Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing,
modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or
costly garments; but rather by means of good works, as befits women
making a claim to godliness. – I Timothy 2:9-10, NASB
I know that plenty has been written on the topic of women and modesty, but I'd like to contribute the following:
Note the words “proper,” “discreetly,” and “costly” in the passage quoted. Clothing is to be appropriate, meaning, suited for the occasion and circumstance in which it’s worn. With that in mind, I ask whether, for example, it's proper to wear underwear as outerwear, as is common today. The camisole-as-outerwear has become
a sensual statement of femininity that is not too aggressive or in-your-face obvious.
Perhaps not too aggressive or in-your-face obvious (most of the time), but still, not so discreet. Still calling attention to a woman’s upper torso, its endowments, and its possible uses. We have Madonna and her Blond Ambition Tour to thank for this, apparently...not exactly a display of good works and claims to godliness.
And why be sensual (or studly, for the men) in public at all? There's no need to advertise what women are, by nature, in the proper situation.
how hot is too hot?
Actually, I'll answer the former question. Perhaps it has to do with what feminists have been saying (and rightly so) about the past cultural image of women: "hot" women were those who went public with their sexuality; i.e., had "loose morals" and were of "ill repute." Therefore, heaven forbid that any woman would be so sensual, especially the good housewife, even in private with her husband. (How this follows, I'm not sure...unless perhaps because men brought their secret "private" adoration of public female sexuality into their marital relationships. In other words, the poor sexual attitudes of both sexes blurred boundaries, both privately and publicly.)
How much this actually was (and is) true in private, we'll never know (thank God). But it seems there's still difficulty identifying the "good" Christian woman as being equally sexual as the "good Christian" man. There's the overtone that, even in private, the openly sexual woman is...a hussy. (Pornography hasn't helped.) Somehow, virility in a man is still admired, wink-wink smile-smile, while the equivalent in a woman isn't, save for mere fecundity.
Many women are therefore afraid to admit or accept their sexuality as something good. It may also be intrinsically more difficult for a woman to discover her sexual self, though there are always exceptions. This may be truer for older women than younger. But I dare say that greater knowledge of the physicality physiology of sex does not necessarily correlate to greater psychological, emotional, or spiritual knowledge of it.
Anyway, back to camisoles: “Underwear is not just for intimate settings anymore.” The style has become “more romantic and more practical,” “reinterpreted in softer, more sophisticated styles.” "The barriers have been broken."
The barriers have been broken. It's open season now.
(To answer those who might cry, "prude!" or wonder why I make a "big deal" out of it: if it's not a big deal, then why do it in the first place? Why dress revealingly, provocatively, or sensually? Why break barriers, if it's not such a big deal?)
Certainly, one can take the modesty thing too far. I know of a father who will not allow his daughters to take dance classes or gymnastics because of the leotards.* This is too bad, because the main purpose of leos in these sports is not to show off, but to enable optimum performance. I won’t deny the body-consciousness of these activities, but again, there is a larger purpose to (most of) it that has nothing to do with licentiousness. Same with swimwear. A swimsuit offering proper coverage is appropriate to water sport and recreation; the tight-fitting nature of a swimsuit suits its purpose. Besides, it’s possible to look sultry in a potato sack.
*I do understand his cautions and fears – his daughters are very attractive
lookin' good
The advice in I Timothy is against ostentation, against purposely advertising one’s physical features or other possessions such as wealth that are not the public’s business. Against drawing undue attention to one’s person as evidenced by one's appearance as opposed to one’s person as evidenced by one’s works. Superficial attention to these traits encourages flattery and enticement rather than genuine interaction.
Yet every woman, modest or not, wants to look good. I see nothing in these two verses to suggest that she shouldn’t. But looking good is different in different contexts. Is cleavage necessary at a board meeting (except as an exhibit for a lingerie factory)? Is cleavage nice in the marriage bedroom? You see my point.
Note the ubiquity of pre-teen girls wearing what are no doubt push-up bras with tight-fitting “peek-a-boo” henley-and-camisole combinations. Sure, they want to show off their developing bodies. But, really, why? Because everyone is doing it? To make a fashion statement? Must their beauty and appeal be defined publicly by certain bodily features, if not for the obvious and not-so-recommended (especially at their age) appeal to the male gender? No...there’s no good reason for a woman of any age to derive her sense of worth or value from her physical endowments. There's no need for her to call close attention to her physique; whether she looks good or not, she doesn't need that kind of intimate attention from anyone who’s not her husband. Nor does "anyone" need to give it.
I’ve had conversations with friends who encourage me to dress more fashionably. Their rationales range from how good I’d look, or because I’m “worth it,” to playing up my features and being more daring, etc. etc. It’s about self-worth, show, and sex, basically. But, #1, there are better things to spend my money on than trendy clothes, which have nothing to do with how much or little I’m worth. (Actually, they do, but in a different way) #2, trendy goes out of style too quickly to be a good use of one's money, not to mention that much of it is pretty weird. Besides, I'm finally in an age group for which certain trendy styles just look...stupid. #3, see discussion above.
However, there’s nothing wrong with clothing as self-expression. Just not as expression of one’s sexual nature (in public) or vanity (as distinguished from worth). Nor do I believe that one has to bury oneself under clothing, except in the Yukon. Not only is that unneccessarily unattractive, but often the clothing becomes an obstacle to normal activities. And why some people think that skirts (above mid-calf, anyway), so open-ended at the bottom, are more modest than well-tailored pants is beyond me. Dressier, sure (most of the time), but not more modest.
As to whether or not it's "proper" for women to wear pants, that's a discussion for another day :-).
(edited to shorten some of the sentences :-) )
