There is a lot to say on the topic of the way Christian women clothe themselves, but before I get into the whys, shoulds, and should nots, I want to relate what I have seen lately. This weekend I had the chance to observe the attendees of the Passion Conference 2015. It’s a sort of rally for Evangelical Christians aged 18-25. It should be noted that while Passion Conference is age-segregated, the organizers have the sexes mixed together. The schedule had them shuffling between buildings, and as they processed from one to another I counted women in yoga pants, leggings, or jeggings; versus any other kind of lower-body clothing. Over 80% of the women attending Passion Conference 2015 wore skin-tight pants. Some additional observations:
- If there was a dress-code for the event, then it is reasonable to assume that revealing clothes for women were preferred by the organizers. 80% is a target; not a mishap.
- There were no exercise courses in the Passion Conference schedule.
- These were 18 to 25 year olds “worshipping” side-by-side with men aged 18 to 25.
- I saw no men in Under Armor shirts, open shirts, baggy-pants, or any sort of clothing which one would call immodest.
For the record: I was not part of the conference; just near it.
Things that We have Heard and Known 
Unsurprising. I doubt it is any different among young Catholics when they gather.
@DG
You’re probably right.
A few years ago the middle school ministry at our church threw a formal party and all the students were supposed to wear formal dress. It was a play on the Oscars and part of the night was “walking the red carpet.” Understand that this took place at the church. I thought it was kind of a nice idea as a social event, and I bought my daughter a new pair of fancy of shoes and she wore a knee-length dress. When we got there I was truly shocked. Cane, how could these 6-8th grade girls parents have allowed them to dress like that? We’re talking skin-tight sequined mini-dresses that ended above mid-thigh with spike heels. On girls aged 12-14. I almost packed my daughter back into the mini van to take her home, but she saw her little group of friends who were mostly appropriately dressed and took off with them.
The boys all wore suits or tuxedos.
They’ve not thrown a party like that again at our church. I think the middle school pastor was a little shocked, too.
@ST
However bizarre is may be to us, the uniformity compels us admit that the answer must be: “Because parents want them to.”
Hmm. Coed, that age range? Whatever other purpose it purports to serve, it’s a singles retreat where people attend in order to court the opposite sex.
Interesting. The 4th Sunday of the month at our church is the one that the young people do just about everything but preach. Equipping the next generation and all that good stuff. They usher, sing, do offering, etc.
The young girl who was designated to do the morning announcements must have been about 17 and her pants were so tight they looked painted on. Her blouse was very form fitted and I couldn’t help but wonder if anyone thought about that when they sent her up on the podium under the bright lights to do announcement sot a church of 500 people, and at least 40% were men. why didn’t they correct her and send a more modestly dressed girl up when they saw how she came to church dressed?
The answer to my question is probably more in line with Cane’s answer to Sunshine, but more to the point: Their mothers want them to. And their fathers (who are no doubt silently unhinged at their daughter displaying their wares) feel powerless to do anything about it. Which is too sad.
There were no exercise courses in the Passion Conference schedule.
I chuckled at that bit.
@Elspeth
A big piece of this is denial. There simply is no such thing as immodest dress. And if a woman is dressed immodestly, it certainly can’t be that she wants to be seen. We all know, that just doesn’t happen. So the daughter isn’t up there displaying her wares, she is just fashionable, or that was merely the most comfortable outfit she owns. You wouldn’t want her to be uncomfortable, would you, Elspeth?
As I mentioned in the previous thread the stakes are high here, which is part of the problem. Displaying the wares is something good girls don’t do; only sluts do that. This is the mostly unspoken code of women. But since there is no standard to point to (since good women have agreed to stop policing this) there is no safe harbor for good women. All women end up feeling at risk. Add to this the use of custody-of-the-eyes/porn-as-adultery magnification of men’s temptations, and the stakes are sky high. There is a pseudo theology built on the idea that men are less moral because they like to look. Imagine the disruption if we were to admit that women like to be looked at, and that this is the complementary sin/temptation. Suddenly it isn’t just about being deemed slutty, but an adulterer too!
My wife and I, no longer bound to organized churchianity, will often do our grocery shopping on Sunday mornings while most of our Bible-belt neighbors are perched obediently on the pews, because the stores are very quiet and easy to navigate.
Every once in a while, we don’t manage to get out of the store before church lets out, and on those occasions we are subjected to a parade of just-out-of-church women, most of whom are accompanied by their husbands, maneuvering through the parking lot enroute to the store. At least 80% of these women (ranging in age from 18-60) wear short skirts/dresses, very tight around the butt and boobs, high heels, elaborately styled hair, the whole party girl getup.
The pastors in our small mountain community are convinced that my wife and I are headed for Hell in high gear because we reject their so-called “authority,” but for some reason, these men seem unable to bring that same “authority” to bear when interacting with the womenfolk (and their husbands) in their congregations. I can say this because it’s easy and logical to assume that these pastors see these women in their church buildings each Sunday, but are somehow unable or unwilling to provide Scriptural guidance for these flocks of strong, independent women.
Apparently my wife and I carry the whiff of brimstone with us on these churchless Sunday outings, but the women we observe, with their breasts and buttocks (and sometimes worse) so openly displayed get a sanctified pass from everyone, including their husbands, pastors, elders, and deacons.
Holy, holy, holy cow.
It’s horrifying – inked and exposed young women are mostly who apply to work for me in what is considered an uber- traditional field. They blink as I gently explain that not even hooters would take them in their current state of adornment and undress.
Too much skin is nothing new, but the ink? I confess to being passed by – waaayyy by.
And if a woman is dressed immodestly, it certainly can’t be that she wants to be seen. We all know, that just doesn’t happen. So the daughter isn’t up there displaying her wares, she is just fashionable, or that was merely the most comfortable outfit she owns. You wouldn’t want her to be uncomfortable, would you, Elspeth?
Okay Dalrock, let’s get something straight here. It as never my intention to argue that women don’t ever want to be looked at or that women who wear certain kinds of clothing aren’t doing it for the attention. I’m not an idiot, nor am I a saint although I’m much more of one now than I was even a year ago.
Are most of them craving the attention? Sure, I’ll grant you that. But every. single. one? I’m not going there. It’s just a dangerous mental exercise to assume that every woman besides me (or even including me) is on the prowl for something from men other than their husband.
Now…having been a fairly modest young woman who did a 180 to snag my own guy (incidentally I wasn’t living at home where I would never have gotten away with such a thing), I get that young women often wield their sensual power and know what they are doing. I never said they didn’t or that they all are dressed for comfort or what have you. That wasn’t my point.
But no matter how many times it’s said, I absolutely refuse to impugn the motive of every single woman who is dressed in line with the current fashion trends, particularly Christian women who have a true “aha!” moment
Elspeth, I might be mistaken here, but I think you have may misread Dalrock. I don’t think he was attacking or critiquing you, but taking your argument a step further.
@Donalgraeme
Yes. Thank you for explaining.
@Elspeth
This is what I’ve been trying to get at. There are multiple questions here, but they are tough to tease out and keep separate for the reasons I’ve been mentioning. Let me put it a different way. Normal men are tempted to look at the bodies of attractive women. To note this about a man isn’t a condemnation. If he weren’t tempted, he would be abnormal, or at least extremely unusual. This is a desire which when expressed properly (directed toward his wife), is a positive. But he also has to guard against directing it improperly. Likewise for women, to desire to have her body looked at, to be desired, is normal. To lack this would be abnormal or at least extremely unusual. And again, it has a proper expression (toward her husband), and it isn’t a condemnation.
But while the reality for men is accepted (the desire to look), the reality for women (the desire to be looked at) is denied. The reason for this is likely twofold:
First, women’s sexuality tends to come with a big heaping serving of deniability and misdirection. Add this to the rationalization hamster, our culture’s dominant view that women don’t face temptation to sin, and a culture which assures women that anyone discussing modesty a patriarchal tyrant keeping the woman down.
Second, there is this near instantaneous escalation from acknowledging that 1) women like to be looked at and 2) this (and not mean marketers, etc) is what so predictably drives women’s fashion trends, to accusing nearly all women of being as you put it “on the prowl”. Basically, I’m saying these are healthy young women who haven’t been trained in the proper way to channel their desire for male attention, and you are saying “You just called them all sluts!”.
Pingback: Sacred Cowgirls | Things that We have Heard and Known
To throw these trends in reverse will take a ratchetting backwards that will cause the transmission to grind and smoke into pieces.
In our little Orthodox parish, its less difficult.
But out in public, Mychael regularly points out much of the same stuff wheelermacpherson does upthread, but pretty much only to me. She is not going to approach 99% of the female population and tell them they are dressed inappropriately in public. Too “judgemental.”
I call this the Kardashianizing of churchianity. Through television, the internet, and (most importantly) women’s magazines, Kimmie Kardashian has (successfully) been able to influence the mindset of young women (who want to attract young men) that the most obvious way to do so is to flaunt every inch of curves of their @ss for the whole world to see. And young men have been brainwashed into thinking that a young girl’s @ss is the most physically attractive feature she has to offer (so much so that they don’t focus on anything else.) And even girls who are supposed to be almost virginal (such as Mehgan Traynor) do all that they can do in their music videos to flaunt their derrier in exactly the same manner that Kimmie Kardashian does. Even the “pure” girls flaunt their “booty.”
This behavior has long since crossed over into churchianity attire. The tight leggings and tight in the butt, it is all about a young girl trying to show off as much of her behind as that clothing will allow. And it is all for the attention that she will be getting from the boys who will be looking at it.
Darn booties everywhere. A man can’t turn his head in public anymore without seeing at least one woman dressed like that. Thank goodness I don’t see many yoga pants at Mass, but have to remember the parish is mostly older folks, 40 on up, not that many families here anymore. I do see strap dresses and no shoulder tops in the summertime.
Being in the fitness industry such that yoga pants and the like just pass by me like nothing now. It’s like they don’t affect me at all unless there’s a really attractive woman. I can’t exactly tell if this is because of desensitization and/or because I’ve trained my mind to ignore that because they seem to be ubiquitous.
There is something else I want to bring up though. Mainly of the nature of workouts. Obviously, dresses and skirts aren’t exactly good things to wear at the gym, and if you’re doing an intense workout where you’re moving around a lot, lifting weights, and the like the easy route to go is something like yoga pants or leggings because they feel comfortable and they won’t get in the way. Shorts, especially if you’re squatting, you tend to have to pull up every time to ensure there’s enough slack so they don’t rip.
Anyway, my point is that although I think the vast majority of women do it to attention whore in some respect which is obviously being immodest; however, there are “legitimate” reasons to wear this type of clothing albeit perhaps not in public. On the other hand, I definitely agree that wearing modest feminine and classy dresses or skirts is definitely above wearing something to grab attention or generate sexual appeal.
I’m curious to hear other thoughts on this.
the reality for women (the desire to be looked at) is denied.
But that’s where our disconnect is Dalrock. I am not denying that! Not even a little. I spent a whole lot of words yesterday trying to explain that and even condemned myself a bit in the process. But what I AM saying is that there is such a thing as a virtuous woman, rare though she may be, or even a slightly oblivious woman. Not everyone is calculating how she can command the most attention.
Elspeth,
I think we are stuck in an infinite loop here. As I wrote before:
Elspeth,
Yes.
I think it is really tough on single Christian women wanting to attract men (in church) and still be virtuous. In someways it is almost impossible. What do I mean by that? I’ve gone on the record at Dalrock’s to state that the church I grew up in (where I was a very young single man) had basically no young people in it, anywhere. They were all blue-hairs, all over 65. That was like 97% true. By 97% what I mean is if there were 100 people in church, the only young people in it would have been myself and two young single women. And these two girls dressed very chastely, were very thin, had pretty faces, wore long plaid skirts and dresses, long hair, turtlenecks, and no cleavage. And I never once even looked at them as anything other than church members, was not s-xually attracted to them in the least. I was in college (part-time) in the evenings and I was attracted to short-this and form-fitting-tight-that. That is all I saw and that is what I felt I wanted.
So of course, this Kardashianizing of churchianity might very well be (at least partially) the result of the young men paying attention to what they see outside of church. What the boys are looking at (outside church) is the “booty.” That is what they want. And the young single girls notice that they are NOT being noticed (at church) when they dress modestly and (or course) they are going to want to alter their appearance, (for right or for wrong.) So, they wear what they must to flaunt their booty.
[CC: You might find this post interesting.]
Cane,
How long did Kimmie’s first (or was it her second? oh yes #2) marriage last? 72 days I think? With a $2,000,000 wedding bill (paid by whom?) I think that works out to a marriage to Kris Humphries that cost (someone) $27,777 a day. Hmmmm. Yes, Dark Triad sir.
Hey…to piggyback on what D.S. has written…
At my local L.A. Fitness, there is a marquee that runs and it occasionally displays the list of rules and guidelines for using the club.
One of the items on the list is headed:
“Gazing”
“Gazing at L.A. Fitness is highly discouraged. Not only is it disrespectful to club members, it is also distracting”..and blah blah blah..which I thought was hilariously ironic.
How in the hell do they expect men NOT to look at a woman in a tight sports “bra” and nearly opaque yoga pants and clearly visible camel-toe?
I’m with D.S. on the attention whoring thing with women….and posturing for men..because men can be immodest. (Neon yellow tank with neon yellow Nikes and bright white shorts with your bright red “Beats” headphone hanging off your head. Get outta here!)
When I was heavily into Bodybuilding, my (ex-wife) used to get perturbed when I wouldn’t wear the 2 sizes too small shirts or the under armor type shirts in public..especially if we were going to be hanging out with her friends and/or family. She did it because she wanted to make people jealous, but it made me uncomfortable. Most of what I wear in the gym is baggy…whether I’m cutting or bulking up. If you want to give me props for how much volume I’m moving – fine, but other than that – I don’t care what you think of my physique…isn’t that the reason we’re all here anyhow? I expect people to be in shape..duh.
But I digress…it so happens that my L.A. Fitness is directly across the street from the (Starbucks, seeker, beach-ball type) church that a few of my friends attend…and you see the same type of things during the week. It’s like they leave the service and run across the street to get their workout on.
More irony is that this Pastor speaks very profoundly against pre-marital sex. He’s had several series on the subject, which were quite good. So I asked my friend once – after service – “this guy is extremely hard on pre-marital sex and has made some profound snark against homosexuality, but is silent on all the booty shorts and vulva prints you see up in here all the freakin’ time”.
No wonder so many guys hang out in the atrium after those church services. It’s a meat market. I’m sure some of the local PUA’s and cads are having a field day up in there. When I was on Christian Mingle a few years ago, I’d see women who had that Church listed as an affiliation and they’d be tatted out and dressed like “everyone else”. And, again, very attractive women too, which was somewhat disheartening…
My assessment is that it’s ‘Christian Liberty” taken to an extreme, followed by carnality and then attention-whoredom. I’m also of the opinion that females of all ages truly desire to be considered sexually attractive to all men – whether they are partnered up or not. Exceptions exist to his of course, but, they are – exceptions.
No spam intended…here is a very astute take on the matter:
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/04/sister-show-mercy-repost-4.html
@Patrick
I have read that a couple times. Years ago I used to haunt TeamPyro, InternetMonk, Boar’s Head Tavern, etc.
@Cane…so did you leave to attend to your own Blog, or was your season merely over there? I only ended up there because the link was sent to me…
@Patrick
I left off because I was too uncouth for them.
Patrick,
In a gym, the tight clothes/leggings that tend to show off the booty are appropriate (and sometimes even necessary.) Tight form fitting clothes is not always about women getting the attention of men, it can help keep modesty for a woman, particularly if there is a lot of gazing (which there always is at a gym.) What do I mean by keeping modesty? Consider the following not so uncommon example that happened to me 4 weeks ago:
The gym where we work out as a family, the attire is mostly tight, form fitting (particularly for women and older girls.) But in this one case, a woman wore very loose fitting baggy shorts in which to workout. Big mistake. You see, she was riding the exersize bike and (as is often the case for women who do not want yeast infections) did not wear underwear when working out. As a result, this woman turned all the men in a gym who happened to walk infront of the cycle she was riding, into gynocologists. Forget camel toe Patrick, you could see the whole birth canal. I caught a glance but ran over the free weights as not to embarass myself or her. I think one of the female physical trainers noticed and went and had a talk with her. She was smiling as she got off the bike and went to the ladies room (I assume to put on her undies.) If she were wearing tight workout leggings, there would have been no problem. Incidently, I have seen her since (several times) and she no longer wears baggy shorts.
@Cane…I can honestly say that I wouldn’t consider your candor uncouth, unless you’re being facetious. LOL
@IBB, point very well made. LOL. Ewww.
@DS, PPEG, IBB
Exercise is a red herring. We live under the delusion that we are to capture every thought for Christ…except thoughts about what might be uncomfortable for exercising, or swimming, or whatever else we want to do at the moment, etc. Women can exercise butt-nekkid as far as I’m concerned, as long as they are covered by their surroundings.
I went through photos tagged #passion2015. I saw a bunch of young people that were dressed like slobs – both men and women. Some of the presenters were on stage wearing t-shirts and other shirts not tucked in. Almost all were wearing tennis shoes, jeans or leggings.
We talk with our kids a lot about what behavior/clothing is appropriate in public and private. We don’t want them to wear revealing clothing and making others feel uncomfortable. We also talk about respecting themselves as well as others. If a person has respect for themselves first, I think there’s a much better chance of not WANTING to wear revealing clothing.
Innocentbystander – I have never heard that going commando during exercise is a good thing. Running in my basement isn’t really all that bad if this is what I’m missing at the gym!
Liza,
It didn’t make any sense to me either. Of course, I’m a guy. We don’t have to worry about this stuff. I think for women it is the cleanliness sake of sweat and yeast infections and other nasty garbage. I don’t know, not my hygine world. I let my wife talk to daughter about that.
So from my standpoint, in a gym, women should be made to feel comfortable to wear whatever they feel they need to workout and stay healthy. If it is a little more revealing, that is the way it goes, everyone be adult about it. In that sense gym attire is closer to beach attire. That said (for women) gym/beach attire should NOT be church/business attire. Kimmie Kardashian has the gym, don’t give her the church too. Gotta keep ’em separated.
@Oscar
It must be Photoshop. Everyone knows girls can’t work out in modest clothes.
Pingback: They Plow with Your Heifer. | Things that We have Heard and Known
@Oscar. Pretty impressive!
Pingback: Modesty in the modern world | Something Fishy
And then there’s this:
http://www.ashleypdickens.com/ten-things-we-should-get-angry-about-before-yoga-pants/
Since yoga pants supposedly pale in comparison to murder, starvation, disease, etc., let’s not get all uptight. “If we’re going to get angry, let’s get angry about things that really matter.”
You go, girl. Wear them tight pants and lecture us about Nigeria. Who cares if you cause a few men to lust along the way?
I wonder if this works for men, too. “You’re worried about me looking at this year’s SI Swimsuit Issue…when there are doctors putting their lives on the line for Ebola patients?! What did the Bible say about the weightier matters of the law?”
@John, of course it doesn’t work that way, you’re not supposed to question why or else you’re a misogynist. /lol
Just use the feminist justification for why they whine constantly about “microaggressions” in America while women are being mutilated, raped, and sold into sex slavery in Africa: “I’m focusing on the problems that are right here in front of me!”
You two are using logic, and as we all know, logic is sexist.
Yeah, I was being facetious of course. And no, I don’t think men should rationalize their lust, either.
That line of reasoning could be used by anyone, to defend any “little” sin. “Mom, why get on to me about me cleaning up my room. Shouldn’t you be on your knees praying for women in hardline Muslim countries right now?!”
I’m pretty sure there are several logical fallacies involved, including the Appeal to Emotion.
@John
Thanks for the link to that Dickens woman.
I said at the beginning that there is a lot to say about this, and those kinds of responses are one of the things I’m going to tackle.
Pingback: Some Recommended Reading | Donal Graeme
So…one of the 19-year-olds came home from shopping with a pair of pixie pants. *sigh*
She llooks cute in them but I realized that because she inherited the thin build of the women in my husband’s family rather than the curvy build that the other two girls picked up from me, that she has always gotten more leeway in her wardrobe choices.
I suddenly saw the pants differently today, so I told her if Dad says she can keep them, she has to wear a tunic style top. Particularly if she plans to wear heels with them.
I screwed up, now I’m still parenting a 19-year-old.
*sigh* again.
I have been reading with interest.
For a brief time I was a member of an all-women’s gym (Curves, actually). Personally, I think women should belong to all-women’s gyms and men should belong to all-men’s gyms. But I digress. Anyway, I wore pants to the gym and a loose T-shirt, but I wore a lightweight elastic waist skirt over the pants. You can still wear a skirt as long as you wear the yoga pants under it. And if you work out at a “mixed” gym, which sometimes is the only option, I would say this is a necessity. You MUST wear a skirt over the pants.
There are yoga pants and there are yoga pants. If you wear them lose I can’t see a problem. But Mom is right that it is better if both sides use separate gyms. Sadly, we can have Curves, but we can’t have an all male Gold’s. All male being Evil.
And I had to laugh after reading this series (much like Elsbeth) I saw a heavy weight gal out running in somewhat tight pants. Good for her trying, but I laughed at the top. It was a tube top designed to show off her only asset.
There aren’t any all-male gyms?
Our Curves closed down, but we have several all-female gyms around; they’re just a little pricey for our budget right now, so my daughter and I work out at home now (we’ll probably continue to do so, as it’s way cheaper).
Mom in the Shoe says:
February 17, 2015 at 7:48 pm
“There aren’t any all-male gyms?”
Technically, no (male-only spaces are inherently sexist, remember?), although most hard-core power lifting gyms tend to have an exclusively male clientele by default. They’re too ugly and malodorous to appeal to gym bunnies.
If you need modest workout clothing or swimsuits (ladies):
I bought my swimsuit and my oldest daughter’s swimsuits here: http://www.wholesomewear.com. We love them. We have the skirted swimmers, my four year old has the culotte swimmer.
The lady who owns the business is looking into retiring, so she might not have what you may need, an alternative is this lady and her business: http://www.marymyway.com.
My oldest son is almost twelve. I’m scared to take him to the grocery store because of the magazines at the checkout.
He did see a swimsuit calendar before New Years, and put a national parks calendar in front of it so we couldn’t see it.
I hope he’s able to stay a good kid. Can’t protect him forever. Even the girls at church don’t dress like my daughter and I do, and it worries me. Worries me sick.
I wanted to be a mother for so many years, and now that I have my house full of children, I never dreamed how much agony a Mom can go through hoping her kids will have enough strength to stay pure…..
@MiaS
Welcome.
Thank you to everyone for the good comments.
I thought I’d mention one more source for absolutely lovely modest clothing, if Cane is OK with that.
I have purchased items from this family’s business which can be found here: http://www.liliesapparel.com
A little expensive, but it’s a family industry, not a huge corporation like Walmart, so I feel better about that. I can make a lot of the things anyway, but I don’t have the time I would like to have necessarily, so I sometimes buy.
You would not believe the number of people who think we’re weird. My daughter is now beginning to notice that she stands out and sometimes gets ridiculed. I get stared at, too, but my husband likes us dressed this way very much, so who cares. But it is getting hard on my daughter to be made fun of.
Pingback: Standing on the street corner | Something Fishy
Pingback: “The Difference between Gold and Pigs”, or “Mennonites in the Mist” | Things that We have Heard and Known
Pingback: Immodesty in athletic dress is the result of an unrestricted capitalist economy. | The Sunshine Thiry Blog
Another conference called Passion, with a similar end goal, but it addresses your concerns:
https://m.facebook.com/PASSIONministries
Check it out.
It’s such a shame that these male athletes selfishly hold back their female teammates. If only they’d wear booty shorts and/or sports bras, they’d be far more efficient.
I’m just going to leave this right here.
“[Veronica R.] is among a growing number of women signing up for labiaplasty to reduce the size and ‘enhance the appearance’ of their private parts, especially when they’re wearing tight-fitting clothes such as workout gear.”
http://nypost.com/2015/10/28/women-are-getting-labiaplasty-to-look-good-in-their-yoga-pants/
Cane,
Good thing you’re anonymous!
“Alan sent in his largely tongue in cheek missive to The Barrington Times (a newspaper with a circulation of 5,000), complaining that the workout apparel was tacky and ridiculous, best suited for the confines of a yoga studio, and not something to be worn by women over the age of twenty.
The result? Death threats, vulgar voice mail and a wave of outrage on local social media accounts which resulted in hundreds of women showing up in front of his house to protest.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/24/can-talk-rhode-island-yoga-pants-protest-moment/