I think the term "skimpy" clothes, is again based on culture. I am not defending the lack of clothing in our society. What I am saying is that nudity in some cultures is not sinful. In some parts of Africa, the tribes normally wear a one piece bottom for both men and women. I have seen this on National Geographic and Discovery and honestly, I felt no sexual attraction or lust. I wasn't even expecting it, but it is normal in that culture. Nudity is not acceptable in 2004 American culture, so that is no excuse for Americans to walk around naked. It all depends on individual culture. That example of the one piece bathing suit, in the 50's and late 40's in America, that one piece would get someone arrested. Remember the old black&white movies, the men swam in shorts a t-shirt and suspenders. That was then, this is now. Cheerleading is not sinful per se, but I don't want my daughter doing it. Only because in America, it's turned into a sorority-type thing, too cliqie. What do you guys think of the girls in tennis wearing shorter and shorter skirts, Anna Kournikova, etc? Tennis isn't a sin, I can see the skirt being useful, but TV kind of made that into a sexual thing. Even though they wear spandex shorts underneath (most of the time, I hope). On a side note, I think sometimes Americans tend to make celebrities out of athletes. I mean, what they do is amazing, entertaining, etc. but these guys get paid crazy money. And they are idolized, There goes Commandment 1, or 2 (depending on which numbering system).
[quote author=Michael_Thoma link=board=1;threadid=356;start=30#msg4427 date=1087977483]I think the term "skimpy" clothes, is again based on culture... It all depends on individual culture... That was then, this is now.
That’s true. However, currently, in our present day society, it IS seen as skimpy. So, although a previous time period’s view of skimpy was somebody who was much more covered than people are today doesn’t mean that the social norm determines whether or not you have sinned. The social norm is constantly changing; and constantly becoming more immoral. Does this mean that if some day in the near future, IF it is perfectly okay for all people to walk around naked during summer time, that it’s no longer a sin? Of course not; the social norm doesn’t determine whether or not your actions are a sin, God does.
So to touch on your comment of these African tribes such as the Maasai, Bemba, and Zulu, who walk around topless; what are their intentions? Let’s evaluate them….
People of African tribes have a lack of technological advancement, a lack of source for fabric, and a lack of tools to create clothing.
People of our American society are the most technologically advanced people on this planet, live in the country with the richest economy; the United States, and have enough clothes to wear something different every day of the month yet still find it necessary to buy more.
To recap, we have clothes, they don’t! They don’t have the ability to give everybody a shirt, so they just do what Adam and eve did, walk around naked. They see a woman’s breast as the source of food for an infant and nothing more. I’m sure if they had the means to cover themselves, they would. They did what they could and wore some type of grass skirts to maintain some humility…
We Americans on the other hand have the means to cover every inch of our body yet we slowly cut out fabric and make the V neck on t-shirts lower and lower so that a slightly greater amount of cleavage is showing. Even if this is now socially acceptable, the intentions are to dress provocatively and that is the intention of a cheerleader’s uniform; to be enticing. To contrast that with the topless lady walking around in a grass skirt in some parts of the plains of east Africa; she’s not trying to entice anybody; or her husband would kill her… ;D
One final comment, even though during the 40s, a much less revealing outfit was considered provocative doesn’t mean that it wasn’t. If the lady was wearing the things seen as provocative at the time, then she was guilty as charged. Even those Muslim ladies who are dressed in “nak-kaab”, which is that thing were you can only see the woman’s eyes, if they are so much as blinking at you too much as a way of enticing you, they are sinning! It’s just that they have fewer things to work with.
Sorry to single out females in this topic of physical attraction, in that, they are always being blamed for being the ones to lour males; but I don’t find it possible to be able to turn the tables. If I wanted to attract a female, I don’t think revealing my hairy stomach and even hairier legs would entice her; not the least bit…
Do you all think that it would be sinful if a man who is in good physical shape, walks around without a shirt on, or wears "revealing" clothes? I think its the same thing
na body building is a different story i think because in bodybuilding you compit in front of judges and that is about it but if women go to see them then that is the women's fault not the guys really (and no i am not being byist toward men ;))
Body building is kinda wrong because you are wearing little tiny panties and ur showing all other people who are watching tv or pics ur body causing them to fall into temptation.
I don't think I've ever been tempted by looking at another man's muscular body. But then, I don't find men's bodies very attractive in the first place. Sometimes, I ask my women friends who look at a men's bodies, "What on earth do you see in that anyways?" But to each her own I suppose.
Body building and cheerleading are very different…
It is true that both are revealing, but for what reasons? Cheerleaders are revealing because they want to be enticing and use it as a means of attracting people. I am confident if cheerleaders started wearing long sleeve shirts and covering up their bellies, Madison square garden would see a slight dent in its annual revenues…
The reason bodybuilding is revealing is not so people can stare at ones body and be sexually attracted, the reason is so that they can show off their muscles. If bodybuilders didn’t show off their bodies it would be the equivalent of a track runner standing still. How can you see the progress of a bodybuilder if they have clothes on?
On a side note, bodybuilding takes an extreme amount of dedication, will power, sacrifice, and discipline. Very few people know what actually goes into the art of bodybuilding; it’s harder than it looks. On the other hand, aside from the jumps and flips, anyone can throw on a disgusting provocative outfit and smile. However, screaming and jumping at the same time, now that’s hard…
i just find body building just as wrong as cheerleading because it's like your showing off the body that God gave you... i mean as Mark said before, girls wouldnt, or shouldnt, be attracted to a guys gross belly or wutever... so what's the exception with bodybuilders? i mean... y show off the body gave you if u can take ur 'built body' and direct ur bodya nd exercise it in a sport? i don't see the point of bodybuilding or cheerleading if i would go to some bodybuilding contest to be a judge or whatever... i'd find it quite pathetic that a bunch of guys wasted their time on growing their biceps or triceps an inch bigger... i can understand the concept of lifting weights to stay in shape and healthy, but to aim at bigger muscles to win the best 'body'... thats just nasty and i dont c the point of cheerleading in that of all the games i've been to, the basketball players or football players dont really look at teh cheerleaders... they look at the crowds and the fans. cheerleaders are not exactly their 'priorities' in a game... once more: my lengthy opinion! ;D :P
I think they both have elements of sexuality to them. For bodybuilders, specifically the male ones, it's performance of masculinity in a way that a beauty pageant is a performance in femininity. (That's why I don't think it's a coincidence that "Mr. Universe" is a bodybuilding competition and "Miss Universe" is a beauty pageant.) The difference is that bodybuilding requires a degree of athleticism, whereas a beauty pageant doesn't as much. That's why one's a sport and the other isn't.
Good point... but one thing... most beauty pageants are also judged based on personality interviews n tests n wutever... as far as my knowledge goes, body building is where u c a guy go up in a tight speedo and do some flexes... things that i forone REALLY dont need to c
God gave you a body, God gave you clothes, God gave you a brain.... now USE them!
[quote author=SMS link=board=1;threadid=356;start=45#msg4505 date=1088053192] Good point... but one thing... most beauty pageants are also judged based on personality interviews n tests n wutever... as far as my knowledge goes, body building is where u c a guy go up in a tight speedo and do some flexes... things that i forone REALLY dont need to c
God gave you a body, God gave you clothes, God gave you a brain.... now USE them!
Well, I don't know if I'd go that far. I've seen a few competitions on TV (out of boredom, I can assure you!), and it seemed to me to require a certain amount of charisma and confidence to pull it off. You can have the best muscles in the world, but if you can't work the crowd then you won't win. So in that sense, it's very much a performance of personality as well as physique.
But to deny its sexual nature is to deny its history, IMO.
Well, cheerleading takes a lot of athleticism... so it is equal to bodybuilding. Again, I don't want my daughter doing it... then again, I don't want my son doin the skimpy speedo bodybuilding thing either. They're the same. Don't have double standards for women, thats just wrong... Let's try to be fair...
Well Michael, the other part of a "sport" is that it has to be governed by an agreed upon set of rules. I don't think cheerleading qualifies unless you're talking about competitive cheerleading, which I think is more of a sport.
SMS, I'm trying to figure out which name suits my personality best. If I don't like anything I come up with in the next few days, then I'll go back to "NorthernCross". Of course, you can always call me "NC" in the meantime. ;)
You’re all fixated on the fact that the body is being revealed but not looking into the deeper meaning of WHY it’s being revealed. The purpose of a cheerleader is to get a crowd energized and they choose to do this by dressing provocatively. They COULD get the crowd pumped with clothes on; yet nobody would like that…
Bodybuilders on the other hand are not flexing their muscles for people’s sexual enjoyment. They aren’t flexing it to show off in a conceited way. They CAN’T do the same thing with clothes on. The reason they wear such skimpy Speedos is so that the judges can determine their score based on muscles that would be hidden if they were to wear shorts such as the gluteus maximums, upper portions of the semimembranosus, and insertions of the quadriceps just to name a few... These are areas that are VERY HARD to train. These areas require an inexplicable amount of effort on the bodybuilder’s behalf to properly develop. So he isn’t wearing these outfits because he thinks they’re cool. He is wearing them because they enable the judges to see the product of his years of effort and commitment.
As I said before, the purpose of a cheerleader is to “get the crowd going”. She doesn’t need to do so by being immoral; she COULD cover her clothes yet that isn’t what people like. A bodybuilder can’t compete with clothes on. It’s the same thing as a track runner standing still…
I definitely see competitive cheerleading as a sport. Takes a great deal of effort also… however I don’t find it essential to practice that sport in skimpy clothes. It isn’t an necessity to the sport.
Comments
sleepy
On a side note, I think sometimes Americans tend to make celebrities out of athletes. I mean, what they do is amazing, entertaining, etc. but these guys get paid crazy money. And they are idolized, There goes Commandment 1, or 2 (depending on which numbering system).
That’s true. However, currently, in our present day society, it IS seen as skimpy. So, although a previous time period’s view of skimpy was somebody who was much more covered than people are today doesn’t mean that the social norm determines whether or not you have sinned. The social norm is constantly changing; and constantly becoming more immoral. Does this mean that if some day in the near future, IF it is perfectly okay for all people to walk around naked during summer time, that it’s no longer a sin? Of course not; the social norm doesn’t determine whether or not your actions are a sin, God does.
So to touch on your comment of these African tribes such as the Maasai, Bemba, and Zulu, who walk around topless; what are their intentions? Let’s evaluate them….
People of African tribes have a lack of technological advancement, a lack of source for fabric, and a lack of tools to create clothing.
People of our American society are the most technologically advanced people on this planet, live in the country with the richest economy; the United States, and have enough clothes to wear something different every day of the month yet still find it necessary to buy more.
To recap, we have clothes, they don’t! They don’t have the ability to give everybody a shirt, so they just do what Adam and eve did, walk around naked. They see a woman’s breast as the source of food for an infant and nothing more. I’m sure if they had the means to cover themselves, they would. They did what they could and wore some type of grass skirts to maintain some humility…
We Americans on the other hand have the means to cover every inch of our body yet we slowly cut out fabric and make the V neck on t-shirts lower and lower so that a slightly greater amount of cleavage is showing. Even if this is now socially acceptable, the intentions are to dress provocatively and that is the intention of a cheerleader’s uniform; to be enticing. To contrast that with the topless lady walking around in a grass skirt in some parts of the plains of east Africa; she’s not trying to entice anybody; or her husband would kill her… ;D
One final comment, even though during the 40s, a much less revealing outfit was considered provocative doesn’t mean that it wasn’t. If the lady was wearing the things seen as provocative at the time, then she was guilty as charged. Even those Muslim ladies who are dressed in “nak-kaab”, which is that thing were you can only see the woman’s eyes, if they are so much as blinking at you too much as a way of enticing you, they are sinning! It’s just that they have fewer things to work with.
Sorry to single out females in this topic of physical attraction, in that, they are always being blamed for being the ones to lour males; but I don’t find it possible to be able to turn the tables. If I wanted to attract a female, I don’t think revealing my hairy stomach and even hairier legs would entice her; not the least bit…
because in bodybuilding you compit in front of judges and that is about it but if women go to see them then that is the women's fault not the guys really
(and no i am not being byist toward men ;))
Epsaltos Michael
God bless!
Epsaltos Michael
It is true that both are revealing, but for what reasons? Cheerleaders are revealing because they want to be enticing and use it as a means of attracting people. I am confident if cheerleaders started wearing long sleeve shirts and covering up their bellies, Madison square garden would see a slight dent in its annual revenues…
The reason bodybuilding is revealing is not so people can stare at ones body and be sexually attracted, the reason is so that they can show off their muscles. If bodybuilders didn’t show off their bodies it would be the equivalent of a track runner standing still. How can you see the progress of a bodybuilder if they have clothes on?
On a side note, bodybuilding takes an extreme amount of dedication, will power, sacrifice, and discipline. Very few people know what actually goes into the art of bodybuilding; it’s harder than it looks. On the other hand, aside from the jumps and flips, anyone can throw on a disgusting provocative outfit and smile. However, screaming and jumping at the same time, now that’s hard…
RA RA SHISH BOOM BAH!
-Mark
sleepy
if i would go to some bodybuilding contest to be a judge or whatever... i'd find it quite pathetic that a bunch of guys wasted their time on growing their biceps or triceps an inch bigger... i can understand the concept of lifting weights to stay in shape and healthy, but to aim at bigger muscles to win the best 'body'... thats just nasty
and i dont c the point of cheerleading in that of all the games i've been to, the basketball players or football players dont really look at teh cheerleaders... they look at the crowds and the fans. cheerleaders are not exactly their 'priorities' in a game...
once more: my lengthy opinion! ;D :P
For more info go to http://www.bodybuildingreviews.net/Bodybuilding.html. You'll note the comic advertisement demonstrates that sexuality plays a historical role in the sport that it doesn't in many others.
God gave you a body, God gave you clothes, God gave you a brain.... now USE them!
Good point... but one thing... most beauty pageants are also judged based on personality interviews n tests n wutever... as far as my knowledge goes, body building is where u c a guy go up in a tight speedo and do some flexes... things that i forone REALLY dont need to c
God gave you a body, God gave you clothes, God gave you a brain.... now USE them!
Well, I don't know if I'd go that far. I've seen a few competitions on TV (out of boredom, I can assure you!), and it seemed to me to require a certain amount of charisma and confidence to pull it off. You can have the best muscles in the world, but if you can't work the crowd then you won't win. So in that sense, it's very much a performance of personality as well as physique.
But to deny its sexual nature is to deny its history, IMO.
God bless!
IMA?
ps... y do u keep changing ur name?
SMS, I'm trying to figure out which name suits my personality best. If I don't like anything I come up with in the next few days, then I'll go back to "NorthernCross". Of course, you can always call me "NC" in the meantime. ;)
Epsaltos Michael
more suggestions: Nacreous Christian, Nailed Cross, Nazeures Christian, Napoleonic code, Napoleonic Courage, Nascence Christian
Epsaltos Michael
Bodybuilders on the other hand are not flexing their muscles for people’s sexual enjoyment. They aren’t flexing it to show off in a conceited way. They CAN’T do the same thing with clothes on. The reason they wear such skimpy Speedos is so that the judges can determine their score based on muscles that would be hidden if they were to wear shorts such as the gluteus maximums, upper portions of the semimembranosus, and insertions of the quadriceps just to name a few... These are areas that are VERY HARD to train. These areas require an inexplicable amount of effort on the bodybuilder’s behalf to properly develop. So he isn’t wearing these outfits because he thinks they’re cool. He is wearing them because they enable the judges to see the product of his years of effort and commitment.
As I said before, the purpose of a cheerleader is to “get the crowd going”. She doesn’t need to do so by being immoral; she COULD cover her clothes yet that isn’t what people like. A bodybuilder can’t compete with clothes on. It’s the same thing as a track runner standing still…