Is wearing 'skimpy' clothes truly immoral?

[TopazRaven]

I already know I'm probably asking for trouble with this one, however I am genuinely curious. I really want to know what everyone's opinion on this subject is as it's something I see come up in conversation a lot. Online and off. Is wearing what one would call skimpy clothes immoral and considered bad enough to be a sin? Just to put this out there I am a woman who dresses quite modestly. I wear pants almost all year round, my shorts come down to my knees, I don't war tank tops and I'm to embarrassed to ever get into a bathing it. This isn't about how I dress and me trying to justify it or something. Just something I find myself continually confused about.

I suppose wearing revealing clothes could definitely be a stumbling block for some people. I have quite a few female friends who will wear short skirts and shorts and low-cut shirts. While it's not something I would wear I kind of feel it's not my right to judge them for what they wear or my business. In all honesty I'm just not so sure what to think about this anymore. I mean, I don't think people should dress like that, but I think saying it's a sin and that girls who are dressed like are *insert nasty name here* and are probably going to hell for dressing that way is going a bit far. Not saying anyone here said that by the way.

Also, why is it alright for guys to walk around showing off their bodies and not girls? You never hear guys get lectured for this. I know, I know, I'm being weird. Sexism goes both ways, I'm mostly joking here.

Meanwhile, I wasn't quite sure where to put this so I just went with general.

[mysngoeshere56]

This is something I've wondered quite a bit myself. I'll share my own two cents here...

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily call it *sinful* to wear "skimpy" clothing (depending on how skimpy), like a bakini or something like that. However, I would say you should be careful doing so. You know that people are going to see a lot of your skin, and some might react in a way you dislike... But if your skin's tough enough to handle that, then more power to you.

And honestly, I feel that girls are typically held up to a double standard as far as modesty goes. As a male, I'd say the way I feel about myself is similar to the way you feel about yourself. I never go swimming, because I think it's just too embarrassing to wear a swim suit in front of people... >_> I'd probably only feel comfortable in a full wetsuit, because I don't even like my legs. I've only recently forced myself to get used to showing them, because I want to be able to get them tan while going out for a walk.

As for whether or not it'd cause others to lust... Honestly, judging from what I've heard from people who struggle with lust (guys and girls), it typically doesn't matter what a person's wearing. I mean, it might, but it might not at the same time. Usually, if a person's going to lust, it wouldn't matter if he/she sees somebody attractive walking around showing off their body or covering it up in a garbage bag. If this person's going to lust, he/she probably will anyway.

[shooraijin]

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

[Kaligraphic]

I wouldn't think it would be immoral. What else would you do with clothes?

[Nate]

I don't think it is, and part of that is because of cultural differences as to what "skimpy" even is. For example, to some people who live in the Middle East, if you wore shorts that came down to your knees and a t-shirt, you'd be dressing skimpy. If you lived in certain other areas that were more tribal and less modern, you could wear just a grass skirt and no top at all and that would not be skimpy, it would be normal clothing.

Anyway, even ignoring the fact that "skimpy" is a very dependent on culture, I don't think dressing skimpy is immoral or wrong anyway, depending on why you do it. Are you doing it to try and seduce men? Okay, then yeah, that's immoral...but then, if you were out to seduce men, that'd be immoral even if you wore a three-piece suit, so what you're wearing has nothing to do with it. If you're wearing it because you like it? Because you think it's comfortable? Then how could it possibly be immoral? You're not intending to do wrong, you're not trying to sin or mislead people, so there's nothing wrong with it. Sure, some guy could look at you and think lustful thoughts, but as mysn said, and I will concur, I could think lustful thoughts of a girl wearing three layers of clothing if I found her attractive enough.

Besides, if we're going to go the route of "If it causes other people to sin, it's wrong for you to do," then we have to throw out a lot of other things we do. Sculpting a statue could inspire someone to build an idol, so now you can't do art. Buying something nice, such as a new car or a big screen TV might make someone covet your stuff, so you can't buy anything cool because you might cause them to become envious. You can't buy a La-Z-Boy reclining chair because it might cause someone to think being slothful is okay. You can't go to an all-you-can-eat buffet because it might make someone think being gluttonous is okay.

Some of these are very silly, but my point is you are not responsible for what someone else thinks. So again, no, I don't think it's immoral or sinful at all.

[Atria35]

I'm pretty much going to go with Nate's answer. What is considered skimpy is very different from culture to culture. There is no set standard for what defines 'modest' and not around the world. The intent is perhaps the most important thing- if you aren't dressing to purposely arouse lust, then it's probably modest.

Besides, I will attest that I have lusted over men in suits. I'm pretty sure those are considered modest to us, culturally. So that really means the onus is on me- not them.

At some point, the people around us must take responsibility for how they view us, not insist that we are the ones that are causing the lust.

[J.D3]

TR always brings up such interesting topics!

I agree with Nate. As Jesus essentially said, it's not the exterior that causes people to be 'unclean' but what comes out of them that does (i.e. what comes out the heart, internal thoughts & desires).

I do think you have to draw a balance between being comfortable with yourself & what you wear in public and being considerate of others & where they're at, to a degree. Sometimes I think it's just easier for all concerned if a bit of wise discretion is used, though not to the point of fearfulness or rigidity of course. At the end of the day, God cares most about where you're heart's at I think.

Personally I really despise it when people (male or female) think they have to dress 'skimpy' or act in suggestive ways in order to be respected, accepted, or as some pseudo-self-confidence thing. I see way too much of that in today's society.

[MrKrillz0r]

Well as Nate and Atria said, I think its more about the intent then the clothing itself. Although I think that some clothing is a bit extreme, I'm not sayin' its a sin but if you feel like it may lead to do others lust easily it might be better to wear something else if you have a choice. ^^

[Shao Feng-Li]

A lot of it boils down to attention and culture. We are told to be modest. I'd say you're not trying to at all to be modest when wearing a French-cut bikini. But if you're showing off the goods (and we know when we are) don't get upset when guys objectify that. I think, if you take reasonable steps to be modest, the lust of others won't be your responsibility at all. Yeah, some people have lust problems no matter what, but that's hardly the point.

Also, why is it alright for guys to walk around showing off their bodies and not girls? You never hear guys get lectured for this. I know, I know, I'm being weird. Sexism goes both ways, I'm mostly joking here.

I always figured it was because guys don't have boobs XD

[Nami]

I always figured it was because guys don't have boobs XD

HAHA! Me too! XD

[mysngoeshere56]

I pretty much agree with Nate, too. The others have all shed some very good insight with their posts also. (By the way Nate, you can just call me Sno if you want to)

Overall, I agree that what's considered "normal" depends on the culture. In Islamic standards, a woman is immodest if she so much as has her head uncovered. In some third world countries, however, it's considered normal to go around wearing almost - if not - nothing at all.

The intention of the clothing is also something to take into account. If you're showing off your body for the sake of being provocative and immodest, that's one thing. If you're wearing it because you feel it's normal and comfortable, then that's another.

[TopazRaven]

Wow, thanks for all the insight everyone! Always glad to see what other's opinions on a subject like this are. I suppose I'm more inclined to agree with what most of you said in that intent is probably more important here.

I always figured it was because guys don't have boobs XD

Pffft, still no fair!

[UniqueAngelStar]

Well as for myself, I dress modestly all the time too(with cuteness and style ). The most skin I usually show off is mostly all of my arm and shorts a bit above my knees. I do feel a wee bit awkward when I wear my swimsuit at a pool or the beach among people (Even though my belly is covered)

I'll be honest. I get annoyed that girls walk around with their legs showing off with their short shorts that reaches to their butts or wearing their 2 piece binkis showing their bellies while boys show of their chest. It shows me that they want a lot of attention from people.

But, I wouldn't spaz out of them though. That's just me.

[minakichan]

I always figured it was because guys don't have boobs XD

But but! Some guys do! And they're still allowed to prance around shirtless all day!

Double standards!

[Shao Feng-Li]

I'm kinda hating the some of the "intent" thing. If being a hussy isn't your intention, why would you dress like one? Certainly you wouldn't dress like a Puritan if you weren't one. (why is it that we seem more willing to go the less immodest route? XD) Usually, what's on the outside is a reflection of what's on the inside. If you're modest in spirit, you'll be modest in body.

But but! Some guys do! And they're still allowed to prance around shirtless all day!

I guess moobs have never been an issue of lust for me XD Overall though, I do think guys should wear clothes on their upper bodies.

[Atria35]

I always figured it was because guys don't have boobs XD

Some guys do. And everyone has nipples.

I'm kinda hating the some of the "intent" thing. If being a hussy isn't your intention, why would you dress like one? Certainly you wouldn't dress like a Puritan if you weren't one. (why is it that we seem more willing to go the less immodest route? XD) Usually, what's on the outside is a reflection of what's on the inside. If you're modest in spirit, you'll be modest in body.

Repeating what's been said, what's considered 'dressing as a hussy' is entirely subjective. I do have a friend from a more conservative Christian denomination that consideres any skirt above mid-calf to be immodest and and shirt without sleeves to be the same. Which means that me in my long shorts and baggy shirt am immodest... and kinda dressing like a hussy in their eyes.

[Okami]

We had a "Modesty Devo" my Freshman year of college. Most of us girls were ticked by the end of it! Nothing that was said was out of place, but it was extreme, and somewhat disrespectful of us because none (or few, I should say) of us were purposefully attempting to be a stumbling block to our brothers. For some time afterwards, we would all hop around the dorm and check with friends to make sure our clothing was 'appropriate.' It was terrible. Not only that, but when we questioned why the guys didn't have to go through the same ordeal, it was sort of blown off because "that was different." Well, no, we didn't think it was, and some guys were just as bad as some of the girls, whether or not they knew it. Thankfully it sounds like that's a topic they won't be repeating at the All Women's Devotional unless it truly does become an issue; I believe they know that we (at least upperclassmen) know enough to point it out to others so it doesn't become much of an issue.

That being said, I understand that skimpy clothing can be a stumbling block. I'll be honest in saying that it is a form of stumbling block for me. Not necessarily in a (sexually) lustful way, but just that with my issues of self-esteem, seeing a woman (or man) dressed in such a way oftentimes gives temptation to thinking badly about myself. I would agree with the culture and intent aspects that have been mentioned before me...that's why I usually will just keep my mouth shut. Those closest to me understand my issues enough to respect me in not wearing anything skimpy (tanktop and shorts is typically the cut off for them)...which I profusely thank them for. XD

[Yamamaya]

What's that, a guy got turned on by looking at a girl? OH NOES. SHE MUST BE WEARING SKIMPY CLOTHING. DEM TIGHT JEANS BE OF THE DEVIL.

It's a very subjective and cultural issue that is filled to the brink with double standards. I really don't give a crap what a girl decides to wear. I'm not a girl, so why should I care?

[Shao Feng-Li]

Some guys do. And everyone has nipples.


Repeating what's been said, what's considered 'dressing as a hussy' is entirely subjective. I do have a friend from a more conservative Christian denomination that consideres any skirt above mid-calf to be immodest and and shirt without sleeves to be the same. Which means that me in my long shorts and baggy shirt am immodest... and kinda dressing like a hussy in their eyes.

Ehh, yeah that's true. I myself am with a very conservative denomination, but they don't have those kind of modesty issues at all. At least, in just normal American culture, you're just dressed normally. I'm just using a normal outfit of like jeans and a t-shirt as my starting point. I guess, regardless of what legalistic extremes people take it too, if you're intentions are to be modest, you will be. So yeah, I agree with a lot of what's been said. It's ironic though, how much the ultra conservatives stand out in a crowd.

[quote] We had a "Modesty Devo" my Freshman year of college. Most of us girls were ticked by the end of it! Nothing that was said was out of place, but it was extreme, and somewhat disrespectful of us because none (or few, I should say) of us were purposefully attempting to be a stumbling block to our brothers. For some time afterwards, we would all hop around the dorm and check with friends to make sure our clothing was 'appropriate.' It was terrible. Not only that, but when we questioned why the guys didn't have to go through the same ordeal, it was sort of blown off because "that was different." Well, no, we didn't think it was, and some guys were just as bad as some of the girls, whether or not they knew it. Thankfully it sounds like that's a topic they won't be repeating at the All Women's Devotional unless it truly does become an issue]

Holy cow. I would have dropped out of college :\

[Atria35]

[quote="Okami (post: 1480880)"]We had a "Modesty Devo" my Freshman year of college. Most of us girls were ticked by the end of it! Nothing that was said was out of place, but it was extreme, and somewhat disrespectful of us because none (or few, I should say) of us were purposefully attempting to be a stumbling block to our brothers. For some time afterwards, we would all hop around the dorm and check with friends to make sure our clothing was 'appropriate.' It was terrible. Not only that, but when we questioned why the guys didn't have to go through the same ordeal, it was sort of blown off because "that was different." Well, no, we didn't think it was, and some guys were just as bad as some of the girls, whether or not they knew it. Thankfully it sounds like that's a topic they won't be repeating at the All Women's Devotional unless it truly does become an issue]

See, I know that people think these went out with the 60's, but when double-standards are set and unfairly enforced, it's called a protest. You are allowed to do that.

[Okami]

Holy cow. I would have dropped out of college :\

Yeah, it was nasty. It still gets brought up from time to time]See, I know that people think these went out with the 60's, but when double-standards are set and unfairly enforced, it's called a protest. You are allowed to do that.[/QUOTE]

I don't think the RAs took into consideration just how hurtful the presentation was to us. Looking around, typically the worst you will see is a lacey tanktop used as an undershirt or shorts that need to be a bit longer. But exceptionally skimpy clothing typically isn't seen unless they're pajamas, which aren't worn around the guys, anyways. I just don't like seeing a big deal made out of virtually no evidence.

[Nate]

If being a hussy isn't your intention, why would you dress like one?

In addition to Atria's answer, I'll add another one, in that there's many reasons. Perhaps it's comfortable for them. Perhaps they think it looks cute on them. There's other, valid reasons for wearing clothes like that. It's the same for guys. I'm not a drunk redneck who beats my wife...but if it's hot and I'm working outside, I might put on a shirt that's commonly referred to as a "wife-beater" and some torn up dirty jeans, and maybe I'll sit on the porch and crack open a beer (I don't drink beer, but let's go with it for the sake of argument XP). People might look at me and think I'm a stereotypical redneck...but I'm not. And it isn't the reason I look like that. It's because it's hot outside.

I agree to a point that intent isn't a complete judge of harm or wrongdoing (because then it would be impossible to unintentionally harm someone), but I do think that at least in this subject, if they're not really trying to do anything wrong, they're not doing anything wrong.

[fermy6]

I agree with Nate and Atria.....Mainly because the other day me and my 2 female friends were walking down the street and this guy from afar yelled to my friend trying to get her attention as if she's cheap....She was dressed very modestly and still managed to grap the attention of a total CREEP!!!

[Hiryu]

True, "skimpy" clothing varies in other countries, but in America we consider tight or short clothes to be immodest. The clothes their self aren't evil, it is the act of doing it. Dressing like that would be considered unacceptable for girls who are christian, because doing so would be suggesting sexual immorality.

Bottom line, don't dress like the world if you're a christian. Keep yourself covered up.

[Nate]

The clothes their self aren't evil, it is the act of doing it.

Why is the act of dressing in those clothes evil if the person has no sin in their heart when they dress that way? If they're not going out trying to seduce men, how is that a sin? If it's because men might sin if a girl dresses that way, then you'd better not buy any big screen TVs or new cars, because your neighbors might sin by coveting your stuff, or it might tempt burglars to break into your house and steal. I mean hey, don't want to create a double standard, right? If it's not okay to tempt others to sin in one circumstance, it's not okay to tempt them in ANY circumstance, which means you can't buy nice stuff because it might tempt others.

Also, you mention specifically that tight or short clothes are considered immodest. Does this include male swim team members? Speedos don't exactly cover a whole lot, you know. Is joining the swim team immoral? If it isn't, despite the fact that they wear tight/short clothes, then why is it okay for them to do so and not be immodest/immoral but not for a girl?

Dressing like that would be considered unacceptable for girls who are christian, because doing so would be suggesting sexual immorality.

Question. If it's wrong for girls to dress that way because it's suggesting immorality, are you saying it is wrong for a person to give an appearance that they are doing wrong by who they hang out with and the way they act? If so, then you are saying it was wrong for Jesus to eat at the homes of tax collectors and to hang out with prostitutes, because people in that day would have said He was suggesting that He was a sinner by doing those things.

If your argument is something that condemns things Jesus did, I think it's safe to say your argument is not very theologically sound.

[ShiroiHikari]

I think that it's BS that a woman can wear a bikini to the pool and get called a you-know-what, but a guy can wear a Speedo to the pool and nobody says a single freaking word. Hurray for double standards~

"Modesty" is highly subjective; intent is very important; we cannot control other people's thoughts.

[Nate]

I think that it's BS that a woman can wear a bikini to the pool and get called a you-know-what, but a guy can wear a Speedo to the pool and nobody says a single freaking word. Hurray for double standards~

Yeah, that's the big problem to me. Men wear speedos when they're on swim team because the less you wear, the less water resistant you get. This is why dudes on swim team shave their legs and armpits, because hair slows them down. Women of course wear a one-piece outfit on swim team because bikinis would be more likely to come off, as well as most bikinis having strings and ties that would again, create resistance.

But that's what bugs me, is a speedo is a pretty dang small bathing suit, and they're pretty much required wearing for being on the swim team. But nobody complains about dudes on the swim team wearing them. People talk about women being "immoral" or "immodest" for wearing bikinis or short shorts. But nobody says it's immoral or immodest for a male to join the swim team. That is absolutely the definition of a double standard, I agree. It really irritates me.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I always figured it was because guys don't have boobs XD

... You want to meet my old roommate?

He had bigger boobs (e.g. moobs) than most girls. Seriously.

[Furen]

I wouldn't say so, though it may be tough for some guys to be able to handle being around that.

[Nate]

I wouldn't say so, though it may be tough for some guys to be able to handle being around that.

But it doesn't matter if it's tough for a guy to handle being around that. That's the guy's fault, not the girl's. Actually, why are we talking specifically about girls anyway? It's not like guys can't dress provocatively or anything.

But either way, it's not any fault of the person wearing clothes, and there's no immorality if a person dresses that way. I mean, it may be tough for someone who's a thief to handle being in a neighborhood with fancy houses and expensive cars, but we don't tell people they have to live in run down shacks and ride mules to avoid tempting thieves into sinning, now do we? And it's not immoral or wrong for someone to own a nice car or house, even if it might tempt a thief into trying to steal it. So why is the way a girl dresses somehow different?