Bikinis are not immodest. Yoga pants are not immodest. Lingerie is not immodest. Nudity is not immodest.
And I can prove it.
The most common definitions of modesty involve two things: sex and other people. Take, for instance, the definition currently up at Wikipedia: “Modesty is a mode of dress and deportment intended to avoid encouraging sexual attraction in others.”
This definition is flawed, which will become clear in the posts to come. But let’s start here and see where it takes us. It’s certainly the unspoken definition in the Christian circles I run in.
So. Bikinis. I have three daughters, and I interact constantly in Christian culture. I grew up in it. I know very well that when packing for summer camp there will be a line in there about “modest swimwear” followed by the parenthesis (one-piece). There is a Bible verse somewhere that says, “Thou shalt not wear the shameful swimwear of two pieces. Nay, thou must wear only the swimwear of one piece, and it shall cover all thy secret parts and behold, a vast expanse between them shalt thou also cover.”
I met a college student recently who had recently become a follower of Jesus, and she had been told to bring a “one piece” swimsuit to a Christian event. She was shocked that everyone was so judgmental and angry about her swimsuit, a sexy one piece with a thin strip of cloth in the center, held together with a metal ring. “Not all one-pieces are modest,” I hear you say. Well, yes, that’s true. Let’s remember that: not all one-pieces are modest.
But let’s get to the topic at hand: bikinis.
As I said, I have three daughters, and I have never been so thankful for bikinis as I was when they were toddlers. If you’ve ever tried to peel a wet swimsuit off a three-year-old while they are shouting, “I have to peeeeeeeee” you know that bikinis are one of the greatest parenting inventions of all time.
Surely we can agree that a three-year-old in a bikini is not “encouraging sexual attraction.” It’s a question of pragmatism, comfort, maybe style (it’s hard for toddlers to resist outfits with rainbows, unicorns and kittens on them). So bikinis aren’t necessarily immodest. Right?
So what about yoga pants? I’ve heard there’s a hard and fast rule about yoga pants that they are immodest and no one should wear them outside a yoga studio.
Okay. But they’re fine in a yoga studio? So they’re not immodest in that particular situation. Which means there may be other situations in which they’re modest?
For instance, I’ve talked to more than one young mom who has told me that after giving birth the only pants that feel comfortable are yoga pants. They were afraid to wear them because they didn’t want to “cause anyone to stumble.” I don’t think a mom, worn out and physically brutalized by giving birth, suddenly becomes immodest by sliding on a pair of yoga pants.
Yeah, but lingerie. Surely we can agree that’s immodest.
I don’t think so. Do you think it’s immodest for a young woman to wear lingerie on her Honeymoon? No?
What about nudity? Definitely immodest. Unless… I don’t know, what if you take off your clothes for a doctor’s appointment? I’ve been naked with strangers in such a situation, and I guarantee you it wasn’t sexy, immodest or remotely fun.
So you’re saying the situation matters, I guess. That clothing in and of itself can’t be modest or immodest. But that means there is no such thing as a “modest swimsuit” or even a “modest outfit.” A bikini might be modest depending on who wears it and where and when.
You’re saying that the intention of the wearer matters. Because getting naked for the doctor isn’t about modesty. Because a woman on her Honeymoon could be modest wearing lingerie or even naked. She could even be attempting to arouse sexual attraction in her husband, which strikes a weak spot in the definition above, doesn’t it?
You’re saying that rules are insufficient to define modesty. Ah. Interesting. So a bikini might be modest. A low-cut blouse or a short skirt might be modest. A long, conservative dress might be immodest. We don’t know. We’re uncertain, because there aren’t effective, consistent rules laying it all out.
So, how can we tell if something is modest or not?
We can’t.
One of the basic problems, one of the basic flaws with our thoughts about modesty is that clothing can’t be modest or immodest anymore than it can be brave or righteous or intelligent. Clothing has no character.
Modesty is about us. It’s about our character or lack of it. It’s not about our clothes. Modesty is a character trait, not a set of behaviors.
That’s what the next post will be about: how to tell if you are modestly dressed. We’ll try out a new definition of modesty and see if it works, and try a couple thought experiments on the topic.
What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with this post? Why? What else do you want to talk about related to modesty? Do you have any: Questions? Thoughts? Angry diatribes?
(ETA:
Here are later posts in the series:
Modest or Immodest: a Handy Guide for Telling the Difference
Topless and Totally Modest (a look at culture’s effect on modesty)
Everything the Bible says about modesty.
“Are you causing men to stumble in how you dress?”
47 replies on “Bikinis Are Not Immodest”
Most excellent point! Looking forward to the next post!
Thanks, Rob! I hope to get it up tomorrow!
My biggest concern has always been w the double standards of what’s expected of women vs. men. We lay out all these rules on modesty, but even if the Bible supports them, we have to recognize why women are expected to avoid bikinis and yoga pants in the first place: to make it easier for men to control their libidos. So essentially, immodesty isn’t even a primary sin, lust is. But Christian men can claim modesty is important all they want, but then throw in a pair of shorts and run all over town topless, six-pack just shining in the sun, deltoids blazing, surely igniting some fiery passion within some woman passing by. But how is that fair at all? Again, the only reason women cover up is for the guy’s sake, but guy’s don’t have to reciprocate? “But women aren’t so much visually sexual as emotionally.” Okay, but how often do we applaud mind games guys play by flirting too brazenly, getting upset over nonsense, wooing the girl for a one-night stand, or even supporting those double-standards. A lot of different angles, but it’s no wonder modern women view modesty as a tool of patriarchal control. Put a shirt on, bro
Wyatt, I love this comment a lot. Your description of the six pack bro shining in the sun is hilarious and I love your comment about playing mind games… an immodest action for sure. Great, great points!
I basically agree, except… The “double standard isn’t as double as all that. I was at a wedding recently where the maximum male anatomy showing was a little chest hair (which my wife and daughters found hilarious) while they were also appalled by at least two young women in dresses that were almost obscene. Look at the beach, boys are wearing long, baggy shorts. Speedos are OUT and are the subject of ridicule if worn. Male volleyball players wear uniforms that resemble basketball uniforms; while the women wear shorts resembling tight underwear form-fitting jerseys, and groups of them sometimes go to restaurants and places still wearing the same before and after games. Male beach volleyball players dress a lot like their court counterparts while women beach volleyball players wear almost nothing. Though I’ve never been, I understand that at both men’s and women’s beach volleyball events, the “dancers” also leave little unexposed and their “dance” moves are almost explicit. On a typical hot day in my sixth grade, the number of showing female legs, shoulders, bra straps (and more), and occasional tummies or backs compared to male shoulders, tummies, boxers, whole legs… The “double standard” I see runs the other direction. I don’t know if there isn’t any double standard at all, or if efforts to flaunt it have lead to an opposite “in your face” reaction.
Wholeheartedly disagree with every point. If you do not want to label clothing as immodest, then how about inappropriate?
And the Bible does not support any of this type of clothing.
I also think it applies the same to males, but it is women who from day one are known for seducing men. They should cover up as well. The problem with being half naked or wearing skin tight clothing, is that it has the potential to promote some very inappropriate thoughts, even adultery of the heart as the Bible calls it. Sure, maybe one person is not bothered by it, but the majority are. The majority of men do have thoughts about women inappropriately dressed, and some women do the same. That is the fact of the matter. We as women, it is our job to do our best to NOT do anything to promote those thoughts or behaviors in males. And in any case, it is women who are known for seducing, not men. So is it really that unheard of?
But yeah. Me personally, both sexes should watch it, but especially women. And no, it does not matter if it is in a doctor’s office or not. May be mistaken but even a doctor has no true need to see you naked. -shrugs- I for one am highly uncomfortable even around doctors.
Hi Holly! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts.
Ah, but we’re talking about “modesty” not “appropriateness.” Wearing a flip flops and a t-shirt to a black tie gala is inappropriate but not immodest. Appropriateness has a great deal to do with situation, culture and so on. So, yes, sure, clothing choices can be inappropriate.
Two things:
1. I would be very interested in the Biblical support for what should or shouldn’t be worn. Where does the Bible talk about being half naked or wearing skin tight clothing?
2. I don’t think women are “known for seducing” and certainly not more than men.
Hey, I’m not saying you have to be comfortable taking off clothes for a doctor. I don’t think most people love it. My point is only that it’s not immodest to do so.
Thanks for sharing!
One of the best articles I’ve read on topic! Thx!
Hi Holly,
I’ve had melanoma and continue to get moles removed from my body, so several doctors have had to see me naked. I used to have to get a full body check every 3 months, and then 6 months, and now once a year. Yes, I am wearing a paper gown, but I take it off when my doctor is checking. I have never once during this entire process thought I was being immodest. Doctors can have a true need to see you naked, and no one should ever be scared of showing a doctor something because of where on your body it is located.
Thank you for sharing this, Kristin. I’m sorry to hear about your melanoma. And I agree that there’s nothing immodest about letting the doctor check you for it!
Thank you! I’d rather be uncomfortable (not that I am anymore, but I used to be) than not do something that could save my life. 🙂
Obviously showing a doctor our parts is absolutely necessary! Holly, I’m not sure where or why you would clumb this together with modesty. Sorry sister, you lost me on that. 🙁
Hi Lisa… she’s bringing it up because it was specifically mentioned in the article. Check out paragraph 15 above for context. The idea is that it’s not immodest to show the doctor your body. Which means in some situations even nudity is not immodest (not that nudity is always modest).
Obviously a doctor’s appointment has NOTHING to do with trying to look sexy out in the world! Our young daughters are being filled with images (all the way to nude tweets from people like Kim Kardashian) telling them it’s ok to show more. It’s not true. God wanted us to share our bodies with our spouses….period. We absolutely KNOW in our hearts when we’re trying to show more than we should, or flaunt what we have to entice. It’s a heart condition.
I’m unsure if you read the article before commenting, Lisa. I realize it’s long. You may have read it, I just can’t tell by your comment. This article isn’t really about people “trying to look sexy out in the world.” Maybe I’m missing your point?
So you like taking your clothes off for your doctor? I dont because I have modesty. I understand that when you have to show your doctor whats wrong so he can make it right but there is a difference in having to show your stuff and doing it on purpose.
Hey Meagan I don’t have time to respond to your other comments now but I think you crossed a line with this comment. To ask if someone likes disrobing for their doctor when they have cancer and to imply they’re immodest is insensitive at best. I’m glad to have a discussion with you here but please try to show respect for other commenters whether you agree with them or not.
I think this post is almost perfect. I’m totally on board with everything you’re saying, except that if you look at what the word “modest” actually means and how it’s used in the Bible, it’s not about sexual purity (or at least, not specifically or exclusively). “Modest” is really an archaic word for “humble” (etymonline.com gives the original usage as “having moderate self-regard”). If you look at the way the word is used in older literature, it’s usually used as a reference to a person’s character – someone who is not a braggart could be described as modest. A conservative estimate is also modest. The closest contemporary equivalent to the word is “moderate.”
In the Bible, the word “modest” is used exactly once, in 1 Timothy, in which Paul tells women they shouldn’t wear ostentatious jewelry. Strong’s gives the definition of the Greek word as “orderly, i.e. decorous: –of good behaviour, modest.” The root word simply means “orderly arrangement.” Nothing about lust in the definition, and nothing about it in the context of the verse. No mention is made about tempting anyone to sexual impurity, and there is no sexual connotation to the instruction at all. What Paul is warning against is ostentation – the flaunting of one’s wealth through things like gold-braided hair and other expensive jewelry. Not that it’s wrong to have those things or to be wealthy, but when the people in your church are dirt poor you maybe shouldn’t be showing off the trappings of wealth. That’s what immodesty is, biblically – drawing undue attention to oneself. It’s not inherently sexual, although it could be. It certainly isn’t exclusively sexual.
Naomi, I agree 100%. That’s precisely where I’m headed in future posts. I’m taking my time unraveling the generally accepted definition to give people time to think it through step by step. 🙂
I’ll be doing a whole post on the theological insufficiency of how we talk about this and will specifically address the “causing our brothers to stumble” bit as well!
In that case, I think your approach is better than the one I would have taken which would have been to try to reassert the original definition first. Looking forward to the rest of the series.
“You’re saying that the intention of the wearer matters. Because getting naked for the doctor isn’t about modesty. Because a woman on her Honeymoon could be modest wearing lingerie or even naked. She could even be attempting to arouse sexual attraction in her husband, which strikes a weak spot in the definition above, doesn’t it?”
This is a fallacy. 1. With the doctor, you are NOT sitting there naked. You are covered (usually with a paper gown, but covered). You are not sitting on the bed-table stark naked. 2. A woman on her honeymoon is wearing what she wears for her HUSBAND. That is a totally different situation, and in the privacy of the marital bedroom, “modesty” in dress is not applicable, so, no, it does NOT strike a weak spot. It isn’t about intention or location; it’s about appropriateness.
And, whether or not YOU consider something that leaves little to the imagination “modest,” it’s still indecent. If you wouldn’t walk around in public in your underwear, it makes no sense to walk around in something that covers even less (in most cases).
Hi CreatedPenguin.
It’s not a *fallacy*. You can disagree, certainly, but the argument is sound. Even if you’re not completely naked, you don’t follow the “rules” of modesty when with a doctor (and certainly there are procedures and examinations which do require complete nudity). For instance, when a doctor checks me for a hernia, or when a woman gets a mammogram, there’s no way to do this without some amount of nudity. Is it an immodest action for me to allow a doctor to check me for a hernia? I don’t think it is (and again, you’re welcome to disagree).
I think we’re in agreement on point 2, actually. We’re saying the same thing. A woman being naked with her husband is not an issue of modesty. “Modesty is not applicable.” Which means that it is not immodest to be naked in that situation, correct? So whether it’s about location, intention or appropriateness, it does strike at a weak spot in the definition, because the definition says the purpose is to “avoid sexual attraction.” But it’s okay to try to sexually attract your spouse. So at the very least the definition would need an addendum for spouses… which it does not have.
As for decency and indecency, appropriateness and inappropriateness, those are valid things to discuss but they are not the same as modesty. I’m pointing out the insufficiency of our definition of modesty, not arguing that anything anyone would ever wear is appropriate in every situation.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and insights!
I think modesty is for others’ sakes, and since the people around you
often changing, standards of how to be considerate of their
eyes/thoughts is constantly changing.
Living overseas with a nursing little baby has sparked many conversations about modesty with my husband. One time we were on a flight with a Korean airline, and when the plane started taxiing, seemingly every woman whipped out their boobs and started nursing their babies, no nursing covers in sight. So I did likewise, and no one batted an eye! In our neighborhood, using a cover is actually MORE distracting, as everyone stares, wondering what I’m doing under that cloth. Around westerners I’ll be more considerate and use a cover.
Similarly, I grew up as a competitive swimmer and am 100% comfortable around guys in speedos, “deck-changing” under a towel, locker rooms full of nudity, hanging out in a swim suit all day… but when swimming in a not-competitive context (eg: a pool party, or a day at the beach), I’m still comfortable doing all those things, but the others around me would not, so I don’t.
Modesty isn’t primarily a function of my personal comfort with what I wear/do… I think it’s more a matter of other people’s.
Thanks for these insights, Samantha. A future post will hit some of these same ideas as we talk about the role of culture in modesty, as well as the idea that others somehow define what is modest and what is not. Appreciate your thoughts!
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss one of my favorite topics: yoga pants! You’re totally right, the above definition of modesty is lacking. I think I would agree with Holly, though, who used the word inappropriate. Don’t you think most people use “immodest” and “inappropriate” interchangeably? Seems you’re arguing semantics. A wife in lingerie alone with her husband is totally appropriate.
As for “fleshing out” a more precise definition of immodest, a “common-sense” concept not-so-commonly agreed upon, a line everyone agrees shouldn’t be crossed but no one agrees where it is located, perhaps it would be similar to the definition of sexual immorality. In other words, just as sexual immorality is any sex (or sexual stimulation, etc.) other than within the context of marriage, so also immodesty could be defined as a mode of dress and deportment intended to encourage sexual attraction in others who are not one’s spouse.
Someone in an article expressed the struggle well. You want to wear something attractive but socially acceptable; if you push the “socially acceptable” envelope too far in the “sexy”/”immodest” direction, you risk being judged a slut, or as “trying too hard”. It’s a competition with no clear out-of-bounds, not clear, that is, until you’ve gone too far and stepped out, and everyone knows it but it’s too late. I remember having a hard time when women started showing lace on the outside of their clothing; now that everyone has lace poking out of their shirts it’s not so big a deal. Them yoga pants, though!
I’m looking forward to see where you’re going with this. LOL!
Hi Dan! It’s been a while since we’ve talked.
I don’t know about inappropriate and immodest being interchangeable. Usually when someone says “immodest” they mean, in some sense, that it is “sinful.” If I show up in flip-flops to a funeral that may well be inappropriate but not immodest in any sense, nor would most people say it is sinful.
I do think your addition to the definition certainly fixes some of the problematic bits.
“Clothing has no character.” Amen to that.
I appreciate this discussion as I also have 3 daughters. Unfortunately, my overprotective irrationality takes over when it comes to those little dudettes. It certainly helps to calm down and reason through some things.
I probably should have shared when my wife first bought my daughter a bikini I was definitely conflicted emotionally. I had to really stop and think it through. She was a little kid, too!
I understand the concerns about modesty, appropriateness in various social situations, and maintaining a personal comfort level within your own body (and clothing for that matter). First of all, I agree that clothing (asking with any other material item/possesion) is inherently incapable of possessing or not possessing what is, in reality, a character trait. Clothing cannot be modest. However, I do believe that people CAN be taught to see themselves in a very confident, healthy, and Christian manner. Modesty isn’t simply about covering up – it’s about teaching our youth to have respect for the human body, both male and female. To understand that there are some reactions that human bodies have that are literally primal on some level – young men’s brains are wired to seek specific characteristics in a spouse that are supposed to be indicators that she will be a “healthy bearer of children,” for example. At the same time, neither gender should EVER be told or taught that they cannot control themselves, that the other gender is responsible for their response to them in any way, etc.
I have a 12 yr old daughter, and I have always taught her to respect her body. Your body is your temple. She covers herself as she is “developing,” but we so not make her feel guilty about her body. She is a gymnast so she is very healthy and active. As long as she carries herself with confidence and self-respect, it rally doesn’t matter much what she wears.
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/bikinis-and-modesty–2 This article reminded me of the link between the gospel and modesty, and what comes first.
Thanks for sharing, Carol! I wish he had done the work to unpack I Timothy, which isn’t talking about modesty in the way we use it now (i.e. it’s talking about dressing appropriately in the sense of not dressing extravagantly), but I appreciate his emphasis on the inner person being the most important issue in modesty!
Thank you for this series of posts Matt! I had just read several posts on FB from well-meaning Christian friends who were advocating anti-bikini swimwear and feeling frustrated. I also grew up in the church, in a very legalistic, rule-following denomination that did not allow women to wear pants, make-up, jewelry, or cut their hair. Swimming was always done separately with boys and girls. Though I was a healthy child and teen with no body problems to speak of, I grew up so self-conscious about my body that to this day I still struggle with being naked even with my husband. I refuse to tell my two daughters that they must cover their bodies because they might tempt someone else. If they want to wear a two piece bathing suit (we live in Florida) then more power to them! I wholeheartedly agree with the definition of modesty as not flaunting one’s wealth. In the church I grew up in, there were people who managed to dress in a way that made very clear their wealth and position while still conforming to their idea of modesty.
The idea that modesty means dressing in a way that does not attract sexual attention causes lasting harm to the self-image of girls and women who are told day after day that their bodies are a temptation or in some way evil. Again, thank you, Matt. This is the first honest and thoughtful discussion I have heard on the topic.
Thanks, Gina. I’m so sorry to hear about your experience and the damage it has done, and I’m glad to hear you’re working through it. I hope God will continue to remind you of the beauty of his creation, which includes you and your body!
I don’t mean to be unkind, but I think you could be doing a lot of damage with this article. <3 It has given people who are seeking an excuse, the go ahead and wear what they please where they please. Giving extreme examples, such as dr. appointments for skin cancer, or lingerie with spouses does not support the premise. When considering toddlers in bikinis, there are many predators from whose view children need to be protected. Nakedness is mentioned many times in Scriptures, and almost universally not in a good sense. When Adam & Eve sinned, the first thing they did was try to cover themselves. But their efforts were flimsy, just as the material they used. So God provided sturdier, more durable clothing by the killing of animals. It must have been devastating for Adam & Eve to witness shedding of blood of their beloved pets because of their sin. Further, the shedding of blood can be a picture of Christ's shed blood covering our sin, completely. Modesty is not as much about what we must conceal as what we choose to reveal. It is a heart attitude. <3
Allyce, you got it just right! Especially about his providing excuses for people to expose whatever they want anytime they want!
I agree.
We can’t expect everyone to be on the same point in their spiritual life though. Some can take the meat and others are still on the milk. When they begin to let Christ become first and foremost in their life, their ways will become like his. We just have to pray for them.
Hi Allyce!
I’m pretty sure everyone has the excuse to wear whatever they please without my article, but if you have someone specific in mind I’d be glad to talk with them about it.
I don’t think Dr. Appointments or lingerie with spouses are extreme examples, and they go precisely to my point: nudity or sexually provocative clothing are not immodest in and of themselves, they are potentially immodest depending on situation, culture and intention. It is not “immodest” to be sexually provocative with one’s spouse. It’s not “immodest” to be naked, when necessary, for medical procedures. So the point is not “nudity is always modest” but rather “nudity is not always immodest.” Can it be? Yes. But so can clothes that we all would put in the “modest” category. I go into this in a lot more detail in the other posts, so I won’t rehash it here. I don’t want to presume you want more of my thoughts than that. 🙂
I’d point out that your objection to toddlers in bikinis, while completely valid, has nothing to do with modesty or immodesty.
I completely agree with you that modesty is a heart attitude. This should be so central to our understanding, and is precisely why neither I nor you are able to judge the modesty of another person, because we are unable to judge their heart and intention.
Lastly: I think the admonition to men to guard their eyes is in effect regardless of what a woman is wearing or not. He’s not allowed to reject his own responsibility and say “the woman you gave me” caused me to sin.
You lost me at the beginning. Modesty is a way of life that Christians must live. I think your trying to change it around to fit your idea and thats not how Christianity works. You change your thoughts to become like Christ. I have 3 boys (no daughters sadly) but thats okay because if I did she would never leave my front door with anything showing that could entice men (or women). Stop trying to be your kids friend and be their parent.
Meagan, I’m not sure how you make such interesting determinations about my family like “stop trying to be your kids friend and be their parent.” I’m honestly curious how you came to such a conclusion. Do enlighten me.
Okay, honest question: How would you ensure that your daughter would never wear anything that would entice men (or women). I know men who are “enticed” by blue jeans. Or seeing an ankle. Or by the shape of a woman’s forearm. Are you suggesting burkas? And if not, why not?
I’m interested in what you say about “feeling modest.” What do you mean by that? Is it that uncomfortable feeling you have at the doctor’s? So, to restate what I understand you to be saying: although you are with a man who is not your husband, and he is looking at your private anatomy, neither you nor he are being immodest. Right? Which means… we agree with each other?