Is wearing 'skimpy' clothes truly immoral?

[Yamamaya]

Guys seriously need to pull their pants up. Also I don't get guys that wear SKINNY JEANS and STILL sag them down past their butts. Seriously, don't do that. It is so not hot (and potentially offensive). Girls can't get away with showing off their cute panties by sagging their jeans, so guys shouldn't be able to get away with it either. :I

Pants on the ground. Looking like a fool with the pants on the ground.

[Nate]

Super skinny men can pull off skinny jeans alright (I'm thinking guys who are 120-130lbs or under) but for all the rest...yeah, please, no.

I think we should probably be careful on saying that certain people shouldn't be allowed to wear certain kinds of clothes. I mean, if they make skinny jeans in a size that someone who's 300 pounds can wear, I don't see what's wrong with him wearing it. I mean, it'd probably be pretty offensive if a woman walked into Victoria's Secret and the clerks told her "Sorry, you're too fat to wear any sexy lingerie." So yeah, just kinda throwing that out there. Besides, some girls might like that kind of thing...and some guys might too.

[Wind]

Hey I suggest on this subject that everyone reads Romans 3 cause I know its not about the clothes thing but it does make one think about what matters.

it says that faith without works is dead. I think what matters here is where a person's soul lays. is it in a close relationship with God? I think thats the question. Like I have heard some christians say that Tattooes are a sinful thing. But I have one tattoo and plan on getting more. It really comes down to personal choice. I think we are christians no matter what we look like or dress like are supposed to show ourselves to be christians all the time no matter what other people say. How we do that is up to individual choices we make.

[Okami]

I think we should probably be careful on saying that certain people shouldn't be allowed to wear certain kinds of clothes. I mean, if they make skinny jeans in a size that someone who's 300 pounds can wear, I don't see what's wrong with him wearing it. I mean, it'd probably be pretty offensive if a woman walked into Victoria's Secret and the clerks told her "Sorry, you're too fat to wear any sexy lingerie." So yeah, just kinda throwing that out there. Besides, some girls might like that kind of thing...and some guys might too.

Yeah, but typically the guys you see wearing skinny jeans are often the ones that shouldn't be wearing a particular cut of skinny jeans. That's what I was trying to get at. If the jeans are cut to a particular person's weight class, I'd say that's different. That's often not the case we see, though; more like men wearing pants that are sizes too small for them/not built for them....

[Kaligraphic]

I think this thread has veered off a bit from its original topic. When we see people wearing clothing that looks silly/mis-sized/culturally unfamiliar/etc., and debate whether they have the right body shape for it, or whether it makes them look ridiculous, or such, that's a question of aesthetics, not morality.

[TopazRaven]

Yeah...not that I really mind, but how did we get on the topic of skinny jeans anyway?

[Darth_Kirby]

This is completely untrue, as again, studies have shown men lust MORE after women who are clothed than women who are completely nude. Also, many men are turned on by many different things. A bikini might not do much for one man, but another man might be incredibly turned on by a full-length gown. One man may not give a second glance to a girl wearing short shorts, but will stare longingly at a girl in baggy jeans.

Well, it is true that it is highy subjective, but I think you're hitting more on that fact that people have fetishes/fantasies and people who dress the part of those fantasies are likely to be lusted after. (like libarians, nurses, etc...)

Though I think generally speaking if a girl is nude in front of someone, guys are going to lust. Same is probably true for a nude guy in front of women. Generally more skin makes lusting more likely in my opinion. Just not for everybody.

In the end it's a two way thing. People shouldn't lust and you shouldn't dress to try to make people lust. If you dress a certain way because you think it's perfectly exceptable (whether it be a bikini or a business suit) than I don't think you're doing anything wrong. It's then up to the other party to keep tabs on what they're thinking and get their minds out of the gutter.

[Makachop^^128]

I think personally if a girls intention is to attract certain attention and want Men to feel a certain way from what they wear, I think thats wrong. If they are having fun and might wear something a little short or a little low once in a while maybe when its hot outside I don't think its horrible. I do think its good though to think how you make people feel when you get dressed, I have bought a few things I took back because I took more thought into it and thought it wasn't so nice to be going around wearing it, even though I really liked them myself.

I feel fine myself wearing short skirts, and shorts and dresses, I do all the time. I don't wear low cut things myself. I always thought wearing shorter skirts and things was better then super low cut shirts. I might be wrong I guess it depends on what people look at, I really am not sure.

[Yamamaya]

Well, it is true that it is highy subjective, but I think you're hitting more on that fact that people have fetishes/fantasies and people who dress the part of those fantasies are likely to be lusted after. (like libarians, nurses, etc...)

Everyone has something that turns them on. It may not be a low cut top, it could be anything. You can't control what other people think around you.

Though I think generally speaking if a girl is nude in front of someone, guys are going to lust. Same is probably true for a nude guy in front of women. Generally more skin makes lusting more likely in my opinion. Just not for everybody.

Nudists would disagree with you. A girl in lingerie striking a seductive pose is going to turn on males far more than just some girl walking around naked as if it's just a natural part of life.

In the end it's a two way thing. People shouldn't lust and you shouldn't dress to try to make people lust. If you dress a certain way because you think it's perfectly exceptable (whether it be a bikini or a business suit) than I don't think you're doing anything wrong. It's then up to the other party to keep tabs on what they're thinking and get their minds out of the gutter.

Hoh boy, that word lust. Such a misused word(Have to try to keep this from veering into theological territory).

There's nothing inherently wrong in any form of dress. If a girl is trying to be as seductive as possible, then that's her issue. However with people here, that isn't the case. It's a matter of what someone considers skimpy and whether they should wear it around others.

[Rewin]

Hoh boy, that word lust. Such a misused word(Have to try to keep this from veering into theological territory).

I think we can get into this without talking theology. I'm guessing what you're saying (and if so I agree) is that people mistake lust for attraction. When you see a good looking girl in a "skimpy" outfit and think "she's hot" that is not lust but simply an observation. It is allowing your mind to take it further than that, beyond just how she looks and more into your desires, where it becomes lust.
As for the dressing skimpy discussion, I agree with Yamamaya, people can be turned on by many different things, there's no set rule on that. But also, dressing for the sole intention of getting that attention is probably just not a good idea. That goes with the analogy of driving a fancy car through a poor neighborhood just to show it off. Buying the car wasn't wrong, it's what you did with it that was. Likewise, dressing "skimpy" (fun word btw) and prancing around in front of men to get them all riled up is not right (that is mean, like Rusty said) but just going about doing your normal business, I see nothing wrong there.

[mechana2015]

I think we can get into this without talking theology. I'm guessing what you're saying (and if so I agree) is that people mistake lust for attraction. When you see a good looking girl in a "skimpy" outfit and think "she's hot" that is not lust but simply an observation. It is allowing your mind to take it further than that, beyond just how she looks and more into your desires, where it becomes lust.

Absolutely. The problem has become that any sort of attraction of physical nature at ALL has become lust, rather than natural and right attraction, as humans were designed for biologically. It's true outside of this topic as well, where we (christian culture) have developed a concept that desire of almost any type is avarice, lust or in some other way faulty, without allowing for any sort of middle ground, resulting in an unnecessarily paranoid generation (or three) of Christians, measuring their skirts and shorts and the length of their hair every morning for fear of earthly retribution.

Worse still then fearing retribution against them for their own perceived infractions, they are also shackled with responsibility for the reaction of every mind and eye that perceives them, and reduced to a state of persistent neuroses over skirt, sleeve and hair length, rather than being able to live a life free of attempting to match some stereotypical mold for physical appearance.
Our society does this enough on it's own.
Why make it worse?

[Darth_Kirby]

There's nothing inherently wrong in any form of dress. If a girl is trying to be as seductive as possible, then that's her issue. However with people here, that isn't the case. It's a matter of what someone considers skimpy and whether they should wear it around others.

lol that's technically what I was trying to say. Though you do have a good point with the nudist example. Many artists also think that painting nudes is artistic and don't lust by looking at nude paintings. How nudity is displayed does play a huge role in whether or not it incites lust, but I still think public nudity should stay in the nudist colonies.

[Okami]

Yeah...not that I really mind, but how did we get on the topic of skinny jeans anyway?

That was all in my original response to Krillz.

[Nate]

Though I think generally speaking if a girl is nude in front of someone, guys are going to lust.

Oh, absolutely. When I bring up that study, I'm not doing it to imply that men don't find nude women attractive. I'm definitely not saying if a naked girl walked into a room full of guys that none of them would pay attention to her. I'm just saying that feelings of attraction/fantasies/lust were higher for men when they looked at clothed women over nude ones, so the theory that more clothes = less lust isn't really true.

Many artists also think that painting nudes is artistic

Right, and a reason you'll often see nudes in say, Renaissance paintings is because in most cultures, nudity symbolizes purity and innocence...pretty much the opposite of how it's viewed in the US. Also, painting nudes is a good way to learn anatomy and how the human body works, which is why if you take a college art class, you're pretty much guaranteed to have to paint at least one or two nude models.

[ShiroiHikari]

Absolutely. The problem has become that any sort of attraction of physical nature at ALL has become lust, rather than natural and right attraction, as humans were designed for biologically. It's true outside of this topic as well, where we (christian culture) have developed a concept that desire of almost any type is avarice, lust or in some other way faulty, without allowing for any sort of middle ground, resulting in an unnecessarily paranoid generation (or three) of Christians, measuring their skirts and shorts and the length of their hair every morning for fear of earthly retribution.

Worse still then fearing retribution against them for their own perceived infractions, they are also shackled with responsibility for the reaction of every mind and eye that perceives them, and reduced to a state of persistent neuroses over skirt, sleeve and hair length, rather than being able to live a life free of attempting to match some stereotypical mold for physical appearance.
Our society does this enough on it's own.
Why make it worse?

Mech makes several good points here.

[SnoringFrog]

I feel like the people who notice clothes more are girls anyway. How many guys do stuff like "Awww your blouse is so CUTE~" or whatever anyway? I cut my hair really short one time from being medium length, and my guy friends didn't notice for a week

What guys actually use the word "blouse"?

I agree with the point that's been brought up several times about how women dressed provocatively incite more lust than women who are completely naked. Although I will add that making the latter seem less seductive is probably also based on how it's presented. Some people have brought up art, which is one case, or if it's "just a natural part of life" in a certain culture/region.

The real solution to the whole issue is in Matthew 18:9 (also Mark 9:47) though: "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell." So, the obvious solution here is for us all to just render ourselves blind! [/sarcasm]

[rmichael75]

1 Timothy 2:8-10
New International Version (NIV)


8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.


I think women and men need to dress decently and modestly.

I also read else where in a Bible that you shouldnt cause others to stumble/sin. When you were skimpy or revealing cloths you are causing others to sin.

Having said that I know that even you are fully clothed you cannot stop some pple to lust after you. so it is not really up to you but better to be modestly and decently dressed as it does not harm u or others.

You can dress provocatively to ur husband or wife though:).

this is my take. I am not judging or anything but this is my take

[Atria35]

^ I think a lot of the issue was how does one define modest? What's modest to one person could be provocative and revealing to another.

[Nate]

Not to mention the verses he quoted were about women flaunting their wealth and social status to others, and nothing to do with wearing miniskirts or low cut tops.

[TheMewster]

So with that verse is it immoral for us women to wear skimpy clothes? YES. Why? BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS TO BE MODEST!!! And is it immoral to have elaborate hairstyles, wear gold or pearls, or expensive clothes if you're a woman? YES. I believe this was meant for these times more than anything so women don't worry about their appearance or cause other women to covet their wealth/figure. God bless!

[Nate]

BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS TO BE MODEST!!!

That's not what the verse is referring to. They're using "modest" in this context to mean "not being vain and conceited."

When someone does something great and someone else praises them, and they say "Oh I'm not really that great at all" and the other person says "Don't be so modest!" they're not saying "You should wear revealing clothing."

If I say "Man I wanna bowl" I could be saying that I need something to put soup in, or I could be saying I want to go to the bowling alley.

Words have more than one meaning, and trying to apply skimpy clothing to a verse that is clearly and inarguably talking about being vain and showing off to those of lesser social status simply doesn't work.

[K. Ayato]

Maybe we should look at what dictionary.com has to say about what "modest" means, shall we?

1.having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one's merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions. (bold print emphasis mine)

That being said, I believe we can all dress nice, sharp, and chic. But, according to this definition, if we're doing it to say "Hey, look at me! I've got all this ____), that's not being modest.

[ShiroiHikari]

Why are we still talking about this? Didn't we pretty much thoroughly cover this topic on the first three pages?

[Nate]

Because someone who didn't read the thread came in and posted.

[Xeno]

OOOOH! GRAVE DIGGA!!!~~ </singing>

[mechana2015]

3 Warnings for this thread:

First: In the case of threads like this especially, read all content before you post. I realize that there is a decent amount before this page but this ground has already been trod for the most part. It will also keep you from missing important moderator notifications, like these.

As long as this doesn't get into overtly interpretive topics such as Biblical examples of modesty, it can stay in General.

Before this rolls on much more, if this is moving towards Biblical bases for your assertions, it will need to move to TD. Otherwise keep it light.

If you would like to talk about this with biblical/theological implications, make a new thread in TD. If it continues here this thread will be locked.

Second: This is a little old, over a month old. Please try to keep posts to things active within a few weeks unless you think you're adding something new and valuable to the thread, within the rules of the thread and forum you are posting in.

Third: Politeness. All caps and multiple exclamation points are the equivelant of screaming online. If you feel this is necessary to make a point, it might be good to take a step back and think about whether screaming whatever you want to say would be acceptable in a normal conversation, or if there would be a better way to say it that would get your point across better.

[Atria35]

^ I think the person who revived it made a one-time-use account. But that warning probably should be PM'd to him.

[Dante]

If I say "Man I wanna bowl" I could be saying that I need something to put soup in, or I could be saying I want to go to the bowling alley.

Is it bad that my mind went to a completely different third meaning when I read "Man, I wanna bowl". You know, thinking of some hippy dude chilling out in a tie-die T-shirt and all and suddenly wanting a "bowl" is - you did that on purpose, didn't you! XD

[Nate]

I did do it on purpose, but I figured I'd just stick with the two interpretations that are always legal. :p