Why do women show cleavage?

[mommaduck]

:lol: And the majority of us with cleavage would probably be a lot less attractive naked. If the whole world were a nudist colony we wouldn't have this problem would we?:tongue_smilie:

Very true...in some countries we have it backwards: covering the breasts and not the thighs (one is considered a means to feed a baby, the other is considered sexual).

[Lovedtodeath]

(I put the fleavage and teavage tags on... and took them off, I was scared of repercussions.)

 

Yes!! VERY clever! Look, some of us have them and some of us don't. Some like to show them and some of us won't. Some think they make men stumble and some think they don't.

 

Whatever.

Hey, I am having a lot of fun with this thread! Leave me alone.

[Myrrh]

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."

[mommaduck]

Mu-mu's?? ;) :D :lol:

Flashbacks! Mu-mu's and kulottes were popular in the Pacific when I was a kid. Don't knock the mu-mu's or kulottes...unless the kulottes are made of polyester (ugh!!!!).

[8circles]

Very true. And yet I keep seeing people talking about why they show cleavage, intentionally or inadvertently, and others keep shoutin' 'em on down:

 

"I have a hard time finding shirts that fit my tomes" -- "I/All my family members with tomes can find clothes to cover themselves, why can't you?"

 

"I like my cleavage, and I'm comfortable with it and how I look" -- "Women who intentionally show cleavage are only interested in displaying their sexual power and only find worth in their sexuality."

 

"I'm not a Christian, so the Biblical verses regarding immodesty don't apply to me" -- See above.

 

Yes, it's great to have discussions and gather perspective. Many here are not interested in perspective. They're only interested in denigrating people who think and feel differently than they do.

 

So often in these threads, I see our poor, savage, weak, put-upon men put on pedestals and tenderly "protected" and shielded, and other women given no quarter and thrown into the muck--no grace extended, no talk about the "plank in your own eye." Where are the personal responsibility advocates that I'm forever seeing on this board when we have these discussions about our husbands stumbling?

 

You know what I keep wondering when I read these threads here? Why are we not talking about why women wear makeup? Shave their legs and armpits? Wear nice clothing for no real reason when they go out? Wear strappy sandals and keep their feet nice and their toes and fingers neat and polished up? If we don't want to feel like we look nice and attractive when we go out in public, why not only do these things for our husbands? Why not wear our comfy sweatpants and bleach-stained favorite shirts everywhere we go, with our hair in sloppy ponytails and our fresh-from-the-shower faces? I dress nicely and put on eyeliner and nice shoes and fix my hair when I go out, and I'm trying to lose 50 pounds because I think the extra weight I'm carrying makes me look less attractive. Does this make a whore who only feels value in my sexuality? It's not because I want your husband leering at me from across the checkout stand in the grocery store. I want to look nice when ANYONE looks at me. I want men and women both to look at me in the store and think what an attractive person I am. Ladies, lock up your men, because here I come!!!

 

melissel, you said it perfectly.

 

Since there are so many ladies here who seem to be much better at finding garments for those of us with encyclopedias, if anyone is aware of a store that stocks undergarments in size 32K (yes, you read that correctly, 32K) I'd be just thrilled. I know I'll still have to alter it myself since I'm not quite 5'2" & it will have been sewn assuming that I would be an amazon woman, it would still be great to at least have the cup & band size correct. TIA!

[Ibbygirl]

Flashbacks! Mu-mu's and kulottes were popular in the Pacific when I was a kid. Don't knock the mu-mu's or kulottes...unless the kulottes are made of polyester (ugh!!!!).

 

ROFL how do you think I would even KNOW about mu-mu's if my grandma didn't live in them?? lol We used to get her a new one every year for a Christmas present. :D

[melissel]

And that having found my way back to him (or rather, having been found), I yearn for holiness.

 

Then by all means, you should strive for it. Just watch out for the holier-than-thou part. 'Cause I'm pretty sure we are sinners all, no?

[mommaduck]

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."

It stated that "men need sex every 72 hours".

[Slartibartfast]

And then came sin and shame and we covered ourselves. We're not in Eden anymore, Toto.

 

Yes but the sin isn't the nakey, it's the noticing. :tongue_smilie:

[mommaduck]

ROFL how do you think I would even KNOW about mu-mu's if my grandma didn't live in them?? lol We used to get her a new one every year for a Christmas present. :D

Or the infamous "housecoat dress". You know, those cotton nighties with a zipper up the front, large pockets, and grannies have no problem going to the store or drive thru's with curlers in their hair...

[OnTheBrink]

You know, it is entirely possible to have a different point of view without it denigrating anyone else's humanity.

 

And, I'm sorry, but saying this thread "clamps the shackles of mysogyny" made me laugh. Why is it women are expected to be in some sort of "camp" or "one-mindedness" simply because we're women? To me, that just reeks of the extreme feminist mindset, and I just don't subscribe to it. As far as oppression? Please. In the US, you can wear pretty much anything you want wherever you want and unless you're completely nude, no one of any consequence will bat an eye. In a society where we can see Brittney Spears vag*na in a photo spread (pun not intended), there is no oppression of women by dress.

[mommaduck]

You know, it is entirely possible to have a different point of view without it denigrating anyone else's humanity.

 

And, I'm sorry, but saying this thread "clamps the shackles of mysogyny" made me laugh. Why is it women are expected to be in some sort of "camp" or "one-mindedness" simply because we're women? To me, that just reeks of the extreme feminist mindset, and I just don't subscribe to it. As far as oppression? Please. In the US, you can wear pretty much anything you want wherever you want and unless you're completely nude, no one of any consequence will bat an eye. In a society where we can see Brittney Spears vag*na in a photo spread (pun not intended), there is no oppression of women by dress.

Precisely. But there are plenty of accusations of bondage and legalism instead of choice when a woman actually chooses otherwise.

[mommaduck]

Yes but the sin isn't the nakey, it's the noticing. :tongue_smilie:

I don't recall that being the sin.

[Mrs Mungo]

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.

 

Woah. Maybe they should try looking a little alluring.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Woah. Maybe they should try looking a little alluring.

:lol::hurray::smilielol5::smilielol5::svengo:

[mommaduck]

Woah. Maybe they should try looking a little alluring.

You can't be alluring and not show cleavage?

[Mrs Mungo]

Precisely. But there are plenty of accusations of bondage and legalism instead of choice when a woman actually chooses otherwise.

 

I disagree, at least in this thread. I only see charges of legalism where it applies to assigning motive to *other women* and judging *other women*. What you decide for yourself is peachy. You feel convicted not to show cleavage? Fine and dandy. You think it's immodest, slutty, un-Biblical to show cleavage? You're being legalistic.

[Lovedtodeath]

You can't be alluring and not show cleavage?

Isn't the point of not showing cleavage to avoid being alluring?

[Mrs Mungo]

You can't be alluring and not show cleavage?

 

Sure you can. I said so earlier in the thread. That's my whole point in this modesty argument, you can look alluring under all sorts of circumstances, modesty is a red herring.

[Myrrh]

It stated that "men need sex every 72 hours".

 

I don't recall it being stated that way in the book, but our copy is at my husband's work (he keeps a library there) so I can't verify that. When I searched for "seventy two" in the online manuscript on google books, this is what it said:

 

"Two seminal vesicles (small sacs containing semen) gradually fill to capacity; as maximum level is reached, hormonal influences sensitize the man to all sexual stimuli.

 

For most men, this build up to heightened sexual desire takes only about seventy-two hours."

[OnTheBrink]

I disagree, at least in this thread. I only see charges of legalism where it applies to assigning motive to *other women* and judging *other women*. What you decide for yourself is peachy. You feel convicted not to show cleavage? Fine and dandy. You think it's immodest, slutty, un-Biblical to show cleavage? You're being legalistic.

 

Wrong. Forcing someone else to adhere to your conviction is legalistic. Shaming someone into adhering to your conviction is legalistic. Having a conviction, an opinion, is not. Sharing that conviction or opinion is not.

[Slartibartfast]

I don't recall that being the sin.

 

He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?

 

:lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

Wrong. Forcing someone else to adhere to your conviction is legalistic. Shaming someone into adhering to your conviction is legalistic. Having a conviction, an opinion, is not. Sharing that conviction or opinion is not.

 

How is it NOT shaming women to "share your opinion" that cleavage is un-Biblical, immodest, slutty, etc?

 

eta:

Sharing your conviction looks like this: I prefer not to show cleavage, it isn't something I'm comfortable with.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Mrs Mungo

[Myrrh]

Yes but the sin isn't the nakey, it's the noticing. :tongue_smilie:

 

Being naked in view of others invites the noticing. It's actually a more controlling move than guarding our bodies with clothing.

[Lovedtodeath]

Being naked in view of others invites the noticing. It's actually a more controlling move than guarding our bodies with clothing.

Sis was talking about the original sin.

[melissel]

You know, it is entirely possible to have a different point of view without it denigrating anyone else's humanity.

 

There surely is. It's not the different points of view that I have a problem with. It's the attribution of a specific intent to every woman who shows more than the "allowable" amount of cleavage that I have a problem with. Has anyone written than SOP yet???

 

And, I'm sorry, but saying this thread "clamps the shackles of mysogyny" made me laugh. Why is it women are expected to be in some sort of "camp" or "one-mindedness" simply because we're women? To me, that just reeks of the extreme feminist mindset, and I just don't subscribe to it.

 

I don't think this thread clamps anything. I think the views expressed by many in this thread do, though. Personally, I'd rather hang together with my fellow women and men who reserve judgment on others (both "slutty" women and "weak-willed" men), extreme feminists or not.

 

As far as oppression? Please. In the US, you can wear pretty much anything you want wherever you want and unless you're completely nude, no one of any consequence will bat an eye. In a society where we can see Brittney Spears vag*na in a photo spread (pun not intended), there is no oppression of women by dress.

 

And thank goodness for that! Whale-bone corsets and parasols are SO not my style. There may not be oppression, but there sure is plenty of acrimony.

[Myrrh]

The generalizations from the other side are actually more sweeping than the ones from the pro-modesty crowd.

 

Shame can actually be a good thing (psychologists even admit this). Condemnation is where it turns ugly.

 

I'm the last one to be holier than thou, as you would know if you read every comment I've put on this thread.

 

This whole "dialogue" is somewhat amusing to me since I'm in the more feminist camp among evangelical women, yet here I'm being made to sound patrio-centric (something I've even ranted against on these boards).

Edited October 6, 2009 by Myrrh
typos, half a glass of red wine

[Lovedtodeath]

I'm the last one to be holier than thou, as you would know if you read every comment I've put on this thread.

I have made comments for both sides too.;)

[Mrs Mungo]

The generalizations from the other side are actually more sweeping than the ones from the pro-modesty crowd.

 

Examples?

 

Shame can actually be a good thing (psychologists even admit this). Condemnation is where it turns ugly.

 

Shame that you personally feel yourself and *shaming* other grown women are two very different things.

 

I'm the last one to be holier than thou, as you would know if you read every comment I've put on this thread.

 

How you are and how your posts are coming across are not the same thing. And I've read the entire thread.

 

This whole "dialogue" is somewhat amusing to me since I'm in the more feminist camp among evangelical women, yet here I'm being made to sound patrio-centric (something I've even ranted against on these boards).

 

This really depends upon your circle and your church. I've been accused of being on both ends of the spectrum, depending on the setting.

[OnTheBrink]

How is it NOT shaming women to "share your opinion" that cleavage is un-Biblical, immodest, slutty, etc?

 

So, what you're saying is, if someone has a different world view, or opinion, their views and opinions are shaming? Opinions different than yours are automatically wrong, shaming, oppressive and mysogynic? Do you really believe that?

[Lovedtodeath]

Now you have me doing a search for all of Myrrh's posts. Good grief. (I have been holding a sicky while on here, lest I be judged for that.)

 

Okay, she didn't make comments for both sides. But she did say that being legalistic is worse than being immodest. That's something!

Edited October 6, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

 

So, what you're saying is, if someone has a different world view, or opinion, their views and opinions are shaming? Opinions different than yours are automatically wrong, shaming, oppressive and mysogynic? Do you really believe that?

I have enough self confidence now that I don't find it shaming. I guess I would have in the past.

[secular_mom]

Or the infamous "housecoat dress". You know, those cotton nighties with a zipper up the front, large pockets, and grannies have no problem going to the store or drive thru's with curlers in their hair...

 

My Nanny called them 'Dusters'. :001_smile:

[Mrs Mungo]

So, what you're saying is, if someone has a different world view, or opinion, their views and opinions are shaming? Opinions different than yours are automatically wrong, shaming, oppressive and mysogynic? Do you really believe that?

 

Clarification:

 

IMO sharing your conviction looks like this: I don't show cleavage because it isn't something I'm comfortable with, I prefer more body privacy.

 

In other words, the statement is about YOU.

 

IMO being judgy (shaming, oppressive, misogynistic) looks like this: Women who show cleavage are just using their power over men. Women who show cleavage are immodest. I heard 2 elementary aged school boys talking about who they think is slutty, women take note!

 

In other words, the statements are about OTHERS.

[OnTheBrink]

 

And thank goodness for that! Whale-bone corsets and parasols are SO not my style. There may not be oppression, but there sure is plenty of acrimony.

 

There is always going to be acrimony. This is a world of human beings, with flaws, issues, opinions, beliefs, convictions. There will never be 100% agreement on any given topic, ever. Utopia is a myth.

[MIch elle]

I thought of this thread today while at our co-op. A ninth grade girl was wearing a *very* low cut top, and showing very defined cleavage (methinks a pushup bra was likely involved as well). I almost posted the other day that cleavage didn't bother me much, but I have to say, it bothered me today. It seemed wrong in a girl that young, in a homeschool co-op setting. More than anything, I felt sorry for her, because I think it's likely that she didn't know what message she was sending. :(

 

A young lady that sings in the choir with me is 16 yo and she shows WAY too much cleavage for church, imho!

[mommaduck]

Sure you can. I said so earlier in the thread. That's my whole point in this modesty argument, you can look alluring under all sorts of circumstances, modesty is a red herring.

Okay, wasn't sure where you were you coming from. Some people actually believe, or act as though they believe, that this is an impossibility.

[mommaduck]

Sis, it was the disobeying Gd that was the sin, not noticing they were naked.

[OnTheBrink]

Clarification:

 

IMO sharing your conviction looks like this: I don't show cleavage because it isn't something I'm comfortable with, I prefer more body privacy.

 

In other words, the statement is about YOU.

 

IMO being judgy (shaming, oppressive, misogynistic) looks like this: Women who show cleavage are just using their power over men. Women who show cleavage are immodest. I heard 2 elementary aged school boys talking about who they think is slutty, women take note!

 

In other words, the statements are about OTHERS.

 

And, what I was talking about was sharing convictions. I have not personally insulted anyone in this thread about their clothing choices; I've talked about MY feelings. Yet, the broad, sweeping statements that if you choose modest dress, you're oppressed, mysogynistic, shaming, legalistic, judgmental, etc.

[Slartibartfast]

I have enough self confidence now that I don't find it shaming. I guess I would have in the past.

 

Yeah..I am not so sure the young teens being discussed in this thread do.

 

:(

 

It is a bit sad.

[Lovedtodeath]

To me being legalistic is having "laws" about dress: No cleavage, skirts must meet the knee, no shorts, hair must be a certain length, etc.

 

Saying that we should be modest in our dress so as to not draw attention or be alluring is not legalistic.

 

I guess I could be off as to what the term legalistic means.

[Lovedtodeath]

Yeah..I am not so sure the young teens being discussed in this thread do.

 

:(

 

It is a bit sad.

They are reading this thread?!:eek:

[Ibbygirl]

Or the infamous "housecoat dress". You know, those cotton nighties with a zipper up the front, large pockets, and grannies have no problem going to the store or drive thru's with curlers in their hair...

 

lol Those I'm not familiar with. My grandma was the only one that wore the mu-mu's. My aunts used to get dressed to the 9's to go to the grocery store. :confused: lol Actually, the mu-mu's that my grandma used to wear were actually quite nice (in spite of being polyester) they had nice prints on them and she always had her hair, nails and make-up done when she went out. Although they were "house dresses" she would dress them up with a pin or what not and they didn't look bad on her. :) Ay abuelita... mi loquita! ;) :D

[Mrs Mungo]

And, what I was talking about was sharing convictions. I have not personally insulted anyone in this thread about their clothing choices; I've talked about MY feelings.

 

I didn't name you and haven't seen anyone who has. Here are some specific quotes that I view as legalistic/judging instead of sharing:

 

there are many that do it on purpose and we have to be real about this..it's all about ATTENTION!

To me, it says, I have books and that is what makes me..well, me. My worth depends on my bosoms. I am not intelligent enough to get your attention through conversation so just look at my boobs.

I think it's about power. Some women believe their "power" is in how they attract males (regardless of intentions) by "accentuating" their feminine charms. True strength lies in dignified humility.

I was in a MOPS meeting where a woman spoke about overhearing her older elementary aged sons' discussing which mothers in church dressed the most "slutty." They were comparing several women based on how short their dresses were or lowcut their blouses. This brings me to another point:

 

What we wear sets the example for what our daughters and other people's daughters.

 

Back to the quote from SolaMichella:

Yet, the broad, sweeping statements that if you choose modest dress, you're oppressed, mysogynistic, shaming, legalistic, judgmental, etc.

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. Edited October 6, 2009 by Mrs Mungo

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I didn't name you and haven't seen anyone who has. Here are some specific quotes that I view as legalistic/judging instead of sharing: I haven't seen any posts judging the women who choose to dress modestly for their convictions.

:iagree:

[Slartibartfast]

They are reading this thread?!:eek:

 

Do they need to be? I could certainly tell when people were looking down their nose at me as a teen.

[OnTheBrink]

To me being legalistic is having "laws" about dress: No cleavage, skirts must meet the knee, no shorts, hair must be a certain length, etc.

 

Saying that we should be modest in our dress so as to not draw attention or be alluring is not legalistic.

 

I guess I could be off as to what the term legalistic means.

 

My EXMIL believes that you're hell-bound if:

 

You cut your hair

Wear make-up

Wear clothing of anything but cotton or linen

Your sleeves don't come to your wrists

Your skirt doesn't touch your ankles

Your head is uncovered

 

I could go on, but these are just her beliefs regarding clothing. Now, THAT is legalistic. In her mind, I'm not saved and doomed to hell. If I started dressing this way, and never, ever changed anything else I believed, I'd be saved, according to her. That is legalism, in the extreme.

[Lovedtodeath]

Do they need to be? I could certainly tell when people were looking down their nose at me as a teen.

oh, gotcha!

[Mrs Mungo]

My EXMIL believes that you're hell-bound if:

 

You cut your hair

Wear make-up

Wear clothing of anything but cotton or linen

Your sleeves don't come to your wrists

Your skirt doesn't touch your ankles

Your head is uncovered

 

I could go on, but these are just her beliefs regarding clothing. Now, THAT is legalistic. In her mind, I'm not saved and doomed to hell. If I started dressing this way, and never, ever changed anything else I believed, I'd be saved, according to her. That is legalism, in the extreme.

 

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

[justamouse]

Wow! I am not impressed what I've read about Every Man's Battle. I can't figure where they would get the 72 hour rule, because it certainly would not apply here.

 

 

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. And yes, I'm very familiar with them as my, yes Christian, grandmother gave me her already read ones from the time I was 12. They created an unrealistic view of relationships and sex even though they were quite entertaining (and not just the sex...many of these authors do a fair amount of historical research on events, people, and costuming). Personally, I think the stories can be just as entertaining without the sexual details ;)

 

 

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?