It's stuff like this that really puzzles me. Are the tight blue jeans (with legs spread wide) a good choice for the cover of a Christian book about modesty?
Just shaking my head.
For more head shaking, check out the author's bio on Amazon
, complete with a photo of her in a low-cut top.I just don't get it. :(
There's nothing wrong with it. She is covered from head to toe. Her legs are hardly spread wide, she is slim - that's what it looks like when a thin person puts one leg in front of another. I have no problem when someone looks better than me and I certain won't call them immodest.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughts, Lizette.
ReplyDeleteSince attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder, modesty has nothing to do with whether or not someone looks better than someone else.
Modesty is about hiding what is only to be revealed between married couples. When a woman wears something so tight it leaves no room for imagination, it is immodest regardless of her weight, age, or any other factor.
But, I understand how you might think I'm just jealous of her. ;) She really is a lovely lady. But, that's not the issue here.
Marcia, I agree with you. That, to me, does not display modesty. "Being covered" is not the issue.
ReplyDelete~Amanda
I've had a comment on Facebook, too, about this. I am beginning to wonder if we have become so desensitized to what is immodest that we just don't see it.
ReplyDeleteI want to clarify that I do not believe the author or this model (may be the same person) are wicked or vulgar people. The model on the cover is not dressed modestly. That's all. I'm not making a heart discernment here. In fact, it may be only a matter of ignorance. We can blame the pulpit on that, I'm afraid, and the older women who refuse to say anything because they are afraid of offending anyone.
Sad day in the Kingdom.
Marcia,
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. I've often wondered why parent's permit their daughter's (especially younger ones) to dress this way. After all, who is funding the wardrobe? It is much like the woman who gets large implants, wears low cut, tight blouses and then files a sexual harassment suit if someone happens to look. By the way, Abercrombie & Fitch is now selling padded bathing suit tops for Little Girls.
Deborah
Great, more fuel for the lusts of pedophiles. :( Oh! If only parents would take this seriously!
ReplyDeleteUhm...She is fully dressed & is not in any way exposed. What is your definition of "modesty" if this is an example of what it ain't?
ReplyDeleteApparently, there is some confusion regarding how a fully-clothed woman could be considered immodest.
ReplyDeleteIf the fabric of the pants/jeans fall away from the thighs when they are separated, then a garment may be considered to be modest. But, when the fabric hugs the thighs, as in this example, it reveals the shape of the thigh and is like a second skin. The purpose of clothing is not to merely cover the skin, but to veil the sexual aspects of the body.
Perhaps someone would like to argue how the woman in this photo is not immodest since she is "fully dressed?"
http://www.superficialdiva.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/sienna-miller-skin-tight-leather-catsuit.jpg
^ Could you please provide me with some biblical references for your definition of modesty?
ReplyDeleteHey, Allen: That is a very valid and important request. I had no idea my spur-of-the-moment commentary would stir up such a controversy.
ReplyDeleteI have actually been studying the issue of biblical modesty for many years and am in the process of researching for the writing of a book. However, once I get home from helping my mother (in another state), I'll post some references.
Thank you for asking.
Marcia
Interesting. My husband was not raised Christian. He is continually frustrated by what Christian people do with the issue of modesty. We just had a conversation about Christian people who don't want to look distinctive, and the very issue of the legs spread wide, the tight jeans, the boy cut shirts, and the automatic defensiveness along with spewing the words 'legalistic,' 'judgemental,' 'God looks at the heart (yes, but man sees the outward, and if your heart is teachable, this is not a defense, but an impetus to search the heart for reasons that rise to affect dress and modesty... remember how David asked God to "Search me, O G*d, and know my heart....see if there be any wicked way in me...etc.?") and on and on. More interesting that a man would look for specific Scripture verses to cover every teeny aspect of what is modest and what is not, fully understanding himself what the male mind does. This is why my husband was not raised Christian. There is so much phony junk out there that claims to love G*d and care about what G*d thinks, but isn't even honest. Atheists, pagans, whatever you want to call them, gladly tell you what your clothes speak to them, honestly. People in a strip club would be more forthright than most Christians. That is a shameful truth for the Christian community to consider.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comments, Rebekah. I want to give women the benefit of the doubt in why they dress the way they do. Some just don't know any better, some are deceived by religious teachers, and there may be other reasons. So, we don't want to paint with too broad of a brush.
ReplyDeleteI also want to give Allen the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he is just curious or would like to be able to use Scripture to share with others. I do not automatically see his request for Scripture as a challenge. Even if it is, I welcome the Berean in anyone. :)
Great feedback from everyone.
I have posted a response to Allen's question for Scripture regarding my definition of modesty:
ReplyDeletehttp://ehomebody.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-scriptures-define-modesty.html
OK...sorry about my last post. I think it might have been mean-spirited and certainly uncharitable. I get really upset, though, when people do not recognize the beauty and humanity of ALL PEOPLE, including women and have the misguided view that women must be covered. It's really a sad perspective, IMO.
ReplyDeleteFROM THE EDITOR:
ReplyDeleteI am going to pre-post a deleted comment with some modifications since the author so graciously commented again with an apology, which I heartily accept.
I don't mind discussion. I don't mind being disagreed with and being misunderstood. But comments like this are just keyboards being used as darts and swords. Lay down your weapons, and we can talk.
"Are you ******** serious?!?! Perhaps if you were more attractive you wouldn't criticize a perfectly normal, healthy and attractive woman in perfectly modest clothing (the cover of that magazine). The notion that we are supposed to "veil the sexual aspects of the body" is sickening and anti-woman. This is the same kind of **** that is at the foundation of much of the oppression of women in fundamentalist Muslim cultures.
Signed, a non-believer"
In response to Gr3tch3n, I'd like to point out that nudity is one way in which people are degraded and humiliated. Stripping one of their "covering" is a sure way to dehumanize them, as was so clearly seen in the Guantanamo Bay photo debacle. When people are taken into slavery, especially women, they are stripped of their dignity and weakened by being stripped of their clothing.
ReplyDeleteSo, how on earth can you accuse me of being anti-woman? Perhaps you are not aware that feminists used to boycott and rally against beauty contests, particularly because of the swimsuit competition, as it was degrading to women.
However, veiling one's sexual parts doesn't mean you have wear a burqa. But, it sounds as though you are placing me squarely in the same camp of those who do, which is really not fair at all.
I still maintain that any SELF-respecting person will keep their private parts private and spare the rest of us the shame of their exposure.
Comment thread permanently deleted from Montana Wildflower.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. This is my blog, and I am making an executive decision to delete both of our comments. I have stated my beliefs as I see them from Scripture, and I don't have to argue with anyone or apologize for what I believe. I offered to discuss these things from the Scriptures, but all you could do was tag me a legalist and dismiss everything I said. It's the truth, and if you don't like it, post it on your own blog. I'm not going to spread your errors in my comment section.