In the ongoing discussion about men, women, clothing, modesty and self-control, Camassia offers a fine contribution. In the comments, a reader named Jose makes the case that while Christian men are responsible for controlling their lust, women do have an equivalent responsibility for what they wear and the reactions it may cause. Jose writes:
Improper or provocative attire is certainly a disruption and a distraction for which the tempter can and should be faulted. It can reach a point in which the priest or pastor should ask the tempter to leave the congregation.
I wrote in reply:
Jose, to dress provocatively with the intent of arousing lust is sinful, I’ll agree. But to dress without that desire, and then to become the object of lust from another, is not. If a woman wears what she finds comfortable, and ends up being the object of desire, she is entirely blameless. Now, IF the woman in front of me in church is consciously, actively, attempting to seduce the men in the pews around her, then of course she’s also at fault.
But that’s rarely the case, and we know it.
Jose came back:
There is intention and there is ignorance…. In spite of all the talk about increasing cultural sensitivity these days, too many people simply do not get it. They walk into a church with provocative dress and offer the unacceptable excuse that it was not their intention to provoke anyone. They imagine it’s the problem of the one provoked rather than the provocateur. As Chip Frontz says, both may have a problem, but it is the provocateur who incited it.
Now, if Jose comes over here, he’s welcome to provide a bible verse in support of what strikes me as an indefensible position.
I do believe we are responsible for our intentions. If I teach in tight, "sexy" clothing with the intention of distracting or arousing my students, I commit a sin as a Christian and an error as a teacher. If a woman, putting together her outfit for church, says "I hope this causes Mr. Jones in the pew behind me to lust for me rather than his wife", then I’m happy to agree that she’s sinning. As Christians, we ought not deliberately, consciously, and intentionally encourage sin in others.
I’m not trying to open the difficult theological question of whether ignorance is a sin. But even if I grant that in some instances ignorance can be sinful, it is not "ignorance" for a woman to be unable to consider all of the possible ways in which a man might respond to her clothing. She might be able to guess that wearing a bikini to church might not be appropriate, but what of Mr. Smith with his foot fetish, who will be transfixed by her feet in open-toed sandals? It’s absurd to accuse women of sinful ignorance for being unable to anticipate all of the possible reactions their sartorial choices may inspire!
To live in community is to recognize that the choices we make impact those around us. We stop at red lights not because we want to, but because we acknowledge that others on the road have different agendas than our own and we need to honor them. We all, Christian or not, ought to periodically stop and check our motives for most of the things we do! I’m certainly all in favor of all of us becoming kinder, more thoughtful, and more responsible.
But there is a difference between taking into consideration the needs of others and taking responsibility for their reactions! Perhaps we ought all to do the first, but not the second. In the end, other adults are responsible for how they react to our dress and our bodies. To say otherwise is to treat our brothers and sisters as infants. To make women equally responsible for helping men avoid lust suggests that grown men are akin to children in need of guidance and protection from watchful mothers. Telling women that "you ought to know what men will think when they see you in that" sends a disastrous message: women need to save men from themselves, because men lack the will, the self-control, and the maturity to avert their eyes and redirect their very thoughts. Though many men have allowed their "self-control" to atrophy, the fact that the muscle is weak from disuse doesn’t mean it can’t be built back up. And if we insist that women do the spiritual "heavy lifting" for men by taking responsibility for men’s lusting, that "will muscle" will stay spindly and underdeveloped.
To borrow Jose’s language, to be a provocateur is a conscious and willful act. To allow oneself to be provoked is also, in the end, a conscious and willful act. Deliberately attempting to provoke a married or otherwise committed person into lusting for you is, I think, genuine sin. But dressing for comfort or for aesthetic enjoyment without the intent of seduction is not sin, regardless of how those who view you happen to respond.
So I’d guess you’re not down with the popular stories that went around about Foucault when I was an undergrad. Apparently he would wear white t-shirts, and jerk on a chain attached to his nipple rings. When he really got going apparently they would bleed a bit through his shirt.
No idea if it’s true of course, but it made a fun story when you were reading A History of Sexuality or whatever.
I have heard many Foucault stories, but never that one! I had nipple rings for three years in the 90s, and once wore a shirt tight enough that they could be seen in class — and got comments. I didn’t wear shirts that tight again, and I certainly didn’t jerk on them. Ouch and double ouch.
I think the focus on women’s responsibility to not tempt men is distressingly male-centric. The effects of your clothing on others’ lust is a consideration — but it’s only one tiny consideration among many. Women pick their clothing for a variety of reasons that relate to things like their own comfort and self-expression. But arguments like Jose’s shove all those things out of the picture, so that the only factors that count are those relating to the clothing’s impact on men’s interests.
A friend of mine has had large breasts since she was a teenager. It doesn’t much matter what she wears. She is the quintessential nurse, matter-of-fact and capable; nothing at all flirtatious or seductive in her manner. Even in a baggy scrub top, some men never even raise their eyes to her face (she’s short, so it’s very obvious), until she says, “HELLO! I’M UP HERE!”. Some of them have the grace to be embarassed.
Sometimes, when we are out walking in our baggy t-shirts and knee length denim shorts, strange men will look at her and grunt.
Men need to be responsible for their own reactions. Saying it’s the woman’s fault for whatever it is that she’s wearing is childish.
Thanks for the link, Hugo. I’ve noticed, looking at this whole exchange, that we seem to be making slightly different assumptions about the core conflict here: you’ve been framing it as male vs. female, while I’ve been mostly thinking of it as young vs. old. Should we always assume the gazer is male and the gazee is female? I should say in Jose’s defense, he wrote his comment in gender-neutral language.
Hugo says: “Jose, to dress provocatively with the intent of arousing lust is sinful, I’ll agree.”
I guess I am facinated by the idea of “Dressing to sin” - Can someone please give me a guide on Dressing to intend lying or dressing to intend theft? Nor am I certain, since I am not catholic, that an intent to create lust is a bad thing. Our local firemen create a calender which pretty much has it’s sole purpose to create a bit of lust and tingle amoung women who buy it. I have never heard that they are “sinning” with their helmets, suspenders and fire fighting equipment.
To desire adultery and to act upon that, I can see - but isn’t the focus on the acts and not the continued intent followed through one which is problematic - unless we want to have a debate about looking up at someone through your lashes, saying “hello there” in a sultry voice or just giving someone a smile across the room also falls under the “maybe it is a sin, depends if it is to provoke lust” - and I suppose that would cover most of the blogs for this site for next week?
I work in the horse racing industry, which is a predominantly male sport. Southern California is a hot spot for horse racing so there is alot of money and alot of rich men. I have seen women wear everything but next to nothing to the races trying to attract these men. I feel bad for them because they dont see how self-destructive their behavior is. I dont respect a man who objectifies a woman, but I also dont respect a woman who objectifies herself.
Scripture says to “resist temptation.” When it talks about sexual temptation, however, it says to “flee.” Here’s the solution. If you go to a church and find that you are distracted, do your best to move to a place where you are not distracted. If you cannot do so, leave the church. Find a church where you are comfortable. If you can’t find a church where you are comfortable, you can always maintain fellowship by going to a bible study or starting your own fellowship. People don’t have to change what they are wearing, you don’t have to suffer, and you can have your charitable contribution used for something other than tuckpointing the masonry of a century old building.
You won’t get an argument from me on that, Dave.
Camassia, I agree that there’s an age-group conflict here as well. In a comment you wrote at your blog, you point out to Jose — rightly — that if modesty is going to be enforced, we have the problem of deciding which constituency gets its definition of modesty put in place. Folks over 60? Middle-aged men? Teenagers? How do you build consensus and create a policy that doesn’t do what most modesty policies do, which is end up punishing the young for not living up to the out-dated standards of their elders?
Elizabeth said: “I have seen women wear everything but next to nothing to the races trying to attract these men. I feel bad for them because they dont see how self-destructive their behavior is. I dont respect a man who objectifies a woman, but I also dont respect a woman who objectifies herself.”
Not to mention women objectifying men, i.e., seeing them as ‘walking wallets’ and personal mealtickets.
I can’t believe this issue is still being discussed here.
Please, look at Bishop Yanta’s original statement. It was not about blaming people, it was not about who’s the greater sinner, and it certainly wasn’t about absolving men of responsibility for pursuing purity, it was about addressing a problem that he is concerned about.
Focusing on the subjective intent of the person wearing provocative clothing in this context is silly. Sure, it may bear on his or her guilt, but it hardly addresses the problem. If a three-year-old walked into church with a loaded machine gun, you wouldn’t say, “Gosh, he doesn’t mean to hurt anyone, we can’t do anything about it.” You’d take the gun away!
Having a teenage daughter, I fully expect that most of the young women who are dressing in the manner to which Bishop Yanta is objecting aren’t thinking about lust or temptation or provocation. They are just wearing what everyone else does or what they see on TV or in magazines. Great, they don’t have requisite knowledge and intent to sin, but does that mean you just ignore the effect they have? In fact, I have discussed this issue with my own daughter precisely because she doesn’t fully appreciate the effect. That was the whole point of the Bishop’s letter, not to lay blame, but to ask his flock to think about what they are doing and to consider the consequences of their choices, not only to themselves, but to others.
Finally, the bishop wasn’t calling for women with pretty faces, or large breasts, or svelte figures to wear burlap sacks and veils. He simply asked people in his diocese to exercise some judgment.
Actually, now that I think about, there is a clear solution. Offer separate services for men. Remember how Atwood talks about “freedom to “ and “freedom from? Why not offer church members those freedoms. Mainline churches and the catholic parishes already suffer from disparate tastes in music between church members. A lot of churches have both contemporary and traditional services. Churches can offer coed, women only, and men only services.
Sean H: “I have discussed this issue with my own daughter precisely because she doesn’t fully appreciate the effect.”
I, too, was taught that skimpy clothes garner lustful stares and that I shouldn’t wear short skirts if I didn’t want boys to think I was a floozy. But I’ve come to realize that modesty in dress has nothing to do with men, or even the body, but
sexuality (which can be far removed from the sex act). When I have children, I will teach them that sexuality is meant to be shared with someone they love and not exploited for attention, validation, or money. Whatever they wear after that will be up to them.
I think the series of posts on this topic so far and the surrounding discussions have been great. But this post raises a problem. You condemn women who deliberately dress provocatively, while defending the ones who are provocative by accident, by saying there’s a line between trying to look nice and trying to look sexy. But I don’t think that line is quite so clear. Most women try to look pretty for gatherings (including church). But because being attractive is so often associated with being sexy, few people consciously think about whether the look they’re trying for is attractive-pretty or attractive-provocative — it’s one and the same to them (and to many of the people they interact with).
So if it’s a given that nearly every woman at church puts an effort into looking good, and if they rarely distinguish between being pretty and being provocative (and are generally aware that the two are seen as very similar in our society), then can’t they also be held responsible for the effects of accidentally looking too good? If they dress nicely, they should know that they’re taking the risk of going too far. The two points you make in this post seem to conflict with each other, and I’d like to see how you reconcile them.
(Not trying to be antagonistic here, only thought-provoking. I agree that it’s not a woman’s fault if she accidentally arouses a man. I just want to know how you think about what “accidentally” really means.)
Chana, thank you very much for your comment. I habitually wear short (knee-length) skirts to my house of worship. I’ve never thought of it as trying to dress sexily; I’ve always just thought of it as dressing nicely.
Chana, I think there’s a huge distinction between saying: “I want to look pretty in this outfit, and I hope people notice”. I ain’t got no problem with that, and I suspect the good Lord doesn’t either. My problem is with what I suspect is a tiny minority who might say: “I want Mr. Jones, my married neighbor, to look at me and long for me and contemplate having an affair with me.” That’s sin. To me, there’s a big gulf there, and most women who dress for church or school or anywhere else are safely on the right side ot it.
Focusing on the subjective intent of the person wearing provocative clothing in this context is silly. Sure, it may bear on his or her guilt, but it hardly addresses the problem. If a three-year-old walked into church with a loaded machine gun, you wouldn’t say, “Gosh, he doesn’t mean to hurt anyone, we can’t do anything about it.” You’d take the gun away!
Having a teenage daughter, I fully expect that most of the young women who are dressing in the manner to which Bishop Yanta is objecting aren’t thinking about lust or temptation or provocation. They are just wearing what everyone else does or what they see on TV or in magazines. Great, they don’t have requisite knowledge and intent to sin, but does that mean you just ignore the effect they have? In fact, I have discussed this issue with my own daughter precisely because she doesn’t fully appreciate the effect. That was the whole point of the Bishop’s letter, not to lay blame, but to ask his flock to think about what they are doing and to consider the consequences of their choices, not only to themselves, but to others.
Sean H hits the nail on the head. Too much debate here is theoretical and about shaming and blaming.
Um, comparing a woman in a short dress to a child with a machine gun is so whoppingly over the top that it didn’t even deserve a reply. The latter has the capacity to do genuine harm; the former causes no trouble save in the minds of those who consciously allow it. There’s no grounds for comparison whatsoever.
To me, the big problem with drawing conclusions about the motives behind womens dress is, and this has been pointed out in previous threads, that the differences in overall appearances of women, their body type, fitness or lack thereof, attitudes, personality, and much more can determine the level of interest from a man. To make it worse, men’s tastes in women vary to the extent that I don’t believe women can actually predict whether or not they might offend others by being too provocative, if offend is indeed the right word.
Some women could wear a burlap sack and still look “sexy” or provocative to some men. While some women could deliberately dress provocatively and not be considered sexy to others. Of course, there is every shade in between.
Even if you pop into church in a conservative pants suit, you could still find yourself attractive and distracting to some men. It’s just a no win situation for women. Obviously there should be a respectful dress code for church, and common sense should prevail in both church and job settings, but really, to ask women to predict how not to look too sexy to men in these settings is asking the impossible. Often how sexy a woman is perceived to be, is entirely unrelated to what they are wearing..
Common sense clothing choices aside, the only answer to this dilemma that can work is for men and women to control their responses to what they consider sexy, whether provocative or not.
Now if you gave every woman that came to church a machine gun…….
Hugo,
I was using the machine gun analogy as a rhetorical device to make a point. No one is saying they are the same thing. Using hyperbole in an analogy is a common, and I have found very effective, way of teaching a point - kind of like “if your eye leads you to sin, pluck it out.” If the technique is good enough for Him it’s good enough for me. Ooops, now you’ll probably accuse me of having a Christ complex.
The point I was making was that focusing only on the subjective intent of the actor, as you do, is insufficient. If you disagree that there is moral harm in provocative or inappropriate dress, that is a different matter, but you don’t. Your postition is basically, if the person who dresses in a way that results in lustful thoughts doesn’t mean to provoke those thoughts he or she is blameless and the sinfulness is all on the side of the one with the lustful thoughts (that part I buy), but then you seem to make what seems to me the illogical conclusion that no one can point out that ill effect or do anything about it. If I am unwittingly leading someone to sin, and you know about it, don’t you have an obligation, out of charity to point it out to me?
Again, no one is calling for head to toe coverings, but what passes for appropriate in our society sometimes borders on obscene. When the young lady who is serving as a lector bows to the altar and I can see her thong panties - that’s a problem - and not just because of lustful men.
Sean, I’m not opposed to having community discussions about what is “appropriate” dress for certain settings. But those discussions cannot make women responsible for male lust, and they ought not to be — as Camassia fears — forums where those with the most conservative of tastes get to impose their standards on everyone else. “The most easily offended” do not have the right to make all others change their lifestyles.
If I am unwittingly leading someone to sin, and you know about it, don’t you have an obligation, out of charity to point it out to me?
And to what ends? “I’m sorry, but your figure is distracting other men at services. Why don’t you wear an abaya?”
Please, do you really think there us a realistic threat of conservatives imposing overly strict dress codes in church? Again, read the bishop’s letter. He was talking about things like wearing things appropriate for the beach at Mass. I am not talking about forbiding skirts above the knee, I am talking about things like micro-mini skirts and tank tops with no bras. I am not even suggesting that there be an actual ban on inappropriate dress, only that it is reasonable and understandable for a church leader to address the subject.
And again, I am not talking about making women “responsible” for men’s lust. It isn’t about blame but about encouraging an atmosphere of mutual respect.
As a committed Christian who works in the church and has done extensive graduate-level studies in Bible and ministry, I would like to comment on Dave’s suggestion of offering male-only and female-only worship services.
I think this suggestion provides a non-solution for the most socially unacceptable presentation of the real problem. For the duration of a worship service, one could theoretically not have to worry about seeing a particular body part–or any body parts–of a member of the opposite sex. To offer such services would make it comfortable to keep the real problem, an unwillingness to deal with the effects of lust, tucked away for one hour or so per week. What a relief to never again struggle with this at church! Ah…but what about the other 167 hours of the week?
This “solution” presupposes that if we’re “okay” at church, we’re okay. Look good. Do what you like the rest of the time. That’s NOT what being Christian is all about! Besides, worship is intended for the assembled body of Christ–that is, all the members of that congregation. (I understand not everyone agrees with this premise, but that is what a congregation is and that is who is supposed to gather when a congregation worships God.) Not even the most conservative, restrictive denominations or congregations would have regular weekly services that were closed to men, or closed to women. And then there’s the issue of same-sex attraction, for whom this “solution” is worse than no solution. And finally, to attend such a service would effectively say to members of the opposite sex, “My comfort zone while I worship is more important than your presence when I worship.” Uh, worship is not about me, or even us…it’s about God. God likes it, I’m convinced of this, when we show up together and respect each other.
In the church, as in all of society, we really do need one another. We need to face up to our struggles, own them, and overcome them…with help as necessary and appropriate. I think that lust, and how we deal with it, is a very real issue in the church. Those who struggle with how to control the effects of lust deserve better solutions than mere avoidance once a week.
Now if a group of men, or women, who have a shared struggle in this area should want to meet together to work on this, study together, and pray together, more power to them. That’s a hugely different thing than saying “We’re going to start offering male-only and female-only worship services.” That’s also a potential genuine solution to the genuine problem.
Re: Sean H.’s comment about women who don’t wear bras while wearing tank tops — I don’t wear a bra when I wear tank tops; I never wear a bra. Does that mean I’m trying to tempt men or dressing “inappropriately?” No. Bras are uncomfortable and that’s why I don’t wear one. Why is wearing a bra equated with dressing appropriately? And how is not wearing a bra disruptive to an “atmosphere of mutual respect”? Can anyone answer this? Whether or not certain kinds of clothing are considered appropriate can be so arbitrary.
I would like to reiterate the point made by others that it’s impossible to tell if what I’m wearing (or not wearing) is going to inspire lust in a man.
A good friend of mine is large breasted; no matter what she wears (including super baggy T-shirts and pants), men always stare at her chest and, on occasion, say vulgar things to her. In fact, it’s gotten so bad that for a while she refused to wear modest v-neck T-shirts without a bra AND a tank top underneath. Men still stared and talked. It’s been so hard to convince her to try on clothing that flatters her figure. I’m not talking low-cut, I’m talking clothing that fits and flatters her shape. Now I’m sure there are men out there who might consider anything that fits on her to be sexy and lust-inspiring, but what’s a girl to do? Wear baggy T-shirts for the rest of her life?
Her mother, an extremely conservative dresser, a devout Christian, and a lady in every respect, wishes her daughter would dress a little nicer, i.e. wear clothes that actually fit. But my friend continues to fear the sight of her own body and what it will “do” to men’s lust. Furthermore, she talks down about women who go braless. She is an example of someone who, adopting the belief that women are responsible for the lust they inspire in men, tries to dress in a way to avoid inspiring men’s lust, yet all she does is make herself miserable. The task is impossible. God gave her those lovely curves, yet all she feels is shame when she sees them.
I once attended a job conference in an extremely conservative Jones New York black wool suit. The skirt was below the knee (that’s what was on sale that year), the suit glided effortlessly over my shape without clinging (thank God!), and I had on conservative one-inch pumps, black opaque tights, conservative daytime lipstick and face powder. I never got so many catcalls and whistles in my life.
And then there was this one time when, as a 13-year-old, I was walking home from the city pool wearing my modest, one-piece, high neck swimsuit and shorts over it. I got a carload of men *following me* and catcalling, telling me all about what they were going to do to me sexually. Mind you, I wasn’t even an early bloomer; I don’t even think I’d begun my period yet. I was straight as a stick figure-wise and minding my own business walking home. But that didn’t stop those men from being lustful (and frightening).
See how impossible it is to know what will turn on a man? Yes, everyone agrees women (and men) should dress “appropriately.” But “appropriate” is open to interpretation.
A man who feels lust should understand that it is he who needs to be addressed, not the woman without the bra or wearing the thong. Take responsibility for yourself, your actions, and your reactions. They are yours, not someone else’s.
He was talking about things like wearing things appropriate for the beach at Mass.
Then wouldn’t it be appropriate to lecture both men and women on the need for formal clothing that is modest in the Pauline sense–that is, plain and not meant to scream “Look at my money”? Focusing purely on women (as if men never wear ripped jeans or tight T-shirts to church) and men’s reaction to them, and ignoring all sins other than lust, doesn’t sound like somebody pleading for respect in God’s house. It sounds like somebody, yet again, scolding women because of a handful of men who choose not to treat them like human beings.
It isn’t about blame but about encouraging an atmosphere of mutual respect.
And if it’s about “mutual respect”, why is the entire focus on what women wear?
Please, do you really think there us a realistic threat of conservatives imposing overly strict dress codes in church?
Actually, it occurs to me somewhat belatedly, there are churches which do this. The Duomo (I believe in Milan) won’t let you in if your skirt is too short. There are plently of additional churches which not allow you in with bare shoulders. (Have you ever seen tourists walking around in those white paper things to get them more covered up?) Those are admittedly tourist sites more than places of worship, but there is a dress code.
Hugo —
You want a Bible verse? How about First Corinthians, chapter 8:
“Now food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, nor are we better off if we do. But make sure that this liberty of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak. If someone sees you, with your knowledge, reclining at table in the temple of an idol, may not his conscience too, weak as it is, be “built up” to eat the meat sacrificed to idols? Thus through your knowledge, the weak person is brought to destruction, the brother for whom Christ died. When you sin in this way against your brothers and wound their consciences, weak as they are, you are sinning against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin.”
I would agree, mind you, that it’s bad to be so “weak” that you end up sinning at the sight of someone eating meat, or someone wearing immodest clothing. In fact, the “weak” person has a responsibility to control his own thoughts and actions. I’m with you on that, Hugo.
Still, Paul very clearly says that Christians should take into account the reactions of their weaker brothers and sisters. Right?
Anono, eating meat is an either/or. But while we should consider others when making sartorial decisions, it’s impossible, genuinely impossible, to dress in such a way that will guarantee that another will not be tempted. In theory, an attractive idea — in practice, much harder. Diet is a more easily resolved “stumbling block” than sexuality.
But …..
People ought to be aware of their presentation.
My favorite from church: The cutest little girl with yellow dress, white matching hat and black “super cute” hair cut (with eyes to match) was in the alcove. She couldn’t have been more than 2 and 1/2. And as a father of daughters, I appreciated the off-the-meter cuteness level.
Then her mother bends down “a la squats” next to her daughter and I’m staring straight at the entire small triangular swatch of the ladies thong. Just to say that the presentation was “pleasing” and in an animal print too! I about break my neck diverting my stare.
Now, I don’t blame her for wearing what she was comfortable in wearing and standing up she was perfectly appropriate. I was just uncomfortable being so quickly distracted from the purpose at hand. I don’t think there was any mischievousness intended on the mother’s part, it was just an unintended consequence of low waisted pants and exotic underwear. I still think it was funny. But it did make me very aware of presentation and its importance.
it’s impossible, genuinely impossible, to dress in such a way that will guarantee that another will not be tempted
What you’re saying depends heavily on the word “guarantee.” Yes, no one can *guarantee* that a particular mode of dress is “lust-proof,” so to speak. As you point out, wearing sandals could hypothetically invoke lust in a foot-fetishist.
But someone can certainly *raise* or *lower* the chances of invoking lust. Let’s think about the vast majority of normal men would react if they spent an entire mass sitting behind a college girl wearing “Juicy” shorts and a visible thong. Yes, they can theoretically spend the entire service looking at the ceiling or at their toes, but for a typical male, this may take some considerable effort. And yes, the typical male SHOULD make that effort, and shouldn’t automatically fall into sin at every opportunity. And yes, it’s not the girl’s “fault” that males tend to be drawn into lust. Still, wouldn’t it be better for all concerned if the college girl dressed more like a grownup, and then it didn’t take *quite* so much work for the surrounding males to pay attention to the service? That’s all that I think the Catholic bishop was saying.
If that’s all he was saying, I wish he had said it — it was a sexist diatribe that offered little notion of male accountability and placed the burden of preventing sin almost entirely on women. And lifted Scripture wildly out of context to do it!
I had a conversation similar to this with a Marian apocalyptic in the RCC, and it was one of the reasons why I could never join a Roman Catholic Church. His position spoke to a very deep and bizarre misogyny–a mild form of the “she asked for it” rape defense.
Christianity, as it exists out in the world, is full of this kind of garbage.
Cheers,
TH
Women dress for attention, primarily the attention of other women–its part of establishing the social pecking order. Men who fall for this crap are idiots. Fall for her because of who she is rather than what she’s wearing. Scrape away the makeup and imagine away the flashy/suggestive clothing for a second and you might find a truly wonderful person or you might find a power-driven highly mercenary person.
Think about it that way and you might find that you aren’t even turned on by “her.” Men should be a bit more pragmatic and calculating when it comes to what is good or not so good for them–they could take a lesson from women in this regard.
I’m starting to understand burkhas…
There are assumptions made on this blog that women choose their clothes with other people in mind, or at the very least always consider what other people will think about the clothes we put on. Do men do that too (not!!!) ? I hate to make an earth shattering remark here, but sometimes we choose our clothes because of how they make US feel. Yes, really !! Is it so hard to imagine that a woman is more concerned with her opinion of herself and her own feelings than with the opinions and feelings of others? This assumption saddens me.
There is a huge and subjective range of what is considered “appropriate” attire, and it varies according to the environment in which it is worn and the body which it covers (as those above so ably point out). I personally do the best I can to wear what the majority will consider appropriate, especially at work and at more formal social functions. I do this because to do otherwise can have negative consequences, and because I am practical and a realist. HOWEVER, I reserve the right to feel good about my body and to enjoy the way it looks, and I will not be ashamed of this feeling.
I am going to go out there on a limb amidst all the puritanical posturing and say what most women know… Sometimes we feel sexy (this is healthy and men actually benefit from it)or womanly and our dress is a reflection of this feeling about ourselves. This “sexy” feeling may not be aimed at the married and unfortunate Mr. Jones in the next pew. And it is not about revealing our breasts or anything that obvious. It may be something simple and subtle, such as wearing a tailored suit which emphasizes an hourglass figure.
And here is a newsflash : It doesn’t take another person to trigger this “sexy” feeling in a woman. It just is. And we are not looking for a result from our dress from a third party (such as the seduction of the unfortunate Mr. Jones). We do it because it makes us feel good about ourselves (if it is done correctly- which admittedly can be a fine line), like a woman. Most women probably don’t even consider trying to get into the heads of people we may/may not see that day to try to guess what they may/may not think of our outfit !!!! Isn’t that a little pathetic and insecure ?
In conclusion, I think that sometimes women realize that they look sexy, and I think this is ok (within the bounds of “decency”) as a healthy reflection of our sexuality.
“And if we insist that women do the spiritual ‘heavy lifting’ for men by taking responsibility for men’s lusting, that ‘will muscle’ will stay spindly and underdeveloped.”
I don’t know if you’ll ever get people to agree on what’s appropriate attire and what’s inappropriate. The responsibility of both parties cannot be ignored. The one lusting should stop. The one inciting should stop as well. But what about the ignorant?
In this sense, I disagree with Hugo’s statement in that I believe the Christian response IS to do heavy lifting for each other. That’s because we’re called to love one another and lay our lives down for each other.
In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul explains that eating meat sacrificed to idols isn’t bad, but if my liberty in eating it causes another to stumble, I’ve erred. Paul concludes by saying, “Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.”
My amazing and very beautiful wife puts this into practice when she gives a little extra consideration while putting something on, knowing that a weak “brother” may stumble. By doing so, she’s not keeping his muscle undeveloped, she’s doing the loving thing. She still dresses quite attractively, however her attitude goes beyond what she has a right to do and goes into the territory of what’s loving for those around her.
You call it enabling the weak, I call it going the extra mile.
You call it going the extra mile; I call it walking a mile on behalf of somebody too entitled to bother to take a step.