How should women act so as not to draw undue attention?

[Serap]

Thanks! Appreciate your points & other posters who have responded in a similar level headed & compassionate way.
I was trying to be humorous which is a bit more courteous than saying I find the topic of the thread bordering on creepiness & misogyny.

On this note, I was downtown Toronto, Canada for a business meeting the other day and I went for a walk during lunch. Sex was everywhere!! All the billboards had women wearing next to nothing and the girls under 24 were all wearing very short skirts or shorts and teeny weeny tops.

These girls would consider us CAF’ers to be uptight, conservative, old and jealous. They would never understand our concerns. They have no idea of the impact they are having on themselves and others.

I met with my husband that lunch hour and commented on it to him and he said, “I love it.” with a smile on his face. I had to laugh b/c he works downtown Toronto everyday and also teaches at the local university. What are ya gonna do??

The last think I’m going to do is pass judgement on these young girls. That’s up to God, not me.

 

[Catholictrain]

On this note, I was downtown Toronto, Canada for a business meeting the other day and I went for a walk during lunch. Sex was everywhere!! All the billboards had women wearing next to nothing and the girls under 24 were all wearing very short skirts or shorts and teeny weeny tops.

These girls would consider us CAF’ers to be uptight, conservative, old and jealous. They would never understand our concerns. They have no idea of the impact they are having on themselves and others.

I met with my husband that lunch hour and commented on it to him and he said, “I love it.” with a smile on his face. I had to laugh b/c he works downtown Toronto everyday and also teaches at the local university. What are ya gonna do??

The last think I’m going to do is pass judgement on these young girls. That’s up to God, not me.

You might want to suggest to your husband to be a little more sensitive to his pregnant wife! Geez, I would never say that I loved seeing scantily clad women to my wife… especially when she was pregnant with our children!
Glad you could laugh about it.

 

[Serap]

You might want to suggest to your husband to be a little more sensitive to his pregnant wife! Geez, I would never say that I loved seeing scantily clad women to my wife… especially when she was pregnant with our children!
Glad you could laugh about it.

Thanks.

If you met my husband, you’d see that I have nothing to worry about . He’s a puppy dog. He’s not the cheating lurking type. He just likes to joke around - harmless fun.

 

[phoage]

Thank you for the added explanation. Your point makes a lot more sense now.
What is your opinion or suggestions for appropriate behavior for a woman who would like to be helpful in regards to her brothers in Christ by not presenting herself immodestly?
Assuming clothing is not the determinant, rather ones actions.

WOW, I do not have time to write that encyclopedia. Do you have time to read it?

The answer to this question is based, in large part, on the age, gender, education, experience, and cultural background of the person that the woman is interacting with. The bad part comes when the woman does not even know she is interacting with that person.

For Example: A woman walks into church. Unless she is the only person there, there is some interaction. So the family in the middle on the right side see her and have some level of awareness even if only, “Someone else showing up for Adoration”. There is also the cleaning lady dusting the statues on the side of the alter and the guy fixing the organ in the choir loft, etc.

Our point-of-view woman may be unaware or only marginally aware of any or all of these people and she is certainly not at church to impress them. Yet each of them may make judgments of her, consciously or unconsciously, based on her dress, facial expression, carriage, and a dozen other criteria that most of us are not aware of.

In most places, you can adhere to the norms of the culture, or at least the dominant culture but in the U.S. today, with diversity raising its ugly visage, there is no real dominant culture in many places.

I hate to say it, and I am not trying to be (very) facetious, but the only advice I have in this line is to quote Admiral David Porter when he attacked Mobile Bay during the American War of Northern Aggression.

Patrick

 

[Serap]

WOW, I do not have time to write that encyclopedia. Do you have time to read it?

The answer to this question is based, in large part, on the age, gender, education, experience, and cultural background of the person that the woman is interacting with. The bad part comes when the woman does not even know she is interacting with that person.

For Example: A woman walks into church. Unless she is the only person there, there is some interaction. So the family in the middle on the right side see her and have some level of awareness even if only, “Someone else showing up for Adoration”. There is also the cleaning lady dusting the statues on the side of the alter and the guy fixing the organ in the choir loft, etc.

Our point-of-view woman may be unaware or only marginally aware of any or all of these people and she is certainly not at church to impress them. Yet each of them may make judgments of her, consciously or unconsciously, based on her dress, facial expression, carriage, and a dozen other criteria that most of us are not aware of.

In most places, you can adhere to the norms of the culture, or at least the dominant culture but in the U.S. today, with diversity raising its ugly visage, there is no real dominant culture in many places.

I hate to say it, and I am not trying to be (very) facetious, but the only advice I have in this line is to quote Admiral David Porter when he attacked Mobile Bay during the American War of Northern Aggression.

Patrick

I’ll give a good example. If I see a girl who is 18 - 24 in a church showing cleavage, I think, “she’s young and she’ll realize as she gets more mature.” I don’t pass judgement.

There are many nice young girls who dress inappropriately not realizing it.

If I see a 40 year old woman showing the same cleavage, I think, “how tacky.” I do pass judgement to some degree b/c I think a 40 year old woman should know better.

BUT…if I see a 40 year old woman who is wearing a sexy outift, but appropriate and she looks good, I think, “wow, she’s beautiful and I love her outfit. good for her that she takes such good care of herself.”

Sexy doesn’t necessarily = immodest. there’s a subtle difference.

 

[phoage]

I’ll give a good example. If I see a girl who is 18 - 24 in a church showing cleavage, I think, “she’s young and she’ll realize as she gets more mature.” I don’t pass judgement.

There are many nice young girls who dress inappropriately not realizing it.

If I see a 40 year old woman showing the same cleavage, I think, “how tacky.” I do pass judgement to some degree b/c I think a 40 year old woman should know better.

BUT…if I see a 40 year old woman who is wearing a sexy outift, but appropriate and she looks good, I think, “wow, she’s beautiful and I love her outfit. good for her that she takes such good care of herself.”

Sexy doesn’t necessarily = immodest. there’s a subtle difference.

Verily

 

[Sarabande]

Thanks.

If you met my husband, you’d see that I have nothing to worry about . He’s a puppy dog. He’s not the cheating lurking type. He just likes to joke around - harmless fun.

Hahaha! Your husband and I mine sound like they’d get along very well. He’s the same way with me and keeps me laughing all the time, which I need now that I’m getting that preggers body myself.

 

[Sarabande]

I’ll give a good example. If I see a girl who is 18 - 24 in a church showing cleavage, I think, “she’s young and she’ll realize as she gets more mature.” I don’t pass judgement.

There are many nice young girls who dress inappropriately not realizing it.

If I see a 40 year old woman showing the same cleavage, I think, “how tacky.” I do pass judgement to some degree b/c I think a 40 year old woman should know better.

BUT…if I see a 40 year old woman who is wearing a sexy outift, but appropriate and she looks good, I think, “wow, she’s beautiful and I love her outfit. good for her that she takes such good care of herself.”

Sexy doesn’t necessarily = immodest. there’s a subtle difference.

This is very true. A woman I know and is like a second mother to me is one of the classiest, beautiful, spiritual and yet modest women I know. She is in her late 60s, but could easily give a 40 year old woman a run for her money. She never wears inappropriate or immodest clothing and never acts immodestly (in fact is a very spiritual woman), but she is incredibly attractive. My husband, who is in his early 30s, and my father, who is in his early 60s, both think she is extremely sexy and it’s not because she does anything to promote it. Her beauty, class, depth of spirituality, intellect, kindness and her self-confidence all adds to the attractiveness and sexiness of her person.

 

[Serap]

This is very true. A woman I know and is like a second mother to me is one of the classiest, beautiful, spiritual and yet modest women I know. She is in her late 60s, but could easily give a 40 year old woman a run for her money. She never wears inappropriate or immodest clothing and never acts immodestly (in fact is a very spiritual woman), but she is incredibly attractive. My husband, who is in his early 30s, and my father, who is in his early 60s, both think she is extremely sexy and it’s not because she does anything to promote it. Her beauty, class, depth of spirituality, intellect, kindness and her self-confidence all adds to the attractiveness and sexiness of her person.

good for her!

I have a friend who is the same, but she’s in her mid-40’s. She is very pretty and dresses, sexy, but appropriately. She’s also a sweetheart. Never has it ever crossed my mind that she’s immodest because she has sex appeal.

 

[lobster]

Lobster,

This person is being sarcastic b/c your attitude is not one of the attitude that Jesus would have had…one of compassion, understanding, empathy…

I will accept your conclusion of my attitude as un-Christlike and offer my apologies. Now would it be too much to ask if you can support your conclusion with reference to a specific post so that I can see and correct my error.

As we established, the young women who dress that way are doing so in ignorance. They like the attention, yes, but they are young (90% of the time) and they are not aware of their sin because they have been brainwashed by MTV.

But let’s talk about the 10% who are not ignorant and want to be modest. I agree we should not cast judgment on those who are ignorant.
Rather lets focus on those who want to refrain from sin and how to present themselves with modest actions and dress.

 

[lobster]

Again I find two things lacking or objectionable.
First the assumption that this is a “woman” thing. Why is it always only about women…

Maybe there could be an appropriate thread directed toward men. It only seems that men are typically not playing the role of seducter. The allure of wanting to be a seductress is an integral part of a woman’s fallen nature. In the same way, men have their own struggles on account of their fallen nature. That is why I believe this topic is more appropriately directed toward women. It is not meant to single out women or to bash.

When men make threads about their own problems they are generelly speaking of individual and personal problems. When they make them about women, they are often generel and I hardly ever see the same kinds of threads made by men about men… like “How should men dress, act, talk etc… to avoid impurity of mind, actions, drawing undue attention, how should they dress modestly etc…”

Again, these type of thread are more appropriate for women. It is not to say that there are not men who dress provocatively with the intention of seducing women. It is just not as common place. Typically when a man is not dressed properly or tacky, it does not incite lust in women nor is it intended to do so. Rather women are not incited by the tackiness but either find it as someone said already, “disgusting”, or comical. Men dressing inappropriately is more along the lines of drawing attention rather than undue or lustful attention. If the intention of drawing attention is there at all. Mostly with men, I would presume, dressing inappropriately is more to do with laziness, ignorance, poor taste…etc. Many men do not even give much thought to the way they dress. At least certainly not to the extent that women do.

 

[GraceDK]

Maybe there could be an appropriate thread directed toward men. It only seems that men are typically not playing the role of seducter. The allure of wanting to be a seductress is an integral part of a woman’s fallen nature. In the same way, men have their own struggles on account of their fallen nature. That is why I believe this topic is more appropriately directed toward women. It is not meant to single out women or to bash.

Again, these type of thread are more appropriate for women. It is not to say that there are not men who dress provocatively with the intention of seducing women. It is just not as common place. Typically when a man is not dressed properly or tacky, it does not incite lust in women nor is it intended to do so. Rather women are not incited by the tackiness but either find it as someone said already, “disgusting”, or comical. Men dressing inappropriately is more along the lines of drawing attention rather than undue or lustful attention. If the intention of drawing attention is there at all. Mostly with men, I would presume, dressing inappropriately is more to do with laziness, ignorance, poor taste…etc. Many men do not even give much thought to the way they dress. At least certainly not to the extent that women do.

The first part I totally disagree with. Women being seductresses and this is part of their fallen nature? Wow… where ever did you get that?
Maybe it’s like that where you come from, but every where I have been, men are more often the seducers. They will play games with the eyes, and tell a woman a bunch of lies about their emotions so that the woman will feel loved, but all the man wants is the physical stuff and he is not interested in commitment. This type of seduction is more cruel than any cleavage. Thats called objectification which might well be a consequence of the fall in men.
Also, I think the attire of cultures and time has everything to do with fashion and little to do with an intent to incite lust or something like that. So too in my country. Cleavage is not much fashionable at this time and I dont see it much. Right now very loose outfits are fashionable… personally I like figure in clothes.
Also men are very very fashion minded many places in Europe whereas we perceive Americans and Canadians to be rather layed back in their style.

 

[budgie2]

I agree with Lobster. One aspect of Mary and the reason why she has the serpent under her foot is her modesty. She is not an object of lust. I do not think a veil is compulsory but it is an optional head covering but certainly longer skirts and not showing large amounts of cleavage are important. We should dress modestly according to our culture.

xt3media.org/admin/Uploads/media/36/St%20Mary%20Statue.jpg

Some statues of Mary show her hair down. In Eastern Orthodox the veil covers all of her hair similar to a Hijab. Muslims probably wear a veil due to St Paul’s teaching and this is nicked from New Testament. But on grounds of equal rights we do not have an obligation to wear a veil in a culture where showing hair is not seen as promiscuous.

id209.chi.us.securedata.net/worlddecorium.com/merchantmanager/images/uploads/27382.jpg

 

[Catholictrain]

The first part I totally disagree with. Women being seductresses and this is part of their fallen nature? Wow… where ever did you get that?
Maybe it’s like that where you come from, but every where I have been, men are more often the seducers. They will play games with the eyes, and tell a woman a bunch of lies about their emotions so that the woman will feel loved, but all the man wants is the physical stuff and he is not interested in commitment. This type of seduction is more cruel than any cleavage. Thats called objectification which might well be a consequence of the fall in men.
Also, I think the attire of cultures and time has everything to do with fashion and little to do with an intent to incite lust or something like that. So too in my country. Cleavage is not much fashionable at this time and I dont see it much. Right now very loose outfits are fashionable… personally I like figure in clothes.
Also men are very very fashion minded many places in Europe whereas we perceive Americans and Canadians to be rather layed back in their style.

Some (many?) men are seducers, I agree. Some men think with their groin instead of their brain. It is true. In a sense, some men are predators, like a tiger in the jungle. So given this fact… why would a woman bare themselves like a hunk of meat in the jungle when there is the possibility of tigers prowling about?

 

[lobster]

The first part I totally disagree with. Women being seductresses and this is part of their fallen nature? Wow… where ever did you get that?

From life on earth.

Even back in Tertullian’s time this was recognized. He shares some insights:
newadvent.org/fathers/0402.htm

Maybe it’s like that where you come from,

Yes it is.

but every where I have been, men are more often the seducers.
They will play games with the eyes, and tell a woman a bunch of lies about their emotions so that the woman will feel loved, but all the man wants is the physical stuff and he is not interested in commitment. This type of seduction is more cruel than any cleavage. Thats called objectification which might well be a consequence of the fall in men.

You are talking about concupiscence which is the natural desire of the flesh to be satisfied. A woman has a natural desire (because of her fallen nature) to desire to feel (a bodily emotion) wanted and loved. The concupiscent desire is therefore to be attractive physically to fulfill ones emotional need. Taken to a higher degree, the physical desire wishes to exert influence in order to “make” a man want and love her. Problem with concupiscence is that it is not subject to ones will. The lower desires exist whether willed or not. The will may refuse to give consent, but it cannot remove the natural desire. That is a product of original sin.
Above you acknowledge that objectification is a consequence of the fall in men (and presumably you apply this to mean only in men), yet you deny that woman also are tainted by a gender specific consequence of original sin. Why?

Also, I think the attire of cultures and time has everything to do with fashion and little to do with an intent to incite lust or something like that.

The attire of cultures is ultimately influenced by prevailing desire to be appealing and attractive. Modern attire is largely a product of marketing campaigns capitalizing on this desire.

 

[GraceDK]

QUOTE=lobster;5354311]From life on earth.
Even back in Tertullian’s time this was recognized. He shares some insights:
newadvent.org/fathers/0402.htm

Sorry. But beware not to take all of a church fathers words as dogma to push down on people. Also, if you want to quote some early teacher, please quote a woman on this topic… that makes it more edible to me. Because I am sure that the aestetic male theologians at the time of Tertullian, great theologians as they may be, were not knowlegable about the female mind, weaknesses or feelings about sex and modesty in the way a woman would be.

Yes it is.

Too bad for you.
So the men are victims in generel of seduction… sad.

**You are talking about concupiscence which is the natural desire of the flesh to be satisfied. A woman has a natural desire (because of her fallen nature) to desire to feel (a bodily emotion) wanted and loved. **

Eh??? this makes no sense to me… It’s as sin for a woman to desire to feel… wanted and loved bodily?? emotion is wrong? marital sex is wrong? Could you be more clear? Because if what you say here is true… that the desire to be wanted and loved is wrong… then you also make Jesus Christ guilty. He too thirsted for love, as does any healthy man from the moment he is born…

**The concupiscent desire is therefore to be attractive physically to fulfill ones emotional need. **

Is it not a desire of respect and love which makes a man wear man’s perfume and a nice shirt and gel in his hair? I think so… he wants to impress the woman he is attracted to… because he has a human need to be fulfilled… like adam. Its not good for man to be alone.
It is human nature to decorate one self, wash one self and try to look good in order to attract a good and strong and beautiful spouse. There is actually nothing wrong with this. I dont know why you think so, but maybe you read some text from the middle ages where sex was seen as something inherently wrong and dirty…

Taken to a higher degree, the physical desire wishes to exert influence in order to “make” a man want and love her. Problem with concupiscence is that it is not subject to ones will. The lower desires exist whether willed or not. The will may refuse to give consent, but it cannot remove the natural desire. That is a product of original sin.
Above you acknowledge that objectification is a consequence of the fall in men (and presumably you apply this to mean only in men), yet you deny that woman also are tainted by a gender specific consequence of original sin. Why?

Actually I tried to show you just how wrong it is to generelise like that which you pulled off in your post where you said women were seductresses because of the fall, making this sound like some normal tendency which of course is absurd.
I have, save maybe one, met no young women who did not look for the one and only and only wished to sleep with him. As for many guys there is a trend with “many conquests means I am cool”. This is superficial use of people…
The other is not. There’s a crucial line between the two, which you should not confuse
To desire to love and be loved and needed reciprocally is necessary for human beings to bind themselves to each other in holy matrimony. Lust is not. However, being attractive or trying to be is no sin.

The attire of cultures is ultimately influenced by prevailing desire to be appealing and attractive. Modern attire is largely a product of marketing campaigns capitalizing on this desire.

True. But women and men still have quite different ideas about whats going on. men speak of hot or sexy while women speak of fashionable, cool, or sweet…
what is sad is when some cultures or individuals shame women into wearing clothes that she would never otherwise have worn, just because she has internalised an out-side urge for dominance on the male part.

 

[lobster]

**QUOTE=lobster;5354311]Sorry. But beware not to take all of a church fathers words as dogma to push down on people.**Except that I think he makes a rather good authority on the subject.

Also, if you want to quote some early teacher, please quote a woman on this topic… that makes it more edible to me. Because I am sure that the aestetic male theologians at the time of Tertullian, great theologians as they may be, were not knowlegable about the female mind, weaknesses or feelings about sex and modesty in the way a woman would be.

 

[lobster]

GraceDK:

Is it not a desire of respect and love which makes a man wear man’s perfume and a nice shirt and gel in his hair? I think so… he wants to impress the woman he is attracted to… because he has a human need to be fulfilled… like adam. Its not good for man to be alone.

Tertullian:

Let it now be granted that excellence of form be not to be feared, as neither troublesome to its possessors, nor destructive to its desirers, nor perilous to its compartners; let it be thought (to be) not exposed to temptations, not surrounded by stumbling-blocks: it is enough that to angels of God it is not necessary. For, where modesty is, there beauty is idle; because properly the use and fruit of beauty is voluptuousness, unless any one thinks that there is some other harvest for bodily grace to reap. Are women who think that, in furnishing to their neighbour that which is demanded of beauty, they are furnishing it to themselves also, to augment that (beauty) when (naturally) given them, and to strive after it when not (thus) given? Some one will say, “Why, then, if voluptuousness be shut out and chastity let in, may (we) not enjoy the praise of beauty alone, and glory in a bodily good?” Let whoever finds pleasure in “glorying in the flesh” see to that. To us in the first place, there is no studious pursuit of “glory,” because “glory” is the essence of exaltation. Now exaltation is incongruous for professors of humility according to God’s precepts. Secondly, if all “glory” is “vain” and insensate, how much more (glory) in the flesh, especially to us? For even if “glorying” is (allowable), we ought to wish our sphere of pleasing to lie in the graces of the Spirit, not in the flesh; because we are “suitors” of things spiritual. In those things wherein our sphere of labour lies, let our joy lie. From the sources whence we hope for salvation, let us cull our “glory.” Plainly, a Christian will “glory” even in the flesh; but (it will be) when it has endured laceration for Christ’s sake, in order that the spirit may be crowned in it, not in order that it may draw the eyes and sighs of youths after it. Thus (a thing) which, from whatever point you look at it, is in your case superfluous, you may justly disdain if you have it not, and neglect if you have. Let a holy woman, if naturally beautiful, give none so great occasion (for carnal appetite). Certainly, if even she be so, she ought not to set off (her beauty), but even to obscure it.

GraceDK:

It is human nature to decorate one self, wash one self and try to look good in order to attract a good and strong and beautiful spouse. There is actually nothing wrong with this. I dont know why you think so, but maybe you read some text from the middle ages where sex was seen as something inherently wrong and dirty…

I didn’t say there was anything wrong with this. Are you running out of reasons for why it is okay for women to dress and act immodestly?

Actually I tried to show you just how wrong it is to generelise like that which you pulled off in your post where you said women were seductresses because of the fall, making this sound like some normal tendency which of course is absurd.

“women are vain” and “women tend toward being vain” are two different things. Concupiscence seeks to be vain, the will chooses whether to submit or not. Nevertheless the tendency is there since the fall.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

This following was taking from the thread “It’s summer now. How would you show off your body”, but it sparked a related topic:

What would be considered acceptable mannerisms, methods of walking, sitting, standing, posture, etc that women should maintain in order to keep from drawing undue attention from men in regards to modesty? It seems that many women maintain that clothing doesn’t much matter so much as the actions of the wearer behind them. The claim was made that a fully dressed nun in habit could be more scandalous than a naked women who presents herself modestly. What actions would be considered unacceptable or immodest or even sinful for any woman to perform? making “come hither” glances, running, or exercising for example, stretching in public, lifting ones arms past a certain height, certain motions, etc…? What other actions come to mind that are unbecoming of a dignified woman who wishes to preserve the virtue of modesty and not lead others to sin? Or possibly a better question is, rather than ask what actions are sinful, what mannerisms should women use in order not to tempt others?
I believe there is a lot of good ideas which can be picked up from old Victorian sensibilities as to how women should act. Thoughts?

I am guilty.I stretched in public this weekend.And might have raised my arms above a certain height.Not sure about "certain motions."Please elaborate if that is prudent on a Christian site. I did abstain from “Come hither glances.”
How many innocent souls may I have led to sin by my actions?What would Tertullian say about my conduct?
I await direction so that I may amend my life.Please recommend a Victorian guide to feminine decorum.Perhaps a corset & hoop skirt would prevent sinful running & exercising,Not to mention stretching & raising arms.Thanks!

 

[Serap]

I am guilty.I stretched in public this weekend.And might have raised my arms above a certain height.Not sure about "certain motions."Please elaborate if that is prudent on a Christian site. I did abstain from “Come hither glances.”
How many innocent souls may I have led to sin by my actions?What would Tertullian say about my conduct?
I await direction so that I may amend my life.Please recommend a Victorian guide to feminine decorum.Perhaps a corset & hoop skirt would prevent sinful running & exercising,Not to mention stretching & raising arms.Thanks!

LOL!!

Being an attractive tall lean blonde, I have been a subject of many harrassments and come ons when I really wasn’t trying to seduce anyone. I used to wonder what I was doing wrong and why men always seemed to just want to sleep with me.

I definitely wasn’t immodest. I can speak for myself! In saying that, I can also speak for many other women that have been through what I’ve been through. It really upset me that men had such little respect. I thought I’d never meet my husband.

Thanks God that I did!!

In saying this, Lobster has some very good arguments also. I can see her point also.

Even in Mary’s day, I’m sure that she had some unwanted attention. It’s just not written in the bible. Mary was a very beautiful and humble woman. To a lot of men, that is a huge attraction to conquer. Lobster is being naive to think that not one man ever came on to her. I think that’s impossible given her amazing beauty inside and out.

She of course, turned away from sin, but it doesn’t mean that other men weren’t tempted to sin with her.