Defining Modesty

Hillsage · Jul 16, 2017

Having x-rayed over a 100 Holdeman Mennonite women in my career...after they've removed their neck to ankle dresses, I have an observation to make. Based upon some of the Victoria's Secret underwear I've seen, I'd say some of them just might still have 'lust' clear up to their eyeballs, that the dress didn't cover. :idea:

Johnny Boyd · Jul 16, 2017

S.O.J.I.A. · Jul 16, 2017

we misunderstand 1 timothy 2:9-10 as well as 1 peter 3:2-5 when we look at it as being about attention grabbing rather than where a woman's beauty should come from. women who braid there hair and put on jewelry and nice clothes are trying to attract men. the bible says a woman's demeanor and her deeds is what will be most valuable.

as far as dress code is concerned, Scripture understands that men are visually stimulated while women are spiritually stimulated. this is why dress codes are given to women and not men. while nudity is regarded as shameful for both genders, males are going to be more drawn to the visual stimulation of physical beauty much more than women, which is why scripture warns men against falling into the trap of charm and beauty(proverbs 7:6-27 proverbs 31:30)

Johnny Boyd · Jul 16, 2017

THE W said:
as far as dress code is concerned, Scripture understands that men are visually stimulated while women are spiritually stimulated. this is why dress codes are given to women and not men. while nudity is regarded as shameful for both genders, males are going to be more drawn to the visual stimulation of physical beauty much more than women, which is why scripture warns men against falling into the trap of charm and beauty(proverbs 7:6-27 proverbs 31:30)

Where do we see that scripture understands this? I'd say that both men and women are visually stimulated; Gen 39:6.

S.O.J.I.A. · Jul 16, 2017

Johnny Boyd said:
Where do we see that scripture understands this? I'd say that both men and women are visually stimulated; Gen 39:6.

not sure of the point of your reference...

Johnny Boyd · Jul 16, 2017

THE W said:
not sure of the point of your reference...

'Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance.'
/\ Spoken of a man, not a woman.
Women are visually stimulated by nice looking men.

S.O.J.I.A. · Jul 16, 2017

Johnny Boyd said:
'Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance.'
/\ Spoken of a man, not a woman.
Women are visually stimulated by nice looking men.

rather, they notice the good looks of a nice looking man, but will be truly drawn to that man by his personality, confidence, and his resources.

looks are not utterly irrelevant, but a women will be drawn by what a man does way more than what he looks like.

jimmyjimmy · Jul 16, 2017

THE W said:
rather, they notice the good looks of a nice looking man, but will be truly drawn to that man by his personality, confidence, and his resources.

Yes. I agree. A woman looks for security in marriage, more than looks. A man's confidence and ability to provide for her physical needs tops the list. And I also agree that personality rates. Fortunately for me, women like men who make them laugh.

Johnny Boyd · Jul 16, 2017

THE W said:
rather, they notice the good looks of a nice looking man, but will be truly drawn to that man by his personality, confidence, and his resources.

looks are not utterly irrelevant, but a women will be drawn by what a man does way more than what he looks like.

You said the bible makes your view clear.

Show me from the bible.

S.O.J.I.A. · Jul 16, 2017

Johnny Boyd said:
You said the bible makes your view clear.

Show me from the bible.

if you're looking for a verse that says "women want a man who has personality, confidence, and resources" you won't find that verse. you also won't find a verse that says "Jesus was fully God and fully man with no mixing of the natures" or "God is one being comprised of 3 distinct persons co-equal and co-eternal" along with the absence of the words "trinity" and "hypostatic union".

so if you're looking for a proof text...you got me...I got nothin'.

my statement comes from the light of nature which is something God created. not culture, but nature. adam was made first and told to work the ground and eve was made to be his helper. ephesians 5 tells women to submit to their husband and for the husband to provide protect, and serve the woman(sacrificing his life....which include his resources!). titus 2 and 1 timothy 5 tell women to be discreet(can't do that when you're running around topless) and a keeper of the home and 1 peter 3 has them as the weaker vessel and that men should dwell with them in understanding. james 1 tells us that true religion involves caring for widows as well as orphans. 1 timothy 5 also says that a man is reprobate if he doesn't provide for his household.

with all that said about women, is she going to be more concerned about how hot a guy is or what that man can do for her?

Johnny Boyd · Jul 16, 2017

THE W said:
if you're looking for a verse that says "women want a man who has personality, confidence, and resources" you won't find that verse. you also won't find a verse that says "Jesus was fully God and fully man with no mixing of the natures" or "God is one being comprised of 3 distinct persons co-equal and co-eternal" along with the absence of the words "trinity" and "hypostatic union".

so if you're looking for a proof text...you got me...I got nothin'.

my statement comes from the light of nature which is something God created. not culture, but nature. adam was made first and told to work the ground and eve was made to be his helper. ephesians 5 tells women to submit to their husband and for the husband to provide protect, and serve the woman(sacrificing his life....which include his resources!). titus 2 and 1 timothy 5 tell women to be discreet(can't do that when you're running around topless) and a keeper of the home and 1 peter 3 has them as the weaker vessel and that men should dwell with them in understanding. james 1 tells us that true religion involves caring for widows as well as orphans. 1 timothy 5 also says that a man is reprobate if he doesn't provide for his household.

with all that said about women, is she going to be more concerned about how hot a guy is or what that man can do for her?

I was referring to this statement you made: "Scripture understands that men are visually stimulated while women are spiritually stimulated."

---

Your last paragraph:

It's a non-sequitur. Just because men are to provide for women, etc. doesn't mean women aren't visually stimulated. Why can't women have both?

Also, "more vs less" doesn't work. For example, she could logically be just as stimulated visually as we are, while at the same time having even greater desire than that for him to provide for her.

dysert · Jul 16, 2017

JackRT said:
Some clothing can be far more provocative than none at all.

And some men can be provoked no matter what a woman is wearing.

S.O.J.I.A. · Jul 16, 2017

Johnny Boyd said:
It's a non-sequitur. Just because men are to provide for women, etc. doesn't mean women aren't visually stimulated. Why can't women have both?

Also, "more vs less" doesn't work. For example, she could logically be just as stimulated visually as we are, while at the same time having even greater desire than that for him to provide for her.

it logically follows from the gender roles that are layed out in scripture.

a man seeks a beautiful woman to bestow his resources on and sacrifice for whereas a woman would seek a man who can protect, provide and lead. because men are visual, women are told in scripture to be aware of their apparel and men are being warned to not fall for the raw beauty of a woman without substance.

if these traps were equally as perilous for women scripture would have warned both genders of this mutually. it did not. the warnings were gender specific. we're left to assume that these instructions for women on how they dress equally apply to men and the warnings against falling for charm and beauty equally apply to women.

you're not getting that from scripture, so where are you getting that from?

Johnny Boyd · Jul 16, 2017

dysert said:
And some men can be provoked no matter what a woman is wearing.

Absolutely! I have the most struggle with fully clothed women that I know and like.
I'm far less impacted by pictures of fully nude women (strangers.)

That said, lack of clothing makes it worse; imagine if that first group went nude.

Paidiske · Jul 16, 2017

THE W said:
whereas a woman would seek a man who can protect, provide and lead.

I think this is common in societies - like the ones reflected in the Bible - where women are relatively powerless and need protection, provision and leadership. In our own society, where a woman can often see to her own safety and financial security, we see that women seek these things less, and are more likely to be concerned about other things (like visual gratification).

In other words, what we're tempted by or drawn to is often as much about our circumstances at that time, as it is about "nature."

Johnny Boyd · Jul 16, 2017

THE W said:
it logically follows from the gender roles that are layed out in scripture.

a man seeks a beautiful woman to bestow his resources on and sacrifice for whereas a woman would seek a man who can protect, provide and lead. because men are visual, women are told in scripture to be aware of their apparel and men are being warned to not fall for the raw beauty of a woman without substance.

if these traps were equally as perilous for women scripture would have warned both genders of this mutually. it did not. the warnings were gender specific. we're left to assume that these instructions for women on how they dress equally apply to men and the warnings against falling for charm and beauty equally apply to women.

you're not getting that from scripture, so where are you getting that from?

The problem was the way you phrased it; it came across as women being not visually stimulated. If your argument is more vs less, that's fine; and now you've referenced texts to support your idea.

---------
"we're left to assume that these instructions for women on how they dress equally apply to men [...]

you're not getting that from scripture, so where are you getting that from?"
---------

I stated that I think 1Ti 2:9, in this context, doesn't apply at all. So, are you referring to a text other than my OP?

I think it's silly to ban women and not men from taking their tops off, but I didn't claim to have scriptural support for that.

Johnny Boyd · Jul 16, 2017

Paidiske said:
I think this is common in societies - like the ones reflected in the Bible - where women are relatively powerless and need protection, provision and leadership. In our own society, where a woman can often see to her own safety and financial security, we see that women seek these things less, and are more likely to be concerned about other things (like visual gratification).

In other words, what we're tempted by or drawn to is often as much about our circumstances at that time, as it is about "nature."

Although in marriage, the husband is still to be the head/leader. Logically, there's a necessity for someone to be the leader, and the reason is given; iirc: man was first, and the woman was deceived first.

As for providing, etc... I mostly agree with you. In essence, if a woman is so self-sufficient that there's nothing to be gained by you providing for her, then there's no need. However, if things go badly: the duty's on you (man), in order to be an example of christ's self-sacrifical love for his bride.

S.O.J.I.A. · Jul 16, 2017

Paidiske said:
I think this is common in societies - like the ones reflected in the Bible - where women are relatively powerless and need protection, provision and leadership. In our own society, where a woman can often see to her own safety and financial security, we see that women seek these things less, and are more likely to be concerned about other things (like visual gratification).

In other words, what we're tempted by or drawn to is often as much about our circumstances at that time, as it is about "nature."

and then there are the feminists who seek to go head to head with men in all arenas of life.

the exceptions don't do away with the rule.

Johnny Boyd · Jul 16, 2017

THE W said:
and then there are the feminists who seek to go head to head with men in all arenas of life.

the exceptions don't do away with the rule.

And in the name of equality, they do away with genders entirely. I consider myself a feminist, I support equality as human beings. But that does not mean we deny gender distinctions! For example: men are naturally stronger, and I'll gladly say that to feminazi SJWs. And the man is still to lead in a marriage because it's a picture: christ's love for the church.

SBC · Jul 16, 2017

Johnny Boyd said:
Although I tend to agree with you, I'm looking for scriptures or arguments based on scripture to prove one way or another. It's entirely possible that society's standards have loosened due to humanity becoming more evil, as we know will happen in the latter times.

In Gen we find Adam and his wife naked, and unashamed.
Then we find Adam and his wife doing what God forbid them to do.
Then we find they discovered they were naked and covered themselves with an apron made from leaves.
Then we find God clothed them with animals skins.

Later we find nakedness is a shame to the one is naked, for others to see ones nakedness.
(Husband and wife together in nakedness is excepted)

We can guess what parts of the body Adam and Eve covered with leaves.
We can guess what parts of the body God covered with animal skins.

We can also know from some scriptures and personal experience; parts of people are call "private" parts, for several reasons.

We also know parts of people are not private and revealed regularly, in scripture and in society.

And our faces uncovered, our arms, hands uncovered, are never called naked.

We also know from scripture, one does not need to be concerned by what clothing they put on; Key words; clothing put on

clothes, clothing, garments by their very definition are "coverings".

God clothed Adam and Eve. He covered their nakedness. He used an animal skin. Some today say THAT is taboo! Some cover their nakedness with cotton, rayon, wool, denim, etc. Again, key words; Cover their nakedness.

It is not a mystery to know IF a lack of clothing is offensive to an onlooker.
And sure enough, many men have zero complaint to see women show a lot of skin or wear seductive clothing, and they know exactly what imaginations run through their own minds.

So, I would just say; to conclude what you might think acceptable;
Picture a young adult female, provocatively dressed, in a room full of men in a bar drinking;
Now imagine that female is your daughter.

God Bless,
SBC

Defining Modesty

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Member

Dynamic UNO

Member

Dynamic UNO

Member

Dynamic UNO

Pardoned Rebel

Member

Dynamic UNO

Member

Member

Dynamic UNO

Member

Clara bonam audax

Member

Member

Dynamic UNO

Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads