New Page 2

A perennial concern of Christian women (and men) should be the proper dress code for public contexts. Debates continue with respect to the kind of attire that is acceptable in given venues. What about wearing “shorts” in public? How short is “short?” Should swimsuits be worn in the presence of the opposite sex (non-spouses)? How much “skin” may be shown before an imaginary line is crossed into immodest apparel? This article will attempt to deal with such questions from both a biblical and practical perspective.

The specific point to be addressed in this study is the wearing of shorts in public, particularly on the part of the female (though the principle may also be applicable to males). “Shorts” can here include most types of women’s swimsuits as well. However, the general principle herein enunciated will find application to a number of specific types of clothing often worn in mixed company. We will first set forth the following logical syllogism and then attempt to shore up the premises of the argument in order to demonstrate that its conclusion is absolutely sound:

Major Premise: All manner of attire the basic design of which, or the general consequence of, is the arousal of unlawful sexual desire or imagination on the part of a member of the opposite sex (not one’s mate in private) are clothing styles the wearing of which (in the presence of someone not one’s mate in private) entails the sins of lasciviousness and of putting stumbling blocks before others.

Minor Premise: Short pants and/or miniskirts (especially those which expose the greater part of the thighs of a female) are manners of attire the basic design of which, or the general consequence of, is the arousal of unlawful sexual desire or imagination on the part of a member of the opposite sex (not one’s mate in private).

Conclusion: Therefore, short pants and/or miniskirts (especially those which expose the greater part of the thighs of a female) are clothing styles the wearing of which (in the presence of someone not one’s mate in private) entails the sins of lasciviousness and of putting stumbling blocks before others.

The first question: is this argument itself valid in form (“validity” having to do with its logical shape or the way in which its premises are arranged in relation to each other)? Without doubt, the above three sentences taken together in such order constitute a valid syllogism. (In formal logic, it is recognized as being in the simple “AAA” mood.)[1] Yes, the argument form is valid.

Now the question remains, are both of its premises (major and minor) factually true? Does each of its two premises correspond with reality? If each is factually true, given that the argument form itself is completely valid, the conclusion would be sound. (The conclusion would be totally correct and would follow with logical certainty.) The only way to gainsay or refute the above conclusion about wearing shorts and/or miniskirts in mixed company is to disprove one, or both, of the premises. But, if both premises are proven true, then there is no way logically to get around this argument!

Is the major premise true? Notice each of its component parts. By the phrase “the basic design of which” I mean attire which is designed (purposed, planned) to arouse sexual temptation or imagination. In other words, the arousal of sexual desire or imagination is the main reason why such clothing is designed, sold and worn. It may have secondary uses (as to keep cool or give greater freedom of movement under water), but its basic purpose is to be sexually appealing. If a fashion designer has invented a given clothing style to be sexually appealing, we can safely assume that such clothing will generally achieve that purpose, even if the woman or girl wearing it is (naively) unaware of its original basic design or purpose.

Next, by the phrase “or the general consequence of” I mean that, regardless of the original designer’s intent, the type of clothing in question (“generally,” “usually,” “often,” or even “sometimes”) stimulates unlawful sexual desire in the average male who views the woman wearing it. Notice: this would especially be the case if such a clothing style shares in the essential (or “defining”) characteristic of other clothes that were deliberately designed to arouse desire (i.e., the exposure of the erogenous zones of the body, including a woman’s thighs). Even if not originally designed to provoke lust, such clothing would still fall under the same category as those that were so originally designed, since it would still have the same general consequence as the latter (i.e., sexual stimulation or imagination).

We might here make a useful logical distinction: “All clothes which were deliberately designed to arouse sexual desire or imagination are garments that generally do arouse sexual desire or imagination; but all garments that generally do arouse sexual desire or imagination are not necessarily clothes which were deliberately designed to arouse sexual desire or imagination.” However, the dangerous consequences and the general moral principles involved remain the same for both types of clothing. Also, keep in mind that a particular garment or clothing style does not have to be sexually appealing to everyone or to every class of people in order to be “salacious” (“arousing or appealing to sexual desire or imagination”). For example, other women, preadolescent boys, eunuchs, imbeciles (and liars) might say, “it doesn’t affect me.” Yet, if there are certain individuals who are susceptible to being sexually tempted by a particular kind of garment (for example, average, red-blooded, American males who are honest about it), then such attire falls under the category being discussed in our major premise above.

The phrase, “is the arousal of unlawful sexual desire or imagination on the part of a member of the opposite sex (not one’s mate in private),” should be clear enough. Now, it is evident from Hebrews 4:15 that mere temptation of itself does not necessarily imply wrongdoing on the part of the individual who is being tempted. However, from the principles set forth in such passages as Matthew 5:28, Luke 17:1-2, and James 1:10-13, we infer that the person who is deliberately or carelessly doing the tempting of another individual to lust or unlawful sexual imagination is herself/himself guilty of sin, regardless of whether the other individual succumbs to such enticement or actually lusts (sins) for the person so attired.

It is simply wrong—period—purposely or even negligently to do that which provokes temptation on the part of another individual not one’s mate. Of course, another individual might lust after a woman regardless of her good comportment or modest dress style. In such case, the other individual thereby sins (Matt. 5:28) and bears the fault alone, while she is innocent. But, if she tempts him to lust by her behavior or attire, whether he either succumbs to or resists the enticement, she still sins by so tempting him.

The phrase, “are clothing styles the wearing of which (in the presence of someone not one’s mate in private) entails the sins of lasciviousness and of putting stumbling blocks before others,” should also be clear enough. But, let me elaborate a little. Such clothing styles would not have to be worn in the presence of a million men in order for it to fall into this category (not even before one hundred or just ten men for that matter). All it takes for such clothing styles to fall into this sinful category is for them to be worn in the presence of at least one individual other than one’s mate who may be possibly susceptible to such temptation.[2] So, we are talking about cases where a normal, healthy, red-blooded adolescent or adult male is in the presence of an average-looking (or more attractive than average) female dressed in the attire under discussion.[3]

Many passages condemn the sin of “lasciviousness” (cf. Matt. 7:22; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 4:19; 1 Pet. 4:3; Jude 4, etc.). In Galatians 5:19, the term translates the Greek word aselgia. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the term as “wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females,” etc. We have already mentioned texts that condemn the sin of deliberately or carelessly posing a stumbling block before others (Matthew 5:28, Luke 17:1-2, and James 1:10-13).

We can also consider the general principle of 1 Timothy 2:9 where Paul admonishes women to be adorned with “modest apparel.” Unfortunately, a common misconception seems to have been perpetrated lately about the meaning of the term here translated “modest.”[4] While one connotation of the word is “that which is appropriate to a given place or context,” the operative nuance inhering in this term for our purposes is “decent.” “Decent” means, not only “appropriate,” but also “free from immodesty or obscenity.”[5] “Obscenity” is the “quality or state of being obscene,” and “obscene” means specifically “designed to incite to lust or depravity.”[6] “Modest” thus means “free from” what is “designed to incite to lust or depravity.”

So, it simply won’t do to say, for example, that “a bikini or swimsuit is OK at the beach or public swimming pool since it is appropriate to those contexts, while such attire is not OK for a church service.” Even though the “appropriateness principle” is important in itself (as not offending others’ sensibilities in church services by deliberately wearing filthy clothes or Halloween costumes, etc.), this is not the sole meaning of the word for modesty (kosmios). Even if a bikini or other swimsuit is “appropriate” (by the world’s standards) for the beach or public pool, it may nevertheless fall under the condemnation of the categories we are discussing in our syllogism above.

Think about it: if the context alone “justifies” wearing “obscene, salacious or enticing clothing,” then cavorting about completely á natural in a nudist colony would be “justified” as “appropriate” for that context! Which Christian can seriously defend such absurdity? Therefore, “modest apparel” is more than simply attire that is appropriate to a given context—it is partly that, but it is also and more importantly attire which does not provoke unlawful lust or sinful sexual imagination in any context.

Therefore, we can sum up the first (major) premise simply: all clothes which tend to arouse unlawful temptation or imagination are wrong. Most conscientious Christians would agree. The first (major) premise is factually correct. So, if we can demonstrate that the second (minor) premise is also factually correct (i.e., that shorts, miniskirts or swimsuits worn by sexually mature or maturing women fall under the category of salacious clothing in the major premise), there is frankly no logical or scriptural way under the sun to justify the wearing of such attire in the presence of someone not one’s lawful mate (in private)!

Is the minor premise true? Can we defend the following statement: “short pants, miniskirts, and swimsuits (especially those which expose the greater part of the thighs of a female) are in the class of provocative clothing condemned in the major premise?” One is here tempted to appeal to “common knowledge” at this point and just end the discussion at that. However, since certain argumentative or captious brethren at times arise to call into question this common knowledge, it is regrettably necessary to proceed and “answer a fool according to his folly” (Prov. 26:5).

Shorts and swimsuits (especially those which expose the greater part of the thighs of a female) share the quintessence of the average “miniskirt.” Keep this relationship in mind. We mean to show that the sine qua non[7] of the miniskirt is the extent to which a woman’s thighs (upper legs) are exposed. The quintessence of the miniskirt is not what it covers up, but rather what it uncovers (as provable by its original fashion designers). The revealing of a greater amount of female flesh is the distinguishing trait of the miniskirt which contrasts it with other types of skirts or womens’ clothing. Since there is a similarity or even identity in the amount of flesh uncovered in the thigh and upper leg region between miniskirts and shorts (including swimsuits), then whatever the consequence of the miniskirt is in regard to sexual stimulation or imagination is the same consequence for shorts and swimsuits.

The miniskirt clearly was first fashioned in order to arouse temptation on the part of the male by the amount of flesh it leaves exposed. This intent by its designers generally achieves this consequence. (Since shorts and swimsuits share the essence of the miniskirt in the amount of flesh left exposed, they share in the same consequence, regardless of what their original design or purpose may have been.) Mary Quaint, the original designer of the miniskirt, is quoted as saying, “Mini clothes are symbolic of those girls who do not want to wait until dark to seduce a man into bed.”[8] In other words, the original basic design of the miniskirt is to “seduce a man into bed” or, at the least, to tempt a male sexually. Now, can this really be denied? Did this dress designer really fail in her basic purpose?

But, we have already seen that what makes a miniskirt a mini-skirt is what it leaves exposed, not what it covers up. The exposure of this amount of female flesh (in the thighs and upper legs area) is the quintessence or distinguishing characteristic of a miniskirt as such. But shorts and swimsuits, as described in our minor premise above, share exactly that quintessence in the amount of flesh they leave exposed. Any healthy, sexually mature male will acknowledge (except for liars or perhaps congenital homosexuals) that a woman’s thighs and upper legs area is in fact a visually erogenous zone. (“Erogenous” in this context means, “of, relating to, or arousing sexual feelings,” Webster’s). Therefore, since a consequence of the miniskirt (because of the amount of flesh uncovered) is to tempt a male sexually, then a consequence of shorts and swimsuits (because of the same amount of flesh uncovered) is also to tempt a male sexually.

This visual stimulation or temptation (or imagination) is more a problem for males than females, though the same principle to some extent applies to both genders. It is almost silly to have to resort to expert research in order to “prove” what every mature male already knows anyway, though such studies are readily available. Hamann, Herman, Nolan & Wallen summarize the results of experiments recently at Emory University thus: “Men are generally more interested in and responsive to visually sexually arousing stimuli than are women.”[9] This is why the wearing of shorts, miniskirts and swimsuits is generally a more serious problem for women than for men (though the principle of modesty is still applicable to the latter).

If at least one average male is unduly tempted (even though he may not be seeking such stimulation or imagination) by the sight of the upper part of a woman’s legs, then it would be lascivious behavior for a woman, either aware of that fact or careless about it, to don shorts and appear in his presence. There is at least one average male, ________ , who is so affected by the sight of the thighs or upper part of a woman’s legs.[10] (The reader can fill in the blank as to who this one individual may be.) Therefore, it would be lascivious behavior for a woman, either aware of that fact or careless about it, to wear shorts in public.

But the same could be said also about those who wear the standard cheerleader and majorette uniforms. These latter uniforms are designed to appeal to the same base desires to which an appeal is made by the PLAYBOY magazine centerfold. Every mature person should know this is true, even though many will not admit it.[11]

Indeed, every mature person does know that! So, who is kidding anyone by quibbling to the contrary?

It has just been demonstrated by a sound, logical syllogism and its accompanying analysis that short pants share in the distinguishing characteristic of the apparel which has as its consequence the tendency to arouse undue sexual desire or imagination. While obviously a male with impure thoughts could lust after any woman in any type of clothing she may wear, her miniskirt (as recognized by its designer, Mary Quaint) was invented to provoke lust on the part of a man. Even if men with pure hearts succeed in not succumbing to the temptation, the temptation is nonetheless there and is itself a sin on the part of the woman so dressed. It is a potential or actual stumbling block to others’ purity. By Mary Quaint’s own admission (a worldling), there exists such a thing as seductive clothing, as opposed to clothing which is not designed as seductive.

Question: How short is “short”? Or, “just how far above the knee does the short have to be in order to be sinful?” This is often asked when one seeks to clarify what constitutes seductive clothing. The same could be asked for Mary Quaint’s miniskirt, which was designed to “seduce a man into bed.” Yet, Ms. Quaint made sure that the miniskirt was short enough to get the job done, i.e., to “seduce a man into bed” or be sexually tempting.

With this issue we have what logicians call a “vague” concept.[12] That is to say, it is sometimes difficult to define precisely the borders of the concept’s definition (i.e., “shortness”). But, to say that it is hard to draw the line precisely is not to say that we cannot recognize when apparel is in one category or another. I cannot tell you down to the exact centimeter above the knee how short is short, but we all can generally recognize when clothing is immodest, titillating, salacious, seductive or sexually provocative. When in doubt, it seems a Christian woman would want to stay away from the “borderline” in order to be safe, rather than get as close as she can before crossing over into allowing her attire to become a stumbling block to others. We can also ask the advice of trusted friends or family members and even observe how the world generally reacts to one style of clothing in comparison to another.

In conclusion, we repeat that our argument is both valid in form and that its premises are both factually true. The argument is sound. Its conclusion follows with logical certainty:

Therefore, short pants and/or miniskirts (especially those which expose the greater part of the thighs of a female) are clothing styles the wearing of which (in the presence of someone not one’s mate in private) entails the sins of lasciviousness and of putting stumbling blocks before others.

*See the elders' statement about this article from October 14, 2008 in the box at the top of this page.

[1] Stephen F. Barker, The Elements of Logic. 2^nd Ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965 1974), 34.

[2] We can conceive of some individuals who likely may not be susceptible to such visual temptation, as for examples, a young girl or an elderly woman. In such cases, no harm (of a sexually arousing nature) may be done by the wearing of such attire in their presence only. On the other hand, there is another entirely different angle to this discussion that one might pursue concerning the question of the impropriety of exposing too much of one’s body (especially private zones) to someone other than one’s mate, given the principle of the “shame of nakedness” in general. Such a principle is illustrated in the accounts of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:8-11), of Noah and his three sons (Genesis 9:20-27), and in the case of the priests ascending the altar in the presence of the people (Exodus 20:26; 28:42). But, we are not pursuing that angle in this discussion.

[3] By the way, since “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder,” an ungainly or homely girl, by most men’s standards, may nevertheless be the source of temptation to at least one other person not her mate who sees her so dressed. Every female is subject to these principles. Moreover, since to a certain extent even females are also susceptible to visual sexual stimulation, though not as frequently or as strong as are males, the principle of modest apparel is also applicable to a man’s manner of attire in public. Hence, there is no double standard here.

[4] It is from the Greek term kosmios, which means, “orderly, well-arranged, decent, modest…” according to W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Arndt & Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament supports the standard translation of the word as, “in modest apparel.” The English Dictionary gives “decent” and “chaste” of shades of the word’s meanings. Since “modest” is a an accurate translation of kosmios, and since “modest” means, among other things, “decent” and “chaste,” then kosmios conveys, among other things, the idea of clothing that is “decent” or “chaste.” Note also that Paul explains further in 1 Timothy 2:9-10, that such clothing that is kosmios (“modest”) is with “shamefacedness” (aidous) and “sobriety” (sophrosyneis). “Shamefacedness” (aidous) is also translated as “modest” (Ardnt & Gingrich). Sobriety (sophrosyneis) means “discreetness.”

The main point here is that it is NEVER appropriate for a woman to be dressed in attire that is sexually revealing in the presence of some male who is not her mate. Such seductive attire is the opposite of “godliness” (theosebeian), as mentioned in the next verse (1 Tim. 2:10).

[5] Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973.

[6] Ibid.

[7] The sine qua non is “the indispensable element; the defining characteristic, or the essence” of this logical category of clothing, which sets it apart and distinguishes it from other classes or categories of clothing.

[8] In an article in Newsweek, November 13, 1967, as cited in Rubel Shelly, Young People Maker Moral Decisions.

[9] Stephan Hamann, Rebecca A. Herman, Carla L. Nolan & Kim Wallen, “Men and Women Differ in Amygdala Response to Visual Sexual Stimuli,” in Nature Neuroscience (April 2004): 411.

[10] Notice, while I write “especially those which expose the greater part of the thighs or upper legs of a female,” but do not mean to exclude by this other kinds of shorts which still expose much of a woman’s legs and may also potentially be seductive for that reason. Most swimsuits for women, incidentally, do expose the greater part of the thighs or upper legs of a female.

[11] Bobby Duncan, “The Uniform,” in Words of Truth (April 15, 1983).

[12] A vague concept is like when one asks, “What is the difference between a low lying cloud and a high flying fog?” I may not have the precise answer, but can recognize a cloud or fog when I see them. Or when is one’s hair thinning and when is one bald? Or when has one enjoyed a good meal and when has one committed gluttony?