Recruiting forum off topic thread (no politics, covid, or hot button issues)

#14,005
#14,005
Ulysees E. McGill said:
Those are not girls..they are adult WOMEN..I do not understand you people.
Click to expand...
Do people say "College girls" or "college women"?

Nobody says "college women".

Women are mature, working grown-azz folks that handle their own business...aka not the average college aged person. Half of them are literally teenagers... Though we can agree it's a generalization whichever term is used.

Bigger point wasn't semantics - it was that the OPs are likely the age of those "college aged females" father or grandfather.

Edit: sorry to string this along, football is here. Last post on this. Gbo
 
Last edited:
#14,008
#14,008
Devo182 said:
Do people say "College girls" or "college women"?

Nobody says "college women".

Women are mature, working grown-azz folks that handle their own business...aka not the average college aged person. Half of them are literally teenagers... Though we can agree it's a generalization whichever term is used.
Click to expand...
They are adults period....you are a virtue signaling prude. It is their right to objectify themselves, and men's right to give them the attention they want...age means nothing past childhood.


Look..I agree and try not to ever look myself, but I have reasons that make sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bullet20 and Enki_Amenra
#14,010
#14,010
Ulysees E. McGill said:
They are adults period....you are a virtue signaling prude. It is their right to objectify themselves, and men's right to give them the attention they want...age means nothing past childhood.


Look..I agree and try not to ever look myself, but I have reasons that make sense.
Click to expand...


Is every argument/stance that shows strong character “virtue signaling”?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glitch
#14,013
#14,013
Ulysees E. McGill said:
Exactly...I do not understand this new secular puratinsm that seeks to obliterate human nature...not for any spiritual reason...just because.
Click to expand...
For some, myself included, it's not an attempt to "obliterate human nature". That's not possible. It's an attempt to control/crucify the flesh and live Godly lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush and Glitch
#14,014
#14,014
Orange_Crush said:
It's my understanding that you identify as Christian? Or have I misinterpreted heretofor?
Click to expand...
Why I just as soon avoid those threads. In my youth probably not, but my understanding of myself and my faith have grown much since then. I certainly notice attractiveness in women that I meet and see each day, but going out of my way to look at pictures of young ladies in bikinis or less is not something I choose to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, Ulysees E. McGill, Paper_Towel and 3 others
#14,015
#14,015
Ulysees E. McGill said:
They are adults period....you are a virtue signaling prude. It is their right to objectify themselves, and men's right to give them the attention they want...age means nothing past childhood.


Look..I agree and try not to ever look myself, but I have reasons that make sense.
Click to expand...
Then what are you arguing against? The OP didn't try to wipe the internet of images. He said that he didn't like it.

I recall you claiming Christianity. If you are a traditional Christian that sees scripture as the basis of our beliefs, then you've read that Jesus said that lusting in the heart/eyes is the equivalent of adultery in God's eyes.

If you believe that the epistles are God's revelation through Paul, then you surely realize that doing something that causes another to sin (like, say, posing half-or-fully naked on the internet, or posting pictures with the intent of inviting others to lust) is a sin in God's eyes.

And you'd surely realize that "human nature" is synonymously referred to in the Bible as "the flesh", which is at war with God, the antithesis to walking in the Spirit, and the path to death. That's pretty much the basis theology of Christianity. In Adam, all died (and inherited his nature). But in Christ, all may live, and inherit His nature.

If you are indeed a traditional Christian that believes scripture as revelation, I would be curious why you can't understand someone who posts in support of the submission of human nature to Christ-nature, and a support of personal moral ethics.

I agree in that I see no need for secular Puritanism, but maybe there is a need for Biblical puritanism in the life of Christ's followers.
 
#14,016
#14,016
Glitch said:
Why I just as soon avoid those threads. In my youth probably not, but my understanding of myself and my faith have grown much since then. I certainly notice attractiveness in women that I meet and see each day, but going out of my way to look at pictures of young ladies in bikinis or less is not something I choose to do.
Click to expand...
Same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CAVPUT and Glitch
#14,019
#14,019
butchna said:
I’m Christian. Did I misinterpret a point?
Click to expand...
I think those taking the Christian stance against the girls of threads is from the sermon on the mount.

Matthew 5:28 - "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Many men nowadays struggle with pornography and I know those threads don't go that far. However, for some men, looking at a thread full of pictures of girls in bikinis would be like taking that first drink when you know you should. You know if you do, you are likely to wind up in an unhealthy place. Just a different perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, Smokey123, Volunteer821 and 2 others
#14,020
#14,020
Glitch said:
I think those taking the Christian stance against the girls of threads is from the sermon on the mount.

Matthew 5:28 - "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Many men nowadays struggle with pornography and I know those threads don't go that far. However, for some men, looking at a thread full of pictures of girls in bikinis would be like taking that first drink when you know you should. You know if you do, you are likely to wind up in an unhealthy place. Just a different perspective.
Click to expand...
I'll leave Christians in the Girls-Of thread between their conscience and God. My response was particular to a Christian saying that:

Ulysees E. McGill said:
Exactly...I do not understand this new secular puratinsm that seeks to obliterate human nature...not for any spiritual reason...just because.
Click to expand...

Well, from a traditional/scriptural perspective, "human nature" (the flesh) is exactly what we should be trying to put to death. We aren't supposed to mandate that the secular world not sin, but we are to exemplify and call up to purity.

That was my confusion. It's a conversation where a believer stated a personal preference against the proliferation of lust-imagery. It's just surprising that another stated believer would reply opposed to the submission of human nature and the stated personal belief against lust-imagery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glitch
#14,021
#14,021
Glitch said:
Why I just as soon avoid those threads. In my youth probably not, but my understanding of myself and my faith have grown much since then. I certainly notice attractiveness in women that I meet and see each day, but going out of my way to look at pictures of young ladies in bikinis or less is not something I choose to do.
Click to expand...
Where’s the “less”? Haven’t seen it in these threads. If Freak was allowing rap videos up on here, I’d understand the condescending outrage. But as a 53 y/o soon to be 54, I’m perfectly capable of honoring women AND admiring physically attractive strangers. Doing all that doesn’t require an exorcism to attend church.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paper_Towel and Pepe_Silvia
#14,022
#14,022
butchna said:
Where’s the “less”? Haven’t seen it in these threads. If Freak was allowing rap videos up on here, I’d understand the condescending outrage. But as a 53 y/o soon to be 54, I’m perfectly capable of honoring women AND admiring physically attractive strangers. Doing all that doesn’t require an exorcism to attend church.
Click to expand...
That is completely up to you of course. I don't view those threads as honoring to women personally, but we can disagree and not have to meet at dawn with pistols to settle the debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paper_Towel, Orange_Crush and Volunteer821
#14,023
#14,023
Ulysees E. McGill said:
Prude
Click to expand...
That's fine.

I'm 100% for 2 individuals with consent doing whatever the heck they want to do.

But for a picture to be passed around for such purposes, without the girl's consent, it just doesn't sit right with me.

It's not like they took photos for Playboy and understood what that entailed. They are just everyday photos of these ladies. So, for that reason, I'm out.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top