Wow, so bare feet are immodest?

[Bobisnekkid]

hmmm...

http://isthismodest.com/2009/04/13/shoes-and-straps-they-help-a-lot/

[ChristineF]

OK so strapless tops are one thing..... but bare feet????? I'm at a loss for words....... 

[IslandSteveZ]

In film and photography it is common to use bare feet or bare shoulders and careful cropping of the image to imply nudity. This person is nuts if they think that a strapless dress is going to suggest nudity to anyone when you can clearly see the entire body.

Just had an AhHa moment after reading the comments following the article. It appears that the author of this is writing from a somewhat religious slant as is usually the case in these discussions. He's talking about guys having "problems" after viewing a girls bare feet or bare leg. Of course he never really says what those "problems" are but he goes into the temptation thing and blabity blabity blah blah... Yeah read some of the comments it's crazy talk I tell ya.
                                                                     

[JCountry]

You need to really think about what he's trying to say.  When I first read it I thought he was retarded because I never try to picture anyone nude even if they're wearing a strapless dress.  What it does make you do thugh is you see the skin of her neck and shoulders and it makes you want to see the rest of her.  You're not necessarily visualizing it, but you're thinking "That looks hot.  I'd like to see the rest of her".  The feet thing is kinda dumb.  It only works as a representation of nudity if that's all you see, depending on the situation.  Not many people seeing a bare foot have the sudden urge to see the girl naked.

[Bobbert]

The site does recognize arguably legitimate problems in our society (sexual saturation), but some of those articles seem to promote pretty repressive attitudes

They do allow some room for our desired way of life:

The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of “modesty” (in one sense of that word); i.e., propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a certain social circle. Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally “modest,” proper or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or unchaste).

So we can set the standards of our society.  We can decide that being without clothing doesn't mean lacking modesty. 

[IslandSteveZ]

The site does recognize arguably legitimate problems in our society (sexual saturation), but some of those articles seem to promote pretty repressive attitudes

They do allow some room for our desired way of life:

The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of “modesty” (in one sense of that word); i.e., propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a certain social circle. Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally “modest,” proper or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or unchaste).

So we can set the standards of our society.  We can decide that being without clothing doesn't mean lacking modesty. 

Well now that is an interesting concept isn't it? The idea that different cultures can have the same basic principles while at the same time practicing them in different ways. WOW what a revelation! I really hate to get into discussions on religion or that other topic you pointed out...(sex..ewww icky)... What slays me though, are the fundamentalists who feel that a hint of skin is somehow going to lead to "problems". I can only assume that the "problems" this guy is referring to would lead to impure thoughts, masturbation, and god forbid possibly even fornication. They follow laws set down thousands of years ago that have no real basis in todays society.

Read while flipping randomly through a hotel room bible just last week "Thou shalt not allow a sorceress to live". That little gem of a law is still in print today and I think we all know how following that little rule turned out for folks a few hundred years ago. Just one example out of hundreds that clearly wouldn't fly in average society today.

I know there are loads of Christian or otherwise religious nudists out there. These are not the people I am referring to in this post.

 

[Bobbert]

The site does recognize arguably legitimate problems in our society (sexual saturation), but some of those articles seem to promote pretty repressive attitudes

They do allow some room for our desired way of life:

The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of “modesty” (in one sense of that word); i.e., propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a certain social circle. Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally “modest,” proper or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or unchaste).

So we can set the standards of our society.  We can decide that being without clothing doesn't mean lacking modesty. 

Well now that is an interesting concept isn't it? The idea that different cultures can have the same basic principles while at the same time practicing them in different ways. WOW what a revelation!

Who'd have guessed! 

[jeep]

If the idiot who wrote the article is so concerned that the sight of a bare big toe will drive a man into uncontrolable sexual thoughts he should become a muslim and piss of to teleban ruled areas maybe then he will be happy. I think this type of thinking says more about a lack of self control on the part of the guy than any immorality of the part of the girl with the exposed flesh.

[IslandSteveZ]

 

[ChristineF]

Guess I'm a tease for walking around barefoot all the time...... 

[IslandSteveZ]

Somehow I just knew you would be one of those immodest harlots what with your toes all hanging out in the breeze for any old guy to catch a glimpse of. 

[ChristineF]

Somehow I just knew you would be one of those immodest harlots what with your toes all hanging out in the breeze for any old guy to catch a glimpse of. 

Yep..... guess my secret life has been exposed....... 

And all this time I thought they were staring because I almost always ignore the "shoes required" signs in most stores...... if they want my $$$$ they'll let me go barefoot..... (and yes I know about the whole liability thing, I'm not gonna sue anyone if I step on something) 

[I4Ree]

Both look naked to me.

The way the foot is sliding up her leg is sensual.  The naked chest and shoulders give the illusion of nudity.

[rc]

that is strange

[Bboy1986]

I think this is definitely taking it too far.  However it brings up a case for what many naturist argue, the more something is hidden the more provocative it becomes, so therefore since people tend to where shoes more often than not it almost becomes taboo to be seen without them, but perhaps I am taking it too far there.