The sad nature of pop culture is that there is often little categorically positive news to share–most of the stories we address here at CaPC are mixed at best. Thus, when I came across this story today about a Victoria’s Secret Model who has determined to stop modeling lingerie because of her faith in Christ, I rejoiced because I can’t spin this story as anything other than encouraging:
The California native, now 21, said that in the wake of baring her body as an Angel, she was also hosting parties, posing for men’s magazines, and craving more and more attention.
But she was not feeling good about herself.
“My body should only be for my husband and it’s just a sacred thing,” said Bisutti, who had gotten married just before winning the 2009 modeling competition. “I didn’t really want to be that kind of role model for younger girls because I had a lot of younger Christian girls that were looking up to me and then thinking that it was okay for them to walk around and show their bodies in lingerie to guys.
“It was pretty crazy because I finally achieved my biggest dream, the dream that I always wanted, but when I finally got it, it wasn’t all that I thought it would be. Especially being married I just wanted to keep my marriage sacred because divorce rates now in America are pretty high, and I just want to do everything I can to keep my marriage special.”
Cynical contrarian here:
Sounds to me more like her husband has a problem with her modeling and it’s been causing tension, so she’s quitting in order to save the marriage, under the guise of being “holy.”
I’m aware that’s extremely cynical, but that’s me.
Wait, but wouldn’t the husband actually kind of have a valid point? And is that necessarily a different situation than what is presented here?
I’m not certain that we need underwear models of any kind, really. Why is it okay to put pictures in a magazine that is read by the public that might get you arrested if you wore it on the street?
I mean, seriously, do guys buy Fruit of the Loom because some stud modeled them in a magazine and they thought that would make them look like him? Same goes for girls.
Well, assuming you guys don’t buy lingerie, it IS actually helpful for women to see the underwear modeled. It helps with understanding how high the cut in the panties goes, where the cup line is on the bra – all of which are very important when planning outfits to wear over the underwear. While, quite unfortunately, a lot of underwear modeling has turned into an object for the male gaze (as is mostly everything in advertising), in many respects, women still use the images of models in underwear for the original purpose – to see what a garment looks like on a human being.
Now, to elaborate what I meant by my comment: to me, it sounds like this model had no qualms with modeling until she got married, at which point (again, this is fully my interpretation), the husband may have started to be jealous of that fact that his wife was showing herself off for other men. This, naturally, would cause tension in the marriage. That alerts my feminist sensibilities of the idea that the wife is the property of the man – her body is only for his consumption. That’s an idea I have an issue with, naturally, because my body is not the property of anyone else but me.
Now, I don’t have a problem with her stepping down from this in order to work on her marriage. I do have a problem with her couching the decision in Christianese that projects the idea (even just subtly) that women are the property of their husbands.
Brad,
That’s just silly. How will I know how I will look in my underwear unless an incredibly handsome and athletic man with a great butt and photoshopped body models them for me?
Sheesh. Come on.
Dianna,
So, you don’t think in a marriage that the couples’ bodies are their mutual property?
Yeah, underwear modeling is as valuable as any clothes modelling for choosing attire. Whether I pick out clothes for my wife or she picks out clothes for her self, it makes sense to have some idea of what you’re getting. When I buy a package of underwear, the picture on the front shows me what those garments will look like. This is helpful to me because it would suck to get home, tear open a pack of underwear and find they were unitards.
And by suck, I mean it would be awesome. And that there should be more secret packages of unitards out there.
Brad, here’s a picture to flesh out Dianna’s proposition: You’ve got some guy who’s dating an underwear model. He knows she’s an underwear model. If he starts dating her, he’s also probably aware that she’s apparently good at what she does and is comfortable with it to have lofty aspirations in the field. He is aware of these modeling aspirations before they marry. Then they marry and she no longer wants to model underwear.
It’s not an unreasonable story that says maybe now that the guy got his prize—who he was fine with before they were together because, “Hey guys, I’m dating an underwear model! Jealous?”—now he becomes jealous and wants her to buckle it up.
It doesn’t mean that’s what happened, but it’s not an unreasonable story. It fits with the common pattern. And even if the end result is healthy, the guy himself would come off as dodgy and manipulative (seeing marriage as a means to fuel his own agendas rather than their coupled agendas). The other option (which is probably as likely) is that the woman made these choices because that’s who she is, a person who under self-examination, felt she could do better for herself.
If there’s one thing I’d pick at from your thoughts, Dianna. It’s that the body of the married person is entirely his or her own. I believe (and I believe it is a belief born out in Scripture) that both members of the marriage covenant experience dual ownership over each other’s bodies. I am my own, but I am also my wife’s, and vice versa. If my wife is uncomfortable with me wearing buttless jeans to the supermarket, that is something I need to seriously consider (not just to smooth the gears of our relationship, but as an honour to her proprietary part in my body). If I am uncomfortable with her wearing long sleeves to church, that is something she needs to seriously consider for the same reasons. Ideally, we will share each others’ needs, desire, proclivities, and reservations—simply for the sake of honouring each other and our mutual bodily ownership.
Good question Alan.
@Dianna–yeah that is your interpretation. She says nothing of the sort in the interview–she says she said, “I’m Christian, and reading the Bible more, I was becoming more convicted about it.”
She said her body is to be for her husband–but that is the closest she gets to what you imply and biblically speaking I think that both the husband and the wife’s bodies belong to each other–at least that is my interpretation of “one flesh.”
She never says anything close to “my husband is upset about me doing this.” She always phrased it as a personal conviction and wanting to be a good role model for other girls. She isn’t quitting modeling either–just modeling lingerie/underwear.
I applaud any Christian who acts on their convictions/conscience.
Yeah, and it’s not a big deal – I just felt like an alternate interpretation may be warranted (and I’ve seen a lot of women change their behaviors/themselves once in a marriage, claiming it is something they were “convicted” about, but really it was at the urging of their husband, so I don’t feel I’m entirely off-base in reading the subtext).
To answer the larger question: I believe there is a line in terms of proprietary ownership of your partner’s body: would my partner have some input? Yes, when in a relationship, I definitely take my partner into consideration in my actions and decisions. But that’s collaborative. I still have bodily autonomy. So I think we’re talking slightly at cross-purposes here – I interpret ownership and property with power-based meanings, and you guys seem to have an interpretation that’s more collaborative.
Only because dual-ownership must be collaborative for it to be dual-ownership. The more power-based definitions fail to expression the mutuality of the whole thing. I see nothing coercive in marital body-ownership and the moment it strays into coerciveness, it ceases from mutuality and moves into the disgusting realm of relational politics, in which subservience of the weaker member is always the end result.
@Dianna certainly that is possible. I guess I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think this woman is trying to do something noble or at least she certainly feels its noble. And with regard to underwear modeling–Victoria’s Secret is a whole different breed of that sort of thing and we know its not just marketed toward helping women know what their products look like.
I think conviction with regard to that seems fair and yeah like I said anytime a Christian acts on their convictions, I find that encouraging.
That said, I certainly hear where you are coming from and I know there are many abuses of the idea of a “one flesh union” and I understand why you brought it up.
:) I wouldn’t be one of your most contrarian commenters if I hadn’t. Glad we can have this discussion without getting angry at each other.
Wait but I am so MAADDDDD
@Dianna–I hope we can have more such conversations ;) Thanks for making an otherwise boring comment section more interesting!
Man, no one ever thanked me when I was the most contrarian commenter.
Thanks Seth.
Sincerely.
Adam E
I have a few things I’d like to address here:
1. Praise God for someone wanting to be open in their faith and putting God over The American dream- fame and fortune. These days we need more people in the spotlight like that. I’d rather let my daughter (when I have one) be influenced by her over Nikki Minaj any day. Our society needs more from our role models that photoshopped breasts and/or 33 ppg. (Matthew 16:26)
2. Hey men, how many of you would be OK with your wife posing in her underwear for a million men to see and drool over her? (Genesis 12:12) If you’re hand goes up, you should learn to see her as more than a trophy. (Proverbs 31, Ephesians 5:25)
3. Hey ladies, what’s more important, the love of a man who wants to spend his life with you, or the lust of a million guys most of which just wanna take you home for the night and might not even give you cab fare in the morning? (Matthew 5:28) Even if her decision had more to do with her husband than her Savior, can you blame her?
4. Why is it so hard to take someone at their word sometimes? If she says she quit because her faith convicted her about her profession, shouldn’t we be happy about that?