There is a difference between a woman making herself attractive and making herself seductive. The former enhances her natural beauty to increase a man’s desire for her, whereas the latter enhances her sexual appeal and increases a man’s desire to use her to satisfy his sexual lusts. In other words, the former enhances her value as a person, whereas the latter devalues her to a mere object of lust.
Modesty cannot be legislated by prescribing certain forms of clothing, certain lengths, or a certain fit. Women must be responsible for their own modesty. With every outfit they put on they should be asking themselves, “Does this outfit enhance my natural beauty, or does it enhance my sex appeal to men? Will this cause men to objectify me, or value me as a woman?” If women asked these questions of themselves each morning, and if they asked it of other men, no church would have to have standards of modesty.
Thinking to Believe 
January 8, 2014 at 1:30 pm
Making yourself attractive is not to make a man desire her. Everyone shout try to be the best version of yourself FOR yourself.
LikeLike
January 8, 2014 at 4:31 pm
You are kidding yourself :
Natural beauty and sex appeal are two different phrases expressing exactly the same thing in a woman. You can cut it into different slices but the pie is the same regardless of the cut.
LikeLike
January 8, 2014 at 4:35 pm
Renee, I agree.
LikeLike
January 8, 2014 at 4:37 pm
SonofMan. I find it hard to believe that you can’t distinguish between a woman making herself attractive through her clothes, hair, jewelry, etc., and making herself seductive through the same. Beauty and seduction are not the same thing.
LikeLike
January 8, 2014 at 4:38 pm
Renee:
No woman ever made herself attractive for herself. It is the desire of a man that a woman pleases.
LikeLike
January 8, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Jason:
You are totally wrong; you do not understand the nature of the human design. You try to put a spin on a woman’s beauty in the same way that Muslims spin the modesty of the woman because she wears the Burka. Muslim hide the woman in a burlap tent and exclaim it to be virtuous when ti is nothing of the kind.
The nature of human design and sexual attraction and the beauty of seduction. Psych 101.
LikeLike
January 8, 2014 at 5:02 pm
No one says a woman has to wear a burka to be modest. But on the other extreme, clearly wearing a bikini is immodest. Modesty falls somewhere in the middle, and it has to do with how one presents their body through their clothing (and even attitude). A woman is not to be ashamed of her body, but respectful of both herself and others so as not to flaunt her body to cause erotic desires in others for her.
Jason
LikeLike
January 9, 2014 at 12:06 am
Muslims say a woman has to wear a Burka to be modest; western culture not so much anymore but it wasn’t that long ago when prudes ruled over nature. You are still thinking old school and still trying to dictate the values of the human design.
The design of a woman is to display her beauty to cause erotic desires for her, in others; usually male/female but now always as we all know but the forces are the same; that is the natural design of a woman and regardless of trying to make it sound polite you cannot control sexuality nor should you when the change into puberty comes. This is as natural as the hornets flying over the nest waiting excitedly and with deadly fighting skills until the female emerges.
This is the nature of “Life Forces” and it doesn’t matter what the woman wears(not counting the burlap sack that covers everything from head to toe to interfere with visual stimulation) MERE VISION of a woman’s beauty and body strike the retina which stimulates chemical reactions which in turn generates hormonal demands and blood flow to private places. Try to control that and you may as well try to control Gravity or the Tides or the spontaneous coral spawning in the Great Barrier Reef; aka, “sex on the reef” expected to occur between the 22nd and 24th November 2014, so if you would like to experience this event then a liveaboard dive trip is a good option. When the time arrives, the moon is positioned and presto, natural “Life Forces” forces!
LikeLike
January 9, 2014 at 12:12 am
LikeLike
January 9, 2014 at 5:17 am
Jason,
While I understand the point, surely the increase in outward beauty in itself will be a cause for the lustful nature of the man (or lesbian for that matter). I am not convinced that you can separate the two as easily as you come across.
I believe the idea of modesty is to neither enhance nor degrade your body and so using make-up, jewelry, certain clothes etc, to enhance your attractiveness should be thought of carefully, and Corinthians may give us an insight of what is needed if it becomes too much.
In fact, the more I think of it, while the seductive dress-code is a deliberate method of causing others to sin, the former can inadvertently cause someone to sin. Women (and men) ought to think about these things when contemplating outfits.
Regarding the premise of bikinis, do you think it always inappropriate wear? I am not convinced, and personally find some swimming costumes more provocative. My solution is to not pay attention when swimming!
LikeLike
January 9, 2014 at 7:27 am
Steven Pixler wrote a series of blogs on the biblical perspective of modesty. I believe he published them in a book, but the blog posts are still on his website. They’re worth the read.
LikeLike
January 10, 2014 at 5:20 am
@SonofMan saying that sex appeal and natural beauty are the same thing is very wrong. Look at a woman in your life you respect, now look at a prostitute. Does their dress and attitude not cause a different reaction from you?
Modesty is a decision to wear things that do not cause heads to turn back to take a second lustful look. Women most definitely can show natural beauty without boosting their sex appeal, it is true however that most people find natural beauty more attractive. Not in a sexual way but in a way people treasure rare jewels. Modesty is a precious rare thing in today’s society and women need to hold to it to set them above the rest.
LikeLike
January 10, 2014 at 12:35 pm
Bailee:
I was talking about women in general not low life prostitutes on the street corners wearing hypodermics in their leg garters. I don’t know why everyone has to go to extremes when they try to defend something that is not true.
LikeLike
January 10, 2014 at 5:24 pm
Scottspeig,
There is some truth to what you say, but I don’t think that wearing a bunch of makeup or jewelry does anything to incite lust like immodest clothing does. Personally, a bunch of makeup and jewelry is a turn-off for me. I can’t say the same thing about exposed flesh, however. Just saying!
Here’s my thinking on swimsuits. Given how much of the body is exposed by swimsuits (even the more modest, one pieces), if one thinks some swimsuits are modest, then I don’t know of many street clothes that they could possibly condemn as immodest. Modesty with street clothes becomes a non-issue. And yet, I think all would agree that modest with street clothes is an issue. And if it is, then it would be all the more an issue with swimsuits.
Jason
LikeLike
January 10, 2014 at 7:01 pm
John:
We would be interested in reading what you have to say on the matter but please don’t think that suggesting someone run around the net looking for your referred commentary is anything but worse than merely useless. Who’s will chase your rainbows if you cannot express them yourself, in your own words?
LikeLike
January 10, 2014 at 7:16 pm
If anyone on this blog thinks that “Beauty in the eye of the Beholder” is an ideal proverb, think again.
If anyone here thinks that sexuality, attractiveness, love or lust depends only on the what the woman wears, think again.
To whom does a woman project beauty, attraction, sexuality? The Pastor of the Church? the Maids of Honor at a Conservative Christian wedding?
Attraction needs a positive and a negative, like a magnet; sameness repels; it takes two to tango and all the other cliches that go with it.
I met a woman who was dressed in very modest attire, even wore a bandana over her hair in modest appeal, her breasts were supported by the German Bra Company, “Keepsemfromfloppen”; her teeth were like Summer, Summer here and Summer there. Here 300 pounds, sported several inner tire tubes and the neighbourhood children were clamoring in the lake to float on top of her.
I did not find her attractive at all, regardless of how modestly dressed she was.
One man’s joy is another man’s dismay.
The way a woman dresses for beauty, attraction, sexuality is as diverse as the eyes who behold her doing so, so talking about dress being a dominant factor in the way a woman shows herself is wrong on so many levels!
LikeLike
January 27, 2014 at 12:00 pm
The immodesty of sinners has crept and found its way among those who use to stand for holiness of heart and ” life”.
The human heart is deceptive and corrupt, and the refusal to teach a dress standard is refusal to awake the consciences to discernment a godliness.
Some dress styles are ultimately condemned by the spirit of the scriptures.
Short Skirts ( Revealing) the thigh which is becoming popular among UPC and some liberal Apostolics is unholy and should not be tolerated among those who profess. What is short? ( When it reveals the thigh see Isaiah 47)
Strapless dresses which is the norm for most weddings is unholy. Even sinners know that it shows lots of skin especially the back. What is the purpose to wear a dress style that tickles with the revelation of skin. when one can make a choice to abstain from? The Bureau of prisons does not permit anyone dressed in strapless or other revealing styles to visit the prison. If sinners have a sense of what is modest, then what is wrong with the church? Make and Jewelry are strongly associated to seduction and vanity. Why will a christian want that kind of association.
Our sisters can be godly with with clean, long, beautiful, apparel. Their kind hearts will always make them attractive to godly men who will love them as Christ will want.
LikeLike
January 27, 2014 at 4:20 pm
Nkorni:
I almost fell over laughing at the corny standard you implied women’s dress should be compared to: “The Bureau of Prisons”. OMG you are so Victorian if not outright stoneage.
Women have been fighting to come out from the patriarchal prisons of the religiously insane for years; even Catholic Nuns have been crawling out of their penguin suits since the 1970’s and 80’s; Muslim women are still forced to wear burlap sack with a slit for eyes only.
And what in the world is wrong with seduction that someone like you teaches that there is something unclean in the precondition of life, sexuality; this sentiment denies the very foundations of life. In fact it is how and why you were born; how all humans were all born including Jesus I hasten to add
BY the way Isaiah 47 is not talking about what women should wear; it wasn’t talking about a woamn at all but referred to the Nation and called her sins as that of a whore, a harlot using this as a metaphor for the nation, who drank the blood of the Saints with out regard for their humanity. Babylon the Great is also referred to as the DAUGHTER OF BABYLON, and also THE DAUGHTER OF THE CHALDEANS.
Mighty Babylon, THE GREAT NATION, is going to be PULVERIZED. She is to be UTTERLY DEMOLISHED FOR HER SINS.
“Come down, and sit in the dust, O VIRGIN DAUGHTER OF BABYLON,
sit on the ground: THERE IS NO THRONE,
O DAUGHTER OF THE CHALDEANS:
for thou shalt no more be called TENDER AND DELICATE
Here Isaiah calls BABYLON THE GREAT the QUEEN OF THE NATIONS, but her throne has been taken from her. She has been REMOVED AS THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD, and made to sit in the dust, a nation that SPAWNS ALL THE END TIME SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD: POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND RELIGIOUS. In other words BABYLON THE NATION is responsible for the BABYLONIAN WORLD WIDE SYSTEM IT CREATES. And behind it all stands MYSTERY – WHICH THE BIBLE DEFINES AS SECRET RELIGIOUS ORDERS.
Some people try to suggest that this Daughter of the Chaldeans is a prophecy about America but as far as a woman’s dress, merely metaphorical nothing to do about a woman’s dress code.
This is the kind of nonsense that religionists use for trying to support their idea of whatever they think is appropriate for the rest of the human race when they themselves lack understanding. Furthermore you do not know what Jesus wants either.
LikeLike
January 31, 2014 at 5:19 pm
Jason, good distinction, and necessary I think for a reasonable, biblical, and godly approach to dress and fashion, a necessary part of life. I think we see this within the Scriptures. I’m thinking here of the way in which Abraham’s household provided adornments for Rebekah, and this was obviously a good thing. On the other hand, Proverbs provides pictures of seductresses working on their sex appeal, which, of course, sells really well and always has.
I do want to say that clothing and fashion are context-specific. Obviously, a woman working on increasing her sex appeal and a wife beautifying herself for her husband might, if you peak in on a few solitary moments, look much alike, but the venue, the setting, the context, and the outcomes are very different. There’s a lot that might be said here.
Nevertheless, I think the Scriptures and a godly worldview are a far more dignifying and noble way of speaking of all of the love between a man and a woman than our culture does. As evidence, a comparison of the Song of Solomon to Beyonce and Kanye bears this out (http://lauraturner.religionnews.com/2014/01/27/beyonces-drunk-love-todays-song-solomon/).
SonOfMan, given that you can’t make such distinctions, how do you function in public? You don’t know the difference between beauty and seduction? Really? I find you very hard to take serious. And if you don’t take religionists, we perpetuators of nonsense, seriously, why do you care so much?
LikeLike
January 31, 2014 at 6:43 pm
It’s very simple Chad:
You need to understand that a woman’s beauty IS her seduction and that is the nature of her design and there is no difference between the two except that, which is demanded by patriarchal dominance. In Islam, the woman wears the Burka that qualifies as modesty; other religions are not far removed from similar demands forcing the man’s idea of modesty on the woman because of his physical force. Western culture has shrugged off the shackles men made on women and now they can vote and be almost treated like independent human beings. WOW.
You ARE perpetrators of nonsense because you try to make yourselves as champions of women when in fact you denigrate woman, making them out to be whores, harlots and sluts if they don’t comply with your religious views.
Naturally you can’t admit this because that would misrepresent your reality of self righteousness, willing to stone the woman as your ancestors did when Jesus chastized them for their self righteous egos that would allow them to condemn others in their society who did not adhere to their religous sense of righteousness; seriously, we care because we believe that you are salvageable and need to be challenged enough to see the dogma of your position.
LikeLike
January 9, 2019 at 5:15 am
[…] Modesty: making a distinction between attractive and seductive […]
LikeLike