Modesty, immodesty, men and women....

[The Rogue Tomato]

I mean what does a person wear that makes one go "Praise God!", when we see it?

One question and so many potential answers.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I guess the question is, what dress brings "glory to God"? I mean what does a person wear that makes one go "Praise God!", when we see it? Who determines what that is? It a dress a half inch shorter get an amen at least?

Figure out what doesn't bring glory to God, and don't do that.

 

[Mathew Ward]

I think there are other criteria, the flesh could rise even if a woman was dressed in a burkha (sp?).

Which is the whole point. No one that I know of is suggesting that our ladies dress like a streetwalker for Sunday service. At the same time, you don't have to scratch to far to find men who will say that "her attire" was what caused his reaction.

Strictly speaking, it likely WAS what caused his reaction.  Not that acting on natural tendencies morally justifies the reaction.

Which if we go back a few verses we see where the root of the problem lies.

Proverbs 7:1-5 My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments with thee. Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye. Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thine heart. Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy kinswoman: That they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth with her words.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Back to the question:
Do you think it possible for a woman to ever dress immodestly?

Immodest meaning akin to the dress of a harlot....seductively or is any way a woman dresses ok.

 

[Bruh]

My wife wears tailor made pants for women and we go to the movies. 

O, we go to a IFB church and are KJVO. 
And we do not associate with the Chapel's, Gomez's, Jenkin's and or the like and yes they are all of the Hyles movement therefore the same.  Thank you very much for your time. 

And I am a Sr. Member on the FFF and we go to Disney ever year for 2 weeks. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Back to the question:
Do you think it possible for a woman to ever dress immodestly?

Immodest meaning akin to the dress of a harlot....seductively or is any way a woman dresses ok.

and back to what i already posted yesterday... in the "pants on women" thread.........

[size=10pt](which you seem to have referred to .... but also ignored when you started this new thread.... :-\.... )


the immodesty that paul was discussing in scripture... which was the primary definition of the word both in the time of paul and also in 1611..... was a shameless display of extravagance and wealth.... paul even spelled it out as such... .... but for some reason that understanding and primary definition of immodesty has all but been abandoned and forgotten in the modern age.....with only the secondary meaning of having an uncovered body for the purposes of enticement being remembered .... and then forced into the scriptures where it doesn;t belong... or taken completely out of context as it frequently is with pauls famous admonition .......

when paul spoke out against "immodesty" he was teaching that christian women should not go to church dressed in a way that boasted to others of her families wealth....... why?....... because church was supposed to be a place where everyone stood on equal ground.... a place where nobody is better than anybody else...and where everyone treats everyone else with due respect........

and also because then... just like now.... it was common for the wealthy to show off their status and power by having the women in the family wear expensive clothing and jewelry... etc.... to let others know they thought they were better than everyone else  because they could afford to dress their women better....  .. paul was saying people should not dress in such a way.. or for such a reason... at church.........

i posted this picture once before..... but here is an illustrated example... from the same time period....  of the immodest shameless display of weath and extravagance that paul was teaching against......she even has the broided hair... costly array... and shows the exact opposite of "shamefacedness"... ....... yet by modern church standards.... looking at the length and cut of the dress she is wearing alone.....most people would consider this woman to be dressed extremely modestly and even dressed appropriately........



so is being in a state of undress for the purposes of enticement also wrong?...... absolutely........ but what that looks like can vary from culture to culture and even change over time........... a female wearing pants anywhere today.. hardly qualifies ......... and where i live wearing a common swimsuit or even a bikini doesn;t qualify either....... (and you believe it does then you should consider canceling any vacation plans to visit these islands....)

because.... and like i also said before..... men with lust in their hearts do not need to see a scantily dressed female to let their heart wander into sin just by looking at her........ and a woman doesn;t have to do anything on purpose or be dressed inappropriately to make that kind of reaction happen either....... whether she intends to or not.....

paul was talking about much more than just the cut of a woman;s dress or how much skin she revealed......if he was even talking about that at all.......  and it would make more sense if modern fundamentalists focused on the real and much more serious issues paul was addressing ...rather than ignoring them.... then turning the whole "modesty" issue upside down on it;s head..... and pretending a few extra inches of cloth, one way or the other, is all that makes the difference..... ....  :-\

the bottom line to all this?........... men need to take responsibility for what happens in their own hearts and imaginations.... and stop taking scripture out of context as an excuse to blame women for every sinful thought that enters their mind.....  ... [/size]

So, your answer is 'no' ?

 

[ALAYMAN]

the immodesty that paul was discussing in scripture... which was the primary definition of the word both in the time of paul and also in 1611..... was a shameless display of extravagance and wealth.... paul even spelled it out as such... .... but for some reason that understanding and primary definition of immodesty has all but been abandoned and forgotten in the modern age..........
the bottom line to all this?........... men need to take responsibility for what happens in their own hearts and imaginations.... and stop taking scripture out of context as an excuse to blame women for every sinful thought that enters their mind.....  ...

Two quick thoughts before bed, with no intention to inflame, but rather a simple disagreement.

1) The understanding of I Timothy 2:9 and modesty as it relates to physical distraction is not limited to merely a modern day understanding.  Plenty of folk/commentators prior to the IFBx types (or conservative evangelicals) prior to this century understood it as such.  The idea of "shamefacedness" that is mentioned in the text has direct bearing on this interpretive scheme.

2) There are some men who will blame the woman for their own lusts.  This is simply wrong.  However, whatever is rightly defined as immodest dress is also equally sin that needs to be dealt with discreetly and with caution.  There is subjectivity that will enter the discussion as we try to define just what it is that properly describes modesty.  Without getting wordy, I'd say it is similar to the age-old argument over what constitutes obscenity (or porn)...."ya know it when ya see it".  Of course some IFBx and Muslims will not have any common sense in this arena, but barring the controlling loopy types from the discussion, there must be SOME way of discussing what MIGHT constitute inappropriate displays of skin.

 

[Sherryh]

Please don't go there I get sick thinking of denim skirt with socks and tennis shoes...thank you God I never wore that...........Run from that picture 

 

[Recovering IFB]

I guess the question is, what dress brings "glory to God"? I mean what does a person wear that makes one go "Praise God!", when we see it? Who determines what that is? It a dress a half inch shorter get an amen at least?

Figure out what doesn't bring glory to God, and don't do that.

that really doesn't answer answer my question. what does someone have to wear that brings "glory to God"? Something that somebody actually praises God for when we see how somebody is dressed.
I don't see people giving God the glory when we see a fundy in a store or out in public when we see them dressed as  "frumpy and dumpy", as my wife calls it.

 

[OZZY]

Again, on the FFF, we go to extreme.
By reading some here, I might get the impression that it is not possible for a woman to dress immodestly or 'be wrong' in the way she dresses. The fault is always that of the man who simply cannot or will not control his lust....and seeks to place the blame on the female.
Surely, I'm wrong in my assumption.....

And behold, the woman meets him, dressed as a prostitute, wily of heart. She is loud and wayward;her feet do not stay at home;now in the street, now in the market, and at every corner she lies in wait. (Proverbs 7:10-12)

Tarheel as always your mistake here is  you brought the bible into the debate. You know that is not allowed here! Meet me at pelican's and we'll discuss it over a snow cone

 

[ALAYMAN]

i think proverbs 7 says a lot when it describes the young man caught in the trap of his own lust as being "void of understanding".....  christian parents need to teach their young men to have a sense of honor and to be respectable .... and i agree that young christian women should be taught to dress modestly... but also ... appropriately for the occasions....... most would disagree with me over what that should look like and that;s fine..... i live in a totally different culture and climate than most of you do................. but as a young female...... i can testify that i have been gawked at.. propositioned.. and approached in very inappropriately ways.. by men for most of my life no matter what i was wearing...... even in full length dresses or wearing baggy ski pants and a full sized winter parka..... and on a few occasions some of them doing the gawking and propositioning turned out to be the very same kind of young men who should have been taught honor and respectability by their christian parents..........  and i;m not trying to inflame either ......... but please pardon me if i refuse to take as big a measure of the responsibility in this issue as some would seem to want me to...... ....... i have been down roads most of them only have nightmares about...... and they can;t scare me with tales of the boogyman...... i know the hearts of some of them better than they do themselves...... and i will never be under their control or power again with regards to any scheme or issue.............. and that includes the issue of dress..........

I don't disagree with anything in the above post.  I might however, quibble over the issue of letting culture ultimately define what constitutes modesty.  There is a danger, as is often the case, of going off the road on either side of the ditch regarding the issue of modesty.  Some trend towards legalism (spelling out clothing articles ad infinitum) and others may not consider the topic Biblically as it relates to the depraved nature of man(humans) and his(their) proclivities, resulting in potential excess flaunting of liberty or even an attitude of antinomianism.

Good discussion.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I think this article makes some interesting observations...outside the viewing everything thru the Xer abuse lens.

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/Modern-Parenthood/2014/0625/Does-Bindi-Irwin-s-modesty-defense-denote-a-bigger-trend

 

[Mathew Ward]

Back to the question:
Do you think it possible for a woman to ever dress immodestly?

Immodest meaning akin to the dress of a harlot....seductively or is any way a woman dresses ok.

Yes to over dressing and yes dressing to seduce a man that isn't her husband.

Where is that line of dress? I don't know, I'm not a woman.

What is my responsibility as a Christian man? Already posted Proverbs 7:1-5.

Since you brought up the question, where do you draw the line for the ladies as something being seductive?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Back to the question:
Do you think it possible for a woman to ever dress immodestly?

Immodest meaning akin to the dress of a harlot....seductively or is any way a woman dresses ok.

Yes to over dressing and yes dressing to seduce a man that isn't her husband.

Where is that line of dress? I don't know, I'm not a woman.

What is my responsibility as a Christian man? Already posted Proverbs 7:1-5.

Since you brought up the question, where do you draw the line for the ladies as something being seductive?

Since I have already ceded the point that dress standards and modesty standards are subjective, where I draw the line is not pertinent to the debate, IMO.

The point of this thread was to address my perception that:
To some any suggestion that many/some girls should cover up more is presumed to be tantamount to saying that they ought to be wearing burkas. The suggestion that there is any responsibility placed upon women relative to male desire can be reacted to as if the suggestion was that women are entirely responsible for male desire and that, conversely, men have no responsibility whatsoever.

Men are totally responsible for their actions and cannot be forced into lust or sin by any woman's dress, actions or attitude. I am not advocating for a national dress code, I have enough trouble maintaining codes for my own life and lifestyle.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Again, on the FFF, we go to extreme.
By reading some here, I might get the impression that it is not possible for a woman to dress immodestly or 'be wrong' in the way she dresses. The fault is always that of the man who simply cannot or will not control his lust....and seeks to place the blame on the female.
Surely, I'm wrong in my assumption.....

And behold, the woman meets him, dressed as a prostitute, wily of heart. She is loud and wayward;her feet do not stay at home;now in the street, now in the market, and at every corner she lies in wait. (Proverbs 7:10-12)

Tarheel as always your mistake here is  you brought the bible into the debate. You know that is not allowed here! Meet me at pelican's and we'll discuss it over a snow cone

Zacks first, Pelicans for dessert. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I think this article makes some interesting observations...outside the viewing everything thru the Xer abuse lens.

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/Modern-Parenthood/2014/0625/Does-Bindi-Irwin-s-modesty-defense-denote-a-bigger-trend

though i have had some limited exposure to them.... i have never been an ifbxer myself.... and they have never had any power over me or the decisions i make........... but that said i am pretty certain that what bindi irwin wears would not be approved of by most u.s. mainland baptists whether xer or not... and i also know with any doubts that what i wear on a regular basis wouldn;t be approved either....... how do i know this?........ because i have seen it all continuously brought up to be criticized and condemned on these forums for over 10 years now.....  :-\ ...... ..

Since I have already ceded the point that dress standards and modesty standards are subjective, where I draw the line is not pertinent to the debate, IMO.

The point of this thread was to address my perception that:
To some any suggestion that many/some girls should cover up more is presumed to be tantamount to saying that they ought to be wearing burkas. The suggestion that there is any responsibility placed upon women relative to male desire can be reacted to as if the suggestion was that women are entirely responsible for male desire and that, conversely, men have no responsibility whatsoever.

Men are totally responsible for their actions and cannot be forced into lust or sin by any woman's dress, actions or attitude. I am not advocating for a national dress code, I have enough trouble maintaining codes for my own life and lifestyle.

and i think the reactions you got in reply ... (including my own)... are due to the way your op and other posts on this issue come across....... they seem to be a suggestion/implication that anything a women wears which ..in your modest opinion.. :.. doesn;t cover up enough.. is tantamount to being the attire of a harlot........ it doesn;t help that you seem to insist your opinion sees eye to eye with scripture when it clearly does not.......

the young woman in proverbs 7 was acting with intent to cause lust and seduce the young man who was "void of understanding".....  by contrast he was out there on the street looking precisely for the kind of woman who would do that very thing........... it wasn;t just some chance encounter where this young man saw what the woman was wearing ... (or not wearing)...and fell into lust......... yet that is how the religiously extreme often paint the picture when they describe it and try to relate it to young men and women in the modern age.......... they put all of the blame on the young woman... and her manner of dress...... with virtually none of the fault placed on her words... her other actions.. or even her intentions.... and virtually no responsibility on the young man either..........

reading what some people often say about this kind of thing one could get the impression all a young woman has to do is be under dressed ..by their standards and.. wallah !!.. a harlot is instantly born who will turn any innocent young man that sees her into a lustful out of control whoremonger

there is much more to this whole scenario and phenomenon than that..... and to focus totally on one aspect of it while ignoring the others does everyone a disservice.... even yourselves...... that;s what i take objection to when these issues always come up........ but in essence we probably do agree more on this issue than we disagree......... it;s just the actual amount and placement of threads and fibers that seems to be the point of contention.... ..... and whether an abundance or lack of them one way or the other really has that big of an effect all on it;s own......  8)

Understanding the point of contention seems to be lacking on my part.
I have repeatedly said I don't believe men are absolved from responsibility for their actions, never, ever!
I have repeatedly said the standard is subjective, depending on a number of factors.
That said and ceded...you have already agreed that it is possible for a woman to dress 'immodestly'.
So, we basically agree on this issue.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Understanding the point of contention seems to be lacking on my part.
I have repeatedly said I don't believe men are absolved from responsibility for their actions, never, ever!
I have repeatedly said the standard is subjective, depending on a number of factors.
That said and ceded...you have already agreed that it is possible for a woman to dress 'immodestly'.
So, we basically agree on this issue.

we agree in essence.... but i;m still not sure we agree in substance.....  :-\ ............ do you believe that "immodest" is always equivalent to "the attire of a harlot"..? ..... or that it should be labelled as such? ......... .. the point of contention is not whether either of us believe it is possible for a young woman to dress immodestly....... but rather just where exactly that line should be drawn..... and whether actions play any part on any specific manner of dress being judged as immodest or not...at one specific time as opposed to another... ...

but while we are at it........ do you believe it is possible for a young man to dress immodestly?......do you believe it is just as important for young men to be covered in appropriate places and at appropriate times as it is for a young woman?.....

there are times in my opinion when what i consider to be immodest... for either gender... is in reality just dressing stupid.... (i;ve given examples of those before)...... and other times when what i see as anothers attempt to go overboard with modesty in their dress to be equally stupid........ even dangerous.........there is a specific time and place for specific things .......... modesty is not a black and white issue.......



i have an idea....... maybe we should start a poll or survey and list specific things item by item ... situation by situation....and let people vote on whether they think those items or situations are immodest in or of themselves..... it might not solve any points of contentions..... but at least we would know where and what those points of contention are..... 8)

I have answered many of those questions already on the thread.
Yet again, how a woman dresses for modesty is subjective.
Men are ALWAYS responsible for their thoughts and actions.
And, I'm for modesty for all genders....not aware that Scripture addressed modesty or immodesty in men's apparel.
Perhaps the Holy Spirit didn't consider a reaction to Xers when He inspired the Scripture.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I have answered many of those questions already on the thread.
Yet again, how a woman dresses for modesty is subjective.
Men are ALWAYS responsible for their thoughts and actions.
And, I'm for modesty for all genders....not aware that Scripture addressed modesty or immodesty in men's apparel.
Perhaps the Holy Spirit didn't consider a reaction to Xers when He inspired the Scripture.

no... the Holy Spirit considered everything when He inspired the Scriptures.... including actions and reactions to Xers........ the question is whether or not He inspired the Xers opinions...... and that... it seems........ might be the biggest point of contention....... 

That would only be a point of contention if one of us affirmed the 'Xer position'...which I define as one or more of these:
Blame the woman for the man's sin.
Have a written/definitive standard of 'proper dress'.
Condemn any person who disagrees with the above.

I don't agree with those in any way, shape or form.
I assumed you didn't either.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Understanding the point of contention seems to be lacking on my part.
I have repeatedly said I don't believe men are absolved from responsibility for their actions, never, ever!
I have repeatedly said the standard is subjective, depending on a number of factors.
That said and ceded...you have already agreed that it is possible for a woman to dress 'immodestly'.
So, we basically agree on this issue.

we agree in essence.... but i;m still not sure we agree in substance.....  :-\ ............ do you believe that "immodest" is always equivalent to "the attire of a harlot"..? ..... or that it should be labelled as such? ......... .. the point of contention is not whether either of us believe it is possible for a young woman to dress immodestly....... but rather just where exactly that line should be drawn..... and whether actions play any part on any specific manner of dress being judged as immodest or not...at one specific time as opposed to another... ...

but while we are at it........ do you believe it is possible for a young man to dress immodestly?......do you believe it is just as important for young men to be covered in appropriate places and at appropriate times as it is for a young woman?.....

there are times in my opinion when what i consider to be immodest... for either gender... is in reality just dressing stupid.... (i;ve given examples of those before)...... and other times when what i see as anothers attempt to go overboard with modesty in their dress to be equally stupid........ even dangerous.........there is a specific time and place for specific things .......... modesty is not a black and white issue.......



i have an idea....... maybe we should start a poll or survey and list specific things item by item ... situation by situation....and let people vote on whether they think those items or situations are immodest in or of themselves..... it might not solve any points of contentions..... but at least we would know where and what those points of contention are..... 8)

I have answered many of those questions already on the thread.
Yet again, how a woman dresses for modesty is subjective.
Men are ALWAYS responsible for their thoughts and actions.
And, I'm for modesty for all genders....not aware that Scripture addressed modesty or immodesty in men's apparel.
Perhaps the Holy Spirit didn't consider a reaction to Xers when He inspired the Scripture.

Directly? No, but indirectly or inferred, yes.

Genesis 2:25  And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Exodus 28:42  And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Leviticus, all over the place re don't uncover men's nakedness (in context, a relative, but I already said inferred not stated)
John 21:7  Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
Luke 8:35  Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.

I repeat, inferred, not stated. If physical nakedness was not an issue, what was the big deal in John 21:7? I tend to use two words to differentiate two thoughts. Peter was naked, not nude. Peter was caught in his underwear, not nude.

 

[ALAYMAN]

i agree that culture should not ultimately define modesty.... but you can;t totally disregard it either.....yet it;s one of the things christians.... specifically american christians... most often attempt to disregard when it comes to others different than themselves......... while at the same time allowing their own culture to ultimately define much of what they go about doing in the name of being scriptural and godly............

No argument that our ethno-centricity can unduly bias our Christian practices against other cultures.  But the matter of indecency, as subjective as it may be, is not new to the human race nor American evangelicalism.  Nakedness, or near nakedness has been an ever present issue throughout many pagan cultures for millennia.  And I think that it is a fair observation to say that the levels for what is considered acceptable displays of flesh, in the movies, on TV, at the mall, and in public culture in general of America, is not trending towards anything close to a reasonable Biblical practice.

but that by itself doesn;t really cause many problems....... it just makes them seem like an oddity even to other christians who grew up in different cultures......... the problem comes in when christians of one culture attempt to enforce their cultural ideals onto people of another culture in the name of being scriptural and godly..... and insist their way is the only right way ..... and even more of a problem when they insist that for those of the other culture to be resistant in embracing their new one is evidence of being weak, lost or unregenerate ............. wars have broken out over as much.....even right here on the fff.... ....

Well, I agree that trying to force any concept of <Biblical> morality is a fool's errand if that person disagrees with the thing being forced on them.  But as Tarheel points out in this thread, the issue is almost taboo to even be spoken about, lest we be called the Taliban for even raising the subject.  Assuming that there is something of a Biblical standard of modesty, then it ought to be reasonably hashed out amongst the conscientious Christian community.  This includes telling both genders that modesty is important.  It includes discussions about not offending the weaker brother.  It means consideration as to how our behavior ought to always fall out to the furtherance of the gospel and to God's glory, not merely our own desires.

And one last thing to add regarding the impact of culture on the subject.  You have rightly said that the intent of the individual must be a factor (ie, what is in their heart).  But the truth is that there may be zero intent to cause lust by dressing in immodest ways, but the apparel may still be immodest, so ultimately though intent is an important factor, it isn't the absolute factor in determining what is immodest.  To inappropriately draw attention to ourselves (as you rightly pointed out via the I Tim 2 passage), whether that is our intent or not should also be a measure of this discussion.