Challenging Assumptions about Modesty

[DeniseNY]

There is lots of erotica written about women in burkas.

I had no idea!

 

[Fauken]

I had no idea!

Rule 34 of the Internet…

 

[DarkLight]

There is lots of erotica written about women in burkas.

I’m really not surprised.

There’s a somewhat well known comic from an Iranian woman in which she gets chided for running to catch the bus because her backside is jiggling under her burka and it might be a temptation. She quite properly instructs the man to stop looking at her rear.

 

[MarthaSo]

[/quote]
The reason why modesty is a virtue is partly because it prevents other people from being tempted or driven into sin. Whether the other people actually commit a sin or have custody of their eyes is not the measure of whether you committed a sin in how you dress around others. Your own sin lies in the violation of the virtue
[/quote]

Amen.

 

[PetraG]

I think we’re better off leaving it just at that. The reason why modesty is a virtue is partly because it prevents other people from being tempted or driven into sin. Whether the other people actually commit a sin or have custody of their eyes is not the measure of whether you committed a sin in how you dress around others. Your own sin lies in the violation of the virtue, not in whether somebody else actually looked at you or had a lustful thought looking at you.

We are all responsible for our own lustful thoughts, which can often occur when the other person is dressed quite appropriately and reasonably modestly for the time and place.

The other thing to remember is the people who shouldn’t be wearing immodest clothing not because it will engender not lustful thoughts but rather uncharitable thoughts.

I think when people tell some others not to wear certain things in order to not incite “lust,” they are actually trying to be kind.

If “some” people shouldn’t wear it, consider that may you shouldn’t, either. If you do, the chances are that you’re either showing off or else embarrassing yourself. (It is not impossible to manage both at the same time.)

 

[Start]

This is hardly something to get worked up over.

 

[Reuben_J]

Tis_Bearself:

We are all responsible for our own lustful thoughts, which can often occur when the other person is dressed quite appropriately and reasonably modestly for the time and place.

Exactly.

Even when I would wear a dress that hit below the knee and jacket to the office, there would still be men who would lear at me. I’m not wearing a burka because there are men who either can’t control their thoughts, or just don’t want to. That’s not my responsibility, it’s theirs.

And vice versa, if a woman cannot control her thought when the situation is reversed.

 

[Start]

She would commit a sin of immodesty and maybe scandal, if the intention is to lead people to sin. The other party would also be culpable for what ever they did.

 

[Elizabeth3]

I am criticizing the position that a MAN is allowed to treat a woman differently because HE does not have the willpower to avoid sin.

If a particular man knows he has a weakness for certain sins but desires to work to overcome them, it’s not about treating women differently than men but about avoiding what is a near occasion of sin for him. It’s something we are all called to do with our particular weaknesses and temptations. (Not saying that this is why Pence has this policy but if it would be the reason and he’s humble enough to admit the weakness, why would this be a bad thing?)

If a person has a gambling problem and avoids socializing with certain people to help them avoid sin, that doesn’t mean they’re being unfair to those people in any way.

Why is it a woman’s fault for being attractive?

It’s not her fault.

Why do men get to act sexist but women don’t?

Avoiding sin is not acting sexist. I’m sure there are plenty of women who avoid being alone with men they aren’t married or related to in order to be safe from assault or to avoid possible gossip or suspicion. Are they being sexist or prudent?

 

[Lea101]

You see, you’re automatically picturing an extreme scenario where the outfit is salient enough to distract anybody regarding of sexual attraction.

I was thinking more of a beautiful body in a dress attracting attention (small waist, big hips, big breasts for example), while a woman who’s either fat or is stick thin in a similar dress wouldn’t be seen as sexy because her body wouldn’t stand out in the first place. Most people won’t really have any ‘she’s immodest’ thoughts jumping out.

Another example is that I can get away with skinny jeans (my body is tragic) but my curvier friend was told by her supervisor to wear pants that are less tight.

 

[Lea101]

Someone already explained it.

As for Schwimmer, the journalist was the one who told the public about it and she was actually happy that he did that.

Edited to add: it’s worth mentioning that he asked her if she would like to call someone if I’m not wrong. He didn’t show up with another strange person

 

[DeniseNY]

And vice versa, if a woman cannot control her thought when the situation is reversed.

Well, yeah. If a man wears a suit to work and I find myself having impure thoughts, that’s on me; not him.

 

[Lea101]

Women have an obligation to dress modestly for the sake of the virtue of modesty. The same goes for men.

This statement is true, but it’s easy to say. The problem is that while guys are told to be modest, they are hardly told that they’re immodest. They hardly think about immodesty in the first place. Shirtless men has been the equivalent of a bikini, and is known to make women go gaga, but many here would say that it’s totally fine for a guy to go top less while swimming. But these people have a lot to say about a two piece swimming suit for women. Female lust in general is often forgotten, male modesty usually focuses on making sure guys don’t look like weird or arrogant fools, lol!

If a man lusts after a woman who is immodestly dressed, she partly shares culpability (not subtracting from the culpability of the man.)

It seems as if her sin is dependent on whether the guy lusts. I would have said she is culpable for the sin of immodesty even if no guy there is paying her any attention, he is culpable for the sin of lust. Rather than saying she’s partly culpable for his sin of lust.

 

[MarthaSo]

While I agree she is culpable for the sin of immodesty and he separately is culpable for his sin of lust, I’m not 100% comfortable saying that her helping tempt a brother to sin by her sin of immodesty, which can lead or drive others to sin, is COMPLETELY separate from his sin. I’m getting the feeling it’s become unacceptable to say there is even the tiniest of connections. Is it not ok to say that some people may influence us to do bad by something sinful they are doing? How about if the man does not commit the sin of lust and in the process struggles really hard to get that image out of his head. He’s done well, even though the struggle was real and could have been avoided if there was not the sin of immodesty in the first place. Surely they can’t be entirely disconnected.

Suppose she was dressed in a burka, since that’s used frequently, or just a plain business suit, and he lusted, she’s not culpable for the sin of immodesty plus did nothing to tempt a brother to sin. He alone sinned in his weakness. This makes sense.

 

[Lea101]

Someone wearing a bikini (in some attempt to get some attention) in a bank would be immodest even if there are no guys and gals lusting after her. Her sin here isn’t dependent on whethere there’s lust or not, it comes from her intent.

Whatever you’re saying doesn’t really contradict whatever I said to be honest. I wasn’t saying that the bikini girl won’t make anyone lust, I was pointing out the fact that she’s culpable for her own sin, not his. The sin of immodesty comes from the person’s thoughts and intent of wearing/acting a certain way rather than it being dependent on the reactions the person gets.

E.g. If I was showing off my wealth to make myself look good, I would be guilty of immodesty and pride. If someone is envious or robs from me, he’s guilty of that sin. While my sin led him to his sin, we are each responsible for our own sins. If he didn’t feel envious, I would still be guilty of immodesty/pride.

We all need to take 100% responsibility for our own sin instead of giving small portions to the people that cause us to fall because we know God doesn’t care about ‘but she/he did xyz’. It can be argued that I’m focusing too much on semantics but in this case imo it’s important to define it clearly since women have been blamed for lust since biblical times lol

 

[MarthaSo]

We will have to disagree, but thank you for your thoughtful response.

1 Corinthians 8: 13
Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

But even St. Paul was ok with admitting sometimes human beings can cause other humans to stumble and accepting he has a small portion. It’s like saying “Therefore if men are made by God to be more visually stimulated and so many men have been hurt by porn and dealing with it’s after effects (I read that on here all the time) , I will never go against the virtue of modesty lest I make my brother stumble”
I can see God smiling at that.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

My understanding is that Mike Pence will meet alone with a woman but not dine out with one or consume alcohol without his wife. Sounds reasonable to me. A female employee can meet with him but not over lunch/dinner.

That’s always been my understanding as well. He isn’t doing anything illegal in the workforce with the way he does things.

 

[on_the_hill]

Knowing that “modesty” is a cultural construct, precisely how should this woman dress? How should she “lust-proof” herself in a way that meets your approval?

She can’t lust proof herself. That’s the irony of “modest” attire. I think she’s a cutie. If I were closer to her age, I’d probably think a lot more than that.

Unless she’s dressed in a way that makes a guy wonder whether she understands cultural constructs of personal hygiene like bathing, there’s essentially nothing she can wear that would make her lust proof. Aside from maybe wearing a habit.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I feel like unless a woman dresses completely inappropriately then it isn’t her fault if a man can’t control his eyes and thoughts. Nothing that has way too much cleavage hanging out, obscenely short shorts or skirt or painted-on tight clothing. If a woman dresses in a way that is considered decent within the society she lives in then she is not culpable for anything anyone else feels.

 

[njlisa]

I dress in a way that makes me comfortable. I’ve always worn modest clothing and don’t intend to change. I don’t dress for the approval of men, women, or fashion exports. I don’t dress for protection. I dress for me.