Why do women show cleavage?

[Mrs Mungo]

Uhm, there ARE plenty of modest women that LIKE sex and enjoy both their femininity and sexuality. Modest or "ultra modest" as some would say does not equate being repressed.

 

I was talking to the poster to whom I replied and her posts that clearly indicated a general belief in her that women did not like sex and had to be convinced to have sex with their husbands more frequently. I wasn't speaking generally, at all.

[Lovedtodeath]

I was talking to the poster to whom I replied and her posts that clearly indicated a general belief in her that women did not like sex and had to be convinced to have sex with their husbands more frequently. I wasn't speaking generally, at all.

I think an assumption is being made. Where did she say that women don't like sex?

 

As for the 72 hour rule, I don't know how practical that is considering I am menstruating for 10 days per month... and then there are husbands that are out of town for various responsibilities. Let's also not forget the men whose wives are seriously ill or pregnant and on bedrest, or the young men who are not yet married, but have a sexual drive. But, I can see that the 72 hour rule was not a "rule" really after it was explained, but more of a way of understanding our husbands and keeping their sexual needs in mind. (We can't really keep them in mind if we have no idea what they are, kind of like our husbands not knowing when we our menstrual cycle.)

[HRAAB]

And, another question--why does dressing modestly make a person sexually repressed? I don't understand the connection.

 

Dressing modestly doesn't not make a person sexually repressed. Elevating modesty to level some minor god to be worshiped can result in all sorts of problems. This is what I experienced. The women in the group I belonged to were always modest. This was back in the late 80's/early 90's. Little by little they (we) made modesty into this big issue. (It never was, we were modest, we created the issue.) Different women started reading books on modesty and bringing back more and more ideas which then became guidelines and then became unspoken rules. Dressing modestly was raised to a whole new level complete with measuring units and the amount of stretch allowed. The female body became something almost sinful. When a woman views her body as sinful or bad, and you carry that unhealthy sense of modesty into the bedroom, believe me it can result in sexual repression. There's a lot more that happened - modesty became purity issues in marriage and it just kept growing.

 

Now, of course, I know that's not what most of you mean when you speak of modesty, but that is what can happen. I saw it happen. It became a way to exclude us from them, to identify those who were God fearing, modest Christian women from those who weren't, according to us. It's been eight years since I left that group, and it taken me a good part of that time to regain a sense of being comfortable with my body and sexuality. And I was not the only one; I have been surprised at women I've met in IRL and online who experienced the same thing.

 

Modesty is a good thing; modesty of the whole person. Not just dress, but actions, words, etc. Healthy modesty. As with any good thing, it can be taken to extremes. That's why when I hear modesty or see threads on modesty or hear about the latest book on modesty, I get a bad taste in my mouth. Being human we sometimes feel a need to outdo others - that's where the danger comes in.

 

Janet

[Mrs Mungo]

I think an assumption is being made. Where did she say that women don't like sex?

 

This is the post to which I was referring. It's clear from her post that many of the women in her acquaintance do not like sex. It is also implied that she, herself, sees it as a something of a duty.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1242709&postcount=355

 

I don't know what you guys read about the 72 hour rule, but I already said I didn't follow it legalistically. However, it is a great guideline for a healthy marriage. Being sexually intimate with your husband (in one form or another--no one said it had to be the same way every time) twice a week (which is what the 72 hour rule amounts to in our house) isn't a problem (and is in fact an enhancement) if your marriage is healthy in other respects. Of course it won't work if there are unresolved issues, so I'm not suggesting sex as a band-aid or a gesture of submission. That's not my angle at all, as I'm a firm believer in the Biblical model of mutual submission as explained in the book of Ephesians.

 

My friends have been shocked when I told them we are intimate this often, because from what I gather, they are lucky to do it every few weeks, if that. I find that a bit troubling, because intimacy in every form (emotional, spiritual and physical is so crucial to a thriving marriage). My ideal would be once a week, but because I know my husband likes it more (he'd like 3x/week), a happy compromise is twice a week, providing one time can be "different."

[Mrs Mungo]

I think an assumption is being made. Where did she say that women don't like sex?

 

As for the 72 hour rule, I don't know how practical that is considering I am menstruating for 10 days per month

 

I have no problem pleasing my husband while menstruating.

 

... and then there are husbands that are out of town for various responsibilities. Let's also not forget the men whose wives are seriously ill or pregnant and on bedrest, or the young men who are not yet married, but have a sexual drive. But, I can see that the 72 hour rule was not a "rule" really after it was explained, but more of a way of understanding our husbands and keeping their sexual needs in mind...

My husband is away for months and months at a time. There are times when we cannot have sex. I'm not even talking about the time rule other than to say its necessity in some circles shows a distaste of sex which certainly can be associated with repression.

 

and I must go for the day-I have an mri and mammogram today, lots of people handling the booKs. :D

[Impish]

Oh those are just impish's ;):D

Hey now! I resemble that remark! :blush:

[Mrs. Frankweiler]

 

 

That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying it would be much more temptation for a man to have some fun, enjoyable sex. Frequently, women who don't like sex whose husbands cheat on them, are shocked to find that the "other woman" isn't necessarily even all that attractive.

 

 

 

I'm speaking specifically to the poster in question. I'm referring to *her posts*, did you read them?

 

 

Of course I've read them! This thread is like a car accident--as much as I try not to look, I just can't help myself! ;)

 

To me, it just didn't sound like the poster who brought up the 72 hour rule necessarily had a problem with it. (is that what you're referring to? I'm getting lost here!) I don't know...it just didn't seem like she was looking at her watch all the time and saying, "Oh geez....hour 68. Only 4 more hours left before is HAVE to do it...AGAIN." It sounded like this "routine" worked well for her & her husband, and she was having a fine time. Her modesty doesn't seem to be giving her any trouble.

[lionfamily1999]

(bold print added)

 

So, not to open ANOTHER can of worms, and I'm not being snarky--it's just an honest question: Are you saying if a man is regularly "satisfied" (every 72 hours, or whatever) then the cleavage/cracks/etc...that are commonly seen these days will be of no temptation to him since his needs are being met?

 

And, another question--why does dressing modestly make a person sexually repressed? I don't understand the connection.

Mrs. F, I think the idea is that a man that is satisfied at home is not going to stray. Of course, personally, I disagree with the implication that men MUST be gratified sexually or that sex is ALL that will satisfy men. They're just as likely to cheat for emotional reasons as women. Imo, the intimacy should not be narrowed down to just physical. Men want understanding and companionship as much as women. Imo, a man is more likely to stray from a lack of emotional intimacy than physical. As for being turned on by cracks and things... imo, once you've crossed into lust, you've crossed into adultery. People have to guard themselves against that, and not through laws or stoning. Self control, faith and trust in God are all you can count on there, most definitely nothing in the world is going to protect you from immodest sights.

 

It's not that modesty equals sexual repression, it's that ENFORCED modesty equals sexual repression. The laws in Iran concerning clothing for women, imo, equals repression. They're modesty laws, and it's not the modesty that makes it repression, it is the ENFORCEMENT.

[HRAAB]

Mrs. F, I think the idea is that a man that is satisfied at home is not going to stray. Of course, personally, I disagree with the implication that men MUST be gratified sexually or that sex is ALL that will satisfy men. They're just as likely to cheat for emotional reasons as women. Imo, the intimacy should not be narrowed down to just physical. Men want understanding and companionship as much as women. Imo, a man is more likely to stray from a lack of emotional intimacy than physical. As for being turned on by cracks and things... imo, once you've crossed into lust, you've crossed into adultery. People have to guard themselves against that, and not through laws or stoning. Self control, faith and trust in God are all you can count on there, most definitely nothing in the world is going to protect you from immodest sights.

 

It's not that modesty equals sexual repression, it's that ENFORCED modesty equals sexual repression. The laws in Iran concerning clothing for women, imo, equals repression. They're modesty laws, and it's not the modesty that makes it repression, it is the ENFORCEMENT.

 

:iagree:

 

Janet

[LisaNY]

This is the post to which I was referring. It's clear from her post that many of the women in her acquaintance do not like sex. It is also implied that she, herself, sees it as a something of a duty.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1242709&postcount=355

 

Wow - I did not see it that way at all. All she said was that she and her dh reached a "happy compromise" between having s*x once or 3 times per week by having s*x twice per week. I don't read anything in her post that implies that she is doing it out of a sense of duty. And, her friends said they are lucky if they have s*x every few weeks. How does that translate automatically translate to: the women don't like sex??

[Mrs. Frankweiler]

Modesty is a good thing; modesty of the whole person. Not just dress, but actions, words, etc. Healthy modesty. As with any good thing, it can be taken to extremes. That's why when I hear modesty or see threads on modesty or hear about the latest book on modesty, I get a bad taste in my mouth. Being human we sometimes feel a need to outdo others - that's where the danger comes in.

 

Janet

 

I agree, (with this and your whole post) and I think the same can be said for immodesty as well.

[Impish]

Mrs. F, I think the idea is that a man that is satisfied at home is not going to stray. Of course, personally, I disagree with the implication that men MUST be gratified sexually or that sex is ALL that will satisfy men. They're just as likely to cheat for emotional reasons as women. Imo, the intimacy should not be narrowed down to just physical. Men want understanding and companionship as much as women. Imo, a man is more likely to stray from a lack of emotional intimacy than physical. As for being turned on by cracks and things... imo, once you've crossed into lust, you've crossed into adultery. People have to guard themselves against that, and not through laws or stoning. Self control, faith and trust in God are all you can count on there, most definitely nothing in the world is going to protect you from immodest sights.

 

It's not that modesty equals sexual repression, it's that ENFORCED modesty equals sexual repression. The laws in Iran concerning clothing for women, imo, equals repression. They're modesty laws, and it's not the modesty that makes it repression, it is the ENFORCEMENT.

:iagree:

As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely NO excuse for cheating. If you're that unhappy, then LEAVE. Have the self respect, respect for your spouse, your children, your family, and LEAVE FIRST. If you're not willing to leave, then buckle down and work on your marriage. Period.

[HRAAB]

I agree, (with this and your whole post) and I think the same can be said for immodesty as well.

 

 

I'm not quite understanding your comment? I don't think you're saying immodesty is a good thing, right?

 

Janet

[smrtmama]

Oh, I don't think it's funny, either. I find the shaming of women, sexual repression, the implication of some of these people that women cannot participate in the arts or sports without being immodest, etc to be highly disturbing. I find it just as disturbing as you do, but for different reasons. The fact that you, yourself, describe women as not liking sex is indicative of the repression going on. I don't dress particularly scantily but neither do I worry if I'm showing a little cleavage or pin every possible gap on my clothing closed. I am confident in how I look, I'm confident in my sexuality, I like sex. My husband would never have to worry about the 72 hour rule you describe. I think having a wife who is sexually repressed and cannot enjoy sex due to the mechanics of sexual repression would, ultimately, be a WAY bigger stumbling block for a man than a little cleavage.

 

*applauds*

[Myrrh]

I was talking to the poster to whom I replied and her posts that clearly indicated a general belief in her that women did not like sex and had to be convinced to have sex with their husbands more frequently. I wasn't speaking generally, at all.

 

Excuse me? Where did I say that? I said that my friends were surprised that I had sex that often and that I was somewhat concerned for them neglecting that part of their marriage. Perhaps I should have elaborated that the friends I was referring to are all mothers of young children who are in a very exhausting and transitional season of life where they aren't getting much sleep as they meet the many physical needs of babies and toddlers. It's not that they don't like sex--it's that they are too tired to "naturally" want to do it on a regular basis. That's where the 72 hour rule comes in handy. It doesn't mean that women should force themselves to do it every 72 hours, but being educated about it can help them to put more effort into that aspect of their marriage rather than temporarily (which could set a more permanent pattern) abandoning an integral part of their marriage, which will also ultimately help them in parenthood (being a team with their spouse requires intimacy).

Edited October 7, 2009 by Myrrh
typo

[Myrrh]

I think an assumption is being made. Where did she say that women don't like sex?

 

As for the 72 hour rule, I don't know how practical that is considering I am menstruating for 10 days per month... and then there are husbands that are out of town for various responsibilities. Let's also not forget the men whose wives are seriously ill or pregnant and on bedrest, or the young men who are not yet married, but have a sexual drive. But, I can see that the 72 hour rule was not a "rule" really after it was explained, but more of a way of understanding our husbands and keeping their sexual needs in mind. (We can't really keep them in mind if we have no idea what they are, kind of like our husbands not knowing when we our menstrual cycle.)

 

Exactly. Any guideline can become legalistic but that doesn't mean it's bad to begin with.

 

I mean think about the successful people in our world -- imagine if they didn't try to follow any time management principles for fear of becoming enslaved by them? Or what if no one budgeted? The list goes on and on...

[Myrrh]

Wow - I did not see it that way at all. All she said was that she and her dh reached a "happy compromise" between having s*x once or 3 times per week by having s*x twice per week. I don't read anything in her post that implies that she is doing it out of a sense of duty. And, her friends said they are lucky if they have s*x every few weeks. How does that translate automatically translate to: the women don't like sex??

 

Thank you Lisa.

 

Mrs. Mungo, I've noticed a pattern of you interpreting and twisting my words to make me fit in the box that you've labeled with my worldview. Why don't you try asking for clarification before assuming?

[Lovedtodeath]

I'm not quite understanding your comment? I don't think you're saying immodesty is a good thing, right?

 

Janet

No she is saying that we can try to compete with eachother by being "more modest" and it goes the other way as well. Women will compete with each other in how immodest (or sexually attractive) they can be. Neither is a good thing. Edited October 7, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Myrrh]

 

It's not that modesty equals sexual repression, it's that ENFORCED modesty equals sexual repression. The laws in Iran concerning clothing for women, imo, equals repression. They're modesty laws, and it's not the modesty that makes it repression, it is the ENFORCEMENT.

 

I don't recall anyone on this thread advocating for legislating modesty. The crux of the argument (or at the least the one I was focusing on) was the virtue of modesty and what that looks like in practical terms in our day and culture. There are those arguing that it cannot be defined except each person for herself--in other words, it's all relative so no one can call anyone else immodest (or modest, for that matter)--and there are those saying that obeying the Bible's teaching of modesty can be carried out through generally agreed upon (for this day and age) practical guidelines (like not wearing clothing to deliberately draw attention to our bodies/sexuality, such as deliberately baring midriff, thighs, breasts, butt, or accentuating breasts and butts with skin tight clothing).

[Lovedtodeath]

Just one other thing about "cultural relevance"

 

Look up the term lawless or lawlessness in your Bible. It is not a good thing.

[Lovedtodeath]

Secular perspective of modesty:

 

Do I want people to notice that I am dressed in an arousing manner?

 

Do I want them to assume that I am willing to act on the feelings that my provocative dress is arousing?

 

Do I want to make married men or young boys look at me and wish they could have sex with me?

 

What will dressing in a provocative way cause others to think of me? Will they prejudge me due to this? Is the way they will prejudge me what I want them to think?

[Lovedtodeath]

 

and there are those saying that obeying the Bible's teaching of modesty can be carried out through generally agreed upon (for this day and age) practical guidelines (like not wearing clothing to deliberately draw attention to our bodies/sexuality,

I am in that camp, but I don't assume anything about someone who may be baring more than I would. (Well, I have to admit... midriff gets to me.)

[Peek a Boo]

Maybe because this really isn't a laughing matter. Our sexualized culture is both a root and a symptom of the abuses and perversions in society, from family dysfunction/destruction to heinous crimes against women and children.

 

we're not talking about "sexualization" --we're talking about how much of a person's body is visible. The Amish would be guilty of "sexualizing their women" by Muslim standards. The problems you list are a part of our fallen nature and will NOT be rectified by a uniform standard of dress. Period. Don't pretend that it would.

The so-called sexual revolution stripped sex of its value and purpose when it threw away its counterparts of modesty, chastity, and fidelity, for starters. Flaunting our sexuality has not liberated women but has created more vulnerability and captivity. Pretending the culture doesn't identify nakedness with sexuality, or that men and women aren't really different in their sexuality are dangerous kinds of denial, and part of what has led us to this place.

 

This is an issue that goes further back than the sexual revolution. Assuming that because one woman is not convicted to cover certain parts of their body does NOT mandate "flaunting their sexuality."

 

we're not talking about naked people --we're talking about cultural standards of acceptable dress. Pretending that people who are completely covered don't feed into sexuality either is a huge denial of how God created us. Our sexuality is not defined by how much clothing is on a person. That some people abuse their sexuality by viewing dress as an instigator is a whole nuther can of worms from whether or not a Christian is "modest enough" wearing shorts or a tank top.

Freedom without boundaries always leads to bondage, the enslavement of sin, since it is abandoning the protective order which God designed to keep us safe.

 

Yes. But the boundaries you set for yourself as a Christian will not look like the boundaries another Christian has for their family. Paul drives this point home very clearly.

 

I think we should go back to wearing animal skins ;)

[Peek a Boo]

I am in that camp, but I don't assume anything about someone who may be baring more than I would. (Well, I have to admit... midriff gets to me.)

 

I agree.

 

{{i think we've already discussed the difference between fashion choices we like/dislike and assuming stuff about a person's character ;) }}

[Peek a Boo]

Exactly. Any guideline can become legalistic but that doesn't mean it's bad to begin with.

 

I mean think about the successful people in our world -- imagine if they didn't try to follow any time management principles for fear of becoming enslaved by them? Or what if no one budgeted? The list goes on and on...

 

 

There are actually quite a few successful people that don't follow time management principles in the course of their job/duties. They certainly aren't the norm, but their principles are indeed valid for their specific situation.

 

We don't budget. At least, not as it is commonly taught and practiced.

We just don't SPEND a lot. ;)

[Myrrh]

we're not talking about "sexualization" --we're talking about how much of a person's body is visible. The Amish would be guilty of "sexualizing their women" by Muslim standards. The problems you list are a part of our fallen nature and will NOT be rectified by a uniform standard of dress. Period. Don't pretend that it would.

 

I'm not pretending anything. What I'm doing is not disconnecting these inextricably tied values from each other. As I went on to say in that post where you didn't bother to quote me further, the Biblical values of modesty, chastity, and fidelity are all related to sexuality, and therefore, their degradation has been a part of (I didn't say entirely responsible for) the sexualization of society. God's principles are orderly and wholistic so to make them ambiguous and divorce them from each other is to deny the certainty and harmony of God's truth.

 

The amish are a legalistic sect--it's not like modesty is the only area where they enforce extrabiblical rules. Muslims' standards of modesty don't come from the Bible, so bringing them into this is completely irrelevant if you want to work within a Christian worldview. The way both of these groups behave is an extreme reaction to our fallen world.

 

To deny that there is a balance between the extremes of legalism and licentiousness is to forget that the Holy Spirit ever spoke through Paul to write the book of Romans. So if you're going to use that book to support your position, it's not fair to overlook or dismiss the overarching principles.

 

I agree that there will be variations in how women dress according to their convictions about what is modest and what isn't, but what is wrong with outlining specifics for those who honestly may not have a clue? As long as we are not enforcing a strict dress code and/or judging people's hearts and shaming them (as was brought out earlier), why can't put forward practical applications for modesty which could actually help people grow in godliness and spiritual maturity? Is it really all the unimportant that we should never address what modesty looks like on a woman following Jesus?

[Myrrh]

There are actually quite a few successful people that don't follow time management principles in the course of their job/duties. They certainly aren't the norm, but their principles are indeed valid for their specific situation.

 

We don't budget. At least, not as it is commonly taught and practiced.

We just don't SPEND a lot. ;)

 

It seems like the pendulum has swung. Like you are actually judging those who put forward structures and guidelines to help others as somehow being wrong because those things are so individualistic that it could never help anyone else.

 

My intuition, though, is telling me that it's really not as serious as all that, that you are just being stubborn in trying to consistently hold to your position on this topic ;)

[HRAAB]

I'm not pretending anything. What I'm doing is not disconnecting these inextricably tied values from each other. As I went on to say in that post where you didn't bother to quote me further, the Biblical values of modesty, chastity, and fidelity are all related to sexuality, and therefore, their degradation has been a part of (I didn't say entirely responsible for) the sexualization of society. God's principles are orderly and wholistic so to make them ambiguous and divorce them from each other is to deny the certainty and harmony of God's truth.

 

I actually tend to agree with the above although how that looks for you would differ from how it would look for me.

 

The amish are a legalistic sect--it's not like modesty is the only area where they enforce extrabiblical rules. Muslims' standards of modesty don't come from the Bible, so bringing them into this is completely irrelevant if you want to work within a Christian worldview. The way both of these groups behave is an extreme reaction to our fallen world.

 

As is the behavior of many Christians I've known.

 

 

I agree that there will be variations in how women dress according to their convictions about what is modest and what isn't, but what is wrong with outlining specifics for those who honestly may not have a clue? As long as we are not enforcing a strict dress code and/or judging people's hearts and shaming them (as was brought out earlier), why can't put forward practical applications for modesty which could actually help people grow in godliness and spiritual maturity? Is it really all the unimportant that we should never address what modesty looks like on a woman following Jesus?

 

Who would be in charge of outlining specifics regarding modest dress? How can you ensure that it would not become a matter of enforcing rules through shaming? I've seen it happen with the best intentioned Christians, and the outcome was damaging. While that is probably more rare, it is a risk when certain people start listing guidelines.

 

Janet

[Myrrh]

If guidelines are too risky to put forth, then why should there ever be any specific teachings (using actual examples of actions/choices which would apply to all Christians) in sermons/messages or any kind of books about practically living the Christian life? What I'm hearing is that we don't need pastors or writers or even each other to be able to apply the teachings of the Bible to our lives.

 

The irony here is the Bible teaches just the opposite! This is a huge reason why the body of Christ (the church) even exists--for discipleship and accountability. What I'm seeing in this thread is a worldly politically correct approach to Christianity that equates with the lukewarm church in Revelation that God spit out of his mouth.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm not pretending anything. What I'm doing is not disconnecting these inextricably tied values from each other. As I went on to say in that post where you didn't bother to quote me further, the Biblical values of modesty, chastity, and fidelity are all related to sexuality, and therefore, their degradation has been a part of (I didn't say entirely responsible for) the sexualization of society.

EVERYTHING is "inextricably tied to other values" --it's part of being human.

 

but one person's idea of "degradation" is another person's "just fine." That you [general you] call a form of dress degrading or immodest does not make it so.

God's principles are orderly and wholistic so to make them ambiguous and divorce them from each other is to deny the certainty and harmony of God's truth.

 

That website you linked went way beyond God's Word. God did not give us a legalistic dress code and call it "this is what REAL modesty looks like."

The amish are a legalistic sect--it's not like modesty is the only area where they enforce extrabiblical rules. Muslims' standards of modesty don't come from the Bible, so bringing them into this is completely irrelevant if you want to work within a Christian worldview. The way both of these groups behave is an extreme reaction to our fallen world.

 

The "Christian" standard of "modesty" as being related in this thread about necklines doesn't come from the Bible either.

That's kinda my whole point. ;)

To deny that there is a balance between the extremes of legalism and licentiousness is to forget that the Holy Spirit ever spoke through Paul to write the book of Romans. So if you're going to use that book to support your position, it's not fair to overlook or dismiss the overarching principles.

 

 

That has nothing to do with the fact that y'all have put forth a position that there is a Set Christian Standard of Real Modesty, and that if we stray from that standard, we aren't being Modest Enough According to God's Ideal. The balance of which we speak is one that is placed upon each person to determine w/in their guidance from the HS. Not a book or a website or extraBiblical dress "suggestions."

 

I agree that there will be variations in how women dress according to their convictions about what is modest and what isn't, but what is wrong with outlining specifics for those who honestly may not have a clue? As long as we are not enforcing a strict dress code and/or judging people's hearts and shaming them (as was brought out earlier), why can't put forward practical applications for modesty which could actually help people grow in godliness and spiritual maturity? Is it really all the unimportant that we should never address what modesty looks like on a woman following Jesus?

 

There's nothing wrong with offering "some people feel that X way of dressing may be immodest." It crosses the line when you start asserting that your helpful suggestions are The Best or The Only way to achieve a modest decorum.

 

It seems like the pendulum has swung. Like you are actually judging those who put forward structures and guidelines to help others as somehow being wrong because those things are so individualistic that it could never help anyone else.

 

No: putting forth suggestions isn't wrong.

 

it's when other people are judged as IMmodest because their choice in dress happens to be different from what a checklist puts forth or what one author says.

I am absolutely judging you for citing extraBiblical suggestions as some sort of Biblical Standard. Did i miss a clarification that the suggestions you offer are merely personal opinion and that Godly standards of modesty may differ from person to person and just might have little to do w/ what types of clothing one wears?

 

My intuition, though, is telling me that it's really not as serious as all that, that you are just being stubborn in trying to consistently hold to your position on this topic ;)

 

actually, i am pretty serious about examining what people put forth as extraBiblical suggestions but claim those suggestions are All That and a Bag of Chips, and Scriptural to boot. ;)

[Peek a Boo]

If guidelines are too risky to put forth, then why should there ever be any specific teachings (using actual examples of actions/choices which would apply to all Christians) in sermons/messages or any kind of books about practically living the Christian life? What I'm hearing is that we don't need pastors or writers or even each other to be able to apply the teachings of the Bible to our lives.

 

The irony here is the Bible teaches just the opposite! This is a huge reason why the body of Christ (the church) even exists--for discipleship and accountability. What I'm seeing in this thread is a worldly politically correct approach to Christianity that equates with the lukewarm church in Revelation that God spit out of his mouth.

 

The Bible teaches to use God's Word, not twist it.

 

We are to teach WITH SCRIPTURE, not with the latest book from a Christian author.

 

Show me the scripture that addresses the evils of tank tops and exactly what percentage of our body must be covered and I'm game for hearing it.

 

part of Christian accountability is to bring Christians back to God's Word and not be sucked into a cycle of relying on each other's opinions.

[Tangerine]

Finally, I must remember to do this modesty check with my shoes on. High-heels make my dress or skirt appear shorter. And don't forget, this applies toformal wear as well.

 

From The Pure Warrior site.

 

Is this serious? The skirt ISN'T shorter just because you put heels on. But it 'appears shorter.' By this logic, a woman with long legs had better just cover it all, because compared to a knee length skirt on me, hers (even if it comes to HER knees) appears shorter. Am I misunderstanding this or something?

[HRAAB]

If guidelines are too risky to put forth, then why should there ever be any specific teachings (using actual examples of actions/choices which would apply to all Christians) in sermons/messages or any kind of books about practically living the Christian life? What I'm hearing is that we don't need pastors or writers or even each other to be able to apply the teachings of the Bible to our lives.

 

The irony here is the Bible teaches just the opposite! This is a huge reason why the body of Christ (the church) even exists--for discipleship and accountability. What I'm seeing in this thread is a worldly politically correct approach to Christianity that equates with the lukewarm church in Revelation that God spit out of his mouth.

 

I find your POV interesting. As a Catholic, I accept that the Magisterium (teaching authority) has the obligation to teach in matters of faith and morals. If there were to come from Rome an Encyclical pertaining to modesty, I would listen. (I actually think there is something on this exact issue from earlier in the 20th century but don't have it at my fingertips.) So I do not have any issue with specific teachings within my own religion nor do I have an issue with the Church having guidelines regarding application of Biblical teachings - but then again, I'm Catholic. I would not be too crazy about individual priests making up their own rules of modesty. It's one thing for them to preach about it - indeed they should do this more often - but only in general, not with specifics. Well, let me say if a girl showed up in a bikini top or a guy shirtless, then he could get specific. That's just from my perspective, and I think I'm the only Catholic posting in this thread. :D

 

But how does this work in Protestant churches, especially non-denominational churches, without people saying it's extra-Biblical. Every pastor would have his own guidelines? I simply don't understand how this would be done.

 

Janet

[HRAAB]

The Bible teaches to use God's Word, not twist it.

 

We are to teach WITH SCRIPTURE, not with the latest book from a Christian author.

 

Show me the scripture that addresses the evils of tank tops and exactly what percentage of our body must be covered and I'm game for hearing it.

 

part of Christian accountability is to bring Christians back to God's Word and not be sucked into a cycle of relying on each other's opinions.

 

Maybe this is what I was trying to say, but I don't always speak the same language. How could this be accomplished with only the Bible in any specific way without personal opinions and convictions entering into it?

 

Janet

[Myrrh]

The Bible teaches to use God's Word, not twist it.

 

We are to teach WITH SCRIPTURE, not with the latest book from a Christian author.

 

Show me the scripture that addresses the evils of tank tops and exactly what percentage of our body must be covered and I'm game for hearing it.

 

part of Christian accountability is to bring Christians back to God's Word and not be sucked into a cycle of relying on each other's opinions.

 

Well, then I guess should shut up about stem cell research and specific sex acts (not detailed in Scripture), and for that matter, the trinity, since that term is not stated anywhere in the Bible.

[Myrrh]

I find your POV interesting. As a Catholic, I accept that the Magisterium (teaching authority) has the obligation to teach in matters of faith and morals. If there were to come from Rome an Encyclical pertaining to modesty, I would listen. (I actually think there is something on this exact issue from earlier in the 20th century but don't have it at my fingertips.) So I do not have any issue with specific teachings within my own religion nor do I have an issue with the Church having guidelines regarding application of Biblical teachings - but then again, I'm Catholic. I would not be too crazy about individual priests making up their own rules of modesty. It's one thing for them to preach about it - indeed they should do this more often - but only in general, not with specifics. Well, let me say if a girl showed up in a bikini top or a guy shirtless, then he could get specific. That's just from my perspective, and I think I'm the only Catholic posting in this thread. :D

 

But how does this work in Protestant churches, especially non-denominational churches, without people saying it's extra-Biblical. Every pastor would have his own guidelines? I simply don't understand how this would be done.

 

Janet

 

My short answer is now you know why we have so many denominations and movements :001_rolleyes:

[justamouse]

If guidelines are too risky to put forth, then why should there ever be any specific teachings (using actual examples of actions/choices which would apply to all Christians) in sermons/messages or any kind of books about practically living the Christian life? What I'm hearing is that we don't need pastors or writers or even each other to be able to apply the teachings of the Bible to our lives.

 

The irony here is the Bible teaches just the opposite! This is a huge reason why the body of Christ (the church) even exists--for discipleship and accountability. What I'm seeing in this thread is a worldly politically correct approach to Christianity that equates with the lukewarm church in Revelation that God spit out of his mouth.

 

Actually, there is a footnoted, scripture referenced book out right now PAGAN CHRISTIANITY by Frank Viola that talks about how, actually, we aren't supposed to have pastors, and the church, the ekklesia, has only one head, and that is Christ. It goes in depth - scripture upon scripture- about what the ekklesia is, and how Christianity as we know it now in America is a hodge podge of pagan beliefs and rituals passed down from Constantine on.

 

But hey, sounds like you have judges us as being the church that God is going to vomit. Of course, David danced naked, his wife freaked on him and he was a man afer God's own heart. So, be careful who you judge.

 

Also, your love of winking emoticons-I think you've got something in your eye.

[Peek a Boo]

Well, then I guess should shut up about stem cell research and specific sex acts (not detailed in Scripture), and for that matter, the trinity, since that term is not stated anywhere in the Bible.

 

There are very many Christians who do just that.

 

We do have that pesky "thou shalt not kill/murder" thing, then try to justify some sort of scriptural self defense or hold military service as a Godly profession. So if you want to examine what scripture says about killing a human, you can speak pretty soundly via scripture a completely pro-life view [no death penalty, no abortion, no destroying complete diploid humans]. There is certainly plenty of scripture about the sanctity of LIFE vs the horror of DEATH.

 

Specific sex acts that aren't detailed in scripture fall within the bounds of the marriage bed, period. Sex with someone other than your spouse is pretty explicitly denounced. Sex with animals is deemed wrong. A variety of sex acts are allowed in the marriage bed, whether some Christians like it or not. Again: if you want to SCRIPTURALLY speak against something, then show its consistency in scripture.

 

and yes, there are Christians who do not hold to a doctrine of the Trinity.

 

you don't have to "shut up" about those issues, but you do need to realize that a great many solid Christians will have a differing interpretation from your opinion of how to apply scripture to a specific issue.

 

We definitely need to be very careful asserting our opinion as scriptural.

[Peek a Boo]

How could this be accomplished with only the Bible in any specific way without personal opinions and convictions entering into it?

 

 

 

personal convictions are pretty darn Biblical!

They just don't apply to EVERYone.

But how does this work in Protestant churches, especially non-denominational churches, without people saying it's extra-Biblical. Every pastor would have his own guidelines? I simply don't understand how this would be done.

 

 

This is where I fall back to the idea of a Body of Believers:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1152969&postcount=90

[Lovedtodeath]

Myrrh, I think that some of what you are saying makes sense. As a society, everything is oversexualized, especially women's (and girl's) clothing. Some people do need some guidelines when they don't have a clue. They are surrounded by the "normalcy" of this fallen world in Satan's control.

That website you linked went way beyond God's Word. God did not give us a legalistic dress code and call it "this is what REAL modesty looks like."

 

There's nothing wrong with offering "some people feel that X way of dressing may be immodest." It crosses the line when you start asserting that your helpful suggestions are The Best or The Only way to achieve a modest decorum.

 

 

No: putting forth suggestions isn't wrong.

:iagree:

Actually, there is a footnoted, scripture referenced book out right now PAGAN CHRISTIANITY by Frank Viola that talks about how, actually, we aren't supposed to have pastors, and the church, the ekklesia, has only one head, and that is Christ. It goes in depth - scripture upon scripture- about what the ekklesia is, and how Christianity as we know it now in America is a hodge podge of pagan beliefs and rituals passed down from Constantine on.

 

But hey, sounds like you have judges us as being the church that God is going to vomit. Of course, David danced naked, his wife freaked on him and he was a man afer God's own heart. So, be careful who you judge.

He wasn't naked. He was wearing his inner garment. It was a common practice to discard one's outer garment in times of great emotion. When David did this to celebrate his God's victory, his wife thought it was below his position of king. Interesting book. I can agree that the whole idea of a clergy class is extra-biblical.

[Lovedtodeath]

I find your POV interesting. As a Catholic, I accept that the Magisterium (teaching authority) has the obligation to teach in matters of faith and morals. If there were to come from Rome an Encyclical pertaining to modesty, I would listen. (I actually think there is something on this exact issue from earlier in the 20th century but don't have it at my fingertips.) So I do not have any issue with specific teachings within my own religion nor do I have an issue with the Church having guidelines regarding application of Biblical teachings - but then again, I'm Catholic. I would not be too crazy about individual priests making up their own rules of modesty. It's one thing for them to preach about it - indeed they should do this more often - but only in general, not with specifics. Well, let me say if a girl showed up in a bikini top or a guy shirtless, then he could get specific. That's just from my perspective, and I think I'm the only Catholic posting in this thread. :D

 

But how does this work in Protestant churches, especially non-denominational churches, without people saying it's extra-Biblical. Every pastor would have his own guidelines? I simply don't understand how this would be done.

 

Janet

Janet, ITA in the book of Acts when there was a decision to be made a small group of men met together, discussed it, and prayerfully made the decision. It was then handed on from them to all of the congregations.

 

We had a visit from a traveling servant at our Jehovah's Witness congregation. These traveling servants have the same material to share with all of the congregations (well, all of our public talks [same outline] and other studies [same study material, weekly Bible reading] are always the same worldwide if you get down to it). His talk discussed modesty as regards to our attitude and our dress. There were a few guidelines. Avoid cleavage (further described as one should not see the fatty part of the breast), skirts should reach the knee, slits should be no higher than an acceptable hemline, skirts should hang straight down, not hugging the buttox, that was it for women. For men all I remember is keeping the pants at the natural waistline and not baggy, but it seems I am missing something. For both dressing in order to improve one's status (excessive jewelry, etc.) is not modest. I didn't seem shaming in the least, just guidelines to follow (and as a nursing mother I do struggle with cleavage at times.) Modesty was addressed in other issues and not just dress.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Peek a Boo]

Myrrh, I think that some of what you are saying makes sense. As a society, everything is oversexualized, especially women's (and girl's) clothing. Some people do need some guidelines when they don't have a clue. They are surrounded by the "normalcy" of this fallen world in Satan's control.

:iagree:

 

He wasn't naked. He was wearing his inner garment. It was a common practice to discard one's outer garment in times of great emotion. When David did this to celebrate his God's victory, his wife thought it was below his position of king. Interesting book. I can agree that the whole idea of a clergy class is extra-biblical.

 

yup.

[Peek a Boo]

Janet, ITA in the book of Acts when there was a decision to be made a small group of men met together, discussed it, and prayerfully made the decision. It was then handed on from them to all of the congregations.

 

sure. but just because one group decides A and another group decides B, that doesn't make one set of standards "better" or "more scripturally accurate" than the other.

 

There were a few guidelines. Avoid cleavage (further described as one should not see the fatty part of the breast), skirts should reach the knee, slits should be no higher than an acceptable hemline, skirts should hang straight down, not hugging the buttox, that was it for women. For men all I remember is keeping the pants at the natural waistline and not baggy, but it seems I am missing something. For both dressing in order to improve one's status (excessive jewelry, etc.) is not modest. I didn't seem shaming in the least, just guidelines to follow (and as a nursing mother I do struggle with cleavage at times.) Modesty was addressed in other issues and not just dress.

 

again: i agree that guidelines are fine and it is perfectly ok for people to decide that group A's guidelines suit them to a T. It's when those groups/guidelines start saying their guidelines are "better" or "more scripturally accurate" than the other. And one doesn't have to come right out and say that bluntly to get the point across either.

[Lovedtodeath]

Well, one would be hard pressed to say that guidelines of dress and grooming are more scriptural. I can agree with that.

 

I do feel that some scriptural guidelines apply. The point of the modesty scriptures was not to go into excess. (braiding of hair, etc.)

 

Their are also many guidelines for dress of God's people under the Mosaic Law. I would think that deciding that since we don't live under the law, then pajama pants, ripped jeans and bunny slippers are acceptable to wear for times or places of worship would be ignoring the principle behind those guidelines. I would further think that God's people whether under the Law or Christian are to be set apart as a special people for his name and they wouldn't copy every unwholesome trend that Satan's world comes up with.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[lionfamily1999]

Oh, I don't think it's funny, either. I find the shaming of women, sexual repression, the implication of some of these people that women cannot participate in the arts or sports without being immodest, etc to be highly disturbing. I find it just as disturbing as you do, but for different reasons. The fact that you, yourself, describe women as not liking sex is indicative of the repression going on. I don't dress particularly scantily but neither do I worry if I'm showing a little cleavage or pin every possible gap on my clothing closed. I am confident in how I look, I'm confident in my sexuality, I like sex. My husband would never have to worry about the 72 hour rule you describe. I think having a wife who is sexually repressed and cannot enjoy sex due to the mechanics of sexual repression would, ultimately, be a WAY bigger stumbling block for a man than a little cleavage.

(bold print added)

 

So, not to open ANOTHER can of worms, and I'm not being snarky--it's just an honest question: Are you saying if a man is regularly "satisfied" (every 72 hours, or whatever) then the cleavage/cracks/etc...that are commonly seen these days will be of no temptation to him since his needs are being met?

 

And, another question--why does dressing modestly make a person sexually repressed? I don't understand the connection.

 

Mrs. F, I think the idea is that a man that is satisfied at home is not going to stray. Of course, personally, I disagree with the implication that men MUST be gratified sexually or that sex is ALL that will satisfy men. They're just as likely to cheat for emotional reasons as women. Imo, the intimacy should not be narrowed down to just physical. Men want understanding and companionship as much as women. Imo, a man is more likely to stray from a lack of emotional intimacy than physical. As for being turned on by cracks and things... imo, once you've crossed into lust, you've crossed into adultery. People have to guard themselves against that, and not through laws or stoning. Self control, faith and trust in God are all you can count on there, most definitely nothing in the world is going to protect you from immodest sights.

 

It's not that modesty equals sexual repression, it's that ENFORCED modesty equals sexual repression. The laws in Iran concerning clothing for women, imo, equals repression. They're modesty laws, and it's not the modesty that makes it repression, it is the ENFORCEMENT.

 

 

I don't recall anyone on this thread advocating for legislating modesty. The crux of the argument (or at the least the one I was focusing on) was the virtue of modesty and what that looks like in practical terms in our day and culture. There are those arguing that it cannot be defined except each person for herself--in other words, it's all relative so no one can call anyone else immodest (or modest, for that matter)--and there are those saying that obeying the Bible's teaching of modesty can be carried out through generally agreed upon (for this day and age) practical guidelines (like not wearing clothing to deliberately draw attention to our bodies/sexuality, such as deliberately baring midriff, thighs, breasts, butt, or accentuating breasts and butts with skin tight clothing).

I went ahead and put the two things I was responding to above.

 

Now, if you want generally agreed upon terms, you'll have to stick with a particular group or church. Are you hoping that an entire country can come to generally agreed upon terms without enforcement??? Because, that's never going to happen. What is modest in Maine is not modest (rather uncomfortably dressed) in Hawaii. Why? Because the climate is very different, the society is very different, the culture is very different. I think the problem with generally agreed upon terms is that they assume that everyone everywhere will agree, and is in a position to agree. Someone in Phoenix might find the modest dress of someone from New England to be laughable, due to the mid day temps.

 

That's why modesty is a personal decision or the decision of one specific community (see a particular church). Because the world is full of variety and what is lewd, crude and socially unacceptable here is normal day to day behavior elsewhere. I, personally, would be more interested in courtesy and etiquette becoming nationalized than a dress code. Why? Because I'm more offended by the high pace, cold attitude I see elsewhere than I am what they're wearing. However, I know that's not something everyone would agree on, so I know I'll never take a trip to New York and get to see them all chatting with each other and behaving like we do here.

 

 

Well, one would be hard pressed to say that guidelines of dress and grooming are more scriptural. I can agree with that.

 

I do feel that some scriptural guidelines apply. The point of the modesty scriptures was not to go into excess. (braiding of hair, etc.)

 

Do you think that still applies, braiding hair? I'm curious because I have long unruly hair and it is so much tidier if I braid it... but I haven't done that on Sundays for fear I'd be breaking God's dress code (the church doesn't care, they're just glad I'm there).

Edited October 8, 2009 by lionfamily1999

[HRAAB]

Janet, ITA in the book of Acts when there was a decision to be made a small group of men met together, discussed it, and prayerfully made the decision. It was then handed on from them to all of the congregations.

 

Right. It wouldn't work between all denominations, though. I see you bolded all. I'll have to do some reading. Thanks.

 

We had a visit from a traveling servant at our Jehovah's Witness congregation. These traveling servants have the same material to share with all of the congregations (well, all of our public talks [same outline] and other studies [same study material, weekly Bible reading] are always the same worldwide if you get down to it). His talk discussed modesty as regards to our attitude and our dress. There were a few guidelines. Avoid cleavage (further described as one should not see the fatty part of the breast), skirts should reach the knee, slits should be no higher than an acceptable hemline, skirts should hang straight down, not hugging the buttox, that was it for women. For men all I remember is keeping the pants at the natural waistline and not baggy, but it seems I am missing something. For both dressing in order to improve one's status (excessive jewelry, etc.) is not modest. I didn't seem shaming in the least, just guidelines to follow (and as a nursing mother I do struggle with cleavage at times.) Modesty was addressed in other issues and not just dress.

 

 

I think that is perfectly acceptable. When I was reading Myrrh's post, I was thinking the entire Christian Church, and that's where I got stumped. If individual churches were to offer some helpful guidelines, I think that would be wise and probably very timely. I guess if an individual church wants to set specific requirements, they can do that. But then again the members can look for another church, right? Probably depends on the way the church believes on authority. General helpful guidelines, okay. Rules - not going to work.

 

Oh, and why are most talks, classes, whatever on modesty always directed at women? (Glad to see the one at your church included the males.) I have a few things I could say about the men. And I know girls look - cause I have girls. I agree men are more visual, but still...

 

Janet

[HRAAB]

personal convictions are pretty darn Biblical!

They just don't apply to EVERYone.

 

I hate to be dense, but I'm not understanding what you're saying. And I would like to. :) I was thinking of someone who has a very strong personal conviction, such as it's wrong for women to wear a sleeveless dress to church, it's still not Biblical.

 

Thanks,

Janet

[Lovedtodeath]

Do you think that still applies, braiding hair? I'm curious because I have long unruly hair and it is so much tidier if I braid it... but I haven't done that on Sundays for fear I'd be breaking God's dress code (the church doesn't care, they're just glad I'm there).

No. I am sorry I thought that it was implied/obvious. There is nothing wrong with braiding hair, which is why it is a good example. The reason hair braiding was in the scripture is that some Christian women were taking it to excess, making it into a show or contest. Jewelry and other things like that were mentioned in contrast to the quiet and mild spirit, to show that we are not to attach undue importance to these things. And that would go both ways wouldn't it?

 

I think that is perfectly acceptable. When I was reading Myrrh's post, I was thinking the entire Christian Church, and that's where I got stumped. If individual churches were to offer some helpful guidelines, I think that would be wise and probably very timely. I guess if an individual church wants to set specific requirements, they can do that. But then again the members can look for another church, right? Probably depends on the way the church believes on authority. General helpful guidelines, okay. Rules - not going to work.

 

Oh, and why are most talks, classes, whatever on modesty always directed at women? (Glad to see the one at your church included the males.) I have a few things I could say about the men. And I know girls look - cause I have girls. I agree men are more visual, but still...

 

Janet

Yes, there was quite a bit about males, but when they are required to wear a jacket and tie for worship it is hard to think of anything else. I know that they were encouraged to not copy the styles that we see pop stars and the such wearing. We were all encouraged to take in consideration the circumstances when we dress (suit and tie not appropriate for a volunteer construction job, where we might wear jeans, workboots, etc.).

 

Okay, when I saw you say that guidelines set forth for all Catholics I assumed that it would be understood that it would not be acceptable to "find another church", because then one would have to leave Catholicism. With Jehovah's Witnesses we can find another congregation within our organization, but the guidelines will not change. (We are usually encouraged to attend to the congregation that we are assigned to, it makes it easier to take care of all when disaster strikes.)

[lionfamily1999]

No. I am sorry I thought that it was implied/obvious. There is nothing wrong with braiding hair, which is why it is a good example. The reason hair braiding was in the scripture is that some Christian women were taking it to excess, making it into a show or contest. Jewelry and other things like that were mentioned in contrast to the quiet and mild spirit, to show that we are not to attach undue importance to these things. And that would go both ways wouldn't it?

 

I'm still learning and I wondered what it was God had against braids... Lol, it seems silly now, but my thought was, 'why would it be mentioned specifically unless it was important?'

 

So, braiding (scripterally) is used as an example of excessive concern with appearance, not that braiding is wrong, but it could be if you paid undue attention to it?

 

I do think that too much focus on modesty could be immodest. If you're too focused on your appearance (be it flashy or wall flower) then you aren't focusing where you SHOULD be focusing (ie God).

 

Sometimes it seems like you come in and straighten out the dissaray in my head, thank you Carmen :)

[HRAAB]

 

 

Okay, when I saw you say that guidelines set forth for all Catholics I assumed that it would be understood that it would not be acceptable to "find another church", because then one would have to leave Catholicism. With Jehovah's Witnesses we can find another congregation within our organization, but the guidelines will not change. (We are usually encouraged to attend to the congregation that we are assigned to, it makes it easier to take care of all when disaster strikes.)

 

I'm afraid I don't make myself very clear at times. I was thinking of non-denominational Protestants finding another church if they were unhappy with what their Pastor was teaching. My sil became very unhappy with her church and Pastor and eventually found another church to attend. That wouldn't work in the Catholic Church because the same teaching would still be there. Of course, someone can have an issue with a particular priest and might look for another parish, but the church still teaches the same thing. Traditionally Catholics have always attended the parish assigned to their area. That doesn't seem to be true much anymore, but my dh is very adamant that we attend the parish for the area we live in - so we do.

 

ETA: I think I just repeated what you said. Not enough sleep, not enough coffee. I'm putting on another pot.

 

Janet