Total Modesty

[SolomonVII]

"Bad taste is timeless."- Anonymous

Anonymous displays more wisdom than even Solomon by remaining nameless with comments like that.

 

[katautumn]

I was hoping this thread wouldn't go in the direction of how it's "acceptable" for "thin" women to be scantily clad whereas curvaceous women should avoid the Spandex. IMHO everyone should avoid Spandex. We're not living in the era where Olivia Newton John is belting out "let's get physical". And, in my humble opinion, people should dress modestly. Now, what is modest to me may be different from what other people view as modest.

For example, I like my Talbot's capri pants. They are loose fitting (not sloppy and baggy), but another woman may find me simply being a woman wearing pants terribly immodest. I try to dress in a way that does honor my husband, not in a way that my husband demands that I dress.

Something that disturbed me, as a mother, the other night. My husband and I were at Wal-Mart and I noticed that Hillary Duff has her own line of children's clothing now. Little girls, mind you, not teenage/juniors. These were clothes that if they had grown-up versions of them I would be ashamed to wear. I think it is sad how we're sexualizing little girls at an early age. We're teaching them to grow up far faster than they should. When I was young, there was a distinguishable difference between children's clothing and juniors'. One of the most exciting aspects of going into junior high school was being able to shop for more "mature" fashions. Now there is no line drawn. They have thong panties for children that have phrases like "Cutie" screenprinted across the crotch. Little girls' clothes look like something a twenty-something would wear to a nightclub. Notice how in the boys' department they still have little Spiderman t-shirts and Bob the Builder pants, but they have hyper-sexualized little girl clothes. As a mother, I find this a bit disturbing.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not some sort of a prude who won't wear pants because it "created an arrow pointing at your genitals" or wears floor-length dresses every day to clean house (although I'm certain my husband would appreciate coming home to a woman dressed in something other than pajama pants and a sweatshirt from time to time). I don't think little girls should wear pinnafores and hats and white gloves to school. I think the point is that we are sending the wrong message to women and girls of all ages. The message is that if you're thin, you can be fashionable and noticed because every inch within the confines of the law of your perfect little body will be on display. If your body is less than perfect, then you have to look like a slouch. And young girls' fashions are being sexualized more and more, grooming young women for an adult life of being noticed simply based upon how scandalous their clothing is and not because of any sort of inner, feminine beauty. And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[Miss Mayberry]

Something that disturbed me, as a mother, the other night. My husband and I were at Wal-Mart and I noticed that Hillary Duff has her own line of children's clothing now. Little girls, mind you, not teenage/juniors. These were clothes that if they had grown-up versions of them I would be ashamed to wear. I think it is sad how we're sexualizing little girls at an early age. We're teaching them to grow up far faster than they should. When I was young, there was a distinguishable difference between children's clothing and juniors'. One of the most exciting aspects of going into junior high school was being able to shop for more "mature" fashions. Now there is no line drawn. They have thong panties for children that have phrases like "Cutie" screenprinted across the crotch. Little girls' clothes look like something a twenty-something would wear to a nightclub. Notice how in the boys' department they still have little Spiderman t-shirts and Bob the Builder pants, but they have hyper-sexualized little girl clothes. As a mother, I find this a bit disturbing.

I noticed this exact same thing with the Olsen twins clothing line. Things are sheer where they should not be sheer,there are words where there should not be words, and there is nothing where there should be something. It is disturbing.

I think a lot of people see it like this. "Yeah, it would be inappropriate for an eighteen-year-old to wear pants that say 'sexy' across the bottom or chest (because it draws attention to her developed areas,) but it is okay for a six-year-old to do it because she is not developed, therefore her clothing is not a stumblng block. "(That's a very long sentence. My apologies.)

I miss the days of brightly-colored jumpsuits, Keds, and big hairbows.

 

[Gentle]

Leather

 

[tgg]

Hi tgg,


However, I just want to address what you said that modesty is the philosophy of satan and not God. That is untrue. Women are told to dress modestly in the bible. Please do read my post so that you see my thoughts on it before making a judgement regarding this post. I just wanted to tell you, it is not from satan, it is from God.

Blessings,
tapero

Wanting women to dress 'modestly' came from Paul, not Jesus. Paul was a very hung up and neurotic individual whose philosophies have contaminated the church.

http://www.figleafforum.com/articles_symbols_pilgrimage.html

As for homosexuality being a sin, Argent, that is a load of tommyrot if you bother to read your Bible in context.
Do you eat ham sandwiches and shellfish as well?

 

[SallyNow]

I was hoping this thread wouldn't go in the direction of how it's "acceptable" for "thin" women to be scantily clad whereas curvaceous women should avoid the Spandex. IMHO everyone should avoid Spandex. We're not living in the era where Olivia Newton John is belting out "let's get physical". And, in my humble opinion, people should dress modestly. Now, what is modest to me may be different from what other people view as modest.

I tried bringing that up in an earlier post - albeit with humour - and no-one replied to it. It really does seem to be about control, not modesty. Who controls who: who controls what others wear.

 

[in2Nas]

I tried bringing that up in an earlier post - albeit with humour - and no-one replied to it. It really does seem to be about control, not modesty. Who controls who: who controls what others wear.

Parents.

 

[SallyNow]

Parents.

No, I was speaking adults - of how often the subject of modesty comes up and men expect women to dress for them: either to be sexy, or to be totally non-sexual, or somewhere inbetween.

But when the subject of male modesty comes up, the topic goes silent...

 

[tapero]

Wanting women to dress 'modestly' came from Paul, not Jesus. Paul was a very hung up and neurotic individual whose philosophies have contaminated the church.

http://www.figleafforum.com/articles_symbols_pilgrimage.html

Hi, Jesus didn't deal with the churches, just the temple. Jesus didn't deal with all issues of the day, just the ones we have in the bible.
Though in Revelation is the letter to the seven churches written by Jesus.

I imagine Paul had to deal with what was going on in the churches.

 

[kopilo]

But when the subject of male modesty comes up, the topic goes silent...

I've already stated (here) what I feel the need to say and it got skipped over just like male modesty, coincidence?

 

[PETE_]

Wanting women to dress 'modestly' came from Paul, not Jesus. Paul was a very hung up and neurotic individual whose philosophies have contaminated the church.

http://www.figleafforum.com/articles_symbols_pilgrimage.html

As for homosexuality being a sin, Argent, that is a load of tommyrot if you bother to read your Bible in context.
Do you eat ham sandwiches and shellfish as well?

If you have a problem with Paul's teachings, you have a problem with God's teachings.

When Paul claimed to be an apostle, he felt it necessary to prove, (1.) That he had been appointed not by man nor through men, but immediately by Jesus Christ. (Gal. i. 1.) (2.) That he had not been taught the gospel by others, but received his knowledge by immediate revelation. (Gal. i. 12.) (3.) That he had seen Christ after his resurrection. (1 Cor. ix. 1 and 1 Cor.xv. 8.) (4.) That he was inspired, or infallible as a teacher, so that men were bound to recognize his teachings as the teaching of Christ. (1 Cor. xiv. 37.) (5.) That the Lord had authenticated his apostolic mission as fully as he had done that of Peter. (Gal. ii. 8.) (6.)"The signs of an apostle,"he tells the Corinthians,"were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds."(2 Cor. xii. 12.) http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30923067#_ftn1
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30923067#_ftnref1

 

[SolomonVII]

I've already stated (here) what I feel the need to say and it got skipped over just like male modesty, coincidence?

Did you ever see the movie Mother, Jugs and Speed where the nude female corpse actually was a stumbling block?

ewww.


When women wore dresses halfway down their calves, men developed ankle fetishes. Arab teenagers get all hot and bothered when they see the girl walk into the shop dressed in girl clothes and walk out with a burka because they know that there is a woman underneath.

Modesty is a lot more about control of one's own urges rather than imposing some artificial dress code on members of the opposite sex, or blaming them for our own arousal.

There is of course a question of taste, and good taste takes into account the cultural standards of the particular society. and this particular society does not want to see me in a Speedo, although there likely are a few men for whom such attire would not be considered unduly provocative in certain situations.

Modesty in dress therefore, for men and women, means dressing in such a manner that your neighbours are not disturbed. It varies according to society and situation.

The cultural norm should take into account the most prudish and priggish in society, but a society that needs to conform to such a standard lacks freedom.

 

[kopilo]

Tropical Wilds, good question and how far does this "natural modesty" go, should some women have breast reductions, etc?
------------------------------------------------------------

Did you ever see the movie Mother, Jugs and Speed where the nude female corpse actually was a stumbling block?

ewww.

Nope, but it sounds a bit gross or a bit of a laugh...

When women wore dresses halfway down their calves, men developed ankle fetishes. Arab teenagers get all hot and bothered when they see the girl walk into the shop dressed in girl clothes and walk out with a burka because they know that there is a woman underneath.

Modesty is a lot more about control of one's own urges rather than imposing some artificial dress code on members of the opposite sex, or blaming them for our own arousal.

There is of course a question of taste, and good taste takes into account the cultural standards of the particular society. and this particular society does not want to see me in a Speedo, although there likely are a few men for whom such attire would not be considered unduly provocative in certain situations.

Modesty in dress therefore, for men and women, means dressing in such a manner that your neighbours are not disturbed. It varies according to society and situation.

The cultural norm should take into account the most prudish and priggish in society, but a society that needs to conform to such a standard lacks freedom.

I agree.

 

[JulySheMustFly]

One thing I've always wondered is if the "dress modestly" crowd extends the same thing to natural features.

For example, I consider myself a modest dresser... I don't show my belly, I don't show excessive cleavage (I have I think 2 shirts that show any cleavage).... I wear jeans and sweatshirts mostly. However, I have red hair... Like RED HAIR. Granted, it's dyed, but it's a very "flashy" color of red. And I've got my nails painted purple.

Does all of that go under modest dress? If one is to be considered a modest dresser, does that mean their hair and minor features should not be "flashy?"

I've tried to discuss that topic around CF before and no one will acknowledge that modesty expands beyond clothing. If a church is going to demand modesty from women attendees then they should also make certain that their hair is a natural color and that make up is not worn.

Personally modesty is a horribly undefined word. In the end it is a word that often is used to repress the freedom that women have in Christ. I am terribly immodest in my attire compared to many defenitions of modesty but I have a very modest/humble attitude in comparison to many women I've met over the years who have been modest in their attire. Their immodest actions earned them less respect from men than my more free attire. My intent is never to get the attention of anyone else. It is about comfort and personality.

I also abhor the idea that is never stated but often subtly suggested. Women who dress modestly, dresses to the floor and high neck tops are some how more holy than someone in a mini skirt and tank. Load of crock. Maybe the person in the mini can handle the freedom extended to them while the other person cannot handle such freedom without it being a problem.

 

[paleodoxy]

But modesty, real modesty, isn't about how much is covered. It is about being appropriate for the activity, the enviroment, the weather, etc.

I can understand when there are religious convictions in the books of that religion to cover certain parts of the body... such as in Islam... but the Bible lacks such clarity. The Bible implies that a person must be appropriate for the occasion at hand, not that they must keep covered in ways that don't make any cultural sense. And in North American culture and society, frankly, showing calf isn't that sexy. A person at a park in the summer will get little attention if they are in knee-length shorts and a t-shirt, but they will get attention if they are wearing a long skirt, leggings, and are covered fully. The question of what is under all that covering may be more alluring than just wearing what is common, modest, and comfortable in that society, in this case, North American society.

Perhaps this example will help bring the subject in to perspective: At a party, it is appropriate and modest to talk, laugh, be goofy, have fun, be outgoing, etc. At a formal business meeting, it is appropriate and modest to wait until you have something important and on-topic to say, and to be in a sober mood.

The issue of modesty is so much mroe complicated than covering everything. It is much more about being appropriate in the time, place, weather, activity, culture.

And one must remember that what is covered can often be more alluring than what is not, to a point...

I completely agree with this philosophy, and I believes it is the closest reflection of Scripture on the topic of modesty. A wisdom approach to this issue makes sense because the Bible also lacks specific, measureable standards for all manner of dress in all conceivable situations. It is content to leave us with a principle. The principle is intended to guide us, so that we are conscious of the need to be modest, but not legalistic about it either.

Let me provide a 'radical' example -- at least, radical for much of our culture. I don't even have a problem with total nudity (male or female) in certain contexts (art, beaches, resorts, pools, saunas), yet at the same time I would denounce most Victoria Secret fashion modeling as extremely immodest.

It's all contextual (nature of the activity), environmental (weather factors), attitudinal (motivations) and behavioral (acting normally vs. seductively), etc.

--Jonathan

 

[WannaWitness]

I personally place modesty in high regard, and to me, it doesn't seem as though it's as much of a concern as it should be. But I also believe it can be carried too far.

For one, I just don't understand why there are more "modesty rules" for the women than there are for the men. This usually happens in the groups that for some reason always think that women are immodest even where they wear the loosest-fitting pants on the market. They "outline the shape of the leg". But doesn't that happen when men wear pants?

Then, of course, there's the issue that pants supposedly "pertain to men", yet many of these same people don't think about sneakers and sweatshirts (which also were worn by males first) in the same way.

I just think it's a matter of conviction. But what we all need to think about is, would we want to run and hide if we suddenly saw Jesus?

 

[lawtonfogle]

That is legalism as well. There is nothing wrong with same-sex attraction - God made some men that way.



Well, I have been to church services where there were topless and nude women present and I certainly did not feel any sense of lust towards them.



I think Christians should be free to dress or undress as they please. Body shame and so-called 'modesty' with clothes are the philosophies of Satan, not God.

Nah, I think those are philosophies imparted by a tree, not by God or Satan.