• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

What do you consider modesty on a woman? What makes a woman appear NOT modest?

Mrs.Starr said:
How would you define shamefacedness?
Click to expand...

1 Timothy 2:9 KJV In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

Strong's
G127 αἰδώς aidōs ahee-doce'

Perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and G1492 (through the idea of downcast eyes); bashfulness, that is, (towards men), modesty or (towards God) awe: - reverence, shamefacedness.
Total KJV occurrences: 2

AND

Thayer's
G127 αἰδώς aidōs Thayer Definition:

1) a sense of shame or honour, modesty, bashfulness, reverence, regard for others, respect
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and G1492 (through the idea of downcast eyes)
 
Joleneakamama said:
she is just affirming to everyone that her hubby has a good wife
Click to expand...

Years ago, an old friend of mine had a wife with a body to look at. His whole attitude was if she's got it let her flaunt it. He had no problem sharing his wife's figure with every Tom, Dick and Harry. Today some family members are doing the same. Whats sad is both claim to be "Christians".

When my wife became a Christian at the age of 20, she went to the Bible on how to be a godly wife and a modest one also. She saved her body for ME and quit sharing it with every Tom, Dick and Harry out there.
 
I was watching Napoleon Dynamite again the other day, and I realised that shamefacedness isn't a religious thing at all, and is actually instinctually understood even by secular people - as the fundamental feature that makes a woman truly attractive.

Consider the difference between the two girls that Napoleon most interacts with - Deb (who is obviously going to end up his girlfriend), and Trisha (who he invites to a dance). Here's a brief clip of each of them interacting with him.

Deb:

Trisha:
"Shamefacedness" (or rather "modesty") is what is visible on Deb's face, but not on Trisha's. It's the attitude that makes Deb seem a genuine, lovely young lady, and the lack of it is what makes Trisha seem like an unattractive bitch. Even though, by secular standards, Trisha has been cast as the more model-like individual, the viewer of the movie sees her as actually unattractive because of her attitude which is visible on her face. It's clearer if you watch the full movie but these clips should give the basic picture.

Edit: The fact that secular movie producers have used this to show such a stark difference between these women demonstrates that even secular people recognise it.

Also, shamefacedness / modesty is the quality that Sandra Dee has at the start of the movie Grease and has lost by the end, making her attractive at the start and ugly by comparison by the end. I hate that movie, but it could be used as another illustration.
 
Last edited:
I think that women who cover themselves r modest. I think that this means that their clothing should be from the neck to below the knee (Exodus 20:26; 28:42-43). I think that women should wear a headcovering at all times, and that the only male who should see her hair is her husband. I also think women should wear a nose chain and gold bangles to show that theyre married.
 
sambowers said:
I think that women who cover themselves r modest. I think that this means that their clothing should be from the neck to below the knee (Exodus 20:26; 28:42-43). I think that women should wear a headcovering at all times, and that the only male who should see her hair is her husband. I also think women should wear a nose chain and gold bangles to show that theyre married.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting standard. I’d be interested to know how you arrived at that standard.
 
The modesty part comes from my family being in the United Pentecostal Church. The headcovering part comes from 1 Corinthians 11:2–6, 1 Thessalonians 5:17, and Middle Eastern culture. The nose chain and golden bangles come from the nose ring and bracelets received in Genesis 24:47. The nose ring mentioned was a nose jewel which was very important ornaments in Hebrew society (see Proverbs 11:22; Isaiah 3:21; Ezekiel 16:12; Hosea 2:13). I just said nose chain and gold bangles due to my fascination with Indian culture.
 
Genesis 24:47 and Ezekiel 16:12 is very interesting. Proverbs 11:22 would be inconclusive without the first two, but becomes significant once you understand those. Especially interesting is the mention of God “jewelling” his new bride in this manner in Ezekiel 16.

I suppose, the chain between the nose ring and earrings are inconclusive or speculative without additional information, but could no doubt be a husbands preference.
 
windblown said:
Click to expand...

Awesome video, @windblown. You and your hubby are well-matched in your effectiveness on camera, and I also couldn't help but simultaneously think about the joyful exuberance in your recent writing about how you can't stand how hot he is! You two are just awesome together!

I thought it was brilliant that you first brought this discussion right to the eyes, because they are the windows into our souls, which are the spirit of God combined with the 'dust' of our bodies. Eye contact is key.

But then you also quite appropriately brought in the dynamic of shame. You're correct that our worldly culture has devalued shame to the point of sending everyone head-first into oblivion because we are rewarded for not even noticing when we should be ashamed.

But in the realm of modesty, it really is all about what you referred to as wanton eyes.

I believe in reveling in the majesty of God's magnificence in the realm of female beauty. I also am not an advocate of modesty, as far as that's concerned. I personally want my wife to feel free to display herself however she is comfortable displaying herself, as long as it isn't for the purpose of, as has been mentioned already, marketing herself. Personally, I have no problem with public nudity, either seeing it or displaying it, but what I would have a problem with would be my wife making herself available to other men, and that's where the wanton eyes come in.

I mourn the fact that so many women friends of mine are fearful of making eye contact with men other than their husbands, because along with it being a barrier to communication with them, it also saddens me that their husbands may be that fearful that something untoward will occur if their women are verbally intimate with another man or make eye contact with him. No amount of hiding away breasts, vaginas, throats, elbows, knees or ankles is going to have any effect on whether my wife is available to another man. This is a matter of self-control and where-there's-a-will-there's-a-way territory.

My personal rule, which Kristin also considers her own rule, is to avoid situations in which she is alone with men I don't trust, and that's sufficient, because I have every reason to trust Kristin. That's because Kristin doesn't have wanton eyes (the metaphor was spot on, too). Wanton eyes on a woman do not have to be something that is associated with make-up or that have to even be an ongoing or consistent behavior. Wanton eyes can occur in brilliant, brief flashes.

But what wanton eyes communicate to a man is, "You can get you some of this." Any scriptural message I can find that addresses these issues points to considering the wanton eyes you've confronted, @windblown, as being the only truly substantive modesty issue. It's therefore a 'being' issue rather than a 'wearing' one.

Kristin and I have certainly had our share of marital challenges, but one of her finest traits is that she has provided me with 3 decades of not having to worry about whether she is going to exhibit "you can get you some of this" eyes toward anyone but me.
 
Keith Martin said:
Awesome video, @windblown. You and your hubby are well-matched in your effectiveness on camera, and I also couldn't help but simultaneously think about the joyful exuberance in your recent writing about how you can't stand how hot he is! You two are just awesome together!

I thought it was brilliant that you first brought this discussion right to the eyes, because they are the windows into our souls, which are the spirit of God combined with the 'dust' of our bodies. Eye contact is key.

But then you also quite appropriately brought in the dynamic of shame. You're correct that our worldly culture has devalued shame to the point of sending everyone head-first into oblivion because we are rewarded for not even noticing when we should be ashamed.

But in the realm of modesty, it really is all about what you referred to as wanton eyes.

I believe in reveling in the majesty of God's magnificence in the realm of female beauty. I also am not an advocate of modesty, as far as that's concerned. I personally want my wife to feel free to display herself however she is comfortable displaying herself, as long as it isn't for the purpose of, as has been mentioned already, marketing herself. Personally, I have no problem with public nudity, either seeing it or displaying it, but what I would have a problem with would be my wife making herself available to other men, and that's where the wanton eyes come in.

I mourn the fact that so many women friends of mine are fearful of making eye contact with men other than their husbands, because along with it being a barrier to communication with them, it also saddens me that their husbands may be that fearful that something untoward will occur if their women are verbally intimate with another man or make eye contact with him. No amount of hiding away breasts, vaginas, throats, elbows, knees or ankles is going to have any effect on whether my wife is available to another man. This is a matter of self-control and where-there's-a-will-there's-a-way territory.

My personal rule, which Kristin also considers her own rule, is to avoid situations in which she is alone with men I don't trust, and that's sufficient, because I have every reason to trust Kristin. That's because Kristin doesn't have wanton eyes (the metaphor was spot on, too). Wanton eyes on a woman do not have to be something that is associated with make-up or that have to even be an ongoing or consistent behavior. Wanton eyes can occur in brilliant, brief flashes.

But what wanton eyes communicate to a man is, "You can get you some of this." Any scriptural message I can find that addresses these issues points to considering the wanton eyes you've confronted, @windblown, as being the only truly substantive modesty issue. It's therefore a 'being' issue rather than a 'wearing' one.

Kristin and I have certainly had our share of marital challenges, but one of her finest traits is that she has provided me with 3 decades of not having to worry about whether she is going to exhibit "you can get you some of this" eyes toward anyone but me.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Keith. But you have to know that "my husband is too hot" thread was Zec hacking my account! :P
 
windblown said:
Thanks, Keith. But you have to know that "my husband is too hot" thread was Zec hacking my account! :p
Click to expand...

How do I know that this comment isn't Zec hacking your account?

;)
 
Robhar said:
ankles and panteloons to whomever might happen to pass by. Oh if only that was all we had to worry about today!
Click to expand...

Ya, instead our grade school girls dress like hookers. Maybe keeping the ankles covered wasn't so bad an idea after all.


Mrs.Starr said:
How would you define shamefacedness?
Click to expand...

To expound on the definitions given so far. Having a sense of shame. Not doing those things which would bring shame on you. Not dressing in a shameful way. The kind of woman who would blush to be seen in such clothing. I.e. clothing which is immodest, draws attention, alluring, exposing. Dressing like a wanton woman. Webster said "Bashfulness; excess of modesty." In contrast most people seem to want to find the minimum of modesty necessary.


The Revolting Man said:
Which is a completely subjective standard
Click to expand...

There is no point in going into 'this many inches covered' or 'this cut and not that cut' or 'this style and not that style'. There are too many variables, ever changing, and it only creates pointless debates. Especially since I can't even get many of you to agree to the idea of not wearing clothing which draw's attention. You have a pair of nuts, you know yourself what clothing is alluring. You've said yourself how clothing can cover but be alluring; I think you can figure it out.


Joleneakamama said:
In my experience (and listening to my hubby confirms it) it is more a woman's attitude and manner then dress, hair or makeup that makes the difference.
Click to expand...

It's both. There are some clothing cuts which are specifically designed to draw attention to her sexual attributes. My wife has a good attitude, but she still wore some things which were indiscreet until I pointed out that they were and how they were; it's obvious once pointed out but until then she didn't realize the affect they conveyed.


sambowers said:
The nose chain and golden bangles come from the nose ring and bracelets received in Genesis 24:47
Click to expand...

That comes from Mesopotamian culture. It's their equivalent to our wedding ring. The servant, in handing those things to her, proposed marriage.
 
Keith Martin said:
No amount of hiding away breasts, vaginas, throats, elbows, knees or ankles is going to have any effect on whether my wife is available to another man.
Click to expand...

But displaying her sexual attributes in an alluring manner is an advertisement of availability. A silent invitation. In contrast if she dresses modestly she'll silently advertise that she's not available.

Dave Chappelle said it better...

“The girl says "Oh uh-uh, wait a minute! Wait a minute! Just because I'm dressed this way does not make me a whore!"

Which is true, Gentlemen, that is true. Just because they dress a certain way doesn't mean they are a certain way. Don't even forget it.

But ladies, you must understand that is fucking confusing. It just is. Now that would be like me, Dave Chappelle, the comedian, walking down the street in a cop uniform. Somebody might run up on me saying, "Oh, thank God. Officer, help us! Come on. They're over here. Help us!" "Oh-hoh! Just because I'm dressed this way does not make me a police officer!"

See what I mean? All right, ladies, fine. You are not a whore. But you are wearing a whore's uniform.”
Click to expand...
 
rockfox said:
There are some clothing cuts which are specifically designed to draw attention to her sexual attributes.
Click to expand...
T-shirts with writing on the chest are a really annoying example of clothing that is "modest" but draws attention. We're so used to reading that if you look her in the eye, your eyes are automatically drawn to the words in your peripheral vision.

Women need to understand too that if they're showing something, it's impossible not to look automatically, however conservative your morality may be. I know of a Muslim man who worked on cruise ships in the Maldives. Rich Western women would wander around topless on board, and the Muslim authorities let it slide because of the money they brought in and the fact they were offshore. But working on the ship he couldn't help but see, and therefore couldn't help but look. So he wore dark glasses the whole time, simply so they couldn't see his eyes and he wouldn't make the passengers uncomfortable that someone was looking at what they were deliberately showing off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top