Hairdo 1

Rather than elaborating with profuse dissertational wording describing not simply styles and fashions implied by the title of this piece, plus practical call for thoughtful and responsible consistently-decent appearance in general public view whatever the season of the year, pictoral snapshots of pertinent Scripture verses with corresponding lexicon-meaning elaboration (involving hairstyles, armwear, legwear, and feetwear) are shown below.


We start by examining year-round HAIRSTYLES as to what by inference is acceptable to show in general public view in stark contrast to what is lasciviously indecent (i.e. pornographic) to flaunt in questionable innocence and ignorance or instead with blatant defiant belligerence, whether subtly and silently, or instead overtly. The first passage of Scripture considered concerning improper hairstyle is Numbers 5:18 in the Old Testament of The HOLY BIBLE:

Notice the selected words identified alphanumerically as H6544 and H7218. Key words used in the lexicon explanation are to loosen hair and shake the head.

Certain in-this-case-faulty bible translations (e.g. the KJV, NIV, etc.) instead convey the idea of merely "uncovering the head" in a sort of polite removal of a scarf, shawl, or cap on the head without messing up the hair. Not so! What is intended is what the Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Version instead describe as unbind the woman's hair and loosening the woman's hair.

Such unbinding and unloosening is not for sexually-erotic stimulation or sensual gratification, but rather as a condemnatory accusation of suspected adulterous infidelity on the part of the woman involved. It is, in essence, to shame and punish her by the local priest loosening her hair.

The next Scripture considered concerning improper hairstyle is Song of Solomon 7:5:

Observe the alphanumeric H1803. Key words used in the lexicon explanation mention dangling loose threads or hair.

Lamentably, both the KJV, the NIV, and other in-this-case-incorrect bible translation simply state the wrong word "hair" instead of the flowing locks loose long hair (i.e. mopheaded, with hair hanging below mouth-level) phenomenon.

This time, the loose long hair described IS indeed meant to be erotically captivating and sensuously enjoyed...but not intended to be exhibited indiscriminately as lewd and lurid, non-asked-for, street-gutter wastewater to and against everyone in "general" public view (that is, mixed-gender view, as not presently belonging in marriage to the mopheaded one) - but only to the mophead's own husband in the secluded privacy of their bedroom or whatever hidden enclosure sexual interaction with him alone in marriage typically takes place.

The final Scripture considered concerning improper hairstyle is First Corinthians 11:15-16:

The New Testament of the RSV and NASV are deplorably lacking accuracy in many vital verses, but which the scholar can compensate for by exploring and carefully examining the KJV and KJV-type Bibles (such as the KJ21, NKJV, etc.). That is because certain RSV and NASV translators who concocted the misrepresentation involving those verses changed and/or omitted words (in striking contrast to the KJV-type Bibles), basing their errancy on such significantly-corrupt Greek texts as the Westcott-Hort, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, UBS, Aland-Metzger, and Nestle texts. In contrast, the King James Version and KJV-type Bibles based their English wording on Received Text of such faithful men as Erasmus, Beza, Elzevir, Stephens, etc. which texts were finally synthesized into THE inerrant Greek Text of the New Testament by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894 and now known as the Trinitarian Greek Text available from Baker Books of Grand Rapids MI, Sovereign Grace Publishing of Lafayette IN, and Hendrickson Publishing of Peabody MA. Why this webpage author mentioned that is because the studious webpage reader will notice that some translation use the words "instead of" rather than "for" (a head-covering veil) in First Corinthians 11:15.....and use the words "no such" rather than "no other" (custom) in First Corinthians 11:16. Clearly, the RSV is in error by their use of the words "no other" (instead of "no such") in their mis-rendition of and against that verse.

It appears that author Paul was conveying the idea that it is not the custom of the churches of God for a woman to regard her glorious loose long hair as sufficient or adequate as a prayer-covering veil. That would especially be true in general-public (both-genders) view, as within a church congregation during worship services and/or church-picnic luncheons.


Now to be considered is Second Samuel 13:18 (such as rendered in the here-significantly-correct RSV and NASV) involving proper armwear as opposed to sleeveslessly baring naked ARMS in mixed-gender general public view:

Tragically, the KJV and KJV-type bibles plus the NIV completely miss the point intended by the Scriptural author (informing us of the long-sleeved full-length dress or gown traditionally worn by royal young ladies) - when they instead absurdly and ridiculously refer to a "multi-colored" garment. The soles-to-feet inclusion stated in the lexicon explanation speaks for itself on that one......and brief reference to "divers colours" was committed and not performed by the imperfect human lexicon source because of demonic brainwashing and satanic duress from arms-baring slutlike plus male-patsy perverts.


We next get to LEGS not simply of a "virgin daughter of Babylon" but (by imitating example) ALL women with legs, which erotically-shapely-and-enticing legs are sometimes or usually bared (immodestly, and ignorantly or deliberately) during warm weather with shorts of various lengths, slitted skirts, and swimwear....which legs instead should always be completely covered with long opaque skirt, non-tight slacks, or equivalent which hide the legs in general public (mixed-gender) view.

The Scripture cited is Isaiah 47:2 in the context of Isaiah 47:1-3 as follows:


Last but not least are FEET (of human toddlers and older aged females) which -instead of being partially bared with socksless sandals or flip-flops especially during warm weather - should be COMPLETELY covered with opaque socks, shoes, or boots in mixed-gender general-public view. Scripture references involving that consist of Song of Solomon 7:1 where the word footsteps or equivalent is shown - instead of the overly-graphic and overly-explicit word feet.....and Jeremiah 2:25 in before-and-after context as shown below:

Words alone are fine and create a comprehensible framework for both universal verbal and written intellectual description and evaluation, but that mere abstract collection of English letters can and many times should be supplemented by photo examples of actual-person modesty which should be the noble and respectable overwhelming rule rather than the aberrant minority exception - contrary to the immodesty so presently widespread and prevalent:







Now we move on to a suggested/suggestive? scenario of:


Who would you like to wake up mutually nude with in a no-way-out padded cell containing a single narrow bare mattress without covers in the middle of the cell? You might have seen movies where people have found themselves (though not necessarily nude) in such or similar circumstances for however long or indefinite periods of time (such as in various Twilight Zone episodes and various movies and vids).

Imagine that you were a 55+ male, and some anonymous person who knew what they were doing slyly poured knockout drops into your drink, or gassed you into subconsciousness with chloroform or whatever, or shot you with a non-lethal tranquilizing dart putting you into temporary deep sleep. Suppose also that that same someone who was competent at it also did it to a young and attractive preferably-single teenaged woman.

Further suppose that that someone had removed all your clothes and all her clothes after drugging both of you, so both of you were birthday-suit naked, then that person placed both of you drugged sleepers together into aforementioned no-escape-possible padded cell room at a constant temperature of 75 degrees within which was a single bed with no sheets on it, two empty soft-plastic 2-liter pop bottles which could be used for pillows, 12-0z. cans of pop and juice, a shelf with a couple loaves of non-wrapped whole-wheat bread, some flip-top cans of corn-beef hash, beans, and others similar canned food items, a set of plastic spoons, a trash pit without a lid, a sink and faucet with warm and cool water, toilet and two rolls of toilet paper, and finally a stall-type open-floor-drain shower with no shower curtain nor door having faucets with warm and cool water.

Suppose that when the sleep-causing drugs wore off, both you and her woke up and saw each other buck naked for the first time.

What would your reaction be? What would her reaction be?

A possible dialogue would be:

YOU: What happened? What's all this? What's going on?

HER: You tell me.

YOU: Good thing you can speak English. I wonder how we got in here, and who did this.

HER: I have no idea.

YOU: Looks like there's no way out. I wonder if we're being watched by whoever is responsible for this.

HER: I haven't a clue.

YOU: It looks like we might be here a while. What's your first name?

HER: [She states her Name]. What's yours?

YOU: [You state your name].

YOU: Whoever put us both in her, must have put that bed there for some purpose.

HER: I guess.

YOU: There's a note on the bed.

HER: What does it say?

YOU: This is weird. It says: "You both will get out of the room you're in, and back to where you were, in one week - after you both engage in genital-in-genital sexual intercourse with each other after the gal performs fellatio on the guy. Anonymous letters have been sent to each of the addresses on the Driver's License of you both saying that you both took an emergency vacation and will be back within two weeks."
That's all it says. There's no signature.
The note is typed.

HER: Let me see it.

YOU: What are we going to do about that?

HER: Just find and dandy. We're both going to have a lot of explaining to do to a lot of people as to why we did this and what happened. Why would someone do this to us?
It must be that we are being watched, or monitored in some way.
But I don't see any cameras or microphones anywhere in here.
Sure hope to find out who did all this.

YOU: Maybe there are minicams behind the two air vents in the ceiling. But there's no way we could reach them up there.

HER: Have a plan?

YOU: Well, whoever is doing this has the upper hand, for sure. I wonder if he or she would let us die in here rather than doing the mutual sex they want us to do.

HER: Could be.


YOU: Well, I suppose that we should go along with it as the only sensible recourse, [then as you whisper very softly in her ear]: or at least pretend real good. [Back to regular-volume voice] If we ever meet one another again, we will most likely remember this.

HER: Got that right.

YOU: I see that you're not wearing any rings. You have a boyfriend or husband?

HER: No, I've never been married.

YOU: Super! Good thing whoever did this set me up with an all-around rather attractive young lady. What do you think of Jesus Christ?

HER: I believe that He is the Holy Redeemer who died on a cross to atone for all my sins, was resurrected, and ascended into Heaven.

YOU: Spot on! So do I!

[And as you again whisper very softly closely in her ear]: We might as well start to kiss, hug, then kneel down and suck me, after which we'll climb into bed together, massage each other in various positions, then you lay on your back and spread your legs while I fake insertion with you, and we'll try our best to make it look as convincing as possible.

I wonder if all this is related to that anonymous dating service I signed up with, who got some third party to do all this.

HER: What a coincidence! You too? At least that would bypass charges of kidnapping against them.

[ What occurs next is the foreplay and following operational fulfillment of what was suggested ]

So, if you both were friendly types, you both would first ask each other what happened - probably without senselessly-futile attempts to hide your genitals away from each other's already-saw-you view. Next would be a separate and individual search of how to escape from confinement. After a thoroughly fruitless effort, that bed would be the only reasonable destination for you as a weary couple seemingly conjugating together with neither one sleeping on the cold hard floor.

OPTION 2 = The only other option would be for both you and her (especially if either one of you find something intolerable in the other) to go and sit in separate corners facing the wall, get into fatal catatonic immobility and non-communication, and die within the week.


Let's say that a hopefully-non-tattooed/non-pierced, single? pre-teen [tween] girl (near puberty) is sunbathing "birthday-suit" naked on a deserted beach (therefore perhaps admittedly or non-admittedly bait-casting herself and fly-fishing for men at random - or at least for one "suitable" specimen) she can then either accept or reject at her whims, and a single or already-married fisherman accidently trolls into view.

What is his logical response to the sight?

He could assume that she is insane (Luke 8:27), and call 911 on his cellphone. But she might then promptly or soon throw a towel over herself and run inside a cabin or tent, OR slip into the water as soon as she detects that he saw her.

The fisherman does not know if she is the daughter of some father or brother or boyfriend or husband nearby or in the phoneable area. She could be adversively hostile if he approached her, and perhaps call 911 on her cellphone. Or, he could head toward her and remark that she looks nice totally naked, then asks if she wants to him to go ashore so they can both go to some secluded spot nearby to let him rub some suntan lotion on her, or whatever, with either the assumption or presumption that she will not be a hypocritically-seducing undercover decoy cop ready to arrest him.

Usually, a proper and common date-to-mate endeavor is both a man and a woman separately and voluntarily seeking out then commits themself invitationally both giving and receiving RSVP legal-age non-harassive quasi-sexually-oriented solicitations to and from each other through the services of a matchmaking mediator.

For example, both the guy and gal might sign up with (particularly for already-married men wanting their very own additional concubines, which option might not provide for already-married men).

Getting back to the nude human female on the beach, if the solicited nude tween consents to the fisherman's suggestion to pull ashore, go to some secluded spot to rub lotion on her, such might proceed to more intimate mutual connections, perhaps even and ultimately those resulting in her getting him messed up ejaculating sperm in her, on her, or wherever and even becoming pregnant by him.

What should first be done is to determine whether or not she has now-belonging-to-no-other-man availability and potential suitability, like presenting her with a Compatibility Questionnaire [ See and ] after which they both perhaps mutually sign a private Concubinal-Marriage Certification Form [ See and ], to prevent them from being mismated with those they should never have solicited and approached in the first place.

Had he not approached her when he first saw her naked, he might suspiciously forego the opportunity to make further use of the highly-erotic sight- realizing that she might again display her goodies to other men at random (as a publicly-accessible-by-anyone female hitchhiker does) when he is not around, and incur his jealous wrath with all sorts of dire consequences.

The man privately encountering the totally-nude girl or younger woman might not want to even begin to think about connecting with her and especially her private parts - not only because the man would be taking a chance of getting her pregnant, resulting him then having to become identified to and with her, but also becoming socially and financially responsible for her and a possible forthcoming child. Added to that, there is the chance of him contracting some venereal disease from her. Finally, there is the Biblical prohibition against fornication, with Hell promised to fornicators and adulterers.

All throughout the Bible, and especially in the New Testament, are admonitions to wait for the Lord, patiently turn the other cheek, look away rather than lust, and simply take the attitude of non-prudishly refusing to do anything about it at the moment (except perhaps pray) and let God work things out in His retributive ways and timing.

Easier is the decision if the tween strips naked or partially-naked on an overhead bridge in view of public traffic along a highway and seen by passing motorists speeding by on the freeway, in which case 911 cellphone calls to the police would likely be immediate responses by hapless motorists visually attacked by such gross indecency who themselves individually are not conveniently able to make use of that particular stimulating nudity imposed on them.

And where is the cutoff pertaining to degrees, stages, types, and intensities of partial-to-complete nudity suggested in the situation above? Would the same responses by a fisherman, fishermen, or freeway drivers be done seeing the sight of a woman merely topless (with bare breasts exposed)? Wearing a buttocks-baring thong-strap bikini, or barefoot with nude-arms-exposing sleeveless tank top and short shorts? With loose long hair, a sleeveless blouse, naked-legs-baring kneecap-length shortened skirt, and no socks under summertime sandals?

It is not reasonably expected for only [human] males to merely exercise sexual self-control while women terroristically and rather anonymously flaunt various degrees of immodesty to and against the visually-attacked men.

Clearly, nude/semi-nude streakerism is clearly another form of accursed non-solicited genocidal-school-shootings-similar terrorism.