Dreams of Our Daughters

At some point before our daughter was married, my husband was speaking with the father of a man who could have been a potential suitor. My husband was explaining to the father that our daughter had been prepared for marriage and that she was looking forward to becoming a wife and a mother. Then, as if the father had not heard a thing that was said he responded with, "That's all fine, but what are her dreams?"

Huh? What are her dreams? Did you just hear what my husband said? She wants to be a wife. She is looking forward to fulfilling the role for which she was created. Only women can be wives. Only women can be mothers. It is the most important thing she will ever do. She will impact the lives of countless thousands by becoming a wife.

I am somewhat confused as to why men would find it an attractive trait in a potential wife that she wants to be something other than a wife.

Perhaps I have been jaded by the lies I've been told by both the world AND the church. Actually, I KNOW I'm jaded by it. I am not going to pass along those lies to my daughters. It is depressing to think that they may embrace such lies after they leave my home, but they certainly won't hear them from me. And I will actively work to prepare them to resist untruth.

So you can imagine how refreshed I was to read this post at Chalcedon by Jenni Zimmerman. I hope you will click on the link and see what she has to say about their oldest daughter.

Like EVERY author I have read in my life, I don't agree with absolutely everything Jenni says. I don't even agree with everything I've ever written. So I will just say up front, in case anyone is wondering, I do not agree with this statement that she makes, and don't believe the Bible teaches or supports this view of wives:

 She is chief counselor to her husband, knowing the word of God alongside him, giving godly counsel when needed.

Raising daughters is difficult. I appreciate what the Zimmermans are doing with their daughters and I stand with them, encouraging them to stay the course. Perhaps it won't be long until their oldest daughter is married and putting all of her good training to use. 

As A Jewel Of Gold in a Swine's Snout..

As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.  Proverbs 11:22

Noah Webster described discretion like this:

1. Prudence, or knowledge and prudence; that discernment which enables a person to judge critically of what is correct and proper, united with caution; nice discernment and judgment, directed by circumspection, and primarily regarding ones' own conduct.

2. Liberty or power of acting without other control than one's own judgment; as the management of affairs was left to the discretion of the prince; he is left to his own discretion.

The primary audience I have in mind when writing here is one of women, Christian women, like myself. Wives, mothers, grandmothers, daughters and sisters. And this topic, I think, applies more particularly to women. That is not to say that all men are discreet, only that many women are indiscreet. It seems to be accepted as inevitable, with little or nothing being taught within Christian circles about how women should learn to practice discretion.

The aged women likewise...that they may teach the young women...to be discreet. Titus 2:3-5

 This is especially noticeable to me when I read fiction written a long time ago. Even fiction written by women. I offer the works of Jane Austen as an example. More on that later.

One of the ways I have been a witness (and a participant) in indiscretion is in the seemingly insatiable way that women want to know everything that is happening in the lives of every person they know. If the woman is a mother, this desire is often accompanied by a sense of entitlement to know every detail. Family members, church attendees, friends, even distant acquaintances, no one is excluded or protected from the constant acquiring and collecting of data. And to what end?

Obviously, the first use that comes to mind is gossip. Once she has the information, what else would she do with it except share it? After all, nothing hides indiscretion better than making it universal and therefore, normal. But even if she has the incredible self-control necessary to keep the information to herself, the tidbits themselves are up to no good within her mind. She is judging, comparing, formulating advice, imagining conversations, misunderstanding relationships, destroying reputations and wishing ill of others, all within the confines of her own brain box.

While it is fairly common to hear admonitions against gossip from the pulpit or in books and articles directed at Christian women, it is rare, VERY rare to hear anyone speak against wanting to know things in the first place. I can only think of one instance, and think it was in a radio broadcast by Elisabeth Elliot. I am just now coming to understand the peace that comes from not knowing things.  

I have my husband to thank for bringing this understanding to me in a very practical way. The Bible speaks of discretion, and in a non-personal, intellectual way, I probably believed I knew the meaning of discretion. It wasn't until we arranged a marriage for our daughter that I learned from experiencing it how discretion feels, how it works, what it entails, and what a blessing it is. How did he do this? Simply by not telling me things. He would speak with the father of our now-son-in-law, and my husband did not offer to let me know the things of which they spoke. He wasn't purposely keeping it from me, it wasn't that I asked and he refused to tell me. He just didn't think most of what they discussed was important or relevant to me. And he was right. (As usual.) I am not a naggy sort of person, and I trust my husband, so if he didn't offer up information, I didn't ask.

It wasn't until the whole thing (the arranged marriage) was done that I realized how blessed I was to have been out of the loop for most of the conversation. Now I can see that I would have been fretting over nothing, worried about mole hills, concerned for disaster, when actually everything was smooth sailing. I was spared much heart ache and nonsense that I might have created for myself. After we told the story to others, I was surprised to find that much of the shock people had was not so much that we arranged a marriage, but that I, the mother, was not intimately involved in the details. Other mothers could not even imagine letting their husbands handle such a thing, and even if they let them, they would want to be consulted at every step and be told every word spoken on the subject.  Why? Because they, like the old me, have no understanding of discretion. They are, unfortunately, like bejeweled swine. 

Our family has been hurt by indiscretion. You have probably been hurt by it. People say things they shouldn't say because others want to hear things they shouldn't hear. After the hearing, the information gets distorted like a typical game of Telephone. Woe is everyone if the information gets re-shared.

My challenge to you, Christian woman, is this: Try not to know. Try not to desire to know. Reject hearing about things, even when the information is offered without your asking. Don't ask people about their relationships. Don't ask for or listen to people talking about OTHER PEOPLE'S relationships! Are the ladies next to you discussing the courtship of so-and-so with what's-her-name? Move to a different seat so you can't hear. If someone begins a statement with, "Don't tell anyone about this because the whole family doesn't know yet...."  RUN! Did you hear me? RUN! This is not for you to know.

Sometimes, for whatever reason, we come into the knowledge of something that either does not concern us, or only concerns us in a very peripheral way. When that happens, resist the urge to dwell on it. Or to make judgments. Your first impressions may be wrong, or the entire situation may change so much over time that your revelations to others on the matter will result in hurt that never needed to occur. Here I am going to return to my previous mention of Jane Austen. I am sorry if you are not familiar with her books or with the movies based upon them. Maybe this blog post will inspire you to take a look.

 In "Pride and Prejudice" the main character is the second oldest of 5 sisters. Her name is Elizabeth Bennett. During the course of the story, Elizabeth becomes privy to information about two other characters who eventually become the husbands of two of her sisters. As I watched this being portrayed in a movie, I felt very strongly that Elizabeth should go share this information. I felt is so strongly, that I nearly wanted to jump out of my chair and shout it at the older sister, Jane. In my mind, Jane would have been comforted to know that her suitor loved her, but was dissuaded from marrying her because of the undue influence of his rich friend. Why wouldn't Elizabeth immediately tell Jane about this?

Elizabeth, does share her information about the other young man with her sister, Jane, but only because Jane is known for her kind heart and her discretion, and Elizabeth needs the advice of her sister with how to deal with this potentially explosive information which could ruin the reputation of the young man, as well as that of a young lady who was formerly involved in a scandal with him. Jane advises her to let the information die with them.

The women in "Pride and Prejudice" tend to fall into two, very distinct categories. Those who are discrete, and those who are not. Only Elizabeth seems to fall into neither category. This is fiction, so it is easy to force women into boxes, but in real life, none of us are fully one or the other. The indiscreet women are portrayed as having bad character (Lydia, Kitty, Mrs. Bennett, Lady Lucas), while discreet women are generally portrayed as being good. These distinctions do not exist, or barely exist today. Most of us would be hard pressed to identify an act of indiscretion, and we are all so thoroughly immersed in our own indiscreet and loquacious ways, that we wouldn't dare point a finger at another woman. One woman even tries to make lack of discretion into a virtue.

So Elizabeth shares her secret knowledge of  Mr. Wickham, but doesn't reveal what she knows of Jane's would-be-suitor, Mr. Bingley. In the end, things work out. Jane is married by Mr. Bingley, never having been hurt by the information known by Elizabeth. Mr. Wickham's bad character is revealed on its own, without any assistance from Elizabeth, protecting the reputation of the more-or-less innocent third party. Mr. Wickham marries Elizabeth's youngest sister, Lydia.

What is striking to me is that during the 19th century, it was obvious to everyone that women have a problem with discretion and that discretion was considered a virtue. Today, if we don't immediately tweet something we heard or saw, or we wait one day before making a facebook post about something, we are considered to be highly restrained. What also struck me as interesting about the 19th century, was that it was not considered necessarily inappropriate for a man to rebuke a woman for public bad behavior. If a man tried that today, he would probably get sued and the woman would remain offended until the day she died.

I recently (within the past 3 years) had a man rebuke me for interrupting him in a conversation. The rebuke was strong. I fully deserved it, but it was quite the blow because I am so used to being allowed to run all over people. I had unconsciously come to believe that civilized men don't attempt to restrict the behavior of women. We just do as we please and expect our husbands to cover for us. Or intercede for us. My husband was right there when this happened, and said nothing. He knew I deserved it, too. I had to use all the power of my logical brain to force down my feelings that the man was trying to offend me. He intended no offense at all. It was just a statement of fact that he had let me finish my thought and he was entitled to the same courtesy. It was terribly embarrassing for me, not just because the poor man had to call me out, but also because I was not saying anything at all worth saying. I was adding NOTHING to the conversation. I just wanted to talk. I just insisted on having my say on the matter and more. It was shamefully indiscreet. My husband is such a patient man to even take me out in public.

It is much too late to try to cut this short, so I will just leave this here. I  hope you were edified. Writing this has been a good and much needed reminder for me.

Breastfeeding is NOT Immodest

I saw this very interesting story and thought it would go well with my post here.

In my previous post, I tried to make the case that Christians ought to own the idea that openly breastfeeding human children is normal. I know that several of the links in that story are broken now, but the point still stands and there are still some good images remaining.

In this link you will see some photos that I would call precious. Mothers, cherishing their limited time of nourishing their children at their breasts. Don't look if you are too squeamish and are still judging God for His audacious design, that design where He actually caused human milk, food for infants, to be manufactured within breasts. Further, He designed for the milk to be removed from the breast and made available to babies by means of suckling. Scandalous, I know.

Here is the link again, in case you missed it above: Victorian-era Deguerreotypes of Women Breastfeeding


After posting the above, I came across this in the Daily Mail

Women in Combat vs. Women in the Police Force

Thanks to Dalrock for pointing out the inconsistency of complementarian John Piper who says that it is cowardly for a man to permit a woman to defend his life in combat, but perfectly ok for her to do so in his own home in her role as police officer.

Saved in Childbearing

“To censorious men it might appear absurd, for an Apostle of Christ not only to exhort women to give attention to the birth of offspring, but to press this work as religious and holy to such an extent as to represent it in the light of the means of procuring salvation…whatever hypocrites or wise men of the world may think of it, when a woman, considering to what she has been called, submits to the condition which God has assigned to her, and does not refuse to endure the pains, or rather the fearful anguish of parturition, or anxiety about her offspring, or anything else that belongs to her duty, God values this obedience more highly than if, in some other manner, she made a great display of heroic virtues, while she refused to obey the calling of God. To this must be added, that no consolation could be more appropriate or more efficacious than to shew that the very means (so to speak) of procuring salvation are found in the punishment itself.”
John Calvin’s Commentary

This is John Calvin commenting on the following verse:
  

 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety
1 Timothy 2:15

What, if anything, do modern evangelicals have to say about this verse? Does it mean anything at all, since they would protest that it can't possibly mean what it says?

Normalize Open Breast Feeding

As with sex in marriage, Christians really ought to own the issue of breastfeeding. We should be the most informed, the most accepting, the most encouraging and we ought to have the least number of hang-ups about feeding a child at the breast than any other group of people on the planet. "Why," you ask? Because we know the Creator. We know the Designer. We know that everything He designed and created was very good. Breast feeding is not some embarrassing part of our family history that needs to be covered up and excused. We don't have to apologize for God having put the life-giving nutrients in the breasts of women which must needs be extracted by children by way of nipples. There, I said it. Nipples. I said it again. Does that make you uncomfortable? Would you prefer that I said "teets?" How about "tits?" Why, exactly, does this make us squirm?

Does it bother us just because it doesn't bother hippies and Hollywood types? I'll be the first to admit that if some Hollywood starlet is endorsing something, I pause to consider whether I'm on the right track if I happen to agree with her. Here is one example I saw this morning

As you can see, this comes from Glamour magazine. This woman (I never heard of her), Olivia Wilde, was photographed breast feeding her baby in a restaurant. It is a posed shot. She said that she wanted to include this in the magazine story about her because being a mother is such an important part of her identity. I say, "Good for her." Secretly, I hope that lots of women see this and will feel more confident about breast feeding their own children. Perhaps they will think, "See, she is sexy and famous, and she does it. I can, too." But beyond breast feeding, I have very little in common with this mother and I actively oppose the civilization-destroying beliefs that she espouses in the article. I don't want her to be the poster child for breast feeding, for mothering, or any other important aspect of Western Civilization.

How can a person be so right about one subject and be so wrong about everything else? I hate to say it, but even a blind hog finds a truffle once in awhile. Here is what she has to say about why she hasn't yet married her bastard child's father:

"We're engaged, but no specific plans yet — we just have to find the time to put it together," she said. "In many ways, a child is more of a commitment. We are fully committed and really happy as a family. And there's no definition of the 'normal family' anymore. Kids today are growing up with so many different definitions of family. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't feel any pressure to do it. But I think it will be really fun."

So, marriage is for when they "find the time to put it together" and she thinks "it will be really fun." I believe she has confused a wedding with a marriage. She exalts illegitimate parenthood to a position higher than marriage by saying that a "child is more of a commitment." Families are not built on the foundation of having children, any savage can pump out babies. Families are built upon the foundation of marriages, and families ARE the foundation of civilizations.  She is also extremely proud that she won't be sacrificing her career now that she is a mother. Of course not. What, with all those nannies and stuff, she is just like all of those other single moms out there working at McDonald's.  And besides, she had a great example in her own "badass working mother" who was "a writer and filmmaker who made documentaries for PBS's Frontline and was a Princeton journalism professor." This gem of a mom taught her daughter what was important. As Olivia puts it, "That inspired me when I was pregnant. I wasn't going to sacrifice myself because I was becoming a mother." Nope. Motherhood should certainly not involve sacrifice. You can have it all, sister!

You can read more about this person here, although I've probably told you all you need to know.

In spite of the immorality and anti-biblical family values of Hollywood starlets, there is nothing about breast feeding, even with a full breast exposed, that violates any recommendation in Scripture to be modest. This neo-Victorian prudishness about breast feeding that is currently reigning in the U.S. is not based upon the Bible. It is new in history. Even common sense will tell us that what we are asking of breast feeding mothers, that they don't feed their children in public, that they completely cover their upper bodies and the heads of their babies, would not only be impractical in most cultures and settings outside of the home, but completely impossible. Even the Victorians didn't treat public breast feeding with the horror feigned by modern Americans at the sight of a breast with a child attached. How do I know this? Well, I didn't appear on the scene of history until fairly recently, so I have to rely on resources such as art. That's right. Paintings, sculptures and drawings of everyday life throughout the past 1000 years have depicted breast feeding. Without covers. In public. The examples I'm going to share are beautiful, but if you find it distasteful, please look away.

This next one is especially interesting, as presumably the family portrait was being painted so that it could be displayed:

One person's interpretation of Jesus blessing the little children: 

 

 This is from a painting by Lucas Kranach, friend of Martin Luther. Apparently the women in this church all sit together, presumably the men are sitting on the other side of the room, not because of breast feeding, though.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. As photography started becoming more widespread in the late 1800's  breast feeding women were being included in snapshots as well as posed portraits.  Clearly our ancestors did not consider a breast exposed for the purpose of feeding a child to be inappropriate, immodest, or undesirable in any way.

What happened? I think what happened was formula feeding. Women, generations of them now, have grown up without any association between breasts and their function in feedings babies. These women only know breasts as objects of sexual pleasure. While there is nothing wrong with using breasts for pleasure, it is wrong to say that body parts which bring sexual pleasure must be hidden in public. Do we say that about our lips? It is a perversion of design to relegate nursing mothers and their babies to public toilets and secret closets. Let Christians lead the way in giving honor to the Creator for his magnificent design.

Churchianity's Teachings on Marital Sex

On facebook the other day I came across this blog post, 4 Lies The Church Taught Me About Sex , and it made me feel sad. Call me idealistic, but sex is wonderful and Christians should be enjoying it to a higher degree than any one else on the planet. Only Christians can immerse themselves fully, body, soul and spirit in what it means to be married, to be one flesh, to be living out the picture of eternal union with Christ. Amen?  I don't mean that every time a husband and wife come together it should turn into worship (that's pagan) or that it should be a transcendent spiritual episode, but simply that we should be absolutely free to abandon ourselves to the physical pleasure that is sex. It should be triumphant, not guilt ridden. So what went wrong?

I'm going to skip over her point number 1 completely for right now. I don't agree with her and I want to author another post addressing her complaint that she was taught "Any and all physical contact is like a gateway drug to sex."

So we move on to point number 2, "If you wait until you are married to have sex, God will reward you with mind-blowing sex and a magical wedding night." There is so much wrong with this idea, especially the part that follows "God will reward you." God (or nature) WILL reward you for keeping your sex life exclusive to your husband. In the same way that a woman who doesn't do this has the opposite of reward, which may manifest itself as guilt, regret, disease, emotional distress or some other negative issue.  But who or what would tell young women that marriage night sex is "mind-blowing" or "magical"? Assuming the authoress of this post was actually taught that and that she herself didn't teach it to herself, this is just irresponsible and downright cruel.

Here is the big rub for me. Truth. Truth. Truth. What do Christians and especially Churchians have against truth? What do we fear? Do we secretly believe that premarital sex is fun and exciting and that if we let young women know that they will all run off and start fornicating? So we feel compelled to build some sand castles in the sky for them about marital sex that will only come true if they abstain before? Nothing in the Christian walk is an incantation or spell. We don't do or say the right things and therefore obligate God to give us prizes. The reason that woman should reserve sex for marriage is because it is the only context in which God gives us permission to exercise that joy. It is obedience. The fact that there are consequences for not doing it is only secondary, because frankly, in a practical sense, there may very well be benefits that come from disobeying. Can premarital sex be fun? Of course. Can premarital sex give us a deep sense of bonding with a partner? Of course. Can premarital sex cause a partner to stay with us when he would have otherwise moved on? Of course. Do all of those benefits justify the transgression of God's law? Nope.

Now, to the credit of this young woman's teachers, she was told some accurate things about the first marital sex experience. She was told that honeymoon sex is not going to the best sex. She was told it might be uncomfortable. She was told it takes work. I think what was really lacking were the specifics, the mechanics. She claims that her body was "locked up tighter than Maid Marian's chastity belt." No one warned her about that. Or did they? Perhaps that is what her teachers were trying to convey with their veiled language about "not the best," "hard work," and "uncomfortable." But her teachers were too vague. I think the actual problem was not with her body or inexperience at all, but with her brain.

I believe that her problems on her wedding night actually stem from what she reveals about herself in her point number 4, "When you get married you will immediately be able to fully express yourself sexually without guilt or shame."  This should be true. This is a teaching, however, which can't come in as one sentence at a youth conference. Unfortunately, this truth is only going to true for a specific woman if she has not spent her childhood being taught that anything at all about sex acts is dirty, evil, gross, sinful, shameful, bad, naughty, etc. The shamefulness of sex is never based upon the act itself, which is neutral, but upon the context in which it occurs.

Examining the law of God we see that there are no prohibited sex acts. God never says, don't do this thing or that thing. In the New Testament Paul says that the marriage bed is undefiled. This was not a new teaching. He was giving us a commentary on the Old Testament teaching about sex, which is that it is always appropriate in marriage and whatever/however it occurs in marriage it is good and right. So what DOES God condemn in the area of sex? Not acts, but rather certain relationships. Regardless of how they do it, if a woman has sex with an animal they are both to be put to death. If a man has sex with another man, that is a shameful, sinful, dirty, naughty. Not because of the nature of the act, but because it is the wrong context for that act. A penis is a sex organ. It has other purposes, of course, but it is completely normal and within the design for it to be used for sex. It is not a perversion to use a penis for sex even though it is also used for urinating. Urinating is no more perverted than sex. But sex with a wife. It isn't the penis that sins in homosexual sodomy, it is the man.

A man is prohibited from having sex with his mother. Does that make sex bad? Does that make his penis evil? Nope. Sex is not shameful. Sex is not bad. Sex is not evil. Marriage is, at its very core a sexual relationship. Sex is what makes marriage different from other relationships. Anyone can cook for your husband or clean for him. Anyone can care for his children. But if anyone who does those things for him is not his wife, and she has sex with him, she sins. Not because of the act, but because of the context.

This is the same reason that Christian woman have hysterics about a woman breastfeeding her child in public. The use of the breast for feeding a child is perfectly normal use of the breast. The mother is not having sex with her child, she is feeding her. Breasts are multifunctional. They are sensual during sex, for sure. Even the Bible endorses enjoying a woman's breasts during sex. ALL of the uses for the breast are equally valid. Breasts are not evil. Women are not evil for having breasts. A breast that is exposed for the purpose of feeding a baby is not scandalous. This is an historical truth. But when we teach that sex is evil and shameful, we start piling on to that wrong teaching and we begin to teach that breasts are shameful, a penis is shameful, the vulva is shameful. We must not look at these shameful things or touch them, even on accident, or talk about them! If we do, we might be tempted to use them, and they are NAUGHTY!  Do we see how ridiculous that is?

I beg you, fellow Christian mothers, do not instill a sense of shame into your daughters (or sons, although they don't necessary buy into this delusion so easily) about sex! If anything, you should be getting them interested and excited about the day they get to let it all hang loose!  You will have to tell them that sex can be messy and they should not see that as disgusting. "It is sort of gross when your baby brother poops all over your lap, but don't ever associate that with your husband sharing his seed with you." Sorry to be so graphic, but there it is and her husband will thank you. A husband needs a wife to be not only "not grossed out", but he wants her to be welcoming and eager to take what he offers. She should look forward to it and desire it.

In her closing paragraph she says this:

If our reason for saving sex until marriage is because we believe it will make sex better or easier for us, we’re not only setting ourselves up for disappointment, but we’re missing the point entirely. 

 

And I couldn't agree more. There are good and right reasons for abstaining until marriage. But a young woman shouldn't be spending years and years "keeping their sex drives in check." Particularly when having that sex drive is seen as a sin itself. The apostle Paul said that if young people can't contain, let them marry. Let's teach our daughters that the presence of their sex drive is sign that they are ready for marriage and we will get Daddy to work finding a husband right away. 

 

Stop teaching your daughters that their body parts are naughty. Stop teaching them that sex is sinful. Tell them the truth. And if you don't know the truth, get your Bible out and actually read it. Stop listening to the lies of Churchianity, which has a form of godliness but denies the power thereof.

Fashionable or Unfashionable - Is That Really the Question?

Recently a young Christian lady blogged the following:

"So just chill out. And remember its (sic) ok to wear clothes that look cute to you. Remember its (sic) just clothes."

This statement came at the end of a blog post where she asserted that people who try not to be concerned about fashion will be more obsessed with fashion that those who follow the trends. Her main point seems to be that the most important concern a woman should have while shopping or dressing is the cuteness factor. As if God's word has nothing to say whatsoever about clothing and we are, therefore, free to make our own rules. But, is this true? Is God's word devoid of instruction in attire? Let us examine the Scriptures to see whether these things be so.

Is our clothing EVER "just clothes?" Way back in Deuteronomy (way back in terms of being near the beginning of the Bible and way back in terms of time) we find this:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5

It sounds like there are certain clothing choices about which God has a very strong opinion. When we see the word "abomination" we ought to sit up and take notice. So I would like to warn my young friend that even if it is cute, cross dressing is a no-no.

Another verse which seems instructive on the matter of dress is Proverbs 7:10 which says:

And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart

Interestingly, the author doesn't seem to think we need an explanation for what constitutes the "attire of an harlot". In Solomon's day, as in ours, it's pretty self explanatory. They don't dress in uniforms with a "harlot" tag on one breast and "Bambi" on the other. Perhaps we've seen prostitutes in our towns? Perhaps in movies? Short skirts, lace stockings, high-heeled shoes, shirts that reveal cleavage? Perhaps if my young friend's attire could cause her to be mistaken for a harlot she should reconsider her choices? But then again, being mistaken for a harlot isn't a sin, is it? Besides, lace stockings coupled with short skirts are cute!

But the Old Testament is so... well... old. Does the New Testament have anything to say about clothing? How about 1 Timothy 2:9-10?

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; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

So when it comes to adorning, women's apparel should be modest. Each woman is going to have to test that out in the mirror when she gets dressed, it can't be confined to a list of do's and don'ts. "Modest" is explained a bit in the parts following. Is the woman shamefaced and sober as she shops or dresses? Is the focus of her adornment to draw attention to her hair, her jewelry or the finery of her clothing? If so, then she is not modest. And at the very end of the passage Paul says that instead of being immodest she should be adorned with good works. It almost sounds as if being immodest and doing good works are mutually exclusive. Perhaps that is because a woman can't do much work of any type, good or otherwise, while she's attired like a harlot?

Paul also told Titus to tell the older women to instruct the young on a whole host of womanly concerns.

That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2:4-5

I'm not sure how chaste a woman can be when her clothing leaves nothing to the imagination. Even if her behavior is technically chaste, she is suggesting otherwise and certainly shouldn't be offended if some young man attempts to accept what appears to be her offer. And here is another one of those scary, pay attention this is important words; women who are not chaste cause the word of God to be blasphemed
Now, either Peter and Paul were comparing notes before they wrote about how Christian woman should dress, or God really wants us to put some thought into this. How else can we explain how they use such similar language?

Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 1 Peter 3:3-4

So a woman should be noticed because she is decorated by a meek and quiet spirit, not by flashy outward adornments. And apparently God himself SEES this? And it is valuable to Him? God cares how women dress and behave within their clothing? It doesn't seem that He desires "cute". "Cute" is corruptible. The spirit is eternal, adorn yourself there.