Modesty, Responsibility, and Common Sense
by Simcha Fisher Thursday, June 30, 2011 5:59 AM Comments (240)Well, that was the most disappointingly reasonable and benign modesty debate I’ve ever seen. I guess it’s allergy season, and everyone is just too dopey to care. One point was worth drawing out, though. One commenter asked why the boys in the article about track uniforms
It is, however, exactly the wrong lesson to teach girls. You can’t have girls dressing however they want and expect boys to just be gentlemen. That’s called “putting boys through hell,” and it’s not Christian behavior. Whenever I heard this argument, I think of a busty woman wearing a skin-tight T-shirt with a big arrow and “MY EYES ARE UP HERE” emblazoned across her chest. Let’s not be silly.
Many girls and women underestimate the power they have over men. Even women who are very visually-oriented and who struggle with chastity constantly do not face the struggle that the typical man faces when he turns on the TV or goes to the mall. It’s not impossible for men to train themselves to keep their eyes to themselves (I’ve seen my poor husband almost get whiplash trying to keep custody of the eyes at the beach)—but it’s very, very hard, and takes constant vigilance in this sex-drenched society.
When a woman sees a man who is dressed immodestly, however, it is easier for her to dismiss him, often with a laugh. Sensible women find nothing less attractive than a man who needs to flaunt his stuff all the time. Not so for men: they may know in their hearts and minds that women who show a lot of skin are doing something wrong—but their bodies are more stubborn about the appeal.
And so I agree with one commenter, who said:
Some Catholics think that pretty much any time a man sins against chastity, it’s a woman’s fault. And so we have the ludicrous “pants are for harlots” argument. We have women who think that dressing dowdily is a virtue. We have men working themselves into a righteous froth over a woman in shorts, for instance, as if it’s her fault that he has a thing for legs.
Here’s the problem: first, dressing with utter, lust-proof modesty is literally impossible. There will always be some man somewhere who manages to lust, no matter what you’re wearing (just ask a hijab-wearing rape victim).
Second, an extreme “better safe than sorry” argument can lead to foolish and dangerous attitudes toward women. There is nothing pious about treating women like some kind of pestilent instrument of spiritual warfare, designed to infect innocent men with lustful thoughts by her mere presence. At some point, the woman’s responsibility does end, and the man’s begins. This point varies widely from culture to culture, age to age, region to region—and man to man.
Women are designed by God to be attractive to men, because this attraction leads to all sorts of good things: protective behavior, fidelity, hard work, and babies, not to mention happiness. Our goal isn’t to reject the notion that women are attractive to men, but to channel it in a way that benefits everyone.
So, yes, modest dress is an onus that is put mostly on women —just as self-control is an onus that is put mostly on men. This difference is not because life is unfair or inherently sexist, but because men and women are made differently. Men and women both have the responsibility to contribute to the decency of the world—in their own ways. There’s no sense in pretending there is no difference between them. Just as importantly, there is no sense in pretending the tension will disappear if either men or women just tried harder to be good.
thought it was appropriate to be ogling and teasing the girl in the first place? Why is it always on the girls and women to cover up, not on the boys and men to behave themselves and act like gentlemen?She clarified:
I’m the mother of three (soon to be four) boys, and I hope to teach them that no matter WHAT a woman is wearing, it is rude and crass to make comments about her body and make her feel uncomfortable.This is exactly the right thing to teach boys, and as the mother of six (possibly seven) girls, I’m delighted that some young men are hearing this valuable lesson.
It is, however, exactly the wrong lesson to teach girls. You can’t have girls dressing however they want and expect boys to just be gentlemen. That’s called “putting boys through hell,” and it’s not Christian behavior. Whenever I heard this argument, I think of a busty woman wearing a skin-tight T-shirt with a big arrow and “MY EYES ARE UP HERE” emblazoned across her chest. Let’s not be silly.
Many girls and women underestimate the power they have over men. Even women who are very visually-oriented and who struggle with chastity constantly do not face the struggle that the typical man faces when he turns on the TV or goes to the mall. It’s not impossible for men to train themselves to keep their eyes to themselves (I’ve seen my poor husband almost get whiplash trying to keep custody of the eyes at the beach)—but it’s very, very hard, and takes constant vigilance in this sex-drenched society.
When a woman sees a man who is dressed immodestly, however, it is easier for her to dismiss him, often with a laugh. Sensible women find nothing less attractive than a man who needs to flaunt his stuff all the time. Not so for men: they may know in their hearts and minds that women who show a lot of skin are doing something wrong—but their bodies are more stubborn about the appeal.
And so I agree with one commenter, who said:
Modesty . . is a form of Christian charity.All right. But here’s the tricky part—the “might be a stumbling block.” It’s true that women have a responsibility to dress decently so as not to deliberately provoke lust in men. But they do not have a responsibility to make it impossible for men to lust after them.
It is not that we should be embarrassed about our bodies. Bodies are a beautiful gift from God. However, we are living in a time after the fall. We do not want to be a near occasion of sin for someone else. . . If what you are wearing is or might be a stumbling block to someone else, love your neighbor enough not to wear it.
Some Catholics think that pretty much any time a man sins against chastity, it’s a woman’s fault. And so we have the ludicrous “pants are for harlots” argument. We have women who think that dressing dowdily is a virtue. We have men working themselves into a righteous froth over a woman in shorts, for instance, as if it’s her fault that he has a thing for legs.
Here’s the problem: first, dressing with utter, lust-proof modesty is literally impossible. There will always be some man somewhere who manages to lust, no matter what you’re wearing (just ask a hijab-wearing rape victim).
Second, an extreme “better safe than sorry” argument can lead to foolish and dangerous attitudes toward women. There is nothing pious about treating women like some kind of pestilent instrument of spiritual warfare, designed to infect innocent men with lustful thoughts by her mere presence. At some point, the woman’s responsibility does end, and the man’s begins. This point varies widely from culture to culture, age to age, region to region—and man to man.
Women are designed by God to be attractive to men, because this attraction leads to all sorts of good things: protective behavior, fidelity, hard work, and babies, not to mention happiness. Our goal isn’t to reject the notion that women are attractive to men, but to channel it in a way that benefits everyone.
So, yes, modest dress is an onus that is put mostly on women —just as self-control is an onus that is put mostly on men. This difference is not because life is unfair or inherently sexist, but because men and women are made differently. Men and women both have the responsibility to contribute to the decency of the world—in their own ways. There’s no sense in pretending there is no difference between them. Just as importantly, there is no sense in pretending the tension will disappear if either men or women just tried harder to be good.
Joey and I had a heated conversation last night about racism, religiosity, the Catholic church in specific... and sexism.
ReplyDeleteSexism is something that has been so overemphasized that we have forgotten human nature, namely, that which is unique to men and that which is unique to women. I told him that i find it funny how commonplace the word 'gentlemen' is and that I bet if you asked 25 people what that word meant, they would all have a different response. He was saying that basically, there isnt any major trait that we can prove is unique to either gender - I very adamantly disagreed. Visual orientation/arousal is one of those things that you can tell me till your blue in the face is equally dispersed between men and women, but that is absurd. We know men tend to be more visually provoked. I asked him why he thought he was a gentlemen, and he said because he likes to make the girl he is with feel special, safe, important. SAFE?? I said, "why would she need to feel safe"? (being facetious).. because "girls like that"... right, because we are BY NATURE more docile sensitive creatures that appreciate a MAN taking the traffic side of the sidewalk. So i found myself very content being able to abolish his little argument very fast that human nature is human nature and there is nothing distinctive between the two sexes. Regarding modesty, that would make it our responsibility.
Are you saying that if one agrees with Joey's perception of human nature, modesty would be the woman's responsibility? Or that if one agrees that men and women, while equal, have different roles and different 'wirings' would make modesty the woman's responsibility? Because what i loved about this article was that it acknoledged the differences between men and woman by their nature, but still didn't dump all of the responsibility to 'keep men chaste' on the women. Because I hate that mentality. I think it is a complete dual respobsibility- just as we are different but equal by nature, we have different but equal responsibilities to each other with regard to chastity.
ReplyDeleteacknowledged. meaghan cannot spell.
ReplyDeleteyeah, i guess the point of my argument with him was that we are wired differently, and have different needs when it comes to our mate. I agree, men can choose to objectify a girl in a jumper if his mind can so imagine it, but I do think women have a greater responsibility to not entice men by the way the dress. Not saying men have no power of enticing, but visually, it is in our best interest to not advertise something we don't sell. It sends mixed messages. But then again, i wear skinny jeans to church sometimes and don't think twice about it. Part of me doesn't care that much, so yes, i fully acknowledge im somewhat hypocritical on this subject :)
ReplyDeleteto add.... I feel so incredibly sad for all those husbands who married fun, peppy ladies who took care of themselves and were attentive to being put together... that down the road end up wearing elastic waistband pants and over sized clothing just because they have had children. Being visually oriented, husbands should have their wives winning them over through their marriage as much as women deserve to be swept of their feet over and over. Okay, world peace!! :)
ReplyDelete