Views on modesty (potentially CC)

[Melissa in Australia]

There is dressing modesty and there is dressing downright frumpy. I know a large family (10 children) of mostly girls that all wear long skirts, and long shirts over the top not tucked in (you wouldn't want to show any body shape at all). They are sure that every male is eyeing off their daughters.

[Caitilin]

 

 

Not jumping on you, but interested in this view on things. I do, in fact, wear the equivalent of a Edwardian (rather than Victorian) swimming costume. I'm the hairiest possible woman and have no interest in shaving my upper legs. What I wear is certainly unusual, and I see people glancing at me, but does that make it immodest?

 

Absolutely not attacking you, just always interested in defining terms.

 

Laura

 

Laura,

 

If you mean some thing like a rash guard and swim shorts, then no, that's not what I'm thinking of. I'm thinking more along the lines of some of the images available here: http://modestswimwear4u.com/. I'm not at all saying its gotta be, paraphrasing Eddie Izard, "bikinis or death;" but rather when people are wearing clothing whose whole PURPOSE is to appear to shout "look at me, I'm modest!!!!", it is rather a self-defeating proposition. (Unfortunately, I think that this falls rather into the same category as p---ography, in that you know it when you see it. ;))

[bolt.]

I wanted to add that *modesty* in the New Testament is exclusively focused on ostentation of social class which was a deep and important issue in the early Church in its Roman social context. (There are lots of reasons for this... feel free to ask if you'd like me to unpack the whole issue.)

 

That's not to say we aren't allowed to have our own thoughts and extensions of modesty-based ideas for our own visually-charged western social context... just that we need to know that we *are* extending the ideas, if not inventing new ones, so we need to be self-aware of our methods.

 

I've never heard the idea that men/boys "can't" control themselves stated explicit as a reason for declining sexy fashion choices. I've only ever heard it taken so far as a "kindness" that women would not intentionally make male life more difficult than it needs to be. The implication of that is that men/boys "can" control themselves, but it takes effort. Can anyone direct me to a source that goes as far as the "can't" line? I'd like to evaluate that claim.

[Berta]

Laura,

 

If you mean some thing like a rash guard and swim shorts, then no, that's not what I'm thinking of. I'm thinking more along the lines of some of the images available here: http://modestswimwear4u.com/. I'm not at all saying its gotta be, paraphrasing Eddie Izard, "bikinis or death;" but rather when people are wearing clothing whose whole PURPOSE is to appear to shout "look at me, I'm modest!!!!", it is rather a self-defeating proposition. (Unfortunately, I think that this falls rather into the same category as p---ography, in that you know it when you see it. ;))

 

 

 

My older daughter developed very large b00ks at a young age and has always dressed modestly. She cannot buy a bathing suit off the rack (to fit her rack) and a two piece never worked because she will not show her midrif. While looking for a bathing suit online that fits a DD I came across http://www.modestlyyoursswimwear.com/swimwearstyles.html . The lady custom makes swimsuits according your measurements. I bought my daughter the Hawiian Paradise and she loves it. We modified it a bit so the neck is slightly lower, but not low enough for cleavage to show. Just low enough so as not to feel choked. We also shortened the leggings, so that they came mid cald. I saw a really cute one in the "ready made" suits for my younger daughter and bought it for her. Then I had the Tropical Paradise suit made for myself.

 

We wore our suits on vacation and I will never go back to wearing a regular bathing suit again. There was no need for a cover up and no one batted an eyelash at our suits as being "Duggar" or old fashioned.

 

 

 

 

(I have no stake in the company and don't know the person that makes the suits. I'm just a happy customer.)

[goldberry]

I present the issue to my daughter as being about the image you present to others (what is it you want them to notice first?) as well as about appropriate time and place (tankini on beach is ok, crop top at the shops is not). We never discuss modestly in relation to males specifically.

 

 

I am religious, and this is how I present the issue to dd as well. If you display too much skin in a sexual way, then people are going to notice that first and see you in that light. (People, not just men.) Is that the way you want to be perceived, etc.

 

As for cleavage...unfortunately, it is much harder on ladies with very large books. I think a little cleavage is ok. But when someone is unusually large and cleavage is totally "in your face" it goes over the top (so to speak!). That seems discriminatory to large book ladies...but really large books do change the overall look. DD is pretty flat chested and wears alot of tank tops and spaghetti straps. I warned her that if she gets bigger, some of the same clothes might not look the same, and have a different "look".

 

I've seen medium sized ladies in tank tops and spaghetti straps properly supported looking fine. Properly supported is the key, little bit of cleavage ok. I've almost never seen an unusually large book lady in a tank top that looked what I consider modest. It seems to call too much attention to the chest. Not fair, but that's just the way it is...in my opinion of course!

[Laura Corin]

I'm not at all saying its gotta be, paraphrasing Eddie Izard, "bikinis or death;"

 

 

Or maybe 'Bikinis or death by cake'.

 

Laura

[I.Dup.]

[i say this every time this topic comes up, and someone always jumps on me about it, but I'll say it again anyway.]

 

IMO, modesty is about not drawing attention to yourself, not about how much of you is covered. If you're so covered up that you're making a spectacle of yourself--ie wearing a Victorian style swimming dress to the beach in 2013--then you're not being modest because you've drawn attention to yourself not as a person, but as an object. I think standards of modesty are cultural and subjective. I believe that modesty is a way of describing an interior attitude, not a physical state.

 

I've been known to say "A bit of modesty please!" to my kids.

 

It's mostly about personal space. Other people should not go out of their way to catch glimpses of your underwear or what you keep under it, and you shouldn't put such things in their way so they don't get to choose not to see.

 

 

I like these 2 points.

[KungFuPanda]

I should probably duck out of this conversation since I spent last night changing from one bellydance costume to another . . . then another, then shimmying in it on stage. However, the audience was filled with bellydancers and their friends. They were there to see a show for artistic reasons. I doubt anyone was worked into a sexual frenzy over the event.

 

The truth is, during my 'inciting men to lust days' I was literally covered in head to toe with camouflage. My hands and face were showing, but I was one of very few women surrounds by an abundance of VERY young men. There is nothing you can do to prevent young men from having 'impure thoughts' and it's on them not to act on these thoughts.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Honestly, I don't waste all that much time thinking about modesty. I try to wear clothes that flatter my body - not something that is easy for my body shape. I try to wear clothes that don't malfunction. I've had some embarrassing malfunctions - just a couple of months ago my black pants split while I was at a reunion. Fortunately and totally by accident, I was wearing black underwear underneath and even my best friend (who would have told me) didn't notice a thing. But if someone had (while I was trying to walk as quickly and as inconspicuously as I could, the 10 blocks to my car) I would have had to shrug because my immodesty at the moment was unavoidable. Sometimes I see women wearing clothing that doesn't quite cover but the effect is not salacious - it looks tacky. I tuck that information away to help me not make some of the same mistakes but otherwise it doesn't affect my opinion of the person unless the person has the "come hither" attitude to go with it. That would squick me out - esp. if it were a woman hitting on my husband. But honestly - I don't know that I've ever seen that in real life. Most of my experience has been of the "unfortunately tacky" variety. There is a very lovely older Christian lady who comes to Zumba. She wears a sturdy bra under a halter top to exercise. It is a very unfortunate choice but she's a lovely lady and it doesn't bother me. I don't think it has anything to do with her spiritual state (even if it were my business to judge that, which it isn't). I don't know her well enough to try and gently suggest other exercise wear.

[Veritaserum]

I dress modestly (not ultra modest, but modest) to avoid attention from men. I HATE when a strange man makes a comment to me or ogles me. So in that sense, yes, I do it because of men, but not exactly for the reasons the OP states. I encourage my daughters to dress modestly (but again, not ultra modest) but have never phrased it in terms of "not inciting men's lust" or anything like that. If anything I just say it's isn't polite to walk around with most of your body showing, other than situations like swimming obviously.

 

 

I've never worn anything skimpy or super tight or whatever and I've still gotten unwanted attention from men (wolf whistles, catcalls, etc.). That is 100% on them. One of the worst incidents I can remember is a day when I wore a short-sleeved, button-front work shirt with a pair of jeans and boots. The work shirt was fitted/tailored, but it wasn't tight. The jeans fit me, but they weren't tight. There was nothing immodest about what I was wearing. There just happened to be men around me who didn't feel a need to control their thoughts and words upon seeing a female they found attractive.

 

It is dangerous to teach women/girls that the way they dress can prevent unwanted attention (or rape) because it is not true. It leads women/girls to have a false sense of security if they dress "modestly." It leads women/girls to feel guilty if they are assaulted. They wonder if a different outfit could have prevented the attack; they wonder if they just looked too attractive and the rapist couldn't help himself. It's wrong to teach anything like this, including any level of "helping men avoid temptation" by controlling female dress.

[Jean in Newcastle]

The worst attention I ever received was when I wore what might be termed "Catholic schoolgirl" clothes - a button down white shirt and a pleated skirt. I was not immodest. It was totally some sick fantasy that was the product of sick minds.

[FaithManor]

The worst attention I ever received was when I wore what might be termed "Catholic schoolgirl" clothes - a button down white shirt and a pleated skirt. I was not immodest. It was totally some sick fantasy that was the product of sick minds.

 

 

 

YUP! When I was young, some of the worst catcalls were on days when my hair wasn't done, I was wearing baggy exercise pants, and baggy sweatshirts. One just cannot account for what another person is thinking. For what it's worth, I don't characterize the many, many, many decent men I've met over the years by the disrespectful, baser, unwanted antics of the very few who engage in such behavior.

 

The two most immodest things I've ever seen were - 1. the young lady that wore a bathing suit to her grandfather's funeral, tossing a "jacket" over it in order to "dress it up" - apparently couldn't be bothered to leave the beach in time to change and 2. the woman who wore an evening gown to a business dress event. The bathing suit wasn't particularly immodest by bathing suit standards but you talk about STICKING OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB! Equally, the evening gown was not a skin show stopper either. However, when worn at a meeting of executives in which the next dressiest person was in a suit, and most of the men had shed their suit coats and were in shirt sleeves and business ties, the gals in pantsuits and sensible shoes, well she may as well have painted an "OH PLEASE STARE AT ME, OH PLEASE, OH PLEASE, OH PLEASE!" sign on her foreheard.

 

I don't know about the particular Bible school in question, however I do know of one that used to teach this exact kind of thing. An acquaintance of mine went to one like that and ended up on disciplinary probation because her ponytail was coming out while playing volleyball (in the approved "culottes" for physical activity) and during a break in the action, she quickly pulled the ponytail holder out, combed her hair quickly with her fingers, and then pulled it back up again so it would stay out of her face. She was instantly brought up on disciplinary action for "creating a bedroom scene". I don't know where these men came from but if redoing a ponytail causes your nether regions to have a tizzy, do the world a big favor, put your name on the registered s*x offenders listNOW so the rest of us know where you live and can avoid you like the plague. Staggers the imagination how people of so low mental control end up in charge of institutes reported to be devoted to "higher learning".

 

Faith

[Moxie]

I'm shocked that these colleges allow women at all!

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

Not in so many (or so few) words.

 

 

Must have been a different poster than the one who didn't like my ball gown.

 

 

[Caroline]

 

 

Must have been a different poster than the one who didn't like my ball gown.

 

I remember that. I thought you were absolutely beautiful in your gown.

[LucyStoner]

 

I've never heard the idea that men/boys "can't" control themselves stated explicit as a reason for declining sexy fashion choices. I've only ever heard it taken so far as a "kindness" that women would not intentionally make male life more difficult than it needs to be. The implication of that is that men/boys "can" control themselves, but it takes effort. Can anyone direct me to a source that goes as far as the "can't" line? I'd like to evaluate that claim.

 

See to me the bolded essentially says the same thing as all the other examples on this thread. Women are not responsible to "help" men control themselves. Real men don't need a woman to be covered up to treat that woman with kindness, courtesy and respect. If a man takes exposed skin as an excuse for sexualizing casual, otherwise non-sexual and non-intimate contact, that man isn't anymore honorable around women decked out in all the clothes in the world. Exposed flesh isn't by definition sexy. It is what we make it. I don't think it takes a hard effort to not sexually objectify people. It takes a healthy attitude about sex, gender and boundaries.

[LucyStoner]

I'm shocked that these colleges allow women at all!

 

So true. But those women do pay tuition that supports the colleges and a lot of these sorts of schools are all about pushing the MRS degree for women.

[Rivka]

 

I've never worn anything skimpy or super tight or whatever and I've still gotten unwanted attention from men (wolf whistles, catcalls, etc.). That is 100% on them. One of the worst incidents I can remember is a day when I wore a short-sleeved, button-front work shirt with a pair of jeans and boots. The work shirt was fitted/tailored, but it wasn't tight. The jeans fit me, but they weren't tight. There was nothing immodest about what I was wearing. There just happened to be men around me who didn't feel a need to control their thoughts and words upon seeing a female they found attractive.

 

It is dangerous to teach women/girls that the way they dress can prevent unwanted attention (or rape) because it is not true. It leads women/girls to have a false sense of security if they dress "modestly." It leads women/girls to feel guilty if they are assaulted. They wonder if a different outfit could have prevented the attack; they wonder if they just looked too attractive and the rapist couldn't help himself. It's wrong to teach anything like this, including any level of "helping men avoid temptation" by controlling female dress.

 

No kidding.

 

The first time I was subjected to street harassment (a couple of drunk guys offering me money for sex as I walked back to the bus stop after a bookstore reading) I was wearing jeans, combat boots, a loose rollneck wool sweater, and a barn jacket. (You bet I remember.)

 

The most recent time I was subjected to street harassment I was wearing an ankle-length black wool coat and picking my way over piles of slushy snow. I am fat and middle-aged and I can guarantee you that there was nothing attractive about me in that scenario. It wasn't about me inciting him to lust or sending unfortunate signals or prompting him to see me as a sex object rather than appreciating the purity of my mind. It was about him enjoying the opportunity to intimidate me.

[Shamzanne]

I don't know about the particular Bible school in question, however I do know of one that used to teach this exact kind of thing. An acquaintance of mine went to one like that and ended up on disciplinary probation because her ponytail was coming out while playing volleyball (in the approved "culottes" for physical activity) and during a break in the action, she quickly pulled the ponytail holder out, combed her hair quickly with her fingers, and then pulled it back up again so it would stay out of her face. She was instantly brought up on disciplinary action for "creating a bedroom scene". I don't know where these men came from but if redoing a ponytail causes your nether regions to have a tizzy, do the world a big favor, put your name on the registered s*x offenders listNOW so the rest of us know where you live and can avoid you like the plague. Staggers the imagination how people of so low mental control end up in charge of institutes reported to be devoted to "higher learning".

 

Faith

 

Oh my goodness it sounds like the same school! Down to the culottes. Was it in KY?

[*Lulu*]

 

 

Oh my goodness it sounds like the same school! Down to the culottes. Was it in KY?

 

 

Okay, now I have to ask......

 

Was it KMBC by any chance?

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

I remember that. I thought you were absolutely beautiful in your gown.

 

 

Aw, you are so sweet. :)

 

 

[FaithManor]

Oh my goodness it sounds like the same school! Down to the culottes. Was it in KY?

 

 

Yes, as a matter of fact, the school is located in Kentucky.

 

Faith

[Moxie]

 

 

I remember that. I thought you were absolutely beautiful in your gown.

 

Man, I hate when I miss stuff. I need to hang out here more often!

[Caroline]

 

Man, I hate when I miss stuff. I need to hang out here more often!

 

 

This was a few years ago.

[elegantlion]

See to me the bolded essentially says the same thing as all the other examples on this thread. Women are not responsible to "help" men control themselves. Real men don't need a woman to be covered up to treat that woman with kindness, courtesy and respect. If a man takes exposed skin as an excuse for sexualizing casual, otherwise non-sexual and non-intimate contact, that man isn't anymore honorable around women decked out in all the clothes in the world. Exposed flesh isn't by definition sexy. It is what we make it. I don't think it takes a hard effort to not sexually objectify people. It takes a healthy attitude about sex, gender and boundaries.

 

I hope and plan that this is the type of son I am raising, respect a woman (all people for that matter) and treat ALL people with kindness.

[Word Nerd]

I'm shocked that these colleges allow women at all!

 

I'm sure they have certain classes that women aren't allowed to enroll in.

[LucyStoner]

 

 

I'm sure they have certain classes that women aren't allowed to enroll in.

 

Yes.

 

How to Blame THE Woman for Your Sins 101.

[Caroline]

Yes.

 

How to Blame THE Woman for Your Sins 101.

 

Do you suppose it has a partner class called, "How to Help Men Not Sin 101" or would that be a remedial class with an 09x number, like Algebra 2?

[elegantlion]

Yes.

 

How to Blame THE Woman for Your Sins 101.

 

Or the He Man Woman Hater's Club 102

[LucyStoner]

 

 

Or the He Man Woman Hater's Club 102

 

 

They need to enroll in my seminar:

 

How Not To Be A Jack@ss 410.

[Moxie]

 

 

Do you suppose it has a partner class called, "How to Help Men Not Sin 101" or would that be a remedial class with an 09x number, like Algebra 2?

 

 

"Always Available 101"--based on the other thread going on right now.

[Luanne]

I went to a bible college with an extremely strict dress code. Women had to wear dresses at all times and knees could never show. If an activity wasn't modest in a dress, then you shouldn't participate in the activity. This was 2004, by the way. We were taught to "protect our men". Pants were never okay because seeing the crease between a woman's butt and thighs forced men to think about intercourse. My extremely innocent and sweet friend was told she was causing men to stumble because she wore a belt with a dangling pom pom (on her floor length skirt) that she was told "drew attention to her private areas." Women couldn't leave the dorm with wet hair because if a man saw your hair wet he might think of you in the shower. Only a few years before I attended, women's sleeves had to cover their elbows because they said a woman's elbow when she bends it looks like a breast. You can't make this stuff up!

 

In a chapel, while reading the story of David and Bathsheba the president of the college laid blame for David's affair on Bathsheba bathing on her rooftop. Nevermind that it was probably legally mandated ritual cleansing and that the Bible clearly says that he looked twice (before sending his men to fetch her).

 

I dress modestly (I don't show off my ridiculously large b00ks) and teach my daughter to do so, but I will never make her feel that she is responsible for someone else's sin in this regards. This attitude sickens me.

 

Edited to add: I walked out of that chapel service . . . there's no way I could have sat through that one.

 

I agree that the Bible college you went to was extreme. I also think, however, that some women take situations like this (not saying you do) and go to the other extreme. I'm sorry, but even as a female I don't want to see other women's stuff.

[Luanne]

I don't know if this was mentioned before since I don't have time to read all the posts, but it seems to me like the OP has changed the meaning of the word "modesty" to mean what she wants it to. That is ok as long as she realizes it isn't the actual definition of the word.

[Luanne]

 

No kidding.

 

The first time I was subjected to street harassment (a couple of drunk guys offering me money for sex as I walked back to the bus stop after a bookstore reading) I was wearing jeans, combat boots, a loose rollneck wool sweater, and a barn jacket. (You bet I remember.)

 

The most recent time I was subjected to street harassment I was wearing an ankle-length black wool coat and picking my way over piles of slushy snow. I am fat and middle-aged and I can guarantee you that there was nothing attractive about me in that scenario. It wasn't about me inciting him to lust or sending unfortunate signals or prompting him to see me as a sex object rather than appreciating the purity of my mind. It was about him enjoying the opportunity to intimidate me.

 

 

Let's face it, men who are pigs are going to be pigs no matter what you are wearing. I think the being modest for the sake of not enticing men has to do with men who are not pigs. This is just my opinion though.

[Cricket]

 

 

I've never worn anything skimpy or super tight or whatever and I've still gotten unwanted attention from men (wolf whistles, catcalls, etc.). That is 100% on them. One of the worst incidents I can remember is a day when I wore a short-sleeved, button-front work shirt with a pair of jeans and boots. The work shirt was fitted/tailored, but it wasn't tight. The jeans fit me, but they weren't tight. There was nothing immodest about what I was wearing. There just happened to be men around me who didn't feel a need to control their thoughts and words upon seeing a female they found attractive.

 

It is dangerous to teach women/girls that the way they dress can prevent unwanted attention (or rape) because it is not true. It leads women/girls to have a false sense of security if they dress "modestly." It leads women/girls to feel guilty if they are assaulted. They wonder if a different outfit could have prevented the attack; they wonder if they just looked too attractive and the rapist couldn't help himself. It's wrong to teach anything like this, including any level of "helping men avoid temptation" by controlling female dress.

 

I had someone who teaches self-defense say a woman wearing baggy overalls is a more likely target than a woman wearing some intricate, skin tight outfit. It only takes two quick slashes of a knife to remove the clothing from the woman in overalls. It's sad that there are actually people who believe rapists are men who are minding their own business, walking down the street and then suddenly overcome with lust for a woman in a revealing outfit.

[Blueridge]

A young Christian man we know posted this article on his Facebook several weeks ago. I thought it might be of interest to some here...

http://madeinhisimage.org/the-bikini-question/

[Veritaserum]

 

 

Let's face it, men who are pigs are going to be pigs no matter what you are wearing. I think the being modest for the sake of not enticing men has to do with men who are not pigs. This is just my opinion though.

 

 

??? Any man who would change his behavior from respectful to catcalls or assault depending on what a woman is or isn't wearing is a pig.

 

A young Christian man we know posted this article on his Facebook several weeks ago. I thought it might be of interest to some here...

http://madeinhisimag...ikini-question/

 

 

I read that when it came out. I quite dislike it for reasons already stated: The only person responsible for the thoughts inside a man's head or the actions he does is the man himself. Period. The end.

 

There is no justifiable reason why I should "sacrifice" anything for the sake of random men I might encounter as I live my life.

 

I am not a cake to be consumed by a man. My sexuality is not a cake to be consumed by a man.

 

I am a person. I am autonomous. I am not an object.

 

No person is.

 

/rant

[Orthodox6]

There is dressing modesty and there is dressing downright frumpy. I know a large family (10 children) of mostly girls that all wear long skirts, and long shirts over the top not tucked in (you wouldn't want to show any body shape at all). They are sure that every male is eyeing off their daughters.

 

 

 

 

Long skirts and long shirts are "frumpy" only if someone makes a subjective decision to consider them that.

 

"They are sure that every male is eyeing off their daughters". . . . This sounds like an attempt at mind-reading, like pure speculation, or possibly first-hand info from the family.

 

I'm unclear whether the poster truly knows the family, or just "knows of" the family.

 

I'm so tired of the fad of calling women "frumpy" (a silly word to begin with) because they favor comfortable clothing that merely does not appeal to a particular viewer.

[LucyStoner]

A young Christian man we know posted this article on his Facebook several weeks ago. I thought it might be of interest to some here...

http://madeinhisimag...ikini-question/

 

 

Man, that article just reinforces everything I find appalling about the stumbling block logic for women to dress modestly. Men want sex and can't control their eyes or thoughts. Women? We just want chocolate (or clean kitchens or cuddling or wine or babies). This attitude sexualizes women's bodies while desexualizing women's personalities and preferences. How could the objectification of women be more obvious? From the article.

 

 

Let’s try and put ourselves in a guy’s shoes. I think we can all agree that as girls, exercise is important to us. We want to stay healthy and are often working on getting fit. We work out and stay away from carbs or sweets. We use all of our willpower to not eat the chocolate cake on the counter! Now, let’s pretend that someone picked up that chocolate cake and followed us around all the time, 24/7. We can never get away from the chocolate, it’s always right there, tempting us and even smelling all ooey gooey and chocolate-y. Most of us, myself included, would find it easy to break down and eat the cake. And we would probably continue to break down and eat cake, because it would always be there. Our exercise goals would be long gone in no time.

 

 

 

I find this approach to gender and sexuality unhealthy at the very best. I don't care if someone wears a bikini or a modest suit that goes from knee to elbow. Do what you want and feel comfortable in. But don't censor your choices to the point of being restrictive in an ineffective attempt to "help" men. I don't care what anyone says. Long culottes are not ideal or efficient for shooting hoops or spiking a volleyball. I reject the idea that I can "make" a man do anything, stumble or otherwise merely because I wear above the knee skirts and shorts or choose a 2 piece swimsuit to handle my super long tall girl torso.

[Rosie_0801]

There is dressing modesty and there is dressing downright frumpy. I know a large family (10 children) of mostly girls that all wear long skirts, and long shirts over the top not tucked in (you wouldn't want to show any body shape at all). They are sure that every male is eyeing off their daughters.

 

 

So what happens when they start wanting males to eye off their daughters? They've got to be married off eventually, no?

 

If you mean some thing like a rash guard and swim shorts, then no, that's not what I'm thinking of. I'm thinking more along the lines of some of the images available here: http://modestswimwear4u.com/.

 

 

I guess it depends where you come from. These might look a little funny at an indoor pool, but for outdoors these look sun smart with some clever flabby belly coverage. If I saw someone wearing this, I'd think "Hey, good idea!"

[Mrs Mungo]

Long skirts and long shirts are "frumpy" only if someone makes a subjective decision to consider them that.

 

What is/is not modest is equally subjective.

 

As far as the most recently posted article goes? Wow, women must exercise and refrain from eating what they enjoy in order to maintain a culturally ideal (which may or may not have anything to do with actual health) so that they can stay attractive, but then cover that same body in order not to incite men to lust? You have to admit that it is a little bit of a bizarre POV.

[Hunter's Moon]

I dress modestly, not because I believe it is my duty as a woman to "protect" men from their own lustful thoughts, but because it is my duty as a human being to be respectful of my self and my body. I am a big chested woman. I wish it were not so, as it would make my life all the easier when it comes to dressing modestly. Some of my clothing does show a bit of cleavage, but that cannot always be helped. It makes me uncomfortable when I have to check continuously throughout the day that my shirt is still covering my chest decently, so a lot of my reasons are for practicality.

 

Personally, I feel more comfortable in jogging capris or long skirts, as I do not like form fitting bottoms. That is more of a personal preference however.

[Orthodox6]

What is/is not modest is equally subjective.

 

As far as the most recently posted article goes? Wow, women must exercise and refrain from eating what they enjoy in order to maintain a culturally ideal (which may or may not have anything to do with actual health) so that they can stay attractive, but then cover that same body in order not to incite men to lust? You have to admit that it is a little bit of a bizarre POV.

 

 

I agree with you to some extent, but not fully. (Your first sentence.)

 

Your second paragraph is spot on.

[LucyStoner]

I dress modestly, not because I believe it is my duty as a woman to "protect" men from their own lustful thoughts.

 

Ironically, I am a very modest dresser overall as well. I feel naked without a cardigan. Seriously. I am not sure it is possible to count all cardigans I wear. And I own far more knee length and longer skirts than I do shorter ones. If it is cold enough to wear a turtleneck I most often am sporting one. But I do have clothes some would consider scandalously revealing. Like hot pants (worn exclusively for skating) and some nice dresses with lower cut tops and some its-too-hot-to-wear-sleeves tank tops.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I have absolutely no opinion on what anyone else chooses to wear. Choose what you want for comfort, your conscience or whatever else. I will do the same. If it doesn't match your conscience, then tough - it is between me and God. You may not take God's place in my life.

 

I may think that what you are wearing is pretty, ugly, tacky or uncomfortable or . . . whatever. But my thoughts will be kept private. And really, my thoughts aren't that important because I'm not God either. For you secular types, the reason I mention God is because He's the only one I would see as having any authority over a law-abiding adult's choices in the matter of dress. I do not recognize the church or priest or any other believer as taking the place of God in such things.

 

I can think a guy is hot in a suit (think James Bond!) but I'm responsible for my own imagination and thoughts. So is my son and so is my husband. Fortunately, they take full responsibility for their own mind. If someone comes on to me directly they do have some responsibility for that. And so do I for my response. At this point I'm taken and the only "come on" I choose to respond to is from my husband. But when I was single, men did express their attraction to me - most in appropriate ways and I was free to respond as my conscience dictated as I got to know them through dating.

 

When I was s*xually assaulted it had absolutely nothing to do with s*x and everything to do with power. Especially the extreme forms of "modesty police" have everything to do with power and control. That and the fact that they confuse control and s*xual expression scares me spitless.

[FaithManor]

 

When I was s*xually assaulted it had absolutely nothing to do with s*x and everything to do with power. Especially the extreme forms of "modesty police" have everything to do with power and control. That and the fact that they confuse control and s*xual expression scares me spitless.

 

 

(Bolding is my addition.)

 

YOU AND ME BOTH!

 

That so many men and women have bought into this is absolutely tragic.

 

Faith

[Melissa in Australia]

Long skirts and long shirts are "frumpy" only if someone makes a subjective decision to consider them that.

 

"They are sure that every male is eyeing off their daughters". . . . This sounds like an attempt at mind-reading, like pure speculation, or possibly first-hand info from the family.

 

I'm unclear whether the poster truly knows the family, or just "knows of" the family.

 

I'm so tired of the fad of calling women "frumpy" (a silly word to begin with) because they favor comfortable clothing that merely does not appeal to a particular viewer.

don't care if you are tired of me or not. Believe me I am very personally acquainted with this family. I have done no mind-reading or speculation. I have had many discussions with the mother of the family. I have even helped her sew clothes for her daughters. they have told me about how they feel boys are eyeing off their daughters, and are so paranoid that they have all 6 of their daughters sleeping in the same very small bedroom for 'protection". I personally know that they have spoken to a family of a boy aged 11 worried that the boy might be eyeing off their daughters. I know that long skirts and shirts can look great,I wear them half the time myself. Believe me when I say they dress frumpy. shirts have to be buttoned right up to the neck, and hang down just about to your knees, not tucked in or anything like that. oversized is better so no curves are visible.

[butterflymommy]

 

I've never worn anything skimpy or super tight or whatever and I've still gotten unwanted attention from men (wolf whistles, catcalls, etc.). That is 100% on them. One of the worst incidents I can remember is a day when I wore a short-sleeved, button-front work shirt with a pair of jeans and boots. The work shirt was fitted/tailored, but it wasn't tight. The jeans fit me, but they weren't tight. There was nothing immodest about what I was wearing. There just happened to be men around me who didn't feel a need to control their thoughts and words upon seeing a female they found attractive.

 

It is dangerous to teach women/girls that the way they dress can prevent unwanted attention (or rape) because it is not true. It leads women/girls to have a false sense of security if they dress "modestly." It leads women/girls to feel guilty if they are assaulted. They wonder if a different outfit could have prevented the attack; they wonder if they just looked too attractive and the rapist couldn't help himself. It's wrong to teach anything like this, including any level of "helping men avoid temptation" by controlling female dress.

 

Having lived in NYC for 20 years, I can assure you that the way you dress WILL determine how many comments you get. It also depends on the neighborhood. Yes-- some guys will comment on and ogle anything female not walking with a cane. But if you're wearing skin tight minidresses (like I used to) the wolf packs start howling. No, it's not the woman's fault, but it's a fact of life especially in areas that are heavily pedestrian and where packs of guys like to hang out on the stoop watching the ladies go by.

[MonkeyMama]

I grew up in Christian schools, so the dress code that focuses overwhelmingly on girls is old hat to me. I read this article a while back and thought of it when I was reading this thread. I felt it was a much more balanced perspective coming from a man in his early twenties who works with youth. I will try to put a link in and keep my fingers crossed that it works.

 

http://jeffbethke.com/the-idolatry-of-modesty/

 

The article is definitely from a Christian perspective, but I thought it made some interesting points that were a little different.

[Orthodox6]

don't care if you are tired of me or not. Believe me I am very personally acquainted with this family. I have done no mind-reading or speculation. I have had many discussions with the mother of the family. I have even helped her sew clothes for her daughters. they have told me about how they feel boys are eyeing off their daughters, and are so paranoid that they have all 6 of their daughters sleeping in the same very small bedroom for 'protection". I personally know that they have spoken to a family of a boy aged 11 worried that the boy might be eyeing off their daughters. I know that long skirts and shirts can look great,I wear them half the time myself. Believe me when I say they dress frumpy. shirts have to be buttoned right up to the neck, and hang down just about to your knees, not tucked in or anything like that. oversized is better so no curves are visible.

 

 

I am not tired of you at all. I do not know you. I am tired of a concept. Some women like to slam other women as "frumpy" simply because they do not care for their clothing styles. Some women like to slam other women as "slutty" simply because they do not care for their clothing styles. Most women simply like to slam other women for something. I consider the easily tossed-out label of "frumpy" to be silly. (However, I said that before.)

 

I also am tired of working hard to write with clarity only to have people not read carefully. I select my words with care. For example, "it sounds like" is a phrase expressing that something gives the impression of being a particular thing or way. It includes the necessary acknowledgement that the writer cannot understand definitively what the other writer intended. It also was unambiguously stated that I did not know for sure whether you knew the family, or "knew OF" the family. You now (angrily) have clarified your earlier post.