds like the mindset I'm fighting against?

Maybe my reading comprehension is off tonight.

Could you elaborate?

Oh wait.

 

I'm catching up to you now I think.

 

The idea that patriarchal theological ideals are insidious is like the patriarchy moments assertions that worldlyness is like a little leavening ruining the batch.

 

Gotcha.

 

I must say that my initial reaction to this is hostility. I mean if I were adding a song to the One Step Closer to Whoredom album about this exchange it would definitely be more death metal than Mariah in style.

 

I will try rereading it in the morning, post coffee.

----------------------------------------------

 

Good morning! I am on my second tumbler of iced coffee and think I may be ready to try this again.

 

So what I am taking from your posts is:

 

It is okay for someone to use thier theology to say woman should dress in way ACB and we should live and let live.

 

When I say that the above is a piece of a bigger issue that can cause serious physical, emotional and spiritual damage it is me being intolerant.

 

When you say you have not seen the modesty culture as an issue in the churches you've participated in it is sharing your experience.

 

When I say I have seen it as an issue in the churches I've been in it is me trying to silence other opinions.

 

When you say you have been exposed to some of this theology and not been negatively impacted it is you crediting your superb resilience and ability to reason.

 

When I say that the stuff is poison and slips in so easily it is my unresilent, indoctrinated mind being overwhelmed with thoughts too big for my comprehension.

 

 

I see.

 

I'm thinking I'll need more than coffee to ignore the condescension you've thrown my way in this thread.

 

 

Edited to correct autocorrect's corrections!

[Desert Strawberry]

I do believe that someone is looking for an argument for it's own sake. 

I grew up in the pool, was a swim teacher, lifeguard, competitive swimmer, etc. I recall one piece rules in the days before sports two pieces (such a freeing innovation) and tankinis. The reason was that flimsy bikini tops have a tendency to pop off when girls play and jump in the water. The bottoms weren't a problem, but there were often very embarrassed girls-myself included once. 

[stripe]

Even if she DOES wear a one-piece, if the mindset is still there, the guys will still find ways to do similar things.

 

Here is an example of a PSA targeting male behavior as the problem in harassment of women Egypt:

 

 

[Scrub Jay]

I do believe that someone is looking for an argument for it's own sake. 

 

 

I find this is often the case with a select few posters.  Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary often pops up in my mind.

 

[SKL]

OK this is getting silly. "Bring a one-piece bathing suit" now means "rape is always caused by the victim."

 

I just can't get all passionate about sending my kid to camp with a one-piece swimsuit. Every rule is not created to keep women down.

 

And BLA5, nope you don't get it and I'm done with this conversation for good.

[Rebel Yell]

I don't see this as a problem though, at least not in the case of a one-piece bathing suit, which is not an oppressive article of clothing.  It seems preferable to being reactive after girls have been victimized.

 

 

I really don't want to go bck through all 17 pages, but I'm pretty sure no one has said that a 1-piece swimsuit for girls is oppressive. A binini or tankini can "fail" or fall down or be pulled down. A 1-piece can also fail, ride up, unfasten & fall down, etc. Boys swim trunks and speedos can fall down.

 

I don't even have a problem with a 1-piece suit rule at camps or anywhere. By their own personal choice, my girls wear: Bikini bottoms w/swim(board) shorts and a wide bandeau bikini top OR a 1-piece very-low-back w/shorts over, a rockin' Marilyn Monroe-style swimsuit, and ahalter tankini with bikini bottoms/board shorts.- so all are very covered by their own choice- not because of rules.

 

What *is* oppressive and I *do* have aproblem with is when the rule is explained as having the sole purpose of not causing boys to stumble, however it may be worded.

 

I do not have enough knowledge to discuss other situations, such as Muslim women wearing full-coverage suits or same-gender swim sessions. I fully respect and support that, especially as I understand it fits with their dress and customs in everyday life.

 

But the "cover up and be unattractive" for boys is not OK with me.

[*Lulu*]

OK this is getting silly. "Bring a one-piece bathing suit" now means "rape is always caused by the victim."

 

I just can't get all passionate about sending my kid to camp with a one-piece swimsuit. Every rule is not created to keep women down.

 

And BLA5, nope you don't get it and I'm done with this conversation for good.

No one is saying one piece bathing suits=victim blaming.

 

Organizations have guidelines, dress codes, age cutoffs, etc.

 

If the rule is based on faulty logic wouldn't you call it into question or seek to get it changed?

 

Saying one piece suits are more covering is faulty logic. That isn't to say that we should never follow a group's rule based on faulty logic; sometimes you just deal. But I don't see anything wrong with saying that a thing is, at is core, based on outdated or misguided thinking.

[Renthead Mommy]

OK this is getting silly. "Bring a one-piece bathing suit" now means "rape is always caused by the victim."

 

I just can't get all passionate about sending my kid to camp with a one-piece swimsuit. Every rule is not created to keep women down.

 

And BLA5, nope you don't get it and I'm done with this conversation for good.

 

 

Haven't you said that a few times already? 

[*Lulu*]

And how in the heck did we get from properly attired girls in church to bikini clad hussies?

 

Do all modesty/clothing thread end in the swimming pool?

 

If I yell "skinny dip" have I Godwin-ed the thread?

[PeacefulChaos]

Random and not exactly modesty related, but speaking of churches overstepping their bounds....

There was one where we used to live that insisted that a married couple not have TeA on Saturday night, because then the husbands mind would be on that rather than on God on Sunday morning.

I always thought it was a bit backwards. The obvious is, of course, that there is no reason whatsoever for a man to be chided for having and enjoying TeA with his wife.

Then I thought, 'wait... Wouldn't he be thinking about it MORE if he hadn't enjoyed the TeA the night before?'

Anyway, I always found that rule hysterical.

And I have no idea how they thought they'd be able to police that.

[*Lulu*]

Random and not exactly modesty related, but speaking of churches overstepping their bounds....

There was one where we used to live that insisted that a married couple not have TeA on Saturday night, because then the husbands mind would be on that rather than on God on Sunday morning.

I always thought it was a bit backwards. The obvious is, of course, that there is no reason whatsoever for a man to be chided for having and enjoying TeA with his wife.

Then I thought, 'wait... Wouldn't he be thinking about it MORE if he hadn't enjoyed the TeA the night before?'

Anyway, I always found that rule hysterical.

And I have no idea how they thought they'd be able to police that.

Okay- that might be even crazier than the yoga pants temptresses!

 

One Step Closer To Whoredom could totally work with that-

 

Making Guacamole On a Saturday Night

[HRAAB]

Random and not exactly modesty related, but speaking of churches overstepping their bounds....

There was one where we used to live that insisted that a married couple not have TeA on Saturday night, because then the husbands mind would be on that rather than on God on Sunday morning.

I always thought it was a bit backwards. The obvious is, of course, that there is no reason whatsoever for a man to be chided for having and enjoying TeA with his wife.

Then I thought, 'wait... Wouldn't he be thinking about it MORE if he hadn't enjoyed the TeA the night before?'

Anyway, I always found that rule hysterical.

And I have no idea how they thought they'd be able to police that.

 

I know of a couple that routinely fast from TeA on Saturday in order to prepare for church services on Sunday. They would also fast from TeA during times like Lent.  I thought - and could totally be wrong - that it is a ....guideline/suggestion... of their church but in no way is it policed.  I don't know what their responsibility was regarding this ...teaching...if it needed to be confessed?

[*Lulu*]

I know of a couple that routinely fast from TeA on Saturday in order to prepare for church services on Sunday. They would also fast from TeA during times like Lent. I thought - and could totally be wrong - that it is a ....guideline/suggestion... of their church but in no way is it policed. I don't know what their responsibility was regarding this ...teaching...if it needed to be confessed?

See if DH and I agreed to something like that because we personally felt convicted it would be one thing. If somebody in religious authority told us we should.......

 

That is way over my comfort line!

 

Of course seeing as our church has services on Saturday evening and Sunday morning this logic would mean DH and I cannot make guacamole on Friday OR Saturday night. I better make sure I don't wear yoga pants when I clean house on Saturday morning- I don't want to be flaunting the forbidden fruit when DH can't partake. (Avocado is a fruit right?)

[*Lulu*]

I feel need to post this:

 

http://www.schrodingerskitten.co.uk/articles/fruit-lies.html

 

Warning- some language that may offend.

[LucyStoner]

I know of a couple that routinely fast from TeA on Saturday in order to prepare for church services on Sunday. They would also fast from TeA during times like Lent. I thought - and could totally be wrong - that it is a ....guideline/suggestion... of their church but in no way is it policed. I don't know what their responsibility was regarding this ...teaching...if it needed to be confessed?

What I always wonder about people I know like this is "why do I know this?" Why do they feel the need to inform others of what days they are not having sex? Is it an alert to absolutely not drop in on them on Monday mornings?

[Firefly]

I find this is often the case with a select few posters.  Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary often pops up in my mind.

 

 

 

Yep.  I came to realize that very quickly yesterday.  Circular logic and arguments that make no sense make me dizzy.  Then I know it's time to bring out the ol' we'll-just-have-to-agree-to-disagree.  It's either that, or please pass the bean dip.  :D

[*Lulu*]

Yep. I came to realize that very quickly yesterday. Circular logic and arguments that make no sense make me dizzy. Then I know it's time to bring out the ol' we'll-just-have-to-agree-to-disagree. It's either that, or please pass the bean dip. :D

 

Just don't offer guacamole!

[HRAAB]

What I always wonder about people I know like this is "why do I know this?" Why do they feel the need to inform others of what days they are not having sex? Is it an alert to absolutely not drop in on them on Monday mornings?

 

In this case, the information came out during a discussion about Lenten spiritual practices at a homeschooling moms' meeting.  The mom was explaining their (non-Catholic) spiritual practices to a group of Catholic homeschooling moms.  In a way I would have preferred to not know that bit of information because up to that point I had been interested in her faith tradition.  

 

When my children were younger, Saturday night was often our only night with work, homeschooling and general life.  Other than quick showers while kids were napping.  I didn't need anymore religious interference in my TeA life, thank you very much.

[mommaduck]

I know of a couple that routinely fast from TeA on Saturday in order to prepare for church services on Sunday. They would also fast from TeA during times like Lent.  I thought - and could totally be wrong - that it is a ....guideline/suggestion... of their church but in no way is it policed.  I don't know what their responsibility was regarding this ...teaching...if it needed to be confessed?

 

Yes, this is Tradition. It's part of fasting and preparation. However, no, it's NOT policed. No, a good priest, most priests, will NOT question you about this. It's a general guideline...but there is the economia that each individual works with what they are able and where they are at. Intimacy in a marriage is VERY personal. If that couple chose together (CHOSE TOGETHER...two very important words) to follow that guideline, then it is not considered a bad thing...just a very personal decision and may they benefit  from it. I know many outside such faiths may not understand, but it is very different than it being dictated with punishments if one does not follow it. In fact, many would consider any priest that does act in such a manner as abusive (I would avoid such a priest...I do know someone that wants to become a priest and has declared he would not serve communion to any woman that doesn't cover her head, stay at home, homeschool, etc. That is a scary situation and pray he doesn't ever hold such a position). 

 

PS. No, it would not need to be confessed. Some will choose not to take communion if they have had relations the night before, which is the reason for not having sex on Saturday night. Just like we don't have breakfast on Sunday mornings before church...for the same reason. But we do have coffee hour after Liturgy where we can eat and drink.

[HRAAB]

Yes, this is Tradition. It's part of fasting and preparation. However, no, it's NOT policed. No, a good priest, most priests, will NOT question you about this. It's a general guideline...but there is the economia that each individual works with what they are able and where they are at. Intimacy in a marriage is VERY personal. If that couple chose together (CHOSE TOGETHER...two very important words) to follow that guideline, then it is not considered a bad thing...just a very personal decision and may they benefit  from it. I know many outside such faiths may not understand, but it is very different than it being dictated with punishments if one does not follow it. In fact, many would consider any priest that does act in such a manner as abusive (I would avoid such a priest...I do know someone that wants to become a priest and has declared he would not serve communion to any woman that doesn't cover her head, stay at home, homeschool, etc. That is a scary situation and pray he doesn't ever hold such a position). 

 

Thank you for jumping in and explaining.  I was hesitant to say much because I'm sure it would have been wrong.  That's why I said I thought it was a spiritual guideline.  This couple was very strict about this and presented it in that manner, but I assumed that was their interpretation and didn't accurately reflect the entire faith.  I will admit it was a very touchy subject for me at the time and wasn't very open minded about researching it further.

[mommaduck]

Thank you for jumping in and explaining.  I was hesitant to say much because I'm sure it would have been wrong.  That's why I said I thought it was a spiritual guideline.  This couple was very strict about this and presented it in that manner, but I assumed that was their interpretation and didn't accurately reflect the entire faith.  I will admit it was a very touchy subject for me at the time and wasn't very open minded about researching it further.

 

There is the general rule/guideline or traditions of the Church (some are small t's and some are big T's. This would fall under small t's). The strictness may vary from culture to culture/jurisdiction. And then there is economia...basically, the actual application will vary couple to couple. For some, it would be a stumbling block in their marriages and such would not be advisable. This is why the two words, choosing/agreeing together...are so important ;) The full guideline is something that some are called to aim for...but that is also worked towards with babysteps, even for them. There are some couples that can dive right in (many are not those couples). No one is holier than another based on any of this.

[Wheres Toto]

So, I know this was a few pages back but does the one-piece bathing suit rules really not allow rash guards for boys or girls?  :huh:

[Desert Strawberry]

So, I know this was a few pages back but does the one-piece bathing suit rules really not allow rash guards for boys or girls?  :huh:

Not in my pool days. We had kids in rash guards. Not as common as now, but some did wear them.

[stripe]

What I always wonder about people I know like this is "why do I know this?" Why do they feel the need to inform others of what days they are not having sex? Is it an alert to absolutely not drop in on them on Monday mornings?

I agree that all discussions about this should be general, as in, "It may be spiritually enriching to ..." or something like that. Not mentioning names or activities or times. That's too personal, and I believe it's almost never appropriate or helpful.

[Pam in CT]

Well, my sister makes chocolate cupcakes with Guinness and Jameson, those might count as crazy-cakes.

 

Wow.  Guiness AND Jameson?  In one cupcake?

 

:cheers2:

 

I guess I'm an amateur.

[PrairieSong]

Just don't offer guacamole!

I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but that green suit (I am not going back through all the pages to find it, sorry!) is not an avocado. See the prickly things? Avocados don't have those.

 

I would say it's more like this...see the second photo down. Something called a guanabana. Too bad for all you guacamole lovers.

 

http://www.bumsonwheels.com/2010/11/thors-hammer.html

[GailV]

Yes, this is Tradition. It's part of fasting and preparation. However, no, it's NOT policed. No, a good priest, most priests, will NOT question you about this. It's a general guideline...but there is the economia that each individual works with what they are able and where they are at. Intimacy in a marriage is VERY personal. If that couple chose together (CHOSE TOGETHER...two very important words) to follow that guideline, then it is not considered a bad thing...just a very personal decision and may they benefit from it. I know many outside such faiths may not understand, but it is very different than it being dictated with punishments if one does not follow it. In fact, many would consider any priest that does act in such a manner as abusive (I would avoid such a priest...I do know someone that wants to become a priest and has declared he would not serve communion to any woman that doesn't cover her head, stay at home, homeschool, etc. That is a scary situation and pray he doesn't ever hold such a position).

 

PS. No, it would not need to be confessed. Some will choose not to take communion if they have had relations the night before, which is the reason for not having sex on Saturday night. Just like we don't have breakfast on Sunday mornings before church...for the same reason. But we do have coffee hour after Liturgy where we can eat and drink.

Thanks to everyone who has made thoughtful posts such as this in this thread -- there have been many examples throughout the many pages. I am learning so much! And I truly appreciate those of you who try to help me see the world through different eyes as I learn about different traditions and what those traditions mean to many of you.

 

(I just chose this post at random to highlight, but there have been others that have been wonderfully thought provoking.)

[*Lulu*]

Guanabana sounds almost as naughty as guacamole!

[LucyStoner]

I do know someone that wants to become a priest and has declared he would not serve communion to any woman that doesn't cover her head, stay at home, homeschool, etc. That is a scary situation and pray he doesn't ever hold such a position.

 

I am curious what denomination he is? That is scary thinking for sure.

[PrairieSong]

Yes, this is Tradition. It's part of fasting and preparation. However, no, it's NOT policed. No, a good priest, most priests, will NOT question you about this. It's a general guideline...but there is the economia that each individual works with what they are able and where they are at. Intimacy in a marriage is VERY personal. If that couple chose together (CHOSE TOGETHER...two very important words) to follow that guideline, then it is not considered a bad thing...just a very personal decision and may they benefit from it. I know many outside such faiths may not understand, but it is very different than it being dictated with punishments if one does not follow it. In fact, many would consider any priest that does act in such a manner as abusive (I would avoid such a priest...I do know someone that wants to become a priest and has declared he would not serve communion to any woman that doesn't cover her head, stay at home, homeschool, etc. That is a scary situation and pray he doesn't ever hold such a position).

 

PS. No, it would not need to be confessed. Some will choose not to take communion if they have had relations the night before, which is the reason for not having sex on Saturday night. Just like we don't have breakfast on Sunday mornings before church...for the same reason. But we do have coffee hour after Liturgy where we can eat and drink.

Mommaduck, thank you for explaining this. I thought it was only the married Eastern Orthodox priests who observed such a fast.

[OhanaBee]

Yeah, I don't understand the vitriol against the blog post.  I do understand almost everyone disagreeing with it.  I understand most people viewing the author as a naive or immature person.  But I don't understand why any of that should make anyone angry. 

 

I mean, it's an obscure blog post that most people will never see except in the present type of context ("look how crazy this woman is").  It has no power to hurt us or our daughters, unless we know that lady personally and attend her church.

 

People have ideas we disagree with.  Some blog about them.  So what?

 

You're right.  I don't know that person at all and *she* can't hurt me.  However, I do have a family member who reads that blog and others like it, then takes it upon herself to harass my own children about their modesty, or lack thereof.

 

Someone pointed out that my dancer daughter is an adult.  They are absolutely right.  She's away at college - a dance major - and still gets very hurt when comments are made about her outfits, both for dance and for real life.  She has unfriended this family member, but she can't unfriend Grandma who chooses to post pictures and then repeats the comments to Pookers [we've asked her repeatedly not to share with Lulu......this is another issue altogether].

 

I posted because I can vent here and know I'll be understood.  Yes, I am a fairly conservative Christian.  I'm also really really glad that I get to wear a choir robe in church every Sunday, lest the lady behind me be judging me on my choice of Sunday attire.  {And yes....i wear shorts and a sleeveless shirt under the robe in the summer.  There.  I admitted it.}

[Library Momma]

I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but that green suit (I am not going back through all the pages to find it, sorry!) is not an avocado. See the prickly things? Avocados don't have those.

 

I would say it's more like this...see the second photo down. Something called a guanabana. Too bad for all you guacamole lovers.

 

http://www.bumsonwheels.com/2010/11/thors-hammer.html

 

 

Even so, I'm sure it still makes male avocados think impure thoughts.

[Mrs Mungo]

I feel need to post this:

 

http://www.schrodingerskitten.co.uk/articles/fruit-lies.html

 

Warning- some language that may offend.

I should have had coffee BEFORE reading this.

[Rebel Yell]

So, I know this was a few pages back but does the one-piece bathing suit rules really not allow rash guards for boys or girls?  :huh:

 

haha of course not.  Of the intent of the rule is modesty and covering up females then the more layers the merrier. :glare:

 

And again, in case anyone feels compelled to misunderstand me (not you, Where's Toto?) rash guards, extra layers to prevent sunburn, rashes, and yes, even random ogling :001_rolleyes:  are all completely fine by me. It's not the suit or the dress code I object to, but the reasoning behind it if it is solely to prevent boys from noticing that girls are female-shaped.

 

Because a wet T-shirt clinging to the girl that they humiliated for being female-shaped (by making her wear a shirt over her suit, even if one-piece) is TOTALLY gonna hide that fact. :glare: