Porn in Sandals

Let's say that two girls claim to be "Christians."

One girl (maybe wearing a Christian-cross necklace) is wearing flip-flop sandals without socks on so that her [naked] toes and other parts of her [bared] feet are plainly visible to the [thus-sexually-harassed] general public.

The other girl (perhaps wearing a swastika or hammer-and-sickle pendant necklace) is also wearing flip-flop sandals but with opaque socks on thus covering all parts of her bare feet so that NO parts of her nude feet are visible to the at-random mixed-gender public.

WHICH of the two girls is or could become a genuine Christian....and which one is a fake [pseudo-]"christian?"

A non-thinking ignorant or smarty person might superficially answer: "Both." Or: "Either one." Or: "They did not wear socks under sandals in Bible times, according to pervert stained-glass and Sunday-school-picture-book artists who were not actually present back then." Or - worst of all: "It doesn't matter if they wear socks or not."

If that last person who retorted with: "It doesn't matter...." blattered out that ignorant response of theirs with belligerance, he or she is not only ignorant [deliberately or not], but he or she is an arrogant moron, imbecile, or even [demonic] idiot.

Now that I could have ruffled you the reader's feathers, you might now indignantly exit in a self-righteous puriently-pious huff or quickly click into something else with prejudicially-bigoted and biased indifference. Then again, you might instead read on with insatiable curiosity - knowing that you are safely reading mere non-personal words from an anonymous source, which source is trying to prove some vital and crucial point.

In Jeremiah 2:25 both the RSV and NASV Bible versions state something like:

"Keep your feet from being unshod, and your throat from thirst. But you have said, 'It is hopeless, for I have loved strangers, and after them I will go."

In context of the surrounding chapter verses before and after, of course.

It might just occur to perhaps even the densest of readers that the Scripture verse quoted above could (if even remotely) relate to the at-best questionable and at worst luridly indecent, vile, and pornographic phenomenon of not only worldly but especially pseudo-"christian" gals exposing parts of their bare feet in general-heterosexual/both-genders public view.....even while wearing [sockless] sandals or similar woefully-inadequate flip-flop or clog footwear....whatever seasonal-or-other doctrines-of-demons "warm-days" coolness, tanning, style and fashion irrationalizations they connive or concoct from others or themselves.

Some of the more argumentative and deviantly-savvy religious-heretic types might merely brush off and then flippantly dismiss what they presume (not "assume") are "proof-texts" which "only applied in a previous dispensation of Old-Covenant law to the ancient Hebrews of Israel before law-fulfilling-and-therefore-law-abolishing Jesus came on the scene who replaced legalistic and impossible-to-perfectly-obey, godly, holy, and Scripturally-recorded traditions with anything-goes, turn-the-other-cheek, love-supercedes-judgement, mercy and grace."

Other warped religious revisionists dogmatically allege that such Old-Testament verses as Jeremiah with RSV's and NASV's Numbers 5:18, Song 7:5, and First Corinthians 11:14-16 pertaining to loose long hair (like that hanging below mouth-level), Second Samuel 13:18 pertaining to bare-naked sleevesless arms, Isaiah 47:1-4 pertaining to nude legs bared with shortened skirts or shorts of any length......have to be "re-interpreted" to mis-suit the lewd customs of self-righteous deviously-"enlightened" modern pagans with doctrines-of-Christ-rejecting commentaries and twisted explanations, like "Don't wear out your shoes running after after gods (NIV). [In fact, "wearing out shoes" does not even remotely apply and has absolutely nothing to do with the Hebrew Text intended by the Divinely-inspired author]!

Even IF Jeremiah 2:25 and similar pro-modesty-inferring O.T. Bible verses [such as Song 7:1 using "footsteps in sandals" instead of "feet in sandals"] did have one of several interpretive aspects relating to "avoiding idols, idolatry, and idol-worship," why - in the name of God - are the precise words: "feet," "unshod," and "loved strangers" used to refer to such? What - in the dam fk - have those particular words to do with "idols," "idolatry," or "idol worship" whatsoever? Why were those words used - and not other words, alluding to or inferring idolatry???

A badly number of anti-Biblical heretics and demented goofs might self-excuse themselves with recollections of perverted "artistic" mis-renderings of Bible characters they saw in Satan's Sunday-school books, pamphlets, paintings, and stained-glass windows as children. Not content with mis-portraying our mighty Lord Jesus with wimpishly-effeminate loose-long hair, the Devil's sheisters illustrate Bible characters as exposing parts of their bared feet with sockless sandals instead of slippers not hidden by too-short robes. That is supposed to justify the sinful-nature demonic cravings of carnal minds satiated with rebellious lust - whether they admit it or not.

Even many fundamentalist islamic women with their shawls and long-sleeved robes [and in NO way painfully dying of heatstroke, with or without palace air-conditioning] short-circuit their most-admirable summertime modesty with feet partially exposed with sockless sandals instead of royal persian and arabian slippers.

It is not because of modest people that porn exists.

Modest people are not the cause of why certain normally-wise and productive, rather-righteous people desire, search for, concoct, disperse, and retain pornography.

It is then, of course, because of immodest people that images of illegitimate erotica come about.

As (not if) semi-indecently immodest people throw surprise-attack non-solicited feces at us (e.g. mopheaded loose long hair, sleevesless bare-naked arms, slacksless nude legs, and toes exposed by socksless footwear...all referred to explicitly enough by KJV's and RSV's Numbers 5:18, II Samuel 13:18, Song of Solomon 7:5, Isaiah 47:1-4, Jeremiah 2:25), we throw back at them (or want to throw back at them) even worse filth (e.g. bare breasts and nipples, bare thighs and buttocks, bare pussy hair, and even bare vagilips and anus).

Unfortunately, it is generally very difficult - if not frequently impossible - to blast that erotic filth back at the person and persons who (whether ignorantly, carelessly, or deliberately) cause the whole immodest/indecent problem in the first place who exhibit themselves immodestly in view of men who they are not married to or want to commit immorality with, who they have no intention of marrying nor committing immorality with, nor who have any previous request to be married to or commit immorality with the victims they wantonly and despicably seduce and entice.

The blame for male physical sexual harassment is invaribly and indisputably directed to the blame of visual sexual harassment committed (not performed) by immodest women and girls, in particular.

It is grievious and abhorrent when innocent pure people who do not deserve to be besieged with such back-and-forth warlike retaliation of lascivious body-parts exposure are caught in the licentuous crossfire. Collateral damage is certainly not the intention by God, Jesus Christ, the Church and members thereof fully capable of being well-stocked with retaliatory arsenal of porno arms and ammunition.

But the sick morons and pervert demonic who roam around randomly imposing their mopheaded, naked-armed, nude-legged, bare-footed live-porn-in-motion against whoever is unfortunate enough to be in their line of sight regrettably have both pseudo-'legal' protection and - generally - mobile anonymity, to prevent them from getting the full barrage of retaliatory erotica back in their own faces.

The solution is definitely not a case of the pure-minded perpetually having to turn the other cheek until they are obliterated into absolute paralysis and isolation nor simply "take it like a man" with the satanic-backtalk irrationalization of "if you don't like it, you don't have to either look at it nor continue to look at what I am spewing into your face" with the nearly-incredibly-selfish: "it is my right to be terroristically worldly and wicked, choose to do immodest evil, and be a lewd and lurid stumbling block no matter who it hurts."

Please keep in mind that what I am saying to you, the reader, is not a far-off philosophical exercise in manipulating a set of fanciful words. It is not a fairy-land scenario of pretended imagination. The immodesty referred to is real, as is the retaliatory porn real in real life. Just thought I would remind you of the actuality of what we are confronting.

Immodest people continually flaunt their live-person full-sized partial immodesty wherever and whenever they want to (especially on warm spring, summer, and autumn days)....and consequential porn is concocted and erotically utilized as a sensuous substitute which one can readily control and confine and regulate, and retain for future use - correctly realizing full well that their eyes will again be incessantly and repeatedly raped again, requiring incessant and repeated erotic release and retaliation with porn.

It is a vicious but nondeniable circle.

But the LORD's ultimate goal is the complete and consistently-present eradication of immodesty.

To do that, those who are immodest must be adjusted. Re-programmed by pertinent Scripture verses insisted upon, over and over. Start and continue to be completely modest when in general public view without judgmentally falsely justifying themselves with the vomit of doctrines-of-demons self-righteous illogical excuses.

Or else they must be punished....and, if not corrected by increasing degrees of punishment in proportion to the severity of their continuing or worsening immodesty, exterminated like diabolical viruses. Deleted from among the living. Executed - as ordered by Old Testament commands.

Only after that will porn become useless and finally disposed of.

Without public immodesty, there never would be need to post porn pics nor movie clips on internet webpages.

Already, the relentlessly-hotlinked-to-neverending-oblivion mixed-up assemblage of non-copyable virus-laded browser-collapsing pornocrap infesting the internet is mind-boggling.

For one thing, the general public usually never displays nor sees displayed any oral/rectal/genital-insertion nude-anatomy sights in open public view.

Secondly, intimate-intercourse-related phenomena of teen promiscuity, premarital teen pregnancy, nonwanted parenthood, homogay-linkage partnerships, and abortion-homicide have been and continue to be well-aired, publicized, and criticized over the airwaved-broadcast network and Christian media and in newsprint.

Thirdly, the needlessness of pictorally portraying coital copulation is and should continue to be evident in that it does not take a rocket scientist of either the male or female gender to figure out what gets inserted into what for sexual union when participating parts are turgid, rigid, erect, moistened, relaxed, and so on by nudity-and-sensual-contact-incited erotic arousal.....assuming that everyone has seen a service-station gasoline-pump dispenser inserted into vehicular gas-tank holes, and electrical plugs pushed into house-socket receptacles.

Fourthly, oral/rectal/genital insertions are very PERSONAL actions - not at all typically paraded nor flaunted out in open public view. [ Think how repugnantly most people react to even utterance of the f*** word! ]

Of course, the truly and thoroughly-disgusting aberrations of multiple-men-on-one-woman orgies, farm-animal/zoo bestiality, black/white racist connexions, sickening and repulsive lesbian and male gay sodomy, self-sodomizing masturbation, snuff bondage, etc. are neither commonly seen nor desired to be seen by non-demented non-despicable sensible people.

There remains, however and unfortunately, the perennial accursed occurrences of particularly women ignorantly or deliberately displaying their partially-pornographic-equivalent:

Loose-Long-Haired Mopheadedness
[ year-round, particularly during winter ]
Nude-Armed Sleeveslessness
Naked-Legged Slackslessness
Bare-Footed Sockslessness

[ under sandals or whatever in warm spring, summer, and fall seasons ]

All the above violate the intentions and declarations of:

Numbers 5:18 (RSV and NASV)
II Samuel 13:18 (RSV and NASV)
Proverbs 5:19 (NASV and NKJV)
Isaiah 3:17 (KJV and RSV)
Isaiah 20:4 (most all versions)
Isaiah 47:1-4 (KJV, RSV and NASV)
Jeremiah 2:25 (RSV and NASV)
Ezekiel 16 and 23 (most all versions)
I Corinthians 11:14-16 (KJV and NKJV)
I Timothy 2:8-9 (most all versions)

R-rated, usually-ID-marked, infrequently-ALL-nude teen-women pics on the internet are a retaliatory release response against such, and intended to shame shameless inferior-gender weaker-sex models and their patsy perverted male supporters - who pre-sume that such lewd styles and fashions are "legal" and thus approved by the Lord and His HOLY BIBLE.

WHY do such women needlessly tantalize and sexually harass men of the general public they can never begin nor contue a sexual relationship with?

WHY do they continue to insanely entice and bother them, imposing their non-solicited partial nudity against them, which lascivious licentuousness the victimized and irritated males neither asked for nor wanted?

MUST they remain depraved morlocks to mob and spring/summer/fall herd immentality?

MUST they continue to suck up Satan's alluring and deceptively-lying immodest and indecent ads and advice from both live and media propagandist brainwashers?

Intrinsic to every contemplation and discussion about prohibiting porn is [adequate] definition of WHAT pornography exactly is.

God (according to His will and intentions as revealed in Christ's 66-book HOLY BIBLE), genuine Christians (enlightening everyone they can according to their limited understanding, partial acceptance, and interpretation/misinterpretation of various translations and mis-translations of the Lord's HOLY BIBLE comprised of ben-Asher Masoretic Hebrew-Text Old Testament and Scrivener-Trinitarian Greek-Text New Testament), plus non-Christians and anti-Christians (with their heretical weird superstitions, misapplications, misquotings, interpretations, illegitimate revisions, and twisted presumptions).....all have different views as to what is - shall we say - secondary pornography compared to primary pornography.

NON-CONTACT primary porn consists of single or group human bodies exposing - again - what bra and/or panties [or underpants for males] usually cover.

Most entities (be they religious or non-religious) generally agree on this. Hence, cops arrest and punish streakers and flashers who do not confine their general-public nudity to nudist parks and camps.

Once 'porn' has been thus defined and concurred with by those in charge, how to censor, restrict, prohibit, stifle, thwart, filter, and eradicate such is the next step.

Notice that all definitions of porn above (both primary and secondary) are comprised of indecent-exposure immodesty

At this point, we should consider the origin of and even incitement to both concoct and display various types and degrees of pictoral pornography in print or on screen, and THE obvious answer is: people themselves who slink or parade themselves around indecently and immodestly in the potential or active view of those who do not solicit nor desire such inflicted attack.

One of the fringe benefits of Bush Jr. and his Coalition advancing into Afghanistan and Iraq near the beginning of the 21st century (also remember Reagan and the Iranian hostages) was that summertime-immodest american women (in particular) were continually reminded visually by the network media of the nun-and-amish-like modestly-shawled-and-robed Moslem women of Afghanistan and stark and embarrassing contrast to the lewd summertime MIS-dress of american/european sleeveslessness, slackslessness, and sockslessness either pseudo-angelically or arrogantly flaunted by terroristic imposers of non-asked-for sexual harassment. [Unfortunately, however, did the U.S. military also force summertime-immodest american culture on fundamentalist islamic in Afghanistan and Iraq]....all in spite of 'intolerance'-accusatory bastards and bitches exposing themselves as judge-not-lest-you-be-judged hypocrites who themselves were intolerant against righteous fundamentalist modesty and decency?

It is rather absurd to attempt to outlaw more-or-less sequestered, controllable, and predictable retaliatory and substitutionary-relief internet porn sites without first illegalizing the massive-infestation exhibitionism of FULL-sized, 3D, live-motion, suddenly-appearing women (not'ladies') roaming around anonymously and terroristically inciting lust, irritation, confusion, and needless dangerous loveless antagonism - with illogical follow-up prudishness and deprivational abstinence at their irrational whims.

Once authentic and consistent modesty is realized, cooperated with, accomodated to, and officially accomplished by law-enforced courts-approved authority and action within neighborhoods, communities, stores, businesses, schools, and churches, what is posted and resides on the national internet will assuredly and invaribly reflect that same modesty on screen devoid of the now-devastating problem of having myriad PSEUDO-'legal' stumbling blocks of lasciviously-lurid body-parts competition imposed against public health and wellbeing.

That is preferable to both live-person harlots and secluded private internet surfers non-anonymously having their Social Security numbers branded upon their foreheads or hands as public-nuisance disturbers-of-the-peace.

MANY sexually-related consequences of immodesty (e.g. abortion homicide, kidnapping and abusing children, spouse-beatings, car and pedestrians accidents, assembly-line foul-ups, suicides, murders, rape assaults, etc.) would be significantly lessened as society in general complies with the divine implications of KJV's, RSV's, NASV's, NKJV's modesty particulars.

Even commerce will be revitalized by such pro-modesty correction and adjustment - causing mainline search-engine news-page portals to actually refuse posting and hosting immodest popup ads of women indecently misdressed as previously described (as for example in sleevesless/slacksless/socksless bathing suits or bikinis) on their home more appropriately and succinctly warn surfers about venturing into possible-nudity cyberspace.

The old adage of If one looks for evil long and hard enough, one will find it always will apply in this present non-theocratic world of immoral moral-majority pollution and wicked choices. But - remembering the legacies of our great-great-great-grandparents or those before them and their everyday/commonplace exquisitely puritannical/victorian modesty - the sacred goal is to make finding evil and getting defiled by it more and more difficult.

It MUST be so - if Revelation 14 is to be fulfilled, which predicts in the New_Testament book of Revelation that there will be 144,000 Israelite-tribe virgins who have not defiled themselves with women.

One cumulative result of accidently absorbing all the insane and counterproductive immodesty from a majority of the warm-weather public is logical covert and cautious search by hapless victimes for, with acquisition and retention of, more severe types of pornographic-like immodesty even the immodest themselves might or might not consider "pornography." To secretly peruse such mild but more-high-powered porn by the victims suffering because of and persecuted by the immodest warm-weather public is temporarily relieving and satifying erotically, in one sense at least.

I am referring to the pictoral exposure of what is generally not displayed even by the summertime immodest (but understandably leading to and eventually culminating with): bare thighs, breast(s), buttock(s), and crotch-area genitals) [though not what some would term obnoxious porn of homosexual repulsiveness, nor bestiality, rape, toddler molestation, multiple-men-in-woman orgies, and more....but simply rather non-airbrushed sharp and true-color .jpg-type pics and vids of COMPETELY-naked YOUNG women with beautiful faces and slender shapely figures with even bare soles of their feet in plain view].

There ARE three techniques which can be used to counter such immodest "persons, people, or peoples" (whatever semantics is applicable).

One is conveying specifically-detailed criticism (preferably with graphically-applicable Old and New-Testament Bible verses) to them in the forms of bumper signs, back-of-window car signs, through-open-car-window and underneath-windshield-wiper leaflets, public and private-property lawn signs, bulletin-board postings, internet webpages (like this one), voice-mail messages, penname-nonidentifiable e-mails using free hosters (e.g. Fastmail, Lavabit, Yahoo, Lycos, etc.), ink stamps and stickers on mailed envelopes, etc.

Another technique (which incidently can be used along with the previously-mentioned technique) is to convey to them and them only (by some of the many ways described above) the more severe porn to shame and shock them because of the semi-porn they themselves are ignorantly or deliberately [but either way] lasciviously imposing against others who do not want to see such licentuousness importuniously forced upon them. When the more-porno mirror is then shoved in front of the faces of the less-porno perpetrators, their frequently-hypocritical adverse and hostile reaction is predictable. There is painful discipline involved in improving anything, and to rock the status-quo boat is never pleasant for fools habitually hung up on almost-religiously, dogmatically, and narrowmindedly practicing their sometimes-modest-under-duress but generally incessant and repetitious immodest-attire-for-the-day perversities.

The last technique conceivable is to punish them for their summertime immodesty in either or both of two ways.

It has been publicized that there are islamic-fundamentalist police in various places on the planet who actually arrest, fine, imprison (and when necessary, shoot dead) those who persist in misdressing immodestly in public after being warned a few times.

In a democracy, other types of punishment look much less retributionary, such as offering immodest people the opportunity to acquire (through Verisign and PayPal merchant-account credit-card online transactions) selectively-accumulated choice female-nudes porn on certain pay-per-view internet websites and cable-TV programming....thus indirectly discriminating against them and them alone - not the innocent moral-minority saints of the Lord....with the traditionally-required subscription-fee "fines" [in effect] along with government taxes and statutory regulations related to their own lustful-sensuality pleasures. Any profits from selling such optical retaliation to the immodest should go to Christian charities and PACs instead of being an income-producer the porn provider becomes dependent upon for monthly bill payments.

A few inconvenient pothole-and-gutter nail-in-the-tire flats, starter/water-pump/alternator breakdowns, contagiously-caught viruses or strokes/cancers/flu/colds/whatever, tobacco addiction and spoiled-food poisoning, identity-theft or property vandalism, indecency-caused VD and premarital pregnancy, flying-rocks-shattered windshields, expensive car accidents, no-win lottery loss, inconvenient hurricane-or-tornado-damaging winds, power outages, waterline breaks, assembly-line-equipment malfunctions, employment layoffs, and MUCH more from the Lord also rightfully beset the immodestly wicked.

Which would you rather experience: a non-solicited, incomplete and non-fulfilling, senseless, non-controlled, accidental or deliberate, temporary terroristic predatory assault and attack....or instead a thoughtfully-chosen, complete and thus fulfilling, reason-for-doing-it, permanent-and-something-you-can-get-a-handle-on, controlled and contained act?

I'm sure that both you and I would choose the latter.

What subject do I have in mind? What subject do most men and women have in mind much of the time? What subject do TV and magazine advertisers use to attract attention? What does the Bible describe extensively throughout the entire content of sixty-six books?

What do you see a lot of during seasonably warm days (and nights), which you [thankfully] do not see during frigidly-cold winter days and nights? What does the Devil's media use to attract your attention and to titillatingly tantalize you? What is the basis for all the commotion about abortion homicide and a woman's purported "right" (not simply: capacity) involving "choice?" What is AIDS and venereal disease rather-directly related to? How about the all the hubub about condoms and contraceptives? And premarital pregnancies? What is the touchy-touchy feelie-feelie extramarital fornication and adultery generally caused and exacerbated by?

What do irrational legalists refer to what they erroneously state that "God only judges by the inward person, not outward appearances"? And we have all heard the excuses about the need to tan, display tanned carcasses for pompous-primadonna pride, exclaiming and presuming that "it's "warm" out" and "I don't want to sweat," "Everybody's doing it - it's perfectly normal and is the conventional style and fashion for this time of year," etc. etc. ad nauseum.

What looks different about how girls and women in general public view appear nowadays compared to how their great-great-great-great-great grandmothers who lived before 1920 looked back then? Why the change?

What is usually acquired and enjoyed in privacy, away from accusatory and condemnatory eyes and mouths....compared to what hideousness is instead blatantly imposed in non-solicited general public view? What do many librarians and others prudishly censor on network computer screens, but then hypocritically allow to enter and move around within library and other premises?

The ideal, which we get from Scripture, is that all human females walking in and sitting around would be wearing ponytails in back of their heads, long-sleeved blouses, full-length (NOT shortened) slacks or long skirt, and socks on feet under sandals or other footwear.

Hence, the entrance sign posted at or on the doorways of various public buildings:

No Sleeves
No Slacks
No Socks
No Service

or something like that.

There are two basic types of sexual and erotic impurity:

1. Live-person, full-sized, in-color, in-motion, non-restricted, "legally"-allowed, non-solicited, incomplete bodily exposure of merely (mopheaded) loose long hair, naked arms, nude legs, and toes-bared feet and nothing much else, or

2. non-live-person, merely photographic, smaller-sized, restricted and private, somewhat "illegal," asked-for and therefore solicited, usually-complete-and-total, bodily exposure of what is exposed in (1) above PLUS a logical completion of the satisfying exposure of all other outwardly-visible body parts.

Some might wonder why there can't be both types allowed, and "what's the big deal"?

Goofs who wonder: "What's the big deal?" are fools who simply are not thinking, comprehending, nor contemplating the extensive and far-reaching effects and consequences of both (1) and (2) above. We, for the time being, will let such vile vermin wallow in their own self-righteous and arrogantly-noncooperative ignorance.

There is a certain honestly and forthrightness about not only the young well-proportioned and attractive female models who humbly and kindly pose for publicly-private porn, and the want-people-to-enjoy-life-and-God's-creation pimp-types who publicly but discreetly (though sometimes for monetary profit) publicize related photos and movies for private and personal viewing for each man of the public who is interested and has been sadistically enticed (carrot-on-a-stick-style) by usually-anonymous passersby who couldn't care less about the erotic desires and well-being of those they indiscriminately are seducing by their misdressed lasciviousness.

Conversely, there is a certain hypocritical dishonesty about gals who bare only certain parts of their body, expecting no one to be affected (let alone aversely affected) by such non-asked-for not-reliably-consistent exhibition of those parts and nothing beyond that......and expecting no one to admit to what those compromisingly-misattired gals are doing as to what they are exhibiting and not exhibiting - let alone stating possible or probable irrationalizations (not "reasons") of why they are committing (not "performing") such non-solicited obnoxious atrocities.

Because of public immodesty, it is quite understandable that men want porn - which can reliably be located geographically, readily handled, and willingly available for easy and quick manipulation with always-consentual utilization - instead of the fleeting, partially-indecent, somewhat-immodest live persons who they generally cannot capture and control....who (more often than not) object with non-compliance and non-cooperation in anti-patriarchal/matriarchal-authority moody and chauvenistic whims of arrogant and insubordinate feminist sexism.

The factor of the tyranny of possibly-already-married-or-engaged, partially-immodest, live-person human females hypocritically and sadistically saying NO! and/or call 911 for police assistance concerning men's logical follow-up with her to their partial-immodesty seduction is completely neutralized when it comes to the never-objecting images of birthday-suit-bared pretty young females in porn pics and movies.