Modest Apparel

[Pompa Mike]

Christian ladies should be modest-the culture can't dictate how we dress. I get tired of seeing ones cleavage-what is so special about that?

Let me try to answer what is so special about it from my point of view. Cleavage in the right setting can be pretty darn special, but I don't want to go to walmart and see a bunch of boobs. I'm a single guy and I like women but in my little world a woman that shows too much just isn't appealing to me. There are other guys like me, but there are alot of guys that aren't and they wander around all day looking for things like this and spend too much time looking.
I generally think of it as, If I had a daughter, I wouldn't want her to look like that, and I wouldn't want her to BE looked at like that.

 

[VCViking]

I like what Paul Washer says on the subject. He got this from his wife, Charo.


"If your clothing is a frame for your face, God is pleased with your clothing. If your clothing is a frame for your body, it’s sensual and God hates what you’re doing."

 

[BibleArt]

I agree that clothing should be more modest especially among girls and women.

 

[WannaWitness]

What's sad about the whole thing is I've known it to happen that even some of the most modestly dressed women are not completely safe from lustful leers (and yes, mere admiring is different than lusting). That is why it's all the better to "leave a little mystery". That doesn't mean deliberately dressing frumpy, ugly, or plain (as that can draw the wrong kind of attention, as well). There are ways to dress stylish and cute and be reasonably modest, especially with the right accessories.

No, this doesn't just apply to the women; men should do their part, as well, when it comes to dressing appropriately, for both genders are guilty of lusting. Both genders should try to act responsibly when it comes to such things.

 

[Johnnz]

This verse has been interpreted in more modern times without fully understanding its original context. It is being understood virtually entirely within a non provocative sexual dress code.

NT society was strictly divided along race, status and rank lines. Dress style reflected all three of these social divisions. The new Christian community met without maintaining such divisions. Their meetings were the only places in society where the upper and lower classes met as equals, an abhorrent and potentially corrosive concept for Roman society. Paul's admonitions thus had nothing to do with how much female flesh was on display.

In fact in that society the human body was a common sight. Slaves were paraded and sold naked, and often would work naked, especially if they were doing dirty work. Peasants and other labourers would work naked too while doing farming or other labouring work. Roman society was not as hung up as modern Western ones about the human body. Most likely baptisms were conducted nude.

Paul's instruction has relevance today, not primarily as a sexual reference, but that we too should not use our dress habits to signify status, or to make some feel unnecessarily uncomfortable in our presence.

John
NZ

 

[dusky_tresses]

BUT we still need to guard our bodies too. I agree, that doesn't mean getting hung up on puritanical views either.

 

[sam5432]

A LOT!




Which is why I only wanna see that much (and more) of my Wife.
When I am married.

Not every girl at the beach.

Hi everyone, my first. The subject caught my interest because I have wondered for a long time why, as Christians, we do not place greater restrictions on how we dress. Where is the line on dress? I have heard some say if you address this topic that they look at you as if you are perverted for just asking about it or talking about it.

Not long ago I entered the fellowship all at the church were I attend. I am 5 ' 9" and I ran smack dab into a "lady” who was taller than me and her breast were at my eye level. That was not a problem and it should not be for anyone for that matter. The problem, however, was that there was around 40 percent exposure staring me in the face when I turned around to go to the refreshment table for a donut. Things like this required us males to redirect quickly regardless of how we are affected by it. Now it is not proper to gaze but the open advertisement invites men to do just that. I had to ask myself what would my response be if her blouse were above the cleavage and so that even in a bent posture nothing could be seen? I can tell you that I would not distract me at all, but as it was it did distract me and disturbed me for a lot of reasons. Not to mention we were studying about sexual matter from the OT in Bible class. I think this kind of dress is completely out of line for any woman claiming to be a Christian.

 

[Johnnz]

Not long ago I entered the fellowship all at the church were I attend. I am 5 ' 9" and I ran smack dab into a "lady” who was taller than me and her breast were at my eye level. That was not a problem and it should not be for anyone for that matter. The problem, however, was that there was around 40 percent exposure staring me in the face when I turned around to go to the refreshment table for a donut. Things like this required us males to redirect quickly regardless of how we are affected by it. Now it is not proper to gaze but the open advertisement invites men to do just that. I had to ask myself what would my response be if her blouse were above the cleavage and so that even in a bent posture nothing could be seen? I can tell you that I would not distract me at all, but as it was it did distract me and disturbed me for a lot of reasons. Not to mention we were studying about sexual matter from the OT in Bible class. I think this kind of dress is completely out of line for any woman claiming to be a Christian.

I can understand how you felt. Nevertheless that remains a wrong focus - it's the woman who must be so careful. This relegates a woman to being a body, not a person. As a male I am responsible not to view any woman primarily in terms of her physical endowments.

Breasts and Cleavage. Unless a woman is dressed in a sack I can assess her breasts anyway. That fact does not change whether she is totally covered or shows extensive cleavage.

I can view her breasts as an erotic stimulus, which is how our society portrays them, and then respond from my moral values. Or I can merely come to some conclusion about their general appearance and proceed to treat her as a whole person, not just as a pair of well formed breasts.

Any guy who cannot move past responding to breasts erotically should not blame the woman. He has a grossly sub Christian view of women, and his own sexuality. Breasts are meant to have visual appeal, just as a pretty face or well proportioned body also are. Maturity means a guy being able to appreciate a woman's body alongside everything else he appreciates about her, while interacting with her as a whole person, a fellow image bearer of God.

John
NZ

 

[Faith Hope& Love]

I believe in dressing modestly.

 

[b.hopeful]

Well said John.

I get tired of hearing about immodest women. It's as if you don't believe women can lust after a man...or that a man can't do anything to make himself a sexual distraction. Men can...and they do...I guess women are just better about putting the attraction in it's place and moving on?

Besides...it's not the breast or any other feature...it's your reaction to it. There are parts of this world where women are topless all the time. Their breasts are not considered sexual objects in that society so men don't react. It's time to admit that society is set up to program you to view certain parts as sexual. If you lived in a restrictive muslim community you might think a wrist or ankle was overtly sexual...because of how you are programmed. You need to develop the will and character and DESIRE to deprogram yourself and stop blaming women. Do you honestly believe lust doesn't exist in cultures that cover themselves?

 

[desmalia]

Well said John.

I get tired of hearing about immodest women. It's as if you don't believe women can lust after a man...or that a man can't do anything to make himself a sexual distraction. Men can...and they do...I guess women are just better about putting the attraction in it's place and moving on?

Besides...it's not the breast or any other feature...it's your reaction to it. There are parts of this world where women are topless all the time. Their breasts are not considered sexual objects in that society so men don't react. It's time to admit that society is set up to program you to view certain parts as sexual. If you lived in a restrictive muslim community you might think a wrist or ankle was overtly sexual...because of how you are programmed. You need to develop the will and character and DESIRE to deprogram yourself and stop blaming women. Do you honestly believe lust doesn't exist in cultures that cover themselves?

Of course men must also have self discipline. But they are visual creatures and as women we should also be respectful and sensible enough not to encourage their weaknesses any more than they should encourage ours. We are to be edifying and building one another up in Christ. That means we all need to take some responsibility.

 

[b.hopeful]

First, I think the visual creature is used as an argument to lay blame on women. Women are attracted to physical appearance as well. It's human nature. And as I pointed out...in nations that fully cover, a wrist or ankle is "too sexual". Would you ever argue that perhaps women should be fully covered? The argument is the same...if women expose any part of themselves it is leading men to sin. What we consider modest is fluid and depends on the culture in which we live.

I think modesty lies in the heart of the person. They know why they are dressing in a certain manner. I live in an extremely hot, humid climate. The other day I went hiking with my children and then swam in a creek. I wore as little clothing as possible. I'm not trying to seduce anyone when I hike with my children...i'm trying not to over heat. Also...the same top on an A or B cup looks less immodest than it does on a DD cup. That does not take intent into account at all. This is the body that God gave me...my intent is pure....so it is not what goes in that defiles you...it is what comes out. The Pharisees that charged guilt and condemnation on someone that has no intent to dishonor God are the defiled ones.

 

[Johnnz]

Of course men must also have self discipline. But they are visual creatures and as women we should also be respectful and sensible enough not to encourage their weaknesses any more than they should encourage ours. We are to be edifying and building one another up in Christ. That means we all need to take some responsibility.

I am beginning to really object to statements like this. Both men and women can enjoy the physical appearance of each other. And I am not automatically weak because I am male. That is demeaning of men.

Where the human body is regularly seen (as in some societies, nudists) the men are not in a constant state of sexual arousal. Nudity was common in biblical times, and church leaders were known to attend public baths, where there was mixed gender nudity, when these were instituted around the 2nd Century.

The issue is not as simplistic as men's 'weakness' but is the product highly unhealthy attitudes the about human body and sex in general that pervades modern society.

John
NZ

 

[desmalia]

John just because it may not be a weakness for you personally doesn't mean all men are like you. Everyone has weaknesses in some areas and MANY men do indeed have that weakness, as you've seen even in this thread. So while it's great that's not one of yours it doesn't negate my responsibility to dress respectably and decently in the least.

Yes cultural issues do come into play. And certainly we can look at that. But you can't just force people to suddenly step completely outside of that. When needed do what we can to educate, sure. But also be sensitive to what is already in place. What's so wrong with that? The issue here isn't about whether we can enjoy the appearance of other people. It's whether how we dress inspires others to stumble. And no Christian needs to play the "I'm free in Christ to dress however I like" card because being a stumbling block to others is our concern and something we do want to avoid. All of this certainly does apply to both men and women, and I don't think anyone's suggesting otherwise. But realistically men are generally more visual. Sure not always, but generally. So that's why women's dress is being discussed more, I'm sure. Seriously, when did modesty become such a bad thing?

 

[b.hopeful]

Modesty is fluid. Trying to determine immodest dress is like nailing jello to the wall. For some, it's exposing shoulders or the knee area. For others...a wrist or ankle. For some, a naked body doesn't seem immodest. This is just more repressed sexuality in the church. It's not about keeping others from stumbling. Would you suggest no one drink in public because it might cause an alcoholic to stumble?

Ditto John "The issue is not as simplistic as men's 'weakness' but is the product highly unhealthy attitudes the about human body and sex in general that pervades modern society."

When I was a nursing mother there was much discussion about "discretion". Now, I felt I was being discreet because I wore clothing that made it virtually impossible to see any amount of flesh. I had special nursing undershirts and tops and I'm pretty sure I never exposed myself to anyone other than my spouse and children. However, I know people from much more conservative backgrounds that felt like women nursing in front of men...even with a shawl...was immodest. Men know what is going on under there and the act of watching you handle your breast...even under a shawl...could cause them to stumble or lust. If that is true...that is about the other person's unhealthy view of sexuality and frankly, I'm not doing him any favors by submitting to his sickness.

 

[Johnnz]

John just because it may not be a weakness for you personally doesn't mean all men are like you. Everyone has weaknesses in some areas and MANY men do indeed have that weakness, as you've seen even in this thread. So while it's great that's not one of yours it doesn't negate my responsibility to dress respectably and decently in the least.

Yes cultural issues do come into play. And certainly we can look at that. But you can't just force people to suddenly step completely outside of that. When needed do what we can to educate, sure. But also be sensitive to what is already in place. What's so wrong with that? The issue here isn't about whether we can enjoy the appearance of other people. It's whether how we dress inspires others to stumble. And no Christian needs to play the "I'm free in Christ to dress however I like" card because being a stumbling block to others is our concern and something we do want to avoid. All of this certainly does apply to both men and women, and I don't think anyone's suggesting otherwise. But realistically men are generally more visual. Sure not always, but generally. So that's why women's dress is being discussed more, I'm sure. Seriously, when did modesty become such a bad thing?

Part of the issue is a failure to distinguish between a basic sexual response and actual immorality (lust). It's not at all wrong to have a sexual response to a sexual stimulus. Guys can have a virtually involuntary response to a female. That just means he is a normally functioning guy, but far too many Christians label that as sinful lust. Current Western attitudes have resulted in the female body becoming eroticised somewhat abnormally and in my opinion actually causes much of men's reactions to the female body. Lust requires a deliberate intent to engage in an actual sin or otherwise indulge in something excessively. It has little to do with a natural response. Why should a guy feel guilty over a reaction he did not will or even want to happen?

The stumbling block is a very much overused argument. It had a very real content in Paul's days and is far too widely assigned today. As for modesty Pope John's comments are as thoughtful as any I have come across.

Sexual modesty cannot in any simple way be identified with the use of clothing, nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nakedness. There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest.......Nakedness, as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness. Immodesty is only present when nakedness plays a negative role with regards to the value of the person...... The human body is not in itself shameful, nor for the same reason are sensual reactions, ad human sensuality in general. Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of the person.”

Also C S Lewis as perceptive as always
[FONT=&quot]C. S. Lewis in "Perelandra" - "Yet could it be possible, in the long run, to wear clothes without learning modesty, and through modesty lasciviousness?"[/FONT]

John
NZ

 

[WannaWitness]

Trying to determine immodest dress is like nailing jello to the wall.

It is. And I can use myself as an example. I have a fairly simple taste in clothes -- my absolute favorite thing to wear is a combo of a simple tee (preferably with colorful stripes) and overalls. I feel I am reasonably modest dressed this way. But there are many different opinions. One person might look at me, viewing me as frumpy and shabby. Another person would think that in order to be truly modest, I should be wearing a skirt or a dress. Others would look at me, and not even bat an eye. This just goes to show how differently the line is drawn when it comes to this and other similar issues.

 

[WannaWitness]

duplicate post deleted

 

[sam5432]

If we deal with "modest" and leave out the notion of those that fall into the category of "perversion" what would "modest" be in terms of ladies apparel, where are the "so called" guide lines that meet the admonition Paul gives?

As a starter are bathing suits on the beach modest? (men and women)

 

[realc4ever]

many people make it more like it is the womans responsibility. there are verses in probverbs that speak about
"men not falling for womens beauty" (to where it becomes lust that can lead to sin)
and there are other similar verses like this.

I have yet to hear or read anyone speak from this perspective. I will look up the verses soon and do a little write up.