If it is true, (as it is,) that in men, for the sake of women (just as in women for the sake of men), there is implanted, by a defect of nature, the will to please; and if this sex of ours acknowledges to itself deceptive trickeries of form peculiarly its own—(such as) to cut the beard too sharply; to pluck it out here and there; to shave round about (the mouth); to arrange the hair, and disguise its hoariness by dyes; to remove all the incipient down all over the body; to fix (each particular hair) in its place with (some) womanly pigment; to smooth all the rest of the body by the aid of some rough powder or other: then, further, to take every opportunity for consulting the mirror; to gaze anxiously into it:— while yet, when (once) the knowledge of God has put an end to all wish to please by means of voluptuous attraction, all these things are rejected as frivolous, as hostile to modesty. For where God is, there modesty is; there is sobriety her assistant and ally. How, then, shall we practise modesty without her instrumental mean, that is, without sobriety? How, moreover, shall we bring sobriety to bear on the discharge of (the functions of) modesty, unless seriousness in appearance and in countenance, and in the general aspect of the entire man, mark our carriage?
Souls of Damnation I… on Discourse in the Culture Wars… The Legitimate Conce… on The Gospel and the Twitter… T Graham on The Cup of the Adulteress: Und… Taylor Brazil on Why I Don’t Hold To The… Taylor Brazil on Why I Don’t Hold To The… Taylor Brazil on Why I Don’t Hold To The… Alastair Roberts on Why I Don’t Hold To The… Taylor Brazil on Why I Don’t Hold To The… padrerichard on Is YHWH a War Criminal? ‘Complementarity’ –… on Questions and Answers on my…
Follow me on TwitterMy Tweets