Hairdo 5

Jack, a newly-enlightened Christian husband recently suggested that he and Jill, his newly-enlightened Christian wife, try out their just-discovered pro-modesty/anti-immodesty doctrinal rectification by attempting to convey it to others at large in the hope of them also putting such into practice.

Jack: "Let's single out a person wearing shorts baring their naked legs in general public view, and ask them why they are doing that."

Jill: "Let's select a male at random."

Jack: "No, let's pick a girl. The weaker-sex inferior gender are more gullible, according to First Timothy 2:8-15."

Jill: "OK, superior one."

Jack: [to a woman passerby wearing shorts baring her nude legs in general public view]:
"Hey you, why are you wearing shorts baring your naked legs in general public view?"

Passerby: "Excuse me? Who are YOU - some kind of PERVERT? What's it to YOU what I am wearing? Get LOST, dude! It's a free country! I feel comfortable wearing shorts during seasonably warm weather, or are you some type of SADIST? What's wrong with being comfortable, and what is wrong with YOU? BUZZ off, or I'll call 911 on my cellphone to complain about being sexually harassed!"

Jack: "You have asked me several questions and made several statements in rapid-fire succession. Mention things one at a time, and I'll respond to each one respectively!"

Passerby: "I'm not in any hurry right now, and am in a good mood today, so I'll humor your rude and impolite audacity and play along with you a little, for the heck of it."

First, what's it to you that I am wearing shorts? Would you rather that I go around totally naked as in a nudist park or resort?"

Jack: "The question of nudist-colony quarantine in your case aside, there you go again, asking more than one question at a time.
Remember, I asked you to not do that?

Your first response question is inadequate. You should have asked: "What's it to you that I am wearing shorts so as to expose my naked legs in general public view, particularly to your non-soliciting view?"

Obviously your question "What's it to YOU?" infers that you sense that there might be some problem to be resolved.

Moreover, does "freedom in our country" legitimize your imposing disturbing immodest harassment implied against me? Are you free to stick a realistic toy gun into the face of a nervous cop?

People are free to do all sorts of obnoxious and harmful things against other people, but they have no right to do so - instead merely have a capacity to possibly misuse liberty, like when they voluntarily choose to use it for public indecent exposure of sorts.

And in what ways do you feel "comfortable" wearing shorts which bare your naked legs to others who have not specifically asked for that?"

Passerby: "It's "just" the seasonal style this time of year. Everybody's doing it:

I will die of heatstroke unless I bare my nude legs wearing shorts to others in general public view.

Besides, they will get tanned, without sweating.

Guys like to see that type of in-motion, life-sized porn . . . or they'll alternatively get on the internet to look for and see it.

Added to that, it is convenient for me to avoid being hatefully chided and judgmentally condemned by pervert exhibitionists who would demonically question and condemn me for not baring my legs to general public view for whatever asinine heretical and apostate excuses and irrationalizations they concoct."

Jack: "NOT "everyone" is doing it - such as nuns, amish, puritans, islamic, and businessmen with or without company suits on, etc.

WHO said that post-1910 bare-legged exposure is presently "the OFFICIALLY-approved" seasonal style and fashion . . . and that you will die of heatstroke if you do not bare your legs with shorts in general public view?

What if you were wearing a burka or hijab like Middle Eastern women on hot summer days?"

Passerby: "The Devil and his evil-and-adulterous-generation pervert-human liars inferred that I need to mindlessly conform to lewd and licentious demonic body-parts-bared styles and fashions this time of year."

Jack: "Now you're getting somewhere!

Can't you get tanned enough privately in your own fenced and enclosed backyard, within some deserted farm field, nude beach, or tanning booth?

Your legs will sweat anyway, besides getting dirtier and sunburned so as to prematurely age skin without protective clothing on. You will end up looking like a no-tan-areas-here-and-there hideous zebra when in the buff without bra and panties on.

And IS it more comfortable for you to experience the shame and humiliation of going against your conscience by deliberately and willfully exposing the nakedness of your legs with or without soxless toes-exposing feet in flip-flops against the sane and sensible in general public view who neither want to nor ask you to lasciviously bare your hideously-uncovered legs and feet to them?

Me (to an immodest female passerby): Who do you think you are and pretend to be: some pseudo-sacred mopheaded Bible character wandering around in soxless thong sandals which you saw in perverted-artist Sunday-school pictures and drawings, and now imitate in the futile and heretical hope of self-righteously earning holy brownie points to absolve and atone for past sins and insure entrance in Heaven?

Or by your flagrant and arrogant bare-leggedness and NON-cool soxlessless are you in effect thumbing your nose and uplifting your defiant third finger up to and against the righteous God to prove to godless humans that you are rebellious and worldly ass?"

Passerby: 'Sorry about that. I'll go home right now and change into something decent, so as not to cause you and others like you - male strangers - to stumble into lustful sin because of my non-defiant, non-deliberate, ignorantly-imposed deviant immodesty."

There remains, however and unfortunately, the perennial accursed occurrences of particularly women ignorantly or deliberately displaying their partially-pornographic-equivalent:

Loose-Long-Haired Mopheadedness
[ year-round, particularly during winter ]
Nude-Armed Sleeveslessness
Naked-Legged Slackslessness
Bare-Footed Sockslessness

[ under sandals or whatever in warm spring, summer, and fall seasons ]

All the above violate the intentions and declarations of:

Numbers 5:18 (RSV and NASV)
Second Samuel 13:18 (RSV and NASV)
Proverbs 5:19 (NASV and NKJV)
Isaiah 3:17 (KJV and RSV)
Isaiah 20:4 (most all versions)
Isaiah 47:1-4 (KJV, RSV and NASV)
Jeremiah 2:25 (RSV and NASV)
Ezekiel 16 and 23 (most all versions)
First Corinthians 11:14-16 (KJV and NKJV)
First Timothy 2:8-9 (most all versions)

R-rated, usually-ID-marked, infrequently-ALL-nude teen-women pics on the internet are a retaliatory release response against such, and intended to shame shameless inferior-gender weaker-sex models and their patsy perverted male supporters - who pre-sume that such lewd styles and fashions are "legal" and thus approved by the Lord and His HOLY BIBLE.

WHY do such women needlessly tantalize and sexually harass men of the general public they can never begin nor continue a sexual relationship with?

WHY do they continue to insanely entice and bother them, imposing their non-solicited partial nudity against them, which lascivious licentiousness the victimized and irritated males neither asked for nor wanted?

MUST they remain depraved morlocks to mob and spring/summer/fall herd immentality?

MUST they continue to suck up Satan's alluring and deceptively-lying immodest and indecent ads and advice from both live and media propagandist brainwashers?

Intrinsic to every contemplation and discussion about prohibiting porn is [adequate] definition of WHAT pornography exactly is.

God (according to His will and intentions as revealed in Christ's 66-book HOLY BIBLE), genuine Christians (enlightening everyone they can according to their limited understanding, partial acceptance, and interpretation/misinterpretation of various translations and mis-translations of the Lord's HOLY BIBLE comprised of ben-Asher Masoretic Hebrew-Text Old Testament and Scrivener-Trinitarian Greek-Text New Testament), plus non-Christians and anti-Christians (with their heretical weird superstitions, misapplications, misquotings, interpretations, illegitimate revisions, and twisted presumptions).....all have different views as to what is - shall we say - secondary pornography compared to primary pornography.

NON-CONTACT primary porn consists of single or group human bodies exposing - again - what bra and/or panties [or underpants for males] usually cover.

Most entities (be they religious or non-religious) generally agree on this. Hence, cops arrest and punish streakers and flashers who do not confine their general-public nudity to nudist parks and camps.

Once 'porn' has been thus defined and concurred with by those in charge, how to censor, restrict, prohibit, stifle, thwart, filter, and eradicate such is the next step.

Notice that all definitions of porn above (both primary and secondary) are comprised of indecent-exposure immodesty

At this point, we should consider the origin of and even incitement to both concoct and display various types and degrees of pictorial pornography in print or on screen, and THE obvious answer is: people themselves who slink or parade themselves around indecently and immodestly in the potential or active view of those who do not solicit nor desire such inflicted attack.

One of the fringe benefits of Bush Jr. and his Coalition advancing into Afghanistan and Iraq near the beginning of the 21st century (also remember Reagan and the Iranian hostages) was that summertime-immodest american women (in particular) were continually reminded visually by the network media of the nun-and-amish-like modestly-shawled-and-robed Moslem women of Afghanistan and stark and embarrassing contrast to the lewd summertime MIS-dress of american/european sleeveslessness, slackslessness, and sockslessness either pseudo-angelically or arrogantly flaunted by terroristic imposers of non-asked-for sexual harassment.

[Unfortunately, however, did the U.S. military also force summertime-immodest american culture on fundamentalist islamic in Afghanistan and Iraq]....all in spite of 'intolerance'-accusatory bastards and bitches exposing themselves as judge-not-lest-you-be-judged hypocrites who themselves were intolerant against righteous fundamentalist modesty and decency?]

It is rather absurd to attempt to outlaw more-or-less sequestered, controllable, and predictable retaliatory and substitutionary-relief internet porn sites without first illegalizing the massive-infestation exhibitionism of FULL-sized, 3D, live-motion, suddenly-appearing women (not'ladies') roaming around anonymously and terroristically inciting lust, irritation, confusion, and needless dangerous loveless antagonism - with illogical follow-up prudishness and deprivational abstinence at their irrational whims.

Once authentic and consistent modesty is realized, cooperated with, accomodated to, and officially accomplished by law-enforced courts-approved authority and action within neighborhoods, communities, stores, businesses, schools, and churches, what is posted and resides on the national internet will assuredly and invaribly reflect that same modesty on screen devoid of the now-devastating problem of having myriad PSEUDO-'legal' stumbling blocks of lasciviously-lurid body-parts competition imposed against public health and well-being.

That is preferable to both live-person harlots and secluded private internet surfers non-anonymously having their Social Security numbers branded upon their foreheads or hands as public-nuisance disturbers-of-the-peace.

MANY sexually-related consequences of immodesty (e.g. abortion homicide, kidnapping and abusing children, spouse-beatings, car and pedestrians accidents, assembly-line foul-ups, suicides, murders, rape assaults, etc.) would be significantly lessened as society in general complies with the divine implications of KJV's, RSV's, NASV's, NKJV's modesty particulars.

Even commerce will be revitalized by such pro-modesty correction and adjustment - causing mainline search-engine news-page portals to actually refuse posting and hosting immodest popup ads of women indecently misdressed as previously described (as for example in sleevesless/slacksless/socksless bathing suits or bikinis) on their home more appropriately and succinctly warn surfers about venturing into possible-nudity cyberspace.

The old adage of If one looks for evil long and hard enough, one will find it always will apply in this present non-theocratic world of immoral moral-majority pollution and wicked choices. But - remembering the legacies of our great-great-great-grandparents or those before them and their everyday/commonplace exquisitely puritannical/victorian modesty - the sacred goal is to make finding evil and getting defiled by it more and more difficult.

It MUST be so - if Revelation 14 is to be fulfilled, which predicts in the New_Testament book of Revelation that there will be 144,000 Israelite-tribe virgins who have not defiled themselves with women.

One cumulative result of accidently absorbing all the insane and counterproductive immodesty from a majority of the warm-weather public is logical covert and cautious search by hapless victimes for, with acquisition and retention of, more severe types of pornographic-like immodesty even the immodest themselves might or might not consider "pornography." To secretly peruse such mild but more-high-powered porn by the victims suffering because of and persecuted by the immodest warm-weather public is temporarily relieving and satifying erotically, in one sense at least.

I am referring to the pictoral exposure of what is generally not displayed even by the summertime immodest (but understandably leading to and eventually culminating with): bare thighs, breast(s), buttock(s), and crotch-area genitals) [though not what some would term obnoxious porn of homosexual repulsiveness, nor bestiality, rape, toddler molestation, multiple-men-in-woman orgies, and more....but simply rather non-airbrushed sharp and true-color .jpg-type pics and vids of COMPETELY-naked YOUNG women with beautiful faces and slender shapely figures with even bare soles of their feet in plain view].

There ARE three techniques which can be used to counter such immodest "persons, people, or peoples" (whatever semantics is applicable).

One is conveying specifically-detailed criticism (preferably with graphically-applicable Old and New-Testament Bible verses) to them in the forms of bumper signs, back-of-window car signs, through-open-car-window and underneath-windshield-wiper leaflets, public and private-property lawn signs, bulletin-board postings, internet webpages (like this one), voice-mail messages, penname-nonidentifiable e-mails using free hosters (e.g. Fastmail, Lavabit, Yahoo, Lycos, etc.), ink stamps and stickers on mailed envelopes, etc.

Another technique (which incidently can be used along with the previously-mentioned technique) is to convey to them and them only (by some of the many ways described above) the more severe porn to shame and shock them because of the semi-porn they themselves are ignorantly or deliberately [but either way] lasciviously imposing against others who do not want to see such licentuousness importuniously forced upon them. When the more-porno mirror is then shoved in front of the faces of the less-porno perpetrators, their frequently-hypocritical adverse and hostile reaction is predictable. There is painful discipline involved in improving anything, and to rock the status-quo boat is never pleasant for fools habitually hung up on almost-religiously, dogmatically, and narrow-mindedly practicing their sometimes-modest-under-duress but generally incessant and repetitious immodest-attire-for-the-day perversities.

The last technique conceivable is to punish them for their summertime immodesty in either or both of two ways.

It has been publicized that there are islamic-fundamentalist police in various places on the planet who actually arrest, fine, imprison (and when necessary, shoot dead) those who persist in misdressing immodestly in public after being warned a few times.

In a democracy, other types of punishment look much less retributionary, such as offering immodest people the opportunity to acquire (through Verisign and PayPal merchant-account credit-card online transactions) selectively-accumulated choice female-nudes porn on certain pay-per-view internet websites and cable-TV programming....thus indirectly discriminating against them and them alone - not the innocent moral-minority saints of the Lord....with the traditionally-required subscription-fee "fines" [in effect] along with government taxes and statutory regulations related to their own lustful-sensuality pleasures. Any profits from selling such optical retaliation to the immodest should go to Christian charities and PACs instead of being an income-producer the porn provider becomes dependent upon for monthly bill payments.

A few inconvenient pothole-and-gutter nail-in-the-tire flats, starter/water-pump/alternator breakdowns, contagiously-caught viruses or strokes/cancers/flu/colds/whatever, tobacco addiction and spoiled-food poisoning, identity-theft or property vandalism, indecency-caused VD and premarital pregnancy, flying-rocks-shattered windshields, expensive car accidents, no-win lottery loss, inconvenient hurricane-or-tornado-damaging winds, power outages, waterline breaks, assembly-line-equipment malfunctions, employment layoffs, and MUCH more from the Lord also rightfully beset the immodestly wicked.

Which would you rather experience: a non-solicited, incomplete and non-fulfilling, senseless, non-controlled, accidental or deliberate, temporary terroristic predatory assault and attack....or instead a thoughtfully-chosen, complete and thus fulfilling, reason-for-doing-it, permanent-and-something-you-can-get-a-handle-on, controlled and contained act?

I'm sure that both you and I would choose the latter.

What subject do I have in mind? What subject do most men and women have in mind much of the time? What subject do TV and magazine advertisers use to attract attention? What does the Bible describe extensively throughout the entire content of sixty-six books?

What do you see a lot of during seasonably warm days (and nights), which you [thankfully] do not see during frigidly-cold winter days and nights? What does the Devil's media use to attract your attention and to titillatingly tantalize you? What is the basis for all the commotion about abortion homicide and a woman's purported "right" (not simply: capacity) involving "choice?" What is AIDS and venereal disease rather-directly related to? How about the all the hubub about condoms and contraceptives? And premarital pregnancies? What is the touchy-touchy feelie-feelie extramarital fornication and adultery generally caused and exacerbated by?

What do irrational legalists refer to what they erroneously state that "God only judges by the inward person, not outward appearances"? And we have all heard the excuses about the need to tan, display tanned carcasses for pompous-primadonna pride, exclaiming and presuming that "it's "warm" out" and "I don't want to sweat," "Everybody's doing it - it's perfectly normal and is the conventional style and fashion for this time of year," etc. etc. ad nauseum.

What looks different about how girls and women in general public view appear nowadays compared to how their great-great-great-great-great grandmothers who lived before 1920 looked back then? Why the change?

What is usually acquired and enjoyed in privacy, away from accusatory and condemnatory eyes and mouths....compared to what hideousness is instead blatantly imposed in non-solicited general public view? What do many librarians and others prudishly censor on network computer screens, but then hypocritically allow to enter and move around within library and other premises?

The ideal, which we get from Scripture, is that all human females walking in and sitting around would be wearing ponytails in back of their heads, long-sleeved blouses, full-length (NOT shortened) slacks or long skirt, and socks on feet under sandals or other footwear.

Hence, the entrance sign posted at or on the doorways of various public buildings:

No Sleeves
No Slacks
No Socks
No Service

or something like that.

There are two basic types of sexual and erotic impurity:

1. Live-person, full-sized, in-color, in-motion, non-restricted, "legally"-allowed, non-solicited, incomplete bodily exposure of merely (mopheaded) loose long hair, naked arms, nude legs, and toes-bared feet and nothing much else, or

2. non-live-person, merely photographic, smaller-sized, restricted and private, somewhat "illegal," asked-for and therefore solicited, usually-complete-and-total, bodily exposure of what is exposed in (1) above PLUS a logical completion of the satisfying exposure of all other outwardly-visible body parts.

Some might wonder why there can't be both types allowed, and "what's the big deal"?

Goofs who wonder: "What's the big deal?" are fools who simply are not thinking, comprehending, nor contemplating the extensive and far-reaching effects and consequences of both (1) and (2) above. We, for the time being, will let such vile vermin wallow in their own self-righteous and arrogantly-noncooperative ignorance.

There is a certain honestly and forthrightness about not only the young well-proportioned and attractive female models who humbly and kindly pose for publicly-private porn, and the want-people-to-enjoy-life-and-God's-creation pimp-types who publicly but discreetly (though sometimes for monetary profit) publicize related photos and movies for private and personal viewing for each man of the public who is interested and has been sadistically enticed (carrot-on-a-stick-style) by usually-anonymous passersby who couldn't care less about the erotic desires and well-being of those they indiscriminately are seducing by their misdressed lasciviousness.

Conversely, there is a certain hypocritical dishonesty about gals who bare only certain parts of their body, expecting no one to be affected (let alone adversely affected) by such non-asked-for not-reliably-consistent exhibition of those parts and nothing beyond that......and expecting no one to admit to what those compromisingly-misattired gals are doing as to what they are exhibiting and not exhibiting - let alone stating possible or probable irrationalizations (not "reasons") of why they are committing (not "performing") such non-solicited obnoxious atrocities.

Because of public immodesty, it is quite understandable that men want porn - which can reliably be located geographically, readily handled, and willingly available for easy and quick manipulation with always-consensual utilization - instead of the fleeting, partially-indecent, somewhat-immodest live persons who they generally cannot capture and control....who (more often than not) object with non-compliance and non-cooperation in anti-patriarchal/matriarchal-authority moody and chauvinistic whims of arrogant and insubordinate feminist sexism.

The factor of the tyranny of possibly-already-married-or-engaged, partially-immodest, live-person human females hypocritically and sadistically saying NO! and/or call 911 for police assistance concerning men's logical follow-up with her to their partial-immodesty seduction is completely neutralized when it comes to the never-objecting images of birthday-suit-bared pretty young females in porn pics and movies.