Modesty in the home

[Dave-W]

Can someone shine a bit of light on why people would argue that wives must be modest at home in front of her husband (in this case, the definition of modesty is in terms of attire and dress code)? Since nakedness is not a sin between spouses, and sexual intimacy is to be embraced, why would modesty be an issue between husband and wife?

Have you ever read the booklet "Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride" by Ruth Smythers? While it certainly was NOT written in the 1890s, it accurately depicts the Victorian mindset in the US during that time and the early 20th century.

A brief quote:

wise bride will make it the goal never to allow her husband to see her unclothed body, and never allow him to display his unclothed body to her. Sex, when it cannot be prevented, should be practiced only in total darkness. Many women have found it useful to have thick cotton nightgowns for themselves and pajamas for their husbands. These should be donned in separate rooms. They need not be removed during the sex act. Thus, a minimum of flesh is exposed.

nce the bride has donned her gown and turned off all the lights, she should lie quietly upon the bed and await her groom. When he comes groping into the room she should make no sound to guide him in her direction, lest he take this as a sign of encouragement. She should let him grope in the dark. There is always the hope that he will stumble and incur some slight injury which she can use as an excuse to deny him sexual access.


http://www.squaredancecd.com/Bride/brides.htm

 

[~Anastasia~]

Have you ever read the booklet "Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride" by Ruth Smythers? While it certainly was NOT written in the 1890s, it accurately depicts the Victorian mindset in the US during that time and the early 20th century.

A brief quote:

wise bride will make it the goal never to allow her husband to see her unclothed body, and never allow him to display his unclothed body to her. Sex, when it cannot be prevented, should be practiced only in total darkness. Many women have found it useful to have thick cotton nightgowns for themselves and pajamas for their husbands. These should be donned in separate rooms. They need not be removed during the sex act. Thus, a minimum of flesh is exposed.

nce the bride has donned her gown and turned off all the lights, she should lie quietly upon the bed and await her groom. When he comes groping into the room she should make no sound to guide him in her direction, lest he take this as a sign of encouragement. She should let him grope in the dark. There is always the hope that he will stumble and incur some slight injury which she can use as an excuse to deny him sexual access.


http://www.squaredancecd.com/Bride/brides.htm

Just - wow.

It was bad enough, but actually hoping (and even participating) in hopes of injuring your husband so it can be used as an excuse to deny sex ... is hardly what I would see as a proper relationship within marriage.


Meaning ... I think anything coming from such a motive can be safely disregarded altogether.

 

[Dave-W]

Just - wow.
It was bad enough, but actually hoping (and even participating) in hopes of injuring your husband so it can be used as an excuse to deny sex ... is hardly what I would see as a proper relationship within marriage.

Agreed. But that was the attitude of the day. And there are still pockets of it around today.

Have you ever seen the gruesome array of anti-masturbation devices patented in the US in the late 1800s and early 1900s? Injuring someone in the name of preventing sexual activity was considered praise-worthy.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Agreed. But that was the attitude of the day. And there are still pockets of it around today.

Have you ever seen the gruesome array of anti-masturbation devices patented in the US in the late 1800s and early 1900s? Injuring someone in the name of preventing sexual activity was considered praise-worthy.

No, I haven't seen them, and don't think I'd want to.

Some strange ideas crept in somewhere.

 

[Dave-W]

No, I haven't seen them, and don't think I'd want to.
Some strange ideas crept in somewhere.

From the early church fathers who hated sex. So by the time that stuff was going on, there was already 16-1700 years of that attitude in the church.

 

[PloverWing]

For what it's worth, Wikipedia thinks there's a good chance that the Ruth Smythers booklet was intended as humor: Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride - Wikipedia

 

[~Anastasia~]

From the early church fathers who hated sex. So by the time that stuff was going on, there was already 16-1700 years of that attitude in the church.

There have always been dissenting voices here and there that gave bad advice, but that was not the advice of the Church on marriage, nor was it the prevailing attitude. St. John Chrysostom is much more well-known on the topic.

From his Homily on Marriage ...
http://www.roca.org/OA/121/121b.htm

"A certain wise man, when enumerating which blessings are the most important included "a wife and husband who live in harmony ... From the beginning God in His providence has planned this union of man and woman, and has spoken of the two as one: male and female He created them (Gen. 1:27) ... There is no relationship between human beings so close as that of husband and wife, if they are united as they ought to be. ... This love (eros) is deeply planted within our inmost being. Unnoticed by us, it attracts the bodies of men and women to each other, because in the beginning woman came forth from man, and from man and woman other men and women proceed. Can you see now how close this union is, and how God providentially created it from a single nature? He permitted Adam to marry Eve, who was more than sister or daughter; she was his own flesh! God caused the entire human race to proceed from this one point of origin ..."

And much more speaking of love, harmony, and protection, but I think you can read between the lines of this part and see that sexual union is included.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And the second bit that goes with that ... generally speaking, don't ask a monk for attitudes about sex. They have their own necessary ways of thinking about it so as to maintain celibacy. That's one reason we have always had married priests ...

 

[Dave-W]

That's one reason we have always had married priests ..

The concept of a local congregational leader being celibate flies in the face of Paul's requirement of "Husband of one wife."

 

[~Anastasia~]

The concept of a local congregational leader being celibate flies in the face of Paul's requirement of "Husband of one wife."

Yes, I agree. One more reason we have always had married priests.

(Though I suspect Paul was not saying a man who had never been married should be disqualified. Rather I think he was concerned with men who had been married more than once being placed in leadership.)