What (Evangelical) Men Talk About When They Talk About Women

[Trigger warning: proto-rapist apologism]

In doing research work for my book, I’ve been examining a lot of what men who are within modesty culture have to say about women. In particular, I’ve been combing through the response to the Rebelution Modesty Survey, a survey put out in 2008 by brothers Brett and Alex Harris (which spawned an online community of “Rebelutionaries” discussing and promoting modesty).

I realized that other people needed to see how these young men and boys talk about women, that there is consistent, frankly scary rhetoric these men are using when prompted to give a response to an open question. These responses in particular are to the question: "How do you feel about girls who purposely flaunt their bodies?”

So, with little further adieu, I present to you: “How Men In Modesty Culture Talk About Women.”* All emphasis mine.

Saddened; disappointed; sometimes angered. They're distracting good men, dishonoring God and marriage, and offering themselves cheaply--which makes me desire even more strongly a girl who is modest, who is valuable. I would be disingenuous if I didn't concede that these kinds of girls are a temptation. But I always remind myself that if a girl flaunts herself before I marry her, she'll do the same thing afterward. As a husband, that would make me pretty mad.What would make me happy is dedicating all my energy to loving a young woman who reserves herself for me. (Age 22)

If a girl flaunts herself, it changes everything about what I think of her. To start with, I automatically assume she is not a Christian or is not taking her walk with Christ seriously (I might even try witnessing to her). If she is a Christian, I'll probably tell her that she is being a sexual distraction (much more gently, of course). If you flaunt yourself, you have the attention of lots of guys, but you instantly lose their respect and admiration. I would never consider courting a girl that advertises her body like a product. (Age 17)

When a girl is flaunting her body, my opinion of her character lowers quite a bit. I get the strong impression that she does not respect the Biblical standards of modesty and purity, or the Biblical injunctions to avoid causing your brothers in Christ to sin. (Age 17)

It's not their body to flaunt. It belongs to Christ and their future husband. How dare they flaunt something that God did not permit them to flaunt? How dare they write a check the Bible doesn't allow them to cash? When a girl purposely flaunts her body, she is almost immediately ruled out for anything beyond acquantenance [sic] in my eyes. (Age 22)

It drives me crazy. They are the type of girls that I do not want to be around. Not only will they most likely cause me to sin, but they will not help me to grow as a follower of Christ. They also don’t display much self value and that is a big draw back. I want someone who will help me to avoid temptation, not provide me with it. When you flaunt yourself, you drive me away and sometimes actually make me physically sick. (Age 16)

I feel they need to be rebuked. I feel that they are self-consumed...or consumed in the world. Their standard of living, dressing, etc…isn’t that of the Word, but of the world. (Age 25)

Feelings are irrelevant. Scripture speaks of such women as harlots. (unspecified age between 40-49)

It actually really angers me. I find it disrespectful. I don't think they get it. Do they realize that they have just caused someone to have sexual thoughts about them in their mind? Now the guy feels bad because he fell AGAIN and the girl wiggles on her merry way. If an unsaved girl dresses this way it doesn't bother me that much, because really how would she know better? But a girl who says she is a Christian, and she says her body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. When that girl flaunts her body in a sexual way, I get really frustrated, because she should know better! Another thing I would like to know is..where is her father??!! He is a man, he knows how we think, how can he let her go out dressed like that??!! (Age 21)

Girls who purposely flaunt their bodies will get no respect from me. I would not want to have a girlfriend, or get married to somebody like that, because there are other men looking at her and thinking impure thoughts about her. Those other men may also tempt her and she may become unfaithful. (age 18)

Sickening. The disgust far outweighs the attraction. What do they expect to gain from their display?I respect and admire a girl with a dress. I totally ignore something that looks like a heathen prostitute.More of a problem is those who have remained bastions of purity, yet unknowingly take a fling in the opposite direction. You become accustomed to looking at them unguardedly, and when they suddenly change for the worst...bad things happen. (Age 19)

I don't like them. If it is purposely done, it shows a lack of respect, or understanding, for those (guys) around them and it makes it incredibly tough for us. Again, the mind thinks up a whole range of scenarios that generally aren't that good. (Age 17)

First, I feel sorry that they think they have to do that. Second, it disgusts me. Be the woman God has called you to be. Don't be a fake. (Age 25)

Although I am tempted physically by their appearance, I highly disrespect their conduct and do not find it truly attractive. (Age 19)

I feel sorry for them. They are giving freely to the world, the gift that God has given them for their husbands alone. I feel no attraction to them, as "attractive" as they may be, because of their irresponsibility pertaining to guarding their own bodies, and for not considering the mental purity of their brothers in Christ. (Age 18)

If a girl purposefully flaunts her body she loses her right to ask guys to stop looking at her like something to be had. When you flaunt your body by wearing tight clothes, low-cut shirts, short skirts and underwear that sticks out of your clothes, then you are asking to have guys stare at you. We are visual. When we see skin we look. When we see cleavage or underwear, our imagination takes over. Girls, have some dignity about yourself and don't flaunt your body and then wonder why you can't get any respect from people. (Age 19)

I usually first feel anger. "COVER UP!" I shout in my head. Then I look away. I can't look at them. So I can't talk to them. I can't really be friends with them, etc. But when I reflect on it, I feel sorry for them, because they must value their looks a lot, and esteem themselves a lot in their body, rather than in their relationship with the Lord. I also wonder if they have a healthy relationship with their father; "Does he compliment her enough? Does he show his love for her?" I also think that it shows that they do not have a close walk with God. That they are far from Him in prayer and far from His Word, or else they would realize that they need to dress modestly. (Age 22)

It makes me sick. Usually those girls are very blessed in more ways than just outward beauty, but because they choose to be flirty, they cannot use their other gifts and follow the path God has for them. They tend to get in trouble more often and cause lots of hurt by leading guys on and then breaking them apart. If you flaunt your body you are not respecting God's temple. (1 Cor. 6:19-20) "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." If you are using your body to draw attention to yourself or are causing others (guys in particular) to stumble then you are dishonoring God by disgracing His temple. (Age 16)

Girls who try to act like strippers are going to get that response. There are always going to be guys who get turned on by clothes that show a little skin, no matter where it is, but acting as the lady that you are will mostly stop that type of thought. (Age 18)

Kind of disgusted usually. The most attractive girls I know are ones that don't try to show themselves off. It's better that way. (Age 18)

____________

*Of course not ALL men. If you say in that in the comments, you will be moderated.

We Saw Your Sexism: Modesty and Rape Culture

When I was in college, I did a semester abroad in Oxford, England, at the university there. This semester was a life changing one, as most semesters abroad are. I was introduced to many different people with differing life experiences and life views and learned a lot about myself and treasure that time I was there. During this time, I had two roommates. One of them, while on vacation in Florence, Italy, exhibited some rather strange behavior. You see, there’s a lot of art in Italy. There’s a lot of art featuring naked people in Italy. Said roommate was apparently uncomfortable with the idea of seeing boobs and penises in an art museum.

So she carried a spoon.

When she approached pieces of nude art, she would carefully position the spoon to cover up the objectionable parts and view the art that way. It wasn’t that she objected to the art itself, but that, for her, there was no context in which nudity in the public sphere could ever be okay – not even in famous masterpieces of ancient art.

The principle that caused my roommate to carry a spoon into museums and galleries is the same one that produced the sexist ridiculousness that was Seth MacFarlane’s “We Saw Your Boobs” song that opened the Academy Awards this week.

That principle? That nudity is only ever erotic.

That principle is a dangerous one, as Christianity Today and Think Christian* contributor Karen Swallow Prior demonstrated when she tweeted during the ceremony: “Are the actors who showed their boobs really pissed at having a song sung about it? That would be a bit hypocritical?” This was followed quickly by: “If you show your boobs, don't get on your high horse about someone singing about it.”

Prior’s point, as exemplified in the second tweet, is one you've heard before - what amounts of skin you show in public has a bearing on the perception of you as a moral agent. Mainly, the amount of skin you show has a direct inverse relationship to how angry you can be over people disrespecting you.

There are a number of problematic elements at play here and I’d like to try to tease each of them out. So let’s set aside Prior’s tweets for a moment and focus on why McFarlane’s song was sexist and wrong.

The first problematic element of MacFarlane’s work was the male gaze. The Academy that is responsible for the Academy Awards is 77% white men. Most studio executives are men. The majority of directors are men. Movies that fail the Bechdel test are far more prominent and more likely to be backed by major studios than movies that pass it.

Hollywood, and our subsequent movie-going culture, is built around what men want, what men see, and what men desire. Specifically, it is built around what white, cisgender, heterosexual, young men are supposed to see, want and desire, as filtered through the lens of advertising and marketing firms.

It is hard to be taken seriously as a woman in this environment. And it’s a common thread that women who push themselves for their art are often involved in roles that require them to bare some skin. It is, in many parts, the nature of the beast. Insofar as McFarlane’s song was meant to lampoon that part of Hollywood culture, I understand it.

However, MacFarlane is a white cis het man, surrounded by men, singing about how awesome it was that artists at the top of their field showed their boobs. Rather than a lampooning of the male gaze, MacFarlane’s song reinforced it – especially with the titles he chose to cite as titillating examples of showing boobs.

Hilary Swank was mentioned for Boys Don’t Cry, in which she plays a trans man who is violently raped and then murdered. The nudity in that movie occurs within the rape scene.

Charlize Theron was cited for the movie Monster – also a rape scene.

Likewise with The Accused and Monster's Ball.**

Scarlett Johansson was cited not for her art but for phone pictures that were stolen from her hacked phone and disseminated without her permission. She has never actually appeared topless for a movie role.

Instead of satirizing the male gaze, MacFarlane’s song reinforced it, informing women that all that matters in the world of Hollywood is whether or not someone saw their boobs, regardless of context.

By calling out specifically scenes that were depictions of rape (and photos that were not distributed with the consent of the subject), MacFarlane is espousing the idea that all nudity, regardless of context, is erotic – and reinforcing the idea that female bodies exist for the purpose of creating sexual reactions in cis-het men.

A song about seeing penises may have actually functioned to better highlight the satire, but that would have been far too subversive for the creator of Family Guy.

And this severance of instances of nudity and the contexts in which they appear is where we come back to Karen Swallow Prior’s tweets. Rather than challenging his satire, and challenging the male gaze of Hollywood which demands that female bodies be reduced to tits and ass, Prior’s tweets are pointedly directed at the actresses themselves.

Her point seems to be: if you are an actress who shows skin for the purpose of your art, and a man removes the context and focuses on the boobs, it’s your fault and you are not allowed to get mad, because you should have known that would happen.

In other, slightly harsher words: it’s your own damn fault you were objectified. Keep your clothes on.

Rather than respecting the art that these women are putting forward and responding to the sexualization of women’s bodies by attacking the very man who is doing it, Prior’s tweets and her framing of the issue blame the actresses for the way their art is treated. They are, in her words, “giving in to sexism” rather than acting in a subversive manner by treating their bodies as their own property with which they can make good art. (She also implies that these women - many of whom are Academy Award winners! - are not "serious artists.")

A female bodied person who appears nude for a rape scene in order to increase the impact of that devastation? It’s her fault when a man objectifies her.

It’s not a tough leap – indeed, no leap at all – to see the parallel to that within rape culture.

A female bodied person who wears a short skirt to the dance club because damn it gets warm under those lights? It’s her fault when she gets raped.

When we blame women for the reactions of men – whether it is to their art, to their clothing, to their “unladylike” behavior like riding public transit after dark – we reinforce rape culture. Prior’s tweets are a smaller example of it, couched in modesty culture, but they show how much modesty rhetoric – don’t show your skin because MEN – is on the same spectrum as rhetoric that blames victims for their assaults.

More disturbingly, when I challenged Prior on this point, she informed me that the reactions of people like MacFarlane should make these actresses think twice about their art. These actresses’ pieces of art – which included nudity that must and always should be taken in context – are what need to be examined and revised and redone in order that they may not fall into the trap of the male gaze. Once again, the gaze of the patriarchy must be accommodated and bowed to, rather than challenged. If I wear a low cut top and a guy on the street catcalls me for it, I am the one who must change, rather than he.

It is not hypocritical to expect that one’s art be honored within its context - it is the baseline of respect. It is not hypocritical to expect that one’s body is respected regardless of modesty or immodesty. It is the baseline of human dignity.

It is not hypocritical to expect that, because you are a human being, you will be treated like a human being, not as a set of boobs or whatever genitals you sport.

________

*Full disclosure: I write for Think Christian on occasion.

**For more about these scenes, read this excellent piece at Salon.

Account and Countenance: My Own Story

Before we get into the deeper theological waters of examining the image of God as presented to us in American evangelical Christianity, we must examine what our individual images of God are. So today, mine is on display. When I sat down to think about what my image of God had been through my formative years, I realized that the picture of God I had was not one of love and grace, but a God who keeps records of all my sins, who sits back and judges, and who is waiting for me to screw up. Luckily, through intentional study and relationship, that image has shifted in the past few years, but it still influences a lot of what I see in various theologies and beliefs. Growing up, my God – the God of my Baptist church – was white, and American. I remember when I was five or six years old, the preacher talked about the Rapture, and I was very concerned that Jesus would forget about the United States, his “natural” home. How could go cover the whole world and still be here?

My father patiently explained that everything would be okay if I just asked Jesus into my heart. So I did. That was the first of many times I prayed that prayer.

But by the time I hit twelve, my God had shifted. He was now intimately concerned with my development as a woman – I knew I shouldn’t be wearing v-neck shirts before I even had discernible cleavage and that men were different, alien. My task was to guard them and myself from an as yet unknown threat.

This God – the all powerful, all knowing, all sovereign God – was infinitely concerned with not only the state of my soul, but the state of my dress. I read the Left Behind series around this time, and the God who knew my soul was just as concerned with how women tempted men (I mean, Rayford wouldn’t have been thinking about cheating on his wife if that flight attendant didn’t wear such short skirts, right? Maybe he could have gone to heaven if she’d been a better steward).

I could still be considered a strong, brave woman if I kept myself pure, though. I took a pledge at 14 and was given a diamond ring my parents bought for me at WalMart the day before. I pledged before my entire congregation and before God that I’d wait to do anything until marriage – despite never having considered kissing anyone at that point in my life.

I would wear loose fitting clothing that could tempt no one, because I didn’t want anyone else to get left behind, as I was sure I was going to be because I was too much of a sinner. I yelled at my debate partners in high school, I had crushes on boys, I swore, out loud, when I got angry.

These were the sins that would keep me from Jesus.

So I prayed. A lot. I prayed that Jesus could forgive me for thinking about wanting to kiss that boy I liked. I prayed Jesus would forgive me for saying “shit” when I dropped that portfolio full of research. I prayed that He would cleanse my mind of liking that one song by Eminem my debate partner forced me to listen to when he gave me a ride to the tournament that one time.

I prayed without ceasing, but every Sunday, I’d sit in church and be scared that I wasn’t doing enough. My best friend was still an atheist, after all, and I made her my personal project for evangelism. I remember spending an agonizing night trying to fall asleep, racked by guilt over neglecting my eternal duty to bring her soul to God. When I got to school the next morning, I told my mom to pray for me during the day because I was finally going to talk to her about Jesus. I went straight to her locker and nervously explained that I was concerned about her soul and that if I didn’t say something then I was guilty too. Through the day, I kept pushing, eventually shutting up when she turned to me and yelled, “No, fuck you, I don’t want to hear it!”

I was devastated. Not only had I failed in what God wanted me to do, but I had alienated my best friend.

This was my life. Sunday and Wednesday, I’d feel close to God during worship at youth group, and then do something during the week – forget to read my Bible, forget to take that opportunity to witness, not be careful about how I sat down when hanging out with my guy friends, think about kissing my crush of the week for a moment too long – these were the things my spiritual walk was made of.

God, to me, was someone who I could push away with my sin at any moment. Because Paul had told us that free grace didn’t mean we could keep on sinning, I thought that I had to do my best not to sin so that I could be with God. Everything came back to whether or not I was sinning.

What’s more, God was especially concerned about potential sexual sin.

I literally had none aside from my own thoughts. In an effort to keep pure, I avoided movies with sex scenes, and wore the most modest clothing I could find without appearing Hutterite – though I still had the sense to avoid the denim skirts that would have been social suicide at my high school. But, I was, for all intents and purposes asexual and androgynous. I shopped in the men’s section at Old Navy and wore clothing that hid my shape.

And it was in this place that I lived for years – fearful of a God who watched my every thought, who judged my femaleness and my treatment of the men in my life, who would, at the end of my life, play back all these moments of sin for an audience of my peers and regard the state of my soul.

This judgmental, vengeful God and the loving, glorious Jesus were one and the same, of course. It was the face of the white, European Jesus, sadden and burdened by my sin that I pictured alongside an amorphous Father God in heaven – God the Father was merely two large hands in my imagination, nothing more.

Putting my nose to the grindstone was the only way out, the only way through. I had to at least show that I was putting forth effort in keeping myself from sin or God would not consider me – I never would and never had done enough.

In my freshman year of college, Calvinism became very attractive to me – not because of the depravity and sin, but because of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. Here, finally, was something that said I was always and would always be saved. Here was an element of comfort that I didn’t have to keep trying, that I could try being womanly for once.

But this doctrine came with a God who elected some to heaven and some to hell. The idea that I could be one of the non-elect needled at me, until I rejected Calvinism altogether. Surely, I was too depraved, too sinful, too much for the sovereign God of the Calvinists – surely, if I was Elect, this whole spiritual walk would be easier?

Relief would not come for years yet.

We’ll return in two weeks with how I began to see God in a new light, in a new way, when the Account and Countenance series continues.

Women's Bodies as Public Domain: What Jezebel and Is This Modest Have in Common

Last Tuesday, my twitter friend Emily Maynard asked me if I’d seen a site – “Is This Modest?” This is a fairly typical thing for me, and usually I look at a site, get angry for a few minutes at the ridiculous thing, maybe write a few tweets, and move on. This routine has helped me deal with a lot of jerks-on-the-internet things in recent years, and is a good way to keep from burning out. This site, however, was different. When I ventured onto the site - titled "Is This Modest?" - I discovered a wealth of senior photos of teenagers, coupled with short critiques of their modesty, saying things like:

I have no idea what she's wearing under the blanket, but the heels aren't high.  The top is a bit concerning.  First, it's rather tight.  Second, the fact that the outer layer is so opened up means that it looks like we're getting a peak at her underthings-and they aren't very high.

I believe this is a piece that's trying to show a contrast between childhood and adulthood-I get that.  I also think that you don't have to show yourself like this to convey womanhood.

Scrolling down revealed that the poster is a 36-year-old married man.

I had to do something.

I tweeted about it late Tuesday and spoke to a few friends, including Rachel Held Evans, who noticed that it was likely the photos were in violation of US copyright law. We spoke to copyright experts, and I emailed one of the photographers, who told me, in no uncertain terms, that he had not given permission for the site to use his photos. Maynard, my friend who had sent me the site, tweeted at one of the other photographers, and this photographer also hadn’t given her permission.

We began to build a two pronged campaign: a negative reaction via Twitter and other social media, letting this guy know that what he was doing was exploitative and creepy. And we contacted photographers, letting them know that this site was violating their copyright and the privacy of the subjects of the photos.

The copyright law case was a conduit toward a more idealistic endeavor: letting the people who run this site know that women are not public property. Women are not open for comment merely by existing, despite that being the heart and life of every modesty code – that women are open season because they are objects upon which cis-hetero-men cast their lusts and aspersions. This is the mindset against which I fight every single day, and the mindset which was on wide open display on the Is This Modest website.

If women are not seen as merely property by this modesty movement, why then, did a 36-year-old man feel it was okay to comment on them?

That’s what makes it creepy: it is objectification, plain and simple – an analysis that breaks a woman into parts and examines them in relation to an arbitrary standard.

But here, too, is where this narrative takes a frustrating turn.

After I tweeted about it through the morning on Wednesday, feminist writer and co-founder of Feministing, Jessica Valenti, picked it up that afternoon and tweeted it to her followers, crediting me in the process. By Thursday morning, Gawker Media offshoot, Jezebel, had posted an article on it.

One would think I’d be cheering that large feminist websites were picking up on this thing my friends and I brought to light. Unfortunately, Jezebel’s article bungled the campaign we were working on and short-circuited any legal action the girls could have taken – not to mention continued the exploitation of these young women.

It is this last that most concerns me.

You see, Jezebel’s article reproduced a couple of the very same photos that were problematic in the first place. Though they pointed out the creepy nature of the site and drew attention to that part of it, they also continued and engaged in the creepy exploitation by reproducing these photos. Now some poor unsuspecting girl has her senior photo blasted across Gawker Media’s networks, open for public comment by any of Gawker’s readers, not all of which (or even, not many of which) are going to realize the creepiness of the situation.

In doing an article on the Is This Modest? Site, Jezebel brought the site down permanently – the site, their twitter, and their FB page no longer exist. But in reproducing the very photos that led the site to be creepy in the first place, Jezebel is re-engaging the exploitation – this time for many more clicks and advertising dollars because it’s “salacious” and “provocative.”

If you can’t do feminist writing without exploiting women, you’re doing it wrong.

Of course, this sort of exploitative “journalism” is par for the course for Jezebel – last year, they posted screenshots from a video in which a woman was being raped, and didn’t blur out her face or get her permission to post the video. So I don’t hold out much hope that Jezebel will take any heed of the fact that they just violated the privacy of yet another woman.

Caring for the people who are being hurt needs to be a larger part of modern feminism. We cannot say that we care for the marginalized and the weak, and then exploit their images and their life stories for page clicks and advertising.*

If we willingly engage in the exploitation and public comment of women ourselves, we are no better than the “creepers” we criticize.

In the end, I’m glad the site has been taken down, but I wish it had happened in a different way. I don’t believe that the ends justify the means and I think we make ourselves hypocrites when we exploit the marginalized in the name of justice. We can all do better than that.

___________

*This is the main reason my site has a tip-jar instead of advertising. I want you to make the decision yourself about whether or not to give me money, not be forced to make money for me by giving me clicks.

Notes from my...: Further Thoughts on Modesty

This last Saturday, Rachel Held Evans tweeted out a link to an older blog post of mine, and quoted the line “Lust is not about sexuality, but about power and control.” Evidently, this struck a chord with a whole lot of cisgendered, heterosexual men in her audience, because no fewer than six of them decided to explain to me what lust ACTUALLY is about. Three of them even wrote blog posts (one of which called me a Mrs. and said in no uncertain terms that I want men to burn in hell, which was fun). Needless to say, since this one sentence is getting me called an apostate, repulsive, and proselytized to (evidently one’s doctrine on lust is salvation issue, who knew?), I’m guessing it needs a little clarification.

It's important to remember context here. The line about lust came from my friend Emily Maynard's article about modesty, which prompted the whole discussion. Maynard says:

Don’t get me wrong. Lust is serious, and lust is a sin. But lust is about control, not just sex.

Lust dehumanizes a person in your own heart and mind.

It is the ritual taking, obsessing and using someone else for your own benefit rather than valuing that person as an equal image-bearer of God.

Lust is forming people in your own image, for your own purposes, whether for sexual pleasure, emotional security or moral superiority.

In lusting, you are creating a world where every other person exists for your approval or dismissal. Lust reduces the complexity of each individual and their story to something you get to manage.

Lust – sexual lust, financial lust, emotional lust, whatever kind of lust one has – is about the desire to use and control other people for your own benefit. That is what I meant, plain and simple. When you make someone else an unwilling participant in your ongoing fantasies, that’s much more about using another person so you can get off than it is about “unbridled sexual attraction.”

The problem – and this is where modesty codes and church teaching enter the conversation – is when men view the world as a minefield in which a bodily reaction to an attractive person is mistaken for lust, rather than the normal biological reaction it is.

Are you taking the memory of that fleeting glimpse and filing it away for a spank bank later? That’s lust.

Are you just getting a boner when you see an attractive lady? That’s a biological reaction.

Lust is a deliberate act, a deliberate desire to use another person for one’s own benefit, to dehumanize them so that – even if in your fantasies they are consenting - they are still existing for your pleasure, to, yes, overpower and control them for your own satisfaction. It is this desire that Jesus is speaking to, not your boner.

No matter the source of this desire to dehumanize through sexual lust – whether it’s social conditioning or cultural training or “sex sells” advertising – the sin is still fundamentally your responsibility. And it is your responsibility because no one else can control or speak to your thought life.

This is why we say that modesty codes objectify in the same way hyper sexualization does – it is the mindset that says “other people exist for me” that is the problem. Is the fight a bit harder because of cultural norms? Yes, but that’s no excuse for it. And the fight isn’t a struggle only men have, and it isn’t a solely sexual desire. We are a culture of users, yes, but that doesn’t mean we lack the ability to see each other as human.

And this is why modesty codes don’t work. Because asking me to cover up so you don’t make me a player in your sexual fantasy doesn’t even begin to get the root of the issue, which is that you don’t view me as fully human.

I’m going to get real with you: lust isn’t a solely male issue and the idea that men struggle with it more because they’re more “visually stimulated” (or “prone to polygamy,” which is apparently a thing now) is utter, complete bollocks. Male fantasy is both expected and sanctioned in culture – it’s also called “the male gaze” in feminist theory.

But, your friendly neighborhood Christian feminist struggles with it too, and is hella visually stimulated. And you know how I stop myself? I remind myself that that person is a human being, not an object for my consumption. And I recognize that some reactions are perfectly normal biological process.

That’s why we need to shift the conversation about lust away from solely sexual behavior and attraction, because it blurs the bright line between unhealthy dehumanization and healthy sexual attraction.

The discussion about the commodification of women’s bodies in culture is an important one to have, but we need to recognize the nature of what lust is and why it is important before we can tackle that problem. Until we do that – until we recognize that lust is about the desire to use another person and that modesty codes actually reinforce this commodification of female bodies – we will forever be treading the waters of a rape culture in which a man can rail against the porn industry and then ask women not to wear spaghetti straps in his presence. They are two parts of the same objectification standard, and it is the objectification that causes us to see other people as things rather than human beings that is the problem.

Thus, making lust about a problem that is sexual in nature is intensely problematic and cannot begin to cover the issue. The issue is not the sex. The issue is the commodification of bodies for our own uses – the issue is power and control.

___________

Admin Note: The Account and Countenance series will begin next Monday and run every other Monday through the year. If you're interested in being interviewed/guest posting, there is still room on the schedule. Send me an email!

Modesty and Hating Oneself: The Darker Side

“But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” – Matthew 5;28 (NRSV) “I hate myself every time I look at a woman's ass, which is hard not to do sometimes.” – A commenter on this post.

It’s that time of year again – time to discuss the idea of modesty, responsibility, and lust. A fellow writer, Emily Maynard (no, not that Emily Maynard), wrote an article that appeared on ChurchLeaders.com discussing the concept of modesty and lust. She talks eloquently about how lust is different from sexual attraction, and how reducing lust to being exclusively sexual in nature removes it from the idea that lust is about control, not attraction.

It’s a good article; you should go read it. But, I’d advise you not to read the comments.

The above quote was left on another article about the controversy raised by Maynard’s article. The line stuck out to me because it struck me as “the other side of the coin,” so to speak, of the modesty issues.

Heteronormative modesty codes not only objectify women by making them responsible for the thought life of every man they encounter, but make men feel weak, guilty, and vulnerable for experiencing basic sexual attraction.*

And this, too, is a major problem. Modesty codes not only negatively affect women by informing them that their bodies are public objects to be commented upon and used at will, but they also create an attitude within men that is twofold. First, they abdicate responsibility for a problem with lust to that which exists outside themselves , perpetuating an immature “blame others” attitude. Second, the lack of definition around lust makes men hate themselves when they cannot control a perfectly normal reaction.

This second is the problem I’d like to focus on here. We’ve so perverted the definition of lust – narrowing it and broadening it at the same time - that we have created a paradigm under which no human being could function and come out as healthy. We’ve narrowed lust to be solely about sexual issues, ignoring that one can lust after a person’s car, a person’s position, or marriage. Lust is not about sexuality, but about power and control, as Maynard so eloquently points out.

And we’ve broadened it so that any sexual thought, any sexual inclination is “lust” and therefore sinful and to be avoided. As Libby Anne points out over on Love, Joy, Feminism, this sort of thinking creates an atmosphere of repression and inability to understand sexual attraction within a relationship, as good little Christians are told to flee from it in order to remain pure. Many, as Libby Anne points out, end up fleeing from anyone they are sexually attracted to, figuring that this is the best way to avoid the temptation prior to marriage.**

Modesty codes – and the wrong thinking about lust that surrounds them – is harmful to both men and women (and that doesn’t even touch on the erasure of people who do not identify within a gender binary or heterosexuality). When we demonize biological functions, we set people up for failure. Instead of creating a world in which lust is understood as wanting to control another human being and that basic sexual attraction is healthy for romantic relationships*, we create a world in which people are mentally separated from their own bodies, and each interaction is fraught with the possibility that one’s spiritual walk could be derailed by the sight of cleavage.

I cannot repeat this enough: modesty codes set people up for failure. In the heteronormative, anti-woman way that they are taught, women are taught that being modest and asexual is the best they can be, while men are taught that they are unable to control themselves and are blameless for this inability, while also taught that they should hate themselves for it.

We, as a church, need to change the conversation. We need to first teach men that blaming women for boners is not a healthy way to go through life, and that sexual attraction and not feeling sexual attraction are natural and acceptable identities. We need to broaden the conversation to talk about control and objectification rather than how one person is sinful for having a perfectly normal sexual reaction to attractiveness. We need to talk about how this thinking fuels a culture of rape.

We need a better conversation because men should not be hating themselves every time a woman walks by.

___________

*Note: not all people experience sexual attraction, which is also damaging as those who don’t feel like they’re fighting lust all the time are made to feel like they are abnormal, when asexuality is a perfectly valid identity.

**This is not to say that love does not exist in these relationships or that these relationships should not happen, but that these relationships are missing a crucial element of compatibility, undiscovered until it is far too late to leave.

The Great Modesty Experiment

With the new results from the Rebelution organization’s modesty survey, I decided to put their “rules” to the test. Despite cautions that the survey results should not be taken as “rules” for women, the prevalence of “Girls should…” statements in the responses begs to differ. So, I decided to test that “should.”

The above image is my closet. I have less clothes than the average female, thanks to my numerous international travels, which has forced me to keep a smaller amount of clothes. There’s also a few clothing items in the hamper on the floor there, so this exercise isn’t entirely representative of everything I own.

Now to the rules. In combing through the survey results, looking for “girls should” or “this causes me to stumble” statements, I created the following list. As, you know, a heartfelt and valuable Christian woman, I figure I should follow these rules pretty closely – after all, I don’t want to make my brother sin in his thoughts!

1. No v-necks.
2. No skirts above the knee.
3. Nothing “too tight.”
4. No tight jeans or low slung ones (hip-huggers).
5. No heavy make up.
6. No tees with writing on the chest, particularly across the bust.
7. No two piece swimsuits.
8. No tank tops worn by themselves.
9. No short shorts.
10. No shiny or glittery skirts
11. No halter tops
12. No lacey camisoles under clothes – actually, nothing lacey because it’s reminiscent of lingerie.
13. No strapless.
14. Nothing too thin.
15. No button downs that button under the bust.
16. No “shrugs” (bodelleros, guys).
17. No fishnets or tights with designs.
18. No short dresses over leggings.
19. No leggings.
20. Nothing transperant over a sleeveless top.
21. Sleeveless could be okay, depending on how tight it is.
22. No belts around the waist under the bust.

So, taking these 22 rules into account, I sorted my clothes. The three pictures below are the “no” pile. This includes things that are too tight, shorter skirts, v-necks, and dresses I normally wear leggings with.

And this is the “yes” pile. You can already tell that the “yes” pile is significantly smaller than the “no” pile. I guess I’m more immodest than I thought!

So then I decided to try some stuff on. I gave myself a situation: Say I’m going on a date with a man who agrees with these 22 modesty rules. What would I wear? I picked out a normal “first date” outfit for me:

[caption id="attachment_964" align="aligncenter" width="261" caption="This is my actual outfit from my first date with my ex-boyfriend."][/caption]

Well, the shirt’s a v-neck, so that’s out. Those leggings might draw too much attention to my legs, so that’s gone. I can’t wear the vest without the shirt, and it’s a racer-back, so that my draw too much attention to my back, where my bra is. And that skirt is just way too short – when I sit down, it’s practically a mini! This entire thing’s going to have to go!

So, I scrapped that outfit, and switched to a different skirt – this one is a vintage one from the 1970s that I picked up in Boston five years ago. It goes to just below my knee, and runs all the way up to my waist. I threw on a solid color tee over it, as I don’t have much else that fits the rules:

I would  normally go with nice leggings, but as those are a no-no, I have to go bare-legged. This barely makes the cut, though – bare legs might be too close to breaking the rules to be safe. I’d better just try for some jeans instead.

I went through all 10 pairs of jeans that I own, figuring out which ones are “too tight” and which ones are baggy enough for the modesty rules. Of the two pairs of “baggy” jeans that I own, one of them is pair of hip-huggers, so those might be too low cut for the menfolk. So, I’m down to one pair of jeans:

And now that I look at it, that solid color tee might be a little bit too tight. I mean, my bust is pretty clearly outlined, and if I walk, they bounce a little. Better get rid of everything in that style.

Now, when I first when through the shirts and pulled out the “yes’s,” I left a couple of the solid color tees in, but that still left me with only six or seven shirts. I went back through with a more careful eye this time and took out ones with writing, ones that might be too light in the wrong light, and ones that would cause problems if I bent over.

That left me with two tshirts – one of which I’ve had since the third grade. I also have two collared shirts that I got from work that are too big on me, but would be consider baggy and modest, as they effectively “hide my thunder.”

So, following these rules as carefully as possible, considering my Christian brothers at every turn, I am left with one pair of jeans, and three shirts that fit the modest standards.

And I think you can tell how hard it is to look fashionable when you’re restricted to crew necks and nothing too well-fitted. Up until I was in graduate school (and for many times during it), this sort of outfit was my go-to wear. It was the only thing I felt comfortable wearing, knowing I absolutely, totally couldn’t cause a Christian brother to stumble.

Every morning, for most of my life since hitting puberty at age 11, I would look at this in the mirror. I would look at this frumpy, unfashionable, outfit that was comfortable and modest, and think I was ugly, that I couldn’t wear much else because it was too immodest. 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.”

And we wonder why women have body image problems?

I’m well aware that I’m missing the point of the survey: “modesty’s an attitude! It’s all about she carries herself.” I watch so many Christian men pay lip service to this idea, only to follow it with a “but, women should make an effort by doing x, y and z.” As my friend Sarah Moon put it on Twitter: “That survey did nothing but make me slightly paranoid of men.”

Maybe instead of policing natural sexual thoughts (getting a boner when looking at a pretty woman doesn’t mean you’re lusting after her!), we could recognize that everyone’s human, and attempt to see the woman behind the clothing – the woman who is, more often than not, insecure about how she looks, and probably doesn’t need you reminding her that she’s caused you to “stumble” when she was just trying to feel comfortable about looking at herself in the mirror.

Some [more] Thoughts on Modesty

So lately I’ve been delving deeper into the modesty issue, especially as related to the Victoria Secret model/Proverbs 31 woman kerfuffle, brought back to mind by a few discussions with friends via Facebook. One thing that’s been coming up over and over again as I participate in the discussion is the concept of modesty – it seems, in the minds of many of the supporters of the Live31 movement that “modesty” is a virtue above all virtues. I find this ironic because modesty isn’t actually mentioned in Proverbs 31 (which is yet another example of how we have imposed our 21^st century ideas on an ancient Jewish text). Before I get into things, I’d like you to take a minute and to think about these questions: Is the Venus de Milo pornographic? What about the statue of David? Why or why not? Should a woman cover up when she breastfeeds in public? Again, why or why not?

I ask these questions to highlight a principle that is often missed in the modesty debate: not all exposed skin is sexual in nature.

To rephrase: Nudity is not inherently erotic.

And that’s why I have an issue with modesty rules and regulations and people judging my faith based on whether or not I show a little cleavage. When we discuss women’s bodies and claim modesty as an essential element to a virtuous woman, we sexualize exposed skin – we remove the distinction between sexual and non-sexual situations and flatten the differences.

Last year, a man in Springfield, MO, led a campaign to ban Laurie Halse Anderson’s book Speak from Missouri schools based on one concept: That the book, Speak, is pornographic.

Now, I remember learning what pornography is (and by this, I mean in a definitional sense) in sixth grade health class. Pornography is material that is produced with the purpose of causing sexual excitement in viewer. As I stated the other day in a debate on a friend’s facebook status, pornography caters to the lowest common denominator, is built solely for eroticism, and encourages objectification for one’s personal satisfaction. That’s what most people understand pornography to be.

Those of you who already know the plot of Speak should be rightly horrified by the implication that it is pornographic. Why? Because Speak is about a girl who is recovering from being raped.

To call such a thing pornographic is to erase distinctions between rape and sex, between skin in a sexual situation, and skin in a non-sexualized environment. There is something deeply creepy about finding Speak in any way titillating. And I would say the same goes for exposed skin that occurs in non-sexualized situations.

I had a friend in college who traveled in Italy on a vacation. Italy has a lot of art. Italy has a lot of NAKED art. This friend was uncomfortable with nudity existing outside of a sexual situation, so she carried around a spoon. When approaching, say, the Statue of David, she would hold up the spoon to cover up the “naughty” bits, and therefore make it possible to still view the art without all that gross nudity.

That’s an extreme example, sure. But that is what happens when we sexualize every instance of nudity, when we enforce modesty rules that demand a sexual outlook on every instance of exposed skin. We end up being unable to be comfortable with a Mom breastfeeding her child – which isn’t a sexual act in any sense of the term. We end up not being able to view great pieces of art without immediately feeling dirty. And we end up finding rape scenes abhorrent, not because they depict a terrible crime, but because “zomg ‘sex’!”*

It’s something I’ve noticed is a peculiarly American hang-up. We have dangerously conflated the idea that nudity is immediately and intensely sexual, which destroys our own conception of ourselves and makes us unable to engage with the world at large.

No one in their right mind looks at the Venus de Milo and gets aroused. So why do we accept that of men looking at complete strangers on the street? Why is it that when I wear a shirt that shows a bit of cleavage, I am immediately sexualized? There’s this idea that, because women’s bodies are public property (and therefore available for comment), then what matters is the view that is imposed upon them, rather than the original intentions. And that’s problematic.

__________

*This is possibly the worst of all, as the viewing of rape as a sexual act diminishes the violation and the dynamic of power that motivates most rape. It allows us to excuse rape as “well, s/he was just really horny.”