Did anyone ever have to take personality tests?

Personal attack: "But then again, I guess that's the kind of girl you're in to." Speculative judge of character. 

Perception is reality, consensus is truth, perfect consensus is a paradox. Your reality of skimpy is not my reality, and the local consensus', truths, we're surrounded by aren't concurrent with one another. Skimpy is a word, and thus its' meaning must be defined by something more than just words. I feel that nobody should discriminate against what a person wants to wear, just as you're not supposed to pass judgement on people in place of god.

How are tank tops immodest? They do a great job of covering up what matters and keep everything airy. I'm surprised you haven't complained about guys in speedos yet. But if you insist, I guess I'll have to show you the other side of slutville.





The news agency is biased, and the researcher, Susan Fiske is, in part, biased in favor of women due to her mother's alignment. However, Fiske's original, unadulterated, uncensored representation of the results are much more neutral. There are several factors that level the playing field here. 
1. If you're aquainted, this doesn't happen.
2. If you respect women, this doesn't happen.
3. If 1 and 2 are false for you, then the area of your brain associated with interpreting others' thoughts and feelings goes inactive. This means you stop interpreting ALL emotions, not just the woman in question, so you see everyone as such.
4. The area associated with tools and the like is also associated with goals and repititious motion like intercourse. Naturally, it's important that your body actually knows how to make babies. The reason why this area of the brain doesn't light up in women is because they don't need to move during intercourse.
5. If one is already in a relationship, this response is highly unlikely(She made that quite clear) to happen with any woman other than one's partner(But it in turn also lights up other areas of the brain associated w/ passion, as is standard protocol for one's brain).

Please try to locate articles deemed scholarly. A religious news agency isn't a reliable source because, not only do they have an angle, but there are no works cited on the page. The entire article could have been a hoax to begin with. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, I take newspaper articles with a grain of salt. At the very least, get articles from a neutral agency. That way you have people who actually want to tell you what's going on instead of people trying to prove a point.

If you don't find bikinis skimpy,then wow...you really have no idea.
It doesn't matter what my opinion of skimpy is. It's pretty obvious where the line is drawn. You should know (or so I hope) when something is modest. Tank tops and such are immodest, in my view,that is. This is because they completely make your arms bare. Moving on to religious matters, yes, I realize that the woman who was the modest swimsuit designer was dressed immodestly while speaking out against immodesty.

And it seems a lot like you think that anything to do with religion is most likely a hoax. Just because they didn't list any sources doesn't make it automatically wrong. And yes, it was posted on a religious site, that still doesn't make it wrong. It's completely bullcrap that you're saying that for the article to be correct, it would have to cite sources and be from a neutral agency.

And just so you know, I'm not one of those girls who take pleasure in looking at nearly naked guys - that includes boys who are shirtless or in speedos. 

Definition of skimpy:short and revealing
Bikinis most definitely fall under that category. I never said that tank tops were skimpy. Of course I believe that tank tops are immodest because that's how I've grown up viewing them. In For the Strength of Youth, it says,"Never lower your standards of dress. Do not use a special occasion as an excuse to be immodest. When you dress immodestly, you send a message that is contrary to your identity as a son or daughter of God. You also send the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval." And,"Immodest clothing is clothing that is tight,sheer,or revealing in any manner. Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts,shirts that do not cover the stomach and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or back."
That's what I have grown up believing and have stayed true to it. Sure, we have our differences but that doesn't give you an excuse to say that certain things aren't immodest when they clearly are (depending on what it is). You claim that tank tops are airy and not immodest. Well there are also tank tops out there that are low-cut in the front, exposing the chest. They also expose the shoulders. Not all of them are like that, but I still find them immodest.

Miley Cyrus got into the industry because she was really skilled, by the way. She had a calling, and it brought fame, but she still doesn't like the paparazzi.

"A sequined dress is far less modest than short shorts and a tank top."
Are you kidding me? That is probably the most idiotic sentence I've ever heard in my life. Sequins. What in the heck,rayblon.
So just because something is flashy or shiny, that makes it immodest. Oh,okay.



Immodesty is when you're showing off your body (when speaking about clothes), not simplicity. In my previous school, during the winter there would be girls who would practically be wearing booty shorts. At this point, they can't claim the weather to be too hot for them. 


People can have their opinions on what they like wearing,that's fine. But in order to get the spotlight, some girls dress down. There were times during last summer where I would go to Walmart with my grandparents and there were girls who were wearing shorts that were less than half an inch below their bums. Seriously? Come on, it's not that hot out. And that,rayblon, is where it's quite clear what those girls' intentions were.


Dressing immodestly never brings happiness or the feeling of being "beautiful". Never. It's the opposite.

Look up the definitions of immodest. Two of them are arrogant and, essentially, boastful. A sequined dress is flashy. That's boastful, that's a 'Hey! I'm here!' kind of dress. The alternative doesn't draw attention. Someone in that attire can be easily overlooked in a crowd.

Once again, I'm going to say this. You don't know why they decided to wear the short shorts. Your little youth group doesn't know either. It's all speculation on your part. It could have been that the girls started seeing others wearing short shorts and thought they look good. It could have been that they wanted something comfortable like yoga pants but more airy(They wear yoga pants alot in my school, and they are pretty darn comfortable... :\). Nobody knows, and that's why I refuse to ignorantly judge them for their personal decisions.

To get the spotlight you have to be unique, and be incredibly skilled. If you're a copycat you'll be sent to the proverbial slaughter in the media. Lady Gaga is a good example of what that means. Meat dresses(The dress itself is famous and is currently in a museum if I'm not mistaken), eccentric music videos, and an even stranger personality made for an incredibly famous individual because her defiance of norms was inspirational.

Miley dressed her own way, but she didn't dress down. Why? Because there's no one clothing item that is better than another, no matter what, someone will favor one of every item over all others, regardless of its' modesty. A bikini may be better than a sweater and jeans for some people, and others may find a polo and cargo shorts better than a tank top and short shorts, it's still just an opinion, whether it's forced into your head by a youth group or decided by yourself. There is no one definition for modesty because some don't believe we should need to follow such a rule to begin with,

If you take good care of your skin, and you feel that your skin is beautiful, which, it really can be, you have the right to show some. I'm a dude and even I take good care of my skin. I'm not the only one either, many guys in my school actually carry bottles of lotion and they enjoy wearing tank tops and the like because they take care of their skin. It feels good to have clear, smooth skin and it's perfectly understandable to find beauty in it. It's saying 'I care about my body, and this is my proof.'

It was not forced into my head by my "little youth group."  Before I got into youth group, I already knew that immodesty was not okay. And so what you're basically saying is that there is nothing wrong with pornography because it's people being proud of their skin.Right.
There are far better ways of being proud of your skin and exposing yourself is not one of them. For girls, tank tops pretty much expose cleavage (unless you're a pervert or something, nobody wants to see that).
Who the crap even cares about your skin?? It's yours,not theirs. It's not like,"Oh dang, his skin looks so fiiinnneee." Um no.
People think that in order to feel beautiful, other people have to look at them. That automatically makes your point invalid.

You're right, it wasn't just your youth group. You were raised on the philosophy. It started at birth. Pornography doesn't necessarily entail being naked, mind you. It's just explicit content. In fact, there's nothing wrong with pornography to begin with. Some people find enjoyment in it and, once again, it's not my place to judge.

I've actually had people compliment my skin before, mind you, and a few of my female friends are the same. Having healthy skin is complement worthy where I live. I never said people need to have others look at them to be beautiful, but you're failing to realize your ideals aren't the best ones, they aren't universal, and they most certainly don't benefit the world any more than mine. Looking in the mirror, someone can say they look beautiful because they look healthy, and have radiant skin. 

Also, when did skin become a sex symbol? When did the human body, even, become one? Wearing short shorts and a tank top, or even a bikini completely covers all the reproductive organs, you're showing off your integumentary system, and if someone is mindlessly attracted to a person because of that it just fortifies the argument that humans are actually animals anyway, since hooking up with a stranger and sealing the deal 15 minutes later is something your dog would do.

"In fact, there's nothing wrong with pornography to begin with."

Somebody shoot me. I'm done.

Universal truths are nonexistent, Taeron. What you think to be a natural law isn't necessarily one to the rest of the population.

rayblon is wrong

yop

AHAHAHAHA
you're a funny one, aren't you.

Actually, you just implied that you support the genocide of culture and ideals. By denying the variation of natural truths, you're saying that everyone must believe the same things you do.

kk

Nice to know you understand. :>

It is,isn't it

Understanding that there are variations in fundamental ideas, and accepting those variations are key to world peace. Wars are started by alienating such things, but can't begin so long as people don't allow stigmas to take hold.

Done arguing, but I found this...:

http://mylifeasacraig.blogspot.com/2014/06/modest-is-not-hottest.html?m=1

Just a thought.

Okay, so after reading those interesting (some disturbing) posts, I want to put my 2 cents in.
First off, I will point out that the 2 of you believe in 2 totally different things, religion-wise. That is one of the reasons why you guys have such different opinions (which y'all have mentioned a few times (rayblon).
I am a Christian, and I do agree with Taeron on the majority of what she said (except for the part where I think she said that girls shouldn't show off their shoulders, that isn't going to float with most people. Shoulders are harmless. A girl brought it up at Church once. She said, "Yeah, a guy is totally going to come up to me and go 'Hey! Nice shoulder'"{dripping with sarcasm}). However, I do see some of Rayblon's points (don't agree with all of them but I do see where he is coming from)
If one was to take a survey on how people dress and whether or not they think it is fine, you'll find that most would say short shorts or mini skirts or some of the more revealing of clothing and they would think it was perfectly normal.
And, though I do not condone to nudity (I avoid such images like the plague) or skimpy outfits, not everyone does it to be "slutty". As Rayblon had pointed out, some are just really confident of their bodies and don't have an ulterior motive and some find it comfortable, like how Rayblon pointed out with the short shorts.
And yes, I know y'all are done arguing about it, I just wanted to say what I was thinking.

It has to do with limitations. People will keep using that same argument to make modesty seem silly. "Wow, that's a hot shoulder..wow that's a hot neckline." See what I'm getting at? I do believe it is revealing to show off your shoulders, but that's just my opinion. Like when you wear a tank top, not only are you showing off your shoulders, but your chest and neckline as well.

I got a ring that changes colors when exposed to different kinds of light. I suppose we're all made of alexandrite in a way.