[quote=“Battery9”]
Whack me with the generalising hammer here! Whats nice about easy girls?[/quote]
Not much asking “so my place or yours?”
There’s been alot of generalizing about women here…
Well I saw the low res fillum dear Carli offered and rather than leave me panting, I felt a strange paternalistic urge to encourage the poor lass to leave her bits alone for a time, amid concern she might be rubbing them raw.
There does appear to be a Chinese temple in that clip, BTW, but the film title is “Carli in Hawaii”.
Well if they were a problem we would call them “difficult”, so I guess easy is good, but not necessarily nice.
HG
Yes I posted pics of my leg…and I will again soon…just got my 13th exhaust burn on it!!! Yep, I’m an easy girl…flashing my burns.
This thread is BS,
Show some pics or dissolve into oblivion.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]This thread is BS,
Show some pics or dissolve into oblivion.[/quote]Pics have been shown, and a video. What else do you want ?
Not seeing any boobs so far…all rumor
What mode of dress and behavior is appropriate to display before the deities? Will the gods be angered if bare flesh is displayed in a house of prayer? Is overtly sexual behavior displeasing to the gods?
Has anyone ever said a prayer in bed? Anyone sleep in the buff? If it’s the behavior rather than the clothes, would it be acceptable to walk into a temple naked as long as one did not engage in provocative behavior? What if a pious lady is making love to her husband, and silently prays to her god or gods to help her get pregnant? Would this be OK? What if they did it in their temple/church/other house of worship?
Or maybe it’s the adherent’s effect on others that’s the issue. Wearing revealing outfits and acting in a provocative manner would distract others from their prayers. Making love in church would distract others. So maybe the “disrespect” everyone is talking about is aimed towards the other practitioners, not the god or gods in question. That would make sense, but what if no one else is in the temple? Is it still inappropriate, even if there are no doctrinal violations? If not doctrine, what is the mechanism for determining what is appropriate and what is disrespectful?
It’s funny to me how otherwise liberal, liberated guys and gals suddenly become puritans when it comes to “respecting” religions and houses of worship.
You must have missed[color=violet]
the link
.[/color][/quote]
not to mention the VERY explicit , leave nothing to imagination Video !
The point being made is that there is a time and a place for everything. Walking into a place which others consider a place of worship, and mimicking its true use whilst in reality exploiting it as a provocative background to one’s shameless self-promotion, is disrespectful. It should be considered disrespectful however liberal one is.
Where the place of worship being used for such a purpose also happens to belong to a sect which considers public exposure of one’s body for financial gain to be inappropriate, then the action is even more crass.
None of your examples were analogous to what happened here. This wasn’t a pious lady praying to the gods for children whilst coupling with her husband (in private). It wasn’t someone saying an honest prayer in bed whilst in the buff (in private).
And to answer your last question, if the house of worship is being used for shameless self-promotion rather than worship, that’s completely inappropriate no matter if the temple is full or empty.
As far ladies and their virtue…google either “Delphi” or “Babylon” + google “prostitutes”
You’ll be surprised how far this stuff goes back, historically.
So the issue is not nakedness or provocative behavior, but shameless self-promotion? Would it be disrespectful to show up in a house of worship naked, as long as one did not try to self-promote?
I was trying to expand the discussion beyond this specific case.
I’m interested in this topic because I had many debates with my mom growing up about what was “appropriate” for me to wear to church. Her answer was simple – business dress. I wore a suit and tie to church every Sunday starting at age seven or thereabouts. Nearly every man and boy in the church wore the same thing. Dark, demure suit. Stiff white shirt. Boring tie. I never understood why God would care what kind of clothes we wore to church, and insisted –to my mother’s annoyance- that God would not care if I went naked. I attempted to prove this multiple times, sadly without success as my mother was a crafty one and caught me undressing in the car. I suppose I could attempt to test my theory now, but as I’m an adult and live in Alabama, I would probably be sentenced to thirty years hard labor.
But it isn’t just nakedness that seems to bother God. God is also (apparently) annoyed at anyone who wears shorts, t-shirts, and sandals to church. I can remember quite a few times growing up when guests would appear at church in just such regalia and receive a less than warm welcome from the congregation. It’s disrespectful, they would say. I was never brave enough to speak up but I always wondered who was being disrespected, God or the congregation. I think the seeds of doubt were planted back then, as it became more and more obvious to me that church had nothing whatsoever to do with any god and all to do with the yahoos praying to him.
I agree this girl crossed the line, but I just wanted to find out which lines were being crossed. Religious lines? Social lines? I guess I was trying to pull on the thread enough to reveal there is no difference. Even if there were no doctrinal violation whatsoever (though there is, as you said), it would make not one iota of difference, as religious is nothing more than a human construct. The humans are offended at such dress and behavior, therefore the religion is being disrespected. It’s got nothing to do with God.
So the issue is not nakedness or provocative behavior, but shameless self-promotion?[/quote]
No, as I pointed out the issue is nakedness and provocative behaviour and shameless self-promotion.
That depends entirely on the particular house of worship.
[quote]I’m interested in this topic because I had many debates with my mom growing up about what was “appropriate” for me to wear to church. Her answer was simple – business dress. I wore a suit and tie to church every Sunday starting at age seven or thereabouts. Nearly every man and boy in the church wore the same thing. Dark, demure suit. Stiff white shirt. Boring tie. I never understood why God would care what kind of clothes we wore to church, and insisted –to my mother’s annoyance- that God would not care if I went naked. I attempted to prove this multiple times, sadly without success as my mother was a crafty one and caught me undressing in the car. I suppose I could attempt to test my theory now, but as I’m an adult and live in Alabama, I would probably be sentenced to thirty years hard labor.
But it isn’t just nakedness that seems to bother God. God is also (apparently) annoyed at anyone who wears shorts, t-shirts, and sandals to church. I can remember quite a few times growing up when guests would appear at church in just such regalia and receive a less than warm welcome from the congregation. It’s disrespectful, they would say. I was never brave enough to speak up but I always wondered who was being disrespected, God or the congregation. I think the seeds of doubt were planted back then, as it became more and more obvious to me that church had nothing whatsoever to do with any god and all to do with the yahoos praying to him.[/quote]
I think there are other forums if you want to vent your angst over your earlier life.
There is a difference.
Question begging at its finest.
[quote=Quentin]As far ladies and their virtue…google either “Delphi” or “Babylon” + google “prostitutes”
You’ll be surprised how far this stuff goes back, historically.[/quote]
I don’t think many people would be surprised. It’s not called the oldest profession in the world for nothing.
I agree. For me it’s got nothing to do with God. Unlike some posters, I won’t hold it against a girl if she chooses to work as a stripper, prostitute or porn star. That’s her choice, not yours or mine. She may think others are clueless wankers and idiots for teaching kindy or wearing a necktie. She may enjoy her line of work, make good money doing it, and not suffer any emotional consequences from it. Maybe. Who knows? It’s her choice and I’m not going to judge her for that.
But I found her temple photo shoot highly offensive. I’m not a religious person at all – not christian, not buddhist, not nothing. But I recognize that for many people a temple, of whatever faith, is the most sacred of all places on earth. For them it’s the doorway to the god/s and one must show the utmost respect, humility and reverence in such places, including (depending on the faith) removing shoes, speaking softly, not pointing at representations of gods, not laughing loudly or being disrespectful, not taking photos (in many temples), etc. I may not believe in their god/s but I’m not such an asshole that I’d walk in to their holiest of all holy places and intentionally violate such rules. The offense of her act had nothing to do with god/s or hte physical structure she was in. It was a rude, malicious, intentional insult of the highest order to countless people, many of whom may be very kind decent and nice, whom she does not even know. It’s as if she walked into someone’s house and shat on their kitchen counter, except 1000 times worse. Shat on their pillow and pissed on their Bible.
Doesn’t bother me the least that she earns a living showing her pussy to strangers, but I don’t like that she intentionally went out of her way to grossly insult so many decent people.
So did you guys find out who it was?
Speaking of begging the question. 
Speaking of begging the question. [/quote]
That’s not begging the question. There is a difference between social boundaries and religious boundaries. If I don’t shake your hand, I might be committing a social faux pas but I’m not blaspheming.
But the whole point being made here is that there is NO difference between social and religious boundaries: they’re one and the same, as all religions are social constructs. There is no divine input into religion, as religion is a matter of faith, ie personal belief in something that does not otherwise exist… whether as a result of direct and original ‘religious’ experience, or far more commonly, as a result of being trained to think that way by being either born into or later adopting those belief systems.
No religion has any evidence of the truth of existence of their God or gods. All religions, equally, feel the same about the gods of other religions. All gods are myths, and fit the definition of mythical beliefs to a T. Therefore all religions are and can only be social constructs, and thus there is no difference between social and religious constructs.
I understand that is the point being made. I am contesting that point.
Leaving aside the question begging (which I’ve already identified), this doesn’t take into account the fact that social boundaries and religious boundaries are recognized as distinct even by secular people. See the example I’ve given in my last post. And even if they weren’t, you still have to find a good reason to justify breaching someone else’s social boundaries deliberately and provocatively.
Whether or not religious are mere social constructs, the fact remains that social boundaries and religious boundaries are not the same. Religious boundaries invariably involve transgressions against the divine (imaginary or not), whereas social boundaries do not. They are, by definition, distinct.
I would agree that religious boundaries are a subset of social boundaries, but they are still members of the class of social boundaries. Religions are nonetheless still social constructs, and ipso facto religious considerations are social considerations, albeit held by a subset of those in that society.
What is halal is not exactly kosher, though they are both social restrictions, and are essentially the same restrictions, for the same (underlying) reasons.
Still doesn’t excuse that tart from the rudeness of her actions, even if she is not a believer. On the other hand, if she actually was an adherent of that faith and that was her temple of choice, what then? would it still have been disrespectful? She would have much more right to determine that than any of us (except those in the same religion).