LisaKinVA Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Oh how timely... my brother gave me a booklet for Christmas called, Christian Modesty. (One of his many not-so-subtle efforts to chastise the way my dh and I choose to rear our family) Some quotes and conclusions, "I've taken the time to unfold these words a bit [modesty, shamefacedness, sobriety, et. al.], because therea re ministers today who take Paul's words as applying only to luxurious, expensive, or gaudy clothing in church. Their point is that such clothing would "distract" in the worship services.....but these men overlook or ignore the seual aspect that is clearly in Paul's mind, "While his remarks conform broadly to the conventional diatribe against female extravagance, what is probably foremost in his mind is the impropriety of women exploiting their physical charms on such occasions, and also the emotional disturbance they are liable to cause their male fellow worshipers." This section goes on to explain that the woman's dress is to manifest a "proper relationship to men as regards to the question of authority." The next section talks about what this "fashion" means COVERED meaning, and I quote, the Biblical model suggest a standard of at least neck-to-below the knee."(possibly mid-calf to ankle), followed by several sections on swimwear, and tight clothing. Everything I have read (and I have had a LOT thrust my way in this regard) in the Christian Modesty Movement is directed at the women dressing in such a way as to avoid causing MEN to stumble. By doing this, they show respect for themselves and their position UNDER the authority of men. Off topic vent: Frankly, I'm really tired of receiving books and booklets on parenthood, marriage, modesty, and submission from my brother. I find these gifts to be rather inappropriate. I am not his responsibility to school, to chastise, or otherwise instruct. My dh and I view my girls as dressed modestly. They wear appropriately fitting clothing. Just because they don't wear blouses up to their necks and sacks to their ankles for dresses, in addition to yoga pants underneath does not make them dressed inappropriately. We are teaching our girls (and boys) that beauty comes from within... that they need to dress appropriate for the weather, their body-type, and occasion. As they grow (and the opposite sex becomes more interesting), we will be talking about the whole person, interests and personality. I do hope my girls don't focus on being "hot," because that does focus (imho) on just the body -- apart from their brain and personality -- but I also want them to be healthy and fit, too. The body is just one part of the whole package, and they want someone to love ALL of them, not just the parts that may disappear with age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Off topic vent: Frankly, I'm really tired of receiving books and booklets on parenthood, marriage, modesty, and submission from my brother. I find these gifts to be rather inappropriate. I am not his responsibility to school, to chastise, or otherwise instruct. My dh and I view my girls as dressed modestly. They wear appropriately fitting clothing. Just because they don't wear blouses up to their necks and sacks to their ankles for dresses, in addition to yoga pants underneath does not make them dressed inappropriately. I'm tired of people like you have to believe a bunch of extra-Biblical hooey in order to be a real Christian. :glare: I'm sorry you have to deal with that. Someone would get kicked in the shins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ. Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I have followed this thread the past couple days but just now read the attached article. Two things really stuck out at me. The first is this quote: Hotness, on the other hand, is a commodity. Its value is temporary and must be used. It is a consumable. What is the author saying here? Hot girls "must be used"!? They are consumable? I don't even know what to say. :rolleyes: At the end of the article the author seems to be saying Taylor Swift is "pretty" while Megan Fox and Miley Cyrus are "hot." Perhaps this is just an aesthetic personal preference on his part - curvy = hot; not curvy = pretty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Oh how timely... my brother gave me a booklet for Christmas called, Christian Modesty. (One of his many not-so-subtle efforts to chastise the way my dh and I choose to rear our family) Perhaps, for his birthday, you could give your brother a pamphlet called, Mind Your Own Business. Just a suggestion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Perhaps, for his birthday, you could give your brother a pamphlet called, Mind Your Own Business. Just a suggestion... :lol: MYOB is a biblical concept! I Thessalonians 4:11 "Make it your goal to live a quiet life, minding your own business and working with your hands, just as we instructed you before." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaKinVA Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Perhaps, for his birthday, you could give your brother a pamphlet called, Mind Your Own Business. Just a suggestion... Made me LOL :D I would, but I really try to keep the peace. He's got a lot he's dealing with in his own house... his way of life is coming back to bite him in the arse, without my assistance. Kind of sad, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 :lol: MYOB is a biblical concept! I Thessalonians 4:11 "Make it your goal to live a quiet life, minding your own business and working with your hands, just as we instructed you before." Oooh, we should write a pamphlet! That would come in handy during those bean dip moments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirth Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I want my ds to grow up treating all women with respect, whether they look "hot" or "pretty" or "completely unattractive." Yes. A point lost on the author. Finally read it. Article boils down to: "there are attractive girls who look like they're just givin' it away, and those (also attractive) it's way harder to get it from. Try to part of the latter group. Btw, attractiveness in women is mandatory. If you are unattractive, I am not really talking to you." Gag. Anyone feel like the author must've been passed over for a job writing copy for Love's Baby Soft cologne, but never got over it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Oooh, we should write a pamphlet! That would come in handy during those bean dip moments. :D Good idea! Also useful at the front door for times when the "No Soliciting" sign and the bulldog fail to deter religious and/or political strangers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 :D Good idea! Also useful at the front door for times when the "No Soliciting" sign and the bulldog fail to deter religious and/or political strangers. You just need a bigger dog. ;) :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Florida Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I think we're forgetting one important thing in this discussion, and that is the idea that we all have our own individual definitions of what constitutes pretty vs hot, and modest vs immodest. And, I would argue, we all have to work with what we've got. For example, I read one time that pop artist Jessica Simpson originally tried to make a career as a Christian singer. However, she ran into trouble because the powers that were kept saying she was "too sexy." They tried dressing her more and more "modestly," in long skirts and shapeless jackets, but then people complained that she looked dowdy. Eventually, they realized that what those label people were saying was that her shape was wrong for the Christian market: her breasts were too big, and, to paraphrase what I remember her father saying, "You can't cover those suckers up." So, she ended up walking away from the Christian-focused labels and ended up making it as a pop star. My daughter has a similar challenge, although we're not Christians. Because of the way she is built, she has to decide between covering up -- which results in her looking lumpy -- and wearing clothing that fits -- which shows off her "assets" more than some folks (including her father) would like. However, she's 17 and has never been on a date or been kissed (except on stage). Her behavior (except perhaps for her "language") would pass most tests the modesty advocates could devise. So, honestly, I'm a whole lot more concerned about her character than about what she wears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mama2Many4 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Catwoman said: And I completely agree. No one is to blame for another's actions. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, but I thought you were Catholic. As a Catholic you can't choose to pick what parts of the faith you want to follow, and throw the rest out. It doesn't work that way. If you dress in a way that causes another to have impure thoughts, whether it be man or woman, you are sinning by causing them to sin. http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=647 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mama2Many4 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I thought I had mentioned it. cd, You admit to wearing pants, so insisting that *I* am ignoring Biblical ideas of modesty is pretty weird. Many, many people point to Deuteronomy 22:5 as outlawing pants for Christian women. You disagree? Are you using your own judgment there? Might that smack a little of relativism to some? Umm, this bible verse is due to the fact that men and women who partook in pagan worship would dress against the law to rebel against it. Therefore women would shave their heads and men would dress like women and ornately decorate their hair with jewels. It has nothing to do at all with a woman wearing pants to look like a man. It takes more than wearing pants to look like a man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I happen to be a very visual female, so clearly I am wired wrong and am unqualified to answer the question. How would you classify this woman? Pretty? Hot? Immodest? Elegant? *I* think she has covered the essential bits, but I'm thinking in this crowd, the midriff may be her undoing? I'm sorry, but this is prettier than a denim jumper. It just IS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caitilin Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, but I thought you were Catholic. As a Catholic you can't choose to pick what parts of the faith you want to follow, and throw the rest out. It doesn't work that way. If you dress in a way that causes another to have impure thoughts, whether it be man or woman, you are sinning by causing them to sin. http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=647 Luckily for me, you remember incorrectly. However, the CCC does not, as I understand it, legislate the length or, umm, breadth of one's clothing. :001_smile: Other people's impure thoughts are their sin, not mine, especially if I have no contact with said hypothetical individuals except to walk past them. :confused: And, FTR, my daughters and I all dress in a way which our many conservative Catholic friends find perfectly within the bounds of their views on modesty. In addition, it is both rude and unbiblical to chastise one's fellow Christians in a public forum for (perceived) lapses in faith or morals. I believe Paul directs believers to go to the person quietly and point our his failing? :D Edited January 4, 2012 by Caitilin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mama2Many4 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Luckily for me, you remember incorrectly. However, the CCC does not, as I understand it, legislate the length or, umm, breadth of one's clothing. :001_smile: Other people's impure thoughts are their sin, not mine, especially if I have no contact with said hypothetical individuals except to walk past them. :confused:And, FTR, my daughters and I all dress in a way which our many conservative Catholic friends find perfectly within the bounds of their views on modesty. Okay, my bad on your faith. True the Church does not have a formal law passed on this topic, but it is expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Umm, this bible verse is due to the fact that men and women who partook in pagan worship would dress against the law to rebel against it. Therefore women would shave their heads and men would dress like women and ornately decorate their hair with jewels. It has nothing to do at all with a woman wearing pants to look like a man. It takes more than wearing pants to look like a man. Are you agreeing with me? Because you seem to be saying it has a cultural context. You are making my argument for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kathymuggle Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I happen to be a very visual female, so clearly I am wired wrong and am unqualified to answer the question. How would you classify this woman? Pretty? Hot? Immodest? Elegant? *I* think she has covered the essential bits, but I'm thinking in this crowd, the midriff may be her undoing? I'm sorry, but this is prettier than a denim jumper. It just IS. I just asked 3 males - 43, 18 and 16. 43: elegant 18: (not my son!) what does immodest mean? Oh? Then she is modest 16: pretty and hot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kathymuggle Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I don't really like the term pretty or hot. Pretty can be superficial and hot seems like it is "for mens benefit." I like beautiful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I thought I had mentioned it. cd, You admit to wearing pants, so insisting that *I* am ignoring Biblical ideas of modesty is pretty weird. Many, many people point to Deuteronomy 22:5 as outlawing pants for Christian women. You disagree? Are you using your own judgment there? Might that smack a little of relativism to some? MM, I didn't insist you are ignoring Biblical ideas of modesty. We're having two different conversations. I'm not part of a modesty movement that denigrates women into dressing a certain way. I am part of a modesty movement that takes other people into consideration. We're talking about two different things. And, your remark regarding how my views aren't correct just because you think I claim they are also applies to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 And, I would argue, we all have to work with what we've got. I don't think I was arguing with you. :001_smile: My point was that I could view a woman as pretty and modest, while a very conservative person might view that exact same woman as being "hot" (in the unflattering context,) trashy, and very immodest. It's all relative. I definitely agree with you that you have to work with what you're given, and certain body types (like your dd's) seem to attract attention with no effort whatsoever -- and I absolutely agree that a woman's character is far more important than what she wears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 a woman's character is far more important than what she wears. Many people believe a person's character is reflected in what he or she chooses to wear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carpe Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I have followed this thread the past couple days but just now read the attached article. Two things really stuck out at me. The first is this quote: What is the author saying here? Hot girls "must be used"!? They are consumable? I don't even know what to say. :rolleyes: At the end of the article the author seems to be saying Taylor Swift is "pretty" while Megan Fox and Miley Cyrus are "hot." Perhaps this is just an aesthetic personal preference on his part - curvy = hot; not curvy = pretty? Or pretty girls wear their hair up and hot girls leave it down :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxbridgeacademy Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Am I the only one that was flabbergasted that he wasn't calling for women to BE more innocent, or less slutty, just to LOOK less slutty? Nope, that was my issue with the whole article. It's all about "public image". To much worrying about what the neighbors will think. I believe in honesty. Also when comparing Taylor Swift to Megan Fox or Miley Cyrus my 16 y.o. brother would say they're all three "hot" hair up or down. Edited January 5, 2012 by foxbridgeacademy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 MM, I didn't insist you are ignoring Biblical ideas of modesty. We're having two different conversations. I'm not part of a modesty movement that denigrates women into dressing a certain way. I am part of a modesty movement that takes other people into consideration. Then you are discussing aomething other than the modesty movement that inspires articles such as the one in the OP. Why defend that one? We're talking about two different things. And, your remark regarding how my views aren't correct just because you think I claim they are also applies to you. Of course it does. That is why I provided evidence to support my opinion. My argument is based upon the thought that there is a lot of gray due to the multicultural nature of US society. Your argument (as I understand it) is that no such gray exists or is possible. Can you back that up with something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherE Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Many people believe a person's character is reflected in what he or she chooses to wear. Many people aren't that superficial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Many people believe a person's character is reflected in what he or she chooses to wear. While I admit that I've been guilty of making assumptions based on a person's appearance (and have usually been completely wrong,) I think it's narrow-minded to believe that a person's character is reflected in what she chooses to wear. I've met plenty of very conservatively-dressed women who looked like they'd be the Ultimate Christians, yet they turned out to be mean and two-faced. I have also known some women who wore tight, revealing clothes who were honest, decent, and wonderful people. I don't think the clothes you wear determine whether or not you're a good person. I do, however, think it's easier to get people to assume you're a good person if you dress in a certain way, and that it's easier to get them to assume you're the town tramp if you dress in another way, but I also know from experience that those assumptions and snap judgments aren't always accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I don't really like the term pretty or hot. Pretty can be superficial and hot seems like it is "for mens benefit." I like beautiful. I like beautiful, too, but you realize that you've just added a whole new term for people to argue about, right? ;):D Throw "gorgeous" into the mix, and we'll be here for a week. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxbridgeacademy Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I happen to be a very visual female, so clearly I am wired wrong and am unqualified to answer the question. How would you classify this woman? Pretty? Hot? Immodest? Elegant? *I* think she has covered the essential bits, but I'm thinking in this crowd, the midriff may be her undoing? I'm sorry, but this is prettier than a denim jumper. It just IS. I would call her "lovely" or even "beautiful" I would call the costume/dress stunning, but I'm a sucker for shiny.;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Then you are discussing aomething other than the modesty movement that inspires articles such as the one in the OP. Why defend that one? Of course it does. That is why I provided evidence to support my opinion. My argument is based upon the thought that there is a lot of gray due to the multicultural nature of US society. Your argument (as I understand it) is that no such gray exists or is possible. Can you back that up with something? I had previously read the article, as it was forwarded to me by our violin teacher (who dresses modestly and is the purest soul I've ever met). You are purposely misunderstanding the author, as his point was the same as mine. And, I must remember that non-scientific surveys conducted on websites are now considered "evidence" to support one's contention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Many people aren't that superficial. Superficial mean only concerned with outward appearance. That isn't what the modesty movement is about. Tell me, do you dress up for interviews, or to go to church, or to go to a funeral? If you do, I believe it's out of respect. So is dressing modestly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarreymere Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Many people believe a person's character is reflected in what he or she chooses to wear. I think that comment is interesting. I know I tend to unconsciously accept the message that someone's style of dress is sending me and it does color my opinion of that person. I know when I choose my own style of dress I do so in hopes that it reflects how I want myself to be seen......of course I think of how I am viewed in more positive terms, like 'wearing a denim pencil skirt and fitted t-shirt means I want to be seen as contemporary but not trendy, ect' but could also send a negative message to someone else like 'skirt too tight or too short, hint of cleavage at the neckline is unpleasant in a woman over forty....ect'. I don't think I tend to think of how other people dress in the most positive way...and I wonder if maybe other people dress in ways that they think show them positively but might be interpreted sometimes in a more negative way. And I wonder if those people were aware of the more negative viewpoint would they care? Would they change? Maybe, maybe not. Should they? No, I don't think anyone should have to change their look, as long as they are aware that some folks may not view them the way they would like to be viewed. That said, there have been many times out at the local Walmart that I wished for a universal burqa law for both men and women..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I had previously read the article, as it was forwarded to me by our violin teacher (who dresses modestly and is the purest soul I've ever met). You are purposely misunderstanding the author, as his point was the same as mine. I am not misunderstanding, purposely or otherwise. I have a different opinion than you about the motivations behind such articles. That is not the same as misunderstanding. And, I must remember that non-scientific surveys conducted on websites are now considered "evidence" to support one's contention. For the purposes of examining the motivations of such polls, only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I just asked 3 males - 43, 18 and 16. 43: elegant 18: (not my son!) what does immodest mean? Oh? Then she is modest 16: pretty and hot So we agree that NOBODY can agree . . . even those driven completely by sight and testosterone. I happen to think the sari is stunning . . .even a little understated because I think it's a wedding sari, but I don't find the midriff to be a shocking, immodest body part. In fact, I find an exposed stomach to be less risqué than a neckline that plunges own to your belly button (no matter how curvy you are or aren't, Taylor). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Or pretty girls wear their hair up and hot girls leave it down :lol: Well, I'm going to go dye my hair right now because obviously brunette girls are hot and blondes are pretty. I mean... that was the point of the article, right? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Many people aren't that superficial. Or ignorant. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 ...obviously brunette girls are hot and blondes are pretty. I mean... that was the point of the article, right? ;) That's what I keep telling everyone, anyway... ;) (Hey, when I was a blonde I had to touch up my dark roots every 2 weeks! The whole "brunettes are hot" thing totally works for me. :tongue_smilie:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 That's what I keep telling everyone, anyway... ;) (Hey, when I was a blonde I had to touch up my dark roots every 2 weeks! The whole "brunettes are hot" thing totally works for me. :tongue_smilie:) Hey! If I do brunette with blonde highlights, I can cover both bases! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Hey! If I do brunette with blonde highlights, I can cover both bases! :lol: That's GENIUS! Pure GENIUS!!! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 That said, there have been many times out at the local Walmart that I wished for a universal burqa law for both men and women..... :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Well said. He seems to be coming from a worldview in which pretty much the most important aspect of a woman is her sexual purity. If you are (and appear to be) pure, you can also be all kinds of other great things - people will then appreciate your mind, your personality, your ideas and actions. If you are not (or do not appear to be) pure, you are an object, a piece of meat, only good for one thing. Without sexual purity, a woman can expect no respect from others and cannot be imagined to respect herself. What's ironic to me is that people who espouse this worldview always claim that it's the rest of the world that is sex-obsessed. In the circles I move in, women with a lot of sexual experience aren't treated with less respect than women with just a little sexual experience, or no sexual experience. It's just... not that relevant a factor. Much less relevant than whether she is interesting, or kind, or creative, or cooks well. BRAVO! Well said. astrid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherE Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Many people believe a person's character is reflected in what he or she chooses to wear. Superficial mean only concerned with outward appearance. That isn't what the modesty movement is about. Now I'm confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I happen to be a very visual female, so clearly I am wired wrong and am unqualified to answer the question. How would you classify this woman? Pretty? Hot? Immodest? Elegant? *I* think she has covered the essential bits, but I'm thinking in this crowd, the midriff may be her undoing? I'm sorry, but this is prettier than a denim jumper. It just IS. I think she's elegant, but wow, I want that sari for curtains and pillows. Love the colors! While I admit that I've been guilty of making assumptions based on a person's appearance (and have usually been completely wrong,) I think it's narrow-minded to believe that a person's character is reflected in what she chooses to wear. I've met plenty of very conservatively-dressed women who looked like they'd be the Ultimate Christians, yet they turned out to be mean and two-faced. I have also known some women who wore tight, revealing clothes who were honest, decent, and wonderful people. I don't think the clothes you wear determine whether or not you're a good person. I do, however, think it's easier to get people to assume you're a good person if you dress in a certain way, and that it's easier to get them to assume you're the town tramp if you dress in another way, but I also know from experience that those assumptions and snap judgments aren't always accurate. :iagree: We all know what assume means. ;) I hope to raise a son who respects a woman because she's a human worthy of respect, not based upon what she may or may not wear. We're spending a lot of time in Renaissance history this year. We've studied half naked Botticellis, a giant naked David, and a lot more scantily clad beings. The human form is beautiful. We should never be forced to cover our bodies out of the "shame" of being human. If someone is having impure thoughts because they see cleavage, then perhaps they need to take that up with God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGin Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Wow! Thanks for sharing this! Very, very true.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 When my daughter joined competitive tumbling I said "no way are you wearing the uniform. We will provide our own." Yeah well after 3 classes of her turning red and practically fainting, I stood in line to buy the sports bra and short shorts. To be perfectly honest, I'd be a much happier woman if I had a knight in shining armour because 5 years of sleep deprivation have turned me into a poor, delicate female, though I expect to recover in the next few years. Respect, friendship, and mutual attraction are just dandy, but unfortunately some are talkers rather than do-ers. "Looking after" someone can be a stupid farce, with women pretending not to know how to change light bulbs so they can bat their eyelashes at a bloke so he'll feel tough. (Though I suppose that system works for some.) "Looking after" someone can also mean paying attention and helping rather than assuming the woman is entirely in control when she clearly isn't, My husband has been my knight in shining armour many times, even when I seemed completely useless, and I am so thankful. I have to agree with the poster who said that modesty in the past had more to do with not drawing undue attention to oneself. Sumptuary laws of the past were written with exactly those intentions. Curling your hair had nothing to do with exposing your breasts, it had to do with drawing attention to yourself and taking too much care with your appearance. Even the Biblical examples give credence to this mode of thought. The women chastised in Isiah are chastised for dressing in expensive clothing and jewelry, not for showing their breasts. Cosmetics, jewelry and bright clothing are mentioned again and again as being immodest.IMO, the scriptures in the NT about modesty are not rules at all, but rather a reminder of where to place our importance. This is the one I am thinking of: Your beauty should not come from outward adornment. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 IMO, the scriptures in the NT about modesty are not rules at all, but rather a reminder of where to place our importance. This is the one I am thinking of: Your beauty should not come from outward adornment. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. I don't disagree, but I do think that idea is in opposition to the ideas behind what was said in the OP's linked article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.