Her.meneutics: Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue?

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

email to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« The Secret (Moral) Life of Babies | Main | Adultery: My Genes Made Me Do It »

May 18, 2010

Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue?

Scripture suggests that modesty means more than keeping the right parts covered.

Katelyn Beaty

About this time four years ago, Calvin College students, ready to enjoy the long-absent Michigan sun, spent hours each day on the campus lawn, “studying” for finals and playing Ultimate Frisbee until dusk. Calvin, affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church (and — I must say — a contender for the “Christian Harvard” label long held by Wheaton College), has no written policies on student clothing, though staff and students have debated that decision. But as tank tops and skirts began appearing on campus every spring, RAs and staff would somberly remind female students to mind our hem- and necklines, lest we let a brother stumble. “Women don’t realize how visually wired men are,” the reasoning went. “We shouldn’t wear things that lead their minds to impure places.”

Sexual immorality, of course, is a serious matter, Scripture attests, and research abounds on real chemical differences between men’s and women’s brains. Further, a thriving Christian community requires its members to think beyond their own preferences, about how personal decisions impact others. But, as I watched hoards of my male peers bounding across the lawn wearing nothing but flimsy track shorts — think Juno’s Paulie Bleeker — I wondered if they had received any wisdom or direction about their dress. Is modesty a virtue only for women?

This question arose in a personal way this Easter, which is a days-long celebration at the church I attend. A single friend asked if he could sleep on my roommate’s couch one night to avoid driving 45 minutes home late Saturday and coming back early Sunday. I obliged, seeing the setup through a logistical lens. We talked a bit Saturday night before heading to our respective rooms, my conscience undisturbed. On Sunday morning, I tiptoed past the sleeping friend to the kitchen. He, likely not thinking twice, soon entered the kitchen shirtless, wearing boxer shorts — and he went on to engage me like he might have while wearing khakis and a sport coat. Blushing and baffled by his nonchalance, I had to consciously “bounce my eyes.”

The Greek translation of modesty (kosmios) means roughly “orderly” or “proper,” and the word appears only once in Scripture, in Paul’s first letter to Timothy: “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes . . .” (2:9). 1 Peter 3:3-4 includes a similar message, that women should adorn themselves with a gentle spirit instead of fancy jewelry and clothing. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul also addresses head coverings, an important topic given first-century Mideast cultural attitudes about women’s hair (the essence of female beauty, and thus primarily meant for husbands’ viewing; some Christian women cover their heads today). But these verses suggest that modesty is not just about quelling sexual temptation. Modesty is also about viewing ourselves humbly and dressing accordingly, refraining from using clothing (or the lack thereof) to draw attention to ourselves and boost self-esteem.

As an NPR broadcast last week noted, modesty is considered a virtue for both women and men in many religious traditions, including in some Anabaptist, Pentecostal, and Catholic streams of Christianity. The Washington Post’s Sally Quinn explained the Jewish embrace of modesty: “[T]he idea is to humble yourself before God, and the men wear yarmulkes. The women will cover their heads. It's a lot about covering your hair, and the idea being that . . . you’re showing humility, that God is the only one that we praise, and therefore we need to show in a way that we are human.” A listener e-mailed explaining his Quaker community’s reason for dressing simply: “Tradition and Scripture play a role in our community’s decision to return to plain dress, but . . . it is mostly a nod to the necessity of humility before God and to present ourselves before others as servants of God.” This reasoning is surely one both Christian men and women can support, though not all will express it by wearing yarmulkes or bonnets.

Thinking back to the scenario with my friend, I’m a bit perturbed. I cannot blame his lack of dress on the church writ large. For all I know, he was half-asleep. But I can connect his seeming naivete about his appearance to the (here comes the loaded phrase) double standard in how many Christian communities talk about modesty. While parents, youth pastors, and college staff spend much energy monitoring young women’s clothing choices, young men are given few resources to think about how they present themselves, and how they might let a sister stumble. And I have yet to hear any Christian teaching on modesty as more than “covered up in all the right places.” Before young women face undue pressure to monitor their male peers’ sexual purity, Christian communities ought to provide a biblical context for why we pursue modesty in the first place — and make sure both men and women get the message.

Is modesty presented as a female-only virtue in your circles? Should it be? Should modesty be taught differently based on gender?

Comments

I think that there is a very strong double-standard in modesty between the sexes. Just because men are more visually-based than women, on average, doesn't mean that women can't fall prey to the same temptations. I myself am an artist/writer, which means that I look, look, look. At everything. And seeing a half-naked man running around my apartment would pose some problems for me as well!

I don't think that the standards should be any higher or lower, based on gender, but each gender should be given a very clear view of what can be taken as inappropriate in their own choices of attire.

I agree that there is a double-standard. About a week ago there was a very long discussion on FOTF Boundless site about women and pornography. Women may not be as visually-sensitive as men, but there have been plenty of times when I've had to turn away from a man who just had his shirt unbuttoned---maybe I was just "mid-cycle" at the time.

I think that there is definitely a double standard. Women have eyes as well as men, and they are physically attracted to the opposite sex as well as men too. What woman wants to turn her eyes away from a gorgeous, shirtless man? I've certainly never met such a woman!

Great piece. But why is it stuck in the women's blog?

The lack of attention to the issue on the male side of things causes many, many problems for those of us who struggle with homosexuality and their faith. I think it is remiss and appalling of the church to continue to perpetuate this double standard.

I'm usually a pretty modest person for a guy. So I would say no it's not female only.

When I was growing up, the modesty standard was applied to both males and females. I sought to pass this on to my own sons, since I did not have any daughters. They weren't allowed to wear their "pants on the ground" as the saying goes. However, when I started working in an emergent church, I was told my modest dress was inappropriate. I needed to dress more edgy and loosely to make the non-Christian visitors know how cool we are and that they would fit in at our church. So I basically think this is not so much a unfair issue applied just to women, but an overall lapse in our morality and purity that has occurred over the years most likely since the 60's revolution. All of us need to wise up and do a little more reading in Proverbs. I think as women we need to walk as girls gone wise not girls gone wild. The same applies for men, but getting upset over an unfair standard does not help our focus. If you see a Christian brother dressing in a way that offends you or puts your mind in the gutter, say something! And tell him to do the same.
Which leads me to this observation...and this may come from the mother of boys side of me...Katelyn, why didn't you just say, "Buddy go put some pants on!" Ignoring the situation just implies silent approval. And yes, hind sight is always keener.

As I read through this article, it really had me think about situations I've been in when my brothers weren't modest... I think the most difficult times I've had with my brothers' immodesty was not just with their clothing or lack thereof, but rather their lack of modesty in their words and actions toward me... they seemed to careless about what they did or said. I am unmarried, but we should be treating our brothers and sisters as if they are all married, giving them no reason to stumble in anyway. That means, wear appropriate clothing and be careful what you say and do around each other to be sure to present yourselves as holy children of God.

Katelyn,
Thanks for posting this articulate and thoughtful article. I think the reason the lesson of modesty is enforced on women and girls is because of the assumption that men are more visual than women. There is actually new research that suggests that women--because of the internet and computer-focused age we're in--are now equally visually oriented as men. This really does change the dynamics of why we need modesty and who the message should be geared for. Thanks for opening the conversation up!

Some young men - Christian or not - are brutes and boors. It is the responsibility of more mature men in society and church to teach them otherwise.

In another blog post, Lindsey Learn quotes Marnie Ferree's research: "Advances in neuroscience indicate that our media-driven culture is literally altering the human brain—and not just men’s. Today’s young women seem equally visually oriented." http://blog.kyria.com/2010/02/women_and_porn.html

I think both young men and women need to be taught modesty at home and in the church. Hopefully, the changing realities of our culture will cause Christians to have a more complete view of modesty as a virtue for both genders. And we, as women, need to be as guarded about what we let into our eyesight as we've been taught to be about how we dress.

Katelyn,

I believe that we do have to reimagine how we talk about and view modesty. It is a much deeper and nuanced than it is often represented. This article is well-written and considerate. The burden is on all of us to be humble and to consider others in every sphere, not just the women.

Ironically, on the Calvin College track & field team the men have the modest dress code while the women wear what is more common in the sport... spandex.

I've never seen anyone provide any credible scientific proof for the christian mantra of "men are more visual than women." It seems to be one of those lazy examples where people simply repeat what they've heard without anyone ever asking for proof. In fact, there is actual evidence that men are LESS visual than women -- males are much more likely to be color blind, they are much less likely to notice simple visual cues. Ask any woman who notices things like

What people really mean when they make such a claim is not that men are more visual, but simply than men are more likely to *sexualize* visual things. But, of course, it's not simply visual things -- men are also much more likely to sexualize virtually everything. That include sexualizing touch (thus, spectacles like the Christian side hug) and to sexualize eye contact and to sexualize children and to sexualize animals on and on the list goes.

I suspect the plea of "men are more visual!" was simply made up in order to lend some sort of rationalization to their own failure to control their behavior. "God made me this way!" "I can't help it. I'm hardwired like this!"

So-called "body modesty" cannot be solely a female virtue. If one studies historical swimsuit design, things can get rather funny. Even today, in many places the male standard is loose trunks.

Another way to look at it is the Old Testament terminology. At the end of Genesis 3 we have a clue; Adam and Eve were nude and "not ashamed". If one examines that one word "ashamed," one finds a very important meaning: "distracted". I suggest that it is this meaning which is key to our relationship with God and our brothers and sisters.

We need clothes, because if we don't wear them, we will distract all from anything which is good. The only One truly good, according to the Lord Jesus, is God Himself.

It is male and female, man and woman, boy and girl. Obviously, many have not been taught.

As an artist with a degree in sociology, my observation is that modesty is relative, and that modesty can be very sexy, but from some, not always in a socially healthy way sexy. We're complex creatures...and that's what one could predict.

Bleaker at least had the decency to wear a T-shirt. :) But, seriously, I do sometimes wonder why guys go around shirtless and never think twice about it when it's illegal in most states for women to do that.

I also think it's kind of unfair to say Christian teaching on modesty only extends to "covered up in all the right places," though. Many Christians I know talk a fair amount about struggling with thinking too highly of themselves, or drawing attention to themselves. (Sometimes so much it's annoying.) They don't use the word "modest" (sometimes they use "humble" or "humility") but the concept is there-even if it's not mentioned related to dress.

You may all be happy to try to explain that there are no differences in men and women and therefore, they should react just as you do, but you forget one not so minor detail, and that is that men have a LOT more testosterone than women do. It doesn't give men an excuse to act offensively or illegally, but it DOES make men act differently than women. Praise God that men DO act differently, and they are created the way that God intended. Suggest you check out endocrinology.

Barbara, how is this related to modesty?

Barbara - I'm not sure what your overall point is. Nobody is saying there are NO differences between men and women. Rather, the writer of this article is pointing out that this one apparent "difference" may have been artificially constructed. How do you explain women that are visually attracted to men, even if you are not? The growing concern of women and pornography? The growth of a visually stimulated culture that consists of both men and women?

No doubt women are expected to wear less and men more. Take a look at the swimwear trends for women (one pieces with high cut hips or bikinis) and compare it with American men who are expected to wear swim trunks down to their knees. (except if you're on the swim team)

Another observation that I can make is what can be found in many contemporary churches today where casual dress is the norm. I remember visiting a very large midwest megachurch years ago during the summer time I could recall seeing a number of women in shorts that made me believe that daisy duke and her relatives were visiting. It's one thing to see these types of clothing outside the church but viewing them inside may be a little unsettling for many men.

Yes there is a double standard. But what are we supposed to do about it and what can we except other to do? The principles that we want cannot be transferred by telepathy. Everyone has a different standard of what is 'modest'. Must we expect everyone to conform their dress to our weaknesses? Should there be no mixed bathing? Should we post 'modesty clauses' in the church bylaws or have men and women pass 'modesty checks' before entering the church or attending church events?

Allow me to reword my last paragraph.. If we want there to be modesty in the church and among its people we have to make it clear to all. I know that this seems uncomfortable for those who consider themselves 'Evangelical' because this sounds like legalism or something darn close to it. Since modesty is often relative there must some agreed upon criteria for both genders. Maybe our fundamentalist counterparts have something valid here? Maybe?

P, I think Barbara was answering Kathleen. Her comment was fair. There are definite differences. This may affect the way modesty is viewed. Frankly, for men its not just a head issue or a battle in the mind. A man may respond physically and/or mentally while for a woman it is mainly a struggle with the mind. This doesn't condone immodest dress for either males or females.
Basil, I don't think Paul was being legalistic in 1 Timothy when he urges us to set an example in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. Paul was also not afraid to get specific in how one should dress. There must have been a problem regarding dress in the church that Timothy pastored. He points out that the law is not for the righteous, but for the unrighteous. We have become so afraid of offending the unrighteous that we walk like them talk like them and dress like them so they will come back again next Sunday.

I'd suggest that women speak out when you are offended by the way men are dressing and invite them to do the same. I overheard a couple talking behind me at a little league game. She was thanking the male for telling her that her dress that day bothered him. She said, "I didn't realize this upset you." Maybe that is the kind of communication we need more of between brothers and sisters in Christ. Not a list of rules but speaking in truth and love to one another. The question will then be, how will you respond to it? Will you rebel or try to adjust your own walk?

My question is related but not necessarily "on topic." I agree with Basil that people disagree on what is considered "modest" or not. Does it make any difference how the woman in question is "built" physically?

Here's what I mean: a woman that wears a relatively tight shirt or v-neck shirt may look slutty or relatively modest depending on her upper body size. (Trying to be discreet in my wording here.) Some authors who talk to women about modesty set down "rules": no halter tops, no spaghetti straps, no strapless dresses/shirts, etc. (Which smacks of legalism, really.) But to me, a spaghetti strap shirt (depending on the cut, of course) may not be sexually provocative on a smaller chested woman, whereas the same shirt on a larger chested woman may be very provocative.

The same goes for a guy going shirtless. One guy may not attract any attention to himself by not wearing his shirt at the beach; another might attract a ton of attention. Why? Depending on how the guy is "built": is he average? overweight? extremely muscular and fit?

A second thought I'd like to add. When I read about men being visual and how women shouldn't be a stumbling block by dressing immodestly, I tend to feel as though I am being made to feel RESPONSIBLE for their lustful thoughts/actions.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be a problem for my brothers in Christ; I won't wear skanky or slutty looking clothing, I try to dress appropriately for the environment I'll be in, and I do want to be an example of purity for others. But I don't want to feel that if I wear something that looks attractive/modest on me and yet doesn't meet the "rules" of the modesty gurus that I am to blame for causing a guy problems in the lust-department.

The cultural context of Paul's 'house codes' for women dressing modestly was focused on the excessive use of makeup, jewelry and perfume but not on the lack or clothing. In his letters I believe that Paul was driving home his idea of the 'new community' of slave-free male-female all are one in Christ model. Yet apart from the issue here (modesty and gender) we must also look at modesty in terms of making distinctions between classes of people. Not everyone can afford a good suit or a nice dress yet many people go to church to see and be seen. Excessive use of perfume or cologne can also be exercises in poor modesty. I have found myself on occasion moving away from a person in church because the amount of perfume they were wearing was giving me a headache. Or how about makeup? Was poor Tammy Fae being modest?

My comments about establishing rules regarding modesty was not meant to be terribly sarcastic. We have to ask the question "If we want a community that exercises modesty then shouldn't we establish codes of conduct rather than have guessing games? Again maybe here our more fundamentalist brothers and sisters have a point here.

Excellent article and interesting comments.

Like many "issues," the core is the attitude of the heart. Why does someone dress a certain way? Modesty is not a list of rules regarding skirt length and not going shirtless. It is an attitude. If the heart is right, the actions will be right. If modesty is truly about not wanting to call undue attention to oneself, then the clothing will reflect that. Women dress provacatively to get attention. I did when I was a young woman. I wanted to be admired and liked by young men. I was too focused on trying to catch a mate. Had my proper focus been on serving God and acting with humility, my clothing would have been more modest. If we want to change behavior, we must also seek to change hearts. If we simply lay down a list of laws, we are likely to fail in our ultimate goal of spurring one another on toward maturity in Christ even if we succeed in causing shorts hems to lengthen.

This is a really significant topic, as the 'double standard' in both dress and language has been perpetuated for a long time. Our thoughts for singles need to focus on their faithfulness to a future spouse, not just their current status. One day, when they meet the person who makes them feel like they are SO worth their commitment, it will be powerful to be able to say that they have been careful and waiting since the moment they realized how important it would be to that person!
sjh

I recently returned from a time in an Islamic culture. As a guy, physical modesty was just part of life. We never uncovered completely while showering or at any time, really. Even while swimming we needed to wear a t-shirt or at least a sleeveless t-shirt (in addition to shorts). Women would always have their upper arms covered (and non-low necklines) and skirts or pants went below the knees. Interestingly enough, it's not an issue. It's just what you do. Here in the States, there is so much focus on the edges of what is called modest (a kind of brinksmanship) that we lose track of the whole point, which was at least implied by a number of writers: What are we communicating by our dress or other behavior? How does it honor God? How does it fit with his character? Are we a distraction, one way or the other? Moderation in all things? What does that mean? Where is a viewer's attention focused?We're so strongly sold on the fashions of the day that emphasize self-expression at the expense of other priorities, that we lose sight of what we should be about as followers of Jesus. Not to mention good taste--why make yourself into a "muffin top"? (where clothes are so tight that you hang over the waistline of your pants)? A key issue in dressing, by either sex, is wanting approval and doing whatever it takes to get it. Where do we get our significance? Whose approval is most important? What is that approval based upon?

ibrow, I wonder what you mean by this: "A man may respond physically and/or mentally while for a woman it is mainly a struggle with the mind."

I know this wasn't the central point of your post, but I think this statement is entirely inaccurate. We women get physically aroused, too, it's just not as easy for someone outside of our body to notice.

This generated an interesting discussion with my 11th graders at Logos School. Thanks!

Genesis 3:21 (Amplified Bible)
21For Adam also and for his wife the Lord God made long coats (tunics) of skins and clothed them.

Men and women are different. Most of the people with a pornography problem, most of the people buying porn magazines are clearly men. Yes, some women do consume these things. I mean PlayGirl never went as far as PlayBoy, even in a feminist age. Outside the Western world, people aren't obsessed at trying to make women exactly the same as men. I'd venture to guess that most of the women into porn are looking at other women, not men.
How consumes romance novels? I never really saw any guys into much of that stuff. It's a kind of idolatry of human relationships, not cherishing marriage. How many garage sales have you been to and saw the woman with with several tables of hundreds of romance novels? I can't recall seeing a guy do that with his own books.
In conclusion we just have to be aware of what is insensitive towards others, instead of listening to too much mainstream media.

God sent me to Mongolia where it is generally too cold for anyone to think about being immodest. If you have problems with immodesty (voyeur or provocateur), I suggest you think about being a missionary to some place like Far East Russia, say Sakha Republic--problem solved.

Info Warrior,

Good insights!

"Men and women are different....How consumes romance novels? I never really saw any guys into much of that stuff."

But see this is exactly the kind of gender generalization that a lot of woman struggle against. You have given the example that men and women are different because women read romance novels and men don't. So somehow romance novels are connected with femininity - otherwise men would be interested in them too, right? Newsflash: there are millions of women, including myself, who are as uninterested in, and maybe even as disgusted by, romance novels as men are. Are we not feminine? The truth is, there is a myriad of differences amongst women. So much so that one particular woman's interests and attitudes may align more with another particular man's, while she might be like and night day compared to another particular woman.

Furthermore, not only do you identify romance-novel reading as a difference that distinguishes women from men, but then you proceed to PUT DOWN that difference, stating that is a kind of "idolatry" (not that I disagree with you on the idolatry part, but more on that later). So is this difference good or bad? If it's bad, then we should get rid of it - but then your original premise was that difference is good! Sorry, I'm confused. Your point leaves me, and all women, in a catch-22 - we are expected to like something and yet are criticized for liking that very thing! And this is just a simple example - think about bigger gender generalizations that people might have to face in the workplace, in the church, in a marriage? And it's not just women that are generalized either, I will readily admit that.

Regarding the issue of women idolizing romance novel relationships, you should take a look at the many comments on last month's blog entry on chick flicks vs. action flicks. Apparently both men and women are capable of idolatry, even though you said, "I can't recall seeing a guy do that with his own books."

The ironic thing is, even though I am always quick to point out gender generalizations, the fact is I do believe men and women are different. However, artificial gender identities only hurt and frustrate people. I can never understand the fear, the distrust, the criticism of seeking to expose and eliminate false gender identities. As Christians don't we want the truth? Don't we want to know how God really made us?

On Earth we may act out specific gender roles, but ultimately (and thankfully) we know that our souls are not gendered, for

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28 NIV)

of course there's a double standard and inconsistency to boot.

I remember being at a church in L.A. that would take the youth group to the beach in the summers.

the girls had to wear one pieces or rash guards surfing shirts or just a big t-shirt over a 2-piece...

nevermind that we were in Huntington Beach in the middle of the summer and half the town walks around naked.

Trust me, none of our boys were looking at any of our girls.

And none of the helicopter moms that came as chaperones were even phased by the girls in the youth group all giggly and chasing after one of the popular boys who walked around without his shirt on the whole time.

one form of going "goo-goo ga-ga" was clearly acceptable, but other forms were not.

it said a lot more about the power of religion shaped gender concepts than any real concern for modesty.

Here's a thought: why is it such a bad thing to be sexually provocative? Because sex is bad??? If Christian girls aren't sexually attractive or at least afraid to show their brothers so, a Christian man will naturally be attracted to girls who aren't afraid to show him why he should be interested. Which is maybe why we're having a bunch of problems with guys wanting to go party downtown on Saturday night, but not expend the effort to get up and go to church on Sunday.

You are right that modesty is a matter of heart than clothes.

Consider the following paradox:
In Arab countries, both men and women wear robes that do not reveal body contours; but there too visual attractions and adulteries exist. On the contrary, some African indigenous tribes do not wear any clothes, but still remain pure at heart.

However, as Christians, we have to be cautious about our clothes, so that we are not stumbling blocks to other's moralities.

Modesty is hard to define, and is more cultural than we like to admit. I visited communities in Mozambique where it was more acceptable for a woman to show her breasts than her knees. (We were asked to cover both). And I understand that in Victorian times even the sight of a woman's ankle was considered titillating.

To me that means that in whatever culture I'm in, I need to step back from the outer bounds of what is acceptable, so that other people with those cultural norms will not find me distracting.

I don't think that the principle or value of modesty should be different for men or for women, but the examples of what modesty looks like may be different, depending on culture.

For i brow:
I beg to differ. Women DO respond physically when viewing a sexually attractive man; we just don't have the "outward" body part that shows it. This is another myth: that women can't be immediately physically turned on by a man. We can, and that's why it's important for men to dress modestly too.

In the sixties there was possibly more legalism regarding modesty. For example, I was staying in a Navigator apartment in 1967, and I put on my Speedo to go to the pool to do some laps (I am a lifelong lap swimmer). There was noone else in the pool, nor was there anyone sitting by it. When I returned to the apartment, one of the women said, "We never swim here. I could never be before a man in a bathing suit." Flash forward: I recently attemded a funeral where two young teenage girls were walking up and down the aisles in spandex "dresses" (long tops?) with no underwear on.
Women-- and men-- receive all kinds of mesages on how to dress. They are to attract the opposite sex, but not go too far. What does that mean in our highly sexualised culture? I don't want to go back to simple legalism, but I really dislike being forced to look at more than I want to of someone's body.
Actually, in the late eighties and early nineties loose shorts without underwear were popular at the university where I was teaching. When I walked into class and saw students spread-legged without thought to what I might see, it took everything I had to keep myself from laughing.

I think Shelly makes a good point as well. We, as women, are given so much responsibility for our Christian brothers' sexual and Christian walks - and I don't see the same responsibility for our well-being put on the men's shoulders. I feel that the church overlooks, not only a modest appearnce for men, but the pressure that many women experience from their male cohorts to look, act or behave in a manner that compromises their Christian values (often innocently).

I also agree that the "men are more visual" is often used carelessly and as an excuse in this regard. While men's sexuality might be more visual, they are the first gatekeepers and have the primarily responsibility for managing it. There are many men who would stumble even if every woman they encountered was dressed in a burka. As a Christian woman, I find that I have enough of my own issues and considerations without being held responsible for the thought life of someone I barely know simply because he was born with a slightly different anatomy.

by Kathleen:
"What people really mean when they make such a claim is not that men are more visual, but simply than men are more likely to *sexualize* visual things. But, of course, it's not simply visual things -- men are also much more likely to sexualize virtually everything. That include sexualizing touch (thus, spectacles like the Christian side hug) and to sexualize eye contact and to sexualize children and to sexualize animals on and on the list goes."

Very true and good point. I'm constantly amazed at men's ability to find something sexual in what appears to me to be the most neutral of settings.

by i brow:
"A man may respond physically and/or mentally while for a woman it is mainly a struggle with the mind."

As a woman, I can most assertively state that you are wrong. The only difference here is that a woman's physical response is less apparent to the public than a man's.

by SH in Indiana:
"Our thoughts for singles need to focus on their faithfulness to a future spouse, not just their current status."

As a single, I can assure you that more church dogma related to how our lives and our existence is primarily centered around "waiting" is not needed. Rather, a focus on the benefit of purity and celibacy NOW (not because we may win some "waiting" lottery sometime in the future). I have watched this type of thought-process encourage a number of people in their mid-30s to do essentially nothing with their lives for 10-15 years for fear that it will not "mesh" with the person that God eventually (hopefully) will "bring" them. That means they've hesitated to jump on career boosts, move to another city, travel, do anything that might increase their earning potential a great deal, take a risk. It also leads to a very passive approach, not just to life, but to finding a mate. Singles should be seen as full, productive Christians and individuals NOW and valued by the church for their current status and gifts. This type of teaching has led to a lot of marginalization within the church for many of us.

Ed and Nadine:
Good posts. I agree entirely.

Jeremy:
"Here's a thought: why is it such a bad thing to be sexually provocative? Because sex is bad??? If Christian girls aren't sexually attractive or at least afraid to show their brothers so, a Christian man will naturally be attracted to girls who aren't afraid to show him why he should be interested. Which is maybe why we're having a bunch of problems with guys wanting to go party downtown on Saturday night, but not expend the effort to get up and go to church on Sunday."

I've often wondered this myself. Isn't attracitveness one of the primary God-created ways to attract a member of the opposite sex? Even the Bible mentions people's attractiveness, as if its of consequence and value. You point out an example of the kind of double bind that many women - particularly Christian women - find themselves in, as Nadine somewhat addressed in her post. I agree with you - I've seen it happen often in my church and contrary to what the naysayers will tell you, those couples (where the men married the more suggestive women rather than the quiet church girls) are not miserable, fighting porn addictions (that we know of), or struggling in their marriages. They seem happy, in love, raising kids, buying a home together, active in church and community, etc (and girls who go this route seem to have a bigger pool of men to choose from, which means they tend to choose better men - better providers, better social skills, more balanced personalities - which leads to a better home life, happier marriage, and emotionally-healthier kids). And I've also noticed the judgment for immodesty in women is far harsher than the judgment for alleged-Christian men who ignore them to pursue less-modest women.

Isn't the bottom line that we are to walk, talk, dress and even think in such a way that is pleasing and glorifying to God? Won't everything else fall in place if we strive to do this? Doesn't this apply to both women and men? What do we accomplish by whining and saying "no fair!" and give us equal treatment! And I do too have reactions even if it is not an erection! Whiny women do not please God! This is a short life. We enjoy far more freedom than our sisters in some countries. You can go to church without a veil over your face. You can waste eons of time getting all bent out of shape over unfair treatment between the sexes or you can live your life with an eternal perspective. What you do in the now affects eternity. Why worry over such things as these?

I have been studying this issue myself, for quite some time. I find it interesting, that though we are not under the Law, no one seems to know what Bible principles to apply to this question. We all seem to be stuck on feelings, culture, or rationalization.

There is a huuuuuge double standard. In fact, that's how I found this post. I was searching "man's responsibility in modesty." Who got this idea that girls wern't attracted to handsome and shirtless men? Who first said that couldn't be distracting to a girl!?

I know some very great Christian young men who are all for guarding thier eyes and respecting women and all, but one of those very guys has numerously taken off his shirt in my presence. He wants girls to dress modestly and takes his responsibility seriously, but he doesn't realize he needs to be careful around girls. I wasn't going on fantasizing but it did force me to "bounce my eyes."

Another example? At my Christian school there could not possibly be more "ado" made over what the girls wear - especially during gym class! Well, (thankfully the uniform has changed) the boy's uniform included a green polo and sweat-pant material shorts (no more that 2 inches above or below the knee). Sound harmless? Eh...those shorts could be very "hugging" in the private area for the guys. If I was sitting at a desk and a guy came over I immediately had to look up to their faces because what was at eye-level was distracting (not to mention on some guys simply gross).

No teacher's cared if the boy's shorts were too tight but ooooh no if a girl's were? Ha! talk about a lecture on modesty for every girl in the room.

I think girls definately need to dress modestly, but hey! guys! us girls think your attractive, be careful what you wear!

This is a very interesting and refreshing article. I find it interesting because there was a time when even within the the Church body, members of the church organization with which i am affiliated were laughed at and mocked for our position on modest dressing - both for men and women. Granted we may have been a little strict in the standards we upheld, but we believed in and practiced modesty long before it became a necessity in Christendom, so i am very pleased to see a call for modesty being heralded in this pseudo-liberal Christian news-paper. The reason for this call to modesty comes in the wake of christians being seen as being now different in dress and behavior from the unsaved. While I do not advocate legalism, i believe that our manner of dress usually dictate our behavior. When we dress loose and wanton, we act loose and wanton (a state of the mind, actually), when we dress modestly, we tend to act with more decorum which rightly reflects the godliness that the our Lord exhorts us to display to a watching world.

Speaking as a grandmother, I have always had a rule that if the girls have to wear tops, the boys have to wear tops. And the girls definitely have to wear tops. So when my grandson came out in his BVDs, I said something about "In my house..." ever since his mom says he has decided he likes his pjs.
Sometimes a few words go a long ways.

When asked to define "pornography" one member of a committee investigating the subject is said to have remarked that even though he could not define it he knew it when he saw it.

Modesty is hard to define because it has spiritual, social cultural, personal and geographical dimensions. However, I think we all recognise it when we see it.

In 1 Timothy 2 Paul explains that modesty has to do with decency and propriety. He also links it to extravagance and ostentation, but he says nothing about men.

Am I responsible for how someone else views me, or that some male or female sees me as a turn on? Obviously not!

Nevertheless, I believe there is a difference for the believer in Christ between being attractively dressed and being provocatively dressed. I also believe that wise, well-intentioned people know the difference.

Finally, we all should endeavor to control our environment wherever possible in order to keep our minds and hearts pure.

For example, if as a female I am tempted to lust at a male swimmer in his brief swim trunks, I have at least two options, either bring my desire(s) under control or find another sport to watch. The same goes for the believing brother who uses female sports, beauty contests, cheer-leading etc. as an excuse to indulge his own lusts.

Paul gives some other good advice when he says that the "men should view the younger women as sisters and the older women as mothers, and the women should view the younger men as brothers, and the older men as fathers". This (in my view) applies to whatever state of dress or undress they are in.

If that does not help, I'm really not sure what will!

Very interesting and funny...
I think that modesty is NOT a virtue only for women, and it is not only how you dressed, but also how you speak (loud? this is no modesty), hoe you eat (fast and loud - no modesty..how you introduce yourself and others, how you are talking on others... and so on. Thank you for bringing this topic, this is very important, especially those days when everyone highlight himself.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue?

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue?

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives