Modesty is a big "buzz" word on Christian women's blogs. We're all supposed to want to be modest (which I agree with), but often the definition of modesty is something which I find completely unreasonable, and rather off-putting.
A friend of mine, whom I would consider very modest but stylish, took her pre-teen daughter to a mother-daughter event recently. Originally the daughter had been asked to model, but at the last minute they found someone else to fill in in her size, so told her they didn't need her.
My 11-year-old friend was devastated, until she saw the actual fashion show. And then she was so appalled by the clothes that she whispered to her mother: "I'm so glad they didn't ask me to model after all! I'd be so embarrassed if I were up there!"
Now I wasn't at that event, so I didn't see first hand, but apparently the clothes were layered to the nth degree and so long and bulky that they looked like sacks.
I've been on other women's blogs that seem to be pushing the idea that if we're not dressing modestly--and by that they have a very narrow definition of modest--then we're not being Christian. And so I'd like to spell out my philosophy on this, just to inspire debate, and to perhaps free some of you who aren't comfortable with this line of thinking but aren't sure where else to go.
First, I do think modest should mean no cleavage, and no drawing attention to particular parts of the body deliberately. So no super-tight T-shirts, no low-cut shirts that look more like bikini tops, no super short skirts or shorts, and no tank tops (UPDATE:I meant to say tube tops. We here in Canada used to call tube tops tank tops, but I know tank tops are something different now. Sorry for the confusion!). I'd even be careful with sleeveless dresses. For swimming, I'd steer clear of bikinis, and even some one-pieces, and go with some flattering tankinis, which are often prettier and which often have bottoms that go down a little bit further. I find most people look better in these anyway.
But to say much more than that, I think, puts women in a bind, sounds very legalistic, and can be dishonouring to our men.
For instance, I've seen some women say that we should only wear skirts. Really? Personally I wear skirts most of the time in the summer, because finding shorts that fit is difficult, and I love skirts. So I'm not against skirts in the least. But to say that all women should wear skirts because it's more feminine is really strange. A nicely cut pair of jeans with a pretty blouse in my opinion is far more feminine than a shapeless denim skirt.
Similarly, to say that one can't wear any pants that fit well because they would draw attention to one's *ahem* behind is thus saying that we should all wear sacks. Now I certainly don't think that we should wear tight clothes. But there is a difference between tight and clothes that simply fit. My daughter told me about a blog post she read on a popular teenage girl blog that said that if you can't pinch your pants and find a few inches, it's too tight. How many girls are really going to follow that?
But here's another question: do we really want to give the impression that Christians are dowdy spoilsports, because that seems to be what we're doing. As a married Christian woman, I feel that my responsibility is to dress modestly but fashionably. I want my husband to be proud of me, and if I were only wearing denim skirts with button down blouses, he would not be proud to take me out in public. I would stand out like a sore thumb. And so I go out of my way to try to wear things that are pretty and flattering but that don't cling too much, show cleavage, or come up too high on the thigh.
I think sometimes that the Christian wives who advocate the long, shapeless skirt look with the baggy t-shirt forget something. The rationale for dressing modestly is that because men are visually stimulated, we shouldn't dress to stimulate them. Okay so far.
But if we admit that men are visually stimulated, then don't we also owe it to our husbands to look our best? And how many husbands like walking around with wives who are dressed in shapeless clothes?
Now, I know many of the people who advocate wearing skirts do not wear shapeless ones, and I'm not trying to say that you're wrong. I think longer skirts can still be fashionable, if they're cut correctly, and you can wear lovely shaped blouses to go with them that do flatter your figure.
For instance, the True Femininity blog, written by a 21-year-old, has an "Outfit of the Day" recurring theme where she shows a modest but fashionable outfit. Here's one from June:
Lovely. But many of the "skirts only" blogs that I've read, and that my daughter has seen, really do advocate skirts resembling potato sacks, that look as if they were bought in thrift stores.
I don't think that's the image that Christians should be presenting. Why not just look fashionable, attractive, and fun, without trying to look sexy? Looking like you put some care into your appearance says that you respect yourself and you respect your husband.
My friend Terry, over at Breathing Grace, wrote a post recently where she said that her standard of beauty is her husband. She wears what he likes, because he's the one that really matters, and I like that conviction. Sometimes when we think about all this "modesty" stuff, I think we do it without male input. We say we're trying to protect men by not being tempting, but I wonder how many of the wives have ever asked their husbands honestly if they like the "sack" look, or if they would prefer that their wives be a little more attractive? I think many women get caught up in this "modesty" movement online, and in their little cliques, and they barge right ahead without asking the guys.
Finally, there's one other thing that concerns me, and this is perhaps the largest issue. This world is in desperate need of help. All around us families are breaking up, debt is ruining people's lives, addictions are taking over. And that's only in the neighbourhood. On a worldwide scale, wars are being fought, persecution is rampant, and injustice abounds.
This world needs Christians to become engaged, to be good role models, and to be outspoken (in a gentle way) for what is right. That means that we have to be people that others respect. We need to be people that others will look at and admire. And I don't think that it's flighty of me to say that part of that admiration will be tied in to how we look. If we show up looking like we have never cut our hair (let alone put conditioner in it) and as if we are wearing sacks, then why would people want to listen to us?
When you dress that way and present yourself that way, you make your world smaller. You tend to retreat into your family or your church because that is safe, and that is where you fit in. You don't fit into the wider world anymore.
That's not right. We need people who will speak up and who will be role models. We need to stop shrinking. Certainly retreating is easier and less messy, but it is not what we are called to be. We are called to be "in" the world. We don't let its values dictate ours; we don't follow after the world's idols. But we must still be "in" it. We must not shrink our own world, and that is what we do when we adopt too narrow a definition of what is acceptable clothing.
So what would I recommend? If you're married, talk to your husband about what sort of dress he considers modest and fashionable. Take a friend with you who is fashionable and go shopping and get some clothes that actually fit. Get a nice haircut (you can go to a haircutting school if you can't afford a salon). Treat your body as if you respect it, not as if you're ashamed of it. And let's stop using Christianity as an excuse to look dowdy.
Fashionable and feminine while still being modest. That, I think, is what we should be doing. And, by the way, there's really nothing wrong with a good pair of jeans!
UPDATE:I'm just going to chime into the comments now (it's Sunday morning). I've been away with my hubby for a few days, and I missed all the discussion! Sorry.
Every Friday my syndicated column appears in a bunch of newspapers in southeastern Ontario. Here's this week's! And I just want to add, it is the first time I have ever used the word "bazongas" in print. I think it works in this context, though.
Last year a friend of mine, who travels for business, bought a Bluetooth device so he could use his cell phone without touching the screen. You just stick it in your ear and tell it what you want it to do.
His wife, fixing to be a little naughty, reprogrammed his phone so that instead of being listed under “Lisa”, she was now listed under “Hot Mama”. Sounds like a good idea, except now, when my friend is in public with the Bluetooth in his ear and he wants to call home, he can’t say, “Call Lisa”. He has to say, “Call Hot Mama.” “Did you say, ‘Call Hot Mama?’”, the Bluetooth then queries. “Yes,” he replies. And then the phone begins to ring.
Once we women have been married for long past a decade and we’ve shoved out a few children, we need all the reminders we can get that we are, indeed, “hot mamas”. Nevertheless, from what I observed watching several office Christmas parties at various restaurants this year, I wonder if people misunderstand the term “hot mama”. Consider this, then, my primer for what is considered “hot”.
First, less is not more. Less is actually less. Unless you are a 23-year-old supermodel, a little mystery is a very good idea. I saw far too many 40-something women attempting to wear dresses that revealed too much cleavage and too much thigh. That is not “hot”. That is vulgar. And it’s not even attractive. After all, the reason that they are called “foundational garments” is because they are, well, foundational. Once gravity kicks in, it doesn’t kick back out just because one is wearing a skimpy dress; it works overtime. Thus, think dresses that allow foundational garments to do their duty, not dresses that just show skin. Many larger women think that if they can squeeze into something small, they will appear small. Only in your dreams, honey. If you’re large, wear something that flatters, not something that squeezes.
Second, consider the weather. I do not understand why women feel that the proper attire for parties at the dawn of a new year consists of barely enough fabric to cover the vital areas. It’s Canada, people! Let’s not deny it. The most glamorous woman I saw this Christmas was definitely post-50, but she donned a lovely long velvet gown which, while showing cleavage, also provided enough shoulder coverage to allow for that foundational garment, which let that cleavage actually look attractive. She outclassed the shivering women all around her by miles.
Third, think about how you want others to perceive you. If you’ve spent the last two years trying to get the four young men you supervise to treat you with respect, and then you show up at a Christmas party wearing something that is blaring “stare at my bazongas”, do you really think you’re giving the right message? Just because you’re at a party does not mean that you should break down all social barriers. Why not instead adopt a little class? Wear a dress that allows you to show your figure to best advantage, while still leaving enough mystery to keep the co-workers looking up to you as royalty, rather than looking down on you as trash.
Being “hot” does not require one to dress like a tramp or to catch hypothermia in the middle of winter. If you’re single and searching, you’ll attract class better by looking like class. And if you already have a beloved, he’s the one who needs to know what’s under those office clothes, not everyone you work with. Now that this lesson is over, I think I’ll put on a good foundational garment and go reprogram my husband’s phone.
Note: I know there are other things to consider here--like more of a plea for modesty as a whole. But when you only have 600 words, and I've done columns on modesty before, I thought a different tack was needed. So please don't take offense if you think I didn't make enough of a case for modesty! I'm word limited.
Don't miss a Reality Check! Sign up to receive it FREE in your inbox every week!
Last week I started another discussion on how we can lower the risk of sexual assault. I was replying to a commenter who was replying to this post who said that I was blaming women who are raped by arguing that they should be modest. Modesty, she said, bore no bearing on rape.
I said much of what I wanted to say in that post, but a few things remain.
To tackle her idea, I want you to picture yourself as the youth leader for a youth group at an amusement park. It's a big outing, and twenty youth have decided to go, and you were asked along as a parent supervisor. You have under your care three girls, all aged 14. Two are dressed in appropriate shorts and T-shirts; one has on short shorts and a bikini top, with a halter tied around it. She is showing more cleavage that you ever have.
Who are you going to be scared for? Who are you going to try to protect?
I have been in this exact situation, and it is not fun. I was paranoid all day about the attention the girl in the bikini was getting, because she was inviting it. She would talk the boys up in line. They would leer at her, and she would leer back. At one point I realized she was texting a guy that she had just stood in line with at a roller coaster. She had managed to get his number when I wasn't looking.
The other two girls started to pull back from her, because they were distinctly uncomfortable with all her boy craziness. I stuck to her like glue and started glaring at anybody who looked at her. It didn't distract the starers.
How would you have felt?
This girl is under your care, and you know what boys are thinking when they are looking at her. And the boys looking at her are not just 14. They are much older.
I wasn't scared she was actually going to be assaulted, because I had my eye on her, and I wasn't worried somebody would grab her. But she was inviting bad attention. She was sharing her cell phone number. And eventually it had to be dealt with.
What was I scared of? I was scared these guys would start calling or texting her, or finding her on Facebook, and they would show up in her life, looking for something (and we all know what that is). But this girl did not know what "that" is. She wasn't trying to seduce them. She didn't want to sleep with them. She simply wanted attention; she wanted boys to think she was pretty, and that is what she thought pretty was. She was completely out of her league, and she didn't know it. Even if she weren't assaulted--which, of course, most women aren't--she is still, by acting this way, opening herself up to situations that she just isn't ready for and won't be able to handle.
And in the process, I believe she was putting herself in danger. She wasn't putting boundaries around herself, and guys who were looking for one thing would naturally flock to her, and when they didn't get it, they might get aggressive. I'm not saying every guy would; but some might. And the problem is you never know which guy is which.
So let's boil this down to a few key points:
1. Some guys are very interested in having as much sex as possible with as many women as possible. I assume we all agree here.
2. Some women are likewise interested in that.
3. The way these women show that they are interested in that is that they dress to show how sexy they are. They flaunt it.
4. Men, in trying to pick out the women in a crowd who may share their interest in anonymous encounters, will tend to look for the ones who are dressed for it and who are trying to make eye contact and flirt.
5. Therefore, if you dress like that and act that way, you will attract attention that is highly sexual in nature. It doesn't mean all the attention you attract will be like that, but some will. It also doesn't mean that you are trying to attract that kind of attention. But you are dressing like those who do, and you are giving out a certain message, whether you mean to or not.
6. A low percentage of the men whose attention you attract will be willing to take things to another level if you say no.
I would think that we can all agree on those points, don't we?
My commenter said that modest women get raped and immodest women get raped. Again, I agree. But here's the thing: rape rarely occurs out of the blue. It usually starts with something--maybe you meet a guy, and he seems harmless enough, and you start talking or dancing. And then things go downhill.
Now, I want to acknowledge that there is a stream of thought that goes something like this: if women dress a certain way, they inflame men's lust, and thus the woman is responsible for any sexual assault that occurs. Certain Muslim imams, for instance, have said that if a woman isn't veiled, rape is her fault, because she inflamed the guy. I am not saying that at all.
That insinuates that men are pure, and then a woman topples him over the edge. He never would have done it if not for the woman. Not true. What I'm saying is that there are men who definitely would do it. It's not that women inflamed them; they had already decided to treat women like sex objects. They had already decided that what they were interested in was not a relationship, but simply a physical encounter. The woman did not cause this decision; it was already the guy's.
Hence point #1 above: these men exist. It's not women's fault that they do; the men have decided to live a life characterized by lust. They're the kind of guy who would chat up a 14-year-old in a bikini top in line at an amusement park. They have already decided they're looking for sex.
And how do they find it? They look for women who seem to be interested in the same thing, and the easiest way to find those women is to check out who is dressed like that and who is flirting. So it is not women's fault for causing the lust; the lust is there. A small percentage of these men may also become violent if they don't get what they want (most won't, of course). But you can't identify who those violent ones are. The only thing they tend to have in common is that they are looking for women who are similarly interested primarily in a physical relationship.
If you don't want to attract the kind that is mostly just interested in sex, then make sure that you don't meet this kind of person. Don't send out those signals. Even though the vast majority won't rape you, they may pressure you or make you feel really dirty. I would rather that my kids start talking to guys that they connected with through common interests or experiences, rather than just guys they attract for simply physical reasons. When you connect with someone because of common interests, friends, or experiences, then you know them on a certain level. You know more about them. You know who they know. And because of that, you can make a better decision about how to act with that guy. When the guys that you attract are all basically there for one reason, you can't make those sorts of decisions about whether this is a good person to be with. You don't have as much information to go on--and what you do have is not good.
Will that eliminate rape? Nope. Not at all. Often guys that seem perfect--even Christian guys--can turn violent and rape you on a date. Absolutely. That's why we need to be careful where we go no matter whether we're modest or not.
But do you really want to attract the kind of man who only is interested in sex? Do you want to attract the partier? Because let's face it, even if he didn't rape (and most won't), you'd still find yourself in a pretty terrible situation if he wanted to take it farther than you did. My little friend had no clue what she was attracting (though I ended up trying to explain it to her). If she actually had been alone with a guy like that, and he wanted to do more than hold her hand, she would have been really quite scarred. It isn't a situation you want to be in.
So don't do it. Girls think that "pretty" is what celebrities wear, and so they try to mimic these fashions they see on TV. But TV presents an unrealistic and extremely unhealthy picture of relationships. TV is based on the fact that sex will be the basis for all relationships, and that's awful. Don't let your girls give in to that.
Again: I am not saying that modest girls don't get raped, or that immodest girls asked for it. I am simply saying that when you dress inappropriately, you attract attention you really don't want, and some of that attention may be dangerous--not because of how you're dressed, but because of decisions the men have already made before they even saw you. Don't attract it in the first place and your life will be better, and marginally safer.
I'm not sure why this is so controversial, but if you still think I'm being too mean to women and blaming women for what they wear, before you write a comment, think back to my experience at that amusement park. Would you be equally concerned for all three girls, or mostly concerned for the one in the bikini? If you'd be mostly concerned for the one, why? And when you realize it's because of how she's dressed and how she's acting and the kind of attention she's getting, then you really believe my point, whether you want to admit it or not.
Sexual assault is a horrible thing. Living in a highly sexualized culture, where men can expect anonymous encounters, is a horrible thing. Why should we not try to fight against it by promoting modesty to discourage such sexual behaviour? I think then the world would be a much better place.
Sorry that posting has been light, but I'm on vacation this week!
And as I've been here, we've learned something very important. My oldest daughter fits my clothes.
And we've been clothes shopping a lot, which has opened up a whole other realm of problems.
Becca hasn't bought very much, because she's on a clothing allowance. She has budgeted herself a certain amount to spend while we're here, and she wants to look around and make sure what she's getting is attractive; affordable; and unique. No sense bringing something home that she could buy there just as easily!
But down here in Hawaii everything is about boobs. You know what I mean: the deep V's, the boobs outlined, etc. etc. I know that's the fashion right now, but I'm not comfortable with it.
I don't mind deep V's if they're paired with a modest camisole, which is how she always wears them. Absolutely no cleavage is my motto. But I'm also uncomfortable with shirts, dresses and bathing suits that don't just plunge in the middle; they also plunge at the sides. If you have a wide band of fabric over the shoulder, and the dress goes nicely under the arms, you can still wear a bra and camisole. But if the dress comes down at the sides, too, so that you're seeing the side of the you-know-whats, I don't think that's right.
Becca listens to me and agrees with me on the whole, but even some of the things that are pretty and modest by comparison I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with. When we were teens fashions weren't close fitting, but now everything is. All curves are revealed.
She looks great, but I just don't know. So tell me, all of you who have gone through this or have opinions, how do you decide what to buy for your children? What do you think is modest?
I often ask my husband, since he knows what teenage boys think, and if he says it's okay, I go with him. But I'd still like some better guidelines. Anyone want to offer some?
About Me: I'm a Christian author of a bunch of books, and a frequent speaker to women's groups and marriage conferences. Best of all, I love homeschooling my daughters, Rebecca and Katie. And I love to knit. Preferably simultaneously.
Stumble It!
