Friend of the site and agent provocateur Dianna Anderson found a fascinating and comprehensive “survey” at TheRebelution.com on what it means to dress modestly and what causes boys to lust.
For example:
47% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “A purse with the strap diagonally across the chest draws too much attention to the bust.”
48% agreed or strongly agreed with: “Even modest pajamas are inappropriate for a girl to wear in public.”
71% agreed or strongly agreed with “The lines of undergarments, visible under clothing, cause guys to stumble.”
Now, granted, I’m sure these percentages are accurate. But let’s be honest, boys (or many boys, at least) can be tempted to lust after a woman no matter what she does or does not wear. The danger with surveys like this is that they give them impression that the main burden of preventing boys from lusting belongs on girls. And that it is reasonable for them to try to come up with a list of do’s-and-don’t's to avoiding causing a brother to stumble.
Lists are rarely, if ever helpful. In fact, this survey implies through its questions that you might cause some boys to stumble by the way you walk, sit, and lie down, which doesn’t leave a lot of options for girls who are alive.
Dianna’s response to this survey was to apply the modest test to her wardrobe: The Great Modesty Experiment. (Warning: if you didn’t already know, this is an adult subject matter, and Dianna brings up the “fact” that some boys become aroused [so I'm told]). The results are pretty painful, but her conclusion is convicting to the church:
There was this cognitive dissonance that happened every single day in front of the mirror: “I am ugly because I can’t look like the models in those magazines. And I can’t make an effort to look like those models because my natural form might cause someone to stumble. I’m ugly, but I’m capable of provoking a boy to lustful sin.”
This is an issue that I think the church needs to spend a lot of time rethinking. As Dianna rightly points out, there has been a long history of the church blaming male sexual sins upon women. And as any (most? many? Me?) honest men will admit, the stumbling threshold is relative, arbitrary, potentially very low. But I don’t think we can go to the other extreme and encourage our sisters to not care about how their appearance affects others. There is a very real danger of promoting a kind of individualism and liberalism (freedom) that elevates the personal preferences and pleasures over concern for the Other (even if the Other is a boy).
So, for me at least, the question becomes: how do we cultivate communities where Christian boys and men view their sin and temptation as their own responsibility and girls and women have a selfless concern for their brothers’ sin without wrongly taking responsibility for that temptation and sin?
Thoughts?
One of the great bothers to me is that 90-too-much % of the time, when people refer to biblical modesty, what they’re talking about is not actually related to modesty as found in Scripture. Biblically, “modesty” is related not to sexual interest or attraction but more closely tied to pride and vanity. A woman, scripturally speaking, who attires herself in a modest fashion is one who is adorned in a manner that doesn’t flaunt wealth—especially in situations in which one might create a divide between oneself and the poverty of other Christian sisters.
Further, the terminology of “stumbling” is also abused by the contemporary church. Scripturally, stumbling is used to describe the result of actions that cause a believer’s faith to be defeated. Simply deploying a trigger that might be effective in setting someone to lust is not the same as causing a brother to stumble.
Finally, sexual attraction is not the same as lust. Lust carries with it the connotation of envy. A man can be sexually attracted to a woman without lusting, even if that woman is not his wife. Lust, as a form of envy, is particularly a sin that is rooted in desire for a woman who is already spoken for in covenantal fashion. A single man simply feeling sexual desire for another single woman is not lust. Depending on a culture, a married man feeling attraction toward a single woman may not be lust either (say, if polygamy is acceptable in that cultural setting).
All of this is to say that so many of our understandings of biblical admonitions are informed by our lingering affection for a culture steeped in Victorian principles rather than an actual attentiveness to what Scripture actually says. Our predispositions cause us to generate awkward readings of texts.
Also note, I primarily use examples of men as the luster and women as the modest one because that’s the context of the article. In reality, these things go both ways and men should not dress ostentatiously and women are as likely to lust.
Peter’s call for a woman’s modesty is about pride and vanity and ostentatious displays of wealth. But I think it is naive at best to say that this passage (1 Peter 3:1-5) isn’t also about the intentional flaunting of one’s sexuality in a prideful way. (Cf. 1 Pet. 3:2 ‘pure conduct’). The point is that women ought not to dress in prideful and vainglorious ways. An admonition that would apply to men, but is particularly given to women in this passage.
My point is that, for all our worries and hand-wringing over being “legalistic” about what to wear, at some point moms and dads have to help their daughters determine what is appropriate to wear in public. Is it okay if they go out dressed like Rhianna at the Grammys? If it isn’t, why isn’t it?
It can’t be simply because provocative dress will cause boys to stumble. Boys will lust over bare ankles. It is a ridiculous standard to say that anything that will cause a boy to covet a woman’s body is therefore un-wearable.
If we would speak about ‘modesty’ more like what Seth is getting at and less in terms of, “Will this make a boy lust?” we might help our daughters learn about their dignity as women. Their dignity does not primarily rest in their physical beauty, but in their creation in the image of God. True beauty flows from a heart devoted to the Lord. But at the same time, it does not mean that she has to be ashamed of her body, much less the idea that her body will provoke boys to sin.
I think that modern ‘modesty’, if I may use it, calls for us all to dress in ways that demonstrates all the splendid aspects of humanity. Balance is what we need. Clothing that shows we have taste, understand color, speaks of our personality, and fits us well enough to show that we actually have bodies but does not show them in such a way that it distracts from the rest of our character.
I realize that this is over-simplified, but I think it moves toward a better understanding of ‘outward adornment’.
But if I am in need of correcting, have at it. I have a daughter who is three. I need all the help I can get.
Seth and Brad:
I like both of your observations a lot – modesty is, indeed, much more about humility and pride than about sexual attraction or lust. We’ve perverted the meaning in response to an overtly sexual culture, which has had (as Alan as pointed out before here on CAPC) the problematic effect of objectifying women in the other direction. That modesty objectification is something I see happening in a lot of the responses in the survey and deserves unpacking – a lot of the men respond that they will refuse to talk to or approach women they deem as “immodest,” but say that they have less of a problem if the woman is someone they know well (which, of course, leads me to think that if they made an effort to get to know those “harlots,” they may find their problems with “lust”* disappearing – thus, objectification).
Modesty, instead of being about clothing, needs to be about how one carries oneself and how one views themselves – something that we make impossible for young women when send them both the message that they are ugly, and that they are agents of lust.
Brad, the fact that you already care about how to present these issues to your daughter is great. :) Presenting it as self-worth rather than “you’re advertising to boys” is a good start. And giving her some good role models of it, too.
*I put “lust” in quotes because, as Seth points out, there’s a big problem that we’ve confused sexual attraction with lust and decided that any and all sexual thoughts are bad.
I’ll totally agree that any form of attire that is vainglourious in purpose runs afoul of biblical modesty, so revealing fashions can fall into that category, though they need not necessarily do so.
Maybe the best way to think about clothing is to remember that fashion is as much a medium of communication as painting is. The things one chooses to wear (or is forced to wear) says things. And as all communication, there are numerous ways to look at what’s being communicated.
• Overt authorial intent (what the wearer intends to communicate)
• Subconscious authorial intent (what the wearer intentionally communicates obliviously)
• Cultural and sub-cultural contexts (interpretations the culture’s particular linguistic tics may force upon the wearer’s choices)
• Reader interpretation (the meaning perceived by the wearer’s audience that may or may not have an arbitrary relationship to the wearer’s intent)
For all the whining and troubled brows over others’ quote-unquote immodesty, Scripture (in its modesty admonitions) seems to say the first two are worth consideration so far as one’s actions are concerned. The other two, cultural contexts and outside interpretations, seem to be outside the recorded concern.
Thinking about your statement regarding clothes that fit us well enough to show that we actually have bodies but do not show them in such a way that they distract from the rest of our character. I’m not sure that distraction of that kind is necessarily a bad thing. We certainly don’t talk negatively about distractions that cause us to forget the body and focus on a particular characteristic. When I think of a girl I know and my primary interest is in her sense of humour or how smartly she talks about Japanese cinema of the postwar era, I am not only distracted from how compassionate she is or how forgiving she is or how lovely her singing voice is—but I’m also distracted from how interesting I might find her womanly physical structure. These each are discreet parts of her whole being, but by thinking on one of them, I’m distracted from all the others of them. At least in the moment. I don’t see any necessary reason to think that being distracted by the body momentarily is any worse than being distracted by a sense of humour momentarily.
Dianna:
“Presenting these issues as self-worth rather than “you’re advertising to boys” is a good start.”
This brought to mind something I read yesterday while looking to see if there would ever be a fourth Fiona Apple album. Apple, when responding to concerns about a possible eating disorder (concerns that emerged around the time of her “Criminal” video in the mid-’90s) confirmed that she indeed had issues with food. But rather than anorexia (what the media speculated), she said it was more complicated than that. She reported having been raped when she was twelve years old and thought that her (at the time) abstention from a healthy diet was pretty deeply tied to that. She held off eating in order to remove what she termed “rape-bait” from her body.
I found it a heartbreaking explanation and pointed to the deep flaws in both cultural perception of the female form and to the body issues that we continue to feed with all of our conflicting messages about the physical form.
i missed the one that simply said, “seeing girl can be a stumbling block”. or “thinking of girl can be stumbling block.” let’s face it, there are only two guys who haven’t walked there: liar and guy who doesn’t find girl attractive (mostly the first one).
not to over-spiritualize, but the real deal is we either choose where our eyes and minds go, or that thinker will go places which no mind in the midst of transformation needs to be.
I’ve thought about this balance a lot. I confess, I liked the rebelution survey. I understand why some would feel placed under law by it but for me it did give a tiny glimpse into specifics that are difficult to get men to be specific about. And, lets face it, men and women think and function very differently when it comes to visual stimulation (just try to go out to dinner with a television in the room and have a heart-to-heart talk). For me it gave a little window into the male thought process. I’ve chosen not to become enslaved to the specifics of the modesty survey but I’ve made a few tweeks to my wardrobe and posture to try to be a blessing.
Honestly, I feel badly for my sons! Yesterday we walked past a lingere store and they were all eyes. One of them even commented “She’s naked!” and they’re TWO! Guys in our culture are assaulted with images of sexuality everywhere they look and so I want to be a safe person with whom any guy could interact with without worrying about his thoughts and I hope to train my daughters to do the same. I may not do that perfectly every time and so I definitely agree that there is a component to a woman’s attitude that is important but an attitude isn’t enough if a woman wants to dress like a whore but claims to have an attitude of modesty she’s deceiving herself. Also, if a woman completely disregards any responsibility for how her dress is perceived (and I’ve known plenty of Christian women who do) she also is deceived. Even children understand that a person’s dress indicates their job or the activity they’re doing. So, don’t go crazy about the modesty survey but then again, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water!
Here’s a verse that I think defines what a woman’s attitude ought to be about her dress.
Heb 10:24 NKJV
And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works
“I want to be a safe person with whom any guy could interact with without worrying about his thoughts”
I don’t think you’re ever going to be that. It’s nice of you to try. But sexual curiosity (in men and women both) can be aroused without any outward provocation. What we do with it is where it becomes sin. There are no safe people on either side of the gender line.
Chelsea, if this were Twitter, I would retweet you.
Yeah, I’d say there is no way to be “safe,” but surely there are ways to be reasonably safe, right? I mean, I can be tempted by a woman’s face. A face. Barring a veil, there’s not much you can, or should, do to prevent that kind of temptation. On the other hand, I have seen women dressed in such a way that I cannot really look at them without strong temptation. But even then, I do have control over my eyes and thoughts, so I can look away. The ugly truth is, that for many guys, or at least me, there is no not worrying about my thoughts, if by worrying we mean a conscious and strong effort to avoid lusting after or thinking about a woman in a way that is inappropriate for our relationship.
Which is why I’m not sure what to do with this issue at all. Suggesting that women should not consider their neighbor at all strikes me as unbiblical and an adoption of a very modern, libertarian view of the body and community. On the other hand, the creation of acceptable guidelines for dressing strikes me as potentially legalistic and definitely arbitrary, since every guy and every woman and every situation is so different.
“On the other hand, I have seen women dressed in such a way that I cannot really look at them without strong temptation.”
Temptation to do what, exactly?
Let’s just say, hypothetically, that you are in Starbucks and the girl in front of you (a pretty girl, just so we’re on the same page) is wearing a top that shows off a little cleavage and maybe a skirt that reveals that she has nice legs and probably exercises. What exactly is the temptation we’re talking about? Presumably, you’re talking about being tempted to some form of sin. Presumably, something beyond recognition and even appreciation of her physical beauty (since that is not sin). Presumably something beyond sexual desire since desire on its own is not sin. So what’s left? Temptation to covet, envy, infideltiy, fornication, idolize, or assault. Maybe something else I’ve forgotten. Coveteousness (e.g. lust) seems to be the main temptation for guys who see a girl who excites their sexual appetite and envy seems to be the main temptation for girls who see a girl who they acknowledge as sexually desirable (presuming heterosexual skew in both cases). I’m just not sure how the presence of things that trigger sexual recognition need to be tied to fashion choices.
So, Seth, I don’t mean this as a slam but you’re single right? Because I can’t really imagine a wife being totally okay with her husband looking and sexually appreciating any woman he likes.
I’m married. But don’t confuse what I’m talking about with lasciviousness. There is a difference between acknowledging something and fantasizing about it or idolizing it or coveting it.
When I see Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, I see an attractive woman who falls within range of what my appetites allow to be desirable. If both she and I were single and fancy-free, I wouldn’t mind asking her out and seeing where things went from there. There is nothing wrong with either with that or with acknowledging that to be the case. This doesn’t mean that I am lusting for Audrey Hepburn. This doesn’t mean that my marriage vows are in breach. This doesn’t mean anything other than that I have acknowledged as much as when I say that my wife’s meal looks good when we’re out to dinner. That doesn’t mean I’m going to steal her meal or think about stealing her meal. It doesn’t mean that I’m not satisfied with my meal. It doesn’t mean anything beyond the fact that I have eyes and can recognize quality when I see it.
I don’t think Seth is saying that he goes out of his way to look at sexually attractive women in order to appreciate their beauty, but there is a stage when you recognize, “oh, that woman is beautiful” and you can even appreciate that beauty without dwelling on it or coveting her.
The alternative, I think, is that when a guy recognizes beauty, he either resents her or her beauty. I’m beginning to think that a healthier and more loving response is to think, “hey, she’s beautiful. Good for her and thanks be to God. But that is not my beauty and that is good.”
I wish big-name pastors were teaching men what you guys (Alan and Seth) are saying, rather than “get married as soon as possible so you have a repository for sexual behavior.”
Could you guys write a book, please, so that single girls can start acting like their sisters and not like their mothers?
Thanks.
I think this is an issue on which the horse is already out of the barn and we’re not going to get it back in again. Our hypersexualized culture has made such discussion quaint. We’re going to see each other first and foremost as sexual objects no matter how hard we might try to prevent that. We cannot escape it and, truth be told, few of us really want to. The only issue for us is how to deal with this predicament. We need to help each other learn how not to nurture our fantasies, how to be honest and accountable, including confession of our sins to someone else for our sexual lives, to enter into something like a recovery process within the church (or without for that matter) for an addiction we are all implicated in, and so on. We’ve lost the battle. The question for us is to find ways to healing and health. At least that how it seems to me.
What Seth said. The sin of lust is a form a covetousness, not simply the acknowledgement of beauty or sexual attractiveness.