Why do women show cleavage?

[swellmomma]

Swellmama's pics... I would not think that the second picture is appropriate. I would assume wardrobe malfunction and would be embarassed if I was the one in the picture.

 

For the dress, I do the same thing and either pin it or wear a nice tank top/camisole underneath.

 

 

What malfunction? I am not embarassed about the picture at all. Yes it is low cut but I am not all hanging out, nor is my bra showing.

[Ibbygirl]

:lol:

[/color][/size][/font]

 

The sin was disobedience though, the fact that they realized that they were naked was a result of that sin. Just clarifying. :)

[mommaduck]

Well they have them without the details for you. You can keep yours. I like that mine were taught in a university. And, if your Christian Gramma gave them to you then she was far out of the loop. The ones in the last 5 years have been amazing, empowering women, their sexuality, their freedom and their emotions. Since when was the search for intimacy, sexua fulfillment and happiness unrealistic? See what I mean about putting rules on people and opressing them?

I guess our views of what defines happiness is different. I don't believe a woman needs to "look for" sexual fulfillment. It's something that comes with intimacy with their spouse and enjoying what Gd has created between them. BTW, I avoid those books. There are plenty out there that include intimacy and relationships w/o the need for every detail of their sexual encounters ;)

[Impish]

I guess our views of what defines happiness is different. I don't believe a woman needs to "look for" sexual fulfillment. It's something that comes with intimacy with their spouse and enjoying what Gd has created between them. BTW, I avoid those books. There are plenty out there that include intimacy and relationships w/o the need for every detail of their sexual encounters ;)

Ummm...no. Emotional fulfillment, sure. But statistically speaking, a large number of women never find errrmmmm....'fulfillment' via s*xual intercourse, and for many women, erotica is more appealing than a 'how to' manual, in terms of finding things to try with their spouse.

[justamouse]

I guess our views of what defines happiness is different. I don't believe a woman needs to "look for" sexual fulfillment. It's something that comes with intimacy with their spouse and enjoying what Gd has created between them. BTW, I avoid those books. There are plenty out there that include intimacy and relationships w/o the need for every detail of their sexual encounters ;)

 

 

Some of those books have set women free, and healed relationships.

 

And, if you don't think that some women need to look for sexual fulfillment - or the bigger aspect-the acknowledgment of having needs that need to be fulfilled- then good for you. But the women that DO, and who need to know that it's OK to have those needs and desires-don't need the shame, the wagging fingers and the legalism you would weigh them down with. ;););) That would be misogynistic. ;) SOME women can't enter into the relationships that God has for them BECAUSE they are bound by what they perceive as shame from other women.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

What malfunction? I am not embarassed about the picture at all. Yes it is low cut but I am not all hanging out, nor is my bra showing.

If I was the one wearing it, then DH or I would look and notice that cleavage was showing, or it was gaping to where more was showing. Most likely it looked fine in the mirror but not so good after I had a baby hanging on me, carried our bookbags into the building, etc. I am assuming that some cleavage is showing and that the picture obscurs that a bit. I was hesitant to post because the last thing from my mind is judging you or hurting your feelings, but I felt that some people would prefer to show less and were mum while others said that it was fine. I have to represent.

[mommaduck]

Ummm...no. Emotional fulfillment, sure. But statistically speaking, a large number of women never find errrmmmm....'fulfillment' via s*xual intercourse, and for many women, erotica is more appealing than a 'how to' manual, in terms of finding things to try with their spouse.

I guess I've known people that have been able to have it without either erotica or a manual.

[Mrs Mungo]

Ummm...no. Emotional fulfillment, sure. But statistically speaking, a large number of women never find errrmmmm....'fulfillment' via s*xual intercourse, and for many women, erotica is more appealing than a 'how to' manual, in terms of finding things to try with their spouse.

 

I agree. I find the idea that anyone has to force themselves to get it on, every 72 hours, once a month, whatever, to be sad. I think it is a direct result of what some women are taught about sex. I do think that certain forms of erotica can help.

[Myrrh]

LovedtoDeath and MrsMungo, thanks for reading and replying to my posts (forgive me if I've left anyone out). As far as not coming across as holier than thou, I was referring to the posts where I shared my personal history of wearing short skirts and bikinis, as well as my current practice of wearing pants that hug my butt because they're freebies and I can't afford to buy new ones (and haven't lost the weight I want to yet).

 

I really think this thread is sort of symbolic of the larger morality vs. relativism in our culture. I hear people saying that we can't put forth any literal/practical standards -- even mere guidelines -- for dressing modestly since "modesty" doesn't have an agreed upon definition. And yet, as Christians (so obviously I'm only speaking to the Christians here), we have the Bible and the Holy Spirit. The former is often very specific/literal when it comes to our hearts as well as our behavior, even if it isn't always as detailed as we would like (which is partly how it stays timeless and applicable to all eras and culture).

 

Most of us are wary of legalism, but I wonder if on this issue, it isn't swinging to the other end, the licentiousness Paul warns against. Almost anything can become legalistic, but does that mean we shouldn't ever have standards/guidelines? Those things in and of themselves aren't bad--it's only when people enforce them without grace. Here is an example of a "modesty heart check" I think is a helpful tool for Christian women wanting to cultivate humility and modesty:

 

http://www.purewarrior.org/index.php?id=230

[Tangerine]

I haven't seen any posts judging the women who choose to dress modestly for their convictions, only the way they choose to express those opinions to other women.

 

Yes! I haven't seen anyone here say "modest" (and I'm just borrowing the term here, as I do NOT consider myself immodest) women are uptight, or how can men possibly find them attractive, or they must be prudes, or any such nonsense. But there have been (as you previously quoted) many that degrade women who show cleavage as being attention hounds, unintelligent, and of questionable moral character.

[justamouse]

What malfunction? I am not embarassed about the picture at all. Yes it is low cut but I am not all hanging out, nor is my bra showing.

 

I thought you were extremely brave to put those pictures up on this thread, and I just want you to know that I thought you, and your family, were beautiful.

[mommaduck]

Some of those books have set women free, and healed relationships.

 

And, if you don't think that some women need to look for sexual fulfillment - or the bigger aspect-the acknowledgment of having needs that need to be fulfilled- then good for you. But the women that DO, and who need to know that it's OK to have those needs and desires-don't need the shame, the wagging fingers and the legalism you would weigh them down with. ;););) That would be misogynistic. ;) SOME women can't enter into the relationships that God has for them BECAUSE they are bound by what they perceive as shame from other women.

And I did none of those things. I simply stated how I view the books themselves. I passed no judgment on any woman. Just as some people have no problem watching videos of people having sex, it's still porn. Calling it that is not passing judgment against a person. Stating the issues that some people see with it is not passing judgment either. ;);););)

[OnTheBrink]

Sure, it's legalism *in the extreme* but that doesn't mean there are not less extreme forms of legalism out there.

 

But the premise is the same. Basing someone's salvation on their dress, or basing it on any extra-biblical belief is legalism, be it head covering, drinking alcohol, celebrating Halloween, etc. Expressing someone's opinions on something is not. In the photo of the celebrity that swellmomma posted, I think the celeb's dress looks slutty. I don't believe the celeb IS a slut, I am not condemning her to hell for it; I don't like the way it looks. Not legalistic; just my opinion. If I said, "That woman is a HO and she's beddin' down with the devil!" then that would be judgmental and legalistic.

[Impish]

I guess I've known people that have been able to have it without either erotica or a manual.

Well...as far as you know ;) Personally, I don't go around asking, so I couldn't even begin to guess which of the ppl I know do/don't might/might not. :lol:

 

ETA: Except for my mother. Found the original edition of The Joy of S*x in her closet when I was a kid. I remember being appalled at how HAIRY everyone was! :lol:

[Lovedtodeath]

I guess I've known people that have been able to have it without either erotica or a manual.

They are very fortunate and likely a minority.

 

Most of us are wary of legalism, but I wonder if on this issue, it isn't swinging to the other end, the licentiousness Paul warns against. Almost anything can become legalistic, but does that mean we shouldn't ever have standards/guidelines?

Great post! I really didn't see anything wrong with your posts in this discussion.;)

[Tangerine]

And why exactly does my husband need sex every time his seminal vesicles fill up? To keep from looking elsewhere? Young men are expected to keep it all together and be chaste, but the second they're married they can't have so much as a full seminal vesicle without risking their fidelity?

[mommaduck]

I agree. I find the idea that anyone has to force themselves to get it on, every 72 hours, once a month, whatever, to be sad. I think it is a direct result of what some women are taught about sex. I do think that certain forms of erotica can help.

Uhm, I argued against the 72hr bunk.

[Mrs Mungo]

But the premise is the same. Basing someone's salvation on their dress, or basing it on any extra-biblical belief is legalism, be it head covering, drinking alcohol, celebrating Halloween, etc. Expressing someone's opinions on something is not. In the photo of the celebrity that swellmomma posted, I think the celeb's dress looks slutty. I don't believe the celeb IS a slut, I am not condemning her to hell for it; I don't like the way it looks. Not legalistic; just my opinion. If I said, "That woman is a HO and she's beddin' down with the devil!" then that would be judgmental and legalistic.

 

If she was posting on this thread I would think it rude and legalistic if you said her dress was slutty and against Biblical principles.

[Myrrh]

I agree. I find the idea that anyone has to force themselves to get it on, every 72 hours, once a month, whatever, to be sad. I think it is a direct result of what some women are taught about sex. I do think that certain forms of erotica can help.

 

An example of the sweeping generalization you asked for. Being "forced" is a far cry from having an awareness, or from making a routine (not a rut). That's the whole point of the 72-hour rule. If you had read the quote from the book, you would see that it was referring to a biological process that occurs in the male gametes at approx. that duration, and therefore a helpful guideline (I just love that word, don't I?) for intimacy in marriage. Much like men's awareness of PMS is helpful during the 7-10 days per month when her hormones are in flux, so extra patience, chocolate, etc. is a way husbands can help meet their wife's needs.

[mommaduck]

They are very fortunate and likely a minority.

 

 

If they are the minority, then I'm surprised the human race has lasted so long.

[justamouse]

I think is a helpful tool for Christian women wanting to cultivate humility and modesty:

 

http://www.purewarrior.org/index.php?id=230

 

We are sitting opposite screens. What makes you think that we AREN'T modest, not just opposed to other women making moral laws for us?

 

FYI, I rarely show a brastrap-but I can rock a pair of stilettos or heeled boots. And my husband LOVES my heels. He picks them out for me. It's what Mrs. Mungo said, modesty is a red herring.

Edited October 6, 2009 by justamouse

[Mrs Mungo]

Uhm, I argued against the 72hr bunk.

 

I'm not arguing that with you (name that movie!). I'm just saying I think it's sad that any woman feels like she has to force herself to have sex with her husband (which is not at ALL the same as being forced to have sex). That doesn't seem like a very fulfilling relationship. Surely they could find ways to make it work for her. That's all I'm saying, the time frame was not really relevant.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Mrs Mungo

[mommaduck]

Well...as far as you know ;) Personally, I don't go around asking, so I couldn't even begin to guess which of the ppl I know do/don't might/might not. :lol:

 

ETA: Except for my mother. Found the original edition of The Joy of S*x in her closet when I was a kid. I remember being appalled at how HAIRY everyone was! :lol:

I didn't say everyone I know...but I have known some. Obviously the subject comes up with women...we're here aren't we?

[Impish]

And why exactly does my husband need sex every time his seminal vesicles fill up? To keep from looking elsewhere? Young men are expected to keep it all together and be chaste, but the second they're married they can't have so much as a full seminal vesicle without risking their fidelity?

Its all about SRS, Dear.

 

Sperm Retention Syndrome. Makes PMS look like a party. Could lead to leering, laschivious thoughts about the Meter Maid, or spontanious explosion. One or the other.

 

:lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

An example of the sweeping generalization you asked for. Being "forced" is a far cry from having an awareness, or from making a routine (not a rut). That's the whole point of the 72-hour rule. If you had read the quote from the book, you would see that it was referring to a biological process that occurs in the male gametes at approx. that duration, and therefore a helpful guideline (I just love that word, don't I?) for intimacy in marriage. Much like men's awareness of PMS is helpful during the 7-10 days per month when her hormones are in flux, so extra patience, chocolate, etc. is a way husbands can help meet their wife's needs.

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post. I clarified. Hopefully that helps explain where I was coming from.

[OnTheBrink]

If she was posting on this thread I would think it rude and legalistic if you said her dress was slutty and against Biblical principles.

 

If she posted that picture herself and I posted that she looked slutty, yeah, that would be rude. And, as I said, 576,987,989 posts ago in this thread, I wouldn't hold her to any biblical standards as I'm fairly sure she doesn't claim to adhere to them herself (going on probabilities here; most Hollywood celebs are not Christians).

 

SO, my opinion of the dress would not be legalistic.

[Joker]

Its all about SRS, Dear.

 

Sperm Retention Syndrome. Makes PMS look like a party. Could lead to leering, laschivious thoughts about the Meter Maid, or spontanious explosion. One or the other.

 

:lol:

 

 

:lol:So my dh must have a really bad time when I was on bedrest and unable to "perform my duties" for several months!?!

[mommaduck]

We are sitting opposite screens. What makes you think that we AREN'T modest, not just opposed to other women making moral laws for us?

 

FYI, I rarely show a brastrap-but I can rock a pair of stilettos or heeled boots. And my husband LOVES my heels. He picks them out for me. It's what Mrs. Mungo said, modesty is a red herring.

I don't see where she said you weren't :confused:

[Tangerine]

Its all about SRS, Dear.

 

Sperm Retention Syndrome. Makes PMS look like a party. Could lead to leering, laschivious thoughts about the Meter Maid, or spontanious explosion. One or the other.

 

:lol:

 

Well lo and behold, there are 335,000 Google results for that. And now I'm sitting here like a weirdo reading scholarly studies on SRS.

 

Back in my day we called it something else. :001_huh:

[Myrrh]

And why exactly does my husband need sex every time his seminal vesicles fill up? To keep from looking elsewhere? Young men are expected to keep it all together and be chaste, but the second they're married they can't have so much as a full seminal vesicle without risking their fidelity?

 

I'm not going to broach the M. word in this thread. There's really too much already going on. Well, maybe I am, just to say that if you want to talk about the Bible being vague, that's a topic where it's totally silent, though inferences for and against it have been made. My opinion is that single men (and women) are free to relieve themselves, as long as there is no fantasizing and it's not obsessive-compulsive.

 

That said, men (married or not) are not excused from their responsibility to stay pure (only possible through the Holy Spirit sanctifying them as they take every thought captive to God). They will fall, as we all do (being sinners but also being new creations in Christ), so if we as wives can enter into their struggle and help them.

 

Paul refers to all of this in 1 Corinthians 7:

 

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.†2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. [1] 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

[justamouse]

I guess I've known people that have been able to have it without either erotica or a manual.

 

Why would they tell you when they face obvious judgment?

[Ibbygirl]

I'm just sitting here reading this thread and I click the refresh button and it's jumped another whole page!! wouldn't it be funny if the servers were brought down by boobs?? ;) :D :lol:

[Impish]

I seriously made that up about 10 yrs ago.

 

Imma gonna sue!

[Mrs Mungo]

But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

This is why I have to be married. :lol: OH, wait, we were talking about the men?

[Myrrh]

They are very fortunate and likely a minority.

 

Great post! I really didn't see anything wrong with your posts in this discussion.;)

 

Thank you--this is the longest I've engaged in any thread here, and I'm not even really sure why I'm doing it, but it seems like I'm meant to.

[Ibbygirl]

I seriously made that up about 10 yrs ago.

 

Imma gonna sue!

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Impish]

:lol:So my dh must have a really bad time when I was on bedrest and unable to "perform my duties" for several months!?!

Lucky he didn't explode, yup. Course, would make a vasectomy unnecessary...

[mommaduck]

Why would they tell you when they face obvious judgment?

Again, I've made no judgment...only your implications that I would do so. And yes, it's been openly discussed before, with no judgment and various parties holding various views and experiences.

[Tangerine]

Is there anyone here making arguments for modesty from a decidedly secular perspective? I'm not about to apply Biblical standards to myself, so

I'd be interested in hearing an argument that isn't based in religious dogma.

[Myrrh]

We are sitting opposite screens. What makes you think that we AREN'T modest, not just opposed to other women making moral laws for us?

 

FYI, I rarely show a brastrap-but I can rock a pair of stilettos or heeled boots. And my husband LOVES my heels. He picks them out for me. It's what Mrs. Mungo said, modesty is a red herring.

 

I never once said YOU weren't modest. I was merely arguing for the principle and application of modesty.

 

I have been known to inadvertently show bra straps.

 

What if modesty isn't a red herring, but is, as I said earlier, symbolic of the larger argument of morality vs. relativism? Refusing to come to an agreement on the definition of a word (or accept that it is defined in Scripture--shall I copy and paste the verses?) doesn't equate to the term being irrelevant...especially in a discussion about body parts and covering them.

[Impish]

Is there anyone here making arguments for modesty from a decidedly secular perspective? I'm not about to apply Biblical standards to myself, so

I'd be interested in hearing an argument that isn't based in religious dogma.

You could be sued for health care bills, pain and suffering after some poor weak willed male is so gobsmacked by bodacious BooKs that he walks into a lamp post, is rendered unconscious, and then attacked by a marauding pack of poodles.

[Mrs Mungo]

Is there anyone here making arguments for modesty from a decidedly secular perspective? I'm not about to apply Biblical standards to myself, so

I'd be interested in hearing an argument that isn't based in religious dogma.

 

Actually, I've found a lot of arguments among the orthodox that what's going on now with modesty movements is that they are intended to exclude people, so you can see who "belongs." That it's basically trendy, not modest. Just one example

Edited October 6, 2009 by Mrs Mungo

[Tangerine]

You could be sued for health care bills, pain and suffering after some poor weak willed male is so gobsmacked by bodacious BooKs that he walks into a lamp post, is rendered unconscious, and then attacked by a marauding pack of poodles.

 

:D

I make it my goal to use the words: lascivious, spontaneous explosion, gobsmacked, and marauding poodles in conversation this week.

[justamouse]

And another OT: my opinion of women's erotic stories is that it's merely porn for women, or what's called soft porn. Instead of pictures, it's words.

 

That's judgment right there. Porn is a loaded word. You tell a Christian woman she's reading porn and what, exactly, do you think is going to happen? (ie: Even though it's helped her relationship in the past month and she and her husband have made some serious inroads to intimacy)

 

So, with that, you judged me (because I said I wrote it) and you judged the women who read it.

 

I don't write porn. There is an enormous difference between porn and erotica.

[mommaduck]

Is there anyone here making arguments for modesty from a decidedly secular perspective? I'm not about to apply Biblical standards to myself, so

I'd be interested in hearing an argument that isn't based in religious dogma.

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=16691

 

Best I could come up with. Apparently you can't google it with secular or even "atheist" without it seemingly always being attached to modesty of a different sort or to put down "religious modesty".

[mommaduck]

That's judgment right there. Porn is a loaded word. You tell a Christian woman she's reading porn and what, exactly, do you think is going to happen? (ie: Even though it's helped her relationship in the past month and she and her husband have made some serious inroads to intimacy)

 

So, with that, you judged me (because I said I wrote it) and you judged the women who read it.

 

I don't write porn. There is an enormous difference between porn and erotica.

Depends on how much detail you go into.

 

Funny how what works for men can be called porn, but get something that does the same thing for women (in words instead of pictures...aka mental images) then it's a judgment or "loaded word".

[justamouse]

I never once said YOU weren't modest. I was merely arguing for the principle and application of modesty.

 

I have been known to inadvertently show bra straps.

 

What if modesty isn't a red herring, but is, as I said earlier, symbolic of the larger argument of morality vs. relativism? Refusing to come to an agreement on the definition of a word (or accept that it is defined in Scripture--shall I copy and paste the verses?) doesn't equate to the term being irrelevant...especially in a discussion about body parts and covering them.

 

You can't apply the word modest and it's meaning in NT scripture to today. Two totally different words and meanings. It's the same way Victorians thought that piano legs were immodest.

[Mrs Mungo]

I never once said YOU weren't modest. I was merely arguing for the principle and application of modesty.

 

I have been known to inadvertently show bra straps.

 

What if modesty isn't a red herring, but is, as I said earlier, symbolic of the larger argument of morality vs. relativism? Refusing to come to an agreement on the definition of a word (or accept that it is defined in Scripture--shall I copy and paste the verses?) doesn't equate to the term being irrelevant...especially in a discussion about body parts and covering them.

 

We already covered this. Nearly everything (including gauchos, apparently) has been said on one website, survey or in-person encounter to entice *some* man, to cause *some* man to stumble. Women can be alluring and sexy and be fully covered. Where does a woman's "responsibility" end when this is *strictly* driven by culture? Where does one draw the line? Either we have a working definition or we don't. I don't agree with a lot of the website you posted, for sure. I dress more conservatively than many of the female leaders of my church, even though I show cleavage now and then. It definitely *is not* defined in scripture in the sense that you imply. Therefore, it *is* a red herring, imo.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Mrs Mungo

[Myrrh]

Is there anyone here making arguments for modesty from a decidedly secular perspective? I'm not about to apply Biblical standards to myself, so

I'd be interested in hearing an argument that isn't based in religious dogma.

 

Can't help you (well, I probably could if I thought about it long and hard enough...or talked to the women I know who aren't Christians who are bugged by the half naked ones). Actually, if I think about it, one feminist argument would be exploitation, but they can play this from either side of the coin, so I guess it doesn't really stand up.

[justamouse]

Depends on how much detail you go into.

 

 

Was it just you that said her Gramma gave her soft porn books to read and that was years ago? And then I call what I write erotica, and you wonder how much detail I go into?

 

ha, Ha, HA!