Modest apparel

I agree that the choice of clothing (and also numerous body piercings) among other things, have nothing to do with salvation - but rather a lack of spiritual growth and 'dying to self' daily...

Blessings,
§ue

 

I disagree, you can be very dedicated to Christ and still be peirced, the appearance and holes in your body is not what dedicates your life to serving Jesus, it's your love, heart and willingness.

If it has anything to do with lack of growth and dying to self daily, then perhaps we should all do more dying to self by staying off the computer, not wearing any makeup or jewerly, forget those cute sandals you bought at payless, loose those nice pearls....see, it's all about taste.

 

You make an excellent point. One other problem is that modesty is subjective. A sleevess tee and jeans are generally not immodest, though they would have been considered such 120 years ago.

Pop singer Jessica Simpson was never accepted in the Christian music world, because she was too "buxom". When singing at a church in her teens wearing a dress skirt and a conservative sweater, the pastor asked her to "cover up" by wearing a jacket. Go figure!!

OTOH, there are plenty of conservative, modest, and Godly women who "die to self" daily, and still have their hair dyed, have acrylic nails applied, and wear undergarments that (how do I say this delicately) turn sunken chests into more pleasing shapes.

 

You make an excellent point. One other problem is that modesty is subjective. </font>[/QUOTE]To a point that might be true. However two things mitigate against such a position.

One, pushing the envelope is immodest in and of itself.

Two, public dress that is designed to provoke lust in men is immodest. And no, I didn't mention the intent of the person wearing the clothes. They have a certain responsibility to think about what effects their behavior might have... and yes, men do lust after women in almost any dress but it is foolish to deny that tighter, less covering clothes are more tempting.

 

Not necessarily. Societal thoughts on vanity tend to push the design envelope far more then societal thoughts on modesty.

"To provoke lust", perhaps I'd agree with you. But if it simply "results in lust" I'd disagree with you. Most women have breasts and buttocks, and most men have at one time or another lusted after them. That doesn't mean women should hide the fact that they have breasts or buttocks. This would be a case of the problem being with the men, not with the women.

BTW, I find it interesting that you are referring to lusting of men. That implies that men dont' have to worry about modesty as much as women. I disagree. But for some reason, we've accepted the idea that it's okay for a man to take off his shirt in public, while women can't. Again, the implication is that men as a species have less self control. I disagree. I think that men as a species have been taught that it's OKAY to have less self control. That is by far a far greater sin that the worst case of immodesty.

Am I the only man who won't lust after skinny girls in bikinis? Am I really the only man who thinks with his brain instead of his groin? I can't be the exception to the rule. Please tell me I'm wrong.

 

"To provoke lust", perhaps I'd agree with you. But if it simply "results in lust" I'd disagree with you.</font>[/QUOTE] The tee shirts young girls wear today and hip huggers are not designed for comfort. They are designed to reveal as much of the girl's middrift as possible. Whether the girl has this in mind or is just following a fad makes no difference. The clothing is designed to have an effect.

That's a ridiculous straw man John. The difference is between 'not hiding' and 'putting on display'.

If a woman is dressed in well fitting clothes that cover them and a man lusts then, yes, he is at fault alone. If a woman wears clothing so tight that she keeps no secrets or so small that she reveals herself anytime she moves then she bears guilt.

Why is that interesting? It seemed to be the general gist of the thread.

My wife and most of the women who have ever talked with me about the subject disagree with you. In fact, I would assert that it is the culture since the sexual revolution that has engrained into young women that they should be lustful like men.

I didn't know men were a different species... but that aside, it has to do with what men and women find attractive about each other. Most of the women I know don't lose control when a man takes his shirt off. I am not ignoring the fact that women are attracted to a man's physique... they were made that way. What I am saying is that their sex drive does operate differently from a man's unless perverted.

The fact that some women have bought into a totally depraved worldview doesn't mean that the basic, natural components of sexuality have changed.

BTW, where does scripture deal with male modesty as pertaining to women?

Please tell me that you aren't asserting that the biblical concept of modesty is meaningless- that post-modern thought has negated all notions that women and men should be conscious of how their appearance effects members of the opposite sex who are not their spouses.

And the issue isn't you... who I presume to be a mature man so much as those who aren't as strong. We all have weaknesses and perhaps being tempted by attractive women in provocative clothing isn't yours. But the fact is that young boys and men and less 'controlled' men who are older might not share your strength.

But isn't it for the weaker ones we are to be concerned? Are you so callous towards other forms of weakness to sin like drunkeness, homosexuality, drug abuse, fits of anger, etc?

 

You're generalizing. Sure there are clothes out there that do that, but there are many that do not. As a father of two teens, they're not difficult to find.

I'd agree with you, but many folks think that anything "not hiding" is "putting on display".

Agreed.

The problem is with the definition of "so tight". There are way too many people who think that any tightness at all is "too tight".

Alas, whenever someone says "lustful" the presumption is that it's a male doing the lusting. Personally, I think that's a stereotype promoted by too many churches, and that needs to change.

I would tend to concur, and that needs to change. Likewise, the past atitude that men lust and can't control themselves also needs to change. The latter stereotype has been allowed for way too long.

Okay, this is where I get to use a stereotype myself. The stereotype of a man at a strip club. What's the man doing? Looking straight ahead, at whatever's on stage. Now, what's the stereotype of a woman at a chippendale club? Yelling catcalls, jumping up and down, etc etc.. Again, those are generalities, but they suggest that women will "lose control" if allowed to.

That would imply that males need not be scripturally modest. I would disagree.

No, not at all. I'm saying that many people don't differentiate between cultural modesty and scriptural modesty. There's an abundant number of people who think that bare kneecaps are a sin.

And I think they need to be taught in the church that they are to make use of the spiritual fruit of self control (something that too few churches teach these days).

Not at all. Again, I point to the need to teach self control. It's not society's fault that a man gets drunk/angry/promiscuous/high, it's his own. Should society's acceptance of such things be trivialized? Of course not. But neither should a person's responsibility for his/her own actions.

 

After your last response... I am not sure how I thought we disagreed.

 

I disagree.... just kidding

 

Here's something I found on a message board I thought to be interresting:

"Someone objected to men wearing skirts on the basis of Deuteronomy 22 which speaks of neither men nor women putting on something that identifies the other sex, or the work of the other sex. It is good to be careful in that area, but one can not possibly support the position that skirts are exclusively female in nature any more than one can support pants as being exclusively male. Here are the relevant comments from Barnes:

"Deu 22:5 - The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,.... It being very unseemly and impudent, and contrary to the modesty of her sex; or there shall not be upon her any "instrument of a man" (f), any utensil of his which he makes use of in his trade and business; as if she was employed in it, when her business was not to do the work of men, but to take care of her house and family; and so this law may be opposed to the customs of the Egyptians, as is thought, from whom the Israelites were lately come; whose women, as Herodotus (g) relates, used to trade and merchandise abroad, while the men kept at home; and the word also signifies armour (h), as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides (i) illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus (k) explains it,"take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman;''nor is he to be found fault with so much as he is by a learned writer (l), since he does not restrain it wholly to war, though he thinks it may have a special regard to that; for no doubt the law respects the times of peace as well as war, in neither of which such a practice should obtain: but the Targum of Jonathan very wrongly limits it to the wearing fringed garments, and to phylacteries, which belonged to men:

neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; which would betray effeminacy and softness unbecoming men, and would lead the way to many impurities, by giving an opportunity of mixing with women, and so to commit fornication and adultery with them; to prevent which and to preserve chastity this law seems to be made; and since in nature a difference of sexes is made, it is proper and necessary that this should be known by difference of dress, or otherwise many evils might follow; and this precept is agreeably to the law and light of nature: it is observed by an Heathen writer (m), that there is a twofold distribution of the law, the one written, the other not written; what we use in civil things is written, what is from nature and use is unwritten, as to walk naked in the market, or to put on a woman's garment: and change of the clothes of sexes was used among the Heathens by way of punishment, as of the soldiers that deserted, and of adulteresses (n); so abominable was it accounted: indeed it may be lawful in some cases, where life is in danger, to escape that, and provided chastity is preserved:"

It is obvious that one can extract neither a 'no pants' nor a 'no skirts' doctrine from that text. What we have here is cultural, not Biblical, constraint.

Bob Moore
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Bob Moore
Visit Bob Moore's homepage!
Find all posts by Bob Moore
Bless Bob Moore now
View or write in Bob Moore's Guestbook
Add to Bob Moore's Reputation
Add Bob Moore to your Buddy List

#22 17th December 2003, 10:10 AM


tiuliucci


Junior Member
Blessings: 44
Reputation: 11
Posts: 18

Skirts for Men


In today's society, there is no piece of clothing that is not for women. Women wear every piece of clothing that men wear. Women also exclusively wear clothing that used to be worn by men.

Men wore short skirts before women. Men wore stockings before women. Men wore high heeled shoes before women. The next time that you judge what is masculine or feminine think about the fact that pink used to be a man's color and a pirate never felt self-concious about wearing frilly shirts.

Also, the Ancient Israelites wore robe, both male and female, during the time that Dueteronomy was written. The rule that men and women cannot wear each other's clothing did not restrict dresses or pants.

Take care,
Troy"

 

That's it! I'm investing in kilts!

 

I guess it shows that tacky has no social boundaries ...

 

I noticed at the end of the California President Reagan Memorial/Burial a masculine individual played the bagpipes rendition of "Amazing Grace".

He wore a beautiful plaid kilt.

HankD

 

I wasn't aware that nakedness was a disease. That's like saying there's a "cure" for baldness. That implies baldness is an illness, which it certainly is not. Baldness and nakedness are simply conditions.

Though I have a full head of hair, baldness is great, if you look at it properly.

Likewise, nakedness is also great, when it's in the appropriate situation (as in, the privacy of your own home, in the shower, in a steam room, with a spouse, etc etc). </font>[/QUOTE]Johnny V, your reasoning sounds a bit like the zonked-out hippy whose girlfriend was a prostitute but he considered her a virgin. Where your train goes is the denial of the possibility for objective truth.

 

JohnV, I've agreed with most of what you've said on this thread except for this. As a woman, I would say this is not losing control -- it's more the way women "have fun" and bond when they are trying to let loose. I am not saying this is always a good thing (depends on the situation although catcalls are out) but it's not really losing control. I think when women do this, they are trying to show each other that they can have a good time by jumping up and down and yelling, etc. ("good time" being defined in their terms). It's more a social thing than a lust thing. I am also not saying that some women doing this are not lusting, but women as far as I know just don't have a problem with lust the same way men do. We are just made differently.

 

JohnV, I've agreed with most of what you've said on this thread except for this. As a woman, I would say this is not losing control -- it's more the way women "have fun" and bond when they are trying to let loose. I am not saying this is always a good thing (depends on the situation although catcalls are out) but it's not really losing control. I think when women do this, they are trying to show each other that they can have a good time by jumping up and down and yelling, etc. ("good time" being defined in their terms). It's more a social thing than a lust thing. I am also not saying that some women doing this are not lusting, but women as far as I know just don't have a problem with lust the same way men do. We are just made differently. </font>[/QUOTE]Hogwash, you just don't understand what the word lust means? Of course women lust but they just have different lusts than men. Lust simply means desire. James tells us that we sin when our desires are formed and lead us into sin.

 

Marcia: I've bonded with a lot of women, but I've never had to go watch the Chippendales' to do it.

As a Christian, the behavior suggested in your last post is inexcusable...

 

Aaack! I'm being misunderstood.

I Am Blessed and Paidagogs, I did NOT suggest it was okay to go to a male strip show!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was trying to point out that I think it is different when women go to one vs when men go to a female strip show (not that some women might not be lusting). &lt;edited after several requests&gt; It's a known fact that most porn addicts, internet and otherwise, are men.

Am I out of the frying pan now?

[ August 29, 2004, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

...........and this is a "Christian" board?