H
Holly3278
Guest
Hey everyone. If a woman is being modest otherwise but is not wearing a bra, would that be immodest? Sorry if this is a silly question but I am scrupulous.
This is important, especially if nipples can be noticed. Modesty is about protecting chastity and avoiding being a near occasion of sin to others, and since bras are common, one must be careful not to send the wrong message (i.e. to cause thoughts like “she’s deliberately not wearing one – is she looking for sex?!”) …If someone looked at you and could clearly notice you were not wearing a bra…then yes…I would say that was immodest.
Otherwise no.
A woman knows what clothes will tempt a man…she doesn’t need a practice run.If we go by this, we’d all be swathed and hidden in Burkas in the middle of a July heatwave…and men would *still *have lustful thoughts.
How, exactly, is she supposed to know “if it gives lustful thoughts to men”?
Should she do a trial run and go out without a bra and then ask every man she talks to if they are feeling lust because she’s not wearing a bra?
Decent guys aren’t supposed to stare at your chest, anyway.
And we can’t control everyone else’s impulses and thoughts.
If a guy is going to look at your chest and have “lustful” thoughts, he’s going to do it whether you wear a bra or not.
You are already dressing immodestly…the rest is up to the guys. The woman cannot take all the responsibility for a man’s thoughts.
That reminds me of when people say a woman in a sexy outfit asked to be raped.
So not right.
.
It’s definitely immodest. There is no reason not to wear one. And you are not being scrupulous but mindful of your body. That is a good thing.Hey everyone. If a woman is being modest otherwise but is not wearing a bra, would that be immodest? Sorry if this is a silly question but I am scrupulous.
This is absolutely untrue … how can you know there is never a reason not to wear a bra - really … that sounds like hubristic to me…It’s definitely immodest. There is no reason not to wear one. And you are not being scrupulous but mindful of your body. That is a good thing.
Ed
Sorry Ed, but if it’s the middle of a blizzard and a woman is out in multiple layers of tops topped with one of those padded parkas she definitely is not going to be immodest if there’s no bra underneath all that.It’s definitely immodest. There is no reason not to wear one. And you are not being scrupulous but mindful of your body. That is a good thing.
Ed
You’re right bras are a recent invention…1893…This is absolutely untrue … how can you know there is never a reason not to wear a bra - really … that sounds like hubristic to me…
Bra’s are really a fairly recent invention … and I know many reasons for women not to wear one …
Whether one wears a bra or not is a personal decision …
As for covering nipples - many bras do not make “nipple” invisible … unless they have padding sufficient to mask that - not all do …
There are men whose nipples protrude through their shirts - should they wear bras?
What is really sad is the objectification of the breasts … they are natural - used for feeding children …and yes - like other body features and /or parts can cause arousal …
What you are really advocating is the binding of breasts - wrapping them flat and that is absurd really …
Modesty does not mean you have to disfigure your body [even if that disfigurement is done with clothing] nor even cover it completely …
You do realize that there are many cultures where people - male and female - coexist with less coverings then is normal for Anglo-European sensibilities and norms … and their men are not running around in perpetual states of arousal …
It depends what is meant by being modest.Hey everyone. If a woman is being modest otherwise but is not wearing a bra, would that be immodest? Sorry if this is a silly question but I am scrupulous.
Not necessarily.A woman knows what clothes will tempt a man…she doesn’t need a practice run.
A decent guy will not gawk at a modestly dressed girl to get lustful thoughts. A dirt bag guy will get them at any opportunity.
But women shouldn’t exaggerate their sexuality…which can even tempt a, priest!![]()
Incorrect, brassieres can cause health issues and thus in at least some cases can be eschewed while remaining morally correct.It’s definitely immodest. There is no reason not to wear one. And you are not being scrupulous but mindful of your body. That is a good thing.
Ed
I don’t actually know what you mean.It really depends on how ample a woman is. The more she has the more obvious it will be if she doesn’t wear some kind of undergarment. Bras aren’t necessary for that–a simple tee shirt under other clothing can substitute for a bra. The usual test for whether or not a woman needs a bra (or other undergarment) is if she is big enough to hold a cotton ball in place–you ladies know what I mean. I think most women pass that test, but again, there are ways to be modest without wearing bras. It simply takes a little bit of creativity.
When I read your post I thought to myself "this person doesn’t seem to hold to Christian values (such as “bearing one another’s burdens”) … then I saw you’re a “reasoning humanist.”If we go by this, we’d all be swathed and hidden in Burkas in the middle of a July heatwave…and men would *still *have lustful thoughts.
How, exactly, is she supposed to know “if it gives lustful thoughts to men”?
Should she do a trial run and go out without a bra and then ask every man she talks to if they are feeling lust because she’s not wearing a bra?
Decent guys aren’t supposed to stare at your chest, anyway.
And we can’t control everyone else’s impulses and thoughts.
If a guy is going to look at your chest and have “lustful” thoughts, he’s going to do it whether you wear a bra or not.
You are already dressing immodestly…the rest is up to the guys. The woman cannot take all the responsibility for a man’s thoughts.
That reminds me of when people say a woman in a sexy outfit asked to be raped.
So not right.
.
Thats the issue - Christianity is not about this sort of egalitarian “ethics”.I hold to very moral and ethical values, and also believe that a person has to take responsibility for their own actions and thoughts and not blame other people or make other people scapegoats.
I don’t know if that thinking is similar to “Christian values”…you can tell me if so.
But I also think many Christians are reasoning humanists, don’t you?
Someone who thinks reasonably–as many posters on this thread do–and with heart for humans. That’s what I and many people on this forum do.
As many here like to reiterate, God gives FREE WILL.
It’s up to a man to think healthy thoughts or not, we cannot control the minds of every man. He has to take some responsibility to bear his own burdens, too.
If a man is going to blame a woman for his own lustful thoughts when she–as the poster has pointed out–has made a specific point and effort to dress modestly, then he is not taking responsibility for himself.
Again, then we should all be wearing burkas. And yet, that same man will still have his lustful thoughts imagining what is under our burkas.
I don’t know if you are male or female, but…
'Nuff said.
.
Reminds me of a missionary story.You’re right bras are a recent invention…1893…![]()