Is Wearing Immodest Clothing a Sin?

[Walking_Home]

There is nothing wrong** with warning** people that they may be engaging in sin. If serverus68 says that I am wrong and falsely accused him of sin, then I will apologize to him. However that doesn’t excuse the both of you chastising me, insulting me, and making me out to be some sort of deranged misogynist. What you two have said on here was really hurtful to me.

---

Well – that’s a nice try – at changing your accusation to a “warning”.

 

[austenbosten]

A woman wearing a tank top and shorts is not sinning.

A man who sees said woman and thinks lustful thoughts about her is sinning.

A woman wearing a sweater and leggings is not sinning.

A man who sees woman wearing sweater and leggings and thinks lustful thoughts about her is sinning.

True all true, but does that make it perfectly alright for people to dress provocatively?

Ordering or Cooking more than enough food is not a sin…eating too much is…however does that still make it right?

I just don’t get it…do people think women really should be wearing revealing clothing? Such as people think it’s okay for guys to wear their pants below their waist with the underwear showing?

Of course neither is a sin, but is it something we should be encouraging?

 

[runwaymodel]

A woman wearing a tank top and shorts is not sinning.

A man who sees said woman and thinks lustful thoughts about her is sinning.

A woman wearing a sweater and leggings is not sinning.

A man who sees woman wearing sweater and leggings and thinks lustful thoughts about her is sinning.

Amen to that. :clapping:

 

[_Jenn]

True all true, but does that make it perfectly alright for people to dress provocatively?

But of the two examples you quoted…

tank top/shorts

sweater/leggings

Which is the provocative one? To me, a woman, neither is provocative on the surface, but both can be for any given man. If you place two women side by side, one in the tank/shorts, the other in the sweater/leggings, and grab 2 random men to pick which they feel more provocative, which incites more lust in them, etc., you could get 2 different responses.

So - what is a person to do? I’m not going to begin to base my wardrobe off who I might or might not walk by that day. I could wear a simple dress, blouse/skirt, and it be troublesome for 4 men I pass that day, but not the other 40 (just to throw random numbers out there). Or I could wear jeans/t-shirt and cause trouble for the 40 and not the 4. No way to tell.

Maybe if everyone paid more attention to the truly important details of day-to-day life instead of what people wear, and own responsibility for their own thoughts and actions, threads like these wouldn’t be needed.

 

[austenbosten]

---

Well – that’s a nice try – at changing your accusation to a “warning”.

Okay I said “my guess” I never said that he was…I implied that I was making a guess as in that I could be wrong in saying so…which I have said and am willing to apologize if he tells me that I am wrong.

You know what?

I really, really wanted to believe that you would understand that I am willing to apologize for anything I have said that might have hurt or insulted you. If only you recognize that I was hurt by the things you’ve said to me.

However I now know you are nothing but a bully…and this is an accusation you can call me out on and I won’t change. You continue to belittle, insult, and degrade me and I’m not going to have any more of it.

 

[austenbosten]

But of the two examples you quoted…

tank top/shorts

sweater/leggings

Which is the provocative one? To me, a woman, neither is provocative on the surface, but both can be for any given man. If you place two women side by side, one in the tank/shorts, the other in the sweater/leggings, and grab 2 random men to pick which they feel more provocative, which incites more lust in them, etc., you could get 2 different responses.

So - what is a person to do? I’m not going to begin to base my wardrobe off who I might or might not walk by that day. I could wear a simple dress, blouse/skirt, and it be troublesome for 4 men I pass that day, but not the other 40 (just to throw random numbers out there). Or I could wear jeans/t-shirt and cause trouble for the 40 and not the 4. No way to tell.

Maybe if everyone paid more attention to the truly important details of day-to-day life instead of what people wear, and own responsibility for their own thoughts and actions, threads like these wouldn’t be needed.

Jenn do you mean to say that when you have a choice of two wardrobes such as:

A nice pair of jeans and a nice blouse

or

a tight fitting tank top with very short shorts with the words “Juicy” on the back of it

that you are going to look at both and say “both are the same” let me put it this way…which would you wear to the office or church?

as for the sweater thing, I used that as an example that men can engage in lust over pretty much anything if they put their mind to it (just look at how Islamic countries are now telling women that they can’t even show their eyes anymore)…however some are clothes designed to clothe the body and a fashionable way and others are designed to entice men to look at them differently…otherwise, what’s the purpose of g-string bikinis and underwear?

 

[runwaymodel]

Being in the fashion industry, I believe I know a thing or 2 about clothes and I can tell you this: the majority of women’s clothes is aimed towards women (unless it is lingerie). Men often do not understand women’s fashion. Women dress to be fashionable, comfortable, or some lack style but rarely does a woman ever dress to purposefully try to ‘entice’ a man. Rarely. Trashy people, maybe. They are out there.
Anything can tempt a man, really. A pair of jeans on one woman can look completely different and sexy on another.

 

[Catholic90]

Who said anything about a “tight fitting” tank and short shorts with “juicy”

YOU mentioned that. I was talking about a regular ribbed tank like the kind from the women’s department at jcp and standard 7 inch inseam shorts. Denim or broadcloth, usually.

Whose mind is where?!

 

[_Jenn]

Who said anything about a “tight fitting” tank and short shorts with “juicy”

YOU mentioned that. I was talking about a regular ribbed tank like the kind from the women’s department at jcp and standard 7 inch inseam shorts. Denim or broadcloth, usually.

Whose mind is where?!

Oh good - I thought maybe I was losing it. It is midnight, after all. LOL What I quoted said nothing about tight fitting tank top and short shorts with juicy on it. It simply said tank top and shorts - which again - is not immodest.

ETA: this was more directed at the posted who you just quoted, not you. LOL Again, it’s late. I should probably be in bed and not attempting to post online with any sort of clarity.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

Well – that’s a nice try – at changing your accusation to a “warning”.

Okay I said “my guess” I never said that he was…I implied that I was making a guess as in that I could be wrong in saying so…which I have said and am willing to apologize if he tells me that I am wrong.

You know what?

I really, really wanted to believe that you would understand that I am willing to apologize for anything I have said that might have hurt or insulted you. If only you recognize that I was hurt by the things you’ve said to me.

However I now know you are nothing but a bully…and this is an accusation you can call me out on and I won’t change. You continue to belittle, insult, and degrade me and I’m not going to have any more of it.

---

You may have started with “I guess” — but when you went on to the “I will pray that you turn to Christ and repent”—that went beyond the “guessing”.

austenbosten:

I will pray that you turn to Christ and repent

 

[_Jenn]

Jenn do you mean to say that when you have a choice of two wardrobes such as:

A nice pair of jeans and a nice blouse

or

a tight fitting tank top with very short shorts with the words “Juicy” on the back of it

that you are going to look at both and say “both are the same” let me put it this way…which would you wear to the office or church?

as for the sweater thing, I used that as an example that men can engage in lust over pretty much anything if they put their mind to it (just look at how Islamic countries are now telling women that they can’t even show their eyes anymore)…however some are clothes designed to clothe the body and a fashionable way and others are designed to entice men to look at them differently…otherwise, what’s the purpose of g-string bikinis and underwear?

No, that’s not what I mean to say. I quoted what was in the post - which simply said “tank top/shorts” and “sweater/leggings”. It said NOTHING about “tight fitting tank tops with short shorts and the word ‘juicy’ on them”. So yes, I will stand by what I said in that there is no difference in what I quoted.

 

[austenbosten]

No, that’s not what I mean to say. I quoted what was in the post - which simply said “tank top/shorts” and “sweater/leggings”. It said NOTHING about “tight fitting tank tops with short shorts and the word ‘juicy’ on them”. So yes, I will stand by what I said in that there is no difference in what I quoted.

shorts have a lot of meanings…there are long shorts, regular shorts, denim shorts, short shorts, hot pants ect. I was unsure what you were implying.

Look what I’m saying is there are articles of clothing that are modest and that are not modest…why is it so wrong to say “Hey ladies, do you mind that you not wear the tube tops and low-cut jeans with the thong sticking out?”

I’m really disturbed that so many Christians take a cavalier attitude towards modesty with clothing and have this idea that…“Hey I’ll dress in any way I want and if some of my weaker Christian brethren can’t help themselves and sin…so be it let them burn in Hell…not my problem and not my responsibility.”

It’s the same sad sorry attitude some Christians have with the poor “Yeah the Bible says to tithe, but these people are bums and it’s not my fault they won’t get a job…so let them starve…hey it ain’t my problem and not my responsibility.”

 

[severus68]

Well it’s sad that you think it’s perfectly okay for society to objectify women and turn them into objects for man’s selfish desires. You think it’s okay women are lied to and told that dressing immodestly is sending a good message to men. Your line of thinking I would say is wrong.

I’ll say this before I part ways for tonight. Next time you see a woman dressed in improper clothing, look at her as if she was your daughter and ask yourself “Is that how I want my daughter to dress, where men are looking at her lusting after her and having disgusting fantasies about her and treating her as an object rather than a child of God?”

I think most women and men strive and desire to be good but we all stumble every now and then and that’s why we need repentance and forgiveness…however some people choose to reject God and live lives estranged from Him…and I believe many are living lives that reject God and are completely oblivious to it and that’s the biggest travesty.

As for the pornstar comment, do not judge these women and think that they are “evil” and improper dressed women are “good” both are people who are being deceived by society to live a life contrary to what God wants. Most pornstars are women crying out for help and they need our charity and forgiveness…because many were abused at a young age and are in a warped mindset about sex and love…for someone chastising me for being uncharitable YOU SIR should be ashamed of yourself…they are just as deserving of Christ’s love and forgiveness as you and I are.

My point in dressing immodestly and acting immodestly is that it doesn’t hurt the man or the woman…It hurts both, it leads both to sin and estranges both away from Christ.

**You call me unChristian because I am saddened and disgusted at the way women are objectified by society, something you obviously do not have a problem with…to that I say YOU need to repent and seek for Christ. The way society treats women as sexual objects instead of Children of God is un-Christian and if you can’t see that then you are completely blind by Satan. **

**My guess is you are numbed to the flagrant amount sexual images in society because you live in sexual sin **as I have been. I used to be able to walk past an improper dressed woman, watch sex scenes on television and movies, and view highly-sexualized advertisements because I was constantly viewing pornography and engaging in sin that I had become numb to it. Now that I am turning my life over to Christ I am starting to see how sad and depraved society has become and how I lived my life. My guess is you are in denial about the way women are objectified in society because you are living in that sin…I will pray that you turn to Christ and repent.

I am not one to bark like this…I do not like confrontation and I desire friendship with all, but for you to hurl such callous insults at me, I am forced to be confrontational in this manner. I am not angry, I am just disappointed you would say such things to me and that you have such a warped and misguided view of me. If I am wrong on anything I have said I will pray tonight and ask God to tell me if I was wrong in what I’ve said. I may have confused you with my harsh, unrestrained, strong, crude, graphic, vulgar use of language but this is how I speak sometimes. So I’m setting the record straight with this.

I do not believe that women should be treated like cattle as they do in the Mid East for they are just as equally important as man and do not deserve to be treated as such and reserved to the status of a second-class citizen by being forced to cover themselves head to toe because their men are afraid of them, neither do I believe women should be treated like cattle as they do in the West where it is permissible and encouraged that men look at women as objects and that women are encouraged to view themselves as objects all-the-while being lied to and being told that they are “liberated” when they do so…they are not, they are just as imprisoned as those poor unfortunate souls who walk around covered in a cloak. For they are being denied the joys of Christ.

I fear I am going to regret posting this, but I also feel compelled to say it. I feel you and Walking Home have gravely insulted me and are attempting to demean my character and honor, by making it appear that I have no respect for women and I have to stand up and refute such ridiculous and unjust accusations.

The bold parts above are mind to mark the worst of your comments to and of me. It is easy to say such things in anonimity and when you know there are no real consequences. I considered what I should do about this. However, reading all your posts and THIS post of yours, I have come to the conclusion that you must have a lot to contend in your life to post in this manner and I will leave it unless you choose to persist. It is after all Advent and Christmas is around the corner.

I will pray for you.

 

[severus68]

There is nothing wrong with loving/appreciating the beauty of a woman. Nor is there anything wrong with us women appreciating/loving the attractiveness of a man. I can look at many a person, and say “he’s good looking” without lusting over him. It is not a sin to recognize attractiveness.

And to go back to what I posted about what my dh said, someone later responded w/ it being nonsense. But really, it’s not. Every person is unique; therefore, what everyone is attracted to will be different. Not every man is out there lusting over every woman he sees, nor is every woman lusting over every man she sees. It really makes me wonder what people are doing when they are out, when they are at church, etc. Because I couldn’t tell you what anyone but my family is wearing in church, or anywhere else for that matter. My dh & I are both the type of people who will notice behavior/actions more than anything. If someone is acting very loud/inappropriate for where we are, I may notice that, but I probably couldn’t begin to tell you what they were wearing.

Personally, I say everyone should just remove the planks from their own eyes. Maybe you (general you) are bothered by what you perceive as immodest dress. But what is it about you that annoys someone? Where do you stand on that - is it your problem, or theirs? When you are bothered by immodest dress, you (again, general you) place blame on the person bothering you. Are you willing to accept the blame for whatever it is you do that annoys someone? Because it could be anything - dress, language, behavior, etc.

Very well said.

 

[heart4home]

---

I was responding to a person – who belongs to a Christian denomination. And we as Christians should not only take it onto ourselves-- that we should see a child of God – no matter how a person is dressed/how they look – but also teach that to others as we evangelize.

Yes you were responding to a Christian in regards to a question along the lines of “Is that how I want my daughter to dress, where men will be staring at her etc. etc. etc.”

My point is, don’t assume that all men who stare at her will be Christian or be looking at her with charity.

 

[_Jenn]

shorts have a lot of meanings…there are long shorts, regular shorts, denim shorts, short shorts, hot pants ect. I was unsure what you were implying.

Look what I’m saying is there are articles of clothing that are modest and that are not modest…why is it so wrong to say “Hey ladies, do you mind that you not wear the tube tops and low-cut jeans with the thong sticking out?”

I’m really disturbed that so many Christians take a cavalier attitude towards modesty with clothing and have this idea that…“Hey I’ll dress in any way I want and if some of my weaker Christian brethren can’t help themselves and sin…so be it let them burn in Hell…not my problem and not my responsibility.”

It’s the same sad sorry attitude some Christians have with the poor “Yeah the Bible says to tithe, but these people are bums and it’s not my fault they won’t get a job…so let them starve…hey it ain’t my problem and not my responsibility.”

Well, by all means then, let’s not hold a double standard. Let’s make sure that men have a shirt on AT ALL TIMES. “You want to swim without a shirt? Sorry sir, but some woman just might not be able to control her thoughts when she sees you without a shirt, even though the other 356 women on the beach can, so too bad for you.” Because for some women, a bare chested man incites thoughts of lust. While we’re at it, let’s rule out jeans/cowboy boots, and cowboy hats - because for some women, it’s a country boy that drives them crazy. Oh, and please, please - walk around with your eyes shut. Because some women are drawn to beautiful eyes. So just in case, don’t open them.

Crazy things to say? Maybe. But nobody - men or women - should be held responsible for others’ thoughts, lustful or not. Own your own thoughts, people!!! It really isn’t that complicated. I’m not saying - hey - just walk around naked, or hey - walk around with all your parts hanging out. But a tank top, v-neck shirt, skirts, etc - none of them are inherently immoral/immodest. In fact, they could all be very tastefully worn, without even a hint of immodesty, but because one guy out there thinks lustfully of it, it must be immodest. ummm - nope. Don’t think so. Get a hold of yourself.

All this - JMHO, of course.

 

[heart4home]

Well, by all means then, let’s not hold a double standard. Let’s make sure that men have a shirt on AT ALL TIMES. “You want to swim without a shirt? Sorry sir, but some woman just might not be able to control her thoughts when she sees you without a shirt, even though the other 356 women on the beach can, so too bad for you.” Because for some women, a bare chested man incites thoughts of lust. While we’re at it, let’s rule out jeans/cowboy boots, and cowboy hats - because for some women, it’s a country boy that drives them crazy. Oh, and please, please - walk around with your eyes shut. Because some women are drawn to beautiful eyes. So just in case, don’t open them.

**Crazy things to say? Maybe. But nobody - men or women - should be held responsible for others’ thoughts, lustful or not. Own your own thoughts, people!!! ** It really isn’t that complicated. I’m not saying - hey - just walk around naked, or hey - walk around with all your parts hanging out. But a tank top, v-neck shirt, skirts, etc - none of them are inherently immoral/immodest. In fact, they could all be very tastefully worn, without even a hint of immodesty, but because one guy out there thinks lustfully of it, it must be immodest. ummm - nope. Don’t think so. Get a hold of yourself.

All this - JMHO, of course.

I don’t believe anybody is saying that wearing something immodest actually makes one responsible for another’s actions or reactions.

I think the whole point of this conversation is to make one considerate, compassionate and thoughtful towards each other.

I’m not sure why women who choose to show a great deal of their cleavage think they are only offending men. There are many women who would prefer not to see it as well.

But you know it’s all been said, a dozen times now and really it’s pretty clear the answers are not going to change from either side.

Some think we should put the comforts of others first and some think they should put the comfort of their self first. Depending on which side of the argument you are standing, will probably decide who you believe is doing what.

 

[Walking_Home]

austenbosten:

shorts have a lot of meanings…there are long shorts, regular shorts, denim shorts, short shorts, hot pants ect. I was unsure what you were implying.

Look what I’m saying is there are articles of clothing that are modest and that are not modest…why is it so wrong to say “Hey ladies, do you mind that you not wear the tube tops and low-cut jeans with the thong sticking out?”

I’m really disturbed that so many Christians take a cavalier attitude towards modesty with clothing and have this idea that…“Hey I’ll dress in any way I want and if some of my weaker Christian brethren can’t help themselves and sin…so be it let them burn in Hell…not my problem and not my responsibility.”

It’s the same sad sorry attitude some Christians have with the poor “Yeah the Bible says to tithe, but these people are bums and it’s not my fault they won’t get a job…so let them starve…hey it ain’t my problem and not my responsibility.”

Well, by all means then, let’s not hold a double standard. Let’s make sure that men have a shirt on AT ALL TIMES. “You want to swim without a shirt? Sorry sir, but some woman just might not be able to control her thoughts when she sees you without a shirt, even though the other 356 women on the beach can, so too bad for you.” Because for some women, a bare chested man incites thoughts of lust. While we’re at it, let’s rule out jeans/cowboy boots, and cowboy hats - because for some women, it’s a country boy that drives them crazy. Oh, and please, please - walk around with your eyes shut. Because some women are drawn to beautiful eyes. So just in case, don’t open them.

Crazy things to say? Maybe. But nobody - men or women - should be held responsible for others’ thoughts, lustful or not. Own your own thoughts, people!!! It really isn’t that complicated. I’m not saying - hey - just walk around naked, or hey - walk around with all your parts hanging out. But a tank top, v-neck shirt, skirts, etc - none of them are inherently immoral/immodest. In fact, they could all be very tastefully worn, without even a hint of immodesty, but because one guy out there thinks lustfully of it, it must be immodest. ummm - nope. Don’t think so. Get a hold of yourself.

All this - JMHO, of course.

---

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes you were responding to a Christian in regards to a question along the lines of “Is that how I want my daughter to dress, where men will be staring at her etc. etc. etc.”

My point is, don’t assume that all men who stare at her will be Christian or be looking at her with charity.

---

So now you hold women responsible for how non-Christian men look and think of them.

 

[severus68]

---

So now you hold women responsible for how non-Christian men look and think of them.

Also,why do some here presume that non -Christian men cannot be good men?