Controversy over outfit

[Reformed Covenanter]

I did not watch the video nor am I writing to sternly rebuke anyone, but I do not think that it is a good idea to post a thread asking a question about whether or not someone looks immodest in a certain video. Why? Because if they are dressed immodestly, then it is surely leading others into temptation to ask them to watch or look at the person who is supposedly dressed immodestly.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

The question that comes to my mind as I read all the comments since I last posted, is akin to what Joshua said above about a definition, only my question would also factor in: why are we making a connection between women dressing immodestly and men lusting? And before any men jump at that as a ridiculous statement, let’s ask: Does the Bible make that specific assertion? Is the reason why God mentions modesty because of a man’s tendency to lust? Again, no “it’s obvious” opinions, but are there any absolutely specific bible verses? I think of examples like Dinah and nothing was said about her dressing immodestly.

I can find scriptures, even those provided yesterday by TylerRay, to indicate all believers should be modest. And kosmios (modesty) is defined as: orderliness, moderation, good behavior and appropriateness. (So a bikini on the beach in Hawaii would fit that description, but a bikini on 5th Ave NYC wouldn’t.) But the reasons are not due to preventing lust but rather to honor God.

I think general wisdom is a clear case. Is a man more likely to sin over a woman wearing a potato sack or a bikini? This is most clearly seen in media as movies will portray women in a sexual way to entice men, which will cause the film makers to make more money.

 

[smhbbag]

I think general wisdom is a clear case. Is a man more likely to sin over a woman wearing a potato sack or a bikini? This is most clearly seen in media as movies will portray women in a sexual way to entice men.

It also attracts heterosexual women, as they get to see and imagine themselves as the pretty one enticing men. Women are not dragged along in this process, but are among its most enthusiastic supporters. They just usually won't say so.

Desexualizing things is a way to attack a woman's power and influence, which is why they will defend themselves as just trying to be innocent or cute, but really the gender power dynamics are at play.

Women control the vast majority of spending in the United States. Whatever advertising or movie content exists using sex to sell or attract things is not exclusively focused on the small minority of expenditures controlled by men.

 

[VictorBravo]

Desexualizing things is a way to attack a woman's power and influence, which is why they will defend themselves as just trying to be innocent or cute, but really the gender power dynamics are at play.

Women control the vast majority of spending in the United States. Whatever advertising or movie content exists using sex to sell or attract things is not exclusively focused on the small minority of expenditures controlled by men.

Now my head's spinning. I started following this thread and appreciated Bruce's comment--even if I had to google "Adele."

And it caused me to go to my 1976 high school yearbook stuck in the corner of an obscure bookshelf: yup, just what I though--we had a dress code in Belgrade Montana, and yet there were quite a few young ladies with tight shirts and some with a peeking belly button. I guess not much has really changed in 42 years except for the shape of our haircuts. Of course, Farrah Fawcett Majors was what we now call an "influencer", despite nobody having cable TV and with only one station beamed in from Billings.

So I was going to comment on culture, etc., but saw that has been adequately addressed by sandrajune (belated welcome, BTW!). I decided I could contribute a little on the topic of chivalry, and maybe romance. As I've said before, I grew up pagan, on a ranch, earthy in my perspective, but still a sense of respect and decency was beaten into my head. I was trained to look upon a woman with respect. Leering is not respectful. Hanging out with guys who catcall was for losers, etc. The key point was it took training, as in practice and self-discipline. Mom and Dad were united on this.

In my current line of work as a public defender, I deal with all sorts of men and women in all sorts of attire. Many are broken. Many woman I meet dress provocatively. There might be an attempt to manipulate, but I dare say most don't really know what they want.

When I'm presented such a circumstance, of course there might be that carnal shock--but because of the practice and training I'm talking about, the most immediate internal response I have is a sense of heart-break and even, sometimes, pity. I see broken empty people drawing on whatever broken tools they have to get through whatever is hounding.

So, yes, I deliberately de-sexualize the situation. Now I hear that this means I'm attacking a woman's power and influence? On the contrary, I am pretty sure the person I'm dealing with senses some kind of respect--and sometimes she has not had that in a long time.

As far as the gender disparity in spending goes, I'm not at all familiar with that. Maybe it's because my wife is frugal, but I have a hard time believing that sexualized advertising is some sort of exploitation on woman's empowerment. Maybe don't get out much, but I've spent probably ten times as much on my discretionary hobbies as my wife has on hers. BTW, she fully approves of them--because they generally lead to things we do together down the road--Things like building fishing boats or an airplane for joint adventures.

Still, I struggle with the modesty issue as much as anyone. The one thing I can do is to make a covenant with my eyes and treat the women I meet with respect and encouragement. That's my local approach. I doubt anyone would welcome a shaming Facebook comment from me, anyway.

 

[Edward]

As far as the gender disparity in spending goes, I'm not at all familiar with that.

???

For your reading enjoyment:

https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy

"Women make the decision in the purchases of 94% of home furnishings…92% of vacations…91% of homes… 60% of automobiles…51% of consumer electronics"

 

[sandrajune]

It also attracts heterosexual women, as they get to see and imagine themselves as the pretty one enticing men. Women are not dragged along in this process, but are among its most enthusiastic supporters. They just usually won't say so.

Desexualizing things is a way to attack a woman's power and influence, which is why they will defend themselves as just trying to be innocent or cute, but really the gender power dynamics are at play.

Women control the vast majority of spending in the United States. Whatever advertising or movie content exists using sex to sell or attract things is not exclusively focused on the small minority of expenditures controlled by men.

I’m really not sure how to respond to this post. Are you saying women prefer our culture sexualizing them but pretend to be innocent or cute? I’m just not totally clear.

 

[sandrajune]

Now my head's spinning. I started following this thread and appreciated Bruce's comment--even if I had to google "Adele."

And it caused me to go to my 1976 high school yearbook stuck in the corner of an obscure bookshelf: yup, just what I though--we had a dress code in Belgrade Montana, and yet there were quite a few young ladies with tight shirts and some with a peeking belly button. I guess not much has really changed in 42 years except for the shape of our haircuts. Of course, Farrah Fawcett Majors was what we now call an "influencer", despite nobody having cable TV and with only one station beamed in from Billings.

So I was going to comment on culture, etc., but saw that has been adequately addressed by sandrajune (belated welcome, BTW!). I decided I could contribute a little on the topic of chivalry, and maybe romance. As I've said before, I grew up pagan, on a ranch, earthy in my perspective, but still a sense of respect and decency was beaten into my head. I was trained to look upon a woman with respect. Leering is not respectful. Hanging out with guys who catcall was for losers, etc. The key point was it took training, as in practice and self-discipline. Mom and Dad were united on this.

In my current line of work as a public defender, I deal with all sorts of men and women in all sorts of attire. Many are broken. Many woman I meet dress provocatively. There might be an attempt to manipulate, but I dare say most don't really know what they want.

When I'm presented such a circumstance, of course there might be that carnal shock--but because of the practice and training I'm talking about, the most immediate internal response I have is a sense of heart-break and even, sometimes, pity. I see broken empty people drawing on whatever broken tools they have to get through whatever is hounding.

So, yes, I deliberately de-sexualize the situation. Now I hear that this means I'm attacking a woman's power and influence? On the contrary, I am pretty sure the person I'm dealing with senses some kind of respect--and sometimes she has not had that in a long time.

As far as the gender disparity in spending goes, I'm not at all familiar with that. Maybe it's because my wife is frugal, but I have a hard time believing that sexualized advertising is some sort of exploitation on woman's empowerment. Maybe don't get out much, but I've spent probably ten times as much on my discretionary hobbies as my wife has on hers. BTW, she fully approves of them--because they generally lead to things we do together down the road--Things like building fishing boats or an airplane for joint adventures.

Still, I struggle with the modesty issue as much as anyone. The one thing I can do is to make a covenant with my eyes and treat the women I meet with respect and encouragement. That's my local approach. I doubt anyone would welcome a shaming Facebook comment from me, anyway.

VictorBravo: thank you for the welcome.

To be able to see past the outside and see the brokenness and broken tools is seeing with eyes of grace.

I prefer de-sexualizing. I personally don’t know any woman that wouldn’t agree, but most of my circle are Christians, so that may be why.

Earlier in this thread i believe someone was indicating they feel we are wasting time discussing this subject. My feeling is that God has it in scripture so it behooves us to wrestle with it— and perhaps shed light in how we should proceed in this age. I vote for your way.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The question that comes to my mind as I read all the comments since I last posted, is akin to what Joshua said above about a definition, only my question would also factor in: why are we making a connection between women dressing immodestly and men lusting? And before any men jump at that as a ridiculous statement, let’s ask: Does the Bible make that specific assertion? Is the reason why God mentions modesty because of a man’s tendency to lust?

Some things are taught by nature- if you leave a shiny sharp knife on a counter within a toddler's reach, don't be surprised if the baby grabs it and cuts herself. We don't need a Bible verse to tell us these things. As AMR posted above, a good bit of God's will for us must be arrived at through good and necessary consequence. It's all the Scriptures together, and specifically in this case the tenor of those directed to and describing women's demeanor, roles, and behavior, that help us to discern the mind of God on a matter.

For instance, we know from the Bible that a man can see a woman in a state of undress and be tempted to lust, or can actually fall into lust (David and Bathsheba). Scripture here confirms what nature tells us. Pagan societies where the women go topless and where it purportedly occasions no temptation to their men can't be used to draw the conclusion that modesty is a relative thing and dependent on culture. We aren't pagans and we have God's word. So the culture is fast becoming pagan around us and they're going to dress like they dress, but the Christian society should know better. And I think this thread is really about what duty God requires in the dress of our Christian daughters and sisters and church members.

I'm looking forward to reading the rest of Afterthought's link, and when I have more time, Naphtali Press's more challenging one. Maybe those thoughts can be discussed here or on a new thread.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I agree that this issue of modesty in dress and comportment applies to men as well. Covering the body adequately seems to be a much bigger issue with Christian women than with Christian men, though, and thus the emphasis on women's responsibilities and duties.

 

[sandrajune]

I agree that this issue of modesty in dress and comportment applies to men as well. Covering the body adequately seems to be a much bigger issue with Christian women than with Christian men, though, and thus the emphasis on women's responsibilities and duties.

I whole-heartedly agree that a man can see a woman in a state of undress and be tempted to lust! That scripture is a perfect example of what we are wrestling with! Bathsheba was performing religious ritual cleansing and not enticing or sinning in any way, yet David sinned (big time). It’s another example that one is responsible for their own actions.

I’m going to take a HUGE leap and suggest that perhaps there is some vilifying of women hidden under the opinion that women need to cover up so men don’t sin— it’s her fault, not his. Genesis 3. Nothing new here.

My contention (and I’m still studying the Luke 17 pericape) is that modesty (kosmios) is a posture of the heart bowing towards God in dress, orderliness, moderation, behavior and appropriateness. If we teach that, it’s a win win.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I whole-heartedly agree that a man can see a woman in a state of undress and be tempted to lust! That scripture is a perfect example of what we are wrestling with! Bathsheba was performing religious ritual cleansing and not enticing or sinning in any way, yet David sinned (big time). It’s another example that one is responsible for their own actions.

I’m going to take a HUGE leap and suggest that perhaps there is some vilifying of women hidden under the opinion that women need to cover up so men don’t sin— it’s her fault, not his. Genesis 3. Nothing new here.

My contention (and I’m still studying the Luke 17 pericape) is that modesty (kosmios) is a posture of the heart bowing towards God in dress, orderliness, moderation, behavior and appropriateness. If we teach that, it’s a win win.

Not a main point, but how do you know Bathsheba was performing religious ritual cleansing?

But I brought this up not to imply anything about Bathsheba (the Scriptures pretty much put it all on King David), but to illustrate the point that, if one needed Scripture to prove that men can be tempted to sin by a woman’s lack of dress, here’s a passage. Of course it’s obvious that this is the case and I know you agree with that, and the illustration really doesn’t go to what’s under discussion, which is whether a Christian woman is held accountable by God if she dresses in such a way as to cause difficulty for her brother.

As to your huge leap about the hidden vilifying of women- that's the mantra of the millennial young women I mentioned earlier. Their language is all about the vilification of women embedded in the opinion that they should cover up modestly.

I know you do espouse modesty, and your definition of it as being 'a posture of the heart bowing towards God in dress, orderliness, moderation, behavior and appropriateness' is good as far as it goes but it isn't enough- it needs feet, practical application. "Every man did what was right in his own eyes." Everyone decides for him or herself what is orderly, moderate, etc. That's how we humans are, including as Christians.

If you really want to be scandalized, read the William Perkins link. We're now so far from thinking like this as Christians, how will we ever be able to think rightly about the specifics in how it plays out. It was a very sobering read for me.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I think there is a pretty clear biblical case that can be made:

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
Romans 14:13

likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,
1 Timothy 2:9

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Romans 12:1‭-‬2

God's revealed will is that women's apparel should be modest, and that no Christians should be a stumbling block or cause of temptation towards one another. I see this as a very clear teaching in the Bible.

 

[smhbbag]

So, yes, I deliberately de-sexualize the situation. Now I hear that this means I'm attacking a woman's power and influence? On the contrary, I am pretty sure the person I'm dealing with senses some kind of respect--and sometimes she has not had that in a long time.

Since most women are neither strong nor in formal positions of power, their primary route to making things happen is their ability to get others to do them. As My Big Fat Greek Wedding put it succinctly, the wife is the neck that turns the head. That can happen all sorts of ways, but the ability to move a man's mind carnally is a powerful tool in a woman's arsenal. It does not require a sexual relationship to make this work for her. Women know that they can subtly affect things all around them by having this tool, even when both the man/men and the woman have no intent of actually being sexually involved. A pretty woman walking through the room changes the environment in all kinds of ways.

Of course we should desexualize things (in the context of this discussion). I'm saying you should expect many women to feel threatened by desexualization because their sexual appeal is a component of their power. Women will push against modesty standards much harder than men will, in general, and that's because being able to push past that standard is an asset.

What happens when a woman suddenly can't or doesn't turn men's heads is a jarring experience for an attractive woman. It requires a whole different set of social skills and approaches. Sexual appeal is built into the gender dynamics pie, and the inability to wield it is a threat. Threatening that is a good thing, not a bad one.

It varies by context, but women often disregard modesty standards because they gain something from it, both as individuals and as a collective. Serious Christians may not call that real gain, but it does gain them things.

I’m really not sure how to respond to this post. Are you saying women prefer our culture sexualizing them but pretend to be innocent or cute? I’m just not totally clear.

Yes. For a man, money or status is power. For women, power much more often resides in the realm of sex. That is why you cannot have women's "empowerment" without sexual "liberation." It is why feminism helped with other forces to give us such sexual looseness. You cannot have one without the other, for if the object is power and status, women largely will not have that if their sexual powers are "repressed." A woman who cannot wield her sexual appeal (in small ways such as flirting or mildly inappropriate clothing, or in larger ways) is going to be missing out on the feminist dream.

We see this in the tremendously powerful tool of sex-denial in marriage. A wife who can deny or admit sex at will has an ability to sway her husband that she wouldn't otherwise have. Sex is so often used as a weapon in marriage by women that it's hard to even feel the need to argue the point. We've even got feminist Christians like Sheila Gregoire advocating that as a natural check on a man's power. Huge swathes of Christians advocate more or less the same thing. And it isn't just the crazies. I could pull up very conservative pastors saying very similar things.

I'm saying that what women so commonly (and laudably, according to some) wield in marriage is used writ-large outside of marriage.

In short: men generally like lusting, and women like being lusted after (provided the man is sufficiently attractive, rich, or otherwise appealing to her). Men like wanting, and women like being wanted.

This graph shows why this works for women, but never could for men. This is a huge OkCupid set of data contrasting how women rate men vs. how men rate women. Note that men think much more highly of women across the spectrum of looks than women do of men. 80% of guys are below average. The particulars don't matter. It could be 70 or 90. But it's a lot, and this phenomenon is replicable just about anywhere. Women do not enjoy being catcalled by the 80% of men they consider below average or not prospects. You'll find most of them alter their behavior and desires considerably if you're talking about the other 20%.

I’m going to take a HUGE leap and suggest that perhaps there is some vilifying of women hidden under the opinion that women need to cover up so men don’t sin— it’s her fault, not his.

It is his fault. And it is her fault. It's not a contradiction for two different people to be sinners at the same time.

You'll find every single man on the PuritanBoard owning up to the existence and prevalence of male lust, and innumerable threads about how to combat it personally, socially, and pastorally.

You have entirely concocted a fictitious opposition if you want to say anyone here would say "It's her fault, not his." You find that to be implied or hidden, but it will be denied or explained false on every occasion. Yet this caricature persists. They all know it's their fault, and that's why I cannot even count the number of past threads regarding men attempting to address this problem.

But they also know it's not only their fault, and that accountability is what women want to fight.

 

[VictorBravo]

God's revealed will is that women's apparel should be modest, and that no Christians should be a stumbling block or cause of temptation towards one another. I see this as a very clear teaching in the Bible.

No argument there. But I still stumble at what exactly is modest?

Of course, almost everyone can agree that deliberately provocative clothing, low-cut blouses, slit skirts, etc., are immodest. But, I'll confess, I'm more likely to be caught off-guard by a poised and striking woman in a buttoned-up flannel shirt and flowing full-length skirt than I am someone dressed as a pop singer.

Certainly, encourage the young woman to dress in a modest and wholesome fashion, but I'm enjoining men to watch their own hearts as well.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

No argument there. But I still stumble at what exactly is modest?

Read the Perkins link and chew on that! It must indeed begin in the mind and heart. And always remembering that we can only expect a softening of the heart toward true modesty from brothers and sisters in Christ- not from the world.

Perkins recognizes and addresses the fact that Scripture doesn’t give detailed specifics on appropriate attire for every age, yet we still need practical answers.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Durham offers some distinctions on offense or causing one to stumble in the first chapter of his work on scandal. http://www.naphtali.com/articles/ja...-scandal/what-is-biblical-offense-or-scandal/

Wonderfully edifying. I hope this material is not being overlooked.

 

[BottleOfTears]

Another difficult aspect to this discussion is just how unwilling most women are to be honest about their desire to make men view them sexually.

They want to play both ends: have total deniability and plausible innocence, excusing and projecting their attitudes onto the men, meanwhile enjoying their power over a man's mind or gaze.

Women do not enjoy being catcalled by the 80% of men they consider below average or not prospects. You'll find most of them alter their behavior and desires considerably if you're talking about the other 20%.

I'm sorry, but I really think your interpretations of the way most woman think are way off the mark. Women often do want men to view them sexually, but it is rarely for the reasons you assert. Now some women are manipulative, and all are tempted so sexual sin on some level, but you can't use that to say they are all manipulative. Some men touch woman inappropriately, and all men are tempted to sexual sin on some level, but all men do not therefore touch women inappropriately.

And I agree that many women think that they do not need to worry about causing men to sin by how they dress, but is that really the case for all Christian women as well? And is women fighting against men who catcall or sexually assault them really just a smoke-screen so that they can continue to manipulate us?

Such generalisation is not helpful in these sorts of topics, this is not a battle between men and woman, it is a battle against sin. Please show women, especially our sisters in Christ, more charity and try not to tar them all with the same brush.

From what I've seen and read, the majority of woman want one thing from a relationship, love and affection (I'll argue the same for young men in a moment). Particularly in our self-esteem-focused, image-obsessed culture, they want to feel valued. I really don't think we as men fully grasp the pressure that is being increasingly put on young women, or even young girls, to be beautiful and appealing and loved.

And so, out of desire to obtain that from men, they may act in certain ways. They may dress immodestly, flirt with men, you get the idea.

Now some woman do this in a sort of risk/reward sort of way. They don't actually want to do this, but they have been taught its the only way to get a man's attention. So they try it, hoping to find a guy who actually cares about them for who they are, and is not just after sex. Needless to say, they are often disappointed. They constantly hope for a man who loves them, and only find men who lust after them. Thus they think "Men only want sex".

Other women on the other hand, who feel unloved and unwanted (possibly due to bullying or other abuse), might want men to lust after them in order to feel any self-validation whatsoever.

And this of course is all mixed with their sinful desires.

Now this brings up many questions in the minds of us men, who think very differently and thus have a whole set of our own problems. "Why does she say she doesn't like me when she was acting so interested?" "Why do they get so offended at being catcalled if they chose to dress like that?" "Woman get so much attention from men, why are they so picky?" "Are they just using sex to manipulate us?"

I was very troubled at the way you used the data from that graph. Many men make the same mistake you make about woman, though they often have far worse intentions. I'll demonstrate the thought process:

1. That woman was dressed in a immodest manner.
2. She must therefore want something from guys
3. When I (catcalled/flirted with her/talked to her/asked her out/touched her) she wasn't interested
4. Women always and only want sex
5. I am not handsome/rich/succesful/confident enough
6. She must only like handsome/rich/succesful/confident guys (catcalling/flirting with her/talkingto her/asking her out/ touching her)
7. She was just manipulating me for attention
8. All woman use their sexuality to manipulate men

This sort of attitude is even used to excuse horrible behaiviour like catcalling or assualt with "She really did want that sort of thing, it was just cause I am unattractive/poor/short". This is really important. It's true that many woman are wrong when they want to "dress any way they want" or to have the freedom to be sexually promiscuous, however this does not mean that they are wrong to object to the horrible ways in which men treat women.

The problem is you are projecting the way men think onto the way women think. Men also start with a desire for love and companionship, which is likewise twisted.

However, for men the situation is very different. If I am outside near a nightclub or bar at night I am relatively safe. If a woman walks past me on a dark street, I don't even give it a second thought. The reverse is not true of my female friends. On average, men are far stronger than woman, and I would think more likely to defend themselves. Men, especially strangers, are scary. Woman have far more reason to try and make it known that they are not interested at all, and far more reason to be more picky about who they go out with. The consequences for them are far greater.

Most women aren't trying to manipulate men, they are trying to find self-validation/love, are using sinful methods to obtain it, and trying to avoid all the men who take advantage of that.

So we have this mess:

Women are told that all men want is sex, and that in order to attract them they must act/dress immodestly.

Men are taught to view women as sexual objects, and are told that they are all trying to manipulate men with sex, and that actually all they want is sex too, but they only like handsome/rich/confident men, so you have to manipulate them back to get it from them.

Now obviously we as Christians must deny the practices of acting/dressing immodestly, of lusting, of catcalling, of engaging in sexual actions/thoughts outwith marriage, and of manipulating others for our own gain.
But we must also deny the presuppositions that the world tries to force upon us. We must deny that the primary desire of all humanity is for sexual intercourse. We must deny that all men want from women is sex, and all that women want from men is sex. Us men cannot view woman all as evil temptresses here to lead us astray, and woman cannot view us men all as sexual predators who could strike at any moment.

I find that what you have posted accepts wholesale the world's reductive view of women, but also its reductive view of men. All people are sinful, yes, but we cannot reduce all the sins, problems and interactions between men and women to simply "all men/women want is sex". That is utterly false.

 

[GlorytoGod]

15 years ago I interviewed an Iranian physician. She was wearing the full burqa and I could see nothing but her eyes. During our conversation we discussed the dress code and she opined that in Iran they don’t have a sexual deviancy problem and almost no sexual crime to speak of which she said was the opposite of the U.S. Her explanation of why was because she says everywhere men look in he US they see women in skimpy clothing and half naked. She says sexiness is all over tv sporting events, beer commercials, billboards, it’s promoted on tv shows, movie, etc etc etc. She further explained that Muslims have seen what this has done to destroy morality in the U.S. Men have an almost impossible task of trying to suppress their lust and sexual thoughts and temptations because sexuality and sensual beautiful women are thrown in front of our eyes every minute of the day. Lastly, she said the burqa was a great way to keep the men in Iran from cultivating lust in their minds I would have to agree with her that men and women both will have a hard time keeping lustful thoughts out of their minds when we are constantly exposed to skimpy dressed or half dressed sexual beauties parading before our eyes all day. David had a hard time controlling his lust while looking at Bathsheba. Of course, as a Christian I think I am fully to blame if I ever allow lust the take control and I should use biblical truths to guide me and avoid any and all sexual temptation situations to keep my mind pure and focused on our savior and kingdom service. I do however wish society would not constantly parade sexuality in front of our eyes 24/7. I don’t think all women wearing burqas is the solution at all but I do think all individuals should dress in a manner that they know will not make someone else stumble into lust and cultivate sexual sin. I don’t have a lot of confidence that society will make that happen so my goal is to continue to try and mortify indwelling sin and honor our savior in word, thought, and deed.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

I'd like to comment on these more recent posts, in which I sense a lot of talking past each other. I am loathe to say much, however, because it seems off-topic from the purpose of the thread, which, as such, does not particularly interest me--commenting on the appropriateness of some popular singer's clothes when I don't care for her music feels petty and beside the point to me (though the little bit I watched permits me to understand the saints' concerns about her attire).

We are all, as believers, in our engagement of each other, operating on a continuum, with ministry (service) on the one end and manipulation on the other (Crabb writes helpfully of this). Only our Lord was pure ministry, even as the devil might be thought pure manipulation. Since we are, at our very best, mixed, we are never without manipulative dealings with each other altogether. And men and women, though both are in the image of God, also differ, both in the way that they minister and in the way that they manipulate.

Men in the flesh tend to want sex and manipulate to get it. Women in the flesh tend to want relationship and manipulate to get it. As believers dying to sin and living to righteousness, men want to do better and to pursue relationship in its fullness; women want the same--to have sex and relationship properly fully integrated, so that they do not use sex to manipulate, even as godly men do not use relationship simply to get sex.

I realize that it's not quite this simple since there's more to it than this, to be sure, but this is a significant dynamic in male/female relationships and we are called rightly to relate to each other in terms of wholesome relationships and healthy, fulfilling sexuality. Much sound literature supports this as well as my own counseling experience of some years.

I am sorry, moderators, to go so off the original topic but some of the comments prompted it. I especially like Vic's comments, btw.

Peace,
Alan

 

[sandrajune]

I'm sorry, but I really think your interpretations of the way most woman think are way off the mark. Women often do want men to view them sexually, but it is rarely for the reasons you assert. Now some women are manipulative, and all are tempted so sexual sin on some level, but you can't use that to say they are all manipulative. Some men touch woman inappropriately, and all men are tempted to sexual sin on some level, but all men do not therefore touch women inappropriately.

And I agree that many women think that they do not need to worry about causing men to sin by how they dress, but is that really the case for all Christian women as well? And is women fighting against men who catcall or sexually assault them really just a smoke-screen so that they can continue to manipulate us?

Such generalisation is not helpful in these sorts of topics, this is not a battle between men and woman, it is a battle against sin. Please show women, especially our sisters in Christ, more charity and try not to tar them all with the same brush.

From what I've seen and read, the majority of woman want one thing from a relationship, love and affection (I'll argue the same for young men in a moment). Particularly in our self-esteem-focused, image-obsessed culture, they want to feel valued. I really don't think we as men fully grasp the pressure that is being increasingly put on young women, or even young girls, to be beautiful and appealing and loved.

And so, out of desire to obtain that from men, they may act in certain ways. They may dress immodestly, flirt with men, you get the idea.

Now some woman do this in a sort of risk/reward sort of way. They don't actually want to do this, but they have been taught its the only way to get a man's attention. So they try it, hoping to find a guy who actually cares about them for who they are, and is not just after sex. Needless to say, they are often disappointed. They constantly hope for a man who loves them, and only find men who lust after them. Thus they think "Men only want sex".

Other women on the other hand, who feel unloved and unwanted (possibly due to bullying or other abuse), might want men to lust after them in order to feel any self-validation whatsoever.

And this of course is all mixed with their sinful desires.

Now this brings up many questions in the minds of us men, who think very differently and thus have a whole set of our own problems. "Why does she say she doesn't like me when she was acting so interested?" "Why do they get so offended at being catcalled if they chose to dress like that?" "Woman get so much attention from men, why are they so picky?" "Are they just using sex to manipulate us?"

I was very troubled at the way you used the data from that graph. Many men make the same mistake you make about woman, though they often have far worse intentions. I'll demonstrate the thought process:

1. That woman was dressed in a immodest manner.
2. She must therefore want something from guys
3. When I (catcalled/flirted with her/talked to her/asked her out/touched her) she wasn't interested
4. Women always and only want sex
5. I am not handsome/rich/succesful/confident enough
6. She must only like handsome/rich/succesful/confident guys (catcalling/flirting with her/talkingto her/asking her out/ touching her)
7. She was just manipulating me for attention
8. All woman use their sexuality to manipulate men

This sort of attitude is even used to excuse horrible behaiviour like catcalling or assualt with "She really did want that sort of thing, it was just cause I am unattractive/poor/short". This is really important. It's true that many woman are wrong when they want to "dress any way they want" or to have the freedom to be sexually promiscuous, however this does not mean that they are wrong to object to the horrible ways in which men treat women.

The problem is you are projecting the way men think onto the way women think. Men also start with a desire for love and companionship, which is likewise twisted.

However, for men the situation is very different. If I am outside near a nightclub or bar at night I am relatively safe. If a woman walks past me on a dark street, I don't even give it a second thought. The reverse is not true of my female friends. On average, men are far stronger than woman, and I would think more likely to defend themselves. Men, especially strangers, are scary. Woman have far more reason to try and make it known that they are not interested at all, and far more reason to be more picky about who they go out with. The consequences for them are far greater.

Most women aren't trying to manipulate men, they are trying to find self-validation/love, are using sinful methods to obtain it, and trying to avoid all the men who take advantage of that.

So we have this mess:

Women are told that all men want is sex, and that in order to attract them they must act/dress immodestly.

Men are taught to view women as sexual objects, and are told that they are all trying to manipulate men with sex, and that actually all they want is sex too, but they only like handsome/rich/confident men, so you have to manipulate them back to get it from them.

Now obviously we as Christians must deny the practices of acting/dressing immodestly, of lusting, of catcalling, of engaging in sexual actions/thoughts outwith marriage, and of manipulating others for our own gain.
But we must also deny the presuppositions that the world tries to force upon us. We must deny that the primary desire of all humanity is for sexual intercourse. We must deny that all men want from women is sex, and all that women want from men is sex. Us men cannot view woman all as evil temptresses here to lead us astray, and woman cannot view us men all as sexual predators who could strike at any moment.

I find that what you have posted accepts wholesale the world's reductive view of women, but also its reductive view of men. All people are sinful, yes, but we cannot reduce all the sins, problems and interactions between men and women to simply "all men/women want is sex". That is utterly false.

BottleOfTears, thank you for your post. I appreciate the common sense and Christian point-of-view.

SMHBBAG, please reread your posts. "What happens when a woman suddenly can't or doesn't turn men's heads is a jarring experience for an attractive woman....Sexual appeal is built into the gender dynamics pie, and the inability to wield it is a threat....It varies by context, but women often disregard modesty standards because they gain something from it, both as individuals and as a collective." I don't think you realize that those statements can be read at best as unloving towards your sisters in Christ and at worst as misogynistic. I'm sure you merely intended to provide data and did not intend it to sound like that. Remember that it is generally unwise to project what other people are thinking -- especially those of the opposite sex.

As for Bathsheba: What does the Bible say? He saw a woman bathing, and she was beautiful.There are a few different perspectives of what she was doing when David viewed her. The definition of "bathing" has various meanings and has been interpreted differently in history. We tend to think of bathing as an isolated and unclothed act, but that is not the universal definition nor was it in biblical Israel.
Commonly accepted views throughout church history:
1. she was washing her hands and feet and was fully clothed.
2. she was bathing with attendants around her (which would be pouring water from a jug, they didn't use bathtubs).
3. she was doing a ritual bathing after menstruation, which 2 Sam 11:4 seems to indicate.

I am a newbie to this forum. I had the understanding that discussion here was from a biblically based perspective. I'm perplexed by the way that I am interpreting some of the assertions here -- I am sure I must be misreading.

I've been posting here, trying to wrestle the question of "what is modesty" from solely a biblical perspective. I wonder how adding in collective knowledge from observing a fallen sin-filled world is going to help us know what God intends?

 

[sandrajune]

15 years ago I interviewed an Iranian physician. She was wearing the full burqa and I could see nothing but her eyes. During our conversation we discussed the dress code and she opined that in Iran they don’t have a sexual deviancy problem and almost no sexual crime to speak of which she said was the opposite of the U.S. Her explanation of why was because she says everywhere men look in he US they see women in skimpy clothing and half naked. She says sexiness is all over tv sporting events, beer commercials, billboards, it’s promoted on tv shows, movie, etc etc etc. She further explained that Muslims have seen what this has done to destroy morality in the U.S. Men have an almost impossible task of trying to suppress their lust and sexual thoughts and temptations because sexuality and sensual beautiful women are thrown in front of our eyes every minute of the day. Lastly, she said the burqa was a great way to keep the men in Iran from cultivating lust in their minds I would have to agree with her that men and women both will have a hard time keeping lustful thoughts out of their minds when we are constantly exposed to skimpy dressed or half dressed sexual beauties parading before our eyes all day. David had a hard time controlling his lust while looking at Bathsheba. Of course, as a Christian I think I am fully to blame if I ever allow lust the take control and I should use biblical truths to guide me and avoid any and all sexual temptation situations to keep my mind pure and focused on our savior and kingdom service. I do however wish society would not constantly parade sexuality in front of our eyes 24/7. I don’t think all women wearing burqas is the solution at all but I do think all individuals should dress in a manner that they know will not make someone else stumble into lust and cultivate sexual sin. I don’t have a lot of confidence that society will make that happen so my goal is to continue to try and mortify indwelling sin and honor our savior in word, thought, and deed.

GloryToGod, I agree wholeheartedly with wanting our society to stop parading sexuality in front of our eyes 24/7! It's difficult to watch television with my husband without issue. We usually do "on demand" or DVD so that we can fast forward through commercials!
As for the physician, I would counter with she may have been saying that because that is her belief and she is promoting those religious beliefs. Sexual deviancy is controlled in that country by throwing homosexuals off roofs and by fathers and brothers using Sharia law. Plus, they have a HUGE p0rnography problem.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Good catch on Bathsheba, Sandra.

I am a newbie to this forum. I had the understanding that discussion here was from a biblically based perspective. I'm perplexed by the way that I am interpreting some of the assertions here -- I am sure I must be misreading.

I've been posting here, trying to wrestle the question of "what is modesty" from solely a biblical perspective. I wonder how adding in collective knowledge from observing a fallen sin-filled world is going to help us know what God intends?

I think people use the forum to vent a bit, also, which is usually not best. It's better to stay on track with what the Scriptures teach.

The core issue here is, what accountability do Christian women have before God for how they dress; do we have a duty before God to make every effort that our dress, among other things, does not cause difficulty for men in the area of lust or unwanted thoughts. Modesty is more than dress; but the issue on this thread is dress.

Is there an authoritative word from God on the matter? Yes. Like other doctrinal things, it requires study and meditation on God's word. You haven't interacted with that assertion, and I'd like to ask, have you read the links provided by Naphtali Press and Afterthought?

This being the puritanboard, the most biblical answers you're going to get are going to challenge your thinking. Teaching our daughters to dress in a way that pleases the Lord (which will solve all our problems) can't be based on self-respect or any other changeable thing. It has to be based on a submission to what the Scriptures teach. The challenge there is to lay aside our favorite ideas, and come desiring to learn.

 

[smhbbag]

I see an awful lot of people here who need to reconsider why p0rnography like 50 Shades of Grey sold 100 million copies. Edit: my bad. It's 125 million.

They weren't sold to men. They weren't sold to boys. They weren't sold to women desperate for relationships, affection, affirmation, or feeling valued. Women are not driven to sin by the pressures of society or men or a deep need for love. Those can play a part for some, and for a few they may dominate, but largely that's not the issue at hand.

They were sold because women are sinners and have a lot of lust. They lust, and in particular they especially enjoy moving powerful, rich men to lust after them. They like to affirm the dominance of strong men and be the object of his desire. That's why it sold 100 million copies. You cannot look at those sales, nor the tremendous promiscuity among young women (there are many more sexually active women with middling counts of sexual "partners" who largely sleep with a smaller number of men). This is explained by the OkCupid graph above. The top 20% of men have a field day, and the rest are out of the game. Meanwhile, most women can get a man any time they want, but they're fighting over that 20%.

I don't think you realize that those statements can be read at best as unloving towards your sisters in Christ and at worst as misogynistic. I'm sure you merely intended to provide data and did not intend it to sound like that. Remember that it is generally unwise to project what other people are thinking -- especially those of the opposite sex.

If describing women's behavior and manifest desires and the social outcome of women's liberation and empowerment is misogynistic or unloving, I'm happy to be guilty all day long. Those words mean nothing.

 

[smhbbag]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19085605

62% of women admit to having a rape fantasy, and a fair number admit to having them quite regularly.

That really means it's almost universal and not everybody will admit it. Just think about how hard it is to get a woman to admit that, and then realize that 62% were honest. How many more weren't?

That doesn't mean that women actually want to be raped. That's certainly not the case. Almost none of them want the reality of it, to be sure.

But it does show just how strong the female desire is to be the object of affection and power, and inspiring an animalistic response in men.

We can't proceed in a discussion about modesty without acknowledging the deep and nearly universal desire of women to take over a man's mind and make him lose control of himself. That loss of control is what signals to her just how beautiful or attractive she is. They seek that out.

15 years ago I interviewed an Iranian physician. She was wearing the full burqa and I could see nothing but her eyes. During our conversation we discussed the dress code and she opined that in Iran they don’t have a sexual deviancy problem and almost no sexual crime to speak of which she said was the opposite of the U.S. Her explanation of why was because she says everywhere men look in he US they see women in skimpy clothing and half naked. She says sexiness is all over tv sporting events, beer commercials, billboards, it’s promoted on tv shows, movie, etc etc etc.

It is safer to be a woman in a lot of Muslim countries than it is to be a sheep or a young boy. That doesn't make for a ringing endorsement of Muslim sexual dynamics.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

No argument there. But I still stumble at what exactly is modest?

Of course, almost everyone can agree that deliberately provocative clothing, low-cut blouses, slit skirts, etc., are immodest. But, I'll confess, I'm more likely to be caught off-guard by a poised and striking woman in a buttoned-up flannel shirt and flowing full-length skirt than I am someone dressed as a pop singer.

Certainly, encourage the young woman to dress in a modest and wholesome fashion, but I'm enjoining men to watch their own hearts as well.

Yes, I agree with you. My wife has some friends that have high regards for modesty, but they wear things my wife wouldn't. It's very subjective in nature.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Moderator Note:
Thread closed while staff discusses.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

From the moderators and administrators.

The PB staff have discussed this thread and have decided that this thread will remain closed. However, the thread will remain viewable as an example of how a seemingly innocuous starting point, "Is this immodest?" can and generally will degenerate, bringing scandal upon us. Just about any such a question, "Is this XYZ?," "What do you think about XYZ?," be it a video or a picture, is going to lend itself to tickling our itching eyes and ears, typically resulting in scandal being given or taken in subsequent responses by some.

By scandal here, it is meant "any deed or word that in itself is apt to make another to sin, or to weaken them in their spiritual course, either in respect of life, or comfort, and that whether the person is actually stumbled or not, or whether the person actually intends offense or not." (see Durham, as cited here and worth reading by everyone, especially given the topic of this thread.)

This is not to say that any offense was actively intended in the opening post. Rather, the thread's evolution illustrates that wisdom is to be exercised in ordering and regulating us in the use of our Christian liberty. We, the staff, also readily admit and repent that we should not have let this thread continue once it became clear that things were devolving. Here is yet another object lesson, that one's own act of omission, can lead to scandal and offense.​

In the future, if anyone has some concerns about starting a thread and suspects the topic may lead to stridently differing responses, he or she should feel free to contact one of the staff to test the waters beforehand.​