Jump to content
naominash

Women's Modesty: Pants Vs Skirts

Recommended Posts

Background:

Ive been to churches across the modesty spectrum. But I'm very influenced my the church I went to where the women were skirt only. I waver, but I'm thinking of only wearing skirts and dresses because I now feel self-conscious in pants.

 

1. Are pants immodest?

2. Are skirts and dresses more feminine than pants for women?

3. Does Deuteronomy 22:5 apply to pants and skirts?

 5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, naominash said:

Background:

Ive been to churches across the modesty spectrum. But I'm very influenced my the church I went to where the women were skirt only. I waver, but I'm thinking of only wearing skirts and dresses because I now feel self-conscious in pants.

 

1. Are pants immodest?

2. Are skirts and dresses more feminine than pants for women?

3. Does Deuteronomy 22:5 apply to pants and skirts?

 5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

 

 

What denomination of Church was this where women wore only dresses?

1. I do not have a problem with women wearing modest slacks.

2. It is a matter of choice. I would always prefer more dressy pants since that is what I am most comfortable in.

3. It does not apply to women and pants for today. Deuteronomy 22:5 refers to the second giving of the law to the nation of Israel. We go by the NT and not the OT laws. That would make us legalistic. There is no law in the NT that says what a woman should wear. The only issue is that a woman must dress modestly 1 Timothy 2:9-10.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. My personal opinion: pants are fine as long as they're not tight, ripped, flashy, etc. Business or formal pants would be fine.

2. Skirts and dresses are part of a social institution in culture. They vary with time. Currently, the norm is definitely that pants are less feminine. But that shouldn't discourage you, as long as you dress modestly.

3. I think with the Jewish custom, it would apply to the Kippah, or something along those lines. I don't believe men wore pants in those days, but rather robes or long coats. 

  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a tough one for me. If I go to the mall there are nothing but skin tight jeans and leggings

I go to the thrift store, pick out a skirt... It's just so much easier. 

I don't see a lot of loose flowy pants.

 

It's true that Deuteronomy 5:22 is an old covenant law. I guess what I'm asking is based off what people have observed through experience.

 

When I wear pants, I get more stares from men. When I wear skirts, I have doors opened for me. 

Perhaps I'll have to file this under personal conviction or preference. 

I'm curious if there are skirt only women who will weigh in on this.

My conscience won't allow me to wear almost any pants anymore so I'll follow my conscience.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, naominash said:

Perhaps I'll have to file this under personal conviction or preference. 

My conscience won't allow me to wear almost any pants anymore so I'll follow my conscience.

That's where it's at. Good on your for following your conscience. Don't try arguing with it either. If you feel the slightest guilt for wearing pants, within reason, then it's best not to. 

  • Thumbs Up 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, naominash said:

This is a tough one for me. If I go to the mall there are nothing but skin tight jeans and leggings

I go to the thrift store, pick out a skirt... It's just so much easier. 

I don't see a lot of loose flowy pants.

 

It's true that Deuteronomy 5:22 is an old covenant law. I guess what I'm asking is based off what people have observed through experience.

 

When I wear pants, I get more stares from men. When I wear skirts, I have doors opened for me. 

Perhaps I'll have to file this under personal conviction or preference. 

I'm curious if there are skirt only women who will weigh in on this.

My conscience won't allow me to wear almost any pants anymore so I'll follow my conscience.

I see so much immodest clothing on women that I find it disgusting. At the malls their are huge pictures hung up with women who are half naked. But I think that Satan has this. We need to reflect on the inside and on the outside who we belong to and that is Jesus Christ.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminder:

We do not live in Eden / Utopia / The Perfect World.

My freedoms and rights are limited by those of others.

There is sin in the world.

And we all possess a sin nature that we were born with.

Any one of the above I would be happy to defend under another thread title.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In an ideal world, women should be allowed to freely express their femininity without fear of repercussion or that it be interpreted as welcoming unwanted advances. 

In an ideal world, men should be free from the snares of temptations to lust at almost every turn, or to be free of confusing and conflicting signals by those females who make it difficult on men and other women by contributing to the confusion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sometimes girls are just being girls. And when a guys gets that, everything is fine.

Sometimes guys are just being guys. Now I know a lot of evil that should not be tolerated is excused by "boys will be boys" but I am NOT referring that.

I suppose we could be here on this point for many weeks listing what is and what is not acceptable.

But I dare say most of us know from earliest childhood what is NOT acceptable.

So I am not going on record as saying every girl who shows some leg or wears pants too tight is going to hell.

Sometimes people go overboard trying to combat the onslaught of inappropriate dress and behavior in the world.

I used to be one of those overboard types. 

I had the argument down pat six ways from Sunday. Then I realized I was trying to bring the Law of Moses into the age of Grace.

  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Law of Moses was in FULL effect until the cross of Christ.

Hebrews 9:16–17 (AV)
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

When Jesus said "It is finished" he meant all of it. Salvation, the Law, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without going through half of Romans, Galatians, and 1 John,

suffice it to say the Law is still in effect... just not FULL effect (meaning it is no longer the current covenant between God and his people).

The way the Law IS in effect is to stand as the sign post for Grace (the futility of law keeping), to maintain the line between good and evil,

and to stand as the writ of condemnation for all who believe not Jesus Christ.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Sermon on the Mount was preached under Law and was generally about the Law. Or as some put it, the Talmud was man's commentary

on God's Law. The Sermon on the Mount was God's Commentary on man's commentary. You will see in it several times where he says "you have heard it said... but I say..."

Some might argue there are portions of the Sermon that are Grace and New Covenant. Indeed. So is a percentage of the Old Testament / Tanakh. Both spoke of a time and

covenant that had not yet come. That came after the cross. Observe the elements of Old Testament Law:

Matthew 5:27–30 (AV)
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

New Testament is:

John 3:16–18 (AV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Belief plus nothing (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JohnD said:

Reminder:

We do not live in Eden / Utopia / The Perfect World.

My freedoms and rights are limited by those of others.

There is sin in the world.

And we all possess a sin nature that we were born with.

Any one of the above I would be happy to defend under another thread title.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In an ideal world, women should be allowed to freely express their femininity without fear of repercussion or that it be interpreted as welcoming unwanted advances. 

In an ideal world, men should be free from the snares of temptations to lust at almost every turn, or to be free of confusing and conflicting signals by those females who make it difficult on men and other women by contributing to the confusion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sometimes girls are just being girls. And when a guys gets that, everything is fine.

Sometimes guys are just being guys. Now I know a lot of evil that should not be tolerated is excused by "boys will be boys" but I am NOT referring that.

I suppose we could be here on this point for many weeks listing what is and what is not acceptable.

But I dare say most of us know from earliest childhood what is NOT acceptable.

So I am not going on record as saying every girl who shows some leg or wears pants too tight is going to hell.

Sometimes people go overboard trying to combat the onslaught of inappropriate dress and behavior in the world.

I used to be one of those overboard types. 

I had the argument down pat six ways from Sunday. Then I realized I was trying to bring the Law of Moses into the age of Grace.

I believe modesty must come first and foremost come from the heart.

 

If my heart is not right, it doesn't matter how long my skirt or dress is. I've seen some very evil women in skirts. 

 

But if our hearts are right, I think it will affect how we dress. With humility and not like every trend the world has to offer.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take a look at what Jesus said, when he said it (under what covenant) and why he said it:

Matthew 5:27–30 (AV)
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Jesus was responding to a misapplication of the Law (in that only one side of it was being enforced). Rabbi Hillel lived about a generation and a half before the Lord Jesus. He taught (based on Leviticus 18:8 and Isaiah 47:1-3) that a woman who exposed her uncovered hair, legs, or thighs before men who were not her husband (even if accidentally) was guilty of a divorceable offense. Read that adultery. Matthew 5:27-28 was in direct response to this. Notice Jesus did not refute Hillel. He simply reminded the teaching (assuming the Rabbi was already dead) that Job 31:1-13 is as much Law as Leviticus 18:8 and Isaiah 47:1-3. And BOTH were elements of the futility of man keeping the law (forcing the human race to Grace).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By C_Jones
      Hi guys! I hope I posted this in the right section.
      I wanted to share another perspective of modesty culture through what I have learned from the following blogger (I will also put the link below; not all of the article is below.):
      https://sometimesmagical.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/modesty-the-insidious-objectification/
      "...
      I’m going to go even further than that and say that the principle of modesty is the foundation of rape culture and objectification. The assumption that women need to cover their bodies in order to get respect from others or to have self-respect for themselves is what makes people think it’s okay to say that a woman’s dress contributed to her rape or sexual assault. It’s the assumption that women’s bodies are always sexual when exposed that makes people think that exposing _____ amount of skin means she’s there to be looked at or used for sex or that she wants to have sex. And further, it’s that assumption that an exposed body is a sexualized body that makes people think it’s okay to degrade and objectify women who have exposed their body, without regard to the reason for the exposure.
      Modesty isn’t just another way of reducing a girl to her body parts. It is the way of reducing a girl to her body parts. The obsession of covering or uncovering a woman’s body is the same obsession. And it comes from the same mindset—that women are there for men, either as temptresses or toys. Either way, her body isn’t there for her. It’s all about how it looks to someone else—specifically some other man. Her body loses its function as the vehicle through which she lives and instead becomes the measure of how others determine her virtue.
      And there is no winning!
      Modesty teachings range all over the place. I used to get emails on modesty when I attended Bob Jones University. Everything was a “stumbling block.” Pants drew attention to the butt. Skirts drew attention to the butt. nude hose made legs look sexy. Colored stockings made legs noticeable, thus indecent. Bare legs made guys think of sex. The only “safe” option was to not have legs!
      Oh, it is such an effective way of keeping women confined. It’s such an effective way of keeping them feeling guilty for their bodies, ashamed and hyper-aware of every aspect of it. It is the perfect method of reminding them that their primary function in life is sex-appeal.
      How convenient to put the responsibility on women to be viewed as human beings.
      How convenient for men to be told they can’t control themselves when it comes to sex. It’s so much easier to believe it’s uncontrollable and to blame someone else for the prejudice, superiority, and privilege than to admit that one is prejudiced, views women as inferior, and is too lazy to fight against the culture that reduces women to body parts.
      But newsflash! My humanity isn’t determined by my dress! Walking out the door butt naked shouldn’t in any way diminish my personhood to anyone.
      I don’t have a problem seeing a guy as a lesser person because he’s shirtless. And before we get into the “but men are visual and wired to view women that way,” let me just remind everyone that I’m attracted to women too. I’m attracted to the exact same body parts as men. And I’m very much a visual person in my attraction. But I don’t have a hard time remembering that a beautiful girl is a person, EVEN IF SHE’S DRESSED IN NEXT TO NOTHING! I don’t stop seeing her because I see her cleavage!
      It’s time to stop focusing on what women are wearing and take a good hard look at the cultural mindset that allows men to think of women as “less than.”  In the end, if, like this guy, you have a hard time seeing me as a whole person, it’s not my clothing that makes it difficult for you to view me as a whole person; it’s your prejudice that makes it difficult for you to view me as a whole person. And that isn’t my responsibility to change. It’s yours.
      My world doesn’t revolve around men. When I get dressed in the morning, I’m not thinking of men. I wear what makes me happy or what serves my needs, regardless of whether someone else likes it or not. If I wear shorts, it’s not to get a guy’s attention. If I wear an ankle-length skirt, it’s not to “protect” a guy’s mind or prevent him from thinking about me. I dress for me and no one else.
      Show a little modesty, guys, and stop thinking that everything to do with my body has something to do with you."
      For more in-depth reading, I really liked this second link, which is a 12-part series. It was so interesting, read it all in one sitting: 
      http://fiddlrts.blogspot.com/2014/05/modesty-culture-part-1-introduction.html
      I personally don't agree with his 1 Timothy interpretation, but anyway- both are very insightful and thought-provoking and I thought I would share.
    • By Sharnadeen
      I have observed quite a number of developing trends in our churches that beg the frightening question of who we are worshiping. Common among those trends are the tendency of persons to spend more time on their cell phones than they do in worship and the tendency to 'make an entrance' when entering the sanctuary. I can't help but ask myself - What kind of message are we sending to the world as Christians?
      I'll begin this discussion with an understanding of the word 'worship'.  Worship is derived from the Old English word 'Woerthship' which means to give worth to something. So when we worship God, we give worth to Him. Sadly, it appears that the saints are giving worth to other things in the house of the Lord. Here I will identify two obvious reasons that are rather disturbing to fathom but as it is a reality within the churches I will make mention of them today.
      The 'cellphone syndrome'
      We all need to communicate with others over the phone for different reasons. But I find it very disrespectful for the saints to perpetually excuse themselves from the sermon to be on the outside messaging and talking for an extensive period. Not that it is anybody's business to know the nature of these conversations, but when it happens more often than not I'm afraid that we are sending the wrong message to our unsaved visitors. Do we not show reverence to the Lord anymore? I especially observe this trend among our young people of which group I am a part. I fail to believe that our young people use their discretion for they excuse themselves in large numbers at once. It appears that the cellphones get the 'worth' that should have been given to God and therefore it automatically becomes the god that is worshiped.
      Our God has feelings too. I am more concerned about His feelings than I am with the reputation of the church. For many saints, the time spent in the house of the Lord is the longest and sometimes only time spent with God. If the latter is the case then all the more reason why He deserves our undivided attention. Let's face it, three hours of prayer and worship is the least we can give to God considering all that He does for us on a daily basis. The church needs to be careful not to provoke the Holy Spirit and not to send the wrong message to those who are lost and in need of our guidance.
      The problem with 'making an entrance'
      By now many of us would have realized that persons go to church for different reasons; to spectate, to see friends, to wear a nice suit and a few to seek God. There are many other reasons but these are the few I could think of today. Having said that, there are many within the church who perpetually make an entrance under the influence of a 'disruptive spirit' I suppose. This trend may not be very evident in the larger churches, but as my church is small the trend is becoming more noticeable. Saints are not only expected to be present for sermons but are expected to be there on time. It is very distasteful when visitors arrive in the sanctuary before the members do and to make matters worse, our visitors are distracted each time someone walks through the aisle to take a seat.  
      What about respecting the time of the Holy Spirit? I understand that anyone can be late but when the same persons have heads spinning each week, their actions shift from just being late to 'making an entrance'. Leaders are often times included and I don't just mean Pastors, Bishops, Deacons etc. I mean any person within the church body who demonstrates his leadership abilities in even the smallest possible way. Why are persons making an entrance? It is certainly not because of a desire to be noticed by God but rather 'god', who is seated somewhere in the sanctuary. 
      This is one of the reasons why it is increasingly harder to convince an unsaved or even a backslider to return to God. These groups of persons are understandably confused by the double standards that exist within the church. No wonder there is a growing number of non-denominational Christians in our societies today. The church has a voice and we want to be heard, but let us consider addressing some of the ongoing issues among ourselves before we advocate for modesty and decency anywhere else.
      These are two growing trends that I have observed in church. Have you observed any other?
    • By GoldenEagle
      I thought this was very interesting... I realize it's the end of the summer so the whole modesty buzz is probably not as hot of a topic. Still worth the read though.
       

×
×
  • Create New...