Is wearing 'skimpy' clothes truly immoral?

[mechana2015]

For quite a few women I've met, a guy dressing provocatively is a guy wearing a suit. No joke. So guys should stop wearing suits since they're 'inviting temptation'?

[Shao Feng-Li]

In addition to Atria's answer, I'll add another one, in that there's many reasons. Perhaps it's comfortable for them. Perhaps they think it looks cute on them. There's other, valid reasons for wearing clothes like that. It's the same for guys. I'm not a drunk redneck who beats my wife...but if it's hot and I'm working outside, I might put on a shirt that's commonly referred to as a "wife-beater" and some torn up dirty jeans, and maybe I'll sit on the porch and crack open a beer (I don't drink beer, but let's go with it for the sake of argument XP). People might look at me and think I'm a stereotypical redneck...but I'm not. And it isn't the reason I look like that. It's because it's hot outside.

I agree to a point that intent isn't a complete judge of harm or wrongdoing (because then it would be impossible to unintentionally harm someone), but I do think that at least in this subject, if they're not really trying to do anything wrong, they're not doing anything wrong.

There's still a little difference though. You're probably not going to cause lust for someone dressing like a red neck. I think girls just need to take good looks in the mirror and think "is this going to cause undue lust in someone? are normal people going to think the wrong thing about me?" Obviously, we can't do everything based on what people think or say, but it's girl to take things in consideration. I mean, it's just not fair to say that a girl can dress like a whatever and take no responsibility if someone lusts after them, you know? If I wore a ten inch skirt and a midriff tube top and guys stared/gave me attention for that... I'd really have no right to angry, you know? No one's an island. What we do effects others.
I know it's not all set in stone and black and white, of course.

I think that it's BS that a woman can wear a bikini to the pool and get called a you-know-what, but a guy can wear a Speedo to the pool and nobody says a single freaking word. Hurray for double standards~

For what it's worth, I think Speedos are gross... and well... immodest.

... You want to meet my old roommate?

He had bigger boobs (e.g. moobs) than most girls. Seriously.

Poor guy.

But that's what bugs me, is a speedo is a pretty dang small bathing suit, and they're pretty much required wearing for being on the swim team. But nobody complains about dudes on the swim team wearing them. People talk about women being "immoral" or "immodest" for wearing bikinis or short shorts. But nobody says it's immoral or immodest for a male to join the swim team. That is absolutely the definition of a double standard, I agree. It really irritates me.

You know, I do think modesty does have a bit to do with context then. I'd never approve of a bikini, but if she's swimming at the pool or beach, that's a bit different than if she were like... shopping at the grocery store dressed like that. Just like if you wore a tuxedo to church. You'd call that immodest or a cry for attention. If your a pro swimmer, wear your Speedo. If your at the family pool with the kids, put some shorts on man.

[Nate]

You're probably not going to cause lust for someone dressing like a red neck.

Well no, I didn't mean it that way. XD What I meant was it would be unfair for someone to see me dressed like that and automatically assume "He must be a redneck." Simply because I'm dressed like one, does not mean I am one. And thus, it's unfair for someone to see a girl in short shorts and a tanktop and automatically assume "She must be a hussy" or something along those lines. Again, maybe she's wearing that because it's like 90 degrees outside, just because she dresses like that doesn't automatically make her immodest or immoral.

are normal people going to think the wrong thing about me?"

But again, as I said, if you're going to go that route, then it was wrong for Jesus to hang out with tax collectors and prostitutes, because then people were going to think the wrong thing about Him. We're not responsible for how other people view us or judge us, as long as we know and God knows we are not doing wrong, we should not be concerned with how we appear.

it's just not fair to say that a girl can dress like a whatever and take no responsibility if someone lusts after them, you know?

How is that not fair? I don't see what's not fair about it. I think it's more unfair to assume what kind of person someone is simply because of how they dress.

[UniqueAngelStar]

True, "skimpy" clothing varies in other countries, but in America we consider tight or short clothes to be immodest. The clothes their self aren't evil, it is the act of doing it. Dressing like that would be considered unacceptable for girls who are christian, because doing so would be suggesting sexual immorality.

Bottom line, don't dress like the world if you're a christian. Keep yourself covered up.

Agreed 100% with this and with Shao Feng-Li.

I mean, you can dress however you want by in style but so long you don't bring much attention to others.

Here is some proof of why I fully agree:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-bikini.html

[Midori]

How is that not fair? I don't see what's not fair about it. I think it's more unfair to assume what kind of person someone is simply because of how they dress.

The thing about this is, people often dress a certain way in order to show others what kind of person they are. For example, in many eras and cultures there is a particular way that prostitutes dress up, to show people what they are]expensive[/i] their clothes are is not okay, but judging somebody based on something they do control, like the style of their clothes is not only completely normal, it's something that the person wearing those clothes usually takes into consideration when they choose to wear those clothes.

Of course, such judgements should be made intelligently, taking into account other factors such as cultural relativity, the weather, the wearer's occupation, and the like. But the truth is that a lot of people do intentionally communicate messages about themselves via their clothes; and wherever there is a communication channel, there is potential to send bad messages through that channel.

[Edward]

In a way, wearing a one-piece bathing suit at a beach or pool, where most women are going to be wearing bikinis, could draw more attention to someone than wearing a bikini would. Bikinis leave little to the imagination, while one piece suits do, so guys might actually lust more at the woman trying to be modest than the ones dressing normally for that kind of situation.

As for whether or not it'd cause others to lust... Honestly, judging from what I've heard from people who struggle with lust (guys and girls), it typically doesn't matter what a person's wearing. I mean, it might, but it might not at the same time. Usually, if a person's going to lust, it wouldn't matter if he/she sees somebody attractive walking around showing off their body or covering it up in a garbage bag. If this person's going to lust, he/she probably will anyway.

This. It doesn't really matter what a woman is wearing. Guys are probably more likely to lust at the hot girl in the 'modest' swimsuit than the average one in the bikini.


Just my $0.02

[ShiroiHikari]

But again, as I said, if you're going to go that route, then it was wrong for Jesus to hang out with tax collectors and prostitutes, because then people were going to think the wrong thing about Him. We're not responsible for how other people view us or judge us, as long as we know and God knows we are not doing wrong, we should not be concerned with how we appear.

Amen to that.

And yeah, women like to pretend that they don't have lustful thoughts, but that's a big fat lie. So should men refrain from dressing a certain way because it might arouse lustful thoughts in others? Most people would say no. But when you ask most people whether women should refrain from dressing a certain way to avoid arousing lust, the answer would usually be yes (I'm generalizing and I realize that but hear me out.) Why is it the woman's fault for encouraging lustful thoughts, if that was not her intent? Maybe some guys are turned on by the "librarian" look, and that's not considered overly revealing, yet nobody would say anything about that.

Also, when men say things like "wow, she's hot", they get frowned upon and called sex-obsessed perverts. Yet women can get away scot free with making such comments about men. Yet another double standard.

Ladies, men are going to think about you "that" way no matter what you wear. Men, women will think about you "that" way too. It's human nature. Can't we just...I dunno, come to terms with that already?

Trying to control other people's thoughts is an exercise in futility.

[Shao Feng-Li]

The thing about this is, people often dress a certain way in order to show others what kind of person they are. For example, in many eras and cultures there is a particular way that prostitutes dress up, to show people what they are]expensive[/i] their clothes are is not okay, but judging somebody based on something they do control, like the style of their clothes is not only completely normal, it's something that the person wearing those clothes usually takes into consideration when they choose to wear those clothes.

Of course, such judgements should be made intelligently, taking into account other factors such as cultural relativity, the weather, the wearer's occupation, and the like. But the truth is that a lot of people do intentionally communicate messages about themselves via their clothes; and wherever there is a communication channel, there is potential to send bad messages through that channel.

Pretty much my thoughts. Midori says it best here.

[Nate]

The thing about this is, people often dress a certain way in order to show others what kind of person they are.

Hmm...that is a good point. While I still think it's wrong to judge a person based on how they're dressed, I hadn't taken this into consideration, and what you say is absolutely true. Still, I think it's wrong to assume girls wearing skimpy clothing are immodest or hussies. It's more a matter of, okay, yeah, people dress a certain way to show what kind of person they are, that's true. I think in that case the problem is the association itself, rather than the judgment. If that makes sense. Like, people shouldn't be thinking girls who dress that way are loose in the first place. I may be repeating myself or something but it makes sense in my head...

guys might actually lust more at the woman trying to be modest than the ones dressing normally for that kind of situation.

Studies have actually shown that males tend to find women who are clothed more provocative and sexy than women who are completely naked. So in a way, you're actually kind of right. It's something about how more is left to the imagination when a woman is clothed, so it's more sexually stimulating because there's an element of mystery and surprise.

[mysngoeshere56]

Agreed 100% with this and with Shao Feng-Li.

I mean, you can dress however you want by in style but so long you don't bring much attention to others.

Here is some proof of why I fully agree:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-bikini.html

First, about the verses quoted on women dressing modestly...

"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God" (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

It doesn't specifically say that a woman can't wear a bikini. And furthermore, wasn't that specific for the culture at the time? I mean when you think about it, gold, pearls, and braided hair really aren't all that uncommon anymore... Wouldn't it be a sin for a woman to braid her hair, then?

And in regards to wearing a bikini causing men to have unclean thoughts... As stated before, if a person will lust, he/she probably will regardless of what the one he/she is lusting after is wearing.

And in regards to offering our bodies as living sacrifices... What does that even have to do with whether or not bikinis or swim shorts are provocative? I don't see anything that specifically says that women can't wear bikinis and men can't go shirtless. I don't see any evidence in that article that says that it's sinful to dress that way because it keeps us from offering our bodies. I know it says that our bodies are for God's glory and not our own, but as said before, when intention's also brought into consideration, wouldn't it be okay to wear a bikini or swim shorts since in this society it's pretty much considered "normal"? People typically don't wear them to simply to get attention if they're going to a pool or the beach.

***EDIT*** Wow. Six people posted while I was in the process of typing this up... o_0 *goes back to read what they said* My apologies if somebody else already covered what I just said.

[Yamamaya]

Amen to that.

And yeah, women like to pretend that they don't have lustful thoughts, but that's a big fat lie. So should men refrain from dressing a certain way because it might arouse lustful thoughts in others? Most people would say no. But when you ask most people whether women should refrain from dressing a certain way to avoid arousing lust, the answer would usually be yes (I'm generalizing and I realize that but hear me out.) Why is it the woman's fault for encouraging lustful thoughts, if that was not her intent? Maybe some guys are turned on by the "librarian" look, and that's not considered overly revealing, yet nobody would say anything about that.


.

This this, a thousand times this. I've known guys who were turned on by the Amish/Mennonite look. I doubt anyone would call that look skimpy. It's an absolute double standard. No one cares what men wear, while everyone makes assumptions about a woman's character based on what she wears. The scary thing is it leads some people to think if a woman was raped that she is somehow partially to blame because of how she was dressed. Disgusting.

Women enjoy looking at the opposite sex(provided that they are heterosexual). However, society and women themselves often try to fool themselves into making men the only sexual gender.

Also, when men say things like "wow, she's hot", they get frowned upon and called sex-obsessed perverts. Yet women can get away scot free with making such comments about men. Yet another double standard.

Ladies, men are going to think about you "that" way no matter what you wear. Men, women will think about you "that" way too. It's human nature. Can't we just...I dunno, come to terms with that already?

Trying to control other people's thoughts is an exercise in futility..

Yup, guys tend to be judged as being perverts for comments like that, but when a woman says it, it's perfectly okay.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. People it's natural to have sexual desire or to find someone else sexually attractive. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's absolutely true. Someone is going to look at you and find you sexually attractive no matter how modestly you dress. You can't control others thoughts.

Also I find the term lust is a tad overused, but that's a different theological topic.

@mys. It seems that verse is more saying to be a good person rather to show off how rich you are. It's not referring that much to "indecent clothing."

[shooraijin]

Before this rolls on much more, if this is moving towards Biblical bases for your assertions, it will need to move to TD. Otherwise keep it light.

[Kaligraphic]

Why is it we're so obsessed with sexualizing modesty? 1 Timothy 2, a classic reference in discussing modesty, wasn't even addressing sexuality, but with rich women using their wealth to compete in the church - their attire was a way of flaunting that wealth. For some reason, this exact same problem still exists in many churches, yet we edit out the part about wealthy people bullying the poorer ranks and turn it into a message about sex.

We go to verses like Romans 12:1, exhorting believers to worship and serve God, and instead of preaching about manifesting the will of God, reaching the lost, healing the broken, using the gifts of God as the chapter goes on to describe, we focus instead on forcing everybody to worship and serve not God himself but an image of morality that we have created out of our societal fear.

We go to quotes from Jesus about how looking at a woman to desire her is "committing adultery with her in your heart" - at least we're on vaguely similar subject, but reading a little more of the chapter reveals that it's not a polemic against scantily-clad women at all, but against people who thought that obeying the boundaries of the law made them holy. We don't preach anywhere near as much on the fact that he equates being angry without a cause with murder. We don't even preach as much on "turning the other cheek", a display of meekness that we've turned into passive aggression.

I submit that if it is, as that Christian bikini article says, "It’s hard to imagine a bikini-clad body being used for God’s glory.", then that's a failure of imagination. Really, it's an attempt to give glory to cloth, rather than to God. I can easily imagine God wanting to speak to people on the beach. I can imagine Him wanting to send his messengers among the people to be found at pools, or in similar places. I can easily imagine God using someone who is wearing - *gasp* - a bikini. Does it absolutely require a bikini? Perhaps not, but then, the idea isn't to give glory to the clothing, but to God.

(edit: Wow, I come back to hit submit, and like eight posts pop up before mine.)

[UniqueAngelStar]

The thing about this is, people often dress a certain way in order to show others what kind of person they are. For example, in many eras and cultures there is a particular way that prostitutes dress up, to show people what they are]expensive[/i] their clothes are is not okay, but judging somebody based on something they do control, like the style of their clothes is not only completely normal, it's something that the person wearing those clothes usually takes into consideration when they choose to wear those clothes.

Of course, such judgements should be made intelligently, taking into account other factors such as cultural relativity, the weather, the wearer's occupation, and the like. But the truth is that a lot of people do intentionally communicate messages about themselves via their clothes; and wherever there is a communication channel, there is potential to send bad messages through that channel.

[SIZE="4"]Agreed 100% to the MAX!![/SIZE]
I could tell that people dressed that way by being in the latest fashion/wearing what others are wearing or that is they want to be alternative. I could see individuality of those people.
Makes me happy that I dress a little different than everyone else.

First, about the verses quoted on women dressing modestly...

"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God" (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

It doesn't specifically say that a woman can't wear a bikini. And furthermore, wasn't that specific for the culture at the time? I mean when you think about it, gold, pearls, and braided hair really aren't all that uncommon anymore... Wouldn't it be a sin for a woman to braid her hair, then?

And in regards to wearing a bikini causing men to have unclean thoughts... As stated before, if a person will lust, he/she probably will regardless of what the one he/she is lusting after is wearing.

And in regards to offering our bodies as living sacrifices... What does that even have to do with whether or not bikinis or swim shorts are provocative? I don't see anything that specifically says that women can't wear bikinis and men can't go shirtless. I don't see any evidence in that article that says that it's sinful to dress that way because it keeps us from offering our bodies. I know it says that our bodies are for God's glory and not our own, but as said before, when intention's also brought into consideration, wouldn't it be okay to wear a bikini or swim shorts since in this society it's pretty much considered "normal"? People typically don't wear them to simply to get attention if they're going to a pool or the beach.

Before this rolls on much more, if this is moving towards Biblical bases for your assertions, it will need to move to TD. Otherwise keep it light.

Oh...sorry about that guys. I thought I could give a article that is similar to this discussion.
I didn't knew it was kinda different from that.
I thought it was that way, but sorry again.

[QtheQreater]

Still, I think it's wrong to assume girls wearing skimpy clothing are immodest or hussies. It's more a matter of, okay, yeah, people dress a certain way to show what kind of person they are, that's true. I think in that case the problem is the association itself, rather than the judgment. If that makes sense. Like, people shouldn't be thinking girls who dress that way are loose in the first place.

I'd have to agree here. I would be completely in the wrong to judge someone as "loose" based on how many inches there were between the hem of her skirt and her fingertips with her arms at her sides (what a weird way to measure modesty, btw) in much the same way as I would be wrong to judge someone who went to a liquor store as a drunkard. Do drunkards go to liquor stores? Well, yeah, but not everyone who goes in is one. As far as the analogy goes, the debate on alcohol is as ambiguous in some circles as the question of modesty.

Or, to give a closer-to-home example for me, the association between white people with dreadlocks and drug abuse. Is there a tendency for drug abusers to end up with dreads as a hairstyle? Yep. Is that why everyone does it? Nope. I, for one, just hate having to style my hair in the morning, and random people ask me about drugs on a regular basis. The most fun thing, though, is not the random people...it's some of the churches that I visited when I was in college. I was treated like I had the plague or something. Of course, dreads aren't themselves in question (like modesty and alcohol might be), but the unjustness of the assumption is the same.

Regardless of what we understand the "standard" to be for ourselves, making assumptions about the character or conduct of others when we don't know their motives or honest understanding of the standard is unfair, even if there is a sort of a trend.

[Rusty Claymore]

Is wearing skimpy clothes immoral? To much to define in that. To put it simply: As long as you don't mind me "enjoying" it then there is no problem.

On a personal note (which strays too close to theology) I thought Jesus said its gonna be kinda rough on those by which offenses come, so I would assume that putting that stuff in a guy's face is enabling sinful behaviour and therefore not a good idea.

So immoral? Can't say. Too many of you have too many definitions for that. Is it nice? No way in heck. Especially to Christian Men, it's downright mean.

[Nate]

I thought Jesus said its gonna be kinda rough on those by which offenses come, so I would assume that putting that stuff in a guy's face is enabling sinful behaviour and therefore not a good idea.

Okay, but then by that logic, buying a new car or a large mansion is "putting that stuff" in a thief's face, or a neighbor's face so that they might covet it, therefore enabling sinful behavior. Is it therefore not a good idea to buy a new car or a nice house? The situations are exactly the same, just with different sins involved. Why is nobody going around telling Christians not to buy nice houses or new cars because they might enable the sinful behavior of stealing or coveting?

It's a double standard. If you're going to call out one action for possibly invoking a sinful response in people, you have to call out all of them, meaning calling out against Christians buying nice stuff because it might cause people to steal or covet. And since I have a feeling that the response to this would be "Well they're not really responsible if a thief wants to steal or a neighbor wants to covet," then guess what? Women aren't responsible if a man lusts, and therefore they can wear whatever they want without being immoral, just as a Christian can buy a nice house or car without being immoral.

Especially to Christian Men, it's downright mean.

It's only "mean" if you assume that men are incapable of controlling their thoughts or actions, and therefore it's the woman's fault that the man is sinning...which I don't buy.

[Mr. Hat'n'Clogs]

This is actually kind of funny that this just came up, because I was on a youth group trip last Saturday when a girl from the youth group asked "Why do little girls wear short shorts?"
My youth pastor was confused about the question and asked, "Why do older girls wear short shorts?"
In response, said girl replied that it was "Because they're sluts."

Made me pretty angry.

[mysngoeshere56]

@shooraijin - All right, and I agree with that. I was actually just thinking that if we bring in Biblical Scripture too, this might have to be moved to TD.

Aaaand to hopefully keep the Biblical discussion light (just posting this since it's already up...)

@mys. It seems that verse is more saying to be a good person rather to show off how rich you are. It's not referring that much to "indecent clothing."

Agreed, and very well put. You can just call me Sno, by the way.

*that's all I have to say on that matter*

*waits to see where the rest of the discussion goes now*

This is actually kind of funny that this just came up, because I was on a youth group trip last Saturday when a girl from the youth group asked "Why do little girls wear short shorts?"
My youth pastor was confused about the question and asked, "Why do older girls wear short shorts?"
In response, said girl replied that it was "Because they're sluts."

Made me pretty angry.

That's a pretty shallow and distasteful response...

[Yamamaya]

This is actually kind of funny that this just came up, because I was on a youth group trip last Saturday when a girl from the youth group asked "Why do little girls wear short shorts?"
My youth pastor was confused about the question and asked, "Why do older girls wear short shorts?"
In response, said girl replied that it was "Because they're sluts."

Made me pretty angry.

I either would have just laughed nervously or really gone off on that girl.

Maybe it's because short shorts are practical on a really hot day and they're good for exercise such as running.

But I guess everytime I wear them now for running, by her definition I would be a slut. Yeahhhhh XD

[QtheQreater]

Okay, but then by that logic, buying a new car or a large mansion is "putting that stuff" in a thief's face, or a neighbor's face so that they might covet it, therefore enabling sinful behavior. Is it therefore not a good idea to buy a new car or a nice house? The situations are exactly the same, just with different sins involved. Why is nobody going around telling Christians not to buy nice houses or new cars because they might enable the sinful behavior of stealing or coveting?

It's a double standard. If you're going to call out one action for possibly invoking a sinful response in people, you have to call out all of them, meaning calling out against Christians buying nice stuff because it might cause people to steal or covet. And since I have a feeling that the response to this would be "Well they're not really responsible if a thief wants to steal or a neighbor wants to covet," then guess what? Women aren't responsible if a man lusts, and therefore they can wear whatever they want without being immoral, just as a Christian can buy a nice house or car without being immoral.

I'm not sure if this analogy works. So...a woman's body is hers to either show or remain discreet with regarding skimpy clothing (choosing what to wear, what not to wear), right? But...just owning a nice car (like a nice body, ahem) is enough to intentionally cause a thief to stumble...?

I think it might be more accurate to compare showing off one's physical characteristics (via clothing) to the display of one's worldly goods...like purposely driving your nice car through a poor neighborhood (or dangling shiny things in front of someone you know is a klepto). While you can't keep a thief from coveting your nice car as you unknowingly drive by him on the freeway, you wouldn't knowingly show off your car in a "look what I've got but you can't afford" way to someone else. In other words, just buying the car wouldn't necessarily make the analogy, but intentionally advertising it would?

All that to say I'm not sure the analogy holds; I'm not making an assertion about what's appropriate...but the "stumbling block" passage does exist. How far it gets taken is up to the situation and the people, I guess...

[Nate]

I'm not sure if this analogy works. So...a woman's body is hers to either show or remain discreet with regarding skimpy clothing (choosing what to wear, what not to wear), right? But...just owning a nice car (like a nice body, ahem) is enough to intentionally cause a thief to stumble...?

Well, if you have a nice car or a nice house, and someone drives or walks by, they might go "Hmm that's a nice house/car, I should steal it." Thieves aren't exclusive to poor people. :p You can have thieves that come from rich or financially secure families too.

But I think it still fits, because again, girls who wear short shorts and tanktops aren't always doing it to show off their body. There's other factors involved too, such as weather for example. And not everyone who buys a fancy car is doing it to show off, either.

I'm not making an assertion about what's appropriate...but the "stumbling block" passage does exist.

The stumbling block passage does exist, yes. And I know what it says. If a person thinks it's a sin to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but you think it's okay, and you eat the meat in front of him, you might condemn him by your actions (because then he'll think "Even though it's a sin, I should do it anyway").

I think that doesn't apply here, though, for a couple of reasons. One, most guys who would be upset would rather condemn the girl than themselves. It'd be analogous to the man who doesn't want to eat the sacrificed meat saying to the other guy, "You're a horrible pagan heathen for eating that meat, it's YOUR fault I'm sinning!" God doesn't seem to accept passing the buck for sins, He didn't when Adam blamed Eve for his sin at least, it was still Adam's fault no matter how much he tried to pin it on Eve. Thus, if a male sins, it doesn't matter what the female is wearing, it's still his fault, not hers.

Two, what's being said is not "Refrain from wearing skimpy clothes around men who might be tempted to sin." What's being said is "Never wear skimpy clothes ever." It'd be analogous to the man who thinks it's okay to eat sacrificed meat being told "You can never eat meat in front of anyone else because you might tempt them to sin by doing it." That's not what the verse says, though. The verse doesn't say the man can NEVER eat meat sacrificed to idols, just not in front of someone who might be tempted to do likewise despite thinking it's a sin. It does say that Paul himself was willing to never eat meat again in order to prevent someone else from sinning, but he never commanded people not to eat meat.

And if you want to go down that route with it, then it gets tricky, because then you have to start thinking about Christian denominations who think alcohol is a sin. What about denominations who think women wearing pants is a sin? Should all you females wear skirts for the rest of your lives because it might tempt another female who thinks wearing pants is a sin into wearing them? If your answer is no, then I think the answer should also be no as far as telling women they can't wear the clothes they want to.

Third, the situation here is "One man is doing something, making another man want to do that thing." This is different from "One man is doing something, making another man tempted to do a completely different thing." If someone thought wearing skimpy clothes was a sin and your wearing them made that person want to wear them too, then the stumbling block verse could apply. But since the verse itself is talking about causing someone to do the same thing, even though they think it is a sin, rather than talking about causing someone to do something completely different, I don't think it applies.

[Lynna]

You might say that people will think lustful thoughts anyways, but that doesn't mean wearing skimpy clothes wont affect the people around you. I don't think it's a sin per say, but I don't think it's considerate of others. I mean, is it right for a girl who wears a low neckline to say "It's not my fault those guys were looking at my boobs" as some have said, guys may think about this anyways, and probably do, but I don't think it's really helping them at all. It's not really thinking about others.
And also...I don't find it helpful to me AT ALL if guys go around without their shirts. I don't like guys dressing immodestly, so I don't think guys find it helpful either.
That's just my 2 cents.

[ABlipinTime]

Just wanted to say I busted out laughing as soon as I saw the title to this thread.

[Radical Dreamer]

Why is it we're so obsessed with sexualizing modesty? 1 Timothy 2, a classic reference in discussing modesty, wasn't even addressing sexuality, but with rich women using their wealth to compete in the church - their attire was a way of flaunting that wealth. For some reason, this exact same problem still exists in many churches, yet we edit out the part about wealthy people bullying the poorer ranks and turn it into a message about sex.

We go to verses like Romans 12:1, exhorting believers to worship and serve God, and instead of preaching about manifesting the will of God, reaching the lost, healing the broken, using the gifts of God as the chapter goes on to describe, we focus instead on forcing everybody to worship and serve not God himself but an image of morality that we have created out of our societal fear.

We go to quotes from Jesus about how looking at a woman to desire her is "committing adultery with her in your heart" - at least we're on vaguely similar subject, but reading a little more of the chapter reveals that it's not a polemic against scantily-clad women at all, but against people who thought that obeying the boundaries of the law made them holy. We don't preach anywhere near as much on the fact that he equates being angry without a cause with murder. We don't even preach as much on "turning the other cheek", a display of meekness that we've turned into passive aggression.

I submit that if it is, as that Christian bikini article says, "It’s hard to imagine a bikini-clad body being used for God’s glory.", then that's a failure of imagination. Really, it's an attempt to give glory to cloth, rather than to God. I can easily imagine God wanting to speak to people on the beach. I can imagine Him wanting to send his messengers among the people to be found at pools, or in similar places. I can easily imagine God using someone who is wearing - *gasp* - a bikini. Does it absolutely require a bikini? Perhaps not, but then, the idea isn't to give glory to the clothing, but to God.

(edit: Wow, I come back to hit submit, and like eight posts pop up before mine.)

I am just going to quote this entire thing. I agree with everything in this post. XD

[minakichan]

I lived in a dorm (co-ed) last summer that was pretty alternative, and there was a girl who would just walk around the hall topless, no matter who was around, all the time. (Her boobs were really big too.) It was definitely out of laziness more than attempting to seduce anyone, but I have to say that it make me feel really uncomfortable.

[Rusty Claymore]

buying a new car or a large mansion is "putting that stuff" in a thief's face,

Completely different. People are not biochemically engineered to steal.

It's only "mean" if you assume that men are incapable of controlling their thoughts or actions, and therefore it's the woman's fault that the man is sinning...which I don't buy.

I do not assume they aren't capable. If they weren't capable, the whole arguement wouldn't even exist. It is mean because they can control it, and are trying to. As for the part about women making men sin? I never said anything along those lines.

[Atria35]

His rather reminds me- there is something called a 'Slutwalk' that goes on in Toronto, is coming up in Chicago, and is about dressing skimpily. It's happening because on January 24, 2011, a representative of the Toronto Police Service was quoted saying, "Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order to not be victimized."

[Nate]

Completely different. People are not biochemically engineered to steal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptomania

So I maintain my stance, and even if people aren't biochemically engineered to steal, it doesn't matter, I don't recall the Bible saying that one sin is worse than another simply because a person is "built" to commit it. You're just splitting hairs. Sin is sin, regardless of the circumstance, so it doesn't matter.

As for the part about women making men sin? I never said anything along those lines.

Then how is it mean for a woman to dress in skimpy clothing? If it can't make men sin, it's just controlling them for the sake of controlling them because their dress isn't affecting men at all. If it CAN make men sin, it doesn't matter because as I said, God doesn't accept passing the buck on your own actions. So either way, the argument against skimpy clothes does not make sense as far as I can see.

"Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order to not be victimized."

Wow, that's so ignorant, stupid, and misogynistic that I wish I could punch that guy in the face.

[Arya Raiin]

I dress modestly and try to reflect who I am by how I dress. Even with bathing suits I prefer a swim dress because it covers more. Of course, not to say I haven't been picked on for doing that, but still.

The thing is, that it's the media's idea of beautiful that has altered both men and woman's opinions of true beauty. I remember a few weeks ago reading through a Christian magazine and thinking to myself "Huh, these certainly aren't you average people on the street. I guess Christian's tend to be just as bad as the rest of society when it comes to dress." However, this style of dressing skimpy have become a part of our culture.