Culture and Modesty

No, it doesn’t. God defined modesty when He made coats to cover Adam and Eve’s nakedness. They were the ones who thought a grass skirt was enough.

Source

[Jim]

Source

I hastily posted this just as dinner guest were arriving at the house just after 5 pm last night.

I was trying to make the point that YES culture does change and to answer the direct question in the first post:

Question: Does culture have any impact on what is modest?

My answer: Absolutely!

I intended to demonstrate that answer by Googling 1920 bathing suits.

This weekend we had a family gathering and went through a bunch of very old photos … grandparents …. etc. Wow how wedding dresses have changed!

Interesting article with photos: 1900’s in fashion

–-

Hey Chip … hah hah hah! Omar the tentmaker does not have enough spandex to make me a bathing suit!

By the way … in the photo above … early form of surf board.

God defines nakedness, not man, not pop culture. It doesn’t matter what Adam and Eve thought nakedness was, God wanted their flesh covered. The admonitions in Scripture about shame and modest apparel also indicate that God expects us to cover up, and it is the depravity of man and the seared conscience that results in cultures where nakedness bears no shame.

Culture changes, God’s principles do not. Therefore, any definition of modesty should be rooted in Scripture.

Why are we always trying to justify taking off more clothes?

As for the illustration of PNG women wearing grass skirts—Do you ever notice in missionary presentations and publications how the women are dressed in clothes and cover their tops? I’ve seen hundreds of presentations and the 3rd world Christians are always clothed in them. I believe the verses that teach that old things are passed away and all things have become new apply here. Have you seen a person that converts from the muslim religion continue in their muslim garb? I have my doubts although I don’t know.

Does God specifically define modesty? No. But He gives us clues when he talks about abstaining from the world, fornication, etc.

Its interesting that Adam and Eve didn’t realize their nakedness until they sinned and so therefore had to be clothed. Our sin natures dictate that we must be clothed and covering our sexual parts. I understand that men are turned on by what they see so therefore it is my responsibility as someone who is trying to follow God’s commands to be holy and to abstain from the flesh to dress in such a way that I will not be the cause of a man having lustful thoughts, ideas, action. I can still dress in clothes that are in the stores now, but I’m going to be very selective to make sure that I am appropriately dressed.

It has always interested me that when you hear about a man raping a woman he doesn’t know, it is usually when the woman is out jogging. Could dress be a reason he gets interested in her? Just wondering.

Think about it this way, if someone see you in a crowd do you look and behave like everyone else or are you resembling Christ? Across the street from Bob Jones is a woman’s shelter for woman who have been on drugs, etc. It is getting increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the BJU students and the women at the shelter and its not because the women at the shelter are dressing better. Its unfortunate that so many Christians do not look or behave any different from their counterparts in the world.

Will the world really miss us when the rapture takes place? And I don’t mean just in dress.

Thanks for the clarification. I’m sorry for my misunderstanding.

In light of your response to me, I’ve been thinking about this further. I would think it would be better to err on the side of too much than not enough. I also think that if a culture calls for a certain body part to be covered - i.e. ankles, then cover them. If you’re trying to reach a people, I think you would do better by covering at least everything they consider sexual. Its a fine line that missionaries walk and all the more reason we need to be in serious prayer for them.

[Michelle Shuman] It has always interested me that when you hear about a man raping a woman he doesn’t know, it is usually when the woman is out jogging. Could dress be a reason he gets interested in her? Just wondering.

Color me incredulous; she was asking for it?

[J Johnson] My question is if modesty changes in different cultures, in which case I am asking if they are required to “add” clothing.

This is “soapbox” issue for me, so I am going to try to be very brief in my comments.

Think about what is considered “modest” or “acceptable” as dress in our congregations today.

Now, think about what was considered “modest” or “acceptable” as dress in the congregations of DL Moody, or CH Spurgeon.

Can you imagine the responses of these men, considered by many to be “giants of the faith”, if they were to walk into even the most well known, conservative IFB churches today?

So why do we consider our standards of modesty acceptable today, compared to the standards considered acceptable in generations past?

(I think maybe this is the same question, phrased differently.)

Did I say she was asking for it? No. But I do believe a woman who dresses carelessly may provoke a man to sin. He’s still responsible. It would be like the person who leaves their car unlocked with a computer in full view at the shopping mall and then gets robbed. We would all say they were careless and stupid. Did they contribute to the loss of their computer? Yes. The same has to be wondered about a woman who is the victim of a sexual crime when she is dressed provocatively.

Rape is almost never about sex- it’s about domination and control. How a woman is dressed seldom enters the picture as far as motive. Consider that 44% of rape victims are under 18, and 38% are committed by someone known to the victim. Risk factors for rape are access and degree of vulnerability, not looks or lack of clothing- or people would be getting raped at the beach by the truckload. Prostitutes are often targeted, not because of their profession, which is what most would assume, but because 1) they will go with someone alone, 2) won’t be missed, and 3) won’t notify the police, and if they did, they’d not be believed. So let’s just not go there. It is off topic, inaccurate, and unproductive.

Simply put, culture never defines right and wrong. I’m not going to get into ‘how short is too short’- I’ve studied that out for myself and am happy with the interpretations I’ve arrived at and the choices I’ve made. Modesty is not just about covering one’s knees anyway, but about the desire to draw attention to the fruits of the Spirit, not one’s physical assets. God isn’t all that fond of our flesh anyway, might as well cover it up. I certainly don’t want to look at someone else’s flesh- the less I see, the better.

Related anecdote- years ago I was wearing a t-shirt with a Bible verse on it, and I was talking to this man from our church, and he kept looking at my chest. I thought “Oh my goodness, I can’t believe he is doing that! What should I do/say? This is awful!” Then DUH! I realized I gave him something to read at a very unfortunate location, so now I don’t wear shirts with anything (writing, pictures) on the front. I felt really awful that I was standing there assuming he was being lustful, when I was the one who had been thoughtless. My situation, my decision, my ‘application’ of a Scriptural principle. Sometimes we should just stop looking for things to be spelled out for us, and start looking for ways to be a help and blessing to others.

Let’s change the analogy. Say my neighbor has a Subaru Forester in a light olive green with a kayak rack on top and everything. He leaves it right out in his driveway where I can’t help but see it. Is it his fault if I covet it?

But, you will say, that’s not the same as immodest dress. It isn’t exactly (although we’ve essentially established that the lines of modesty are somewhat subjective). Point is a sexual predator does not likely need the additional “lure” of whatever the jogger was wearing. They prey when there is opportunity.

Joggers run where there is less traffic, often in out of the way scenic places (which they may not realize provide more opportunity to ambush). This is probably the factor that plays into attacks on joggers and not the outfit.

The problem we have is that we believe that everything we do is “our” freedom and we are not responsible to anyone else. In other words, if I want to leave my expensive car and/or possessions out in plain view of car thieves and one happens to walk by and steal from me than that’s his fault. I’m betting the insurance will say, you left it unlocked it’s your fault.

Rapes are about control and domination, but why is it that you almost never read about a woman well-dressed being raped unless other crimes like burglary/murder are committed. I still believe that unless it is a small child, dress does have something to do with it. Even our teenagers have become very seductive in their dress and lose in their actions and then we wonder why we have so much teen pregnancy.

If we were more protective of ourselves, I dare say crime, immorality, etc would go down in number. (Of course, proper punishment of criminals would go a long ways to helping but that’s a subject for another day.)

Here’s the difference between the unlocked car being theft and the jogging outifit: A woman does not make it easier for a predator to force himself on her because she is wearing some sort of running outfit (in fact she actually may make it more difficult) while a computer in an unlocked, unattended car is simply easy to steal.

And I think we have to be careful drawing statistical conclusions on the basis of news items one happens to have personally perused.

Media reports may leave one with false impressions about rape, but statistics do not support many notions we have about sexual violence. News reports are not viable as supportive evidence of anything. According to the Federal Commission on Crimes of Violence, only 4% of the reported sexual assaults involved any participative behavior by the victim. Furthermore, the Bible also shows rape as an act of opportunity and the desire to dominate, not lust.

I feel compelled to address these notions because a woman dressed modestly who is alone and accessible is just as at risk for rape as a woman in hot pants and a halter top. To imply that being dressed modestly is any kind of protection against rape is dangerous.

Time to get back to the topic of whether or not cultural norms define modesty.

Simple answer:

Culture defines fashion; Scripture defines modesty.

Frankly, I don’t like the term modesty or its derivatives to describe being clothed. I think the two are not necessarily synonyms.

Scripture makes it clear that idolatry and immorality/nakedness are inextricably linked. The culture that champions nakedness and its accompanying immorality is always a culture defined by idolatry.

[Michelle Shuman] Did I say she was asking for it? No. But I do believe a woman who dresses carelessly may provoke a man to sin. He’s still responsible. It would be like the person who leaves their car unlocked with a computer in full view at the shopping mall and then gets robbed. We would all say they were careless and stupid. Did they contribute to the loss of their computer? Yes. The same has to be wondered about a woman who is the victim of a sexual crime when she is dressed provocatively…

…Rapes are about control and domination, but why is it that you almost never read about a woman well-dressed being raped unless other crimes like burglary/murder are committed. I still believe that unless it is a small child, dress does have something to do with it. Even our teenagers have become very seductive in their dress and lose in their actions and then we wonder why we have so much teen pregnancy.

She’s dressed “provocatively” (I don’t think that joggers dress intentionally to stimulate men) because she’s jogging, not because she’s out to get attention. That’s like saying that I (as a guy) wear a tank top and shorts to demonstrate my (non)chiseled body for others, not to weightlift or exercise. I don’t do a ton of weightlifting and exercise, but I don’t think it’s common (or called for) for those who are exercising to do so in baggy and loose clothing that would trap heat, absorb sweat, and/or get caught on exercise equipment.

Rape is - as Susan and Michelle mentioned, and has been borne out in research - is almost always about power and wicked impulses, not sexual attractiveness. Sexual abuse is the same way. Rape happens because a man wants the ‘kick’ of forcing someone to submit to them, not because they necessarily want the sex. Women are generally raped when they run (or are doing other activities) because they are alone and not in public places, not because they are dressed immodestly.

I don’t want to hijack the thread or beat up on Michelle, but I’ve taken enough criminal justice courses and done enough reading on the subject that I wanted to respond with a little more insight than the typical “She dressed provocatively” response. I also know that this is NOT what Michelle was saying, so I’m not trying to yell at her specifically either.

Sometimes we should just stop looking for things to be spelled out for us, and start looking for ways to be a help and blessing to others.

Excellent Susan. This is definitely the spirit of the NT.

[Jay] She’s dressed “provocatively” (I don’t think that joggers dress intentionally to stimulate men) because she’s jogging, not because she’s out to get attention.

Jay,

I would argue that, unwittingly, she is doing exactly that. Think about the Olympics. Two of the women’s beach volleyball players were interviewed about why they dressed so scantily, and they said it was necessary for their jobs. Yet the men wear board shorts and tank tops. The same is true comparing the indoor volleyball teams and the gymnastics teams (to name just a couple examples). Men and women doing exactly the same thing dress entirely differently as a result of the culture, so yes, your jogger is dressing intentionally provocatively to stimulate men because that’s what our culture has defined as the dominate gender roles.

That said, I agree with Susan that dress and stimulation have little to do with the issue of rape.

Ditto Chip- I also find it very interesting that guys can tumble and skate and play other sports fully clothed, but women ‘need’ to wear a string held together with a paper clip. Seriously.

[Chip Van Emmerik] I would argue that, unwittingly, she is doing exactly that. Think about the Olympics. Two of the women’s beach volleyball players were interviewed about why they dressed so scantily, and they said it was necessary for their jobs. Yet the men wear board shorts and tank tops. The same is true comparing the indoor volleyball teams and the gymnastics teams (to name just a couple examples). Men and women doing exactly the same thing dress entirely differently as a result of the culture, so yes, your jogger is dressing intentionally provacatively …

I think I’m going to have to read that several more times before I figure out how I might end up doing something “unwittingly” but still “intentionally” “as a result of the culture.”

:P

Not all of them jog in private secluded places and not all rapes are “started” in secluded places. It’s not necessary to go anywhere outside the home in short shorts and tank tops. Please tell me you honestly don’t think how a woman is dressed has caused problems for our crime culture. I always find it interesting when in the dead of winter on a bitter cold night you will see a woman with a heavy sweater/coat on and wearing either a very short skirt or shorts.

Did you notice that yesterday one of the woman runners from the USA ran in long sleeves and pants and still won and there was no question about her winning-not close? Hmmm!!

“No man knows what he would do if he were tempted in the right way, at the right time, and under the right circumstances.” Dr. Bob Jones, Sr.

if we are discussing rape, there is no evidence anywhere that clothing or beauty has anything to do with a woman’s risk of being attacked. Implying such is dangerous for women, because a woman who thinks that she can safely walk/jog/play Canasta alone in a secluded location because she’s homely or covered neck to toe is foolish.

Also- there is no evidence that an honorable man faced with a scantily clad woman will suddenly become a rapist. That’s just preposterous. A man who has been contemplating violence against a woman or women in general will seek opportunity, not an Angelina Jolie clone.

So this stops now. It is not the topic, but I am not going to allow false information to be perpetuated that puts women in danger or blames them in any way for violence against them.

[Michelle Shuman] “No man knows what he would do if he were tempted in the right way, at the right time, and under the right circumstances.” Dr. Bob Jones, Sr.

The point here is the depravity of one’s own heart, not the external circumstances that provide opportunities to give expression to it. Put another way, no one solves their lust problems by merely removing opportunity to consume upon them.

That’s where this whole modesty discussion goes awry, I think. If one’s victory in this area is overthrown because someone else didn’t cover whatever square inches of skin are under dispute here, the former is the one with the problem.

The original topic was “does culture influence/define modesty”. In the US, we have a society that is permeated with sexual abuse, fornication, etc. How did we get here? We kicked God out of the schools and started teaching “my liberty and rights instead of submission to God”. So where has that left us. With everyone doing their own thing with no regard for its affect on themselves or anyone else. No baby when it is born has the idea that “someday I’m going to grow up and rape children and women.” This happens because of they way they are raised and taught about themselves and their world around them. There are many who were in the church that today never intended for their “sin to go that far.” They start by letting a little of the world in and then more and more. When we address the causes of something like rape, we must look at the full picture. The statement I gave above talks about both the depravity of man and the circumstances. To assume that a man can continually feed his eyes on scantily clad women and not be influenced by what he sees is denying basic life principles. The Bible specifically teaches that no man is an “island unto himself” - he influences others and is influenced by others. By pointing out the dress of joggers, I am not suggesting in any way that a woman ever deserves to be raped. No one does. I’m sorry that it evidently came across that way. That was not my intent. I am saying that how we act, what we wear, etc does influence others and we are vice versa influenced by others. Therefore I don’t think we can err on the side of being too careful.

What I am about to suggest is probably too simplistic to work, but if it did, we could save so many problems in our churches. Let us just apply the principle of love. Let us love our brother enough to cover up and let us love our sister enough not to judge her if her neckline etc. is not just exactly where we think it should be.

I’m not suggesting that it doesn’t matter if the neckline is at the belly button- that would clearly be unloving as well by causing a stumbling block. What I am suggesting is that we not waste time arguing about how many mm above or below the collar bone it has to be.

Like so many issues we are back to reacting to extremes. It seems one side is worried that if we don’t keep the line high we will soon have excessive cleavage displayed and the other side is worried that if we react too strongly to that everyone will have to wear turtle necks. My guess is that many posting here have fairly similar “standards” but based on the excesses they have been exposed to they are responding accordingly.

The Egyptian, Greek, and Roman cultures were saturated by sex and violence. Even their gods and goddesses were always sleeping around and trying to off each other. And they practically worshipped the human body.

Nothing new about depravity. But whatever the cultural practice, the first thing to ask is “What are God’s commands and guiding principles for this?” The person honestly seeking truth will find answers, the one looking for an excuse will find one. Hence the nudists that claim to be honoring the innocence of Eden because we were created naked or some such nonsense.