The Shame of Beauty

You are here:

Home
Featured Article
The Shame of Beauty

The Shame of Beauty

16 April 2015, 06:00

Before I was born my parents started following the teaching of Bill Gothard and IBLP, and when I was 5, they joined ATI (Advanced Training Institute), the homeschool program that Gothard developed for the families of his Basic and Advanced Seminars.

Gothard emphasized “principles” which simply meant there were many different rules that dictated specific activities in my life. My parents controlled what music we listened to, movies we watched (none), things we ate and drank (no alcohol or anything Biblically ‘unclean’) and the clothing our family wore (specifically the women).

I didn’t choose this life. I was born into it (like your own children are born into the life you chose for them). For me, this life was completely normal, and the world around me was different and labeled “bad.”

Until I was about 5, my childhood pictures show me wearing “normal” clothes, meaning that I resembled any other average American child. After that, I wore a lot of dresses and skirts, even for situations where they may have been less than appropriate for the occasion. I remember wearing skirts over my pants to play in the snow (I grew up in the Washington, D.C. area), to hike mountains, and to play games at AWANA. In my teenage years, my mom started telling me what I could and couldn’t wear based on my body. Skirts had to be below my knees, shirts must have high necklines so as not to show that I had breasts. Nothing could be worn that “hugged” my body or showed the shape of my body. My mom would tell me to change if things were too tight or low. Accessories like earrings and nail polish were restricted or banned. The list of things I could not wear was a long one.

My parents were essentially taught by Gothard that we were to be under their control (cleverly disguised as the word “authority”) and this extended to my clothing choices. My mom was telling me what to wear into my 20’s.

It’s hard for me to describe step by step the damage and pain that the word ‘modesty’ caused because it is so subtle. It also goes deep because it’s sexual and at the center of the shame in my story is my sexuality.

I was told that if a man looked at my body and lusted that it was because I had worn clothing that was “defrauding.” This may sound crazy but I took this very seriously. I didn’t want to cause my “brothers” to stumble. The (false) guilt was ingrained and strong; I remember calling men and apologizing for what I wore around them.

I felt responsible for 1/2 the population of earth to not look at me and think “sexy.” I’m one of those women who can’t hide the fact that I’m a female, but I tried.

Modesty and sexuality are so connected. The little girl in me craved to be told she was pretty. But pretty drew attention…. breasts drew attention… tight clothes drew attention. Pretty was bad. It was far better to be plain-faced and “humble” than to brush my hair, put on make-up, and clothes that fit me well.

Gradually, over the years, I faced and put a name to my shame. I’ve let go of the responsibility of men’s sexual thoughts. Now I’m secure that my body (and all its femaleness) is not what causes lust.

Men are responsible before God for their thoughts and actions. Girls never should be told to dress according to what a man will think of her or her choice of clothes. The clothing a woman wears should not define who she is.

My rules for clothing now are “is it appropriate for the occasion and is it comfortable?” I plan to teach my future daughter that her body is created by God. She is beautiful and lovely, and should treat her body with care and love.

Michelle was raised in the ATI program from age 5. At age 24 she left everything she knew and moved from the east coast to Texas where she currently lives. She has learned that her past does not define her life and is learning to play, love and let go. Sometimes she writes at www.fallingintofreedom.com.

Photo Credit: Public Domain

All articles on this site reflect the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of other Recovering Grace contributors or the leadership of the site. Students who have survived Gothardism tend to end up at a wide variety of places on the spiritual and theological spectrum, thus the diversity of opinions expressed on this website reflects that. For our official statement of beliefs, click here.

About the author

142 Comments

Don Rubottom April 16, 2015 Reply

Thanks for this post!
To those who would make demands on others, consider I Cor. 6:7:
"To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?"
It is better to be defrauded than to coerce another. This does not negate protecting yourself, but removes any right to demand that others protect you from your own greed or lust. Chapter 6 later continues:
"The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."
Contrary to B.G.'s clearly implied teaching, the body is NOT evil. If I look at a woman with lust (or cover her in a burqua because I lack self control) I am an adulterer already! There is nothing she can do to keep me from sin, I am guilty. She has no guilt whatsoever.
If we men embodied the truth that "the body is for the Lord" we would take no fleshly interest in the attire of our neighbor's wife or daughter. And our own daughters might feel more loved, secure and free.
We "modesty" police have gravely and grievously failed our sisters. May God have mercy on me a sinner.
rob war April 16, 2015 Reply

This is a perversion of what modesty is suppose to be and put blame on the woman instead of blame on what is in the man's heart. In just reading the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus himself puts blame on what is in the man's heart, not the woman. This sort of extreme emphasis also implies that all men have uncontrollable thoughts and it is up to women to control men instead of everyone just being responsible to God for what is in their own hearts and minds. The virtue of modesty begins in one's heart and is not based on externals. I am always amazed how IBLP lines up more is Islam than real Christianity. In Islam, emphasis is put again on the woman, not the man and women end up being covered from head to toe with only hands being allowed to show. This actually objectifies women and all ones has to do is read the news to see how woman are treated under Sharia law. Real modesty put emphasis on the beauty of our own physical bodies and the desire to care for the body properly. Bill's own behavior with the young women he gravitated to undercuts his own "modesty" teaching. Being surrounded by women in modest dresses didn't stop him from the touching, footsie, hand-holding etc.
- Don Rubottom April 16, 2015 Reply
  
  Nor did it stop B.G from selecting ALL his assistants and Headquarters staff based on their beauty and then trying to perfect all their physical "imperfections". (The thought of him pouring over our "modest" daughters' pictures in his directory in his office makes me sick.)
  - rob war April 16, 2015 Reply
    
    Yes, that should make anyone sick, especially someone like yourself who had girls at the ministry
  - Chewbacca September 19, 2015 Reply
    
    It must be so exhausting to be put in this position. Both emotionally and physically. It doesn't seem like there's any way to be successful in this either, there's always going to be at least one man who will still feel lust at the sight of a woman regardless of attire.
    - Adele February 16, 2016
      
      Chewbacca: thank you. You hit the nail on the head regarding how exhausting it can be. Thankfully, I have never been in as strict an environment as this "ministry," but in lesser ways, I have experienced it, namely in college Christian fellowship groups. At the same time, a woman is often criticized if not feminine enough. So, it can feel like a no-win situation.So, yes, Chewie, you get it. Not bad for a big furball. Lol.
Todd k April 16, 2015 Reply

Ironically, when the gothardites get hung up about how women dress, and make them wear those ridiculously looking long 19th century style dresses, they are actually drawing more attention to themselves than if they dressed within societal norms. It is not the woman's problem if a guy lusts after her. You never hear of any gothardites "plucking out their eye if it causes them to sin." What next, go on a date---oops---I mean "courtship" on a horse and buggy?! The closest thing that my brother and I had to a dress code was at the Rainbow Room in New York City back in 1967---ultra ritzy---we had to wear a coat and tie to get in---very humiliating to us hippie types(LOL)! This was a well written article, Michelle, and I am sorry that you had to grow up in that environment.
esbee April 16, 2015 Reply

There is a book being written (sorry old age and infirmity keep me from remembering title and author) about how the modest dress of the Amish and Mennonite women have failed at keeping their men from sexual sin.

and I did the "courtship" on horseback (in my case it was about the horse, not the man) but my husband rarely rode again after we were married.
- rob war April 16, 2015 Reply
  
  I think Myron Hurst is writing a book about this
Michelle April 16, 2015 Reply

I am so happy you have found freedom. I pray you continue to enjoy the freedom of grace offered in Christ!
Ck Deal. April 16, 2015 Reply

Yall need to chill a little bit. And think twice before using a public site to slam and whine about choices that your parents made. They were doing what they thought was best, and whether you agree with them or not, they are your parents and deserve your respect.
I'm so sick of these articles, they sound like little kids whining about all the "injustices" they went through as a child. Grow up. We all have stuff that we didn't like as a child, but the internet is too full of grown adults claiming to be mature but whining like a spoiled child. GET A JOURNAL so we don't all have to listen to your whining.

Sincerely.
- Jay Rowland April 17, 2015 Reply
  
  Ck Deal, what a fine sentiment. If you had read many articles at all, and the comments that follow, you would know that much of the whining is by the parents.
  
  Taken all together, a Spirit-led person would see the "whining" on this website rather to be a "warning" of false teaching and spiritual abuse.
  
  Please read more deeply and see if this is true.
- GuyS April 17, 2015 Reply
  
  OK Deal, I am one of the parents who have done a lot of "whining" about my past stupidity, pride, immaturity and so on. It is such a blessing that some of my kids even talk to me now, after putting them through years of "injustices." True, I was doing what I thought was best. That does not get my a "get out of jail" card.
  
  I would consider it sinful to ask my kids for respect now. How convenient to now ask, "Please forgive me," and then expect respect. My focus is to bring fruits worth of repentance, that is to sacrifice and serve them now, the way I should have done when they were young. At some point respect may come. This site has helped me see things from their perspective. So true that we need to grow up. Thats what many of us are working on. Letting the light shine in darkness is part of the process.
  
  OKDeal, I do not know how much you have read here at RG. I read a year before posting. As Jay Rowland said above, if you continue to read here, you will find much of the whining is rather a warning of false teaching and spiritual abuse.
  - David Pigg April 20, 2015 Reply
    
    Guy,Ive always and I mean always appreciated your comments,and though this one hurts,it explores the possibility that many parents would rather just as soon keep their heart's door closed and the always available "Prop";optional for their pride and self righteousness,inherited from Gothardism;the prop that protects the hardened from not having to see that it somehow was that bad;the victims had no "rights"[dignity?]as humanbeings,and "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".Many ought to at least start by telling God they're too afraid to see the damage inflicted from what they've done in the name of natural religion and the caste system,orchestrated from the hardened man distancing himself from Christ's sheep beaten by his own merciless hand for 40 years.Thank you Guy so much for your repentant heart.I wish I could be as compassionate as you.God will reward you.
    - Lindsey April 20, 2015
      
      GuyS,
      I agree with Mr. Pigg. I admire your response here.
    - GuyS April 20, 2015
      
      Thanks Lindsey and David Pigg, your feedback means a lot.
  - GuyS April 20, 2015 Reply
    
    Hi David, O that my ex-wife and 2 of my sons felt the same as you claim (that compassion stuff.) Ha!
    
    I usually have 2 types of responses to the Ck Deals. The first response is what I posted above (appropriately pious for the online community who does not know me :-)
    
    The second type is where I might come across as judgmental. Ck does not ID himself but my guess is he might be a parent, maybe an ATI or ex-ATI. My first question to him is who is going to change his diapers when he is old? His kids are probably not going to fight over who gets the joyful privilege of feeding and cleaning dear old dad. He talks (mouth and run) like he has some clues and authority. Not with me.
    
    I see him using "they are your parents and deserve your respect" as a club to beat those who dare speak truth to power. How dare they!!! I see it as a manipulative evil club to keep the "no talk rules" safely in place. A club that is wielded to inflict shame and false guilt. A club to demand respect. A club that beats down anyone bringing accountability.
    
    Many have had fathers like that. Maybe Ck is not like that. Maybe I am reading Ck's comment wrong. It is hard for me to come across compassionate to Ck when I read some of his "loaded" phrases. However, I do have a lot of compassion for his kids and anyone who has had to endure this abuse.
    - Elizabeth D April 20, 2015
      
      Hi, Guy - Yeah, it's hard to tell very much about CkDeal - could be any number of "characters." No conclusions & not accusing ... just can't help looking out for ducks.
    - GuyS April 20, 2015
      
      Hi Elizabeth D, thanks for the reminder that you are still on the prowl for ducks :-) I am glad, because I forget and just react. Like he says, need to grow up.
- rob war April 17, 2015 Reply
  
  Ck, the so called "whining" you are "whining" about isn't that the author's parents were bad people or parents but it is that her parents followed a false teacher and teaching and this lead to some pretty significant problems in her life. If her parents didn't follow Gothard so blindly, maybe a lot of pain could have been avoided. It isn't respect to ignore bad choices in one's parents that cause harm and problems. Respect needs honesty and it is honest to talk about bad choices and ideas so that others hopefully will not make them. Respect also includes accountability as well. If you think this is all bunk then maybe this isn't the blog for you. Journaling to deal with problems of the past is a cop-out and doesn't even start the healing process. That is a limited and isolated technique. Your lack of compassion for others says more about you than the others you are 'whining" about.
- Horse April 18, 2015 Reply
  
  "so we don't all have to listen to your whining. "
  
  Ah, but we don't have to listen. We have a choice as to whether or not to read this site. I think it's important for us parents to hear what the consequences are of various choices *we* make. But each of us chooses whether or not to read this site.
GWikinson April 16, 2015 Reply

Beautifully written article! You put into words how we all felt. Not matter how hard we tried to hide in our clothes we still felt guilty. I am very proud of you for embracing your curves & becoming comfortable in your own skin!
Blessings to you!
- Jeff Gill April 17, 2015 Reply
  
  'No matter how hard we tried to hide in our clothes we still felt guilty.'
  
  GWikinson, this is the best one sentence explanation I have ever read of why modesty culture is harmful.
LJ April 16, 2015 Reply

Excellent article! I remember one of the men in our church once commenting on how some of the young women were dressing and the problem it caused him. Today I would graciously tell him that he is responsible for his thoughts and needs to be the one in ccntrol of them. I do not like women being blamed for a mans sin. So much longterm harm done by Gothards principles.
Myron Horst April 16, 2015 Reply

Thank you for addressing the subject of "modesty". I'm sorry you had to be affected by this wrong teaching. It is something that your parents were deceived about and that I was also deceived about. I am going to share several excerpts on modesty from the book I am writing about the Amish and Mennonites. While it addresses these groups, it applies to ATI, Patriarchy, Vision Forum, and other "dresses only" groups.

The Bondage of the Term “Modest”
The modesty doctrine of the Great Amish and Conservative Mennonite Dress Experiment has been a complete failure in protecting girls from sexual abuse. There is not a major difference in the sexual abuse rate between conservative, modestly dressed girls and girls who dress according to what the dress experiment calls the immodest dress of the world. If anything, the dress experiment “modest” dress is actually more “immodest” because the regulation dress and everything that goes with it makes girls more vulnerable to sexual abuse than the “immodestly” dressed girls in the rest of society.

“Modesty” is not a concrete, clearly defined concept, but is open to a wide range of opinions about what is modest and what is not. Total nudity in public is a God-given shame that a person, Christian or non-Christian, usually tries to avoid. One of the places God tells us about the shame of nudity is in Revelation 3:18: “I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.” But beyond nudity, a person’s conscience of how much of the body must be covered in order to be modest tends to defined by those who one is influenced by. There is a very wide range of opinions among professing Christians about what is modest and appropriate and what is not.

Jesus has not defined what is modest or what is immodest. Mennonite churches have attempted to regulate modesty, feeling that the Bible alone is inadequate on the subject and that husbands and fathers cannot be trusted to regulate it in their own home. Modesty is a concept that is drilled into conservative Mennonite women. They are made to feel guilty and responsible if a man were to look at them in any way sexually. Jesus on the other hand, puts the responsibility on a man for his lust.

Part of the failure of the Conservative Dress Experiment is because it is based in part on Old Testament Law. Among the Amish and conservative Mennonites, the women have been required to wear dresses, based upon the church’s interpretation of one command that was handpicked out of the Old Covenant Law (even though Christians are no longer under the Old Covenant Law). “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” Deuteronomy 22:5...

What is ironic about Amish and conservative Mennonite “modest” women’s dresses is that in addition to not preventing men from lusting after girls and women, the dresses with their open bottom hem are an open door that allows easy access for perverts and sexual molesters to quickly do their wicked deeds without fully undressing their victim. Is a dress safe? Is a cape dress really modest with its double layer at the top and an open door at the bottom? Can a dress really be labeled as modest for a young girl to wear? Little girls have great difficulty keeping their dresses down and end up showing their underwear at times. It is young girls and teens that are the ones most likely to be sexually abused.

A friend of ours, who did not grow up in a Mennonite home, told us that she was taught growing up that dresses were immodest. When I first heard it, I was surprised because it was the opposite of what I had been taught growing up. In reality, dresses are actually more “immodest” than pants. On the internet there are a number of testimonies of women who have been sexually abused who feel very uncomfortable wearing dresses. Addressing the question about why women don’t wear dresses anymore, is this answer: “Some women may have had bad experiences with wearing skirts or dresses, since a lot of them may have been sexually assaulted in the past (direct or indirect), a skirt or dress does invite molesters to unlawfully play down there.”
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110913162555AAfIs6J
- Free at last September 7, 2015 Reply
  
  Amen and Amen!
- Adele February 16, 2016 Reply
  
  This was exactly my experience in elementary school. My mom wanted me to wear girl clothes (skirts & dresses), even though it made it hard to get on playground equipment. I was sexually harassed, in one case severely and persistently. She wasn't trying to make a modesty statement. It was the style to make little girls "look like little girls" in the early 1970s. Eventually, I must have convinced her that jeans were better.
  - Adele February 16, 2016 Reply
    
    FYI -- I'm not saying that I deserved harassment because of the clothing. Just saying that was my experience. Not all girls had that happen from male classmates, but a lot did.
Myron Horst April 16, 2015 Reply

continued:
...Trudy Metzger says this about the blame and responsibility that the conservative church puts on the women and girls:
“Boys wore normal clothes and acted like nothing happened when they violated us. We were stuck in homemade dresses, giving males easy access, and still the bulk of responsibility fell on us. When they violated us, it was because we must have behaved in a sensual manner, dressed inappropriately, or perhaps flirted with them. They couldn’t help their sex drive and if only we would behave right and dress right, we would protect them.

“How ironic. In a male-dominant culture, where men were portrayed to be the godly leaders, the strong ones, they were not required to be men at all. All they had to do was cry, “she asked for it” and the onus was on us. And even if they didn’t cry it, that was a given. There was nothing of teaching young men and boys to honor, respect, love and protect a woman. Nothing of saying, ‘if you find her naked, be man enough to cover her and protect her’.”
http://trudymetzger.com/2012/07/11/sexual-abuse-violence-introduction/

Trudy’s words, “if you find her naked, be man enough to cover her and protect her”, gives new meaning to what Jesus said in Matthew 25:41-46 when you look at it in the context of sexual abuse, “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”

It is a Christian man’s responsibility to protect those who are least able to protect themselves – children - from sexual abuse. If a man exposes a child’s nakedness and sexually abuses the child, he saw or felt their nakedness and did not cloth them. He has Jesus to answer to. Jesus views the sexual abuse of a child as the same as an attack on Him – “I was… naked and ye clothed ME not”. Jesus knows what the sexual abuser has done, even if the church doesn’t. This can be a real comfort for anyone who has been sexually abused. Even if no one else has stood up for you (the victim) Jesus has. He has felt your pain and defilement, and the perpetrator WILL suffer the consequences – everlasting punishment unless he/she repents.

The guilt that conservatives have placed on women in the area of modesty, and the hypocrisy by which women are judged are paralleled by the conservatives in Jesus’ day. The scribes and Pharisees brought a woman that they claimed they had caught in the very act of adultery. What is conspicuously missing is the man who should also have been caught in the very act of adultery if it really was adultery. The woman was being tried for committing a sin, but not the man. Many sexually abused women in Amish and Mennonite groups can identify with this woman. They feel like they too are the ones that were tried by their Amish or Mennonite church leaders, and the men who sexually abused them are not. “And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” (John 8:3-11)

The conservatives, the Pharisees, treated the woman as if she had committed adultery all by herself. It is similar to the way Amish and Mennonite women are treated in the modesty issue. Modesty is treated as if a woman could commit adultery all by herself by dressing “immodestly”. Women are judged for dressing “immodestly” without proof that a man has looked on them and committed adultery with them in his heart.

Knowing how the Pharisees made up rules and went to extremes in expanding God’s commands, I have to wonder if the adultery that the conservative Pharisees were accusing the woman of committing was a manmade “sin” that they called adultery and was not sin at all, similar to the Amish and Mennonite manmade sin of “immodesty” that they hang over women’s heads. Several clues that it probably was not the true sin of adultery are that there was no man involved, and Jesus did not condemn or rebuke her for what she had done. Whatever the case, there is a strong parallel between the way the Pharisees judged this woman and the way many Amish and conservative Mennonites judge women in the areas of modesty and sexual abuse.

(there is much more that could be said but I will stop there)
- Karen April 17, 2015 Reply
  
  Myron, thanks.
  
  I have heard taught about the story of the woman caught in adultery that she was caught in the real act (Christ, who is all-knowing, never disputed the charge and then told her to "go and sin no more"). That her partner in crime was not also accused represents a glaring and reprehensible double standard. There is also a tradition that says what Jesus wrote in the sand were the names of the accusers plus the names of the women with whom they all had committed adultery (and I can't remember for sure, but it may have been in this tradition also that the man with whom this woman committed adultery was in the crowd that accused her)!
  
  There is also a much more recent true account of Western Christian missionaries sent to Africa who went into a culture where what was deemed modest dress for women included skirts to their ankles, but since breasts were deemed functional and not a sex object and the climate was hot, women wore nothing on top. When some of the tribe began to become Christian, the missionaries persuaded them to wear what was deemed modest dress in Western terms (it was the 50s, so skirts just below the knee and blouses). All of a sudden there was a rash of improprieties with the women in Western dress because a woman showing any part of her leg in that culture was perceived as a real "come on." The point is what is deemed to be modest behavior and attire is culturally conditioned. If left to themselves and not prematurely sexualized (hard to avoid in our pornographic culture--but still possible, especially for those who don't spend a lot of time subjecting themselves to mass media) healthy children and adolescents are typically naturally modest according to their culture's norms.
  
  All the best with your book!
  - The Quiet One April 19, 2015 Reply
    
    I can confirm your second illustration. I was in a culture where women breastfed in public without covering up. Breasts were for feeding babies. But it was very bad to expose the groin and thigh areas, which meant that pants for women were not appropriate. As someone coming from a culture were women did not expose their chest, I combined what was considered modest in both cultures and wore tops with ankle length skirts - and enjoyed it. The locally made clothes were gorgeous! The necklines and sleeve length wouldn't have been considered appropriate in ATI, but I didn't care, and neither did anyone else.
    - Karen April 20, 2015
      
      Thanks, Quiet One!
      
      I believe I heard that story when I was a student at an Evangelical college in one of my classes. There were many missionaries coming through that campus (as well as students who were children of missionaries), so you could probably multiply this type of illustration many times over in many areas of life.
- Becoming Free April 17, 2015 Reply
  
  Thank you, Myron, for mentioning Trudy Metzger's website. It is very helpful to me.
- Chester Weaver April 22, 2015 Reply
  
  Myron,
  
  I read your post with interest because I am part of the conservative Mennonites you refer to. Where are you getting your information? The conservative Mennonite circles that I move in experience moral purity among themselves as an ongoing reality. Courting couples regularly come to the marriage altar as virgins. Congregational church standards that give some definition to modesty seem to work well among the people I relate to because Christ is present. Any religious context where Christ is absent will likely experience sexual perversion and abuse.
  
  Trudy Harder Metzger writes out of an Old Colony Mennonite context, an entirely different cultural group. The Old Colony Mennonites continue to suffer the absence of Christ among them as is evidenced by her experience.
  
  In a pornographic society moral purity becomes increasingly beautiful to pure-hearted people, but also increasingly threatening to the morally impure. I bless God for the privilege I have had to raise my eight children in a morally pure church context!
  - Myron Horst April 28, 2015 Reply
    
    The book I am writing is heavily documented from many sources and the evidence disagrees with your conclusions.
    
    I used to have the same opinion that you do that sexual abuse did not happen in the more spiritual Mennonite groups that I associated with and that it definitely was not happening in ATI or with Bill Gothard. Wow! was I wrong!
    
    Trudy Metzger's story is much different than what you portray it as. Her family was only Old Colony Mennonite until she was 4. A picture of her in her teens shows her as a young lady dressed similar to those who would have attended Sharon Mennonite Bible Institute 25 years ago or probably like the groups, that I envision, that you describe as being morally pure. After Trudy went public with her sexual abuse, she found out that 60 people in her church alone, both men and women, had been sexually abused!
    
    Just because you do not hear about sexual abuse happening in your church group does not mean it is not happening at a higher rate than you ever imagined. God told us that church standards of modesty to prevent sexual immorality would not work and they don't!
    
    "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances... after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh." (Col. 2:20-23)
    - rob war April 28, 2015
      
      Hi Myron,
      I had some questions for you about your book and research. Since Amish and Mennonite groups have been around since the 1600's I would think that the standards and conservative dress code would have been as well. I guess I am curious as to the use in your potential title as experiment since both Anabaptist groups have been around for a while. Likewise, have you included other secluded religious groups with a strict dress code such as Orthodox Jews and even looked at Islam. If using and including these sorts of religious groups are you hoping to conclude that the more conservative the dress code and ideas are for women, the more potential abuse of women as well as a second class status of women? Islam being the most conservative and has the worst record on the treatment of women under it's wings.
    - Myron Horst May 5, 2015
      
      For the first 300 years, Anabaptist groups dressed much like the rest of society that was around them. It was not until the late 1800's and early 1900's that a specific regulation dress was adopted/required by different groups.
      
      The name for the book - The Failure of the Great Amish and Conservative Mennonite Dress Experiment, is one that God gave to me. It was not the intent of the original proponents or of current churches to conduct a dress experiment. But it is an experiment in the sense that they tried something that God said would not work.
      
      There are many reasons for the failure of conservative dress requirements. There is not space to explain it all here. God just showed us another very important reason today why it failed, from the Bible, that I had never heard before.
      
      A more conservative dress code does not necessarily result in more abuse of girls and women. The high rate of sexual abuse in ATI families and at headquarters is an example. ATI dress codes are not as strict as most conservative Mennonite dress requirements.
  - Trudy Metzger June 1, 2015 Reply
    
    Hi Chester
    
    First of all, I stumbled upon this in search for something I wrote on my blog several years ago, and when I saw the conversation, I decided I would confirm what Myron has said... well, almost. :) We were only Old Colony until I was 9 months old. From then until we moved to Canada, we were Kleinegemeinde, and then 'wandered' a few years until we ended up in the Conservative Mennonite Church of Ontario (and was Nationwide for a time, I believe, or were in fellowship closely with them). The sexual abuse existed in all of the above, and I still work with sexual abuse victims in all of the above (or from) as well as Eastern Mennonite, Midwest/Mid-Atlantic, Amish, car Amish, and several others. It is sadly present in all of the 'kinds' of Mennonite/Amish (and certainly in the rest of the world!). I do find there are 'pockets', for lack of a better word, where it is 'infested'--again, for lack of better word--and others where there seems to be little to none. What makes that difference, I cannot say. I'm glad for you and your church, if you were spared.
    
    God is using the tragedy for His glory, and I don't hold it against the church(es) or my abusers there. (I was back for a funeral yesterday and was warmly welcomed by most.) I will, however, stand by the facts of what was taught/lived, and the abuse that existed and still exists.
    
    (As an aside... I believe I remember you, if you are who I think you are.)
    
    All the best!
    ~ T ~
- Fred January 25, 2016 Reply
  
  Well said, Myron. It absolutely never ceases to amaze me how ATI and other groups who push for modesty in female attire conveniently ignore how, in Matthew 5:27-28, according to Jesus, lust is COMPLETELY the man's fault -- besides, Jesus NEVER said anything about women being responsible for it. Moreover, women are more turned on by touch and thoughts of security and aren't as visual as us guys are, thus the visual aspects involved wouldn't apply to women to the degree that they do for us guys, which I would expect is at least one reason why Jesus didn't say a thing about women being responsible for men's lust problems.
  
  As someone who has always been very protective of and nurturing toward women and children and thus has always tried to be someone others can trust. After all, since God sees EVERYTHING, including our thoughts, how could I permit myself to even THINK of committing such a grossly heinous act before a most holy God? Ergo, another thing that really grieves my spirit is how we as a society in general completely fail to teach men to be loving, caring, and protective of women, thus leading to, in some women, a complete distrust of men in general. And given what some women have been subject to, even as a guy, I sadly can't say that I blame them. And it's even more sad if the perp was someone who was supposed to be a Christian, since it could completely turn such victims off to Christ all because of said perpetrator's actions.
esbee April 17, 2015 Reply

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” Deuteronomy 22:5...

what is interesting is that when this verse was written that everyone wore toga type clothing, except maybe the men's might have been shorter. With no wal-marts back then, people had little choice for covering. Knowing that to get the real meaning, one must study the languages the verse was written in, could the meaning be a warning against putting on clothing of the opposite sex in order to be like them, i.e. cross dresser.
- Beth April 17, 2015 Reply
  
  Esbee, cross-dressing is exactly the meaning. Part of heathen Canaanite worship was cross-dressing to appease their gods. This heathen worship ritual was what God was warning His people against participating in. It has absolutely nothing to do with wearing pants or not. Somehow I don't think that these no-pants preachers would be comfortable with a man going into Talbots and donning a pair of lovely, feminine pants and calling it menswear ! Even in our culture today cross-dressing is pretty clearly defined.
  - The Quiet One April 19, 2015 Reply
    
    Yes! Men and women wear similar trousers and shirts in Western culture - but everyone knows a cross dresser when they see one.
    - Don Rubottom April 30, 2015
      
      Unless they are so good at it that they actually deceive you as to their gender.
      The point, of course, is that men are men and women are women and nullifying God's Good in His design is godless. It has nothing to do with pants or skirts.
  - esbee April 20, 2015 Reply
    
    Then I was right 40 years ago when I stood up to the pastor who required that I wear dresses AT ALL TIMES because my husband was minister of music. I told him I could not find that rule anywhere in the bible. (He suggested we get rid of our 2 cats because it just wasn't what a minister of music's wife should have.) That scripture has been so misused and misinterpreted today by well-meaning preachers and religious institutions, even to their dress codes that women should wear dresses on their properties. Is it still required women wear dresses on ATI property?
    - Don Rubottom April 30, 2015
      
      Gracelessness should probably not be called "well meaning". Deceived or ignorant, maybe.
    - Fred February 23, 2017
      
      WHOA! Esbee, if I were your husband, I would have promptly resigned and told the pastor "take this job and shove it!", and walked out and never looked back.
    - Susan's Saddle Stands March 2, 2017
      
      back then not going against God's chosen or you would be in big trouble with God (yes, part of the Gothard regime of lies) was in effect in the "godley churches who wanted to follow God's will--- A few months later after i rode my horse to church, my husband later told him neither he nor I would apologize to him or the church for doing that. But for years I was under the law and always thought I was sinning for every choice I made that did not look like something gothard spewed.
- David Martin June 5, 2015 Reply
  
  Hey, esbee.
  
  Very good observation about the Deut. 22:5 passage... when that was written, men's and women's clothing styles were virtually indistinguishable. So, what can it mean?
  
  I did some research into the original language words and found some interesting things... the phrase "that pertaineth to a man" does not really refer to clothing at all, and the word "wear" is not actually part of the Hebrew as I can tell. The word used here usually is translated as "vessel," but also "instrument" or "weapon." In other words, women are not to take up (usurp?) the roles/tools of a man. It could even just mean that only men should take up the weapons of war.
  
  On the other hand, the men are not to wear a woman's garment... and that IS exactly what the original text means. But that raises the question of what it could possibly mean... what exactly defines a "woman's garment?" Well, there's only one garment that has==throughout all of human history--been clearly identified as a "woman's garment"... that is her menstrual cloth.
  
  Of course, this is conjecture on my part, but it does have corroboration with other scriptures dealing with a woman's menstruation and the ritual uncleanness that was associated with it... even to the things that she sat upon. So it would make sense that God would tell men to leave that cloth alone, and not try to "recycle" it to wear.
  
  One thing that the passage clearly does NOT mean is that we must submit to all sorts of culturally defined standards of gender-distinct attire. NONE of God's moral laws are dependent on the ever-changing cultural mores/standards/customs.
- Melissa June 9, 2015 Reply
  
  Deuteronomy is part of Jewish law. Christians are not bound by Jewish law. The New Testament is very clear on this. I don't understand why so many Christians fail to rightly divide the Scriptures. Do they also sacrifice animals?
  
  I saw a comment (on a different site) that "the Bible clearly says to be fruitful and multiply." This command was given to Adam and to Noah's family, not to all Christians everywhere. Why is this not not obvious? So much confusion....
  - Don Rubottom June 9, 2015 Reply
    
    When did we stop being in Noah's family?
  - LynnCD June 9, 2015 Reply
    
    Melissa, it is the Covenant at Sinai that was fulfilled in Jesus. His blood was the blood of the New Covenant which Jeremiah said would not be like the one made at Sinai, which is the Mosaic law. Hebrews teaches when a new covenant comes in the old is rendered obsolete. Hence, the New Covenant inaugurated by Jesus' blood makes the Mosaic sacrificial system obsolete, as well as other laws of Sinai. BUT, that does not mean all of the blessings and moral precepts of the Old Testament, including many commands, don't apply to us as believers. I think this blessing or command you mention is one such command or blessing that has application in this age.
  - Don Rubottom June 9, 2015 Reply
    
    I believe there is One operative Covenant, established upon the Lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world. If so, the creation ordinances (be One, be fruitful and multiply, partake of Life, NOT the knowledge of good and evil, and every lesser covenant (Abraham, Sinai, David) are lesser disclosures of the Reality, as Hebrews teaches us the furnishings of the Tabernacle are copies of the Real Eternal Things in God's Throne Room. These, BTW, eternal things were "perfected" by Jesus's blood when He "entered in".
    All such things, whether in Eden, at Sinai or Jerusalem, are revealed to show us the Reality of the ever New Covenant of Life in Christ, the Eternal Bridegroom with Whom and in Whom we have Eternal Communion with the Godhead. Thanks be to God.
    - LynnCD June 10, 2015
      
      Don, that may well be there is one operating covenant. But there must be reasoning from Scripture what the New Covenant makes obsolete, because Hebrews teaches this.
      
      I believe it makes sense to say the covenant from Sinai was what was made obsolete, from several scriptural passages. It is the reason we no longer offer sacrifices, follow dietary guidelines, no longer circumcise (although that came from Abraham), no longer are obligated to the ritual cleansings and sexual rules and a host of other levitical laws.
      
      I have also heard it said that it was more of God's blessing than His command to fill the earth and subdue it. At any rate, I agree that blessing or command is still in force. Jesus said to his disciples he had other sheep (John 17), and not just those living at that time, obviously. The earth needs to be filled and subdued until He returns, and he is not going to return to an unihabited earth!
    - Don Rubottom June 10, 2015
      
      Agreed.
    - LynnCD June 11, 2015
      
      It is by considering the "one operative Covenant" that I can rise above all the mental distress of this world, including what has been on the news lately. But I raised the initial point because Gothard has suc a penchant for putting people back under selective levitical law, and that really destroys the whole grand view that you mention. Yes, thanks be to God!
Michael April 17, 2015 Reply

Great article Michelle. You hit the nail on the head. What many people don't realize is you had your teenage years literally stolen from you. You can't get that back, it's gone. I know for myself as a teenager, it wasn't a big deal for me to go swimming at the local pool in the summer in nothing but my swimming trunks. I was in excellent physical shape then (those days have long since passed!) and no mother ever said to me, "Michael you should really put a shirt on to cover up your chest and arms so you won't cause a girl to stumble." Yet, those same mothers would pounce on a girl that had on a 2-piece swimsuit that they considered immodest. It's a complete double standard.
Lindsey April 17, 2015 Reply

"Defrauding your future husband" was one of my dad's favorite phrases. It makes my stomach turn just thinking about it. It took a long time for me to figure out that he is a misogynist. I doubt I will ever get my mind straight on this topic. It affects my life and my marriage today.

There are many ways in which my dad's views don't make sense, but here's one of them. On one hand, he believes women are mindless pawns with no will and no wisdom. If a man wants to prey on them, they are completely helpless. On the other hand, once a man preys on a woman, she bears all the responsibility of a willing partner and then some. Henceforth, the woman bears eternal shame as a harlot and can never live it down. It took many years for me to piece this logic together, but even as a kid, I knew something wasn't right.

Thank you for this article.
- rob war April 17, 2015 Reply
  
  This along with the other extreme in the opposite direction, pornography both objectify women. Women are not seen not as joint heirs in Christ but as objects. I've said before, I think sometimes Gothard has more in common with Islam than real Christianity. Focussing on external things is something Jesus Himself never pointed as the cause of anyone's sin. Sin always starts from within and is not due to meaningless externals such as clothes and food. The Sermon on the Mount that Gothard loved to promote never discusses external objects as causing one to sin.
  - free of this April 17, 2015 Reply
    
    I agree! Islam all dressed up in Christian form with the right GOd only misrepresented!
- GuyS April 21, 2015 Reply
  
  Hi Lindsey, it turns out my father was very much like your father re women. So sad. I would say that well over half my life I believed lies about women from both my father and BG. It has also been very difficult to piece the inconsistent logic together. ."
  
  The most recent piece to the puzzle has been the discussion Don and others have had here about the "Theology of the Body."
  
  As Rob said above about this, "Women are not seen not as joint heirs in Christ but as objects." I agree and would guess that many man believes one or the other. Either women are joint heirs or they are objects. There was no room for disagreement with my dad, women were objects.
  
  Lindsey, there is no good reason your dad's views should define you. (forgive me please for saying something you already know very well !! ) You are not an object. You are a joint heir and as you embrace your position in Christ, you can be sure that your dad's influence will diminish and finally be ignored altogether.
  - Lindsey April 24, 2015 Reply
    
    GuyS, I meant to thank you for this wonderful post.
  - Don Rubottom April 30, 2015 Reply
    
    Thanks Guy! We are alienated without Grace. Objects and rapists. Maybe it is past time that the Church showed a different way for men and women to relate to one another.
  - GuyS April 30, 2015 Reply
    
    Don, "We are alienated without Grace."
    
    So very true. I was alienated (as I am sure many were) w/o Grace, while also believing lies that sounded so good (misapplied or translated) from the Bible. For ex, "her (the wife's) desire shall be to rule over you (the husband), but you shall rule over her" Or, "wives submit to your husbands." Meditate on this misdirection as a blueprint for attaining the high calling of God, and things might not work out as you planed. So you futility reread the same Bible passages and are reassured in your folly.
    
    So just try harder, maybe you are not trying hard enough. Monthly your are inspired by your ATI family coordinator that you are on the right tract. Be strong. Try this list or that a little harder (more and more works,) and everything will be peachy. Not so. My 18 year marriage ended 23 years ago.
    
    Thanks to God and you all here at RG, it is now clear the madness of BG and those like him only bring the opposite of what they promise, alienation from God and your family and others.
    - Don Rubottom May 5, 2015
      
      Guy, as hard as your struggle has been, your clear understanding now and honest humility are a real blessing to anyone who reads your comments. I may have said it before, but I now read Genesis 3 as a curse to be overcome by grace, not a prescription for the living hell that patriarchy promotes. Today, I read "submit...as unto Christ" to mean submit to loving sacrifice and service. Jesus explained clearly that the unbelivers lord it over one another and we, starting with "leaders" are not to be so.
      You can multiply grace in many lives by teaching these things to young believers. Your scars are the testimony of the folly of emphasizing authority rather than sacrifice, rules rather than mercy.
      God says in Hosea 2, "you will call me 'Ishi' [the 'husband' name from Genesis 2] you will no longer call me 'lord'". There is a difference between a Genesis 2 husband and a Genesis 3 lord. On the final night, John tells us that Jesus said: I now call you friends, I no longer call you servants. There is a difference between a servant and a friend. When the strong makes a weak servant into a friend, the strong show grace.
      It is about love, not power. We must tell others before they make the same mistakes we made. That is why He came. To show us the Way.
free of this April 17, 2015 Reply

I totally understand this one. What I realize a few years ago was that This type of teaching actaully takes the leadership and responsibility role and puts the weight of it on the woman. She is also burdened with carrying the weight of others sins.
If someone has a true sexual problem they marry him off so the woman can be his pin cushion to unleash himself on and she will not quench a sexual sin issue. I makes the poor female in a way become the one who is to carry the weight of his sin. I always heard...'' Men can't control themselves they are visually stimulated. If a female got pregnant unwed, she must have defrauded him as if she was the only one participating. totally contrary to scripture. LAst I read Genesis Adam blamed God and Eve, He never took responsibility. Bill teaches blame the woman.
- Don Rubottom April 30, 2015 Reply
  
  Not exactly treating her as the weaker vessel is it? Why do we walk past "as Christ loves the church and gave himself up for her that he might sanctify her". If a man loves his wife and daughters in purity, it is sanctifying.
rob war April 18, 2015 Reply

Interesting historical note here, St. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for being a heretic. The reason she was condemned as a heretic was because she wore a suite of armor (men's clothing) when she lead France's armies into battle. The armor was designed for her specifically because of her small size but never the less the only thing that they could pin on her after she was captured was that she wore "men's clothes". Thus she was falsely accused as a heretic and then condemned to death.
- The Quiet One April 20, 2015 Reply
  
  Another interesting historical note: Breastfeeding in public was considered normal in the 1700s and 1800s. I was reading some of Dicken's novels which had the original engravings that were used when the stories were first serialized and a couple of the books had engravings depicting women obviously breastfeeding. My experience in another culture - where women breastfed without shame and where men prided themselves on their sexual prowess - taught me that breastfeeding has been unnecessarily sexualized in Western culture. Also, the Victorians weren't as super modest as we like to think they were. Queen Victoria's standards for court dresses required that they be off-the-shoulder.
Daniel April 20, 2015 Reply

I totally see the point the author is trying to make here, but it seems that she swings to an unhealthy extreme on the other side. Of course as a male, I'll probably be written off, but her attitude is repulsive.

There needs to be a balance in any friendship and especially a Christian relationship that says, "I'm going to do what I can because I care about you." I agree that it should not be forced/ mandated in a Wisdom Book, etc. That was the issue with the Gothardism.

Women are not responsible for the sin of lust in a man's life. Period. Agreed.

Here's an example:
Okay, so you have an eating problem. Sin of gluttony. That's your problem not mine. Let me sit down next to you and munch on my bag of Doritos and drink my Pepsi. I need to do what makes me happy and comfortable.

That's not the kind of friend that I want. I have many friends that are kind enough to be sensitive to my weaknesses. My desire is to be loving and considerate to others, even if their weakness isn't something that I feel like is my fault.

The Burqa Issue of Sports Illustrated is always a hot seller. You know I'm kidding.

I'm not saying "wear a burqa" I'm saying, "being a considerate friend is a need for both genders."
- Karen April 20, 2015 Reply
  
  Daniel, you make a good point, too. It can be difficult to find balance after an extreme of abuse.
  
  Personally, I would be interested to know what the author actually looks and dresses like now in a variety of contexts. It is quite possible she is indeed also a "considerate friend" in your terms and that is part of what "appropriate for the occasion" means to her.
  
  In any event, I expect we can both agree that "modest" in our culture is not the same thing BG's Wisdom Books taught it to be!
  - Daniel April 21, 2015 Reply
    
    I'm actually certain that the author's dress is just fine. Really, it's not even a concern. My point is that none of us live in a vacuum- especially if we claim the name of Christ.
    
    Her philosophy seems to be dress A. appropriately for the situation, B. comfortably. It basically says, other than that, I really don't care about what you think or how you feel. Your feelings, weaknesses, physiology, or comfort don't enter into MY algebra.
    Those are the same attitudes that she didn't like coming from the Gothard group, but just in a different form.
    - Don Rubottom May 5, 2015
      
      Don't forget, that we are coming out of a system where the supposedly mature were demanding conformity to their view of modesty from the weaker vessel. But Paul admonishes the mature to make accommodations to help the weak in their faithlessness and gracelessness. If men would lead the church, they should be stronger than men who cannot be around immodesty. Yes, you should not sit down next to a glutton with a big bag of doritos. But you shouldn't make a weak glutton an elder of your church either. And he surely cannot command you not to show him doritos. That restraint is your free gift to him, not his right.
    - P.L. May 5, 2015
      
      This is for Don Rubottom (I couldn't hit reply to your reply!): Thanks for the command about who is mature and who is weak, and that it is those who are mature who are to make accommodation. It was really helpful to me in thinking about my discomfort with the many demands that authoritarian pastors make on their flock.
      
      As a side note, I once brought an unchurched friend to Sunday service. She wore a very short dress, probably the only one she had. The Gothard men could. not. keep their eyes off her legs. It made me angry, because I worked with dozens of 'worldly' men who had better self-control than those oh-so-mature Gothardites. They stared enough to make my friend uncomfortable, in a place where she should have been welcomed and safe. Their modesty legalism didn't work, for themselves or anybody else.
- The Quiet One April 20, 2015 Reply
  
  I can see that you might disagree with the author and try to moderate the conclusions if you think she is going too far, but I'm puzzled as to why you would use the word 'repulsive'. The word denotes contempt for another human being.
  
  Your illustration of the person with the problem of the sin of gluttony is a faulty analogy. The person who eats their chips and pop in front of someone who struggles with gluttony is more like a husband who shows racy pictures of his wife to a friend who is struggling with pornography. Telling a woman that she must hide her figure to avoid tempting a man is more like telling someone they can never eat because you struggle with gluttony.
  
  Women are made a certain shape and unless they wear a tent they cannot hide it. As we know from the terrible cases of rape in places like Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, women wearing a tent does not stop men from lusting. As long as men blame women for looking like women, they will not take responsibility for their own actions. This is not to say women can walk around naked, any more than men can. But neither the author nor anyone else who has commented in support of her is advocating for total or even partial nudity.
  - LynnCD April 20, 2015 Reply
    
    I agree. I don't see anything repulsive about what she wrote at all. Men's problems of lust were put on her as her responsibility. As a young girl, growing up. Her current choices do not say ANYTHING about wearing whatever she wants to now and who cares about problems she causes in others - not a hint of that. Coming out from that kind of psychological and emotional shaming and bondage - which happened in her formative years - I think the article was pretty even keeled and not overdone at all, and her current practice sounds balanced and right.
  - Lindsey April 20, 2015 Reply
    
    Agreed.
  - Karen April 21, 2015 Reply
    
    I overlooked Daniel's choice of wording in order to affirm what I felt to be a valid concern he expressed, but I agree with your comment here.
- Lindsey April 20, 2015 Reply
  
  My rules for clothing now are “is it appropriate for the occasion and is it comfortable?”
  
  How is this attitude "repulsive?" It seems like common sense.
  
  I agree with "Quiet One" that your language is awfully strong.
  - Daniel April 21, 2015 Reply
    
    I'm not trying to cast aspersions on the author personally by saying "repulsive." She is gifted, talented, and a wonderful person, I'm sure. Please forgive the choice of words. Honestly, though, I felt a palpable disregard for others in her philosophy.
    
    The philosophy espoused is what bothers me. It's not uncommon. Rachel Held Evans wrote a book with similar themes.
  - Lindsey April 21, 2015 Reply
    
    Daniel,
    I forgive your choice of words. I actually kind of get what you are trying to say.
    
    I believe it is very difficult for people to walk in each other's shoes. For example, I try to empathize with male experiences as best I can, but I have never been a man. Conversely, male friends empathize with me as best they can, but they have never been a woman.
    
    This article strikes a chord because unlike some sins, like sloth or envy, lust frequently provokes discussions in which people debate the nature and worth of half the population.
    
    Forgive me for joining others in picking on your Doritos example, but I couldn't get an image out of my head today, which was a walking, talking bag of Doritos. In your example, it might have been a more accurate comparison if the other person wasn’t just eating Doritos but was a bag of Doritos.
    
    This sounds silly, but it makes sense. In a way, as a little girl, you are informed pretty quickly that you are a bag of Doritos. There is a world filled with people who want to consume you. It is the core of your identity. People don’t just want to consume what you are consuming. They want to consume you. It is very personal.
    
    You come downstairs with one of your chips accidentally sticking out, and your mom says, "Put that chip away! You want people to think you're giving chips away for free?" Your dad says, "You need to understand that God made you for other people to consume. That is your purpose in life. You need to keep your bag sealed tight. If you open it a little because you are hot, don't be surprised if someone steals your chips. Don't come running to me when you're empty. It will be your fault for being careless."
    
    You start to think there are two types of people in the world, junk food and the people who consume junk food. This is reinforced by ads, TV shows, your family and friends. And guess what? You're not one of the consumers. You don't get to be that powerful. Worse, you're not really a person. You're an object.
    
    Imagine how awful it is to live this way.
    
    I did not sense disregard for other people in this article. After all, the author said she plans to wear clothes "appropriate for the occasion.” By definition, this means she plans to consider other people’s feelings. She is not going to wear a stripper outfit to a family gathering. It is more that she is refusing to live in fear of men or to see herself as a bag of Doritos.
    
    I know God gave men an awful lot of testosterone. I know men think about sex a lot, and it is closely tied to their biology. I know men are very visual.
    
    I have known Christian men who felt terribly guilty about their sexual desires. They felt so badly, it started to warp their sexuality and harm their wellbeing. I can only imagine how hard it is to balance what you perceive to be God’s will and your natural instincts as a male. I pray that God will honor your desire to be upright. I also pray he will give you a sense of peace regarding the way he made you as a man.
    - Daniel April 22, 2015
      
      Lindsey, your thoughtful approach, care, and attempt to understand the other gender is exactly what is important. You exemplify what I'm advocating.
      
      I would like to point out again that I'm rejecting the shaming and hypersexualization of the female form. My take is that it a lot of it stemmed from a 60 year old bachelor that was turned on by almost anything. It seems he especially had a thing for young women and that played out in the "standards." Ewww.
      
      On the other hand, I think there is absolutely a place for conversation and understanding between genders. By the way, when my wife asks me "do you think this shirt is too tight?" I can't remember ever telling her yes. I usually say, "It's fine. If God wanted everything to be hidden, he wouldn't have made it stick out. :-)" The fact that she cares is golden.
- rob war April 21, 2015 Reply
  
  Daniel,
  you are trying to make some case that we are responsible and need to adjust ourselves accordingly to others weakness. That is an unmanageable burden that no one can possible live up to as well as even be reasonable responsible for. Your example of "gluttony" is a red herring. You are responsible for you, you are not responsible for others. The Bible does not teach this extreme nuttiness anywhere. Even where St. Paul wrote about being sensitive to others was concerning a specific situation and that was over meat that wasn't kosher killed and then sacrificed to idols and then sold on the market. There were specific Jewish laws in play here and now that the Church was expanding to Gentiles, they didn't have this built in kosher meat laws and sacrifice. St Paul's admonition about weaker brothers was pertaining to a specific situation that no longer exists. One cannot extrapolate this to what Bill used it as. Again you are responsible for you. Look on this, a recovered alcoholic cannot drink any alcohol at all. One of the things that they teach in groups like AA is that a recovering alcoholic should not put themselves in tempting situations where there is drinking and even if there is drinking, how to avoid doing the same. AA doesn't not teach that it is other people's responsibility not to drink around an alcoholic. The burden is in the alcoholic making right choices themselves. If you are going to be tempted by someone eating a bag of chips, then God help you if you have an eating problem and I would suggest that you do not go to convience stores for the rest of your life. That is how insane your suggestion is.
  - GuyS April 21, 2015 Reply
    
    Rob War. you express yourself clearly and are very persuasive. Please consider that your 5th and last sentence might have been over the top. Perhaps those 2 sentences might have a chilling effect on the give and take in real discussion with different points of view. I am concerned that maybe people reading this exchange, might feel RG is not a safe place to make imperfect comments.
    - rob war April 21, 2015
      
      I was trying to answer absurdity with absurdity in reference to the gluttony example with eating chips. Using this line of reasoning, if one is too tempted to "sin" by eating chips, then they probably shouldn't be in a convenience store that sells them. It wasn't an attack on Daniel but the idea that places too much of a burden that is never implied or intended in scripture.
    - Daniel April 21, 2015
      
      By the way, the life we are called to is kind of crazy, absurd, insane, etc. Francis Chan describes it so well in Crazy Love.
  - Daniel April 21, 2015 Reply
    
    rob war,
    
    It's our privilege and calling card as Christians to lay down our own desires for others. That's what should make us different.
    
    Doing what is required is a religion. Forcing rules on others is religion. So much sacrifice was done on my behalf that I have a little extra to share with others.
    
    By the way, boxing in Paul's "idol meat" example as a purely Gothard view misses the point of a very important passage of scripture. I can't even remember what he did with this passage. You seem to take issue with my Doritos example and the meat example. The point being, both are just fine to consume. We should be considerate when,where and how we do it.
    - rob war April 21, 2015
      
      There is a difference between laying down one's life for others and becoming too preoccupied with trying to please the whims of others as if we are all so fragile that we have to walk on egg shells around each other. The later is what you are implying even though you do not see it that way. It does not hold accountable one for their own weakness and growth. When I think of laying down ones life for another, I think of St. Maximillian Kolbe who volunteered while at Auschwitz to take another man's spot in a two week starvation punishment. Even in that death cell, he lead the other nine to God as well as singing hymns. He was the last one after 2 weeks so the Nazis killed him by an injection of carbolic acid. Worrying about eating, drinking or clothes to please others pales in comparison. That is the point of the author's testimony here. She was made to feel responsible when she was not for having a woman's body and being ashamed of it because she was lead to falsely believe that she was responsible for their lusts. It is a totally bogus burden to put on anyone, especially a young girl in her formative years.
    - Daniel April 21, 2015
      
      rob war, it appears that you think Christians waste energy by making small sacrifices for the preferences other human beings?
      
      This morning my wife didn't like the shirt that I chose, so I changed it. I thought it was fine.The cuff buttons were already buttoned and I was running late! She didn't force me to do it. I did it because I wanted to show her that her opinion matters to me.
    - Lindsey April 21, 2015
      
      Daniel,
      Your example of changing your shirt made me smile. You seem like a considerate, good person.
      
      I like the lightness of spirit in which you received your wife's suggestion. I like how sweetly you showed her that you value her opinion.
      
      My smile is a little wistful because of all the times I have been asked to change clothes. Usually, it wasn't because a loved one simply disliked what I was wearing.
      
      Imagine, if you will, being asked to change shirts because it directly relates to your worth as a human being.
      
      And I'm not joking. Literally, your worth as a human being.
      
      Perhaps your shirt was too "dowdy." As you know, the world values you to the extent you are beautiful. Better keep up appearances. Time is ticking, after all. You're like a car. You start depreciating as soon as you leave the lot. Don't get me started on the importance of flattering supporting garments. Remember, gravity steals a big chunk of your worth year after year.
      
      Maybe your shirt was too "slutty." Remember, Daniel, the sluttier you are, the more worthless you are. Thank goodness you are married, or you would be defrauding your future wife, which is a sin against God.
      
      Fortunately, I am fairly certain your wife wasn't implying anything too terrible about your human worth by asking you to change your shirt.
      
      I just want you to think a little bit about how your experience changing a shirt might be different from another person changing their shirt. It shouldn't be this way, but changing my shirt can mean many things, politically, theologically, psychologically and personally. It sounds stupid, but this is really my experience as a woman. Same goes for my sister, my mother, my grandmother, etc.
      
      I am a little curious what you think women should be foregoing on your behalf and what you believe women should be considering as they get dressed in the morning. Which women, specifically, are you mad at? You seem a little mad.
      
      As I said here and in my other post, I think you are likely a good person. I don't want to offend you.
      
      Naturally, I agree that people should be considerate to others.
      
      I wish you well.
DavidM April 21, 2015 Reply

Let me try and illustrate what I think Daniel is trying to say in another way. Consider this illustration...

You have a friend (or spouse, or child...whichever works best for you). You love them intensely. Not in a general way, but in a specific and active way. You not only wish the best for them, but you want to *know* them in a deep and meaningful way and to do whatever you can to help them succeed in their hopes and dreams. When you do something for them, its not out of guilt or fear or obligation, but because you are expressing love in the best way you can find (stemming from you know of them based on your fellowship with them). Just consider how you are (or wish you were or know you should be) with the people are connected to in life. How does this love inform how you treat them? Their successes bring you nearly as much as it does them, their failures bring you pain nearly as much as it does them. Not because they hold you responsible for those successes and failures (nor do you hold yourself responsible either), but because you CARE and deeply.

So, your friend believes he/she is overweight (you may or may not agree with their assessment, but regardless you understand the pain and angst it causes them). She wants to lose weight but its *hard*, its a struggle. You feel this.

So you tell him/her. Well good luck with your struggle. I truly wish you the best. But as I am not responsible for your thoughts/actions, I will simply eat reasonable portions and that is the end of it.

??!!

Of course not. But that seems to be the general attitude expressed when it comes to things like clothing. It implies that we have no real connection with and thus no real love for others in the body Christ.

So, while it is horrible to teach that women are somehow responsible for men's failures, and its impractical-to-impossible to try and take responsibility for others failures/successes, its not any better to conclude in a manner that implies only a marginal connection to other's believers lives. Not responsibility - connection. The connection that loving with Christlike love implies.

The failure is not in what we do or don't do (this implies responsibility of some sort). The problem stems from failing to love as well as we should. And believe me, I am pointing the finger at least as much at myself as anyone else.

What I would argue for is that the solution/answer/balance in all this is to seek to love as we are called to love. To have a deep and meaningful connection with the believers we interact with so that their successes delight us (such that we are EXCITED to help them achieve success) and their failures pain us (because we are so deeply connected to them). And as individuals, not as some concept. And with an active love - a love that actually has a meaningful impact on their lives.

What would a loving you fellow believer in that manner mean? Would it not mean that we would be willing, excited and thrilled even, to do *whatever* we could to see them succeed? That is, after all, the sort of love Christ calls us to. Consider what you would do for a precious loved one if they are struggling and extend that the rest of the body of believers.

Don't confuse responsibility with love - its what Gothard taught our families. But let's be careful that, when we correctly reject and decry the doctrine of shared responsibility, we don't imply a rejection of the connectedness to other believers lives that is implied by loving as Christ loved us.
- DavidM April 21, 2015 Reply
  
  So Rob War, it won't have to be a matter of acceding to other's whims. True love will be able to see past whims to the heart of the matter. True love in fact, will be willing to give (and certainly accept) a figurative dope slap when your friend in Christ get's unreasonable and childish about stuff like that...but also won't have a problem just going along when it doesn't really matter. Just consider how one treats (or wishes they would) a spouse (minus the sex part, of course) and apply that to other fellow believers. Or if you have a close relationship with a sibling (or you can imagine how you wish you had such a relationship), then apply that to other believers.
  
  Of course, they may not reciprocate...but that is truly their problem and not yours. :) Love doesn't seek to take responsibility (sheesh, what a great way to denigrate someone else as a person - the Gothard doctrine of shame was in, most ways, a slam on both sexes), but it never denies connection and all that implies.
  - rob war April 22, 2015 Reply
    
    I appreciate you thoughts David but the article here isn't about what someone might naturally do for a close friend or family member but about the over the top ideas promoted in the "modesty" movement where the author was made to feel uncomfortable with her own body and the undo and unnecessary pressure and guilt she was made to feel and believe in in being responsible for immoral thoughts of men and being the cause of that. This has nothing to do with caring for others that you know about in a close way. Even using the example given by Daniel over the bag of chips. If he has a problem with over eating chips, you as a close friend can not eat them in front of Daniel, encourage Daniel not to go to convenience stores that sell them, not watch TV shows like "Man Vs food" that glorify over eating contests and then suggest that he seeks help for his eating disorder. That type of help a good Christian friend would naturally offer a close friend. But that isn't what the article is about. This is nothing to do with help given by close Christian friends to one another. If Daniel has an issue with eating chips, he can't expect strangers or other Christians that might not know him very well or close at all not to eat chips around him. Only a good close friend could help him out and the choices are not just limited to not eating around Daniel. He has some choices too that can help himself out in this sort of struggle which include not shopping at certain stores, not buying the product, not watching certain TV shows. A good friend like you is only one part of the puzzle here.
- Daniel April 22, 2015 Reply
  
  David M, you expressed it so much better than me. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. The type of love you describe is beautiful, supernatural, and never forced. It doesn't come with diagrams or seven steps to success. It's a Spirit thing that looks different for me than it does for you. We want to move from a life in which we were shamed into conformity into one that rejoices in giving, caring, sacrificing, and moderating our own freedoms in such a worthy cause.
- J R April 22, 2015 Reply
  
  Daniel and DavidM,
  
  I am really trying not to be totally infuriated by your posts. Obviously you have no clue what it is like to be a woman in today's porn saturated world. Step back and reread the many replies of women on this thread, especially Lindsey's "walking talking Dorito" reply.
  
  Your lack of understanding shows by statements such as "it appears that you think Christians waste energy by making small sacrifices for the preferences other human beings?" and "Would it not mean that we would be willing, excited and thrilled even, to do *whatever* we could to see them succeed?" You contradict your claim that you are not laying the false burden of dressing for other people on women.
  
  Why is it that we as women are supposed to make "small sacrifices" for men who haven't sacrificed any of their comfort to protest the Victoria Secret ads that assault my sense of self worth every time I take my kids to play at the mall? Why is this about how women dress rather than about men pulling the plug on TV if they have a lust problem? Why do none of your replies even acknowledge the objectification inherent in calling on me to consider how men view my body every morning when I get dressed.
  
  Let me share the painful process I experience every time my clothes wear out or my body changes shape. I go shopping only when I literally have no clothes left to wear that are in good enough condition to wear in public. Why? Because apparently short women are not supposed to have curves unless they are large enough to fit in plus size clothes. I experience the rejection of the entire garment industry every time I try to find clothes that fit. Maybe instead of staring at a woman's butt, you should consider that maybe tight pants are the only ones she can find and afford that allow her to squat down and love and care for small children without getting plumbers crack. Do you have any idea how hard it is to even find shirts that fit when you wear a 36F bra? The only thing I can wear that guarantees no cleavage shown is a turtleneck. So I guess it is selfish of me to not want to be hot and itchy all of the time because my chest might make someone struggle. Oh well. I guess it is just a "small sacrifice" for me to add the possible struggles of men to my already agonizing process of clothing myself.
  
  Did you ever stop to think that the woman being looked at lustfully is actually the weaker brother? Did you ever stop to consider the pain we feel when we can't even get away from the anorexia standard of "beauty" in the midwife office? Did you ever stop to consider that the battle we face every day as women is the battle of rejecting the body God gave us because it is "bad" in the world for its real curves and also "bad" and needing to be covered in the "christian" world? When I dress every morning IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU.
  
  As a matter of fact, the redeemed porn addict I am married to has shared how his attitude about the way women dress has completely shifted the more God has redeemed his mind. Interesting that when he testifies to God's grace in this area in Christian environments, no one really wants to hear it. He found a lot of the comments you both made to be objectifying of women. He also finds it extremely offensive that any other man would think he should have any influence on how his wife should dress.
  - Daniel April 23, 2015 Reply
    
    Kind of hard to address all the straw men in that post. You make wild accusations about someone you don't even know, judging way beyond any words or information that was even included in our posts. For example:
    
    "Maybe instead of staring at a woman's butt, you should consider that maybe tight pants are the only ones she can find and afford that allow her to squat down and love and care for small children without getting plumbers crack."
    
    I can assure you that your rage is misdirected, and misinformed. Your quick resort to stereotypes and unfounded insults is uncalled for. In fact, I'm not sure how you claim any moral high ground, when your attitude is exactly what you decry.
    
    Or how about this?
    
    "Why is it that we as women are supposed to make "small sacrifices" for men who haven't sacrificed any of their comfort to protest the Victoria Secret ads that assault my sense of self worth every time I take my kids to play at the mall? Why is this about how women dress rather than about men pulling the plug on TV if they have a lust problem?"
    
    Actually, I don't even own a TV for this reason (and others, none monetary). Your play.
    
    Additionally, I recently wrote a scathing letter to FEMALE OWNED company that wanted our sponsorship for a pinup calendar. I told them that we respect women as equals at our company and do not objectify them by promoting semi-nude pictures on calendars. I could go on, but the straw man you have created is on trial here, not me.
    
    I never made any requests, requirements, or suggestions to one gender. All of these are equally applicable to both genders.
  - Lindsey April 23, 2015 Reply
    
    JR, I related to everything in your post.
    
    I had an interesting experience. I watched a documentary called "Miss Representation" and asked my husband to watch it with me. It is about several things, including how women are portrayed in media and how they are underrepresented in government.
    
    My husband really liked it. It was interesting, though, because he said he had not previously considered several of the points of the film. This surprised me because I consider him way above average in terms of understanding women's issues. He was raised by a strong woman and sees females as self-sufficient, independent and worthy of respect as equals. (Incidentally, he was not raised in a church.)
    
    I thought, "How is it possible you didn't think about these things? You had a mom and a sister and you live with me! I have taken these things for granted since childhood! I wake up every day knowing these things to be true!"
    
    It struck me that even though he lives with me, he has not actually lived in my shoes. When he walks in the world, he walks as a man. He needed information to fill in certain holes in his knowledge. (He also needed to be open to the information and capable of empathy.)
    
    I have a unique acquaintance who looks very much like a man, although she is female. She says that when she is out in the world, she is sometimes recognized as a man and sometimes as a woman. She reports she is treated very differently as a "man" than as a woman. It makes me think about how it would be if we could really experience life in the other gender's shoes for a period of time.
    - Daniel April 24, 2015
      
      Lindsey, I do appreciate your perspective and the spirit in which it is offered. Honestly, I feel 90% on board with what the author of the article stated.
      
      "It makes me think about how it would be if we could really experience life in the other gender's shoes for a period of time." I totally agree.
      
      Women certainly feel prejudged based on their bodies. I can see that being very painful. Nothing is worse than having the core of your humanity and self worth criticized and nitpicked.
      
      At the risk of sounding whiny or another analogy being taken awry, there are some correlations to the male experience. J R came out swinging and making false accusations against me and men in general. There are definitely a lot of male jerks out there. I make conscious effort not to be one, apologize when warranted, etc. Personal attacks that are based on prejudice are painful to me as well.
    - Lindsey April 24, 2015
      
      Daniel, Thank you for your reply. I almost wrote to you last night because I could tell that you took JR's comments personally. I think something similar happened when people (including me) read the word "repulsive" and took it personally.
      
      I do think men face some unfortunate challenges in society. The Representation Project also has a film about men. I would love to know what you think about it. http://therepresentationproject.org/films/the-mask-you-live-in/
    - Daniel April 24, 2015
      
      Lindsey, thanks for sharing the link. I will definitely watch that when I get a chance. Again, I really appreciate your perspective and your thoughtfulness in sharing it.
- Lindsey April 23, 2015 Reply
  
  DavidM,
  I may have a slightly different perspective than some on this topic, but I had to learn from hard experience that part of the definition of human connectedness is the construction of healthy boundaries. Healthy boundaries must exist in every loving relationship and community. This even applies to a spouse or an immediate family member.
  
  It is not appropriate to say that I would do *whatever* to see another succeed, even my husband. I must use my discernment, reason and wise counsel to decide what is right for me to do.
  
  Let’s start with this example. If you were someone I knew, and you needed help to learn a skill or pass a class, I would likely tutor you because I care for you as a person.
  
  What if you verbally abused me the whole time we were studying? Should I continue helping you? What if my husband was sick in the hospital but you said that if I loved you as a brother, I would stay with you and keep studying rather than rush to the hospital?
  
  You mention having a friend who is overweight. I continue to assert that comparing this issue to overeating or any other bad habit is vastly inappropriate because we are discussing human beings. I’ll humor you, though.
  
  There is a healthy way to support an overweight friend and an unhealthy way. I should not do *whatever* to help them. Encouraging my friend is one thing. Doing their shopping, dictating their diet, cooking their food and meting it out to them would be unhealthy and inappropriate, and they would likely fail as soon as I stopped feeding them.
  
  There is also a real moment when a healthy person recognizes that although they can try to be helpful, another person's problem belongs to them, the other person is responsible for it, and it is impossible to control the actions of others.
  
  I would like to know exactly what you ask from me. You say we are connected. In that case, I am not just connected to you, but you are connected to me. In your posts so far, I have detected little compassion or empathy for the female experience as I have described it. Have you considered what is appropriate or healthy for me? Is it healthy for me to think about myself in a sexual context with a stranger? What beliefs do you have about modesty and do you assume that I share them? Do you really believe that sisters in Christ should trust you and do *whatever* to help you before they know you or you have earned their trust?
  
  In this context, what does it mean for you to “succeed?” To have no lustful thoughts at all? To feel only mild attraction? What exactly is the measure of success? Do you feel guilt if you are attracted to anyone except your mate? If so, do you think you can completely avoid it? Is biological sexual attraction inherently sinful? When I was very young, my favorite outfit was a turtleneck and corduroy pants. I thought it was artistic. As far as I can tell, it did nothing to make me less sexually attractive to the opposite sex. So what exactly are we talking about? And I mean exactly.
  
  Also, I think it is hard to imagine what Christ would look like and be like as a female in a free society. I defy anyone who thinks they have that pinned down. I don’t remember any sermons about how Christ showed his love through clothing except maybe when the woman of faith touched the hem of his garment or when the people dressed him in a fancy robe and crown of thorns. It is interesting to think how gender would or did affect him. (I don’t say this to be heretical.)
- Jay Rowland April 24, 2015 Reply
  
  lol, DavidM getting a smackdown from the women of RG. One of the weaknesses of online discussions is that lack of actually knowing who we're talking to...
  
  Lindsey, I'm going to suggest that DavidM not feel obligated to respond. He authored many of the early articles on RG showing how Gothard misrepresented women. I'm quite sure he's in your corner. As are most of the men on here, however insufficient our words.
  
  Perhaps it would be better to have such discussions on an article or multi-author series written for that purpose, rather than on someone's personal story? So nobody feels like they or another commenter are attacking or defending the author, etc. Just an idea for RG to add one more thing to their plate. :)
  - Lindsey April 24, 2015 Reply
    
    Whenever I post to the Internet, I do not assume that people are obligated to respond to me or even read my post. I know I am throwing my words out into the ether.
    
    If RG published a series of articles on this topic, I would be equally as sensitive because it would still be my story. It would not be a particular author's story written in the first person, but it would be my story.
    
    Now that I think about it, this is the only website on which I have been brave or foolish enough to post in the comments after articles. I did post a question on someone's blog a couple of times. I have only ever posted if it was important to me. I have been thinking about this article and its comments all day, every day. Last night. I sat with my laptop from 7:00 to 12:30 writing words, erasing words, discarding entire posts.
    
    I know you are a good man from your other posts and a well meaning man. Nevertheless, my feelings are hurt that my post made you laugh out loud. I am trying to work through a lifetime of abuse and suffering and worry.
    
    I am sorry if my post seemed to be written in bad faith. It was not intended to be. I was genuinely bothered by DavidM's comments, but perhaps I should only discuss such matters with people I know well. Also, I did not know that I must not question certain people.
    - Jay Rowland April 24, 2015
      
      Lindsey, I did not mean to hurt your feelings. I have appreciated many of your posts and am glad you're involved. My lol was not at your post, only at the irony of DavidM being the recipient. In my mind, your post and who your post is addressed to are two different things.
      
      Your post did not seem in bad faith, but it is loaded with emotion and questions that probably cannot be answered here. It's not a matter of being unable to question DavidM. You can, and he's free to answer.
      
      I used the word "feel" to express my understanding that he most certainly will feel the impulse/need/obligation to answer. Just as I feel I should respond to you now. And you might feel you should respond to me, too.
      
      To be honest, I hope the men in this discussion do not dig themselves a deeper hole trying to dig themselves out.
    - Lindsey April 24, 2015
      
      Jay,
      Thank you very much for your kind reply. It means a great deal to me.
  - J R April 24, 2015 Reply
    
    Jay, thank you for ensuring that this is still a safe place for DavidM. At least for my part, he is not on trial :) And thank you to everyone else for your feedback. I have gained so much healing from many of the things you all have shared on this site since the day I found it!
    I found DavidM's comments infuriating because he seems like a very nice guy who failed to notice the pattern of rudeness in Daniel's posts and seemed unaware of how the discussion had turned to a place that criticized the hard won freedom of the author. And, just to clarify, the "you" was directed toward all males in my post, not as a personal attack on DavidM or Daniel which I thought was made clear by its inclusion in my sharing of my own personal experiences of the times I have caught guys ogling me. My reason for sharing was to invite my brothers to a deeper understanding of the women in their life because I do not expect men to know what it is like to be a woman through mind reading :)
    I will not be responding to Daniel because this is not a game. I will simply show the pattern that caused me to view calls for "consideration" as offensive and aimed at women. Regardless of efforts to frame the call to "consideration", all were made in the context of criticizing a woman for the selfishness of choosing her clothes based on the occasion and her own comfort without considering the lust problems of men.
    
    This is the pattern I observed. First, calling the attitude of the author "repulsive" while pre-assigning those who disagree as against his gender rather than against his rudeness to the author. A focus on motives rather than the actual events is an abuse tactic. Second, following replies failed to answer challenges to the validity of the initial criticism and doubled down with "I felt a palpable disregard for others in her philosophy". Third, again without thoughtfully answering rob war's challenges to the validity of his analogies, he accused rob war of thinking "Christians waste energy by making small sacrifices for the preferences other human beings?". The accusation was presented as a question. Fourth, again without acknowledging any of the challenges or personal sharing, the framing of the debate as love is a life where we move into a life "that rejoices in giving, caring, sacrificing, and moderating our own freedoms in such a worthy cause." Except what it ultimately means is love requires you have to think about the lust problems of men when you choose your clothes. You see, no matter how many times the claim is made that consideration is required from men and women, it does not change the reality that every sermon I have ever heard on modesty has to do with women's' clothes causing lust. It is not really possible for the issue to truly be equally about the behavior of men and women when modesty and lust are unbiblically linked. Fifth, in response to my vulnerable sharing of my personal struggles, he described my sharing of EXPERIENCE as resorting to stereotypes and ascribed to me the motive of claiming "moral high ground", when my "attitude is exactly what [I] decry". Again, the tactic of assigning motives and the ignoring of pain shared.
    Jay, I do love your idea of a series on what the Bible actually says about "modesty". In context, modesty is addressed it terms of pagan practices and displays of wealth. Jesus teaching on lust had nothing to do with clothes and everything to do with poking out your own eye if it makes you stumble. Lust and modesty of clothing have been linked by christian culture, not actually by the Bible.
    - Jay Rowland April 24, 2015
      
      Thank you, J R. I started to write a couple of articles on lust back before RG started uncovering all of BG's underlying issues. Will get to it some day!
      
      As you all know, this subject is mysteriously simple and insanely complex at the same time. For example, any article would need to start by trying to define "lust." That's not as cut-and-dry as people might guess at first blush...it takes me one long article just to try to do that...and I bet this thread would blow up trying to agree on a definition. :)
      
      It takes a lot of time and effort to wade in such turbulent waters.
    - Daniel April 24, 2015
      
      I'm amazed that sharing a candid response (I admitted poor choice in wording) and a spirited discussion on a thorny issue results in accusations of abusive tactics. Hopefully I'm not the only one that feels this way.
      
      Perhaps my initial reaction was wrong. Perhaps it was right. Maybe I just misunderstood what the author was trying to say. I honestly shared how it made me feel then I attempted to explain why.
      
      I don't think my spirited discussion with rob war crossed any boundaries either.
- Sharon May 25, 2015 Reply
  
  Wow, what a conversation. Well, I can say that as a woman I didn't totally agree with the concluding paragraph either. Okay, I wasn't raised in ATI so I guess I don't have the author's perspective, I was just raised in a moderately conservative Christian home and was taught that Christian girls and women ought to try to be reasonably modest. Of course I can't control every thought that goes through men's minds, but I AM responsible for how I manage my body. That includes the way I talk, the way I dress, etc.
  
  Why would a Christian woman who wants to honor the Lord with her life want to present herself as something less than that?
  
  Maybe there are women who have certain body types who find it impossible to be modest and also be comfortable or buy reasonably-priced clothes or whatever, but I don't believe that is the norm. For most women, I think it is perfectly possible to dress nicely and attractively and more-or-less in style and still be reasonably modest.
  
  For me it is pretty simple. Short skirts, short shorts, low-cut tops that show more than a hint of cleavage, and snug leggings (without a top long enough to at least hit the tops of my legs) make me uncomfortable. And I do see women and girls who don't seem to be aware of how revealing their clothes are, and that seems unfortunate. I see others who do seem to be aware of it, and that's even more unfortunate. :-(
  
  Why not just honor the Lord by exercising a little restraint? But I guess I can appreciate that if you were raised in a repressive, legalistic environment, it is not a simple issue.
  - esbee May 25, 2015 Reply
    
    What you said certainly makes sense and can fit in with any Christian sect. But BG and other fundy sects make it out to be that any clothing that hints shows a woman's shape or even some cleavage will cause men to have evil wicked thoughts and thus they think they are doing God's will when they make all these rules and laws that go beyond and nullify grace. I have had lots of issues over my choice to wear pants because that is what makes me feel comfortable and modest. And the struggle to realize it is not sin!
    - LynnCD May 25, 2015
      
      I agree. I've seen some of the literature on how to dress. Rules down to the nth degree. You just can't stop thinking about it and be natural and feel free. I think if I felt that way today, I might pretend I was a little girl again, and just have fun about the whole process - getting dressed for the day.
Brandi April 22, 2015 Reply

I'm amazed at how much Mormonism and fundamental Christianity have in common! As I read this article it resonated with me. When I was a Mormon I remember hearing and reading countless Mormon lectures on female modesty and men were never mentioned except to say if women dressed a certain way it would put ideas into men's heads.
Tangent April 23, 2015 Reply

JR, You go, girl! I like hearing your feelings honestly expressed. No man can know the frustrations girls and women experience in this culture with its attitudes toward women as they are. As a child I saw women's bodies being used in advertising just to get men to look, and I hated it! I was born in the 50's and we had no choice but to wear dresses to school, and I hated it! I wanted to play baseball with the boys, not sit and talk with the girls. I was told my life was limited because I was a girl, and I hated it! I am glad things have changed, but we've got a lot of work ahead, especially in the evangelical church.
The Quiet One April 24, 2015 Reply

I get that men are more stimulated visually than women and that men's hormones are strong motivating forces. However, I don't think that many men, decent individuals, who state that women need to be more careful in how they dress get why the women are objecting. So let me use the example of a section of the male population who have to look at naked women who are not their wives - male doctors and nurses. If it is true that men cannot stop sexual thoughts when they see underdressed women - then how can we trust male doctors? How can we trust the male surgeon performing a hysterectomy or mastectomy?

I'm a nurse, so I know what I'm talking about. I've assisted male surgeons doing those kinds of surgeries. I have seen nothing but respect for the dignity of the patient; and I know that is because medical workers are trained that the patient is dependent on them and therefore they cannot abuse that power - that the patient deserves to be treated with dignity. Yes, there are criminal exceptions to that, but I have read of how such criminals are stripped of the right to call themselves a doctor or nurse. So I know that men can train themselves to stop regarding every woman as a potential sex object. Indeed, men also prevent themselves from considering their daughters or sisters in such a light - when they do they are considered sickeningly perverted.

So if men can do it for those women they care for, either as a medical professional or as a family member, why can't they train themselves to regard the general population of women in the same light?
- esbee May 25, 2015 Reply
  
  here is another one for you---in many colleges across the US, live nude models are used so aspiring artists can learn to draw the human body. In fact, an artists draws the a person nude before they add clothing so the clothes will look more natural. I drew nudes from live models. There were men in the class. No one got excited or raped anyone. note- the male model got to wear speedos while the girl model was entirely nude.
rob war April 24, 2015 Reply

Usually, when I've seen modesty discussions on the web, especially between Christians, they do usually degenerate as a male vs female diatribe with lines drawn in the sand and both side blaming each other. I think that misses the boat. Modesty is a virtue and yes it is needed in an increasing openly pornographic culture. But modesty shouldn't just be a focus on clothes, hem lines etc. Yes, modesty involves what one is wearing but modesty really is an attitude of both sexes that begins in the heart. Modesty says, my body is made by God and is precious and beautiful, it is the temple of the Holy Spirit. It is on reserve for my marriage partner if God wills me to be married. Modesty dresses appropriately for the occasion and situation. It is also influenced by culture, time, weather, activity and may not be the same for everyone. Just as someone said earlier, you know a cross dresser when you see one, you also know when someone is dressing to be provocative. In reference to the author, she wasn't taught real modesty but a perverse view of her own body that was twisted to only focus on clothing and a false sense of responsibility for any and every man's thoughts.
- Daniel April 24, 2015 Reply
  
  I agree with everything you said there.
- GuyS April 24, 2015 Reply
  
  Rob War, Thank you for your sensitive insightful comment. I also agree with you. Please consider writing an article to expand this.
DavidM April 24, 2015 Reply

Hmmm, so much to respond to. Let me see if I can touch on the highlights and communicate what I mean more effectively without, as Jay says, "dig myself deeper".

Let me touch on the highlights as best I can:
JR:"Your lack of understanding shows by statements such as "it appears that you think Christians waste energy by making small sacrifices for the preferences other human beings?" and "Would it not mean that we would be willing, excited and thrilled even, to do *whatever* we could to see them succeed?" You contradict your claim that you are not laying the false burden of dressing for other people on women."

Let me be as blunt. It is unfair to quote two different people who are making different arguments as if they are saying the same thing. It puts words in my mouth and pulls what I actually did say very much out of context. It is unjust to then use this to claim I contradict my claim when the contradiction lies not in anything I said (no where did I ever lay any burden for dressing on women - I avoided saying anything about dressing at all in fact).

That said, I very much agree with all the points you made in the rest of that post...they just don't have any bearing on anything I said. In particular this: "He also finds it extremely offensive that any other man would think he should have any influence on how his wife should dress." What I was trying to communicate *affirms* the fact that no man should have any influence over how a woman should dress. In more general terms, no person should have any influence over *any* external standards for *any* other person. Down that path is merely another form of legalism.

Yet our love for others can't help but impel us to act with love to others (whatever that means for a specific person in a specific situation). In illustration, we sinners had *no* influence over Christ choosing to die willingly. We had no claims on Him, nor did he consult with us in his decision. It was only his love for us and the Father that impelled him to this action. He didn't do it out of any obligation to us, fear of what we might say/do, or feeling of guilt or responsibility for our sins. Likewise, when I sacrifice for my children, I do it because I love them, not because they have any right to make demands on what I should or should not do for them. Does the distinction make sense?

What I am concerned about is that when people (very rightly) break away from acting because of the guilt/fear/responsibility placed on them by others, they too often frame their knew attitudes in terms that seem to deny that love also has implications for how we relate to others - not burdens placed on us (no one can rightly say "If you love me you will do X" - that is just another form of guilt) but because love impels us. I "react" to the conclusion of this article not because it is wrong to have such a standard of dress (it is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable standard), but because it seems to ignore the implications that love for other will have for how we *all* dress, eat, drink, etc. etc. And in saying this, I don't mean to criticize the author - I just think its important enough to go into the topic more fully, as it were.

So, I completely and fully agree and affirm that no one else should be able to, in any way, impose on you what you should wear (or eat, or drink, or where you live, etc.). BUT, I believe these is much more to the issue than simply leaving it at that. The implications of love can't help but have an impact on all those things. But even saying that, let me emphasize that even then I nor any one else can tell you exactly how that will play out. The implications of love can only be internally determined and they will mean different things for different people as they love different individuals at different times and different situations. I just urge us not to reduce our decisions to some set of standards whether externally or internally imposed.

I guess, I should break up my responses into several posts...
- DavidM April 24, 2015 Reply
  
  @Lindsey
  "It is not appropriate to say that I would do *whatever* to see another succeed, even my husband. I must use my discernment, reason and wise counsel to decide what is right for me to do. "
  
  Let me clarify. The emphasis of my statement was not that we would do whatever it took, but that we would be *willing* to do whatever it took. That is, just as Christ was willing to die it doesn't make sense to therefore place limits on what love might impel us to do for others.
  
  However, love never requires blind or unthinking action. The best love is based on knowing and understanding another and acting wisely and thoughtfully so that the person is actually better off in the end. Again, this sort of love means that the object of your love can't place any obligations on your, but it does mean that what we are *willing* to do to bring about good to that person has no more limits than Christ's love to us.
  
  So love isn't just about doing whatever, but it does include a willingness to do whatever in order to see the person succeed (as determined by knowledge, understanding and wisdom). No limits can be placed on what love is willing to do. Thus, love has the potential to impact *any* area of our life - what we eat, what we drink, what we wear, where we go, etc. Again, what we do can't be imposed from the outside (else it is not love but obligation or guilt), but we can't a priori determine that our love for another won't impel us to adjust how we dress. I can't right argue that if you have love then you will dress thusly, but on the other hand, it is not right to argue (or imply by our reasoning) that our love for others won't have an impact on how we dress (whatever that happens to mean in a specific situation).
  
  So, I have absolutely no problem with the concepts of loving (not healthy - not unless you can explain how Christ willingly dying for us fits the concept of "healthy") boundaries. What I would disagree with is attempting to draw pre-existing boundaries.
  
  So to address some of your questions...
  "What if you verbally abused me the whole time we were studying? Should I continue helping you?"
  
  Maybe, maybe not. The specific answer will vary depending on what you knowing and understand about that person. One should not draw a pre-existing boundary. For instance, I could ask whether or not Christ should have gone ahead and died for those who abused him, hated him and despised him. We can't say that the abuse has no bearing on what we do (suffering through abuse is not always going to be the best thing to do - even Christ sought for a way to accomplish his mission), but neither can we say that suffering abuse is necessarily the proper place to draw a boundary.
  
  "What if my husband was sick in the hospital but you said that if I loved you as a brother, I would stay with you and keep studying rather than rush to the hospital?"
  
  As I have argued elsewhere and will continue to repeat - you loving another does *not* mean that they can therefore place burdens on you. Being willing to take up a burden does not imply that another can place that burden on you. What you actually end up doing can only be determined by the specifics of that particular situation and people involved when it occurs. Yet, again, the implications of love might mean you do stay.
  
  "Have you considered what is appropriate or healthy for me?"
  Not sure what is meant by "healthy". If one means simply "loving in a thoughtful and wise way" and thus counting the costs of loving, then well and good, we have no disagreement. But if "healthy" begins to means something along the lines of "without serious risk" then I begin to question it. If we should love other's as Christ loved us, how can this be a "healthy" love. So, what is meant by "healthy".
  
  But again, don't take this to mean that love will always be impelling us to act in ways that are costly. I merely seek to argue against the idea that implies that love won't *ever* impel us to act in "unhealthy" ways. We cannot place limits beforehand on what love might impel us to do if we are seeking to love with a Christlike love.
  
  "Is it healthy for me to think about myself in a sexual context with a stranger?"
  
  I had assumed it went without saying that whatever we do in the course of love, it would not be sinful or unloving to others.
  
  "What beliefs do you have about modesty and do you assume that I share them?"
  
  Firstly, no I never assume someone else shares my beliefs about modesty. What it means for me, firstly, is that modesty isn't about clothing in the first place - though it does have implications for how we dress. Modesty is simply an outgrowth of "esteeming others better than myself". So, modestly means that I don't purposefully act in ways to build up myself in the eyes of others.
  
  "Do you really believe that sisters in Christ should trust you and do *whatever* to help you before they know you or you have earned their trust?"
  
  Nope. The sort of love I speak of means that "doing" can only come after knowing and understanding. Furthermore, it is not about what sisters in Christ (in general) should do towards brothers in Christ (in general), but about what each of us as individuals in our particular lives and particular situations should seek to emulate as we interact with various individuals in their particular lives and particular situations. Additionally, I make no claims about how others should act towards me. I am merely trying to encourage a deeper examination about the implications of loving with a Christlike love. What this means for me is that I should always act in ways that engender trust in others (and may I say, particularly towards my sisters in Christ, and especially if I know they have ever experienced abuse). What they *should* do can only be answered by themselves in the course of attempting to love as Christ would.
  
  "In this context, what does it mean for you to “succeed?” To have no lustful thoughts at all? To feel only mild attraction? What exactly is the measure of success?"
  
  This can only be answered in the context of knowing and understanding another individual in their particular situation and their particular struggles. My thrust is not to give guidelines for what we should do (such can only lead to legalism IMO), but to emphasize dress *might* be affected by our love for another.
  
  "Also, I think it is hard to imagine what Christ would look like and be like as a female in a free society. I defy anyone who thinks they have that pinned down."
  
  I would also defy them right along side you. But, on the other hand, I would argue against any conclusions which implied that living a life of Christlike love will have no bearing on how we dress.
  - Lindsey April 25, 2015 Reply
    
    DavidM,
    Thank you for replying to me. You are clearly a good person.
    
    I think I should tell you the context of my perspective. I went to a Christian school from Pre-school to 12th grade. Lots of different denominations were represented at my school from Charismatic to Catholic, and I attended services at dozens of them.
    
    I also grew up in an abusive home. I recently had a counselor say, "In my 20 years of counseling, I have heard a lot of things, but I have never heard a story quite like yours."
    
    Growing up, in all of my experiences with Christians, churches and Christianity, I never once met an organization or person who understood abuse or its implications. Also, although they might have said they cared about victims of abuse, their actions and words supported abusers over abused people 99 out of 100 times.
    
    Someone on this website recommended cryingoutforjustice.com to me. Thank you to that person 1,000 times. It has really helped me. You can see from stories on that website how poorly the church deals with abuse.
    
    I have also read every entry on Clara Hinton's blog, findingahealingplace.com. I believe I found her blog from someone on this site, too. Her husband was a preacher and pedophile. I applaud her son, Jimmy Hinton, who is also a preacher. Jimmy Hinton has made rules in his church that not only help abusers but also protect potential sexual abuse victims. Clara has suffered greatly at the hands of other Christians who thought she wasn't forgiving enough or godly enough, even though her experience of being married to a practicing pedophile for 40 years is almost unthinkable.
    
    By the way, I am not suggesting you don't care about abuse victims. Obviously, you do! I am just painting a picture to provide some context on my life and the life of countless others. Unfortunately, abuse is rampant in the church, as evidenced on this website.
    
    So, while I trust your motivations completely and understand some of what you are saying, I am reading your words through glasses colored by my own experiences. Some of us have heard statements like yours before, but they were used against us, either inadvertently or on purpose.
    
    For example, my dad came close to killing my mom a couple of times. She is a devout Christian and stays with him. (If anyone thinks she should stay with him, please don't reply to tell me!)
    
    In that sad context, think how words like yours might sound to me or be used against me by hurtful people
    
    "So, I have absolutely no problem with the concepts of loving (not healthy - not unless you can explain how Christ willingly dying for us fits the concept of "healthy") boundaries. What I would disagree with is attempting to draw pre-existing boundaries."
    
    I read a quote by Vyckie Garrison the other day, the woman who left Christianity when she left the Quiverfull movement. She decided that Christ dying on the cross was indeed unhealthy, and in the context of her life experiences, she rejected Christ. I am still working through these things.
    
    "So to address some of your questions...
    'What if you verbally abused me the whole time we were studying? Should I continue helping you?'
    
    Maybe, maybe not. The specific answer will vary depending on what you knowing and understand about that person. One should not draw a pre-existing boundary. For instance, I could ask whether or not Christ should have gone ahead and died for those who abused him, hated him and despised him. We can't say that the abuse has no bearing on what we do (suffering through abuse is not always going to be the best thing to do - even Christ sought for a way to accomplish his mission), but neither can we say that suffering abuse is necessarily the proper place to draw a boundary."
    
    From my perspective, suffering through abuse is never the right thing to do, and I should definitely make some pre-existing boundaries!
    
    So, I think for me, I was upset by the comments on this article for a couple of reasons. One is that I have been exhorted to care about others above myself or sacrifice for them in the name of God's love in a thousand venues and in a thousand conversations.
    
    On the other hand, I have almost never seen Christians discussing abuse in realistic or compassionate terms. In my opinion, this article touched on abuse. In many ways, the girl experienced lasting damage due to spiritual and psychological abuse. Knowing how infrequently abuse victims speak up, especially if their words might be interpreted as godless, I thought the appropriate reaction was to celebrate her escape and think about how we can prevent future abuse. For that reason, I felt impatient when exhortations for selflessness cropped up almost immediately and only in posts from men.
    
    I respect your bravery in composing articles for this site. I know you have suffered in many ways yourself at the hands of BG, and it takes a special person to speak publicly about such matters.
    
    I hope I have explained the context of my perspective at least a little bit. I wish you well. Thank you for replying to me in such a loving manner.
- DavidM April 24, 2015 Reply
  
  JR:"I found DavidM's comments infuriating because he seems like a very nice guy who failed to notice the pattern of rudeness in Daniel's posts and seemed unaware of how the discussion had turned to a place that criticized the hard won freedom of the author."
  
  I noticed, but I felt they had sufficiently been addressed by others. What I noticed at the same time though was that he seemed to struggling (however rudely or imperfectly) towards a point I thought worthy of more consideration. I was attempting to totally reframe what I thought he was groping to express. This should not be taken as me simply restating what he said (because even I disagreed with how he was framing things), but instead an attempt to get at the essence of what I thought he was seeing (and what I certainly was). I am sorry if you took this as simple support of what he said (I saw no reason to dogpile). Please take it as intended - an attempt to "reboot" the whole discussion and start from scratch.
- J R April 25, 2015 Reply
  
  DavidM, thank you for responding to my post with substance and specifics. Thank you for your grace to me. To further clarify, I really was not trying to put words in your mouth or equate your behavior with Daniel's. What I quoted was what I understood to be the crux of your argument and it frustrated me exactly because your interaction has shown you to be a kind and thoughtful guy. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your point about general consideration toward others. Now let me share why it frustrated me. It frustrated me because well meaning people are often used by abusers within christianity to legitimize their behavior. Though not on the scale of Lindsey's experience, I too have had the Bible and "christian" doctrines used against me to crush my soul. I share Lindsey's perspective on the author. I too have been damaged by the refusal of the christian community to learn about and deal with the dynamics of abuse in a meaningful way. I too have been set free by the truth shared on cryingoutforjustice.com. You see, the abuse I experienced was socially acceptable in christian circles. Most people wouldn't even acknowledge it as abuse and would blame my boundaries as the "unforgiving" reason for my total lack of relationship with my abuser.
  
  Let me describe to you the process I have seen the Holy Spirit use in the life of women I know who were "provocative" dressers. In every single case, as my friend grew in her understanding of her great value to God, her clothing began to automatically reflect her worth as a person rather than a sex object. What many men fail to understand is that a large portion of women who dress provocatively are simply displaying their deep seated belief that the only way they will receive love and attention and be viewed as beautiful and having worth will come from the sexual dimension of their existence. It may seem like a small thing, but it is inherently dehumanizing and objectifying to think about the sexual thoughts of men toward us. The great evil of the "modesty" movement is in their ability to highjack the idea of considering others to deflect attention from what such doctrine actually does to women. "Modesty" teaching is, at its heart, the church's accepted form of objectifying women, which is why I compare it to pornography, yet more destructive because it is so subtle.
  
  The reason I bristled at the criticism toward the author is that her freedom and worth that she has found in Christ is exactly what guarantees that what she chooses to wear will indeed be appropriate. For a woman in such a spiritually healthy place, comfortable is not possible without having already considered the culture etc. of others. Comfortable also means, "I do not have to worry about being indecent if I make a wrong move." A woman who treasures herself the way God treasures her dresses to be seen as a person, not a thing.
  
  Also, I would encourage you to read the book Boundaries if you have not yet. I received great healing from it myself and it would definitely help you to understand what Lindsey means by *healthy boundaries*. Also, you might find new perspective on the topic of considering others if you examine how much modern christian culture takes the world's view of what love looks like over that of the Bible. Jesus himself commanded his disciples to shake off the dust of those who actively rejected the good news and move on to continue to share with those who had not yet heard. Jesus and Paul also put a sharp distinction between how we treat the lost and how we treat those who claim to be acting for God while laying heavy burdens on His sheep.
- GuyS June 7, 2015 Reply
  
  JR "In every single case, as my friend grew in her understanding of her great value to God, her clothing began to automatically reflect her worth as a person rather than a sex object. What many men fail to understand is that a large portion of women who dress provocatively are simply displaying their deep seated belief that the only way they will receive love and attention and be viewed as beautiful and having worth will come from the sexual dimension of their existence. IT MAY SEEM LIKE A SMALL THING, BUT IT IS INERENTLY DEHUMANIZING AND OBJECTIFYING TO THINK ABOUT THE SEXUAL THOUGHTS OF MEN TOWARD US." emphasis added
  
  JR thanks for this comment. I have been thinking about it for a month and a half. The all caps sentence is what has been stuck in my brain.
  
  The day after you posted this, I read The Art of Bribing By Jayant Bhandari April 27, 2015. Unless you have an interest in economics, it is probably not worth reading. There are some good quotes that helped me understand what I was processing.
  
  "When you visit a government office anywhere, you must leave your self-respect at the gate. From the guard at the gate to the most senior officer, the game is all about status...Virtually every time I have been to a government office, absolutely everywhere and everyone talks with a pleading, supplicating voice. He must look self-effacing, and meek...I am constantly amazed at how virtually everyone accepts being demeaned on a constant, daily, and hour-to-hour basis. This sucks out his soul and spirit even before he could learn its possibility."
  
  After reading Bhandari"s article about doing business in India, it was so much easier for me to understand how you might feel JR.
  
  My conclusion...just as doing business in India for a man is INERENTLY DEHUMANIZING AND OBJECTIFYING , perhaps also it is for a women to do business in this country.
  
  Thank you JR and all you other ladies here on RG who are patient with us men. You all have been a blessing.
DavidM April 24, 2015 Reply

@ Rob War
I don't really disagree with anything you said. Nor does I disagree with the thrust of the article. Yet I find the conclusion of the article problematic. I don't believe that a set of standards (even if perfectly reasonable and self-determined) is the best way to conclude on the issue of how one should dress. And I don't fault the author in any ways when I say this. Her intent was almost certainly not to give a complete answer and normally I wouldn't have interjected. Yet I saw Daniel struggling/groping towards a point I thought was important enough to clarify as best I could. It is on that basis I responded.

So, with that said, I just have one further comment for consideration:
"I appreciate you thoughts David but the article here isn't about what someone might naturally do for a close friend or family member"

I would suggest that Christlike love should be extended beyond the circle of family and close friends. I believe that we should work towards including the whole local body of believers into the circle of "family". That what we "naturally do to family" should become the norm within the whole of the church. It is within that context only (I believe) that issues of lust, dress, and abuse (and a whole host of other issues) can properly be addressed.
- rob war April 25, 2015 Reply
  
  I think we are looking at nuances here. Yes, Christ like love should be always expressed to others beyond our close circle of family and friends. But in talking about trying not to be a temptation or stumbling block to others,
  that can't always be clearly defined for everyone and one cannot simple walk around in constant worry over being this to others. That leads to an extreme in scruples which from the number of articles and comments I read here was what Bill Gothard's teaching ended up as. If one just looks at what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, he talked about adultery beginning in the heart and made no mention about this being caused by what others are wearing. I didn't see the concern you see in the author's story testimony here. Her story was about an extreme in her raising. That has nothing to do with brotherly love expressed to other believers. Being "my brother's keeper" has perimeters to it and whether you meant to or not, proposing that we are our brother's keeper doesn't make us responsible for everyone's weakness to the point of scruples and paralyzing worry and fear. Ultimately, we end up being responsible for our own choices in dealing with our own weaknesses and sin.
  Again all of this is nuances.
J.B. April 27, 2015 Reply

I've been away for much of it, but this has been a very enlightening discussion to read and learn from. I think Rob's response in the latest thread hit the nail on the head, though: "...in talking about trying not to be a temptation or stumbling block to others, that can't always be clearly defined for everyone, and one cannot simply walk around in constant worry over being this to others." I'd go a step further and propose that walking around in constant worry over being a stumbling block can effectively make one a stumbling block, at least to some people.

Several years ago, I had a run-in on Facebook with an older professing believer who had engaged in a mentoring / discipleship relationship with a mutual friend. She had posted a Facebook "note" (blog post) detailing some of the spiritual growth she had experienced over that past year, the crux of which was a realization this older man helped her reach: she was struggling with some sin in her life; therefore, she wasn't actually saved! Now, of course, I couldn't know exactly what her previous spiritual state was, but I was about to discover that this man was a proponent of a radical Christian perfectionism - basically, the notion that Christians must have absolutely zero sin in their lives to be considered saved.

But arguably more disturbing than that was the man's methodology. I tried to reach out to my friend and assure her that she did not need to pile on an enormous pressure upon herself to attain holiness on her own merit, only to be met with condescension by her mentor, who proceeded to bulldoze over my entire spiritual development by flaunting his sinless life and interpretation of the Bible (particularly verses like 1 John 1:7) and conflating it with the Bible itself. We agreed later that day that the bickering was getting nowhere. And I found out that I wasn't alone. The man ran an entire forum dedicated to books he wrote, a subsection of which was dedicated specifically to debates. This particular debate was so near and dear to his heart that he even created special rules and guidelines for participating in it that didn't apply to any other topic. Needless to say, the discussion thread was filled with people who were just as weary from engaging with him, including some who were struggling with depression and had been driven further into it. Of course, their experiences didn't count - only his twisted take on Scripture. Even those who agreed with him were subject to scrutiny for how they wielded the Bible in his apparent favor - just to make sure that they didn't lead anyone else down the "wide road." I'd later discover that the man's oldest daughter had previously "rebelled" against him and the family, which encouraged him to tighten his grip on the younger kids to ensure no one sinned and followed in her footsteps.

Obviously, this is an extreme example. But I can't help but wonder if we generally have similar worries about how our words and actions will affect others, particularly giving just how externally focused our culture - and the church - has been. It's rather telling just reading online discussions among believers, particularly outside healthier communities like RG, when someone writes with more grace than the norm. They're often met with responses that basically state, "Well, you need to caution people against sin, or else you might lead them into it."

I'd like to propose that the cautions against sin and being a stumbling block have been so many and have come from so many untrustworthy, abusive lips that they are now effectively accomplishing the opposite of what we are hoping to achieve, no matter what good intentions we may bring to the table.
Daniel April 27, 2015 Reply

This looks like a very good and valuable discussion. I'm enjoying reading the heartfelt thoughts from each perspective. That seems to be the best role for me at this point. :-)

My best to all of you.

Daniel
'Megan' April 29, 2015 Reply

As a woman, I am deeply physically and sexually attracted to brunette men with pretty blue eyes, awesome facial hair (not all facial hair is created equal ya'll..), an awesome tush, and nice, shapely legs. Don't care one way or another about sculpted arms and chest. (Guess what my husband looks like, eh?)

So, since that's what attracts me, and what I lust after, I have every right to demand that all brunette men never have facial hair, wear hats and sunglasses/colored contacts to hide their beautiful eyes, and wear ankle length pants that are at least three sizes too big for them so I can't see the curve of their tush, and they should probably cover their arms and chest too, just in case they tempt someone else who is into that, at all times so that I will not have to be tempted to deal with my own sin in my heart. I have EVERY RIGHT to make these demands, regardless of their personal taste, preferences, comfort, and in some cases, health (hello hot southern climates!).

Who will join with me in demanding half the population of the world severely limit their personal freedoms and comfort, and have no choice in the matter; to cover up so we ladies can forget about practicing our own self control, and see our brothers as people created in the image of God, rather than nice bodies for us to desire?

In all seriousness though, I'm not kidding about being heavily attracted to certain types, but I would NEVER even think about demanding or guilting any other man to change or hide any aspect of himself, just because I have sin in my heart.

I hear men say, 'you're not a man, you don't know how we think!' No, I'm not a man, but did you just hear me say that I, a woman, am sexually attracted to men? I'm a visual person too. Also, I'm married to a normal, straight, healthy man, who has incredible self control, and doesn't inwardly freak out at the sight of exposed flesh. Maybe he'll have a moment here and there, but overall it's just not the issue for him that it once was, because he has denied himself and practiced self control for years, (which is what the purity culture demands of women, but never asks men.)

There will probably be some men who say that women aren't AS sexually attracted, with the same strength as men, to which I say, "you're right. This is why teenage pregnancy is completely unheard of, because no female is particularly interested in sex, she'll always say no."

Lest anyone suppose I'm making excuses for my own clothing choices, I'm not. My clothing choices shouldn't matter to anyone else, but for the purpose of discussion, I will say that while my clothes would never be considered conservative in ATI circles, they'd probably be considered decent and respectable everywhere else. I can't handle really short skirts and dresses because the thought of my booty being exposed is terrifying, and I'm not comfortable showing much more than a peek of cleavage, if that. (Exceptions for bikinis, and even then, I'm actually still covered, believe it or not.)

This subject has made me angry for some time, and that will probably be evident in my comment today. I do apologize, although I'm not sure if I ought to apologize for being angry about what I see as an injustice. None of my comments are directed at any particular person, please no-one take them personally. Just take them seriously and understand exactly what is being demanded of women all the time, and add to that, 'it's your fault, always your fault, no matter what, still your fault if someone lusts, rapes, etc.'
- Julie April 29, 2015 Reply
  
  I read this in the past, and your post reminded me of it, Megan. http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/
- Don Rubottom April 30, 2015 Reply
  
  Awesome post, Megan. Thanks. Sin must be overcome with Grace and Truth, not suppressed and repressed where it will burst out on some poor, young secretary (or pool boy!).
Alex Jennings April 29, 2015 Reply

This entire website is clearly just a juvenile lash out at all form of authority that are based on clearly stated Biblical principles
- J.B. April 30, 2015 Reply
  
  Alex, would you be willing to explain what about this website is juvenile and what "clearly stated" Biblical principles are being violated here?
- rob war April 30, 2015 Reply
  
  para-church teaching ministry like IBLP have no authority at all. They are a law unto themselves.
KLS May 29, 2015 Reply

I did not grow up in a Quiverfull family or going to the ATI. But I was raised by a very strict mom who followed a branch of independent Baptist ideals, she's very much against "immodest" clothes. Her idea of immodest isn't as extreme as Bill Gothard but within the same vein. Growing up, I wasn't allowed to wear "low cut" tops, spaghetti-strapped tank tops, short skirts, or short shorts. I am 31 now, I have extremely large breasts so it's hard for me to wear a "normal t-shirt". I don't live with my mom now and I've unsuccessfully have stood up to her before but even now, when I see her, she complains about me showing too much skin if am wearing a halter dress or a t shirt that shows a little cleavage. I've gone to counseling and suffered from an eating disorder because of her body and slut shaming. I've struggled to have normal romantic relationships because of the way she reacted to my budding sexuality as a pre-teen. I do believe my mother has a lot of issues other than following the KJV of the Bible. I may not have had it as bad as some "fundie" upbringings but I've struggled a lot growing up in a conservative community in the bible belt.
- J R May 30, 2015 Reply
  
  Thank you for sharing the truth of how modesty teaching is inherently damaging. Many people here have had to limit or cut off contact with a legalistic parent, including me. If your mother refuses to acknowledge and change behavior that pushes you into self destroying thoughts and actions, you may have to limit contact with her. That does not make you bitter, unforgiving, or unChristlike. In a different thread on RG someone shared a link to this blog on our view of the human body and sexuality that I found so healing to my own sense of worth and beauty.I hope it is freeing truth for you as well.
  
  http://mychainsaregone.org/articles/pornographic-view/?doing_wp_cron=1432953664.6779561042785644531250
  
  http://mychainsaregone.org/the-biblical-shame-of-nakedness/
  - P.L. June 7, 2015 Reply
    
    That's a truly helpful website, J.R. Thanks for sharing.
Annie June 16, 2015 Reply

I was gang raped at the age of 17. I was trying to escape a bad situation and get a ride home. I wore pants. I was a virgin. Those men were wild animals. I think of them as peons now and harmless. I grew up in a rigid environment in the middle of the prairies in Canada. We had a "god" who monitored all the activities. I call it a "Truman-like" world. We moved to California when I was ten. Our family fell apart. When I was raped, I longed for my earthly daddy to let me know I was loved and precious and it wasn't my fault. All I saw was his back.I have finally healed, but I am writing my raw story to help other women know how valued and loved they are by their Father in heaven. They can also reduce the monsters to peons and send them back to the wild from which they came.
Love,
Annie
Emily Anne June 23, 2015 Reply

The verses about be fruitful and multiple were written by a culture and at the time when they feared that their people would not survivor. This has nothing to do with our situations present day, and there is nothing wrong with cross dressing either! These are old societal standards which fit the societies of those times-ancient Judism, right? From what I understand women were treated like property, a child could be stoned to death for lying or disrespecting his Dad....It's clear that in war they would slaughter everyone including babies and little children, but save the virgins to be raped. Forced marraige such that she would be subject to being raped anytime her husband so desired.

There were NO Laws to protect children from abuse. I can't find ONE verse in the Old Testament which says 'Be gentle with children, be sure not to hurt them, and treat them with respect and care.' We know that polygama was practiced, and we know that they would slaughter entire people's (genecide) under the same religious cover as say, radical Islam does. They say that God wants them to and even delights in the slaughter.

Theses are old old ideas from a time and place which was savage and very different from our modern times. I imagine that other people's in the area were also very savage, and we need to remember that just because a society says that "God wants us to do this" doesn't make it true.

There's nothing wrong with sexual feelings, nobody has to make sure to be 'modest' if they don't want too. This idea of 'purity' is inherently shaming/blaming/and devaluing of human beings.
- esbee June 23, 2015 Reply
  
  You are correct. Those times were savage. God’s chosen people, the Israelites, were warlike people, very similar to radical Moslem world today. (In fact, the Israelites and Moslems are half-brothers, both descending from Abraham.)
  The Old Testament tells the history of God’s chosen people and it holds nothing back…it tells about all sorts of sins committed by God's people and those around them (lies, sex, rape, murder). God dealt with the Israelites on a level they could understand and gave them the Mosaic law, designed to tame them.
  This law with all its thousands of minutia was no longer needed when Jesus came, even though so-called religious people today, such as the subject of this website, keep trying to get people to submit to all sorts of useless laws. Jesus radically stated that he had a new way, instead of eye for an eye he said to turn the other cheek.
  The rules about being kind to children and equal rights for women are in the New Testament. Do you see edicts in the New Testament that tell Christians to wipe out those who do not believe? Jesus said many things contrary to the Mosaic Law because he was the fulfillment of the Law. His own people, the Jews, got mad at Him for not following the “rules” He actually wrote. Jesus left only 2 rules to follow, love God and love your neighbor.
  Lots of people use the things they do not understand or agree with in the Bible, verses that seem to contradict, or where God tells his people to slay others, as an excuse not to believe or to justify their sin or life style.
  And your statement is correct, sexual feelings are normal, but if your neighbor’s sense of modesty is so free as to have sex on his front lawn in front of your children is where people misinterpret so many things, both in and out of the Bible.
- Don Rubottom June 24, 2015 Reply
  
  Emily, I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure about basis on which you say these things. You assert a lot of things are right and wrong. On what basis? Is polygamy wrong? What about your last two sentences would make polygamy wrong?
  I fear you do not really understand the Old Testament, seeing it as many do as a big bunch of prohibitions. What part of Israelite culture do you find abusive of children? The command to parents to teach their children to love God seems pretty comprehensive. Maybe in a culture where children stay with their fathers, there is less need for specific laws "protecting" them; their fathers had all the authority needed to keep them safe.
  There is some beautiful, counter-cultural, woman protecting aspects of the Law of Moses: if a woman captured in war or "bought" from her father is not given ALL the rights of a wife, she was to be set free without compensation to the man. That does not authorize rape. The punishment for rape and adultery was death to the guilty, but the 'punishment' for fornication was marriage, IF the girl's father consented, i.e. if he thought the relationship had potential for success. The mandatory divorce certificate was proof of a woman's chastity, a very strong social protection for her. There is so much more. Polygamy was clearly rejected as normative ("the two shall be one flesh"), even though it was practiced and had to be dealt with; but the mandatory rights of a first wife pretty well made it untenable for any other.
  Get ready, polygamy is coming very soon to our culture. And many will be saying "there is nothing wrong with that". On what basis do you determine what is right and wrong? It would help your argument if you have an extrinsic basis for your values. Otherwise, it is merely your opinion and there seems little point in judging others, past or present, by your personal values.
kay April 7, 2016 Reply

I understand the pain of your mother controlling your clothes even into your 20's. My mom did that. Not that modesty was an issue. It was all about fashion to her. I had to look like I was dressed from the latest fashion mags. Nothing sloppy or dirty or even a hair out of place. A smile on my face or there was hell to pay. So disempowering.
JM December 3, 2018 Reply

I am a little disturbed by this post. Disturbing indeed is the implication here, at least what appears to be the gist of it.

Are you seriously saying you pay no thought to modesty whatsoever, that you do not instill in your children a desire to be modest? Look. I agree that Gothard took this way too far. I also agree that the Bible does not demand such stringent dress guidelines as you describe. Sure, the Bible does not actually say spaghetti straps are bad or that pants are wrong for women. Sure, the Bible says little about how tight a top should be. And I agree. We need to look at these issues really Biblically.

But you seem to suggest that you have thrown it all to the wind and just wear what is comfortable and appropriate.

Look. The biggest flaw in these modesty arguments is the lack of responsibility. It is not something mutually exclusive. Men ARE responsible for what they see and where they look (and how they respond). That is true. But that does not give anyone a free pass. Women are just as responsible to make sure they do not intentionally (and intentionally is a key in my opinion) wear what could cause men to look.

You can claim wearing a bikini is comfortable and appropriate at the swimming pool. But don't you dare say a man should not look at you when dressed that way. That is absurd. You have put it all on display. Someone is going to notice. Now if a man abuses you when you are dressed that way, yes, he is responsible and should go to jail. But for just looking and lusting? No. You both have blame there. And you should expect to be blamed. Period. That's it.

I sincerely hope this is not what you are suggesting, but the article seems to argue for it. That is indeed absurd, dear author. You know better.

The Shame of Beauty

About the author

142 Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Explore All Content

Seen "Shiny Happy People?"

Their Day in Court: Part Three

Their Day in Court: Part Two

Their Day in Court: Part One

Statement from Recovering Grace regarding the lawsuit a ...

Rethinking the Nativity

Bill Gothard’s Powerless Gospel

Plaintiffs Amend Lawsuit Against IBLP, Also Sue Bill Go ...

An ATI Education, Final Chapter: Guilty Silence

Introducing our IBYC/IBLP Facebook Recovery Group

Plaintiffs Amend Lawsuit Against IBLP, Also Sue Bill Go ...

Charlotte's Story

Bill’s Cabin: Uncovering Sin

Sacred Grooming, Part Six: A Secretary's Account of Lif ...

Trapped in the Shadow of 'God's Anointed': Breaking fre ...

Our Response to Bill Gothard’s Statement

A Call to Repentance

Bill Gothard Issues Public Statement

The Agent of Satan

Confident Statements Do Not a Solid Argument Make

Search Recovering Grace

Recent Posts

Tags

The Shame of Beauty

About the author

Related posts

142 Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Explore All Content

Search Recovering Grace

Recent Posts

Tags