I’ve written a few times about how the modesty doctrine hurts women. Now it’s time to switch lenses. The modesty doctrine also wreaks havoc on the minds of young men in the Christian patriarchy movement. Here’s how:
- It teaches men to be afraid of women because their sexual power is too great to be resisted.
- It teaches men to despise women and hampers their relationships.
- It teaches men to be afraid of their own bodies.
- It teaches men to control and criticize women in order to protect themselves.
- It teaches men to be paranoid about their sexual orientation.
- It teaches gay men that they don’t exist.
Before we go any further, a definition. The “modesty doctrine” is the belief that women need to cover their bodies to prevent men from being attracted to them, because sexual attraction leads to sin and death for both. The modesty doctrine is not the same as wearing conservative clothing. You can do the latter without believing the former. It is the belief, themindset of the modesty doctrine that is so harmful. Not the clothes.
1. The modesty doctrine teaches men that they are constantly under assault. Advertising images of sexy women in skimpy clothing feel like clouds of fiery missiles hurtling into their brains. They have to avert their eyes everywhere they go just to avoid the images, and on top of that there are actual women wearing skimpy outfits. They feel like they can’t get away from sexual stimuli. When you’re taught that merely seeing something can defile you, guarding your eyes from “evil” becomes your eternal chore.
For boys going through puberty, this is especially painful. They can’t participate in mainstream culture (if they’re allowed to in the first place) because the music, television and movie industries bombard them with sexual images. The solution, according to fundamentalist preachers, is to “change the culture” by telling women to cover up. But this is disingenuous. Once you’ve planted the idea that feeling attracted to a woman is sinful lust, you can’t walk away that easily. Women who already do dress “modestly” are the next targets. Are they drawing attention to themselves with fashionable jewelry or luxurious hair? They should cover up and wear plainer clothing. Young men at Message youth camps would complain if a girl had on sandals or nail polish because her feet and hands were too attractive. Were they just trying to be mean? Some might have been, but not others. Many of them were just hypersensitive to the opposite sex (you know, like almost all teenagers) and very, very afraid of falling prey to lust.
Men who are raised with the modesty doctrine learn that everything women wear is directed at them. When an “immodest” woman walks by, it feels like both a test and an assault. My best friend from church got a job at Wal-Mart when he was 17, and he complained to me endlessly about how women at his workplace would tease and flirt with him. I was treated to a detailed account of how one of the women (also a teenager) stood behind him and ran her fingers across his lower back. He went stiff as a board and tried to brush her off as politely as he could. Perplexed, she asked whether he might be gay. He related this story in helpless frustration. He couldn’t figure out how to avoid female attention without acting like a jerk, and his co-workers couldn’t understand how a heterosexual man could want to avoid female attention. He felt like he was hemmed in by demons and armed with a toothpick.
2. Young men can react to this pressure by learning to despise women. Even as they are being taught not to look at women’s bodies, they are being taught to look at women as bodies.They are encouraged to speak hatefully about the scantily-clad models on magazine covers and billboards. Pastors scream about filthy harlots from the pulpit. The specter of Jezebel is raised and crucified once again. In Message circles, young men grow up hearing Branham’s crackling voice crying that “immoral women” are lower than dogs and livestock. This translates easily to hating girls who just happen to wander into their sight “immodestly” dressed. My male friends used to vent their frustrations by mocking “fat” girls who wore shorts, because “no one wants to see that.” It didn’t occur to them that it would be hurtful to me, a thin girl, to see them dehumanize other girls. Now, as I look back, it strikes me that they really believed that women only wore skimpy clothing to attract them. Everything women wore was directed at them, personally, because they were men.
Walking down the street for them must have been like fending off endless trays of hors d’oeuvres at a party. Only the hors d’oeuvres were poisoned, so it was urgent that they turn down each offer, graciously if they could, but most of all firmly. Every woman who walked by was offering, inviting, enticing them to sin. If their bodies responded, they were in peril for their lives. The “fat” girls were easy targets for these boys. Although they were still “offering” (by not dressing “modestly”), they were like sardines on a platter: lacking allure, they were easy to turn down and laugh about afterwards. Finally, the idea of being friends with such a girl or listening to what she had to say became ludicrous. She had already said everything she could possibly want to say to a guy when she put on a pair of shorts.
(I won’t go into detail about the horrible ramifications of teaching young men that women are constantly offering themselves for sex just by being visible. But I’m sure you can imagine what I might say about that.)
3. The modesty doctrine teaches men that the worst possible danger lies between their own legs. They are taught to fear their bodies and natural urges. There is no such thing as an innocent sexual thought for an unmarried Christian man. There is most definitely no masturbation. When a guy actually courts a girl, he must walk the impossible line of learning to love her without wanting to kiss or touch her at all. Courtships and engagements can be blindingly short for this reason, but what happens afterwards? A man who has been taught to avoid feeling attracted to all women, including his fiancée, now suddenly has to be passionately attracted to his wife and able to perform. This sounds like a recipe for a lot of false starts, fears and failures of communication.
4. The modesty doctrine does not give men any tools to deal with unwanted sexual attraction. It only tells them not to feel something they can’t help, and then tells them that they could go to hell for it. They do not learn to take a beat and let it pass, to move on and forget about it, to live their lives with the security of knowing that they are in charge of what they do. They literally believe that they can be moved to animalistic rape by the curve of a woman’s knee.
Evangelical Christian culture teaches men that being faithful to their wives is an incredible challenge. Evil women are lurking everywhere, waiting to pounce and drag them into their dens of sin. Women’s sexual power is so overwhelming that, at any moment, they could topple into the devil’s pit. Worse yet, there’s nothing they can do to prevent it other than pray and avert their eyes. No wonder they feel helpless. No wonder they’re afraid.
It is this perpetual peril that drives evangelical men to ridiculous lengths to rid their world of sexual stimuli. The only way to prevent the inevitable (adultery or fornication) is to keep women under wraps (literally). Men become micromanagers of their wives’ and daughters’ clothing. My pastor once chastised his 11 year old daughter for wearing her sweatshirt off her shoulders (with a t-shirt underneath). “Either take that off or put it on,” he ordered sternly, warning her that boys might see the sweatshirt and think about her taking all her clothes off. I was mystified that this had even entered his mind. Because the Christian patriarchy movement invests men with such significant power, their fears take precedence as the laws of the home. Because it’s impossible for a man to fully protect himself, the job falls to all the women around him to make sure he doesn’t turn into a sex-crazed werewolf.
5. The modesty doctrine gives men contradictory messages about masculinity. The doctrine teaches them that they need to protect themselves from sin by avoiding feeling attracted to women. American culture, on the other hand, tells them that the only way to prove that theyare masculine is to be interested in sex with women (along with violence, beer and mechanical things). Christian boys feel like sitting ducks for abuse from their peers, who assume that they are gay because they avoid participating in the rituals of adolescent sexuality (like flipping through smutty magazines and checking out the cheerleaders). Since conservative evangelical groups consider being gay an even worse sin than having the hots for a girl, these boys are trapped between a rock and a hard place. They are terrified that gay boys will be attracted to them, and terrified to be attracted to girls.
My teenage best friend was constantly trying to assert his heterosexuality. Not only could he not date (taking away the “I have a girlfriend” excuse), he couldn’t spend time alone with female friends, return the playful glances of his coworkers or have a crush on a movie star. He therefore plunged headlong into identifying as a “nerd” whose intellect left no time for girls. The truth was that his family had forbidden him to court until he finished college. While in college, perceiving visual assaults on all sides, he locked himself in his room for almost the entirety of a six-week study abroad program in France. The reason? There were girls there,drinking.
6. Finally, the modesty doctrine erases gay and lesbian people entirely. The idea of being gay is just a terrifying specter for straight boys in this culture; actually being gay is frightening to admit, even to themselves. There is literally no code of behavior for them other than to “repent” of their “sin.” I’m not sure which one is worse: being told that you’re an abomination or being told that you don’t exist. In either case, gay boys are receiving signals that they aren’t men, because “real” men need to wrestle with their attraction to women and suppress it constantly. “Every Man’s Battle” is the revealing name of an evangelical anti-pornography initiative. For gay men, there is an entirely different war going on. Theirs is a lonelier battle.
What do I make of all this?
It’s a lot of needless suffering for both men and women. Sexual attraction is a biological norm. It happens, whether you’re young or old, gay or straight, in a relationship or not. It lasts for a second and you get on with your life. But by pairing those fleeting moments of appreciation for a face on a billboard or a stranger’s lean legs with sinful lust, evangelical Christians have created an impossible bind for men and a culture of hostility for women. Living outside of this culture now, I can tell the difference between attraction (when a man smiles at me across the street or pays me a compliment) and lust (when a man follows me with his eyes fixed somewhere below my shoulders, or says something vulgar). What youdo with sexual attraction is what makes you moral or immoral. If you accept the lie that you can’t control yourself and use your sexual attraction to control or intimidate others, then you are indeed enslaved to your own lust and a danger to people. If you recognize, however, that you are always in control of your own actions and that you can choose not to act on sexual attraction, you can protect yourself and others. Self-control and respect for others are the lessons we should teach boys (and girls). We should not teach them to fear their bodies, feel attacked by the mere sight of attractive strangers, or despise the people they find attractive.
These are the things I’ve discovered through growing up with mostly male friends (an odd circumstance that got me punished in various ways in my fundamentalist church). I have also learned a lot from men who weren’t raised this way, who are used to living their lives without worrying about feeling attracted to strangers, or sexy pictures, or movie stars. I can’t pretend to know all the details of either experience, but I do remember the agony in the voices of my friends who were tired of fighting the modesty battle all the time. I remember their frustration and anger when girls flirted with them, and they were powerless. I remember how much they resented being called gay, and how they assumed stances of superiority to fend off the hurt of being falsely identified with a group they were taught to fear and hate. I can hardly imagine the frustration of actually being gay in this environment and being told weekly that you are an abomination in the eyes of God. All this heartache could have been avoided by adopting a normal approach to sexuality.
If I could do anything to soften the blows of the modesty doctrine, I would tell young boys, “There is nothing wrong with you. It’s normal to feel attracted to people. You can want to eat nothing but chocolate cake all the time, but you know that wouldn’t be good for you. You also have the power not to have sex until you know it will be good for you. Your body belongs to you, and you decide what it does. This is your freedom and your responsibility, not anyone else’s.”
The modesty doctrine is a game that no one ever wins. It perpetuates fear and contempt in men. It oppresses women. It needs to stop.
Discuss this post on the NLQ forum. Comments are also open below.
Sierra is a PhD student living in the Midwest. She was raised in a “Message of the Hour” congregation that followed the ministry of William Branham. She left the Message in 2006 and is the author of the blog The Unspoken Words: A Non-Prophet Message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NLQ Recommends ...
'Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment' by Janet Heimlich
‘Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland
‘Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce
I absolutely agree with you–as long as modesty is dictated on the premise of fear. To cover oneself out of terror that one’s sexuality is too much for apparently irrational and benighted men is a travesty, stupid and confused.
However, I would posit that modesty has another premise upon which it is naturally based, that being dignity and respect. In the dignity-and-respect approach, one admits that sexuality is important, that men and women will be attracted to one another, but not in fear. The aim of being modest ( which does not mean burqaded, skirted or doused in layers of frumpy material) is focus on the dignity each woman (and man) has as an individual, not as an object. Wearing flattering clothing is a must. Wearing ill-fitting, pointedly revealing–or carelessly revealing–clothing is demeaning. It isn’t terrifying. It is objectifying.
Women have the right to decide what clothes we feel comfortable with wearing. We are to be treated with respect, and not to be insulted or taken from, no matter how you feel about our clothing or appearance. It isn’t all about you.
Fine. Then when men gawk or leer at you (particularly men you aren’t attracted to), don’t complain. You do what you want, and the men will, too.
That’s truly abhorrent logic. Street harassment is about intimidation and power, not attractiveness. (See hollabacknyc.com for the horrible things public leerers get up to.) Men should be capable of seeing women they’re attracted to without gawking or leering (or worse), no matter what they’re wearing. How do you imagine male doctors, surgeons, nurses and paramedics are able to cope with female patients? By controlling themselves like adult human beings.
You are holding one group of people responsible for the behavior of another group of people. That only makes sense if the latter are children.
Oh, do you think that men will “gawk or leer” at me if I wear a sweatshirt with one side hanging off the shoulder and with a T-shirt underneath, just like the preacher’s daughter in the essay did? Would I be showing too much skin if I just wore jeans and a T-shirt? How modest is modest enough? If we aren’t wearing a burqa or if we aren’t covered head to toe in some other way, does that put us in the same league with women who go topless or wear thongs at the beach?
I think maybe I agree with you on this concept of healthy modesty aimed at dignity and respect. It doesn’t even have to be tied into something religious. It seems that with culture, there must be extremes — either women will be covered from head to toe and wearing a burka, or they will wear what they want when they please, even if that means being half naked. I think that certainly we should be able to choose what we wear, but I also think that if we wear next to nothing, we should not be surprised that the only thing people see is our bodies. There is a happy medium on this issue, just like there is on most issues.
I just wanted to say that I absolutely agree with this statement.
Our family dresses relatively modestly. (not all skirts or anything like that.. just.. normal I guess) but we do it because of dignity and respect.
I in no way think that a womans modesty is a leash that keeps men from sinning, and I do believe it is very possible to make a young man hypersensitive to a womans body by making an issue where there is not one.
“If I could do anything to soften the blows of the modesty doctrine, I would tell young boys, “There is nothing wrong with you. It’s normal to feel attracted to people. You can want to eat nothing but chocolate cake all the time, but you know that wouldn’t be good for you. You also have the power not to have sex until you know it will be good for you. Your body belongs to you, and you decide what it does. This is your freedom and your responsibility, not anyone else’s.”
As a homeschooling, evangelical christian, (not patriarchal though) I plan on teaching my boys *this* absolutely. This is just common sense and I know very many christians who believe the same here.
No, it isn’t objectifying when someone is wearing what makes the wearer comfortable and confident. Whether that’s chin-to-ankle covering or a crop top and daisy dukes.
That is just counter intuitive.
“Even as they are being taught not to look at women’s bodies, they are being taught to look at women as bodies”
Exactly. have had many of these same thoughts myself, Sierra…thanks for this article.
The goal of modesty is to protect against unmarried sex. Evangelicals correctly know that there is agreater chance of premarital sex if sexuality is too open and especially if there are no consequences. This fits logically with the intense opposition to contraception and abortion. Both allow people to more easily have sex. So the thinking goes that if there are no barriers to non-marital sex then sex becomes too easy. Modest women help in the battle to stay a virgin until marriage and faithful once married.
The solution is Calvinest avoidance of any hint of sexuality. Funny how they are never worried about women being interested in sex too, just men.
The only problem with this idea is that evangelicals willfully ignore the fact that sex happens (especially in teenage years), in spite of the known consequences. Teenage kids who know the risks will be having sex even if they know nothing about contraceptives and are completely aware of the chances of pregnancy and STIs.
Calvinist avoidance of anything sexual will just add to the confusion of these teens. One day they’ll be playing around with their friends or in their backyards, and something will accidentally come into contact with their genitals in just the right way to where it feels good. They bring it up to their parents and the parents, in their avoidance of the topic, just tell them it’s nothing and not to worry about it.
The kids then go to their room and explore it a bit. They tell their friends about it, and they explore it together (this happened to me personally). Maybe they’ll tell their friends of the opposite sex too, and they’ll find some way of exploring it with them as well (this didn’t happen to me). Soon enough you have these kids having sex without having any idea what they’re doing, or what the consequences are.
One day someone’s daughter ends up pregnant. But nobody knows how it happened, especially the girl, because she “never had sex!” “Sex is evil! She would never have an evil thought or (gasp!) actually commit such an evil act as having sex!! It must have been the devil! Maybe immaculate conception! One of those HAS to be the answer!”
This isn’t hyperbole, this really happens in groups where the entire community avoids talking about sex to their children. This is why people don’t do that anymore. It’s been tried, and it always fails, in one of the most traumatic ways I can think of. To me, this situation would be worse than death.
Well said, Sierra. Really, every one of your points could be an additional full-length post. It’s terrible what we do to ourselves and our children by teaching that there’s no option other than self-destructive repression/fear or self-destructive screwing everyone we meet. It also shows up in rape culture, particularly the part that says if a woman has had sex with someone before, she doesn’t have a right to refuse it to someone else (unless she’s married) or to the same person at a later time. She’s either a virgin or a “slut” with no right to self-determination.
The Modesty Doctrine teaches it’s the woman’s fault if a husband strays into temptation. A man never, or hardly ever, seduces a woman, it’s always the other way around. A man’s urges are barely restrained and the slightest feminine wile will cause him to become a rutting bull.
I have to wonder how many evangelical men promote the Doctrine in order to excuse their own infidelities.
Attitude is everything. I was a member of a swimming club pretty much from age 6 to 18. Boys and girls saw each other every day for several months of the year in swim gear (yes, the tight racing variety – this was Australia, where the racing swimmers, aka budgie smugglers, for boys and men were standard since 1927). The girls were gently told (at around age 12 or so) to not tease the boys because it would be unkind. It was a fantastic experience for the boys to be able to be around scantily clad girls, and in all of those years, there was never any embarrassing moment that I was aware of. The group was one of the most relaxed mixed-sex environments you could imagine.
I never saw people as relaxed with their bodies in the USA, even in swimming training environments.
It boggles my mind that people promote such nonsense and idiotic dogma. It would not surprise me if some of these sexually repressed males turned sociopathic, bottled up and exploding in a rage of rape, murder (vis-a-vis, Marc Lépine’s mass murder at École Polytechnique in Montreal) or child molestation (re: celibacy and priests).
Just look at muslims and their attitudes towards female skin being visible. If rape as “punishment” for women in some countries isn’t proof of how whacked religion is, then what is?
.
It boggles my mind that people promote such nonsense and idiotic dogma. It would not surprise me if some of these sexually repressed males turned sociopathic, bottled up and exploding in a rage of rape (e.g. Denis Rader, the BTK serial killer), murder (vis-a-vis, Marc Lépine’s mass murder at École Polytechnique in Montreal) or child molestation (re: celibacy and priests).
Just look at muslims and their attitudes towards female skin being visible. If rape as “punishment” for women in some countries isn’t proof of how whacked religion is, then what is?
.
Please excuse the double post, and please remove the first or second.
I should feel sorry for men who make the rules that women shouldn’t show any skin, because they end up turned on even more by inadvertent glimpses of non-sexual body pieces? How does that work then?
No. I have no ability to pity such self-inflicted confusion. Such a long post trying to excuse and explain the misery men go through in insisting women have no sexual being without their approval, only to find something sexual in them any way…poor dears.
Better you should say “feel sorry for young boys who grow up worshiping uncovered elbows” because their father’s have deemed everything sexual when it comes to females. Or better still to say “In the need to fight sin, our male leaders obsessed so much on it that sin is all that exists.”
This demand for modesty is twisted and twists. Look at fundamentalist Muslims (and fundamentalist Jews). Cover the hair. Cover the legs, no, cover them MORE. Cover the arms. Now make the woman look like she is wearing a sack. Crap, she looks sexier than ever. Try covering her face. Urgh, want her even more. I know, don’t let her drive or leave the house. Pfew. Now I don’t have to look at other women.
That is what “modesty” does. There is no end to it until women are hidden. MEN are to be pitied?
I don’t think Sierra’s pitying the men who make the rules, but the boys whose childhoods and teen years are stolen and warped by them.
I know of multiple young men who suffered clinical depression, one suicide, many addictions, and I think much of it is due to unrealistic expectations and teachings with regard to attraction and relationships. For one thing, the cult Sierra and I left taught that the Fall of Adam and Eve in Eden was sexual in nature. Couple that teaching with a young man’s naturally enhanced attraction to the opposite sex and high libido, and you have a scenario tailor made for disaster. (This comment comes from a woman who still believes the Bible and patterns her life after Its teachings- without the warped lense).
Exactly this is what I meant. Thanks, NewLife.
Much of what I write is about the effects of Christian patriarchy on children and adolescents. None of it excuses the men who create these doctrines.
I very much appreciate the sentiment behind your article, Sierra. I fear, though, that you limit your effectiveness by painting all Evangelicals with a Message brush. Those of us who want to leave the Message and its doctrine about women “accidentally committing adultery” behind are not all willing to throw away the Bible and the words of Jesus about “looking with lust”. I think you did an awesome job of showing the difference between lust and normal appreciation. Evangelicals are a very large and diverse group and I believe it’s short sighted to put them all in the same box with the ridiculously confining and self-righteous Gothardites and Message followers.
I hope I managed to strike the right balance in my response, because I don’t want to discourage you at all, simply inspire you toward a more moderate approach with respect for those in the Evangelical camp who AREN’T villifying women who dress with an eye to comfort and freedom of movement or teenage boys who are experiencing normal attraction to the opposite sex.
The problem is that there is no convenient way to refer to the network of ideas that the Message, Gothard, Vision Forum, Nancy Campbell, Stacy MacDonald and others participate in. They all call themselves evangelicals. Mark Driscoll styles himself as a contemporary evangelical, yet is also part of the network – how would you describe him? “Fundamentalist” has a set of meanings attached to it that don’t match this new wave very well; fundamentalists, for instance, were the ones who fought against the Pentecostal emphasis on miracles and revelation in the early 20th century. This network can’t be identified by denomination because they often have none, or are mixed up in several. The “Christian patriarchy movement” is the closest I think we can get, but it doesn’t encompass the fact that evangelical Christians are the ones inventing purity balls and pledges and stressing modesty. Not even all of them homeschool.
In short, I refer to these phenomena as part of evangelical culture because that’s what people in these groups identify with. The thing about evangelicals is many of them are quite happy to accept the majority of what Message believers believe, and yet sneer at Message people because of the whole “prophet thing.” (I don’t think the Message is special enough to have its own “brush.”) The only thing I can say to evangelicals who don’t believe in modesty culture is that I’m not talking about them. If the shoe doesn’t fit…
I’ve just found your wonderful blog, and I really appreciate the fact that you are talking about these things. I grew up in a fundamentalist religion that wasn’t evangelical, but your message rings true for it as well. I had a lot of anger growing up for the boys my age, for these reasons. But your post has helped me to understand how difficult the message was for them as well. And, looking back, it was always grown men who spoke to my father or mother about my perceived failings.
A story: When I was 14, my mother sewed me a white sundress. It covered me from shoulder to mid-arm and down to mid-calf. It wasn’t tight. It was made of beautiful material, and I felt lovely in it (in the running-through-sunflower-fields way). Because it was white, we tested it in a variety of lights – to make sure that you couldn’t see through it. It was completely opaque everywhere we tested it. I wore it on Sunday at Bible School. Someone spoke to my father about it, because it turns out that you could sort of make out my bra when I bent over to pick up my Bible/hymnal. I was mortified. I loved the dress, though. My mother loaned me a slip, and I wore it to church several months later. This was a problem, because there was a piece of lace at the bottom of the slip that could be seen through the fabric if I crossed my legs when sitting (the lace was below my knees). My mom then sewed an internal slip, using the leftover fabric. This was a problem, because it wasn’t a full slip, i.e. you could see that it cut off at the knee. Once again, it was only visible when I crossing my legs while sitting. After three conversations with the mystery-brother, my father forbade me to wear it. My father was extremely angry at my mother for persisting in trying to “fix” the dress. I was grounded.
That was about 20 years ago. My father (who is still very much a member of the church) recently talked to me about this episode. What he said was, “I don’t know why I didn’t ask him why he was so intimately acquainted with my 14 year old daughter’s underclothing. I wish I had asked him why he knew, by his own admission, that the slip only showed when you crossed your legs. As a father, I should have been horrified that a middle-aged man was ogling my underage daughter – and telling me about it. Why was he staring at you in church?” The dress was modest. The problem wasn’t the dress. The problem was that a man in our ecclesia (word used for church), found me lovely. It was a damaging episode for me. It was damaging for my mother. It was damaging for my father. And it was the brother’s personal problem.
Wow – you have an amazing story! HOW DARE that man scrutinize your dress like that?!! Ugh.
Welcome to NLQ – I’m glad you found this site too.
I am not being mean or rude, so please forgive me if it comes across that way .Your father should have not grounded you for that.And you should have spoken up on your own some 20 years later. It concerns me that mothers and daughters don’t speak up for such ridiculous control from the so call “man of the house.” We allow husbands and fathers too much control over us as females. I may be rare,but, as a teenager I recognized and rejected male rudeness and domination… for all and any men. I still get into heavy discussions because i feel the need to speak up for anything men say or do against women.
This is a bunch of assumptions, and I find all of them petty and with no basis. Ignore these assumptions and they wont happen. The BIG PICTURE is ignored. Its purity. I know I dont want an impure man. Only a virgin who has the least eye fill possible. Therefore the relationship will be multiplied and last longer. Especially when already married for ten, twenty years. What happens when your husband is naturally lusting after all of the uncovered women he works with, sees on the street, on the tv. DUH! He jacks off to them, and ignores you!!!! and he may have sex with you once in a while, but its not as good as the young ones dancing around his head. This is the cold hard truth. The reason I cover my body in front of your husband, future husbands and sons.
Sarah, my husband would not be lusting after you on the street in any event. Your lack of familiarity with standard written English would be a complete turn-off.
Men are human beings, nor crazed sex monsters. They are capable of committing, and remaining faithful, to their wives because they have love and respect for them. The dance of intimacy in a non-submissive relationship can provide enough interest and stimulation for a lifetime. My husband knows what’s out there, and he chooses me. Not because he’s afraid of hell, or doesn’t know anything else.
I really enjoyed your thoughts. Well said!
I find a similar obsession with modesty within other branches of Christianity. I am currently a Mormon Sunday School teacher to 12 – 18 year-old girls. I am *so* sick of hearing lessons on modesty! I am especially sick of the lists of “Dos and Don’ts.” I hated it when I was a teenager, and I still hate it as a leader. Of course, I want these girls to dress in an appropriate manner and with confidence and style for any occasion. Does that mean that skirts must be of a pre-defined length or that they can’t wear a sleeveless sundress? Of course not! However, I am in the vast minority in my own religion.
I truly wish more lessons on modesty lessons focused on developing self-confidence and projecting a confident, stylish image of yourself than warnings about showing too much skin. (Obviously, if a girl wants to project a confident, put-together image, she won’t be wearing bare midrifts and showing thong a g-string above the waistband of low-rise jeans. Neither of those really shouts, “I’m aiming to be CEO of my own company,” right?) The admonitions of what *not* to do are quite unnecessary if we focus on them becoming the best, most empowered young women they can be!
“a thong” not “thong a” – cut/paste error.
I agree with you about the point, but quiverful people cannot.
They do not want the thought of being CEO to enter the heads of their daughters. They tell their daughters that life is all about men, and daughters lives should revolve around a father untill they find a husband.
And then they tell their daughters not to dress in a way that get male attention…
One time when I was 13, I was in my house wearing long shorts (almost reached the knee) that were not tight fitting about the legs, and sitting on the floor with my knees bent, while the minister came to visit. My mother suddenly told me she needed to talk to me. Pulling me aside into my room she said in an outraged whisper, “When you sit like that he can see up the leg of your shorts to your underwear!” I don’t know if she had caught him looking or if she had noticed the angle or what. I was just embarrassed at the time. It took many years later for me to wonder, “Why was no one appalled that the minister was trying to get a glimpse of the panties of a 13 year old girl?”
it is no coincidence that cultures and religions with the most vile attitudes toward women are also the ones that are the most extreme in their views of modesty.