# Modest Apparel: Who decides? Subjective?



## Afterthought (Feb 1, 2016)

(1) Who decides what constitutes modest apparel?
(2) How does the individual or group of individuals determine what is modest apparel? Is it a cultural decision (so what is considered immodest in one culture might be modest in another; even perhaps going to the extreme of no clothing)? Must we look through Scripture and see what is considered modest or immodest and make determinations from there (as is done, e.g., at here)? Is apparel considered merely a matter of the heart?
(3) Is modest apparel relative within a culture? By this, I am referring to one's clothing in front of others, e.g., most (?) consider a bikini or speedo to not be an unacceptable form of clothing at the beach but might be okay with a two-piece or one-piece bathing suit or just swim trunks.

(4) If modesty is a matter of the heart, or purely cultural, or relative to the situation, then why do so many condemn certain forms of clothing at the beach? Or at schools? Or even at our church services?
(5) Whoever or however modest clothing is decided, if it is determined on some ground besides a universal, principled one, then how does one determine when the standards have changed or whether the standards require being changed (some people argue that the body should not be so sexualized--in fact, should be less sexualized so that a "looser" standard of clothing would be acceptable)?


----------



## Philip (Feb 1, 2016)

6) What constitutes male modesty?

I ask this one because very often female modesty is endlessly scrutinized while very little is said to men. I'm not meaning to attack anyone here, just a general observation (and I'm one of those men who wears a T-shirt to the beach--mostly because I sunburn easily).


----------



## Miss Marple (Feb 1, 2016)

This is an interesting question and I frankly do believe there are cultural considerations. I think Bible-believing Christians in general are uncomfortable about this, because we don't like cultural considerations to inform our decision making.

For example, were I to show an ankle 100 years ago, I doubt I'd be allowed in most Christian churches in the U.S. But today in a knee length dress I am perfectly modest. Both of these observations are 100% true.

Same goes with pants. I could not have worn pants to church probably even 75 years ago. Today it's considered totally modest as long as the pants are not very tight.

Same goes with male/female distinctions. I doubt we'd allow a man in a dress into our church service. But in the Middle East they wear long white dress things, and of course there is the much-beloved kilt.

So we have to be honest and not rationalize things and it's a sticky wicket and very difficult. I can honestly say, though, that I am pretty clear on what is modest in our culture. A bikini is not, frankly, even at the beach, nor is a speedo. A one piece at the beach, yes; at church or generally in public, no.

And yes it is sort of arbitrary.


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 1, 2016)

How do you think most of us would respond if a guy showed up for worship wearing a powdered wig and lace around his neck? Just saying . . .

It's been a while since I read anything of hers, but I recall Edith Schaeffer having good advice along the lines of being attractive without the cheapness western society has pushed. God loves beauty in all areas of life. So often people will end up dowdy in the name of modesty.


----------



## ZackF (Feb 2, 2016)

I grew weary of thinking about it years ago. I will concur that "modesty" agendas for churches have usually been applied lopsided between the sexes. Unless it's an extreme case, it should be left alone. Measuring pant legs and top drops is not a way to go about encouraging modesty that springs from a circumcised heart.


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 2, 2016)

Supreme court (USA) justice Potter Stewart asked to define p0rnography said something like, 'I can't define it, _but I know it when I see it._' I think for most Bible-believing Christians the same applies to perceiving modesty.


----------



## Cymro (Feb 2, 2016)

I think the biblical principle should govern us. Particularly by 1Peter3:1-6. Though it teaches an internal disposition of modesty and christian character, that is also connected to the visible deportment and dress of the believer. The house of God is no place for the sisters to have plunging necklines and bare shoulders, that so obviously can be a stumbling block to the male members. Neither am I a fan of young men turning up with rugby shirts and shorts, there is a decorum in approaching the high and lofty one. Concessions are made for the unconverted or the stranger, but the Lords people are to display that modesty of character in their carriage. An aphoristic of the Puritans was, a man is known by the company he keeps and the clothes he wears. The world and sadly some Christians would consider the Puritans antiquated, but they are an example of practical doctrine and piety.


----------



## 2ndViolinist (Feb 2, 2016)

(1) I think it is a combination of Scripture (Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Timothy 2:8-10, 1 Peter 3:3-4, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, etc.), one's culture, and personal conviction. My best friend is not comfortable wearing anything shorter than pants or ankle-length skirts, but when she sees me wearing Capri pants or dresses that reach just past my knees, she still believes I am dressed modestly.

(4) Modest apparel may _sometimes_ be relative within a culture. There is a difference between clothing that is inappropriate in some circumstances vs. clothing that is flat-out immodest. Athletic pants or shorts of the rugby variety may be appropriate for sports, but such attire would never be appropriate for a worship service--not because it is immodest... it's just not the right context.

Others may differ with me on this, but I do not believe most one-piece bathing suits, any bikinis, or shirtless-ness are ever modest or appropriate in public...


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 2, 2016)

Philip said:


> 6) What constitutes male modesty?
> 
> I ask this one because very often female modesty is endlessly scrutinized while very little is said to men. I'm not meaning to attack anyone here, just a general observation (and I'm one of those men who wears a T-shirt to the beach--mostly because I sunburn easily).



Teaching my boys early, they wear 'surf shirts' when swimming  I always wonder if people are like??? uh why?


----------



## Edward (Feb 2, 2016)

Immodest attire is clothing that intentionally draws attention to the body. 

For example, Sunday morning I noticed a man's tattooed arms in church. He was wearing a short-sleeved tee shirt. Although the day was warm for late January, it was a bit bracing for tee shirts unless the purpose was to show the tats. So, I would consider his attire immodest.


----------



## Philip (Feb 2, 2016)

Edward said:


> Immodest attire is clothing that intentionally draws attention to the body.



Would tailored clothing be immodest, then? Tailored clothing (the suit jacket in particular) is designed to compensate for the body's flaws and draw attention to its advantages. Or would you recommend that men buy ill-fitting clothing and not spend money on alterations?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 2, 2016)

Philip said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Immodest attire is clothing that intentionally draws attention to the body.
> ...



I'm not sure how one goes from "intentionally draws attention to the body" to tailored suits.


----------



## Edward (Feb 2, 2016)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I'm not sure how one goes from "intentionally draws attention to the body" to tailored suits.



Slap in some shoulder pads so the gals will think you've been working out?


----------



## SRoper (Feb 2, 2016)

I would think, if anything, you draw less attention to yourself wearing tailored clothes than ill-fitting ones.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 2, 2016)

I wonder, did John the Baptist dress immodestly since his clothes were unusual enough to remark on? There has to be something more going on.


----------



## Nathan (Feb 2, 2016)

Paul Washer of HeartCry Missionary Society once stated in a sermon that "If your clothing is a frame for your face, from which the glory of God is to shine, it’s proper, if it draws attention to your face. If your clothing draws attention to your body, to outline it, to make it noticed, then it’s sensual."

I thought there was simplicity and wisdom in that.

May the Lord turn His face toward you,

-Nathan


----------



## Edward (Feb 2, 2016)

SRoper said:


> I wonder, did John the Baptist dress immodestly since his clothes were unusual enough to remark on? There has to be something more going on.



Not sure which post you are directing that towards, but I've dealt with that in my post at 10.


----------



## Edward (Feb 2, 2016)

SRoper said:


> I would think, if anything, you draw less attention to yourself wearing tailored clothes than ill-fitting ones.



You do know the difference between drawing attention to yourself and drawing attention to your body, don't you? If a woman is wearing a 2 carat diamond on her finger, she probably isn't expecting folks to stare at her knuckles. I wear a sportscoat my father bought in Scotland, I'll get comments on the jacket, but folks certainly aren't looking at my shoulders or waist.


----------



## Jake (Feb 2, 2016)

It seems in at least this admonition of Paul the focus of modesty is different than is often the target of the discussion. There is often more discussion on pants vs. skirts and skirt lengths and less about expensive garments and jewelry and hairstyling. 

"Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments" -I Timothy 2:9 (NASB)


----------



## ZackF (Feb 3, 2016)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



In times past, much clothing was tailored if it wasn't mass produced. Now tailoring is an exception, a luxury. If I were at the body composition that I'm aiming at (and missing), I'd want a bespoke suit but I doubt I'll ever be able to afford one.


----------



## psycheives (Feb 3, 2016)

Miss Marple said:


> This is an interesting question and I frankly do believe there are cultural considerations. I think Bible-believing Christians in general are uncomfortable about this, because we don't like cultural considerations to inform our decision making.
> 
> For example, were I to show an ankle 100 years ago, I doubt I'd be allowed in most Christian churches in the U.S. But today in a knee length dress I am perfectly modest. Both of these observations are 100% true.
> 
> ...



I very much appreciate what Miss Marple wrote above about style changes that used to be considered unacceptable in different times and places. Her comments go along with Zack's last post about tailored clothing (above this one). These two comments point out that our modesty standard must be either applicable across ALL cultures and ALL times (if we claim it's a hard fast rule from the Bible) or it must be admitted that the biblical standard of modesty is flexible and influenced by cultural expectations and views. Any Biblical standard must be applicable across cultures and time - such as no nudity. And if we use no nudity as certainly immodest, it seems degrees of nudity can be expressed by less and less clothing. So immodesty seems in part to be a degree thing more than something where we can easily draw a line. So you can't claim women were immodest for showing their ankles back in the day and not immodest today unless you are making a flexible cultural argument. Same for wearing pants. Hey, women not wearing those huge puffed out dress skirts and a corset probably would have been considered immodest back in the day too. This shows the cultural element. 

And I very much appreciate Kat's comment about shirt-lessness for both sexes and one-piece bathing suits. They are not modest. Women in skin tight, butt-showing bathing suits is not modest. Here I appeal that it gives the closest illusion of nudity - it's practically there. There is really no difference between this and plain simple underwear. And sorry men, men without shirts is not modest. So I very very much appreciate you guys who are wearing and teaching your sons to wear the surfer shirts! Hey, those actually make you look much cooler with the fun colors and geometric designs.

Since I've been watching old classics from the 60s, I must point out that anyone who is upset and surprised by the current generational trends and immodesty and wants to return to those decades is naive. It is clear that the immodesty of today is coming from the Swinging Sixties and our parents and grandparents. I'm shocked that the majority of the most popular movies were celebrating cheating and sleeping around. In fact, I've had a hard time finding a movie during those decades that isn't all about "romanticism" and sexual infidelity. All your famous actors were all making these movies: Astaire, Bogart, the Hepburns etc. And the women were wearing butt-showing shorts and bikinis in these movies too. Noting that TV began in the 1940s and was used for such family-destroying purposes, I kinda see why theater was banned and considered evil by many Puritans.


----------



## OPC'n (Feb 3, 2016)

What if modesty is almost entirely based on how we've allowed culture or perhaps times of the age change us? Back in the day women were only allowed to wear long skirts/dresses. If we could go back in time to say the 1800s and walked into the Puritans' village/church, well I think things wouldn't go so well for most of us. Modesty seems to change with time....good or bad it does change and we change with society's change. Even the Puritans back in the 1800s would have had trouble not raising eyebrows while walking through the villages of Biblical times....men just didn't wear pants during Biblical times. 

So could it be that it appears to be whatever we've allowed ourselves to become desensitized to over the ages and then think our struggle with sexual sin is on the same level of sexual sex our predecessors struggled with? I'm not saying they didn't struggle with sexual sin but it certainly was not what our generation is bombard with out in the open.


----------



## KMK (Feb 3, 2016)

ZackF said:


> I grew weary of thinking about it years ago.



I agree. Trying to explain modest is like trying to explain the punchline to a joke.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 3, 2016)

Edward said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > I would think, if anything, you draw less attention to yourself wearing tailored clothes than ill-fitting ones.
> ...



Edward, I agree that there is a distinction, but I see both parts pertaining to modesty. Are you saying that drawing attention to yourself (not your body) with your adornment has nothing to do with modesty?


----------



## Miss Marple (Feb 3, 2016)

In regards to the idea of "drawing attention to ourselves," of course I have not done any massive Bible Study on it, but I think of women in scripture sort of praised for looking pretty. That is to say like in Psalm 42, praising the beautiful bride in fine embroidery, the woman/women mentioned wearing purple ( a rare and beautiful dye ), Lydia of course selling it, the bride and bridegroom in Song of Solomon; there are perhaps others that a random check in my brain have not come up with. Something beautiful is described as being like a bride adorned for her bridegroom. This seems to presuppose that it is ok or even praiseworthy to look beautiful, which is certainly "drawing attention to ourselves."

So I am not sure modesty involves the required wearing of drab, unremarkable, or actually unattractive clothes.


----------



## Edward (Feb 3, 2016)

SRoper said:


> Are you saying that drawing attention to yourself (not your body) with your adornment has nothing to do with modesty?



The original question specified apparel, and later clothing, which I distinguish from accessories. 

If that point has been exhausted and you concede my points, we can move to accessories.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 3, 2016)

Some folks in the secular world have views of what modest apparel should look like:

http://www.modestapparelusa.com/


----------



## py3ak (Feb 3, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Some folks in the secular world have views of what modest apparel should look like:
> 
> http://www.modestapparelusa.com/



I don't think that place would universally be considered _secular_:
http://www.modestapparelusa.com/modesty-bible-study/


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 3, 2016)

py3ak said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > Some folks in the secular world have views of what modest apparel should look like:
> ...


Excellent!


----------



## Herald (Feb 4, 2016)

Philip said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Immodest attire is clothing that intentionally draws attention to the body.
> ...



There is a difference between clothing that is complimentary and clothing that is revealing.


----------



## Herald (Feb 4, 2016)

Also, can we make an appeal to common sense and propriety? Perhaps a new Christian may struggle with what constitutes modesty in dress, but should that be the case with more mature believers? There is tendency for some folks to appeal to ignorance as a means to justify whatever it is they seek to do.


----------



## ZackF (Feb 5, 2016)

Herald said:


> Also, can we make an appeal to common sense and propriety? Perhaps a new Christian may struggle with what constitutes modesty in dress, but should that be the case with more mature believers? There is tendency for spoke folks to appeal to ignorance as a means to justify whatever it is they seek to do.



Yes. I think you are on to something. Modesty in dress should be like speech in a mature believer. In times past, Christians or not, children couldn't wait to dress like and be grown-ups. However, we now have huge swaths of the middle-aged to older male population that would rather carry themselves, sound and dress like their fifteen year-old sons/grandsons.


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 8, 2016)

Thanks for the responses! Sorry for being slow to reply; I wanted to think about it, and then I got busy and then sick. I likely will be slow in following up on comments after this one too (and I still need to get back to Alexander on the Sabbath thread)... I hope I do not seem to be too picky in my replies; these things just have very relevant applications in life and encounter much resistance (e.g., unbelievers being converted and needing to be taught how to dress; being able to intelligently discuss with other Christians why this or that apparel is immodest or modest).



Miss Marple said:


> I can honestly say, though, that I am pretty clear on what is modest in our culture. A bikini is not, frankly, even at the beach, nor is a speedo. A one piece at the beach, yes; at church or generally in public, no.


Seems arbitrary to me: On what basis do you say they are immodest if this is merely a matter of cultural taste, which can change. What if our culture drifts so that such is appropriate wear? Then would you say such is modest? Why condemn "immodest" fashion if it can be changed and is argued that it should change because the body ought not to be so sexualized?



JimmyH said:


> Supreme court (USA) justice Potter Stewart asked to define p0rnography said something like, 'I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.' I think for most Bible-believing Christians the same applies to perceiving modesty.


The WLC says it is a sin to wear immodest apparel. Given how much even Christians argue about what is or is not modest (and these are qualitative differences, not quantitative "how many inches should my pants be?" differences), I do not see how this would work in determining whether a particular sort of apparel is sinful or not.



Cymro said:


> The house of God is no place for the sisters to have plunging necklines and bare shoulders, that so obviously can be a stumbling block to the male members. Neither am I a fan of young men turning up with rugby shirts and shorts, there is a decorum in approaching the high and lofty one. Concessions are made for the unconverted or the stranger, but the Lords people are to display that modesty of character in their carriage.


How does one determine that the house of God is no place for these things? The Scriptures demand modesty, but how do we know those things are modest?



2ndViolinist said:


> Others may differ with me on this, but I do not believe most one-piece bathing suits, any bikinis, or shirtless-ness are ever modest or appropriate in public...


I'm with you on this, but I don't know why. I used to find those things (except bikinis) to be appropriate wear for various situations (like at a beach). Perhaps I have simply picked up the norms expected in conservative Reformed circles...




2ndViolinist said:


> (1) I think it is a combination of Scripture (Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Timothy 2:8-10, 1 Peter 3:3-4, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, etc.), one's culture, and personal conviction. My best friend is not comfortable wearing anything shorter than pants or ankle-length skirts, but when she sees me wearing Capri pants or dresses that reach just past my knees, she still believes I am dressed modestly.
> 
> (4) Modest apparel may sometimes be relative within a culture. There is a difference between clothing that is inappropriate in some circumstances vs. clothing that is flat-out immodest. Athletic pants or shorts of the rugby variety may be appropriate for sports, but such attire would never be appropriate for a worship service--not because it is immodest... it's just not the right context.


(1) This is getting closer to an answer, but it still leaves the question as to how the application of the Scriptural principle is made in real life. One could say culture and personal conviction, but how are these things determined? Are they ever wrong? If so, then how should they change? If not, on what basis does one establish cultural norms for dress?

(4) How are bathing suits not appropriate for a beach? They are light clothing, and exposing more skin allows for ease of drying clothes that might have gotten wet. How does one determine what is or is not appropriate? If cultural norms have established this, then can the cultural norm be wrong?




Edward said:


> Immodest attire is clothing that intentionally draws attention to the body.
> 
> For example, Sunday morning I noticed a man's tattooed arms in church. He was wearing a short-sleeved tee shirt. Although the day was warm for late January, it was a bit bracing for tee shirts unless the purpose was to show the tats. So, I would consider his attire immodest.


Given the clarifications/qualifications made in the conversation that sprung from this, this seems a promising criterion. However, is the intention relative to individual intention or do the clothes objectively draw attention to the body? And in either case, it would seem that what constitutes drawing attention to the body could change with time. Should we then join with those who wish to desexualize the body so that clothing that is inappropriate now will be appropriate later?



psycheives said:


> I very much appreciate what Miss Marple wrote above about style changes that used to be considered unacceptable in different times and places. Her comments go along with Zack's last post about tailored clothing (above this one). These two comments point out that our modesty standard must be either applicable across ALL cultures and ALL times (if we claim it's a hard fast rule from the Bible) or it must be admitted that the biblical standard of modesty is flexible and influenced by cultural expectations and views. Any Biblical standard must be applicable across cultures and time - such as no nudity. And if we use no nudity as certainly immodest, it seems degrees of nudity can be expressed by less and less clothing. So immodesty seems in part to be a degree thing more than something where we can easily draw a line. So you can't claim women were immodest for showing their ankles back in the day and not immodest today unless you are making a flexible cultural argument. Same for wearing pants. Hey, women not wearing those huge puffed out dress skirts and a corset probably would have been considered immodest back in the day too. This shows the cultural element.
> 
> And I very much appreciate Kat's comment about shirt-lessness for both sexes and one-piece bathing suits. They are not modest. Women in skin tight, butt-showing bathing suits is not modest. Here I appeal that it gives the closest illusion of nudity - it's practically there. There is really no difference between this and plain simple underwear. And sorry men, men without shirts is not modest. So I very very much appreciate you guys who are wearing and teaching your sons to wear the surfer shirts! Hey, those actually make you look much cooler with the fun colors and geometric designs.


Thank you, this is useful. (I would note though that skirts vs pants is about distinctive clothing among the sexes: not necessarily modesty in and of itself). It provides a universal criterion that is trans-cultural and then proceeds to make application to the present culture. That is the way I would think it would work. However, it only helps so much...but perhaps that is all that one can say? I know some view short shorts (on either of the sexes) or short skirts as immodest; some would even talk about length of sleeve length too. I'm not sure how this criterion is enough to answer this question, unless it is simply: All these things go because they do not fall under our principle.

As a question about the method though: Why do you not take the Scripture's view of "nakedness" and use that in order to determine what is modest and what is not?



OPC'n said:


> So could it be that it appears to be whatever we've allowed ourselves to become desensitized to over the ages and then think our struggle with sexual sin is on the same level of sexual sex our predecessors struggled with? I'm not saying they didn't struggle with sexual sin but it certainly was not what our generation is bombard with out in the open.


How does one determine what is good or bad? What about desexualizing the body so that are current standards do not cause a problem, instead of covering up and hence sexualzing the body?



Herald said:


> Perhaps a new Christian may struggle with what constitutes modesty in dress, but should that be the case with more mature believers?


I think there is some truth to this, but I think, the new Christian adopts whatever the norm is of the church culture the Christian finds oneself in? And mature Christians also disagree qualitatively on these things, unless the disagreement is viewed as more maturity being needed? Maturity supposes growth too; what is influencing Christians to mature in their views on these things, to view one thing as immodest and another as not?



Jake said:


> It seems in at least this admonition of Paul the focus of modesty is different than is often the target of the discussion. There is often more discussion on pants vs. skirts and skirt lengths and less about expensive garments and jewelry and hairstyling.


This is true, but the admonition seems to at least include the subject matter of the thread.



au5t1n said:


> I think everyone would acknowledge that there are objective elements and subjective elements, but in our day the subjectivity is pressed to a breaking point. One aspect to the question that is usually neglected is the implication of the Fifth Commandment on the matter. Many people seem to think generational differences are the same as cultural differences, but they are not. Standards usually decline in succeeding generations and it is rarely a matter of mere cultural shift. It is a matter of each generation rebelling against its parents. A Christian should seek to honor fathers and mothers and rise up before the hoary head.


I have sometimes wondered whether the 5th Commandment might help provide a standard for modest apparel. The main difficulties I can think of though are the same as those stated in the OP, e.g., how do the parents determine what is modest? What if they are too strict or loose in their views? How far back in generations should we go?, what if one set of parents disagrees with another set?, etc.


----------



## MW (Feb 8, 2016)

"Honour thy father and thy mother." It is difficult in this day of levelling humour, and where even elders and dignitaries are known to act contrary to their positions of responsibility, but you can still generally gauge a standard of modesty amongst them.

Clothing is one of those areas where it is safest to drive farthest from the edge of a cliff. Some like to show what clever drivers they can be and often endanger their own lives and the lives of others, not realising the caring Providence which keeps them despite their presumptive behaviour.


----------



## OPC'n (Feb 8, 2016)

I think by nature women like to please men and by nature men are more sexual creatures in general. Therefore, when men decided they wanted to see more of women's skin and women picked up on that and knew they could get more glances if they began to show more skin that's when immodest clothing took hold. If men would either verbalize dislike towards immodest clothing or not pay attention to women who wear immodest clothing and give more attention to women who are modest, then I think you would see a change in what women wore. Women wear whatever attracts men (I'm speaking generally not everyone fits into this....some women just wear what is comfy which is normally always modest). Men would also change their habit of going without shirts if they desired modesty. I'm not sure why society ever thought it was ok for men to not wear shirts in public when women would never think of doing this.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Feb 8, 2016)

I think modesty is subjective and objective at the same time. One thing that is definitely forgotten in most churches today, is the tightness of clothing. I remember my wife getting sexual comments and stares from men when she wore form fitting clothes, but thankfully she came under conviction. She now wear's loser fitting clothing, and those comments and looks have literally vanished. She presents herself as if she has something she only wants her husband to see and have, and this causes men to not look at her as bait, but as a lady who should be respected. 

My wife is very beautiful on the outside, and she still dresses beautifully, but not in a way which arouses sexual thoughts within men. If you saw her in public, you wouldn't think she is promiscuous, worldly, or given over to the things of the flesh. You would quickly see that it is what is on the inside of her which is what she wants others to see. 

I hope this is encouraging. She has brought joy to my heart in this area.


----------



## Edward (Feb 9, 2016)

While this test certainly doesn't go far enough, it might be a good starting point for those looking for a bright line definition:

If I can look at you and describe anything about your underwear, your clothing probably isn't modest enough.


----------



## Philip (Feb 9, 2016)

I still get the feeling in this thread that we're still placing an easier burden on men than on women. That concerns me, because women are judged very harshly in our society already, and now we in the church are adding to the burden.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 9, 2016)

Part of that is natural though. 

Men have a very limited sartorial range, especially when we are talking about formal wear.


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 9, 2016)

Philip said:


> *I still get the feeling in this thread that we're still placing an easier burden on men than on women.* That concerns me, because women are judged very harshly in our society already, and now we in the church are adding to the burden.


I don't see how. Would you demonstrate this? The intent of the thread was to speak of modesty in apparel for both sexes; particular examples are given to test our moral reasoning. (And with regards to the church, I haven't seen that in the Reformed church congregations that I've attended (OPC, RPCNA, FCC, and one PCA congregation)).


----------



## Philip (Feb 9, 2016)

Afterthought said:


> particular examples are given to test our moral reasoning.



And they've tended to be female examples. With the exception of going shirtless, most of the male examples have been about inappropriateness _for a particular setting_ rather than as such.

Again, I'm not trying to point fingers, just noting that even when we acknowledge that both genders have equal responsibility here, the discussion still tends to trend in a particular direction.


----------



## Toasty (Feb 9, 2016)

Philip said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Immodest attire is clothing that intentionally draws attention to the body.
> ...



Some clothing should be tailored. I have seen people wear clothing that look too big for them or too baggy.


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 9, 2016)

Philip said:


> And they've tended to be female examples. With the exception of going shirtless, most of the male examples have been about inappropriateness for a particular setting rather than as such.


I don't see how examples trending in a particular direction necessarily puts an extra burden, since there could be other, innocuous reasons for the trend. I'll need to think about that. Anyway, a number of the female examples given in the thread apply to men too: tight fitting clothing, pant/shorts length, sleeve length, and neckline are also relevant for men, since these are some fashions one can see and so must be judged whether they are modest. I suppose we could also add "sagging" one's pants as an extreme, real world example to test against.


----------



## MW (Feb 9, 2016)

Philip said:


> Again, I'm not trying to point fingers, just noting that even when we acknowledge that both genders have equal responsibility here, the discussion still tends to trend in a particular direction.



As it does in holy Scripture. "Equal responsibility" does not mean "equal roles." Man as man seeks a woman; woman as woman is sought by a man. That is the biblical view and has been the traditional conservative view. Granted it has changed with the emergence of unisex culture; but if we think biblically about the subject it is apparent that modesty is impressed upon women in a way it is not impressed upon men.


----------



## Edward (Feb 9, 2016)

Afterthought said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> > And they've tended to be female examples. With the exception of going shirtless, most of the male examples have been about inappropriateness for a particular setting rather than as such.
> ...



Phillip may be too young to remember the disco era - men's shirts unbuttoned to the naval to show off chest hair and gold chains; skin tight polyester pants.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Feb 9, 2016)

Although I think men typically fall morally more easily over a woman who is immodest as opposed to vice versa, I still think men have an equal obligation to be modest. For example, when we are watching a movie and a guy is with his shirt off, my wife automatically looks away. She believes she should only see her husband's part of the body in that area. Even if she is not lusting over it, she still does not want images in her mind of other men not wearing clothing. This would hinder intimacy rather than keep it pure.


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 9, 2016)

MW said:


> "Honour thy father and thy mother." It is difficult in this day of levelling humour, and where even elders and dignitaries are known to act contrary to their positions of responsibility, but you can still generally gauge a standard of modesty amongst them.
> 
> Clothing is one of those areas where it is safest to drive farthest from the edge of a cliff. Some like to show what clever drivers they can be and often endanger their own lives and the lives of others, not realising the caring Providence which keeps them despite their presumptive behaviour.


What if one disagrees with their standard of modesty; how is the standard able to be changed (should one even desire it to change?)? How do they determine what is modest and what is not? What if one set of elders and dignitaries disagrees with another set: how does one determine a standard from them in such a case? And if it is safest to go further in clothing, than less, wouldn't it be ideal then if we all wore robes of some sort?


----------



## Miss Marple (Feb 10, 2016)

Could you apply Matthew 18 for your criteria?

You find a brother or sister to be routinely immodest, so you go to him or her.

No improvement? You take two or three others. If you are off base, probably, they will refuse to do this, or, take up for the allegedly immodest person.

Still unhappy? Go to the church (session, elders). They can decide whether that brother or sister is immodest.

Well, what if they say bikinis in the front yard are ok? I guess then you have lost your case, even if you may be right. There is only so much control you have over another person.

You may object to whether this is subjective or not. Well, it is to a degree. As I said in my first post, were I brought before the session a hundred years ago I'd be judged immodest. My skirts go to the knee. As for these-a-days, no. So there is a subjectivity to it whether you "like" it or not. It's simply true. What is modest in one setting, culture, or situation is immodest in another. I think you are trying for one stark absolute and you are not going to find it.

God has given us Mathew 18 so I'd think we should use that procedure. I believe that normatively it is sufficient.


----------



## MW (Feb 10, 2016)

Afterthought said:


> What if one disagrees with their standard of modesty; how is the standard able to be changed (should one even desire it to change?)? How do they determine what is modest and what is not? What if one set of elders and dignitaries disagrees with another set: how does one determine a standard from them in such a case? And if it is safest to go further in clothing, than less, wouldn't it be ideal then if we all wore robes of some sort?



"Generally gauge," as above. It requires discretion, to be sure.


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 10, 2016)

Miss Marple said:


> What is modest in one setting, culture, or situation is immodest in another. I think you are trying for one stark absolute and you are not going to find it.


That isn't necessarily what I am trying to find. I am trying to figure out how one determines what is modest and what is not. Some argue that there is an absolute, and that is found in the Scriptures. If the Scriptures tell us that "nakedness" is immodest, shouldn't one go to the Scriptures to determine in what that "nakedness" consists? So goes the argument.



MW said:


> "Generally gauge," as above. It requires discretion, to be sure.


We might have ended up in a circle here: But what is the basis of the discretion? Or is there no real way to describe such, except as a general "Christian sense" that is developed along with spiritual maturity (which seems to be the consensus of the posters in this thread)?


Edit:
I like this that was said on another recent thread (I hope I am not misapplying it to this topic):


Semper Fidelis said:


> One of the things that trips people up with the Puritans is that they can't tell the difference between godly principles and human regulations. They appear to be the same to the casual observer. The tradition of the Scribes and the Pharisees is akin to Canon Law in the Roman Catholic communion. All the work has been done for you to help you figure out what you may or may not do. Puritan works on casuistry, by contrast, gave Scriptural principles for different scenarios that people find themselves in. The Puritans didn't say: do this specific action and you are obeying the Law. Instead, they said: here are some Scriptural principles and now apply the Word of God to your life as you meditate upon the Word and the Spirit convicts your conscience on how you will seek to honor Christ.


Perhaps the questions of the OP were misguided from the start. The question should have been: "What are the principles for determining modest clothing?" Having found some principles, Christian discretion would take over in applying them to various scenarios, as it does in other matters. After that, the only thing left to do would be to explain why it is/is not a valid principle to look at the Scriptures to define what is modest.


----------



## MW (Feb 10, 2016)

Afterthought said:


> We might have ended up in a circle here: But what is the basis of the discretion? Or is there no real way to describe such, except as a general "Christian sense" that is developed along with spiritual maturity (which seems to be the consensus of the posters in this thread)?



You can develop a theology of clothing from Scripture as to its proper use. Some of the Puritans touched on this, e.g., cover-up, keep warm, befit station, etc. But yes, for specifics it is a matter of maturity and good sense. The emphasis on maturity commends again the place of superiors.


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 10, 2016)

MW said:


> You can develop a theology of clothing from Scripture as to its proper use. Some of the Puritans touched on this, e.g., cover-up, keep warm, befit station, etc. But yes, for specifics it is a matter of maturity and good sense. The emphasis on maturity commends again the place of superiors.


Thank you! Do you have some thoughts on the argument that Scripture should determine what is modest or not at least to how much of the body should be covered (perhaps by looking at what Scripture views as or calls/assumes to be "nakedness")?


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 16, 2016)

Bumping once more. I am interested in comments about looking at the Scriptures (in part by seeing what it defines as "nakedness;" in part by seeing how words are defined) in order to determine what is modest clothing.


----------

