Modesty

[Mustaphile]

The problem with this argument, especially the part about "injuring people spiritually" is that, as time has shown, "sensitivity" doesn't work.

Even if I covered myself in a Burqa, as another poster suggested, I might be spiritually "injuring" or repulsing someone who thinks that women should not be seen outside the home.

I think this is only a problem if you turn sensitivity into an ideological extreme, rather than a matter of courtesy towards others. I'm certainly not suggesting it become ideology, whereas I think your reaction to my thoughts on pragmatic courtesy is based on ideological knee jerk reaction to that the pragmatic inventiveness of courtesy. We don't need to go that far in either direction. It simply doesn't need to be a 'face off' between the sexes. All it need be is a discussion on practical attempts to find pragmatic solutions. There is a certain bent in modern society to form ideological stances on issues. I am not of the opinion that it is a healthy situation to treat every matter as a battle of ideologies. It would be better to perceive it is a dialogue on the 'common good'.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

If I see a girl in a short tight skirt, low cut tight shirt showing off her stomach, I will think a few things, and I am NOT afraid of telling them.

1. She is trying to get guys attention in a sexual way, and she is whether thats her intentions or not. If she does not realize this, she is either ignorant, naive, or a pathalogical liar.

2. She is showing off her good looks. One can be VERY VERY attractive without showing skin. My g/f is a perfect example.

3. The girl is probably in secure with her physical appeal and what people think of her.

4. I would probably think that hanging out with her is unhealthy for me because of reason one and two.

Well that's nice. I wonder if you have any evidence whatsoever that 1 through 3 are actually true? I doubt it.

4 might well be true; I would definitely think that hanging out with you would be unhealthy for her.

 

[SallyNow]

I'm somewhat lost in determining what your trying to express or gain from asking me these questions. I can only assume you are judging me unworthy in some aspect of my life, because I choose to not look at women who dress immodestly in deference to the feelings of a person that I love. Or perhaps you are reacting to my quip at the end of my statement, in which I have applied some speculation as to what might cause someone to dress immodestly and whether I think that's appropriate. I have no idea where your really coming from with regards to intent and in the absence of knowledge of that intent, I would decline to answer you questions in full. They seem to be assuming something about me that I am not so sure I really need to defend myself against. Take me as I am, or don't take me at all, is all I can say. Your approval or disapproval of my actions has no real bearing on how I live life. I can love all people but not like their actions. Perhaps that might clarify my position for you.

Sorry-I didn't realize how hard I had been on you.
Okay, basically I was reacting to the entire concept of "looking away"-that so many times this marginalizes people by the way they dress. I wasn't just reacting to your post, but using it as an example. But these days, the cultural norm IS to show lots o skin. It no longer shows the character of the woman-many very respectable women, women who respect others, dress in skimpy clothes. No longer can you assume that a woman wearing little is a "hussie"...instead, she is probably just a respectable woman who is caught up in the cultural trend and norm.
However, I AM sick of seeing and hearing men bringing up the "temptation" arguement, as if all temptations are reasonable. They are not. Some men like to lust, and blame it on others. You do not appear to be one of these, but many are.
Modesty is about appropriatness-the beach means bathing suit, the office means a suit. It's not just about amount of clothing.
But what of modesty for men? Men should also dress appropraitly. But instead, I see many men who wear inappropriate things to inappropriate places, which is not modest, even if it is covering parts.
This does bring me to my last point on this: what ARE "you" (meaning the people who believe in the temptation theory)...what are you doing to change the current culture of sex? This is what my questions were aimed at.

A side note: I think it interesting that you say sentitivity is only a problem if taken to an ideological extreme. Does apply to the way a person-man or woman-should conduct themselves in all aspects, or a way a woman should conduct herself?

 

[justaman]

Yes, that would be a stab in the dark and it would be incorrect. Shalit makes a very convincing argument that modesty and monogomy
is quite the opposite of sexual repression.

Well it's hardly surprising that she would argue that. Sexual repression has immediate connotations that she would need to avoid to be taken seriously. That doesn't mean that isn't precisely what it is, however.

She asks some very interesting questions. Even if you disagree with her answers, the questions are very worth pondering.

I can guarantee you I'm not going to read the book, however if you would like to post some of these questions maybe we can get somewhere

 

[SallyNow]

Well it's hardly surprising that she would argue that. Sexual repression has immediate connotations that she would need to avoid to be taken seriously. That doesn't mean that isn't precisely what it is, however.

I can guarantee you I'm not going to read the book, however if you would like to post some of these questions maybe we can get somewhere

I have not read the book, although I probably will. However, I always wonder why choosing to wait to have sex with someone you love is repression? How is having a loving, solid relationship, (ie, a good marriage) repression? It is love. It's not love to go and have sex with other while commited to one person-that's just hurtful and very dangerous, both medically and psycologically.

Why is choosing love and friendship over sex a bad thing?
Sometimes I think some people who call marriage "repression" are actually repressed when it comes to real relationships. Perhaps they are repressing real emotions and happininess for cheap thrills? Just a theory...

 

[Mustaphile]

This does bring me to my last point on this: what ARE "you" (meaning the people who believe in the temptation theory)...what are you doing to change the current culture of sex? This is what my questions were aimed at.

A side note: I think it interesting that you say sentitivity is only a problem if taken to an ideological extreme. Does apply to the way a person-man or woman-should conduct themselves in all aspects, or a way a woman should conduct herself?

What am I doing to change the culture of sex?

I'm not participating in it as much as I am able to have a choice to not participate in it, sometimes it is thrust upon me, and I speak out when I am confronted by it in my personal life.

With regards to the sensitivity issue, courtesy is independant of gender. Both male and female should be courteous.

I'd say in regards to the emphasis on sex and sexuality in our culture, that it's not a battle I take to the streets. I have other things in my life that are of importance to me, and they are the things I 'take to the streets' with. Emphasis on sex in culture is something that I deal with as I go along through life and encounter it, usually by way of assent or dissent to a view held by another. For instance sitting around listening to a whole lot of guys talking in particularly sexist way might lead me to express my disinterest in participating in the conversation due to the sexist nature of it's content, and then absenting myself from room to remove myself from offending behaviour. I've stated to many a sexist male that I just don't want to hear it, when they start going on in a particular way and I tell them to take it somewhere else. I'm not going to start railing against them for their behaviour. I have enough planks in my own eye to deal with, before I start tearing at the specks in other peoples eyes. May God have mercy on the soul of the sexist male too.

 

[vanshan]

Good point, SallyNow. I think waiting to have sex is far from repression, it's really the choice which empowers us. I think a good point was made about when a woman dresses revealingly it cannot help but incite the unnatural distorted sexual response in weak men, which is part of their sickness in the fallen state. It's sad that some see dressing modestly as submitting to the weakness of others, but rather than despise those afflicted with sin, have mercy on them. That's what God does.

In our system of law we always use the analogy that your right to swing your fist ends at another persons nose. Our actions are always restrained by the harm it may cause another person--in this case the harm may be unseen, as it really occurs in the heart, but it's still destructive. The result of men living lives of sexual indulgence or even uncontrolled sexual thoughts is an eternity in Hell. Please have mercy on them in their struggle . . . even if it's not through anything but dressing more modestly.

Basil

 

[justaman]

I have not read the book, although I probably will. However, I always wonder why choosing to wait to have sex with someone you love is repression? How is having a loving, solid relationship, (ie, a good marriage) repression? It is love. It's not love to go and have sex with other while commited to one person-that's just hurtful and very dangerous, both medically and psycologically.

I'm not sure I was ever calling marriage 'repression'. Some types of marriage can be, but marriage these days is harldy repressive (in the context we're talking about). Marriage for many is a very good thing.

I do have to say, however, that abstinance isn't necessarily a good thing. And I'm being very freaking liberal when I say that I usually say it's always a bad thing but a lengthy discussion with another member convinced me there are some (fairly uncommon I would think) cases where it is not.

I liken the analogy to a race. You don't run a race without training first, do you? I notice you are theatrically inclined. Do you put on a play without a dress rehearsal?

Marriage is arguably the single most important relationship we will have (if we choose to pursue it) because it is the most permanent. I wouldn't want to go into any element of marriage blind. All you're doing is increasing the risk of things not working out.

Why is choosing love and friendship over sex a bad thing?

Why is it one or the other? I have sex. I also have female friends I am hopelessly in (platonic) love with who I have no sexual interest in.

Sometimes I think some people who call marriage "repression" are actually repressed when it comes to real relationships. Perhaps they are repressing real emotions and happininess for cheap thrills? Just a theory...

Define 'real' emotion as opposed to a fake one...

 

[feral]

However, I always wonder why choosing to wait to have sex with someone you love is repression? How is having a loving, solid relationship, (ie, a good marriage) repression? It is love. It's not love to go and have sex with other while commited to one person-that's just hurtful and very dangerous, both medically and psycologically.

That is a question I have as well - what does empowering, encouraging, supporting and loving someone have to do with repression? In my view, it is repression to tell people they need to allow themselves to be used for someone else's physical pleasure, or to encourage them to go into meaningless relationships that damage their psyche and their self esteem. In my opinion, encouraging purity and modesty (not forcing it) is liberating and allows people to set their own bodies and respect themselves.

I can guarantee you I'm not going to read the book, however if you would like to post some of these questions maybe we can get somewhere

I am curious as to why you consider yourself qualified to discuss the topic if you are unwilling to review both sides. Have you read other books relying on the same arguments? I mean, you are entitled to your opinion, but what good is an uninformed opinion? Would you vote for a candidate without reviewing his/her competitor's information? I'm not saying you aren't informed, just curious as to how your opinion has been formed in regards to this issue.

Well that's nice. I wonder if you have any evidence whatsoever that 1 through 3 are actually true? I doubt it.

4 might well be true; I would definitely think that hanging out with you would be unhealthy for her.

Yeah, because being with a man that respects her and doesn't just want to oogle her body would be a really bad situation. I actually think the points made by archangel were valid. Certainly, there will be exceptions, but I daresay many of the people who are dressing in very revealing attire do want attention or to be noticed, and do have pride in their looks. If you were not looking to be noticed, would you dress in something that you know is going to get you a certain kind of attention? I mean, make the choice if you want, but at least don't lie to yourself about the consequences...

*плескание о в желобах*

 

[SallyNow]

I'm not sure I was ever calling marriage 'repression'. Some types of marriage can be, but marriage these days is harldy repressive (in the context we're talking about). Marriage for many is a very good thing.

I do have to say, however, that abstinance isn't necessarily a good thing. And I'm being very freaking liberal when I say that I usually say it's always a bad thing but a lengthy discussion with ano7. Could release a poison that makes Crusher die, which get's the P/Cers all mad and they destroy The Enterprise E (I don't think that counts though...) ther member convinced me there are some (fairly uncommon I would think) cases where it is not.

I liken the analogy to a race. You don't run a race without training first, do you? I notice you are theatrically inclined. Do you put on a play without a dress rehearsal?

When it's the after party and the crew is doing the parody of the play...ie, the crew show...usually there is no dress rehearsal

Marriage is arguably the single most important relationship we will have (if we choose to pursue it) because it is the most permanent. I wouldn't want to go into any element of marriage blind. All you're doing is increasing the risk of things not working out.

Why is it one or the other? I have sex. I also have female friends I am hopelessly in (platonic) love with who I have no sexual interest in.

Define 'real' emotion as opposed to a fake one...

I don't believe you have to go in blind. I think, however, that waiting until you are in a commited relationship is a good idea. I've had too many friends broken-hearted over one-nighters, and there are too many abortions, diseases, etc, for me to think lots of one-nighters is a good idea. At the very least, commited relationships give the time to really enjoy...um...certian activities, to learn, to experiment.

Real vs. fake emotion...I think you misunderstood me. There are real, deep emotions, and then there are cheap thrill emotions. A roller coaster is lots of fun and a cheap thrill. A rewarding, wonderful job is a long-lasting, fufilling thrill.

The odd thing is...people who take the time to learn about each other, who take time to be together, and listen, and exchange ideas, whether they have sex before their engagement or wedding night or or not, have strong marriages.

I don't think we are that far off in our opinions. However, I do think abstinence until marriage can be a good idea sometimes. I also think that some people are blessed (although, to those who don't have it, may seem cursed) with the ability to not have sex be that important...for their lives to be decicated fully to learning, to helping, to teaching, to caring, to thinking, etc. But hey...if that's not your cup of tea, then it is understandable if you find it wrong.

Again, I think it is about thinking things through, balancing the risks and benifits...and waiting until the benifits outweigh the risks. That doesn't happen until there is commitment. And I'm being very freaking liberal when I say that there may be times where this isn't true.

 

[feral]

do have to say, however, that abstinance isn't necessarily a good thing. And I'm being very freaking liberal when I say that I usually say it's always a bad thing but a lengthy discussion with another member convinced me there are some (fairly uncommon I would think) cases where it is not.

How is abstinence a bad thing?? I can't think of a single occasion in which it would be a bad thing, provided someone was making the choice to stay abstinent and were not being strapped into a chastity belt while kicking and screaming or something. Let's see - no threat of disease, no possibility of unwanted pregnancy, no chance of being used for sex, no emotional turmoil following sex you weren't ready for, no losing the trust and respect of your parents, no violating your own morals, no risking your body, no substituting sex for love, no permanant harm, unlike having sex when you aren't prepared. Obviously, I don't think lifelong vows of chastity are practical or wise for 99.9% of the people in the world, but I don't see anything wrong with abstinence, especially for uncommitted people.

I liken the analogy to a race. You don't run a race without training first, do you? I notice you are theatrically inclined. Do you put on a play without a dress rehearsal?

Marriage is arguably the single most important relationship we will have (if we choose to pursue it) because it is the most permanent. I wouldn't want to go into any element of marriage blind. All you're doing is increasing the risk of things not working out.

The marriage won't work out because you haven't slept around? Or because you haven't slept with your husband/wife before the ceremony? I don't buy that for a second. For one, there is a lot more to a marriage then sex, and a lot more important factors I might add. Personal compatibility, loyalty, trust, respect, love, similiar interests, ability to keep your temper, communication, balanced dependency - those are all factors that seem to cause the most upset. What are the stats on divorced couples who say they are splitting up because they didn't have sex first? Yes, you should practise marriage, discuss the important things, be open and honest, consider future problems and decide how you'll be doing things, but that doesn't mean you have to have sex first, or that you won't stay together if you don't.

 

[SallyNow]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to feral again.

​

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

God has called me to modest dress. I wear ankle-length skirts and shirts that are not too tight, low cut, or expose my midriff. Why? Because 1 Peter 3 says this:

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

The "putting on of apparel" was translated from meaning "wearing expensive, flashy clothing". Women are instructed in the New Testament to dress and speak modestly and to cover their heads while praying and prophesying. Many Christian denominations still adhere to that rule of women covering their heads while praying. Many people have been raised that it is disrespectful for a man to wear his hat in the sanctuary of a church. That comes from the same passage of Scripture regarding women covering their heads while praying.

Modest dressing is far from sexist-quite the opposite actually. Dressing in a provocative manner objectifies women as sex objects. How is that empowering to women?

 

[gracefaith]

Well it's hardly surprising that she would argue that. Sexual repression has immediate connotations that she would need to avoid to be taken seriously. That doesn't mean that isn't precisely what it is, however.

Actually, she argues that modesty is terribly sexy, almost *naughty.* It's being very aware of your sexuality and basing decisions on how you value it. Modesty says, "Boy, have I got something great under here...and if you prove yourself worthy, you just might get the privledge of experiencing it." Modesty, in fact, might be the world's most long lived tease.

I can guarantee you I'm not going to read the book

I'm just a little confused about how you can pre-judge a book you have no intention of reading. Having not read it, doesn't make you any less entitled to your opinions about the more general subject, but I don't think you can ASSUME that it says this or that based on those opinions.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

Modesty, in fact, might be the world's most long lived tease.

Amen! Feminine mystique can be the most alluring aspect of a woman. The world says if you dress a certain way it makes you more alluring; however, what decent man wants a wife or girlfriend that every other man ogles in public because she's dressed like trash?

 

[SallyNow]

God has called me to modest dress. I wear ankle-length skirts and shirts that are not too tight, low cut, or expose my midriff.

I'm always suprised that modesty somehow means wearing what was worn 100 years ago...why not what was worn 500 years ago? 2000 years ago? Pants and a top can be modest...I've already posted that...sorry, but wearing long skirts doesn't make me think of modest. It just makes me think of trying to be Victorian. However, I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

Well, it is different for everyone. A woman can wear pants and be modest, but God called has called me to a different standard of modesty. It doesn't make me any more modest than someone else who wears pants. It just means God has called me to wear skirts instead. The reason I don't wear pants is because they clearly define the buttocks and thighs. Now some skirts do as well, but I don't wear form-fitting A-line skirts. I would like to add that my skirts do not represent a by-gone era. My skirts are from Talbots and very trendy. Some women prefer prairie style dresses and aprons. I don't. It's a matter of how the Holy Spirit guides you.

 

[vanshan]

Fluffy rainbow, I think the way you dress shows a self-respect that's very attractive/alluring, and it's a kind of attraction that is not perverted and sinful, but a more healthy attraction. When a woman can draw men but their self-respecting way of dress, that really puts them in power. They are not using the weakness of men to pull them in, but rather showing their virtue. That's a great attitude.

I know it's not the same for women, but I would not want a woman clinging to me because she likes my body . . . that would be attraction based on something weak and fleeting. I want a woman to be in love with who I am and if they like my body too that's okay, as long as they will love me when things begin to sag and look aged.

Basil

 

[SallyNow]

Well, it is different for everyone. A woman can wear pants and be modest, but God called has called me to a different standard of modesty. It doesn't make me any more modest than someone else who wears pants. It just means God has called me to wear skirts instead. The reason I don't wear pants is because they clearly define the buttocks and thighs. Now some skirts do as well, but I don't wear form-fitting A-line skirts. I would like to add that my skirts do not represent a by-gone era. My skirts are from Talbots and very trendy. Some women prefer prairie style dresses and aprons. I don't. It's a matter of how the Holy Spirit guides you.

I understand what you are saying; however, ugh, I always get myself in this debate ...there is the classic outfit of a long tunic shirt and a pair of pants. It's practical and makes sense and is very modest, sometimes even more modest than some pants...I've always seen it at very feminine, even when I was a very little girl. Mind you, I wear regular North American girls clothes...nothing too tight, but pants, jeans, t-shirts, blouses, etc. But I think the tunic/pants outfits are a very good, time-tested idea.

As for men...I still think one problem is men dressing immodestly by wearing inappropriate clothing at inappropriate places.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

Amen, Basil! I think that there was good reason behind the culture of yesterday in which a couple was betrothed based upon the two families getting together and deciding that the man and woman would be complimentary to one another and the bride and groom-to-be did not see one another until the wedding day. In today's culture, that is a terrifying prospect; however, we have turned from the old ways of entrusting our parents until we grow up and marry. In those days, young women and men did not leave home until they were married which meant they were dependent upon their parents for everything and parents made decisions based upon the Lord's direction. Now we wait until we're substantially older in years before marrying. I don't think there's anything necessarily sinful about that; however, we have turned away from listening to our parents' advice and godly counsel. I have made many mistakes in the dating realm and have entrusted my love life to God first and then my parents. My parents would not put me with a man whom God did not reveal was right for me.

Back to my original point, marriages then were not based upon looks. They were based upon who would make a good spiritual leader and provider and who would make him a good help meet. It wasn't about whose the chick with the hottest bod and which guy makes the most money and drives the nicest car. We tend to get so caught up in the world's ideas behind marriage that we aim our sights high on the worldly standards. We go for the best looking or most financially well-off, basing our feelings upon what we selfishly want as opposed to what God says we need. That is why divorce is so prevalent, even in the churches - people go with the person they believe will complete them and make them content instead of looking to God first for contentment and completion. Well, man will fail us every time if we're expecting them to satisfy and fulfill us.