OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 30, 2014, 01:32:39 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Headcoverings Revisited  (Read 24355 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« on: May 26, 2009, 10:43:28 AM »

[I have read most of the previous threads on this issue; none addressed my concerns directly.]

I believe that it is undeniable that the head covering of women was a faithfully kept Apostolic tradition that was abandoned last century due to social pressure; the Scriptural, Patristic, historical and (and even iconographic) evidence is overwhelming. [Note: I post these links only to preempt those who would contest the established historical record; they are not in any way prerequisite to participation in this discussion.]

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/HeadCovering.html

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/head-covering-history.html

Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of churches keep their virgins covered. In fact, this practice is followed in certain places beneath this African sky. So let no one ascribe this custom merely to the Gentile customs of the Greeks and barbarians.

Moreover, I will put forth as models those churches that were founded by either apostles or apostolic men. . . . The Corinthians themselves understood him to speak in this manner. For to this very day the Corinthians veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, the disciples of the apostles confirmed.
[Tertullian, The Veiling of Virgins The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 4 pp. 27-29,33]
------------------------------------------

Question: Is the modern change in praxis be theologically justified? Can it be? If so, how, if not, why not?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 10:44:58 AM by Cudgel » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,510


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2009, 12:34:08 PM »

[I have read most of the previous threads on this issue; none addressed my concerns directly.]

I believe that it is undeniable that the head covering of women was a faithfully kept Apostolic tradition that was abandoned last century due to social pressure; the Scriptural, Patristic, historical and (and even iconographic) evidence is overwhelming. [Note: I post these links only to preempt those who would contest the established historical record; they are not in any way prerequisite to participation in this discussion.]

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/HeadCovering.html

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/head-covering-history.html

Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of churches keep their virgins covered. In fact, this practice is followed in certain places beneath this African sky. So let no one ascribe this custom merely to the Gentile customs of the Greeks and barbarians.

Moreover, I will put forth as models those churches that were founded by either apostles or apostolic men. . . . The Corinthians themselves understood him to speak in this manner. For to this very day the Corinthians veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, the disciples of the apostles confirmed.
[Tertullian, The Veiling of Virgins The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 4 pp. 27-29,33]
------------------------------------------

Question: Is the modern change in praxis be theologically justified? Can it be? If so, how, if not, why not?

God gave any woman freedom to wear a headcoverering or not to wear a headcovering.

You are focusing on the words rather than the intent.  The intent is not to force a woman to wear a headcovering (after all, Orthodoxy is not supposed to be a repressive religion) and to remind women to be modest.

There has been no change in praxis just a change in personal preferences.
Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2009, 12:48:32 PM »

SolEX01,

You are completely ignoring the historical data I presented above that proves that the Church's and the Church Fathers' continuous understanding of the relevant Pauline texts is contrary to what you are asserting.  Your unsubstantiated claims regarding my confusion of words with intent could apply to all Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox commentators until the 20th century.

Quote
"Orthodox women, according to the words of the holy Apostle Paul, go to God's church with covered heads. For nearly two thousand years now, this custom has been kept by faithful women and has been handed down from generation to generation. It is a custom not only of the local churches, but also of the Universal Church, and, therefore ­ whether we be in a Greek, in a Serbian or Russian church ­ the women in the church have their heads covered." (The Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Washington, D.C.)

"It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience." (Chrysostom.HOMILY XXVI. ON THE VEILING OF WOMEN.)

http://www.kingshouse.org/headcovering.htm  (See quotes from Christian authors throughout history on this link.)
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 12:54:21 PM by Cudgel » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,721


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2009, 12:49:13 PM »

[I have read most of the previous threads on this issue; none addressed my concerns directly.]

I believe that it is undeniable that the head covering of women was a faithfully kept Apostolic tradition that was abandoned last century due to social pressure; the Scriptural, Patristic, historical and (and even iconographic) evidence is overwhelming. [Note: I post these links only to preempt those who would contest the established historical record; they are not in any way prerequisite to participation in this discussion.]

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/HeadCovering.html

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/head-covering-history.html

Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of churches keep their virgins covered. In fact, this practice is followed in certain places beneath this African sky. So let no one ascribe this custom merely to the Gentile customs of the Greeks and barbarians.

Moreover, I will put forth as models those churches that were founded by either apostles or apostolic men. . . . The Corinthians themselves understood him to speak in this manner. For to this very day the Corinthians veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, the disciples of the apostles confirmed.
[Tertullian, The Veiling of Virgins The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 4 pp. 27-29,33]
------------------------------------------

Question: Is the modern change in praxis be theologically justified? Can it be? If so, how, if not, why not?

God gave any woman freedom to wear a headcoverering or not to wear a headcovering.

You are focusing on the words rather than the intent.  The intent is not to force a woman to wear a headcovering (after all, Orthodoxy is not supposed to be a repressive religion) and to remind women to be modest.
Uhm, I get the impression Cudgel is looking for a much more nuanced answer than this.  For instance, what theological reason can you offer for why many Orthodox churches don't require or even encourage women to wear head coverings anymore?  And without criticizing Cudgel's approach to understanding this issue...


There has been no change in praxis just a change in personal preferences.
This is a very bold statement in the light of our understanding of the history of head coverings--so bold, in fact, that you're going to need to defend it academically.  Call it what you want, but when church practices change due to personal preferences, this by definition is a real change in praxis, since praxis = practice.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,510


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2009, 12:57:44 PM »

Uhm, I get the impression Cudgel is looking for a much more nuanced answer than this.  For instance, what theological reason can you offer for why many Orthodox churches don't require or even encourage women to wear head coverings anymore?  And without criticizing Cudgel's approach to understanding this issue...

Theological reason?  I can give a non-theological reason which has been accepted by the Orthodox via Economy - women's liberation movement?

There has been no change in praxis just a change in personal preferences.
This is a very bold statement in the light of our understanding of the history of head coverings--so bold, in fact, that you're going to need to defend it academically.

We're talking over each other.  The Church has had no change in praxis and there has been a change in personal preferences.  I did not make a bold statement that needs academic justification.   Huh

How am I going to academically defend no change in praxis?  Women choose to wear headcoverings ... or not.  No one forces a woman to wear headcoverings.

Call it what you want, but when church practices change due to personal preferences, this by definition is a real change in praxis, since praxis = practice.

I said there was no change in praxis.  The Holy Fathers say that women must wear headcoverings.  A vast majority of women of 2009 do not choose to wear headcoverings.  I am not criticizing the OP in that I feel he's getting too involved in details and "nuances."
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 12:58:38 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2009, 01:07:06 PM »

The Holy Fathers say that women must wear headcoverings.  A vast majority of women of 2009 do not choose to wear headcoverings.
 
Yes, exactly. St. Paul said so; the Holy Fathers said so. Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox said so in unison until a few decades ago. All Christian women complied.  In light of this, the following claim is completely nonsensical:

There has been no change in praxis just a change in personal preferences.

The truth of the matter, again, is as follows:
Quote
"Orthodox women, according to the words of the holy Apostle Paul, go to God's church with covered heads. For nearly two thousand years now, this custom has been kept by faithful women and has been handed down from generation to generation. It is a custom not only of the local churches, but also of the Universal Church, and, therefore ­ whether we be in a Greek, in a Serbian or Russian church ­ the women in the church have their heads covered." (The Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Washington, D.C.)

http://www.kingshouse.org/headcovering.htm  (See quotes from Christian authors throughout history on this link.)
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 01:14:33 PM by Cudgel » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,721


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2009, 01:13:23 PM »

There has been no change in praxis just a change in personal preferences.
This is a very bold statement in the light of our understanding of the history of head coverings--so bold, in fact, that you're going to need to defend it academically.

We're talking over each other.  The Church has had no change in praxis and there has been a change in personal preferences.  I did not make a bold statement that needs academic justification.   Huh
No, we're not talking over each other.  You're just refusing to address my concern.

How am I going to academically defend no change in praxis?  Women choose to wear headcoverings ... or not.  No one forces a woman to wear headcoverings.
There's a simple way to defend your assertion.  Explain why many Orthodox churches no longer require women to wear head coverings and choose to submit this to the liberty of the women themselves.

Call it what you want, but when church practices change due to personal preferences, this by definition is a real change in praxis, since praxis = practice.

I said there was no change in praxis.  The Holy Fathers say that women must wear headcoverings.  A vast majority of women of 2009 do not choose to wear headcoverings.
How do you define praxis that you don't see the obvious change in practice as a change in praxis?

I am not criticizing the OP in that I feel he's getting too involved in details and "nuances."
Feeling is not a good basis for participation in this discussion.  Either offer an academic, well-thought reply or don't reply at all.

I'm going to be honest with you and tell you that you're doing nothing to answer Cudgel's questions and should probably back away from this discussion and do some homework on this subject before you try to offer another reply.  Right now, you're threatening to derail this thread with uninformed answers that do nothing but frustrate both Cudgel and me.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 01:14:57 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,510


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2009, 01:14:45 PM »

There has been no change in praxis just a change in personal preferences.

The truth of the matter, again, is as follows:
Quote
"Orthodox women, according to the words of the holy Apostle Paul, go to God's church with covered heads. For nearly two thousand years now, this custom has been kept by faithful women and has been handed down from generation to generation. It is a custom not only of the local churches, but also of the Universal Church, and, therefore ­ whether we be in a Greek, in a Serbian or Russian church ­ the women in the church have their heads covered." (The Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Washington, D.C.)

http://www.kingshouse.org/headcovering.htm  (See quotes from Christian authors throughout history on this link.)

Who is Kingshouse?  Are they Orthodox?  Are they popular on Facebook?  Are they Non-denominational?  Why do you cite their citing of  them especially when they post a 21 page treatise on headcoverings (your print preview results may vary based on Browser, margins, etc.).   Wink
Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2009, 01:16:42 PM »

Who is Kingshouse?  Are they Orthodox?  Are they popular on Facebook?  Are they Non-denominational?  Why do you cite their citing of  them especially when they post a 21 page treatise on headcoverings (your print preview results may vary based on Browser, margins, etc.).

It does not matter. They QUOTE Jewish, Patristic, Catholic, Protestant and Orthdoox authors liberally.  That is all that matters.  Read very carefully what I and PetertheAleut have already written to you before posting ANYTHING else in this thread.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 01:24:17 PM by Cudgel » Logged
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2009, 01:24:29 PM »

Is the modern change in praxis to be justified? I don't know. Fortunately, this is not too much of an issue at my parish, because almost everyone covers their heads. It's only since I've been active on this site that I am realizing that many Orthodox churches have not retained this custom. Personally, I think it's sad that they've lost it-I like it. One of our posters, Amdetsion (sp?), an Ethiopian Orthodox deacon, had a great post once, in which he referred to it as a woman's crown. I really liked that. BTW, I hope Amdetsion is okay...he hasn't posted on here for quite some time... Cry
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,510


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2009, 01:26:00 PM »

Who is Kingshouse?  Are they Orthodox?  Are they popular on Facebook?  Are they Non-denominational?  Why do you cite their citing of  them especially when they post a 21 page treatise on headcoverings (your print preview results may vary based on Browser, margins, etc.).

It does not matter.

Yes it does.

They QUOTE Jewish, Patristic, Catholic, Protestant and Orthdoox authors liberally.  That is all that matters.

So do a lot of sites, entities and organizations. 

  Read very carefully what I and PetertheAleut have already written to you before posting ANYTHING else in this thread.

Do you have the right to talk to me this way and you feel like you have a moderator backing up your right to cite non-denominational websites?
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,510


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2009, 01:33:58 PM »

No, we're not talking over each other.  You're just refusing to address my concern.

I don't see a concern which needs to be addressed.  I think a big deal has always been made out of headcoverings.  21st Century Women do not want to dress like 18th Century women; Is that a major league sin?

There's a simple way to defend your assertion.  Explain why many Orthodox churches no longer require women to wear head coverings and choose to submit this to the liberty of the women themselves.

Eve chose to eat the apple.  That is my answer.   Angry

How do you define praxis that you don't see the obvious change in practice as a change in praxis?

There is a difference between personal changes in praxis and corporate changes in praxis.  A woman makes a personal decision.

Feeling is not a good basis for participation in this discussion.  Either offer an academic, well-thought reply or don't reply at all.

You're right in saying that I should not reply to threads that are "nuanced" or are looking for "deeper meaning" that the other Orthodox apparently understand and I don't.

I'm going to be honest with you and tell you that you're doing nothing to answer Cudgel's questions and should probably back away from this discussion and do some homework on this subject before you try to offer another reply.  Right now, you're threatening to derail this thread with uninformed answers that do nothing but frustrate both Cudgel and me.

I let my keyboard do the talking....
Logged
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2009, 01:36:44 PM »

Who is Kingshouse?  Are they Orthodox?  Are they popular on Facebook?  Are they Non-denominational?  Why do you cite their citing of  them especially when they post a 21 page treatise on headcoverings (your print preview results may vary based on Browser, margins, etc.).

It does not matter. They QUOTE Jewish, Patristic, Catholic, Protestant and Orthdoox authors liberally.  That is all that matters.  Read very carefully what I and PetertheAleut have already written to you before posting ANYTHING else in this thread.

Sez you. It seems to me that SOL has asked a legitimate question. It might not matter to YOU, but it matters to him (and to some of us). So please answer his question. Who is Kingshouse? They may "quote" Jewish, Patristic, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox authors liberally but so what? Our concern is ONLY with Orthodox scholars. We are, after all, Orthodox believers.

As for your academic question, I quote from Fr Stanley Harakas ("The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers") a well-respected Orthodox scholar.

"There is no doubt that in the time in which this was written (1 Cor. 11:3-15), it was felt that a woman should always have her head covered in public. Thus, it was seen as a real impropriety for a woman not to have her head covered in worship.

The passage is very difficult to understand, in any case. It has been a subject of much controversy. Probably, St John Chrysostom is right when he says that St Paul, in trying to clarify the basic question of the appropriate relations of men and women, 'resorted in this place to common custom.' The passage deals primarily NOT with hair, but with the need to keep clear the distinction of roles of men and women. The bible gives to the husband a leadership role in the family. He has, as one Orthodox commentator on this passage says, a 'certain primacy of leadership and honor, in his household.' In THAT culture and according to the custom of the day, as the 6th century biblical commentator Oecumenios interprets it, to uncover the hair 'shows her to be an escapee' from her relationship with her husband. Another interpreter does not refer this passage to the husband, but to the woman. 'This is equal to proclaiming publicly and officially that she no longer wished to be a woman, but desired to change sex and be a man. Such an attempt would be interpreted according to the customs of that time as an effort to assume a role and responsibility which was not hers. Each of the sexes should remain in the appropriate role, which God has given... to try to violate this is equivalent to trying to destroy order and create confusion.'

If these interpretations of 1 Cor. 11: 3-15 are correct, then it is clear that though Paul's message remains the same, the significance of covered and uncovered hair is lost to people who live in a totally different cultural setting. To enforce this as a rule now would be just legalism - for it would not illustrate St Paul's meaning at all. Only, if you were to hold that women should never have uncovered heads in public would it make sense, today, to demand it also in church."
Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2009, 01:41:52 PM »

Very well put, Douglas.  Smiley
Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2009, 01:42:23 PM »

Is the modern change in praxis to be justified? I don't know. Fortunately, this is not too much of an issue at my parish, because almost everyone covers their heads. It's only since I've been active on this site that I am realizing that many Orthodox churches have not retained this custom. Personally, I think it's sad that they've lost it-I like it. One of our posters, Amdetsion (sp?), an Ethiopian Orthodox deacon, had a great post once, in which he referred to it as a woman's crown. I really liked that. BTW, I hope Amdetsion is okay...he hasn't posted on here for quite some time... Cry

My experiences are similar except that I regularly attend a parish that has abandoned this tradition but frequent a few that follow it. I expect the tradition to undergo a gradual fall into total death unless some decide to actively promote and reintroduce it, but I believe that social pressures and cultural forces that have effectively killed this tradition will prevent it from ever being resurrected. That St. Paul and the Fathers considered this practice non-optional is also beyond dispute for me.  What I am attempting to figure out is if the justification of the practice depended on some ideas/facts to provide context that no longer obtain now, and if so, what those are.
Logged
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,262



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2009, 01:43:22 PM »

Feeling is not a good basis for participation in this discussion.  Either offer an academic, well-thought reply or don't reply at all.

Hey, that's not nice.  I thought this was a "public forum" where things can openly get discussed. 
You're making it sound like a person might need a doctorate in order to have the right to post.

Slow down.

As for the headcoverings, well, it's a point of modesty.  I FEEL that St. Paul (and others) stressed "modesty" in dress.  There's all this hubbub about covering of the woman's head.  I have to be honest, I see many women stick a "napkin" on their head and call it a day.  That's hardly "covered" in my book.  Furthermore, many others do cover their heads modestly, however, they are wearing a miniskirt, or are strapless, or their clothes are so tight you can count their ribs.  So, where's the modesty?  But, that's okay...because their heads are covered.  Hmmm.   

ONE more thing.  IF you agree with me that a headcovering is worn for "modesty" reasons, so as not to draw attention to oneself....then in a parish, where most women do not cover their heads, would not covering ones head be exactly that....drawing attention to oneself?  Maybe even a bit prideful, that I am better than you because my head is covered?

I think modesty comes in many forms.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2009, 01:46:56 PM »

Sez you. It seems to me that SOL has asked a legitimate question. It might not matter to YOU, but it matters to him (and to some of us). So please answer his question. Who is Kingshouse? They may "quote" Jewish, Patristic, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox authors liberally but so what? Our concern is ONLY with Orthodox scholars. We are, after all, Orthodox believers.

They're some non-denomational group in California. It does NOT matter because I was only using the quotations which could be found elsewhere to make a point.
Logged
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2009, 01:48:38 PM »

Sez you. It seems to me that SOL has asked a legitimate question. It might not matter to YOU, but it matters to him (and to some of us). So please answer his question. Who is Kingshouse? They may "quote" Jewish, Patristic, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox authors liberally but so what? Our concern is ONLY with Orthodox scholars. We are, after all, Orthodox believers.

They're some non-denomational group in California. It does NOT matter because I was only using the quotations which could be found elsewhere to make a point.

You would be more correct by saying "It does not matter (to me) because...." You see, you cannot speak for anyone but yourself.

You failed to address Fr Stanley's words on the matter.
Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2009, 01:52:24 PM »

You would be more correct by saying "It does not matter (to me) because...." You see, you cannot speak for anyone but yourself.

It has no relationship to the intelligibility or validity or soundness of my argument.

You failed to address Fr Stanley's words on the matter.

I will. Calm down. 
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,510


WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2009, 01:52:51 PM »

They're some non-denomational group in California. It does NOT matter because I was only using the quotations which could be found elsewhere to make a point.

Next question, is it your personal site?
Logged
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2009, 01:55:19 PM »

btw... before you address Fr Stanley's words... let me quote Liz:


As for the headcoverings, well, it's a point of modesty.  I FEEL that St. Paul (and others) stressed "modesty" in dress.  There's all this hubbub about covering of the woman's head.  I have to be honest, I see many women stick a "napkin" on their head and call it a day.  That's hardly "covered" in my book.  Furthermore, many others do cover their heads modestly, however, they are wearing a miniskirt, or are strapless, or their clothes are so tight you can count their ribs.  So, where's the modesty?  But, that's okay...because their heads are covered.  Hmmm.   

ONE more thing.  IF you agree with me that a headcovering is worn for "modesty" reasons, so as not to draw attention to oneself....then in a parish, where most women do not cover their heads, would not covering ones head be exactly that....drawing attention to oneself?  Maybe even a bit prideful, that I am better than you because my head is covered?

I think modesty comes in many forms.



Amen! I'm old enough to remember that most of the women in the evangelical church of my childhood "covered" their hair. And I can also state that some of the worst gossips in that church were women who had their hair covered. Modesty and piety, as Liz states so well, comes in many forms.
Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #21 on: May 26, 2009, 01:55:38 PM »

They're some non-denomational group in California. It does NOT matter because I was only using the quotations which could be found elsewhere to make a point.

Next question, is it your personal site?

NO!
Logged
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2009, 01:57:22 PM »

Feeling is not a good basis for participation in this discussion.  Either offer an academic, well-thought reply or don't reply at all.

Hey, that's not nice.  I thought this was a "public forum" where things can openly get discussed. 
You're making it sound like a person might need a doctorate in order to have the right to post.

Slow down.

As for the headcoverings, well, it's a point of modesty.  I FEEL that St. Paul (and others) stressed "modesty" in dress.  There's all this hubbub about covering of the woman's head.  I have to be honest, I see many women stick a "napkin" on their head and call it a day.  That's hardly "covered" in my book.  Furthermore, many others do cover their heads modestly, however, they are wearing a miniskirt, or are strapless, or their clothes are so tight you can count their ribs.  So, where's the modesty?  But, that's okay...because their heads are covered.  Hmmm.   

ONE more thing.  IF you agree with me that a headcovering is worn for "modesty" reasons, so as not to draw attention to oneself....then in a parish, where most women do not cover their heads, would not covering ones head be exactly that....drawing attention to oneself?  Maybe even a bit prideful, that I am better than you because my head is covered?

I think modesty comes in many forms.



I know, Liz. I've thought about the absurdity which results when a woman is dressed generally very immodestly, but is wearing a headcovering all the same. Sends out mixed messages. However, I don't think it is immodest to wear a headcovering to a church where it isn't practised. I have attended a greek church where it was only myself and an older woman with headcoverings. I didn't feel like I was drawing attention to myself at all. I was just doing as I have been taught to do all my life. For me, it would be distressing to enter a church without a headcovering. The bible says "to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." This is how I see it. If we have been trained from childhood up to do something in the Bible, then we are held to a higher standard than someone who perhaps is lacking that teaching.
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2009, 02:06:46 PM »

Lisa Rosehip & Douglas,

It is being simply assumed that St. Paul's commandment and subsequent praxis are simply a modesty issue whereas that initial assumption is the very thing in question.

Douglas,

Fr Stanley Harakas' argument is certainly coherent, but I am remain convinced that the symbolic significance attached to the woman's head and its covering was understood as rooted in a theologically reality to be socially respected rather than a social construction to be theologically validated, that is, a woman's hair and headcoverings MEAN X because of the order of creation and not because society says so.  That certainly appears to be the Apostolic and Patristic understanding.  Nevertheless, Fr. Stanley's argument has serious implications if its premises are accepted or rejected.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 02:08:27 PM by Cudgel » Logged
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #24 on: May 26, 2009, 02:08:24 PM »


I know, Liz. I've thought about the absurdity which results when a woman is dressed generally very immodestly, but is wearing a headcovering all the same. Sends out mixed messages. However, I don't think it is immodest to wear a headcovering to a church where it isn't practised. I have attended a greek church where it was only myself and an older woman with headcoverings. I didn't feel like I was drawing attention to myself at all. I was just doing as I have been taught to do all my life. For me, it would be distressing to enter a church without a headcovering. The bible says "to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." This is how I see it. If we have been trained from childhood up to do something in the Bible, then we are held to a higher standard than someone who perhaps is lacking that teaching.

Hi Rosehip, (fancy meeting you here  Wink)

Several things come to mind upon reading this. Do you know for a fact, that wearing a headcovering in a church in which most do not cover their heads is not creating a distraction for others? The point is... there's no way of knowing what is going on in the minds of others.

Then there is the issue of "knowing what is good and doing it," and assuming that it applies to headcoverings. As Fr Stanley points out... we need to take culture and the day and age into consideration. In short: not "every promise in the good book is mine" (as the old evangelical chorus goes). Context is all important.

Futhermore, if wearing a headcovering is doing what is good, then according to Fr Stanley's quotes, you should be wearing it all the time... not just in church.

These points are not meant to discourage you from wearing a headcovering. They're just given to present the "other side of the coin" so to speak. Take care.
Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 26, 2009, 02:10:11 PM »

I think Cudgel asks very sharp questions, and it's not merely about head coverings, right? He seems to be generally interested in the issue of "mutability" in the teaching of the Orthodox Church...

Tough.Smiley But someone gotta do it. Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #26 on: May 26, 2009, 02:14:45 PM »

Lisa Rosehip & Douglas,


Douglas,

Fr Stanley Harakas' argument is certainly coherent, but I am remain convinced that the symbolic significance attached to the woman's head and its covering was understood as rooted in a theologically reality to be socially respected rather than a social construction to be theologically validated, that is, a woman's hair and headcoverings MEAN X because of the order of creation and not because society says so.  That certainly appears to be the Apostolic and Patristic understanding.  Nevertheless, Fr. Stanley's argument has serious implications if its premises are accepted or rejected.

That's your privilege, Cudgel. You are certainly entitled to remain convinced, although I see no evidence for doing so based upon Fr Stanley's words. Fr Stanley's argument, by the way, is essentially accepted by most Orthodox women (not all, of course) and I see no serious implications. I will add that I have experienced far more concern by young male converts to this issue than I think is healthy (and warranted). It seems to me that there's something deeper going on here than "serious theological" implications. Personally: I see this issue being raised (as it is so often on so very many Orthodox discussion boards) by young, unmarried men and I've a hunch that there is a control issue at heart here. This is a hunch of mine based upon some personal experience.

And by the way: I don't believe you have seriously addressed Fr Stanley's words. You've basically just blown them off with two sentences. Not good enough for me, Cudgel. Try adding some substance to your rejection.
Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #27 on: May 26, 2009, 02:19:49 PM »

I see no serious implications. I will add that I have experienced far more concern by young male converts to this issue than I think is healthy (and warranted). It seems to me that there's something deeper going on here than "serious theological" implications. Personally: I see this issue being raised (as it is so often on so very many Orthodox discussion boards) by young, unmarried men and I've a hunch that there is a control issue at heart here. This is a hunch of mine based upon some personal experience.

Your hunch is unwelcome, unwarranted and intellectually bankrupt. Retract it immediately or my conversation with you is over.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,721


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #28 on: May 26, 2009, 02:21:59 PM »

Who is Kingshouse?  Are they Orthodox?  Are they popular on Facebook?  Are they Non-denominational?  Why do you cite their citing of  them especially when they post a 21 page treatise on headcoverings (your print preview results may vary based on Browser, margins, etc.).

It does not matter. They QUOTE Jewish, Patristic, Catholic, Protestant and Orthdoox authors liberally.  That is all that matters.  Read very carefully what I and PetertheAleut have already written to you before posting ANYTHING else in this thread.

Sez you. It seems to me that SOL has asked a legitimate question. It might not matter to YOU, but it matters to him (and to some of us). So please answer his question. Who is Kingshouse? They may "quote" Jewish, Patristic, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox authors liberally but so what? Our concern is ONLY with Orthodox scholars. We are, after all, Orthodox believers.
Douglas, I don't think Cudgel is asking his questions out of some attempt to persuade us to accept his point of view, which would make your concern about authority legitimate.  Cudgel has asked us serious questions about change in praxis and made reference to academic sources that show that the wearing of head coverings has traditionally had the support of much more than just the Orthodox Church.  Considering what I perceive to be his goal for this discussion, I think this reference to a "heterodox" source is very appropriate, and I would recommend that we answer Cudgel on the terms he has set for this discussion rather than criticize these terms.
Logged
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #29 on: May 26, 2009, 02:22:09 PM »

Douglas,

Yes, odd we'd meet here, right?  Cheesy

Right now I do not wear it all the time, but if I were married, and my husband wished me to do so, I'd obey his wishes.

I've thought about this a great deal. At first it really bothered me that the Orthodox did not cover all the time-I would have been happy to do so. However, then I began to wonder about St. Paul's words "Any woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head" etc...The thought hit me that this is how we Orthodox refer to church services-praying...So I think perhaps we Orthodox are correct and this is a reference to a woman covering her "glory" so as to avoid distracting others from God's glory during church services (and private prayers).

I still do not think it wrong if I cover my head out of custom even when attending a church that doesn't. Hey, I attended a charismatic church a couple of years ago. Guess who had their heads covered (with hats)? The black women! One Sunday I was too late for church, so I went to the Anglican church down the street from me. I kept my head covered, and once again, I had some company...the black women! Is it wrong of those black women to maintain this pious custom? Are they "distracting" people with their headcoverings? I say no, they are not. And they deserve a lot of respect for this.
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,721


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #30 on: May 26, 2009, 02:25:33 PM »

It seems to me that there's something deeper going on here than "serious theological" implications. Personally: I see this issue being raised (as it is so often on so very many Orthodox discussion boards) by young, unmarried men and I've a hunch that there is a control issue at heart here. This is a hunch of mine based upon some personal experience.
By the rules of logic, this is an ad hominem that has no relevance to this discussion.  Please keep your comments focused solely on the substance of Cudgel's inquiry and not deviate into speculations about his person or his motives.
Logged
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2009, 02:26:58 PM »

Cudgel has asked us serious questions about change in praxis and made reference to academic sources that show that the wearing of head coverings has traditionally had the support of much more than just the Orthodox Church.  Considering what I perceive to be his goal for this discussion, I think this reference to a "heterodox" source is very appropriate, and I would recommend that we answer Cudgel on the terms he has set for this discussion rather than criticize these terms.

Perhaps. But in truth... they're very old questions already asked hundreds of times on dozens of Orthodox forums (and no doubt here as well). And he was given a serious answer by Fr Stanley Harakas who is an expert in this field and an Orthodox scholar and priest. He did not deal with Fr Stanley's quote but simply blew it off. He should be encouraged to be intellectually honest himself if he wishes to be taken seriously.

And speaking of seriously... while I'd like to stay and play... I've work to do. Take care.

Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
si2008
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 96


« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2009, 02:29:23 PM »

My husband actually asked me NOT to cover my head, even though I kind of want to sometimes.  I cover at the monastery and some Greek churches, but only because it's the custom there.  It is not usual at the Greek church in the city we go to sometimes, and only about four or five women cover regularly at our OCA parish.  My godmother, who covers, said that we have a wonderful example of headcovering in the Theotokos, and who is more beautiful than her?  On the other hand, I am very tempted to be self-righteous, and wouldn't want to start covering and be twice as tempted to condemn another woman for not covering.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,721


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #33 on: May 26, 2009, 02:31:54 PM »

Feeling is not a good basis for participation in this discussion.  Either offer an academic, well-thought reply or don't reply at all.

Hey, that's not nice.  I thought this was a "public forum" where things can openly get discussed. 
You're making it sound like a person might need a doctorate in order to have the right to post.
Nah.  Not the case at all. Smiley  I addressed only the way that SolEX01 seemed to be dismissing Cudgel's inquiry by offering unintelligent, poorly conceived comments that bordered on the emotive.  My admonition was not meant for anyone else.

Slow down.
No need to. Grin
Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #34 on: May 26, 2009, 02:34:27 PM »

Perhaps. But in truth... they're very old questions already asked hundreds of times on dozens of Orthodox forums (and no doubt here as well). And he was given a serious answer by Fr Stanley Harakas who is an expert in this field and an Orthodox scholar and priest. He did not deal with Fr Stanley's quote but simply blew it off. He should be encouraged to be intellectually honest himself if he wishes to be taken seriously.

Fr. Stanley's argument was that head coverings existed to preserve distinctions between the sexes that were socially constructed and not rooted in the order of creation itself.  I noted that this did not appear to be the view of St. Paul or many later exegetes.  This has serious implications either way because it invites the question of which, if any, human acts/characteristics have meaning intrinsic to them, which do not, and what id the relevant criteria for making the distinction.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 02:35:13 PM by Cudgel » Logged
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #35 on: May 26, 2009, 02:35:06 PM »

Women covering their heads is a sign of respect for the head , and a sign of subordonation of women to the men. A sign of subordonation of women to Christ . But I don`t see the coverings , so vital for the women then the attitude they should have , wich is expressed by the apostle Paul trough the coverring of the head . This refers to the spiritual : that a woman should not usurp authority in the Church and should not preach.This is more important than head coverings , in my perspective . Head covering and other parts covering of a women is a sign of decence . Sorry for my english .
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
rwprof
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA now, Antiochian originally
Posts: 294



« Reply #36 on: May 26, 2009, 02:39:30 PM »

Read very carefully what I and PetertheAleut have already written to you before posting ANYTHING else in this thread.

Scuse me, since I'm not in this fight, but had some whippersnapper said something like the above to me to my face, he would have lost a few teeth. Just exactly who are you to make condescending threats, and is there a way I can set my preferences so I never see anything you say again?



Logged

Mark (rwprof) passed into eternal life on Jan 7, 2010.  May his memory be eternal!
si2008
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 96


« Reply #37 on: May 26, 2009, 02:41:17 PM »

Women covering their heads is a sign of respect for the head , and a sign of subordonation of women to the men. A sign of subordonation of women to Christ . But I don`t see the coverings , so vital for the women then the attitude they should have , wich is expressed by the apostle Paul trough the coverring of the head . This refers to the spiritual : that a woman should not usurp authority in the Church and should not preach.This is more important than head coverings , in my perspective . Head covering and other parts covering of a women is a sign of decence . Sorry for my english .

So if a woman is dressed modestly and decently, but without a head covering, and her husband asked her NOT to cover her head...what is a woman to do?  If she doesn't cover, does that really mean her heart is not inclined to God?  It seems that some are making a headscarf the entire criterion of a woman's goodness or humility...in places where it is not the custom, it could actually become a prideful display.  Converts should be careful about pride; I should know.
Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #38 on: May 26, 2009, 02:42:45 PM »

Women covering their heads is a sign of respect for the head , and a sign of subordonation of women to the men. A sign of subordonation of women to Christ . But I don`t see the coverings , so vital for the women then the attitude they should have , wich is expressed by the apostle Paul trough the coverring of the head . This refers to the spiritual : that a woman should not usurp authority in the Church and should not preach.This is more important than head coverings , in my perspective . Head covering and other parts covering of a women is a sign of decence . Sorry for my english .

Your English is absolutely fine and your post particularly well-written. It has led me to consider one point that til now has been overlooked.  Certain social acts were consider direct extensions of roles inseparable from being a member of a specific sex. Such that taking on certain responsibilities involved a kind of "social cross dressing." Here's an example:

(1) Only women can be mothers; keeping house is part of being a mother; therefore, women and not men should keep house.  
(2) Only men can be fathers; owning land and being a soldier is an extension of fatherhood. Therefore, only men can own land and be soldiers.

We would not accept these arguments but it would be Christian to abide by them if everyone (or nearly everyone) did.  If headcoverings were part of this line of reasoning, it would make complete sense for praxis to change in response to social pressure.  Does this resonate with anyone?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 02:46:23 PM by Cudgel » Logged
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #39 on: May 26, 2009, 02:43:14 PM »

Read very carefully what I and PetertheAleut have already written to you before posting ANYTHING else in this thread.

Scuse me, since I'm not in this fight, but had some whippersnapper said something like the above to me to my face, he would have lost a few teeth. Just exactly who are you to make condescending threats, and is there a way I can set my preferences so I never see anything you say again?
 


Be calm , all of you .
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #40 on: May 26, 2009, 02:48:56 PM »

Read very carefully what I and PetertheAleut have already written to you before posting ANYTHING else in this thread.

Scuse me, since I'm not in this fight, but had some whippersnapper said something like the above to me to my face, he would have lost a few teeth. Just exactly who are you to make condescending threats, and is there a way I can set my preferences so I never see anything you say again?
 

Be calm, all of you.

What he said.  I made no threats.
Logged
si2008
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 96


« Reply #41 on: May 26, 2009, 02:49:06 PM »

Could someone please address my question?  I am to submit to my husband, but he asks that I don't cover my head.  Who do I obey according to the Church?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,721


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #42 on: May 26, 2009, 02:53:41 PM »

Read very carefully what I and PetertheAleut have already written to you before posting ANYTHING else in this thread.

Scuse me, since I'm not in this fight, but had some whippersnapper said something like the above to me to my face, he would have lost a few teeth. Just exactly who are you to make condescending threats, and is there a way I can set my preferences so I never see anything you say again?




1.  Cudgel did not threaten anyone with his request to SolEX01.
2.  If you're so angered by something Cudgel did that you would have punched him, given the chance, then maybe you need to calm down and let someone else confront him.


As a general moderatorial directive to all:  Please keep this thread focused on the substance of Cudgel's questions and not criticize personal motives or engage in personal attacks.  If something angers you, take some time to cool off before replying to it.  If you find something offensive, please use the "Report to Moderator" function to catch my attention.  Please don't take the matter into your own hands, especially if you're angry.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,721


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #43 on: May 26, 2009, 03:00:52 PM »

Cudgel has asked us serious questions about change in praxis and made reference to academic sources that show that the wearing of head coverings has traditionally had the support of much more than just the Orthodox Church.  Considering what I perceive to be his goal for this discussion, I think this reference to a "heterodox" source is very appropriate, and I would recommend that we answer Cudgel on the terms he has set for this discussion rather than criticize these terms.

Perhaps. But in truth... they're very old questions already asked hundreds of times on dozens of Orthodox forums (and no doubt here as well). And he was given a serious answer by Fr Stanley Harakas who is an expert in this field and an Orthodox scholar and priest. He did not deal with Fr Stanley's quote but simply blew it off. He should be encouraged to be intellectually honest himself if he wishes to be taken seriously.
I can see why Cudgel blew off your quote from Fr. Harakas (assuming he really did and has no intent of fulfilling his promise to give Fr. Stanley's words more thought over the next day or two).  He was very probably frustrated.  He started what he hoped would be an academic discussion based on questions he deems important, because none of the other threads that discuss head coverings on this forum have answered them adequately.  Yet all he gets from most of the posters on this thread is replies totally ignoring the data he's presented or dismissing his sources or slamming him against the proverbial wall.  It almost appears that no one really wants to address Cudgel's concerns in the manner that he would like to have them addressed.  It's almost like no one wants to take him seriously.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 03:03:33 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,510


WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 26, 2009, 03:01:32 PM »

Could someone please address my question?  I am to submit to my husband, but he asks that I don't cover my head.  Who do I obey according to the Church?

Have you asked your Priest?   Huh

I have no authority to tell you to wear or not to wear your headcovering.  If I joined an extremist polygamist sect and I could use fear to control the women and children, that would be different.  As an Orthodox Christian, I live with the consequences of my actions both good and bad.  I've attended Church in tennis shoes, in sweaty clothes, in sandals, et al.  The light of God shines on the good and the not so good.  Let your conscience be a guide.   Smiley
Logged
Tags: head coverings proper behavior female subjugation 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.173 seconds with 72 queries.