modesty and culture.

[Sammy-San]

Do you believe modesty is not really cultural? People say it is, but I think people regardless of their background know what is the most appropriate to wear.

The issue raises certain questions. For example, would cultures with stricter modesty standards be more modest from a Christian perspective, or not in an absolute sense?

 

[Friend-of-Jesus]

Do you believe modesty is not really cultural? People say it is, but I think people regardless of their background know what is the most appropriate to wear.

The issue raises certain questions. For example, would cultures with stricter modesty standards be more modest from a Christian perspective, or not in an absolute sense?

Example of extreme modesty in a certain cultural context.

 

[Aleksandros]

I believe it is not cultural, but is a sort of innate human "common sense", which the onslaught of culture - weather in wealthy Rome or America, can bury. Even the Romans used to consider it a virtue (lol)

Are men everywhere, for instance, (except in certain incredibly odd indigenous tribes) the same? Aye, they are, with minor differences.

That's one reason.
Second, most cultures (at least, civilised ones) have agreed that it is a virtue, even if they only gave it lip service.

One strong reason for being modest is - and this one is for men too - just not causing people to sin by lusting. So wherever you have humans, you have need for modesty.

 

[Catherineanne]

Do you believe modesty is not really cultural? People say it is, but I think people regardless of their background know what is the most appropriate to wear.

The issue raises certain questions. For example, would cultures with stricter modesty standards be more modest from a Christian perspective, or not in an absolute sense?

Modesty is a function of the heart.

Fashion is cultural, and there is always a range; several ranges in fact, from very formal to very informal. Usually the appropriate choice will be context dependent. We learn these contexts and appropriate dress without realising we are doing it, just from seeing the people around us. Those we like we emulate; those we do not like we try to differentiate ourselves from.

Generally speaking people of faith will tend towards the more conservative side of the available choices, whatever they may be, and stay with those choices fairly consistently. They will identify themselves and be identified by other people as people of faith because of their fashion choices. But this does not make what they wear more moral; it isn't.

 

[Catherineanne]

I believe it is not cultural, but is a sort of innate human "common sense", which the onslaught of culture - weather in wealthy Rome or America, can bury. Even the Romans used to consider it a virtue (lol)

No, culture is learned, it isn't intuitive.

Are men everywhere, for instance, (except in certain incredibly odd indigenous tribes) the same? Aye, they are, with minor differences.

If men are the same everywhere except in some cases then men are clearly not always the same.

That's one reason.
Second, most cultures (at least, civilised ones) have agreed that it is a virtue, even if they only gave it lip service.

One strong reason for being modest is - and this one is for men too - just not causing people to sin by lusting. So wherever you have humans, you have need for modesty.

Clothes do not prevent lust. It is not the responsibility of the target to prevent anyone from sinning.

Taking a cold shower and deciding to not lust after other people is the way to prevent lust.

 

[SkyWriting]

One strong reason for being modest is - and this one is for men too - just not causing people to sin by lusting. So wherever you have humans, you have need for modesty.

Which generally increases lusting.

 

[Sammy-San]

I believe it is not cultural, but is a sort of innate human "common sense", which the onslaught of culture - weather in wealthy Rome or America, can bury. Even the Romans used to consider it a virtue (lol)

Are men everywhere, for instance, (except in certain incredibly odd indigenous tribes) the same? Aye, they are, with minor differences.

That's one reason.
Second, most cultures (at least, civilised ones) have agreed that it is a virtue, even if they only gave it lip service.

One strong reason for being modest is - and this one is for men too - just not causing people to sin by lusting. So wherever you have humans, you have need for modesty.

Here is proof modesty in my opinion is not really cultural.

The guidelines we’ve been discussing apply to cultures that are similar to modern America. But there are other cultures who are running around with far more or less clothing on. In some cultures, women don’t wear shirts. Once everyone is not wearing shirts, bare breasts stop becoming the tantalizing thing that they are in cultures that are always covering up. If you live in a bare top culture, you are not dishonoring God by not wearing a shirt because this is your cultural norm. Likewise, men who are running around in jungles with nothing but a coconut shell around their essentials are not being crude. Every culture has a different concept of normal, modest, and seductive behavior.

Clothes, Makeup & Jewelry: Guidance for Christian Women

http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/4313/7643/2903/cmod.pdf

I must raise two questions here: l) Given that modern swimsuits were designed to promote public nakedness and remain the most revealing form of clothing, why do so many Christians wear them in mixed company and encourage their young people to do so? 2) Why do Christian ministers and leaders expose God’s young men and women to the disquieting experience of “greater body exposure” in the name of evangelizing them? As the above authors admit, there is a forced and uneasy alliance between modesty and sexual display. The Bible speaks of covering the body; the world promotes uncovering the body. Should preachers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ be involved in promoting sexual display for which our young people would have been arrested sixty years ago?

 

[Archivist]

Here are male and female bathing suit, circa 1890:

Here are male and female bathing suits, circa 2017:

If you don't think that shows a cultural change in attitudes regarding modesty then you are missing something. Oh, and the 2017 suits are actually fairly modest by current standards.

 

[Sammy-San]

No, culture is learned, it isn't intuitive.



If men are the same everywhere except in some cases then men are clearly not always the same.



Clothes do not prevent lust. It is not the responsibility of the target to prevent anyone from sinning.

Taking a cold shower and deciding to not lust after other people is the way to prevent lust.

A woman showing everything but her privates in a bathing suit to me makes her responsible if men lust after her, and there are several reasons why I believe so.

 

[Archivist]

A woman showing everything but her privates in a bathing suit to me makes her responsible if men lust after her, and there are several reasons why I believe so.

No, it does not make her responsible. The man is responsible for his actions.

What about a man showing even more in a bathing suit? What if women lust after him? Or is that somehow different?

 

[Sammy-San]

No, it does not make her responsible. The man is responsible for his actions.

What about a man showing even more in a bathing suit? What if women lust after him? Or is that somehow different?

It's one thing to wear a t shirt and shorts, but some bathing suits essentially make women look naked and only cover their private areas. A person is responsible if they draw attention.

 

[Buju]

I've never seen any verses explicitly laying out modesty standards for us, however we should not provoke each-other to sin. If you see a woman's bare thigh it will almost always provoke a man to lust (unless they have really good self-control). Yes a woman dressing modestly can still be lusted after, but we should never pour gas on a fire. Literally or metaphorically.

 

[Archivist]

It's one thing to wear a t shirt and shorts, but some bathing suits essentially make women look naked and only cover their private areas. A person is responsible if they draw attention.

But a male bathing suit doesn't include a top. It hasn't done so for decades.

 

[Cuddles333]

In the New Testament, modesty was referring to the discouragement of open physical display of wealth. Excessive jewelery, expensive and or exotic clothes.

The hourglass female figure and V-shaped male physique are designed to attract, just as the symmetrical facial features are designed to get second glances.

What causes sexual lust (passion) is the scent given off by the female at certain times. Many colones and perfumes have been manufactured to cover this scent and redirect the attention to the 'success' of these.

 

[Buju]

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. If it were that simple inappropriate content wouldn't be a thing. I've lusted (not proud of it) from the comfort of my own car before. Heck, I've done it while camping while I was off by myself.

 

[WolfGate]

I've never seen any verses explicitly laying out modesty standards for us, however we should not provoke each-other to sin. If you see a woman's bare thigh it will almost always provoke a man to lust (unless they have really good self-control). Yes a woman dressing modestly can still be lusted after, but we should never pour gas on a fire. Literally or metaphorically.

That is just, well, weird. I don't think at all that almost all men would lust after seeing a thigh. How the heck do you get through warm weather when the women are wearing shorts?

 

[Buju]

That's actually a good point. I did word that funny. Sorry about that. I'm not saying that everytime a guy sees that that he automatically starts lusting. I'm saying that stuff like that will provoke a man to it, but to answer your question I use self control to not look there. Think about why you'd look there. There's no good reason to other than to "admire" her legs. Unless she has an injury I guess. If you see a girl walking up and see her legs as you look over I'm not saying that would do it either, but if you're looking at her legs instead of making eye contact as she walks over that's another thing. My original comment about self control was more like if a guy was staring at a girls legs. I wasn't very clear about that though. I apologize for the confusion.

 

[Sammy-San]

That is just, well, weird. I don't think at all that almost all men would lust after seeing a thigh. How the heck do you get through warm weather when the women are wearing shorts?

So there is no shame in a woman baring her thighs to men when it comes to modest?

To be balanced, thighs are a risk when it comes to dressing immodest.

 

[Archivist]

So there is no shame in a woman baring her thighs to men when it comes to modest?

To be balanced, thighs are a risk when it comes to dressing immodest.

Why are female thighs a risk when it comes to dressing immodest? Are male thighs a risk when it comes to dressing immodest? After all, a speedo exposes the thighs.

And in answer to your question, no, there is no shame in anyone baring their thighs.

 

[Sammy-San]

Modesty is a function of the heart.

Fashion is cultural, and there is always a range; several ranges in fact, from very formal to very informal. Usually the appropriate choice will be context dependent. We learn these contexts and appropriate dress without realising we are doing it, just from seeing the people around us. Those we like we emulate; those we do not like we try to differentiate ourselves from.

Generally speaking people of faith will tend towards the more conservative side of the available choices, whatever they may be, and stay with those choices fairly consistently. They will identify themselves and be identified by other people as people of faith because of their fashion choices. But this does not make what they wear more moral; it isn't.

http://www.plainbibleteaching.com/2006/04/01/modest-apparel/

What parts of their bodies did God cover so that they would no longer be naked? According to Strong’s Dictionary, the Hebrew word means a garment that went from the shoulders on down. God covered their chests and backs. After doing this, they were “clothed” and no longer “naked.” But how far below the waist needed to be covered? To the ankle? The knee? Halfway down the thigh? Let us look at other passages that will help us determine this.

In God’s instructions regarding the clothing for the priests, He said “You shall make for them linen breeches to cover their bare flesh (nakedness, KJV); they shall reach from the loins even to the thighs” (Exodus 28:42). What was considered nakedness? Exposing the loins and/or the thighs. Another helpful passage is Isaiah 47:2-3. This passage says: “Remove your veil, strip off the skirt, uncover the leg (thigh, KJV), cross the rivers. Your nakedness will be uncovered, your shame also will be exposed.” When one’s thigh is uncovered, they are considered naked.

What do these passages teach us? If the chest, back, loins, or thighs are exposed, one is naked by God’s definition. In order to dress in “modest apparel” (1 Timothy 2:9), we need to be sure we cover those areas.