Jenell Paris had a great post this week about propriety, dress and accountability. In her marvelously playful style, Jenell describes the following incident which she learned of second-hand:
Fifty people have come together for worship, from around the country,
from different Christian traditions, though the organization is
presumably evangelical. Marie leads worship. She is a Liberated West
Coast Feminist Environmental Democratic Hemp-Wearing Christian. She is
in front of the group, arms raised, eyes closed, praising Jesus. She
wears a light white t-shirt with no bra. Her bobbling breasts and
nipples were reportedly more interesting than Jesus. Debby took her
aside and said that she needed to wear a bra with this group,
especially when leading worship. Marie said, "I’m liberated, and Jesus
loves me the way I am. I love my body, and I won’t allow you to bind my
breasts!" She left the event, and reportedly the organization, furious.
What
do you think? Was Marie’s dress inappropriate? Was Debby’s
confrontation inappropriate? Should the people have been able to
worship even in the bold presence of Marie’s boobs?
A fine discussion ensued in the comments section, and as of this morning, Jenell has posted a follow-up with her own thoughts on the matter.
My own interest is less in defining appropriateness and more in male responses to what they interpret as provocative or arousing dress. A commenter named Javier wrote:
I don’t know any heterosexual man whose head doesn’t turn when they see nipples.
They are like kryptonite to men.
A
man could be having a conversation with Billy Graham, the Pope, and the
Dalai Lama about celibacy and some nipples followed by a woman walk by
and the man will forget all that was being discussed. No telling what
the 3 other guys would do…
And Phil said:
Breasts in church. Well, I’m both male and weak, and if I get
distracted by them, I get distracted by them, but that would be
something I would want to clearly mark under the category of "my own
damn problem." Men need to have the kindness to assume that women who
dress in seemingly "provocative" ways are not doing so to provoke and
are not inviting stares, objectification or admonishment.
I like how Phil handles that. Honestly, I’m very troubled by the common acceptance of the "narrative of male weakness." When we repeat the canard that men "can’t help looking" and that "we’re hardwired to lust", we reject responsibility for our eyes and our thoughts and place it on to our sisters. We take, as Phil rightly seems to imply, something that is fundamentally "our" problem and make it "their" issue. As I’ve written before, this myth of male weakness is misogynist and misandrist simultaneously (a neat trick). It assumes that men are simply incapable of self-control and focus in the face of sexual arousal, and it assumes that because of that weakness, women have to do the work of making public places "safe" for their brothers.
I am not for a minute suggesting that women ought not to consider the impact of their clothing choices on others. After all, we are creatures who live in community. All of our decisions, public and private, influence and affect those around us. Christians in particular need to be mindful of that, but really, it’s something of which all of us ought to be aware.
Am I holding men to a very high standard here? In some ways, yes. I am not unsympathetic to the tremendous power of sexual attraction. (I’m also aware that we make a mistake when we assume that men are the only ones who respond with arousal to visual stimulation!) But I know from my own experience and the experience of men I admire that it is quite possible to remain focused and mindful even in the presence of what might be considered am attractive, provocatively dressed woman. Some of this is just basic common sense. Sometimes, guys, we just have to make the conscious decision to focus on a woman’s eyes, and only her eyes. Most of us are "weak" in this area because we’ve never really believed we could develop the strength necessary to resist. Honestly, if a fellow who had never lifted weights before walked into a gym and looked at a man doing bench-presses and said at once "Oh, I could never do that, I’m weak", what would we say? We’d say "You may be weak now, but start working out and before you know it, you’ll be stronger than you ever imagined." Just as we can develop our muscles, we can develop the strength to see women as fully human even when they are sexually alluring.
The subtext of a lot of the discussion about feminine modesty and male weakness is that a woman cannot expect to be both sexy and taken seriously at the same time. Her body — what sets her apart as a woman — is thus an obstacle to being seen as a fully human person. She’s told there’s a (false) dichotomy in place: a woman is either "looked at" or "heard", but she bloody well can’t be both at once, because you see, men are too weak to see breasts and hear words simultaneously! AAAAARGH! As a man I am infuriated by that all-too-common reasoning. It assumes that my biology will always trump my faith, my will, and the grace of God. I know through my own life experience, I know in my bones, that men can transform the ways in which they see women. An initial awareness of that which is provocative is natural, but lust and distraction are conscious choices.
Let me put this in explicitly religious terms. (Non-believers might want to skip this paragraph.) Years ago, a very wise man made an interesting suggestion to me. When faced with the kind of visual distraction that Jenell recounts, I should consider the possibility that I am being tested. Something wants me not to focus on the words I am hearing. It may well be, my old friend said, that Satan himself very much wants me not to see this woman as a real person. Above all, he doesn’t want me to hear what she has to say. My job, in the face of that kind of provocation, is not to blame a woman for distracting me, but to understand that it is all the more important that I focus and concentrate on her as a child of God and on what she is trying to share with me. I was taught, in moments like that, to pray the following prayer: "Lord, show me your daughter as you see her, not as I see her." Let me offer you, out of my own experience, the assurance that that prayer will be answered! I am not being willfully ignorant of the power of human sexuality, I am giving testimony to the far greater power of God to transform the way in which we use our eyes.
Jenell’s final question was: Should the people have been able to worship even in the bold presence of Marie’s boobs?
Yes! A thousand times, yes! Churches — like schools — cannot always be "safe" places where we are immune from temptation and distraction. (I do believe we should be protected from overt harassment and assault, of course!) Indeed, almost certainly unwittingly, Marie was offering the people an opportunity to challenge themselves. She was offering them an opportunity to confess their weakness to God. She was inviting them to see past the obvious distraction and to feel the presence of the Spirit. Indeed, I suspect that those who were forced to concentrate on her words and her message rather than her body might have found themselves closer to Christ as a result.
This area is difficult for me to comment on because I’m a prude. I’ve always been very aware of my body type and have stayed away from provocative or revealing clothing. I never wear low necklines at formal events because I’m so uncomfortable. I know this is not typical, most women aren’t shy, if you’ve got it, flaunt it, so the saying goes. But I’m not offended by the clothing I see other women wearing, although I’m astounded sometimes. Don’t they get cold?? Isn’t it uncomfortable to have everyone staring at you??__ I think the rule is that you should always wear what is appropriate for you body type given the occassion. You should never, ever draw attention to yourself by wearing inappropriate clothing, it is in very poor taste. But I can see how some women might take offence to society dictating how they should dress.__How do we know she left the event furious if we weren’t present???? I think it would be interesting to ask the lady why she was furious?…After all it was a very important event.
Male weakness is a myth, you are absolutely right! Males are perfectly capable of controling themselves, the problem is they don’t want to. Self control is only possible if that’s what you want to do. Most men have no interest what so ever in controlling themselves, actually the opposite is true. They go out of their way to feed their urges whenever they can.
This is all fair enough, but I don’t see why women should be allowed to wear sexually provocative clothing and makeup in most workplaces. The aim is to work, not to sexually arrouse men when they are trying to get on with their work.
“sexually provocative”
This is an interesting phrase. It suggests an intention. But whose intention?
I find swimsuits sexually provocative, but that is hardly why the Olympic women dress the way they do. I think that we have to admit that there are always two sides to these coins.
I think a woman is sexually provocative most any day…most any dress. That is my problem. I just like girls. Heh. But, as logs to splinters, dare I judge another’s intention?
You’ve missed my point, Thomas. Though I agree that we should all dress appropriately for any given occasion, if we are distracted the fault lies with us, not with the woman who is the object of our gaze. Yes, it’s a challenge — but we cannot use women’s desirability as an excuse for our own inability to pay attention.
We must find a way as men to escape the mindset that revealing clothes mean we must look. This is a problem that men and women can both work on. Women can gently and lovingly try and encourage their sisters to dress appropriately; men can call their brothers to accountability. But it’s not our job as men to demand a dress code from women; it’s our job to do everything we can to see them as complete human beings.
The Taliban represented the logical extension of a lack of male self-control. To them, women’s bodies were so tempting, and men so fundamentally weak, that women had to be in burkas for men to function. I reject that stance entirely on moral, psychological, and spiritual grounds.
We are far more than we imagine ourselves to be, Thomas, far more. And the woman next to us is entitled to have her voice heard be she in a miniskirt or a mumu.
I imagine it wasn’t just the men of the congregation distracted by Marie’s boobs. I too would be captivated, not in a sexual way, but if they are there, pointing at you, without shame, then it’s really hard NOT to stare. Boobies are rather fascinating…
Personally, i’m mortified when I notice that my nipples are showing. My boobs get stared at enough as it is without them standing up and saying hello. But if Marie doesn’t mind those stares, then bully for her, she should let them sway and perk with abandon. However, I would say that Marie is a bit naiieve if she believes that the sight of her unrestrained breasts would not titillate (pun intended) some people and offend others. Like you Hugo I was taught that manners meant making people around you feel as comfortable as possible. Marie’s boobs make her no less qualified to lead worship and I agree with her that Jesus loves her the way she is but in my opinion as a member of polite society Marie’s bouncing boobies are just bad manners. Wasn’t it Paul that said “If eating meat offends your brother then don’t eat meat”? Plus one should have the ability to edit one’s behaviour when one is in a place where such behaviour is considered inappropriate. When in Rome…(or in Baghdad, or in Jerusalem or in an mid-western evagelical church).
Tripp, absolutely. It doesn’t matter whether she’s “dressing to impress” or simply unaware. We have to see her as a complete human being regardless of her intent.
Thomas,
Make-up!! You find make-up sexually arousing!! I can see clothing that might possibly be too erotic for the work place, but I can’t see make-up as erotic.
I definitely think that women need to be aware of what they wear and where they wear it. Maybe the woman/women you are referring to are not aware of the fact that you are being aroused by their clothing. But it sounds like you want women to wear no make-up and baggy clothes, this is outrageous!! I wear make-up all the time, even to go to the market. Otherwise I might scare people….You can’t expect women to keep from trying to look their best. And I don’t wear baggy clothing unless I’m going to bed.
To Hugo - “Breasts in church. Well, I’m both male and weak, and if I get distracted by them, I get distracted by them, but that would be something I would want to clearly mark under the category of “my own damn problem.” Men need to have the kindness to assume that women who dress in seemingly “provocative” ways are not doing so to provoke and are not inviting stares, objectification or admonishment.”
Okay, so we’ll put forty provactively dressed women in the room, 10 of them are dressed provacatively TO invite stares, onjectification, and admonishment. 30 women are not. For $5 you can see there forty women and guess which of the ten are there to provoke attention, and which 30 are not. If you get 6 out of the 10, I’ll pay you $50. Any takers?
My point is, because SOME women do dress provacatively to attract attention, they’ve basically ruined it for those who would dress that way but don’t want attention. A woman who both dresses provacatively and gets mad when people stare is like the 6′4″ muscular Black man who walks alone at night and notices that people consistently cross the street to avoid walking past him. *HE* might be the greatest and most noble guy on the planet, but he *LOOKS* like one of those street thugs that we’ve all been warned about. Besides, on the scale of things you would *NOT* want to experience, what does this man’s (and the woman’s in this story) rate? Like a 0.45 on a 0 to 10 scale? Color me unsympathetic.
To Hugo - “But I know from my own experience and the experience of men I admire that it is quite possible to remain focused and mindful even in the presence of what might be considered am attractive, provocatively dressed woman.”
Sure it’s possible. But seriously, how many men do you know who perform your “noble” behavior? Assign your answer the variable, X. Now how many men do you know who actively perform the opposite, “non-noble” behavior? Assign this answer the variable, Y. So the odds of a woman dressing provacatively in a setting with, say 500 men in the audience, and NOT being ogled at is. 1 over (500 * x divided by (x+y)). Or, miniscule.
Thus, a woman who tries to pull off such a stunt, and fails, AND gets annoyed by her failure…makes me shrug the shoulders. Color me unsympathetic.
Let me also ask this. You want to design a nation. You prioritize certain conditions that must be met in order for your nation to be a happy place. You use a 0 to 10 scale. The condition labelled, “A place where a woman can dress in a way many people find provacative, but not get called on it.” - I can’t see that being above 0.45 on that scale. I know what you’re saying, but really it’s not important.
You add, “Marie was offering the people an opportunity to challenge themselves.”
No, she walked in to a community of faith. Faith is based on everyone doing the same thing in order to achieve a very limited and narrow set of objectives. In the history of the universe, the one thing that has proved most deadly to faiths of all kinds is unrestricted female sexuality. This is why all, or nearly all, faiths have some sort of modesty included in their proscriptions. So this woman walks in to a community of faith, as an outsider, brandishing the one weapon that has consistently destroyed all types of faith throughout history, then she has the nerve to become furious when the people of faith call her out on their actions. At this point, I’m both unsympathetic and unamused.
You add, ” As a man I am infuriated by that all-too-common reasoning. It assumes that my biology will always trump my faith, my will, and the grace of God.”
Faith isn’t personal, Hugo. It’s collective. The Bible says “The Just will live by faith.” The Just isn’t one person…it’s a group of people. And living by faith implies following a strict set of guidelines in order to produce a narrow set of objectives. Faith isn’t lived through everyone doing what they want…it’s a group effort, a group pull. And one person in a faith community is necessarily and by definition - less important than the spiritual health of the collective.
To Percy - “Male weakness is a myth, you are absolutely right! Males are perfectly capable of controling themselves, the problem is they don’t want to.” So if something happens 90% of the time, it’s *NOT* a solid probability, nor a likely occurance, nor an objective truth - it’s just a *MYTH*? Other than the fact that you don’t like that it happens 90% of the time, on what basis do you call it a myth?
Or consider this. Even if you are right in calling it a myth, what is accomplished through telling men to control themselves in this setting? Oh I know that some random woman will get to be the center of attention based on *NOTHING* she’s contributed to the faith other than the shirt she’s wearing, and she’ll feel a great glow of pride that she “challenged everyone else to be ‘better’ people.” But what do the *MEN* who have to work their asses off to learn a new behavior get from having learned it?
Nothing? Oh come on MMX, be objective and look at the situation!! An additional member of the faith - one who has shown from the beginning that she cares more about her personal rights than she does for the health of everyone in the faith. That’s less than nothing.
So don’t be surprised when you offer someone lesss than nothing to do something really damned difficult, that you don’t get the results you hoped for. Because if you do, I’ll say you’re as dimwitted as the woman you’re defending! ;)
To Hugo - “We have to see her as a complete human being regardless of her intent.”
Again - WHY!?!? Call X the number of people you’ve known who are complete human beings. Call Y the number of people you’ve known, period. Call X over (X+Y) the odds of a random person on the street being a complete human being. Then answer the question WHY do we have to respect a random person on the street as a complete human being regardless of their intent.
To Percy - “Maybe the woman/women you are referring to are not aware of the fact that you are being aroused by their clothing.”
Alright, so it so happens that 90% of men are aroused by breasts popping out at them, but it’s possible that she’s not aware of the effects her clothing has on others. The only way your possibility is true is if she’s dumb. And I hate it when women play dumb…
MetaMetaX,
I am seriously offended by your opinion of women and human beings in general. I think that we are all worthy of respect.
Male weakness is a myth because males are NOT weak!! Get it!! It’s just a ploy to justify promiscuity.
There may be contexts (like her everyday world) in which Marie’s breasts are no big deal. She may not intend to be provocative, and in some settings, she won’t be.
In this worship setting, however, she just IS provocative, regardless of her intent. The men and women looking at her need to consider their motives and perspectives, but she does, too.
There are times when I will be intentionally provocative, even with dress (women wearing tennis shoes/jeans at my college are not very numerous, and I refuse to buy dry-clean clothes when male profs go around in jeans and sports sweatshirts). I am intentional about it, and even process it with my students at times. For me, the way I dress at work is a matter of gender equity, and just doing it raises the question for students in ways that I think are important. But I would not do the same with my sexuality - for the sake of teaching, or for my own freedom, or to change my work community.
I’ll only respond to one of these, Meta.
“answer the question WHY do we have to respect a random person on the street as a complete human being regardless of their intent.”
Because as a Christian, I believe that every single person carries the image of the living God within them. Human life reflects the Creator, and how we treat each other is a reflection of how we feel about Him. When I objectify my sister, I turn my back on Christ.
Peace, my brother.
“The point of manners is to make people comfortable.”
I love how I post about male responsibility, and most of the comments end up turning back to judging women’s decision-making. Focus, people, focus.
To Percy - It’s not an opinion!! The following three things *ARE* true.
1. That 90% of men have not yet learned not to ogle after provacatively dressed women.
2. That 90% of those 90% of men will find it very difficult to unlearn their staring habits.
And lastly, 3. That offering such people no valuable incentive for changing their ways means they’ll remain set in their ways.
Because of items 1, 2, and 3 - my opinion is that anyone who expects items 1, 2, and 3 *NOT* to happen is like someone playing poker who calls with only 1.5% chance to win, and then whines when he loses. While I’m not hostile in my suggestion that such behavior is stupid, I do stand in my assertion that it is…well rather dumb.
MMX- Racism is the racist’s problem. Also I can not anticipate what weird sexual ideas every single man in the universe may have. A man may have a fetish for shoes or what a girl’s bum looks like in a lovely pair of jeans. That’s his own buisiness.
To Hugo - I admire your answer. It comes from someone who obviously has a strong faith in both himself and in the God he believes.
But my faith is in what I see around me. I’ve seen a few great individuals who encompass faith, justice, and moral truths - and about a million times more people who are basically in it for themselves, so for me - someone has to prove that they’re a complete human being before I begin to treat them as such.
You also say - “I love how I post about male responsibility, and most of the comments end up turning back to judging women’s decision-making. Focus, people, focus.”
We *ARE* focused…on the fact that this issue involves male responsibility when dealing with women. Not male responsibility separate from women - so the woman’s actions are always going to be considered in our evaluation.
Sometimes the misogynist trolls blow my mind. Like that Chris Rock joke about Betamax–”They still make you?”
Anyway, another problem with “provactive” is just that–what’s it mean? Right now I’m wearing what you might call modest clothing–a sweater, a plaid skirt, and my saddle shoes with socks. In the summer I often wear tanks with no bra and shorts. The latter is more “provactive” to some men, I’m sure. But to most around here it’s just what girls my age and build wear in the summer. Today’s outfit with its rockabilly overtones is probably going to get more flirting and attention–it’s rockin’, and rockin’ puts people in the mind to think of sex.
Clothing is a symbolic system that is very complex, to say the least. And what one person thinks of as sexy another may not think much about at all. What is most important to remember is that regardless of the motivations a woman may have to wear anything, “provocative” never means that men have a right to be be provoked into harassing, attacking, or otherwise treating as subhuman.
To Shannon - “Also I can not anticipate what weird sexual ideas every single man in the universe may have.”
Right, but we also can’t infer the intention of a group of women - all of whom are dressed provacatively, but only *some* of which are seeking attention. Thus, we judge them for their actions, because we *CAN* see them.
To Amanda - “What is most important to remember is that regardless of the motivations a woman may have to wear anything, “provocative” never means that men have a right to be be provoked into harassing, attacking, or otherwise treating as subhuman.”
But when it happens so much in all cultures across the world, isn’t someone who asserts her right not to be harrassed, sounding a little bit bull-headed and a lotta bit dense?
“We must find a way as men to escape the mindset that revealing clothes mean we must look. This is a problem that men and women can both work on. Women can gently and lovingly try and encourage their sisters to dress appropriately; men can call their brothers to accountability. But it’s not our job as men to demand a dress code from women;”
Can you not see how hypocritical you are being?
Men are held to MUCH tighter dress codes in the workplace than women. Recently here in the UK a young guy (20 years of age) lost his job for having hair gel in his hair. Men usually have to wear suits and ties and dark shoes in many business environments, whereas women can wear all manner of bright, colourful and comfy clothing.
This is a seperate issue from the way that many women wear sexually provocative clothing and make-up in the workplace.
A man’s sex drive is highest from his teens through to his early 20s. You are now past the worst part of that phase. But by your own admission you didn’t exactly resist temptation. So what gives you the right now to judge other young men and simultaneously let women off the hook for their behaviour?
LOL! I just accidentally posted my name as Hugo. I am tired.
“To Percy - It’s not an opinion!! The following three things *ARE* true.
1. That 90% of men have not yet learned not to ogle after provacatively dressed women.
2. That 90% of those 90% of men will find it very difficult to unlearn their staring habits.”
You have your own rather vexing habit of making figures up and then calling them facts.
“As I’ve written before, this myth of male weakness is misogynist and misandrist simultaneously (a neat trick).”
I agree with you completely on that point. (Most of these myths and double standards do indeed hurt BOTH genders.)
When I was in 6th grade, it was hot near the end of the school year. I remember the announcement being made that boys could wear shorts but girls couldn’t because (as the principal delicately put it over the loudspeaker) when girls wear shorts, boys daydream about the fun of summer. The policy was clearly unfair to girls, who had to sweat their eyebrows off, and insulting to boys, who were treated as monsters with uncontrollable libidos.
“Men are held to MUCH tighter dress codes in the workplace than women. Recently here in the UK a young guy (20 years of age) lost his job for having hair gel in his hair. Men usually have to wear suits and ties and dark shoes in many business environments, whereas women can wear all manner of bright, colourful and comfy clothing.”
For another example, view the “red carpet” show for the Oscars (if you can stomach it — you’d be a stronger person than I). Look at the variety of colors and styles the women can wear and then look at the men. Imagine if Don Cheadle were to exit the limo while sporting a lime green one-piece with his shoulders exposed.
Umm, Thomas, that bit about the sex drive diminishing after the early twenties? Hogwash, buddy. Hogwash. Trust me.
Hugo, how can I trust a word you say?
Thomas, you don’t have to. But why post here if you don’t? Or are you on a crusade to expose the wicked Prof. Schwyzer for the fraud you suspect he is?
Peace, my brother, for that is who you are and that is what I wish you.
I don’t understand how someone could think the fact that something happens often makes it right! That’s practical ethics?? I don’t found my ethics in religion (religion is one source for me), but I don’t see how any ethics system based on looking at what happens around you and declaring whatever it is to be good is going to be useful to anything or anybody!
How does someone begin to think that they have the right to “harass” somebody, or to humiliate them? That’s what we’re here on earth for?
Sometimes I think everybody should have to take the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm!
The clothes-at-work thing is interesting. Yes, it’s true that women can get away with more colors, styles, etc. than men can. However, a woman can’t wear the same suit two days in a row without talk behind her back about what she’d been up to the night before. And in some professions, it was only a few years ago that women could wear pants to the office — my first job in my current profession, which I started in 1997, had an unwritten rule that business attire for women at my level meant skirts suits or dresses only. And it was a huge, hairy deal when one of the female partners broke that rule and started wearing pants (because the rest of the women followed, um, suit).
And for any man who complains about wearing ties, all I have to say is: try wearing pantyhose in August.
Men are held to MUCH tighter dress codes in the workplace than women.
Not in any workplace where I’ve ever worked (California, like Hugo). Both my current one and the last one have had written dress codes, which apply to both men and women. The small startup I worked at where women could wear anything they pleased, also let men wear anything they pleased. And everywhere I’ve worked, most of the engineers (I’m in the computer business), male or female, dress casually but not in a particularly sexually provocative way. Men in sales often wear suits, since they need to meet customers, but women in sales also wear professional-looking clothes.
Oh, and I share Percy’s dismay that you find make-up unduly sexually provocative. I personally don’t wear make-up, except very small amounts on very rare occasions. But those rare occasions are exactly when I’m trying to look especially professional: a job interview, a work-related presentation. I wear a small amount of make-up to look properly formal, and convey that I respect the professional seriousness of the situation, the same reason I’d wear a suit, or at least a blazer with my pants. If men are interpreting make-up as sexually provocative, then it really is a no win situation for women, because there are situations where a different set of people will be thinking you’re going out of your way to be dowdy if you don’t wear make-up.
For another example, view the “red carpet” show for the Oscars (if you can stomach it — you’d be a stronger person than I). Look at the variety of colors and styles the women can wear and then look at the men.
Women get to wear more colors than men in most settings, and there are some settings (such as the Oscars) where women can wear a whole lot more things than men. But most offices aren’t that setting. (I think, actually, I may not really be in disagreement with bmmg39 here, since he also mentions the middle school announcement where only boys were allowed to wear shorts. Whether women’s clothing is freer or more regulated than men’s is very situation-specific.)
I’d like to bring this back to men exercising self-control, but I don’t know much about being a man and exercising self-control, so all I can do is applaud Hugo’s remarks.
I post because I think you are a nice man (who is obviously caring) - but who seems to talk about all men as though they were neanderthal sexist jocks. Why are you always siding with these feminist women who want to put all men down? There are other types of men out there in the world, and it just seems to me that you are blatently ignoring us and prefer to stereotype men.
As for the other people who are attacking my statement saying makeup is sexually provocative: sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t - it very much depends on what it looks like. Should that be so hard to understand? If women didn’t want to get a sexual response from men then I don’t think makeup would exist in the way it does. I would say more but whatever I say you will just jump all over me and call me sexist, so there is little point with making much of an effort to dialogue with you.
Lynn, there is a world outside of California and most of it is very very different from it.
BTW Hugo, do you do requests?
Why not write a post about Warren Farrel’s new book ‘Why men earn more’. It would be interesting to hear your opinion on this.
To Tara - “I don’t understand how someone could think the fact that something happens often makes it right! That’s practical ethics??”
*I* for one would never say anything like that, simply because I have no sense of morality. Hell, I think morality is completely useless for anything beyond getting to know a person as an individual.
So when I point out how likely something is to happen, I do so to point out that something is likely to happen. Getting mad at something that’s likely to happen is something I see as stupid. And saying that you did it because you were trying to be moral doesn’t excuse your stupidity in my eyes. ;)
I’ll have a look at the Farrell book, Thomas; it’s on my “to do” list.
I think if you read all that I have posted about men, it would be hard to maintain that I cling to a view of men as “neanderthal sexist jocks.”
I just got back from running up Brown Mountain in the mist with three very good guy friends of mine. We went out for bagels and coffee and laughed and joked together. They are my dear friends — I am surrounded today by great men. My best friends are men. But in addition to offering support and friendship, my friends and I call each other to account, and I am so grateful for that. We all know we can be better than we have been. And we strive for that together. How limited our lives would be if we didn’t push each other to be better runners, bettr cyclists, better husbands and boyfriends!
To Tara - Okay maybe I should read entire paragraphs instead of only parts of them, but you continue…
“but I don’t see how any ethics system based on looking at what happens around you and declaring whatever it is to be good is going to be useful to anything or anybody!”
Again, it’s not a system of ethics. I *HAVE* no system of ethics. I think ethics are crap, including and especially when they try to reverse the tide of things that happen all the time by using suhc weak tactics as saying that what you feel is the moral thing to do. That’s what I’ve been saying again and again - that if something happens all the time, and you try to “fix” it by offering the many people who commit those acts *LITTLE to NO incentive* to change their ways, you don’t get to cry that people don’t agree with your morality!
Actually, you do get to cry, but I get to call you dumb. ;) On the other hand, if you want to set up an incentive based system that gets people to change, I’ll happily (and freely) evaluate what I think are the strong and weak points of the system, the likelihood of success, the unforseen consequences that could come about, and the hidden assumptions on which the system is based that may or may not be true. Anything short of that really is just weak - even if they sound like moral perscriptions. And weak ideas don’t move the world, darlin’.
How is it putting men down to say that they are smart enough to treat a woman like a person instead of a pair of breasts?
“And for any man who complains about wearing ties, all I have to say is: try wearing pantyhose in August.”
Ties are dumb. Pantyhose is dumb. High heels are dumb. Thongs are dumb (though I know some who wear them claim they’re comfortable). People could be much more productive if they’d just wear sensible clothes and their dressing time by half.
To Amanda - I’m not saying it’s a put down, but many men know they’re smart enough to treat a woman as more than a pair of breasts, but choose not to do so. Just because someone can do something, doesn’t mean they will. And most of the time they’ll make their decision based on what they get out of it…
To bmmg - How sadly unsensuous of you to harp on clothes like that. :( ;)
Jenell describes the following incident which she learned of second-hand
I’ll bet. And then there’s the story about the couple who drove home and found a hook hanging from the passenger-side door…
Seriously, I really gotta wonder about this story. “Liberated”? Who the hell used “liberated” after the 1970s? You sure don’t hear it much from feminists, especially Liberated West Coast types (gotta love the capitals.). It reads to me more like somebody’s imagination of what a left-coast liberal feminist Christian would be like if they’d ever seen such a thing–you just know that it’s those Californayay libber tree-huggers who’d show up in church half-nekkid!
The bit about ‘binding breasts’ is particularly funny and makes me wonder if a man wrote it. Going braless isn’t about freeing your breasts, it’s just damned uncomfortable.
Of course, a lot of what is considered “provocative” is culturally conditioned. There have been times in history and there are still places in the world today where a woman’s exposed calves, arms, or even her face (!!!) would be considered unreasonably provocative. There are also places (i.e. beaches in Europe) where it is considered perfectly reasonable for a woman to walk around topless. (Or in the 60s. my very lady-like mother wore skirts to WORK far shorter than anything I would dream of wearing in any context today!)
Obviously, we have biological responses to bodily exposure of members of the sex we find attractive. But it is culture that defines the line of our responsibility not to provoke a response (although it is unfortunate that most cultures put this onus on women).
When I first started commenting here, I teased you a few times about seeing the world through feminist goggles, and I believe you are doing it again. This is one example of where I see your ideology guiding your faith, and this should be open to critique, because I don’t believe Christ would see it your way. I do believe Christ would do similar to what you propose a man should do if he was in the midst of this woman; however, I do believe he would have discreetly, at her closing, told her to go put on a bra. He would probably tell her that her personal “freedomâ€, faulty pride, should not be taken at the expense of causing others, male and female, to sin.
Arguing whether men shouldn’t subjugate women, if men are really too weak to bear the bare, or even that women should be responsible for their own dress is rather pointless, because they all are valid arguments. Women and men have weaknesses, of their own flesh, and temptations of others’ flesh and they do succumb—it is a reality not a feigned weakness. Said to an unknown alcoholic, “Care for a drink, we are all having oneâ€! A church or temple is a sanctuary, not a place to further challenge or tempt. A church is a place to gather strength and muster courage to go out and face the challenges of the world. A church is not for the individual and their beloved “rightsâ€, but the sanctification of Christ’s people. Christ could have taught such a person as this woman of community, however, this would have been beyond her, so she received a lesser truth.
Have you ever read MacIntyre’s “After Virtue�
Oh joe, I have no doubt Christ would have known exactly what to say to Marie! But ultimately, human men aren’t Christ, though we try and follow him.
I am confident that you and I would agree on a church dress code; I am very interested in making others feel comfotable and relaxed. That said, if I’m distracted or lusting, ultimately that is my problem to resolve. Men need to see lust as “their” issue, regardless of the dress (or lack thereof) of she for whom they are lusting.
The bit about ‘binding breasts’ is particularly funny and makes me wonder if a man wrote it. Going braless isn’t about freeing your breasts, it’s just damned uncomfortable.
Depends on the size of your breasts, and what sort of bra you are wearing (and, I suppose, on how well fitted it is). In high school, college, and through much of my twenties, I just hated wearing bras - though of course I did, left-coast liberal feminist though I am, if I were wearing a T-shirt. But any time I wore clothes that I thought had enough support to them that I could get away with going braless, I would. Given that I was not exactly large-breasted, I often figured I could get away with it.
Then I discovered sports bras, which for me are much more comfortable than other bras, and make wearing a bra tolerable.
On the other hand, other women I know say they feel more comfortable with a bra, so it could be I just had badly fitted bras before I found the sports bras.
“Men need to see lust as “their” issue, regardless of the dress (or lack thereof) of she for whom they are lusting.”
and yet, another valid point that is pointless with respect to the whole story.
To cmc - “Obviously, we have biological responses to bodily exposure of members of the sex we find attractive. But it is culture that defines the line of our responsibility not to provoke a response (although it is unfortunate that most cultures put this onus on women).”
In this story, the cultutre was a small group of worshippers who know that “faith” comes through conformity. They didn’t need to represent the entire world around them, or the entire culture of the USA circa 2005 - they just needed to have a clear set of rules and expect that everyone follow them.
That is why I have no respect for the woman in the story. She went in to a place of faith and tried to be a non-conformist, but non-conformists are always seen as lacking in faith, and then she gets shocked that she is kicked out.
To Hugo - “That said, if I’m distracted or lusting, ultimately that is my problem to resolve.”
In the outside world, you are right. But inside of a church, you are wrong. ;)
I often find that no matter what I’m wearing men find me provocative. I’ve been cat-called in sweatpants with my hair in a big knot on the side of my head outside of a gas station.
My fault? It seems some here would think so.
For that matter, what is “provocative?” Jeans? Pants? T-shirts or just the low-cut variety? Wearing a bra, not wearing a bra? Prim ankle-length skirts, or only minis?
Again, I get the attention no matter what I’m wearing and I have no intentions of provoking that attention. Why would the onus be on me?
Some comments here are so hilarious. It’s funny how Americans get so upset about nipples.
Ok, in a church, someone’s breasts showing through and bobbing up and down are a bit unexpected. I’m a girl and I’d find it both funny and inappropriate for the context. But sexual arousal? No matter what she actually looks like? You’d have to be really repressed. Past puberty, it gets a bit sad really.
I don’t get this puritanical thing. I’ve spent a few summers since childhood on beaches in France and Greece where even groups of nudists used to hang around. When you see whole families, mom and dad and grandpa and grandma and the kids, all naked, sitting in the sand eating or playing, legs splayed out and bits hanging out, you just get used to seeing bodies as bodies, not sex objects. It’s quite nice actually, to see people so comfortable with nudity in a non-sexual way.
To Lea - Again, you’re missing the entire point of the story. If it’s okay to see people naked in Europe on beaches, that does *NOT* mean it’s okay to see people naked in church. Re-read cmc’s post on the notion of church as a sanctuary, separate and different from the outside world.
Yeah, lea. If god had intended people’s bodies to be seen as holy, he wouldn’t have made them the way they looked.
I’ll try again, in extended format with commentary for those with reading comprehension problems. That’s you, MetaMetaX.
The example of people on beaches in Southern Europe is meant only to highlight how nudity itself can be detached from sexual thoughts, how sexual thoughts are in the eye of the beholder, how nudity is a natural state that can be enjoyed in the appropriate context - like, beaches where it’s not prohibited. You don’t see nudists everywhere on European beaches, but many places in Spain, France and Greece have no such prohibitions, and while not being exclusive and private nudists clubs, are simply public beaches where even nudists can share the space; in general, it’s much more common for women to go topless even on the most crowded beaches where integral nudism is not allowed. It’s got nothing to do with sex, it’s that those women, moi included, do not want to get ugly tan marks, because we find them ugly, not because we want to provide men with the oh so upsetting sight of breasts. Men will still find attractive women attractive, and will still look at those women they find attractive, but they won’t make a big deal of seeing breasts in a public place, because when you grow up seeing your mom, aunt, sister and grandma comfortably sitting around playing cards or reading papers semi-naked on a beach, you’d have to be a perv to associate even that with sex.
But you know, Meta, people don’t go naked in church in Europe, either! In fact, there are unspoken or explicit codes of propriety, and sometimes some tourists in, say, Rome, complain when in summer they’re asked to wear at least a proper t-shirt and pants or shorts instead of only a vest or bikini top and tiny hot pants, if they want to enter a cathedral; goes for men as well as women. Some complain because they think the code of propriety is about sexual repression, but it’s not, it’s about respect for the place you’re visiting. You don’t go to a cathedral, museum or theatre dressed in your bikini, underwear vest or pijamas either. You wouldn’t even show up at a dinner at friends in your pijamas. It’s about respect and good taste. It’s also about context and if it’s a religious place, about traditions - if I’m visiting a mosque I will take off my shoes and cover my hair because when in Rome, do as the Romans. I think it is a sign of respect, if I was to complain, then I wouldn’t bother going to visit a mosque in the first place.
What I did say is, in fact, that I do find it inappropriate for this woman to have worn a see-through shirt with nothing underneath in a church, for those same reasons above, not because supposedly her boobs distract the “weak” men to a point where they get “sinful” sexual thoughts in their head and their poor weak soul would be in danger, that is simply outright crazy. I don’t know any men who would get all into a sexual frenzy at the mere sight of a breast, any breast, in any context, even the most un-sexual one as a church. That’s why I find it ridiculous to talk of sexual arousal. The boob in church thing is inappropriate in a neutral non-sexual way. It is also quite funny, in the same way someone showing up in their pijamas and slippers at a museum would be funny. You expect them to have figured that out on their own, so you are amused and wonder, what where they thinking when they were getting dressed; you may even admire their being so upfront and casual, even as you think it was a dumb thing to do for that context. But it’s not a big deal on which to go on and on as if the moral salvation of humanity depended on it. It’s not the inappropriateness I don’t understand; it’s the oh shock outrage SEX SEX SEX MORTAL SIN reactions.
And yes, well said Amanda.
And speaking of god, the human body, religion - religious art: there are a few depictions of the Madonna-with-child where the Christ child figure is shown nude with his little penis hanging out (a Michelangelo statue comes to mind). Shock horror outrage? I think there’s one with the Madonna breastfeeding too, and you can see her breast. Also the adult Christ figure has often, since the Renaissance period, been depicted with a lot more realism and emphasis on the naked body. Everything about the human body is sexual, but at the same time, sex is not the only thing that defines the human body. When you stand below the giant statue of David by Donatello, you are standing below a giant penis. It’s massive. It’s there. You can’t not see it. But you’d have to be 12 to be that upset by it. It’s only a celebration of the human body. It’s not a magazine ad, it’s not an MTV video. All those fountains in Rome with the water coming out of the putti’s penis - and you can even drink from it. How about that. You don’t even pay attention to it unless you have sex on your mind 24/7 and everything is sex to you, but usually that happens to people who are not comfortable with their sexuality, like, in puberty, or if they’re seriously repressed.
Men are not some kind of human sub-species that remains in a permanent state of puberal hormone upheaval and sexual repression. Unless they are encouraged to think of themselves that way, and frankly, like Hugo said, that mentality is rather pathetic.
Seems to me that the ‘inappropriate’ line of thought, while a better direction (mostly because it implies that one of the important things going on here are community standards–a point that MetaMetaX actually made), still begs the question: Why was it inappropriate to wear a t shirt with no bra in the given situation?
I have good ideas why pj’s to the museum is inappropriate–but what makes the t-shirt no bra thing inappropriate? I think a lot of what people were responding to regarding this was that some people claim it’s inappropriate BECAUSE it’s a boob (combined with the ideas that men simply can’t help but be distracted, etc, etc).
Lea, if you think t-shirt no bra is inappropriate in church, why do you think that? On what is your own standard (or your own community’s standard) based? I don’t ask this hypothetically, I’m really curious what you think, because I think that this is really the heart of the issue (for me, at least).
I believe in respecting the cultural expectations of whatever place I happen to be in — as long as those cultural expectations do not unduly restrict or demean me because of my gender. I would agree that bralessness is inappropriate in most churches, and I do not find the cultural expectation that women wear bras to be unduly restrictive.
When I lived in an Islamic country during my adolescence though, I had to really work to find a balance between respecting local standards and living my life. Everyday dress was no problem– I did not mind refraining from shorts, mini skirts, or sleeveless shirts. The problem was that I was a fairly serious distance runner at the time and there was no private track where I could run. I would go out with my dad before dawn when very few people were up and wear long wind pants, and loose longsleeve shirts even when the temperature was 90 degrees or above. And some people on the street were still offended and occasionally threw pebbles at me or called me a whore. I concluded that it was my job to respect local standards to the extent possible (that’s why I only ran at 5 am and was completely covered up throughout my run despite the heat) but at some point I had to be able to train.
Jp, honestly I don’t know if I can explain, it’s just obvious to me, but I’ll try. True, it’s not exactly the very same thing as pijamas to the museum, pijamas are obviously inappropriate in any public space except hospitals. Here, I don’t think it’s the lack of bra that is the issue, or the fact the shirt was revealing. It’s the context. In summer I see that all the time, though usually the bigger the boobs, the more likely women are to wear some support to be more comfortable. I never wear a bra except of the sportswear kind when I’m doing something active. I don’t have much to support in the first place, which I’m thankful for because I’m small and anything bigger would get in the way of moving around, so to me, normally unless I’m running or cycling or at the gym, it’s more comfortable to go without. I do often wear only vests or t-shirts in the summer too. If I’m going clubbing or at a gig, then all rules are gone and you can dress as crazy as you want. But if I’m going to go into a church, which I don’t do often now, well it’s just an ingrained habit to make a bit of an effort. Without taking it to extremes like for instance Italians do (they don’t go to mass, they go to fashion shows), I do think it’s a sign of respect to acknowledge you are in a church and put on something nice, even the simplest cheapest thing from the supermarket, but at least, proper for the context. Something you would wear if you were invited to a friend’s house for dinner.
So, to cut it short. For me, it’s not the boob itself, it’s, dressing like you were out gardening or shopping at the local grocery. It would have been the same, in fact, worse if it was a man in a builder-style vest with his armpit hair showing. Even if it’s hot, a proper t-shirt or short-sleeved shirt won’t make you feel any hotter, it’ll just look better. Especially if you’re actually going to have to stand up in front of everyone and lead prayer. Otherwise it’s like saying, “fuck it, I just couldn’t be bothered to wear anything better than this”. Call me a shallow snob if you like, but I think that’d be crass. Nothing really to do with sexuality, more with “manners”, though I hate that word. Propriety, yes, in its actual meaning, not of “covering up ’sinful’ parts”, but simply, proper dressing and behaviour for each different context.
Lea,
I appreciate you giving it a go, and the more people talk about this stuff, the more I understand it. Still, I think that you’ve sort of inadvertantly centered in on the heart of the issue, for me: What you think is obvious and what others think is obvious aren’t always the same, and in the case where there is a disagreement about what to do, some sort of standards will need to be appealed to. And then, of course, people can argue about those standards. But I think it doesn’t make sense to take a sort of “she should have known better” attitude–she may have known that she was being inappropriate TO SOME, but the point of her walking away was that she is claiming that she wasn’t being inappropriate.
To backtrack to claims about being appropriate is to beg the question that her response to criticism is asking: What the heck does it matter if somebody’s nipples are showing? Now, it’s not that I think there aren’t answers to that question–some have been attempted in the comments here–it’s just that I think it’s subject to discussion, rather than dismissal by calling what she did inappropriate without justifying that dismissal.
I think an inability to relatively clearly explain what one means by inappropriate is the very thing that makes me think that it still may really be about the boobs, and some puritanical stance…
Lynn, the anecdote about “bobbling” breasts suggests that the fictional Marie was well-endowed–and being chesty with no bra is just not comfortable. Nor does our anecdotal libber say that she just can’t find a bra that fits or that her shirt is enough support, etc., she’s got to spew some pseudo-’70s stuff about “binding” them.
I mean, c’mon.
“What you think is obvious and what others think is obvious aren’t always the same”
I know, that’s what can make discussion so difficult, especially on the internet, especially when we come from different cultures and backgrounds and don’t know each other. Truism of the year, but there you go.
You’re perfectly right about the relativity of standards, jp. Most of the outraged reactions here are definitely puritanical. Personally I don’t think of if in that way (besides, american-style puritanism is not part of my culture), in fact, I don’t even think it’s really such a big deal at all. But can you honestly say you wouldn’t mind a man leading prayer in church wearing a sloppy underwear-like vest with his armpits showing? You wouldn’t think it’s a bit inappropriate, in a harmless, amusing, but still offputting sort of way?
Now that mythago mentions it, the story does sound a bit fictional, doesn’t it? Like a parody of a hippie. Hmm…
I agree the story seems very strange, but it’s still an interesting discussion. Maybe I don’t really understand the what reads “sex” for most people, but I tend to agree with lea–breasts themselves don’t read “sex” in all contexts. I grew up in a context where I saw lots of women, of various breast sizes, wearing baggy teeshirts and no bras in situations that were clearly not meant to be sexually provocative (ironically, based on this story, this was frequently at the annual national gatherings of my liberal church). Perhaps as a result, I’ve never seen “loose” or moving breasts as inherently sexual–rather, breasts in bras are often more obvious because they are “lifted.” So in that sense, I don’t understand the shock at “unbound” boobs in a non-sexual context.
Taking the analogy of a man wearing a sleaveless teeshirt that showed his armhair, can you really picture a story about that being circulated around the internet and commented upon by readers? This story isn’t circulating because she wasn’t dressed “nicely” enough, it’s circulating because she was allegedly dressed in a way that distracted sexually. And maybe she did, but if so her audience was a great deal less used to seeing moving breasts than anyone I know.
Oh, I only meant that there could be good reasons for a woman not to want to wear a bra, mythago, not that the story as it stands is likely to be true. I agree that a real-life chesty Marie is unlikely to have first bounced around in a flimsy T-shirt with no bra leading an evangelical Christian service, and then spouted weird rhetoric about the binding of breasts. I expect that some woman at the gathering in question took offense at some other woman’s attire, and the story grew and acquired hippie stereotypes in the telling.
Coming in late here, but has anyone given any thought to the fact that during radiation treatment of breast cancer, many women don’t wear bras? I’m in Lynn’s camp here; I think this story is greatly embellished (I’ve got big ‘uns, and couldn’t imagine going without a bra…not comfortable!!).
Anyway, my mother never, ever went braless…until radiation. It was just too painful for bra-wearing. Oh….and no deodorant of any kind on the irradiated side either. I’m sure some folks out there either thought she was an old hippie or making some grand statement about feminism or sexuality….but she was just trying to endure the discomforts of radiation after surgery.
Just a thought, for anyone who may be wondering why a braless woman may be in church. And most of these women are not going to feel comfortable sharing the intimate details of their medical history and trials with total strangers…they’re already worn out from repeating the same stories to family members (at a time when they’d rather dwell on survival, not cancer). So, don’t expect them to ‘explain themselves’ with mea culpas.
bmore_active - exactly, that’s why I find that kind of reactions ridiculous. It’s the being so upset about it and the reasons given for it. Not dress code and contexts, but the whole sexual distraction thing. Crazy.
By the way, this is even funnier - and sadder (and true!):
http://www.longstoryshortpier.com/vaults/2005/02/26/tuxedo
“I don’t get this puritanical thing. I’ve spent a few summers since childhood on beaches in France and Greece where even groups of nudists used to hang around. When you see whole families, mom and dad and grandpa and grandma and the kids, all naked, sitting in the sand eating or playing, legs splayed out and bits hanging out, you just get used to seeing bodies as bodies, not sex objects. It’s quite nice actually, to see people so comfortable with nudity in a non-sexual way.”
Many would be describe me as puritanical, but I agree with you here. I usually have all my clothes on (including my sneakers) even when I’m the only one home, but I don’t make false assumptions about naturists. I know of the controversy surrounding photography books that center on naturist families in the U.S. and in Europe, but in the pictures the people are just doing what everybody else does on the beach. They’re just not wearing bathing suits while they do it…
Jenell’s final question was: Should the people have been able to worship even in the bold presence of Marie’s boobs?
On some distant astral plane to come, I can imagine having complete control of my emotions, being entirely divorced from my physical body and the weaknesses associated with it. But this ain’t an astral plane Hugo and, last time I checked, getting your boobs out in church just isn’t appropriate behaviour in our society.
Rather than asking the men why they can’t control themselves, I would instead ask Marie why she feels the need to display her body in an environment where she had to know it would cause offence. I’m not saying it’s right that we should be offended, the human body is a beautiful and natural thing after all, but we don’t live in a vacumn, we live together.
Would it be a terribly British thing to throw in a little word that IMO there is still use for in modern society; ‘decorum’? I get that you’re trying to make a point about male responsibility here and that you feel it’s being hijacked (yet again!) in favour of female culpability, but I think you’d be hard-pushed to find a woman here who felt that Marie’s display was justified under the grounds of personal freedom. Maybe this wasn’t such a good illustration of why men need to ‘own their lust’. Marie’s boobs would have distracted me terrribly as well and last time I checked I was still female and heterosexual.
To Thomas: “Why are you always siding with these feminist women who want to put all men down?”
Feminist=Man-Hater, huh? That follows in your mind? Are you of the opinion that feminists are ‘weakening’ men somehow? Taking away what essentially ‘makes them men’ and turning them all into soft, sensitive liberals who secretly loathe their own sex?
IMO a man who stands up and calls his brothers on abhorrent behaviour is head and shoulders above the rest of his sex. It’s the ones who mutely accept sexism as ‘harmless’ who need to examine their own status as men.
LThomas, you wrote:
“Rather than asking the men why they can’t control themselves, I would instead ask Marie why she feels the need to display her body in an environment where she had to know it would cause offence.”
Um, why an either/or? Why not a both/and?
Men challenge men to control themselves. Women gently and lovingly have a “come to Jesus” talk with Marie. It would be a huge mistake for men to confront Marie, and we are not little boys whose eyes emotions and desires are hostage to another person’s inadvertent (or intentional) display.
Um, why an either/or? Why not a both/and?
Truthfully, I suppose, because I don’t see it as a problem that men would feel the need to look at a woman’s naked breasts.
We are not little boys whose eyes emotions and desires are hostage to another person’s inadvertent (or intentional) display.
No, but neither are you made of stone. Don’t get me wrong Hugo, I’m not suggesting that men are weak or unable to control themselves, I’m just worried that you’re setting standards here that can’t be attained.
You said: “Churches - like schools - cannot always be “safe” places where we are immune from temptation and distraction.
Is temptation the same as distraction? To me, ‘giving in to temptation’ suggests an active rather than passive reaction. I understand that you’re suggesting men need to rise above the temptation of sex, but suggesting that they it shouldn’t even distract them seems hopelessly idealistic.
A momentary distraction, sure. I’m not denying our humanness. But I am saying what Martin Luther said:
“You can’t stop the birds from flying overhead, but you can stop them from building a nest in your hair.”
What women wear in church or in school is not in my control. When lust overtakes me, or if I stare uncontrollably, I have allowed them to build a nest in my hair. And that is on me.
yeh you can. it is called shame. when one lives in a community it becomes a strong motive to keep people in line, which has worked effectively since the beginning of time. one could build a strong argument that the lack of cohesiveness in society is a result of incessant individual rights. This story, and your use of it to show men’s culpability is a bad example of “the moral of the storyâ€.
Holy moly, people! Talk about embellishing the tale!
Suddenly, the tale has morphed from a t-shirt to a see-through t-shirt to being naked in church!
When did Marie rip off her top?
Joe, Jesus came to heal us from the very shame you celebrate. Yours is as ringing a defense of Pharisaism as I’ve read in a while.
I thought Jesus came to teach repentance. One cannot truly repent unless one knows they are in the wrong. Shame is apart of the repentance process–an awareness that in fact one has done something wrong. I understand this concept is foreign to the liberally minded and cheap grace advocates. I don’t think you believe such, in all your experience you should know the healing doesn’t–cannot, begin till after this awareness. Two things, Christ didn’t leave a long list of not to dos for every given situation and given today’s propensity towards individual’s “rightsâ€, and these rights becoming or leading to moral authority, I understand folks confused. When a person calls another on account of their behavior being out of line with the community’s standards this is just and necessary, and if this leads to shame, so be it. This is the call to repentance and an opportunity to reenter the fold. So the moral of this cockeyed story is both are wrong and need to be called accountable. I think it is foolish consistency to maintain such beliefs that folks can have their moral schisms and interact together as a social unit, not that it isn’t being done, however the pointing out the culpability of one without the other won’t be the ties that bind ( :op ) them.
I am all for repentance. I am all even for healthy guilt. But not shame, Joe, never shame. Shame, as my dear John Bradshaw puts it, is distinguished from guilt in a significant way: guilt is the appropriate sense that one has done something bad, shame is the sense that one is therefore a bad person. Guilt is a response to action, shame is a sense of one’s defective personhood. One is essential to morality, one isn’t.
well, i haven’t sold as many books as mr. bradshaw, so what would i know. but i have an idea where he is coming from in what you stated. i found this comment about him
“Bradshaw denies that there are eternal laws, saying that “such a world view has been refuted many times over.” He teaches that we should not have “shoulds,” recommending instead that you formulate “your own Ten Commandments.”
and if this is a correct characterization–it figures.
bradshaw wouldn’t like shame, because it would interfere with one’s own personal understanding of guilt–is seem for him the individual decides their own morality. Guilt requires one to know they have done wrong. Shame instructs, bring to one’s attention, that they may be wrong beyond their own senses, like the phrase used around here a lot, those who don‘t “get itâ€. Etzioni presents a much better case then I.
LThomas said:
To me, ‘giving in to temptation’ suggests an active rather than passive reaction. I understand that you’re suggesting men need to rise above the temptation of sex, but suggesting that they it shouldn’t even distract them seems hopelessly idealistic.
I agree. “Guys are horny, uncontrollable beasts” and “guys are made of stone” is a false dichotomy. Most men are probably somewhere in between, depending on age and their specific hormone levels. In fact, expecting males to be in perfect control of their feelings sounds suspiciously like a “men should be Sturdy Oaks” type of message.
Several posters have pointed out that in some cultures and contexts, nipples are not considered sexual (which does show that males are not biologically predestined to be aroused by nipples).
Grrr, my last post got cut off again, so I’m reposting it…
LThomas said:
To me, ‘giving in to temptation’ suggests an active rather than passive reaction. I understand that you’re suggesting men need to rise above the temptation of sex, but suggesting that they it shouldn’t even distract them seems hopelessly idealistic.
I agree. “Guys are horny, uncontrollable beasts” and “guys are made of stone” is a false dichotomy. Most men are probably somewhere in between, depending on age and their specific hormone levels. In fact, expecting males to be in perfect control of their feelings sounds suspiciously like a “men should be Sturdy Oaks” type of message.
Several posters have pointed out that in some cultures and contexts, nipples are not considered sexual (which does show that males are not biologically predestined to be aroused by nipples). But we do NOT live in such a culture! Even if male arousal in response to nipples is a product of culture, men can’t just will away their conditioning. Just because a certain response may be caused by cultural conditioning, it does not necessarily imply that the response is easy to change or ignore.
Hence, even if I did my very best to ignore Marie’s breasts, that would still require me to expend extra mental energy (which would distract me). Because of my conditioned sexual response to nipples, it seems like a no-win situation (unless I counted enjoying the view as a “win”).
I think you are all a bunch of nutters. Nudity is a normal and natural state of being. Being in a church is NOT normal, nor are any of the bizarre rituals carried on in there, especially the ones with cannibalistic references which are a part of the “service”. You should try being naked in a church so that you would all have a better point of reference from which to state your opinions.
Besides, it’s fun. I know.
Actually I was just reading the last post and I was wondering if you should stop at merely being nude in churches. Personally I would like to see the men wearing their underwear on their heads and all of the girls masturbating around the altar.
Yes, I would definately like to see more masturbation in churches.
Also the priest/preacher/vicar/voodoo doctor/con artist should wear nothing but a grass skirt and have bananas in his/her ears.