Live your theology.

You puritan! (Don't you just love how people throw that word around like it's a dirty name?)

In all seriousness, though, I have often wondered how Christian women justify wearing some of the things they do, when they are obviously designed to draw attention where it should not be drawn. If you call them on it, they just scream 'legalism'. Seems that no biblical principles can be applied to contemporary issues without, 'raising up a man-made law, where the Bible is silent'.

Us men don't get off the hook in this issue, either. If we are married, do we approve of our wives wearing things that show them off in public in a sexual light. I think we sometimes have an attitude of, “That's right. My wife is good looking, and she's all mine!” Obviously, this will lead to a complicity regarding her choice of attire. I must confess, I have found this attitude all too often in my own heart.

For those men who are unmarried, (or married as well, I suppose) I think we can set up a false standard in our mind of, “If it doesn't show skin, it is modest, and therefore it's alright to look.” Ironically, this is more legalistic than the view that jeans can be immodest.

We should be careful not to run to the opposite extreme as well. If we set our dress code based upon the principle of, “I am not going to wear anything that could POSSIBLY draw sexual attention to me.” then all our women will be wearing burqas. We should, however, base our dress code on the principle of, “I am not going to wear anything that is DESIGNED to draw sexual attention to me.”

Finally, us men need to remember in our own choice of attire that women aren't the only ones whose posteriors may be ogled. What is true about women wearing things designed to draw sexual attention can be equally true about men, as well. Perhaps it is less epidemic among men, but it is certainly there.

Great points all around and thanks for the comment, Kris!

I think often times when a discussion turns to modesty people wrongly interpret things so women should hide the fact that they're female — as though there is something sinful about the form God gave them and should therefore wear only burlap sacks our Little House on the Prairie dresses (or better yet, hide away in their homes so no one can look upon them).

Devil's advocate time…

I would suggest that it doesn't really matter what a women wears. Man's eyes will be drawn to the woman with the sexiest Burqa, if we set the social standard there. Lust is the issue, and the responsibility falls upon the man to resist temptation.. I don't think any amount of frumpy attire will rid them of the urge.

I think the “Thou Shalt not Covet” does not mean “Do not be covetable”

I do think it is appropriate for a wife to wear mildly seductive clothing when she is out with her husband. It is good for him to be reminded of his desire for her. It is good for him to be reminded of his protectiveness of her as well. It's good for him to remember that he is blessed in that way. It is also good for the world to know that marriage can be a blessing in that way.. They tend to see marriage as the end, not the beginning of good sex. When a wife is out on her own, I think she oughta use a lot more caution.

Non-marrieds are a trickier issue. Sex appeal ought not be the first and foremost selling point in establishing the relationship, but among abstinent Christians, it can be a good motivator for closing the deal. I think more modest attire is actually more attractive in most cases, as it leaves a mystery begging to be explored.

There is a fine line here between being desirable and being a whore. Really it depends on weather the clothing communicates “If you where my husband this would be yours” or “Take me home tonight” As a rule of thumb, I tend to think that denim usually communicates the former more than that later.. It is rather impractical in bed.

First off – devil's advocates are great for conversation, so thanks!

Lust is certainly the issue. The primary responsibility is for the man to resist the temptation. That said, a Christian has the responsibility to not lead the brethren into temptation while at the same time avoiding the traps of legalism (the burqa).

As to a couple of your points:

I agree that it's good for a wife to remind her husband of his desire for her, but I think you may be creating a false dilemma that this can only be done in a public setting. In fact, dressing a manner that draws attention to you is exactly what Paul is referring to in 1 Timothy 2:9, I believe.

Re: non-marrieds, I sincerely believe that they need no additional sexual motivation.

Re: Desirability, I can think of no situation where a Christian wife would need to or would be advised to verbally tell another Christian man “If you were my husband, this would be yours.” If she shouldn't say that verbally, I suggest she stop the non-verbal communication as well.

I think the “If you were my husband, this would be yours.” was in the context of unmarrieds, but even so, I can't think of a situation where it would be appropriate for an unmarried woman to verbally tell a Christian man, married or not, that her body would be his if she was his wife, so the point still stands.

That dawned on me after I posted it as well (duh!) but then I figured, if the attire is the same, why would we understand the message any differently?

Exactly! We recognize in business that what kind of attire we wear presents a certain message. We recognize it in worship, even. Somehow when it comes to women's sexuality, we give them a pass. I can only surmise that it is because we like what we see, whether we SHOULD see it or not.

Part of communication is “who is the audience”. If a woman is out with her husband and she wears something to attract and captivate his attention, it is much more appropriate than the barista at the local coffee shop wearing the same attire to impress her clientele.

I don't think that Jeans in general are “slutty” they might be “teasing” but so long as teasing is done with an appropriate audience in mind I don't think is wrong. The idea that a pair of pants is only appropriate for a woman to wear in her own home is kinda silly to me.

As far as the “If you were my husband, this would be yours.” I do think that it is the outer limit of appropriate “No” answers to the question that nearly every man is asking subconsciously. Courting parties will dialog subconsciously weather they verbalize it or not. This is not ever the appropriate answer on the first date, but after 6 months or a year of courting, it may very well be appropriate.

I think jeans can be “slutty” but they aren't necessarily slutty. I guess it depends on where you shop. I don't have a problem with jeans in general, but I do think the one tight enough to reveal “topographical evidence concerning exactly where her underwear starts and stops” as Wilson puts it, or low enough to let the world know the color of the woman's knickers (or allows her to rival the most seasoned of plumbers) is where the problem lies.

I don't buy the intended audience argument. We may be able to control who sees us online or in our homes, but when we're out in public, everything is fair game. We would think it odd if a person were to set up a big table of food, with room for all to feast, but then grew flustered if more than one (very specific) person sat down to serve themselves a helping of mashed potatoes. I think the same thing goes with the Christian man or woman dresses in a sexually provocative manner but cries foul when others take a look or remark on the (lack of) appropriateness.

To quote Wilson again: “The one guilty of a breach of decorum would be the one who said something about them, and not the person intent upon displaying them to a bemused public.” I do not think this should be so.

Yes, I agree there is a fine line. Women shouldn't dress Slutty. I will grant that. Where the line is however is a matter of taste, and to a certain degree a matter culture..

The truth is that it is never appropriate for a man to ogle a girl that he is not in a serious relationship with. When we sneak a peek we sneak. We know what we are doing. We know it is wrong. Everyone knows it ain't a public picnic. Everyone knows there is an intended audience.

Now there are cases where a girl walks across your path and you see something you shouldn't have seen… If you flinch out of surprise, yes she is being inappropriate.. Otherwise, chances are good your eyes are sneaking off where they don't belong, or your mind is obsessing where it was not invited.

There is also cases where the intended audience is you (as a male with attention to give)… And it is indeed a public picnic. I usually this is pretty obvious because there is a behavior that accompanies the attire. (You see this a lot in the service industry)

We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.. If all the Christian girls dress frumpy, the sinner will either look at the non-Christian girls or he will start lusting over frump. The line is pretty gray, and when we put the blame on women we are sneakily excusing the men. Sin is sin, and it is caused by the depravity of the heart. We can blame it on other things, but that does miss the heart of the matter.

The only thing I'd disagree with you is the dichotomy presented that you must either dress (somewhat) provocatively lest you dress frumpy.

The Bible CALLS women to dress modestly. The Lord doesn't suggest that women dress modestly, He TELLS them to. So, women need to take that very seriously. Yes, men shouldn't be looking at a woman's backside. But women, as well as men, are also called to not cause our brothers and sisters in Christ to stumble. Paul even takes that so far as to exhort us to not eat meat in front of someone who feels convicted that eating meat is wrong. How much more so should a woman avoid wearing tight clothing in public if men are ogling her? (And believe me, they are ogling, no matter how attractive the woman is or isn't.) Yes, some men are going to ogle even if a woman is wearing a garbage bag but that doesn't mean that just because we are all sinful, it's okay to lead others into temptation. Modesty doesn't mean wearing a potato sack nor does it mean wearing a floor length skirt topped off with a healthy dose of fro-bangs. A modestly dressed woman can be feminine and beautiful and un-frumpy. Is a young woman going to find said modest clothing at Abercrombie? Probably not. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Modesty starts in the heart. Women need to ask themselves why they choose to wear what they do. Is is because it's in style even though it's much too tight? When it comes to jeans, most girls know exactly what they are doing. I have never purchased a pair of jeans that I didn't first check out from the rear view. I used to wear tight pants with the best of them. And yes, I did it because I thought my butt looked great, not because it was comfortable or any of the other excuses that women give. (Ladies, we all know that tight, low-rise pants are NEVER comfortable no matter what we try to tell ourselves. Comfort does not equal showing off your butt crack every time you sit down nor does it mean having to hike up your pants every time you stand up.) Again, women are called to be modest. Can a woman honestly say that she is being modest in a pair of tight jeans? Not if she is truly thinking Biblically on the subject.

I would define it as a continuum.. Slutty on one side — Frumpy on the other.. (Perhaps Frumpy isn't the right word). The line belongs somewhere in a broad gray area in between. My only argument really is that where you draw the line depends on context and audience. We ought not be terribly judgmental or legalistic about it.

[...] been quite a dust-up over my post on tight jeans & modesty.  I have found that whenever a discussion about modesty occurs a few different things invariably [...]

I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that right next to your topic of jeans and modesty (on your main page) there is an ad to click on American Eagle’s site for women to find their favorite cut of jeans (including super skinny-”our lowest rise jean” Complete with detailed pictures of the model’s front and backsides)

You’re right. That is funny. Thanks for reading & welcome to the blog!

i dont think god would mind too much as he dont exist you see peps

What brought you to that conclusion?

Thanks for reading, btw.

I like this website. This website helped me with prayer learning. Good job. Thank you. and welcome to my home to see you ~! My address is: true religion jeans outlet.