'Indecent' Clothing and Abusive Control

I have a problem with some of the discussion here. There is too much "blame the victim". Christ indicated clearly that the sin here is in the mind of the beholder. To transfer of any blame from the observer who interprets the actions of another as an invitation (come on) for sexual advances with out a clear indication that it is reciprocated, is a clear violation of the victim's rights. No means No.

This is the guts of the argument, you are not totally responsible for the thoughts and actions of another. How some portray our great grandparents re the exposure of a an ankle and what that implied, compared to a normal day at the beach any summers day is huge. Yet is is still the same. I consider the rational of the wearing of veils etc, that it is to prevent 'the lust in men and there for causing sin' to be a complete copout.

Surely there is needed a much more serous and mature explanation of the human 'mating game' with a clear demarcation that if you are lusting about another human, child, woman or man is not on. Is this not the gist of the principal that Christ preached?
I would also suggest that in the attention to 'do not make your self a target' that attention to community standards has been ignored. What are we teaching our selves. That we have no control of our actions and so our potential victims need to take all of the precautions. Something's wrong where 1 in 4 to 5 females and 1 in 7 males will be sexually abused over their lifetime. (Current estimates for Australia)
How re establish a better social contract is not a simple proposition. The stress on 'individual rights' at the expense of societal rights must be addressed. Stressing individual responsibility is part of the need. Bit hard when those who 'miss out' are ignored.

Too often in the Church the expression 'do not offend the weaker brother' is extended to control and manipulate others.

This is one of the rare cases where I disagree with Julie. Firstly, uniforms are great in schools for another important reason- they are an equalizer between the rich and the poor, not forcing poorer students to feel like they have to buy wealthy outfits they can't afford, and rich students lording it over them.

Secondly, every society has it's standards on nudity and propriety. I live in Morocco, where the standards on attire for men and women are stricter than those in America, just as America is stricter than France or the South Sea Islands or tribal Africa. Men don't walk around here without their shirts on or in shorts, and it's considered indecent for a woman to wear a short skirt. These are issues of culture, and how what is lascivious is defined. Hair here is a turn-on, and so women often cover their hair, or put it up. In ancient times, such as, I Corinthians, it was just the same, and Paul suggests that women cover their hair so that they are not a distraction and their power and authority to preach and prophesy is clear.

No, I wouldn't suggest the same for the States, because our culture has changed. But let us not ignore Biblical injunctions just because the culture has changed. Both sexes need to be concerned about not leading the other astray or into lust, and let us be honest, men tend to be more visual. No, it should not be a matter of controlling women, but a matter, as Paul speaks of, of voluntarily limiting our freedom out of love. Following Julie's logic here, a woman should have the freedom to go topless in the US, just as she does in tribes in Africa. Sure, she has that freedom, but would it be the loving thing to do for her brothers? No, any more than it would be loving for a man to walk around completely nude. It might not be fair that there are more areas that are considered sexual on a woman than a man, but it is a fact of our culture, and desiring that it not be so will not change that.

I have a problem with some of the discussion here. There is too much "blame the victim". Christ indicated clearly that the sin here is in the mind of the beholder. To transfer of any blame from the observer who interprets the actions of another as an invitation (come on) for sexual advances with out a clear indication that it is reciprocated, is a clear violation of the victim's rights. No means No.

This is the guts of the argument, you are not totally responsible for the thoughts and actions of another. How some portray our great grandparents re the exposure of a an ankle and what that implied, compared to a normal day at the beach any summers day is huge. Yet is is still the same. I consider the rational of the wearing of veils etc, that it is to prevent 'the lust in men and there for causing sin' to be a complete copout.

Surely there is needed a much more serous and mature explanation of the human 'mating game' with a clear demarcation that if you are lusting about another human, child, woman or man is not on. Is this not the gist of the principal that Christ preached?
I would also suggest that in the attention to 'do not make your self a target' that attention to community standards has been ignored. What are we teaching our selves. That we have no control of our actions and so our potential victims need to take all of the precautions. Something's wrong where 1 in 4 to 5 females and 1 in 7 males will be sexually abused over their lifetime. (Current estimates for Australia)
How re establish a better social contract is not a simple proposition. The stress on 'individual rights' at the expense of societal rights must be addressed. Stressing individual responsibility is part of the need. Bit hard when those who 'miss out' are ignored.

Too often in the Church the expression 'do not offend the weaker brother' is extended to control and manipulate others.

This is one of the rare cases where I disagree with Julie. Firstly, uniforms are great in schools for another important reason- they are an equalizer between the rich and the poor, not forcing poorer students to feel like they have to buy wealthy outfits they can't afford, and rich students lording it over them.

Secondly, every society has it's standards on nudity and propriety. I live in Morocco, where the standards on attire for men and women are stricter than those in America, just as America is stricter than France or the South Sea Islands or tribal Africa. Men don't walk around here without their shirts on or in shorts, and it's considered indecent for a woman to wear a short skirt. These are issues of culture, and how what is lascivious is defined. Hair here is a turn-on, and so women often cover their hair, or put it up. In ancient times, such as, I Corinthians, it was just the same, and Paul suggests that women cover their hair so that they are not a distraction and their power and authority to preach and prophesy is clear.

No, I wouldn't suggest the same for the States, because our culture has changed. But let us not ignore Biblical injunctions just because the culture has changed. Both sexes need to be concerned about not leading the other astray or into lust, and let us be honest, men tend to be more visual. No, it should not be a matter of controlling women, but a matter, as Paul speaks of, of voluntarily limiting our freedom out of love. Following Julie's logic here, a woman should have the freedom to go topless in the US, just as she does in tribes in Africa. Sure, she has that freedom, but would it be the loving thing to do for her brothers? No, any more than it would be loving for a man to walk around completely nude. It might not be fair that there are more areas that are considered sexual on a woman than a man, but it is a fact of our culture, and desiring that it not be so will not change that.

Amy,
Thank you for your words of wisdom. You summed up the point of Julie Clawson's essay exactly. Also, let me add my condolences for that dreadful experience 25 years ago.

Wow...talk about a stretch. Sudanese women get beat for wearing pants and you tie it to youth leaders who try to keep their teens from dressing inappropriately.

I'm a youth worker Julie and trust me it's not about control. One of the biggest issues that teens today face is the onslaught of sexual images and temptations that are so easily available on phones, computers, ipods, television and everywhere else. Kids who want to stay pure are losing this battle because the tempation is so great. They're getting pregnant, diseases, and having to deal with emmotional issues that they aren't ready for because our society is oversexed.

So YES, we teach our teens about what is appropriate and what isn't. We teach our young ladies that you can be gorgeous without dressing like a stripper. We teach our young men that the measure of a man isn't about how many girls you can get. Real manhood is measured by what kind of son, brother, friend, and servant you are.

Do we limit some of their personal expression? Sure we do. But so does the schools, the ball fields, and the workplace. It's called learning what is appropriate. But it is quite a stretch to compare what goes on in Sudan to me telling one of our boys to pull his pants up, or my wife explaining to one of the girls why her short shorts and low shirt aren't acceptable for a follower of Jesus.

Amy,
Thank you for your words of wisdom. You summed up the point of Julie Clawson's essay exactly. Also, let me add my condolences for that dreadful experience 25 years ago.

Wow...talk about a stretch. Sudanese women get beat for wearing pants and you tie it to youth leaders who try to keep their teens from dressing inappropriately.

I'm a youth worker Julie and trust me it's not about control. One of the biggest issues that teens today face is the onslaught of sexual images and temptations that are so easily available on phones, computers, ipods, television and everywhere else. Kids who want to stay pure are losing this battle because the tempation is so great. They're getting pregnant, diseases, and having to deal with emmotional issues that they aren't ready for because our society is oversexed.

So YES, we teach our teens about what is appropriate and what isn't. We teach our young ladies that you can be gorgeous without dressing like a stripper. We teach our young men that the measure of a man isn't about how many girls you can get. Real manhood is measured by what kind of son, brother, friend, and servant you are.

Do we limit some of their personal expression? Sure we do. But so does the schools, the ball fields, and the workplace. It's called learning what is appropriate. But it is quite a stretch to compare what goes on in Sudan to me telling one of our boys to pull his pants up, or my wife explaining to one of the girls why her short shorts and low shirt aren't acceptable for a follower of Jesus.

There's a movement to radically change California government, by getting rid of career politicians and chopping their salaries in half. A group known as Citizens for California Reform wants to make the California legislature a part time time job, just like it was until 1966.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com

I agree with Julie that what is going on in places like Sudan is unjust and should be condemned. While I assume she understands there's a huge difference between beating people and, at most, the harsh words or stern looks given in the U.S., I think she misses another major difference: the age of the people in question.

In the examples from the U.S. that she provides, the attempts at influencing what people wear are directed at youth. Our youth, if not instructed properly about what is acceptable, polite and proper will grow up to believe that how one dresses or conducts oneself does not matter. I want our youth to be "controlled" by adults. What's the alternative? Yes, some adults can take this to extremes (e.g. being told a white t-shirt is in appropriate because it might rain is going too far in my opinion) but the instinct is well intentioned. As a parent, I'm going to influence what my children wear. And when they're not with me I want others in authority whether it's when they're at church, school or at other people's homes to instruct them as well.

As with most things, this comes down to where to draw the line between ensuring youth dress properly and exerting too much control (something every parent struggles with) but simply condemning outright any attempt to uphold a standard of decency as an attempt at some sort of social/political control over women, minorities, and youth (not to mention, including it in the same column as beatings in Sudan) is a little much. What do others think? Where would you draw the line? Are perspectives different depending gender?

This is one of the rare cases where I disagree with Julie. Firstly, uniforms are great in schools for another important reason- they are an equalizer between the rich and the poor, not forcing poorer students to feel like they have to buy wealthy outfits they can't afford, and rich students lording it over them.

Secondly, every society has it's standards on nudity and propriety. I live in Morocco, where the standards on attire for men and women are stricter than those in America, just as America is stricter than France or the South Sea Islands or tribal Africa. Men don't walk around here without their shirts on or in shorts, and it's considered indecent for a woman to wear a short skirt. These are issues of culture, and how what is lascivious is defined. Hair here is a turn-on, and so women often cover their hair, or put it up. In ancient times, such as, I Corinthians, it was just the same, and Paul suggests that women cover their hair so that they are not a distraction and their power and authority to preach and prophesy is clear.

No, I wouldn't suggest the same for the States, because our culture has changed. But let us not ignore Biblical injunctions just because the culture has changed. Both sexes need to be concerned about not leading the other astray or into lust, and let us be honest, men tend to be more visual. No, it should not be a matter of controlling women, but a matter, as Paul speaks of, of voluntarily limiting our freedom out of love. Following Julie's logic here, a woman should have the freedom to go topless in the US, just as she does in tribes in Africa. Sure, she has that freedom, but would it be the loving thing to do for her brothers? No, any more than it would be loving for a man to walk around completely nude. It might not be fair that there are more areas that are considered sexual on a woman than a man, but it is a fact of our culture, and desiring that it not be so will not change that.

I have no issues with parents and youth leaders setting dress codes and objecting to their youth dressing up like sex objects (although this is sadly subjective), as long as they don't put the onus on *just* the girls to 'behave', as with the heartrending example Amy_Sojo gave. We remember, for example, to lock the door before we leave the house. Forgetting to lock the door gives thieves easy access to the house. Yet no one should be robbing the house in the first place, regardless of whether the door is locked or unlocked.

This is one of the rare cases where I disagree with Julie. Firstly, uniforms are great in schools for another important reason- they are an equalizer between the rich and the poor, not forcing poorer students to feel like they have to buy wealthy outfits they can't afford, and rich students lording it over them.

Secondly, every society has it's standards on nudity and propriety. I live in Morocco, where the standards on attire for men and women are stricter than those in America, just as America is stricter than France or the South Sea Islands or tribal Africa. Men don't walk around here without their shirts on or in shorts, and it's considered indecent for a woman to wear a short skirt. These are issues of culture, and how what is lascivious is defined. Hair here is a turn-on, and so women often cover their hair, or put it up. In ancient times, such as, I Corinthians, it was just the same, and Paul suggests that women cover their hair so that they are not a distraction and their power and authority to preach and prophesy is clear.

No, I wouldn't suggest the same for the States, because our culture has changed. But let us not ignore Biblical injunctions just because the culture has changed. Both sexes need to be concerned about not leading the other astray or into lust, and let us be honest, men tend to be more visual. No, it should not be a matter of controlling women, but a matter, as Paul speaks of, of voluntarily limiting our freedom out of love. Following Julie's logic here, a woman should have the freedom to go topless in the US, just as she does in tribes in Africa. Sure, she has that freedom, but would it be the loving thing to do for her brothers? No, any more than it would be loving for a man to walk around completely nude. It might not be fair that there are more areas that are considered sexual on a woman than a man, but it is a fact of our culture, and desiring that it not be so will not change that.

Bless your honesty and willingness to share your tradegy and use it for a better understanding . The concern I have with the essay is the braod brush and the linking of a Belief system" conservative christian" with a discussion about modesty and Christian Bibical understanding . . Obviously the problem is not just about clothing , its the message that is sent to young females that being sexy, dressing sexy is needed to be accepted and to be wanted . Thats the belief system among Evangelicals in general of what is wrong with young ladies wearing low cut shirts , tight jeans or short dresses. , . God created us , our bodies, and the beauty of a young person is not just how tight their jeans are , or how much skin is shown. Cultural norms change , and so do fashions. Dancing was considered sin full to some at one time in the church . I wish the subject could have been discussed without the need to take a shot at people and their cultural beliefs.
She would have had made a better point if she left out her own attempts to control others and diminish other beliefs by telling us a negative portrayal of their thoughts by what she says "they think " and actually make the point about trying to control women in general . The culture of today , sexuality being just a personal choice, and the secular messages thrown out by advertisesers, Hollywood, peer pressure, has more CONTROL of why young ladies want to look sexy at an early age . The Church is not perfect , nor the members in it . But you would think Julie might consider the dominat culture , which is not Christian , in her essay on who is really controling what women wear in public.

There's a movement to radically change California government, by getting rid of career politicians and chopping their salaries in half. A group known as Citizens for California Reform wants to make the California legislature a part time time job, just like it was until 1966.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com

I'd love to see all schools have a uniform dress code. Our youngest daughter (Ethiopian) missed the cut-off for kindergarten, so we send her to a private, Christian multi-racial K where she has to wear a uniform every day. She loves it. It is a source of pride for her. I work in a public school. I'd be great to have a dress code, where kids could learn to appreciate and honor their schools.

This is just another example of Sojo having an agenda. Get over it, already.