Modesty Myth

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by Ferd

The Brat struck again. Well said Mrs. Brattified!


At the end of the day, Christians do not have the luxury of walking thru this world unattached to those around us. We are called to win the lost to Christ, and within the body to be connected to the, part of the body. You cannot be part of the body and not be concerned with the other parts.

I must consider the effect my actions have on those around me. When I fail ( and boy have I failed), the impact is not to me alone. So it is with how we dress and behave.

[J4Truth]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

IMO:

No, a woman is not directly responsible for a man's lust, but she is responsible to God for her own licentious behavior. God will hold the man responsible for not keeping his thoughts and actions in subjection and He will also hold the woman responsible for her immodesty. Ergo, while one may not be culpable for the sins of another, they are still responsible for their own sins, and immodesty is ungodly.

In our teen class, we recently talked about the works of the flesh, and I found this definition of "lascivious" to be interesting:

las·civ·i·ous
adjective
1.inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd: a lascivious, girl-chasing old man.
2.arousing sexual desire: lascivious photographs.
3.indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness: a lascivious gesture.

This definition has lasciviousness working from any direction; it can be lusting, and it can be inciting lust. It can be indicating or expressing lust, or having an inclination toward lascivious behavior.

The linked article is a trite, cursory commentary on the issue of modesty, and fairly unimpressive.

While I don't think we are directly responsible for the sins of other people, it would also be shortsighted (not to mention unbiblical) to think we lack the ability to cause our brothers to stumble. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the actions of another person--even when wrong--don't excuse our own sins. Ergo, a woman dressing immodestly does not excuse the sinful thoughts of a man, but God won't excuse her either.

There is no myth about modesty. God expects women to be modest in their dress.

I Timothy 2:9-10 - with Greek definitions

"In like manner also, that women adorn [put in proper order, decorate, garnish, trim]
themselves in modest [orderly, decorous, of good behavior, well arranged, seemly, modest]
apparel [costume, apparel, a lowering/letting down, a garment let down, dress, attire],
with shamefacedness [(through the idea of downcast eyes) bashfulness (toward men), modesty or awe (towards God), reverence, regard for others, respect]
and sobriety [soundness of mind, sanity or self-control],
not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

This passage addresses outward--appearance, actions and words. A godly woman wears modest dress, is sober, has self-control, is orderly, bashful toward men, has regard for others, and does good works--among other things.

I have to agree with what you said here. Even though many are for or against certain standards, I feel that the heart of standards regarding clothing is simply trying to define modesty of dress in our present day culture.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by J4Truth

I have to agree with what you said here. Even though many are for or against certain standards, I feel that the heart of standards regarding clothing is simply trying to define modesty of dress in our present day culture.

Agreed. The specifics of what comprises "modesty" or "modest apparel" can be discussed and debated, but the idea that women should be modest shouldn't be up for debate; it's purely biblical.

IF there is a myth about modesty, it might be this: If all women are modest, men will be lust-free. Perhaps that's what the author intended to say, but she didn't actually bring out that point.

[tv1a]

Glad someone noticed the comments were from the good old boys. No one can serious suggest people should be immodest. The author states that explicitly.

Studies shows there isn't much difference in sexual activities between sinners and saints.

The weaker brother card can be played only so long. Paul didn't have the weaker principle in mind when he calles out Peter's hypocrisy dealing with the Gentiles with jews present.

Originally Posted by crakjak

The comments below her blog are primarily men!! LOL

Men who most likely haven't dealt with their responsibility to know the difference between healthy sexual attraction and lust!!

Of course, women have a responsibility to dress modestly! However, that is hard to define without ending up trying to make folks holy by decree, instead of maturity!!

Both have very serious responsibility!!! Men that cannot stay off of porn sites, will not be able to avoid lusting, no matter what the ladies wear!!!

[tv1a]

The author pointed out modesty was necessary. The author says the focus is wrong. The focus should be on the men lookong at the women.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Agreed. The specifics of what comprises "modesty" or "modest apparel" can be discussed and debated, but the idea that women should be modest shouldn't be up for debate; it's purely biblical.

IF there is a myth about modesty, it might be this: If all women are modest, men will be lust-free. Perhaps that's what the author intended to say, but she didn't actually bring out that point.

[endtimer]

While an immodestly dressed woman can potentially incite lust in a man, does she not have a responsibility to point to God by her actions rather than seek attention for herself? I believe feminine immodesty speaks to the lust of the eye for men and it speaks to the pride of life for women.
Immodesty is an equal opportunity sin folks.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Glad someone noticed the comments were from the good old boys. No one can serious suggest people should be immodest. The author states that explicitly.

Studies shows there isn't much difference in sexual activities between sinners and saints.

The weaker brother card can be played only so long. Paul didn't have the weaker principle in mind when he calles out Peter's hypocrisy dealing with the Gentiles with jews present.

tv1a,

Some of the comments under Emily's post are far more in depth than the post itself. I'm not sure why you seem intent on marginalizing the male perspective; this is an issue on which we need to hear from both sides of the gender aisle.

The weaker brother concept isn't a "card" to be played, although some people may well do just that. It is a part of scripture and therefore can't be discounted so easily. Paul's point was that our personal liberties should not be more important to us than the wellbeing of a fellow Christian.

Also, I completely disagree with Emily's trite defining of "lust." She says,

"Let me explain: I propose we’ve lost sight of what lust actually is.

In fact, we have confused biological sexual attraction with lust and called it sin. This is one reason why shame is so rampant in Christian circles, why we hide rather than confess our reality, why we try to control rather than offer each other the open love and freedom of Christ: We have made into sin something that is not sin.

God created you to desire another person for affection, intimacy and relationship!

Being physically attracted to someone is not lust.

Wanting to kiss someone is not lust.

Enjoying kissing someone is not lust.

Those desires can be a catalyst for lust, but in themselves, they are morally neutral, God-created, biological and chemical reactions. Your body recognizing sexual compatibility with another person is not inherently evil."

There are two problems here:

1. the idea that lust in and of itself is sinful, and
2. the idea that lust is somehow separate from sexual attraction.

Lust is sinful when it is excessive or misdirected; not in general. And really--wanting to kiss someone isn't "lust?" LOL!!!! Naiveté at work there....

The definition of "lust after", from the Greek: to set the heart upon, long for (rightfully or otherwise): --covet, desire, would fain, to turn upon a thing, to have a desire for, long for

I'm sure we can all agree that there are appropriate times for "lust" without having to go into great detail. I would certainly include the desire to kiss someone in the "lust" category.

I Corinthians 10:6 says, "Now these things were examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things...."

Emily goes to some effort to make biological sexual attraction innocent and lust sinful and the two mutually exclusive. In fact the two are one and the same, pretty much. Lust is simply another word for desire; it isn't inherently evil, unless one is desiring what one shouldn't have.

It seems to me that with these reframed definitions, Emily is making room for people to feel sexually attracted to one another and not call it lust. Ergo, you can dress in a way that invites "biological sexual attraction" and be free from guilt. While I agree that men are going to be sexually attracted to women even when they are modestly dressed and deported, I cannot agree that this alleviates women from a responsibility to care about how their dress and behavior affects others.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by tv1a

The author pointed out modesty was necessary. The author says the focus is wrong. The focus should be on the men lookong at the women.

I disagree that it's either/or. Men have their struggles; women have theirs. Male attention can be intoxicating for some women, and they can take pleasure in dressing in ways that attract that attention and then shaming men when they stumble. That's not only disrespectful, it's immoral.

This is a two-sided topic. Men are not the only ones at fault here.

[endtimer]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I disagree that it's either/or. Men have their struggles; women have theirs. Male attention can be intoxicating for some women, and they can take pleasure in dressing in ways that attract that attention and then shaming men when they stumble. That's not only disrespectful, it's immoral.

This is a two-sided topic. Men are not the only ones at fault here.

Good post(s). Well said.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I disagree that it's either/or. Men have their struggles; women have theirs. Male attention can be intoxicating for some women, and they can take pleasure in dressing in ways that attract that attention and then shaming men when they stumble. That's not only disrespectful, it's immoral.

This is a two-sided topic. Men are not the only ones at fault here.

Tell it!!