Male and Female Modesty

[Grymir]

I have wondered about the Greek statues we see in museums. They seem to portray the human form to show its grace. The intent is not to incite lust but to show the symmetry and form of humans. I have never thought of those things as evil.

Also, what about personal training? Could a man help weight train a woman and could he complicate her on her body as she improved it or are all such things sinful - even if such a compliment was of a "way to go" sort, "you've reduced your waist and your shoulders are more toned now..good job."

I don't know Pergamum, To complicate her on her body sounds like something my wife and I would do.


TO ALL - Y'all are pathetic. Nit picking this to death. You know what modest dress is. Usually when people do not agree with modest dress, or try to haggle over the fine points of modest dress, they have ulterior motives, like their wifes don't agree, they like looking, or a host of other reasons. But I also know the ones on this thread, and how you just love to stir things up. (I won't mention any names Pergamum). Modest dress can take both Modern and Older forms. Personally, I like the older forms. When you see such a LADY, you can't help but think "Now there goes a religious woman who follows the Lord!" When I see most attempts at modest dress done by people who don't agree, I can read the "I'm a Liberal" from across the room.

 

[Ivan]

I may not state it the way you have, Timothy, but I agree with you.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Oh yeah I was wondering about that.. can a man admire the beauty of a woman's physical attractiveness without it being lustful? And likewise can a woman dress herself in an attractive way without tempting men to sin or being immodest?

Or is the presentation of outward beauty always sinful?

Maybe it's because I'm getting older and no longer am perceived as having an agenda when I do so but I have no problem telling a man that he has a beautiful wife or telling a lady that she looks really pretty today as a sincere compliment. Now obviously that has bounds.

There are two prime issues with modesty:

1. Not desiring to be sexually alluring and distracting a person with things that might tempt.
2. Not dressing to be ostentatious.

Honestly, in the second category are women that dress up with showy outfits or hats. Either way the person is dressing to draw attention to themselves. I believe our dress should be such a thing that someone does not notice what we're wearing. OUr immediate thought isn't about the outfit or "parts" accentuated by it.

Note, I didn't mention the gender of the party here for both could be guilty of this.

That all said, a woman that is modest has a certain feminine excellence about her that, I believe, can be safely complimented in the same way you would compliment a person for any other blessing that God has bestowed upon them. In fact, my wife's loveliness is a reflection of her Godly character and I'm happy when others point that out.

 

[Wannabee]

Well said Rich. Another thing we must keep in the front of our minds is to keep spiritual beauty primary. If a woman looks good but is spiritually ugly I avoid any comments about her looks. Too often someone can think their looks are the true measure of their beauty. We are particularly careful about this with young girls. They must be clearly taught that their spiritual beauty is what truly counts.

 

[calgal]

First, let me dissuade of the idea that I am a pastor. And, if I ever become one, much to the dismay of some I can also assure you that I am not infallible.

Second, how I would go about welcoming someone with less than modest dress and gently and lovingly teach them to value themselves more highly and dress appropriately would be done in the same way any one else that I know who espouses a strong view on modesty. My acceptance of them is not based upon their way of dressing. They have much more value as a Christian and a garden variety pagan, which ever they may be, than in the way they dress. So, I would never accept or not accept a person based on the way they are dressed. It is not a ground for so doing. Then I would in a way that might take years do as you indicate gently and lovingly teach them. I am a little iffy about what you mean by value themselves more highly, but that aside, it would be over time. You think I always held this view? I learned it, so can others.

As for your other questions, let me say wearing certain things and acting a certain way are a large element constituting modesty. I will be the first to say/admit/recognize that modest is first and foremost a heart issue for men and women. Nevertheless, I will put it this way. I used to be on the campus of a certain very well known Christian University (which will remain anonymous) on occasion with the standing rule, a rule stringently enforced, that girls had to wear long dresses. Now these dresses were, I think again by rule, were virtually down to the floor. Many, however, who wore these dress were not modest women. Why? Because they knew the art of sensuality. They oozed with sensuality in the way they wore their hair, the way they walked, the way they wore the slightest makeup, and the places in which their dresses fit most snugly. So, did the clothes alone make them modest. No. So, it is wearing and acting, but even more importantly it is the heart.

As for what is modest for men, I think several post here have documented that issue well. For women in our culture, it is a bit more of a challenge so I offer some suggestions that will be of benefit from my perspective.

They are seen in what is commonly called the “Modesty Test”. A simple Goggle search will find you plenty of them. However, in all honestly, I really am not that convinced that Christian women are prepared to subject themselves to it. The test itself will, therefore, be easy for most to dismiss, especially when it infringes upon the way they want to dress. (I guess I better make a disclaimer here: This post is not meant to be indicating you personally or any other person who may think so, since I have never met you or anyone else that might think this post is directed at them personally)

I do agree with Ms. deMoss on her definition of modesty and the test does not go to extremes. Unfortunately, the "women cover up because you are tempting me" mindset is worse perhaps than a woman dressing skankily. Most grown women make sure they are not "giving a free show" in my experience and that includes wearing shorts, skirts to or above the knee and pants. They are going for comfort, not to be hoochie mamas.

 

[py3ak]

I don't really want to get deeply involved in this thread, but I do want to make two textual notes. If Rebekah covers herself when she sees Isaac, then obviously before that time she was not covered; which means that around the servants in the camel caravan she felt quite free to let her hair, etc., be seen. So patently it was not part of patriarchal culture that all women must at all times have their hair thoroughly covered.

Second, if the priest is to uncover the head of the woman suspected of adultery, we must conclude that the priest is meant to be immune to the enticing power of her hair. Now this could be because priests (like hairdressers?) were endowed with a remarkable constancy in the face of the overwhelming allurement of dead keratin, or because it could be reasonably supposed that any man not in the grip of an overmastering lust would be able to limit a sexual response to hair to that found on the top of his wife's scalp.

 

[DMcFadden]

Most grown women make sure they are not "giving a free show" in my experience and that includes wearing shorts, skirts to or above the knee and pants. They are going for comfort, not to be hoochie mamas.

Hoochie mamas.

I have sat out on this thread. My . . .
1. Godly women know what to do and what not to do in dress.
2. They should privately instruct younger women who are "still learning."
3. Men ARE wired from the factory to respond to visual stimuli. Women need to remember this.
4. Still, no man should lay the primary responsibility for lust on anyone but his own wicked imagination.

And, yes, Rich. Looking at the pictures of your wife with your kids, she is indeed a beautiful woman. And, judging from the kind of man you show yourself to be on PB, my guess is that her Godly character will radiate through her personality for decades to come. I see people like your wife who are still stunningly beautiful in their 80s, in large part because of their Godliness.

 

[Pergamum]

that dead keratin can look pretty good at times.



Sidenote:

Over here, many of the Mslm women cover up, but then they uncover in the presence of family. You know that you have bonded well with a local family when the wives and female family members do not cover up in your presence (i.e. you are considered close enough to relax their standards of modesty I guess, or at least relax their slavish obedeince to outward rules).

 

[Pergamum]

Py3ak: I have never thought of hairdressers as having amazing moral constancy before but you make a compelling case.

 

[Kevin]

I don't really want to get deeply involved in this thread, but I do want to make two textual notes. If Rebekah covers herself when she sees Isaac, then obviously before that time she was not covered; which means that around the servants in the camel caravan she felt quite free to let her hair, etc., be seen. So patently it was not part of patriarchal culture that all women must at all times have their hair thoroughly covered.

Second, if the priest is to uncover the head of the woman suspected of adultery, we must conclude that the priest is meant to be immune to the enticing power of her hair. Now this could be because priests (like hairdressers?) were endowed with a remarkable constancy in the face of the overwhelming allurement of dead keratin, or because it could be reasonably supposed that any man not in the grip of an overmastering lust would be able to limit a sexual response to hair to that found on the top of his wife's scalp.

Well said, Ruben!

I had just this conversation with my wife on the way to church this morning. Her actions are more along the line of "primping". My (smart) wife said that it is the same as if a woman seeing her future husband checked her lipstick and reapplied it. The fact is that she was an unmarried woman travelling with several men UN-COVERED. This seems to demonstrate that the interpretation of her action of putting on her covering in this passage, put forward in this thread is not the best one.

 

[py3ak]

Shall I go down in history for my encomium of the noble ethics of hairdressers, do you think?

Here is another passage for consideration: [KJV]Genesis 38:14,15[/KJV]

And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.
When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.

Here Tamar is taken for an harlot, not because she was flaunting her ankles, but because she covered her face. And in general the language seems to imply that her harlot's garments covered rather more than her widow's garments. Once again, patriarchal culture does not support a Muslim idea of modesty. (And speaking of Muslims, is it not true that so far from their garments lending to modesty, it actually turns women into sexual objects? I think it works like this:
1. Sexual objects are dangerous;
2. Women are sexual objects;
3. Women are dangerous.
1'. Dangerous things must be covered
2'. Women are dangerous things.
3'. Women must be covered.
That would perhaps explain the report that it is common for fully covered Muslim women to be sexually solicited, more or less aggressively, by Muslim taxi drivers. Muslim men are not honoring their women in making them dress that way; they are rather inflaming their own sinful lusts by behaving as though women were nothing but illicit pleasure sacks.)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Good point Ruben. I've heard multiple accounts where Muslim men have zero self-control. One of my Marines worked for a female Captain and when they deployed to Saudi Arabia they had to escort her on either side because men would literally walk up to her on the street and grab her breast. A similar incident was reported to me by a young officer in OIF 1.

 

[kvanlaan]

I have wondered about the Greek statues we see in museums. They seem to portray the human form to show its grace. The intent is not to incite lust but to show the symmetry and form of humans. I have never thought of those things as evil.

Pergy, the thing about those is that they were created in a spirit of hedonism by artists who saw the place of men in a way very different than the Bible presents man's proper place to us. Yes, it was to show symmetry and form but I would say that the motivation behind it and the appreciation for such a form was not as academic/artistic as you might think.

And personally, I think that we should all make an attempt to incorporate the words "hoochie mamas" into every PB thread for a period of no less than 30 days.

 

[py3ak]

Not quite zero self-control, Rich. They had enough self-control to avoid getting their lights punched out by a couple Marines!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Not quite zero self-control, Rich. They had enough self-control to avoid getting their lights punched out by a couple Marines!

That's true.

It's funny because there's a quote I was reading from a State Department Official who was in the Embassy in Somalia in 1993. She said a bunch of Somalis rolled up in a vehicle and threatened to attack the Embassy until they noticed the Marines on top of the embassy. They promptly stated: "Oh, we were just joking", loaded up, and drove away.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Two things:

Principle, not lists
Context


And btw, I breastfeed anywhere another child bottle feeds or an adult eats. Even muslim women are more concerned about their head being covering than their breast when it comes to feeding a child.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

I am not sure if anyone mentioned this or not, but does anyone think that Mary was sinning by letting her hair down when she spilled the anointing oil on Jesus' feet? My Pastor described it as if she were so caught up in the moment that she was unconcerned or oblivious to the cultural expectations of her.

 

[BJClark]

TO ALL - Y'all are pathetic. Nit picking this to death. You know what modest dress is. Usually when people do not agree with modest dress, or try to haggle over the fine points of modest dress, they have ulterior motives, like their wifes don't agree, they like looking, or a host of other reasons. But I also know the ones on this thread, and how you just love to stir things up. (I won't mention any names Pergamum). Modest dress can take both Modern and Older forms. Personally, I like the older forms. When you see such a LADY, you can't help but think "Now there goes a religious woman who follows the Lord!" When I see most attempts at modest dress done by people who don't agree, I can read the "I'm a Liberal" from across the room.

yes, we do know what modest dress is, and we also know what immodest dress is, I actually like wearing longer dresses that go down mid calf, but the reason in the past that I always wore them was not because of personal convictions, but because of sin committed against me as a child, and being raised to believe it was some how MY fault I was molested. (so even there my motive to dress modestly was wrong).

Yet, I was an infant when it started, how sexual can an infant be? how sexual can an infant dress that would cause a man to lust after them? Men rape women who are not dressed skanky or like hoochie mamma's probably more so than they do those who do dress like that, and in turn the women are still blamed for the rape against them.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard the words "If you wouldn't have done" or "if you wouldn't have been there.." or "if you wouldn't have been wearing..." this wouldn't have happened..I say HOG WASH..Men's hearts are evil and if they have it in their heart to lust or rape or commit whatever sin their heart can imagine, they are going to do just that...no matter what a woman wears or does.

So you see, I know from personal experience it is not how a person dresses that *causes* a man to lust, he lust's because that is a sin he struggles against God with.

It took me a long time to become comfortable wearing dresses that come just below the knee (which my husband prefers) and to become comfortable with who I am as a woman, and not be ashamed of the fact that is how God created me.

I guess that would be my ulterior motive you say people have who argue against modest dress (though I'm not arguing against modest dress, I'm arguing more about the attitude that immodest dress is *what causes* men to have sinful thoughts); men have sinful thought's because the hearts of men are evil.

I also know many women who dress modestly yet don't follow the Lord at all, they do so because it's more professional for their career's.

The point I'm trying to make here is that SOME men will lust after women no matter what they wear and whether or not any skin is showing or not, it is their thoughts that degrade the woman to a mere sex object.

Just as yes, some women WILL dress in order to get men to lust after them, but even that is their sinful heart before God and not seeing themselves as more than 'sex objects' for men's pleasure. They do not see who they are as God's creation, not necessarily God's child (as not all are God's children), but as His creation.

 

[LadyFlynt]

If anyone takes the time to look over previous threads, there was also discussion on context between myself and Reuben/Heidi. I also am familiar with others that have been missionaries and/or live in Hispanic areas. Context of some of these areas dictate that ladies NOT wear skirts or dresses...for as they say, "even the priest (in his robes) is not safe".

 

[kvanlaan]

Not long after I started reading this thread (seems like a week ago), I went to check my emails. Thre was a yahoo! banner with some person called Rianna (or something like that - we don't get out much over here) and though it was just her face, the eyes were of such an immodest bent that I scrolled her picture off the page until I was done with checking my mail. She could have been clothed ankle, wrist, and neck, and still been highly inappropriate. The clothes should match the heart.

 

[Romans922]

Not long after I started reading this thread (seems like a week ago), I went to check my emails. Thre was a yahoo! banner with some person called Rianna (or something like that - we don't get out much over here) and though it was just her face, the eyes were of such an immodest bent that I scrolled her picture off the page until I was done with checking my mail. She could have been clothed ankle, wrist, and neck, and still been highly inappropriate. The clothes should match the heart.

The clothes, shoes, jewlery, hair, makeup, etc. should match the heart: and they do.

 

[Wannabee]

It is an awful thought that a modestly dressed woman could be berated by a man for causing him to lust, talk about mote and beam.

While Women should dress modestly I have great sympathy with the posts here from women pointing out what a burden men often put on them. Surely our first reaction should not be to blame a women for having nice ankles but to mortify the sin in my own life that causes us to lust.

I also think that it is possible to recognise the beauty of a women in a pure way, we have got to be careful not to despise one of the gifts from God just because of our sinful nature.

Great statement Mike.

Can I be a bit blunt here? Simply put, a godly man SHOULD be able to stand in the midst of 100 naked women and not be tempted nor given to lust. That is the standard we should all strive for. It's been mentioned already, but let me state it again; a man is directly responsible to God for any lust in his own heart, period. We can no more blame others for our own sin than we can take credit for being saved. We all stand before God based on our own hearts. The victim mentality of our society screams out against the truth of this. But the truth stands and the blame shifting idea that women are the cause of the lust of men is fruitless and spiritually self-defeating.

As for women, the same standard exists. If her heart is to lure men's eyes then she will account for it. Her sin is her own, and she will be held ACCOUNTABLE BY GOD for any who have stumbled because of her sins. But even those who stumble are still accountable directly to God for their own sin, and cannot blame another.

Finally, women must keep in mind that the lure they use to draw a man will be the same bait by which they will need to keep him, barring a changed heart. If he's lured with sexiness, then he will need to be kept with sexiness. But if he's lured by godliness then the continued pursuit of godliness will keep him enthralled in that same glorious alure.

 

[JBaldwin]

Finally, women must keep in mind that the lure they use to draw a man will be the same bait by which they will need to keep him, barring a changed heart. If he's lured with sexiness, then he will need to be kept with sexiness. But if he's lured by godliness then the continued pursuit of godliness will keep him enthralled in that same glorious alure.

I have always believed this, but I think this is the first time I have heard it verbalised. Thanks.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

It is an awful thought that a modestly dressed woman could be berated by a man for causing him to lust, talk about mote and beam.

While Women should dress modestly I have great sympathy with the posts here from women pointing out what a burden men often put on them. Surely our first reaction should not be to blame a women for having nice ankles but to mortify the sin in my own life that causes us to lust.

I also think that it is possible to recognise the beauty of a women in a pure way, we have got to be careful not to despise one of the gifts from God just because of our sinful nature.

Great statement Mike.

Can I be a bit blunt here? Simply put, a godly man SHOULD be able to stand in the midst of 100 naked women and not be tempted nor given to lust. That is the standard we should all strive for. It's been mentioned already, but let me state it again; a man is directly responsible to God for any lust in his own heart, period. We can no more blame others for our own sin than we can take credit for being saved. We all stand before God based on our own hearts. The victim mentality of our society screams out against the truth of this. But the truth stands and the blame shifting idea that women are the cause of the lust of men is fruitless and spiritually self-defeating.

As for women, the same standard exists. If her heart is to lure men's eyes then she will account for it. Her sin is her own, and she will be held ACCOUNTABLE BY GOD for any who have stumbled because of her sins. But even those who stumble are still accountable directly to God for their own sin, and cannot blame another.

Finally, women must keep in mind that the lure they use to draw a man will be the same bait by which they will need to keep him, barring a changed heart. If he's lured with sexiness, then he will need to be kept with sexiness. But if he's lured by godliness then the continued pursuit of godliness will keep him enthralled in that same glorious alure.

Well said Joe

 

[FenderPriest]

I haven't seen this posted so far in this thread, and just wanted to make it available as a resourceful tool. We use it for parenting at my church, and I feel that it's in accord with the Biblical norms of what is, and is not modest:
Modesty Heart Check

 

[Pergamum]

It is an awful thought that a modestly dressed woman could be berated by a man for causing him to lust, talk about mote and beam.

While Women should dress modestly I have great sympathy with the posts here from women pointing out what a burden men often put on them. Surely our first reaction should not be to blame a women for having nice ankles but to mortify the sin in my own life that causes us to lust.

I also think that it is possible to recognise the beauty of a women in a pure way, we have got to be careful not to despise one of the gifts from God just because of our sinful nature.

Great statement Mike.

Can I be a bit blunt here? Simply put, a godly man SHOULD be able to stand in the midst of 100 naked women and not be tempted nor given to lust. That is the standard we should all strive for. It's been mentioned already, but let me state it again; a man is directly responsible to God for any lust in his own heart, period. We can no more blame others for our own sin than we can take credit for being saved. We all stand before God based on our own hearts. The victim mentality of our society screams out against the truth of this. But the truth stands and the blame shifting idea that women are the cause of the lust of men is fruitless and spiritually self-defeating.

As for women, the same standard exists. If her heart is to lure men's eyes then she will account for it. Her sin is her own, and she will be held ACCOUNTABLE BY GOD for any who have stumbled because of her sins. But even those who stumble are still accountable directly to God for their own sin, and cannot blame another.

Finally, women must keep in mind that the lure they use to draw a man will be the same bait by which they will need to keep him, barring a changed heart. If he's lured with sexiness, then he will need to be kept with sexiness. But if he's lured by godliness then the continued pursuit of godliness will keep him enthralled in that same glorious alure.

HA! I am frequently around topless women. A few times even in church services! I have not yet been tempted...but then again, its a little different in my situation.

 

[Pergamum]

It is an awful thought that a modestly dressed woman could be berated by a man for causing him to lust, talk about mote and beam.

While Women should dress modestly I have great sympathy with the posts here from women pointing out what a burden men often put on them. Surely our first reaction should not be to blame a women for having nice ankles but to mortify the sin in my own life that causes us to lust.

I also think that it is possible to recognise the beauty of a women in a pure way, we have got to be careful not to despise one of the gifts from God just because of our sinful nature.

Great statement Mike.

Can I be a bit blunt here? Simply put, a godly man SHOULD be able to stand in the midst of 100 naked women and not be tempted nor given to lust. That is the standard we should all strive for. It's been mentioned already, but let me state it again; a man is directly responsible to God for any lust in his own heart, period. We can no more blame others for our own sin than we can take credit for being saved. We all stand before God based on our own hearts. The victim mentality of our society screams out against the truth of this. But the truth stands and the blame shifting idea that women are the cause of the lust of men is fruitless and spiritually self-defeating.

As for women, the same standard exists. If her heart is to lure men's eyes then she will account for it. Her sin is her own, and she will be held ACCOUNTABLE BY GOD for any who have stumbled because of her sins. But even those who stumble are still accountable directly to God for their own sin, and cannot blame another.

Finally, women must keep in mind that the lure they use to draw a man will be the same bait by which they will need to keep him, barring a changed heart. If he's lured with sexiness, then he will need to be kept with sexiness. But if he's lured by godliness then the continued pursuit of godliness will keep him enthralled in that same glorious alure.

HA! I am frequently around topless women. A few times even in church services! I have not yet been tempted...but then again, its a little different in my situation.

 

[FenderPriest]

HA! I am frequently around topless women. A few times even in church services! I have not yet been tempted..

Word. When this happened to me on a missionary trip (a woman just started openly breastfeeding in the service), I was more shocked than anything. No lusting on my part, thanks to grace, but it wasn't out of place in my opinion.

 

[Pergamum]

Ha, have you ever seen a lady breastfeed a baby pig! That's when the real shock sets in.

 

[CDM]

Ha, have you ever seen a lady breastfeed a baby pig! That's when the real shock sets in.