Mandating the Hijab? The Christian Modesty Survey
May 21, 2007 by Laura | Trackback URI
An Islamic cleric described immodestly dressed women as “uncovered meat” who were at fault for attracting sexual predators. He suggested that if they stayed home in a hijab, no problem (the problem referenced in the article is gang rape) would have occurred. Maybe so. An equally effective, and equally ridiculous, solution would be to castrate all men. That would definitely prevent rape, but somehow I don’t think preventing rape was his goal. It was to control women, and to give men a free pass for not controlling themselves.
TheRebelution.com launched the results of their massive Modesty Survey a while back. Over 1,600 young Christian men answered questions about the clothing girls wear and their responses to it. Is this survey the Christian version of mandating the burqa or the hijab? Absolutely not. First of all, it’s not a mandate. It’s a resource, not a list of rules. It’s not guys saying, “I can’t control myself, so you’re going to have to dress accordingly.” It’s guys saying, “Did you know that when you wear X, it has this effect on me?” The survey is aimed specifically at Christians, not at society at large. Part of Christianity is a mandate and higher calling within the faith to serve each other and not encourage other Christians to sin.
Modesty is an important issue in our house because we have a teenage daughter. God knows - literally - that I don’t want her dressing and acting the way I did. In my defense, I didn’t know any better, nor did my friends. Our mindset during those years was to be attractive to boys. Much of our focus in life was to look good for the guys, or sometimes for the one guy with whom we were currently playing at marriage. Going steady, being “faithful,” investing our hearts in a relationship… Guys naturally enough wanted us to fulfill the promises our wardrobes, actions, and attitudes were making. They played at it too, using the right words to get more physical intimacy. And too often, we didn’t mind, because the more physical we got with them, the more cemented emotionally we became as a couple - until it all inevitably went crashing down and the cycle started again with a different boy. Immodesty was more than just clothing, it was a lifestyle. We were “in the world” and we were “of the world.”
I defend any woman’s right to wear clothes as skimpy as she likes. If that’s what she really wants to wear, it’s a free country and I want it to continue to be so. But the freedom to dress provocatively also isn’t a mandate. What Christians choose to wear indicates the priorities of our heart. What is the purpose of wearing sexy clothes? To attract attention? Inspire lust? Show off the latest fashions? To fit in to society? Feel good about ourselves? Are any of those motives compatible with biblical Christianity? Although we know that boys and men are responsible for controlling their own behavior and for their own sin issues, my daughter (and most of the girls in her youth group) choose to serve their brothers in Christ by not dressing in ways that will be a stumbling block for them. It’s one outward symbol of what’s going on in their hearts, and this modesty survey is an opportunity for girls to examine themselves and think about their wardrobe decisions.
1.7% of the guys surveyed feel strongly that girls shouldn’t show their calves. Is it now Burkha Day for all well-meaning Christian women? Absolutely not! In reading through the survey, you might have trouble finding a single item of clothing that someone, somewhere, doesn’t have a problem with. So where do we draw the line?
Well, the fact is that 98.3% guys DO NOT feel strongly that girls shouldn’t show their calves. If you look at the survey results you will find that 99.9% of the guys take full responsibility for themselves, and don’t expect women to cover every inch of skin — they’re just asking for help.
The honest truth is this: We’re not telling you what to wear — we’re just telling you what we, as guys, have to guard against. It is God’s Word, your own heart and conscience, and your parents and godly friends who should help you decide what to do about it. But, to help you reach your own conclusions we’ve provided some excellent resources that strike a balanced, non-legalistic tone. Please take the time to explore these resources:
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Mark My Words, Big Dog’s Weblog, DragonLady’s World, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Right Celebrity, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, Stageleft, , stikNstein… has no mercy, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam’s Blog, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, , Colloquium, Conservative Cat, Jo’s Cafe, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
“What Christians choose to wear indicates the priorities of our heart.”
WRONG. The motivations of our choices in dress reflect the priorities of our heart. In fact, that goes with everything in every aspect of our lives, not just fashion.
“What is the purpose of wearing **** clothes?”
To look ****, of course. That’s why they’re called “****” and not “frumpy”.
What’s the purpose of dressing dark and scary? To look dark and scary.
What’s the purpose of dressing professionally? To look professional.
This is a moot point.
“To attract attention? Inspire lust? Show off the latest fashions? To fit in to society? Feel good about ourselves?”
That depends.
Everybody wants attention, just for different reasons. And you’re gonna attract attention, whether you want to or not. Whether you’re going to work in a thousand-dollar Brioni suit or strolling down Broadway butt-naked. But that’s beside the point.
There are two types of desire for attention: selfless and prideful.
For example, some musicians try to get attention for their music because they want it to be heard. They want popularity because they’re trying to spread the music further and to expand their audience. They’re hoping that they can make it big doing what they love, and that can only happen if more people hear their stuff. This is an example of a selfless desire for attention. They are not in it to win some stupid popularity contest, but because they love what they are doing. Fame and popularity are bonuses, but not their penultimate desire.
Now, other musicians are using their music as an excuse to get attention for themselves. They may or may not like the music or the band they’re playing in, but ultimately, they are in it to be popular. The glory and fame of rock stardom is not the bonus, but very REASON they are there. They want attention, alright, but for their pride.
Same goes for girls looking ****. Some girls dress like this simply because. . .well. . .simply because they LIKE it. And so with some girls. Some do it because they see something and think, Cool! I really like that! They like looking **** simply for its own sake. The compliments and acknowledgement of others as a result are bonuses, but not requirements.
Other girls see these same articles of clothing and stake all of their self-worth and selfish pride on pieces of fabric that will go out of date within the year. Still others girls see it and see only a tool for which to SEDUCE men and it is these females that are truly dangerous. They may or may not like the fashion, but in the end, their true aim is not to look good, but either fill the void where their self-confidence should lie or to bring men to their knees (if not both). It’s a prideful desire for attention.
“Are any of those motives compatible with biblical Christianity?”
Yes, I believe so.
One last point!
By the way, even modest clothing can be used for prideful reasons, too. There are many girls who dress modestly because they like it or are more comfortable.
At the same time, there are also many church-going “good” girls who take so much pride on how fastidious and how prim and how utterly proper they appear, it’s gone to their heads and made them disgustingly conceited and condescending.
So you see, there’s a flipside to every coin.
Over and Out,
Shinobi Vega
In regards to my previous comment, the censored words are “s-” -e-” -xy”
I can’t believe this! I had to spell it like this to trick the censor bots! Unbelievable! Why are we so freaking afraid of this word?! What in God’s blue heaven is so evil and deplorable about the word “s”- “-e- X”?!
People are going to hell and we’re more upset about ninjas uttering buzzwords on websites, man this is pathetic.
Oh, get over yourself - it’s just a profanity plugin. You haven’t been oppressed by it and it’s completely unrelated to the fact that people are going to hell. I post about things related to *** on a regular basis - for example ***" rel="nofollow">here and ***-a-chance/" rel="nofollow">here.
As to the modesty - purposely dressing to look **** is compatible with biblical Christianity? Are you kidding? I can’t believe anyone can actually believe that. You’re joking, right?
I didn’t say I was oppressed. I’m just saying the profanity plug-in is a pain.
How is anybody suppossed to know I’m talking about “sye-x” unless I find some convoluted way to type it? It’s so absurd! This is beside the point, however. This is merely a symptom of bigger issue:
What is so profane about the word “sye-x” anyway? Why are Christians so afraid. . .no. . .terrified and embarrased about this word that they go through the trouble of censoring it out in the first place? I mean, for cripes sake, God created ***! It’s a beautiful thing. Yet, only on a Christian site do I have go through this ****.
It’s frustrating.
“As to the modesty - purposely dressing to look **** is compatible with biblical Christianity? Are you kidding? I can’t believe anyone can actually believe that. You’re joking, right?”
Believe it. And why do you refuse to acknowledge my argument about motivation? You’ve said absolutely nothing in regards as to the reasons a girl may choose to look sy-exy.
I suggest you read my post again.
*sigh*Sadly, it’s getting late and I don’t have time to go more into depth. But I truly believe that TRUE modesty has little to nothing to do with clothing. It has more to do with your heart. It says in the Bible that we are to clothe ourselves with humility and virtue.
When modesty was mentioned, I think was intended to be interpreted as a virtue, not as a fashion trend. After all, virtue and vice are timeless, fashion trends are not. And God is not a fashion trend, he is timeless.
The dictionary has various definitions for modesty. Most tend to think it can only mean “Plain-Jane”, “sexless”, or “boring”.
But other definitions can also mean “free from ostentation and/or pretention.” I shall be focusing on the latter definitions to prove my point.
Ostentation and pretention are anathema to modesty. The words refer not only to elegance, but appearances made solely with the intention of impressing others. Not to glorify God but to solely to inflate your own ego.
I mentioned in my first comment that you don’t have to dress sye-xy to be immodest. Quite the opposite, in fact. I have come across more than my share of Christian women who dressed in long dresses and all sorts of boring, “proper” clothing who are some of the most conceited, self-righteous b–ches one could ever meet. At the same time, I’ve met girls dressed in half-nothing who have been far kinder and more humble and closer to the character of Christ than the previous “modest” women I mentioned earlier.
Now, I’m not gonna diss a Christian girl if she dresses “like a Christian” if that’s the look she truly likes. If she likes long dresses and non-revealing clothing and low heels, then by all means, let her dress so. If that’s her thing, then so be it.
But if a Christian girl is merely dressing “properly” to draw attention to how oh-so-righteous and holy and utterly virginal she is, than she is no different than the Pharisees who shouted their prayers in the crowded bazaars with the loudest of voices in their attempts to impress everyone with their spirituality.
Her non-pretentiousness has become a form of pretentiousness- her pride. Looking bland and unsy-e-xxy in an attempt to either fit in or show off how proper you are is a form of pride. It’s just not as obvious because it’s so bland and boring.
So, in spiritual terms, does that sound like dressing modestly to you? I thought not.
Frankly, I would much rather see a girl scantily clad in short shorts at church who reflects the true image of Christ through her character than to see her dressed all prim and proper and reflect none of God’s love.
Besides, it says in the Bible that man looks at the appearance, but God looks at the heart. And thank God for that, say I!
The purpose of the plugin is to help keep this site PG rated. All it does is replace words on a list with asterisks, and if you mouse over the asterisks, it shows you the word. So you needn’t go through the trouble of finding all these ways around it; you can still make yourself clear. Did you read MY post? I use the word “***” frequently on this blog. No, it’s nothing to be ashamed of; it is a gift from God and the act honors Him when it is done as intended - within the confines of marriage.
That said, the idea that a Christian girl can dress purposely like a **** for reasons that are “pure” is preposterous. She “simply likes it” - well, WHY does she like it? Give me a real reason.
You can list the hypocrisy of girls who dress a certain way to show off how holy they are. But that is a false dilemma and a straw man, because their hypocrisy has no bearing whatsoever on that of a girl who self identifies as Christian while dressing like a ****. (And yes, I’m using that phrase, instead of the softer phrase, “dressing ****” deliberately.) Both groups are entirely wrong. The choice is NOT to either dress like a **** but “with a pure heart” (and that is simply not possible, anyway - when you stand in front of the mirror you KNOW how you look) or to dress like an Amish because you are a hypocrite.
The fact is that it is possible to dress modestly and stylishly, and to look attractive without looking ******. My daughter and her friends manage it every day. There’s no need to get out the burka, and as I said in the post and they said in the survey, nobody is calling for that. But the desire to look **** showing does in fact reflect an aspect of a person’s character. Consider the meaning of the very phrase you’re using - dressing ****. Dressing in a way that evokes thoughts of ***. Since Christians believe that *** outside the confines of marriage is wrong, how is dressing in a way that promotes thoughts of *** pure, good or appropriate? Especially when there is - at most - only one person who can biblically take her up on her metaphorical offer?
So if a woman or girl “simply likes” to dress **** and does so… and if that provokes her brother in Christ to temptation or sin, well, that is not her problem, right? Never mind that she’s deliberately, consciously putting big stumbling blocks in front of him, it’s up to him to keep his walk pure. How again is that a Christian attitude?
This is not the limit of the choices. And catering to her own vanity by dressing in short shorts - with the full knowledge of how that affects the people around her - does not reflect the true image of Christ.
What is in the heart always is reflected in the dress; otherwise, we would be to uncomfortable to wear something that we didn’t feel in our hearts. I can always tell what is in the heart and the intent of a person by the way they dress. You may deny this all day long but when the truth is known you will find that this rings true.
Okay, Shanna.
So you can tell what’s in a person’s heart by the way they dress, you say? Why don’t try judging a person by their actions instead of their wardrobe?
Instead of looking at how much skin they’re showing, why don’t you look at their character? It’s one thing to look at a person’s clothing and see it as a sign of their spiritual status, but it is NEVER the final word in the end. You cannot just look at outer appearances and make your judgement on that. That would be like saying I’m a Devil worshipper just because I dress all gothic. It’s no different.
It says in the Bible that man looks at the outer appearance, but God looks at the heart. If we are called to try to be more like Christ (God’s SON, no less), don’t you think you oughta use God’s standards instead of your own before you start handing out spiritual verdicts?
So no. You can NOT tell what people are like solely on their wardrobe. And unless you suddenly gain the ability to read minds like the prophets of old, I suggest you stop trying because as far as I’m concerned, your sabatoging the Kingdom with these tactics.
And let me tell you something else, if this is how your judging others, than be don’t be surprised when God judges you in the same way. Matthew 7:1-2 warns “judge not, lest you be judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you yourself will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.”
Think about that.
Well good for your daughter and her friends. What if a girl doesn’t want to look prim?
I never said it was,you’re twisting my words. I was just saying which one I’d rather see if I had to pick and choose between the two examples.
What if she dresses like this because she just likes it? There are girls like that, you know! What if she’s just dressing this way for the same reason I like goth fashion? For it’s own sake? Why is that so hard to conceive?
Okay, I’ll admit, many girls do dress this way out of selfish conceit, but does that mean that ALL girls do now? Does a Christian girl have to dress for those exact same reasons herself? Alot of non-Christians dress gothic to show their contempt against Christian America, does that mean I have to dress gothic for the same reason, too? Of course not!
The problem is that we’ve been so innured with the stereotype of what a Christian girl is suppossed to look like that we begun to believe it ourselves. We’ve been so inundated and completely brainwashed with the false belief that bad girls, and only bad girls, look hot, that we’ve begun to judge others by that standard. So when we see a girl looking ****, we automatically assume that she must not be a Christian or if she is, then she’s a hypocrite.
What a crock!
How does purposely dressing in a way that evokes thoughts of *** - when, if she’s a Christian, she cannot follow through on that implicit promise - do anything but detract from her Christian witness? It makes her a liar and a tease, at best, and shows a very callous disregard for her brothers in Christ. That makes her a hypocrite, when she knowingly does it.
“Affecting people around her”. All right, let’s not beat around the bush. I know you’re referring to the fact that it gets men hard. Well let me tell you, I have seen many fully-clothed women who still get men hard irregardless. The truth is, the only way to ensure that men are never “affected”, as you say, is to obliterate all traces of sexiness from women altogether. You can cover a girl’s skin all you want, but if a guy sees any hint of curve or any thing arousing, he’s gonna be “affected”. If he sees that she’s gotta nice body or a pretty face, he’s gonna be “affected” whether she dresses up or not.
Maybe you’re not, but the only way to truly ensure a male is never “affected” is to completely and utterly obliterate all traces of a woman’s beauty and voloptuousness. All of you are fighting this needless battle under the delusion that reenacting the Book Burnings of the Third Reich (only with lingerie and g-strings and leather in the flames this time) will solve the problem of lust. You are wrong. Dead wrong.
The mere act of covering a female’s skin will never be enough. If a man sees anything **** in a woman, he is going to be “affected” whether she’s naked or fully clothed. And it doesn’t matter how far back you turn back the fashion clock. Believe it or not, men were been spellbound by beautiful even in the Middle Ages because their beauty could be seen. Certainly, the ladies didn’t strut around in underwear, but men were “affected” nonetheless because they found traits OTHER than bared legs to be aroused by. A slender neck, graceful arms, a pretty face, whatever. Read your history.
So you say that you aren’t calling for the burka? Then, you will never win this insane jihad of yours because until any and ALL traits of a woman’s beauty remain are quarantined to the home, then pretty women will always find a way to “affect” men- whether they want to or not.
Allow me to illustrate my previous point.
I once saw this one chick at my college. This girl was a nice, Christian girl who dressed very properly (God, how I hate that freaking word). She always wore long sleeved shirts and wore jeans and, aside from her face, neck, and hands, not a single skin cell was bared. But the girl couldn’t hide it, she was too hot. Long legs, busty chest, beautiful face, and an a$$ that could’ve been featured on one of them hip-hop videos. In all, she was magnificent! And everybody knew it. Any guy who saw her was instantly aroused, it didn’t matter that she dressed in plain-Jane attire. She was beautiful.
She was “affecting” all the men around her. Merely covering her skin was not enough to keep men from looking at her and making them think all these naughty thoughts about her. Now, if she truly was a godly woman, then she would have to do something to rectify this problem! After all, if she truly cared about not “affecting” the men, then she should ensure that she not look so desirable and, thus, become a stumbling block to their Christian walk.
After all, we wouldn’t want her “catering to her vanity” by continuing to look so provocative with the full knowledge of how she’s “affecting” others now, would we?
For starters, the skin tight jeans would have to go because her legs were just too long and athletic and lovely. And we all know how long, beautiful legs “affect” men, especially when equiped with a nice rear end. Some loose, frumpy sweats about two sizes too big might do the job nicely.
Oh, and that tight sweater that made her breasts swell sooooo provocatively well have to burn as well. It accentuated her chest far too much and was “affecting” men’s focus and diverting their thoughts away from godly things! And we know how deeply breasts “affect” males! Not to mentioned that athletic, hour glass figure that sweater emphasized! How conceited it would be for this woman to continue wearing such an article of clothing, knowing how it is “affecting” her brothers in Christ! She needs to move at least two sizes up on that one, too.
Is this all a bit extreme? I don’t know. Depends on how desperately you Christian ladies wish to help the poor helpless men who just can’t help themselves.
Oh, how non-provocative she now appears! She is a beautifully modest butterfly! She looks as arousing as a nun in a cabaret!
Wait, wait! What about the make up? Gone as well! Actually, she never wore it, but if she did, that lipstick would’ve brought too much attention to her irresistably ****, kissable lips. Mascara? Powder? Blush? All gotta go. After all, her face was already beautiful even without such things, to add them would only be disasterous! We wouldn’t want any males to see and be “affected” by that pretty face and start thinking all sorts of wickedly carnal things! You must remember that with many men, a pretty face is all it takes to inspire lust and desire. Better to not take any chances. To encourage such lust under the pretense of merely wanting to look beautiful would be vanity!
Uh. . .okay. . .the make-up is gone, but that face is still too pretty. And that hair. It’s too soft and beautiful. And that jewelry! It makes her look pretty, too, we can’t have that! Especially when you consider that jewelry was created for the SPECIFIC purpose of enchancing a woman’s beauty. Oh nooo! Beauty leads to distraction, which leads to lust, which leads to unholy thoughts.
And the perfume! Gone! Remember, it says in the Word we are not to give into a sensuality. Is not the sense of smell a sense? And does not perfume elicit pleasure and thoughts of women? And when men think of women, they might end up thinking of s-e-x! It is one thing for a woman to be clean “for cleanliness is godliness” but to smell provocative and elicit thoughts of s-e-xual congress?! No, my Christian sisters, this cannot BE! This is a risk we cannot afford to take! We! Are! At! War!! Against lust!
Let’s see, what’s next. Oh, she might not want to wear shirts, either. We must learn from history. Remember, Napoleon was “affected” by Josephine’s lithe, graceful arms. In fact, it was the one of the things that drove him mad with desire! And if a brute like Napoleon could be so “affected” by such a thing as a pair of arms, who’s to say that males in this enlightened age of ours cannot? No, better safe then sorry.
And so on and so on and so forth, are you starting to get the picture?
The burka was implement for the EXPLICIT purpose of protecting women from lustful eyes. Haven’t you ever wondered why it covers the female completely? It doesn’t just hide their legs or their torsoes or their chests! It envelopes them entirely! You can’t even see the women’s eyes through these stupid things!
Ever think about why? To hide their beauty! To hide their sexiness! To keep them from “affecting” men!!
Anything less than full-envelopment greatly increases the risk of something being seen. Something pretty. Something feminine and graceful. Something that might distract men from their faith. So, if you truly wish for Christian women to not “affect” men, THIS the only option you have!!
So go ahead. Continue condemning that cheeky lingerie and those two-pieces and those EVIL leather outfits, but until you are able to hide ALL feminine beauty and confine it, you will never win.
Or better yet, why don’t you stop damning people on both sides on the basis of their wardrobe and try winning them over to Christ instead? All I gotta say about it.
You must be very young, the way you keep reverting to the “all or nothing” kind of thinking. Colin Powell had sage advice - don’t stand so close to your
positionargument that if it gets knocked down, you go too. This is *not* personal, so please dial it back a notch.You’re focusing on the results. I’m addressing MOTIVE, of deliberately evoking certain results. Please re-read my last comment. Perhaps this analogy will help clarify it for you:
When I wave a chocolate cake under a diabetic’s nose, knowing full well that person should not eat it, that it harms them, the diabetic is still responsible for turning away from it and doing the right thing. But I am responsible for *knowingly* tempting that person, for knowingly making their life harder, for deliberately causing them grief that could have easily been avoided. The diabetic knows he should not have the cake, and it’s his job to turn away from it. My behavior doesn’t change his responsibility, they are two entirely separate issues. But I’m responsible for harming him in this situation. The person who knows full well that the diabetic will be harmed by the cake and waves it under their nose anyway has sinned. Just like the Christian who understand the concept of sexual purity but deliberately dresses in a way that evokes thoughts of *** has sinned.
Does that make sense? The knowledge of good and evil, and motive are what count. When you are called to Christianity, you are called to a life of sacrifice, and that includes choosing to dress in a way that does not harm others. It includes going out of your way to not harm others in all things, not just your clothes.
Dressing goth (which my own daughter used to do) isn’t really prone to tempt people to sin. Dressing **** DOES. But it’s not just a matter of keeping your midriff covered out in public for the greater glory of God.
I knew a guy with a foot fetish. Did I have every right to go barefoot and to polish my toenails when he was in my apartment? Yes, I did. But knowing the effect seeing my feet had on him, I did him the courtesy of covering them up because I cared about him as a person and because displaying my feet for him was the equivalent of going topless in front of someone else. The KNOWLEDGE of that AND DOING IT ANYWAY would have been like making a promise I had no intention of keeping. It would be wrong.
Bottom line - every situation cannot be covered, but as Christians we are required to do the best we can with the knowledge we have. And it’s abundantly clear - or should be, to Christians - that we are called to a lifestyle that includes, among other things, self-sacrifice and sexual purity.
Our comments crossed, but it didn’t really matter because your last comment just expounded on the same idea - that the result is the key. In fact, the motive is the key.And I want to be very clear. Women *are not* responsible for keeping men’s minds clear of lustful thoughts. There comes a point where we’ve done what we can and he’s on his own. But I’m talking about *deliberately provoking* those thoughts - that’s wrong.