The 1992 animated Disney movie ‘Aladdin’ featured Princess Jasmine adorned in a midriff, bellybutton revealing costume. That outfit does not exist in the new, recently released Disney live-action version of ‘Aladdin.’ “‘We wanted to modernize the movie, and some things are inappropriate these days for families,’ says ‘Aladdin’ producer Dan Lin” (“The rule was ‘no midriff’: Why Jasmine doesn’t bare her belly in ‘Aladdin,’ Carly Mallenbaum, usatoday.com).

We are pleased by this reversal of moral sensibilities for the sake of families (even though it is curious why families were not held in the same esteem in 1992). Exposing the midriff shows a lack of moral shame, while exposing one’s nakedness for all to gaze upon (1 Tim. 2:9-10; Gen. 3:7, 10, 21; Exo. 28:40-42; Isa. 47:1-3). Adam’s nakedness (which God covered with clothes), and the priestly trousers worn at the altar, remind us that men as well as women are subject to God’s rule of modest clothing (Gen. 3:21; Exo. 28:42).

A second explanation was given for keeping Jasmine covered up in the new movie. “Producer Jonathan Eirich had another reason to keep Jasmine from wearing crop tops: his wife. ‘I’m still married because Jasmine’s not (baring her) midriff.’” (Ibid)

This brings into question one of the common responses heard from women who defend immodest clothing. It is argued that what a woman wears (or doesn’t wear) is irrelevant to the actions of men. “If a man lusts after me because of what I am wearing, then it is his problem, not mine,” has been said with some frequency in the past. Perhaps that sentiment is on its way out. Anyway, the producer knew his wife would have a problem with the impact another woman’s lack of clothing would have on her husband. Hence, the “no midriff” rule.

We certainly agree men bear their own responsibility not to look upon women lustfully. Men should never treat women rudely,  abusively, and violently, regardless of their appearance. Women also bear their own responsibility not to wear immodest clothing, potentially lighting the fires of lust in a man’s heart (Prov. 7:10, Matt. 18:6-7).

Additionally, clothing can be immodest without ever inciting a sinful thought in the heart of another person. The lack of shamefastness (propriety) and moderation (sobriety) in the heart is reflected by wearing immodest apparel (1 Tim. 2:9). Whether clothing actually incites another person to lust is an additional sin to the immodest apparel, not the basis upon which clothing is or is not deemed immodest in the first place.

Clothing says something about a person. It said something about Adam and Eve. It said something about the high priest (Exo. 28:2). It said something about the priests at the altar (Exo. 28:42-43). Clothing matters to God, and it should matter to Christians, too. Even a movie producer’s wife knows there is a moral component to clothing. Let us all be careful to clothe ourselves with the modesty and self-control that professes godliness (1 Tim. 2:10).