Modesty as described by the General Youth Division

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

There's probably some merit to that. Women feel they can't fit into the worldly mold of beauty, so they create their idea of beauty. It is a culture, no doubt about it. It's not an immodest culture--just an odd one, sometimes. As you said above, "it's natural for women to want to look beautiful." It seems then, somewhat unfair to call a woman immodest who is trying to look as beautiful as possible within boundaries she didn't personally set.

How? Because we know what causes the excess, doesn't justify it.

Identifying the problem is not the solution, it's the beginning of understanding the problem.

[DAII]

Modesty as we find it with the NT speaks to fashion and excessiveness as well as the heart... especially with the 2 favorite pet scriptures used to defend the position in the NT ... Pauls writing in Timothy and Peter.

Modesty as some one has stated before now only seems to apply to skin and provocative dress ... to some ...

I find the inconsistency to be GLARING.

The mincing of words here with adjectives like odd and edgy style is exactly that .... mincing words.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

...I wasn't even referring to young people. I give young people a LOT of latitude to be outrageous and be themselves. I'm talking about middle-aged women. Once again, not women who dress up, but women who dress to draw attention to themselves. Ones who cause even Pentecostals to do a double-take.

Just don't do that and tell me I can't wear a wedding ring.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

PO: Yes, but long hair is sensual. That was my point. What hair do they use on shampoo commercials? Supermodels? Cover girls? All long hair (normally).

Tight jeans? Maybe. Is it attracting an inordinate amount of attention? Cleavage lines? I personally think it's not modest (I'm a guy and know where my eyes are driven). But, the extent of that will be up to the wearer. This doesn't mean tank-tops, shorts, shorter skirts, etc are immodest. Modest and appropriateness go hand-in-hand. Most of those things are immodest at church or at work, but on the weekend out at a theme park, probably okay.

AQP asked some great questions about modesty one day. We were searching the scriptures for the Biblical "skin patrol." The Bible is silent. Most of the skin was controlled by custom and culture. It still is. This is why it may not be immodest to be an African man with no shirt on (or a Greek for that matter).

Homerun. You can do your trot now.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by missourimary

The few scriptures we have on modesty... sometimes we should teach precepts rather than drawing lines.

Can there be modesty without moderation? And I'm not talking about looking homely. I'm repeatedly complimented by the world for how I dress. But I'm laughed at in the church for not looking "good enough". I've been told many, many things that I should do if I want to "get a man" by people in church. Each involves clothes that I feel uncomfortable in. Why should I feel pressured by my friends in church to wear something I feel convicted against?

I think a lot of the dress standards started during a more conservative era in this country.

My husband and I were watching an old movie - Christmas in Connecticut - the maid was quitting because the man that owned the home had his girlfriend there. The story line is too long to tell, but they were trying to get married quickly before the editor of the women's newspaper found out. It kept getting botched and the maid thought they were going to sleep together, so she was leaving.

My husband said, "This country has come a long way when a Hollywood movie has a character miffed over a couple spending the night and not being married."

Anyway, we still have some leanings to the old school ways and others trying to figure it out in a modern day progression.

Remember when it was okay to spank someone's child. Lots of things have changed and not for the better. That's for sure.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

There's probably some merit to that. Women feel they can't fit into the worldly mold of beauty, so they create their idea of beauty. It is a culture, no doubt about it. It's not an immodest culture--just an odd one, sometimes. As you said above, "it's natural for women to want to look beautiful." It seems then, somewhat unfair to call a woman immodest who is trying to look as beautiful as possible within boundaries she didn't personally set.

I'm honestly not calling the women immodest. I just think it's a double standard from a doctrine point of view. Jewelry - no. Extravagant hair and clothing - yes.

Just doesn't add up.

[DAII]

Some of the adjectives used in the original GYD statement:

Wild display
10 x more then their Sunday "best"
Spectacle
Showy
fanciest

I'm sorry ... these aren't about drawing attention to oneself ...?

I am all for dressing up with the best of you ... but please dont' rant and rave that ornammental jewelry (earrings, necklace) is immodest but functional jewelry (watch, wedding ring, etc) is not.
While clothing and hair accessories are showy and attention-grabbing.

[Jeffrey]

Today's "distinctive" dress standards were yesterday's common culture and custom.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

PO: Yes, but long hair is sensual. That was my point. What hair do they use on shampoo commercials? Supermodels? Cover girls? All long hair (normally).

Tight jeans? Maybe. Is it attracting an inordinate amount of attention? Cleavage lines? I personally think it's not modest (I'm a guy and know where my eyes are driven). But, the extent of that will be up to the wearer. This doesn't mean tank-tops, shorts, shorter skirts, etc are immodest. Modest and appropriateness go hand-in-hand. Most of those things are immodest at church or at work, but on the weekend out at a theme park, probably okay.

AQP asked some great questions about modesty one day. We were searching the scriptures for the Biblical "skin patrol." The Bible is silent. Most of the skin was controlled by custom and culture. It still is. This is why it may not be immodest to be an African man with no shirt on (or a Greek for that matter).

Cleavage and tight is never modest - not even in a theme park, Jeffery. What in the world? We aren't talking about Africa here. We are talking about America.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

...I wasn't even referring to young people. I give young people a LOT of latitude to be outrageous and be themselves. I'm talking about middle-aged women. Once again, not women who dress up, but women who dress to draw attention to themselves. Ones who cause even Pentecostals to do a double-take.

Really, this is hard to talk about, because I know EXACTLY what you're talking about while I'm trying very hard to be fair and non-judgmental. I know the weirdos you're talking about. And there's definitely a good handful of condescending, egocentric better-than-thous, too. They dress up so they can look better, smarter, cuter, hipper than everyone else in the room. It comes through in their attitude and everyone knows who they are. I'm just saying, no need to malign the BCBG shoes just because a snot-nose wore a pair.

Originally Posted by AQuietPlace

Just don't do that and tell me I can't wear a wedding ring.

I remember standing in line at the grocery store, pregnant with Hannah, and feeling my face turn red because I actually saw a guy look at my hand to see if I was married! I went home and told my husband we were going to wear rings and that was the end of it! We went to the Wal-Mart jewelry counter and picked out the most expensive set we could afford at the time, which was a little over $200 for both rings.