kujo Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 How the heck has this not been sent to the Lame board yet?
cmotherofpirl Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 we lack other entertainment at present.... amuse us
kujo Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1338386098' post='2437764'] we lack other entertainment at present.... amuse us [/quote] Tried to spark a fire with Soc earlier...hasn't happened yet...
AnneLine Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) (Responding to FCC's comment last page...) I am an evil, evil influence, aren't i.... ? Edited May 30, 2012 by AnneLine
TheoGrad07 Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1338355398' post='2437677'] See, qfnol? It all works out. Besides, the Eastern Rite is so small I think they would take anyone they could get. [/quote] Even so, the wife is also "called" to the service of the Church -- not in the same way as the husband (obviously) but she most definitely participates in his vocation! So ... to bring the two conversations in this thread together ... the wife of a priest would most definitely need to wear a very modest swimsuit.
Annie12 Posted May 30, 2012 Author Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='TheoGrad07' timestamp='1338400884' post='2437860'] Even so, the wife is also "called" to the service of the Church -- not in the same way as the husband (obviously) but she most definitely participates in his vocation! So ... to bring the two conversations in this thread together ... the wife of a priest would most definitely need to wear a very modest swimsuit. [/quote] AH! HA!
franciscanheart Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 Am I the only person here who thinks the picture of Kim Kardashian in a two-piece (since removed) isn't offensive? I mean, it wasn't a string! It looks a lot like the suits linked to by someone else in this same thread. People oo-ed and aah-ed over those but Kim? THAT'S JUST TOO MUCH. Meanwhile, men walk around in banana hammocks or board shorts and it ain't no thang. Okay, so maybe the banana hammocks are a bit much (and we can all agree on it), but their chests are (generally speaking) still showing and hi, that's not much different for any straight or bisexual woman than a woman's chest is for any straight or bisexual man. YES I JUST GOT THAT ARGUMENT STARTED. So sue me.
cmotherofpirl Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 I don't know who she was, nor do I really care, but I liked the bathing suit, had no problem with it.
Lil Red Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1338402282' post='2437875'] Am I the only person here who thinks the picture of Kim Kardashian in a two-piece (since removed) isn't offensive? I mean, it wasn't a string! It looks a lot like the suits linked to by someone else in this same thread. People oo-ed and aah-ed over those but Kim? THAT'S JUST TOO MUCH. Meanwhile men walk around in banana hammocks or board shorts and it ain't no thang. Okay, so maybe the banana hammocks are a bit much (and we can all agree on it), but their chests are (generally speaking) still showing and hi, that's not much different for any straight or bisexual woman than a woman's chest is for any straight or bisexual man. YES I JUST GOT THAT ARGUMENT STARTED. So sue me. [/quote] how is this relatively modest (according to the world's standards) bikini and the woman wearing it "offensive", "gross", "highly improper"? it's a swimsuit - and she's actually swimming.
qfnol31 Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 What should a woman cover to be modest? If only her are***s and cheeks, then very much is modest. If more, how much would you suggest? I'll bite and have some fun. I'm not sure how much terminology is acceptable... I can put in the asterisked letters if needed.
Lil Red Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338405851' post='2437931'] What should a woman cover to be modest? If only her are***s and cheeks, then very much is modest. If more, how much would you suggest? I'll bite and have some fun. I'm not sure how much terminology is acceptable... I can put in the asterisked letters if needed. [/quote] areola? why can't we say that? seriously?
franciscanheart Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338405851' post='2437931'] What should a woman cover to be modest? If only her are***s and cheeks, then very much is modest. If more, how much would you suggest? I'll bite and have some fun. I'm not sure how much terminology is acceptable... I can put in the asterisked letters if needed. [/quote] It took me a second to figure out what you were saying up there with all those asterisks. In the deleted image, the woman's breasts were well covered. There was some "cleavage" (in that you could see some of the outline of the inside of the breasts), but it was by no means a nipple cover with strings. It also appeared that she was wearing bottoms that actually covered her bottom. AND she had a sarong. I'm not saying we should draw a line on the breasts and decide anything less is immodest, I'm just saying that not all two-pieces are unacceptable. I don't think there is a swimsuit on the market that, if less than a "shelf bra" type top, is going to hide every part of a woman's breasts. And even if they do, there they are. I think men should have to wear tube tops over their pecks.
Lil Red Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338405851' post='2437931'] What should a woman cover to be modest? If only her are***s and cheeks, then very much is modest. If more, how much would you suggest? I'll bite and have some fun. I'm not sure how much terminology is acceptable... I can put in the asterisked letters if needed. [/quote] my problem is that people said the picture was gross and offensive. why? she has a beautiful (God-given) body. sure, it may not be a modest picture (according to some), but to call the picture gross and offensive? seriously?
qfnol31 Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1338406177' post='2437932'] areola? why can't we say that? seriously? [/quote]LoL, I didn't know what is appropriate for bodily parts. I can think of a few I would rather not name in public...[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1338406179' post='2437933'] It took me a second to figure out what you were saying up there with all those asterisks. In the deleted image, the woman's breasts were well covered. There was some "cleavage" (in that you could see some of the outline of the inside of the breasts), but it was by no means a nipple cover with strings. It also appeared that she was wearing bottoms that actually covered her bottom. AND she had a sarong. I'm not saying we should draw a line on the breasts and decide anything less is immodest, I'm just saying that not all two-pieces are unacceptable. I don't think there is a swimsuit on the market that, if less than a "shelf bra" type top, is going to hide every part of a woman's breasts. And even if they do, there they are. I think men should have to wear tube tops over their pecks. [/quote] I have worn a shirt for ten years now. Actually, I've been wearing pa.nts for almost that long too. But that's a different story.
Recommended Posts