Can "modesty" change with the times?

[Baptist Believer]

Since "modest apparel" is from the very mouth of God, inspired in the days of the Apostle Paul, writing to Timothy, a young pastor, I would have to say "modesty" in God's eyes hasn't changed.

The New Testament letters were written within a very specific cultural context. The principles are obviously still valid, but the culture has definitely changed. And God is certainly willing to help us figure out how to apply those principles in today's culture.

If you ask any liberal, then, "Of course it has changed"

You can't have a thread on BaptistBoard without taking a swipe at those faceless "liberals" who somehow don't believe whatever the "Bible-believing" poster believes.

 

[IIJohn7]

Hmmmm.....I must have missed that particular "training session".

If that's true....that women are "trained" to sit back, listen to the adoration of men, and play coy, then no wonder we are in the passenger seat of life!!

You have described the mythical Scarlett O. of Gone With the Wind. The Scarlett O. of the BB doesn't believe in being "coy" nor "sitting back". Adore me if you so choose, but don't expect me is sit around and wallow in it while winking my false eyelashes at you. :smilewinkgrin:

And as for men being more..."driven"? Think again. You say that you are 35 and single? Well, I am 45 (in Sept.) and single. I have you beat by a whole decade!! :thumbs:

Women lust every single day of every single week of every single year. Women are very "driven". It's just that men are driven primarily visually and while women are also driven somewhat visually, we are more balanced in that we are "driven" also by emotions, touch, sense of security, conversation, and even thought processes.

Our "drive" is a little more complex. Not better, not superior.....just more complex. You all and your "drives" are a tad more simple to figure out. :saint:

So, now that you are trying to establish that a man's visual drive is why a woman must be careful in how she dresses, let me say this.

Some men would lust after a woman if she were in a sack cloth dress. In places where women are forced to wear burkas and the like, I guarantee you that the sex drive of the men in those countries is no different than men in places like America.

With that being said, I am NOT saying that since men have the "problem" that they should just shut-up about it and leave women and their clothes alone....

What I am saying is that modesty issues get redundant in their "helpless men - sleazy women" stance.

Women should dress modestly for their own self-respect FIRST. They should dress modestly for the respect of others, secondly.

You can't expect a woman to show self-respect when the men in her life show her no respect and when society around them shows them no respect.

It's just a vicious and unending cycle. Women are objectified by the media and male dominated society......women view themselves as objects and learn to "use" their sexuality to gain control of their environment .........women are objectified even more and more vulgarly by society.........younger and younger women learn to "use" their sexuality to gain control of their environment........women are objectified more.......

It's just very, very ugly all the way around. Both men and women share in the blame for it.

And it just isn't as simple as saying, "Well, men have a visually driven sex drive, so women must cover up their bodies.....". That attitude, dear brother, objectifies women in the worst way of all.

Typical femenist babble. :tongue3: Just kidding.

I think you have misunderstood my intent. I was not trying to JUSTIFY the way things are, but rather giving you a cultural REASON for it's existance.

You say you missed that class and that you were not trained. Dollars to doughnuts you were. You may rebel against it, but you were given the training. It's ingrained in our culture. When women are forcefull in expressing their desire toward a man, they are call names such as "slut" and "whore". Where as men doing the same thing are encouraged, told they are behaving properly and called a "stud".

To whit: Even in a solid Christian environment, the men are raised to be the hunter and the women are raised to be the pray. Don't believe me? Remember this, back when you were young and you were attracted to a boy (young man, whatever), the male was expected to make the first move. The male is expected to do the asking. Never the female. You were expected to make indications that you approve of him, come up and make conversation, but never be the instigator. The male only is considered to be the instigator. Boys ask girls for a date. Men ask women to have dinner. Man asks woman to marry him. If things are the other way around, it is considered "odd" and by many "wrong."

Never said women don't have lust. But rather that women don't understand the lust of men. I stand by that. I've never met a woman that did understand. I've met quite a few that claimed that they did, but by thier reactions to certain things, I could tell they didn't.

Contrawise: I don't think men understand women's lust either. So I think there's much room for improvement on both sides.

 

[canadyjd]

If we all had our eyes focused on the things above, we wouldn't notice those hemlines.

I remember a group of deacons (passed them in the hallway at church) discussing a young exchange student. They were complaining that the longer she had been at "so-and-so's" house, the less makeup she used, and the more modest her clothing had become (it wasn't quite as 'tight fitting' as before). They seemed to think that godly Christian lady was a bad influence on that student.:tear:

peace to youraying:

 

[Baptist Believer]

You say you missed that class and that you were not trained. Dollars to doughnuts you were. You may rebel against it, but you were given the training. It's ingrained in our culture. When women are forcefull in expressing their desire toward a man, they are call names such as "slut" and "whore". Where as men doing the same thing are encouraged, told they are behaving properly and called a "stud".

I don’t doubt your experience, but that may be more of a regional thing. Where I’m from, sex was considered B-A-D, so no one was encouraged to do anything in regard to their “desires.” Of course, that is just as unhealthy as the situation you describe, but it does demonstrate that the same “training” is not consistently given throughout our culture.

To whit: Even in a solid Christian environment, the men are raised to be the hunter and the women are raised to be the pray.

That was the way my parents saw it, but they realized that it was just their generations standards.

Don't believe me? Remember this, back when you were young and you were attracted to a boy (young man, whatever), the male was expected to make the first move. The male is expected to do the asking. Never the female. You were expected to make indications that you approve of him, come up and make conversation, but never be the instigator. The male only is considered to be the instigator. Boys ask girls for a date.

Actually, that has not been my experience. While I have done more than my share of asking, I’ve actually been asked out quite a bit by women over the years. In fact, my wife originally asked me out – I had previously thought of her as only a friend.

- And that may be the difference –

I grew up having a rather large number of female friends – nearly as many female as male. Although I was a normal teenaged boy as was sexually attracted to most of my female friends, I also had female friends that did not stir sexual desires in me. The great part about all of that experience was that since we kept things platonic, I actually grew up appreciating the female perspective and because very comfortable spending time with women, without having our relationships defined by sexual desire.

Men ask women to have dinner. Man asks woman to marry him. If things are the other way around, it is considered "odd" and by many "wrong."

I did propose to my wife... but we talked about it over the course of a month, and I discussed it with her parents and my parents before it happened.

Never said women don't have lust. But rather that women don't understand the lust of men. I stand by that. I've never met a woman that did understand. I've met quite a few that claimed that they did, but by thier reactions to certain things, I could tell they didn't.

The simple fact is that we can’t exchange places with another person and truly know the sensory stimuli that they experience, whether pain or sins like lust.

Contrawise: I don't think men understand women's lust either. So I think there's much room for improvement on both sides.

And again, I think you are mistaking sexual desire with lust.

Lust is something you must cultivate and engage in. It is not automatically connected to sexual desire unless you have made lust a habit (that is, trained yourself toward lust).

While sexual desire is very likely prompted by different things in men and women, lust is just the same old sin regardless of gender.

 

[vermae]

modesty

God gave us a mind and we know when something is not right.If you have to think twice about the way you are dressed "than it is wrong"Because the thought starts first in your own head.I'm talking about chistians.People in the world don't care.When they do start careing they are ready to change and come out of their sin.

 

[IIJohn7]

Yep. That’s really common, and I’ve lived in that condition for many years. But you don’t have to live that way.

With all due respect, yes I do have to live with it. It's a battle I fight every day. Only with the help of our Surpreme Lord am I able to overcome. But it is a daily battle.

Before we go any farther, let me tell a little more about my life.

I married at 25 and I filed for divorce at 28, after my wife had renounced her faith, cheated on me repeatedly and disappeared one day while I was at work, cleaning out my bank accounts and running up nearly $12,000 in credit card debt. I divorced her out of self-preservation since Texas is a community property state and I was responsible for any additional debt she might incur (and she was buying all sorts of things on credit).

For the next 12 years I was single, although I began dating a Christian woman on a steady basis about 9 years ago. We married last December.

I know what it is like to be single. I’ve been single the vast majority of my adult life. When I talk about lust, it is primarily coming from the perspective of a single man who had had sexual experience, but was unable to legitimately fulfill those natural urges.

Then I stand corrected.

I went though a similer experience. While I was away from God, I was living with a woman that I was madly in love with. Even though I refused to see it, we grew apart and she started sleeping around. We reconciled, got engaged, then broke up again. It became an on-again-off-again relationship. During this time she was also sleeping with someone who was supposed to be a friend of mine. (So much for friendship.) She got pregnat, claimed it was his, and left me for good to mary him. When the baby was 16 months old, she informed me that the child was indeed mine. (DNA test proved it.)

Now I have a wonderful daughter whom I adore (and she me) but I must deal with her mother (who's now on her 3rd husband) on a regular basis. Trying to raise a non-custodial daughter in the proper Christian way because I have experienced what following the world will get you.

(What that has to do with the topic of conversation, I have no idea. But there it is!!)

(And here’s a little secret: when you get married, you don’t get to treat your wife as a sexual plaything, so you still don’t get to act on your impulses all the time.)

Never thought it did. But married Christians (of both genders) have an outlet that unmaried ones do not.

Modesty does not apply to couples within the privacy of their relationship together, but it certainly applies to how they dress before others.

Agreed. As it does to singles as well.

As far as lust goes, it definitely applies to couples. Just because you have the a potential legitimate outlet for sexual desire doesn’t mean that the temptation to lust is significantly reduced. Lust is the desire for something you cannot legitimately have. If you develop, nurture and sustain your heart toward lustful thoughts, you will have the same troubles when married. There will always be other women to look at and opportunities for immorality.

Certainly. I'm not claiming that it is otherwise. All I am saying is that maried couples have an opportunity for the physical and emotional company of another that singles do not have. This desire, given by God, is one of the main drives for marrage and a family. (Let's face it, you didn't get married because your wife makes good pancakes. IHOP makes good pancakes. However, IHOP can't satisfy the physical and emotional desires that are inside of every person.)

I also agree with what (I think) you are trying to say in that if a person nurtures the desire to look upon a person other than her/his spouse, then that person is living a sinful lifestyle and the state of marrage is inconsiquential to their state of arousal.

I also believe that the single person has a more difficult time with this than the married person. When I was in a solid (if sinful) relationship, my physical desires revolved around her. Yes, I was tempted to look upon another woman with lust, but found it relatively easy to redirect my lustful thoughts to a more appropriate thought about my partner. (Yes, I was still living in sin. But I did treat it as a marrage. That, however, doesn't excuse my sin. I'm not claiming that it does.)

Oh, I think quite a few of them do. Remember, women are no strangers to lust.

Not saying that women doen't lust. I'm just saying that men's triggers for sexual activity are more easily initiated than women's are. (And I mean that in a generic sense. I'm sure there are men who have almost no sex drive and that there are women with a very high one.) Men are more visually driven, women more verbally driven.

Part of the problem is that when we discuss modesty, we generally only think of visual modesty. What a person wears (or doesn't wear, as is more the case in American society today) is more likely to affect a man's desires than a woman's. However, verbal and physical modesty is a faucet as well. But verbal modesty isn't too much of a problem in today's society (although, it's heading that way).

For instance: I'm sure there are things that you can say or ways you can touch your wife that excite her. If before you started dating her you'd have walked up and said those words, or did those things, to her, more than likely she'd have slaped you and never have wanted to talk to you again. And with good reason.

However, (in today's society) women walk around all day wearing articles of clothing that illicit the same physical response from men that your words and touch get from your wife, then get offended when they are told to cover themselves. They don't understand exactly how (or how much) their "show" excites the men around them.

I won’t disagree, but just because men are more intensely prone to lust doesn’t give men any excuse. In Christ, we have the means to escape the control of lust and live as sexually-fulfilled people – even if we are single.

Not trying to make excuses. Trying to show reasons for why things are the way they are. Do things need to change for the better (IE. more Biblical)?? Most definatly. On the part of both men and women.

That’s quite a stereotype... one that is less true every year.

No, it's not a stereotype, it's true. If I said that most people who speak Spanish in America are from Mexican decent, that wouldn't be a stereotype, that would be the truth. Is it changing? Yes. Both boys and girls are less modest today than when we were their age.

That’s certainly not a respectful attitude for women. Frankly, that’s one of the places where change needs to begin. Women do not exist for the sexual gratification of men. They are created in the image of God, just like men, for the purpose of bringing glory to God through their character and works. When you reduce women to sexual objects, you’ve already lost the battle against lust.

Why is it than whenever a man states a truth of society about the current relationship of men and women, they are said to be reducing women to sexual objects, but when a women does it she's standing up for her gender?????

Like it or not, men are trained to be the preditor and women the prey. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. I'm not defending it. I'm just pointing it out as a truth.

I really have to strongly disagree here. From what you wrote, it appears that you have confused healthy sexual desire for lust – a common error often taught in our churches.

You're right. I was using "lust" being synomous with sexual desire. My bad. It would have been more appropriate to say: "From the genetics God gave us, to the cultural norms we live in men are driven to a high sexual desire."



I have seemed to struck a strong cord with a couple of people on this subject. While I don't mind the interchange, I do not like to be misconstrude. So I feel that I must clarify my position.

I do not feel that women are inferior to men in any way, shape or form. There are differences that in today's PC society are glossed over for the sake of being "non-offensive." I strive to not do that. I try to say what I mean and mean what I say. I call a spade a spade, a heart a heart, a club a club, and a diamond a diamond. If that offends you, just remember James 3:2 and that I am not a perfect man.

 

[IIJohn7]

I don’t doubt your experience, but that may be more of a regional thing. Where I’m from, sex was considered B-A-D, so no one was encouraged to do anything in regard to their “desires.” Of course, that is just as unhealthy as the situation you describe, but it does demonstrate that the same “training” is not consistently given throughout our culture.

Really? Not one friend/aquantance as you were growing up (expecially through the pubesent and teenage years) ever made you think that you would be inferior if you didn't chase girls around or have sexual desires that you wanted, above all else, to act out?

If so, you were blessed. Sounds more like you lived with the Cleavers than in modern society. :smilewinkgrin: (It's a joke. Not trying to be rude.)

That was the way my parents saw it, but they realized that it was just their generations standards.

??? I fail to see how this was "just their generations standards." This has been the way of it from the begining. Abraham sent his servant to look for Issac a wife, Bethuel didn't send his servant to look for Rebekah a wife. The man has always been responsible for the initiation. Only recently have women started to take more of a agressive role.

Actually, that has not been my experience. While I have done more than my share of asking, I’ve actually been asked out quite a bit by women over the years. In fact, my wife originally asked me out – I had previously thought of her as only a friend.

- And that may be the difference –

Very true. With a pre-existing friendship, she could have felt much more comfortable asking you out than without one.

I did propose to my wife... but we talked about it over the course of a month, and I discussed it with her parents and my parents before it happened.

Many people are going that route as opposed to the "surprise will you marry me" route. I think it's good. Gives both parties knowledge of what the other is thinking.

Sounds like you have a very grounded wife. That's good. Too many flighty people in this world.

 

[genesis12]

It obviously has, does, and will continue to do so.

 

[Bro. Talmadge]

Just flat out NO. Moral upbringing can change because the "moral Majority" is not doing what God intented for them to do.

Schools in my part of Texas have the kids wearing uniforms. Love it. Some students in one of the ISD's here protested at the school board meeting about the different particulars that the school board had set on hair length, skirt lengths, tops length, belts, and etc. The board listened to the students, but did not change any of their rulings. If the parents don't do it, then the schools have to do it.


:applause: :thumbs: