Clothing and Lust

[GaryK]

May I express the other side?

I grew up in the very circles that promote this idea that modesty helps men not lust, and I wish that modesty and lust had been too separate conversations.

It left me with extreme anxiety, rape, and self hatred.

I would like to see something different for future generations of Anabaptist girls.

What would that "something different" look like for those future generations of Anabaptist girls?

I mean, I’m pretty sure we all would like to see no more abuse and rape and sexualization of women and girls.

We all agree on that.

Agreed. Other than to say that God has made both men and women with sexual desires and those desires should be respected whenever they are expressed within the God ordained way of expressing them. I believe the hyper-sexualized culture we live in has done a lot of damage to the beautiful way God has created men and women. I think I hear you expressing similar things.

But we disagree on what might be contributing to it.

I’m not completely against modesty; however, how it is taught in conservative fundamentalist Christian circles is not helping to protect women and children.

I find your wording interesting. You seem to leave some room for being against modesty, just not completely. I think the scriptures would disagree with this notion.

You can teach modesty without tying it to lust.
Instead of teaching girls to look in the mirror and ask “is this going to make my brother stumble” teach them to dress appropriately for whatever activity they’re doing. Ask “is this appropriate”.

How does one determine what is appropriate. What might seem appropriate to one may not seem at all appropriate to others. I personally do not believe it's ever appropriate for Christian men to wear tight and form fitting swimwear or for Christian women to wear 2 piece bikinis for swimming. Why do I believe this? Because I believe doing so violates numerous NT principles, including, but not limited to, the principle of modesty.

Teach men and boys (and women - because lust isn’t just a male problem) that they are responsible for their actions. You can notice beauty without lusting. Side note: physical arousal is synonymous with lust.

I would note that there is a place for physical arousal that is not synonymous with lust. I think there is a danger in the pendulum swinging too far the other way to the point that boys and men who at times feel physical things taking place in their bodies may begin feeling guilty for what's happening. I think we need to teach men and boys that God has created their bodies with sexual desires but how those desires are expressed is of utmost importance.

Teach that attraction and lust are not the same, instead of framing normal physical reactions as inherently negative/evil.

What is meant by normal physical reactions? I want to understand before commenting. Maybe you're saying the same thing I'm saying above.

In Mennonite settings I am familiar with, consent was not talked about at all. Consent needs to be both taught and respected.

Here again I want to understand what you mean by consent needing to be taught and respected. I ask this question because it is possible for 2 people to consent to sexual activities that are sinful, according to the scriptures.

And finally, when abuse happens, believe the victim and stop making excuses for the perp - no matter how good of a “Christian” he/she is.

This is not an exhaustive list.

I agree that if abuse has happened, the victim needs to be given the utmost care and respect and that it is never okay to make excuses for the abuser.

[Ernie]

For example: active activities require more than a skirt, in my opinion. Some things really shouldn’t be done in skirts.

For me, Cape dresses in Walmart/town had me really uncomfortable because of how I was looked at. It felt like I was being undressed by men. Tank tops/tshirts and leggings don’t make me stand out as much, which is contrary to what I was taught about modesty protecting you.

I would never wear active wear to my office job, for example. Neither would I show up at Walmart in swimwear.

Where do these "should's" and shouldn'ts come from? What principles are driving this?

[Ernie]

So in Genesis 3 God makes coats of skin for Adam and Eve.

We are not sure what people believed about clothing between that time and 2200 years later when Noah exits the ark. But after Noah exits the ark, he gets drunk and doesn't have clothes on and his sons think he needs to be covered. So the principle of concealing the body was still alive and well with Noah's family. (I find it odd that the Ark Encounter folks assume that Noah and his family lived half clothed together in the ark based on how they dress them in their replica.)

1700 years later we have God instructing the priests to wear linen breaches (translated variously as undergarments, trousers, shorts, drawers) when they ascend the altar of the Lord so that their nakedness would not be exposed. According to Josephus, the priests' outer garment reached the ankles so it wasn't like the priests' weren't already fully clothed.

If anybody today gave this sort of detailed instruction for men's wear (or women's wear for that matter) and the reasons behind the instruction, I think a fairly high percentage of Americans would think this indicates a culture that is hyper-sexualized. And there would even be some who might go so far as to say that this sort of thing is sure to result in high rates of sexual abuse, domestic violence, etc. The Israelites sure had these sorts of problems, but I don't think it had anything to do with the attention they gave to modesty. I think it had to do with unregenerate hearts.

[Ernie]

That’s fine. I have no problem with Mennonite specific clothing, as long as it’s not something that we are propping up as a “protection”.

It is not a failsafe protection, but it has been a protection for some people in some situations. Evil men have often admitted that they decided against assaulting modest Christian women because of how they were dressed. I don't know how to say it clearly enough that modest clothing will sometimes protect you, but don't count on it always protecting you.

[anndet92]

What would that "something different" look like for those future generations of Anabaptist girls?

I mean, I’m pretty sure we all would like to see no more abuse and rape and sexualization of women and girls.

We all agree on that.

Agreed. Other than to say that God has made both men and women with sexual desires and those desires should be respected whenever they are expressed within the God ordained way of expressing them. I believe the hyper-sexualized culture we live in has done a lot of damage to the beautiful way God has created men and women. I think I hear you expressing similar things.

But we disagree on what might be contributing to it.

I’m not completely against modesty; however, how it is taught in conservative fundamentalist Christian circles is not helping to protect women and children.

I find your wording interesting. You seem to leave some room for being against modesty, just not completely. I think the scriptures would disagree with this notion.

You can teach modesty without tying it to lust.
Instead of teaching girls to look in the mirror and ask “is this going to make my brother stumble” teach them to dress appropriately for whatever activity they’re doing. Ask “is this appropriate”.

How does one determine what is appropriate. What might seem appropriate to one may not seem at all appropriate to others. I personally do not believe it's ever appropriate for Christian men to wear tight and form fitting swimwear or for Christian women to wear 2 piece bikinis for swimming. Why do I believe this? Because I believe doing so violates numerous NT principles, including, but not limited to, the principle of modesty.

Teach men and boys (and women - because lust isn’t just a male problem) that they are responsible for their actions. You can notice beauty without lusting. Side note: physical arousal is synonymous with lust.

I would note that there is a place for physical arousal that is not synonymous with lust. I think there is a danger in the pendulum swinging too far the other way to the point that boys and men who at times feel physical things taking place in their bodies may begin feeling guilty for what's happening. I think we need to teach men and boys that God has created their bodies with sexual desires but how those desires are expressed is of utmost importance.

Teach that attraction and lust are not the same, instead of framing normal physical reactions as inherently negative/evil.

What is meant by normal physical reactions? I want to understand before commenting. Maybe you're saying the same thing I'm saying above.

In Mennonite settings I am familiar with, consent was not talked about at all. Consent needs to be both taught and respected.

Here again I want to understand what you mean by consent needing to be taught and respected. I ask this question because it is possible for 2 people to consent to sexual activities that are sinful, according to the scriptures.

And finally, when abuse happens, believe the victim and stop making excuses for the perp - no matter how good of a “Christian” he/she is.

This is not an exhaustive list.

I agree that if abuse has happened, the victim needs to be given the utmost care and respect and that it is never okay to make excuses for the abuser.

Woops. I did not read over my comment about arousal before posting. I meant to say that physical arousal is NOT synonymous with lust.

As for consent, sure - two people can consent to sexual activity that is sinful.

However, I was referring to teaching boys and men that if a woman is not enthusiastically agreeing to sex (again, in this context, married sex) than sexual activity should not proceed. Honor consent, even in marriage.

[Ernie]

This evening a single mom shared her life story with our church. She grew up in one of the most abusive and neglectful homes that I have ever heard of. Drugs, alcohol, prostitution, domestic violence, etc. No love at all. Just absolutely horrible.
Her only frame of reference entering adulthood was that you want a man in your life to help soothe the ache for love, and to get one, you need to attract them and this is done via wearing revealing clothing. When she sees young college students walking our town at night in revealing clothing, she knows exactly the emptiness of soul that is driving them.

So if such women know how to feed into the lusts of men, why wouldn't the opposite be true? That we would purposefully dress in a way that would not incite the lusts of others.

[anndet92]

That’s fine. I have no problem with Mennonite specific clothing, as long as it’s not something that we are propping up as a “protection”.

It is not a failsafe protection, but it has been a protection for some people in some situations. Evil men have often admitted that they decided against assaulting modest Christian women because of how they were dressed. I don't know how to say it clearly enough that modest clothing will sometimes protect you, but don't count on it always protecting you.

It kinda seems like there’s one or two stories that get told over and over again over the pulpit at every modesty sermon. I wouldn’t use the word “often”. Also, it’s kind of gross that we are taking the word of evil men, as if they somehow wouldn’t lie.

Again, such a slap in the face for the many victims of abuse in churches who wore all the right things and were abused and raped by church members. Somehow those stories never make the pulpit.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

God bless.

[Soloist]

May I express the other side?

I grew up in the very circles that promote this idea that modesty helps men not lust, and I wish that modesty and lust had been too separate conversations.

It left me with extreme anxiety, rape, and self hatred.

I would like to see something different for future generations of Anabaptist girls.

What would that "something different" look like for those future generations of Anabaptist girls?

I mean, I’m pretty sure we all would like to see no more abuse and rape and sexualization of women and girls.

We all agree on that.

But we disagree on what might be contributing to it.

I’m not completely against modesty; however, how it is taught in conservative fundamentalist Christian circles is not helping to protect women and children.

You can teach modesty without tying it to lust.
Instead of teaching girls to look in the mirror and ask “is this going to make my brother stumble” teach them to dress appropriately for whatever activity they’re doing. Ask “is this appropriate”.

Teach men and boys (and women - because lust isn’t just a male problem) that they are responsible for their actions. You can notice beauty without lusting. Side note: physical arousal is synonymous with lust.

Teach that attraction and lust are not the same, instead of framing normal physical reactions as inherently negative/evil.

In Mennonite settings I am familiar with, consent was not talked about at all. Consent needs to be both taught and respected.

And finally, when abuse happens, believe the victim and stop making excuses for the perp - no matter how good of a “Christian” he/she is.

This is not an exhaustive list.

Wife: I don’t know if we disagree in this respect or if it’s just how you worded it, but I would say that physical arousal is linked to lust, but not automatically sin if it’s fought against and not given into. It’s a lot like anxiety or other issues like that. The temptation is not the sin, but feeding it and not fighting it is where the sin comes from. James says blessed is the man (or woman) that endures temptation, for when they are tried, they will receive a crown of life.

Males and females can’t always control what they get aroused at. Especially if they’ve been abused, but also just in general during puberty and beyond. They are 100% responsible for their actions, but I don’t think it’s right to guilt them for the initial feeling/physical reaction, and I think that doing that is damaging to people’s emotional/spiritual well-being and self worth.

For me, if I have trouble with feeling emotionally attracted to a guy, I try to minimize contact with them and try not to have a lot of one on one conversation with them. I also would never have a male doctor do check ups on me because it would make me feel embarrassed even if they are completely professional and it doesn’t bother them. Some men don’t like going to a public beach or working closely with female coworkers for the same reason, even if they would never personally commit adultery etc.

[Valerie]

Some would make the point that "concealing the body" isn't fundamentally about avoiding wrongful sexual thoughts/actions. One might easily consider people who could be completely nude and wouldn't be in any danger of being "lusted after." However, nudity, even in that context isn't appropriate. Further, biblical data supports the idea that nudity is shameful, in its own right - disconnected from "lust." And in other cases nudity is appropriate...ie medical contexts, etc.

That is an important distinction that perhaps keeps conversations about appropriate clothing from becoming hypersexualized. Sexual pervesions perhaps should be dealt with in their own place apart from a clothing conversation.

The elephant in the room does need to be addressed that much of modern fashion is designed (and often chosen by the wearer) in order to incite lust in others. The designer and the wearer are the one doing the hypersexualising in that case. And it is entirely appropriate to call that out as something the Christian must avoid.

There may be some Christians who end up wearing such attire out of ignorance.

This might be getting a little off track - but I’d appreciate a definition of lust here.

Noticing beauty or bodies is not the same as lust, in my opinion.

Bodies are not evil. God created our bodies and called us “very good.”

Lust is all-consuming. Lust is possessive. Lust does anything it can to get what it wants.

That’s different than noticing a beautiful body or a handsome face.

What Anabaptist people seem to ignore is that there are men who fantasize about Mennonite women. Mennonite dresses are a kink for some.

Again, lust cannot be controlled with certain clothing. Lust comes from WITHIN a person and has nothing to do with clothing.

It’s a slap in the face to Anabaptist victims of abuse when we hear stories about evil men supposedly not raping someone because they had a cape dress on when so many of us were raped wearing the “right clothes”.

We are not Anabaptist. I grew up in Southern California where it was common to run around “too exposed” and it is a fact that men are aroused by “sight”. So we went to more charismatic type churches. Women did not dress modest like the Anabaptist people do. It bothered my husband to sit behind women wearing tight jeans in church. He did not want to sit behind an immodestly dressed woman especially if they were swaying to worship music wearing tight clothes. I mean, men are men. I appreciated that he knew an admitted that it was hard for him to sit behind women like that.

Also, I served in the ministry for several years with people that had different types of strongholds in their life. The men in the class that were there for help admitted they had a hard time with the way women dressed in church. They did not want to have thought they shouldn’t have and women should be sensitive about that and not be a stumbling block to their brothers. I wished I would’ve realized when I was young how I probably stumbled in at church by the way I dressed. I was ignorant at the time.

[Ernie]

He did not want to sit behind a modestly, dressed women, especially if they were swaying to worship music wearing tight clothes.

Modest or immodest?