It's summer now. How much would you show your body?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dumbseeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lobster said:
The appeal for vanity obviously has a strong hold which many women find difficult to correct. More concern than this should be shown for ones brothers in Christ.
Click to expand...
I guess you’d recommend attire more along these lines:
 
lobster said:
Ha! So are you!Out of concern for modesty.And that is, as I mentioned, a form of vanity.
That is rather selfish thing to say. We have a responsibility to help others get to heaven, not be concerned only with our selves. Jesus’ attitude certainly was different. Imagine if He decided not to give His life for us and said “it is THEIR issue, let them fend for themselves”. On the other hand, if you know someone is prone to sin, it is your responsibility to not present yourself as an occasion of sin to others.

Sometimes the moral way is not easy, but is always necessary. The appeal for vanity obviously has a strong hold which many women find difficult to correct. More concern than this should be shown for ones brothers in Christ.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you are making excuses for those males in society who can’t control themselves! :cool: Sheesh, are you really that shallow??

I live in the north - our sunshine is limited - I also happen to love getting vitamin D the natural way - SUN! I will NEVER wear a hat - they are hot, uncomfortable, and they make my head itch. I know of only one woman who wears a hat, and she is in her 60 and suffers from alopecia (female baldness).

I SERIOUSLY doubt that me wearing a tank top and shorts sans hat in my yard, at the park, or to the store will draw undo attention to myself. On the otherhand, if I do as you suggest, and wear long sleeves, long pants, a hat, and be covered from head to toe when it is 95 and humid, you can be MOST ASSURED people will be staring at me wondering what the heck is wrong with me for wearing that uncomfortable clothing when it was so darn hot! (not to mention I will likely be passed out from heat stroke!)😛

So, no thanks. I will stick to what I have worn for 45 years.
 
dumbseeker said:
I know this might be a bit offensive. What’s a shelf bra? Does that cover your nipples? My friend is picking clothing for her daughter and she was a bit, um… outdated.
Click to expand...
Those are the tank tops that have the bra built into them… Its kind of like a mix between a sports bra and a tank top… The bra is built into the shirt, but its really not all that flattering. It also doesn’t typically offer much support.
 
I tend to cover up way more than others my age. (I’m 17.) To the pool, I’ll wear a tankini with a wrap or other cover-up, and be miserable. To church, I’ll wear short sleeved dresses that come at least to the knee. Anywhere else, I’ll wear jeans and a T-shirt, or capris if it’s really hot (like over 100). I don’t wear sleeveless shirts at all, unless I have something over them. Really the only time I wear shorts is when I have to clean out the pond.

I’ll freely admit, though, that some of this stems from my own issues. 😉
 
I always wear a full piece bathing suit plus a shirt over the top.
 
Can I ask why some people find sleeveless tops (I’m not talking about camisoles and/or spagetti straps) are immodest?

I understand not wanting to show excessive amounts of leg b/c it draws the eyes closer & closer to the ‘prize’. However, sleeveless shirts don’t point toward any ‘prize’ that I’m aware of. I could vaguely see someone answering that sleeveless shirts draw attention to the breasts, but really I don’t get that.

I also understand that some people avoid sleeveless shirts b/c they don’t like the way their arms look. However, that’s not immodesty, that’s personal preference/vanity/public awareness. Armpits don’t strike me as being particularly arousing for either gender (in general - I’m sure there’s some fetish out there).

BTW The reason I believe camisoles and/or spagetti strap shirts are more immodest is b/c they look like underwear/bras and generally don’t do much to shield the girls if they’re standing at attention. 😉 :eek:
 
BiologyBrain said:
Can I ask why some people find sleeveless tops (I’m not talking about camisoles and/or spagetti straps) are immodest?

I understand not wanting to show excessive amounts of leg b/c it draws the eyes closer & closer to the ‘prize’. However, sleeveless shirts don’t point toward any ‘prize’ that I’m aware of. I could vaguely see someone answering that sleeveless shirts draw attention to the breasts, but really I don’t get that.

I also understand that some people avoid sleeveless shirts b/c they don’t like the way their arms look. However, that’s not immodesty, that’s personal preference/vanity/public awareness. Armpits don’t strike me as being particularly arousing for either gender (in general - I’m sure there’s some fetish out there).

BTW The reason I believe camisoles and/or spagetti strap shirts are more immodest is b/c they look like underwear/bras and generally don’t do much to shield the girls if they’re standing at attention. 😉 :eek:
Click to expand...
I believe it’s either because 1)sleeveless shirts tend to be lower cut and 2) the “prize” isn’t the only part of a woman’s body that’s potentially arousing. Arms, legs, the chest, or the abdomen can be arousing as well. It’s all a matter of how much skin is reasonable or necessary to display at any given moment. I don’t wear sleeveless shirts to Church, because I don’t have any need to. A shirt with sleeves will keep me cool enough, and the Lord deserves more. However, in the summer, I’m also not going to wear a sweater to Church just to cover up, because it would be unpleasant and also draw undue attention to myself, which in itself is immodest.
 
bugz2007 said:
I believe it’s either because 1)sleeveless shirts tend to be lower cut and 2) the “prize” isn’t the only part of a woman’s body that’s potentially arousing. Arms, legs, the chest, or the abdomen can be arousing as well. It’s all a matter of how much skin is reasonable or necessary to display at any given moment. I don’t wear sleeveless shirts to Church, because I don’t have any need to. A shirt with sleeves will keep me cool enough, and the Lord deserves more. However, in the summer, I’m also not going to wear a sweater to Church just to cover up, because it would be unpleasant and also draw undue attention to myself, which in itself is immodest.
Click to expand...
I kind of understand that reasoning, but I don’t necessarily agree. For instance, most of the sleeveless shirts I’m talking about aren’t scoop necked or v-necked. I have tons that are collared button-up shirts. The ‘sleeves’ come to the point of my shoulder. The hem covers the top of my pants. Actually, I don’t think I have any sleeveless shirts that are low-cut & I have tons of them. I actually have a harder time w/ most short-sleeved shirts (baring those that are collared/button-up) showing more cleavage and/or being tighter fit - even from the same brand/department.

My church is an old country church that has the a/c go on the fritz more times than not. Plus I’m in the chior loft & everyone knows hot air rises. Sometimes, even in the winter, we sweat buckets while we try to use our talents for God.

I also don’t 100% buy the arms are arousing argument. A turtle neck shows the shape/definition of my arms almost as well as a sleeveless shirt. Actually, my guy finds that the more covered up I am, the more he’s aroused by wondering what’s underneath. I understand some guys have their own ‘things’, but if we limited ourselves to clothing that didn’t expose anything that could potentially be arousing we’d be wrapped head to toe in a puffy, shapeless mass of stuff. I wear sandals, but its well established that some people have foot fetishes… I don’t think any type of sandal could be considered immoral though. KWIM?
 
BiologyBrain said:
I kind of understand that reasoning, but I don’t necessarily agree. For instance, most of the sleeveless shirts I’m talking about aren’t scoop necked or v-necked. I have tons that are collared button-up shirts. The ‘sleeves’ come to the point of my shoulder. The hem covers the top of my pants. Actually, I don’t think I have any sleeveless shirts that are low-cut & I have tons of them. I actually have a harder time w/ most short-sleeved shirts (baring those that are collared/button-up) showing more cleavage and/or being tighter fit - even from the same brand/department.

My church is an old country church that has the a/c go on the fritz more times than not. Plus I’m in the chior loft & everyone knows hot air rises. Sometimes, even in the winter, we sweat buckets while we try to use our talents for God.

I also don’t 100% buy the arms are arousing argument. A turtle neck shows the shape/definition of my arms almost as well as a sleeveless shirt. Actually, my guy finds that the more covered up I am, the more he’s aroused by wondering what’s underneath. I understand some guys have their own ‘things’, but if we limited ourselves to clothing that didn’t expose anything that could potentially be arousing we’d be wrapped head to toe in a puffy, shapeless mass of stuff. I wear sandals, but its well established that some people have foot fetishes… I don’t think any type of sandal could be considered immoral though. KWIM?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what KWIM means.

However, my point was mostly that I treat anything that unnecessarily draws attention to my body, either by exposing skin, or by fitting tightly, as immodest. I would agree with a previous poster who said that a woman’s struggles to dress modestly are founded in vanity. I know that is true for me. If it weren’t for vanity, I would dress in a modest fashion much more often.
 
bugz2007 said:
However, my point was mostly that I treat anything that unnecessarily draws attention to my body, either by exposing skin, or by fitting tightly, as immodest. I would agree with a previous poster who said that a woman’s struggles to dress modestly are founded in vanity. I know that is true for me. If it weren’t for vanity, I would dress in a modest fashion much more often.
Click to expand...
I’ll concede that point, but I think there also comes a time when its scrupulocity to dress a particular way. I think the key is moderation in all things. I also disagree on exactly what is modest & what is not. While vanity may play a role in wearing flattering clothing, there’s nothing immoral w/ showing your God-given beauty as long as you’re doing so in a Christian modest way. Actually, you could look at dressing in a flattering manner as doing something good for God - praising Him and allowing others to see the beauty He bestowed on you.

A particular - this dress has nothing immodest about it IMO even though it is sleeveless. I don’t find any of these [sleeveless shirts ](http://www.kohls.com/kohlsStore/womens/tops/shirtsblouses/sleeveless.jsp?ENDECA_SEARCH_(name removed by moderator)UT%3C%3ENe=&ENDECA_SEARCH_(name removed by moderator)UT%3C%3ENo=0&ENDECA_SEARCH_(name removed by moderator)UT%3C%3ENs=p_Product_Total_Inventory%7C1&ENDECA_SEARCH_(name removed by moderator)UT%3C%3ENtt=&ENDECA_SEARCH_(name removed by moderator)UT%3C%3Erecs=23&ENDECA_SEARCH_(name removed by moderator)UT%3C%3EN=4294960912&ENDECA_SEARCH_(name removed by moderator)UT%3C%3Etype=2&PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524892456714&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374752622208&bmForm=guided_nav_search&bmFormID=1242317822871&bmUID=1242317822871)to be even vaguely immodest. Just like there’s nothing inherently immodest about [these shirts](http://www.kohls.com/upgrade/webstore/subcategory.jsp?ENDECA_SEARCH_(name removed by moderator)UT%3C%3ENe=4&ENDECA_SEARCH_(name removed by moderator)UT%3C%3ENo=0&ENDECA_SEARCH_(name removed by moderator)UT%3C%3ENs=p_Product_Total_Inventory%7C1&ENDECA_SEARCH_(name removed by moderator)UT%3C%3ENtt=&ENDECA_SEARCH_(name removed by moderator)UT%3C%3Erecs=28&ENDECA_SEARCH_(name removed by moderator)UT%3C%3EN=4294960913%2B4294967266&ENDECA_SEARCH_(name removed by moderator)UT%3C%3Etype=2&PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524892456714&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374752622207&bmForm=guided_nav_search&bmFormID=1242317952901&bmUID=1242317952901).

IMO the difference between these outfits is not that one set is inherently immodest. Any of these could be made ‘immodest’ by being worn inappropriately (too tight, too low-cut for build, etc). The difference between these outfits is purely superficial - sleeves or not.

However, I guess its to each their own…
 
Can we agree that looking nice–and even attractive–does not necessarily mean inciting lust?

I see attractive women all the time, and it doesn’t mean I’m lusting after them (I’m quite happily and faithfully married, thank you). Should I avert my eyes from, or throw a tarp over, an attractive woman I pass in the aisles at Target?

I know, other men see it differently; some men are sick, and have lustful thoughts about children, regardless of dress. Other men are driven wild by professional cheerleaders, about as unappealing a group of women I’ve ever seen (fake smiles, fake eyebrows, fake tans, fake…well, you know). Not only is there no accounting for taste, there’s no accounting for urges, either.

So I don’t think it’s incumbent on the woman to try to prevent *every remote possibility *of igniting sinful urges in every man she might encounter; to me, that’s either blaming the wrong party or a form of vanity in itself–“I’m such a siren that if I show any of myself at all, it will cause traffic accidents, ruin marriages, corrupt youth, and cause the stock market to fall!” (To which I say, “Get over yourself.”)

Surely there’s a happy medium in there someplace…or is that what this thread is trying to determine?
 
BiologyBrain said:
Those are the tank tops that have the bra built into them… Its kind of like a mix between a sports bra and a tank top… The bra is built into the shirt, but its really not all that flattering. It also doesn’t typically offer much support.
Click to expand...
This is a suitable type of shirt for someone who could go without a bra at all. It provides a bit more coverage than just the shirt, but if you have something that needs supporting this thing won’t do the trick. Some of them have a strap that closes in back like a regular bra, and they’re a little better, but still…if you’re over 30 this is not your best choice.
 
daeve said:
This is a suitable type of shirt for someone who could go without a bra at all. It provides a bit more coverage than just the shirt, but if you have something that needs supporting this thing won’t do the trick. Some of them have a strap that closes in back like a regular bra, and they’re a little better, but still…if you’re over 30 this is not your best choice.
Click to expand...
I’m only 20, and they’re not even a good choice for me, unless the chest is then covered by another piece of clothing. And I’m not exceptionally large chested, either.

Unfortunately, I did not realize how bad a choice this was until the glaring evidence was captured in a photograph I am loath to look at now.

I agree, there is nothing inherently immodest in clothing - it all has to do with who’s wearing it, how it fits that individual, and what they intend by wearing it.
 
Hello again.

As for why women don’t wear sleeveless shirts, I’m very short and somewhat portly (well, no, I’m just plain old fat) and the arm holes in sleeveless plus size shirts and blouses are huge. My arms are not fat, and I don’t take up all that space, so my foundation garment would be totally exposed on the side. I also can’t wear most square neck tops because the sides fall off my shoulders.

Regarding wear at head covering at all times…why is my exposed hair immodest, but not a man’s? Believe me, it’s not pretty, kind of thin, getting pretty gray…but even beautiful hair…what’s immodest about that?
 
srlucado said:
Can we agree that looking nice–and even attractive–does not necessarily mean inciting lust?

I see attractive women all the time, and it doesn’t mean I’m lusting after them (I’m quite happily and faithfully married, thank you). Should I avert my eyes from, or throw a tarp over, an attractive woman I pass in the aisles at Target?

I know, other men see it differently; some men are sick, and have lustful thoughts about children, regardless of dress. Other men are driven wild by professional cheerleaders, about as unappealing a group of women I’ve ever seen (fake smiles, fake eyebrows, fake tans, fake…well, you know). Not only is there no accounting for taste, there’s no accounting for urges, either.

So I don’t think it’s incumbent on the woman to try to prevent *every remote possibility *
Click to expand...
of igniting sinful urges in every man she might encounter; to me, that’s either blaming the wrong party or a form of vanity in itself–“I’m such a siren that if I show any of myself at all, it will cause traffic accidents, ruin marriages, corrupt youth, and cause the stock market to fall!” (To which I say, “Get over yourself.”)

Surely there’s a happy medium in there someplace…or is that what this thread is trying to determine?

Thank you for a refreshing male perspective! 👍 :clapping: :tiphat:
 
God created the woman beautiful and with a desire to make beauty around herself, decorating her home, creating art, paintings, music and even to decorate herself to enjoy her own beauty, look beautiful to her husband and to make the world more beautiful.

We all like beauty but I think the God-given nature of woman, created in His image and likeness, aspire for beauty in many special ways that are sometimes not understood by some…

That’s why makeup, perfume, nicely done hair, jewelry and nice clothes is a natural part of a healthy womans life.
Everything can be taken to excess… like women and men that do not shower ot who dress incredibly dull with the mistaken notion that they are more pious than the one who wears a nice makeup and a dress that does something for her figure.
Man was created with an aspiration and attraction for beauty. Those who feel threatened by very many common ways of this expression, should ask themselves why that is.
To want to be hidden is not always a sign of a healthy relationship towards ones own self and body, nor of a deep peity.

Thats my two cents.
By the way, I am not married, but I certainly like it when men try to look good, wearing a nice shirt and jacket, nice hair… do what they can… Its pleasing to the eyes… Nothing dangerous about that.
 
Church
Idealistic me – Wear white opaque stockings, closed-toe leather dress flats, and a low-calf-length skirt, with a three-quarter-sleeve opaque but breathing cotton top with a Peter Pan collar, and a paper-straw cap.
Practical me – How about sheer whitish trouser socks, sandals, a nice shell top if I have one, and a high-calf-length circle skirt?
Actual me – Where are my white socks? I wonder if I should go bare-legged. Where is my long dress? It’s torn. I’ll have to put a shawl on over the tear. If I wear this high-collar top I’ll boil on the way there and they’ll find me dissolved. I have the other blouse around here somewhere. I have no clue what this top covers. I hope it covers my arms for two reasons. Now I have to throw all this on and run. I’m late. maybe I have my scarf in my bag. if so I’ll find it and put it on at the door, if I remember.🤷
Lake/River/Pond/Creeks etc.
Idealistic me – Wear a pair of knee-length bike pants, a double-wrapped skirted swimming suit, a bolero-jacket-cut arm cover, and a bathing cap.
Practical me – Wear a suit you can swim in with maximum safety and agility, that won’t catch on anything, and something with traction on the feet. And bring a distress siren and a noodle for water safety.
Actual me – I want to go to the water now. I better go get out of my church or work clothes. Is my swimming suit clean? I have those bike pants and a T-shirt. I might want to wear a bra with it. But my back is so tired of this thing. Maybe, two T-shirts.:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top