What does dressing modestly for women actually mean?

[miknik5]

I would test in prayer. I understand that if a person is suitable for marriage, this includes having self control. Jesus says if we are faithful in little we are faithful in much; so if she did not have self control with food, possibly also she would not have self control for how she and I would need to be able to relate right, for marriage.

One time I was sharing with a lady who insisted a man should be able to take her as she is. She was going up in weight, not down. And she had issues with other than food control, and it hurt how she was able to share with me.

But if he could not love her, even while being so closely involved with her, he had a problem! God's love makes us all-loving. It's not really a matter of obligation; but God's love makes us caring and sharing in His family way; so, if Joseph was not generously loving with her . . . he was missing out on a lot.

GOD's WORDS are spiritual


There was something more going on in the story of Jacob/Israel's wives

 

[redstang281]

I would test in prayer. I understand that if a person is suitable for marriage, this includes having self control. Jesus says if we are faithful in little we are faithful in much; so if she did not have self control with food, possibly also she would not have self control for how she and I would need to be able to relate right, for marriage.

Nice little way to slip out of that one. Lol.. just teasing.

But if he could not love her, even while being so closely involved with her, he had a problem! God's love makes us all-loving. It's not really a matter of obligation; but God's love makes us caring and sharing in His family way; so, if Joseph was not generously loving with her . . . he was missing out on a lot.

You're right that as believers we would naturally feel love for everyone, but the love you have for your wife is a different kind of love. You're not going to naturally have that for someone you are not attracted to. But even though Jacob didn't pick Leah and he was tricked to marry her God still expects him to treat her like a wife, and I do believe it's our obligation to love our wives even if it's hard. That's why God has to point that out to us with verse like below.

Ephesians 5:25

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The idea of a religion dictating how women should dress is proof positive of the sexism that exists in many of the world religions.

If you notice in all of these belief systems, the onus is always on the woman to make sure that she doesn't do anything to attract too many men, yet, there doesn't really seem to be that same level of specific dictation directed toward the men in terms of avoiding attracting attention from women.

For example, there are never any rules about fit guys wearing tighter t-shirts to show off their muscles, there aren't any rules directed toward guys about making sure they don't dress too well, or wear anything that might reveal how successful they are, etc...

Just another example of belief systems doing their best to try to get people to go against nature. We're supposed to be sexually attracted to potential mates...it's an evolutionary trait that helps ensure the perpetuation of the species.

 

[zekegb]

The issue of defining modesty is an interesting and challenging one that is rooted in culture, family background, community expectations. It is also an area where Christian naturists have provided helpful insights. The key to whether amount of clothes or lack thereof, nude/naturist or other scenarios are appropriate is context and motivation. God created human beings and said of his creation, it was very good. And the excellence of his creative handiwork extends to all of his human creation – even our bodies.

Modesty is not defined by how little or how many yards are used to make one's clothes. Immodesty involves those things that cause one to say look at me - see how much I stand out in this crowd. It may be the dress which hides or entices to stimulate impure thoughts. It may be fancy jewels, earrings, tattoos, or piercings. It may be the plastic surgery that is so obviously out of proportion and fake. (I Peter 3:1-6, I Timothy 2:8-10) The Christian is called to act modestly - and that is consistent with appropriate nudist activity.

To look upon the human body is to see the wonder of what our awesome Creator has brought into being. To see the human body for anything less than the magnificent creation that it is, is to question God's wisdom and blessing. Nudity in art that reflects the beauty and wonder of the human form is positive and uplifting. Nudity in pornography or entertainment that seeks to promote lust, inappropriate relationships, and improper acts is evil and certainly has no place for the Christian. Nudity in medical situations is certainly appropriate. Nudity among spouses reflects the oneness and intimacy in the relationship. Nudity among family members, friends, and others may be appropriate if it fosters positive relationships, openness, and honesty as people relate to one another. Context and motivation is the key.

For some people to engage in social nudism, it promotes lustful thoughts and it is not a positive experience. For Christians, the principles of Christian liberty come into play. For many, social nudism creates an atmosphere that promotes honesty, openness, positive relationships, and offers opportunities for testimony. We should take the lead in offering grace in both situations. (I Corinthians 8-10)

When Bathsheba had her roof top bathing experience she was nude. Nothing was said about her activity as being improper. But David looked upon her with lust, and that led to grievous sin. The key is context and motivation.

 

[redstang281]

...Nudity in pornography or entertainment that seeks to promote lust, inappropriate relationships, and improper acts is evil and certainly has no place for the Christian...

I agree with much of what you said in this post. I wanted to ask about this sentence you wrote above, how do you know that all lust is bad? I agree certain types of lust are bad, but I can't find a place in the Bible that says that a single person can not sexually lust for another single person. Single people do not commit adultery, adultery always involves a married woman. So I think this understanding of Matthew 5:28 has led to a lot of confusion and false teaching on the topic of modesty, not to mention paranoia. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

[com7fy8]

The idea of a religion dictating how women should dress is proof positive of the sexism that exists in many of the world religions.

Modesty is meant to be an expression that a lady desires to be honest and pure and not using merely outward stuff to gain attention and approval and acceptance. So, in case a lady desires to communicate like this, she is glad to be directed how to do this. So, being told to dress modestly is not a restriction or dictation, but how God guides her to do what she desires to do.

And she can choose not to be a Christian; no one is forcing her

Also, ladies have this scripture about how they can be pleasing to God >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

This inner beauty is so superior to any outward beauty; so a Christian lady is not going to worry too much about if she is restricted in how she might outwardly show herself . . . since outward stuff doesn't do so much, anyway.

The inner beauty makes one personally pleasing to God, Himself; outward stuff can not do this.

The inner beauty of God's gentle and quiet love is "incorruptible" > this has God's own almighty power to protect her from being corrupted by degrading things like worry and unforgiveness and unhealed hurts and bitterness and dominating and dictatorial passions. Sexual lust can be very dictatorial, by the way! But in the "incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit", of God's love, we can not be corrupted and dominated by lusts and other dictatorial drives which result in abuse of different sorts.

always on the woman

Well, then, God considers a lady to be capable of being smart and obedient to Him, pleasing to Him. So, saying something can be expected of her means God knows something can be expected of her.

But husbands have commands, too, including >

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them." (Colossians 3:19)

So . . . where it really matters . . . we men also are ordered how to dress ourselves > not to dress ourselves with bitterness. And we are told to be humble; being humble will effect how we dress, even if we aren't told to dress humbly. Being humble still will result in us dressing humbly.

always on the woman to make sure that she doesn't do anything to attract too many men, yet, there doesn't really seem to be that same level of specific dictation directed toward the men in terms of avoiding attracting attention from women.

They can choose not to be Christians. I have offered the advantages of emphasizing how we are, inside ourselves.

We're supposed to be sexually attracted to potential mates...

Yes, but lust can have a way of not making us wise about whom we choose, because lust makes us overly attentive to looks and using someone for pleasure we want, instead of first tenderly caring for someone.

Looks can't bring up children right. Part of sexual attraction . . . reproductive attraction . . . is that the attractive person needs to be one you would want bringing up children with you. It is not only about who can give you pleasure and how much. It is about if you have love and maturity which make you able to relate well and labor together to bring up your children well.

If you let looks cook you, you could miss out on the best one for deeper sharing and bringing up your children.

 

[Paidiske]

Just a random thought-did getting married in the Bible mean essentially the same thing it does today?

Another person pointed out the "property transfer" aspect of ancient marriage, but the other thing is that of course it wasn't government recognised or regulated. You just moved in together after making an agreement, and your community recognised you as married.

 

[Sammy-San]

Another person pointed out the "property transfer" aspect of ancient marriage, but the other thing is that of course it wasn't government recognised or regulated. You just moved in together after making an agreement, and your community recognised you as married.

So the term married doesn't have one definition?

 

[Paidiske]

I don't know that it has more than one definition (relating to human behaviours), but that there is a great variety of customs surrounding it?

 

[redstang281]

Modesty is meant to be an expression that a lady desires to be honest and pure and not using merely outward stuff to gain attention and approval and acceptance. So, in case a lady desires to communicate like this, she is glad to be directed how to do this. So, being told to dress modestly is not a restriction or dictation, but how God guides her to do what she desires to do.

And she can choose not to be a Christian; no one is forcing her

Also, ladies have this scripture about how they can be pleasing to God >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

I was just reading this chapter 1 Peter 3 and there's a couple things I noticed that I thought I should point out. The first is that this chapter is written to wives. I don't think we should assume it's a comprehensive list for single women too. Wives obviously shouldn't try to attract other men.

The second is that what the goal of these standards is trying to accomplish is get a non believing husband to convert to Christianity. Check out the first verse. I don't think you can use this verse to say it's wrong for all women in all context to ever try to look physically attractive.

1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,

This inner beauty is so superior to any outward beauty; so a Christian lady is not going to worry too much about if she is restricted in how she might outwardly show herself . . . since outward stuff doesn't do so much, anyway.

The inner beauty makes one personally pleasing to God, Himself; outward stuff can not do this.

What if a single guy has the choice between two women to marry and both of them have great inner beauty, is it ok for him in your view to select the more physically attractive one?

They can choose not to be Christians. I have offered the advantages of emphasizing how we are, inside ourselves.

One big issue that concerns me with the church these days is legalism. We have way too many laws and rules and regulations and a lot of them have little biblical support. The worst part of that is it scares people away from becoming Christians and they miss salvation. I witnessed this several times and once I remember a close friend of mine said he wasn't ready to accept Jesus yet because he couldn't obey. Such a shame. How many people die in this kind of state just because of the stumbling blocks the churches and bad theology have setup for them. We need to be careful not to put too much in people's way of salvation (Acts 15:10).

Luke 11

46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

52 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

Yes, but lust can have a way of not making us wise about whom we choose, because lust makes us overly attentive to looks and using someone for pleasure we want, instead of first tenderly caring for someone.

Looks can't bring up children right. Part of sexual attraction . . . reproductive attraction . . . is that the attractive person needs to be one you would want bringing up children with you. It is not only about who can give you pleasure and how much. It is about if you have love and maturity which make you able to relate well and labor together to bring up your children well.

If you let looks cook you, you could miss out on the best one for deeper sharing and bringing up your children.

We should just teach others to look at deeper things too not just someones looks. But I just think it's silly to deny looks completely. It's only natural to take appearance into consideration when selecting a spouse. You can't minimize that too much.

 

[com7fy8]

I was just reading this chapter 1 Peter 3

good

Yes, by the way, it does have very good things for wives. But I think we all need what Peter is telling wives to have >

"the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (in 1 peter 3:4)

Jesus is "gentle and lowly in heart" (in Matthew 11:28-30); so I see a connection, that being gentle and quiet in spirit means being like Jesus so we are pleasing like Jesus is, to God. So, I think this is something specifically given to wives, but the "gentle and quiet spirit" part also goes for us men. So, we also need spiritual modesty, then, of God's gentle and quiet . . . humble . . . love. So, in case we make ourselves look nice, be humble about it > moderation, maybe, is a good rule . . . not trying to make too big of a deal about it.

Check out the first verse. I don't think you can use this verse to say it's wrong for all women in all context to ever try to look physically attractive.

Like you say, not to be legalistic, in any case. And I need to not be self-righteously critical against people, even if they really are being vain. But if a woman is a truly beautiful lady, I don't think she needs to try to look good; it shows I don't mean not to take care of herself.

What if a single guy has the choice between two women to marry and both of them have great inner beauty, is it ok for him in your view to select the more physically attractive one?

Let's say one is unquestionably ugly, and she even tells me she loves me and so she wants me to be happy by having a nice looking companion, and she means it. And the other says she, too, wants me to be happy all the way.

How could I take it on myself to choose between two ladies who truly love me??????? They're both for real, they both help me get real with God and learn how to love any and all people. And God did not choose David to be king, because of his looks in comparison with his brothers. So, I would pray and seek how God would guide me. Either lady, being a for real person of God's love, would be great as my soul companion and for bringing up children with good example.

Possibly, I would choose the ugly one, in order to be an example. And God's love would make this easy, if He wanted this. I have experienced how in God's love I can be perfectly satisfied with someone who the world would say is not attractive. It is not the same thing, but we can go through any trial and God's grace can give us "pleasure" like how Paul took "pleasure" in troubles . . . once he found out how grace could effect him > 2 Corinthians 12:7-15. So, surely God's grace can have me enjoying and appreciating any Christian lady whom God trusts me with. Being trusted by God would mean much more than a lot of other things.

Now, yes I could have a problem about being attracted to women; I understand you could be thinking or considering this, and I say yes this could be true . . . but not in God's grace I might be overly spiritual, as ones have said certain people can be. So, this is something to check in prayer with God who knows. But lust is not real attraction; so this needs to be checked in prayer, too.

Or, it could be good to welcome another Christian brother to have the extravagantly gorgeous woman, so he could enjoy how attractive she is. I would be loving him as myself, by taking the ugly one. But I wouldn't be missing out on much

What if you have four extravagantly gorgeous and for real ladies, and one extremely ugly one, and only five available men who all can see the difference? And everyone wants to get married? Four guys get gorgeous wives; but what about the ugly Christian sister and the fifth guy?

One big issue that concerns me with the church these days is legalism.

Yes, I do need to evaluate if my ideas are legalistic or good. I can have the exact same ideas, but be either way. Sometimes, I am being self-righteously critical, but then I pray about how God wants me to be and see things. And then I care about people.

And yes it does say God "gives us richly all things to enjoy," in 1 Timothy 6:17. So, the resolution of this could be that I can marry someone ugly but enjoy however certain women are beautiful. But enjoying means without lusting and emotional infidelity. We do need to be able to do this, because there always can be some woman who comes along and looks more attractive than whoever I have already seen . . . in my experience.

We need to be careful not to put too much in people's way of salvation (Acts 15:10).

Very good point.

We should just teach others to look at deeper things too not just someones looks.

Very good point.

But I just think it's silly to deny looks completely. It's only natural to take appearance into consideration when selecting a spouse. You can't minimize that too much.

But Jesus does say we need to deny ourselves > Luke 9:23. I suspect that people can be trying to get God to negotiate with them, before they will get saved. But yes I can see Jesus does not expect sinners to become so perfect, before they get saved.

And Paul does say that there can be people who need to get married > 1 Corinthians 7. And I would think ones can have this "need" because they are noticing how attractive a companion looks. But how someone feels can have more or less to do with it, too. The ugly one might feel nicer and other things

 

[zekegb]

A question was raised: is all lust bad?
Contemporary English uses the word lust only in a negative way - the word originally meant craving, strong desire and was morally neutral. The context provides the key to meaning and translation. To have a strong desire to love one's spouse is positive. To lust or crave someone who cannot properly be related to you in an intimate way is sinful. To have a strong desire to enter a relationship with someone who is potentially a future spouse is good, as long as it does not lead to sinful conduct. These synonyms can be used for the word lust, but context and usage have led to lust being understood as describing a craving for that which is improper and sinful.

 

[Khalliqa]

The definition of modesty and its value is relative to the agreed/enforced customs of a particular society. There are bush communities full of naked women whose men honor them more than fully clothed Victorian area men did their women. Men rape women in burkas as well as they honor women in burkas.

The question imo is not what women should or shouldn't wear but what self accountable actions are best for the men in any given society to hold themselves to irrespective of female actions or aesthetics?