FYI (if you’re a teenage girl)

Exactly, Chip. No one said that the male body has no effect on females. I and others were simply arguing that there is exact equivalency between talking about young women posting provocative photos while at the same time including photos of your young sons at the beach. It is not the same 1) Because the effect on men and women is different, and more importantly 2) the boys were not posing provocatively in any way (flexing, etc.), whereas the OP was addressing photos of young women who were doing just that.

Where did I or anyone else say that anything about how men and women dress is ‘exactly the same’?

We have two different conversations going on here from what I can tell. There are those who are focused on the meaning and principles of modesty, and others who are focused on the effects of immodesty in behavior and dress.

Of course the effects are different, because people are different. Ever heard a guy say “I’m a leg man?” He’s saying that he is attracted to women’s legs. So a woman who is not covering her legs will draw his eye. Is she being immodest? Maybe, maybe not, but that’s the problem if you are going to focus on effect.

I once heard a preacher say that when women style their hair in a tousled fashion, that this was an effort to get a guy to think about how she would look ‘the morning after’. If all we are going to talk about is effect, then everyone is going to have an opinion about what is and isn’t modest or appropriate or flaunting or flirty, and that’s perception and opinion.

If we talk about how to teach young men and women about modesty and God’s design for sexuality and acting in a way that brings honor and glory to God, then we are talking about Biblical principles that apply across the board, even though the application might be slightly different for girls and boys.

That is not saying in any way that male/female sexuality, attraction, and/or allure is ‘exactly the same’.

[Susan R]

I think Mrs. Hall’s initial post is a huge part of the issue. It indicates a mindset that is harmful to our girls. So she changed the pics after the kerfuffle began, but does that mean she changed her mind?

Readers, two days ago I wrote this post for my normal audience, which is usually very small. That said, I included recent pictures of my kids at the beach, and many new readers found that to be a grave lack of discernment, considering the topic. I agree, and have replaced them with different photos than the original post. Thank you for your counsel.

This retraction doesn’t communicate to me that she has decided that her shirtless boys flaunting for a camera is immodest (unless you don’t think boys flexing their muscles is ‘flaunting’). And she hasn’t removed other pics of her boys sans shirts from her blog and Facebook. Just from that particular blog post. That leads me to believe that she doesn’t think those pics were wrong, just that they were wrong for that post.

If none of this matters to you, fine. But it matters to me, and it matters to other women who also take modestly very seriously, for both boys and girls.

Susan,

If she felt strongly enough about what people said to change what she’d posted, then what more do you want? Last time I checked, a definition of repentance was “to change one’s mind or opinion, to turn”. The Free Dictionary has this:

re·pent ¹ (r-pnt)

v. re·pent·ed, re·pent·ing, re·pents

v.intr.

1. To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite.

2. To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one’s mind regarding it: repented of intemperate behavior.

3. To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one’s sins.

I’m not really even sure why you’re asking that she remove all the other photos. Most people haven’t seen them or are even aware of them. So why are you bringing that into this? Did you feel the need to vet all her other posts as well to ensure that she’s no hypocrite?

I’m confused. Throw me a line here, please.

You’re right, Susan, no one said “exactly the same.” But handerson’s point was that there was a double standard because the author of the OP criticized young women for inappropriate photos while at the same posting photos of her teenage sons in swimming suits. The whole point James, Jay, and I are trying to make is that they are in no way equivalent for the two reasons I listed above, and therefore not a double standard.

If you all think that it isn’t a double standard, fine. But there are others who think it is a double standard, because modesty isn’t just about inciting lust, for all the reasons I mentioned. If it is immodest for young men to be shirtless (and I think it is) then posting pictures of one’s sons online is inappropriate, just as it would be for mothers to post pics of their daughters, or for young women to post pictures of themselves in their pjs.

If the author rethought and ‘repented’ of posting pics of her sons online, then all of those pictures would be gone, and not just from that one post. Is it OK that those pics are online just because we weren’t aware of them?

Since when is right and wrong about who is aware of what, or whether or not something has a particular effect?

I’m not trying to be rude or obnoxious, but since when did we get to the point where Susan or Hannah says it’s immodest and therefore it is?

I agree with you - we need a better definition of modesty. But Susan says that the boys are immodest doesn’t work for me. Why are they immodest?

1 Timothy 2:9 says that women should adorn themselves in modest apparel. Is there some kind of similar verse that I’m missing for men?

Again - not trying to be rude or condescending here. Help me understand.

[Jay]

I’m not trying to be rude or obnoxious, but since when did we get to the point where Susan or Hannah says it’s immodest and therefore it is?

I agree with you - we need a better definition of modesty. But Susan says that the boys are immodest doesn’t work for me. Why are they immodest?

1 Timothy 2:9 says that women should adorn themselves in modest apparel. Is there some kind of similar verse that I’m missing for men?

Again - not trying to be rude or condescending here. Help me understand.

Jay- I’m flummoxed that this is your takeaway. Should I say the same about you and Greg? “Since when did we get to the point where Greg and Jay say it isn’t immodest for boys to be shirtless and therefore it isn’t?” Are you seriously arguing that because verses about modesty are aimed at women, that there are no guidelines of modesty for men?

We are sharing our opinions here. I think it is immodest, and just because our culture has decided that a man without a shirt is not immodest, I don’t have to accept that because of you or culture or the supposed ‘non-effect’ of shirtless men.

If you and every male member of your family want to walk around shirtless, be my guest. But we are not going to teach our boys that their bodies aren’t to be covered just because you and Greg and whoever else you care to name have decided it’s ok.

Susan, we’re not talking about “walking around” shirtless. We’re talking about a day at the beach. I fully understand that not all beach attire is modest, but again we have a difference of opinion, which results in how we view the supposed “double standard” of the OP. If it is always immodest for a man to be shirtless we need to censor just about every children’s Sunday School picture of Adam and Eve.

Obviously the Bible isn’t specific/explicit about standards of modesty. How much flesh is too much flesh, how short is too short, how thin is too thin, how tight is too tight? We all have our own ideas, mostly based on ’ I know it when we see it’. It has also been said before, in many other threads including this one, that modesty isn’t just a display of skin, but includes behaviors and attitudes as well. I agree wholeheartedly.

But where do we go when we try to set a standard or dress or conduct? Sunday school cartoons? What is acceptable at the mall, or the beach? Our basic human instincts? I don’t think so.

“If it is always immodest for a man to be shirtless we need to censor just about every children’s Sunday School picture of Adam and Eve.”

Good question. Why do we need Adam and Eve Illustrated? I read books to my kids all the time without pictures. Do we need coloring pages of the David and Bathsheba story? Or the Salome and John the Baptist story? Why do we think they need to see Adam and Eve with strategically placed tree branches?

As has been said before, I think it would be more beneficial to young women to appeal to them on a different level- one that helps them focus on their relationship with God, and less on how they are perceived by men. When first things are first, other things fall into place. The author in the OP isn’t ‘wrong’, I just don’t think she’s right.

Susan, you seem to want to debate cultural norms here. This isn’t something that I just settled on as a way to vindictively punish women for their gender. I’ve already said that I agree with you that we need to come up with a better standard of modesty and that Mrs. Hall’s post (although I personally don’t believe that it was a double standard) probably should not have included the pictures it did.

I don’t have a ton of time, but I did find two things of interest from Wikipedia on modesty. I’ll quote at length:

Generally-accepted Western norms

As a minimum, Western standards of decency expect people to cover their genitalia in public, and women to cover their breasts. In the early twenty-first century, public breastfeeding became increasingly but not totally acceptable, sometimes protected by law.

What is considered appropriate depends on context. For example, in single-sex public changing rooms, nudity is often acceptable.

In Western and some other societies, there are differences of opinion as to how much body exposure is acceptable in public. In contemporary Western society, the extent to which a woman may expose cleavage depends on social and cultural context. Women’s swimsuits and bikinis commonly reveal the tops and sides of the breasts. Displaying cleavage is considered permissible in many settings, and is even a sign of elegance and sophistication on many formal social occasions, but it may be considered inappropriate in settings such as workplaces, churches and schools. Showing the nipples or areolae is almost always considered toplessness or partial nudity.

In private homes, the standards of modesty apply selectively. For instance, nudity among close family members in the home can take place, especially in the bedroom and bathroom, and wearing of undergarments only in the home is common.

In many cultures it is not acceptable to bare the buttocks in public; deliberately doing so is sometimes intended as an insult.

Gender differences

Men and women are subject to different standards of modesty in dress. While both men and women, in Western culture, are generally expected to keep their genitals covered at all times, women are also expected to keep their breasts covered. Some body parts are normally more covered by men than women, e.g. the midriff and the upper part of the back. Organizations such as the Topfree Equal Rights Association advocate for gender equality regarding display of the body. In 1992 New York State’s highest court accepted 14th Amendment arguments and struck down the provision in New York’s Exposure of the Person statute that made it illegal for women to bare their chests where men were permitted to do so.

The other interesting thing that I saw is a photo of ‘immodest’ Ukranian men (the link is safe for clickthrough, in case anyone is concerned) at a beach in Bangladesh. They are wearing normal Western bathing attire (swim trunks with no shirt), but the caption is that “Three Ukrainian men, wearing trunks and briefs, attract attention for immodesty relative to the local norm in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh”.

This is a classic case of where Romans 14 would apply - the men should cover their chests and not be a cause of stumbling for Bangladeshi brothers and sisters in Christ while in their territory.

I can argue that the pictures of the boys is not immodest because:

1. As far as I know, there’s no explicit Biblical teaching on male dress standards that was violated.
2. Western cultural norms dictate that these pictures are normal and acceptable. The pictures that the young ladies in question did not.

So by what measure do you see the pictures as a violation of modest standards? Other than you said they did? (and again - this discussion is not intended to be a referendum on your or Hannah’s judgment). I’m curious as to what cultural norm you have that is being violated.

Jay- Let me be clear. I give about .001% of my mental energy to the significance of cultural norms when it comes to Biblical modesty/sexuality.

I think that a man’s bare chest is immodest because Biblical principles and narratives lead me to believe that men are supposed to be covered, and so are women. For instance, God didn’t give Adam a pass on the apron- He made them both coats of skins to cover their nakedness. Did Adam walk around with his open a la Hugh Hefner? I don’t know. But being girded about the chest and loins, as is consistent with many descriptions of male clothing, also makes me think that men weren’t ‘normally’ walking around bare-chested.

Then if we apply the ‘effect’ criteria, as some have suggested, it is evident to me that women are affected by the sight of a man’s body, having been a female for lo these last 47 years.

Both men and women are responsible for their actions, but our responsibility ends where another’s free will begins. No one forces lust upon another person. We are drawn away of our own lusts. Which explains my teen years spent watching Duran Duran videos- as if I was in love with Simon le Bon because he had an awesome singing voice? Seriously.

So by what measure do you see the pictures as a violation of modest standards? Other than you said they did?

So let me get this straight- do you check every single decision you make against cultural norms? Or do you sometimes do/not do something against the flow because it is a sincerely held belief based on your own experiences and perceptions about you understand to be true? Am I supposed to consult with you the next time our family goes swimming? Of course not. We all draw the line somewhere, and we must do this in good conscience before God to the best of our understanding.

Sigh, I just can’t help it here. Hannah and Susan’s original objections were demonstrated as false or lacking in merit. Now they have found some point that wasn’t relevant to anything and want to argue it.

It has been said multiple times here: Susan and Hannah, the Bible makes it clear that a woman’s breasts are not simply part of her body like her hands or feet, but they are indeed sexual parts. It is imperative that a woman not flaunt them. While men are indeed pleasing to a woman’s sight as well, maybe even the abs or other muscular/facial qualities, they are never commanded in scripture to cover that up. Paul makes reference to the personal or private member and parts of the body. Not coincidentally, those are parts necessary for life. A woman’s breasts in addition to favorable to guys are also necessary for life as is made clear multiple times in Scripture were speaking of infants nursing.

Every time I try to leave, I keep getting sucked back in. I feel like Michael Corleone.

[Susan R]

So let me get this straight- do you check every single decision you make against cultural norms? Or do you sometimes do/not do something against the flow because it is a sincerely held belief based on your own experiences and perceptions about you understand to be true? Am I supposed to consult with you the next time our family goes swimming? Of course not. We all draw the line somewhere, and we must do this in good conscience before God to the best of our understanding.

No, I’m not arguing for relativism or subjectivism. What I’m interested in is how all of a sudden, men are expected to be modest (modest as defined by you and Hannah), even though male modesty it is not explicitly argued in Scripture and actually flies in the face of even corrupt and sinful Western culture’s mores. Furthermore, you and I both know that I have no desire to set myself up as the final arbiter of religious anything. That’s God’s role, and the work of the conscience as illuminated by Scripture…which is why I keep asking and will ask again - what Scriptural passage informs your conscience that it is sinful for a man to not have a shirt on?

JamesK- should I just refer to you as Don from here out? It’s kinda hard to kiss your ring over cyberspace, though. ;)

This conversation is now bordering on the ridiculous. You would think some things are just obvious enough that they should not be debated. That there is a difference between a man without a shirt on and a woman without a shirt on is one of those things.

I suspect the closest you guys will get to getting Susan on board is her recent statement “The author in the OP isn’t ‘wrong’, I just don’t think she’s right.” (Not sure what that is supposed to mean though.)