Modest Expectations by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 04/04/2008 at 3:28 PM

With the arrival of spring, the Girl Talk blog is offering its annual public service announcement on behalf of modesty. Stores are filling up with their spring and summer lines. (Having just returned from New York City, I know this well. My sister forgot her coat, and there was nary one to be found!)

In Girl Talk's 2007 article, "Fashion and Following the Savior: Part 1," Carolyn Mahaney writes:

More than just the latest style, spring and summer (in particular) usher in a vast array of immodest and indecent clothing. Thus the racks and shelves at the nearest mall are crammed full of body-revealing attire.

We must consult God's Word rather than the fashion magazines. We must take God with us when we go shopping. And what's interesting--and freeing, I might add--is that God's clothing style for women doesn't change from season to season. He presents his fashion standard to us in 1 Timothy 2:9-10:

Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness -- with good works.

Dressing fashionably is a value for me. And finding cute clothes that are modest often requires additional time -- or saying no to something that looks a little TOO good. But as Carolyn's daughter Nicole points out, clothes themselves are not the only thing to consider when it comes to modesty:

Immodest dress is more than simply wearing skimpy clothing. Often, it's an expression of pride, the opposite of humility. Simply put, immodest clothes are pride on display. In his book Humility: True Greatness, my dad explains that "The proud person seeks to glorify himself and not God, thereby attempting in effect to deprive God of something only He is worthy to receive."

Outward modesty is an expression of a heart and soul seeking to bring glory to God. But taking the Timothy 2 challenge doesn't mean you have to dress like a pilgrim. Web sites like Downeast Basics and Christa-Taylor, which are comprised entirely of beautiful (and modest) women's fashions, make it easy to be stylish and modest.

(The picture is of my sister Sarah in the $10 coat we finally found her at Conway's in NYC.)

Modest Expectations by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 04/04/2008 at 3:28 PM

With the arrival of spring, the Girl Talk blog is offering its annual public service announcement on behalf of modesty. Stores are filling up with their spring and summer lines. (Having just returned from New York City, I know this well. My sister forgot her coat, and there was nary one to be found!)

In Girl Talk's 2007 article, "Fashion and Following the Savior: Part 1," Carolyn Mahaney writes:

More than just the latest style, spring and summer (in particular) usher in a vast array of immodest and indecent clothing. Thus the racks and shelves at the nearest mall are crammed full of body-revealing attire.

We must consult God's Word rather than the fashion magazines. We must take God with us when we go shopping. And what's interesting--and freeing, I might add--is that God's clothing style for women doesn't change from season to season. He presents his fashion standard to us in 1 Timothy 2:9-10:

Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness -- with good works.

Dressing fashionably is a value for me. And finding cute clothes that are modest often requires additional time -- or saying no to something that looks a little TOO good. But as Carolyn's daughter Nicole points out, clothes themselves are not the only thing to consider when it comes to modesty:

Immodest dress is more than simply wearing skimpy clothing. Often, it's an expression of pride, the opposite of humility. Simply put, immodest clothes are pride on display. In his book Humility: True Greatness, my dad explains that "The proud person seeks to glorify himself and not God, thereby attempting in effect to deprive God of something only He is worthy to receive."

Outward modesty is an expression of a heart and soul seeking to bring glory to God. But taking the Timothy 2 challenge doesn't mean you have to dress like a pilgrim. Web sites like Downeast Basics and Christa-Taylor, which are comprised entirely of beautiful (and modest) women's fashions, make it easy to be stylish and modest.

(The picture is of my sister Sarah in the $10 coat we finally found her at Conway's in NYC.)

Comments

[1. Tami said the following at 4:37 PM on Apr 4:]

1

Three words: invest in tanktops.

I understand the modesty issue, but somethink makes me feel like the plunging neckline trend is a conspiracy to get us to buy two shirts (shirt+tank) instead of just one!

[2. Michele Samuelson said the following at 5:09 PM on Apr 4:]

2

The pride angle is a very important and often overlooked part of this. Thanks for this post!!!

[3. Jacob said the following at 5:15 PM on Apr 4:]

3

In this discussion, as a Christian male, I think it would be helpful to bring in the Modesty Survey that the Brothers Harris collected last year. Certainly no absolute standard, but some women might be a little surprised at what trips a brother up.

[4. Adam T. said the following at 5:52 PM on Apr 4:]

4

Wow, those Christa-Taylor dresses are pretty attractive.

[5. DannieA said the following at 6:50 PM on Apr 4:]

5

You can still be trendy and modest...you just have to know where to look...

[6. Jenny said the following at 8:31 PM on Apr 4:]

6

I actually live in NYC, in the Garment District, constantly bombarded by storefronts and the latest fashion trends. I just spent the better part of my evening looking for a much-needed dress. Even with all the variety here, it was definitely a tough go, especially since I want something modest.

[7. JBurke said the following at 8:58 PM on Apr 4:]

7

Thanks for this post. I'm thinking about this issue a lot as I just had my first little girl. I want to train her to think about her dress and her heart from the start.

[8. Alexander said the following at 12:02 AM on Apr 5:]

8

Good post. Modesty really is important, when ladies take humility & modesty to heart I think it's definitely an awesome thing. Especially to us guys who know true beauty lies from within and not in flashy clothes or showin' skin. IMO modesty is so much more attractive than skimpy apparel I encourage all my sisters to exercise modesty(as well as other virtue, it's awesome)

"Tru beauty stems from being rooted in HIM".

[9. Crystal said the following at 12:32 AM on Apr 5:]

9

That Christa Taylor line really is beautiful. Unfortunately, such sites don't necessarily make it "easy" to be stylish and modest, as these clothes aren't affordable at all. Most college students can't pay $50 for a single blouse, no matter how cute it is. If anyone else can relate to this, take heart-- at least there's a clearance section on the site.

If you can't even afford that, don't worry; if you're in college, you will probably get a pretty impressive collection of free, modest t-shirts from various events around campus.

[10. r.c.cola said the following at 12:46 AM on Apr 5:]

10

All i got to say is it is harder for plus size girls like me to look modest but still my age.

[11. Dawnson said the following at 1:06 AM on Apr 5:]

11

For a previous discussion of modesty (which got rather lively), don't forget "Cover Up, Please": http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/07/cover-up-please.html

[12. P&P said the following at 6:10 AM on Apr 5:]

12

I'm surprised that you had such a tough time finding a coat. Even NYC has outdoorsy shops like EMS that always have some fleece jackets.

I have some mixed feelings with what is defined as "modest." Dressing appropriately is one thing, but when I looked over that so-called "modesty survey," women are expected to wear full-length burlap sacks to keep men from "stumbling."

[13. Danielle said the following at 8:02 AM on Apr 5:]

13

Thanks for the article and links. I agree the pride angle is frequently overlooked.

Jacob (#3), that Modesty Survey is a Godsend, and I don't use that lightly.
Should be required reading for every God-fearing woman!

:)

[14. Jen said the following at 8:57 AM on Apr 5:]

14

This actually became an issue for me when I was looking for bridesmaid dresses for my upcoming summer wedding. I went with a friend to one shop and almost everything was either very low-cut and revealing, the back was too low, or the style was just plain weird. It became extremely frustrating for the both of us because it was important to me that the girls feel comfortable in what they wear, and my friend obviously wasn't. We finally found something at a smaller place/brand in Boston. Even though they still had a few styles that were probably immodest, we were able to find something appropriate. You'd think for something like a wedding, often held in a church, you could find something modest! Turns out its harder than you think...

[15. Dawnson said the following at 9:05 AM on Apr 5:]

15

P&P #12:
"I have some mixed feelings with what is defined as 'modest.' Dressing appropriately is one thing, but when I looked over that so-called "modesty survey," women are expected to wear full-length burlap sacks to keep men from 'stumbling.'"

Very much agree with you there. I definitely think modesty is important, but I also think alot of people jump on the bandwagon without really thinking about what modesty actually *is*. Or what lust is, for that matter. Lust isn't the mere act of noticing that a woman has, in fact, a woman's body. Which some views I've heard seem to imply.

[16. Rachael said the following at 9:22 AM on Apr 5:]

16

Did someone write somewhere, some time (maybe on that survey or on Boundless or in a comment?) that men also have a responsibility to guard themselves?

Yes, we women should be modest, but to what extent? I know the earring opinion in that survey might be extreme, but still 3.5% strongly disagree and 16.7% disagree with the statement that "Earrings are never a stumbling block." So...yes that's a minority, but what is one supposed to do? :) I don't always wear them, but sometimes I do. Is it possible for men to train themselves not to stumble over certain things? And about knee-length skirts - there were some who disagreed (again, a minority), with the statement that knee-length skirts were modest. So...again...is it possible for sensitive eyes to be trained not to stumble over such things? I guess...in extreme (in my opinion) cases like these...should the burden be on both the men and women, and not just on the women? For example, if the woman dresses in what is typically considered to be modest clothing (but maybe not by guys with sensitive eyes) and doesn't ACT immodestly, can the burden be on the guy? A woman should do her part not to ACT immodestly, and look modest without the burlap sack (re: post 12), but there can be some burden on the man to guard himself right?

Hmmm....maybe it would be good if only our eyes were seen. More marriages would happen that way! Maybe there is something good about that part of some Islamic cultures...

[17. a sassy sister said the following at 9:38 AM on Apr 5:]

17

P&P:

I would definitely have to agree with you in regards to this discussion on modesty. I think we also have to take in mind that modest clothing does not mean that any sense of style goes out the window. Women of color and those with hourglass or curvy shapes sometimes have a more difficult time finding clothes that are fit but are not so fitted that you're broadcasting your body to the entire world. While there are companies that make clothes for women who aren't a size negative one, they usually don't have our Biblical worldview in mind when it comes to attire.

However, I do believe in this modesty discussion we can actually use our attire as a means to demonstrate our faith without necessarily disconnecting ourselves from fashion altogether. I personally find more stylish things (and more modest ones) from fashion in previous decades. Most of all, however, I think in this discussion on modesty, we must remember that the real changes must start in our attitude. I would challenge Christian women to really see what the Bible says about sexuality and modesty and change their thinking about their attire from primarily worrying about the opinions of others to what God says about the clothes you wear.

And as far as the modesty survey goes, there needs to be balance in the application of it. While it may be helpful for those women who may be oblivious(or choose to be) about their fashion choices, I also believe that it does not take into account what the respondents were FEEDING on. If a guy is constantly watching and seeing women being objectified apart from advertising, then obviously his motor will start running whenever he sees a woman in a pair of tight jeans or a low cut top, because his previous intake is already triggering his reaction. Modesty in attire may curtail the reaction for men, but it will not get to the root of it.

So I guess what I"m trying to say that the real work is internal before lasting change is made for real modesty. God cares about the condition and posture of our hearts, not just the actions.

[18. Chris Krycho said the following at 9:39 AM on Apr 5:]

18

For what it's worth, the Modesty Survey is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive, at least at some level (though most of the comments unfortunately ended up in the latter category). It's also worth noting that (1) the responsibility not to lust is on guys, not girls, no matter what the woman is or isn't wearing, and (2) that modesty is not contrary to attractiveness. I promise, on that second one. In fact, I'll be completely honest, some of the most attractive styles I know of are more modest. A dress that is cut so that it makes your figure look nice and a dress that is cut so all anyone can see is your figure are two very different things, and the former can be a very, very good thing.

There isn't a hard line, because guys are different, what visually is a struggle for us. We appreciate the help when you dress modestly, but because every guy's triggers are different - immensely so - we do not expect you to just cater to us. All we're asking for is a little help, enough that we feel safe having our eyes pointed anywhere but the sky. :-) So take the modesty survey - especially the comments section - with a grain of salt. But do pay attention, especially to the numerical end of the survey.

[19. Chris Krycho said the following at 9:45 AM on Apr 5:]

19

To back up what I just said in response to later comments I didn't see when I wrote it up: the responsibility is always on the guy not to lust. Period. You are helping us or hurting us in that quest, but it is never your fault if I choose to lust.

And Dawnson made a very good point. Noticing that a person is attractive - yes, including their figure - is not the same as lusting. Lusting carries from appreciation of beauty, which is a good thing, into desire, and that is a very different creature indeed.

There are some things that should absolutely not be of concern to you. There is no way in the world that earrings should cause a man to lust. Period. I'm not saying that for no men does it get them going there - but I am saying that in such a case, where there is clearly nothing sexual at all, the problem is with the man's mind and heart, not with the earrings.

[20. Tami said the following at 9:48 AM on Apr 5:]

20

Modesty is about the heart. And I've been in situations like Suzanne -- trying on dresses that look *too* good. It's really hard to put those back on the rack! On the other hand, I've also spent years of my life worrying if I was going to make a man stumble -- so I dressed in the proverbial burlap sack. I felt like I dressed -- and I'm sure that showed.

I appreciate where the Harris' brothers hearts were when they conducted the survey, but if I tried to apply their findings to my daily life, I think I might go a bit crazy. The statistical breakdowns are interesting, but I don't think God works in statistics -- I think He works in individuals. So, I found it more helpful to read the comments and gauge their helpfulness based on the content of the response and the age of the writer. Qualitative rather than quantitative. ;)

PS Try to find the question that reads something like "glitter lotion is a stumbling block." There are some pretty humorous responses in there. :)

[21. Heidi said the following at 11:29 AM on Apr 5:]

21

Tami #20, I agree that modesty is in the heart, but I also believe the modesty is in what we wear as well. It is possible to dress immodestly without realizing it--a modest heart can be enclosed in immodest clothing. I was there for several years of my life and I grieve that I was not better informed, and that those whose counsel I sought on the matter assured me that I was "fine".

Chris #18 and 19, I really appreciate your comments. :)

Whenever I read through the Modesty Survey, I get really excited. I see it as a wealth of information that gives women the opportunity to both help their bothers in Christ and to dress beautifully, in a way that causes eyes to be drawn to the Creator of such beauty. I can read about how much my brothers in Christ appreciate it and thus be encouraged in my search to dress both attractively and modestly.

For whomever it may benefit, here are the questions I ask myself when considering an item of clothing:

- Would I be comfortable in the modesty of this clothing, or would I feel the need to continually double-check and adjust myself in order to retain proper covering?
- Is this item attractive simply because it’s pretty, or because it draws sexual attention, however subtly?
- Is the clothing “loud”, in a sense that it would bring more attention to my manner of dress than to my character?
- Is it winsome enough to persuade others of the beauty of modesty?

[22. Adam T. said the following at 2:44 PM on Apr 5:]

22

Rachael raises a point:

Yes, we women should be modest, but to what extent? I know the earring opinion in that survey might be extreme, but still 3.5% strongly disagree and 16.7% disagree with the statement that "Earrings are never a stumbling block." So...yes that's a minority, but what is one supposed to do? :)

The opposite side of the modesty coin is that men do want women that are feminine and attractive.

Y'know, I say this, and then it makes me realize just how hard it must be to be a woman in our society. I understand that Christian women especially must feel pulled in fifty million directions, and it must be difficult and bewildering in certain ways.

What I'm saying, though, is that modesty is one thing. But when non-Christian women make an effort to wear makeup and look attractive, and Christian women don't, it's awfully hard not to be more attracted to the non-Christian women. So I like earrings and makeup and such.

[23. Tami said the following at 3:00 PM on Apr 5:]

23

I looked at the Christa Taylor site. There's some cute stuff on there; and even if you can't afford her clothes, you can take a look and get some ideas. As others have mentioned, it takes work to find modest outfits, but you can do it, and do it fairly inexpensively.

A little note? It looks like the people are not professional models (which I actually think is great!). So my only thought is that she might choose some models that represent varying sizes of women, showing them how to dress appropriately and modestly in her clothing. I think that would send a lot of women's goodwill business her way. :) [BTW Please don't take this as a "wah, wah, models are tall and thin" comment; that's not the spirit I'm saying this in, trust me.]

Also... this always comes up in the "fashion" posts, but watching "What Not to Wear" will also give you great ideas on how to dress your body type. Stacy and Clinton seem to be in the business of helping women find flattering but still modest clothing -- especially if you focus on what they say about business and casual weekend attire, rather than their "going out" looks.

Also -- going out on a limb here ;) -- before you go shopping, ask God to help you find clothes that are modest, attractive, and affordable. I'd also recommend that you'd be willing to go into stores that may seem too "old lady" (but often have some cute stuff in there; esp. higher quality tshirts with higher necklines). And make a day of it -- go shopping with a Christian girl friend! (I know, I know, for some of you: twist your arm, right? ;)

[24. BDB said the following at 3:45 PM on Apr 5:]

24

Tami (#20) wrote:

>>PS Try to find the question that reads something like "glitter lotion is a stumbling block." There are some pretty humorous responses in there. :)<<

Goodness, is that stuff still trendy? It does make a mess. Very hard to get out of carpet.

[25. Rachael said the following at 4:09 PM on Apr 5:]

25

Tami :), the glitter lotion comments are fun. Who knew the trauma guys went through because of the glitter girls...

[26. Kellie said the following at 5:48 PM on Apr 5:]

26

I can't say I've ever had much of a problem with being modest (or finding modest clothes). As a teenager I wore a lot of baggy t-shirts and guys clothes. In college I finally decided it was okay to look like a girl and actually dressed somewhat cute. I find the modesty survey interesting....according to some of it's takers, I'm fairly immodest. I find it more confusing than helpful. What is a girl supposed to do with information that for some guys any jeans on a girl is immodest? Is that the fault of the girl or the guy?

[27. Katie B said the following at 6:46 PM on Apr 5:]

27

Wow, I looked at that survey, and there are things there that I never would have thought of. My first reaction was paranoia, the next being "that explains a few things!"
While trying to dress professionally, which is very important for a woman in order to get taken seriously, and attractively, it is sometimes hard to find a balance. I like that guys are acknoleging that it is their responsibitiy to control their thoughts, though there are still messages floating around that it is the woman's responsibility to discourage lust and her fault if she cannot, (no joke, heard this my second day at bible school at a dorm meeting) I do want to respect the guys in my life and not make it more difficult for them, which is my primary concern about clothing, but this approach is so much more encouraging, as well as assumes the potential for men to be mature, (theres nothing worse than hearing the dress code rules followed by 'boys will be boys')
For me, trying to support my male friends in their struggle for purity fosters in me a much humbler heart than trying to follow the rules so as to keep guys from facing that struggle.

[28. Dawnson said the following at 7:41 PM on Apr 5:]

28

a sassy sister #17:
"I also believe that it does not take into account what the respondents were FEEDING on. If a guy is constantly watching and seeing women being objectified apart from advertising, then obviously his motor will start running whenever he sees a woman in a pair of tight jeans or a low cut top, because his previous intake is already triggering his reaction."

What's funny is that this is completely backwards. Remember that seeing women as an object and lusting after them are two different (though related) things.

It's actually when I've tried in the past to *not* look at girls so much that more minor things like "pair of tight jeans" has become a problem. There are several reasons for this.

One is that we get ultra-sensitized to things we don't see regularly. (Example: While spending two weeks at an all-guys retreat, the one girl who worked in the cafeteria got prettier everyday.) So if I was looking at sexy billboards before going to work, the coworker girl in tight jeans will actually be less or a problem, not more.

Second, the idea of "bouncing" my eyes pre-sexualizes the issue before my brain even has a chance to react. So I see a particularly alluring girl walking toward me in the mall, I bounce my eyes away and, with that action, am trained to think "Don't look, you're lusting." Now, regardless of what I was thinking beforehand, what she was wearing, or even what I would have thought looking at her, I'm now thinking about the sexuality of the situation. For that reason (and others) I believe "bouncing" your eyes actually does more harm than good.

[29. Chrissy said the following at 9:23 PM on Apr 5:]

29

Fortunately, I've been able to find modest clothing. (Granted, maybe I can because of my body type.)JC Penny and Target are two places where you can find some really nice/cute clothes for relatively cheap prices.(especially if you shop the clearance racks- I found a modest dress at Target for $6.)

I will say that the plunging neckline in blouses is almost unavoidable. So I agree with the first poster, invest in at least a black and white tank top/cami for those shirts.

[30. Laura said the following at 1:35 AM on Apr 6:]

30

Jen (#14) - I understand your frustration! I had the same issue with bridesmaids dresses! All the best!

As difficult as it is to find cute, modest clothes, it becomes easier when shopping is a group experience. I personally love shopping with my mother - she's so into the latest styles, but is also so careful in her constructive criticism of the clothes! Shopping with a parent/sister/friend not only makes the experience more memorable and fun, but also helps when you shop with someone who thinks like you!

[31. KJ said the following at 2:54 PM on Apr 6:]

31

I read the Modesty Survey when it first came out and it really, really messed me up because anything and everything was phrased as "is a stumbling block" which of course we are forbidden to put in front of our brothers, which means that if these guys (all 3.7% of them or whatever) said that something was a stumbling block, then if you took it literally, it was a sin to wear that ever again. For example, an ankle-length skirt with a knee-high slit is not something that is a problem in the part of the country where I live, and I never heard anyone even suggest that such a thing might revealing - yet on the survey many guys indicated that this was "sexy" and "tantalizing" and thought girls should never wear one. (Of course, nearly 17% of the guys on this survey thought girls ought to dress exclusively in baggy dresses and jumpers...) I finally came to the conclusion that the way I have dressed all my life that has been in accordance with those who were/are in authority over me was just fine, and that I would not eschew my jeans, knee-length skirts, and fitted tops just because some uber-conservative homeschooled 15-year-old in the midwest somewhere thinks it's a "stumbling block."

[32. Kelly said the following at 6:45 PM on Apr 6:]

32

Oh, I know the pain of shopping for covering clothing SO WELL. Finding a shirt that doesn't show my bra straps or chest is horrendously difficult. But I do like the tank top idea that Tami posted!

As for formal dresses... it is near-impossible to find something stylish and covering. WHY do designers seem to think that women are happy to tape themselves into indecent dresses??? Are men the designers or women?

[33. PLH said the following at 7:43 PM on Apr 6:]

33

I agree that modesty is important...but I personally take offense when modesty is framed in such as way that suggests women should dress modesty so as "not to cause a brother to stumble." The original blogger thankfully didn't do that but often with this such as the modesty survey, it seems the onus is on women to prevent men from lusting. Women should dress modestly because they should seek a pure heart-one filled with love for God and fellow people rather than a heart seeking sexual attention. I mean, even if all Christian women wore burkas, if men's heart were filled with sexual thoughts (which isn't hard, given the sex saturated culture), men still would lust after women.

I think tying lust with women's dress is demeaning to women. Women should be forced to hear restrictive clothing in the summer when it's hot simply because men can't control themselves. Women should dress modesty-because they have a pure heart-not to please men.

[34. DannieA said the following at 12:32 AM on Apr 7:]

34

with all due respect...I just finished seeing the 'modesty survey' and well...

sorry...there are some things I disagree and will take with a grain of salt.

[35. Loris said the following at 7:06 AM on Apr 7:]

35

P&P and all you plus-sized ladies out there, every time I go into Lane Bryant looking for a gift for my mother, I'm impressed by how much their clothes has improved in the last few years. Their spring collection is really cute. There was one navy polka dot wrap dress in particular I'd be tempted to buy and cut down for myself. (I'm a big girl but not plus size) Don't lose heart, but do avoid the department stores. Their plus size sections haven't caught up.
As far as the Harris brothers' survey, I think the survey begins too young. Asking 12-15 year olds what makes them stumble seems pointless to me because at that age, kids are so hormonal everything short of linoleum turns them on. (tongue in cheek)

[36. Easter said the following at 9:17 AM on Apr 7:]

36

There were no coats available in NYC because all of the clothes that are on sale are summer clothes, not because everything in NY is skimpy, yes? I just wanted to make that distinction, as I have no problems finding modest items for my wardrobe.

[37. Leah said the following at 10:16 AM on Apr 7:]

37

Re: the modesty survey plugged by Jacob. While it's a good indicator, my GOODNESS there are some ridiculous expectations on there. If we were to take it all to heart, women would have to walk around in loose skirts falling below the knee with long sleeved tops with curved necklines no lower than the collar bone, no makeup or jewellery and flat-soled shoes. Nor would we be allowed to sit in any position other than cross-legged on a chair, we would never be allowed to climb over anything and we would not be allowed to run anywhere.

My summary: girls, if you look in the mirror and see something that you really can't blame a guy for noticing, it's probably best to change. If you see something that *could* pose a problem but your average guy would just shrug and go "Yeah, you look good", then the minority can get over it or look away.

[38. Leah said the following at 10:21 AM on Apr 7:]

38

ooh ooh here's a question I've wondered about for ages (this one's for you, guys): when it comes to smaller-busted girls who don't have as much of a cleavage, is it a problem for you if we wear V-necks which reveal only flat chest and no curves? Especially if we use hollywood tape to keep it stuck to our skin so there's no chance of it falling anywhere and revealing anything further?

I know that it's not a prob for some guys, but I'm looking for other opinions too.

[39. Leah said the following at 11:12 AM on Apr 7:]

39

Kellie: If a guy is lusting, it's NEVER the girl's fault. She might be able to to help him or hinder him, but it's NEVER her fault.

[40. Lauren said the following at 11:27 AM on Apr 7:]

40

I love the spaghetti strap sundresses, but they are too revealing for my standards. Therefore, I put a t-shirt or a high cut tank top underneath them. Basically, this shows that many of the summer fashions can be "made-over" while still being confortable in the hot weather.

[41. Jacob said the following at 12:00 PM on Apr 7:]

41

Since I'm the one who posted the link to the survey, I feel compelled to leave another comment in light of the discussion.

How do I think women should regard that survey? With a grain of salt. As I said, it's not an absolute standard in my mind. Frankly, I wouldn't worry about those 17% who find earrings tempting. I would encourage you to pay attention, however, when the majority of the responders take a certain position.

Please, however, keep in mind that the choices you make to affect other people.

[42. Michele Samuelson said the following at 12:29 PM on Apr 7:]

42

I would think this is pretty simple - girls, cover up. You know you're going to be around guys, don't wear the plunging v-neck or the split-up-the-back skirt.

You can do a lot by just buying safety pins for those key spots on your blouses, or choosing simple t-shirts (cheap at The Gap, Old Navy, even J. Crew; cheaper at Target and Wal-Mart) to go with skirts and pants. Still in school? Be a t-shirt princess - wear earrings and/or cute shoes with your jeans-and-t-shirt.

I think the "cute" angle is where we get hung up, too. We're so worried about what our clothes look like that we start throwing modesty out the window. Modesty first, affordability second, "cute" third. Forget the surveys and what other people think!

[43. mindlab said the following at 12:34 PM on Apr 7:]

43

Re: #35 Loris

"I think the survey begins too young. Asking 12-15 year olds what makes them stumble seems pointless to me because at that age, kids are so hormonal everything short of linoleum turns them on."

Excellent comment! This is an important point that I haven't seen mentioned. Having been a 13 boy (and eternally greatful that THAT stage is over), you are exactly right. The survey would be much more useful if you could exclude responses from males less than ~20 years old.

Attempting to find women's clothing that will not cause a 13-15 year old boy to stumble is an exercise in futility. Modestly will help a bit, but will certainly not solve the problem; only God's grace and growing up will solve it.

[44. PLH said the following at 12:50 PM on Apr 7:]

44

Leah-thank you. Lust is NEVER the woman's fault. Frankly, while I support modesty and see it as empowering to women, women should be encouraged to dress modestly because it reflects their worth as a human and allows people to see them as that rather than a sexual object. Even if all Christian women dressed extremely modestly, what would Christian men do when they stepped outside the church and, say, went to a normal pool, beach, amusement park, etc during the summer? Obviously most people will not be dressed "modesty."

Also, I think we also have to take practicality into account. Some people don't see shorts as modest. But what about summer sports for example? A girl wearing shorts when its' in the 80s isn't trying to attract sexual attention-she's simply dressing appropriately for outdoor weather. I don't think it's difficult to dress modestly and buy clothing at most department stores. Sure, some items maybe too flashy but I've never been into one store where EVERYTHING was immodest.

[45. Chris Krycho said the following at 2:28 PM on Apr 7:]

45

Leah - the answer to your question is a qualified yes. A girl with smaller breasts can get away with wearing shirts that a more amply bosomed girls. At the same time, the caveats you presented are very important for maintaining modesty. Whereas a girl with larger breasts can wear a shirt cut like that and show maybe some cleavage all the time but not show any more when she's bending over than when she's not, a smaller girl will show a lot more if the shirt isn't secured or have a camisole under it or something like that.

I absolutely agree with the comments about younger guys. I've only really gotten the hang of this battle more in the last two years or so, and I'm 20 now, and I was fighting hard before... When I was 13, even the hint of a hint of cleavage was a problem. Which is a problem. :p

[46. Loris said the following at 2:32 PM on Apr 7:]

46

Rant time:
I read quite a bit of that survey and was torn between amusement and disgust. It wasn't the first time I'd seen it as my teen sis-in-law is quite taken with the Harris brothers and she sent me the survey about a year ago. I lost my temper with it then, too. There were several comments that went something like "I've never seen that article of clothing on a living human being so far but yes, it would turn me on if I saw it on a girl." At that point, it just seems to degenerate into a fashion-hating witch hunt. I wish some guy would make the comment that yes, if it's too short, too low or too tight, it's a problem, but for everything else, get a grip.

And what was with all the "guilt by association" comments? Just because some unsavory elements of society may wear a certain item of clothing, are Christian women supposed to eschew it? I'm referring to the poll on black knee boots, specifically, but the one on shrugs annoyed me too. These items are all neutral in their use. No item of clothing is intrinsically bad; it's how and where/when you wear it. I could care less if a lot of prostitutes happen to wear black knee boots. I like them and will continue to wear mine without a second thought.
I think just a grain of salt is too little. I need a few cans of Morton's to swallow this stuff.

And yes, BDB (#24), glitter lotion has been "out" for quite a while, and the last female I saw wearing it was under age 10.

Correction: my earlier comment was directed at r.c. cola. Here's the link to that cute dress: http://lanebryant.charmingshoppes.com/pagebuilder/lane_bryant_product_page?item=1355171&pagesize=3
Add some brightly colored shoes (I recommend red patent) and you'd be good to go for work, church, or a date. Though, I'm not plus-size, I am quite busty, and I sympathize completely. My solution to tops that are too low cut or blouses with gaping buttons is to layer with a cami, or in the case of the blouse, buy a larger size to ensure that it won't pull or gap across my chest, then tailor it on the sides for a custom fit. If you don't sew yourself, there are probably women in your church that would be happy to help you out. As long as a top isn't lined, taking it in is quick and simple. I've watched my fair share of What Not to Wear and their advice is to fit the largest part of you, then tailor the rest. I agree with that advice, even when it usually means I don't like the tag size on the tops I buy. Nobody should have to put up with ill-fitting, ugly, or immodest clothing. There's usually a way around those obstacles.

[47. Autumn said the following at 3:19 PM on Apr 7:]

47

I just read the "Modesty Survey" and to be quite honest, it made me kinda mad. some of those things, like bending over and stuff, are unavoidable. while we as females have a huge responsibility to dress modestly, guys still have to take some responsibility. i definitely agree with leah (#37). that made me laugh.

on another note, one thing that has helped me dress modestly is layering. i have lots of camis and plain t-shirst and if a shirt is too low or too thin, i just put something on underneath it.

[48. Justin T. said the following at 4:14 PM on Apr 7:]

48

@ Leah #38:

Uhmm, I have to say, this question confuses me. From a purely comfort-based point of view, it cannot be in the least bit comfortable to have to TAPE your clothing to yourself.

Regardless of chest size, a low V-neck is going to draw attention to a lady's attributes, no matter how "pronounced" they are (I'm trying to be polite about this!)

So I'll answer with another question: Why wear it? Is the purpose to "look cute"? If so, I humbly suggest that a lady doesn't have to have a plunging neckline to look attractive.

Perhaps my utilitarianism is showing... I cannot imagine having to use tape to keep my clothing where I want it. That sounds like a bit too much trouble, to me!

[49. Lizzie said the following at 4:37 PM on Apr 7:]

49

I personally appreciate the Modesty Survey, especially since it includes disclaimers to use it as a resource, not as rules. It gives insight to what the guys really think (oh, the mysteriously mystifying minds of men!), and I'm not really under any obligation to follow it.

But there are some things which I sometimes wish could be cleared up, because it's so confusing. =P I pretty much already know which items of clothing are immodest, but I want to know when other clothes are okay and when they are immodest. What I mean is, how tight is too tight in a shirt or a pair of pants? (Or even a skirt, like the pencil skirts some businesswomen wear?)

Being the obsessive person that I am, I sometimes still feel self-conscious and worried and uncomfortable about my clothes or how I'm moving, because of that 20% chance that someone's having a problem with that. That's something I'm still working through--I think I just need to take a deep breath and relax and not think about it. xP

#35 Loris, #43 mindlab: Hehe! That's not something I thought of before. =P

And thanks to the guys who don't expect the world from us and just want women to dress reasonably decent. And also thanks to the guys who sympathize with us. xD

[50. Heidi said the following at 4:44 PM on Apr 7:]

50

Something that may be helpful to keep in mind while reading the Modesty Survey is that these questions were asked by young women who sincerely wanted to know the answers. If you have no desire to have similar questions answered, then you'll likely not benefit much from reading the results.

I'm honestly a bit confused as to why there would be any response of anger, unless it is from conviction. Is it frustration that our brothers in Christ would dare to answer such a survey, or the nature of the questions sent in from young women? Is the exasperation formed out of a dislike for the results, or perhaps you may feel that such a resource was uncalled for? I ask sincerely.

[51. Lizzie said the following at 5:10 PM on Apr 7:]

51

Oh, another thing: Shade Clothing. I've never ordered anything from them before, but I've read good reviews. Although they are Mormon-based and not Christian-based like Christa Taylor, they have some really modest tanks and T-shirts there. =)

[52. Rachael said the following at 6:01 PM on Apr 7:]

52

Lizzie,

Interesting thought about wanting to know when certain clothing items are appropriate. It's possible that after recently thinking about these things I may have wondered about my jeans. I don't want to wonder about it, though. They fit me, but should I get a bigger size so that my jeans fit loosely? I don't want to bother buying new jeans right now...and it might be okay to wear jeans that fit :)

And PLH (33) wrote: "I mean, even if all Christian women wore burkas, if men's heart were filled with sexual thoughts (which isn't hard, given the sex saturated culture), men still would lust after women."

-->and as others have mentioned, the burden doesn't or (perhaps doesn't only) rest upon the women.

But it is good to think about modesty...and about the tape stuff - I didn't know special tape like that existed!

The things you learn...

[53. Sarah22 said the following at 6:44 PM on Apr 7:]

53

I checked out the sites referenced which had very cute clothes but honestly they didn't look different from things I have purchased recently (and for less money too). Still I admire that there are clothing companies out there dedicated to having an entire line that is modest. Also, it all depends where you shop and in which department you shop. I automatically find that shopping in the women's section instead of the junior's section in most department stores generally yields more modest clothes (that are still very cute/fashionable and to me more classic and less trendy/disposable). As many other ladies have already said, tank tops/camisoles open up a whole world of clothing that I would normally not be comfortable wearing. I also love little shrugs and sweaters that I can wear over spaghetti strap dresses/etc. that are normally too bare for me to consider wearing.

As far as the girl who was asking about low cut tops I would just like to share that one of my friends really has no cleavage to speak of and therefore I guess she feels quite comfortable wearing tops that she thinks busty women should not wear and she often makes comments about this to me. I’ve never been sure how to approach her about this as I really don’t agree, it’s still a bit immodest to me (although not as overtly so if she was say, a double D cup size). In fact, my brothers made a comment to me about noticing her chest in one of the tops she thinks is OK to wear, I didn’t want to embarrass her, but I think she honestly doesn’t understand that men still notice a low cut top, even if there isn’t much filling it out.

[54. Kelly said the following at 6:50 PM on Apr 7:]

54

Loris - thanks for the tips on what size to buy! I find it near-impossible to find shirts that fit properly: what fits around the bust doesn't fit the rest of me at all, and vice-versa.

So I often end up swimming in oversized shirts. :( Of course, I bet fashion designers would encourage me to flash cleavage that doesn't fit in the material.

The skill of sewing - of taking things in ourselves - has been lost these days and the price of professional alteration is beyond my budget. So I tend to wear a lot of jackets (that I can't close) over shirts (that are too big) in an attempt to look like clothes are somewhat fitted.

Oh, to be a man, where 'one chest size fits most'. ;)

[55. Leah said the following at 8:15 PM on Apr 7:]

55

Justin T... double sided tape is a common accessory available for girls to buy (often under the name "hollywood tape") - I've only used it once- it was borrowed, as well as teh dress I was wearing- but I guess think about it this way: it was a dress that I thought quite modest when it was in place, but it was loose enough that it could certainly move around quite a lot- the tape just holds it there, and you forget about it.

[56. Jo said the following at 10:49 PM on Apr 7:]

56

Some of the statements on the survey are quite unclear too - "A woman's posture and movement can be a stumbling block" - okay, what kind of posture / movement? I really don't get that one.

Re: the comments about younger (teenage) guys - just another thought to throw into the mix, perhaps this should make us think especially carefully about what we wear if we are teachers / youth leaders etc, when we're performing those roles. Perhaps those might be times for the 'baggier' items. :P

[57. PLH said the following at 11:01 AM on Apr 8:]

57

Heidi-My reaction to the modesty survey isn't necessarily one of angry but frustration. I find that most "modesty" surveys only restrict women's mobility. For example, if women can't wear shorts, it compromises their ability to run and participate in athletics. More importantly, it seems that the "modesty message" teaches women that their sexually is someone bad because it causes men to sin. I think it leads to an unhealthy obsession with legalistic rules. The focus should be on the heart not rules.

[58. Loris said the following at 11:03 AM on Apr 8:]

58

You're welcome, Kelly (#54). For me, sewing has been an absolute necessity. Not only am I busty, I'm tall and in high school it was impossible to find summer dresses that weren't halfway up my thighs. My mom (who is even taller than I am, darn Dutch blood) had to learn to sew in her teens for the same reason. Every summer after school let out, we'd head to the fabric store and buy calico and a sundress pattern to make together. We had a good time and I learned a lot from her, so now it's no problem to alter a top or take up my husband's pants.
I agree that it's frustrating to buy tops, especially when the average cup size the fashion industry cuts tops for is a B and I read somewhere that the average American woman is now a C. So they're behind the times a bit as Americans are getting taller and fatter. I keep waiting for some genius to start selling blouses by cup size, i.e. 10B, 10C, 10D. I'd love to be a size 12D instead of a 16 dress/blouse size since my waist and hips are not that big. Unfortunately, a lot of stores that sell work wear like Express, for example, do not go beyond a size L blouse. If you need an XL, you're sunk, but I've never met anyone yet who was heartbroken about the blouse that got away. Since blouses are such a problem for me, I usually wear a nice knit top or polo under a jacket to work. (My office dress code is business casual) Old Navy's larger range of sizes is also useful, especially if I'm expecting to tailor a top anyway.
I've found that for my build, I'm going to have to pay more to look nice and I've found a brand that I do not have to tailor at all. Ann Taylor and Ann Taylor Loft are my go-tos. Their clothes is classic, comfortable, and in many cases, machine wash. Yes, it's generally a bit more expensive, but I prowl the clearance and have gotten an excellent work/church/dinner out wardrobe that way.
Jackets are even trickier than blouses. Lands End has jackets/blazers that are lightly shaped and are cut a little big, but still have good lines. Again, if a jacket is summer-weight and unlined, any amateur seamstress can take it in if it doesn't have a lot of pockets on the front. If it is lined, you'll need to see a tailor.
I hope this helps. Happy hunting. :)

[59. Dawnson said the following at 12:26 PM on Apr 8:]

59

Heidi #50:
"I'm honestly a bit confused as to why there would be any response of anger, unless it is from conviction. Is it frustration that our brothers in Christ would dare to answer such a survey, or the nature of the questions sent in from young women? Is the exasperation formed out of a dislike for the results, or perhaps you may feel that such a resource was uncalled for? I ask sincerely."

Interestingly, my exasperation with the survey stems from nothing you listed. The entire modesty dicussion is overly simplified and based on (I believe) faulty assumptions. The Modesty Survey bothers me because it continues to perpetuate those failings. Let me explain:

The Survey assumes that modesty is a clear line. Ex: "Is this shirt a problem?" Yes. "Are these pants an issue?" No. Through questions/answers like that, it tries to specifically define the line. But the concept of modesty isn't a clear line, it is subjective. I dare say *completely* subjective, based on whatever time and culture you live in.

Modesty is dressing and behaving in line with what the situation and culture deems appropriate and not sexually provocative.

A girl showing even her knees would have caused a scandal in other times and even today in certain countries. Yet today in America, that is considered normal. Why? Because everyone does it. The line between "modest" and "not modest" slides, and appropriately so, with the context you're in. From America, to Muslim countries, to half-naked jungle tribes, the *concept* of modesty still exists. In each of those cultures there are societal norms of what is considered proper or not, and each of those norms is *very* different. We, as the American Conservative Christian sub-culture, do not have an idealogical monopoly on what is *ultimately* modest, because there is no such thing. Modesty varies by context.

So what determines modesty then? Three things: the Intention of the wearer, the Context of the situation, and the Response of those around you.

Intent: This is about the foundamental posture of the heart. Jesus taught alot about motive, and jumped on the religious leaders of the day for doing everything thing right, but for totally wrong reasons. So if you wear something inappropriate accidentally, your clothes may be immodest (and you should go change), but *you* are not because your heart was in the right place. Conversely, if you're very conservatively dressed but think of that as a sign of your superior Holiness compared to the "sluts" around you, then you need to repent and work on getting rid of your pride. So begin with your heart and look at your motives.

Context: What your culture would deem appropriate/modest would depend on the context of the situation. For example, you would not wear a swimsuit to a funeral, but if you go straight from the funeral to a pool then you shouldn't be shocked at what you see. Why? The context has changed, and therefore so has what is proper. Pool, funeral, workplace, home, European beach, African jungle tribe, etc, they ALL have different expectations and therefore different ideas about what is modest.

Response: This area is almost entirely the guys' responsibility. As mentioned before, if guys want to lust, they will, no matter what you're wearing. (more on that in a minute) If your heart is in the right place, and you're pretty sure you're dressed appropriately for the situation, then don't worry about the guys. At that point what they do with their own heart and eyes is up to them, not you. I said "almost" in the first sentense because a girl does need cues from the people around her if what she's wearing in fact isn't appropriate to the context, but not to the extent that the guys act like an Olympic judging committee (the way the Survey comes across).

Lust: The Bible speaks strongly against lust, but never defines it. What lust is therefore becomes highly interpretable. And tragically it has been pushed to mean a guy even *noticing* that a woman has a woman's body, or (ohnoes!) liking what he sees!

Lust begins, again, with heart motives. There is a difference between a guy looking at a girl he passes in the mall (REGARDLESS of what she's wearing) and a girl he looks up racy pictures of online. The later is lust, while the former is likely not. Why? Because a guy who searches for those pics online does so with the intent to lust after them already in his mind. Could the guy lust after the girl at the mall too? Absolutely, but I dare say it happens alot less than anyone thinks. Observing what kind of body a girl has is not lust. Thinking that girl is pretty dang gorgeous is not lust either. Looking at her only to imagine doing immoral things with her body is lust. And every guy I talk to almost *never* does that, no matter what the girl is wearing.

Sorry that's so long, but you asked sincerely and I tried to answer in kind. There's so much more to explain, I could write a whole book about this (and in fact, I am). This is why the Modesty Survey upsets me. It is a gross oversimplification of the issues at hand and perpetuates some very damaging assumptions about the nature of lust, beauty, and modesty. I hope my explanation has been helpful. :)

[60. Tami said the following at 1:30 PM on Apr 8:]

60

Loris (#58) -- Ann Taylor is great. Banana Republic can be good, too (they sell some of their pants styles by length; they also have petites). Plus both are having great sales right now. :)

I also hear you on the blouse sizing - though my problems are with the necklines (almost always too low) and the shoulders (fall off me!). I think sizing by torso size is a great idea.

What I've never understood, however, is why size 0-4 pants have legs cut for someone six foot five?

[61. Katie B said the following at 3:11 PM on Apr 8:]

61

On the modesty survey, I liked that they divided the questions between 'is this modest?' and 'does this cause you to stumble?'
Its our responsibility to be modest, its guys responsibility not to stumble. the two are not nessesarily cause and effect, tho they can be. The poison of legalism comes in when one parties responsibility is lessened, like when it is the womans responsibilty to keep men from lusting after her, or when it modesty is thrown out the window because it doesnt garuntee men wont lust.
side note, women dress to impress men less than men think they do. especially in the secular fashion culture and its influence on the christian culture, women check each other out more than men check women out. Not sexually, but critically and comparitively. I once had a (secular) male friend ask me why women try to avoid panty lines, because men like to see them. then was surprised that womans primary goal in dressing wasnt to be attractive to men.

[62. Tami said the following at 3:43 PM on Apr 8:]

62

Dawnson (#59) -- I agree with some of what you say, but (surprise!) take issue with other parts, mostly with the outworking of some of the assumptions.

What do you say about a woman who has a man that is interested in her -- but she knows he "notices" and "observes" all the women around him quite often (naturally, he claims)? How is she not supposed to feel measured and evaluated not by his emotions, but by his physical standards of beauty? What if they get married, and he realizes she's not as physically "perfect" as other women he's carefully "observed," and he gets turned off?

I see so much "observing" among the Christian guys I know, that I get massively disheartened. And honestly, it's not simply observing; it's comparing and analyzing to the point of dismissing a woman entirely.

I don't think I'd want to marry any of those guys I know, even if they were interested in me, for fear of never measuring up to their ideals and living with that disappointment. [To pre-empt discussion of my appearance's role in this -- I'm in shape, I take care of myself, and I dress nicely but conservatively.] It hurts to hear a guy you care about talk about how pretty or hot other girls are, because we know what a value men place on women's appearance. Honestly, I've had my heart broken over this, so I am a tad sensitive about it, I admit. I have pretty much come to the point of wondering, "If no guy seems to be willing to have eyes for one woman, why bother to commit myself to him?"

I'm constantly hearing how "men are visual," and 75% of the time it's being used as an excuse for the guy's lack of self control. I am sure there's some sort of emotional equivalent that men are concerned about in women, but I don't tend to hear about this. Do men understand the impact this has on the women they're around?

[63. Christina said the following at 4:45 PM on Apr 8:]

63

Dawnson,

I don't get it..

So what determines modesty then? Three things: the Intention of the wearer, the Context of the situation, and the Response of those around you.

Isn't that exactly what that survey was about?

Pretty much they asked a bunch of questions and displayed people's responses to them. That's it. So there's the "response to those around you".

Responses are going to vary on culture and time (which significantly, I'm pretty certain all the people that answered are living at the same time as you as I'm pretty certain no people from victorian england had access to this particular survey).

It was a survey of what men find as downfalls. And yes, setting was taken into account too (do different rules apply to weddings as they do to every day attire?)

You got your panties bunched up in a wad over nothing. This survey captured exactly your definition of modesty.

To the person who said that this is about glorifying God and not about keeping our "brothers from stumbling", I beg to disagree that those are necessarily exclusive. We can glorify God in our underwear...Adam and Eve did it naked =p Unfortunately with the fall of creation comes certain knowledge that makes heads turn and create lust in their hearts. So now, to glorify God, we try to minimize how much we can make a "brother stumble".

Yeah, not all of it is our fault, but we can play our part in this dynamic that isn't just about ME

[64. Jo said the following at 5:01 PM on Apr 8:]

64

Re: the questions about wearing low cut tops if you don't have much bust to show... I just don't think that's attractive, never mind modest/immodest. Since the point of a low cut top is to draw attention to a large bust, I think it just draws attention to the fact you don't have one. I avoid 'plunging necklines' for reasons both of modesty and of wanting to look good!

[65. Kelly said the following at 7:49 PM on Apr 8:]

65

Loris, thank you again!

You said: "Ann Taylor and Ann Taylor Loft are my go-tos. Their clothes is classic, comfortable, and in many cases, machine wash."

Machine-wash? I am SO THERE. ;) It's crazy the amount of time I spend hand-washing my work clothes. It makes them last a lot longer but I can't imagine having a husband/children and finding time to wash their clothes as well!

When I was growing up, my Dad always did the washing and I would get so mad when he didn't treat my clothing gently. In retrospect, I completely understand that he didn't have time to separate out the clothing, much less even THINK of hand-washing.

---

I totally agree with your suggestion that blouses be sold by cup size as well as shoulder size.

Teenage fashion also needs to be severely overhauled. So many times I've seen a group of similarly dressed teens, with one or two girls with larger bodies also squeezing into the outfits designed for stick-thin girls. They look terrible but seem to care more about fitting in rather than dressing appropriately for their shape, not to mention the modesty issues. :(

[66. Lizzie said the following at 11:34 PM on Apr 8:]

66

Rachael (#52): I don't think it's wrong to wear jeans that fit, either, it's just confusing to have to figure out if they're fitting too much. ;P It can be annoying because if jeans/pants are too loose, then they become baggy and wrinkly and unflattering, and if they're too tight, then they're immodest. Hard to find that perfect medium. I'm sure you girls know what I mean! xD

[67. Loris said the following at 7:06 AM on Apr 9:]

67

Tami (#60), I'll never understand why size 12 pants are cut for someone 5'5, hehehe. Seriously, I'm happy with any shop that carries size long/tall pants. I like Banana Republic, but I don't seem to have the same success there that I do at Ann Taylor. I guess their offerings are more "me," but I'm a big fan of BR's paper-thin wool sweaters (worn with a cami, of course.) as I live in SC and it doesn't get that cold.

[68. PLH said the following at 10:39 AM on Apr 9:]

68

Tam (62), I agree. That's part troubles me-the expectation that women should be "cute" to "catch" a husband but modest at the same to so as not to "cause a brother to fall." That expectation is simply too much. Rather than create these traps for women, who already suffer from living in a culture that glorifies women for their beauty, we should tell women modesty is about having a pure heart and loving God. If women had a clean heart, they wouldn't have to worry about dressing modesty.

[69. Loris said the following at 10:55 AM on Apr 9:]

69

Hey Kelly, if you come to SC, there's an Ann Taylor outlet near my apartment. I'll take you shopping. For the record, I just snagged a plain red 3/4 sleeve shirtdress and a cream knee-length spring coat from there and I'm feeling pretty pleased with myself. :)

[70. Dawnson said the following at 11:30 AM on Apr 9:]

70

Tami #62:
What do you say about a woman who has a man that is interested in her -- but she knows he "notices" and "observes" all the women around him quite often (naturally, he claims)? How is she not supposed to feel measured and evaluated not by his emotions, but by his physical standards of beauty? What if they get married, and he realizes she's not as physically "perfect" as other women he's carefully "observed," and he gets turned off?
-----

Then she foolishly married a horribly shallow guy.

Your perception of the mental complexity of guys seems to be a tad narrow.. Several factors influence a guy's attraction: physical beauty, emotions, and will. (Sidenote: I really don't think you want to be "measured and evaluated" strictly through his emotions either, since emotions can easily come and go.)

The thing is, guys observe other women all the time, whether they tell you about it or not. But that doesn't stop most of them from dating, getting married, and living long *happy* lives with their wives, all despite the fact that he can probably think of someone he thinks is prettier. And if you asked him why he doesn't jump up and run after the next younger, hotter girl he comes across, he'd probably say something like this: "Why would I want to? My wife has been loving and faithful to me all these years. She knows me better than anyone on the planet (and loves me anyway!). She's the mother of my children and we have years of memories together."

His committment to his wife shapes his emotions and increases his attraction.

-----
Tami: I see so much "observing" among the Christian guys I know, that I get massively disheartened.
----

I doubt that you want guys to stop observing altogether, you probably just want them to observe you instead. In which case you get "massively disheartened" because you yourself are also too locked on physical appearence, and the attention you're not getting. Don't blame the guys for that.

----
Tami: And honestly, it's not simply observing; it's comparing and analyzing to the point of dismissing a woman entirely.
-----

This, you can blame the guys for. That's just shallow, immaturity. Personality has just as much to do with attractiveness as looks. It sounds mean, but there were several girls I knew in college that, when I first met them, my first reaction was to pity them. Just not physically attractive at all. But after spending time with them in class and getting to know them, they were really awesome people! About halfway through the semester, I started getting nervous around one of them the way I do around girls I think are cute! My view of her had changed *that* much. When she got engaged I was a tad jealous.

All of my friends from high school (who went on and on about hot girls at the time) who are now married have really awesome, but fairly average looking, wives. And they wouldn't trade them for the world.

-----
Tami: I don't think I'd want to marry any of those guys I know, even if they were interested in me, for fear of never measuring up to their ideals and living with that disappointment.
-----

Then seriously, find new guys if they're going to be like that.

-----
Tami: It hurts to hear a guy you care about talk about how pretty or hot other girls are, because we know what a value men place on women's appearance.
-----

Sounds like they're being rather tactless about it.

-----
Tami: Honestly, I've had my heart broken over this, so I am a tad sensitive about it, I admit. I have pretty much come to the point of wondering, "If no guy seems to be willing to have eyes for one woman, why bother to commit myself to him?"
-----

You seem to be thinking that for a guy to be faithful in marriage he has to never be attracted to another woman either before or after his marriage. That is just not realistic. *Nearly EVERY* guy who gets married chooses a woman who isn't the hottest thing he's ever seen. Why? Because he loves HER specifically, for who she is. Physical attractiveness is a big factor, but there are many other factors and they all influence attractiveness.

-----
Tami: I'm constantly hearing how "men are visual," and 75% of the time it's being used as an excuse for the guy's lack of self control. I am sure there's some sort of emotional equivalent that men are concerned about in women, but I don't tend to hear about this. Do men understand the impact this has on the women they're around?
-----

How old are these guys you talk about? If they're high school then I'd say wait awhile and they *should* grow out of it.

Guys observing the girls around them isn't in itself a problem. The problem comes in what they (and you) do with that.

If they use their observations to compare, berate, and dismiss the girls around them, then yes it's a problem. And it's the guys' fault.

Girls create problems for themselves if they idolize looks and attention so much that they think they are the only ones who should ever be attractive in the eyes of "their" man.

[71. Dawnson said the following at 11:51 AM on Apr 9:]

71

Christina #63:
Pretty much they asked a bunch of questions and displayed people's responses to them. That's it. So there's the "response to those around you".
-----

That's not the response I was talking about. It's what the guys do mentally with what they see that is the issue there. Read the last half of my #59 post.

-----
Christina: Responses are going to vary on culture and time (which significantly, I'm pretty certain all the people that answered are living at the same time as you as I'm pretty certain no people from victorian england had access to this particular survey).
-----

And what would the victorian Englishman have said? And would he have been right? Apparently not if "God's standards are always the same" according to the Survey comments on weddings. We must have finally arrived at the ideals that the rest of history was striving for.. /sarcasm

-----
Christina: It was a survey of what men find as downfalls.
-----

Define "downfalls" for me please.

-----
Christina: You got your panties bunched up in a wad over nothing. This survey captured exactly your definition of modesty.
-----

I disagree.

From the tone and comments on the Survey, their definition of modesty is "whatever doesn't attract me to her body at all." Which, I will say again, is gross oversimplification of the issues at hand and perpetuates some very damaging assumptions about the nature of lust, beauty, and modesty.

[72. Tami said the following at 12:32 PM on Apr 9:]

72

Dawnson wrote, "I doubt that you want guys to stop observing altogether, you probably just want them to observe you instead. In which case you get 'massively disheartened' because you yourself are also too locked on physical appearence, and the attention you're not getting. Don't blame the guys for that."

Not to turn this into a debate -- because that's fruitless -- but, no. Simply put, that is not the case.

It is unrealistic (and egocentric) to expect that a man will find you the *only* pretty woman he will ever see. However, I don't think it's unrealistic to hope that the man I marry will not continue to be on the lookout for pretty girls, or be comparing me to all the women he has known or will know. I would most definitely give him the same respect and devotion that I would hope to receive from him.

[73. Dawnson said the following at 12:49 PM on Apr 9:]

73

Tami #72:
Not to turn this into a debate -- because that's fruitless -- but, no. Simply put, that is not the case.

It is unrealistic (and egocentric) to expect that a man will find you the *only* pretty woman he will ever see.
-----

I agree and am glad to be mistaken then.

-----
Tami: However, I don't think it's unrealistic to hope that the man I marry will not continue to be on the lookout for pretty girls, or be comparing me to all the women he has known or will know.
-----

"Noticing" and "on the lookout" are two different things. Motive being the key, I believe. And again it's *why* he'd consciously make a comparison that would matter. A subconscious comparision happens whenever you meet new people, but if he's constantly weighing differences to decide if he's happy staying with you, then that's a problem.

[74. Tara said the following at 3:09 PM on Apr 9:]

74

Dawnson, I really appreciate the views you shared in comment #59. Reading your post actually reminded me of a section of Vanity Fair--the novel by William Thackery, not the magazine :P. Skirts revealing ankles had just come in vogue and some of the more cad-like male characters decided to go into town to gawk and make fun of the women with less attractive ankles. Men lusting after ankles seems ridiculous to me but it really brings to light how modesty and lust are matters of the heart...not neccesarily rules on hemlines and skin exposure.

[75. Heidi said the following at 3:13 PM on Apr 9:]

75

This is a lengthy comment, but I have done my best to make it informative and precise so as to address the many misconceptions floating around about the Modesty Survey.

Loris #35, mindlab #42, and Chris Krycho #45, are you aware that you have the option to view the survey results by age? After clicking on a question, to the right there is the option to “filter” the results. That way you have the opportunity to see how younger men’s answers differed from the more mature contributors.

PLH #57, I’m not aware of any other modesty surveys that have been done, but I readily agree that the message of modesty preached these days can often be focused on restrictive, legalistic rules. That’s why I was pleasantly surprised by the Modesty Survey, where guys poured out their personal appreciation for the stunning beauty of modesty, expressed sympathy for how hard it is for us, spoke of heart issues—their own and ours—and urged us to steer clear of legalism. I can understand why you’d avoid the majority of modesty resources, but I encourage you to give the Modesty Survey a chance and just read what the guys had to say, especially on topics such as “What is your responsibility?” and “Girls can dress attractively without being immodest”. I hope it would be a blessing for you.

Dawson #59, I greatly appreciate your sincere, informative, response. I think I understand a bit more clearly now where you are coming from, but please feel free to correct me if I get anything mixed up.

First, I'd like to clarify that I do understand a guy can lust no matter what a woman is wearing. However, I believe the main goal of the Modesty Survey is to aid women like myself in figuring out how they can help those who are actively fighting against lust by not wearing clothing that is likely to provoke another battle.

I find it strange that you admit the Bible never defines lust, yet you give your own definition without the slightest disclaimer of human fallacy. If many guys believe that appreciating women’s beauty is lust, then that is a tragedy indeed, but I have found exactly the opposite response in the Modesty Survey, such as these:

“Girls can be beautiful, noticably beautiful, and guys can notice it, without there being immodesty or lust involved, and this is the good design of God.”

“I actually had a T/A in one of my classes who was a beautiful woman who dressed modestly, and I had trouble paying attention to anyone but her! Her clothing never caused me to stumble and never once did I have a physical reaction to her. Instead, my heart warmed (maybe even fluttered a few times hehe) and it just made me smile. There's also a young woman from my home town who I've known for some time who has MASTERED this art. She is just gorgeous....wait, I'm rambling....sorry. …”

To the statement “A guy can consider a girl attractive without thinking of her in an impure way” 95.4% either agreed or strongly agreed.

From these results I assume that these very same guys confirmed that certain items of clothing lead them to lust. Thus I conclude that my manner of clothing does, in fact, either help or hurt my brothers who are striving against lust, though it appears to be a bit contrary to your own experience.

You wrote, "The Survey assumes that modesty is a clear line. ...But the concept of modesty isn't a clear line, it is subjective."

I would dare to suggest that it is even more subjective than the examples you've mentioned, relative to how the individual was raised, how hard they have fought the battle of lust, what they've been exposed to, etc. Yet isn't there a clear line for each individual? Not a definite black and white overall, but a distinct point at which a person knows that to see such clothing in a respective contest on a woman would be a stumbling block? If there is, could not young women seeking modesty greatly benefit from knowing where the line is for the majority of guys? It is not inherent knowledge – we have to learn it from somewhere. And since the survey gives the option to filter the results by homeschool, public school, or private school, it gives an idea of how much the results vary by different environments.

You wrote, “So what determines modesty then? Three things: the Intention of the wearer, the Context of the situation, and the Response of those around you.” I believe the Modesty Survey stemmed from all three of these. The idea came into existence to fulfill a need: women with modest intentions wanted to know the response from those around them in various context and situations, but found the subject inappropriate to discuss outright with the guys they know.

It seems that you believe the Modesty Survey does nothing to factor in the context of the situation, and I feel compelled to ask: have you even read it? It has specific questions on if/how standards can differ when working out, if certain things are acceptably modest when wearing a swimsuit, if immodest clothing is non-problematic amidst family, and whether or not standards can vary for different occasions. Furthermore, many guys graciously explained their answers by clarifying when this or that depends on the situation, or when something is not generally a stumbling block to them but can indicate a lack of modesty in the wearer’s heart.

You’ve concluded: “This is why the Modesty Survey upsets me. It is a gross oversimplification of the issues at hand and perpetuates some very damaging assumptions about the nature of lust, beauty, and modesty.”

I am deeply thankful for your concern in this regard; many women, including myself, have struggled with the misguided impression that being beautiful causes lust and is therefore sinful. To have brothers like you who passionately set the record straight is wonderful medicine. :) In fact, if you read the text answers in the Modesty Survey, especially in the sections of General/Other and Open Questions, I think you’ll find many like-minded guys who are telling us the same blessed message in their own words. The notable difference is that they have collectively shared it through the very resource you’re condemning.

All I can say is that the Modesty Survey has been an immense blessing to me, and I am saddened that you, while defending the majority of the concepts presented, reject the Modesty Survey in its entirety. I’m glad to hear you’re writing a book and from the things you’re written here it sounds like there is great opportunity for God to move through it. May the Lord bless you.

To any and all who took the time to read this, thank you. :)

[76. Dawnson said the following at 4:28 PM on Apr 9:]

76

Heidi #75, thank you for your sincere response. Unfortunately I'm moving out of state tomorrow morning and need to pack like crazy. So to answer your questions I've asked my "partner-in-crime" on this subject, TomySky, to step in for me while I'm gone. See you in four days.

Blessings to you.

[77. Heidi said the following at 4:49 PM on Apr 9:]

77

To correct a perhaps confusing typo of mine: ...a distinct point at which a person knows that to see such clothing in a respective *context* (NOT contest) on a woman would be a stumbling block...

**Blush**

[78. TomySky said the following at 6:11 PM on Apr 9:]

78

Hey everyone. Dawnson is traveling, so I'm jumping in for him while he's en route. He and I are working on the book together, so we should be on pretty much the same page.

Tara #74: You've totally got it! You're absolutely right.

Heidi #75: We appreciate your kindness in your responses as well. Dawnson has spent some time with the Survey; I have not. So, please forgive any ignorance I may display in my response to you.

"I believe the main goal of the Modesty Survey is to aid women like myself in figuring out how they can help those who are actively fighting against lust by not wearing clothing that is likely to provoke another battle."

I believe the Modesty Survey was created with good intentions. However, I believe it creates far more problems that it hopes to solve.

1. The Modesty Survey approaches the entire issue backward. It essentially asks: What can I get away with? This is, naturally, a bad way to start out when you're trying to help others. Rather, it would be far better to ask the question of, "What have you found that 'blesses' you in what women wear?" That seems like a far more beneficial question.

2. The Modesty Survey is built on a very flawed idea. The idea is that you can help those "fighting against lust" by dressing differently.

This is hardly the place (due to space restrictions) to flesh out this idea entirely. I will do my best without rewriting our book here [smile].

The fact of the matter is that 99% of what we Christian's define as a struggle or issue of lust is not one. This is, of course, ignoring pornography and other obvious sexual sins. What I mean is that in the daily life, lust happens so very rarely that we have created a monster that does not exist.

Dawnson has asked before: Define "downfalls" for me please. (#73)

I used to "struggle" when girls who were "immodestly" dressed walked by. But, after years of working through this thought process, have discovered a freeing truth: I do not lust after girls I see on the street. My brain never goes to any inappropriate thought. I think, 'She's cute,' or, 'I like how that looks,' but never to a sinful/sexual thought.

Our working definition of lust claims no "God Stamp of Approval". Rather, it is based on what we believe makes the most sense in light of Scripture, reality, and brings about the greatest blessing for everyone. We more than welcome any challenges to our definition in case we need to further refine our ideas.

"To the statement 'A guy can consider a girl attractive without thinking of her in an impure way' 95.4% either agreed or strongly agreed."

I completely agree. I agree with the statements you quoted. Absolutely. However, the sentiment behind such statements is often (and I'm not saying that it is the case here either): Since we can find girls beautiful in modest dress, girls should not wear shorts (or bikinis, or... whatever).

That does not follow. In fact, we agree with the statements so much that a guy can consider an attractive girl in a bikini in a completely pure way. That's the idea I feel does not come across in the typical context of such statements.

"From these results I assume that these very same guys confirmed that certain items of clothing lead them to lust."

And guys who claim that certain clothes "lead them to lust" are frequently operating off an erroneous assumption and a very dangerous idea. It's the concept that I have termed "goddessification". It's the problem of the "bounce your eyes" group. Because, this kind of thinking pre-sexualizes the situation and makes the women (and, more specifically, their garments) a threat to holiness. This makes them the enemy, rather than a sister in Christ to be honored, loved, and cared for. If we try to avoid such sights, our minds create an image that does not line up with reality, and makes the problem worse.

I challenge every guy to force himself to look at an attractive girl in "problematic" clothes, and consider his thoughts. I have yet to meet a guy who goes beyond, "Oh wow." The only time we go beyond this point is when we make a conscious decision to do something lustful with what we are seeing. It is a choice, so be free to notice even the curves of the girls around you. But make sure you honor them too. You can't just drool.

(Lack of space is killing me, because these ideas require far more explanation to be really useful/good.)

You are absolutely correct about the subjective nature of modesty. Thus, we consider modesty to be a "talent" that needs to be honed to be useful. So, yes, a guy who has never seen a girl in shorts, would very much feel the sexuality of seeing a woman in a swimsuit. But the "battle" you refer to is a lie. We have made a battle out of something that shouldn't be a struggle. To find a girl's body sexually appealing is what God intended. There is nothing wrong with that.

What you do with such things can easily be a sexual sin, but it frequently is not. How does such ambiguity help women like yourself?

First, you must realize that the internet is not your social context. What the majority of guys on the survey say, doesn't really speak to you and your world. You must get feedback from the guys around you (your father should be the first to offer an opinion, then perhaps brothers, and finally close guys friends). The "clear line for" you is only seen in that place.

Second, I would argue that "young women seeking modesty" would start from the other side of the question. The Survey merely allows you to answer the question of "What can I get away with wearing", rather than really helping you define what is truly modest.

However, third, I would caution against any such Survey at all, because it tends to attract the hyper spiritual and those who want to be able to judge their spirituality based off rules (shrouded in Grace, or not).

Thus, we must rethink why we think looking at girl's is a sexual sin (lust), and instead consider how we can bless and build one another up.

I find the fact that people have "found the subject inappropriate to discuss outright with the guys they know" terribly saddening. Since modesty is a big issue, it needs to be part of our conversation as brothers and sisters in Christ. We need way more love and grace to flow out of us if we can't even talk about appropriate clothing with those around us. We've clearly made the issue too big if it is a taboo subject.

I am so glad that you, and others, have found the grace and answers you have sought from the Modesty Survey. May that continue. And I am thankful guys have been able to share truth out of the Survey. Again, I freely admit I have not read it, but the bits I have heard, and the statements of those who typically point to it as "the answer" to what is modest, tend to make me angry and upset because of the lies that are perpetrated and the destructive effects that has on our ability to bless and love one another.

May many more be blessed by the Modesty Survey, but may we also get to an even higher understanding of how God wants us to relate to one another.

We greatly appreciate all prayers for us as we write our book so that many will be blessed and set free by the truth.

Thank you again for your thoughts, and we welcome any other insights/opinions/ideas that anyone may have.

~Luke

[79. Tami said the following at 9:24 PM on Apr 9:]

79

Hi, Luke -- you invited comments, so here goes. :)

I can't see wearing a bikini in this culture as *ever* qualifying as "modest." No matter the context, it's *designed* to show off pretty much everything, which goes against anything I would ever define as modest, even if I wasn't a Christian woman. I could pull it off, but can you think of a *good* motivation for me to do so?

Plus, I really struggle with the idea that *all* a guy ever thinks when he sees a girl in a bikini is, "wow," and nothing further. Else the SI swimsuit edition wouldn't be such a popular issue. I doubt a guy is anxiously waiting at the mailbox for the issue with a feature on, say, the Lady Vols in quite the same manner. Though I suppose you never know -- they are pretty cool! :)

I am not advocating we all wear denim jumpers, turtlenecks, and knee socks. Not in the least. I've also stated here that if I tried to abide by everything in the Modesty Survey, I'd go bonkers. But I think there is *some* common sense at play here. Along with the huge issue of respecting one another.

[80. mindlab said the following at 5:54 AM on Apr 10:]

80

TomySky 78

". . .we agree. . . that a guy can consider an attractive girl in a bikini in a completely pure way. . .I have yet to meet a guy who goes beyond, 'Oh wow.'"

Sorry, but speaking as a guy, what you are saying is simply not true. It is patently impossible to "notice (or appreciate) the curves" of a woman you are not married to in a "pure" way. 'Curves' (or as a biologist would say 'secondary sexual characteristics') are there to evoke attraction. The appreciation of those characteristics cannot be anything other than sexual.

Furthermore, no 'pre-sexualization' is necessary for a bikini to be a stumbling block. Perhaps in 500 years when nudity is normative, a bikini will be modest; in today's culture I can say with confidence that you cannot look at (appreciate) an attractive woman in a bikini without desiring her body in a sexual way.

I'm not calling you liar, but you are, without question, wrong.

[81. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:28 AM on Apr 10:]

81

Interesting comment about bikinis mindlab.

The problem though is if taken out of context, sexual attraction could be defined as "not pure".

Sexual attraction is neutral. It is be "pure" if taken in the context of a married couple, or during the dating process (if not taken to excess). It is "impure" in cases of pornography, fornication, etc.

Frankly, most agree that there needs to be at least some sexual attraction during the dating/courting process. Otherwise, why else would people willingly marry each other? We rarely marry for political reasons anymore, and at least in Western countries do not usually marry out of obligation to "carry the family name".

Tami, bikinis may be considered socially acceptable. In Africa, certain tribes have bare breasted women and it isn't considered scandalous. C.S. Lewis wrote that someone wearing a bikini may be considered "decent" if that is the societal norm. Agreed, I often wonder how women with little on can't be trying to invoke lust, but then again, I didn't grow up in that culture. Maybe "lust invoking" to them would be something we consider innocent such as smiling.

[82. mindlab said the following at 9:39 AM on Apr 10:]

82

Mike Theemling 81:

Yes, thanks for the clarification. I would agree that a moderate (don't you love that word) level of sexual attraction during the dating/courting process is appropriate, necessary, and pure.

[83. Tami said the following at 9:42 AM on Apr 10:]

83

Mike -- note that, in my comment, I wrote "in this culture," the position from which most of us are discussing this issue. I am aware that other cultures have very different standards, and in this discussion I am not calling them into question.

[84. TomySky said the following at 9:46 AM on Apr 10:]

84

Tami (#79), while I agree that a bikini would not be modest for us in this day and age, I think it could be consider modest in a nudist area. On the other hand, it could also be seen as inappropriate in such context because everyone is supposed to be nude. But that really isn't the point.

I'd like to challenge the entire idea of modesty. I see us talking about two different sides of the issue. On one side we are talking about "modesty"-the virginal covering of our bodies to keep them from being sexually alluring. On the other side we have "what is modest"-what is acceptable to wear in public.

A bikini may never be part of a line up things on a "modesty" rack of clothing. However, I think it would erroneous to say that a bikini is not ever acceptable to wear in public. If you feel that it would always be unacceptable, I would love your reasoning so I can better think through my own.

The SI Swimsuit editing is a great example of pornography. Pornography, in our working definition, is anything with the Intent to get you aroused through the Content that will lead to a sexually releasing Response. Guys waiting for the latest editing to show up in the mailbox are waiting for porn.

But, guys who visit Water World (as I did with my wife and a couple friends last year), quickly discover that seeing girls at a water park is very different from seeing them in porn. The Intent is different, the Content is almost the same, but the Response is totally different. If, however, a guy does make cat-calls, or such things to girls "on the street", his issue is respect of women, not lust.

But you are correct: There is common sense, and plenty of feedback, that needs to be taken into consideration in choosing your wardrobe. As I said above: Modesty is a "talent" that needs to be honed. If you find good "coaching" in the Modesty Survey, awesome.

~Luke

[85. TomySky said the following at 10:07 AM on Apr 10:]

85

mindlab (#80): I appreciate your comment, and if I'm wrong, I want to know. However, to say that

"It is patently impossible to 'notice (or appreciate) the curves' of a woman you are not married to in a 'pure' way. ...The appreciation of those characteristics cannot be anything other than sexual"

seems to be missing the point. If you define "pure" as "only what a man can do with his wife", then, you are by your own definition correct. However, if it is possible to respond to sexual stimuli in a proper manner, then there is nothing impure about seeing something sexual.

You are correct: Women's bodies are sexual. God made them that way. How you respond to a woman's body determines the purity of the situation. I am merely pointing out that it is easy in day-to-day life to merely appreciate a woman's "secondary sexual characteristics" without thinking anything inappropriate. Every guy I have had the chance to speak with about this agrees. If you do not, please let me know so we can correct our view.

However, the guys who most often start out convinced that they think "impure" thoughts, have yet to be able to tell me what it is they are thinking, unless they have made a choice to lust after the girl's body.

There is a danger in your comment that I am sure you did not intend. If it is impossible to see a woman's body without sin outside of marriage, then women's bodies (and thus, women themselves) and dangerous and a threat to our holiness. Then a female body is inherently sinful outside the context of marriage. Thus, we shun them instead of actively looking for ways to honor and bless them.

Thanks again for your feedback. We appreciate your honesty and desire for truth.

~Luke

[86. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:42 AM on Apr 10:]

86

Tami,

Sorry for the oversight. Yes, in this culture bikinis are specifically designed to arouse sexual desires.

[87. mindlab said the following at 10:51 AM on Apr 10:]

87

TomySky 85

"How you respond to a woman's body determines the purity of the situation." - yes

"I am merely pointing out that it is easy in day-to-day life to merely appreciate a woman's "secondary sexual characteristics" without thinking anything inappropriate." - no

Let me explain. I know a few attractive and beautiful women; I am not married to any of them. If I chose to appreciate their wit, their conversation, their creativity, or even their strength (i.e. 12 mile day hikes) that is fine. If I chose to appreciate their body (by looking, or thinking about it) that is lust.

There's a distinction here; I can look across the room, notice a friend, recognize (or be struck by the fact) they she's attractive without sin. But if I notice that she's attractive, and then choose to dwell on that, to 'appreciate' it, to enjoy the experience of gazing at an attractive woman, that's lust (for me, since I'm not married). That is an experience that God has restricted to marriage (some exceptions may apply for persons moving toward marriage).

So recognizing that a woman is attractive is amoral. Dwelling on the fact, or enjoying her body is not amoral; it is either lust or desire (in a biblically sanctioned relationship).

[88. Tami said the following at 11:09 AM on Apr 10:]

88

Thanks, Mike.

[89. Tami said the following at 11:24 AM on Apr 10:]

89

TomySky (85) From an unmarried woman's perspective -- I can definitely tell the difference between when a man (Christian or not...) simply notices me and thinks I'm attractive, versus when he is dwelling on me per mindlab's illustrations. One is flattering, and the other is uncomfortable.

I can also tell when a man is staring at my face, or elsewhere. (Generally this is not Christian men behaving this way, but for point of illustration...)

It is not my job to judge the heart of a man, but generally I can discern what's going on.

A Christian man who develops the habit of how he looks at women *before* marriage, will be (literally) cultivating his vision for his married life.

Just like a woman who cultivates her habit of respecting men before marriage will have a much better go at it once she's married.

I think this is one of the roles of modest behavior: respect for one another.

[90. TomySky said the following at 11:24 AM on Apr 10:]

90

mindlab (#87): Beauty, like any other attribute (wit, strength, creativity), is God-given.

I am interested in what you definition of lust is. It sounds, and I could be wrong, that you define lust as: Choosing to appreciate beauty. So, if you passively notice a girl is cute, fine. But "the second look" is lust.

This requires that you "bounce your eyes", creating a way over-sexualized image of the girl that does not match up with reality. It also means that you must avoid girls you find attractive, or you may be tempted to look at them.

This end result of such thinking seems a far cry from Christ and how He interacted with women.

I do not know of any Scripture that says that appreciating the beauty of women is wrong unless it is your wife. In fact, the Bible itself talks about beautiful women (Abigail, Sarah, Rachel...), which, to do so, requires that people other than their husbands take note of their beauty.

I am also interested in how you justify "lusting" after a girl to whom you are engaged.

To put this whole idea another way: Is it wrong to think an actress it cute and stay in a movie theater? If so, why?

I also challenge you to consider the last time you truly had an impure thought while looking at a girl in a room. In my experience, such thoughts do not enter my mind unless I choose to go there.

And maybe we are just missing each other on the definition of "appreciate". I am thinking of "appreciation" of a woman's body in a way of, "She is cute, I like the way her eyes look." Since she is female, there is naturally a sexuality to the situation (since she is the opposite sex), but I have no thoughts of sexual acts or other things. If I chose to think about her body in a way to get myself going, that would be wrong.

So, am I totally missing you?

Thanks!

~Luke

[91. mindlab said the following at 12:27 PM on Apr 10:]

91

TomySky 90

“Beauty, like any other attribute (wit, strength, creativity), is God-given.” - yes, and beauty is meant to be appreciated, though not by all people at all times.

“I am interested in what you definition of lust is.” - Lust is sinful misuse of the God given desire for sexual satisfaction or fulfillment. If I were to desire my wife or fiancée, that wouldn’t be lust, because it wouldn’t be misuse of my desire for satisfaction.

“This requires that you ‘bounce your eyes’” – well, if you’re 13, and haven’t learned to deal with being male yet, then yes. If you’re an adult who’s been praying and growing in strength for a couple years, then no, you don’t need to ‘bounce.’ I can have a conversation with a women I know to be attractive so long as I chose not to appreciate (revel in, delight in, enjoy) the way her body looks.

“I do not know of any Scripture that says that appreciating the beauty of women is wrong unless it is your wife.” – think about the proximity of appreciation and rejoicing, and read Proverb 5

“Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth. . .”

On appreciation: I would define appreciation as actively enjoying the beauty of some object or person. The psalmist frequently ‘appreciates’ nature, and Solomon ‘appreciates’ the beauty of his beloved. I appreciate handmade furniture and elegant engineering (among other things) and I have a God-given desire to appreciate the beauty of a woman. I refrain because I’m not married; hopefully one day soon, I will be.

[92. TomySky said the following at 5:44 PM on Apr 10:]

92

Tami (#89): I am totally with you. Respect is huge. Huge! That is why we strongly encourage guys to notice girls and then actively seek to honor them (if you don't notice them, or are trying to avoid them, then you can't "see" them to honor them).

And so, yes, when a guy is ogling a girl, that does lead to discomfort on her part. Exactly. But why? Is it because, as so many claim, he is "undressing her with his eyes"?

No. I don't do that, and I don't know anyone who does. It's a myth perpetrated by media and locker room talk. Instead, the issue is a lack of respect for the girl. If you are sitting there drooling after a girl, you are treating her like a piece of meat (or whatever phrase you like). And that is not what we are called to do. We are called to bless.

As for cultivating the way I look at women, I honestly ask why people think it is wrong to look at other women while married. Sure, it sounds super nice to say, "I only have eyes for my wife"... but, if we take that to it's logical conclusion it is saying, "I find you attractive and chose you because I haven't seen anyone else."

I think it would be far more flattering/important (not to mention, honest) to say, as our vows state: Forsaking all others, cleaving to only you. In other words, "Despite the other women around me, I choose you." That's far more honest and honoring.

mindlab (#91): Where do you get the impression that beauty is not supposed to be appreciated by people? In your opinion, would future generations in Eden have not noticed the beauty of the girls around them?

Your definition of lust works for me. But then, how is looking at a girl a "misuse of ...sexual satisfaction"? What sexual satisfaction do you get from looking at a pretty girl, and how is that a misuse of God's design?

And how is lusting after one's fiancée (allow me to push back farther: girlfriend) not wrong? You're not married. You can't have sex, so how come you can "desire it" but can't even look at other girls?

I am very interested in how you interact with beautiful women. What do you do not to "enjoy" the fact that she is beautiful? What does that even mean? Sorry, you have totally lost me. I think I may agree with you, but I'm not sure.

As for Proverbs 5 (ignoring for the time that Proverbs are wise sayings, not rules or laws, which is why we can have completely contradictory statements right next to each other), I clearly see the sexual intercourse nature of that passage. However, I see nothing pertaining to beauty or the enjoyment thereof. Please explain further. Thanks!

Since we have no command at all against "actively enjoying the beauty" of women, why do you think that it is wrong to do so outside of marriage? What is wrong with noticing and telling a girl that she is pretty/beautiful? And what does this say about how we should interact with our daughters? Women gain their femininity, or so I've read, from their fathers as they appreciate, compliment, and encourage their daughter's beauty and modesty. If we can not enjoy the beauty of our daughters without sinning, we are forced to either disregard the truth of books like "Captivating" or sin sexually. I don't think that really makes sense. So what am I missing of your line of thinking?

Sorry to be so "thick" in not getting this.

Thanks for your patience.

~Luke

[93. Heidi said the following at 2:29 AM on Apr 12:]

93

TomySky #78,

I must be honest: while I appreciate your kind words and tone of voice, I am rather at a loss to see the value of pointing out what I believe is a misrepresentation of the Modesty Survey when you are not even willing to read it. While I understand it would take time that you likely don't have, I'm rather disheartened from responding to your post in detail because what I say only makes sense if you know what I'm talking about. And, with all due respect, what you say only makes sense if you know what you're talking about (i.e. the Modesty Survey).

Yet, I'd rather not have such things go unanswered. So here is my attempt at responding:

You wrote: "The Modesty Survey approaches the entire issue backward. It essentially asks: What can I get away with? This is, naturally, a bad way to start out when you're trying to help others."

May I ask how you came to this conclusion? As far as I know there wasn't a single thing specified in the survey that all the guys had no problem with, which is one reason so many women express frustration over the results. If indeed the survey asked the question "What can I get away with?" then answer would be "absolutely nothing." When people read it assuming that's the question being asked, then they take the results to mean that nothing's good enough. At that point they figuratively throw up their hands and walk out the door.

You wrote, "First, you must realize that the internet is not your social context. What the majority of guys on the survey say, doesn't really speak to you and your world. You must get feedback from the guys around you (your father should be the first to offer an opinion, then perhaps brothers, and finally close guys friends). The "clear line for" you is only seen in that place."

Due to some extreme conditions, actually the Internet is my social context, and due to other problems the subject of modesty currently has no physical application to me. So I am not writing any of these things in relation to myself currently, but to the many young women I've known.

I heartily agree that the father should be the first a young lady goes to about modesty questions, and then her brothers, and then perhaps a close guy friend. But are you aware the most fathers are unwilling to take that role? What of the fathers who don't care or, worse, encourage their daughters to dress sensually? Or what of the women whose fathers have moved out? If a woman is blessed with brothers who are willing to help her, then that works, but what if they are too young, don't care, or she doesn't have any at all? Close guy friends may be there to help, but are you aware that many women do not consider it wise to be in such a close friendship with a guy that it's alright to ask questions about things such as lingerie showing? Please forgive me if I sound upset, but your words appear to indicate that you have no clue of how many women have no access to this information.

The second problem is that guys in a woman's context seem to only be able to tell what's not okay, but as far as giving direction, the furthest insight are “it’s a heart issue” and “well, it’s simple: cover up.” The guys willing to take the survey had no idea what many of the items even were. So instead of receiving information that a woman can use as a resource to what should be worn, the only guidance she has otherwise is "nope, that one's not good." It's a guessing game. That is how the Modesty Survey worked to fulfill a pre-existing need. Those who have no use for it generally don't understand how it could be helpful.

As for the reference to rules, may I point out a comment earlier in this thread? A woman asked a particular question pertaining to modesty, and a guy answered it sufficiently, yet no one made any reference to "rules" or a "hyper spritual" aspect. The Modesty Survey was simply that very same thing on a larger sale--nothing more, nothing less.

I apologize if I have come across as harsh. I am admittedly exasperated, but not with you...I'm just longing for heaven is all.

[94. TomySky said the following at 6:22 PM on Apr 12:]

94

Heidi (#93): I am glad that my tone is coming across kind. I know how easy it is to read something as mean when it is not meant that way at all.

I came to the conclusion that the Modesty Survey approaches this issue backward due to the context that it is typically brought up: "I want to know what is okay (modest) to wear, so where can I get that info?" Answer: The Modesty Survey.

You are likely right that it was created (gathered?) in a completely different approach, but the end use seems to be for the purpose of answering the question: What can I get away with? If that is not how it is used, great! I have no problems admitting my assumptions were incorrect. If I'm wrong, I would be interested in how men and women (in particular) use the survey. Since I see no need for it for myself or my wife (we've never had a complaint), I'm very interested in how women (such as yourself) have applied what is in the Survey to your own life.

For young women for whom the internet is their social context, I'm confused as to how modesty would even be an issue (unless they are posting pictures of themselves on the 'net). I realize that this is certainly the case for many people, but I can't see how modesty fits into their wardrobe choices. Since modesty is socially/contextually based, if their social context is faceless... how does modesty play into their world?

Heidi, I'm sorry I upset you. Forgive me. For the women whose fathers have abandoned them, I pray they have some father figure in church or otherwise. Without one: Brothers. Without those: Friends.

If a young woman does not feel comfortable talking about serious issues with the guys around her (because she feels safer to not get so close), I am even more pained. What a sad commentary on how damaged our interactions and Brothers and Sisters in Christ have been.

In such extreme cases, I can see how a young woman would seek counsel on the internet. However, I am now curious as to how she came to the conclusion that modesty may be an issue for her. If you know such examples, I would be very interested to be enlightened so I can adjust my thinking as I work on the next draft of my book.

I am certainly in the camp of those "who have no use for [the Survey, and thus] don't understand how it could be helpful." I am so thankful that women, such as yourself, have found it helpful! Praise God!

If rules are not a part of the Survey, and I am completely mistaken, then I eagerly retract my statements about attracting hyper-spiritual people and all of that. If that is not the case, again, that is fantastic! My statements were based off the little of the Survey I have heard and the general feeling I have received from the greater Christian culture I am a part of. If I am mistaken, please accept my apology.

Heidi, you did not come across harsh; merely frustrated with misunderstandings and incorrect statements. I appreciate your passion for truth and honesty. I pray that my words would always point toward that as well.

One last thought: My issue has very little to do with the Survey itself. Rather, as I have tried to state clearly and accurately in my posts, I am challenging the common ideas of lust and modesty, and hope that by pointing to truth we may better love and bless one another as men and women of God.

~Luke

[95. mindlab said the following at 5:58 PM on Apr 13:]

95

TomySky 92

First, I think we’re still stuck on the meaning of ‘appreciate.’ I am using it in its active sense, not its passive sense (as in to: be aware, notice). If I passively notice that a young woman is beautiful, that’s fine. If I notice that, and then choose to delight in looking at her, that would be lust (in my case). So, appreciate is synonymous with: revel, delight, enjoy, pleasure in, be captivated by, be gratified by, relish.

Now onward:
“. . . when a guy is ogling a girl. . . (is he) ‘undressing her with his eyes’? I don't know (any guys who do that).” – then I would submit that you don’t know many guys, have misunderstood what they said, or they lied to you. What you describe is exactly what guys do when they ogle. Spending any amount of time with a group of honest college guys will teach you that; if they don’t admit it, they’re either restraining themselves, or they’re lying because their ashamed.

“Sure, it sounds super nice to say, "I only have eyes for my wife"... but, if we take that to it's logical conclusion it is saying, "I find you attractive and chose you because I haven't seen anyone else." – Well, no. To say that you have eyes only for your wife indicates that you choose to let her body delight you, and none other. In fact what you should be saying is, ‘I choose you, and I will delight in your beauty, and I will not delight in the beauty of another woman regardless of how she looks.’

“And how is lusting after one's fiancée (allow me to push back farther: girlfriend) not wrong? You're not married. You can't have sex, so how come you can ‘desire it’ but can't even look at other girls?” – once a relationship is headed towards marriage, it seems reasonable to me to begin to cultivate and enjoy physical attraction. Furthermore, I never indicated that I don’t look at girls; I indicated that chose to not delight in their beauty.

“As for Proverbs 5. . . I clearly see the sexual intercourse nature of that passage. However, I see nothing pertaining to beauty or the enjoyment thereof. Please explain further. . . ” - Exactly how do you propose to separate enjoying looking at a clothed woman’s body, from enjoying looking at an unclothed woman’s body, from enjoying sex with that woman. If you are enjoying her body, then the mode of your enjoyment is rather beside the point (see Matt 5:28). Not to be too explicit, but (guessing from lack of experience), sex is largely about enjoying beauty in an intimate way. If you’re going to enjoy a woman’s beauty by looking, why not touching?

“. . . how we should interact with our daughters?” – daughters, sisters, and close kin are an obvious exceptions; our psychology is built to allow us to live with kin without sexual attraction. I doubt if I could maintain any semblance of purity living in close quarters with a young woman if she weren’t my sister; ditto daughters.

To summarize, it seems to me that you are maintaining that you are free to delight in the beauty of any woman you come across. How you can call that anything other than lust, I don’t understand.

[96. TomySky said the following at 4:43 PM on Apr 14:]

96

Mindlab (#95):

I agree that we are hung up on "appreciate". But, far more than just the definition at this point, I think we disagree more fundamentally: I have yet to see anything wrong with finding joy in the beauty of women.

Allow me to be blunt as to how I came to this conclusion. I used to be one of those college guys who honestly would admit that looking at pretty girls was a problem for me (read: it made me lust to look at them). However, when I actually started working out what it meant to lust, I came to a surprising conclusion. I started out forcing myself to look at a cute girl's chest when she was wearing a tight white shirt, and I would ask myself, 'What are you thinking?'

Not once has my thought (though I have done this many times since, just to make sure) been anything lustful. Not once has my mind ever gone to any fantasies about sex, fondling, or otherwise. At most, I think, 'Those are pretty. I like them.'

For every guy who has taken my challenge to do the same, they all come back elated to discover the same. For those who start out convinced they would have lustful thoughts (as I honestly would have thought back in college), they quickly see the fallacy of their assumption.

My brother-in-law, for instance, was adamant that he thought rather graphic things while looking at a girl in a tight shirt. I asked him, "Seriously? You honestly look at a girl in immodest clothes and think: 'I want to have sexual relations with her'?" (trying to keep this PG)

He said, "Absolutely! I totally do that."

Again I asked, "When you're walking down the street and you see a pretty girl that's what you think; in day to day life (not talking about pornography)?"

There was a pause, and then he said, "Oh, no. Never."

So, while I am certain that the guys you have asked have said what you say they have... I postulate that their response is not based in a rational consideration of their actual response, but rather the conditioned response they have somehow picked up.

So, unless you can explain to me the lustful thoughts you have when you think, 'Hey, that girl looks really nice in those shorts,' I find it hard to believe that there is anything wrong with finding a girl attractive and thinking so.

Granted, at any moment we have the choice to sexualize a situation and begin to think lustful thoughts. But there is always, always, a moment of choice where you decide to change from merely enjoying the beauty God has made, and choosing to use it for your sexual gratification. But that is always a choice, and can be overcome.

"To say that you have eyes only for your wife indicates that you choose to let her body delight you, and none other. ...'I will not delight in the beauty of another woman regardless of how she looks.'"
And here again is our disagreement about "delight"/"appreciated" and so forth. Or, perhaps not.

I see nothing wrong with admitting that an actress is pretty (she is), or a statue of a nude is beautiful (it is). There is nothing sinful or ungodly about that. I can enjoy a painting of a beautiful woman and still hold true to my vows. Can you?

Again, I see nothing morally reprehensible in delighting in God's creation, and holding to my wife as "the one I have chosen". Again, I ask where you get this idea. I am more than happy to rethink my position, but I have, as of yet, to see anything that would give me reason to reconsider. Please explain.

"[O]nce a relationship is headed towards marriage, it seems reasonable to me to begin to cultivate and enjoy physical attraction."
I agree. However, what would you say to those who then breakup, call off the engagement, or don't get married? Haven't they committed a sexual sin by your standpoint (since they didn't make it to marriage)? They have enjoyed the body of someone who is not their spouse.

You are correct when you state: "I never indicated that I don’t look at girls; I indicated that chose to not delight in their beauty." I am sorry. I was getting a little carried away when I wrote that. Forgive me.

But I was trying to make a point (and I guess it fell flat): How can you justify sexual desires toward a girlfriend and then decry the smile you get on your face when you look at a pretty girl across the room?

"Exactly how do you propose to separate enjoying looking at a clothed woman’s body, from enjoying looking at an unclothed woman’s body, from enjoying sex with that woman."
I see the difference entirely dependent on the Context and Response of the situation.

For instance: in the context of marriage when my wife wants me to delight in her, it doesn't matter whether she is clothed, nude, or we're engaged in sex. However, if my wife does not want to be ogled at the time, it would be wrong of me to do so because I am acting selfishly, but not because I am looking at her nude body.

On the other hand: If I see a nude painting and find it beautiful (enjoy it), there is nothing wrong with my action at all.

Thus, what separates clothing, nudity, sex; indeed, what determines the modesty/lustfulness of a situation is based completely on Intent, Content/context, and Response. Thus, like Christ, it is not the act (sex) nor the action (looking) but rather the heart (Matthew 5:28). Thus, I can enjoy a woman's body in multiple contexts if I am not responding inappropriately.

So, that begs the question of: What makes my response inappropriate. It is clearly not the action (looking/enjoying), but rather the motive/the outcome. Which, is where again, I'll postulate the question: When/how do you find yourself actually responding inappropriately to a woman's body when you find her attractive?

Maybe you are talking about something else when you mention the "psychology" that allows "us to live with kin without sexual attraction", but I know of no such thing in psychology. In fact, there is Scriptural (2 Samuel 13), historical, and even personal evidence to show that this is simply not true. More than one of my cousins are very attractive young women and have sexual appeal. It is not a lack of sexual attraction that keeps me from acting inappropriately. Rather, it is the fact that I chose not to go there... just like every other young woman around. And so, I can find my daughter (which I do not have as of yet), exceedingly beautiful, find her delightful, and still not sin sexually.

"How you can call [delighting in any woman you come across] anything other than lust, I don’t understand."
Because lust is the active pursuit of another for sexual gratification. Since I do not seek sexual gratification from the beautiful women I find delightful, unless I chose to go there, then I am not lusting.

Until you, or anyone else, begins to even take a stab at showing where the lustful thoughts/actions occur when I say of an actress, "She is pretty, I like her," I see no reason to consider such things sinful.

Again, thanks for sticking with me even though I am obviously missing your point. Your continued patience is appreciated as we work toward the truth.

~Luke

[97. mindlab said the following at 7:22 PM on Apr 14:]

97

TomySky 96

Well, I was going to call it and move on after my last comment, but I think I can summarize our disagreement succinctly by responding briefly, so I’ll give one more round:

“. . . lust is the active pursuit of another for sexual gratification. Since I do not seek sexual gratification from the beautiful women I find delightful, unless I chose to go there, then I am not lusting.” – I disagree. Appreciating the beauty of a woman IS sexually gratifying; it is satisfying in and of itself, and it inevitably creates a desire for further satisfaction.

“Which, is where again, I'll postulate the question: When/how do you find yourself actually responding inappropriately to a woman's body when you find her attractive?” – to reiterate, choosing to enjoy looking at a woman’s body IS sexually satisfying, and it creates a desire for further satisfaction.

“How can you justify sexual desires toward a girlfriend and then decry the smile you get on your face when you look at a pretty girl across the room?” – I specified a relationship that is headed toward marriage. I would argue that to cultivate physical attraction in a casual (boyfriend/girlfriend) relationship is inadvisable (and therefore casual romantic relationships are inadvisable); that sort of attraction should be held back until both parties have reached an understanding about where they are headed. As a complete philosophy of the transition from strangers to spouses is beyond the scope, I’ll leave it at that.

. . .

To summarize, I hold that to appreciate a woman’s body (visually or otherwise) is an inherently sexual act, and is sexually gratifying. I think this statement is well supported by personal experience and observation of my peers. You (correct me if I’m wrong) hold that to appreciate a woman’s body visually is not necessarily a sexual act. Perhaps I’ve been missing that mode of appreciate for the last decade and a half, but I doubt it.

If you’re interested in continuing our conversation, let’s do it off-site. My blog is linked from my sig, and I’ll be happy to converse further.

[98. Leah said the following at 1:28 AM on Apr 15:]

98

mindlab,

I totally support the idea that men can look at women and appreciate and delight in their beauty without lusting. Lusting means you are having sexually-oriented thoughts or urges. I know my fiance can look at a pretty girl and think she's pretty without mentally undressing her or having sexual ideas. Now, if he was looking at her for an extended period of time (perhaps "ogling", as you put it), I would begin to doubt his thoughts. Looking at an attractive woman for an extended period of time is more suggestive that the guy is lusting.

Are you suggesting that every time we go out together and my fiance thinks I'm beautiful and enjoys my appearance, he's automatically lusting after me? That's absurd. I'm not saying he never lusts, but to say that appreciating and enjoying my beauty is the equivalent of lusting is just plain wrong.

And may I emphasise that lusting after any woman other than your wife (whether it be girlfriend, fiancée, or random in the street) is wrong. You can appreciate and enjoy their beauty, but sexual activity and thoughts should be reserved for marriage. Not the promise of marriage, but MARRIAGE.

I heartily agree with Luke (TomySky) when he says men should be free to enjoy a girl's beauty and compliment her on it. When a guy tells me "You look beautiful tonight", I don't think he's lusting after me or having sexual thoughts. No, he's just thinking I'm beautiful.

Luke,
I do not believe the phrase "I only have eyes for my wife" means "I do not find any other women attractive". It means "I only want to be with my wife". A husband can say "I only have eyes for my wife" and still find other women attractive, but not want to engage in any type of relationship with them.

Can I also point out that while you seem very blessed in that impure thoughts do not enter your mind unless you purposely go there, that is not the same for all guys. I know of guys who have to work at keeping their thoughts pure. Sure, they can appreciate a beautiful girl without lusting, but lust still does come easily and they have to work at keeping it out.

[99. Katie P. said the following at 9:15 AM on Apr 15:]

99

TomySky,

I have a quick question - since the topic of your discussion concerns women quite a bit, how many actual women have you talked to who wouldn't mind being desired/ogled/appreciated/delighted in by random guys who she has no relationship with? Just wondering :)

[100. TomySky said the following at 3:32 PM on Apr 15:]

100

Mindlab (#97):
We do disagree fundamentally, and so it is likely wise to end the back and forth. However, I would love to continue this discussion with you and get at a more personal understanding of your position. Please email me at TomySky [at] hotmail so I can ask you more specific questions if you are up for it. I would greatly value your input as I work on our book.

You summarize our disagreement well.

Leah (#98):
I am glad you have found the freedom of enjoying beauty.

"I know of guys who have to work at keeping their thoughts pure. [And] lust still does come easily and they have to work at keeping it out."
I am certainly no saint when it comes to purity in my thought life. I freely admit that I struggle with lustful thoughts and evil sexual desires. However, I always make the choice to fall into those thoughts when I lust. I do not have lustful thoughts unless I choose to go there. I postulate that this is true for the guys you know as well.

And so, I am quiet certain that the guys who struggle with lust are like me: They have sexual desires and seek out ways to have them satisfied. But, also like me, this does not happen when they notice a pretty girl in short shorts. Rather, this happens when they allow themselves to go there. I know the instant my mind changes when I see down a girl's shirt from a morally neutral thought to a lustful one. When I choose to go there, I am definitely in need of God's grace.

Katie (#99):
I think most girls desire to be delighted in by guys (that's why modesty is an issue at all). Every girl I have known has a desire to be beautiful, or has crushed that desire because it was not fulfilled. That's the entire point of books like "Captivating".

However, you are absolutely correct: Girls do not want to ogled. And that is why, in encouraging guys to look at girls and check their thoughts, I also encourage men to honor women. Drooling is not honoring. Treating a young lady as so much shapely meat is also not honoring. But, in the case of cat-calls and the like, the issue is respect, not lust.

Excellent point. Thanks!

~Luke

[1. Tami said the following at 4:37 PM on Apr 4:]

1

Three words: invest in tanktops.

I understand the modesty issue, but somethink makes me feel like the plunging neckline trend is a conspiracy to get us to buy two shirts (shirt+tank) instead of just one!

[2. Michele Samuelson said the following at 5:09 PM on Apr 4:]

2

The pride angle is a very important and often overlooked part of this. Thanks for this post!!!

[3. Jacob said the following at 5:15 PM on Apr 4:]

3

In this discussion, as a Christian male, I think it would be helpful to bring in the Modesty Survey that the Brothers Harris collected last year. Certainly no absolute standard, but some women might be a little surprised at what trips a brother up.

[4. Adam T. said the following at 5:52 PM on Apr 4:]

4

Wow, those Christa-Taylor dresses are pretty attractive.

[5. DannieA said the following at 6:50 PM on Apr 4:]

5

You can still be trendy and modest...you just have to know where to look...

[6. Jenny said the following at 8:31 PM on Apr 4:]

6

I actually live in NYC, in the Garment District, constantly bombarded by storefronts and the latest fashion trends. I just spent the better part of my evening looking for a much-needed dress. Even with all the variety here, it was definitely a tough go, especially since I want something modest.

[7. JBurke said the following at 8:58 PM on Apr 4:]

7

Thanks for this post. I'm thinking about this issue a lot as I just had my first little girl. I want to train her to think about her dress and her heart from the start.

[8. Alexander said the following at 12:02 AM on Apr 5:]

8

Good post. Modesty really is important, when ladies take humility & modesty to heart I think it's definitely an awesome thing. Especially to us guys who know true beauty lies from within and not in flashy clothes or showin' skin. IMO modesty is so much more attractive than skimpy apparel I encourage all my sisters to exercise modesty(as well as other virtue, it's awesome)

"Tru beauty stems from being rooted in HIM".

[9. Crystal said the following at 12:32 AM on Apr 5:]

9

That Christa Taylor line really is beautiful. Unfortunately, such sites don't necessarily make it "easy" to be stylish and modest, as these clothes aren't affordable at all. Most college students can't pay $50 for a single blouse, no matter how cute it is. If anyone else can relate to this, take heart-- at least there's a clearance section on the site.

If you can't even afford that, don't worry; if you're in college, you will probably get a pretty impressive collection of free, modest t-shirts from various events around campus.

[10. r.c.cola said the following at 12:46 AM on Apr 5:]

10

All i got to say is it is harder for plus size girls like me to look modest but still my age.

[11. Dawnson said the following at 1:06 AM on Apr 5:]

11

For a previous discussion of modesty (which got rather lively), don't forget "Cover Up, Please": http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/07/cover-up-please.html

[12. P&P said the following at 6:10 AM on Apr 5:]

12

I'm surprised that you had such a tough time finding a coat. Even NYC has outdoorsy shops like EMS that always have some fleece jackets.

I have some mixed feelings with what is defined as "modest." Dressing appropriately is one thing, but when I looked over that so-called "modesty survey," women are expected to wear full-length burlap sacks to keep men from "stumbling."

[13. Danielle said the following at 8:02 AM on Apr 5:]

13

Thanks for the article and links. I agree the pride angle is frequently overlooked.

Jacob (#3), that Modesty Survey is a Godsend, and I don't use that lightly.
Should be required reading for every God-fearing woman!

:)

[14. Jen said the following at 8:57 AM on Apr 5:]

14

This actually became an issue for me when I was looking for bridesmaid dresses for my upcoming summer wedding. I went with a friend to one shop and almost everything was either very low-cut and revealing, the back was too low, or the style was just plain weird. It became extremely frustrating for the both of us because it was important to me that the girls feel comfortable in what they wear, and my friend obviously wasn't. We finally found something at a smaller place/brand in Boston. Even though they still had a few styles that were probably immodest, we were able to find something appropriate. You'd think for something like a wedding, often held in a church, you could find something modest! Turns out its harder than you think...

[15. Dawnson said the following at 9:05 AM on Apr 5:]

15

P&P #12:
"I have some mixed feelings with what is defined as 'modest.' Dressing appropriately is one thing, but when I looked over that so-called "modesty survey," women are expected to wear full-length burlap sacks to keep men from 'stumbling.'"

Very much agree with you there. I definitely think modesty is important, but I also think alot of people jump on the bandwagon without really thinking about what modesty actually *is*. Or what lust is, for that matter. Lust isn't the mere act of noticing that a woman has, in fact, a woman's body. Which some views I've heard seem to imply.

[16. Rachael said the following at 9:22 AM on Apr 5:]

16

Did someone write somewhere, some time (maybe on that survey or on Boundless or in a comment?) that men also have a responsibility to guard themselves?

Yes, we women should be modest, but to what extent? I know the earring opinion in that survey might be extreme, but still 3.5% strongly disagree and 16.7% disagree with the statement that "Earrings are never a stumbling block." So...yes that's a minority, but what is one supposed to do? :) I don't always wear them, but sometimes I do. Is it possible for men to train themselves not to stumble over certain things? And about knee-length skirts - there were some who disagreed (again, a minority), with the statement that knee-length skirts were modest. So...again...is it possible for sensitive eyes to be trained not to stumble over such things? I guess...in extreme (in my opinion) cases like these...should the burden be on both the men and women, and not just on the women? For example, if the woman dresses in what is typically considered to be modest clothing (but maybe not by guys with sensitive eyes) and doesn't ACT immodestly, can the burden be on the guy? A woman should do her part not to ACT immodestly, and look modest without the burlap sack (re: post 12), but there can be some burden on the man to guard himself right?

Hmmm....maybe it would be good if only our eyes were seen. More marriages would happen that way! Maybe there is something good about that part of some Islamic cultures...

[17. a sassy sister said the following at 9:38 AM on Apr 5:]

17

P&P:

I would definitely have to agree with you in regards to this discussion on modesty. I think we also have to take in mind that modest clothing does not mean that any sense of style goes out the window. Women of color and those with hourglass or curvy shapes sometimes have a more difficult time finding clothes that are fit but are not so fitted that you're broadcasting your body to the entire world. While there are companies that make clothes for women who aren't a size negative one, they usually don't have our Biblical worldview in mind when it comes to attire.

However, I do believe in this modesty discussion we can actually use our attire as a means to demonstrate our faith without necessarily disconnecting ourselves from fashion altogether. I personally find more stylish things (and more modest ones) from fashion in previous decades. Most of all, however, I think in this discussion on modesty, we must remember that the real changes must start in our attitude. I would challenge Christian women to really see what the Bible says about sexuality and modesty and change their thinking about their attire from primarily worrying about the opinions of others to what God says about the clothes you wear.

And as far as the modesty survey goes, there needs to be balance in the application of it. While it may be helpful for those women who may be oblivious(or choose to be) about their fashion choices, I also believe that it does not take into account what the respondents were FEEDING on. If a guy is constantly watching and seeing women being objectified apart from advertising, then obviously his motor will start running whenever he sees a woman in a pair of tight jeans or a low cut top, because his previous intake is already triggering his reaction. Modesty in attire may curtail the reaction for men, but it will not get to the root of it.

So I guess what I"m trying to say that the real work is internal before lasting change is made for real modesty. God cares about the condition and posture of our hearts, not just the actions.

[18. Chris Krycho said the following at 9:39 AM on Apr 5:]

18

For what it's worth, the Modesty Survey is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive, at least at some level (though most of the comments unfortunately ended up in the latter category). It's also worth noting that (1) the responsibility not to lust is on guys, not girls, no matter what the woman is or isn't wearing, and (2) that modesty is not contrary to attractiveness. I promise, on that second one. In fact, I'll be completely honest, some of the most attractive styles I know of are more modest. A dress that is cut so that it makes your figure look nice and a dress that is cut so all anyone can see is your figure are two very different things, and the former can be a very, very good thing.

There isn't a hard line, because guys are different, what visually is a struggle for us. We appreciate the help when you dress modestly, but because every guy's triggers are different - immensely so - we do not expect you to just cater to us. All we're asking for is a little help, enough that we feel safe having our eyes pointed anywhere but the sky. :-) So take the modesty survey - especially the comments section - with a grain of salt. But do pay attention, especially to the numerical end of the survey.

[19. Chris Krycho said the following at 9:45 AM on Apr 5:]

19

To back up what I just said in response to later comments I didn't see when I wrote it up: the responsibility is always on the guy not to lust. Period. You are helping us or hurting us in that quest, but it is never your fault if I choose to lust.

And Dawnson made a very good point. Noticing that a person is attractive - yes, including their figure - is not the same as lusting. Lusting carries from appreciation of beauty, which is a good thing, into desire, and that is a very different creature indeed.

There are some things that should absolutely not be of concern to you. There is no way in the world that earrings should cause a man to lust. Period. I'm not saying that for no men does it get them going there - but I am saying that in such a case, where there is clearly nothing sexual at all, the problem is with the man's mind and heart, not with the earrings.

[20. Tami said the following at 9:48 AM on Apr 5:]

20

Modesty is about the heart. And I've been in situations like Suzanne -- trying on dresses that look *too* good. It's really hard to put those back on the rack! On the other hand, I've also spent years of my life worrying if I was going to make a man stumble -- so I dressed in the proverbial burlap sack. I felt like I dressed -- and I'm sure that showed.

I appreciate where the Harris' brothers hearts were when they conducted the survey, but if I tried to apply their findings to my daily life, I think I might go a bit crazy. The statistical breakdowns are interesting, but I don't think God works in statistics -- I think He works in individuals. So, I found it more helpful to read the comments and gauge their helpfulness based on the content of the response and the age of the writer. Qualitative rather than quantitative. ;)

PS Try to find the question that reads something like "glitter lotion is a stumbling block." There are some pretty humorous responses in there. :)

[21. Heidi said the following at 11:29 AM on Apr 5:]

21

Tami #20, I agree that modesty is in the heart, but I also believe the modesty is in what we wear as well. It is possible to dress immodestly without realizing it--a modest heart can be enclosed in immodest clothing. I was there for several years of my life and I grieve that I was not better informed, and that those whose counsel I sought on the matter assured me that I was "fine".

Chris #18 and 19, I really appreciate your comments. :)

Whenever I read through the Modesty Survey, I get really excited. I see it as a wealth of information that gives women the opportunity to both help their bothers in Christ and to dress beautifully, in a way that causes eyes to be drawn to the Creator of such beauty. I can read about how much my brothers in Christ appreciate it and thus be encouraged in my search to dress both attractively and modestly.

For whomever it may benefit, here are the questions I ask myself when considering an item of clothing:

- Would I be comfortable in the modesty of this clothing, or would I feel the need to continually double-check and adjust myself in order to retain proper covering?
- Is this item attractive simply because it’s pretty, or because it draws sexual attention, however subtly?
- Is the clothing “loud”, in a sense that it would bring more attention to my manner of dress than to my character?
- Is it winsome enough to persuade others of the beauty of modesty?

[22. Adam T. said the following at 2:44 PM on Apr 5:]

22

Rachael raises a point:

Yes, we women should be modest, but to what extent? I know the earring opinion in that survey might be extreme, but still 3.5% strongly disagree and 16.7% disagree with the statement that "Earrings are never a stumbling block." So...yes that's a minority, but what is one supposed to do? :)

The opposite side of the modesty coin is that men do want women that are feminine and attractive.

Y'know, I say this, and then it makes me realize just how hard it must be to be a woman in our society. I understand that Christian women especially must feel pulled in fifty million directions, and it must be difficult and bewildering in certain ways.

What I'm saying, though, is that modesty is one thing. But when non-Christian women make an effort to wear makeup and look attractive, and Christian women don't, it's awfully hard not to be more attracted to the non-Christian women. So I like earrings and makeup and such.

[23. Tami said the following at 3:00 PM on Apr 5:]

23

I looked at the Christa Taylor site. There's some cute stuff on there; and even if you can't afford her clothes, you can take a look and get some ideas. As others have mentioned, it takes work to find modest outfits, but you can do it, and do it fairly inexpensively.

A little note? It looks like the people are not professional models (which I actually think is great!). So my only thought is that she might choose some models that represent varying sizes of women, showing them how to dress appropriately and modestly in her clothing. I think that would send a lot of women's goodwill business her way. :) [BTW Please don't take this as a "wah, wah, models are tall and thin" comment; that's not the spirit I'm saying this in, trust me.]

Also... this always comes up in the "fashion" posts, but watching "What Not to Wear" will also give you great ideas on how to dress your body type. Stacy and Clinton seem to be in the business of helping women find flattering but still modest clothing -- especially if you focus on what they say about business and casual weekend attire, rather than their "going out" looks.

Also -- going out on a limb here ;) -- before you go shopping, ask God to help you find clothes that are modest, attractive, and affordable. I'd also recommend that you'd be willing to go into stores that may seem too "old lady" (but often have some cute stuff in there; esp. higher quality tshirts with higher necklines). And make a day of it -- go shopping with a Christian girl friend! (I know, I know, for some of you: twist your arm, right? ;)

[24. BDB said the following at 3:45 PM on Apr 5:]

24

Tami (#20) wrote:

>>PS Try to find the question that reads something like "glitter lotion is a stumbling block." There are some pretty humorous responses in there. :)<<

Goodness, is that stuff still trendy? It does make a mess. Very hard to get out of carpet.

[25. Rachael said the following at 4:09 PM on Apr 5:]

25

Tami :), the glitter lotion comments are fun. Who knew the trauma guys went through because of the glitter girls...

[26. Kellie said the following at 5:48 PM on Apr 5:]

26

I can't say I've ever had much of a problem with being modest (or finding modest clothes). As a teenager I wore a lot of baggy t-shirts and guys clothes. In college I finally decided it was okay to look like a girl and actually dressed somewhat cute. I find the modesty survey interesting....according to some of it's takers, I'm fairly immodest. I find it more confusing than helpful. What is a girl supposed to do with information that for some guys any jeans on a girl is immodest? Is that the fault of the girl or the guy?

[27. Katie B said the following at 6:46 PM on Apr 5:]

27

Wow, I looked at that survey, and there are things there that I never would have thought of. My first reaction was paranoia, the next being "that explains a few things!"
While trying to dress professionally, which is very important for a woman in order to get taken seriously, and attractively, it is sometimes hard to find a balance. I like that guys are acknoleging that it is their responsibitiy to control their thoughts, though there are still messages floating around that it is the woman's responsibility to discourage lust and her fault if she cannot, (no joke, heard this my second day at bible school at a dorm meeting) I do want to respect the guys in my life and not make it more difficult for them, which is my primary concern about clothing, but this approach is so much more encouraging, as well as assumes the potential for men to be mature, (theres nothing worse than hearing the dress code rules followed by 'boys will be boys')
For me, trying to support my male friends in their struggle for purity fosters in me a much humbler heart than trying to follow the rules so as to keep guys from facing that struggle.

[28. Dawnson said the following at 7:41 PM on Apr 5:]

28

a sassy sister #17:
"I also believe that it does not take into account what the respondents were FEEDING on. If a guy is constantly watching and seeing women being objectified apart from advertising, then obviously his motor will start running whenever he sees a woman in a pair of tight jeans or a low cut top, because his previous intake is already triggering his reaction."

What's funny is that this is completely backwards. Remember that seeing women as an object and lusting after them are two different (though related) things.

It's actually when I've tried in the past to *not* look at girls so much that more minor things like "pair of tight jeans" has become a problem. There are several reasons for this.

One is that we get ultra-sensitized to things we don't see regularly. (Example: While spending two weeks at an all-guys retreat, the one girl who worked in the cafeteria got prettier everyday.) So if I was looking at sexy billboards before going to work, the coworker girl in tight jeans will actually be less or a problem, not more.

Second, the idea of "bouncing" my eyes pre-sexualizes the issue before my brain even has a chance to react. So I see a particularly alluring girl walking toward me in the mall, I bounce my eyes away and, with that action, am trained to think "Don't look, you're lusting." Now, regardless of what I was thinking beforehand, what she was wearing, or even what I would have thought looking at her, I'm now thinking about the sexuality of the situation. For that reason (and others) I believe "bouncing" your eyes actually does more harm than good.

[29. Chrissy said the following at 9:23 PM on Apr 5:]

29

Fortunately, I've been able to find modest clothing. (Granted, maybe I can because of my body type.)JC Penny and Target are two places where you can find some really nice/cute clothes for relatively cheap prices.(especially if you shop the clearance racks- I found a modest dress at Target for $6.)

I will say that the plunging neckline in blouses is almost unavoidable. So I agree with the first poster, invest in at least a black and white tank top/cami for those shirts.

[30. Laura said the following at 1:35 AM on Apr 6:]

30

Jen (#14) - I understand your frustration! I had the same issue with bridesmaids dresses! All the best!

As difficult as it is to find cute, modest clothes, it becomes easier when shopping is a group experience. I personally love shopping with my mother - she's so into the latest styles, but is also so careful in her constructive criticism of the clothes! Shopping with a parent/sister/friend not only makes the experience more memorable and fun, but also helps when you shop with someone who thinks like you!

[31. KJ said the following at 2:54 PM on Apr 6:]

31

I read the Modesty Survey when it first came out and it really, really messed me up because anything and everything was phrased as "is a stumbling block" which of course we are forbidden to put in front of our brothers, which means that if these guys (all 3.7% of them or whatever) said that something was a stumbling block, then if you took it literally, it was a sin to wear that ever again. For example, an ankle-length skirt with a knee-high slit is not something that is a problem in the part of the country where I live, and I never heard anyone even suggest that such a thing might revealing - yet on the survey many guys indicated that this was "sexy" and "tantalizing" and thought girls should never wear one. (Of course, nearly 17% of the guys on this survey thought girls ought to dress exclusively in baggy dresses and jumpers...) I finally came to the conclusion that the way I have dressed all my life that has been in accordance with those who were/are in authority over me was just fine, and that I would not eschew my jeans, knee-length skirts, and fitted tops just because some uber-conservative homeschooled 15-year-old in the midwest somewhere thinks it's a "stumbling block."

[32. Kelly said the following at 6:45 PM on Apr 6:]

32

Oh, I know the pain of shopping for covering clothing SO WELL. Finding a shirt that doesn't show my bra straps or chest is horrendously difficult. But I do like the tank top idea that Tami posted!

As for formal dresses... it is near-impossible to find something stylish and covering. WHY do designers seem to think that women are happy to tape themselves into indecent dresses??? Are men the designers or women?

[33. PLH said the following at 7:43 PM on Apr 6:]

33

I agree that modesty is important...but I personally take offense when modesty is framed in such as way that suggests women should dress modesty so as "not to cause a brother to stumble." The original blogger thankfully didn't do that but often with this such as the modesty survey, it seems the onus is on women to prevent men from lusting. Women should dress modestly because they should seek a pure heart-one filled with love for God and fellow people rather than a heart seeking sexual attention. I mean, even if all Christian women wore burkas, if men's heart were filled with sexual thoughts (which isn't hard, given the sex saturated culture), men still would lust after women.

I think tying lust with women's dress is demeaning to women. Women should be forced to hear restrictive clothing in the summer when it's hot simply because men can't control themselves. Women should dress modesty-because they have a pure heart-not to please men.

[34. DannieA said the following at 12:32 AM on Apr 7:]

34

with all due respect...I just finished seeing the 'modesty survey' and well...

sorry...there are some things I disagree and will take with a grain of salt.

[35. Loris said the following at 7:06 AM on Apr 7:]

35

P&P and all you plus-sized ladies out there, every time I go into Lane Bryant looking for a gift for my mother, I'm impressed by how much their clothes has improved in the last few years. Their spring collection is really cute. There was one navy polka dot wrap dress in particular I'd be tempted to buy and cut down for myself. (I'm a big girl but not plus size) Don't lose heart, but do avoid the department stores. Their plus size sections haven't caught up.
As far as the Harris brothers' survey, I think the survey begins too young. Asking 12-15 year olds what makes them stumble seems pointless to me because at that age, kids are so hormonal everything short of linoleum turns them on. (tongue in cheek)

[36. Easter said the following at 9:17 AM on Apr 7:]

36

There were no coats available in NYC because all of the clothes that are on sale are summer clothes, not because everything in NY is skimpy, yes? I just wanted to make that distinction, as I have no problems finding modest items for my wardrobe.

[37. Leah said the following at 10:16 AM on Apr 7:]

37

Re: the modesty survey plugged by Jacob. While it's a good indicator, my GOODNESS there are some ridiculous expectations on there. If we were to take it all to heart, women would have to walk around in loose skirts falling below the knee with long sleeved tops with curved necklines no lower than the collar bone, no makeup or jewellery and flat-soled shoes. Nor would we be allowed to sit in any position other than cross-legged on a chair, we would never be allowed to climb over anything and we would not be allowed to run anywhere.

My summary: girls, if you look in the mirror and see something that you really can't blame a guy for noticing, it's probably best to change. If you see something that *could* pose a problem but your average guy would just shrug and go "Yeah, you look good", then the minority can get over it or look away.

[38. Leah said the following at 10:21 AM on Apr 7:]

38

ooh ooh here's a question I've wondered about for ages (this one's for you, guys): when it comes to smaller-busted girls who don't have as much of a cleavage, is it a problem for you if we wear V-necks which reveal only flat chest and no curves? Especially if we use hollywood tape to keep it stuck to our skin so there's no chance of it falling anywhere and revealing anything further?

I know that it's not a prob for some guys, but I'm looking for other opinions too.

[39. Leah said the following at 11:12 AM on Apr 7:]

39

Kellie: If a guy is lusting, it's NEVER the girl's fault. She might be able to to help him or hinder him, but it's NEVER her fault.

[40. Lauren said the following at 11:27 AM on Apr 7:]

40

I love the spaghetti strap sundresses, but they are too revealing for my standards. Therefore, I put a t-shirt or a high cut tank top underneath them. Basically, this shows that many of the summer fashions can be "made-over" while still being confortable in the hot weather.

[41. Jacob said the following at 12:00 PM on Apr 7:]

41

Since I'm the one who posted the link to the survey, I feel compelled to leave another comment in light of the discussion.

How do I think women should regard that survey? With a grain of salt. As I said, it's not an absolute standard in my mind. Frankly, I wouldn't worry about those 17% who find earrings tempting. I would encourage you to pay attention, however, when the majority of the responders take a certain position.

Please, however, keep in mind that the choices you make to affect other people.

[42. Michele Samuelson said the following at 12:29 PM on Apr 7:]

42

I would think this is pretty simple - girls, cover up. You know you're going to be around guys, don't wear the plunging v-neck or the split-up-the-back skirt.

You can do a lot by just buying safety pins for those key spots on your blouses, or choosing simple t-shirts (cheap at The Gap, Old Navy, even J. Crew; cheaper at Target and Wal-Mart) to go with skirts and pants. Still in school? Be a t-shirt princess - wear earrings and/or cute shoes with your jeans-and-t-shirt.

I think the "cute" angle is where we get hung up, too. We're so worried about what our clothes look like that we start throwing modesty out the window. Modesty first, affordability second, "cute" third. Forget the surveys and what other people think!

[43. mindlab said the following at 12:34 PM on Apr 7:]

43

Re: #35 Loris

"I think the survey begins too young. Asking 12-15 year olds what makes them stumble seems pointless to me because at that age, kids are so hormonal everything short of linoleum turns them on."

Excellent comment! This is an important point that I haven't seen mentioned. Having been a 13 boy (and eternally greatful that THAT stage is over), you are exactly right. The survey would be much more useful if you could exclude responses from males less than ~20 years old.

Attempting to find women's clothing that will not cause a 13-15 year old boy to stumble is an exercise in futility. Modestly will help a bit, but will certainly not solve the problem; only God's grace and growing up will solve it.

[44. PLH said the following at 12:50 PM on Apr 7:]

44

Leah-thank you. Lust is NEVER the woman's fault. Frankly, while I support modesty and see it as empowering to women, women should be encouraged to dress modestly because it reflects their worth as a human and allows people to see them as that rather than a sexual object. Even if all Christian women dressed extremely modestly, what would Christian men do when they stepped outside the church and, say, went to a normal pool, beach, amusement park, etc during the summer? Obviously most people will not be dressed "modesty."

Also, I think we also have to take practicality into account. Some people don't see shorts as modest. But what about summer sports for example? A girl wearing shorts when its' in the 80s isn't trying to attract sexual attention-she's simply dressing appropriately for outdoor weather. I don't think it's difficult to dress modestly and buy clothing at most department stores. Sure, some items maybe too flashy but I've never been into one store where EVERYTHING was immodest.

[45. Chris Krycho said the following at 2:28 PM on Apr 7:]

45

Leah - the answer to your question is a qualified yes. A girl with smaller breasts can get away with wearing shirts that a more amply bosomed girls. At the same time, the caveats you presented are very important for maintaining modesty. Whereas a girl with larger breasts can wear a shirt cut like that and show maybe some cleavage all the time but not show any more when she's bending over than when she's not, a smaller girl will show a lot more if the shirt isn't secured or have a camisole under it or something like that.

I absolutely agree with the comments about younger guys. I've only really gotten the hang of this battle more in the last two years or so, and I'm 20 now, and I was fighting hard before... When I was 13, even the hint of a hint of cleavage was a problem. Which is a problem. :p

[46. Loris said the following at 2:32 PM on Apr 7:]

46

Rant time:
I read quite a bit of that survey and was torn between amusement and disgust. It wasn't the first time I'd seen it as my teen sis-in-law is quite taken with the Harris brothers and she sent me the survey about a year ago. I lost my temper with it then, too. There were several comments that went something like "I've never seen that article of clothing on a living human being so far but yes, it would turn me on if I saw it on a girl." At that point, it just seems to degenerate into a fashion-hating witch hunt. I wish some guy would make the comment that yes, if it's too short, too low or too tight, it's a problem, but for everything else, get a grip.

And what was with all the "guilt by association" comments? Just because some unsavory elements of society may wear a certain item of clothing, are Christian women supposed to eschew it? I'm referring to the poll on black knee boots, specifically, but the one on shrugs annoyed me too. These items are all neutral in their use. No item of clothing is intrinsically bad; it's how and where/when you wear it. I could care less if a lot of prostitutes happen to wear black knee boots. I like them and will continue to wear mine without a second thought.
I think just a grain of salt is too little. I need a few cans of Morton's to swallow this stuff.

And yes, BDB (#24), glitter lotion has been "out" for quite a while, and the last female I saw wearing it was under age 10.

Correction: my earlier comment was directed at r.c. cola. Here's the link to that cute dress: http://lanebryant.charmingshoppes.com/pagebuilder/lane_bryant_product_page?item=1355171&pagesize=3
Add some brightly colored shoes (I recommend red patent) and you'd be good to go for work, church, or a date. Though, I'm not plus-size, I am quite busty, and I sympathize completely. My solution to tops that are too low cut or blouses with gaping buttons is to layer with a cami, or in the case of the blouse, buy a larger size to ensure that it won't pull or gap across my chest, then tailor it on the sides for a custom fit. If you don't sew yourself, there are probably women in your church that would be happy to help you out. As long as a top isn't lined, taking it in is quick and simple. I've watched my fair share of What Not to Wear and their advice is to fit the largest part of you, then tailor the rest. I agree with that advice, even when it usually means I don't like the tag size on the tops I buy. Nobody should have to put up with ill-fitting, ugly, or immodest clothing. There's usually a way around those obstacles.

[47. Autumn said the following at 3:19 PM on Apr 7:]

47

I just read the "Modesty Survey" and to be quite honest, it made me kinda mad. some of those things, like bending over and stuff, are unavoidable. while we as females have a huge responsibility to dress modestly, guys still have to take some responsibility. i definitely agree with leah (#37). that made me laugh.

on another note, one thing that has helped me dress modestly is layering. i have lots of camis and plain t-shirst and if a shirt is too low or too thin, i just put something on underneath it.

[48. Justin T. said the following at 4:14 PM on Apr 7:]

48

@ Leah #38:

Uhmm, I have to say, this question confuses me. From a purely comfort-based point of view, it cannot be in the least bit comfortable to have to TAPE your clothing to yourself.

Regardless of chest size, a low V-neck is going to draw attention to a lady's attributes, no matter how "pronounced" they are (I'm trying to be polite about this!)

So I'll answer with another question: Why wear it? Is the purpose to "look cute"? If so, I humbly suggest that a lady doesn't have to have a plunging neckline to look attractive.

Perhaps my utilitarianism is showing... I cannot imagine having to use tape to keep my clothing where I want it. That sounds like a bit too much trouble, to me!

[49. Lizzie said the following at 4:37 PM on Apr 7:]

49

I personally appreciate the Modesty Survey, especially since it includes disclaimers to use it as a resource, not as rules. It gives insight to what the guys really think (oh, the mysteriously mystifying minds of men!), and I'm not really under any obligation to follow it.

But there are some things which I sometimes wish could be cleared up, because it's so confusing. =P I pretty much already know which items of clothing are immodest, but I want to know when other clothes are okay and when they are immodest. What I mean is, how tight is too tight in a shirt or a pair of pants? (Or even a skirt, like the pencil skirts some businesswomen wear?)

Being the obsessive person that I am, I sometimes still feel self-conscious and worried and uncomfortable about my clothes or how I'm moving, because of that 20% chance that someone's having a problem with that. That's something I'm still working through--I think I just need to take a deep breath and relax and not think about it. xP

#35 Loris, #43 mindlab: Hehe! That's not something I thought of before. =P

And thanks to the guys who don't expect the world from us and just want women to dress reasonably decent. And also thanks to the guys who sympathize with us. xD

[50. Heidi said the following at 4:44 PM on Apr 7:]

50

Something that may be helpful to keep in mind while reading the Modesty Survey is that these questions were asked by young women who sincerely wanted to know the answers. If you have no desire to have similar questions answered, then you'll likely not benefit much from reading the results.

I'm honestly a bit confused as to why there would be any response of anger, unless it is from conviction. Is it frustration that our brothers in Christ would dare to answer such a survey, or the nature of the questions sent in from young women? Is the exasperation formed out of a dislike for the results, or perhaps you may feel that such a resource was uncalled for? I ask sincerely.

[51. Lizzie said the following at 5:10 PM on Apr 7:]

51

Oh, another thing: Shade Clothing. I've never ordered anything from them before, but I've read good reviews. Although they are Mormon-based and not Christian-based like Christa Taylor, they have some really modest tanks and T-shirts there. =)

[52. Rachael said the following at 6:01 PM on Apr 7:]

52

Lizzie,

Interesting thought about wanting to know when certain clothing items are appropriate. It's possible that after recently thinking about these things I may have wondered about my jeans. I don't want to wonder about it, though. They fit me, but should I get a bigger size so that my jeans fit loosely? I don't want to bother buying new jeans right now...and it might be okay to wear jeans that fit :)

And PLH (33) wrote: "I mean, even if all Christian women wore burkas, if men's heart were filled with sexual thoughts (which isn't hard, given the sex saturated culture), men still would lust after women."

-->and as others have mentioned, the burden doesn't or (perhaps doesn't only) rest upon the women.

But it is good to think about modesty...and about the tape stuff - I didn't know special tape like that existed!

The things you learn...

[53. Sarah22 said the following at 6:44 PM on Apr 7:]

53

I checked out the sites referenced which had very cute clothes but honestly they didn't look different from things I have purchased recently (and for less money too). Still I admire that there are clothing companies out there dedicated to having an entire line that is modest. Also, it all depends where you shop and in which department you shop. I automatically find that shopping in the women's section instead of the junior's section in most department stores generally yields more modest clothes (that are still very cute/fashionable and to me more classic and less trendy/disposable). As many other ladies have already said, tank tops/camisoles open up a whole world of clothing that I would normally not be comfortable wearing. I also love little shrugs and sweaters that I can wear over spaghetti strap dresses/etc. that are normally too bare for me to consider wearing.

As far as the girl who was asking about low cut tops I would just like to share that one of my friends really has no cleavage to speak of and therefore I guess she feels quite comfortable wearing tops that she thinks busty women should not wear and she often makes comments about this to me. I’ve never been sure how to approach her about this as I really don’t agree, it’s still a bit immodest to me (although not as overtly so if she was say, a double D cup size). In fact, my brothers made a comment to me about noticing her chest in one of the tops she thinks is OK to wear, I didn’t want to embarrass her, but I think she honestly doesn’t understand that men still notice a low cut top, even if there isn’t much filling it out.

[54. Kelly said the following at 6:50 PM on Apr 7:]

54

Loris - thanks for the tips on what size to buy! I find it near-impossible to find shirts that fit properly: what fits around the bust doesn't fit the rest of me at all, and vice-versa.

So I often end up swimming in oversized shirts. :( Of course, I bet fashion designers would encourage me to flash cleavage that doesn't fit in the material.

The skill of sewing - of taking things in ourselves - has been lost these days and the price of professional alteration is beyond my budget. So I tend to wear a lot of jackets (that I can't close) over shirts (that are too big) in an attempt to look like clothes are somewhat fitted.

Oh, to be a man, where 'one chest size fits most'. ;)

[55. Leah said the following at 8:15 PM on Apr 7:]

55

Justin T... double sided tape is a common accessory available for girls to buy (often under the name "hollywood tape") - I've only used it once- it was borrowed, as well as teh dress I was wearing- but I guess think about it this way: it was a dress that I thought quite modest when it was in place, but it was loose enough that it could certainly move around quite a lot- the tape just holds it there, and you forget about it.

[56. Jo said the following at 10:49 PM on Apr 7:]

56

Some of the statements on the survey are quite unclear too - "A woman's posture and movement can be a stumbling block" - okay, what kind of posture / movement? I really don't get that one.

Re: the comments about younger (teenage) guys - just another thought to throw into the mix, perhaps this should make us think especially carefully about what we wear if we are teachers / youth leaders etc, when we're performing those roles. Perhaps those might be times for the 'baggier' items. :P

[57. PLH said the following at 11:01 AM on Apr 8:]

57

Heidi-My reaction to the modesty survey isn't necessarily one of angry but frustration. I find that most "modesty" surveys only restrict women's mobility. For example, if women can't wear shorts, it compromises their ability to run and participate in athletics. More importantly, it seems that the "modesty message" teaches women that their sexually is someone bad because it causes men to sin. I think it leads to an unhealthy obsession with legalistic rules. The focus should be on the heart not rules.

[58. Loris said the following at 11:03 AM on Apr 8:]

58

You're welcome, Kelly (#54). For me, sewing has been an absolute necessity. Not only am I busty, I'm tall and in high school it was impossible to find summer dresses that weren't halfway up my thighs. My mom (who is even taller than I am, darn Dutch blood) had to learn to sew in her teens for the same reason. Every summer after school let out, we'd head to the fabric store and buy calico and a sundress pattern to make together. We had a good time and I learned a lot from her, so now it's no problem to alter a top or take up my husband's pants.
I agree that it's frustrating to buy tops, especially when the average cup size the fashion industry cuts tops for is a B and I read somewhere that the average American woman is now a C. So they're behind the times a bit as Americans are getting taller and fatter. I keep waiting for some genius to start selling blouses by cup size, i.e. 10B, 10C, 10D. I'd love to be a size 12D instead of a 16 dress/blouse size since my waist and hips are not that big. Unfortunately, a lot of stores that sell work wear like Express, for example, do not go beyond a size L blouse. If you need an XL, you're sunk, but I've never met anyone yet who was heartbroken about the blouse that got away. Since blouses are such a problem for me, I usually wear a nice knit top or polo under a jacket to work. (My office dress code is business casual) Old Navy's larger range of sizes is also useful, especially if I'm expecting to tailor a top anyway.
I've found that for my build, I'm going to have to pay more to look nice and I've found a brand that I do not have to tailor at all. Ann Taylor and Ann Taylor Loft are my go-tos. Their clothes is classic, comfortable, and in many cases, machine wash. Yes, it's generally a bit more expensive, but I prowl the clearance and have gotten an excellent work/church/dinner out wardrobe that way.
Jackets are even trickier than blouses. Lands End has jackets/blazers that are lightly shaped and are cut a little big, but still have good lines. Again, if a jacket is summer-weight and unlined, any amateur seamstress can take it in if it doesn't have a lot of pockets on the front. If it is lined, you'll need to see a tailor.
I hope this helps. Happy hunting. :)

[59. Dawnson said the following at 12:26 PM on Apr 8:]

59

Heidi #50:
"I'm honestly a bit confused as to why there would be any response of anger, unless it is from conviction. Is it frustration that our brothers in Christ would dare to answer such a survey, or the nature of the questions sent in from young women? Is the exasperation formed out of a dislike for the results, or perhaps you may feel that such a resource was uncalled for? I ask sincerely."

Interestingly, my exasperation with the survey stems from nothing you listed. The entire modesty dicussion is overly simplified and based on (I believe) faulty assumptions. The Modesty Survey bothers me because it continues to perpetuate those failings. Let me explain:

The Survey assumes that modesty is a clear line. Ex: "Is this shirt a problem?" Yes. "Are these pants an issue?" No. Through questions/answers like that, it tries to specifically define the line. But the concept of modesty isn't a clear line, it is subjective. I dare say *completely* subjective, based on whatever time and culture you live in.

Modesty is dressing and behaving in line with what the situation and culture deems appropriate and not sexually provocative.

A girl showing even her knees would have caused a scandal in other times and even today in certain countries. Yet today in America, that is considered normal. Why? Because everyone does it. The line between "modest" and "not modest" slides, and appropriately so, with the context you're in. From America, to Muslim countries, to half-naked jungle tribes, the *concept* of modesty still exists. In each of those cultures there are societal norms of what is considered proper or not, and each of those norms is *very* different. We, as the American Conservative Christian sub-culture, do not have an idealogical monopoly on what is *ultimately* modest, because there is no such thing. Modesty varies by context.

So what determines modesty then? Three things: the Intention of the wearer, the Context of the situation, and the Response of those around you.

Intent: This is about the foundamental posture of the heart. Jesus taught alot about motive, and jumped on the religious leaders of the day for doing everything thing right, but for totally wrong reasons. So if you wear something inappropriate accidentally, your clothes may be immodest (and you should go change), but *you* are not because your heart was in the right place. Conversely, if you're very conservatively dressed but think of that as a sign of your superior Holiness compared to the "sluts" around you, then you need to repent and work on getting rid of your pride. So begin with your heart and look at your motives.

Context: What your culture would deem appropriate/modest would depend on the context of the situation. For example, you would not wear a swimsuit to a funeral, but if you go straight from the funeral to a pool then you shouldn't be shocked at what you see. Why? The context has changed, and therefore so has what is proper. Pool, funeral, workplace, home, European beach, African jungle tribe, etc, they ALL have different expectations and therefore different ideas about what is modest.

Response: This area is almost entirely the guys' responsibility. As mentioned before, if guys want to lust, they will, no matter what you're wearing. (more on that in a minute) If your heart is in the right place, and you're pretty sure you're dressed appropriately for the situation, then don't worry about the guys. At that point what they do with their own heart and eyes is up to them, not you. I said "almost" in the first sentense because a girl does need cues from the people around her if what she's wearing in fact isn't appropriate to the context, but not to the extent that the guys act like an Olympic judging committee (the way the Survey comes across).

Lust: The Bible speaks strongly against lust, but never defines it. What lust is therefore becomes highly interpretable. And tragically it has been pushed to mean a guy even *noticing* that a woman has a woman's body, or (ohnoes!) liking what he sees!

Lust begins, again, with heart motives. There is a difference between a guy looking at a girl he passes in the mall (REGARDLESS of what she's wearing) and a girl he looks up racy pictures of online. The later is lust, while the former is likely not. Why? Because a guy who searches for those pics online does so with the intent to lust after them already in his mind. Could the guy lust after the girl at the mall too? Absolutely, but I dare say it happens alot less than anyone thinks. Observing what kind of body a girl has is not lust. Thinking that girl is pretty dang gorgeous is not lust either. Looking at her only to imagine doing immoral things with her body is lust. And every guy I talk to almost *never* does that, no matter what the girl is wearing.

Sorry that's so long, but you asked sincerely and I tried to answer in kind. There's so much more to explain, I could write a whole book about this (and in fact, I am). This is why the Modesty Survey upsets me. It is a gross oversimplification of the issues at hand and perpetuates some very damaging assumptions about the nature of lust, beauty, and modesty. I hope my explanation has been helpful. :)

[60. Tami said the following at 1:30 PM on Apr 8:]

60

Loris (#58) -- Ann Taylor is great. Banana Republic can be good, too (they sell some of their pants styles by length; they also have petites). Plus both are having great sales right now. :)

I also hear you on the blouse sizing - though my problems are with the necklines (almost always too low) and the shoulders (fall off me!). I think sizing by torso size is a great idea.

What I've never understood, however, is why size 0-4 pants have legs cut for someone six foot five?

[61. Katie B said the following at 3:11 PM on Apr 8:]

61

On the modesty survey, I liked that they divided the questions between 'is this modest?' and 'does this cause you to stumble?'
Its our responsibility to be modest, its guys responsibility not to stumble. the two are not nessesarily cause and effect, tho they can be. The poison of legalism comes in when one parties responsibility is lessened, like when it is the womans responsibilty to keep men from lusting after her, or when it modesty is thrown out the window because it doesnt garuntee men wont lust.
side note, women dress to impress men less than men think they do. especially in the secular fashion culture and its influence on the christian culture, women check each other out more than men check women out. Not sexually, but critically and comparitively. I once had a (secular) male friend ask me why women try to avoid panty lines, because men like to see them. then was surprised that womans primary goal in dressing wasnt to be attractive to men.

[62. Tami said the following at 3:43 PM on Apr 8:]

62

Dawnson (#59) -- I agree with some of what you say, but (surprise!) take issue with other parts, mostly with the outworking of some of the assumptions.

What do you say about a woman who has a man that is interested in her -- but she knows he "notices" and "observes" all the women around him quite often (naturally, he claims)? How is she not supposed to feel measured and evaluated not by his emotions, but by his physical standards of beauty? What if they get married, and he realizes she's not as physically "perfect" as other women he's carefully "observed," and he gets turned off?

I see so much "observing" among the Christian guys I know, that I get massively disheartened. And honestly, it's not simply observing; it's comparing and analyzing to the point of dismissing a woman entirely.

I don't think I'd want to marry any of those guys I know, even if they were interested in me, for fear of never measuring up to their ideals and living with that disappointment. [To pre-empt discussion of my appearance's role in this -- I'm in shape, I take care of myself, and I dress nicely but conservatively.] It hurts to hear a guy you care about talk about how pretty or hot other girls are, because we know what a value men place on women's appearance. Honestly, I've had my heart broken over this, so I am a tad sensitive about it, I admit. I have pretty much come to the point of wondering, "If no guy seems to be willing to have eyes for one woman, why bother to commit myself to him?"

I'm constantly hearing how "men are visual," and 75% of the time it's being used as an excuse for the guy's lack of self control. I am sure there's some sort of emotional equivalent that men are concerned about in women, but I don't tend to hear about this. Do men understand the impact this has on the women they're around?

[63. Christina said the following at 4:45 PM on Apr 8:]

63

Dawnson,

I don't get it..

So what determines modesty then? Three things: the Intention of the wearer, the Context of the situation, and the Response of those around you.

Isn't that exactly what that survey was about?

Pretty much they asked a bunch of questions and displayed people's responses to them. That's it. So there's the "response to those around you".

Responses are going to vary on culture and time (which significantly, I'm pretty certain all the people that answered are living at the same time as you as I'm pretty certain no people from victorian england had access to this particular survey).

It was a survey of what men find as downfalls. And yes, setting was taken into account too (do different rules apply to weddings as they do to every day attire?)

You got your panties bunched up in a wad over nothing. This survey captured exactly your definition of modesty.

To the person who said that this is about glorifying God and not about keeping our "brothers from stumbling", I beg to disagree that those are necessarily exclusive. We can glorify God in our underwear...Adam and Eve did it naked =p Unfortunately with the fall of creation comes certain knowledge that makes heads turn and create lust in their hearts. So now, to glorify God, we try to minimize how much we can make a "brother stumble".

Yeah, not all of it is our fault, but we can play our part in this dynamic that isn't just about ME

[64. Jo said the following at 5:01 PM on Apr 8:]

64

Re: the questions about wearing low cut tops if you don't have much bust to show... I just don't think that's attractive, never mind modest/immodest. Since the point of a low cut top is to draw attention to a large bust, I think it just draws attention to the fact you don't have one. I avoid 'plunging necklines' for reasons both of modesty and of wanting to look good!

[65. Kelly said the following at 7:49 PM on Apr 8:]

65

Loris, thank you again!

You said: "Ann Taylor and Ann Taylor Loft are my go-tos. Their clothes is classic, comfortable, and in many cases, machine wash."

Machine-wash? I am SO THERE. ;) It's crazy the amount of time I spend hand-washing my work clothes. It makes them last a lot longer but I can't imagine having a husband/children and finding time to wash their clothes as well!

When I was growing up, my Dad always did the washing and I would get so mad when he didn't treat my clothing gently. In retrospect, I completely understand that he didn't have time to separate out the clothing, much less even THINK of hand-washing.

---

I totally agree with your suggestion that blouses be sold by cup size as well as shoulder size.

Teenage fashion also needs to be severely overhauled. So many times I've seen a group of similarly dressed teens, with one or two girls with larger bodies also squeezing into the outfits designed for stick-thin girls. They look terrible but seem to care more about fitting in rather than dressing appropriately for their shape, not to mention the modesty issues. :(

[66. Lizzie said the following at 11:34 PM on Apr 8:]

66

Rachael (#52): I don't think it's wrong to wear jeans that fit, either, it's just confusing to have to figure out if they're fitting too much. ;P It can be annoying because if jeans/pants are too loose, then they become baggy and wrinkly and unflattering, and if they're too tight, then they're immodest. Hard to find that perfect medium. I'm sure you girls know what I mean! xD

[67. Loris said the following at 7:06 AM on Apr 9:]

67

Tami (#60), I'll never understand why size 12 pants are cut for someone 5'5, hehehe. Seriously, I'm happy with any shop that carries size long/tall pants. I like Banana Republic, but I don't seem to have the same success there that I do at Ann Taylor. I guess their offerings are more "me," but I'm a big fan of BR's paper-thin wool sweaters (worn with a cami, of course.) as I live in SC and it doesn't get that cold.

[68. PLH said the following at 10:39 AM on Apr 9:]

68

Tam (62), I agree. That's part troubles me-the expectation that women should be "cute" to "catch" a husband but modest at the same to so as not to "cause a brother to fall." That expectation is simply too much. Rather than create these traps for women, who already suffer from living in a culture that glorifies women for their beauty, we should tell women modesty is about having a pure heart and loving God. If women had a clean heart, they wouldn't have to worry about dressing modesty.

[69. Loris said the following at 10:55 AM on Apr 9:]

69

Hey Kelly, if you come to SC, there's an Ann Taylor outlet near my apartment. I'll take you shopping. For the record, I just snagged a plain red 3/4 sleeve shirtdress and a cream knee-length spring coat from there and I'm feeling pretty pleased with myself. :)

[70. Dawnson said the following at 11:30 AM on Apr 9:]

70

Tami #62:
What do you say about a woman who has a man that is interested in her -- but she knows he "notices" and "observes" all the women around him quite often (naturally, he claims)? How is she not supposed to feel measured and evaluated not by his emotions, but by his physical standards of beauty? What if they get married, and he realizes she's not as physically "perfect" as other women he's carefully "observed," and he gets turned off?
-----

Then she foolishly married a horribly shallow guy.

Your perception of the mental complexity of guys seems to be a tad narrow.. Several factors influence a guy's attraction: physical beauty, emotions, and will. (Sidenote: I really don't think you want to be "measured and evaluated" strictly through his emotions either, since emotions can easily come and go.)

The thing is, guys observe other women all the time, whether they tell you about it or not. But that doesn't stop most of them from dating, getting married, and living long *happy* lives with their wives, all despite the fact that he can probably think of someone he thinks is prettier. And if you asked him why he doesn't jump up and run after the next younger, hotter girl he comes across, he'd probably say something like this: "Why would I want to? My wife has been loving and faithful to me all these years. She knows me better than anyone on the planet (and loves me anyway!). She's the mother of my children and we have years of memories together."

His committment to his wife shapes his emotions and increases his attraction.

-----
Tami: I see so much "observing" among the Christian guys I know, that I get massively disheartened.
----

I doubt that you want guys to stop observing altogether, you probably just want them to observe you instead. In which case you get "massively disheartened" because you yourself are also too locked on physical appearence, and the attention you're not getting. Don't blame the guys for that.

----
Tami: And honestly, it's not simply observing; it's comparing and analyzing to the point of dismissing a woman entirely.
-----

This, you can blame the guys for. That's just shallow, immaturity. Personality has just as much to do with attractiveness as looks. It sounds mean, but there were several girls I knew in college that, when I first met them, my first reaction was to pity them. Just not physically attractive at all. But after spending time with them in class and getting to know them, they were really awesome people! About halfway through the semester, I started getting nervous around one of them the way I do around girls I think are cute! My view of her had changed *that* much. When she got engaged I was a tad jealous.

All of my friends from high school (who went on and on about hot girls at the time) who are now married have really awesome, but fairly average looking, wives. And they wouldn't trade them for the world.

-----
Tami: I don't think I'd want to marry any of those guys I know, even if they were interested in me, for fear of never measuring up to their ideals and living with that disappointment.
-----

Then seriously, find new guys if they're going to be like that.

-----
Tami: It hurts to hear a guy you care about talk about how pretty or hot other girls are, because we know what a value men place on women's appearance.
-----

Sounds like they're being rather tactless about it.

-----
Tami: Honestly, I've had my heart broken over this, so I am a tad sensitive about it, I admit. I have pretty much come to the point of wondering, "If no guy seems to be willing to have eyes for one woman, why bother to commit myself to him?"
-----

You seem to be thinking that for a guy to be faithful in marriage he has to never be attracted to another woman either before or after his marriage. That is just not realistic. *Nearly EVERY* guy who gets married chooses a woman who isn't the hottest thing he's ever seen. Why? Because he loves HER specifically, for who she is. Physical attractiveness is a big factor, but there are many other factors and they all influence attractiveness.

-----
Tami: I'm constantly hearing how "men are visual," and 75% of the time it's being used as an excuse for the guy's lack of self control. I am sure there's some sort of emotional equivalent that men are concerned about in women, but I don't tend to hear about this. Do men understand the impact this has on the women they're around?
-----

How old are these guys you talk about? If they're high school then I'd say wait awhile and they *should* grow out of it.

Guys observing the girls around them isn't in itself a problem. The problem comes in what they (and you) do with that.

If they use their observations to compare, berate, and dismiss the girls around them, then yes it's a problem. And it's the guys' fault.

Girls create problems for themselves if they idolize looks and attention so much that they think they are the only ones who should ever be attractive in the eyes of "their" man.

[71. Dawnson said the following at 11:51 AM on Apr 9:]

71

Christina #63:
Pretty much they asked a bunch of questions and displayed people's responses to them. That's it. So there's the "response to those around you".
-----

That's not the response I was talking about. It's what the guys do mentally with what they see that is the issue there. Read the last half of my #59 post.

-----
Christina: Responses are going to vary on culture and time (which significantly, I'm pretty certain all the people that answered are living at the same time as you as I'm pretty certain no people from victorian england had access to this particular survey).
-----

And what would the victorian Englishman have said? And would he have been right? Apparently not if "God's standards are always the same" according to the Survey comments on weddings. We must have finally arrived at the ideals that the rest of history was striving for.. /sarcasm

-----
Christina: It was a survey of what men find as downfalls.
-----

Define "downfalls" for me please.

-----
Christina: You got your panties bunched up in a wad over nothing. This survey captured exactly your definition of modesty.
-----

I disagree.

From the tone and comments on the Survey, their definition of modesty is "whatever doesn't attract me to her body at all." Which, I will say again, is gross oversimplification of the issues at hand and perpetuates some very damaging assumptions about the nature of lust, beauty, and modesty.

[72. Tami said the following at 12:32 PM on Apr 9:]

72

Dawnson wrote, "I doubt that you want guys to stop observing altogether, you probably just want them to observe you instead. In which case you get 'massively disheartened' because you yourself are also too locked on physical appearence, and the attention you're not getting. Don't blame the guys for that."

Not to turn this into a debate -- because that's fruitless -- but, no. Simply put, that is not the case.

It is unrealistic (and egocentric) to expect that a man will find you the *only* pretty woman he will ever see. However, I don't think it's unrealistic to hope that the man I marry will not continue to be on the lookout for pretty girls, or be comparing me to all the women he has known or will know. I would most definitely give him the same respect and devotion that I would hope to receive from him.

[73. Dawnson said the following at 12:49 PM on Apr 9:]

73

Tami #72:
Not to turn this into a debate -- because that's fruitless -- but, no. Simply put, that is not the case.

It is unrealistic (and egocentric) to expect that a man will find you the *only* pretty woman he will ever see.
-----

I agree and am glad to be mistaken then.

-----
Tami: However, I don't think it's unrealistic to hope that the man I marry will not continue to be on the lookout for pretty girls, or be comparing me to all the women he has known or will know.
-----

"Noticing" and "on the lookout" are two different things. Motive being the key, I believe. And again it's *why* he'd consciously make a comparison that would matter. A subconscious comparision happens whenever you meet new people, but if he's constantly weighing differences to decide if he's happy staying with you, then that's a problem.

[74. Tara said the following at 3:09 PM on Apr 9:]

74

Dawnson, I really appreciate the views you shared in comment #59. Reading your post actually reminded me of a section of Vanity Fair--the novel by William Thackery, not the magazine :P. Skirts revealing ankles had just come in vogue and some of the more cad-like male characters decided to go into town to gawk and make fun of the women with less attractive ankles. Men lusting after ankles seems ridiculous to me but it really brings to light how modesty and lust are matters of the heart...not neccesarily rules on hemlines and skin exposure.

[75. Heidi said the following at 3:13 PM on Apr 9:]

75

This is a lengthy comment, but I have done my best to make it informative and precise so as to address the many misconceptions floating around about the Modesty Survey.

Loris #35, mindlab #42, and Chris Krycho #45, are you aware that you have the option to view the survey results by age? After clicking on a question, to the right there is the option to “filter” the results. That way you have the opportunity to see how younger men’s answers differed from the more mature contributors.

PLH #57, I’m not aware of any other modesty surveys that have been done, but I readily agree that the message of modesty preached these days can often be focused on restrictive, legalistic rules. That’s why I was pleasantly surprised by the Modesty Survey, where guys poured out their personal appreciation for the stunning beauty of modesty, expressed sympathy for how hard it is for us, spoke of heart issues—their own and ours—and urged us to steer clear of legalism. I can understand why you’d avoid the majority of modesty resources, but I encourage you to give the Modesty Survey a chance and just read what the guys had to say, especially on topics such as “What is your responsibility?” and “Girls can dress attractively without being immodest”. I hope it would be a blessing for you.

Dawson #59, I greatly appreciate your sincere, informative, response. I think I understand a bit more clearly now where you are coming from, but please feel free to correct me if I get anything mixed up.

First, I'd like to clarify that I do understand a guy can lust no matter what a woman is wearing. However, I believe the main goal of the Modesty Survey is to aid women like myself in figuring out how they can help those who are actively fighting against lust by not wearing clothing that is likely to provoke another battle.

I find it strange that you admit the Bible never defines lust, yet you give your own definition without the slightest disclaimer of human fallacy. If many guys believe that appreciating women’s beauty is lust, then that is a tragedy indeed, but I have found exactly the opposite response in the Modesty Survey, such as these:

“Girls can be beautiful, noticably beautiful, and guys can notice it, without there being immodesty or lust involved, and this is the good design of God.”

“I actually had a T/A in one of my classes who was a beautiful woman who dressed modestly, and I had trouble paying attention to anyone but her! Her clothing never caused me to stumble and never once did I have a physical reaction to her. Instead, my heart warmed (maybe even fluttered a few times hehe) and it just made me smile. There's also a young woman from my home town who I've known for some time who has MASTERED this art. She is just gorgeous....wait, I'm rambling....sorry. …”

To the statement “A guy can consider a girl attractive without thinking of her in an impure way” 95.4% either agreed or strongly agreed.

From these results I assume that these very same guys confirmed that certain items of clothing lead them to lust. Thus I conclude that my manner of clothing does, in fact, either help or hurt my brothers who are striving against lust, though it appears to be a bit contrary to your own experience.

You wrote, "The Survey assumes that modesty is a clear line. ...But the concept of modesty isn't a clear line, it is subjective."

I would dare to suggest that it is even more subjective than the examples you've mentioned, relative to how the individual was raised, how hard they have fought the battle of lust, what they've been exposed to, etc. Yet isn't there a clear line for each individual? Not a definite black and white overall, but a distinct point at which a person knows that to see such clothing in a respective contest on a woman would be a stumbling block? If there is, could not young women seeking modesty greatly benefit from knowing where the line is for the majority of guys? It is not inherent knowledge – we have to learn it from somewhere. And since the survey gives the option to filter the results by homeschool, public school, or private school, it gives an idea of how much the results vary by different environments.

You wrote, “So what determines modesty then? Three things: the Intention of the wearer, the Context of the situation, and the Response of those around you.” I believe the Modesty Survey stemmed from all three of these. The idea came into existence to fulfill a need: women with modest intentions wanted to know the response from those around them in various context and situations, but found the subject inappropriate to discuss outright with the guys they know.

It seems that you believe the Modesty Survey does nothing to factor in the context of the situation, and I feel compelled to ask: have you even read it? It has specific questions on if/how standards can differ when working out, if certain things are acceptably modest when wearing a swimsuit, if immodest clothing is non-problematic amidst family, and whether or not standards can vary for different occasions. Furthermore, many guys graciously explained their answers by clarifying when this or that depends on the situation, or when something is not generally a stumbling block to them but can indicate a lack of modesty in the wearer’s heart.

You’ve concluded: “This is why the Modesty Survey upsets me. It is a gross oversimplification of the issues at hand and perpetuates some very damaging assumptions about the nature of lust, beauty, and modesty.”

I am deeply thankful for your concern in this regard; many women, including myself, have struggled with the misguided impression that being beautiful causes lust and is therefore sinful. To have brothers like you who passionately set the record straight is wonderful medicine. :) In fact, if you read the text answers in the Modesty Survey, especially in the sections of General/Other and Open Questions, I think you’ll find many like-minded guys who are telling us the same blessed message in their own words. The notable difference is that they have collectively shared it through the very resource you’re condemning.

All I can say is that the Modesty Survey has been an immense blessing to me, and I am saddened that you, while defending the majority of the concepts presented, reject the Modesty Survey in its entirety. I’m glad to hear you’re writing a book and from the things you’re written here it sounds like there is great opportunity for God to move through it. May the Lord bless you.

To any and all who took the time to read this, thank you. :)

[76. Dawnson said the following at 4:28 PM on Apr 9:]

76

Heidi #75, thank you for your sincere response. Unfortunately I'm moving out of state tomorrow morning and need to pack like crazy. So to answer your questions I've asked my "partner-in-crime" on this subject, TomySky, to step in for me while I'm gone. See you in four days.

Blessings to you.

[77. Heidi said the following at 4:49 PM on Apr 9:]

77

To correct a perhaps confusing typo of mine: ...a distinct point at which a person knows that to see such clothing in a respective *context* (NOT contest) on a woman would be a stumbling block...

**Blush**

[78. TomySky said the following at 6:11 PM on Apr 9:]

78

Hey everyone. Dawnson is traveling, so I'm jumping in for him while he's en route. He and I are working on the book together, so we should be on pretty much the same page.

Tara #74: You've totally got it! You're absolutely right.

Heidi #75: We appreciate your kindness in your responses as well. Dawnson has spent some time with the Survey; I have not. So, please forgive any ignorance I may display in my response to you.

"I believe the main goal of the Modesty Survey is to aid women like myself in figuring out how they can help those who are actively fighting against lust by not wearing clothing that is likely to provoke another battle."

I believe the Modesty Survey was created with good intentions. However, I believe it creates far more problems that it hopes to solve.

1. The Modesty Survey approaches the entire issue backward. It essentially asks: What can I get away with? This is, naturally, a bad way to start out when you're trying to help others. Rather, it would be far better to ask the question of, "What have you found that 'blesses' you in what women wear?" That seems like a far more beneficial question.

2. The Modesty Survey is built on a very flawed idea. The idea is that you can help those "fighting against lust" by dressing differently.

This is hardly the place (due to space restrictions) to flesh out this idea entirely. I will do my best without rewriting our book here [smile].

The fact of the matter is that 99% of what we Christian's define as a struggle or issue of lust is not one. This is, of course, ignoring pornography and other obvious sexual sins. What I mean is that in the daily life, lust happens so very rarely that we have created a monster that does not exist.

Dawnson has asked before: Define "downfalls" for me please. (#73)

I used to "struggle" when girls who were "immodestly" dressed walked by. But, after years of working through this thought process, have discovered a freeing truth: I do not lust after girls I see on the street. My brain never goes to any inappropriate thought. I think, 'She's cute,' or, 'I like how that looks,' but never to a sinful/sexual thought.

Our working definition of lust claims no "God Stamp of Approval". Rather, it is based on what we believe makes the most sense in light of Scripture, reality, and brings about the greatest blessing for everyone. We more than welcome any challenges to our definition in case we need to further refine our ideas.

"To the statement 'A guy can consider a girl attractive without thinking of her in an impure way' 95.4% either agreed or strongly agreed."

I completely agree. I agree with the statements you quoted. Absolutely. However, the sentiment behind such statements is often (and I'm not saying that it is the case here either): Since we can find girls beautiful in modest dress, girls should not wear shorts (or bikinis, or... whatever).

That does not follow. In fact, we agree with the statements so much that a guy can consider an attractive girl in a bikini in a completely pure way. That's the idea I feel does not come across in the typical context of such statements.

"From these results I assume that these very same guys confirmed that certain items of clothing lead them to lust."

And guys who claim that certain clothes "lead them to lust" are frequently operating off an erroneous assumption and a very dangerous idea. It's the concept that I have termed "goddessification". It's the problem of the "bounce your eyes" group. Because, this kind of thinking pre-sexualizes the situation and makes the women (and, more specifically, their garments) a threat to holiness. This makes them the enemy, rather than a sister in Christ to be honored, loved, and cared for. If we try to avoid such sights, our minds create an image that does not line up with reality, and makes the problem worse.

I challenge every guy to force himself to look at an attractive girl in "problematic" clothes, and consider his thoughts. I have yet to meet a guy who goes beyond, "Oh wow." The only time we go beyond this point is when we make a conscious decision to do something lustful with what we are seeing. It is a choice, so be free to notice even the curves of the girls around you. But make sure you honor them too. You can't just drool.

(Lack of space is killing me, because these ideas require far more explanation to be really useful/good.)

You are absolutely correct about the subjective nature of modesty. Thus, we consider modesty to be a "talent" that needs to be honed to be useful. So, yes, a guy who has never seen a girl in shorts, would very much feel the sexuality of seeing a woman in a swimsuit. But the "battle" you refer to is a lie. We have made a battle out of something that shouldn't be a struggle. To find a girl's body sexually appealing is what God intended. There is nothing wrong with that.

What you do with such things can easily be a sexual sin, but it frequently is not. How does such ambiguity help women like yourself?

First, you must realize that the internet is not your social context. What the majority of guys on the survey say, doesn't really speak to you and your world. You must get feedback from the guys around you (your father should be the first to offer an opinion, then perhaps brothers, and finally close guys friends). The "clear line for" you is only seen in that place.

Second, I would argue that "young women seeking modesty" would start from the other side of the question. The Survey merely allows you to answer the question of "What can I get away with wearing", rather than really helping you define what is truly modest.

However, third, I would caution against any such Survey at all, because it tends to attract the hyper spiritual and those who want to be able to judge their spirituality based off rules (shrouded in Grace, or not).

Thus, we must rethink why we think looking at girl's is a sexual sin (lust), and instead consider how we can bless and build one another up.

I find the fact that people have "found the subject inappropriate to discuss outright with the guys they know" terribly saddening. Since modesty is a big issue, it needs to be part of our conversation as brothers and sisters in Christ. We need way more love and grace to flow out of us if we can't even talk about appropriate clothing with those around us. We've clearly made the issue too big if it is a taboo subject.

I am so glad that you, and others, have found the grace and answers you have sought from the Modesty Survey. May that continue. And I am thankful guys have been able to share truth out of the Survey. Again, I freely admit I have not read it, but the bits I have heard, and the statements of those who typically point to it as "the answer" to what is modest, tend to make me angry and upset because of the lies that are perpetrated and the destructive effects that has on our ability to bless and love one another.

May many more be blessed by the Modesty Survey, but may we also get to an even higher understanding of how God wants us to relate to one another.

We greatly appreciate all prayers for us as we write our book so that many will be blessed and set free by the truth.

Thank you again for your thoughts, and we welcome any other insights/opinions/ideas that anyone may have.

~Luke

[79. Tami said the following at 9:24 PM on Apr 9:]

79

Hi, Luke -- you invited comments, so here goes. :)

I can't see wearing a bikini in this culture as *ever* qualifying as "modest." No matter the context, it's *designed* to show off pretty much everything, which goes against anything I would ever define as modest, even if I wasn't a Christian woman. I could pull it off, but can you think of a *good* motivation for me to do so?

Plus, I really struggle with the idea that *all* a guy ever thinks when he sees a girl in a bikini is, "wow," and nothing further. Else the SI swimsuit edition wouldn't be such a popular issue. I doubt a guy is anxiously waiting at the mailbox for the issue with a feature on, say, the Lady Vols in quite the same manner. Though I suppose you never know -- they are pretty cool! :)

I am not advocating we all wear denim jumpers, turtlenecks, and knee socks. Not in the least. I've also stated here that if I tried to abide by everything in the Modesty Survey, I'd go bonkers. But I think there is *some* common sense at play here. Along with the huge issue of respecting one another.

[80. mindlab said the following at 5:54 AM on Apr 10:]

80

TomySky 78

". . .we agree. . . that a guy can consider an attractive girl in a bikini in a completely pure way. . .I have yet to meet a guy who goes beyond, 'Oh wow.'"

Sorry, but speaking as a guy, what you are saying is simply not true. It is patently impossible to "notice (or appreciate) the curves" of a woman you are not married to in a "pure" way. 'Curves' (or as a biologist would say 'secondary sexual characteristics') are there to evoke attraction. The appreciation of those characteristics cannot be anything other than sexual.

Furthermore, no 'pre-sexualization' is necessary for a bikini to be a stumbling block. Perhaps in 500 years when nudity is normative, a bikini will be modest; in today's culture I can say with confidence that you cannot look at (appreciate) an attractive woman in a bikini without desiring her body in a sexual way.

I'm not calling you liar, but you are, without question, wrong.

[81. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:28 AM on Apr 10:]

81

Interesting comment about bikinis mindlab.

The problem though is if taken out of context, sexual attraction could be defined as "not pure".

Sexual attraction is neutral. It is be "pure" if taken in the context of a married couple, or during the dating process (if not taken to excess). It is "impure" in cases of pornography, fornication, etc.

Frankly, most agree that there needs to be at least some sexual attraction during the dating/courting process. Otherwise, why else would people willingly marry each other? We rarely marry for political reasons anymore, and at least in Western countries do not usually marry out of obligation to "carry the family name".

Tami, bikinis may be considered socially acceptable. In Africa, certain tribes have bare breasted women and it isn't considered scandalous. C.S. Lewis wrote that someone wearing a bikini may be considered "decent" if that is the societal norm. Agreed, I often wonder how women with little on can't be trying to invoke lust, but then again, I didn't grow up in that culture. Maybe "lust invoking" to them would be something we consider innocent such as smiling.

[82. mindlab said the following at 9:39 AM on Apr 10:]

82

Mike Theemling 81:

Yes, thanks for the clarification. I would agree that a moderate (don't you love that word) level of sexual attraction during the dating/courting process is appropriate, necessary, and pure.

[83. Tami said the following at 9:42 AM on Apr 10:]

83

Mike -- note that, in my comment, I wrote "in this culture," the position from which most of us are discussing this issue. I am aware that other cultures have very different standards, and in this discussion I am not calling them into question.

[84. TomySky said the following at 9:46 AM on Apr 10:]

84

Tami (#79), while I agree that a bikini would not be modest for us in this day and age, I think it could be consider modest in a nudist area. On the other hand, it could also be seen as inappropriate in such context because everyone is supposed to be nude. But that really isn't the point.

I'd like to challenge the entire idea of modesty. I see us talking about two different sides of the issue. On one side we are talking about "modesty"-the virginal covering of our bodies to keep them from being sexually alluring. On the other side we have "what is modest"-what is acceptable to wear in public.

A bikini may never be part of a line up things on a "modesty" rack of clothing. However, I think it would erroneous to say that a bikini is not ever acceptable to wear in public. If you feel that it would always be unacceptable, I would love your reasoning so I can better think through my own.

The SI Swimsuit editing is a great example of pornography. Pornography, in our working definition, is anything with the Intent to get you aroused through the Content that will lead to a sexually releasing Response. Guys waiting for the latest editing to show up in the mailbox are waiting for porn.

But, guys who visit Water World (as I did with my wife and a couple friends last year), quickly discover that seeing girls at a water park is very different from seeing them in porn. The Intent is different, the Content is almost the same, but the Response is totally different. If, however, a guy does make cat-calls, or such things to girls "on the street", his issue is respect of women, not lust.

But you are correct: There is common sense, and plenty of feedback, that needs to be taken into consideration in choosing your wardrobe. As I said above: Modesty is a "talent" that needs to be honed. If you find good "coaching" in the Modesty Survey, awesome.

~Luke

[85. TomySky said the following at 10:07 AM on Apr 10:]

85

mindlab (#80): I appreciate your comment, and if I'm wrong, I want to know. However, to say that

"It is patently impossible to 'notice (or appreciate) the curves' of a woman you are not married to in a 'pure' way. ...The appreciation of those characteristics cannot be anything other than sexual"

seems to be missing the point. If you define "pure" as "only what a man can do with his wife", then, you are by your own definition correct. However, if it is possible to respond to sexual stimuli in a proper manner, then there is nothing impure about seeing something sexual.

You are correct: Women's bodies are sexual. God made them that way. How you respond to a woman's body determines the purity of the situation. I am merely pointing out that it is easy in day-to-day life to merely appreciate a woman's "secondary sexual characteristics" without thinking anything inappropriate. Every guy I have had the chance to speak with about this agrees. If you do not, please let me know so we can correct our view.

However, the guys who most often start out convinced that they think "impure" thoughts, have yet to be able to tell me what it is they are thinking, unless they have made a choice to lust after the girl's body.

There is a danger in your comment that I am sure you did not intend. If it is impossible to see a woman's body without sin outside of marriage, then women's bodies (and thus, women themselves) and dangerous and a threat to our holiness. Then a female body is inherently sinful outside the context of marriage. Thus, we shun them instead of actively looking for ways to honor and bless them.

Thanks again for your feedback. We appreciate your honesty and desire for truth.

~Luke

[86. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:42 AM on Apr 10:]

86

Tami,

Sorry for the oversight. Yes, in this culture bikinis are specifically designed to arouse sexual desires.

[87. mindlab said the following at 10:51 AM on Apr 10:]

87

TomySky 85

"How you respond to a woman's body determines the purity of the situation." - yes

"I am merely pointing out that it is easy in day-to-day life to merely appreciate a woman's "secondary sexual characteristics" without thinking anything inappropriate." - no

Let me explain. I know a few attractive and beautiful women; I am not married to any of them. If I chose to appreciate their wit, their conversation, their creativity, or even their strength (i.e. 12 mile day hikes) that is fine. If I chose to appreciate their body (by looking, or thinking about it) that is lust.

There's a distinction here; I can look across the room, notice a friend, recognize (or be struck by the fact) they she's attractive without sin. But if I notice that she's attractive, and then choose to dwell on that, to 'appreciate' it, to enjoy the experience of gazing at an attractive woman, that's lust (for me, since I'm not married). That is an experience that God has restricted to marriage (some exceptions may apply for persons moving toward marriage).

So recognizing that a woman is attractive is amoral. Dwelling on the fact, or enjoying her body is not amoral; it is either lust or desire (in a biblically sanctioned relationship).

[88. Tami said the following at 11:09 AM on Apr 10:]

88

Thanks, Mike.

[89. Tami said the following at 11:24 AM on Apr 10:]

89

TomySky (85) From an unmarried woman's perspective -- I can definitely tell the difference between when a man (Christian or not...) simply notices me and thinks I'm attractive, versus when he is dwelling on me per mindlab's illustrations. One is flattering, and the other is uncomfortable.

I can also tell when a man is staring at my face, or elsewhere. (Generally this is not Christian men behaving this way, but for point of illustration...)

It is not my job to judge the heart of a man, but generally I can discern what's going on.

A Christian man who develops the habit of how he looks at women *before* marriage, will be (literally) cultivating his vision for his married life.

Just like a woman who cultivates her habit of respecting men before marriage will have a much better go at it once she's married.

I think this is one of the roles of modest behavior: respect for one another.

[90. TomySky said the following at 11:24 AM on Apr 10:]

90

mindlab (#87): Beauty, like any other attribute (wit, strength, creativity), is God-given.

I am interested in what you definition of lust is. It sounds, and I could be wrong, that you define lust as: Choosing to appreciate beauty. So, if you passively notice a girl is cute, fine. But "the second look" is lust.

This requires that you "bounce your eyes", creating a way over-sexualized image of the girl that does not match up with reality. It also means that you must avoid girls you find attractive, or you may be tempted to look at them.

This end result of such thinking seems a far cry from Christ and how He interacted with women.

I do not know of any Scripture that says that appreciating the beauty of women is wrong unless it is your wife. In fact, the Bible itself talks about beautiful women (Abigail, Sarah, Rachel...), which, to do so, requires that people other than their husbands take note of their beauty.

I am also interested in how you justify "lusting" after a girl to whom you are engaged.

To put this whole idea another way: Is it wrong to think an actress it cute and stay in a movie theater? If so, why?

I also challenge you to consider the last time you truly had an impure thought while looking at a girl in a room. In my experience, such thoughts do not enter my mind unless I choose to go there.

And maybe we are just missing each other on the definition of "appreciate". I am thinking of "appreciation" of a woman's body in a way of, "She is cute, I like the way her eyes look." Since she is female, there is naturally a sexuality to the situation (since she is the opposite sex), but I have no thoughts of sexual acts or other things. If I chose to think about her body in a way to get myself going, that would be wrong.

So, am I totally missing you?

Thanks!

~Luke

[91. mindlab said the following at 12:27 PM on Apr 10:]

91

TomySky 90

“Beauty, like any other attribute (wit, strength, creativity), is God-given.” - yes, and beauty is meant to be appreciated, though not by all people at all times.

“I am interested in what you definition of lust is.” - Lust is sinful misuse of the God given desire for sexual satisfaction or fulfillment. If I were to desire my wife or fiancée, that wouldn’t be lust, because it wouldn’t be misuse of my desire for satisfaction.

“This requires that you ‘bounce your eyes’” – well, if you’re 13, and haven’t learned to deal with being male yet, then yes. If you’re an adult who’s been praying and growing in strength for a couple years, then no, you don’t need to ‘bounce.’ I can have a conversation with a women I know to be attractive so long as I chose not to appreciate (revel in, delight in, enjoy) the way her body looks.

“I do not know of any Scripture that says that appreciating the beauty of women is wrong unless it is your wife.” – think about the proximity of appreciation and rejoicing, and read Proverb 5

“Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth. . .”

On appreciation: I would define appreciation as actively enjoying the beauty of some object or person. The psalmist frequently ‘appreciates’ nature, and Solomon ‘appreciates’ the beauty of his beloved. I appreciate handmade furniture and elegant engineering (among other things) and I have a God-given desire to appreciate the beauty of a woman. I refrain because I’m not married; hopefully one day soon, I will be.

[92. TomySky said the following at 5:44 PM on Apr 10:]

92

Tami (#89): I am totally with you. Respect is huge. Huge! That is why we strongly encourage guys to notice girls and then actively seek to honor them (if you don't notice them, or are trying to avoid them, then you can't "see" them to honor them).

And so, yes, when a guy is ogling a girl, that does lead to discomfort on her part. Exactly. But why? Is it because, as so many claim, he is "undressing her with his eyes"?

No. I don't do that, and I don't know anyone who does. It's a myth perpetrated by media and locker room talk. Instead, the issue is a lack of respect for the girl. If you are sitting there drooling after a girl, you are treating her like a piece of meat (or whatever phrase you like). And that is not what we are called to do. We are called to bless.

As for cultivating the way I look at women, I honestly ask why people think it is wrong to look at other women while married. Sure, it sounds super nice to say, "I only have eyes for my wife"... but, if we take that to it's logical conclusion it is saying, "I find you attractive and chose you because I haven't seen anyone else."

I think it would be far more flattering/important (not to mention, honest) to say, as our vows state: Forsaking all others, cleaving to only you. In other words, "Despite the other women around me, I choose you." That's far more honest and honoring.

mindlab (#91): Where do you get the impression that beauty is not supposed to be appreciated by people? In your opinion, would future generations in Eden have not noticed the beauty of the girls around them?

Your definition of lust works for me. But then, how is looking at a girl a "misuse of ...sexual satisfaction"? What sexual satisfaction do you get from looking at a pretty girl, and how is that a misuse of God's design?

And how is lusting after one's fiancée (allow me to push back farther: girlfriend) not wrong? You're not married. You can't have sex, so how come you can "desire it" but can't even look at other girls?

I am very interested in how you interact with beautiful women. What do you do not to "enjoy" the fact that she is beautiful? What does that even mean? Sorry, you have totally lost me. I think I may agree with you, but I'm not sure.

As for Proverbs 5 (ignoring for the time that Proverbs are wise sayings, not rules or laws, which is why we can have completely contradictory statements right next to each other), I clearly see the sexual intercourse nature of that passage. However, I see nothing pertaining to beauty or the enjoyment thereof. Please explain further. Thanks!

Since we have no command at all against "actively enjoying the beauty" of women, why do you think that it is wrong to do so outside of marriage? What is wrong with noticing and telling a girl that she is pretty/beautiful? And what does this say about how we should interact with our daughters? Women gain their femininity, or so I've read, from their fathers as they appreciate, compliment, and encourage their daughter's beauty and modesty. If we can not enjoy the beauty of our daughters without sinning, we are forced to either disregard the truth of books like "Captivating" or sin sexually. I don't think that really makes sense. So what am I missing of your line of thinking?

Sorry to be so "thick" in not getting this.

Thanks for your patience.

~Luke

[93. Heidi said the following at 2:29 AM on Apr 12:]

93

TomySky #78,

I must be honest: while I appreciate your kind words and tone of voice, I am rather at a loss to see the value of pointing out what I believe is a misrepresentation of the Modesty Survey when you are not even willing to read it. While I understand it would take time that you likely don't have, I'm rather disheartened from responding to your post in detail because what I say only makes sense if you know what I'm talking about. And, with all due respect, what you say only makes sense if you know what you're talking about (i.e. the Modesty Survey).

Yet, I'd rather not have such things go unanswered. So here is my attempt at responding:

You wrote: "The Modesty Survey approaches the entire issue backward. It essentially asks: What can I get away with? This is, naturally, a bad way to start out when you're trying to help others."

May I ask how you came to this conclusion? As far as I know there wasn't a single thing specified in the survey that all the guys had no problem with, which is one reason so many women express frustration over the results. If indeed the survey asked the question "What can I get away with?" then answer would be "absolutely nothing." When people read it assuming that's the question being asked, then they take the results to mean that nothing's good enough. At that point they figuratively throw up their hands and walk out the door.

You wrote, "First, you must realize that the internet is not your social context. What the majority of guys on the survey say, doesn't really speak to you and your world. You must get feedback from the guys around you (your father should be the first to offer an opinion, then perhaps brothers, and finally close guys friends). The "clear line for" you is only seen in that place."

Due to some extreme conditions, actually the Internet is my social context, and due to other problems the subject of modesty currently has no physical application to me. So I am not writing any of these things in relation to myself currently, but to the many young women I've known.

I heartily agree that the father should be the first a young lady goes to about modesty questions, and then her brothers, and then perhaps a close guy friend. But are you aware the most fathers are unwilling to take that role? What of the fathers who don't care or, worse, encourage their daughters to dress sensually? Or what of the women whose fathers have moved out? If a woman is blessed with brothers who are willing to help her, then that works, but what if they are too young, don't care, or she doesn't have any at all? Close guy friends may be there to help, but are you aware that many women do not consider it wise to be in such a close friendship with a guy that it's alright to ask questions about things such as lingerie showing? Please forgive me if I sound upset, but your words appear to indicate that you have no clue of how many women have no access to this information.

The second problem is that guys in a woman's context seem to only be able to tell what's not okay, but as far as giving direction, the furthest insight are “it’s a heart issue” and “well, it’s simple: cover up.” The guys willing to take the survey had no idea what many of the items even were. So instead of receiving information that a woman can use as a resource to what should be worn, the only guidance she has otherwise is "nope, that one's not good." It's a guessing game. That is how the Modesty Survey worked to fulfill a pre-existing need. Those who have no use for it generally don't understand how it could be helpful.

As for the reference to rules, may I point out a comment earlier in this thread? A woman asked a particular question pertaining to modesty, and a guy answered it sufficiently, yet no one made any reference to "rules" or a "hyper spritual" aspect. The Modesty Survey was simply that very same thing on a larger sale--nothing more, nothing less.

I apologize if I have come across as harsh. I am admittedly exasperated, but not with you...I'm just longing for heaven is all.

[94. TomySky said the following at 6:22 PM on Apr 12:]

94

Heidi (#93): I am glad that my tone is coming across kind. I know how easy it is to read something as mean when it is not meant that way at all.

I came to the conclusion that the Modesty Survey approaches this issue backward due to the context that it is typically brought up: "I want to know what is okay (modest) to wear, so where can I get that info?" Answer: The Modesty Survey.

You are likely right that it was created (gathered?) in a completely different approach, but the end use seems to be for the purpose of answering the question: What can I get away with? If that is not how it is used, great! I have no problems admitting my assumptions were incorrect. If I'm wrong, I would be interested in how men and women (in particular) use the survey. Since I see no need for it for myself or my wife (we've never had a complaint), I'm very interested in how women (such as yourself) have applied what is in the Survey to your own life.

For young women for whom the internet is their social context, I'm confused as to how modesty would even be an issue (unless they are posting pictures of themselves on the 'net). I realize that this is certainly the case for many people, but I can't see how modesty fits into their wardrobe choices. Since modesty is socially/contextually based, if their social context is faceless... how does modesty play into their world?

Heidi, I'm sorry I upset you. Forgive me. For the women whose fathers have abandoned them, I pray they have some father figure in church or otherwise. Without one: Brothers. Without those: Friends.

If a young woman does not feel comfortable talking about serious issues with the guys around her (because she feels safer to not get so close), I am even more pained. What a sad commentary on how damaged our interactions and Brothers and Sisters in Christ have been.

In such extreme cases, I can see how a young woman would seek counsel on the internet. However, I am now curious as to how she came to the conclusion that modesty may be an issue for her. If you know such examples, I would be very interested to be enlightened so I can adjust my thinking as I work on the next draft of my book.

I am certainly in the camp of those "who have no use for [the Survey, and thus] don't understand how it could be helpful." I am so thankful that women, such as yourself, have found it helpful! Praise God!

If rules are not a part of the Survey, and I am completely mistaken, then I eagerly retract my statements about attracting hyper-spiritual people and all of that. If that is not the case, again, that is fantastic! My statements were based off the little of the Survey I have heard and the general feeling I have received from the greater Christian culture I am a part of. If I am mistaken, please accept my apology.

Heidi, you did not come across harsh; merely frustrated with misunderstandings and incorrect statements. I appreciate your passion for truth and honesty. I pray that my words would always point toward that as well.

One last thought: My issue has very little to do with the Survey itself. Rather, as I have tried to state clearly and accurately in my posts, I am challenging the common ideas of lust and modesty, and hope that by pointing to truth we may better love and bless one another as men and women of God.

~Luke

[95. mindlab said the following at 5:58 PM on Apr 13:]

95

TomySky 92

First, I think we’re still stuck on the meaning of ‘appreciate.’ I am using it in its active sense, not its passive sense (as in to: be aware, notice). If I passively notice that a young woman is beautiful, that’s fine. If I notice that, and then choose to delight in looking at her, that would be lust (in my case). So, appreciate is synonymous with: revel, delight, enjoy, pleasure in, be captivated by, be gratified by, relish.

Now onward:
“. . . when a guy is ogling a girl. . . (is he) ‘undressing her with his eyes’? I don't know (any guys who do that).” – then I would submit that you don’t know many guys, have misunderstood what they said, or they lied to you. What you describe is exactly what guys do when they ogle. Spending any amount of time with a group of honest college guys will teach you that; if they don’t admit it, they’re either restraining themselves, or they’re lying because their ashamed.

“Sure, it sounds super nice to say, "I only have eyes for my wife"... but, if we take that to it's logical conclusion it is saying, "I find you attractive and chose you because I haven't seen anyone else." – Well, no. To say that you have eyes only for your wife indicates that you choose to let her body delight you, and none other. In fact what you should be saying is, ‘I choose you, and I will delight in your beauty, and I will not delight in the beauty of another woman regardless of how she looks.’

“And how is lusting after one's fiancée (allow me to push back farther: girlfriend) not wrong? You're not married. You can't have sex, so how come you can ‘desire it’ but can't even look at other girls?” – once a relationship is headed towards marriage, it seems reasonable to me to begin to cultivate and enjoy physical attraction. Furthermore, I never indicated that I don’t look at girls; I indicated that chose to not delight in their beauty.

“As for Proverbs 5. . . I clearly see the sexual intercourse nature of that passage. However, I see nothing pertaining to beauty or the enjoyment thereof. Please explain further. . . ” - Exactly how do you propose to separate enjoying looking at a clothed woman’s body, from enjoying looking at an unclothed woman’s body, from enjoying sex with that woman. If you are enjoying her body, then the mode of your enjoyment is rather beside the point (see Matt 5:28). Not to be too explicit, but (guessing from lack of experience), sex is largely about enjoying beauty in an intimate way. If you’re going to enjoy a woman’s beauty by looking, why not touching?

“. . . how we should interact with our daughters?” – daughters, sisters, and close kin are an obvious exceptions; our psychology is built to allow us to live with kin without sexual attraction. I doubt if I could maintain any semblance of purity living in close quarters with a young woman if she weren’t my sister; ditto daughters.

To summarize, it seems to me that you are maintaining that you are free to delight in the beauty of any woman you come across. How you can call that anything other than lust, I don’t understand.

[96. TomySky said the following at 4:43 PM on Apr 14:]

96

Mindlab (#95):

I agree that we are hung up on "appreciate". But, far more than just the definition at this point, I think we disagree more fundamentally: I have yet to see anything wrong with finding joy in the beauty of women.

Allow me to be blunt as to how I came to this conclusion. I used to be one of those college guys who honestly would admit that looking at pretty girls was a problem for me (read: it made me lust to look at them). However, when I actually started working out what it meant to lust, I came to a surprising conclusion. I started out forcing myself to look at a cute girl's chest when she was wearing a tight white shirt, and I would ask myself, 'What are you thinking?'

Not once has my thought (though I have done this many times since, just to make sure) been anything lustful. Not once has my mind ever gone to any fantasies about sex, fondling, or otherwise. At most, I think, 'Those are pretty. I like them.'

For every guy who has taken my challenge to do the same, they all come back elated to discover the same. For those who start out convinced they would have lustful thoughts (as I honestly would have thought back in college), they quickly see the fallacy of their assumption.

My brother-in-law, for instance, was adamant that he thought rather graphic things while looking at a girl in a tight shirt. I asked him, "Seriously? You honestly look at a girl in immodest clothes and think: 'I want to have sexual relations with her'?" (trying to keep this PG)

He said, "Absolutely! I totally do that."

Again I asked, "When you're walking down the street and you see a pretty girl that's what you think; in day to day life (not talking about pornography)?"

There was a pause, and then he said, "Oh, no. Never."

So, while I am certain that the guys you have asked have said what you say they have... I postulate that their response is not based in a rational consideration of their actual response, but rather the conditioned response they have somehow picked up.

So, unless you can explain to me the lustful thoughts you have when you think, 'Hey, that girl looks really nice in those shorts,' I find it hard to believe that there is anything wrong with finding a girl attractive and thinking so.

Granted, at any moment we have the choice to sexualize a situation and begin to think lustful thoughts. But there is always, always, a moment of choice where you decide to change from merely enjoying the beauty God has made, and choosing to use it for your sexual gratification. But that is always a choice, and can be overcome.

"To say that you have eyes only for your wife indicates that you choose to let her body delight you, and none other. ...'I will not delight in the beauty of another woman regardless of how she looks.'"
And here again is our disagreement about "delight"/"appreciated" and so forth. Or, perhaps not.

I see nothing wrong with admitting that an actress is pretty (she is), or a statue of a nude is beautiful (it is). There is nothing sinful or ungodly about that. I can enjoy a painting of a beautiful woman and still hold true to my vows. Can you?

Again, I see nothing morally reprehensible in delighting in God's creation, and holding to my wife as "the one I have chosen". Again, I ask where you get this idea. I am more than happy to rethink my position, but I have, as of yet, to see anything that would give me reason to reconsider. Please explain.

"[O]nce a relationship is headed towards marriage, it seems reasonable to me to begin to cultivate and enjoy physical attraction."
I agree. However, what would you say to those who then breakup, call off the engagement, or don't get married? Haven't they committed a sexual sin by your standpoint (since they didn't make it to marriage)? They have enjoyed the body of someone who is not their spouse.

You are correct when you state: "I never indicated that I don’t look at girls; I indicated that chose to not delight in their beauty." I am sorry. I was getting a little carried away when I wrote that. Forgive me.

But I was trying to make a point (and I guess it fell flat): How can you justify sexual desires toward a girlfriend and then decry the smile you get on your face when you look at a pretty girl across the room?

"Exactly how do you propose to separate enjoying looking at a clothed woman’s body, from enjoying looking at an unclothed woman’s body, from enjoying sex with that woman."
I see the difference entirely dependent on the Context and Response of the situation.

For instance: in the context of marriage when my wife wants me to delight in her, it doesn't matter whether she is clothed, nude, or we're engaged in sex. However, if my wife does not want to be ogled at the time, it would be wrong of me to do so because I am acting selfishly, but not because I am looking at her nude body.

On the other hand: If I see a nude painting and find it beautiful (enjoy it), there is nothing wrong with my action at all.

Thus, what separates clothing, nudity, sex; indeed, what determines the modesty/lustfulness of a situation is based completely on Intent, Content/context, and Response. Thus, like Christ, it is not the act (sex) nor the action (looking) but rather the heart (Matthew 5:28). Thus, I can enjoy a woman's body in multiple contexts if I am not responding inappropriately.

So, that begs the question of: What makes my response inappropriate. It is clearly not the action (looking/enjoying), but rather the motive/the outcome. Which, is where again, I'll postulate the question: When/how do you find yourself actually responding inappropriately to a woman's body when you find her attractive?

Maybe you are talking about something else when you mention the "psychology" that allows "us to live with kin without sexual attraction", but I know of no such thing in psychology. In fact, there is Scriptural (2 Samuel 13), historical, and even personal evidence to show that this is simply not true. More than one of my cousins are very attractive young women and have sexual appeal. It is not a lack of sexual attraction that keeps me from acting inappropriately. Rather, it is the fact that I chose not to go there... just like every other young woman around. And so, I can find my daughter (which I do not have as of yet), exceedingly beautiful, find her delightful, and still not sin sexually.

"How you can call [delighting in any woman you come across] anything other than lust, I don’t understand."
Because lust is the active pursuit of another for sexual gratification. Since I do not seek sexual gratification from the beautiful women I find delightful, unless I chose to go there, then I am not lusting.

Until you, or anyone else, begins to even take a stab at showing where the lustful thoughts/actions occur when I say of an actress, "She is pretty, I like her," I see no reason to consider such things sinful.

Again, thanks for sticking with me even though I am obviously missing your point. Your continued patience is appreciated as we work toward the truth.

~Luke

[97. mindlab said the following at 7:22 PM on Apr 14:]

97

TomySky 96

Well, I was going to call it and move on after my last comment, but I think I can summarize our disagreement succinctly by responding briefly, so I’ll give one more round:

“. . . lust is the active pursuit of another for sexual gratification. Since I do not seek sexual gratification from the beautiful women I find delightful, unless I chose to go there, then I am not lusting.” – I disagree. Appreciating the beauty of a woman IS sexually gratifying; it is satisfying in and of itself, and it inevitably creates a desire for further satisfaction.

“Which, is where again, I'll postulate the question: When/how do you find yourself actually responding inappropriately to a woman's body when you find her attractive?” – to reiterate, choosing to enjoy looking at a woman’s body IS sexually satisfying, and it creates a desire for further satisfaction.

“How can you justify sexual desires toward a girlfriend and then decry the smile you get on your face when you look at a pretty girl across the room?” – I specified a relationship that is headed toward marriage. I would argue that to cultivate physical attraction in a casual (boyfriend/girlfriend) relationship is inadvisable (and therefore casual romantic relationships are inadvisable); that sort of attraction should be held back until both parties have reached an understanding about where they are headed. As a complete philosophy of the transition from strangers to spouses is beyond the scope, I’ll leave it at that.

. . .

To summarize, I hold that to appreciate a woman’s body (visually or otherwise) is an inherently sexual act, and is sexually gratifying. I think this statement is well supported by personal experience and observation of my peers. You (correct me if I’m wrong) hold that to appreciate a woman’s body visually is not necessarily a sexual act. Perhaps I’ve been missing that mode of appreciate for the last decade and a half, but I doubt it.

If you’re interested in continuing our conversation, let’s do it off-site. My blog is linked from my sig, and I’ll be happy to converse further.

[98. Leah said the following at 1:28 AM on Apr 15:]

98

mindlab,

I totally support the idea that men can look at women and appreciate and delight in their beauty without lusting. Lusting means you are having sexually-oriented thoughts or urges. I know my fiance can look at a pretty girl and think she's pretty without mentally undressing her or having sexual ideas. Now, if he was looking at her for an extended period of time (perhaps "ogling", as you put it), I would begin to doubt his thoughts. Looking at an attractive woman for an extended period of time is more suggestive that the guy is lusting.

Are you suggesting that every time we go out together and my fiance thinks I'm beautiful and enjoys my appearance, he's automatically lusting after me? That's absurd. I'm not saying he never lusts, but to say that appreciating and enjoying my beauty is the equivalent of lusting is just plain wrong.

And may I emphasise that lusting after any woman other than your wife (whether it be girlfriend, fiancée, or random in the street) is wrong. You can appreciate and enjoy their beauty, but sexual activity and thoughts should be reserved for marriage. Not the promise of marriage, but MARRIAGE.

I heartily agree with Luke (TomySky) when he says men should be free to enjoy a girl's beauty and compliment her on it. When a guy tells me "You look beautiful tonight", I don't think he's lusting after me or having sexual thoughts. No, he's just thinking I'm beautiful.

Luke,
I do not believe the phrase "I only have eyes for my wife" means "I do not find any other women attractive". It means "I only want to be with my wife". A husband can say "I only have eyes for my wife" and still find other women attractive, but not want to engage in any type of relationship with them.

Can I also point out that while you seem very blessed in that impure thoughts do not enter your mind unless you purposely go there, that is not the same for all guys. I know of guys who have to work at keeping their thoughts pure. Sure, they can appreciate a beautiful girl without lusting, but lust still does come easily and they have to work at keeping it out.

[99. Katie P. said the following at 9:15 AM on Apr 15:]

99

TomySky,

I have a quick question - since the topic of your discussion concerns women quite a bit, how many actual women have you talked to who wouldn't mind being desired/ogled/appreciated/delighted in by random guys who she has no relationship with? Just wondering :)

[100. TomySky said the following at 3:32 PM on Apr 15:]

100

Mindlab (#97):
We do disagree fundamentally, and so it is likely wise to end the back and forth. However, I would love to continue this discussion with you and get at a more personal understanding of your position. Please email me at TomySky [at] hotmail so I can ask you more specific questions if you are up for it. I would greatly value your input as I work on our book.

You summarize our disagreement well.

Leah (#98):
I am glad you have found the freedom of enjoying beauty.

"I know of guys who have to work at keeping their thoughts pure. [And] lust still does come easily and they have to work at keeping it out."
I am certainly no saint when it comes to purity in my thought life. I freely admit that I struggle with lustful thoughts and evil sexual desires. However, I always make the choice to fall into those thoughts when I lust. I do not have lustful thoughts unless I choose to go there. I postulate that this is true for the guys you know as well.

And so, I am quiet certain that the guys who struggle with lust are like me: They have sexual desires and seek out ways to have them satisfied. But, also like me, this does not happen when they notice a pretty girl in short shorts. Rather, this happens when they allow themselves to go there. I know the instant my mind changes when I see down a girl's shirt from a morally neutral thought to a lustful one. When I choose to go there, I am definitely in need of God's grace.

Katie (#99):
I think most girls desire to be delighted in by guys (that's why modesty is an issue at all). Every girl I have known has a desire to be beautiful, or has crushed that desire because it was not fulfilled. That's the entire point of books like "Captivating".

However, you are absolutely correct: Girls do not want to ogled. And that is why, in encouraging guys to look at girls and check their thoughts, I also encourage men to honor women. Drooling is not honoring. Treating a young lady as so much shapely meat is also not honoring. But, in the case of cat-calls and the like, the issue is respect, not lust.

Excellent point. Thanks!

~Luke