In our first post about modesty, “Bikinis are not immodest,” we explored several ideas and came to some conclusions:
- clothing in and of itself can’t be modest or immodest
- the intention of the wearer matters
- rules are insufficient to define modesty
- clothing can’t be modest or immodest any more than it can be brave or righteous or intelligent
Some of these conclusions run counter to the definition we had accepted as “common”: Modesty is a mode of dress and deportment intended to avoid encouraging sexual attraction in others.
Today I promised to give some thought to the question, “How can we tell if we’re modest?”
So let’s talk a little more about “intention” and “others.”
Imagine for a moment that there are two women: Gwen and Mary Jane.
Mary Jane is given to wearing the latest fashion, whatever it may be. Gwen has a preference toward simple, full-coverage, handspun and homemade clothing.
The thing about Mary Jane is that she doesn’t dress for other people. Not at all. She loves to look nice, certainly, but she mostly loves to experiment and wear things that are different, new and exciting to her personally. So when she pulls on her new babydoll dress, she’s not thinking about how the hem line hits mid-thigh or what other people will think about that. She’s not thinking that it has a high, rounded neckline. She’s not concerned about the dress being sleeveless or how thick the straps are. The dress fits her mood: happy and full of fun. It’s appropriate for the weather today.
On her way to work, Mary Jane bumps into an acquaintance named Harry. He’s clearly taken with her outfit and can’t seem to keep his eyes on Mary Jane’s face. He keeps giving her the “elevator glance.” He tells her several times that she’s “looking great” and “really keeping in shape.” Mary Jane excuses herself and quickly moves toward work and away from Harry. She tries to put the whole unpleasant encounter out of her mind. No one at work reacts the same way as Harry, but it leaves her wondering about her outfit. Is her outfit immodest?
Gwen, on the other hand, has always been someone who makes her own clothes. She’s very committed to modesty, to the point that she simply doesn’t trust store-bought clothes. She prefers skirts that are at least ankle-length, and blouses that are loose-fitting, high-necked and long sleeved.
The thing is, Gwen has met this man, Peter. Peter has a girlfriend, but he seems to give Gwen a lot of attention. In fact, when she wears this one outfit (a loose, flowing, cream colored blouse with a blue ribbon around her waist, and a long, dark skirt), Peter always comments on it. He tells her she is beautiful. She can see that he appreciates how she looks. She was flattered at first, and then she started to catch herself having little daydreams about Peter. How he would break up with his girlfriend and start dating Gwen. When Gwen knows she will see Peter, she always makes sure “his outfit” (as she’s come to think of it) is clean and perfect and ready to be worn. She can’t wait to catch his eye. She hopes he goes home unable to stop thinking about her.
That night, when Peter calls her “just to say hello” she wonders for a moment if she’s done something immodest that day… but her clothes are so conservative, that seems unlikely.
Which of these two women is modest?
There is a question of intention:
Mary Jane is not trying to get a sexual response from anyone. She’s not attempting to incite lust, although some might say her outfit is “less modest” than Gwen’s.
Gwen, on the other hand, wears clothing that is “unquestionably modest.” Yet she’s attempting on some level to specifically draw Peter’s attention in a romantic and probably sexual sense.
We have the unfair advantage, here, of knowing the motivations of these two lovely ladies, but I think it’s fair to say that Gwen is being immodest. I think, likewise, it’s fair to say that Mary Jane is being modest.
“Aha!” you say. “But didn’t you notice Harry’s reaction to Mary Jane’s outfit?”
Indeed I did. He looked her up and down and made salacious comments. But I don’t think the reaction of another person is sufficient evidence of modesty or immodesty.
“Wait, what? I thought modesty was all about other people… making sure not to offend them or tempt them toward lust.”
Perhaps. Let’s consider Betty.
Betty dresses in precisely the type of clothing that you would consider “modest.” Whatever that outfit looks like, just imagine it now. Just picture Betty in your mind. What sort of clothing is she wearing? What do her shoes look like? How does she do her hair? How much makeup does she wear?
So, whatever you think is modest, that’s what Betty wears.
One day, Betty is walking down the street and there are a hundred men standing in line there. All sorts of guys: Miles and Otto and Norman and Jonah and Flash and Reed and Ben and Johnny. Most of them don’t give her a second glance. She’s pretty and all, but she has made it easy for them not to think of her in a sexual way whatsoever. She’s very modest.
However. This one guy, maybe Otto, he has a thing for the kind of shoes that Betty is wearing. Whatever it is about those shoes, he has a serious fetish for them. He finds them implicitly and explicitly exciting in a sexual way. He is not only tempted to lust by her shoes, he is absolutely driven to it.
Has Betty become immodest because of Otto’s lust?
If we say yes, then the definition of what is “modest” will be driven by the most narrow and strange opinions of those around us forever. I met a guy a few years ago who told me winter was hard for him because he found “puffy coats” inherently sexual. I think that’s weird and (although he requested we do so) did not tell the young women to stop wearing puffy coats. Do we expect women to change their behavior or dress based on the challenges, struggles and experiences of the men on the street?
If we say “no,” that Betty has not become suddenly immodest, then we are rejecting external judgment for what is modest or immodest. (One could make an argument that “majority rules” and if something caused an Otto-like response in the “majority” of people, that would be sufficient to make a ruling on modesty. So what percentage is necessary? 51%? 75%? How will we conduct the research to discover what is immodest? And what do we do with cultural values when they come into play? Will we shift the definition as the culture shifts, then? What if I will be in two different groups of people in one day… say at work and then church? Do I have to change clothes to match ideals of both populations? We’ll talk more about this idea in a future post on culture and modesty.) If we reject external judgment of modesty (and I think we should), then rule-based modesty collapses.
Rule-based modesty often has a series of “here’s how you should dress” guidelines (Are spaghetti straps okay? Bare midriffs? Swimsuits without shorts? How long must hemlines be?). When those rules fail (and they fail very quickly and often), the backup is the “Does it cause lustful thoughts in others” question. The problem being, of course, that literally any outfit might cause one person to lust and be a complete turnoff to others.
Take Harry. Because Mary Jane is a modest person, she will probably ask herself, “Is this outfit creating a response in others that was unanticipated?” She might decide that the outfit did precisely that, and choose not to wear it when walking to work any more, which would be a perfectly modest decision. On the other hand, she might reflect on it and, after consideration, decide that Harry is a creepy goblin. She may decide to continue to wear the outfit when she walks to work, but avoid or ignore Harry. Another perfectly modest decision. She can wear the outfit or not and still be modest.
Gwen, on the other hand, has already made immodest choices by wearing her “modest” dress. She wore it with the purpose and intention of snagging Peter’s attention in an inappropriate way. And she succeeded.
All of which takes us to this question: How can I tell if my outfit is modest? How can I tell if I am modest?
There is one very simple test: ask yourself what your motivation was in wearing that outfit.
Otto cannot tell you that. Harry cannot tell you. Peter cannot tell you. Your mother can’t tell you, or the person who “disciples” you, or a fashion magazine or your pastor. I cannot tell you. None of those people know whether your outfit is modest or not, because they do not know what your motivations or intentions are.
When my daughter comes down the stairs on her way to school, I am not able to tell her whether her outfit is modest. I can tell her what I suspect the response of others will be, and ask her if that is what she intends. I can ask her to think about what she is wearing and examine her own motivations. But I can’t tell her that either she or the outfit is immodest. Only she can make that determination.
“But isn’t that hard?” you ask. “Are you saying when I see someone wearing an inappropriate outfit I have to ask them to consider their own heart and motivation and explain the response of others around them instead of just handing them a jacket and telling them to put it on?”
Yeah. That’s pretty much what I’m saying. What is immodest for Gwen may be perfectly modest for Mary Jane. What causes Otto to lust may be, in fact, perfectly modest.
Uh oh. Now it’s time for you to tell me all your thoughts in the comments!
People are asking where this is all going and when I will address certain things (like Bible verses!). Here’s what’s yet to come:
-
some thoughts on culture and modesty. (ETA: Here’s the link to Topless and Totally Modest.)
-
Theology and modesty… enough of these philosophical ramblings, what does the Bible say? (We’ll discuss here whether the emphasis on sex and lust in discussions of modesty makes any sense at all.)
-
-
I’d be glad to take questions and suggestions on other topics related to this as well.
16 replies on “Modest or Immodest: A handy guide for telling the difference”
You seem to be saying that modesty or immodesty can only be decided be evaluating carefully the intentions of the wearer.
I wonder if, taken to its logical conclusion, this thought creates loads of problems…
Do words work the same way? Or my work? Does the intention behind what I say determine whether or not my words are good? If I do something out of a good intent, is it indeed a good act?
It absolutely is not. We live in communities of people with real opinions, thoughts, feelings, judgments, and biases. I can choose to walk my own individualistically defined path of good intentions all I want, but I need to recognize that I’ll be trampling others as I do it. Other’s thoughts and judgments determine my actions of love, to a certain extent. And that is OK. Its not constraining or idolatry, its sacrificial love.
Put away the yoga pants, not cause they’re immodest, but because you love the men in your community. And, by and large, western men consider tight pants to be sexually appealing. Wear yoga pants for yoga. Wear lingerie in the bedroom, because in those places and in those times the community with whom you will be with will find that appropriate and approved.
And on that note. By and large what is sexually attractive is defined by the culture within. Just look at a simple issue of Cosmo or whatever and you know what our culture values as sexually attractive. Just cause Mary Jane wants to wear a low cut blouse and has good intentions for doing it doesn’t mean it isn’t immodest or inappropriate. Mary Jane needs a quick class on loving via the culture she lives, not the individualized culture she wishes she lived in. She is dressing sexually, intent or no.
The modesty of your daughters clothes is not determined by her intent, I’m sorry. It is determined by the culture. You know what is sexually appealing and what isn’t, you live in the culture.
To answer the question you asked above, no, that does not mean we put away our puffy coats. But you used the puffy coat fetish because it was an anomaly. Loving others in a culture context does not mean being held hostage to every anomaly, but neither does it mean turning a blind eye to cultural norms.
And yes, we change our understanding of modesty and loving others based on our cultures understanding. Boobs are in now, that wasn’t always the case. Now more than ever women need to understand this. In 100 years perhaps boobs will no longer be the shining symbol of sexuality and loving christian women can freely wear all the bikinis they choose. Hurray for that day, but it is not this day.
I just feel like this whole article, while probably fighting for women’s individual freedoms, lacks an understanding of what love looks like in culture practice. It looks like sacrifice. Like Philippians 2. Give up the right to wear whatever you want. You have died to Christ and to the world. It is OK to actually and practically live out that death to the world through a conscience sacrificial choice of clothing.
I like a lot of the points that you bring up and wanted to respond to a couple ideas and your comment as a whole.
First off, I agree that if we just do our own thing with good intentions we will “be trampling others.” We absolutely should think about how we impact those around us and it is totally a Biblical thing to do (I specifically think of the discussion of food sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8). Our actions and choices have real consequences that may vary drastically from what our intentions were, so we need to bear that in mind. Additionally, it is true that a lot of what is deemed “sexual” is influenced by culture and what others think.
That said, I think I draw a different conclusion than you do. I don’t think there is a dichotomous relationship between what you have shared (affirmed in the previous paragraph) and the ideas contained in the piece (and maybe you don’t either). When I think of intention behind one’s outfit, I think one would absolutely be aware of at least the broadest aspects of cultural perception. So if you were thinking of wearing something that would generally be considered provocative, you are going to be challenged on that front. You have to ask yourself, “am I wearing this because others consider it provocative, or do I have other reasons (e.g. comfort, practicality, etc.)?” If you choose the first, clearly it is immodest both by your definition and the one Mikalatos presented. However, a followup question on the second response is “how does my other reason weigh up against how others might choose to respond?” At this point, I think it stops becoming an issue of modesty (you aren’t trying to draw attention to yourself) and instead becomes a question of selfishness. Are the benefits, minor or major to you more or less valuable than helping someone else avoid sin? And I think it doesn’t ALWAYS have to yield to others, see the example of the puffy coats.
In other words, I think we need to personalize the sin in each case. Mary Jane can be modest wearing the most provocative thing ever (theoretically if she somehow isn’t wearing it for attention), but she would almost certainly be selfish because she isn’t thinking of the impact of others, therefore she would be sinning. Gwen can be immodest wearing the least provocative thing ever AND selfish if she is putting her own interests above others. On the flipside, I think someone should (theoretically) be able to walk by either woman on the street and not lust, even if Mary Jane was wearing nothing. I find the dichotomy of it either being a male or female problem (i.e. either she should wear something different or he should just not lust) troubling. I really do feel it is a combination of the two and struggling with selfishness is where they intersect.
In summary, I like what you say and your advice (yes we should think about the impact we have on others), I also like what Mikalatos shared and I think that the two don’t necessarily clash/disagree. I just wanted to add some thoughts to the conversation about how the two might meet and support each other.
This is great stuff. Good thoughts here.
Thank! Glad to have a dialogue and read your other comments. It’s cool to see that people CAN actually share thoughts and ideas and ask questions in a constructive dialogue, even on the internet. I think this idea that you shared a bit farther down does a good job of summarizing what I was trying to say (specifically the simultaneous bit): “For me, decision making (like which clothes are modest or whatever) is less a matter of which comes first (heart and character vs culture), and more a matter of grasping all of those things simultaneously.” Also, I like the fruit salad metaphor.
Question for Bart: When you say “Put away the yoga pants, not cause they’re immodest, but because you love the men in your community. And, by and large, western men consider tight pants to be sexually appealing. Wear yoga pants for yoga. Wear lingerie in the bedroom, because in those places and in those times the community with whom you will be with will find that appropriate and approved.” — Do these statements also hold true for men? “Put away the skinny jeans. Put on a shirt when running, at the gym, at the beach. Always wear baggy pants and shirts with sleeves so women will not consider your muscles sexually appealing– not because they’re immodest, but because you love the women in your community.” As you say, “Give up the right to wear whatever you want.” I’m assuming this applies to you and other men, correct?
Good questions! I’m honestly not sure, but am very open to being educated on this. But of course the standard applies both ways, I’m just unsure about the physical examples specifically.
Other things I’m sure fit here as well as physical things. My charm or wit or whatever, should I possess any of those, should be saved in special doses for the woman I wed that finds them particularly sexy or attractive. My Marvin gaye voice is only for my wife, haha.
But, Are skinny jeans sexy to women, by and large?
But jest aside, yes absolutely the standard goes both ways. I wore pants running for three years overseas for this very reason. I wore black pants all of one year not because I love black, but because in the culture in which I lived that was what was acceptable for men. I loved these people and felt for me to adequately enter into their lives with any platform or voice whatsoever it be wiser to put aside my personal preference for the good of relationship.
Hey Bart! I’ll be talking about culture in the next article, which is a lot of what you’re hitting on here (as you state). I do think that the point is that a person who has modest character will behave in a modest way driven by their character (or as you say here, love for others) rather than by rules. And, in some cases, “rules” and “majority opinion” become the same thing. It gets dicey making decisions based on culture… the feelings about bikinis in Hawaii and bikinis in Kentucky are, believe it or not, quite a bit different. So it absolutely requires heart and character first, not culture first, or people aren’t able to adapt to the places, cultures and people around them.
Yep. I think we probably agree more than not. I’m not trying to suggest making decisions based ON culture, as you said here, but FROM WITHIN a particular culture out of a loving heart.
For me, decision making (like which clothes are modest or whatever) is less a matter of which comes first (heart and character vs culture), and more a matter of grasping all of those things simultaneously. So, instead of heart and character THEN culture, more heart and character WHILE culture. Rather than individual fruits, I’d prefer the fruit salad.
That’s how we adapt, imo.
Yes, I understand the attached link is “tongue-in-cheek”, but it illustrates a significant point. The question of the sin of lust is most often dealt with as an issue for the perceived provocateur, the woman. Isn’t that disingenuous? If I walk down the street with money hanging out or my pockets, leave my laptop on the seat of my parked car with the windows down or leave my cell phone on a shelf at Costco am I to blame when a person elects to rob me or steal my laptop or phone? If, in the unlikely event, I inspire lust in the heart of another when I am wearing my “Sunday Best”, should I judge myself immodest or selfish? I choose to consider my lust my problem and not choose to blame women for my weakness . . . http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/
maybe not sin, but not wise. there’s a difference. leave my laptop on my car seat. if stolen, it’s a law that was broken, the robber is wrong. was I wrong? did i invite having it stolen? no and yes. seems like this is one of Matt’s points, let’s be careful in pointing out “sin” in others when the Bible doesn’t call it sin. wisdom on the other hand, let’s cultivate that in our own hearts and teach our children and younger believers about wisdom. that’s a process, in relationship. many of the young ladies i see wearing provocative clothing simply don’t have someone in their lives helping them grow in wisdom. to point out their “sin” doesn’t solve it. maybe for the moment, maybe it feels good to “correct” them, but it’s not love. how do i enter in to their lives, share my own journey and help them grow in wisdom. grow in their walk with God, and in their understanding of a fulfilling life of relationships, love, future, etc.
Did anyone else think of Spider-Man while reading this? 😛
I did! I thought it was a fun little sidenote for people who noticed. 🙂