Porky really does have a lot in common with the erstwhile Mufti Hilaly, doesn't he?

AAah... the predictable frenzy :) (and ratings bonanza)

Graham is sending the cheque in the mail O_^

Kidding of course.

What I find fascinating about the thoughts expressed is that very few of them address the actual point.

WHY are women so UNcovered and MEN..... so covered in our attire?

My point is not to "cover women up because I/we might get uncontrolled erections"

THE point is to investigate how the huge difference in attire arose?

Foxy.. you were on the right track earlier but you seem to have gone astray with that erections/muslim comment :)

The other side of this intellectual coin might be... "LETS UNCOVER MEN" .. but why stop there? Lets uncover women MORE and then men MORE until......? I often wonder what looks one might get if a 65 yr old bloke rocked up to Church (Or a board meeting of Telstra) in a sleeveless 'muscle singlet' and board shorts kind of package.

Then..picture that for a 25yr old with a good physique.....

On the issue of skin exposure, I think some of you are in denial. We all know the triggers for lust and desire. The point is...NOT that desire is wrong or evil, but that it be controlled and always have the right context.

Lust is definitely 'evil' because by definition it is 'unrestrained craving' (dictionary)

It is the lack of contextual restraint which makes "lust" evil.
It is not 'lust' to desire one's wife...but it IS "lust" to desire your neighbours.

So... before some of you start calling me the Christian taliban or Christian Hilali.... think about genuine equality... and equality of attire :) Then..if it's humanly possible.. come back to the real point of WHYYYYY do women dress in such an exposed manner and men to not.

P.S.. David.. our parents should not be 'lusting' after each other..because by definition "lust" is 'unrestrained'....craving.

If it was not restrained it would mean that even though one party reallly WANTED it...but the other did NOT.. the wanter would 'rape' the unwanter.. no? "unrestrained"

So.. the Biblical idea is the best "Be filled with the Spirit...not drunk with wine" and the fruit of the Spirit is 'SELF CONTROL' :)
(among many other virtuous behaviors)

Our parents should have conceived us by way of mutual agreed desire...not unrestrained craving.

Polycarp wrote:

Lust is definitely 'evil' because by definition it is 'unrestrained craving' (dictionary)

It is the lack of contextual restraint which makes "lust" evil.
It is not 'lust' to desire one's wife...but it IS "lust" to desire your neighbours.

Dear Polycarp,

I think your statements are confused. My dictionary (Webster's Third New International) defines lust as:

1. sexual desire.
2. An intense longing.

There's a lot more, but those are the main meanings. There is nothing wrong with lust in either of those meanings. Sexual desire is necessary for a species to continue.

It is lust to desire one's own wife. It is not evil to desire your neighbour's wife. It is a perfectly natural thing to desire your neighbour's wife if she is an attractive woman. Sexual desire is not evil at all except by a crazy morality that sees natural impulses as evil. It may be wrong to try to fulfill your lust with your neighbour's wife. I say it may be wrong because I can see cases where it might not be wrong. If your wife and your neighbour's husband have an impairment in their sexual functions and both have indicated that they wouldn't mind if you two got it on I don't see anything wrong.

Poly

Many people already have answered your question.

Reread Veronika, Foxy, Pelican, David F - just to name a few.

The reasons for the difference in clothing are many and varied; culture, age, peer pressure and so on.

Your comment: "Then..if it's humanly possible.. come back to the real point of WHYYYYY do women dress in such an exposed manner and men to not."

There is no single answer. Nor is there necessarily an answer that will satisfy you - and that is the point: You raise questions for which you already have a set opinion and when you do not hear what you want, you claim that no-one has answered your question.

Just as you claim to be persecuted when vehemently disagreed with, you continue to see everything in personal subjective terms. As you are incapable of stepping back to take in a wider objective view, you will never see the answers even though they are there.

I want to know why men pay ridiculous amounts of money for thin strips of material with which to throttle themselves while wearing ridiculous business suits in the Australian summer, when most women don't.

Is it a form of auto-eroticism, or are ties symbolic penises? You know, mine's bigger/flashier/more expensive etc than yours...