Tired of hoochy clothes for your teenage girl? Christa Taylor specializes in modest, stylish ("modish") clothes for young women. I think the swimsuit is spot on, and quite this-side of the burkini. There’s a difference between modesty and shame. Why not just put your Muslim woman in a box?
And while I don’t think that all adult women should dress this way (the body is beautiful), I absolutely think that teen girls ought to dress modestly, and NOT in a two-piece. I remember being a teenage boy, and I did not need any encouragement in objectifying and sexualizing women. (HT: Challies)
I think young women, old women, fat women, skinny women, pretty women, ugly women, all should dress modestly.
And I think a modest way of dressing doesn't switch off or change when a women gets older. Although by the time she reaches her 30s or 40s I daresay most any woman has not got the body she once had for showing off!
The website had some really cute stuff. But the prices. Oh my! :-p
Next Christianist goal: the burkha for women.
Skeptic, did you miss the point? This is modest – something which avoids the extremes of the burka or the slutty barely-there clothes that some women wear (e.g. thong swimsuits).
Now, I'm not that prudish when it comes to women's clothes (a little cleavage on my wife is very nice, and I think nude beaches for adults are fine, though you'd have trouble finding a lot of Christians who agree with that), but for teenagers, I definitely think modesty is in order, first, because they should be pursuing their education, not romance and boys (in most cases), and secondly, because teenage boys are totally hormone driven and should not be encouraged to lust after women.
Not because it's their fault as a woman if a man lusts (that's burka talk), but because as wise women, they understand the emotional limitations of boys and the almost irresistible drive of their hormones.
Modesty for young women (and old) is wisdom and kindness (not to mention quiet confidence rather than desperation), not bondage.
[I think this says it all.]
Actually, I have always thought that if you are trying to be modest, you are basically trying not to draw attention to yourself.
And sorry, but that burkha…. would really draw attention to ya! It would in our culture, especially. This is also why I think the way Amish or even Mennonite people dress, is not really modest. Not in that sense of the word.
If you take it to mean covering up everything you can, then I guess it will work.
But when the Bible speaks of modesty in women it is more about attitude. Although it does talk about not showing off the goods, so to speak.
It is a lot about attitude. If a woman in any type of clothing started dancing around or acting in a seductive manner, I really do not think it'd matter what clothes she has on.
Haven't stopped by in a while. Fortunately I did to catch this. I know you'll find this hard to believe Seeker, but it isn't the job of women to cover themselves up so that we won't be tempted. It's job of men, especially Christian men, to abstain from behavior that isn't allegedly Christian. Stop trying to make your own responsibilities less while increasing the reponsibilities of women. If you shouldn't be staring at half naked women, then don't. It isn't their job not to be half naked.
Hi Sam:
I have to disagree. It is the responsibility of all of us Christians to help our brothers and sisters refrain from sin. The Apostle Paul wrote extensively on this topic; I'm not just making things up.
your friend
keith
I appreciate your disagreement – you're mistaken. If you don't want to be tempted by scantily clad women, DON'T LOOK. The difference between this line of reasoning and the reasoning of Muslim clerics is negligent because it is always the job of women to make the responsible decisions. Men don't have anything that they're supposed to be doing.
Hi Sam:
I'm mistaken? Surely not:-) Seriously though, I must disagree with your *opinion* here. Each of us is responsible for ourselves AND for our neighbors. If I do not help you avoid sin then you are responsible for your sin and I am responsible for not helping you. This of course is *my* opinion, a view that is taught by the Apostle Paul.
your friend
Keith
it isn't the job of women to cover themselves up so that we won't be tempted. It's job of men, especially Christian men, to abstain from behavior that isn't allegedly Christian.
I think your approach is unbalanced and unwise. It's like saying that you shouldn't lock your doors because it is the criminal's responsibility to not rob.
In the REAL world, people are not entirely virtuous. And while I agree entirely that it is every man's responsibility to control himself, any woman who dresses without modesty must realize that she will be tempting the less virtuous, and should not be surprised if such men accost her.
Is it her fault that she was attacked? Though she is not to blame for someone else's actions, her lack of concern for their weaknesses certainly is stupid, if not a moral lapse on her part.
This is why Christianity is more reasonable than either humanism, which assumes one extreme (total freedom is our right) and fundamentalism (women need to not MAKE others sin).
The middle road is that (a) we are free to do as we wish, but (b) modesty is a concern for the weaknesses of others, and a wisdom in light of the falleness of man.
And men have just as much responsibility for modest dress, though it is probably more dangerous for women who tempt men, since men seem more driven by sex, and are in general, stronger.
Immodest dress is like wafting food under a hungry man's nose, and then being surprised when he finally gives in to stealing it from you. Did he sin? Yes. Did you incite him, with uncaring zeal for your freedom to do as you wish? Absolutely.
BTW, my exposition of Romans 14 covers the Christian approach to such matters perfectly. It comes down to "don't flaunt your freedom, but exercise it with wisdom and concern for others."
"If I do not help you avoid sin then you are responsible for your sin and I am responsible for not helping you."
Simply mind your own business because your idea of sin is irrelevant to me and I think Sam as well.
"If you don't want to be tempted by scantily clad women, DON'T LOOK."
Agreed. Very simple. Me, I like women who dress as they like. Religious fanatics can keep their women dressed in bee-keeper suits for all I care. It only proves they are a bunch of prudes.
Seeker,
You might as well look a raped woman in the eye and say, "You deserved it."
I knew there was a reason I stopped coming here, and it's because the Christians are just like the Muslims that frighten the hell out of me. Au revoir.
Hi Sam;
I don't think anything Seeker said even hints at what you accuse him of. Your characterization is…well..an unfair caricature.
your Friend
Keith
Hi Cineaste:
I don't know what you mean when you ask me to mind my own business. I have no intention of forcing you to do anything you don't want to; neither does Seeker as far as I can tell. What *I* was saying is that part of *my* responsibility is to help you out when I can–it's not good enough if I only avoid hurting you in some way. You don't seriously have a beef with *that* do you?
your Friend
Keith
Keith,
“I don’t know what you mean when you ask me to mind my own business.”
Below, is what I mean.
“It is the responsibility of all of us Christians to help our brothers and sisters refrain from sin.”
I’ll help you if you want it. I ask the same of you. I don’t want help with sin though. Why? There is no such thing to me and I resent it when Christians presume I am a sinner. If I’m an atheist in the first place, how can I believe I am transgressing against divine law (committing sins)? Sin is irrelevant to atheists. This also applies to the topic at hand, “sinful” clothing. Unless of course you only mean those who believe in sin when you say “brothers and sisters.” I do believe in morality though. Morality is not tied to religious doctrine.
– Cin
Cineaste :)
Of course women can dress however they wish. They do, to an extent.
But that does not make everything a woman COULD wear appropriate for every place a woman CAN go, and consequently be seen by other people.
How you dress says a lot about you.
If you go to a job interview for a bank, you do not where old ratty clothes. If you go out to work in your garden, you do not wear a suit and tie or formal dress.
You dress appropriately, as you see fit. Usually you do it with others in mind. I do not know anone who truly wears only what they feel like wearing all the time, without regard to how others will view them.
Hence we have fashions and different styles. We dress for the benefit of others just as much as we do for our own benefit.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, many women (or men) do not see fit to clothe themselves with anyone else in mind except the people they want to take notice of their bodies in a sensual or sexual way.
This makes me remember a conversation I once had with some friends of mine… About why women wear bras and pantyhose and stuff like that! haha.
I will not go into detail, but it is definitely not because women *want* to wear such uncomfortable things!
Hi Cin:
'll help you if you want it. I ask the same of you. I don't want help with sin though. Why? There is no such thing to me and I resent it when Christians presume I am a sinner. If I'm an atheist in the first place, how can I believe I am transgressing against divine law (committing sins)? Sin is irrelevant to atheists. This also applies to the topic at hand, "sinful" clothing. Unless of course you only mean those who believe in sin when you say "brothers and sisters." I do believe in morality though. Morality is not tied to religious doctrine.
I really don't understand your resentment. You would agree that you are not morally perfect, right? I don't know you, maybe you are morally perfect:-) but if you are only a few times better than me you still do wrong things sometimes. Sin is a religious term, that's true, but what it means is "wrong doing or wrong attitude" and all morally imperfect people display that from time to time. That you don't believe there is the kind of spiritual significance to wrong doing that we Christians think just means we don't share the same religious beliefs, and in America at least that's supposed to be OK. As an atheist you do not believe you are sinning in the religious sense and I wasn't aware that any Christians ever said different.
Now I can see your being annoyed when we Christians go all self-righteous, implying that you are a sinner while we who claim we are walking with the Lord are somehow morally better than you. Jesus warned us against this very attitude and I for one fail to heed his warnings way too much. But to be fair to us, self righteousness is pretty much the human condition, theists and non, liberals and conservatives, we all fall into it regularly.
your friend
Keith
Keith, I've never committed a sin. Don't tell me I have. I resent it.
Hi Cineaste:
But you do admit you have sometimes done wrong things, don't you? You don't claim to be morally perfect do you? if not then it seems to me you resent the fact that I speak a different language than you. Seriously Cin, that doesn't seem like you. But because I don't want to offend you I will not use that language when I talk about any of your actions (I haven't said "you sinned" yet have I?).
your Friend
Keith
I wanted to add that I read that Madonna told her daughter to dress more modestly and I had to laugh.
"But you do admit you have sometimes done wrong things, don't you?"
Wrong in whose eyes? Mine? God's? Society's? Yours?
"I haven't said "you sinned" yet have I?"
You have. "If I do not help you (me? Sam?) avoid sin then you are responsible for your sin and I am responsible for not helping you."
Who are you responsible to? God? If God, then kindly keep your God out of my life. I live my life by my own codes, not by your conception of God. You have zero responsibility for helping me, a non-Christian, with sin or morality. Do not even presume you have this "responsibility" to me or other non-Christians.
Keith, I've never committed a sin. Don't tell me I have. I resent it.
If you believe you have never transgressed some metaphysical moral law, fine. But if you mean you have never stolen, lied, acted selfishly, been sexually promiscuous, etc, I'd say you are either the next messiah, a liar, or a lunatic.
And you don't have to believe it for it to be true. If God says you are guilty, you are. If you've broken the moral law, you are. You can take it up with Him at your leisure.
But Biblically speaking, you have sinned. Now, if you doubt the importance of such perspectives, no one will stop you.
Hi Cineaste:
Wrong in whose eyes? Mine? God's? Society's? Yours?
I know you don't believe in God so I don't think you believe you have done wrong in God's eyes. Since I have no authority over you I don't expect doing wrong in my eyes matters to you (not should it). Society's? Well I don't believe society has moral authority over us so I wouldn't be asking you about what society thinks. What I meant was "wrong according you".
"I haven't said "you sinned" yet have I?"
You have. "If I do not help you (me? Sam?) avoid sin then you are responsible for your sin and I am responsible for not helping you."
Being picky, that doesn't say you have sinned; all it does is presuppose the possibility. I still don't understand why my belief that there is a spiritual significance to wrong doing offends you, and I really would like to understand.
Who are you responsible to? God? If God, then kindly keep your God out of my life. I live my life by my own codes, not by your conception of God. You have zero responsibility for helping me, a non-Christian, with sin or morality. Do not even presume you have this "responsibility" to me or other non-Christians.
How can I force my God on you? I haven't advocated applying my religious laws on you, nor have I called anything you have done a sin. I don't understand why it's your business what I consider to be my responsibility, as long as my actions don't interfere with your right to choose what you want to. Seriously Cineaste, I am trying to get what your objection is. Please help me understand. or maybe one of the other atheists around here could help me out. Somebody?
your friend
Keith
What I meant was "wrong according you".
Well, if this is so then why is it your responsibility to help me with sin? If sin is "what's wrong according to me" then why are you responsible for "not helping" with MY sins? It is, after all "according to me."
"I still don't understand why my belief that there is a spiritual significance to wrong doing offends you, and I really would like to understand."
Because you apply that spiritual significance to me. I don't presume to tell you what is considered a sin and what's not. But, just look at that twit (Seeker's) description of sin as "sexual promiscuity" and it should become evident how presumptuous you are being. Seeker, with his clumsy pawing at ideas he doesn't understand, has exposed your position, "And you don't have to believe it for it to be true. If God says you are guilty, you are… But Biblically speaking, you have sinned." Don't you agree with Seeker about this? If not, then I've made a mistake and I'll admit it. If you agree, we go back to my original admonishment, kindly "mind your own business."
"I don't understand why it's your business what I consider to be my responsibility, as long as my actions don't interfere with your right to choose what you want to."
Because, who are you to assume responsibility for my avoidance of sin? Do not presume responsibility because it has a cloying effect. I will determine what sin is and avoid it if I choose to do so.
Hi Cineaste:
Well, if this is so then why is it your responsibility to help me with sin? If sin is "what's wrong according to me" then why are you responsible for "not helping" with MY sins? It is, after all "according to me."
I think you are removing the context of my answer. I asked you if you believed you had ever done wrong–in that context I explained what I meant. Why aren't you answering the question? And what difference does it make if we are talking about what's wrong according to you? Suppose you disagreed with me and believed that drinking alcohol was immoral, but you were struggling with that. Suppose I knew that if I had a beer in front of you this would make your struggle more difficult. IMO, even though I do not think that drinking is wrong, I have a responsibility not to drink in front of you because that would make it harder for you.
On the other hand, suppose I believed drinking were wrong and you didn't. And suppose I knew that if I suggested we go to a sports bar to check out the Cardinals game you would drink. IMO it would be my responsibility to keep my mouth shut. How does my helping you harm yuo in any way. It seems to me your only business would be if my help interfered with your freedom.
"I still don't understand why my belief that there is a spiritual significance to wrong doing offends you, and I really would like to understand."
Because you apply that spiritual significance to me. I don't presume to tell you what is considered a sin and what's not.
1. I didn't suggest telling you anything actually.
2. You don't use the word sin, but you obviously believe it's wrong for Christians to tell you what you ought to be doing. And you haven't been shy about telling Christians they ought not do so. You do see the contradiction in that, don't you?
But, just look at that twit (Seeker's) description of sin as "sexual promiscuity" and it should become evident how presumptuous you are being. Seeker, with his clumsy pawing at ideas he doesn't understand, has exposed your position, "And you don't have to believe it for it to be true. If God says you are guilty, you are… But Biblically speaking, you have sinned." Don't you agree with Seeker about this? If not, then I've made a mistake and I'll admit it. If you agree, we go back to my original admonishment, kindly "mind your own business."
I do agree with Seeker that (a) there is an objective morality which is all tied up with God, (b) and that IF there is an objective morality, you don't have to believe in God to be obligated to follow that morality, and (c) that sexual promiscuity is one of those things we ought not do (ignoring the needs of the poor and powerless, hating your enemies etc. are also on the list). Mind my own business? How have I not been doing just that? What kind of "help" do you imagine I've been talking about? Passing laws against sexy clothes so that you won't be tempted? I never suggested any such thing and I actually don't think Seeker did either. I haven't looked at what you were doing and pointed any fingers of scorn upon you the "horrible sinner". I believe that's also not one of the things that I should do. So what business is it of yours what my personal beliefs are?
"I don't understand why it's your business what I consider to be my responsibility, as long as my actions don't interfere with your right to choose what you want to."
Because, who are you to assume responsibility for my avoidance of sin? Do not presume responsibility because it has a cloying effect. I will determine what sin is and avoid it if I choose to do so.
Cineaste, I really don't get you right now. Who am I to assume responsibility for your sin? I am your neighbor who wants good things to happen for you. I am not the one who wants to pass any laws to force you to behave in a certain way, nor the one who wants to continually tell you what you are doing wrong. If I knew you better it might make sense for me to tell you if you were doing something that might hurt you, the way a guy can tell his friend that he might need to stop drinking. But since I barely know you at all I am not in a position to tell you about your "sins". I have enough sins of my own to worry about before I try to tell you what to do. But if I think X is a sin and I think it would be wrong for you to do X and I can-without infringing on your freedom–help make it less likely that you would freely choose to do X, then why is it your business to tell me not to care about you?
Seriously Cin, why does what's going on in my head your business? I am really trying to understand.
your Friend
Keith
There has to be a right and wrong, even if you do not believe in God. Standards are necessary.
Who you get your ideas of right and wrong from is most likely other people, if you do not get them from God. How that can be of any comfort, especially when any given group of people has often regretted very much its past (think slavery in this country…) I can't comprehend.
Have you guys seen The Incredibles?
Remember the scene where Mr. Incredible saved the guy from killing himself? He got sued and sent into a retirement from doing any "good" because another individual's (and society's) skewed sense of right and wrong.
Kinda reminds one of real life.
If women feel there is a right way to dress (and trust me – most women feel this way, as evidenced by the fashion industry), and one gets her ideas of the right way to dress from the Bible, chances are she will have less temptation to be promiscuous. Of course there is always that attitude, and the fact that people are not perfect, but less chance of being promiscuous is good by me. (Because promiscuity leads to lovely things such as STIs, low self-esteem, teen moms, etc)
I read another article from a British site (a liberal one) once about how the parents of young girls should not dress their girls up as "tarts" because they are encouraging pedophilia. I wish I could find it to post for you…
Keith,
"I asked you if you believed you had ever done wrong–in that context I explained what I meant. Why aren't you answering the question?"
Using this context, it's not a sin. I think the answer is obvious. Yes, I've done wrong according to my conscience. Are you responsible for that? No. What's your point with this?
Regarding your drinking examples, you are confusing responsibility with courtesy. If I, as the alcoholic, felt you were abstaining only because you feel responsible to God for me "avoiding sin" then I would accuse you of being insincere. That's what makes acts of generosity like not drinking a beer in front of an alcoholic genuine. To an atheist, acts of generosity should be worthwhile in and of themselves. Don't be generous just because you think God will hold you responsible for it.
"I didn't suggest telling you anything actually."
Then acknowledge that I am not a sinner. Don't tell me I have sinned. I resent that implication.
"You don't use the word sin, but you obviously believe it's wrong for Christians to tell you what you ought to be doing."
It's not wrong. Christians can tell me what they think I ought to be doing. I resent it though considering their religious motivations. I thought I made that clear.
"If I knew you better it might make sense for me to tell you if you were doing something that might hurt you, the way a guy can tell his friend that he might need to stop drinking."
I already addressed this, "I'll help you if you want it. I ask the same of you." I don't feel obligated or responsible to some divine power for helping you. I'll help you because I choose to do so.
"But if I think X is a sin and I think it would be wrong for you to do X and I can-without infringing on your freedom–help make it less likely that you would freely choose to do X, then why is it your business to tell me not to care about you?"
Because Keith, X is a variable. Make X = "promiscuity" and then plug it into your formula above and you engender a lot of resentment. At least Seeker comes right out and says what he thinks sin is. You call it "X." You both make the same accusation of sinfulness. So, kindly mind your own business in regard to sin. I have never sinned.
"Seriously Cin, why does what's going on in my head your business? I am really trying to understand."
Read your own formula and make X = "promiscuity." Hopefully, understanding will come to you.
– Cin
Hi Cin:
Before I start I want to acknowledge my gratitude for your using the variable X in your post:-)
You wrote:
"I asked you if you believed you had ever done wrong–in that context I explained what I meant. Why aren't you answering the question?"
Using this context, it's not a sin. I think the answer is obvious. Yes, I've done wrong according to my conscience. Are you responsible for that? No. What's your point with this?
My point is that IMO I have a responsibility not to cause you to stumble.
Regarding your drinking examples, you are confusing responsibility with courtesy. If I, as the alcoholic, felt you were abstaining only because you feel responsible to God for me "avoiding sin" then I would accuse you of being insincere.
I don't get what you are saying here. Are you talking about a person not caring about you but doing what he does only because he feels an obligation to God?
…That's what makes acts of generosity like not drinking a beer in front of an alcoholic genuine. To an atheist, acts of generosity should be worthwhile in and of themselves. Don't be generous just because you think God will hold you responsible for it.
OK, so you see the hypothetical Christian as being insincere because his motivation is concern that God will punish him? In other words, his motive is selfish?
"I didn't suggest telling you anything actually."
Then acknowledge that I am not a sinner. Don't tell me I have sinned. I resent that implication.
Sin just means wrongdoing or wrong attitude that has spiritual significance. Since I believe that such sin exists and that whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant to the sin question, how can you ask me to acknowledge that you are not a sinner? What is it that you resent? It's not that I am being self-righteous because I claim to be a sinner myself and I have no reason to think I'm better than you. It seems to me that you resent the fact that my private opinion about sin is different from yours.
"You don't use the word sin, but you obviously believe it's wrong for Christians to tell you what you ought to be doing."
It's not wrong. Christians can tell me what they think I ought to be doing. I resent it though considering their religious motivations. I thought I made that clear.
We might not be able to get past this; I simply have no idea why you'd resent my private thoughts. I don't resent your differing opinion about sin.
"If I knew you better it might make sense for me to tell you if you were doing something that might hurt you, the way a guy can tell his friend that he might need to stop drinking."
I already addressed this, "I'll help you if you want it. I ask the same of you." I don't feel obligated or responsible to some divine power for helping you. I'll help you because I choose to do so.
I appreciate all the help I can get, and honestly I don't think your motivation is my business.
"But if I think X is a sin and I think it would be wrong for you to do X and I can-without infringing on your freedom–help make it less likely that you would freely choose to do X, then why is it your business to tell me not to care about you?"
Because Keith, X is a variable. Make X = "promiscuity" and then plug it into your formula above and you engender a lot of resentment. At least Seeker comes right out and says what he thinks sin is. You call it "X." You both make the same accusation of sinfulness. So, kindly mind your own business in regard to sin. I have never sinned.
I used the variable X because my comment wasn't about a specific action; I was making a general statement. I don't see how X = promiscuity explains your resentment. I didn't accuse you of promiscuity–how would I know that about you? In fact I didn't accuse you of any particular sin. My presupposition that you have committed some sin is no different from my presupposition that you cannot jump 100 miles off the ground–it is my personal belief that all of us have sinned.
"Seriously Cin, why does what's going on in my head your business? I am really trying to understand."
Read your own formula and make X = "promiscuity." Hopefully, understanding will come to you.
It didn't. Perhaps you resent the fact that I believe promiscuity is a sin–if so I do not understand that resentment, no more than I would understand it if a person resented my belief that capitalism has gotten quite out of hand in the world. We can disagree about a lot of things, but I don't see why disagreement implies resentment. I also don't see why you'd resent it if I chose to behave so as NOT to tempt you to do something that I believed was wrong. I don't see how that harms you in any way at all.
your friend
Keith
Keith, keep your superstitions about sin to yourself. To me, sin as "wrongdoing or wrong attitude that has spiritual (divine) significance" is a load of BS. Do not smear me with it. Is this crystal clear? I don't give a rat's ass if you think you are a sinner. I'm not.
– Cin
Hi Cin:
Well, obviously this discussion topic is done. All I can say is that I still don't get why you are offended, but I am sorry that you feel that way. Next topic then.
your friend
keith
Cin and Keith
I'm sorry you missed or ignored my comment, but I think it clears it up fine.
To sum up:
1. If cin doesn't believe in existential guilt before God, he can't care about it.
2. If his guilt is real, he can't change that by not caring.
3. Even more important is the fact that he has, like all of us, broken the moral law, starting with the ten commandments. He has most likely stolen, lied, lusted, and of course, taken the Lord's name in vain ;). So, does that make him a sinner? Perhaps, but for sure, it makes him imperfect when it comes to a moral record.
The consequences of such? Time will tell.
"All I can say is that I still don't get why you are offended."
This is one of Christianity's biggest problems. They are oblivious to how silly their beliefs sound to others. They can't comprehend how calling others sinners, others who don't hold their beliefs about morality and sin, can engender resentment in others. It seems to me you are a good person Keith, but that just makes me sadder that you can't understand what others see from the outside looking in.
– Cin
Hi Cin:
I didn't say I didn't understand how silly you thought my beliefs are. I said I didn't get why you were offended by my holding them. I was very careful in what I said. I didn't call you specifically a sinner (I could see how that would offend you); I said that I believe all of us are sinners. It seems to me there is an obvious difference between the two statements.
your friend
Keith
I wanted to add something to the topic of the post. Here is the unobserved difference for Cineaste and Sam: Muslims force their adherents and others to abide by their rules. Christians are asking that Christian women be mindful of their brothers to help them not stumble.
I would be nicer in many respects if all women dressed more modestly, at least avoided the excesses that are present today, but those who are not Christian bare no responsibility to act in a way that makes in easier for Christian men. Christians have the responsibility to behave in ways that help each other avoid sin – be they men or women.
There is no Christian law in the works to force every woman into a "Jesus burqa." This is simply a business of a woman who wants to offer a service to women who feel the same as she does. Different people have different levels of modesty and what should be worn. I tend to agree with Lawanda, the motives of someone, why they are dressing a certain way, is important when discussing it in terms of Christian morality.
Those who are not Christians really should have no concern in this issue. You and your significant other can basically dress however you would like. Again no one is working on a Christian clothing law. And on the same level, why should it bother you that Christian women would want to help Christian men when it comes to their dress? It has nothing to do with a woman being raped "asking for it" or going toward a Muslim government, but everything to do with mutual respect – as Christian men should do things to help Christian women not to sin in areas they are tempted.
I was hoping that the Nancy Drew movie was going to be good so that I could take my daughter to it – I'd love to have smart, modest young women in popular media to inspire my daughter, rather than the whoreish behavior and dress that we constantly see.
What's worse, my daughter loves to dance, but I don't want her mimicking the sex-pots who adorn our screens, and who all seem to self-destruct in drugs and what-not.
I'd love to have smart, modest young women in popular media to inspire my daughter, rather than the whoreish behavior and dress that we constantly see.
Amen to that. Even 1 would be fantastic. But its ok. I try to teach my kids not to be conformists, even in the way they dress ;)
Modish clothes for Christian women
Again, you seem to have confused islam and christianity, and the huge difference in their approach.