Yes or No. In average - wives dictate the success of a marriage/husband-wife relationship.

Pray_Everyday

Robin
Woman
Other Christian
Hopefully this doesn't derail the thread too much, but there is not a Ladies Theology section to ask in...

So, I don't know very much about the apocrypha books, but the following quote inspired me to read Tobit (which is also know as Tobias, correct?).
"[16] Then the angel Raphael said to him: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. [17] For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power." Tobias 6:16-17.

Anyway, I used the Catena Bible website because I've seen it recommended on the men's forum and, upon finishing it, realized I never came to that quote.


My questions:
- Is there different versions of the apocrypha books, and are they very different from each other? I mean like multiple verses added or removed.
- Is a particular verion recommended? Why? My KJV doesn't have the apocrypha so I will have to read it online.
- Are the Orthodox apocrypha books the same as the Catholic ones? Is there more books included in one of the canons than the other? If so, what is the background story on that?

Links or resources are appreciated, thanks in advance to anyone with info!
 

The Resilient

Ostrich
Orthodox
jPhJh9JLX6aN.jpeg
Hopefully this lesson helps break the husk of societal decay on their hearts
 

Kitty Tantrum

Kingfisher
Woman
Catholic
My point is, it's hypocritical to admonish someone repeatedly for their preference when one has a preference that others may find equally "unnatural", "pornified" , "culturally constructed", etc. It is not our place to judge the preferences in other monogamous married couples bedrooms, nor assume we know their motivations, or what's in their heart.
I think I was pretty clear (at least I tried to be) that I was not passing judgment on anyone, but rather sharing my own perspective on a piece of advice dispensed that I take general exception to. If there was admonishment, it was only against the notion that "women SHOULD be slutty for their husbands." Emphatically disagree that this is something all women should be encouraged to do. But that is not the same as admonishing or judging someone for having a personal preference. More like "methinks using those words to say that ALL WOMEN SHOULD do XYZ is not the most prudent thing, here is why."


FWIW my own mother never shaved anything and more or less taught that it was weird, unnatural, etc. to do so, whenever I expressed any curiosity on the matter (and the one time these girls at a public pool were like "WHY DO YOU HAVE SO MUCH HAIR ON YOUR LEGS???")

The first time I was exposed to the idea of any kind of hair removal being "normal" was when I was like 10 and my stepmother would not take us swimming until after she had shaved her legs - and my brothers and I were all annoyed because "why do you need to do THAT???"

Then puberty made every hair on my body coarse and wiry and prickly, and I changed my tune. It was and always has been a tactile/comfort issue. I started shaving my legs as soon as I had my own money and managed to get into a store by myself. And it became ten times easier to fall asleep at night without my leg hairs rubbing and catching on the sheets. Long pants and skirts became more bearable for similar reasons. The skin on my calves stopped itching and getting sore from the hairs getting grabbed and pulled, etc. all the time. After that it was a no-brainer to remove any hair that caused irritation, and I have ever since.

I do not see it as hypocritical, at all, to caution against teaching that things like lust and sluttiness are "sanctified" by the condition of being married... while having grooming preferences that are and have always been based on alleviating physical discomfort.

I CAN see why someone might make assumptions about how my grooming preferences came to be established, but it was not until years after I'd adopted it as my own standard that I EVER heard of anyone else doing similar for aesthetic or "desirability" reasons.

And the "omg it's like pedophilia" argument is an exercise in knee-jerk absurdity and intellectual laziness. You can make the same argument in reference to removing ANY HAIR that fills in anywhere on the body during puberty (beards, armpit hair, lady-'staches, etc. - better leave 'em alone and wear them proudly so people can tell you are not a child!). Or, for that matter... prepubescent kids don't get "body odor" the way adults do... does that mean if you prefer your partner to wear antiperspirant/deodorant, it's because you're not attracted to the natural scent of the adult body and only want to sniff kids? :squintlol:
 

Solitarius

Robin
Catholic
Hopefully this doesn't derail the thread too much, but there is not a Ladies Theology section to ask in...

So, I don't know very much about the apocrypha books, but the following quote inspired me to read Tobit (which is also know as Tobias, correct?).


Anyway, I used the Catena Bible website because I've seen it recommended on the men's forum and, upon finishing it, realized I never came to that quote.


My questions:
- Is there different versions of the apocrypha books, and are they very different from each other? I mean like multiple verses added or removed.
- Is a particular verion recommended? Why? My KJV doesn't have the apocrypha so I will have to read it online.
- Are the Orthodox apocrypha books the same as the Catholic ones? Is there more books included in one of the canons than the other? If so, what is the background story on that?

Hopefully this doesn't derail the thread too much, but there is not a Ladies Theology section to ask in...

So, I don't know very much about the apocrypha books, but the following quote inspired me to read Tobit (which is also know as Tobias, correct?).


Anyway, I used the Catena Bible website because I've seen it recommended on the men's forum and, upon finishing it, realized I never came to that quote.


My questions:
- Is there different versions of the apocrypha books, and are they very different from each other? I mean like multiple verses added or removed.
- Is a particular verion recommended? Why? My KJV doesn't have the apocrypha so I will have to read it online.
- Are the Orthodox apocrypha books the same as the Catholic ones? Is there more books included in one of the canons than the other? If so, what is the background story on that?

Links or resources are appreciated, thanks in advance to anyone with info!
The Douay-Rheims is the Catholic version. Some Catholics read various newer translations, but these are inferior to the Douay-Rheims. I hope that the following article will be of interest.
DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS
James Akin

When Catholics and Protestants talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind.
In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."
Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).
Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.
Who Compiled the Old Testament?
The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are "apocryphal." During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don't belong in Scripture.
During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.
The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).
Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church—the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life—the Septuagint.
The Apostles & the Deuteros
The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands—especially without warning them against them.
But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).
There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.
The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, "It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh. . . . ut the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ' After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, 'You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life'" (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).
One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection.
"The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them . . . [saying], 'I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws,'" telling the last one, "Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers" (2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29). This is but one example of the New Testaments' references to the deuterocanonicals.
The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.
The Fathers Speak
The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.
Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).
The recognition of the deuterocanonicals as part of the Bible that was given by individual Fathers was also given by the Fathers as a whole, when they met in Church councils. The results of councils are especially useful because they do not represent the views of only one person, but what was accepted by the Church leaders of whole regions.
The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.
This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).
The Reformation Attack on the Bible
The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.
The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)
To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that "The Jews don't except these books." In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.
 

Solitarius

Robin
Catholic
The Douay-Rheims is the Catholic version. Some Catholics read various newer translations, but these are inferior to the Douay-Rheims. I hope that the following article will be of interest.
DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS
James Akin

When Catholics and Protestants talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind.
In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."
Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).
Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.
Who Compiled the Old Testament?
The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are "apocryphal." During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don't belong in Scripture.
During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.
The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).
Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church—the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life—the Septuagint.
The Apostles & the Deuteros
The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands—especially without warning them against them.
But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).
There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.
The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, "It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh. . . . ut the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ' After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, 'You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life'" (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).
One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection.
"The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them . . . [saying], 'I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws,'" telling the last one, "Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers" (2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29). This is but one example of the New Testaments' references to the deuterocanonicals.
The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.
The Fathers Speak
The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.
Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).
The recognition of the deuterocanonicals as part of the Bible that was given by individual Fathers was also given by the Fathers as a whole, when they met in Church councils. The results of councils are especially useful because they do not represent the views of only one person, but what was accepted by the Church leaders of whole regions.
The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.
This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).
The Reformation Attack on the Bible
The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.
The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)
To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that "The Jews don't except these books." In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.
2nd part."
Rewriting Church History
In later years they even began to propagate the myth that the Catholic Church "added" these seven books to the Bible at the Council of Trent! Protestants also try to distort the patristic evidence in favor of the deuterocanonicals. Some flatly state that the early Church Fathers did not accept them, while others make the more moderate claim that certain important Fathers, such as Jerome, did not accept them.
It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures—testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.
Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not.
He wrote, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled—the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews.
Other writers Protestants cite as objecting to the deuterocanonicals, such as Athanasius and Origin, also accepted some or all of them as canonical. For example, Athanasius, accepted the book of Baruch as part of his Old Testament (Festal Letter 39), and Origin accepted all of the deuterocanonicals, he simply recommended not using them in disputations with Jews.
However, despite the misgivings and hesitancies of a few individual writers such as Jerome, the Church remained firm in its historic affirmation of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture handed down from the apostles. Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly remarks that in spite of Jerome's doubt, "For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament . . . The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405" (Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56).
It is thus a complete myth that, as Protestants often charge, the Catholic Church "added" the deuterocanonicals to the Bible at the Council of Trent. These books had been in the Bible from before the time canon was initially settled in the 380s. All the Council of Trent did was reaffirm, in the face of the new Protestant attack on Scripture, what had been the historic Bible of the Church—the standard edition of which was Jerome's own Vulgate, including the seven deuterocanonicals!
 

Solitarius

Robin
Catholic
2nd part."
Rewriting Church History
In later years they even began to propagate the myth that the Catholic Church "added" these seven books to the Bible at the Council of Trent! Protestants also try to distort the patristic evidence in favor of the deuterocanonicals. Some flatly state that the early Church Fathers did not accept them, while others make the more moderate claim that certain important Fathers, such as Jerome, did not accept them.
It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures—testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.
Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not.
He wrote, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled—the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews.
Other writers Protestants cite as objecting to the deuterocanonicals, such as Athanasius and Origin, also accepted some or all of them as canonical. For example, Athanasius, accepted the book of Baruch as part of his Old Testament (Festal Letter 39), and Origin accepted all of the deuterocanonicals, he simply recommended not using them in disputations with Jews.
However, despite the misgivings and hesitancies of a few individual writers such as Jerome, the Church remained firm in its historic affirmation of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture handed down from the apostles. Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly remarks that in spite of Jerome's doubt, "For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament . . . The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405" (Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56).
It is thus a complete myth that, as Protestants often charge, the Catholic Church "added" the deuterocanonicals to the Bible at the Council of Trent. These books had been in the Bible from before the time canon was initially settled in the 380s. All the Council of Trent did was reaffirm, in the face of the new Protestant attack on Scripture, what had been the historic Bible of the Church—the standard edition of which was Jerome's own Vulgate, including the seven deuterocanonicals!
3rd part."
The New Testament Deuteros

It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament.

Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals."

While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Ironic indeed!

THE FATHERS KNOW BEST: Old Testament Canon

During the Reformation, for largely doctrinal reasons Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament (1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith) and parts of two others (Daniel and Esther), even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53).

Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals.

Also included are the earliest official canon lists. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the canon lists cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

(Note: Some books of the Bible have gone under more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. This confusing nomenclature is explained more fully in Catholic Bible commentaries.)

The Didache

"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Pseudo-Barnabas

"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, 'Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves' [Isa. 3:9], saying, 'Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us' [Wis. 2:12.]" (Epistle of Barnabas 6:7 [ca. A.D. 74]).

Clement

"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. 'Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?' [Wis. 12:12]" (Epistle to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).
 

Solitarius

Robin
Catholic
3rd part."
The New Testament Deuteros

It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament.

Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals."

While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Ironic indeed!

THE FATHERS KNOW BEST: Old Testament Canon

During the Reformation, for largely doctrinal reasons Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament (1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith) and parts of two others (Daniel and Esther), even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53).

Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals.

Also included are the earliest official canon lists. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the canon lists cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

(Note: Some books of the Bible have gone under more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. This confusing nomenclature is explained more fully in Catholic Bible commentaries.)

The Didache

"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Pseudo-Barnabas

"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, 'Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves' [Isa. 3:9], saying, 'Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us' [Wis. 2:12.]" (Epistle of Barnabas 6:7 [ca. A.D. 74]).

Clement

"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. 'Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?' [Wis. 12:12]" (Epistle to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).
4th part"
Polycarp
"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms delivers from death' [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Isa 52:5]!" (Epistle to the Philadelphians 10 [ca. A.D. 135]).
Irenaeus
"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying 'No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: 'O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart' [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, 'You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous' [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [ca. A.D. 190]; Dan. 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).
Irenaeus
"Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, 'Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him' [Bar. 4:36- 5:9]" (ibid. 5:35:1 [ca. A.D. 190]; Baruch was often reckoned as part of Jeremiah, as it is here).
Hippolytus
"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel 6 [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).
Cyprian
"So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, 'I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth' [Dan. 14:5]" (Epistles 55:5 [A.D. 252]; Dan. 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).
Cyprian
"In Genesis [it says], 'And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . . "' [Gen 22:1-2] . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], 'Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .' [Wis. 3:4].
Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], 'Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness'" [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21-23] (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).
Council of Rome
"Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Augustine
"The whole canon of the Scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called 'of Solomon' because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (On Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [ca. A.D. 395]).
Augustine
"God converted [King Assuerus] and turned the latter's indignation into gentleness [Es. 15:11]" (On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin 1:24:25 [A.D. 418]; this passage is not in the Protestant Bible).
Augustine
"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (On the Care That Should be Taken for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).
Council of Carthage
"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
Apostolic Constitutions
"Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [ca. A.D. 400]).
Jerome
"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:24-90], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, 'This is not the time to discuss such matters'" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
Pope Innocent I
"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the Prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (To Exuperius 7 [A.D. 405]).
African Code
"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . . Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, of these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church" (canon 24 [A.D. 419]).
 

Pray_Everyday

Robin
Woman
Other Christian
If there was admonishment, it was only against the notion that "women SHOULD be slutty for their husbands."
Yes, it really is a shame that the word "slutty" was used, as I've mentioned several times, because it really derailed what could have been a very productive conversation. You can correct me if I'm wrong - and I'm always happy to admit when I've been proven wrong using facts, not  opinions - but I get the feeling that even if the word "sexy" had been used you would still have a problem with it.

Because you make statements like:
in a world where even most Christian men have had their preferences influenced by the hyper-sexualized imagery of the modern world, most often including pornography, dressing to a man's established preference WILL OFTEN trigger memories and associations of pornographic imagery.

which stops making it specifically about the user who said the word "slutty", and now makes it about "most Christian men". That would be the kind of statements that are the basis of me saying that the thread turned judgmental towards men having a preference besides plain nudity in the bedroom (and by extension, wives who will indulge them).

FWIW my own mother never shaved anything and more or less taught that it was weird, unnatural, etc. to do so, whenever I expressed any curiosity on the matter (and the one time these girls at a public pool were like "WHY DO YOU HAVE SO MUCH HAIR ON YOUR LEGS???")

For what it's worth my mother was the same way, which led to the girls in 6th grade gym class making fun of me, and for the rest of the time spent under living my parents roof I had to weigh whether I would prefer to get teased at school or get grounded for sneaking in a razor and shaving my legs. (The razor won - kids don't be like me and disobey your parents, thought the best outcome would obviously have been to homeschool me. I digress.)

Then puberty made every hair on my body coarse and wiry and prickly, and I changed my tune. It was and always has been a tactile/comfort issue. I started shaving my legs as soon as I had my own money and managed to get into a store by myself. And it became ten times easier to fall asleep at night without my leg hairs rubbing and catching on the sheets. Long pants and skirts became more bearable for similar reasons. The skin on my calves stopped itching and getting sore from the hairs getting grabbed and pulled, etc. all the time. After that it was a no-brainer to remove any hair that caused irritation, and I have ever since.

Yes, but right now you're talking mainly about  legs. When I said that removing everything from the neck down (as you said in the post I quoted) has been popularized and mainstreamed by pornography I was obviously not referring just to legs, which are publically visible in the majority of (immodestly dressed) women.

I do not see it as hypocritical, at all, to caution against teaching that things like lust and sluttiness are "sanctified" by the condition of being married... while having grooming preferences that are and have always been based on alleviating physical discomfort.

You mention comfort, but the thread that was posted in was about ways to remain attractive to one's husband, and you mentioned your husband likes it, so to say it's strictly only for comfort is a stretch.

I CAN see why someone might make assumptions about how my grooming preferences came to be established, but it was not until years after I'd adopted it as my own standard that I EVER heard of anyone else doing similar for aesthetic or "desirability" reasons.

I was not making any assumptions - removing hair in certain areas is a trend influenced and popularized by pornography, just as wearing "sexy outifits" may be. If a man asks his wife to dress sexy, or to remove all her body hair (or if a wife chooses to dress sexy in private or remove all her body hair) it could be subconsciously influenced by the "pornification of culture".

If that doesn't apply to your specific motivations that's great, but perhaps realize that "the pornification of culture" also may not apply to other's motivations for doing the things they do, or liking what they like. That's all I've been really trying to get across - not every man is thinking of a harlot from his physical or virtual past when it comes to his preferences in how his wife dresses or grooms.

I am ashamed to acknowledge it, but I was exposed to (ok, I'll take responsibility - chose to look at ) my share of filth years ago before becoming a Christian and, as far as I remember, no one wore any particular outfits. I do remember that no one had any body hair at all...What I did get out of it was that men were visually aroused by hairless women, not women dressed up in outfits.

As I've said before, everyone's perspective is clouded by their own unique past. The only thing left to do is continue to put our trust in God, repent, and prayerfully move forward.

And the "omg it's like pedophilia" argument is an exercise in knee-jerk absurdity and intellectual laziness.

Good thing that's not my "argument" then...

What I was saying was that a preference for the no hair aesthetic has been popularized by pornography. And that some women believe that if a man prefers that he may have some unnatural inclinations, that may include prepubescent children. Which they're free to have an opinion on, just as you are to have such a negative opinion of "outfits".

Or, for that matter... prepubescent kids don't get "body odor" the way adults do
Actually, thanks to the vax, my 6 year old niece now has body odor which can be smelled from across the room. Poor kid.
... does that mean if you prefer your partner to wear antiperspirant/deodorant, it's because you're not attracted to the natural scent of the adult body and only want to sniff kids? :squintlol:
Antiperspirant is horrible for one's health, and the body is meant to excrete toxins through our sweat, so I would hope more people ditch the use of it, regardless of motivation.
 

TMarie

Sparrow
Woman
Catholic
No, because they both dictate the success of a marriage. I think patience is important in marriage. You don't want an impatient husband or wife. Also, any unreasonable expectation is going to lead to failure. You married them they way they are, hopefully you will always love this person, even with their flaws.
 

Starlight

Kingfisher
Woman
Protestant
4th part"
Polycarp
"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms delivers from death' [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Isa 52:5]!" (Epistle to the Philadelphians 10 [ca. A.D. 135]).
Irenaeus
"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying 'No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: 'O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart' [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, 'You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous' [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [ca. A.D. 190]; Dan. 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).
Irenaeus
"Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, 'Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him' [Bar. 4:36- 5:9]" (ibid. 5:35:1 [ca. A.D. 190]; Baruch was often reckoned as part of Jeremiah, as it is here).
Hippolytus
"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel 6 [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).
Cyprian
"So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, 'I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth' [Dan. 14:5]" (Epistles 55:5 [A.D. 252]; Dan. 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).
Cyprian
"In Genesis [it says], 'And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . . "' [Gen 22:1-2] . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], 'Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .' [Wis. 3:4].
Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], 'Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness'" [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21-23] (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).
Council of Rome
"Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Augustine
"The whole canon of the Scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called 'of Solomon' because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (On Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [ca. A.D. 395]).
Augustine
"God converted [King Assuerus] and turned the latter's indignation into gentleness [Es. 15:11]" (On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin 1:24:25 [A.D. 418]; this passage is not in the Protestant Bible).
Augustine
"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (On the Care That Should be Taken for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).
Council of Carthage
"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
Apostolic Constitutions
"Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [ca. A.D. 400]).
Jerome
"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:24-90], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, 'This is not the time to discuss such matters'" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
Pope Innocent I
"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the Prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (To Exuperius 7 [A.D. 405]).
African Code
"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . . Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, of these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church" (canon 24 [A.D. 419]).
Do you have any commentary regarding the text or is this just … what? Two pages of copy/paste? …
 

Atlas Shrugged

Woodpecker
Woman
Protestant
I think I was pretty clear (at least I tried to be) that I was not passing judgment on anyone, but rather sharing my own perspective on a piece of advice dispensed that I take general exception to. If there was admonishment, it was only against the notion that "women SHOULD be slutty for their husbands." Emphatically disagree that this is something all women should be encouraged to do. But that is not the same as admonishing or judging someone for having a personal preference. More like "methinks using those words to say that ALL WOMEN SHOULD do XYZ is not the most prudent thing, here is why."


FWIW my own mother never shaved anything and more or less taught that it was weird, unnatural, etc. to do so, whenever I expressed any curiosity on the matter (and the one time these girls at a public pool were like "WHY DO YOU HAVE SO MUCH HAIR ON YOUR LEGS???")

The first time I was exposed to the idea of any kind of hair removal being "normal" was when I was like 10 and my stepmother would not take us swimming until after she had shaved her legs - and my brothers and I were all annoyed because "why do you need to do THAT???"

Then puberty made every hair on my body coarse and wiry and prickly, and I changed my tune. It was and always has been a tactile/comfort issue. I started shaving my legs as soon as I had my own money and managed to get into a store by myself. And it became ten times easier to fall asleep at night without my leg hairs rubbing and catching on the sheets. Long pants and skirts became more bearable for similar reasons. The skin on my calves stopped itching and getting sore from the hairs getting grabbed and pulled, etc. all the time. After that it was a no-brainer to remove any hair that caused irritation, and I have ever since.

I do not see it as hypocritical, at all, to caution against teaching that things like lust and sluttiness are "sanctified" by the condition of being married... while having grooming preferences that are and have always been based on alleviating physical discomfort.

I CAN see why someone might make assumptions about how my grooming preferences came to be established, but it was not until years after I'd adopted it as my own standard that I EVER heard of anyone else doing similar for aesthetic or "desirability" reasons.

And the "omg it's like pedophilia" argument is an exercise in knee-jerk absurdity and intellectual laziness. You can make the same argument in reference to removing ANY HAIR that fills in anywhere on the body during puberty (beards, armpit hair, lady-'staches, etc. - better leave 'em alone and wear them proudly so people can tell you are not a child!). Or, for that matter... prepubescent kids don't get "body odor" the way adults do... does that mean if you prefer your partner to wear antiperspirant/deodorant, it's because you're not attracted to the natural scent of the adult body and only want to sniff kids? :squintlol:
I mean yes I understand some of what you are saying, but where did the idea come from. Like your response to slutty outfits came from somewhere not good. Where did the idea of a fully developed adult not wanting any hair in certain areas come from. Maybe I’m to science-y working in healthcare but the hair in your nose, eyelashes, eyebrows all protect you. So why wouldn’t some hooha hair do that as well. Then there is also the pheromones. But there is a reason for it. And yes an adult does not look like a child but only children are hairless, unless you have a disease. So me personally im against all hair removal. Gives me the heeby jeebies. Did I spell that right? It’s like I won’t tell someone not to maintain their unibrow but at the same time it’s sad that someone has to for society. That’s the only reason they are doing it. Some people will laugh.
 

Atlas Shrugged

Woodpecker
Woman
Protestant
Yes, it really is a shame that the word "slutty" was used, as I've mentioned several times, because it really derailed what could have been a very productive conversation. You can correct me if I'm wrong - and I'm always happy to admit when I've been proven wrong using facts, not  opinions - but I get the feeling that even if the word "sexy" had been used you would still have a problem with it.

Because you make statements like:


which stops making it specifically about the user who said the word "slutty", and now makes it about "most Christian men". That would be the kind of statements that are the basis of me saying that the thread turned judgmental towards men having a preference besides plain nudity in the bedroom (and by extension, wives who will indulge them).



For what it's worth my mother was the same way, which led to the girls in 6th grade gym class making fun of me, and for the rest of the time spent under living my parents roof I had to weigh whether I would prefer to get teased at school or get grounded for sneaking in a razor and shaving my legs. (The razor won - kids don't be like me and disobey your parents, thought the best outcome would obviously have been to homeschool me. I digress.)



Yes, but right now you're talking mainly about  legs. When I said that removing everything from the neck down (as you said in the post I quoted) has been popularized and mainstreamed by pornography I was obviously not referring just to legs, which are publically visible in the majority of (immodestly dressed) women.



You mention comfort, but the thread that was posted in was about ways to remain attractive to one's husband, and you mentioned your husband likes it, so to say it's strictly only for comfort is a stretch.



I was not making any assumptions - removing hair in certain areas is a trend influenced and popularized by pornography, just as wearing "sexy outifits" may be. If a man asks his wife to dress sexy, or to remove all her body hair (or if a wife chooses to dress sexy in private or remove all her body hair) it could be subconsciously influenced by the "pornification of culture".

If that doesn't apply to your specific motivations that's great, but perhaps realize that "the pornification of culture" also may not apply to other's motivations for doing the things they do, or liking what they like. That's all I've been really trying to get across - not every man is thinking of a harlot from his physical or virtual past when it comes to his preferences in how his wife dresses or grooms.

I am ashamed to acknowledge it, but I was exposed to (ok, I'll take responsibility - chose to look at ) my share of filth years ago before becoming a Christian and, as far as I remember, no one wore any particular outfits. I do remember that no one had any body hair at all...What I did get out of it was that men were visually aroused by hairless women, not women dressed up in outfits.

As I've said before, everyone's perspective is clouded by their own unique past. The only thing left to do is continue to put our trust in God, repent, and prayerfully move forward.



Good thing that's not my "argument" then...

What I was saying was that a preference for the no hair aesthetic has been popularized by pornography. And that some women believe that if a man prefers that he may have some unnatural inclinations, that may include prepubescent children. Which they're free to have an opinion on, just as you are to have such a negative opinion of "outfits".


Actually, thanks to the vax, my 6 year old niece now has body odor which can be smelled from across the room. Poor kid.

Antiperspirant is horrible for one's health, and the body is meant to excrete toxins through our sweat, so I would hope more people ditch the use of it, regardless of motivation.
Yes antiperspirant is very bad for you. Also when you shave your armpits don’t put on doederant for a whole day. Let it heal before putting on the deodorant with all the unnecessary chemicals in them. As for the knee jerk reaction to conflating hairlessness with pedos I stand by that. Nowadays it seems child porn is rampant more than ever and I’ve heard several men of all ages say ewww when they talk about women having any hair down there. To me that’s a psychological issue. Only children are hairless. Maybe I’ve spent to much time on the dark web but people are not right. I’ll believe what I believe. If someone else doesn’t that’s fine. But I won’t change my opinion.
 

Atlas Shrugged

Woodpecker
Woman
Protestant
Pray everyday this is for you. It’s sad that some kids made fun of you. Kids can be cruel. But if someone truly cares and loves you they won’t even notice. Long story short one of soulmates (bff as some kids call it) had a messed up mouth. Her words. Teeth missing and the ones left going every which way. One day I go over and she kept smiling really wide in my face and I was like what is up with her. After while she seemed upset and said I finally got my teeth fixed. 20k work in my mouth. I swear on everything I told her I didn’t notice cause she was always beautiful to me. I could care less about her teeth. So love with a spouse, parent, sibling or friend truly is blind of you care for someone.
 

Pray_Everyday

Robin
Woman
Other Christian
Yes antiperspirant is very bad for you. Also when you shave your armpits don’t put on doederant for a whole day. Let it heal before putting on the deodorant with all the unnecessary chemicals in them.

I started making my own homemade deodorant years ago - just coconut oil, and equal parts arrowroot powder and baking soda for ingredients. Still agree with letting the skin heal a bit before applying it regardless.

As for the knee jerk reaction to conflating hairlessness with pedos I stand by that. Nowadays it seems child porn is rampant more than ever and I’ve heard several men of all ages say ewww when they talk about women having any hair down there. To me that’s a psychological issue. Only children are hairless. Maybe I’ve spent to much time on the dark web but people are not right. I’ll believe what I believe. If someone else doesn’t that’s fine. But I won’t change my opinion.

You know, your opinion on this subject really got me thinking. It's not the first time I've heard it expressed, of course, but the first time since I've been a Christian. And you're completely right when you said in your other post 'why can't people just be happy with the way God made us'.

I admit that this preference is rooted in the prevalence of pornography in our culture (for the most part, with possible rare exceptions). And as the sexualization of children is attempted to be normalized (by satanic deviants, yes, but they are attempting to normalize it nonetheless), I think we need to heavily scrutinize trends that society normalized in the past leading up to this. The hairless aesthetic is just one of those things, but I know I will not be thinking of it as completely harmless as I once did.

That said, looks like my husband and I have some talking to do about the subject, as my husband he has the final say. But he is a God-fearing man with many strong convictions, so I have faith the Lord will help him to see and understand.

Pray everyday this is for you. It’s sad that some kids made fun of you. Kids can be cruel.

The kids I went to middle school with were truly demon spawn. I'm not being hyperbolic. Out of concerns for doxing I will not share many details, but I could name some names that undoubtedly people will recognize. (I had a scholarship because of my ridiculously good ability to take standardized tests while being female, and my parents were naive and thought it would be a good opportunity).

Anyway, many children would have probably fared ok, but I have a rather peculiar personality (if it isn't apparent from my posts, lol) so I was catnip to bullies. Teasing me about my leg hair was actually one of the more benign and less traumatic aspects...

I'll just say the "elites" or "quasi-elites" do not wait until adulthood to develop a taste for cruelty and perversion...

But if someone truly cares and loves you they won’t even notice. Long story short one of soulmates (bff as some kids call it) had a messed up mouth. Her words. Teeth missing and the ones left going every which way. One day I go over and she kept smiling really wide in my face and I was like what is up with her. After while she seemed upset and said I finally got my teeth fixed. 20k work in my mouth. I swear on everything I told her I didn’t notice cause she was always beautiful to me. I could care less about her teeth. So love with a spouse, parent, sibling or friend truly is blind of you care for someone.
True.

At the same time though, would you feel the same way about a prospective husband and not just a good friend?
(Me personally, I've always admired personality and intelligence in a prospective relationship over appearance, but I get the feeling I'm not the norm from hearing and reading about other women's ridiculous physical standards). Yet I hold myself up to standards, I guess because I'm the woman and I always heard about men being visual? Anyway, gave me much to think about...
 

Atlas Shrugged

Woodpecker
Woman
Protestant
At the same time though, would you feel the same way about a prospective husband and not just a good friend?

Honestly the only aesthetic preference I would have for a future husband to be attracted to initially would be hair hair everywhere. People think I’m weird but I could care less if he has snaggletooth as people it. Actually my sons father had quite the mouth/teeth thing going on and was a little tubby. I didn’t care. He made me laugh. I’m not falling for that again!!!!
 

Atlas Shrugged

Woodpecker
Woman
Protestant
For what it's worth my mother was the same way, which led to the girls in 6th grade gym class making fun of me, and for the rest of the time spent under living my parents roof I had to weigh whether I would prefer to get teased at school or get grounded for sneaking in a razor and shaving my legs. (The razor won - kids don't be like me and disobey your parents, thought the best outcome would obviously have been to homeschool me. I digress.)
My mom did this with makeup. No makeup allowed as a child under her roof. We could wear it when we grew up or left. I am thankful for that. I was very upset about that. 20 years ago girls had the face paint down by 14/15. I did cry a few times. All it took was a few years and once I was 18 I was like why bother at this point. I’m a decade behind in the art of makeup. So I just didn’t care. It was a blessing. I al thankful my mom did that. I cannot understand women who literally cannot leave the house with no makeup on or have an epic meltdown. I look at them like they are deranged. Splash some water on you face, brush your teeth, put your hair in a bun and go! Now shaving was never an issue. But my family just did the normal legs and pits mostly in the summer. Most females in my family wouldn’t think of shaving their nether regions. Maybe the outer edge so it doesn’t poke out your bathing suit but more like maintenance. We also didn’t wear bikinis, either a bathing suit or T-shirt and shorts. Honestly though and maybe this is where I need to be kinder. When I was a kid and me and my best friend found her dads playboy stash we were amazed and grossed out by what we saw. This was the epic bush era playboys we were looking at. Hair so dark you couldn’t see the skin behind it. Well that never happened to me. I wondered when is it going to get super dark and super thick. Well it stayed super light and sparse. It took a while for me to realize everyone is different like that. As an 8 year old you do think everyone will have a dark shrub. Other than that I never watched sex videos, except for one, so it did take my slow butt awhile to realize oh well I just don’t have a lot of hair and it’s light. Lololol. Not once though did I think hair down there was wrong. Whether it’s dark or light, a lot or a little. Never crossed my mind until one day everyone woman wanted to rip it all off and every man wanted it bare. I was like what the heck happened? I sure did ask and there were 2 answers. One was well when you put your mouth down there you don’t want hair. Maybe I’m just different but my first thought was ok you’re afraid of some hair but not the fact that your mouth is near the waste disposal factory. Interesting. Then the other thing I noticed was the men wanting it bare also wanted boy-like women so that got me thinking about the pedo thing. They wanted them rail thin, didn’t care about boobs or butt, barely 18 and no hair. So again im like where is this coming from? Yes I know not all men but so many would say that. Now this was about 20 years ago. I shudder to think what the younger men want now. So if any potential spouse said they want all my hair gone I’d say good luck in your endeavors and goodbye. This is such an interesting topic. Also Im going to be honest there was one “porn” video I watched. Back in the day a lot of people watched the Pam and Tommy lee video. We literally had to get the VHS tape. It’s like that was the thing that everyone did. So me and my sons father watched and when it ended we were like eh ok whatever. At least he wasn’t a porn guy and I wasn’t a porn girl. That’s why I don’t understand porn. It was like well that’s like 30 minutes we will never get back. Now playboy seemed different. Yes I know bad bad bad. But sons father had subscription and guess who always got it first. I did, and no lie it really did have great articles. I read it all first then looked at some photos but at that time all the hair was gone or a little line of hair and I’d be like weird. He would come asking didn’t the new playboy come and I’m like oh yeah I’ve had for 2 weeks this issue has a great interview. Now I know that was obviously a sin but I actually did think it did have great interviews and articles. It’s crazy how playboy went from adult women with hair to adult women hairless.
 

Pray_Everyday

Robin
Woman
Other Christian
My mom did this with makeup. No makeup allowed as a child under her roof. We could wear it when we grew up or left. I am thankful for that. I was very upset about that. 20 years ago girls had the face paint down by 14/15. I did cry a few times. All it took was a few years and once I was 18 I was like why bother at this point. I’m a decade behind in the art of makeup. So I just didn’t care. It was a blessing.
Makeup was allowed for me at 16-17 or so. Of course, most of the other girls had been wearing it for years by then. I realize what my parents were trying to do (keep me innocent), but I really wish they would have realized that in order to keep a child innocent you must homeschool. Keeping a child innocent/naive/sheltered etc while sending them to school with the offspring of degenerates is an exercise in cruelty.

My mother didn't wear makeup during the time that I've been alive, but she had plenty of stories (and pictures) from her time as a "succesful career woman" back when she wore makeup and was a frequent beauty salon client. She stopped putting any effort into her appearance as soon as she married and became a resentful housewife. So, keeping it relevant to the thread topic, I definitely saw the example of a woman putting in an effort to look good for other men, but not for her husband, in my mother.

It wasn't the only reason why my parent's marriage failed, but I'm sure it didn't help.
I cannot understand women who literally cannot leave the house with no makeup on
That was me for several years from 18 until I got super health conscious and realized how bad makeup is. My thought process was why am I going through all this effort to eat so healthy if I'm going to be voluntarily putting toxins on my skin. It was an overnight mindset change from not going outside without makeup on to never wearing it. I think people who knew me thought I had lost my mind lol. (Because of the abruptness of the change, not trying to say there's anything wrong with not wearing makeup)

As a Christian there's additionally the avoiding excess vanity reason, and being content with my God-given face, but I have to be honest that that wasn't my original motivation.

Never crossed my mind until one day everyone woman wanted to rip it all off and every man wanted it bare. I was like what the heck happened? I sure did ask and there were 2 answers. One was well when you put your mouth down there you don’t want hair. Maybe I’m just different but my first thought was ok you’re afraid of some hair but not the fact that your mouth is near the waste disposal factory. Interesting. Then the other thing I noticed was the men wanting it bare also wanted boy-like women so that got me thinking about the pedo thing. They wanted them rail thin, didn’t care about boobs or butt, barely 18 and no hair. So again im like where is this coming from? Yes I know not all men but so many would say that. Now this was about 20 years ago. I shudder to think what the younger men want now... It’s crazy how playboy went from adult women with hair to adult women hairless.
What was the other answer? (Only if it's appropriate to post, of course)

Yeah, from the time I was an adult I think it was normalized that women were expected to remove it all, from hearing what people would say. Or maybe people just like to talk and don't mean what they say, I guess that's always a possibility?

But the thing I've really been thinking about is how "they" like to play a long game - "they" bide their time and take the subversion step by step, knowing that if it's too fast then people will notice. The whole slow boiling the frog scenario.

There is no way the sexualization of children could have been so overt back then, they had to soften people up with pornography first. I'm guessing that's why the women appeared more natural back then. Then once society has normalized pornography, the next step would be the hairlessness being normalized. Then more "boyish" bodies or women that present as very young. And that's how we got where society is now, with young children tipping drag queens in lingerie, "consenting" to removing their genitalia surgically and grown adult men "identifying as" little girls.
It's clear what's next.

The craziest part is that there are still some "normie" types, like my in-laws, that don't see it. They genuinely believe my husband and I are making it up.
 

Atlas Shrugged

Woodpecker
Woman
Protestant
Makeup was allowed for me at 16-17 or so. Of course, most of the other girls had been wearing it for years by then. I realize what my parents were trying to do (keep me innocent), but I really wish they would have realized that in order to keep a child innocent you must homeschool. Keeping a child innocent/naive/sheltered etc while sending them to school with the offspring of degenerates is an exercise in cruelty.

My mother didn't wear makeup during the time that I've been alive, but she had plenty of stories (and pictures) from her time as a "succesful career woman" back when she wore makeup and was a frequent beauty salon client. She stopped putting any effort into her appearance as soon as she married and became a resentful housewife. So, keeping it relevant to the thread topic, I definitely saw the example of a woman putting in an effort to look good for other men, but not for her husband, in my mother.

It wasn't the only reason why my parent's marriage failed, but I'm sure it didn't help.

That was me for several years from 18 until I got super health conscious and realized how bad makeup is. My thought process was why am I going through all this effort to eat so healthy if I'm going to be voluntarily putting toxins on my skin. It was an overnight mindset change from not going outside without makeup on to never wearing it. I think people who knew me thought I had lost my mind lol. (Because of the abruptness of the change, not trying to say there's anything wrong with not wearing makeup)

As a Christian there's additionally the avoiding excess vanity reason, and being content with my God-given face, but I have to be honest that that wasn't my original motivation.


What was the other answer? (Only if it's appropriate to post, of course)

Yeah, from the time I was an adult I think it was normalized that women were expected to remove it all, from hearing what people would say. Or maybe people just like to talk and don't mean what they say, I guess that's always a possibility?

But the thing I've really been thinking about is how "they" like to play a long game - "they" bide their time and take the subversion step by step, knowing that if it's too fast then people will notice. The whole slow boiling the frog scenario.

There is no way the sexualization of children could have been so overt back then, they had to soften people up with pornography first. I'm guessing that's why the women appeared more natural back then. Then once society has normalized pornography, the next step would be the hairlessness being normalized. Then more "boyish" bodies or women that present as very young. And that's how we got where society is now, with young children tipping drag queens in lingerie, "consenting" to removing their genitalia surgically and grown adult men "identifying as" little girls.
It's clear what's next.

The craziest part is that there are still some "normie" types, like my in-laws, that don't see it. They genuinely believe my husband and I are making it up.
The other was in there maybe i didn’t make it clear. They wanted women who looked prepubescent like no boobs or butt or hair. Like the boy models you see. Then I dove into the web and to see what these people wanted and liked screamed pedo to me.
 

Atlas Shrugged

Woodpecker
Woman
Protestant
That was me for several years from 18 until I got super health conscious and realized how bad makeup is. My thought process was why am I going through all this effort to eat so healthy if I'm going to be voluntarily putting toxins on my skin. It was an overnight mindset change from not going outside without makeup on to never wearing it. I think people who knew me thought I had lost my mind lol. (Because of the abruptness of the change, not trying to say there's anything wrong with not wearing makeup)
One time a friend came over and needed makeup stat, no clue what happened. I laughed and said I’ve got chapstick and a concealer stick I’ve had forever. Only reason for that is pimples. I know some people think only bad hygiene causes pimples but you try being very hormonal and having oily skin. It has settled down in my 40’s but it still happens and it’s not small. It’s like look we’ve discovered a planet on your face. I hear from people on the other side of the spectrum I’d rather be oily than dry, tight and flaky and I’m like oh yes I love being covered in oil! You always think what you have is worse. Cause you have it. Maybe after menopause I’ll be pimple free? Please lie to me. Tell me yes!!!!
 
Top