The subject was decency of dress, whereas 1Cor 11, whic deals with male headship, was invoked in regards to the hermeneutic that relegates texts to being cultural and not directly applicable today.
As for what long hair means, some say it meant covering the shoulders, but , what is obvious is that a man is not to have the hair length of the women, in keeping with the principle of signifying submission to male headship.
That is my point. Be very very careful about assuming that what God is telling YOU is the same as what he is telling others.
Your statement itself illustrates what i object to, that of effectively negating the literal transcendence of commands on modesty and male headship based on the premise of ambiguity, or that they lead to legalistic extremes, and or were cultural.
I understand your concern: “Your statement itself illustrates what i object to, that of effectively negating the literal transcendence of commands on modesty and male headship based on the premise of ambiguity, or that they lead to legalistic extremes, and or were cultural.”
The reality is that these commands if these commands are to be implemented they must be interpreted. Like it or not, the interpreters are men attempting to apprehend God. Men almost always get it wrong.