What they wore

[steve-in-kville]

We have a handful of Mennonite-owned businesses in our area. A few have signs on the entrance stating "modest dress appreciated." A few things always wondered me:

1- Define what is modest. Who's decision is that?

2- If someone isn't dressed like you want, will they ask them to leave?

3- If they do ask someone to leave, are they prepared for the backlash that may follow?

[HondurasKeiser]

We have a handful of Mennonite-owned businesses in our area. A few have signs on the entrance stating "modest dress appreciated." A few things always wondered me:

1- Define what is modest. Who's decision is that?

2- If someone isn't dressed like you want, will they ask them to leave?

3- If they do ask someone to leave, are they prepared for the backlash that may follow?

It's a sliding scale to be sure, but to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, "we know [immodesty] when we see it". If a woman were to walk into your hypothetical business in a bikini how would you respond? Might you ask them to leave? How would you handle the backlash?

[Ernie]

I conduct Bible studies with a wide range of people. Some are very modest, some are very immodest, when it comes to covering their bodies. Immodest clothing is a distraction, and lack of sufficient clothing can be quite distracting. Most of the people we interact with who do not dress modestly, have no clue that immodesty is something to be avoided or corrected.
However, when all my mental faculties are focused on spiritual ministry to the spiritual needs of others, I find that I can look these people in the face and not think much about the rest of their body.
I find that when I am looking out for the spiritual well-being of others, I am not tempted in the same way that I am when my mind is "spiritually idle" and my guards are down. Which is why we need to keep our spiritual guards in place as much as possible so that we don't fall into sin. Falling into sin is a NT term and illustrates the concept well. There are people who fall into sin when around too much temptation.

I think that modest dress in a general way can aid a culture in avoiding sin. However, as others have said earlier, it does not prevent sin from taking place and may even encourage sin to take place, depending on what other dynamics are present in the church culture.

Also, I don't think the term used earlier "churches full of molesters" is really accurate except in cults. I don't know of any Plain Anabaptist churches that are "full of molesters". (There may be some such churches like Sam Mullet's beard cutting church in Ohio in which this is the case but I think of them as cults.)
Some churches may have a few more molesters than others, but many churches have none.
In the churches that have none, I think it can be attributed to good spiritual teaching (on all sorts of topics including modest dress) as well as good community accountability dynamics.

[steve-in-kville]

It's a sliding scale to be sure, but to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, "we know [immodesty] when we see it". If a woman were to walk into your hypothetical business in a bikini how would you respond? Might you ask them to leave? How would you handle the backlash?

I've never seen that happen, but that's a really good question. Back in my ambulance days, we had a high school EMT student volunteering with us. I don't think she was promiscuous, but she did have a hard time keeping it covered up. The chief, along with another female officer finally sat her down and told her that it wasn't very professional to be running calls with her headlights hanging out (their exact words, not mine!). They saw to it she had an adequate supply of polo shirts to wear after that

[Josh]

I don’t have much respect for a documentary which calls itself “Sins of the <ethno-religious group>”.

Maybe next we can have documentaries called “Sins of the Muslims”, “Sins of the Jews”, or “Sins of the Hindus”.

Oh Josh, you’re the gift that keeps on giving. Because yes, let’s focus on the most trivial, inane issue. You sound so much like the ‘but what was she wearing?’ crowd.

It’s not trivial at all. This is not an “Amish” problem.

The sensational news media loves to run any story they can about the “Amish”, often with no concern given for truth or facts.

[Josh]

Sexual assault uses sex to exert dominance and control over another person. What kind of clothes the victim wears doesn’t really matter, because it’s not about lust or sexual perversion — it’s about control.

The entire point of this exhibit is that modest clothing does not prevent sexual assault.

This is a rather tired and false liberal talking point. Sexual assault is obviously sexual, and involves extreme perversion and fetishes on the part of the abuser.

It is indeed about “lust and sexual perversion” and has very little to do with control.

[Sliceitup]

Neto made a comment saying that they think dress does factor into sexual assault sometimes.

My comment was in response to that: I don’t think that dress factors into sexual assault unless a person has already been taught to value a person by the degree of modesty.

Then you wondered if I think men don’t lust after scantily clad women if they haven’t been taught that modest dress is important.

My response: yes they lust, they just aren’t inclined to rape them on that basis.

What do you base your view on that dress or undress doesn't factor into sexual assault by people who haven't been taught that women should dress modestly?

I'd be interested in seeing your response to my previous question.

In order for dress/undress to be a factor we need to make a connection between lust and sexual assault. I believe there is some general agreement between us that a person might be more inclined to lust if a woman is in a state of undress.

But most people would never make the leap from “she is immodest, therefore I lust” to “she is immodest, therefore I lust and will also take power over her, even if she does not consent*” (*otherwise known as sexual assault) The good and decent people that I know would think “she is immodest, hmm, looks nice” and move on.

Let’s assume there are some men who will assault a woman regardless of what she is wearing. And we will assume some men only assault a woman when she is dressed in a way that is considered immodest.

Why does that person assault the immodest, but not the modest? Why does he think that consent is not important when a person is immodest? What would take a person from “I lust, therefore I will sexually assault”? I think it is because that person has already been trained to think that an immodest person is “inviting someone to their party”*** and that if a person is “flaunting what they have, they run the risk of losing it.”***

People do not tend to take things that they don’t first think they have a right to have. It doesn’t matter if they are tempted. And the only way that an immodest woman is more likely to be raped/assaulted is if someone already thinks they have a right to that person because they’ve been invited to the party. Lusting doesn’t lead to sexual assault unless one thinks that immodesty is an invitation.

The only other way that I can see that an immodest woman would be more likely to be assaulted is if lust in and of itself leads to assault. (For the record I do not think it does.) People will lust after all sorts of things but they might be more likely to lust after an immodest person. And if a tiny percentage of people are inclined to rape/assault everyone they lust after, then yes, immodesty could be more likely to lead to assault.

***these are actual teachings in a home ec lesson in a conservative Mennonite high school in Lancaster county within the past 5 years. Attended by children of members in Keystone, MidAtlantic, BMA, etc

[Joy]

Perhaps some men associate a woman's immodesty with prostitution.

[GaryK]

What do you base your view on that dress or undress doesn't factor into sexual assault by people who haven't been taught that women should dress modestly?

I'd be interested in seeing your response to my previous question.

In order for dress/undress to be a factor we need to make a connection between lust and sexual assault. I believe there is some general agreement between us that a person might be more inclined to lust if a woman is in a state of undress.

But most people would never make the leap from “she is immodest, therefore I lust” to “she is immodest, therefore I lust and will also take power over her, even if she does not consent*” (*otherwise known as sexual assault) The good and decent people that I know would think “she is immodest, hmm, looks nice” and move on.

Let’s assume there are some men who will assault a woman regardless of what she is wearing. And we will assume some men only assault a woman when she is dressed in a way that is considered immodest.

Why does that person assault the immodest, but not the modest? Why does he think that consent is not important when a person is immodest? What would take a person from “I lust, therefore I will sexually assault”? I think it is because that person has already been trained to think that an immodest person is “inviting someone to their party”*** and that if a person is “flaunting what they have, they run the risk of losing it.”***

People do not tend to take things that they don’t first think they have a right to have. It doesn’t matter if they are tempted. And the only way that an immodest woman is more likely to be raped/assaulted is if someone already thinks they have a right to that person because they’ve been invited to the party. Lusting doesn’t lead to sexual assault unless one thinks that immodesty is an invitation.

The only other way that I can see that an immodest woman would be more likely to be assaulted is if lust in and of itself leads to assault. (For the record I do not think it does.) People will lust after all sorts of things but they might be more likely to lust after an immodest person. And if a tiny percentage of people are inclined to rape/assault everyone they lust after, then yes, immodesty could be more likely to lead to assault.

***these are actual teachings in a home ec lesson in a conservative Mennonite high school in Lancaster county within the past 5 years. Attended by children of members in Keystone, MidAtlantic, BMA, etc

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I will try to respond within the next few days.

[joshuabgood]

Some churches may have a few more molesters than others, but many churches have none.

I don't know about the bold part. Perhaps there are some churches "with none," as I haven't been closely connected to all of churches, but I have yet to hap upon such a church. Every church that I have ever been a member of has had instances of molesting (using the typical definition). (Also assuming here that church refers to and includes youth and older children.) And I have a favorable views of all 4 of those churches...for the most part.

Sexual abuse is part of the human condition and it exists where humans exist. The question is...how do we surface it and how do we deal with it once it is surfaced.