Unknowing1 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Did any of you perform this type of check when you were involved with religion and if you did do you still do so today. http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/pd...heart_check.pdf I'm just curious. While I never was to this extreme and haven't changed how I dress since, my thought process has changed whereas I question where is the modesty check for men AND why is it the womans responsibility to make sure the men don't think "impure" thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callyn Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Men don't need to be modest, as women don't have sex drives. So men can dress however they want. Also, since women don't have sex drives, they must help the men to control theirs. Men aren't capable of being in charge of something as all-powerful as their need to implant their seed into any woman they see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smellincoffee Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Coming from a Pentecostal "holiness" church, I've heard stuff like that all of my life. To be fair, the organization I was in had similar rules for men, although not so many. Yesterday I learned of a UPCI church that makes all of its members wear longsleeves. If it's hot, they can roll the sleeves up. (Why they can roll the sleeves up, but not wear shortsleeves to begin with, is beyond me.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LloydDobler Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 That checklist got me hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgnosticBob AtheistPants Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 In Rainesville, Alabama, the preacher at Rainesville Church of GAWD said something I found to be COMPLETELY ridiculous. He was preaching to the congregation about this very topic ... modesty ... and said that he would not condemn anyone that wore shorts, but HE was NOT going to! NO ONE would EVER see his legs other than his wife! I thought, "Thank Jeebus, we'd all go blind otherwise." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exbeliever Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Did any of you perform this type of check when you were involved with religion and if you did do you still do so today. http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/pd...heart_check.pdf I'm just curious. While I never was to this extreme and haven't changed how I dress since, my thought process has changed whereas I question where is the modesty check for men AND why is it the womans responsibility to make sure the men don't think "impure" thoughts. The pastor quoted in that article, John MacArthur, was my old pastor. I graduated from his Bible college. The girls at that school had to go through crazy shit like that too. Check out this dress code from Bob Jones University: <b>Dress Code for Women</b> Classroom/general dress consists of a dress or top and skirt; however, pants may be worn for some recreational activities. Shorts may never be worn outside the residence halls and fitness center. <b>Tops</b> -Tops must be long enough that the midriff is never exposed. -Sleeves are required. (Sleeveless tops and dresses may be worn with a blouse, jacket, or sweater.) -Necklines may come no lower than four fingers below the collarbone. <b>Skirts</b> -Hemlines and slits or other openings should never come higher than the bottom of the knee. -Denim skirts may be worn for casual dress (not to class or other professional-type events). <b>Pants</b> -Loose-fitting pants may be worn between women's residence halls, for athletic events, and to homes in the area. -Loose-fitting jeans may be worn between women's residence halls and when participating in activities where the durability of the fabric is important, such as skiing and ice-skating. <b>Ease</b> -All dresses, skirts, pants, and shirts must be loose-fitting, having a minimum of three inches of ease at bust and hips. -An informal way to measure ease is to stand up straight and pinch the loose fabric on both sides of the hips or at the bust line. Without stretching the fabric, there should be at least a 3/4-inch fold of fabric on both sides. <b>Other</b> -Sheer clothing may be worn only when the garment underneath conforms to normal dress regulations. -Hose must be worn for all professional-type activities including class, church, and recitals. -Combat boots, hiking boots, or shoes that give this appearance are not permitted. -Hairstyles should be neat, orderly, and feminine. Avoid cutting-edge fads and cuts so short that they take on a masculine look. -Students are not permitted to get tattoos. Excessive makeup is not permitted. Earrings may be worn only in the lobe of the ear (maximum of two matched sets). All other types of body piercings are prohibited. -Abercrombie & Fitch and its subsidiary Hollister have shown an unusual degree of antagonism to the name of Christ and an unusual display of wickedness in their promotions. In protest, we will not allow articles displaying their logos to be worn, carried, or displayed (even if covered or masked in some way). *** I am tempted to call and volunteer my services for enforcing the dress code. I can check to make sure that all of the necklines are no longer than "four fingers" below the collarbone. I could also check for "ease" by pinching "the loose fabric on both sides of the hips or at the bust line" to insure there is 3/4" of fabric left over. Did you know that the phone number at good ole BJU is 1-800-BJandMe. How many misrouted calls do they get from people wanting a BJ? Seriously, though, this is like the shepherds in Iraq who were killed because they refused to put diapers on their goats to keep Iraqi men from lusting. Boy these people really put the FUN in FUNdamentalism, don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 I always wore baggy clothes... and dammit, I wish I hadn't because I was a lot skinnier then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage Nabooru Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Muslim countries follow the same thinking: Because women have no sex drive, or at least shouldn't have a sex drive, it's their obligation to cover themselves up to ensure that every man they meet doesn't start drooling and thrusting uncontrollably if they see an ankle. I guess it's totally out of the question to have men control their lust themselves in male-founded religions. I always wore baggy clothes... and dammit, I wish I hadn't because I was a lot skinnier then. I did too......although I weighed a lot more. It was the in thing in the 90's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Yep, I've been hearing that stuff my whole life. I find it still affects me now in different ways-mainly in guilt. I was sent home from Christian school quite a few times because of this. In relating to my husband I also find it makes me really insecure because I've been educated about "lust" and taught that I should help fight for men's purity, so I see a Cosmo while we're waiting in line at the grocery store, or a bad scene comes on in a movie and my first reaction is to totally panic and find any way to get it out of his sight....It's dumb. The weird thing is I was just thinking of this a couple days ago, thinking this over-emphasis in conservative circles teaches girls/women to be ashamed of their bodies. Although there probably is some middle ground because obviously teachers wouldn't want girls or guys wearing bikini's in math class? but who knows. Thank you! I did the same thing when we were first dating... I felt like I was the only one. Sometimes that need to protect/jealousy (I never quite figured out which it was, probably both) still creeps up, and I feel a need to ask him if he thinks so and so is sexy/pretty. I used to turn over Cosmos and such at stores so my husband and other men wouldn't look. Fuck... I was messed up!! It's so retarded, and I hate that my church taught me to be this way. It has caused much heartache and pain. It did for my husband, too... we all know this kind fo thinking makes us think about it more, so he would often say he was going crazy trying not to look. Even today, he gets very anxious and nervous (to the point of sweating) if he sees someone/something that arouses him. It's crazy... so crazy. I'm glad I'm not the only one to have experienced this!! Muslim countries follow the same thinking: Because women have no sex drive, or at least shouldn't have a sex drive, it's their obligation to cover themselves up to ensure that every man they meet doesn't start drooling and thrusting uncontrollably if they see an ankle. I guess it's totally out of the question to have men control their lust themselves in male-founded religions. I always wore baggy clothes... and dammit, I wish I hadn't because I was a lot skinnier then. I did too......although I weighed a lot more. It was the in thing in the 90's. I guess the thinking goes that women aren't aroused by looks, but by touch and kindness/tenderness/personality, and since men are aroused by looks, and one generally can't control their lusty thoughts or arousal, it is on women to make sure they don't get to see much. It makes sense in a way, if you ignore the fact that women in fact do get turned on by how a guy looks. Yeah, I was a grungehead... so baggy clothes were in. I thought it was a plus that it was a cool thing to wear baggy clothes. Granted, I was skinnier, but not skinny, and I remember telling my youthgroup once in a testimonal thingie that I was thankful that God made me overweight (I was a size 12... oh no!!) because that meant that I didn't have to deal with guys looking at me or asking me out because I was cute. How fucked up is that?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgnosticBob AtheistPants Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 The religious piety of those who would tell a woman she MUST dress in a specific manner so as not to arouse the “demons” of lust and desire in a man are absolutely sickening. A woman’s choice to dress in clothing that accentuates her body does not in any way show that her “heart” is in the wrong place. It shows the simple and laudable fact that she is proud of herself and the way that she looks. If a man does not have the wherewithal to control his baser self when in the presence of a woman who is not covered head to toe in a burka, then it is his problem and not the woman’s. In our society, each person is held responsible for their own actions. No woman is responsible for any man’s lustful (and perfectly normal, by the way) thoughts due to her choice of attire. If a woman wants to wear clothing that calls attention to her beauty, then let her! Her body is a thing of beauty! If she chooses to wear clothing that accentuates her sexuality in order to attract a man, who is to say that she does not have the right? It does not by any means denote that her heart is not pure. That "check list" from "Sovereign Grace Ministries" is appalling. Here are my responses to their "heart check." Start with a Reality Check… • What statement do my clothes make about my heart? Clothes do not make a statement about your “heart”, your actions do. • In choosing what clothes to wear today, whose attention do I desire and whose approval do I crave? Am I seeking to please God or impress others? You choose what clothing to wear to please yourself and to draw attention to or detract attention from yourself. You certainly aren’t pleasing a fictional “God.” • Is what I wear consistent with biblical values of modesty, self-control and respectable apparel, or does my dress reveal an inordinate identification and fascination with sinful cultural values? Biblical values are outdated, patriarchal and misogynistic. Which culture’s sinful values should you worry about not identifying or being fascinated with? They aren’t all the same as sin is completely subjective. • Who am I trying to identify with through my dress? Is the Word of God my standard or is the latest fashion? You should be trying to identify with yourself. Relying on something else such as a text of Hebrew mythology as your “standard” isn’t advisable. If this what you choose, I suggest wearing a burka. • Have I asked other godly individuals to evaluate my wardrobe? Seeking the approval of others is normal. Seeking the approval of fundamentalist Christians is just plain stupid. • Does my clothing reveal an allegiance to the gospel or is there any contradiction between my profession of faith and my practice of godliness? Hopefully your clothing reveals your allegiance to yourself. Otherwise, you might as well put the damned burka on again. Don’t bother pledging yourself to a mythological entity. You won’t get anything out of the deal other than heartache and misery when you finally come to the realization that you have wasted your life doing what no one omnipotent really wanted you to do in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 What I hated was in school they had this rule that your shorts had to be below the knee, now correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make them pedel-pushers not shorts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 I can only say that it takes a lot of immodesty to make me lustful these days. In the olden days you could have been wearing 2 burkas and a parka and I still would have been lustful. I know there's a woman under there somewheres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sithprincess Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Yep sounds familiar. I've always preferred fitted t-shirts, and never felt guilty about wearing them and that kind of thing. But, I will say, I am highly annoyed that so many women feel like they have to wear revealing clothing these days. From a purely feminist point of view, why the hell do women feel the need to use their bodies to get attention?! This is something that really annoys me. There was this girl I went to school with who dressed like an absolute slut all the time. It was so annoying! I just don't see how it's flattering to have men look at you just because you're revealing your body. It's your body. It says nothing about WHO you are. We could all flaunt something - like I could walk around with my boobs hanging out, but why? Just for some guy to lust over me like I'm just a piece of meat? Sexy does not = scantily clad. Okay, I'm now done with my rant. In Christian high school, I was a cheerleader. We weren't allowed to wear real skirts - we had to wear cullottes down to our knees with biker shorts in under them. Talk about overkill!!!! I mean, I completely understand a Christian school not wanting our skirts up to our asses, but to our KNEES? And why not real skirts, since we had biker shorts under them? Ridiculous... And speaking of men looking at women, I still don't agree with one's partner having sexual fantasies about someone else-if someone is hot, they just are. No big deal. I see lots of hot guys, but I don't think about screwing them all. And I don't mind my man looking at someone attractive, but it would bother me if he was thinking about having sex with her. Maybe this is old-fashioned, but it's just the way I am... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I must admit, it does annoy me when women dress like sluts all the time every day just because they can. I feel that way not because I'm not able to dress like that, but because I think it does a disservice to all women because it sends the message that we are okay with being treated as sex objects. We are still working hard to get equality of pay and such, and it doesn't help when we treat ourselves like pieces of meat (not that there isn't a time and place for that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sithprincess Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I must admit, it does annoy me when women dress like sluts all the time every day just because they can. I feel that way not because I'm not able to dress like that, but because I think it does a disservice to all women because it sends the message that we are okay with being treated as sex objects. We are still working hard to get equality of pay and such, and it doesn't help when we treat ourselves like pieces of meat (not that there isn't a time and place for that). Amen! Preach on Sister Pandora! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 My parents live in a gated retirement community. Call me a prude, but I don't think 80 year old women should be wearing string bikini's when doing yard work, and please don't bend over to pull those weeds. I have children in the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beowulf Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 But here's the difference - you suggest that folks dress modestly out of consideration for others. The check list seems more concerned with avoiding sin. That's a pretty big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 My sister tells me that women dress for each other (unless they are hookers). According to her the idea is to declare, "I'm hotter than you." Attracting men is more or less a side effect, or so I'm told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage Nabooru Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 That's not true, at least not with me. I dress well because I like how I feel when I look good, I get more respect, and if I get some attention, that's a big plus, too. (Provided it's from someone from whom I would like some!) But I've never dressed to impress or upstage other women......at least not heterosexually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exbeliever Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 And speaking of men looking at women, I still don't agree with one's partner having sexual fantasies about someone else-if someone is hot, they just are. No big deal. I see lots of hot guys, but I don't think about screwing them all. And I don't mind my man looking at someone attractive, but it would bother me if he was thinking about having sex with her. Maybe this is old-fashioned, but it's just the way I am... I wonder if this is a difference between men and women. I usually hate making these kind of generalizations, but my wife (of 10 years) and I talk about this often. She has a few guys that she talks freely about, but says that she does not have sexual fantansies about them (except one guy that she has admitted to). I, on the other hand, have sexual fantansies about 98% of the people I meet (or see pictures of). I feel that sexual fantansies are not a betrayal, but that desires to be romantically involved with someone else are. I love my wife deeply and would never want to be in a relationship with another woman. I am 1000% satisfied with my wife's love for me and mine for her. I see sex as something totally different. I think I would like to fuck everything that moves, but I wouldn't want to spend any non-sex time with anyone else. I'm very open about this with my wife. When she asks me about a woman on TV or one that we know or have seen in real life, I usually reply, "Oh, yea. I'd fuck her." She takes it in stride, calls me a pervert and moves on because she knows that I have always been faithful to her. I don't know. I wonder if this is a guy/girl thing. Maybe some men can tell me if my feelings are unusual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-COG Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 My childhood church was real strict when it came to clothing and modesty. Women couldn't wear pants or shorts ("pertaineth to men"), dresses/skirts/coulottes had to be below the knee, no plunging necklines, no sleeveless tops, no tight clothing, no jewelry (well, no necklaces or rings, even wedding rings; but for some strange reason this church allowed pins on your clothing. ), no short hair (at least shoulder length, though there were some churches in our "group" that said not to cut your hair at all! Just call them Split End City Church!). Rules for the men were: no shorts, no sleeveless shirts, no going without a shirt, no jewelry (again, no wedding band either), no long hair (too effeminate; and no block cuts in the back either, get that razor to trim up the back of your neck, boys!), no tatoos. Needless to say, mixed swimming was verboten, also. Looking over that list, I feel that the women had more prohibitions than the men. In addition to "not tempting men", I think it was a way to control women's behavior; after all, if you were in a dress it was more difficult to dash around, climb trees, sit comfortably, etc. So you were forced to restrict your movements more than the boys did (I hated this). Of course, the school system used to have a more strict dress code also, and I had to wear a dress the first three or four years I attended. I felt so free when they lifted this rule! I was also fortunate that my Mom didn't make me follow the church dress code at home, so I could be somewhat normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurari Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 In addition to "not tempting men", I think it was a way to control women's behavior; after all, if you were in a dress it was more difficult to dash around, climb trees, sit comfortably, etc. So you were forced to restrict your movements more than the boys did (I hated this). I never did the "modesty check" because I always wore loose fitting t-shirts and pants as a kid (still do). I prefer earth tones and jewel tones now, but back then I my clothes were in pastel colors like pink and blue and lavender and things. And I remember I STILL got flak about dressing like a boy. I remember getting into this rediculous argument with one stupid little girl in middle school about all things, the way that I sat in chairs. I have never "perched," and find that position wholly uncomfortable. So I sit in chairs with either my feet on the floor and knees apart or with one ankle crossed over one knee. She started acting snotty and teasing me about how I was a slob because of my constantly messy hair and clothes, and for sitting like a guy and that ladies don't sit like that because it makes you look like a slut. I told her with the slutty short skirts she wore, I could see her underwear anyway and told her what color it was and what pattern. She turned bright red and tried to counter with asking why I was so interested in looking at her underwear anyway. I told her that she might as well sit like me and get comfortable since her clothing was screaming she wanted somebody to part her legs anyway. She shut the hell up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twincats Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 The church I grew up in was pretty liberal about dress. Most folks wore the old 'Sunday-go-to-meetin' clothes, but a few were more flamboyant. I do remember Sundays were about the only time I ever wore a dress, though. I also went to the parochial school (jr. hi in the '70s) at that church and the only rule I remember was that skirts had to be down to your middle finger in length and no shorts except PE uniforms. Other than that, the boys who played sports had to wear shirts & ties on game days, but that was the coach's rule. I WAS kinda dismayed to find that I pretty much adhere to the rules in the pamphlet, but it's really just because I'm a fat housewife and don't want to be offensive or scare little children. My strange (& wonderful) husband would like to see my wardrobe get tighter and somewhat skimpier, but I'll only indulge him at home, not to worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Modest dress is hot. My best boners were in church, hidden under a hymnal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Modest dress is hot. My best boners were in church, hidden under a hymnal. I agree. I think imagination is much more of a turn on than in your face sexuality. It's not what you have, it's what they think you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts