# Controversy over outfit



## AnnaBanana

I heard a song on the radio this past weekend by the christian singer, Lauren Daigle called You say.

When I came home to listen to it on Youtube, I noticed that there was a controversy within the comments about her shirt and how it was not showing modesty and revealing too much skin.

I then read a comment and it made me question some thoughts.

The comment said something along the line of, "isn't it crazy how satan will use something like this to distract us from the beauty of this song?"

Does this statement seem valid?

What are your opinions?

The music video is listed here (just posting this so you can see an image of the shirt):


----------



## TylerRay

I didn't watch the video, but I can tell by the image that her shirt is definitely skimpy. I don't see how a Christian husband or father could consent to his wife or daughter dressing like that. Her shirt appears to be about two sizes too small.

Please don't take my comment as sarcastic or scornful. I appreciate your question. I only wish more women were asking the same question.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Edward

I can see why her outfit would be considered inappropriate - in Saudi Arabia. 

Seriously - some folks lead such sheltered lives that they are shocked by an umbilicus? 

Now, the necklace did cause some concern.

Reactions: Like 4 | Funny 3


----------



## TylerRay

Edward said:


> I can see why her outfit would be considered inappropriate - in Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Seriously - some folks lead such sheltered lives that they are shocked by an umbilicus?
> 
> Now, the necklace did cause some concern.


That shirt wouldn't have been allowed at my public high school a decade ago (and we had a pretty low bar for modesty). Now we have conservative Christians criticizing anyone wo opposes it as quasi-Islamic in their standard of modesty. _That's _shocking.

What exactly do you mean by the term 'sheltered?' I can't think how that term applies to me or to someone who merely pushes back at our culture's standard of dress. 

Today, women wear bathing suits that are skimpier than their underwear, and they don't scruple to go for a jog in their underwear. I, for one, am tired of being able to know the details of every woman's figure when I enter the supermarket. It will do me no good to know what they're shaped like--all it can do is tempt me to have unchaste thoughts.

The question of where to draw the line in women's apparel is one that every family or Christian woman has to wrestle with today. My position is that a woman should not dress in a way that shows the world what she would look like naked.

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 1


----------



## timfost

I didn't watch the video, but from the picture, it's tighter than I would want my wife or daughters to wear.

With that said, I would also be careful not to declare a universal standard of modesty. Modesty is often times more about how one carries herself than what her clothes cover.

Charity is in order.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Step one: breathy, sexy Adele sings hit songs; frequent love-affirmations
Step two: CC* singer sings breathy, sexy KLUV songs with God-affirmations
Step three: anxiously check for the newest trend, so next time maybe Christians can get the world to affirm they are cool too.
Step four: repeat with minor variation

*contemporary-christian or copy-cat, take your pick

Unless you intend to go full-burka law, all it takes for the Christian to appear "modest" relative to the vast majority of the society around, is to be plainly less exhibitionist.

Now, I suppose it's not enough, if the Christian is also just a step behind but going in the same direction, as the world sets the agenda and pace. The Christian needs to be going another way entirely.

I don't mean, that the Christian is therefore heading toward the cloister (after all, what could more opposite of exhibitionism?). But we also cannot pick some arbitrary point or range where the cover-up is "just right."

Modesty is a state of mind. Part of it is the intent _not to provoke_. It shows love for others, rather than demanding that others do all the control of either their lust or their disgust. There is a perversity about people who dress (or undress) to get noticed, and then roar in outrage about particular varieties of notice they receive. Don't they understand how narcissistic that behavior is? I think there's also some perversity with people who are activists about the sins of others.

There's no excuse for a lack of self-control and decorum on the part of someone whose passions are stirred; but there's also no excuse for the unbridled, selfish demand of the right to stir the passions of others. Can I yell "fire!" in a crowded, non-combusting theater, just to enjoy the mayhem that follows? Both sorts of behaviors are provocations, with some sort of personal delight or pleasure as the aim.

As for the video of the singer, I wasn't moved in any direction by it, by her. The whole package seemed crafted for the purpose of manipulation--efforts visual, emotional--and seeing that, I just refused to budge. I'm not saying I'm not susceptible to manipulation; but certain kinds are obvious to me, and I can refuse to go along.

Our concerns about modesty should be more for the well-being of the one who lacks it, than for ourselves who can usually walk/look away from provocation if we will. Naturally, we are concerned about desensitization. We're also concerned about the well-being of those who, weak to provocation, may be stirred up to grosser sins than normal.

People unhappy with the video, or with the girl--they did not have to watch it, perhaps they did not. But then, they're unhappy that it exists. Do they feel... tainted in some way by it? Is this the pattern of thought:
--it's a Christian song/video
--it's an offensive video (to me, to others)
--I'm a Christian
--ergo, I'm now offensive (to me, to others)?​
If the video was of Adele, singing about her boyfriend, and made no reference to God; if the singer wore the same outfit, made the same moves, the same looks, no one would have said anything. Too tame. No Christians would have tried to get other Christians either to see the video, or not see it, due to its religious touch. It would not be a thing.

So, really the whole business comes down to this song/singer/video having a Christian label. Question the premise. Move on. Think about modesty in the small sphere where you can affect it in some meaningful way.

Reactions: Like 9 | Edifying 2 | Amen 3


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

I think DeYoung captures some of what Rev. Buchanan adeptly outlined above as well:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/the-biblical-virtue-of-modesty/

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Edward

TylerRay said:


> That shirt wouldn't have been allowed at my public high school a decade ago



The shirt probably would have passed muster at my high school 40 years ago, but blue jeans on anyone were definitely a violation of the dress code.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

That lady would have been sent home to change for wearing that shirt when I was in high school (1987 to 1991).


----------



## jw

I confess, my own shirts have been fitting tighter than they should lately. I also -GASP- shortened my beard. Sorry folks. Just avert your eyes.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## ZackF

Joshua said:


> I confess, my own shirts have been fitting tighter than they should lately. I also -GASP- shortened my beard. Sorry folks. Just avert your eyes.


Thanks for the heads up!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Edward

Joshua said:


> I also -GASP- shortened my beard.



Does your "Adam's Apple" show, or is still discretely concealed? Do we need to start a "GoFundMe" to get you a turtleneck shirt?

Reactions: Funny 2 | Sad 1


----------



## OPC'n

I don't see the point in wearing a shirt like that but that's me. I dislike the song much more. She has a great voice but the song sucks. Of course, I hate most "Christian" music.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

I also am not a big fan of Commercialized Christianity Music. It has done more to damage the church than anyone's choice of attire ever could. But that's just my opinion.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

For those who didn’t actually watch the video, the issue isn’t so much the tightness, but the shortness. She stands up about halfway through the video and her midriff is exposed. Certainly not the most egregiously immodest thing that any of us have seen lately, but perhaps not as modest as Scripture seems to require.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Jack K

Christian music is quite commercialized, and good looks sells even in the Christian market. So although it shouldn't be this way, there is pressure on a musician to look good. In her case, as a young woman, I would guess she feels pressure to look cute. And that outfit did the job; it was cute on her.

I feel for her. I imagine she would rather sing without any pressure to look cute. So given a chance to offer her feedback on that video, the last thing I would do is comment on her looks or her dress. She needs to hear that someone is listening to her song rather than looking at her shirt.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Jack K said:


> Christian music is quite commercialized, and good looks sells even in the Christian market. So although it shouldn't be this way, there is pressure on a musician to look good. In her case, as a young woman, I would guess she feels pressure to look cute. And that outfit did the job; it was cute on her.
> 
> I feel for her. I imagine she would rather sing without any pressure to look cute. So given a chance to offer her feedback on that video, the last thing I would do is comment on her looks or her dress. She needs to hear that someone is listening to her song rather than looking at her shirt.



The shirt is a problem. It's not cute; it's inappropriate, immodest. It should be said, in the right way.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Elizabeth

The outfit didn't bother me. The trite 'me-centered' lyrics on the other hand, did. I counted I/me over fifty times when reading them. No wonder many young women flail so in their faith if this is the 'musical theology' they imbibe. Sad.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Cymro

Whilst scriptures cannot be imposed upon those who are unbelieving, they are the counsellor to Christian women how they should deport themselves. 1Peter3:1-6 is the standard set by the Holy One, and who can resist Him? It’s the inner ornaments that are of great price, not the exposed endowments that are used to draw the eye. I would suggest that the phrase “the putting on of apparel” could include the “the putting off of apparel.” It is an aberration of great concern, that some Christian women are trending with the world, and wearing tops that do not cover modestly that which should be. Substitute a psalm for the song in question 
( which I admitt I did not want to hear or look at), then could the same clothes be worn with appropriateness or sung with holiness to the Lord. It is becoming vitally necessary that we men make a covenant with our eyes, else we break the commandment in thought if not in deed.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 3 | Amen 1


----------



## AnnaBanana

Extremely informative responses.


----------



## AnnaBanana

Cymro said:


> Whilst scriptures cannot be imposed upon those who are unbelieving, they are the counsellor to Christian women how they should deport themselves. 1Peter3:1-6 is the standard set by the Holy One, and who can resist Him? It’s the inner ornaments that are of great price, not the exposed endowments that are used to draw the eye. I would suggest that the phrase “the putting on of apparel” could include the “the putting off of apparel.” It is an aberration of great concern, that some Christian women are trending with the world, and wearing tops that do not cover modestly that which should be. Substitute a psalm for the song in question
> ( which I admitt I did not want to hear or look at), then could the same clothes be worn with appropriateness or sung with holiness to the Lord. It is becoming vitally necessary that we men make a covenant with our eyes, else we break the commandment in thought if not in deed.



Yes, yes and amen! To you saying that Christian woman are trending with the world


----------



## Tom Hart

Some thoughts:

1) I'm not a fan of modern Christian music.
2) Her living room is cleaner than mine.
3) The shirt is a problem.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Silas22

I would have never even noticed had it not been pointed out to me. 

Seriously. I wonder if that is part of the problem.

Separatistic/legalistic/fundy accuses someone of being immodest (which is somewhat of a subjective term) and then the sheep follow suit. I cannot help but think of the Pharisees judging Jesus because of the company he kept. Something about choking on gnats and swallowing camels!

Please know that I am not referring to any of the comments on this board, but rather the reactions on Youtube.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Silas22

Contra_Mundum said:


> Step one: breathy, sexy Adele sings hit songs; frequent love-affirmations
> Step two: CC* singer sings breathy, sexy KLUV songs with God-affirmations
> Step three: anxiously check for the newest trend, so next time maybe Christians can get the world to affirm they are cool too.
> Step four: repeat with minor variation
> 
> *contemporary-christian or copy-cat, take your pick



YES! This comment wins the internet.


----------



## Ben Mordecai

Our approach to modesty should be informed by a few principles: 

1. Not judging another's servant. Ultimately, we should all admit there is a spectrum on clothing being appropriate or not. We are called to put far more thought into our own holiness than others. Not that "public Christians" are immune to criticism but we should be just be careful about blowing minor scruples out of proportion. 
2. Dressing with the well-being of others in mind. Men are generally tempted to lust, and women to envy, just based on experience. When choosing our clothes we should consider the degree we to which we are seeking to be listed after or envied. We also should keep in mind that if our clothing is designed to be attention-seeking it probably comes from an attitude that is not focused on good works or edifying others. Speaking personally, a bit of mid riff has never tempted me to lust compared to other types of clothing but this is still subjective. There is no need to be absolutely exacting it. We do have a responsibility to guard our thoughts and gazes after all. Just don't seek to draw unholy attention or be completely oblivious to the temptation of others. 
3. Apply the brother/sister/father/mother test. If your sister wore it, would you feel a little weirded out about it?


----------



## sandrajune

AnnaBanana: I think it's the yellow. It must be distracting. Yellow often is.

Regarding the comment you refer to: The super-slim, non-overly buxom young lady has a crew-neck T-shirt on. No shoulders. No cleavage. No tight clothes outlining her shape. I'm surprised why anyone would need to voice a negative opinion about it. It's wise to resist having a critical opinion in order to make ourselves feel superior -- whether in behavior or knowledge. 

Modesty is a posture of the heart, not a tally of how much skin is showing.


----------



## TylerRay

sandrajune said:


> It's wise to resist having a critical opinion in order to make ourselves feel superior -- whether in behavior or knowledge.


Ma'am,
I wonder how you know the thoughts and intentions of the hearts of others. Could it be that in accusing others of harboring ill motives and passing unwarranted judgment, that you've committed the very error that you accuse others of?


----------



## TylerRay

sandrajune said:


> No tight clothes outlining her shape.


Would you consider that shirt loose-fitting, then?


----------



## sandrajune

TylerRay said:


> Ma'am,
> I wonder how you know the thoughts and intentions of the hearts of others. Could it be that in accusing others of harboring ill motives and passing unwarranted judgment, that you've committed the very error that you accuse others of?



I'm sorry if I misrepresented myself! Please know I was not intending to accuse anyone of ill motives nor assuming thoughts or intentions! In fact, I started with a joke just to set my tone. Please allow me to rephrase:

Exclusively addressing the comment on the OP regarding Satan: The young woman's clothing was not anything that is customarily objected to from Christians, so I'm surprised anyone would voice a negative opinion about it. I find it wise to resist a critical opinion that makes myself feel like my behavior or my knowledge is superior, and I would recommend that attitude to others.

I'd posit that biblical modesty is a posture of the heart, not a tally of how much skin is showing.

P.S. Her shirt is definitely not what I'd consider tight by conventional standards. It's merely a junior cut.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sandrajune

TylerRay, just in reading your comments above, though, I might see the issue.
From the frozen image on the post it does look like her shirt is tight. When one watches the video it can be seen that it is, in fact, not tight. That might be the problem in perception here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

sandrajune said:


> I'm sorry if I misrepresented myself! Please know I was not intending to accuse anyone of ill motives nor assuming thoughts or intentions! In fact, I started with a joke just to set my tone.


I think I get the joke now. It was humorous tongue-in-cheek implying that had the young lady wore a more revealing T-shirt, with bared shoulders, cleavage revealed, and tight clothes, there would be no one, at least the males, objecting.

Am I correct?

We need some kind of wink-wink smiley or one of those smiley's with the face showing some "not me" whistling to convey the humor intended.

Absent that, a winking smiley or even a typed out [tongue-in-cheek] label would have clued some of us in.


----------



## TylerRay

sandrajune said:


> TylerRay, just in reading your comments above, though, I might see the issue.
> From the frozen image on the post it does look like her shirt is tight. When one watches the video it can be seen that it is, in fact, not tight. That might be the problem in perception here.





sandrajune said:


> I'm sorry if I misrepresented myself! Please know I was not intending to accuse anyone of ill motives nor assuming thoughts or intentions! In fact, I started with a joke just to set my tone. Please allow me to rephrase:
> 
> Exclusively addressing the comment on the OP regarding Satan: The young woman's clothing was not anything that is customarily objected to from Christians, so I'm surprised anyone would voice a negative opinion about it. I find it wise to resist a critical opinion that makes myself feel like my behavior or my knowledge is superior, and I would recommend that attitude to others.
> 
> I'd posit that biblical modesty is a posture of the heart, not a tally of how much skin is showing.
> 
> P.S. Her shirt is definitely not what I'd consider tight by conventional standards. It's merely a junior cut.


Thank you for your gracious clarifications. I misread you, and I'm sorry for that. Thank you, also, for your note concerning the tightness of the shirt--judging by the image, I thought that it was skin-tight.

For my own part, although I'm not comfortable with a shirt that shows the belly, I was much more concerned about the tightness of the shirt.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

On a side note, I wonder why this is:

Generally males deal more with lust of the eyes, but females wear tighter and more revealing clothing

Generally women don't deal with lust of the eyes as strongly, but men wear loser and less revealing clothing

It honestly sounds like things in the culture should be reversed or corrected if we really don't want each other to stumble as much.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I agree with what Bruce says about modesty.

Regarding this particular video... I think the song is beautiful and encouraging, the video is silly. I have no qualms about her attire, but I have a hard time believing that voice comes from that person.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sandrajune

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I think I get the joke now. It was humorous tongue-in-cheek implying that had the young lady wore a more revealing T-shirt, with bared shoulders, cleavage revealed, and tight clothes, there would be no one, at least the males, objecting.
> 
> Am I correct?
> 
> We need some kind of wink-wink smiley or one of those smiley's with the face showing some "not me" whistling to convey the humor intended.
> 
> Absent that, a winking smiley or even a typed out [tongue-in-cheek] label would have clued some of us in.



Well, I am truly bad at this — feeling like training wheels are needed! LOL

The joke was about the shirt being offensive because it was yellow. I did mean to say that normally what ppl complain about is shoulders or cleavage or tight clothing, not a two inch peek at a belly button.

Full disclosure: While I think it’s prudent to dress in what would be considered conservative by American standards in order to project a valuing of one’s body in a godly way, I do believe that should be the motivation rather than to prevent someone else from lusting. Young women have been taught the primary motivation should be in “not stumbling a brother,” which is not the correct application of that scripture. It is also an unproductive way of determining an appropriate style of dress, because what may “stumble” someone varies— if someone has an issue with lust it really doesn’t matter what the object in view is wearing— you can lust with your eyes shut. Plus, there isn’t any place in the Bible where we are responsible for someone else’s sin and I see problems with trying to instill that thinking. Solomon warmed his son numerous times to avoid the harlot, not to scold her about her dress. If we would teach both young men and women to honor God with their behavior AND clothing, it would produce greater results. In my humble opinion

Hoping that came across as gentle opinion and insight from one who has experience in the matter and not as confrontational.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tom Hart

It seems to me that many women would do well to be aware of how easily men (at least some men) can be provoked to lust.


----------



## sandrajune

Tom Hart said:


> It seems to me that many women would do well to be aware of how easily men (at least some men) can be provoked to lust.



Oh I’d hazard to say we women know that well— but it goes back to motivation: what do we really care about?

I taught my daughter to respect herself, represent her God, and be mindful what type of spouse you want (one who is attracted to your looks, your body, your mind, or your soul?)
I taught my son the same — as well as lust is a sin he would most likely have to deal with and to kill it, not tame it.

I still have yet to find where we can get biblical precedence for telling girls to dress so men don’t lust. Not only does it do a poor job motivating, it makes it the girl’s fault/sin if a man lusts — and no one is responsible for another’s sin.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

sandrajune said:


> I still have yet to find where we can get biblical precedence for telling girls to dress so men don’t lust. Not only does it do a poor job motivating, it makes it the girl’s fault/sin if a man lusts — and no one is responsible for another’s sin.


You’re unable to see a connection between the modesty (both in apparel and demeanor) Scripture enjoins on women, and how they dress? And unable to see a connection between a failure to dress modestly and thus playing a role in causing difficulty for a man?


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

In my opinion, it doesn't seem that we should exclude any reasons for motivation to godliness as long as they are biblical. Yes, we want to teach others about self respect, representing God, being holy because God is holy, not wanting to tempt someone to sin because the law of love would have us not to, etc.

My wife many years ago in her college days dressed in clothing a whole lot tighter than she does now. Back then, showing off her curves and body drew a lot of attention to her body by the eyes of men. I would see men checking her out and even hear them making comments. Now, she is very aware of those things and chooses to not assist in the depravity of men. And now that she gives them nothing to entice them and feed their flesh, she is much more respected and valued by even the worldliest of men. She just doesn't come across as someone who is a part of the world, so she's not treated like it. It's almost like she chooses to be the thermostat - people are influenced for the good when she adjusts herself for the good of others.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## sandrajune

Jeri Tanner said:


> You’re unable to see a connection between the modesty (both in apparel and demeanor) Scripture enjoins on women, and how they dress? And unable to see a connection between a failure to dress modestly and thus playing a role in causing difficulty for a man?



Scripture enjoins women and men to be modest and to view their bodies as not their own, but the Lord's. (Modesty being kosmios: orderliness, moderation, good behavior and appropriateness....not just covering our lady parts well.)
Matt 5:28 is clear that the sin is looking upon a woman. I think in this day and age we need to depart from (to use a liberal term) "victim blaming" and put the onus where it belongs. While women should dress in a respectable manner with modesty and self-control (1 Tim 2:9), men have to stop using the Genesis 3 cop-out by saying it's the woman's fault. Teach both women and men to be responsible for their own thoughts and bodies -- Romans 12:1,2; 1 Cor 6:19-20, Phil 4:8, 2 Tim 1:7, 1 John 1:8, Col 3:2-5 all discuss this.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

sandrajune said:


> Plus, there isn’t any place in the Bible where we are responsible for someone else’s sin and I see problems with trying to instill that thinking.


Sandra,

In my own denseness , have already misunderstood your earlier humor above, so I am hesitant to respond directly until I am certain I am understanding you. 

What do you mean by "responsible for someone else's sin" above?

Do you think we are not going to be _held to account_—which is what _responsibility_ presumes—for our actions that lead others to sin?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

sandrajune said:


> I still have yet to find where we can get biblical precedence for telling girls to dress so men don’t lust.


Are you looking for an explicit verse "Dress appropriately so men will not be tempted to lust" or will not the full counsel of Scripture suffice?

I do think that within Scripture we find content concerning the matter such that one may deduce by good and necessary consequence that inappropriate attire/decoration can lead others, especially men, to lust.

For example, while the lists in the links below contain many verses not directly on point (some lists below are dynamically computer generated by whatever useful phrases are entered by the user), I do believe one is able to systematically draw up an argument from the available nuggets therein to dress wisely to avoid tempting others to lust:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/dress_like_a_harlot
https://www.openbible.info/topics/leading_others_to_lust
https://www.openbible.info/topics/causing_others_to_sin
https://www.openbible.info/topics/modest_dress

Lastly, not a few assume the stumbling-millstone passage containing Our Lord's comments about "children" strictly applies to actual children, ignoring the metaphorical shift that takes place in Mt. 18:5.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## sandrajune

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Are you looking for an explicit verse "Dress appropriately so men will not be tempted to lust" or will not the full counsel of Scripture suffice?
> 
> I do think that within Scripture we find content concerning the matter such that one may deduce by good and necessary consequence that inappropriate attire/decoration can lead others, especially men, to lust.
> 
> For example, while the lists in the links below contain many verses not directly on point (some lists below are dynamically computer generated by whatever useful phrases are entered by the user), I do believe one is able to systematically draw up an argument from the available nuggets therein to dress wisely to avoid tempting others to lust:
> 
> https://www.openbible.info/topics/dress_like_a_harlot
> https://www.openbible.info/topics/leading_others_to_lust
> https://www.openbible.info/topics/causing_others_to_sin
> https://www.openbible.info/topics/modest_dress
> 
> Lastly, not a few assume the stumbling-millstone passage containing Our Lord's comments about "children" strictly applies to actual children, ignoring the metaphorical shift that takes place in Mt. 18:5.




I appreciate your kindness in addressing my post -- I wasn't being humorous, I do think that men who have a problem with lust should be taught to deal with it and discontinue blaming women, turning them into the reason for their own sin rather than taking thoughts captive and having self-control, both of which the bible requires believers. I also see that the bible teaches women need to be very mindful of the way they dress, but for much better reasons than because some men can't control their minds. There must be more than the issue of actual apparel regarding modesty; for example: in Mozambeque the women are topless -- to accuse them of enticing sin in another is obviously pointless since that is the cultural norm. Let's face it: a woman could be in a birka and a man can still have lustful images in his head of her. Jesus teaches us that it's the heart that's the problem. 

I do believe this whole issue is part of the consequence of the original sin that put strife between the sexes - As Adam blamed the deceived woman for his sin rather than taking the blame himself (or, better yet, doing as our Lord and Savior did by not sinning and then taking His bride's punishment on Himself! Thank You, God, for the last Adam!)

But you have given me pause by the millstone text. I had understood that passage in Matthew (along with the Luke 17 passage) in context as primarily (although indirectly) concerning the pharisees and their teachings leading the people into works-based righteousness and ultimately away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ (since it's unbelief in Christ that casts people into the everlasting fire), and I still lean towards that teaching -- but with this conversation in mind I am persuaded to reevaluate.

I will look more closely at these passages and hopefully get back to you. Thank you for your kind demeanor and scripture suggestions. In the meantime, please consider my campaign to discontinue blaming women for men's sin and to teach our children to be respectful, god-fearing individuals responsible for their own behavior. Have a good day and God bless!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922

I have never understood why, on the topic of modesty, so much emphasis is placed on women. Not to say ‘more’ isn’t required for women given what God teaches us, but there’s practically no emphasis on it for men and boys. Women struggle with lust too, just like women struggle with p0rnography. Yet men and boys are encouraged to go swimming or working on a hot day with no shirt on...or wear skinny jeans (lol)...

I also wonder on this double standard if Christian girls/women consider this and want to be treated fairly in the Christian society (congregation or what have you) they find themselves in and so tempted to dress less immodestly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Do you think we are not going to be _held to account_—which is what _responsibility_ presumes—for our actions that lead others to sin?



I think that we Americans are hardened about what constitutes modest clothing. Based on my reading of the Bible I consider the photo in the OP as over the line. And my reasons have little to do with the weakness of men.

Verses like 1 Timothy 2:9-10 say nothing about the requirement of modest apparel being for the sake of the weakness of men. Often, outward appearance is something for God. (Deut 22:5) God who looks at the heart also notices our outward appearance, and we humans are limited to judging by outward appearance (1 Samuel 16:7) –of course, I am speaking about more than clothing in the last phrase. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:10 says that wives (at least) "ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." The _good_ angels I should add. In 1 Peter 3:1-6 speaks of both outward and inward "adorning." What we wear tells a lot about our hearts (James 2:2-3), and God is watching.

Comments...


----------



## Edward

TylerRay said:


> Thank you, also, for your note concerning the tightness of the shirt--judging by the image, I thought that it was skin-tight.



Ready.
Fire. 
Aim.

You commented on the video without watching it?


----------



## TylerRay

Edward said:


> Ready.
> Fire.
> Aim.
> 
> You commented on the video without watching it?


I made that clear in my initial comment. Have you read my post?


----------



## Afterthought

William Perkins writes about modest apparel (with the usual disclaimers about not endorsing the website as a whole): http://www.covenanter.org/reformed/...n-on-the-right-lawful-and-holy-use-of-apparel

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## jw

For what it's worth, I have approached this thread with humor, not because I think modesty is unimportant, nor because I approve of the aforereferenced apparel under question (i.e. - I wouldn't). Rather, in line with what Pastor Buchanan said earlier, it's a wonder that it would take up much time or space on our little discussion board here (that is, I question its profitability in relationship to effort attending defense/assertion). He said:


Contra_Mundum said:


> So, really the whole business comes down to this song/singer/video having a Christian label. Question the premise. Move on. Think about modesty in the small sphere where you can affect it in some meaningful way.


And I think that's good pastoral counsel. Really, it applies to _*most*_ of the things -in my opinion - that seem to get the bulk of discussion on the Puritan Board. NO doubt, I have been party to such monumental wastes of one's personal time in the past, but have worked on not contributing to such for several years now. I generally think that if the best of our efforts/time were spent on "chewing the cud" of what has been taught, preached, sang in our Lord's Day services from week to week, few of us would have time to spend very much time on the PB from day to day.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward

TylerRay said:


> I made that clear in my initial comment. Have you read my post?



Sure, but with all that commenting, I thought you might have looked at it at some point. Instead, we get the usual folks talking past each other. 

Getting back to your question to me:



TylerRay said:


> What exactly do you mean by the term 'sheltered?' I can't think how that term applies to me or to someone who merely pushes back at our culture's standard of dress.



I wouldn't have even noticed the outfit if attention hadn't been called to it in the original post. Someone who would find the brief glimpse of a belly button shocking is obviously sheltered and doesn't go to the beach, pool, zoo, or other places where folks congregate. (Based, of course, on the wrong assumption that I would be discussing this with folks who where making informed comments about the video.)

The top is neither sheer, nor tight. It is fitted. There are adequate foundation garments to to ensure that anatomical details aren't provided. It's not something that should draw a second glance at a mall or on the street. 

Now, if one wants to talk of revealing, there are the portraits of Oliver Cromwell's wife and daughter and their contemporaries.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Joshua said:


> For what it's worth, I have approached this thread with humor, not because I think modesty is unimportant, nor because I approve of the aforereferenced apparel under question (i.e. - I wouldn't). Rather, in line with what Pastor Buchanan said earlier, it's a wonder that it would take up much time or space on our little discussion board here (that is, I question its profitability in relationship to effort attending defense/assertion). He said:
> 
> And I think that's good pastoral counsel. Really, it applies to _*most*_ of the things -in my opinion - that seem to get the bulk of discussion on the Puritan Board. NO doubt, I have been party to such monumental wastes of one's personal time in the past, but have worked on not contributing to such for several years now. I generally think that if the bulk of our time were spent on "chewing the cud" of what has been taught, preached, sang in our Lord's Day services from week to week, few of us would have time to spend very much time on the PB from day to day.


I think, rather, that this is an important topic and hits home to where many of us live. My millennial, Christian, university-attending daughter and I have had many discussions about this, and she currently espouses much of the popular liberal/millennial thought on these things: including that if a young woman dresses in a way that bares much of her body and leaves little to the imagination, it’s still all on the guys to not have lustful thoughts. These young women even think if the guy has to avert his eyes, he must be a pervert. They don’t understand how men “work” (my daughter knows better but is currently enamored of some feminist thinking). 

This discussion board has helped me understand how to live life better in many practical ways. It’s all theological, isn’t it? I guess the discussion underway could seem like a silly discussion, except that it’s important to Anna to think these things through; and also, the discussion has become not really so much about what the young lady in the video is wearing as about what the Scriptures teach about men and women, and what modesty means- biblical modesty will have practical applications, what are they?

However in regards to what the young lady is wearing in the video, which I did watch, I must say that the lighting plus the material the shirt is made of contributes to a clingy look; and that purposefully, I’d guess. That is part of what contributes to the discomfort about the video.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jw

Jeri Tanner said:


> I think, rather, that this is an important topic and hits home to where many of us live. My millennial, Christian, university-attending daughter and I have had many discussions about this, and she currently espouses much of the popular liberal/millennial thought on these things: including that if a young woman dresses in a way that bares much of her body and leaves little to the imagination, it’s still all on the guys to not have lustful thoughts. These young women even think if the guy has to avert his eyes, he must be a pervert. They don’t understand how men “work” (my daughter knows better but is currently enamored of some feminist thinking).
> 
> This discussion board has helped me understand how to live life better in many practical ways. It’s all theological, isn’t it? I guess the discussion underway could seem like a silly discussion, except that it’s important to Anna to think these things through; and also, the discussion has become not really so much about what the young lady in the video is wearing as about what the Scriptures teach about men and women, and what modesty means- biblical modesty will have practical applications, what are they?
> 
> However in regards to what the young lady is wearing in the video, which I did watch, I must say that the lighting plus the material the shirt is made of contributes to a clingy look; and that purposefully, I’d guess. That is part of what contributes to the discomfort about the video.


I didn't mean to imply that a discussion of _modesty_ is out of order. It's this particular circumstance of the video, mixed with its "Christian" nature, and with a person that none of us knows, that I think tends toward the unprofitability of it. Hence, Pastor Buchanan's admonition to point our best efforts toward our local spheres of influence. So, for example, by all means, having a thread on "How do we biblically define _modesty_" would be a good one. The _it_ in my post was not in reference to the subject of modesty, but this video, this girl, _etc_. I hope that clarifies my point, and does not give the impression that I think such _subjects_ are light matters.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins

I think the question about whether women are responsible for men's sin needs a very important distinction. Women are never responsible for the sin in someone else's mind. They can be potentially responsible for putting a stumbling block in front of someone else. A clear distinction between "stumbling block" and "being the cause of someone else's sin" needs to be made here. After all, a stumbling block could theoretically be laid down and no one stumbles over it, because no one happened to be present. The intention of the person laying down the stumbling block would still be sinful even if no one "fell for it." On the other hand, if a person does not intentionally or unintentionally lay down a stumbling block at all, and someone else falls into sin, there is no blame whatsoever attaching to the first person. So, to use the question at issue, if a woman were to dress with the intention of luring men to lust after her, and a man wound up falling into the sin of lust, the woman would not be guilty for his sin of lust, but would be guilty of her own sin of putting down the stumbling block. She would still be guilty of that sin _even if no men happened across her path_, because of her intent (a vitally important component of the discussion). On the other hand, if a woman is dressing entirely modestly with no thought whatsoever given to the question (or especially if she is dressing trying to discourage lust in men), and a man still lusts after her, she is no way guilty of sin at all. It is all on him. 

I think this distinction is incredibly important. On the one hand, I hear women, even on this thread, who, while rightly concerned about women being blamed for men's sin, but because maybe this distinction is not being observed, are therefore tempted to think that the blame is all on the man for lust, and that there is no such sin as stumbling block creation. There most definitely is such a sin!

On the question of the Bible and modesty, the Bible mentions it and advocates it, but does not define what precisely constitutes it. We can say certain things. 1. Revealing the body parts of procreation is immodest. 2. Revealing enough for the sake of luring a person into lust (whether man to woman or woman to man) is immodest. 3. Context and intention are important. 4. Exact quantity of skin revealed is less important than other considerations. If you were a Jewish male in a concentration camp watching the Germans command all your Jewish sisters to undress, would you find their state tempting to lust? I think not. Outrage would be the most likely result. Life is more important than clothes. So there is a possible example of where even the state of nakedness is not necessarily "immodest" in the sense of intent. There, shame and victimhood come more to the fore. Similarly, a person who might be said to be fully dressed acting like a prostitute would still fall foul of immodesty, which is not just a question of how much a person is wearing, but also must include the intentions of the heart, and the attitude that the person is adopting with regard to the people around them.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## sandrajune

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.


----------



## sandrajune

greenbaggins said:


> I think the question about whether women are responsible for men's sin needs a very important distinction. Women are never responsible for the sin in someone else's mind. They can be potentially responsible for putting a stumbling block in front of someone else. A clear distinction between "stumbling block" and "being the cause of someone else's sin" needs to be made here. After all, a stumbling block could theoretically be laid down and no one stumbles over it, because no one happened to be present. The intention of the person laying down the stumbling block would still be sinful even if no one "fell for it." On the other hand, if a person does not intentionally or unintentionally lay down a stumbling block at all, and someone else falls into sin, there is no blame whatsoever attaching to the first person. So, to use the question at issue, if a woman were to dress with the intention of luring men to lust after her, and a man wound up falling into the sin of lust, the woman would not be guilty for his sin of lust, but would be guilty of her own sin of putting down the stumbling block. She would still be guilty of that sin _even if no men happened across her path_, because of her intent (a vitally important component of the discussion). On the other hand, if a woman is dressing entirely modestly with no thought whatsoever given to the question (or especially if she is dressing trying to discourage lust in men), and a man still lusts after her, she is no way guilty of sin at all. It is all on him.
> 
> I think this distinction is incredibly important. On the one hand, I hear women, even on this thread, who, while rightly concerned about women being blamed for men's sin, but because maybe this distinction is not being observed, are therefore tempted to think that the blame is all on the man for lust, and that there is no such sin as stumbling block creation. There most definitely is such a sin!
> 
> On the question of the Bible and modesty, the Bible mentions it and advocates it, but does not define what precisely constitutes it. We can say certain things. 1. Revealing the body parts of procreation is immodest. 2. Revealing enough for the sake of luring a person into lust (whether man to woman or woman to man) is immodest. 3. Context and intention are important. 4. Exact quantity of skin revealed is less important than other considerations. If you were a Jewish male in a concentration camp watching the Germans command all your Jewish sisters to undress, would you find their state tempting to lust? I think not. Outrage would be the most likely result. Life is more important than clothes. So there is a possible example of where even the state of nakedness is not necessarily "immodest" in the sense of intent. There, shame and victimhood come more to the fore. Similarly, a person who might be said to be fully dressed acting like a prostitute would still fall foul of immodesty, which is not just a question of how much a person is wearing, but also must include the intentions of the heart, and the attitude that the person is adopting with regard to the people around them.



Greenbaggins, I applaud your post!

And I wish we had specific scriptural references to back up your four points, but I agree with them.

And what about the girl dressed immodestly according to someone’s definition, but her intention is to be fashionable, not to entice lust? It’s a very objective thing.

Also how does the example of Jesus as a stumbling block— and He knew it— but never sinned, fit in?


----------



## smhbbag

If a daughter came down for family breakfast wearing that pajama-shirt, I'd probably send her back to get dressed. Public? No way.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins

Sandra, I think I would answer that not all stumbling blocks are created equal. Jesus is a stumbling block to many people. But why is that? Is it because Jesus was intending to lure people into sin? I think not. On the other hand, Isaiah 6 must be kept in mind as well. There is a certain amount of mystery here, where we may not be able to parse out everyone's motives to everyone's satisfaction. We can say that if Jesus is a stumbling block to people (and He is), it is not because of any sin on Jesus' part. Therefore the stumbling block aspect of what He did and who He is must have some key differences with the sinful stumbling blocks we have been talking about. I don't find it easy at this point to parse the exact differences. Maybe others with more acuity in this area can do better.


----------



## smhbbag

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.

We have a discussion about the hearts and minds of each sex, but only one is generally forthright.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

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/

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## TylerRay

Edward said:


> Sure, but with all that commenting, I thought you might have looked at it at some point. Instead, we get the usual folks talking past each other.
> 
> Getting back to your question to me:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't have even noticed the outfit if attention hadn't been called to it in the original post. Someone who would find the brief glimpse of a belly button shocking is obviously sheltered and doesn't go to the beach, pool, zoo, or other places where folks congregate. (Based, of course, on the wrong assumption that I would be discussing this with folks who where making informed comments about the video.)
> 
> The top is neither sheer, nor tight. It is fitted. There are adequate foundation garments to to ensure that anatomical details aren't provided. It's not something that should draw a second glance at a mall or on the street.
> 
> Now, if one wants to talk of revealing, there are the portraits of Oliver Cromwell's wife and daughter and their contemporaries.


In the interest of, dare I say, answering you according to your folly, I went ahead and took a look at the video. I stand by my original post. The shirt is way too skimpy. Any Christian man should be ashamed to allow his wife or daughter to leave her bedroom wearing that. And yes, the things that most women wear to the beach, pool, or wherever, are inappropriate and unnecessarily provocative and revealing. We live in a culture that is obsessed with sex, and it shows up in the way that women (and men, increasingly) dress.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## 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.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

sandrajune said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## smhbbag

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> 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

smhbbag said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Edward

VictorBravo said:


> 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"

Reactions: Informative 2 | Funny 1


----------



## sandrajune

smhbbag said:


> 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

VictorBravo said:


> 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

sandrajune said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sandrajune

Jeri Tanner said:


> 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

sandrajune said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## 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.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## 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.




sandrajune said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## VictorBravo

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jeri Tanner

VictorBravo said:


> 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

NaphtaliPress said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BottleOfTears

smhbbag said:


> 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.





smhbbag said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## 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.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## 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

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## sandrajune

BottleOfTears said:


> 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

GlorytoGod said:


> 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.


sandrajune said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## 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%.



sandrajune said:


> 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.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

VictorBravo said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## 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.​

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 3


----------

