Good article on "modesty" (Christian worldview)

[Paige]

 

 

But I keep reading the current thought that women are not responsible; that worthwhile guys will not ogle and the ones that do, it's their problem, and so on.  The closest thing to hearing any responsibility for the woman is be careful how you dress if you don't want the wrong kind of attention. That's it.

 

 

 

I think the parallel responsibility for females would be to not ogle and objectify men. Although there's a power imbalance here because if the woman objectifies and ogles a man, it is unlikely that he'd be in any actual physical danger if she decided to let her unwanted looking turn to unwanted touching. Most men would be able to fight off most women in most situations. The man may be terribly uncomfortable, but in most cases, he could get away simply because he's bigger and stronger.

 

It is the danger and the constant power imbalance (physically) that is putting unfair responsibility on the woman to avoid attracting unwanted attention. It has become, "He should not look, but if he does, you'll be in trouble, and you should have known better because we told you it could happen." Would it be appropriate for an American man to go somewhere where the cultural norms have females (and men) wearing practically nothing and proceed to leer and make suggestive comments at every female he finds attractive? No. We would expect the man to get a grip, and ignore the increase in nudity and treat everyone respectfully. Why is it so hard to do that at home?

 

Many women, especially younger women, are just learning about the difference between trendy and pretty and revealing and trashy. I don't think many women or girls dress themselves thinking they want to be leered at. I don't think they should be punished or shamed for what I would see as an unfortunate fashion choice. The men are 100% responsible for their behavior around females dressed in anything or nothing. It has to be that way because women aren't mind readers. We don't always know what someone else will think is immodest, we make mistakes, and people can't live their lives trying to please everyone else. Women are responsible for doing their best to clothe themselves in a way that they can feel confident and secure. Women are responsible for their own actions towards other people of both sexes. Women should treat all men the way they would want their sons, fathers, and husbands to be treated. We are not responsible for anticipating and catering to what men may think about our clothes. 

[Halftime Hope]

 So a female being mindful and doing her part doesn't always work.  That isn't to say that all men are jerks who can't help but stare.  But it does mean that sometimes we DO do our part, and it isn't enough to stop a man who is looking from looking/staring.

 

I get this, Tbog, I really do.  It was NOT your post that I was thinking of when I said that there's this line of thought in modesty discussions which I hear repeated over and over....

 

I'm sorry that you thought I meant your daughter.  Truly, I didn't. 

 

 

 

 

[Joanne]

So I'm nowhere near a set opinion on this, but as you all have talked about modesty a lot in past threads, people keep saying over and over again that it is not the woman's responsibility to dress modestly, it is the guy's responsibility to rein in his thoughts and his eyes. However, I knew there was a "think again" flag on that in my subconscious, and it finally surfaced tonight.

 

Husband and I have taught my boys that they are responsible for their conduct and that the bar is set high: they are to be above reproach. Furthermore, with regards to girls, they are to treat every girl as an honored and treasured sister in God's family, even if she is also a girlfriend. They would not want someone looking at their sister with ogling eyes, they should not ogle a sister, one whom God created in his image, either. So we've got that part covered.

 

But I keep reading the current thought that women are not responsible; that worthwhile guys will not ogle and the ones that do, it's their problem, and so on. The closest thing to hearing any responsibility for the woman is be careful how you dress if you don't want the wrong kind of attention. That's it.

 

However, for those who find wisdom in scriptural principles, we (all followers of Christ) are instructed not to be a "stumbling block", not to provoke a weaker brother or sister, and so on. That admonition has to fit in this equation somehow, at least for those who do take the Bible seriously.

 

It seems to me that scripture is telling us that women have some responsibility in this equation as well.

 

Thoughts? I'm sincerely interested in hearing from others who are further down this road in their thinking. (Thank you for discussing this civilly.)

Even when I was a Christian, I felt the whole discussion was .... a non issue; extra Biblical.

 

The truth is that God (nature for others) created humans to want sex, to think about sex, to have a body complete with brain chemicals that are designed towards sex and sexual behavior.

 

The discussion in which we expect women to dress non provocatively and men to "curtail" their thoughts denies reality; we are hardwired for desire.

 

The irony is that all the discussion, restriction, and encouragement towards modesty, purity, and abiding stumbling blocks doesn't change biology or Design. Humans still think, ponder, and most still masturbate with imagery.

 

The problem isn't dress or lust. The problem is the need to work so hard towards eliminating thoughts.

 

It reminds me of 1984 (sorry, I just re-read it teaching Brit Lit). The thought police is the ultimate twisted irony.

 

The truth is that men and women have navigated through dating, relationships, marriage, kids and still managed to work, serve, worship, play, raise kids before the strange hyper focus on sex. The Christian hyper focus on sex is the SAME issue that they claim to want to avoid. History shows, however, that the newer focus on modest and purity has emerged to address a non-problem.

 

The vast majority of persons don't have a clinical level problem with lust or sex or perversion. Purity and modesty won't treat those who do.

[Guest]

Even when I was a Christian, I felt the whole discussion was .... a non issue; extra Biblical.

 

The truth is that God (nature for others) created humans to want sex, to think about sex, to have a body complete with brain chemicals that are designed towards sex and sexual behavior.

 

The discussion in which we expect women to dress non provocatively and men to "curtail" their thoughts denies reality; we are hardwired for desire.

 

The irony is that all the discussion, restriction, and encouragement towards modesty, purity, and abiding stumbling blocks doesn't change biology or Design. Humans still think, ponder, and most still masturbate with imagery.

 

The problem isn't dress or lust. The problem is the need to work so hard towards eliminating thoughts.

 

It reminds me of 1984 (sorry, I just re-read it teaching Brit Lit). The thought police is the ultimate twisted irony.

 

The truth is that men and women have navigated through dating, relationships, marriage, kids and still managed to work, serve, worship, play, raise kids before the strange hyper focus on sex. The Christian hyper focus on sex is the SAME issue that they claim to want to avoid. History shows, however, that the newer focus on modest and purity has emerged to address a non-problem.

 

The vast majority of persons don't have a clinical level problem with lust or sex or perversion. Purity and modesty won't treat those who do.

 

Exactly.  While I do agree that we as women shouldn't flaunt everything, the opposite won't always work for the few that just.cant.help.themselves.  I am just very glad that dd has all brothers, and has three uncles with daughters.  The poor girl may have a tough time when it comes time to start dating. ;)

[goldberry]

 

I thought this (really long) comment was better than the blog post (especially the part I bolded).

 

 

James

July 6, 2014 at 1:51 am

 

My wife sent me this article. There are many excellent and quote worthy points here. I too was brought up in a very conservative American Christian culture, which, sadly, tended to shame the females for having bodies and to shame the males for noticing! Frankly, this did more to breed an unhealthy curiosity about the opposite sex than it did to promote purity. For years, I wanted to honor God with my thoughts and attitudes and I tried everything you can imagine, but I ultimately found that I was working from the wrong starting point. I later realized the mainstream church’s teachings about purity and modesty are horribly unscriptural. I read book’s like “Every Man’s Battle,†joined accountability groups, and listened to sermons on purity all the time. Yet none of this actually helped to have purity in a truly freeing way.

 

I finally realized that the pornography industry and the mainstream American church are teaching the same message. The pornography industry says, “Women are an object of sexual lust–indulge!†And the church says, “Women are an object of sexual lust–suppress!†Both are teaching the same lie about the female body–i.e. that a man can’t help but lust after a woman’s body if he sees it.  In complete contrast, the Bible affirms that we are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27; 5:1-2), and we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psa. 139:14). After Adam and Eve were created–still in their natural (nude) state–God declared His creation “very good†(Gen. 1:31). Is the female body “very good†or a temptation to avoid at all costs? I’m going to go with God on this one.

 

In the church we make the mistake of defining purity as “not lustingâ€â€“but this is a far cry from Biblical purity. If you want “pure†gold, it isn’t enough to simply take away the dross. You have to have some actual gold! The same is true with Christian purity. It’s not enough to simply take away the defiling elements. You also have to have a positive view of the human body. You need to see how it draws you to seeing the image of God; you have to see how it points to its Creator. And once you see this, then the temptation to defile it–physically or mentally–is greatly disarmed. If you truly experience purity, then impurity seems absolutely gross in comparison. I’ve come to believe that “Every Man’s Battle†(and similar resources) is a terrible book if you’re wanting to develop Biblical purity. I have yet to speak to a man who has followed this book’s advice (which I tried for several years) who actually had a pure mindset toward women. Instead, they saw women as dangerous temptations to avoid, and they are unintentionally reinforcing the pornography industry’s teaching that “women are an object of lust†every time they bounce the eyes. For more thoughts on this book, you can read my Amazon review here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1P3YTE9X5PCIK/ref=cm_aya_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1578563682

 

If you want to cultivate a Biblical mindset about purity, modesty, and the human body, the best resource I have found on these topics is My Chains Are Gone, which can be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20140521101735/http://mychainsaregone.org/start-here/#sthash.khMq5JKs.dpbs (The site currently seems to be having some problems, so this is the archived version.)

 

Honestly, if you work to cultivate a pure mindset about the human body, the degree of clothing makes no difference. My issue with bikinis is not that they reveal too much, but that they put strips of fabric in two places, saying, “Everything else is okay to see, but not breasts and not genitals.†Is this actually a modest mindset? The only passage in the Bible that speaks of modesty is in 1 Timothy 2–â€I desire… that women adorn themselves in proper clothing with modesty and sobriety, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, what befits women professing godly reverence, by good works.†The Bible defines modesty on the negative side as “not with braided hair, gold, pearls, or costly clothing†and on the positive side as being adorned with “good works.†1 Peter 3 addresses similarly addresses this issue with wives, and it says that adornment shouldn’t be of “the outward plaiting of hair and putting on of gold or clothing with garments,†but “the incorruptible adornment of a meek and quiet spirit, which is very costly in the sight of God.†Nothing here about how much skin to show (or taking responsibility for someone else’s purity–an impossible task, by the way), but a lot about the heart attitude behind it!

 

Just as the Biblical understanding of purity is very different from what we commonly hear in the American church, the Biblical understanding of modesty is also quite different. Different cultures around the world wear different amounts of clothing, and some even wear none at all. Cultural norms affect, to a large degree, what we find arousing. The extreme Muslims say that the entire female body is too arousing, so it should be covered from head to foot. To a certain extent, the American church is teaching the same philosophy about the female body, even if it wouldn’t go quite so far as to cover all of it. But honestly, this is quite degrading to men and women, and it is an insult to our Creator. I agree with your statement that the church should be the safest place to wear a bikini, and I would add that it should also be the safest place to go skinny dipping. Because Christians should be cultivating a pure mindset toward the human body in all its stages of dress, and as you said, the church should be the one place where men and women don’t need to fear being objectified and made into sexual objects. Once again, this issue is not how much skin is or isn’t shown. It’s about the “meek and quiet spirit,†which is true modesty. And it’s about truly appreciating and believing that each person is “fearfully and wonderfully made,†which is true purity.

 

 

This post has some great thoughts in it...very close to the heart of the matter.

 

I went with some friends with our kids to a museum.  2 girls and a boy, they were younger at the time, 10 or so.  There was a statue that was three naked women. It was not a naked women with her legs spread like a playboy picture.  It was clearly celebrating the beauty of the female body. The other mom scooted her boy past, don't look at that...

 

I felt disturbed by that, but couldn't really articulate why, and thought since I didn't have boys maybe I didn't really understand.  But I don't think that attitude does boys any favors.  We are "fearfully and wonderfully made" in a reflection of God.  Just because society has chosen to degrade that and turn it into something dirty doesn't mean we have to go along with it. 

 

The concept of our bodies being beautiful as a reflection of God should be stressed to both genders.  It helps both boys in keeping their thoughts clean, and girls in wanting to honor their bodies and not exploit them.

[MercyA]

However, for those who find wisdom in scriptural principles, we (all followers of Christ) are instructed not to be a "stumbling block", not to provoke a weaker brother or sister, and so on.  That admonition has to fit in this equation somehow, at least for those who do take the Bible seriously.  

 

It seems to me that scripture is telling us that women have some responsibility in this equation as well. 

 

Thoughts? I'm sincerely interested in hearing from others who are further down this road in their thinking.  (Thank you for discussing this civilly.)  

 

I think you're on the right track.  I shared my thoughts on this issue here. 

[poppy]

So I'm nowhere near a set opinion on this, but as you all have talked about modesty a lot in past threads, people keep saying over and over again that it is not the woman's responsibility to dress modestly, it is the guy's responsibility to rein in his thoughts and his eyes.  However, I knew there was a "think again" flag on that in my subconscious, and it finally surfaced tonight.  

 

Husband and I have taught my boys that they are responsible for their conduct and that the bar is set high: they are to be above reproach.  Furthermore, with regards to girls, they are to treat every girl as an honored and treasured sister in God's family, even if she is also a girlfriend.  They would not want someone looking at their sister with ogling eyes, they should not ogle a sister, one whom God created in his image, either.  So we've got that part covered.

 

But I keep reading the current thought that women are not responsible; that worthwhile guys will not ogle and the ones that do, it's their problem, and so on.  The closest thing to hearing any responsibility for the woman is be careful how you dress if you don't want the wrong kind of attention. That's it.

 

However, for those who find wisdom in scriptural principles, we (all followers of Christ) are instructed not to be a "stumbling block", not to provoke a weaker brother or sister, and so on.  That admonition has to fit in this equation somehow, at least for those who do take the Bible seriously.  

 

It seems to me that scripture is telling us that women have some responsibility in this equation as well. 

 

Thoughts? I'm sincerely interested in hearing from others who are further down this road in their thinking.  (Thank you for discussing this civilly.)  

 

I think teaching boys to treat all girls as honored sisters is a tricky business, just because you don't want to teach them that sexuality  is something to be ashamed of. Because that can lead to unnecessary shame, or to fall into "virgin & wh*re* thinking where they respect women except the ones in porn (every. man. watches. porn. - at least at some point).

 

I mean, obviously, not leering at women is manhood 101 in "don't be a creeper" skills. I was at the beach this weekend and was thinking of this thread. I noticed a whole lot of women casually checking out other women (not in a sexual way, just looked at suits & hairstyles etc) and a WHOLE lot of men very carefully not doing the same thing. 

 

If women should not be stumbling blocks, you'd think it would be more important for women to be boycotting  makeup companies, beauty & men's magazines, R rated movies, music videos, etc than worrying about whether their own bathing suits are too skimpy.

[Greta]

However, for those who find wisdom in scriptural principles, we (all followers of Christ) are instructed not to be a "stumbling block", not to provoke a weaker brother or sister, and so on. That admonition has to fit in this equation somehow, at least for those who do take the Bible seriously.

 

It seems to me that scripture is telling us that women have some responsibility in this equation as well.

 

Thoughts? I'm sincerely interested in hearing from others who are further down this road in their thinking. (Thank you for discussing this civilly.)

I'm no further down this road in my thinking -- maybe less far, even. But I have pondered this same question.

 

To me, "stumbling block" implies something much more deliberate on a woman's part than simply the way she dresses. To be openly flirtatious or act seductive around men with whom a sexual relationship would be inappropriate, that to me says "stumbling block". Chosing a skirt that hits at the knee instead of the ankle? Nope.

 

Obviously, there can be scenarios of extreme dress which is clearly meant to get the attention of men, and that could qualify as a stumbling block. But it seems that people I know who believe strongly in this sort of modesty/purity aren't just talking about that. They're talking about arms and legs being covered, baggy shapeless clothing that doesn't show any curves, etc. They're talking about women dressing in a way that makes them look like they're not women. That turns things into "shame and blame" for both sexes, because it says that women have to go out of their way to hide from those animalistic men who can't control themselves, and any woman who fails to to so is a sl*t who is just seeking attention. Dressing in a way that distinguishes my body from a sack of potatoes doesn't automatically mean that I am out to tempt and stumble men. Maybe it just means that I'm comfortable being a woman.

 

Basically, I guess I'm saying that the sight of a woman dressed in a feminine way doesn't qualify as a "stumbling block" because our femininity is God-given and therefore good. Deliberately, inappropriately seductive dress and behavior, though, now that's when we can talk about being a stumbling block.

 

But, again, I'm not claiming to have all the answers, or even to have thought of all the questions. This is just my beginning thoughts on the matter, and nothing more.

[Cammie]

I've been thinking about this for a few days now.  Here is what I decided for myself.

 

I am totally fine with "modesty" when it is brought about because it is how the woman/girl feels more comfortable.  If SHE wants to cover up fine (I feel the same about the burqua by the way.)  If it is important to her, not expected of her, than absolutely fine.  Personally I NEVER wear shorts, rarely wear a skirt and have stopped going sleeveless.  NONE of it for "modesty" reasons but more for "I don't want to show off my thighs and my flabby arms" reasons.  If I was in better shape, I would probably wear shorts and skirts.

 

I an NOT fine with modest when it is imposed on a group of people.  If it is an outside construct that others have to follow to be acceptable within that group...not ok.  If it is done because the girl/woman would be shamed or otherwise humiliated or ostracized if she dressed a way that was in synch with her own personal sense of style then not ok.

 

Freedom to me is the freedom to follow your own personal sense of self, sense of who you are and how you want to present yourself to the world.  If we don't have freedom to do that, what freedoms do we really have?

[Greta]

So I decided to ask my husband about this over breakfast this morning. :D I presented him with a hypothetical scenario in which he is interacting with a beautiful woman in either a professional or casual social kind of environment.

 

In the first scenario, she is dressed provocatively, with a top that shows off cleavage, and some curve-hugging pants - dressed in a way that says she's beautiful and she knows it. But her manner with him is polite/professional and nothing more.

 

In the second scenario, the same beautiful woman is dressed more modestly, not frumpy but typical/average kind of dress, no cleavage showing, etc. But her behavior is openly flirtatious: laughing overly much at his jokes, finding little excuses to touch his arm, whatever it is that women do to flirt -- good heavens it's been 22 years since I was single and I wasn't flirtatious even back then, so my description of what flirting consists of may have been totally off the mark! But he got the idea.

 

Anyway, I asked him which of these situations would be more likely to lead to continuing to think about this woman even after the interaction was over, which one would be more "tempting".

 

He said that a man with ANY amount of maturity and life experience would know that the woman in the first scenario is not dressed that way for him. So it means nothing.

 

But the second scenario, he said, is "an invitation" (his words, but trust me, my dh is not a creep, he meant an invitation to interact again, not a direct invitation to "tea"!). Even in the latter scenario, he said a man with maturity and life experience will realize there's a distinct possibility that it means nothing, because she may just be more flirtatious by nature, or she may be trying to make her boyfriend jealous, or any number of other things. But he said the second scenario sends a message, and the first does not.

 

So, while I realize my dh can't speak for all of mankind, for now I am maintaining my position that a woman's behavior is much more likely to be a potential stumbling block than her manner of dress.

[fairfarmhand]

Here's what I've told my very well-endowed dd.

 

Cover your parts as best you can. If your shirt accidentally creeps up in the back when you didn't realize it. Oh well. Wear a belt if you have butt gap jeans on because most people don't want to see that. Do your best to be modest because it helps people perceive you as classy. I usually go for the "if  you can see bra outline in your top, it's a bit too snug." Don't stress if something goes wrong and you accidentally show a bit more than you intended.

 

Dress appropriately for the activity. Dresses on a farm are impractical. Dresses for rock climbing could be dangerous.

 

Part of modesty is not drawing unnecessary attention to oneself. So being inappropriate (ie. yards of extra fabric at the beach) draws as much attention as not wearing enough to cover yourself.

[shukriyya]

So, basically, you are saying the article should be judged not by the merits of its content, but by the gender of its author? That doesn't work for me at all.

 

I decided to stop posting on this thread because it was clear to me that there was no place of intersection. However the thread is active again and your comment needs addressing...Whether the article has merit or not is a matter of opinion. But absolutely it should be judged by the gender of its author in this context. That's the whole point. Men, stop telling women how to live out their sexuality, their beauty, their desire, their physicality.

 

 

 

[poppy]

So I decided to ask my husband about this over breakfast this morning. :D I presented him with a hypothetical scenario in which he is interacting with a beautiful woman in either a professional or casual social kind of environment.

 

In the first scenario, she is dressed provocatively, with a top that shows off cleavage, and some curve-hugging pants - dressed in a way that says she's beautiful and she knows it. But her manner with him is polite/professional and nothing more.

 

In the second scenario, the same beautiful woman is dressed more modestly, not frumpy but typical/average kind of dress, no cleavage showing, etc. But her behavior is openly flirtatious: laughing overly much at his jokes, finding little excuses to touch his arm, whatever it is that women do to flirt -- good heavens it's been 22 years since I was single and I wasn't flirtatious even back then, so my description of what flirting consists of may have been totally off the mark! But he got the idea.

 

Anyway, I asked him which of these situations would be more likely to lead to continuing to think about this woman even after the interaction was over, which one would be more "tempting".

 

He said that a man with ANY amount of maturity and life experience would know that the woman in the first scenario is not dressed that way for him. So it means nothing.

 

But the second scenario, he said, is "an invitation" (his words, but trust me, my dh is not a creep, he meant an invitation to interact again, not a direct invitation to "tea"!). Even in the latter scenario, he said a man with maturity and life experience will realize there's a distinct possibility that it means nothing, because she may just be more flirtatious by nature, or she may be trying to make her boyfriend jealous, or any number of other things. But he said the second scenario sends a message, and the first does not.

 

So, while I realize my dh can't speak for all of mankind, for now I am maintaining my position that a woman's behavior is much more likely to be a potential stumbling block than her manner of dress.

 

I'm sure behavior / acts matters more than dress, but I'd guess some people reading this would say neither scenario is OK.

 

The problem is girls who are told to think of themselves as sexual objects who must always be careful to cover up, both in terms of dress and general interactions with the opposite sex.

[Greta]

I decided to stop posting on this thread because it was clear to me that there was no place of intersection. However the thread is active again and your comment needs addressing...Whether the article has merit or not is a matter of opinion. But absolutely it should be judged by the gender of its author in this context. That's the whole point. Men, stop telling women how to live out their sexuality, their beauty, their desire, their physicality.

 

 

 

I'm glad that you decided to jump in again. I really do appreciate your comments. I'm still not sure that I can agree with them, but I appreciate them! If your point is that women have to be the ultimate decision makers about their own lives, then I completely agree with you. Wholeheartedly! But if you're saying (and I fully realize that this may not be what you're saying) that women should disregard men's views on this, then I have to disagree. I certainly think that women can offer some advice to men about how, or perhaps as/more importantly how NOT, to live out their sexuality, desires, and physicality. And I have no problem taking such advice from a man when it is grounded in wisdom and compassion. I think that mothers should talk to their sons about these issues, and fathers to their daughters. I don't see why this should have to be a gender-segregated discussion at all. Women's sexuality does not exist in a bubble that is separate and distinct from men's. Since a big part of what we're talking about here is how the sexes interact, how can we even have a meaningful discussion if we exclude members of one sex from the conversation?

 

I think I sounded snarkier than I meant to in my first post, so for that I apologize. I'm glad we get to discuss it further.

[Greta]

I'm sure behavior / acts matters more than dress, but I'd guess some people reading this would say neither scenario is OK.

I'm not sure what you mean. It's not ok for a man to think that a woman who was openly flirting with him wants further interaction with him?

 

The problem is girls who are told to think of themselves as sexual objects who must always be careful to cover up, both in terms of dress and general interactions with the opposite sex.

Yeah, I would say that the problem is when both men and women are taught to think of women as sexual objects rather than sexual beings. One is healthy, positive, and true. The other is destructive, dangers, and a lie.

[poppy]

I'm not sure what you mean. It's not ok for a man to think that a woman who was openly flirting with him wants further interaction with him?

 

 

Yeah, I would say that the problem is when both men and women are taught to think of women as sexual objects rather than sexual beings. One is healthy, positive, and true. The other is destructive, dangers, and a lie.

 

I meant are judged for their dress AND for flirting.  Dressing in form fitting attire that does not conceal cleavage, even if you're acting professionally, is not appropriate in the 'modesty' movement.

[poppy]

I decided to stop posting on this thread because it was clear to me that there was no place of intersection. However the thread is active again and your comment needs addressing...Whether the article has merit or not is a matter of opinion. But absolutely it should be judged by the gender of its author in this context. That's the whole point. Men, stop telling women how to live out their sexuality, their beauty, their desire, their physicality.

 

 

 

 

Are you referring to this portion of the article?

 

Dressing immodestly objectifies the woman. It makes her an object to be ogled rather than a treasure to cherish. A young woman who is developing Godly character and a Godly view of beauty will have no desire to objectify herself, but to make people see her true beauty, the kind of Beauty God delights in seeing in her.

 

Ladies: the point of modesty is not to “protect those drooling, heathen, teen boys,†but to draw them in, to make them seek your true beauty that lies in the person God created you to be.

 

Yeah, I think that's kind of gross. But I think it's the content I object to, and I would if it was written by a woman as well.

[Greta]

I meant are judged for their dress AND for flirting. Dressing in form fitting attire that does not conceal cleavage, even if you're acting professionally, is not appropriate in the 'modesty' movement.

I really wasn't trying to pass judgment on women for flirting. Not at all. (ETA: I will say that I think flirting on the part of a married woman and/or with a married man is inappropriate. But there is entirely appropriate flirting that takes place between available parties.) The question was posed about what constitutes a stumbling block. My answer is that dress does not (usually) but overt flirting is more likely to be perceived by a man as a sign of interest in him. I do NOT think that women should have to walk on eggshells around men. But I also do not think we should be completely oblivious about how our behavior affects others.

 

I do realize that kind of dress is considered inappropriate in the modesty movement, and that's exactly why I used it in the scenario that I presented to my husband. He said, contrary to what the modesty movement teaches, that this kind of dress is not "tempting" or lust-provoking.

[MercyA]

Part of modesty is not drawing unnecessary attention to oneself. So being inappropriate (ie. yards of extra fabric at the beach) draws as much attention as not wearing enough to cover yourself.

 

Choosing to cover more than the average woman at the beach doesn't make me "inappropriate."  I don't do it to draw attention to myself, and I haven't noticed any strangers staring at me.  Wearing clothes which violate my conscience and my understanding of Scripture would be much more inappropriate than wearing less fabric to conform to society's expectations. 

[Aura]

In response to the "don't be a stumbling block" argument, I really struggled with this, even when I identified as a conservative Christian. Where do you draw the line? How do you know what will cause someone to lust? This concept is so vague when it comes to modesty that it's impossible for a person to apply it in a general sense or across the board, as in, "I'm going to dress this way so that when I go shopping, I'm not going to give reason for any one to lust or 'stumble'."

 

Finally, I came to the belief that this was never intended for across-the-board, general application. It was intended for specific times. If you know the person would be offended, or "stumble," then you don't do it. It's about consideration and graciousness, and it extends way beyond clothing choices.

 

It's interesting that in the Bible, whenever modesty is specifically spoken of, God does not do so in the context of how much or how little clothing to put on. It's never about how much skin is showing. The idea that modesty=specific, minimum amount of skin covered (you cannot show any cleavage, you cannot show your thighs, etc.) is just not Biblical, IMO. 

 

[Paige]

The whole stumbling block thing bothers me because why is it assumed that the female is the one causing the male to stumble? Couldn't it be the other way around? I think it should, especially since frequently the female is so much younger than the male- sometimes even a child. Should children be responsible for not causing men to sin?? That seems insane. 

 

How about men should not be causing the women to stumble by behaving inappropriately towards women and girls? When men, especially self-proclaimed Christian men shame girls for their bodies, clothes, and choices, could that cause a girl to stumble in her faith? She sees men that should be trustworthy and safe acting inappropriately. The men may even be encouraging her to respond sexually causing potentially more serious "stumbling." Men- quit being stumbling blocks to young women who are trying to figure things out! Sure, sure, young men and boys need to be protected as well- older women shouldn't be tempting them and shouldn't be ogling the teenage boys they see. As mothers, I think we can agree that it's disgusting when mature women speak lustfully about boys. None of us say that the boys shouldn't be mowing the grass without a shirt if they don't want it. Who is causing the stumbling? The boy mowing the lawn w/no shirt at my house, or me if I stare and go out and talk to him and let him know I'm available? 

[Greta]

"Stumbling block" definitely brings to mind an image of an obstacle placed deliberately in someone's path, for the express purpose of tripping them. So accusing someone of putting up stumbling blocks for others is not an accusation that should be made lightly. Just because someone stumbles, that doesn't necessarily mean someone placed a stumbling block in front of him. He may have just been not minding his steps.

[Greta]

Choosing to cover more than the average woman at the beach doesn't make me "inappropriate." I don't do it to draw attention to myself, and I haven't noticed any strangers staring at me. Wearing clothes which violate my conscience and my understanding of Scripture would be much more inappropriate than wearing less fabric to conform to society's expectations.

I think it's possible that you and fairfrmhand are talking about two very different kinds of swimsuits, but I'm not certain. When she said "yards of fabric" I was picturing 19th century type swimwear. But "more than average" makes me think swim skirt and tank from L.L.Bean.

 

My daughter (14) came to me earlier this year when she needed a new swimsuit, and said that she thinks it's so ridiculous that while she would never in a million years consider strolling down the street in her bra and panties, that's basically what she's expected to wear (in water-resistant fabric) at the swimming pool. I think she's got a point. Social conventions are a guideline, but that doesn't mean they're above being questioned.

 

She ended up with a modest but cute one-piece that shows shoulders but no cleavage, and a pair of nike running shorts to wear over it. So the overall amount of skin and curves showing is comparable to what she would wear to the gym, which makes a lot more sense for swimming than lingerie, don't you think?

[Joanne]

I decided to stop posting on this thread because it was clear to me that there was no place of intersection. However the thread is active again and your comment needs addressing...Whether the article has merit or not is a matter of opinion. But absolutely it should be judged by the gender of its author in this context. That's the whole point. Men, stop telling women how to live out their sexuality, their beauty, their desire, their physicality.

 

 

 

 

I think I agree, in a way. For me, the premise is flawed when we talk about modesty and dress. Once we start down the road of "dress", we have already chosen a road of slut-shaming. In Western culture, the slut shaming is almost exclusively visited upon women. I personally believe that it is a natural inclination to dress in ways that get the attention of the humans we are attracted to. The idea that it needs to be intervened upon saddens me - it is another manifestation of denial of a rich, vibrant, whole life that includes sexuality.

 

Add the patriarchal element of men scripting appropriateness to female dress, and I also feel the ick.

[Luanne]

This isn't an article about modesty. It is an article about how we should all be against modesty.  I miss the days when women didn't go around showing their undergarments and other things that, I'm sorry, are NOT meant to be seen by the world.  It just proves how self-centered people are these days.  It is too bad people don't care about how they are affecting other people.

[Luanne]

The whole stumbling block thing bothers me because why is it assumed that the female is the one causing the male to stumble? Couldn't it be the other way around? I think it should, especially since frequently the female is so much younger than the male- sometimes even a child. Should children be responsible for not causing men to sin?? That seems insane. 

 

How about men should not be causing the women to stumble by behaving inappropriately towards women and girls? When men, especially self-proclaimed Christian men shame girls for their bodies, clothes, and choices, could that cause a girl to stumble in her faith? She sees men that should be trustworthy and safe acting inappropriately. The men may even be encouraging her to respond sexually causing potentially more serious "stumbling." Men- quit being stumbling blocks to young women who are trying to figure things out! Sure, sure, young men and boys need to be protected as well- older women shouldn't be tempting them and shouldn't be ogling the teenage boys they see. As mothers, I think we can agree that it's disgusting when mature women speak lustfully about boys. None of us say that the boys shouldn't be mowing the grass without a shirt if they don't want it. Who is causing the stumbling? The boy mowing the lawn w/no shirt at my house, or me if I stare and go out and talk to him and let him know I'm available? 

 

Any excuse to dress however you want whether it is appropriate or not.  You are ok with making other people uncomfortable as long as you do what you want.  It is sad, in my opinion.

[Joanne]

The whole stumbling block thing bothers me because why is it assumed that the female is the one causing the male to stumble? Couldn't it be the other way around? I think it should, especially since frequently the female is so much younger than the male- sometimes even a child. Should children be responsible for not causing men to sin?? That seems insane. 

 

How about men should not be causing the women to stumble by behaving inappropriately towards women and girls? When men, especially self-proclaimed Christian men shame girls for their bodies, clothes, and choices, could that cause a girl to stumble in her faith? She sees men that should be trustworthy and safe acting inappropriately. The men may even be encouraging her to respond sexually causing potentially more serious "stumbling." Men- quit being stumbling blocks to young women who are trying to figure things out! Sure, sure, young men and boys need to be protected as well- older women shouldn't be tempting them and shouldn't be ogling the teenage boys they see. As mothers, I think we can agree that it's disgusting when mature women speak lustfully about boys. None of us say that the boys shouldn't be mowing the grass without a shirt if they don't want it. Who is causing the stumbling? The boy mowing the lawn w/no shirt at my house, or me if I stare and go out and talk to him and let him know I'm available? 

 

I am nearly 50, a mother of 3, and run a school of 90 students. I am in a variety of settings weekly.

 

I have NEVER heard or seen older women speak of or look at teenage boys in that manner.

 

Again, the focus on "stumbling blocks" and "modesty" is a manifestation of the same issue that it has been manufactured to address - a hyperfocus on sex out of a normal range of thought and activity.

[Luanne]

If men should remove themselves from the situations we are talking about, then at least around here, men would have to stay home 100% of the time because anywhere you go (including a lot of place men work) there are women dressed inappropriately.  It seems that people on here don't get that men and women are different and view things differently.  Yes, there will always be men who are scumbags and do bad things no matter what you do, but just the fact that you are making honest men uncomfortable with how you dress should mean something to you, but clearly it doesn't.

[MercyA]

I think it's possible that you and fairfrmhand are talking about two very different kinds of swimsuits, but I'm not certain. When she said "yards of fabric" I was picturing 19th century type swimwear. But "more than average" makes me think swim skirt and tank from L.L.Bean.

 

I currently wear this style of swim tee and swim culottes. In the past I've worn suits somewhat similar to the ones here and here (not the top one, scroll down!).  While not exactly 19th century styles, they probably require a couple extra yards of fabric.  :)

[Jean in Newcastle]

If Jesus were to walk around in modern day times do you think he would stumble and sin?  No.  Because he would be in control of his mind.  You don't have to let your mind "go there".  Whether you are a man or a woman.  

[Joanne]

If Jesus were to walk around in modern day times do you think he would stumble and sin? No. Because he would be in control of his mind. You don't have to let your mind "go there". Whether you are a man or a woman.

I think Jesus (being fully human) would have fully human thoughts, including thoughts of sex. And he'd have boundaries that kept the amount, type, and content of those thoughts normal and healthy.

 

He'd neither warp them into dyshealth nor deny their existence.

[poppy]

 

 

Yes, there will always be men who are scumbags and do bad things no matter what you do, but just the fact that you are making honest men uncomfortable with how you dress should mean something to you, but clearly it doesn't.

 

Bring out the burkas.  Can't think of another way to guarantee all honest men will always be comfortable. And that's what matters here, obviously.

[Greta]

I think Jesus (being fully human) would have fully human thoughts, including thoughts of sex. And he'd have boundaries that kept the amount, type, and content of those thoughts normal and healthy.

 

He'd neither warp them into dyshealth nor deny their existence.

Well said! I think one of the problems with the modesty movement (at least in how I have heard it discussed) is a failure to recognize that sexual attraction does not equal sin and lust. Attraction is an impulse, a perfectly natural and healthy impulse. It's how you (consciously) react to or act upon that impulse that can be sin (or not). Seeing a beautiful woman and thinking "wow, she's hot" is not a sin. Obsessively fantasizing about cheating on your wife with her? Okay, now we can use words like sin and lust.

 

So if you mistakenly believe that attraction is lust, and you want women to dress in a way that won't provoke this "lust" then you are asking the impossible. Even in cultures where women have to cover everything but their eyes, men still find them attractive!

 

Everyone is responsible for his or her own lust, and no one should be shamed for mere feelings of attraction. My priest once shared a metaphor (can't remember who he said came up with it) not just for sexual thoughts but for ANY kind of thoughts, that they fly into our minds unprovoked by us, just like airplanes passing overhead. It's only sin when you start building runways for those planes that you really shouldn't invite to stay.

[chocolatechip]

I decided to stop posting on this thread because it was clear to me that there was no place of intersection. However the thread is active again and your comment needs addressing...Whether the article has merit or not is a matter of opinion. But absolutely it should be judged by the gender of its author in this context. That's the whole point. Men, stop telling women how to live out their sexuality, their beauty, their desire, their physicality.

 

 

 

I'll probably get torched for this, but oh well.

 

I think, given the context of a pastor teaching his flock, it's okay. God set up an order, and that order includes men having positions of authority. This doesn't condone abuse of power. Of course men who are pastors shouldn't dictate every little detail of what the women in their churches wear. But I think it's entirely acceptable and, in fact, commendable for a pastor to try to lovingly help his flock get to the heart of an issue. And I think that it's okay for him to encourage sane guidelines. Maybe pastors could teach/discuss this with youth along with their wives--perhaps that would help those who are seeing it as a patriarchy issue? 

However, each individual person who has voluntarily placed himself/herself under the guidance and authority of a particular pastor/priest/whatever needs to be willing and committed to following the advice of that spiritual guide. 

 

In the Orthodox Church, laypeople each have a spiritual father (priest) whom they confess to, go to for advice, support, ect. Part of a spiritual father-spiritual child relationship includes the spiritual child voluntarily committing to be obedient to his spiritual father. The key is, it is VOLUNTARY. No one is imposing that type of obedience on anyone. One must enter into it willingly. But when one does so, it is very freeing. And it keeps everything very orderly - everyone understands how the order works, and it really helps keep the peace. Laypeople are obedient to priests, but priests are obedient to bishops. No one has a position of dictatorial power over anyone else. 

 

So anyway, this pastor does have the responsibility to guide his flock. I think he should have the freedom to initiate conversation about modesty in order to better guide the people of his parish/denomination without being pounced on and disregarded simply because he's a man. 

 

If one doesn't like what he said, and one is not part of his denomination or parish or whatever, then it should be no big deal - just disregard. If one is part of that particular parish or denomination, then things might need to be further discussed. 

[shukriyya]

I'm glad that you decided to jump in again. I really do appreciate your comments. I'm still not sure that I can agree with them, but I appreciate them! If your point is that women have to be the ultimate decision makers about their own lives, then I completely agree with you. Wholeheartedly! But if you're saying (and I fully realize that this may not be what you're saying) that women should disregard men's views on this, then I have to disagree. I certainly think that women can offer some advice to men about how, or perhaps as/more importantly how NOT, to live out their sexuality, desires, and physicality. And I have no problem taking such advice from a man when it is grounded in wisdom and compassion. I think that mothers should talk to their sons about these issues, and fathers to their daughters. I don't see why this should have to be a gender-segregated discussion at all. Women's sexuality does not exist in a bubble that is separate and distinct from men's. Since a big part of what we're talking about here is how the sexes interact, how can we even have a meaningful discussion if we exclude members of one sex from the conversation?

 

I think I sounded snarkier than I meant to in my first post, so for that I apologize. I'm glad we get to discuss it further.

 

We can agree to disagree then as two modern women with the shared histories and experiences of what it is to grow up as the possessors of a womb and breasts, in a world that has an extremely ambivalent relationship to female bodies--billboards with large-breasted half-clad women are barely noticed but put up a billboard of an intimate moment depicting a nursing mom and her baby and suddenly it's an issue. And god forbid if her nipple is exposed!

 

I have no interest in taking advice from men about how I should dress, act, adorn myself etc. even if it's 'grounded in wisdom or compassion', as you eloquently stated. That it should be a gender-segregated issue, for me, speaks to the centuries upon centuries of men curtailing the freedoms of women. My response, while not popular or realistic, is a visceral one, an embodied one, coming from a place I'm learning to listen to more and more as I get older.

 

And you're correct, our sexuality doesn't exist in a bubble, nothing does, but cultivating an atmosphere where women's sexuality can arise from a place of quiet empowerment and beauty, a place of strength and joy and intention rather than the half-truth our culture has deemed it can only occur when women feel comfortable allowing their own body's voice to emerge. And there's no comfort in one's actions being prescribed. Every woman's body has a story to tell and part of that story has to do with being silenced no matter how liberated one feels because the story is cellular--what your mom experienced, your grandmother, your great grandmother, all those stories are encoded in our bodies to a certain degree. One cannot live in this culture and not absorb and be shaped by some of the ongoing, overriding fear/distrust of the female.

 

GretaLynne, I appreciate your willingness to dialogue about this even though we come from slightly different viewpoints. And I'm aware as I respond to your post of all the small and large experiences that have brought you, as a woman, to this moment. I have tended to read these posts within the context of a collective female body. Really, this is what interests me, not looking to the places our view points differ but trying to find the place of intersection as women. That speaks to something much larger and more compelling than modesty.

 

[Greta]

I currently wear this style of swim tee and swim culottes. In the past I've worn suits somewhat similar to the ones here and here (not the top one, scroll down!). While not exactly 19th century styles, they probably require a couple extra yards of fabric. :)

The sun is so intense where I live that you will see some people (presumably the more sunburn-prone ones) wearing shirts for swimming. I've never seen women wearing knee-length bottoms, as far as I can remember. But maybe I just didn't remember because it isn't that . . . memorable. :) I don't think I would think twice about it. I wear a tank and swim shorts myself. Bikinis are definitely not my style. Even if there were no men around to tempt with my awesome bod (HA!) I just don't like the feeling of being that exposed. I thought that I had to when I was younger, because I mistakenly believed that not wearing a bikini sent a message that I'm frumpy, prudish, etc. I've developed a little bit more maturity and don't let myself feel pressured that way anymore. And for the record, I think that when we're discussing the ways in which the modesty movement is unfair and unhealthy, it certainly deserves a mention that those kinds of pressures on young women to dress sexy are just as unfair and unhealthy.

[MercyA]

I think, given the context of a pastor teaching his flock, it's okay. God set up an order, and that order includes men having positions of authority. This doesn't condone abuse of power. Of course men who are pastors shouldn't dictate every little detail of what the women in their churches wear. But I think it's entirely acceptable and, in fact, commendable for a pastor to try to lovingly help his flock get to the heart of an issue. And I think that it's okay for him to encourage sane guidelines.

...

So anyway, this pastor does have the responsibility to guide his flock. I think he should have the freedom to initiate conversation about modesty in order to better guide the people of his parish/denomination without being pounced on and disregarded simply because he's a man. 

:iagree: :iagree:  :iagree: (even though I don't agree with this particular pastor's perspective).

[Greta]

Wow, shukriyya, what a beautiful and eloquent post! Thank you so much for taking the time to write that. It was a joy to read. I agree with you completely about our society's contradictory and sometimes downright crazy view of the female body - and your specific example of sexualized images of breasts being everywhere, but the sight of a nursing mother causing people to flip out, is a spot-on example of just how messed up we are.

 

I continued to think about your post, and also Joanne's response to your post, and I do think I have a much better grasp of where you are coming from, and a better recognition of my own bias. In my mind is this scenario of a gentle, humble, saintly man giving advice (not mandates) to women. And then there's this other reality of selfish, chauvinistic jerks thinking they have the right to tell women how to dress and act, entirely for his own benefit and not for hers. Yeah, I have a very visceral, disgusted reaction to that too. I didn't get that feeling from the article at all, but like you said, our life experiences go into our perception of all of these things. I have been so blessed with the men in my life. Maybe that gives me a slanted view. (But I just felt that the author of that article was one of the good guys.)

 

Your entire post was wonderful, but I'm posting this paragraph again because it really spoke to me:

 

 

. . . cultivating an atmosphere where women's sexuality can arise from a place of quiet empowerment and beauty, a place of strength and joy and intention rather than the half-truth our culture has deemed it can only occur when women feel comfortable allowing their own body's voice to emerge. And there's no comfort in one's actions being prescribed. Every woman's body has a story to tell and part of that story has to do with being silenced no matter how liberated one feels because the story is cellular--what your mom experienced, your grandmother, your great grandmother, all those stories are encoded in our bodies to a certain degree. One cannot live in this culture and not absorb and be shaped by some of the ongoing, overriding fear/distrust of the female.

 

So many good insights there. Thank you again!

[HS Mom in NC]

I appreciate our former youth pastor's approach to teen church group swimming events.  Since modesty was so important to some of the parents, then everyone had to wear a medium or dark colored T-shirt over their swimsuit the whole time....including the boys and the adults.  Fair is fair.

[Joyofsixreboot]

I think I've come to the conclusion I am immodest. I just don't think about this stuff. My Christianity focuses on helping others and doing good as a part of the body of Christ. I just don't get what sexuality/modesty/etc have to do with it. It seems purely cultural.

[MercyA]

I think I've come to the conclusion I am immodest. I just don't think about this stuff. My Christianity focuses on helping others and doing good as a part of the body of Christ. I just don't get what sexuality/modesty/etc have to do with it. It seems purely cultural.

 

My surrounding culture seems largely unconcerned with modesty.  I base my views on Scripture.

 

I do hope you're not trying to imply that those of us who are concerned about modesty aren't concerned about helping others and doing good? I can't speak for anyone else, but I take all of Scripture seriously and certainly haven't missed the commandments to do good as part of the body of Christ. As I'm thinking about this, the Mennonite ladies in my area come to mind. They are some of the most generous, giving, selfless people I've ever met. I would say that their simple, modest attire and their lack of concern for what is stylish and trendy provides them with more time and energy to serve others. Honestly, they put me to shame.

[TracyP]

My surrounding culture seems largely unconcerned with modesty.  I base my views on Scripture.

 

I do hope you're not trying to imply that those of us who are concerned about modesty aren't concerned about helping others and doing good? I can't speak for anyone else, but I take all of Scripture seriously and certainly haven't missed the commandments to do good as part of the body of Christ. As I'm thinking about this, the Mennonite ladies in my area come to mind. They are some of the most generous, giving, selfless people I've ever met. I would say that their simple, modest attire and their lack of concern for what is stylish and trendy provides them with more time and energy to serve others. Honestly, they put me to shame.

 

The bolded is an interesting point. I admire many things about the Mennonite women I have met. I completely respect their choice of "simple, modest attire" and "lack of concern for what is stylish and trendy". I think their choice in clothing is very Biblical. Although, as far as I know it has little to do with being a stumbling block to men...

 

The women I know who are part of the modesty movement are the opposite of the Mennonite women. They sit and bend in front of mirrors with each clothing choice. They spend a significant amount of time trying to look cute and trendy while being modest at the same time. You are probably aware that there are many blogs devoted to this very topic. With one exception, the "modest" women I know are fairly obsessed with their appearance. :lol:  I laugh because the verses in Timothy, which are so often used as a call toward modesty, are about doing the *opposite*. Timothy talks about not focusing on looks but the beauty of good works. (I don't give a hoot how focused anybody is on their appearance, btw. I'm just laughing at the irony.)

 

I wear a lot of t-shirts and jeans or tank tops and capris combos. I don't know whether or not I am modest. It does not cross my radar in the day to day. I dress in a way that makes *me* comfortable and then go about my life. I try not to assume anything about any other women based solely on her manner of dress. I wish this concept could be applied by everyone.

[MercyA]

The bolded is an interesting point. I admire many things about the Mennonite women I have met. I completely respect their choice of "simple, modest attire" and "lack of concern for what is stylish and trendy". I think their choice in clothing is very Biblical. Although, as far as I know it has little to do with being a stumbling block to men...

 

The women I know who are part of the modesty movement are the opposite of the Mennonite women. They sit and bend in front of mirrors with each clothing choice. They spend a significant amount of time trying to look cute and trendy while being modest at the same time. You are probably aware that there are many blogs devoted to this very topic. With one exception, the "modest" women I know are fairly obsessed with their appearance. :lol:  I laugh because the verses in Timothy, which are so often used as a call toward modesty, are about doing the *opposite*. Timothy talks about not focusing on looks but the beauty of good works. (I don't give a hoot how focused anybody is on their appearance, btw. I'm just laughing at the irony.)

 

I wear a lot of t-shirts and jeans or tank tops and capris combos. I don't know whether or not I am modest. It does not cross my radar in the day to day. I dress in a way that makes *me* comfortable and then go about my life. I try not to assume anything about any other women based solely on her manner of dress. I wish this concept could be applied by everyone.

 

I agree that Mennonite clothing is very Biblical, and I, too, find much to admire in the Mennonite women I've met. This afternoon I dug out some tracts I received years ago from Rod and Staff Publishers (a conservative Mennonite company; many of you are familiar with their curriculum.) I found a few tracts on modesty, and they say things like:

 

"We are not to cause others to stumble. 'But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart' (Matthew 5:28).  If looking has such an effect on a man, then women do them a great disservice by dressing immodestly...'Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way' (Romans 14:13)."

 

and 

 

"Not only will a Christian cover the body...but he will do it in a way that is not suggestive and enticing to the opposite sex. Tight, form-fitting, or sheer clothing is certainly not modest."

 

Based on this admittedly tiny sample of Mennonite writing, I would say not being a stumbling block does seem to be at least one motivation for modest dress among the Mennonites (and of course there are other reasons as well).  

 

Regarding your other comments: when trying on a new shirt, I often do bend in front of the mirror to see if cleavage is visible. This is not because I am "obsessed" with my appearance, but because I don't want to waste money on a shirt I'm not going to be comfortable wearing!  :001_smile:  I'm personally not interested in looking trendy or reading fashion blogs, but I don't find anything particularly odd about women enjoying fashion and striving to be modest at the same time. I agree with you that spending an inordinate amount of time on such things would not be Biblical. I do like to look attractive for my husband, though.  

 

A small percentage of the women I know dress in a deliberately and distinctly modest way. They belong to many different churches--Orthodox, Baptist, Pentecostal, German Baptist Brethren, Mennonite, non-denominational.  Not one seems to be obsessed with her appearance.  I don't deny that such women exist, but I don't think we can accurately generalize about it.

 

Dressing modestly and wearing a head covering is my "tithe of mint." [ETA: The linked article was not written by me, but I like what the author has to say.] It's not the most weighty and important thing in my Christian walk, but if something is significant enough for God to mention in His inspired Word, it's significant enough for me to study, consider, and try to obey.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Peace.   :)  

[TracyP]

Thanks for the verses from R&S. The R&S publishers are Amish (ETA: I stand corrected, they are Mennonite), but it is possible that the Mennonite teachings are the same. I would still be surprised if "causing men to stumble" is very high on their list of reasons, but I could be wrong.

 

Regarding the "obsessed" comment... I wasn't generalizing to every woman in the modesty movement. Only the (admittedly few) that I know. IMO, they are overly concerned with their appearances. Like I said earlier, I don't see anything wrong with that. It isn't my thing, but that is okay. I only find it funny that some women use a Bible verse that says "don't worry about your outward appearance" to justify... worrying about their outward appearance. They cling to the word modest in that verse and ignore what the verse(s) actually say.

 

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Peace.   :)  

 

Back at ya. :)
 

[MercyA]

Thanks for the verses from R&S. The R&S publishers are Amish, but it is possible that the Mennonite teachings are the same. I would still be surprised if "causing men to stumble" is very high on their list of reasons, but I could be wrong.

 

Not trying to be argumentative, but: "Rod and Staff Publishers was founded in 1958 as Pilgrim Mennonite Press. The first seven board members were chosen by the Mennonite cross-section gathered in Virginia in 1958. The work since the beginning has been directed by a self-perpetuating board.The present board members are members of various Mennonite churches in the United States and Canada."

 

Thanks again for the conversation! 

[TracyP]

Not trying to be argumentative, but: "Rod and Staff Publishers was founded in 1958 as Pilgrim Mennonite Press. The first seven board members were chosen by the Mennonite cross-section gathered in Virginia in 1958. The work since the beginning has been directed by a self-perpetuating board.The present board members are members of various Mennonite churches in the United States and Canada."

 

 

I was conflating Pathway Readers/CtGE (which is Amish) with R&S because they are both sold by Milestone Books. Thank you for the correction.