» Modesty: We’ve Come a Long Way, Baby!

Modesty: We’ve Come a Long Way, Baby!

Volleyball team at a local small, home-town school

Why does it matter? Modesty? One of the hottest button topics around (if you don’t believe me, just watch the comment section

It is a complicated issue…or is it? We could look at it from two angles–one from a purely secular/moral one, and the other from a Christian perspective. And in a sense, the two are much more closely related than people realize. Once, the morals of a secular society were predominately influenced by Christian values. And we were just better–generalization, I know, but still.

From a secular look…

Fifty years ago people, regardless of religion, generally supported a “modest” society. Advertisements were starting to get racy, yes, but school children were still required to be covered, and I think dresses were still mandated for girls. Can you imagine? Only dresses, just 50 years ago, and no one complained or filed law suits about “freedom infringement”. They just all shook one proverbial nod “yes”.

Fast forward. There are still a few dress regulations, but apparently they only apply in the classroom. Once you’re on the volleyball team, you can wear your underwear (because we all know one can’t play volleyball in long shorts). And the underwear thing? Yes, Hanes makes a girls’ underwear “brief” that are no less modest than the above uniform. And may I remind you, if you are a Christian, and your daughter wants to play volleyball, I hope you don’t have a modesty rule because she will have to conform to the team. (I’d be curious if anyone has heard of a parent protesting a sport’s uniform based on modesty issues.)

Class of 1960

So why does it matter? It doesn’t, I suppose, if you’re desensitized to nakedness and you don’t mind your girls causing men and boys to have perverted thoughts and you don’t mind your husband and boys struggling to fight off those thoughts. And please refrain from the whole “well if they’re having those thoughts it’s their fault” thing. Yes, a man is responsible for “taking every thought captive”. And yet the fact remains, scientifically supported, that males see and think differently than females (shocked, anyone?) and they were created to be stimulated visually. It’s part of God’s plan to perpetuate the human race It’s just that he’s only supposed to be seeing certain parts of his wife, not every woman he walks past. (I also think boys and men should dress modestly, if you’re wondering.)

Just like any other issue of morality, it’s not a “personal choice” free from affecting anyone else. We’re all affected. (Does anyone want to talk about pornographic addiction statistics? Or how one becomes addicted? Or what it does to families?)

I could argue from a Christian perspective, that’s an easy one, and we still miss it. (A friend recently told his wife about the girls in their church…”I hope everyone is prepared for a girl to walk in here completely naked–’cause it’s going to happen.”) The frog keeps swimming, the water gets hotter.

Heather wrote in the comment section regarding Christians and modesty:

“If I am taking part in something that would cause another believer to stumble, it would be better for me to have a giant rock tied around my neck and be drowned. (reference to Matthew 18:4-7)

To understand the potential to devastate another person’s walk of obedience–and yet go ahead for the sake of “fashion” or convenience or a sense of self-fulfillment–is very, very dangerous ground upon which to tread.”

Class of 1960

But why did all of society once uphold a general agreement on the importance of modesty, even without religious restrictions? Off the top of my head I think nature tells us to cover up. Initially, we did. It started in the garden–that instinct as soon as sin entered. But our baseness has slowly removed our shame, and we’ve gone from just “knowing” that it’s right to cover up, to slandering those “prudes” who try to point out what was once common understanding.

Class of 2000

(Racier photos could be posted, but I have to maintain some discretion.)

Just a rant after reading the paper today.

motherhood | Word Warrior | October 1, 2009 10:49 pm

141 Comments

By Steph, October 1, 2009 @ 11:27 pm

If there was one unanimous yes on the modesty issue, things wouldn’t have changed.
By Lisa, October 1, 2009 @ 11:55 pm

What a contrast! When the church fails to think like, teach like, and act like the church, we lose influence over our culture. This is everywhere – even in the church I attend. And I’m a prude for thinking the girls should wear a decent neckline. Why do they think everyone wants to see their breasts?? Rant on, Kelly.
By KB, October 2, 2009 @ 12:12 am

“And please refrain from the whole “well if they’re having those thoughts it’s their fault” thing. Yes, a man is responsible for “taking every thought captive”.

Yup, I hear this argument all the time from folks who consider themselves to be Christians. But all you have to do is ask the person whether it’s Godly to make it difficult for a dear brother in Christ to stay focused upon the Lord by dressing in a *distracting* manner. That changes the perspective a bit.

I had to go to the mall today (not my favorite place, but it couldn’t be helped). I was amazed at the various levels of undress of the mannequins, models, etc. I suppose that a certain level of “desensitization” does occur when there is so much flesh exposed all around us. But that doesn’t change the question: When a business tries to promote its product by appealing to our carnal nature, what does that reveal about the people responsible for the advertising campaign?

Oh, and don’t even get me started on the uniforms I’ve seen for college and professional sports. Yes, it’s lovely to have a beautiful body, but is that the only attribute for which all these young ladies want to be loved, respected, and cherished? How about a beautiful spirit? How about a peaceful heart? How about a gentle nature? How about a kind, comforting tongue?

Yes Kelly, rant on!!!
By Kim from Canada, October 2, 2009 @ 1:47 am

The first photo of the volleyball team made me giggle – not because I don’t take the modesty issue seriously. However, recently a German exchange student was attending our church youth group. The youth group has sports nights at one of the local public schools. Well, this young lady was volleyball star back home and wore her uniform to play. The bottom of her ‘cheeks’ were hanging out! Several of the young men excused themselves from the game that night. The young women took some time to speak to the German girl and tried to explain the issue with her.

She didn’t agree that modesty is a necessity, but she did stop wearing the underwear to sports night. Positive peer pressure.
By Karen, October 2, 2009 @ 3:20 am

My 13 year old just started volleyball and yep thats what they are wearing. Gosh this is the first sport she has wanted to play and some very nice girls on the team and yet…. I heard comments from other moms(not just my own comments in MY head) saying the same things like why do they have to play in underwear and hope these girls don’t get too interested in this game ’cause bikinis are next. etc. They played a team 3 days ago and the girls where wearing looooong shorts and it didn’t seem to hinder them at all.Why don’t the men just wear bikini bottoms if it is simply a case for ease of movement?? These are some pretty modest girls on this team and yet they all could’nt wait to get their shorts…The gym class allows only looong shorts and no sleeveless shirts! I have the feeling if several of us went to the coach it would be changed as our public school has become more and more conservative over the years. And yet we are silent.
By Steph, October 2, 2009 @ 6:37 am

“Oh, and don’t even get me started on the uniforms I’ve seen for college and professional sports. Yes, it’s lovely to have a beautiful body, but is that the only attribute for which all these young ladies want to be loved, respected, and cherished? How about a beautiful spirit? How about a peaceful heart? How about a gentle nature? How about a kind, comforting tongue?”

Do you really think participating in collegiate or, particularly, professional sports is all about having a beautiful body? I always thought it was about being a talented athlete. I bet that gets them loved and respected as much as wearing long shorts.
By Margaret, October 2, 2009 @ 6:39 am

My husband once caught a glimpse of beach volleyball someone was watching on the TV. He came home and asked me how it could possibly be more comfortable to play nearly-naked than in a comfy pair of shorts and a t-shirt. I told him the bikinis were the “sexy” factor, not genuine sports equipment. The American idea of “modesty” makes him roll his eyes. Here, people seem to think as long as the private bits are covered, people seem to think anything is OK.

I agree, too, that it shouldn’t all be passed off onto the men. There is plenty of teaching for men to avoid lust, take thoughts captive, and so on. And they should do that. I think people tired of the seeming imbalance of previous generations (which I think is inflated by people with a radical feminist agenda), teaching mostly women’s modsty, and decided now that women shouldn’t need to be modest, men should just be asexual. :/
By Angie, October 2, 2009 @ 6:52 am

Great post. This is an issue near and dear to my heart. Actually, on Sunday we had a new young lady attend our church wearing shorts just like those pictured above along with stilletto heels. We were all surprised to find that she knew the words to all of the worship songs, and passionately worshiped. She later told us about the church she came from (in another state) and the great discipleship she received there, even convicting her of her impure lifestyle of living with her boyfriend (she married him). I felt bad for her. Here was a young woman who was eagerly trying to follow the gospel, and trusting others to help her out, and they had failed to come along side her and teach her about modesty.
On a side note, I blogged yesterday about praying for “purity protection” for our husbands. I normally wouldn’t add that as self promotion isn’t my heart, but I do have a heart for purity and I think we all need to join together and pray for the men in our life on this.
By Diane, October 2, 2009 @ 7:05 am

Regarding men struggling with lustful thoughts when they view women dressed immodestly, and whether or not it is their “fault” or not… I once had their struggle explained to me in such a vivid way, I thought I’d share it here, if you don’t mind.
Imagine if you were in an auditorium listening to a speaker, and she said, “I am going to put something up on the screen, but I don’t want you to look at it, or read it.” Then she put up a slide that said, “DON’T READ THIS!” Would you be able to refrain from looking? from reading? from looking and reading *repeatedly?* Most likely you would have a very difficult time. And that struggle is similar to the struggle a male has when confronted by a woman dressed in a s*xually enticing manner. I know it’s difficult for us gals to understand this mindset, but we need to be compassionate towards our brothers in the Lord, and limit our behavior and “liberty” so as not to “cause a weaker one to sin.”

And you may be interested to know that I graduated from high school in the mid-seventies, and dresses or skirts of certain length were required for school wear until I was in 8th or 9th grade. We wore (hideous) gym suits with skirts over bloomers until I was in high school. And this was in a public school in NY state. Sometimes I don’t think people quite realize how rapidly things have changed regarding what is considered appropriate dress.
By Tovah, October 2, 2009 @ 7:26 am

Hmmm. I wonder what the young men in the bleachers are really concentrating on. Teenage boys and many nubile young bodies before them. Do you suppose these teenage boys are all about the girls “talented” athletics?

I suppose the young men who used to smuggle their parents Nat Geo’s and gaze at pictures of naked Pygmy women were appreciating their natural lifestyle.
By Michelle D., October 2, 2009 @ 8:26 am

I am so shocked at what is acceptable at church. It is not only the young girls but women who wear very revealing clothes. The standards for dressing at church have changed so much from when I was young. This is were accepting everyone has gone wrong.
By Word Warrior, October 2, 2009 @ 8:35 am

Michelle,

A friend and I were discussing modesty at church. People are scared to address it. Scared to death. It seems almost a given that in order to uphold a standard of modesty we have to have guidelines, yet the thoughts of “rules” about clothing make people break out in hives.

People see it as an invasion of THEIR rights/choices, when the heart of it (what I’m trying to get at) is that is adversely affects other people. It is, at best, something we are commanded to teach the younger women if we belong to Christ (”teach them…to be chaste”), and in fact, are said to blaspheme the Word of God if we fail to do it. (I need to repent here, because I also find it difficult to talk to young women about modesty.)

My friend pointed out that secular, public schools have dress codes. She said the girls at their church where to church what they are not allowed to wear to school.

“Culture is religion externalized.”
By Mrs. Hester, October 2, 2009 @ 8:42 am

How anything so tight that it accentuates every curve and crevice is considered modest because there isn’t “skin” showing is beyond me, but apparently it is. We had a young lady come and present a song in sign language for us at church one morning and she was beautiful. She had a “perfect” figure. How did I (and assuredly the rest of the congregation) know? Her because you couldn’t have pulled an inch of fabric from her turtleneck sweater from her form, it was so tight. Regardless of what the culture thinks (aren’t we supposed to be SEPARATE?), God has been explicit in His Word about how shameful nakedness is for His children. And the whole “it’s the man’s problem” really ticks me off. I suppose that’s why Jesus said a man commits adultery in his heart WITH a woman when he looks upon her lustfully, huh? Because it’s only the man’s responsibility, right? Burns my biscuits.
By Ginny, October 2, 2009 @ 8:46 am

Just wanted to add that when I was in 8th grade (about 15 yrs ago) I got sent home because my shorts were to short, but nobody seemed to care that they were LONGER than the cheerleader’s skirts which they wore to school every week for spirit day.
By Dee, October 2, 2009 @ 9:04 am

I have 2 sons, now 19 & 23, and modesty has been my pet peeve since they were born. God sent a male college friend to me when I was still single who pointed out that strapless dresses, on a manaquin at the time, were not good for a Christian guy’s well-being. I had been clueless before, so now I’m pretty bold about spreading the word among Christian girls/women. We have friends who are young women who have started a modesty dressing website & I do all I can to encourage them.
By Christie, October 2, 2009 @ 9:38 am

In case nobody has been forwarded this yet: http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/ In less than twenty days, over 1,600 Christian guys (12 and up) responded. 50% are under 20 yrs old, 50% are over. The results are QUITE eyeopening and detailed (are slits in long skirts more troublesome for a guy than a short skirt?) A GREAT read to sit down with your teenage daughters and discuss!
By Kristen, October 2, 2009 @ 9:59 am

I was listening to a radio program the other day, can’t remember what it was, Dobson perhaps, and they were talking about how the “sexual revolution” was so detrimental to women in regards to our need to have a stable, loving relationship. I can’t remember the whole program (three little kids are not condusive to my sitting and listening for long periods of time) but the gist of the program was that women are dressing more provactively so they can catch and keep men. They are using the only thing they have left…. their sexuality. We as women have trampled on the family and the home and let men know that we are not interested in them as providers and protectors, we can do it ourselves. So, what is left? Sex.
By Becky, October 2, 2009 @ 10:21 am

A great book that really opened my eyes to men’s struggles with the way women currently dress is “For Women Only” by Shaunti Feldhahn. A quick, easy read and very eye-opening.

After becoming aware of how much women’s way of dressing affects men, I get downright angry when I’m with my husband and see a woman dressed immodestly. Hey! I don’t want MY husband seeing that!!!!

I think if women (especially Christian women) realized that they were tempting other women’s husbands, they might think twice. I know I definitely don’t want to be responsible for tempting someone else’s husband! I want that husband to be completely enamored with his own wife
By Mrs. Santos, October 2, 2009 @ 10:25 am

I have a friend who “distanced” herself from my family after a day at the lake. She felt so uncomfortable around our modesty. I didn’t say a THING about all the ‘naked’ people around us, we just dressed modestly. Later, when I questioned her about her distance, she said “I don’t know if I can be as fanatical as you…or be so amish looking.” I was wearing a summer dress that came to my knees and a short sleeve button-up shirt. My girls were wearing shorts and tank tops…We just weren’t wearing swim suits.

I think today’s woman believes that a little (or a lot)skin is what makes her look attractive – but it is a lie.
By Kelly L, October 2, 2009 @ 10:29 am

I use this expression: If they are not for sale, stop putting them on display. I may have gone overboard on this, though. My daughter will pull the bottom of my shirt down if it is showing too much of my pants. That’s right, not my skin, my pants. It is always easy to teach these things to her as everything is a black and white issue in her eyes. She sees it quite clearly.
As far as the men being responsible..they are, to God just as we are responsible to God if we purposely cause another to sin. In a rehab room would any of us think it Christ-like to put out some drugs or alcohol and then declare “It is the addict’s responsibility to remain pure!” Why is it OK with our body parts then?
By Steph, October 2, 2009 @ 10:35 am

“Hmmm. I wonder what the young men in the bleachers are really concentrating on. Teenage boys and many nubile young bodies before them. Do you suppose these teenage boys are all about the girls “talented” athletics? ”

Why did you put talented in quotation marks? Of course I don’t believe that most teenage boys watching volleyball really care all that much about it (as I didn’t care about watching soccer or swimming aside from the cute boys), but that is incredibly insulting and dismissive – particularly to players at the professional level who have worked and struggled to get where they are.
By Chelsey, October 2, 2009 @ 10:36 am

Kelly,
As usual, you knock my socks off with your words. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the Truth you always present. Modesty is a topic near and dear to my heart. I have four boys and two girls and honestly it is easier to teach my girls how to dress modeslty than it is to teach my boys to advert their eyes. Pretty soon the ONLY place they are going to be able to look is down!!
By Jasmine, October 2, 2009 @ 10:54 am

Great post once again, Mrs. Kelly!

I played tennis for throughout high school, and gave up my quest of finding a modest tennis skirt. I think Steph makes an interesting point, but I would take it a step further: if these are women who have worked very hard to achieve their level of athleticism, I personally believe what’s objectifying and demeaning is not to point out that their scantily clad bodies are a distraction to the men that are watching them; the demeaning thing is to stick them in bikinis that turn the sport into a fleshly display that distracts from the game.

I’m not a young man, and *I* feel uncomfortable watching women in skimpy sports gear parading around in the sand. I can’t imagine how distracting it is to men who *do* watch the Olympics for the athletic value of the players, not their athletic figures.

That’s just my two cents, though. For someone that’s played tennis for several years, though I worked incredibly hard, my hand-eye coordination was never much to write home about. =)
By Charity, October 2, 2009 @ 10:54 am

There are so many things that could be said about the issue of modesty. Sometimes I think that women/girls just plain don’t care about it…(”If you got it, show it” attitude). And sometimes it’s apparent that they’ve never been given an example, and they’re clueless.

Modesty is SUCH a sticky issue when it comes to churches. My husband youth-pastored for about 3yrs when we first got married, and it was absolutely a nightmare having to deal with immodestly dressed girls…or should I say the parents of these girls. Keep in mind that we married younger than most do nowdays (20 and 21) and the parents especially didn’t like that “someone our age” was addressing this issue. Most of the parents thought we were wierd anyway (we courted…they had no problem with their 12yr old dating…hmmm). It’s incredibly difficult to reach a tween/teen when your unsupported by their parents. Why a parent would let their child where the things these kids do is beyond me. One of the toughest things we dealt with was that the girls loved to wear brighlty colored thongs that rose higher than their skirt/pants so they were visible. And I’m thinking…ok, you’re 12,13,14yrs old…too young to work or drive, so someone(your parents) had to buy those for you! Blows my mind!!

…and we wander why so many terrible things happen to tween/teenage girls, yet there allowed to walk around dressed like a strip tease. Whatever happened to “If it ain’t for sale…then don’t advertise!”

Rant on, Kelly, rant!!!
By Charity, October 2, 2009 @ 11:00 am

There are so many things that could be said about the issue of modesty. Sometimes I think that women/girls just plain don’t care about it…(”If you got it, show it” attitude). And sometimes it’s apparent that they’ve never been given an example, and they’re clueless.

Modesty is SUCH a sticky issue when it comes to churches. My husband youth-pastored for about 3yrs when we first got married, and it was absolutely a nightmare having to deal with immodestly dressed girls…or should I say the parents of these girls. Keep in mind that we married younger than most do nowdays (20 and 21) and the parents especially didn’t like that “someone our age” was addressing this issue. Most of the parents thought we were wierd anyway (we courted…they had no problem with their 12yr old dating…hmmm). It’s incredibly difficult to reach a tween/teen when your unsupported by their parents. Why a parent would let their child where the things these kids do is beyond me. One of the toughest things we dealt with was that the girls loved to wear brighlty colored thongs that rose higher than their skirt/pants so they were visible. And I’m thinking…ok, you’re 12,13,14yrs old…too young to work or drive, so someone(your parents) had to buy those for you! Blows my mind!!

…and we wander why so many terrible things happen to tween/teenage girls, yet they’re allowed to walk around dressed like a strip tease. Whatever happened to “If it ain’t for sale…then don’t advertise!”

I’m just waiting for some company to start manufacturing little adhesive patches to cover the “private bits”. My husband says that clothing companies are shooting themselves in the foot because straight up nakedness is the next step, so they’re going to be out of business!

Rant on, Kelly, rant!!!
By Charity, October 2, 2009 @ 11:02 am

Oops..I don’t know how/why that first comment posted. I’m sorry! :/
By Christie, October 2, 2009 @ 11:30 am

To paraphrase from Christian Modesty and the Public Undressing fo America by Jeff Pollard (available here: http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Modesty-Public-Undressing-America/dp/1929241348) : “Dear sisters, walk as circumspectly as candles among gunpowder.”

Until I read that chapter, I really had NO clue that men were like gunpowder and I needed to be careful. I always felt uncomfortable the first two weeks of every summer wearing a one-piece bathing suit, especially as a budding teenager, but I would stifle my conscience because TV, mother, extended family, friends and everybody else in the culture ‘told me’ (nonverbally) that I was un-normal to feel that way.

Now I know I was NORMAL. The way I was allowed/encouraged to dress was exploitive. I knew it deep down inside but never found another voice to echo and confirm my conscience. And those placed over me by God for my protection were so engrossed in their own sin and enjoyment of the “bare-all” culture, that they could not even see I needed protection.
By wordwarrior, October 2, 2009 @ 11:42 am

Kristen,

“They are using the only thing they have left…. their sexuality.”

I’m trying to remember something I just read that talked about this so pointedly…just as you have.
By Michelle, October 2, 2009 @ 12:03 pm

This makes me crazy too, especially with young men for sons!

I have the most beautiful nieces in the world, but their beautiful bodies are all uncovered. It makes me so sad. We don’t really have much of an avenue to speak into their lives, but it breaks my heart. What is insane is that their dad thinks they look so cool. We get Christmas cards each year with the whole family water skiing! We have to rip it up the second we get it.

Last week dh and I were at the dreaded mall buying shoes. There was a giant poster advertising Uggs (I didn’t even know what they were;-) The model had on a open weave sweater and Uggs (boots) All curled up with a ‘come hither’ look. Tell me, what were they selling in that photo?? Not boots, but sex!

Also, I was looking at workout clothes and dh and I at the same time noticed that the mannequin had ni**les under the t-shirt. Come on!

I too, have to confess that it is hard to address this with younger believers as an older woman. I suppose it does have to be Holy Spirit led. I just don’t understand how the church leaders let it slide. Don’t set up rules, but preach the word unashamedly!

Rant on woman!
By Susan, October 2, 2009 @ 1:07 pm

A topic very near and dear t my heart. I am very blessed to attend a church where modesty is preached. However, people being human, they do not always “think” about what modesty is, and of course some will stretch the boundaries. I have a friend who does send her daughter to public school and had to go to the principal regarding athletic wear. As she explained to the powers that be it was her constitutional right, and as a tax payer, she had EVERY right to insist her daughter be modest and covered according to the teachings of their faith ; and if need be she would take it to the court system. Of course her daughter was allowed to play and dress appropriately. A shame she had to go to the extreme. Blessings to you !
Susan A.
By Steph, October 2, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

Jasmine, that makes a lot of sense – particularly in regards to beach volleyball! Not sure about an outfit that would provide more coverage AND stop them from getting weighed down and scratched up by clothes full of sand, though. Shorts and tanks, maybe, but I don’t think beach volleyball could ever really meet the modesty standards of barely-any-skin advocates.

“We get Christmas cards each year with the whole family water skiing! We have to rip it up the second we get it. ”

A family water skiing picture is so horrible?
By the Mrs., October 2, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

My daughter (13 at the time)was playing rec. soccer. We bought the uniform but the shorts fell above the knee.Not modest enough for us.So I had her wear gouchos or culotts(long and baggey but light weight. Pants that look like a skirt). It was great with the soccer socks on, no leg skin could be seen.The ref never said a thing. I would have loved the opportunity to witness if he had.That was in Texas…heat and rules are no excuse. We must use Gods standard as our own…not mans.
By Mary at Civilla's Cyber Cafe, October 2, 2009 @ 1:48 pm

I’ve been in churches where pastors and elders have brought up the issue, even printing about it in the bulletin. Nothing changed. One elder I knew was quite blunt with his comments to young ladies to the point of saying, “Are you trying to show me your br**sts?” She said, “No!” He said, “Then why is your blouse unbuttoned?” She said, “It’s ok.” He said, “It’s NOT ok.” She walked away. Her clothing never changed, and neither did the clothing of other young ladies he talked to. The pastor putting notices in the bulletin about please don’t wear shorts to church functions also changed nothing. I think churches would probably actually have to get restraining orders to keep the immodestly-dressed out. So many young ladies are rebellious.
By Word Warrior, October 2, 2009 @ 2:18 pm

Steph,

Be careful not to assert things that haven’t been said…”but I don’t think beach volleyball could ever really meet the modesty standards of barely-any-skin advocates.”

You make it sound like we all advocate wearing a muslim-like cape, which creates an aura of prudish women who lack a taste of beauty.

I can’t speak for other women here, but I do not advocate “hiding beauty”, just hiding nakedness. I don’t think I’m a frumpy gal, and I don’t think being modest requires one to be. We would probably all disagree to some extent about what constitutes modesty, but we certainly agree that clothing resembling underwear should not be normal attire. We’re talking about extreme examples here, not what length of sleeves is appropriate.

I’d say a picture of a family water skiing could be perfectly OK. Or it could be something worthy of ripping up if they were half-naked. I’m guessing since the picture needed to be ripped up then there was, in fact, a display of nudity. See, we just don’t think in terms of “pornographic” or nudity because we’re so used to it.

Those who think some of us our prudish for our opinion of under-wear-like uniforms don’t realize that everyone in society, just a few years back, would have called the same thing “criminal activity”. This is what desensitization does to a people.

So before you laugh it all off, consider again, it’s not just about someone’s personal taste and preference to show off skin. The rate of sexual crimes has sky rocketed since women started going out less dressed. It’s not all to blame on dress, for sure, but you can’t deny a correlation.

Is it silly to be concerned about that? About the safety of girls and women? Is it silly to be broken-hearted over families being destroyed by pornography? Is it silly to be sad about the worth and value of women being demoralized? If so, well, I’ll just have to be silly.
By Lori, October 2, 2009 @ 2:48 pm

Kelly, well said. People keep mentioning what immodest dress does to men. Don’t forget what it does to girls too – Anorexia and bulemia are very serious problems, and affecting grade school girls now. If you want to wear the prettiest (mainstream) clothes, you can’t have an ounce of fat visible. Despite the millions poured into girls’ sports programs girls in general still find a great of their self-worth tied up in their appearance – and most of that is their figure, and how desireable the seem.
By Word Warrior, October 2, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

By the way, here is a great article at “Sisters with Standards” on modesty with concise, Scriptural direction…http://sisterwithstandards.blogspot.com/2008/12/selfishness-of-immodesty.html
By Heather, October 2, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

I think a little oddly, I suppose.

First, the need for clothing: Anyone else ever notice that man’s effort at covering his nakedness was primarily an attempt to hide himself from God? The scrutiny of standing before God in all my sinful “glory” is hard enough with Jesus holding me up–I can’t imagine how painful it will be for those who have no righteous covering.

I’ve often thought that our need for clothing is a constant visual reminder of the destructive effects of sin having entered the creation–and also gives a picture of how Jesus’ blood covers us before His Father. Because of Him, we will be able to stand before God wearing “robes of righteousness” rather than “filthy rags”.

From that perspective, it makes perfect sense to me that as people sear their consciences to God’s standard of right/wrong, they feel less of a desire to cover up. In fact, some people often end up reveling in their “nakedness” because they see nothing inherently wrong with transgressing God’s Law at any level. As Paul says, “they” did not thank God, nor did “they” honor Him and so (among other consequences) He gave “them” up to do things with their bodies that ought not to be done–and “they” see nothing wrong with it (rough paraphrase of Romans 1:18-32)

Concerning Christian Modesty:
I think my choice of clothing basically boils down to loving my neighbor and wanting what is best for others.

Jesus said:

Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me;
but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
“Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes! Matthew 18:4-7

I tend to think of the “children” in the above passage as small immature human beings. Yet, Jesus said whoever humbles himself *like* the child… (indicating those who have been born again and are HIS children–regardless of chronological age). In that light, the rest of the passage is pretty sobering, IMO.

If I am taking part in something that would cause another believer to stumble, it would be better for me to have a giant rock tied around my neck and be drowned.

To understand the potential to devastate another person’s walk of obedience–and yet go ahead for the sake of “fashion” or convenience or a sense of self-fulfillment–is very, very dangerous ground upon which to tread.
By Mrs. Lady Sofia, October 2, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

I’m “slowly warming-up” to the seriousness of being modest.

I recall one day as I was driving to the store in the neighborhood, I couldn’t help but notice a woman wearing very short shorts that showed her “cheeks” as she was bending over to water her plants in the front yard. The house was on a corner too, and so every time I have to drive by that house, I think about that embarassing incident. This was a real wake-up call to me that when I am out in the public, I don’t want to be skimpily dressed because you never know who could be watching for seeing you.

Another thing that is starting to bother me is exercise dvd’s for women. I have a confession, I currently own over 100 of these dvd’s (I’m a hopeless exercise enthusiast), but lately, as I have thought about the modesty issue, I get tired of the comments about how women can be fit so they can wear a bikini, a mini skirt, tight jeans, and short boy shorts. The producers of some of the older dvd’s made by SHAPE even flash pictures of models in bikinis before the exercises start, and I have started thinking, “How horrible!” Exercise should be about being healthy not about being “good enough” to flaunt your body in the public wearing skimpy clothing!

However, I must confess that I am still learning to be totally modest. It’s not easy when you’ve been desensitized to wear whatever you want in the public eye, but I’m working on it . . . and it’s all your fault Mrs. Kelly with your constant posts on modesty (smiles).

~Mrs. Lady Sofia~

P.S. BTW, how is that darling little baby of yours (I forgot how to spell her name- whooops!)?
By Steph, October 2, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

I didn’t mean to imply you advocate wearing the burqa or anything… just thinking of women in sports, okay… how to word this? I was a competitive swimmer. I wore a swimsuit that provided a lot more coverage than some (bikinis are just no good for racing!), but can something that covers you shoulders to knees but is skin tight and shows the whole body in silhouette be considered modest? I don’t mean to be flip, I’m trying to consider practicality, where that line actually falls… appropriate/inappropriate.
By brenda, October 2, 2009 @ 4:29 pm

I WISH society as a whole still “got” the modesty thing. But we cannot expect a lost soul to understand. Churches should be accepting of those who do not know. How will they believe if they do not hear? An immodestly dressed person acting in ignorance is accepted in my church. HOWEVER, where we fail is moving into the EXPECTING part after they have become a believer. Like that woman someone in the comments was talking about who was worshipping the Lord and no one had told her. We have to move from accepting to expecting.
By Steph, October 2, 2009 @ 4:30 pm

Like this guy:
http://www.swimoutlet.com/product_p/11289.htm

I don’t think it is modest (maybe comparatively) – but for women who choose to participate in competitive sports, billowing fabrics are not always appropriate.
By Heather, October 2, 2009 @ 4:30 pm

I don’t mean to be flip, I’m trying to consider practicality, where that line actually falls… appropriate/inappropriate.
***************************************

Perhaps a question that Christians should ask ourselves is whether activities that require immodest clothing are important enough for us to be willing to participate in?

Not making a judgment against anyone…just wondering aloud.
By Word Warrior, October 2, 2009 @ 4:58 pm

Heather,

I had the same thought…but now we get into a debate about “denying self”…something few Christians are willing to really talk about.

Sports can certainly be played in modest clothing (a swim team may be the exception)…the problem I guess is belonging to a team with an immodest dress code. Still I think if enough parents were concerned, the dress code could be appropriate.
By Word Warrior, October 2, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

Lady Sophia,

LOL…Ellia is doing great! I’m nursing her as I type (don’t ask…multi-tasking is a necessity in my life)–I don’t always nurse while I’m typing though, for those ready to attack my mothering skills

I should post some recent picture!
By Word Warrior, October 2, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

Heather–Ooh…I’m adding the last part of your quote to the end of the post That is, after all, the summation.
By Heather, October 2, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

Heather,

I had the same thought…but now we get into a debate about “denying self”…something few Christians are willing to really talk about.

*******************************************

You’re right. But, unless we are willing to look at primary (priorities) vs secondary (which clothing allows us to decently participate in said priorities) concerns, we will consistently skirt the real issue. Which, at it’s core IS denial of self in favor of those things which would be most pleasing to God.

Again, just thinking aloud as the subject of self-denial (what it means–what it looks like in practice) has been on my mind a lot lately.
By Heather, October 2, 2009 @ 5:12 pm

Heather–Ooh…I’m adding the last part of your quote to the end of the post That is, after all, the summation.
**************************

God has really driven that point home to me over the past few months. Very humbling, for sure!
By madame, October 2, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

Kelly,
I agree with you that the uniform resembles underwear more than a sports uniform. Sadly, sports clothes today are skin tight and very short. It can still get worse. They could be wearing a bikini top!

But, think about it. professional dancers wear skin tight clothes. So do gymnasts, swimmers, cyclists…. Would you consider a ballet dancer’s attire immodest?

I think that modesty is more than the length or fit of clothes. Some clothing is just not apropriate in certain settings, but it may be apropriate, even necessary, in others.

Regarding how men in church are tempted by the way women are dressed in church, I have to disagree, just a little. Boys should be taught to see their sisters in Christ as sisters, not to lust after, but to respect cherish and protect, like they would their own sister at home (if they have one). Teaching them to look another way, or make rude comments (like the elder in Civilla’s church), is (I think) missing a great opportunity to teach young men to see women as image bearers of God, worthy of respect, and not only if they are dressed modestly.
IOW, a very scantly clad woman ought to be able to walk into church and be greeted with the same deference, respect and love as any other church visitor. Sure, in due time, if she keeps showing up barely dressed, then one of the older women could, lovingly, point her to the pertinent passages. The point being, her lack of proper attire shouldn’t be what we see first, but her need of a Savior, or her need to know that her body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and should be adorned beautifully, in a manner that honors her Lord.

Finally, there are ways and ways to teach modesty. I have one daughter. She is only two, but in time, God willing, I’ll have to teach her modesty. I hope to do so using an approach that will both highlight her value in the eyes of God and how her body is precious because it is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that she is valuable for who she is and should have enough self respect not to flaunt her beautiful body to all and sundry.
I have some problems with being too legalistic on the modesty front. Girls, especially, have a hard time with fashion and all of that. They go through a time when they want to conform and belong, and looks play such a huge part!
By madame, October 2, 2009 @ 5:23 pm

Another thing that is starting to bother me is exercise dvd’s for women. I have a confession, I currently own over 100 of these dvd’s (I’m a hopeless exercise enthusiast), but lately, as I have thought about the modesty issue, I get tired of the comments about how women can be fit so they can wear a bikini, a mini skirt, tight jeans, and short boy shorts. The producers of some of the older dvd’s made by SHAPE even flash pictures of models in bikinis before the exercises start, and I have started thinking, “How horrible!” Exercise should be about being healthy not about being “good enough” to flaunt your body in the public wearing skimpy clothing!

Oh, does that ever bother me! I exercise to be fit, to feel better, be stronger, and fit into my clothes without bulges ( I can’t afford another wardrobe one size up…).
to be honest, I rarely notice any more how the exercise models are dressed. I’m so concentrated on the exercises, I just pop a dvd in (the days I even use one) to keep me on track, and it feels less like I’m exercising alone at some unsocial hour of the morning!
By madame, October 2, 2009 @ 5:28 pm

Kelly,
I posted a long comment addressing the topic of your post. I think it got lost….

Yay for multi-tasking!
By Charity, October 2, 2009 @ 6:00 pm

Kelly,
I really, really like the Sisters with Standards site!! I think this quote (from SWS) sums it up nicely…

“Modesty is an outer demonstration of inner purity.”
By Mary at Civilla's Cyber Cafe, October 2, 2009 @ 6:25 pm

No, I didn’t think the elder’s comment was rude. He was not talking to a visitor or an unbeliever or a new Christian. He was talking to a young lady who should have known better.

This is a tough issue in a church. We pastored a church once. Two of our younger ladies were dressed in short-shorts and sleeveless blouses that were low-cut, and they were our Sunday School teacher and youth pastor’s wife, and they ministered on the platform sometimes. I very nicely and humbly asked them if they could please wear blue jeans instead of shorts (I didn’t even touch the blouse issue) since they were in ministry positions (we had people visit the church and decide not to attend regularly because of the way some of these young ladies dressed), and they were angry with me. Every after that, they watched me like a hawk and were quick to point out if my slip was showing or something, making me feel like I was in the 7th grade again, and I was older and the pastor’s wife. Oh, man.

To “get” me, one of them showed up the next week in an even more immodest outfit, and the other showed up in an evening gown (it was a storefront church), and they both accused me of being “formal” (blue jeans are formal?)

In another church we pastored, my husband addressed this issue from the pulpit (he preaches book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse, expositorily) and the section of Scripture he had gotten to was of the rape of Dinah (Jacob’s daughter) in Genesis (what a sermon that was — about how young women can inadvertently get themselves over their heads before they know it). A dad in the church whose daughter always wears spray-painted-on clothing thanked my husband for this sermon. HOWEVER, his daughter’s clothing did not change. What else do you do? Like I said, you’d literally have to get a restraining order against people — ha-ha — and of course, you can’t do that.

I honestly don’t know what can be done. I agree that visitors and unbelievers or new Christians should be left alone — it is hoped they will get saved and mature and see by our example and we won’t have to say anything.

But, we have had no success, nor has anybody else I have known, with saying something, no matter how nicely or how bluntly, either one, or by whom.

Then I read comments like, “Why don’t pastors say anything about this issue?”

When I was young and started going to church, I wore immodest clothing, but I was sincere about wanting to be a Christian and serve God, that I looked at the modest ladies around me and changed the way I dressed. I wanted to please and be a good Christian. Nobody had to say anything to me. Unless people have a heart like this (I don’t want to sound like I’m bragging about myself), I wonder if you can do anything? Pray, of course.
By Kellie, October 2, 2009 @ 6:34 pm

This is such a good topic. I don’t understand why church’s are struggling with modesty issues. As regenerate people we should be doing ALL TO THE GLORY OF GOD. Including the way we dress.
A couple sites that are good for girls to look at is “Girl Talk” – Carolyn Mahaney and her daughters. They have a section on modesty which will lead you also to Harris Brothers blog “Rebelution” which has a survey on women’s modesty. Carolyn Mahaney did a talk on “True Beauty” and in that she talks about modesty – REALLY GOOD! One more good one is by John Piper. His topic is on “The purpose of Clothing” You can also find that on the Rebelution blog. Here is a glimpse of what John Piper says: “And for those who rebel in the other direction and make clothes themselves a means of power and prestige and attention getting, God’s answer is not a return to nudity but a return to simplicity (1 Timothy 2:9-10). Clothes are not meant to make people think about what is under them. Clothes are meant to direct attention to what is not under them: Arms and hands that serve others in the name of Christ, “beautiful” feet that carry the gospel to where it is needed, and the brightness of a face that has beheld the glory of Jesus”.
My son is taking a Great Books class and the teacher is very big on modest dress. He told the girls that they cannot wear anything tight or too low, etc. His rule of tight is if you put a golf ball under your shirt and you can see it – it’s too tight.
Thank you Kelly for bringing this topic up.
By Michelle, October 2, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

Steph, sorry, I forgot to mention that they were half naked. I mean extremely skimpy bathing suits, seductive poses, and often times strewn out on the boat! Oh, and daddy was taking the picture. I understand that he is oblivious, it just breaks my heart for the girls, they are so unprotected.

sorry I wasn’t clear.
By Alisha C, October 2, 2009 @ 7:24 pm

Ouch, ouch, ouch! The LOG, the LOG, the LOG! In my eye, in my eye, in my eye!!!! Wow, I guess many of you are feeling pretty good about yourselves about now.

– Daughters who don’t wear bathing atire at all — CHECK
— Strong convictions about and against families who actual water ski — CHECK
— Blanket comments and statments about women in sports who obviously refuse to deny their self to serve God, thus the reason they play sports– CHECK
—Accelerating own self-righteousness at the expense of others whose heart condidtion you know nothing about — CHECK

Wow! An amazing exercise in what shall we call it…..oh yes…..let’s let Jesus call it:

John 8:7:
“If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Lest I remind any of you here (since all of have enough righteousness to know exactly what this Scripture refers to) that this women was caught in the ACT of adultry. I cannot imagine how scantily-clad, if dressed at all, she must have been as she was drug from the act straight to Jesus. And there were the Pharisees, pointing and accusing. And then….Jesus. (Note, he did not enter into a disseration regarding modesty)

This comment thread has NOTHING to do with an honest, biblical look at modesty. It has to do with a bunch of pharisee women (mostly) who are feeling awful good about themselves becuase they are not the adulturous woman. Got news for you ladies: Jesus sided with the woman.

And yes, I am a bit miffed by all of this. And yes, based on the reaction that Jesus gave when confronted with such judgemental hypocrisy, I beleive that my *anger* is justified.

But….alas, many of you will justify yourselves by proclaiming that as Christians we have to STAND against these evil developments in the body of Christ lest we fall pray the schemes of the devil!

Oh the drama! I know, from many years of being a part of the body of Christ that women pharisees do more harm to the work of Christ than all of the scantily clad female athletes of the world.

Still, a little poll to prove my point. Go ahead, show yourself to be true. Visit each of these sites and tell me which of these bathing attires are more modest and appropriate for a Christian woman and which one you/your daughter would wear:

Site A:
http://www.wholesomewear.com/culotte-a.html

Site B:
http://www5.jcpenney.com/jcp/X6E.aspx?DeptID=50434&CatID=51410&GrpTyp=ENS&ItemID=179f763&attrtype=&attrvalue=&CMID=50434%7c50446&Fltr=&Srt=&QL=F&IND=2&cmVirtualCat=&CmCatId=50434|50446|51410

Site C:
http://www5.jcpenney.com/jcp/X6.aspx?DeptID=50434&CatID=51408&GrpTyp=SIZ&ItemID=179648e&attrtype=&attrvalue=&CMID=50434%7c50446&Fltr=&Srt=&QL=F&IND=24&cmVirtualCat=&CmCatId=50434|50446|51408

I cannot wait to see what the modesty police deems apropriate swim attire.
By Michelle, October 2, 2009 @ 7:27 pm

Kelly, maybe this was mentioned already, but I loved your post way back when about a doctor appt. and a full body shot of a women in a bathing suit,or something like that?? Do you remember. You pointed out that it wouldn’t be okay to wear your underwear and bra in the office, Do you know what I am talking about? Maybe could you provide the link or consider a re-post, I thought that was great.
By Michelle, October 2, 2009 @ 7:28 pm

Kelly, maybe this was mentioned already, but I loved your post way back when about a doctor appt. and a full body shot of a women in a bathing suit,or something like that?? Do you remember. You pointed out that it wouldn’t be okay to wear your underwear and bra in the office, Do you know what I am talking about? Maybe could you provide the link or consider a re-post, I thought that was great.
By Michelle, October 2, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

Oh, one more thing, (sorry for the double post)It is not preaching to the girls that is the answer, IMO, it is the FATHERS!!!!! As with many other things with the church, the men need to be addressed! We have all these programs but nobody is teaching the men how to be leaders, we just provide a children’s church, ect. Maybe if we stopped doing the parents job, and teaching them how to do it we might get somewhere!

Okay, please forgive the attitude, I don’t do this nearly as well as the rest of you,;-) not to mention I’m going through some ’stuff’ so forgive me up front, please. Thank you.
By Alisha C, October 2, 2009 @ 8:03 pm

And one final comment:
I’m guessing that there are people (moms even) from your local town that possibly read your blog. I’m really, really sorry for the young volleyball players and their families who were the featured “woman caught in adultry” picture for this post. I mean, it’s not bad enough that we chastise other women. Now, we are going to attack young girls (of course we blot out their faces, but any local person were readily identify any of these).

Sad. Very sad.
By Steph, October 2, 2009 @ 8:58 pm

But also… compared to the mainstream of the early 20th century, fashion of the 50s was downright scandalous!
By Leslie from VA, October 2, 2009 @ 9:26 pm

Kelly,

I agree the girls in the pictures were NOT modest.
You kind of alluded to this in an earlier comment……what constitutes modest apparel among Christians? I think the sad thing among Christians is that we have convictions on what we feel is modest—some say no knee length shorts, some say no pants and others say only dresses even when riding a 4 wheeler in 20 degree weather! —and if others do not wear exactly what we wear, the other Christian is rated on a sanctification scale based on our clothing preferences.
(Yes, I do agree with what you wear reflecting the heart…I am not talking bikinis etc….I am talking just average clothing.)

How do we get along within the church body, Kelly, with differences in what defines modesty? What biblical principles should we be applying to each other?
We know of friends who have been “ignored” because they wore modest pants in WalMart shopping. The family doing the ignoring, who only wear skirts etc., felt that it didn’t reflect a holy life, so to speak, because they wore pants.

Again, I agree with you on the pictures. I just want to hear your thoughts on this point, too. You always have a way just hitting the nail right on the head with your words.
By Word Warrior, October 2, 2009 @ 11:13 pm

Alisha C.,

I’m sorry for the misguided doctrine that has infiltrated so many Christians’ thinking. The woman caught in adultery verse has been so misused to support this shaming of speaking out against sin–that is the sadness. Even as Jesus spoke to the adulterous woman (we assume she was not a believer) he told her to “stop sinning”. Something we wouldn’t dare say to a non-believer that bluntly.

Modesty is an issue that is a sin against society. Speaking out against sin doesn’t make one a Pharisee, and it’s not a claim that we are without sin. (Read here long enough–you’ll know I readily admit my utter depravity.)

Jesus said that spiritual offenses are worse than physical ones. If someone is threatening to harm others in a physical way, we have no problem addressing it. How much more then, if there is spiritual harm threatening our husbands, children and families?

You speak of anger? We should be furious that men are allowing their daughters and wives to be degraded and debauched, and at the same time causing men and boys to fall into the pit of adultery and pornography addiction. If that doesn’t make us angry, something is wrong.

If you read all the Bible, you’ll find that we are commanded to rebuke, exhort and admonish one another as believers, and to “teach” what is good.

No, not all sins are as obvious as others, but neither are they all equally offensive to others. Nudity/immodesty hurts people. It has destroyed families. Period. It is not “self-righteous” to share God’s hatred of sin; it is a requirement of His people. We hate our own sin–we hate it in any form. If we don’t hate it, we can’t even claim to bear the name of Christ, for it is one sign of the indwelling of God’s spirit in us.

No, the harm being done in the church is the new wave of doctrine that says “Christ didn’t really have to die for our sins because we’re OK just the way we are”. We trample on the Son of God with such a doctrine.

“Let the aged women teach the younger women…to be chaste.” I guess your Bible is missing that part?

We can’t pick and choose and mold the Bible around the philosophies that make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside. (If that were a biblical tenet, why would Jesus have promised us that we would be hated by the world?)

It’s a miserable shame that not too long ago the unregenerate had a better understanding of love than many Christians do today…love is not turning our heads to sin; it is pointing to our desperate need of a Savior. It is saying, “Go, and sin no more.”

Let it be noted, I think the ladies here have also made it clear that we approach people differently on this issue, depending if they are Christians or not. We are not advocating a “spurning” of people individually, because they are dressed immodestly. The thrust of the post was a look at the whole of society and what we’ve allowed to be acceptable. There are literally pornographic influences on every side. (Real people, billboards, advertisements, etc.) If a man secretly pulled my son aside in the store and showed him a photo book full of provocatively-dressed women in their underwear, I’d be livid; I hope you would be too. We are not talking about something very different from that. It’s an issue aside from sin; it’s a real harm that we’ve allowed to infiltrate and destroy people. That’s what makes this issue particularly disturbing.

No, your anger is not warranted. If you wish to have any more comments published, you’ll reply with more respect.
By Kris, October 2, 2009 @ 11:35 pm

Hi Kelly! I wanted to see if you’d consider writing a post or two (or maybe a series?) about how we go about raising our sons with this whole issue of modesty in mind. I mean, we keep them from the immodesty as much as we can, but what do we teach them specifically so that they are prepared to function in the real world where the harsh reality is, immodesty and pornography will surround them…does that make sense? I know the main crux of what I am teaching my daugters with this issue but I’m lost when it comes to my son! He’s only 18 months but I’m planning ahead Hubby and I have discussed it too, just wanted to get your thoughts as well since you have older boys…thanks!!! God bless you! And, yes, I think new pics of Ellia are definitely in order
By wordwarrior, October 3, 2009 @ 12:00 am

Ashely,

I also wanted to share an analogy that may make it clearer as to why I feel like the issue of modesty is such an important one…

Imagine you and your husband are out to dinner. A woman comes up and grabs your husband by the hand, looks at you and says, “I’d like to take your husband home for the night…don’t worry, he can come back home tomorrow.”

Do you, for the sake of “grace” and not to appear “Pharisaical” smile and say, “OK”?

Based on what Scripture says, “If a man looks on a woman and lusts after her, he has committed adultery with her in his heart”. Dressing provocatively in front of your husband and sons is only different from the above scenario in that she was respectful enough to ask your permission in the former case. Dressing provocatively says to your husband and sons, “Look at my body”. Even if he doesn’t “commit adultery” in his heart, she is still asking him to, even if she is unaware.

If you are asking me to suppress the “jealousy for my lover” in the name of grace, you are not preaching the grace of the Holy Word.

And if we are to emulate Jesus in the story you described, we must say to women we meet on the street…”I do not condemn you. Now go home and put some clothes on and don’t come out again dressed like that”. I’m not sure any of us are willing to take on that kind of boldness.
By Word Warrior, October 3, 2009 @ 12:03 am

Kris,

I’ll give that some thought. I seem to remember possibly doing a post on this per a similar request. I’ll see if I can find it.
By Word Warrior, October 3, 2009 @ 12:15 am

Leslie,

Ah, there’s the rub. No simple answer, I think. The whole issue must be handled with love and wisdom. What is blatant, across the board immodesty, and what is personal conviction? And then we have to guard against misusing the disguise of “personal conviction” for licentiousness

Modesty is an issue of the heart so I think we have to start there. Perhaps more open teaching on the subject? If we understood that we represent the BRIDE of Christ, and that He is a jealous God, would it make a difference? Perhaps actual guidelines? The public school handbook doesn’t say “dress decently”. Once the assertion has been made that there is a decent way to dress, that has to be defined. Churches shouldn’t have to define it for its members, but still there’s the problem.

Fathers being taught what it means to teach chastity and protect their daughters is fundamental, but most churches are afraid to talk about it. (Seems using the OT was good enough for Jesus when he wanted to teach, but if we use it, we’re a cult ???)

Example goes a long way with a willing heart, so that is the place for us to start.

No earth-shattering wisdom from me…I ponder the same question.
By KB, October 3, 2009 @ 12:31 am

Well said, Kelly!

Immodesty is a symptom, not the disease itself…

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the ruler of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12

I don’t count it a coincidence that the Bible addresses the issue of adultery, fornication, and other sins of the flesh so often. It seems that God is trying to shake us awake and say “Hello, if there’s one area you are likely to fail, that the enemy is likely to use against you, it’s this! Watch out!”

Any good soldier knows that if they want to win against the opponent, all they’ve got to do is find out where they’re the most vulnerable, then dig in.

If addressing the issue of modesty were as simple as making up a bunch of arbitrary laws and standards, this whole thing would be quite simple. But it isn’t.

This whole modesty issue isn’t about how many inches below the knee a skirt should be, but how what we’re doing effects our relationship with God. It’s not about how much cleavage we reveal, but whether we’re letting “the ruler of the darkness of this world” use us to cause each other (and ourselves) to falter.

It is my desire to see all of my brothers and sisters in Christ emerge victorious from the battles they have to deal with in this life. Isn’t that the point, after all?
By Leslie from VA, October 3, 2009 @ 6:27 am

Great thoughts, Kelly!
Thanks.
By Ashley C, October 3, 2009 @ 7:11 am

WW-
One: This is a strong difference between lovingly pulling a woman or young woman aside and “teaching her to be chaste” and posting her picture on your webblog and pointing her out to all that visit as being an “immodest” example of what is wrong in our world (i.e.– the young girls in the volleyball picture). I fail to see the love in this at all. I still contend that you drug these “adulturous young women” before the crowd and demanded that they be judged.

Two: Your illustration of a woman asking to take my woman home is ludicrous and illiogical to say the least. My husband is in the presence of women who are “dressed to the nines” with all that they promote all the time. And while I pray consistantly that he would be protected and shield his eyes from such, the truth is, he is a man and will be exposed to such. Perhaps we should gauge out the eyes of all men to keep them from sinning (I know you can quote the same Scripture regarding that that I can). While I know that scantily-clad women pose a stumbling block to my husband and sons, I am not going to drag them out in public and humilate them in the defense of my family. I’m going to teach my sons and pray for my husband – becuase the truth is, unless we move to remote villages of nowhere, they will forever be faced with such temptations and challenges. And, when given the opportunity to lovingly instruct a young woman or woman regarding her dress, I will do so. But not this way. This is not a biblical example. This is a witch hunt. “It’s HER fault! She’s the one! She’s to blame for my husbands and sons impurity!” Poppycock! Your husbands and sons are sinners. Same as mine. And while we are to protect our families, we don’t do so via a witch hunt. Go read some good Cotton Mather as he dealt with real witch hunts in Salem. Lots to learn there!

Third: Jesus did tell the woman to go and sin no more. Lovingly. He did, however, wait until her accusers were gone — after he had dealt with their hypocrisy and sin. He did not flaunt her sin before them — as has been done here. So, while I know that Jesus dealt with this woman’s sin, I think you are going a far cry to far to claim that you all have done the same for the women that you have dragged before the crowd.

And finally, I am not arguing a watered down gospel that ignores depravity and sin. I have read here long enough to know that any time anyone has an opposing opinion that you automatically jump on this platform. I want to know which of the girls in the volleyball picture you are lovingly pointing towards the Savior with your “go and sin no more” message? Which of their mothers or fathers have been ministred to with the Gospel that will change their hearts — and perhaps ultimate their dress? Unless I am mistaken, this has not been done. Nope. These young women have simply been put on display as the ultimate in unchaste immodesty and reason for the degradation of our society and moral debasement of our sons and husbands. I still think that posting this picture of underage, young girls, is shameful. Frankly, I’d love to have one of their mom’s confront you about using her daughter for your purposes here. If someone did such to one of your daughters– you would be livid. But of course, NO ONE will ever have a reason to contend with any of the behavior of any of your children — since they will never do such things.
By Lori, October 3, 2009 @ 10:01 am

Ashley C. – “Which of their mothers or fathers have been ministred to …If someone did such to one of your daughters– you would be livid.”

Maybe. It’s an interesting thought. I mean, we all know there’s almost no privacy anymore. Even if a parent were angry, it’s a kinder, and safe, wake-up call – and most necessarey.

A couple years ago I saw a story on tv about “up-skirting.” It usually involves small cameras and the internet. One woman saw photos of her cheer-leader daughter from a football game. The photo was of her daughter doing the splits in the air – from below. It was a very unpleasant shot. The mom WAS livid – she fairly accurately pointed out the pornographic nature of the photo (which was done in the open – no secret cameras – everyone takes photos at football games after all). But she missed the point. The problem was less that a man took a gross photo of her daughter and posted it somewhere (thought that is a problem). It was that she was allowing even encouraging her daughter to do the splits in the air in a micro-mini skirt in public. Why not just insist on better dress/behavior? Protect her daughter from out-in-the open debasement?

In another story a group of parents were outraged when their daughters did a strip-tease style dance during the half-time of the hs basketball game. Their indignation got the drill/chear/dance instructor relieved of her job. I just wish they had been more protective – they didn’t seem to miffed about the uniforms much like those volleyball players. But now their daughters are dancing provacitavely on you tube. So as far as parental concern goes, I think this is a better, safer place to have a rude awakening than farther down the road of embarresment (at best)of well- whatever those girls on you tube, or miss usa faux pas, or worse – are experiencing. I personally don’t think it’s bad or unloving. It’s not ideal, certainly. Ideal would be for the parents to not have allowed their daughters in a situation that you seem to be shameful or unpleasant. (of course, the parents might be so delighted with their daughters athleticism they don’t care, and enourage their daughters not to care either).

I persoanlly don’t know where the line of modest dress is, but I have ideas, and Kelly posting the photo here isn’t a problem.
By Lori, October 3, 2009 @ 10:09 am

Speaking of ideals, I already stated the most ideal. Second best would have been for friends of the girls or friends of the girls’ parents to encourage/admonish lovingly. (not likely an option for Kelly, who likely dosen’t know them) Third would be for the girls elders/pastors/priests to admonish the girls’ parents lovingly. If none of these have taken place it’s still not on Kelly. If all of these have taken place then the parents surely don’t care anyway.
By Lori, October 3, 2009 @ 10:12 am

Blah, I left part out – I meant friends of the girls’ parents to admonish the parents lovingly – I don’t think they should bypass the girls’ parental authority in general (an exception might be when a girl comes to someone’s house improperly dressed – then the person – pref the lady – of the house can kindly correct them and perhaps loan a sweater.)
By the cottage child, October 3, 2009 @ 11:07 am

It is sad to see girls – children – exposed in such a way. I agree with those who say the responsibility lies with the parents, the father in particular. And for the record, I don’t see WW (or anyone here) as dragging these girls before the crowd to be judged, just merely pointing out an example of inappropriate dress for teenagers. I also don’t thing modest dress equals a modest heart, but that’s a different issue.

We are not denim-jumpsuiters – no offense if you are, just trying to give some context for where I’m coming from – in fact I cannot find in the Bible where women are mandated to wear skirts (I actually find properly fitting pants are more modest and more conducive to getting work done), and our girls are allowed to wear knee length shorts, so I’m not uptight about wardrobe, necessarily. I have a VERY tall almost nine year old daughter – my husband had to point out to me the other day that her skort was too short (we always opt for skorts, just easier). She’s so small(could still wear a 4T ) around and it still fits her comfortably in that regard, it didn’t even occur to ME, her mom, that the length might be questionable. Dad really mattered here.

I think men just have a clearer radar signal on this issue, and it’s a shame that so many wives have usurped authority in this area. We have a lovely neighbor with three beautiful daughters, Dad works out of town, and there is a marked difference in the level of modest dress when Dad is home, for all four of them. The mom is not a bad woman, and to the extent that we know them, seems to be a very loving, caring parent. I just don’t think she realizes what others see – her beautiful young daughters in skin tight jeans and low cut blouses is, by default, an invitation for impure thoughts about them. What I wonder to myself is the what is the need behind the invitation? – what kind of attention does a girl need when she dresses so provacatively?

And I don’t see the benefit of tight fitting athletic uniforms for high school students. I am at a loss as to why the dress code of even most public schools gets left at the gym door.

A character on a show that shall remain nameless commented about her increasing maturity “it’s time for ladies my age to cover it up”. Not that she did, exactly, but even smutty sitcom characters can grasp the concept.
By Word Warrior, October 3, 2009 @ 11:17 am

Ashley,

I’m very sorry you perceived the post as a personal exploitation; I had no intention of using the photo as a “look at these girls” display. I would have blotted out their whole head if I thought it would help. (There are 9 local schools–frankly all the pictures look the same to me.)

I was using the photo to display the attire–the “disease” of a society, not an individual…that’s it. (And might I point out, as Lori alluded, that the picture was already on display for everyone to see. What you’re saying is, as long as we don’t “verbalize” the immodesty, we can all hold hands and sing and look in the opposite direction of our public school system, parents’ protection, etc. and their cowardice to put a stop to what I perceive as a very threatening practice.) (Obviously you and I have different opinions about the “danger” of immodesty).

You assert a lot of things about me that are just that–assertions. To call someone a Pharisee/hypocrite/etc. is a sin all its own. And that WAS a personal attack, not a cultural one.

Let me ask you, if the high school prom allowed alcohol to be served and a group of teens left and killed someone on their way home, would I be a hypocrite–would you attack me for pointing out the “problem” of drunk driving?

According to Scripture, we “do not fear him who can destroy the body, fear him who can destroy both body and soul”.

If I believe that verse, then a society (the people that make it up) that promotes, allows and encourages provocative/pornographic attire pose a real, spiritual threat to boys and men, particularly. Why are we mad about the potential harm from the drunk driver, but not about the soul-destroying harm of a pornographic society? And I’m not just talking about girls–ads, tv, etc.–it’s all being allowed and we are the ones, afraid to hurt someone’s feelings, allowing it.

I do wish you could hear my heart…it’s not even the girls/women particularly I think are to blame. Unless we’re talking specifically about Christians (they do have spiritual guidelines to follow and we are subject to teach them) We still, AS A SOCIETY, have the choices to uphold practices that are good and safe for all people.

Perhaps if you could hear the true confessions of men–men everywhere, godly men included, who so struggle with addiction, you would treat the subject with a bit more gravity. I know personally about these things, and it makes me angry that we wink at it to the destruction of those around us.
By Heather, October 3, 2009 @ 11:57 am

Hm.

Alisha/Ashley C (I apologize if I am wrongly assuming you are the same person).

My understanding of the original post is that it is directed at professing Christians and points out that we often lack discernment when it comes to dressing (or accepting as appropriate certain types of clothes).

Although Christians are positionally perfect before God in Christ, none of us is perfect in practice and every one of has areas of less than perfect behavior to which we are blind. While you may not agree with Kelly’s attempt at sharing her concerns, it is not unloving or judgmental to encourage other believers to check our hearts to see whether we are numb in one or another area.

Concerning the use of the pictures–I personally was not driven to judge or demonize the girls.

Beyond that, I’ll let Kelly answer for herself, but since it appears you take issue with my comment about underlying motive and the need for professing believers to weigh our priorities when you said:
*************************************

— Blanket comments and statments about women in sports who obviously refuse to deny their self to serve God, thus the reason they play sports– CHECK
*******************************************

I want to clarify that I was talking first and foremost about myself. If I am honest with myself, my reasons for wanting to do certain things are purely self-serving.

And, I have had to admit that often I want to “Christianize” certain activities/behaviors so I can be able to participate with a relatively clean conscience. As much as we may not like to admit it, there are SOME things that just end up not fitting into the life of a Christian. Some of those things God has spelled out in His Word and others He leaves to the work of the Holy Spirit through our consciences. We all need to be listening for personalized direction.

Not once did I accuse anyone else here of being unwilling to deny self. And my point certainly was not that ” ‘true’ Christian women don’t participate in sports because we must all deny ourselves”

I was simply noting that some of the ‘where’s the line’ issues that we face may be of our own making when we try to mesh our Christian walk with secular society’s standards of right and wrong.

Concerning Point #2 @ 7:11 am.
Yes. We all have to live in this world and, unfortunately, our men will be often tempted to look at women in ways they should not.

However, the temptations should not be coming from WITHIN the body of Christ. We ladies should be willing to go the extra mile to help other women’s husbands and sons hold to the same standard of purity that we would hope for our own.

Our personal responsibility before God has nothing to do with their weakness or the institution of legalistic rules about activities or clothing. It is based in a genuine love for God and concern for the spiritual well-being of other believers.

I completely understand that *my* standard of modesty will not exactly match that of another woman. I don’t feel superior because my own conscience tells me to cover up more. But I should never be willing to slack off on that because there are others who have not been convicted in the same manner. And again, there is nothing wrong with encouraging others to diligently seek a “better”, more God honoring standard for their lives–not for the sake of conformity to one person’s conscience, but for the building up of Christ’s whole body.

Woman caught in adultery: She was brought before Jesus by the Jewish leaders so she was most likely a Jewess. She would have known exactly which law she was guilty of breaking and that she deserved to be stoned for her part.

Jesus did not have to make an issue of her sin because it was already obvious to everyone who was present. The Jewish leaders had only brought the woman to Him and the law said that both the man and woman were to be punished.

So, Jesus pointed out to them (yet again) that they did not love the Law nor the Law-giver but were full of selfish ambition. And they remained blind to their own sinfulness.

In telling the woman to “go and sin no more”, there was a personalized exchange, the depth of which we readers may never fully appreciate.

She met Jesus with the full weight of her sin condemning her to death–Unlike the pharisees, she KNEW what she deserved. And Jesus was merciful in the way He dealt with her.

However, before she could be shown God’s mercy, she first had to be confronted with the serious nature of her offense in order to be able to see what it meant to be told to “go and sin no more”.
By Kim from Canada, October 3, 2009 @ 12:23 pm

Not to get off topic – but, I think it is important to point out that the woman caught in adultery may not have had Jesus put her sins on display – but she was certainly willing to display them herself. Nor did Jesus give this woman an ‘easy out’. She may not have been stoned that day, but she was not forgiven for her sins either. Jesus simply said, “go and sin no more”. To me this implies she was unrepentent in her acts of sin.

Immodesty is more than just how one dresses, it also includes behaviour. A woman can be covered from head to toe and still act immodest – it just seems to be more obvious when the visual effect is added. Today’s culture is encouraging the immodesty with the ‘accepted’ attire for sports, leisure and church.
By Charity, October 3, 2009 @ 1:08 pm

I can’t believe some of the comments are actually defending immodesty! Maybe the next time we see a scantily clad female we should go ahead and picture her in bed with our husband. After all if her immodesty can lead him to think this way then maybe we should too…THEN maybe it would hit home!!
By Michelle, October 3, 2009 @ 3:26 pm

Alisha C,

“Strong convictions about and against families who actual water ski — CHECK”

Has nothing whatsoever to do with water skiing, don’t know how to make it clearer, so I won’t try.
By Christine, October 3, 2009 @ 4:31 pm

My husband is unlikely to leer at other women because I am special to him. He loves me, not women displaying their bodies, and certainly not high school girls. I will leave their own parents to lead them. For some, a tank top in the summer is immodest. I don’t agree. I don’t go about wearing a bikini to the store, lol, because of my own self-respect. (Plus I’m not sure anyone else would like to see it! Although I might be helping other women…after seeing me, their husbands would come to them in droves…hah hah)

If a man has a problem with pornography, then let us be honest. It is HIS problem. The world cannot change for him. In countries where women cover up every part of their body except their ankles, their ankles become s-xualized. This happened in the Victorian era. You see my point. If you’re going to view the world that way, you’ll see it.

One small point. The girls you’ve pictured are possibly not Christians. They aren’t doing anything more sinful than play basketball. It would have been better for you to get pictures of girls leaving church!
By Alisha C, October 3, 2009 @ 5:12 pm

It is so amazing to me that many of you are continuing to defend the biblical principle of modesty with regards to my comments. The irony is that I have not once insinuated that immodest dress was acceptable or appropriate in the body of Christ. WHAT I have suggested is that there is a proper way to address these issues, and this format — this defacing of young, unidentified girls — is not the way. I, personally, have very strong *ideas* about modesty and modest dress. That doesn’t give me the right to treat people in the manner that these girls have been treated here. And while I recognize that this photo has already been published in the local paper, posting it here and using it for this purpose speaks to motive.

Actually WW, most of my original commetnary was not directed at your original post — it was directed mostly at the barage of self-righteous, me-and-my-family-would-never!, commentary that came later. Still, I do beleive that the original photo was uncaring and inappropriate.

Jesus confronted sin for ONE reason: He longed to see people turn from that sin, repent and be saved. I find not one time (and please correct me if I am wrong) in the Scritpures where Jesus — or the apostles — pointed out sin for the sake of “saving” the purity of the righteous. So, this idea that we are to be sounding the alarm to sinning immodest women to save our sons and husbands is just unfounded. We sound the alarm to save the women! Or…to help them grow in sacntification. The commentary here has done neither.

And, for the record, I am not suggesting a passive approach to the protection of our sons and husbands. Certainly there are situations that we would deliberately not put our sons/husbands in to keep “no impure thing before their eyes.” Again, our purpose to do that does not allow us to belittle another.

“I was using the photo to display the attire–the “disease” of a society, not an individual…that’s it. What you’re saying is, as long as we don’t “verbalize” the immodesty, we can all hold hands and sing and look in the opposite direction of our public school system, parents’ protection, etc. and their cowardice to put a stop to what I perceive as a very threatening practice.) (Obviously you and I have different opinions about the “danger” of immodesty).”

Obviosuly we disagree on something, but immodesty is not it. We disagree on the heart that would call other parents cowards based on your assessment of a threatening situation becuase they allow their daughters to play volleyball in tight shorts. Cowards? You’re “verbalizing” to the wrong folks for the wrong reasons.

And it’s not for fear of people or their opinions that I questions the methods that have been used here. It’s for respect of how God guided us to address these sins.

And…I have heard the true confessions of men and boys who struggle with women who are dressed immodest. I am not negating these realities. Still, it does not justify this type of commentary.

A couple of years ago I was a director at a camp where youth boys and girls came for a week. Three of the youth boys were the sons of one of my dearest friends and like sons to me (since I did not yet have my own). This was not a Christian camp, but these were Christian boys. During the course of the week 3 of the older youth girls revealed their g-string underware, while wearing them, to a group of boys — 3 of whom were my friends sons. This was the first time these young men had seen such. My heart was broken. And, of course, I was angry. Their innocence had been taken from them without them even looking for it to be so. But, as the director of the camp, I had to deal with this and with these girls. I called ALL of the girls at the camp together and I told them that even though it was not a Christian camp that there was only one way that I knew how to address this issue (the identity of the girls who had done the act was being concealed to keep them out of trouble, so I also had to determine who had done it).

I began by talking to the girls about a loving Heavenly Father who had created them in His image and all of the wonder that came with that. I then talked of their own purity and how it is only theirs to save and keep and protect as special for the man who would love them forever in marriage. I talked to them about the young men whose purity had been taken and how that could never be returned. I talked to them about how that made me angry because some were like sons to me. I told them it was not their place to take that from these young boys. And that in doing so they had also given up a precious gift of theirselves that they could never get back. Some of the girls, who were Christians, shared experiencecs. Many cried. The adults were stunned. All three of the girls confessed tearfully and later that week, under the witness of loving co-campers, 2 of the girls confessed Christ.

I don’t write that to boast that I did the right thing. I write that to boast in the wisdom of God that I believe was given me to direct that situation, to handle all of the needed issues, protect the children, confront the seriousness of the sin, and give a true picture of our value before God. I looked at it as a ministry opporutnity. NOT an opportunity to drage the gals before the crowd to be judged.

Maybe now, you see my heart.

My fear is NOT for my sons exposure to scantily-clad women. My fear is that I will not minister to those women/girls and miss God’s opportunity for me to share His love and call to repentance. My parenting can not be from fear of society. I want my children to live in victory — not fear. And as much as my heart breaks to the idea that one day, through no fault of their own, my sons may be exposed to *porn* in any form, I know my God is bigger than all of that. And He has called us to this world at this time in this place to minister to those who wear tight shorts at volleyball games with the heart of Jesus.
By Word Warrior, October 3, 2009 @ 5:35 pm

I modified the photo of the sports team to CLARIFY that I am not trying to drag any individual into public as an example; rather, it was an effort to expose (if you’ll pardon the pun) a general decline in morality and our acceptance of it. As are the reasons for all my posts like this, I want us to take issues that we have possibly just accepted as normal or have become desensitized to and question our own responsibility as well as a cultural one. No offense intended to any individual.
By Word Warrior, October 3, 2009 @ 5:46 pm

Alisha,

I respect your thoughts and input to this conversation…I am really, thoughtfully pondering what you have said here.

I will say I think your anger and sarcastic stabs at me and the ladies here diminishes your credibility (you treated us unlovingly because you think we behaved unlovingly to a group of anonymous girls when we weren’t trying at all to demean them ???) I would kindly ask you to ponder that.

Again, thinking through your comments. My whole point all along has been one thing…how did we get from a society where almost everyone agreed modesty was important enough to enforce, to a society that flaunts its nakedness anywhere without any consideration for the damage it does, all in the name of ” my right”?
By Alisha C, October 3, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

WW-
To you and all of the ladies: I am truly sorry for my sarcasm and anger. Please accept my genuine apology and know that it wasn’t against you personally, but what I was reading in the commentary. I realize that it is almost impossible to separate the two, but I know none of you personally, so my response was to the comments. Still, no excuses made for hurting feelings or unloving treatment. I agree, that is equally a sin.

With regard to this comment:
“My whole point all along has been one thing…how did we get from a society where almost everyone agreed modesty was important enough to enforce, to a society that flaunts its nakedness anywhere without any consideration for the damage it does, all in the name of ” my right”?

I agree this is a legitamate question and ponder. I have never suggested otherwise. I just truly believe that there is a way appropriate to ponder this. I could copy and paste many, many comments from this thread that boast of self-righteousness — and not necisarrily yours. I just do not see how this type of commentary is going to “solve” anything. So, I humbly ask, for all who read and comment here to ponder how they may minister to these women/families in love but also with the gravity of realizing the sin.

Interesting point: I taught at a private Christian school for 3 years before coming home to have my family. In the last 2 years, that school has a new Athletic Director who does not share *our* approach to modest athletic clothing. She is also the volleyball coach. Last season, she ordered these same briefs for the girls on her team. The backlash and response from the parents was overwhelming. Some girls were pulled from the team, but for some reason, the briefs stayed. Ironically, the team went on to compete at nationals. They didn’t win. BUT, the team of girls who did win wore….are you ready…culottes! (sp?) So, in His own way, God does get the last word. Obviously we can be competitive athletes without going the distance to expose ourselves. The testimony of the winning team was message enough!
By madgebaby, October 3, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

let’s be clear here:

Obviously young women and their parents are responsible for their modesty.

Young men (and older men) are responsible for controling their thoughts and behaviors.

no one can be responsible for the actions of another, period. We all need to help each other be faithful (hence the modesty) but ultimately if these men and boys lust it is their own problem. If the women entice them willfully then they will bear that burden, but they are different burdens.
By Word Warrior, October 3, 2009 @ 8:00 pm

Alisha,

Thank you so much for your sincerity and apology–fully accepted. I do believe we can disagree and even point out blaring faults with each other yet maintain a spirit of gentleness among sisters. I know I don’t always exhibit the gentleness I should and pray that I would be open when it is pointed out. Perhaps we can all consider some of your points here about modesty and use them to help us think and act more clearly about it.
By Mrs. C., October 3, 2009 @ 9:20 pm

“I suppose, if you’re desensitized to nakedness and you don’t mind your girls causing men and boys to have perverted thoughts and you don’t mind your husband and boys struggling to fight off those thoughts.’

I showed my husband the picture with the words covered up. I wanted his gut reaction. I showed him the computer screen and asked him what he saw. His response? “Athletes”. I then asked him to go on. “Female Athletes”. Is that all I asked? He then asked “Volleyball athletes?”. He didn’t see immodest, he saw female athletes. He was thinking it was a trick question on what sport they played. I then told him it was about modesty and he was like “Oh”. That thought never crossed his mind. So not all men out there have perverted thoughts when they see someone dressed like that.
Just thought I would share this.
By Alisha C, October 4, 2009 @ 12:05 pm

I actually asked my husband the same questions. His response was the same. These athletic “uniforms” did not invoke any improper thoughts in him (though I do not claim that he speaks for all men). Strangely enough when I asked him what type of dress would create a “second look” or perhaps an improper thought his response shocked me: a sweetly dressed woman with a genuine (not flirtatious) smile and feminine sundress (that completely covered her); something sweet….something feminine….a genuine smile. Wow. Okay, so I was a bit shocked (I’ve been married a while and never knew this), but also convicted: I should be that sweet woman with the glowing smile and feminine sundress:-) (I’ll be shopping/sewing soon!) So….please if you happen to be in my neighborhood don’t dress to this standard…my hubby may be in danger of stumbling.

I don’t deny that many men are lead to stumble by more immodest dress. I recognize that full well, but I thought it worth noting that what is a stumbling block to men varies from man to man.
By Mary at Civilla's Cyber Cafe, October 4, 2009 @ 1:10 pm

Yes, Kelly, you have gotten a lot of replies from this hot topic, like you said you would.

I asked my son what he saw, and he said “A girls’ volleyball team in spandex shorts.” I asked him if they were immodest, and he said, “No, that’s what all girl volleyball players wear.” I guess we’re all desensitized.

I used to wear a garment like that when I was in High School back in the 60’s. It was called a “panty-girdle” and it had little garters up under the cuff front and back to which you attached your stockings and pulled the cuff down over the tops of the stockings.

This is a fun subject for us women, you’re right. Everybody sees things differently.

I always just wear jeans and a button-down shirt with short sleeves and sneakers. I wear dresses to church.

After reading all these femininity/modesty blogs (see http://modestyfeminineattireindex and click on the first web site that comes up: a christian home) I started thinking I needed to wear dresses and skirts much more, maybe even all the time. A novel idea.

Anyway, I did that and we were at WalMart and a man about my age (I’m 56!!!) followed me out of the store, even though I was walking with my husband. I thought what’s going on. I was wearing a below-the-knee white skirt, a short-sleeved button-down nautical printed shirt, and a long-sleeved below the hip white jacket to match, plus stockings and flats.

This strange guy followed us out of the store. I got in the back seat on the passenger side of our car (my sister-in-law coming up in the rear was going to sit up front with my husband because she is tall) and my husband went around and got in the driver’s seat. This guy saw that I had left my door open a little to get myself seated and rushed over and helped me get in and close the door!!! Very solicitous! A perfect stranger. My husband was like, “What the…?”

The next day in a grocery store, I was wearing a below-the-knee denim skirt and matching button-down short-sleeved blouse and this store clerk my age who was riding in a little cart was following me all over the store asking if he could help me.

Wearing skirts gets you a LOT of male attention, like the lady whose husband said a woman in a sundress would catch his eye told her. Anyway, it was rather disconcerting, and I DON’T KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF IT.

Women in dresses is so rare these days that you really stand out and get attention that is not necessarily wanted. I still do like to wear dresses, though, and look feminine.
By Mary at Civilla's Cyber Cafe, October 4, 2009 @ 1:27 pm

I think my comment got caught in the spam filter, Kelly.
By authenticallyme, October 5, 2009 @ 11:53 am

Regarding the ’shorts’ on the girls….just because men do not notice them, does not necessarily equal desensitization in my eyes. It could also be that the dress of a society becomes the norm, removed from what the dress does or doesnt show. A female wearing tights, a bodice but doing ballet, shows off her body but would not be looked upon as immodest…becasue that is the uniform we are used to. We are used to seeing people who ccyle wear spandex, and volleyball players are beginning to wear the shorts. Even football players wear tight garb. Whem we fail to recognize teir dress as ‘immodest’, does that clearly mean ONLY that we have been desensitized? Or can it also mean we do not ’sexualize’ the body that we recognize only to be in sports attire? I tend to think the latter.

I have sadi it before, and I will say it again….anorexia, bulimia, and pornography do not stem from looking at scantily clad women. Nothing on the outsdie of the body makes us sin. it is the heart. And almost everyone you speak to about anorexia, pornography, etc will openly tell you that scantily clad women did not begin their problem. I am not saying that immodesty doesnt matter, but I do not like when I see addictions misused to illustrate a point, that arent even linked. Churches continue to think they can solve the problem of addcition, but they do not have udnerstanding of how it occurs, so the proper healing cannot always take place. I get frustrated when I see the way women dress as the blame. These addictions have nothing to do with that. It is not helpful to the addict themselves wehn we offer answers that arent really answers. Thanks for listening.
By Kim M., October 5, 2009 @ 2:02 pm

Yes, we have come a long, long way.

Modesty is very important or Scripture would not have addressed it.

Regardless of what the male gender does with it, we should obey Scripture’s commands to be modest (II Timothy 2:9).

Notice the verse below; it includes body & spirit.

For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. I Corinthians 6:20
By Jennifer, October 5, 2009 @ 8:45 pm

You would not BELIEVE the weak, foolish people, even some so-called Christians, who defend porn saying it’s “not that big a deal”. A Lifetime movie revealing the trauma porn wreaks on young boys has been royally panned by about a dozen men on an online discussion board, and not surprisingly: anyone care to guess what these “men” do in their spare time? One of the disgusting men has taken to insulting me and saying all manner of repulsive things to me (calling me the b-word is the least of it) because I dared to defend the film and point out the nature of neanderthals who love porn. And don’t even get me started on the sickos who, on another thread, defended older teen boys calling a 12-year-old modest little girl “sexy” and “hot”. Naturally, I and some other adults tore into this, and one of the results is that one of the guys accused ME of having a perverted attraction to her, even calling me a lesbian once he discovered I was a woman! Is that seriously such a person’s idea of a defense, accusing everyone else of the same sickness he displays?

I guess I needed a mini-rant of my own, because I can’t tell you how horrified I was by these downright filthy people; men who will speak such a way, ESPECIALLY so carelessly or disrespectfully of a little preteen, are beneath animals.

Of course, loose women aren’t off the hook either. I wonder if such careless young women know that they’re unwittingly giving animalistic males license (in their own minds) to verbally degrade and accost young women.
By Jennifer, October 5, 2009 @ 8:48 pm

Kelly, I’m sorry if you’ve already asnwered this (I can’t wade through all the comments), but what do you think of artistic nudity? I’d love to hear.
By Jennifer, October 5, 2009 @ 11:49 pm

“I agree with those who say the responsibility lies with the parents, the father in particular”

I find that silly; it’s not the father’s job to teach daughters womanhood or speak to them about personal issues.
By Word Warrior, October 6, 2009 @ 8:41 am

Jennifer,

“I find that silly; it’s not the father’s job to teach daughters womanhood or speak to them about personal issues.”

Silly? Be sure you are using God’s Word as the standard for your opinions. “Fathers, provoke not your children…but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”

And let us remember that the NT says this of the OT: “These things happened as examples for us,” which means that though we are no longer under the LAW, the OT is given to us for example, instruction and direction for how to live. (That’s why Jesus almost exclusively quoted from the OT.)

And what picture do we see of fathers as it relates to daughters on these issues? He was primarily–the father, not the mother–responsible for her chastity. So much so that if he vouched for her virginity and she was found unchaste, she was stoned in front of her FATHER’S house. (It was as much his punishment.)

Elsewhere, such as in the story of the Joshua (maybe I’m not getting my characters confused) Achan steals treasure from the enemy, disobeying God. When he is discovered, God orders his entire family killed. The father’s sin was credited to his children, just as protection could be.

Those are just a few examples…It is very clear from Scripture that a father indeed is responsible for leading, guiding and teaching his family, and that includes helping his wife and daughters with dress. It ESPECIALLY is important for the father to oversee that (I’m not talking about picking out their clothes, but making sure that they are not dressing in a way that is a stumbling block to others). A man sees dress differently–it would only make sense to have him approve or disapprove certain attire. (I know feminists thought makes this seem prudish and demeaning; perhaps one needs to see it in proper action to understand its benefit and see that it is done to honor the women in the home, not degrade them.)
By Jennifer, October 6, 2009 @ 9:33 am

“And what picture do we see of fathers as it relates to daughters on these issues? He was primarily–the father, not the mother–responsible for her chastity. So much so that if he vouched for her virginity and she was found unchaste, she was stoned in front of her FATHER’S house. (It was as much his punishment.)”

That’s in the OT, a rightfully dead and sick practice. Fathers are obviously equally responsible for teaching their children in general, but my father is not responsible for either my purity or the state of my reproductive organs. I’m a grown woman; that’s between me and God, and anything connected to the latter, very personal matter was related to me by my mother while I was still a girl.
By Word Warrior, October 6, 2009 @ 9:57 am

Jennifer,

No one said your father is responsible for your dress as a grown woman. But it is absurd, at best, to deny the natural, protective nature (not to mention the biblical example throughout Scripture) that a father and husband has over his family. Why do we view this loving protection as “intrusive”? To reject biblical wisdom is to threaten ourselves. We can obey the LORD and reap those blessings, or we can kick against what He has given us and reap the curse.
By Avaya, October 6, 2009 @ 9:59 am

Came here after a while to see an interesting discussion. Some scattered thoughts on this complex subject-

I dress modestly, because I feel uncomfortable scantily clad. But I have noticed (I live in Europe) that I get more male attention when I am dressed in skirts and dresses. My skirts are loose and reach my ankles-and my shirts/blouses are loose and full sleeved.

In my line of work I have had to work with women who have been sexually assaulted and raped. Almost none of the women I have worked with were immodestly dressed or of immodest demeanour. A reasonably good looking face, (sometimes not even that), is all that is required to be attacked.

I agree that the sexual commodification of women is a problem-and this includes the way they are dressed and presented sometimes, for example in ads.

I have heard people say that wearing lipstick is immodest, because it attracts attention to a sexual part of the body, that wearing lipstick is sexualising the mouth and that’s why we don’t allow children to wear lipstick-because make-up is the domain of the sexually mature adult.

This is a complex area.

But I tend to agree with authenticallyme that we sexualise the body in certain contexts and not in others. I think it is therefore more helpful to address and battle the disease of pornography and sexual crimes themselves.

When it comes to dress, I think one needs to be sensitive to context and culture. As an example-some western tourists turned up at my wedding (in Asia) in skimpy shorts and bikinis (uninvited). I didn’t mind their being there, but a little sensitivity to time and place would have been appreciated, given that this was a sacred event for my family and we were all dressed for the occasion and not really there to be a spectacle.
By Jennifer, October 6, 2009 @ 10:00 am

“It is absurd, at best, to deny the natural, protective nature (not to mention the biblical example throughout Scripture) that a father and husband has over his family”

I never once have; I think it’s a beautiful thing. I just don’t like the tendency some in the patriarchy circle have to indicate that the father’s more responsible for instructing his daughters, even in personal matters, than the mother.
By the cottage child, October 6, 2009 @ 10:10 am

Terrific Scriptural examples, Kelly, of the directive to Father’s to guard their families.

I hardly advocate helicopter parenting from Mom or Dad, but since when is it silly for either parent, since presumably both have vested interest in the well being of their children, to be involved in the decisions that affect the children’s well being? As in many households, we have what we call specialization of labor, doing what is practically best according to our skills. That doesn’t preclude either of us from expressing concern in the other’s area(s). And my husband does reserve the right – granted him by his Biblical responsibility, along with providing for us and treating us with respect -for final say on certain things. Thank goodness, because I can only be right 99.7% of the time .

We can discuss all day long the heart problems of others being the culprit for leering, lusting, etc, but that’s only partially true. Isn’t a little bit MY heart problem if in stubborness or insensitivity I insist I can wear whatever I want, excusing all manner of unnecessarily revealing dress (or any behavior, really) with “I play sports” and “God knows my heart”? Are we being loving of the brethren in that context, both the young women we are to be models for, and the men whose pure hearts we pray for?

It also isn’t wise to assume that because a handful of Godly men see volley ball uniforms strictly for what they are, suddenly extremely tight shorts leaving little to the imagination are appropriate attire for children. I don’t see how either pureness of heart nor desensitization automatically equals appropriate. That’s not a criticism of anyone commenting here, merely an observation.

Love.

(to be clear, I don’t see sundresses or sleeveless tops as overly revealing, for the ladies who mentioned those)
By Word Warrior, October 6, 2009 @ 10:14 am

Jennifer,

As long as you hold a feminist view of “roles” in marriage, the whole argument is skewed, and we will never agree–no point arguing. I have read extensively the egalitarian view of marriage and find it grossly inconsistent with Scripture, but rather a doctrine that suits our human desires and requires a strong reinterpretation of God’s Word. No such stance is becoming to the Christian woman who desires to obey GOD rather than man.
By the cottage child, October 6, 2009 @ 10:21 am

And my husband is laughing over my shoulder, at this moment, at the notion we are somehow “patriachal” – since he’s folding laundry and listening to narrations as I write this.
By Jennifer, October 6, 2009 @ 10:31 am

I don’t hold to feminist doctrines, as I don’t need them. Either way, I think my point is clear without being skewed.

Cottage child, I’m glad your husband’s not uptight about helping with chores! I think you know what I meant by “patriarchal”.

“No such stance is becoming to the Christian woman who desires to obey GOD rather than man.”

Interestingly, that’s always been my argument to complimentarians.
By Jennifer, October 6, 2009 @ 10:40 am

“Since when is it silly for either parent, since presumably both have vested interest in the well being of their children, to be involved in the decisions that affect the children’s well being?”

I’ll be perfectly clear: I’ve seen modern men spend pages writing about how fathers are responsible for their daughters’ virginity. The mother’s never mentioned and it gives me the picture of a man guarding his daughter’s bedroom door. I’ve also heard of severly patriarchal men taking their daughters’ “hearts” until they’re married, as well as daughters promising to give their virginity to their fathers to be guarded! Excuse me if I’ve stepped on any toes, perhaps I assumed the earlier poster’s meaning too quickly, but anything relating to what I just described sounds alarmingly controlling.
By Heather, October 6, 2009 @ 11:17 am

Jennifer “That’s in the OT, a rightfully dead and sick practice. ”
***************************************

The Law was instituted by God Himself. He is neither wrong, ’sick’ nor sadistic and has His reasons, regardless of whether we understand or find them esthetically pleasing.

At the very least, we today have been given a very graphic physical picture of humanity’s inborn tendency to rebel against God’s nature and a reminder that He cannot tolerate it.
On a spiritual level, the Law helps us see not only what we deserve for our rebellion but also what Jesus took upon Himself when He agreed to take upon Himself the payment for our sins (thus enabling God’s demand for justice to be satisfied in Himself).

While Christians are no longer “under Law”, the OT is every bit as relevant today as it was “back then”. However, we today have a more complete picture because we are able to look back through the lens of Christ’s life.

Also, I didn’t see where anyone here insisted that it is the father’s duty to personally instruct his daughter in personal matters. Yet, he is responsible to God for what his daughter learns while under his care.

Therefore, logic would conclude that he would take seriously the need for at least his WIFE to properly inform/train the daughter in matters of modesty etc. And he would not hesitate to step in and deal personally if there was obvious rejection of that training. The OT Jews would have recognized what a serious thing it is to offend God. It is a matter of life and death. Literally.

That is precisely why we need Jesus, as He is the only one who ever lived that perfectly pleasing, completely submissive life. We don’t dare spit in His face by tossing aside old testament practice as “sick” and “rightfully dead”. That hints at the attitude that we people don’t actually deserve that sort of treatment (when in truth, we deserve much, much worse).

On the contrary…it magnifies God’s mercy and patience toward those who are covered in the blood of the Son.

**************************************************
Cottage Child” (to be clear, I don’t see sundresses or sleeveless tops as overly revealing, for the ladies who mentioned those)”
**************************************

I think those types of clothing would probably fall into the realm of conscience. Sleeveless garments often gap under the arms or are excessively lowcut. Well endowed women often find themselves exposed when smaller ladies can wear such and remain covered. Just because *I* cannot modestly wear (reasonably styled) sun dresses isn’t a reason to insist that no one can.
By Word Warrior, October 6, 2009 @ 11:25 am

Cottage child,

LOL! I can relate. The thing is, that patriarchy simply isn’t what its adversaries make it. I hate that we can’t use that word anymore, because I think it is a biblical concept. But its definition has been so perverted, we have to avoid its use. Patriarchy, put simply, is “Wives, submit to your husbands, and husbands, love your wives.” Gosh, just doesn’t seem like such a bad thing!
By Terry @ Breathing Grace, October 6, 2009 @ 12:00 pm

The word “patriarchy” has been hijacked and misused by folks enamored with power from one side and labels on the other.

We would consider our family “patriarchal” in the truest, purest meaning of the word. We embrace many of the more conservative ideals espoused by some in so-called “patriarchy” camps, and disavow others.

Interestingly enough, I have a post up about Biblical marriage in which I never, not even once, used the word patriarchy and it popped up in the comments section again and again- forcing me to address the issue.

As for the original topic, I too asked a couple of males their opinion of the photo and they all, like Mrs. C’s husband automatically thought athletes, nothing sexual came to mind- or so they said. Men I’ve talked to seem to be more moved by long hair and feminine dress as something that draws them to a woman.

That said, I am still uncomfortable with the idea of my girls wearing what amounts to little more than undies in a public setting. I have a daughter who wants to run track and I am already taking steps to find acceptable alternatives to any uniform that may be presented. Else she won’t be running. However, I think the idea that athletes must conform to the team is not necessarily the case. A parent who respectfully approaches a coach with a religious objection to a uniform can certainly change their daughter’s uniform to something that is acceptable. It would be illegal for the school NOT to accomodate them.
By the cottage child, October 6, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

Heather, agreed – every *body* is different. And also agreed, not every style fits every body comfortably or modestly, and all should be taken into consideration.
By Jennifer, October 6, 2009 @ 12:53 pm

Heather,

I agree in general with what you said about fathers and mothers.
By Jennifer, October 6, 2009 @ 12:54 pm

As for the OT law mentioned above, was that a Mosaic Law?
By the cottage child, October 6, 2009 @ 1:38 pm

Jennifer, I see some of what you’re getting at, I think, and agree in a certain context – what gives me pause about the “guarded virginity” aspect of what I consider an extremeist view (more in line with Islamic dogma than Biblical truth) is 1)there is an oversexualization of the girl, and obsession with her sexuality, even in what is supposed the be the most conservative and restricted of structures, and 2)that to “belong” in that particular circle it seems the father is discussing what should be a VERY private and sensitive issue in a self-congratulatory manner with other men.
(This observation is based on my own very limited experience, and hardly an indictment of true Biblical patriarchy – as Terry stated that word has been hijacked and used decidedly unBiblically.)

Neither of these activities I see as particularly Godly, rather exchanging one inappropriate sexual preoccupation with another.

Protection of a girls innocence and purity is a matter of protecting her heart and mind and body from overexposure – it is possible to wrongly forfeit the others in the pursuit of protecting the “one”.
By Heather, October 6, 2009 @ 2:01 pm

Jennifer, you ask a valid question. By Jesus’ day, it is apparent that some Jewish leaders had added their own twist to several aspects of Mosaic.

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 But if this thing is true and tokens of virginity are not found for the girl,
then they shall bring the girl out to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones so that she dies, because she has done foolishness in Israel to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put evil away from among you.
By Jennifer, October 6, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

Cottage Child, I agree completely!! You and Heather understand exactly what I was trying to express. Thank you both
By Jennifer, October 6, 2009 @ 4:43 pm

I apologize for unintionally deterring the thread; not my intention at all, especially since I agree 100% with your views on this topic. Thank you ladies for listening. Kelly, I’d still love to hear your thoughts about nudity in art.
By Word Warrior, October 6, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

Jennifer,

“Nudity in art”…I don’t see it any differently than nudity anywhere else, I think. Not from a biblical standpoint.
By Jennifer, October 6, 2009 @ 6:23 pm

So, you find it unChristian?
By Word Warrior, October 6, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

Jennifer,

Well, that sounds like a trick question I don’t personally endorse it as an acceptable art form for my children…how’s that?
By Jennifer, October 6, 2009 @ 8:58 pm

Trust me, it’s not a trick question I don’t pull those, I just really wanted to know since I find them so different from pornography and have had heard such interesting differing thoguhts from Christians. Thanks for yours
By Jennifer, October 6, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

*Thoughts* Ugh, HATE misspellings.
By Heather, October 6, 2009 @ 11:03 pm

Jennifer said: I just really wanted to know since I find them so different from pornography and have had heard such interesting differing thoguhts from Christians.

****************************************

Nosey me, I had to butt in again.

I expect many pornographic photographers figure their work is just as much art as did the Greek sculptors. The main difference is the medium and it is worthwhile to remember that photography is a relatively new development. Perhaps the classical artists would have taken pictures if it was possible.

Also, even today, *someone* has to strip down and pose in order for a painter/sculptor to be able to have a nude model for biological accuracy.

As a Christian, would I put a nude painting/sculpture in my living room? Would I encourage my talented son or daughter (as an adult) to participate in an art course that required they learn to sketch nudes? Would I endorse the idea of one of my own adult kids as the nude model? Hopefully, I would be consistent with my answers.

Some artists might claim their purpose is simply a celebration of natural beauty—but I wonder if the motivation is more along the lines of “worship of the creature rather than the Creator”?

Just thinking aloud again
By Jennifer, October 7, 2009 @ 11:13 am

Not butting in at all, Heather, I like your thoughts.

“I expect many pornographic photographers figure their work is just as much art as did the Greek sculptors.”

I beg to differ, very strenously. The self-absorbed sex-worshipping creeps involved in porn know exactly what they’re doing and their entire demeanor displays this 24/7, both in their work and otherwise. I’ve collected art for years now and gotten completely used to nudity; I don’t blink at a nude body. However, this has never once desensitized my eyes to porn, on the rare occasions I’ve been unfortunate enough to see it. I can tell when a body is meant to be just a body and when it’s meant to be thrown in the face of a camera. I can also assure you that when I look at a stunning picture with a naked subject, I marvel just as much at the Creator as I would if I were looking at a forest in autumn. Just to clarify, I’m not even trying to argue whether nakedness in art is morally okay right now; just to assert that there’s a very clear difference between the thoughts of porn-makers and true artists.
By Heather, October 7, 2009 @ 1:18 pm

Jennifer–

I suppose if you make a distinction between ” nudity on passive display” and ” nudity ‘actively’ on display”, I can see what you are saying. I tend to lump all public displays of nudity into one main group –with varying degrees of sub-categories.

I do understand that you note a difference between the motives of “porn-makers and true artists”.

I guess my reasoning goes beyond the original intention and focuses on the potential results of viewing nude art.

As you mentioned, it can cause a desensitization to the unclothed human form. For males, it can create a unique problem that women often don’t “get” because of the difference in the way we are “wired”. As they become less responsive to simple nudity, there can be a tendency to seek out more racy alternatives. I wouldn’t want to unintentionally send my husband or son into that territory.

I guess that goes back to the point of the original post–wondering how much is too much and whether Christians allow our culture to determine our moral standards. We don’t all see eye to eye on every topic, but hopefully, none of us ever gives up on searching for what truly honors God.
By Jennifer, October 7, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

Yeesh, I wouldn’t want that either (the temptation for racy alternatives). It frightens me what can open up inside men sometimes. I wonder if there’s a way men can train themselves, perhaps at a young age, to view certain kinds of art in a healthy way. I mean, is the most likely result really either that men will be aroused when looking at non-sexual nudity or that, after becoming desensitized, they’ll seek out something fiercely sexual instead?

I have many books with pictures of fairies, mermaids and certain other fantasy beings unclothed in non-sexual ways and I don’t think I’d have any compunction about sharing such books with my children. If they got as used to looking at a naked fairy sitting on a leaf as one dressed in spider silk, would they be better adjusted to anatomy? Would the boys be as eager to undress Barbies as certain boys I used to know? I’m not sure; I don’t know how a boy’s mind works from one minute to another. Maybe I need to start getting some male opinions..
By Jennifer, October 7, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

As far as potential results of viewing nude art goes, all I know is that for me it’s perfectly fine. On the subject of guys, though, you made my hackles go up a bit. I’ll have to look further into that.
By Word Warrior, October 7, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

Jennifer,

Is nude art and our uncertainty of “what it will do to men” worth the gamble, especially with our children? Scripture gives us a whole lot to base our decisions on. In regard to things remotely “questionable”, I think we would be wise to obey Scripture…”Flee from the appearance of evil.”
By Jennifer, October 7, 2009 @ 7:25 pm

That’s the thing though, I don’t see it as evil.
By Word Warrior, October 7, 2009 @ 9:19 pm

Jennifer,

I say this respectfully, but I don’t think it matters if *you* think it is evil. Some things in Scripture are certainly more open than others to interpretation and personal conviction. But if we make everything a personal opinion, or wriggle out of its clear meaning, we make the Word of God pointless.

Of course the most obvious clue to God’s idea of nakedness was Adam’s and Eve’s need to be covered after the fall.

And elsewhere, we read:

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness…it is wickedness.” (Leviticus 18:17)

“Take the millstones and grind meal, put off your veil, strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers. Your nakedness shall be uncovered, and your shame shall be seen.” Isaiah 47:2-3
By Jennifer, October 7, 2009 @ 9:37 pm

I think there is a definite difference, though, between people being uncovered in the general public and being so in an artistic setting. Artists are people who don’t see flesh the lustful way many do.
By Jennifer, October 7, 2009 @ 9:47 pm

I hope I don’t sound disrespectful, Kelly. It’s just so natural for me now and it’s been so for years; it’s never caused me to stray.
By Joanna, October 8, 2009 @ 6:54 am

I think, not to be disrespectful either, that this is a question that earnest Christians have come to different conclusions about. Millions of Christians–including theologians (even reformed ones) and artists–have seen some place for nudity in art, and have studied the Bible diligently as they have come to this conclusion (including Francis Schaeffer, who as much as you talk about worldview thinking, Kelly, seems to have had an influence on you). They see the human body as beautiful and reflecting the mark of its Maker.

I see an enormous difference between something like the Sistine Chapel, which tells the story of creation, fall and redemption in an unforgettable way yet includes some nudity, and the prurient work of pornographers. Or the work of da Vinci, whose diagrams of the human body have benefitted many in the understanding of God’s beautiful and intricate design.
By Jennifer, October 8, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

Thank you for your insight, Joanna.
By authenticallyme, October 9, 2009 @ 3:28 pm

nudity in art verses nudity in porn….the porn has a different spirit connected with it. I am neither defending or not defending nude art (i am an artist)but the entire motivation and intent and spirit locked up in porn differs.

One would have to do a lot of digging to ensure that porn itself causes a man to lust or crave pornography. It is the by-product of sometimes viewing porn, but not the original sin.

if we use that logic, we also would need to say that wine or drugs makes a drug addict or drunk. But, nothign that goes into the body causes it to sin…it is always the heart. Whether the addiction is an eating addiction, gambling, drugs, porn, workaholism, or whatnot, the item itself doesnt CAUSE one to become enslaved to that thing. It is the ‘helper’ but not the initial cause. That is why some can look at an immodest person and not sin. That is why some can drink and not get drunk.

I know this post is about modesty, and not if porn or immodest viewing cauases porn addiction, but i just thought Id share some experience with the subject Ive had, as it is a common misconception amongst christians.
By Heather, October 9, 2009 @ 8:55 pm

Okay.

Kelly, I apologize for taking this thread down the p*rn-as-art side trail. I’m thinking my meaning was misunderstood, so I will give this one more shot.

My comment about makers of p*rn considering themselves to be “artists” was not intended to set their intentions on par with those of truly talented individuals. Those who are relatively familiar with the art world ought to recognize that not everything that is passed off as “art” actually qualifies. I’ve inadvertently run across “artistic” stuff that was blatantly s*xual and even blasphemous in its content– and it was apparent that the producer of the stuff felt (s)he was making some sort of profound statement or actually contributing something beneficial to society.

While there is no question in my mind that the desire of some is to openly and unashamedly promote filth for profit, there are others who appear to believe that there is something beautiful and redeeming in their potentially offensive work.

The definition of what qualifies as art is highly subjective.

AM–I agree, the heart is the real problem. Not quite sure I would equate artistic nudity with wine drinking, but I do see what you mean by some being more susceptible to temptation than others.
I guess, my perspective is that since I cannot see the heart of each person with whom I interact…and because I know there is a large percentage of people that I contact that MIGHT be caused to stumble by it…and because I will be held accountable for the way I showed love to others…I figure it is safer to avoid “nude art” in all it’s variations.
By authenticallyme, October 10, 2009 @ 3:36 pm

Heather,

I am not saying I dont agree, and my message was not targeted at you.

Also, I was trying to compare porn causing porn addiction like wine causing a person to be a drunk. Neither is the catalyst.

I added that because many people wills ay, “we need to guard our men so they dont see immodest women/photos and become addicted to porn”. Im not saying viewing it doesnt make for a desensitized man….but it is a void moreso that makes one want porn or to lust….not a lady walking by scantily clad. It is so much deeper and complex.
By Heather, October 10, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

AM, I wasn’t taking personal offense at your statements. And I think don’t really disagree on the core issue. Just feeling somewhat responsible for blowing the thread off-course.

Yes, when all is said and done, each person is responsible to God as an individual.

Yes, human depravity is the root of the problem with any sinful behavior.

And yes, because of the existence of sin nature, it can often be simplistic to assume that removal of any potential stimulus will prevent a problem.

Hope you all have a wonderful weekend.
By Jennifer, October 10, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

“It is a void moreso that makes one want porn or to lust….not a lady walking by scantily clad. It is so much deeper and complex”

Excellently said! The women here are awesome; challenging, edifying and deep.
By MO, October 26, 2009 @ 3:49 pm

I am a guy, not young or old. Many of you don’t understand us at all. Hollywood does. Quoting Xander (a teen guy) from “Buffy the vampire slayer”: “even looking at linoleum makes guys *****”. We live in an oversexed culture, and everything is sexed up for a reason, it takes our attention and then it takes our money, very simple. If it wasn’t effective they wouldn’t be spending all that money creating it. Another reason why volleyball panties aren’t sexually stimulating to some men is that they’re so used to seeing bikini’s (and other scantily clad women in the media) that the volleyball shorts don’t mean a thing. We men are sinners just like the rest of you, but the heart is above all things deceitful, so it is never a reliable source of information. When Adam and Eve sinned, the first thing they did was cover their naked bodies.
This is a complex issue. Have your men stop watching/using media (internet/tv…) for a week (even longer is better – and that is another addiction in itself), and see how drawn they are to viewing women after that, they will shock themselves at what they deemed acceptable prior to that. Second of all many of your men have a secret porn addiction that you are clueless about (that doesn’t mean they go to playboy, they just view the same show you did with you, and you have no idea how much porn was going on in their heads, and is still going on days after they’ve seen some girl).
Another thing is, with modern advancements men are seeing thousands of women a day in the media, as to before media advancements you’d see a handful of women a week from your neighborhood, and get used to them. But this constant assault on the senses with all the variety of women is overloading us.
If you could read mens minds this is what you would see 9 out of 10 times, I want to have sex with you now, and I want to think about having sex with someone else while were fornicating, because it’s all good to us. Another reason we say things are ok, is so we can continue to enjoy sin for a season, we wouldn’t want to let you know how things affect us becuase we still want to enjoy the semi-nude women that you find perfectly acceptable, and the more you women lower your own standards the better an excuse I have to continue looking at nude women. Also, the natural progression when we are saturated with all these tempting women is to continue on toward homosexuality and pedophilia. So for a man to say he is asexual when seeing a woman in underwear just means he’s lieing or hiding something else.
When we’re at church we imagine having sex with the women we see, making our ‘picks’ of who we’d like, and the women oblige us by thinking themselves modest (at best) until they bend, sit, stand up, and we have a virtual lap dance along with the kids story.
Never in a million years would we (men) admit this to you, because we are nominal christians who keep to our formalities, until we are truly born again.
On another topic look at the hypocrisy of women vs mens clothing. A typical mens outfit for church is a suit, all you see is our hands and head – also, there really isn’t anything to see to begin with. But women show so much skin, yet they have so much more to offer on the sexual enticement scale. How ridiculous would it be if a man were to show up in spandex shorts exposing his butcrack, and nipples through his silk sleeveless supertight shirt? It would be downright disgusting, and I doubt any woman would be led astray. But exactly the opposite is true for us men.
General principles: If the first thing man notices about you is your eyes, then you’re modest (someone else said this, and it’s not referencing makeup!).
Don’t wear tight clothes, see-through, thin, or clothes short enough that I can see you undergarments let alone your assets. Spend some time infront of the mirror and bend forward, sit down and any other pose to see if you are exposing yourself unknowlingly.
Lastly, very rarely is a woman intentionally immodest, she actually thinks she is being modest, and is extremely offended if anyone thinks otherwise, because it denegrates her selfrespect and to her that’s the same thing as calling her a whore, when it actually isn’t. It’s for her protection and for those she comes in contact with. Let all things be done in charity. The central issue is the ‘I’.
By Leslie Viles, October 27, 2009 @ 12:22 pm

thank you MO.
By Jennifer, October 27, 2009 @ 9:33 pm

Wow, MO. I certainly hope I have a more open relationship with my man than the one involving secret porn addictions that you describe. I’m not sure who here you’re addressing so daringly, since just about every woman here IS for modesty. You make men sound like prowling tigers constantly searching for blood. And to think, some men actually whine about women being so cautious they feel shunned?? I guess we know men better than we thought. I hope you personally have recovered from this devouring-phase.

I have always been against porn and when I speak out online, the result has often been assaults on my womanhood: I’ve been called things from a b**** to an ugly woman who can’t “get any” to a secret porn lover to a homely wife whose husband looks at porn, sometimes even by other women. It’s amusing how the silly crude children always follow these insults with “Oh, and I personally am NOT into porn”. Sure my deprived dears, whatever you say. Thank you for so vitally proving my case, MO. I really do wish, now more than ever, that more men could see women the way true artists do.

However, I won’t accept this comment: “Also, the natural progression when we are saturated with all these tempting women is to continue on toward homosexuality and pedophilia”.

No sir, it is NOT acceptable to compare those two things to heterosexual horniness OR say that over-loading sex leads to them. One is born with homosexuality or one is not, and don’t EVER behave as though the demonic condition of pedophilia is something a remotely normal man can be led to; creatures who do such disgusting things or think such filth are what hell was created for. They are NOT led to it by being overloaded with images of grown women, of all things. I’ve been insulted online beyond belief and I’ve seen a sick older teen boy tell a 12-year-old little girl he wished he could sleep with her (and that wasn’t the term he used). I for one know of the rotten streak in SOME males; you don’t need to paint it even darker for me. Next time a weakling complains of women “shunning” him in public because they fear he’s a sexual deviant, however, I’ll be happy to give them a link of your testimony.
By MO, November 16, 2009 @ 3:55 pm

History and Hollywood have proven that all sexual overload progresses into further deviation from what God created as very good. Sex/sexuality is like a drug that has it’s place and use, but as all drugs when not used according to it’s design it becomes something it was never intended for. So when women stop being interesting because they don’t excite men due to overload, men start to look elsewhere for their fulfillment. It is a sick and sad fact where the little things lead.
Be very afraid of what you don’t know about the other males. The statistics of pastors/ministers that consume porn are horrific, it affects much more than most are aware. Please educate yourselves and read the studies, and books on the topics instead of just offering your opinions. And you will see what I previously wrote doesn’t really sound that bad in comparison. (Why do you think we have 100,000 sex slaves in the city of Orlando,FL for example – these are not prostitutes, many under age).
Christians shun playboy as they should. Men have their physical porn, but women have their emotional porn. An even more insidious and secret addiction. All the soap operas, novels, the drama, affairs, scandals – it’s the same. Most women are OK with people having sex on screen or insinuating it as long as they’re covered, and that is the pinnacle of the hypocrisy. Women keep watching sex and the city, desperate housewives, and whatever else comes out, perpetuating the cycle. It’s about time men stood up aghast and shocked at their female counterparts for watching desperate housewives (and similar) without any hesitation, because enough is enough. This goes for all the good old fashioned soaps as well.
There is no such thing as nude art. It is sin, phrased differently to be used as an excuse to be enjoyed. Or they are people who are too blind (consciences have hardened) to see the difference.
By Jennifer, November 17, 2009 @ 3:50 pm

I’m sorry you’re so afraid of porn (not that I blame you) that you don’t believe in nude art, MO. Your emotional scar tissue must be hardened indeed to equate all uncovered bodies with porn, which I find disgusting, or to accuse all those who appreciate nude art of being people with blindness; beware that the pain from your own old wounds doesn’t cloud your discernment of others. Believe me, I’ve read on this subject and, as I’ve said, when I shared my knowledge I was attacked to the core of my femaleness. I know of stupid TV shows which teach lies and foolishness, though I rarely equate such hypocrisy with that of people who secretly push prostitution or filth almost as bad. I know the ugliness of the corrupt heart, as well as the beauty of those who appreciate the human body, sex, and who know the difference. Be well