FYI (if you’re a teenage girl)

There is something to be said in considering not only the original article, but the hearts of those who ran with reposting it on Facebook. Sometimes it is possible for us to champion a good cause not just because we want to see virtue triumph, but also because it makes us feel a little bit superior. “My daughters would never post those kind of pictures…” …that kind of thing. I’m not saying there aren’t people who could stand to be reminded in these areas (though I wonder how much a post like this will really help those who need the reminder). If the problem is teenage daughters, too- perhaps the reminder is better placed toward parents, who might need the nudge to be a little more cognizant as to what their children are publishing…

So no one has answered the question of whether or not attractiveness plays into the equation? Do you unfriend an old ugly woman for immodesty? Or does her unnattractiveness make it impossible for her to be a source of lust? And if it does, is the question really about her immodesty or about what triggers your lust?

And what if, as a man, you knew a brother struggled with same-sex attraction—would believe his struggle with lust was the result of seeing you training for a bicycle race or posting a picture of you flexing your biceps after a workout? Would you feel responsible for his lusting after you? Would you take down the pictures of your family vacation to the beach?

I’m not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to adjust the paradigm enough so that we can clarify the issues. If you say that the disordered attraction he has toward you is his issue alone, then you must also recognize that a man lusting after a teenage girl is also disordered and his issue alone.

I’m struggling to find the relevance of the question of attractiveness. Obviously if someone is unattractive, they will not be a temptation to lust. But yes, if they are being immodest, I would remove them as well.

As far as same-sex temptation, I would counsel a man (or my son) who is struggling with temptation to remove sources of temptation. It seems simple to me, really.

(Although we must acknowledge these are not the same. The Bible says this kind of temptation is unnatural. Men attracted to women is natural and is how God created them to be. Men attracted to men is not.)

@GregH: Thank you for your latest post. I think it’s helping to clarify that your definition of “the specific situation” is much broader than mine was. I was referring to the act of lust and the act of sexual misconduct, but I now seem to understand that you were referring to the broader situation—as in any and all factors surrounding or leading up to sexual sin (the sin for which the youth pastor, in this case, is solely responsible). If so, perhaps we are all more on the same page than I thought!

@Larry: Your interpretation of stumbling blocks troubles me—because to say that there is an unavoidable “effect” to this “cause” undermines what the rest of Scripture teaches about personal responsibility for sin, sanctification, and the ability to resist temptation. I don’t deny that one person’s being a stumbling block can lead to another person sinning, but to say that the cause has an unavoidable effect leaves people not completely responsible for their sin (and without hope of true change). However, I think we are in agreement that the person who serves as a stumbling block is not without sin—I would just say it’s a completely different category of sin altogether.

@Hannah: I think that if the world were full of only old, fat, balding women (to use an extreme stereotype, with my apologies to anyone who might fit it) that there would still be a problem with lust. Take, for example, some of the characteristics of the “less than popular” girls who are often the targets of sex trafficking. Or even the recent high-profile case of Ariel Castro, who continued raping those three women, even after years of abuse in captivity that left them much less attractive than when he first abducted them. But that’s just my opinion FWIW. I’m not a guy ;-)

[Steph L]

@GregH: Thank you for your latest post. I think it’s helping to clarify that your definition of “the specific situation” is much broader than mine was. I was referring to the act of lust and the act of sexual misconduct, but I now seem to understand that you were referring to the broader situation—as in any and all factors surrounding or leading up to sexual sin (the sin for which the youth pastor, in this case, is solely responsible). If so, perhaps we are all more on the same page than I thought!

No, for the record, I am talking about the sexual sin itself. If a teenage girl of say 17 is not coerced but rather decides to sleep with a 30-year-old youth pastor, she is responsible and guilty (morally rather than legally).

If you want to say the youth pastor is guilty of a worse sin or is more guilty, you will get no argument from me. But if you are not willing to say the girl is also guilty, I don’t really think there is any point in debating this further.

My point in asking both of those questions was to clarify what we’re talking about.

If, as several men are positing, a woman can be blocked because her immodesty will lead to a man’s temptation, then logically speaking, a woman who is ugly and immodest wouldn’t need to be blocked since she would pose no temptation. But we know that this is inconsistent; and it is inconsistent precisely because modesty and lust are two different questions. StephL: I completely agree with you that we would still have a problem with lust if all women were old, fat, and balding because lust is found in the heart of the one lusting not in the body of the one being lusted for.

GregH— I’m not asking how you would counsel someone with SSA; I’m asking if you would consider yourself culpable in anyway for his attraction to you. If he is lusting after you, are you responsible? If you say no, then how can you say that a teenage girl is responsible for a man’s lusting after her? Because as “natural” as the attraction of a man to a woman may seem, it is a disordered attraction if it happens outside the bounds of marriage. God-given attraction is more than heterosexual; it is the attraction of husband to a wife.

Lust is found in the heart of the one lusting; a stumbling block is found in the body of someone who knowingly dresses immodestly. Both are sin. Both should be addressed. I will both counsel my son to control his thoughts and to remove sources of temptation.

I guess we must be talking past each other or something. Again, I honestly don’t understand why this is controversial.

The tone and content of her rebuke to young girls is not the same as how she dealt with her own ‘lack of discernment’.

Not really. There wasn’t really a problem with her tone to begin with. The problem, IMO, began when people started calling it “slut shaming” and other names. It is well known that you talk to crowds, particularly generic crowds, differently than you do to individuals. So if she was addressingt this to a particular person, it perhaps would have been different. But there really wasn’t uch of a problem there.

How many girls and women did she cause to lust for her sons by posting those pictures? What was she trying to do? The young women who saw those pictures can’t unsee them, and now they will continue to look at her sons in a sexual way?

I don’t know how many. I assume what she was trying to do was put a human face on the problem at hand. And I don’t know. I thought the pictures were out of place, but there seems a sizable gap between those pictures and what she described in the post.

What’s more- would she have left those pictures up for her ‘normal’ audience if there had been no backlash?

Perhaps. But what of it? When she was confronted about it (not so graciously in some cases) she responded appropriately. What do you want her to do?

But obviously, she and her family have no problem going to public places half-dressed, such as the beach, thereby causing others to stumble.

How do you know she and her family caused others to stumble?

[handerson]

GregH— I’m not asking how you would counsel someone with SSA; I’m asking if you would consider yourself culpable in anyway for his attraction to you. If he is lusting after you, are you responsible? If you say no, then how can you say that a teenage girl is responsible for a man’s lusting after her? Because as “natural” as the attraction of a man to a woman may seem, it is a disordered attraction if it happens outside the bounds of marriage. God-given attraction is more than heterosexual; it is the attraction of husband to a wife.

Hannah, I want to say up front that I admire your writing and I almost always agree with you. I know you are highly intelligent and articulate.

That is why I am just shaking my head over this conversation. I don’t know how much more clear I can be but you keep putting the same words in my mouth time after time. I have said over and over that a man’s lust is his responsibility 100%. The girl’s immodesty is her responsibility 100%. While they may have different sins, they are BOTH responsible for their own sins. Neither is responsible for the other’s sins.

@Larry: Your interpretation of stumbling blocks troubles me—because to say that there is an unavoidable “effect” to this “cause” undermines what the rest of Scripture teaches about personal responsibility for sin, sanctification, and the ability to resist temptation. I don’t deny that one person’s being a stumbling block can lead to another person sinning, but to say that the cause has an unavoidable effect leaves people not completely responsible for their sin (and without hope of true change). However, I think we are in agreement that the person who serves as a stumbling block is not without sin—I would just say it’s a completely different category of sin altogether.

Steph, I only quoted Scripture. I didn’t even really give an interpretation of it, per se. It’s not really disputed. Jesus and Paul both said that actions can cause others to stumble. In fact, in Paul’s case, the actions in view are perfectly acceptable actions that he has the liberty to not to do because of the affect of them. It wasn’t even sinful, in that case.

I didn’t say anything about unavoidable affect or less than complete personal responsibility. And it doesn’t undermine anything in Scripture. I addressed this on my own blog the other day so I will let that stand as my comments on the whole matter. Each party is completely responsible.

Honestly, I think this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Aside from the pictures (which weren’t sexual in the least, though I thought it was an awkward choice at best for the topic), the post was very good and should be given careful consideration.

Yeah, I’m not sure we’ll get much further. I think the issue for me is that Mrs. Hall didn’t even question whether or not the girl (in your word) “knowingly” dressed immodestly. She assumed that she did and directly linked this girl’s picture to her son’s lust. While everyone applauded.

I think, too, that woman experience a pressure that men don’t when it comes to issues of modesty and being a “stumbling block.” I was hoping that by changing the dynamics I could impress upon you how difficult this is. To be told that your body is in someway responsible for another man’s sin. Men typically don’t think of themselves in this way, while Christian women and girsl are regularly bombarded with the threat that we are moments away from inciting lust in our brothers’ hearts. The catch is that you can never know what is modest “enough” to not incite lust so women are left in this constant cycle of feeling ashamed of their bodies. I can’t tell you the number of girl friends of mine who have had serious struggles in their marriages because they were taught a false definition of modesty.

BTW, how do you make sure that you as a man are not a physical stumbling block to women and those struggling through SSA? Do you even feel this responsibility?

Okay, GregH—maybe this can clarify things for us (and I do apologize if I’ve put words in your mouth—I thought I understood but reading your last post, I too want to acknowledge that I value your perspectives here at SI and don’t want to misread or misinterpret what you’ve said)

I agree that women must dress modestly. I agree that men should not lust.

So……… what is modest? We seem to be defining it by whatever doesn’t make a man lust. See this is where I’m stuck—our whole interpretation of modesty for a woman hinges on whether or not a man will be aroused by her. Modesty is tied to his response —i.e. what doesn’t stir up his lust… but this will vary from man to man. And ultimately the definition of what is appropriate for her is tied to a man’s character and not God’s character.

I agree that modesty is an issue and I do think that girls and woman often use their bodies to gain attention, but they are not necessarily trying to get sexual attention. So this is why, in raising my daughter, I’m defining modesty by the classic definition of not “drawing attention to yourself.” She needs to learn a modesty of the heart that will ultimately extend to her carriage and deportment.

Hannah, I am curious on your take of this if you have 6 minutes: http://soulation.org/jonalynblog/2013/09/if-youre-a-teenage-girl-on-paparazzing-ourselves.html

This is a self-described Christian feminist and apologist (and incidentally former-fundamentalist) discussing the same article. I will hold my thoughts on it for the time being but it is quite interesting to put it mildly.

On attractiveness - I think it should be pointed out that the relative attractiveness of a girl/woman is not really the issue in Mrs. Hall’s post, nor is it really an issue with lust or other sins in this area. As is said, ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’, but the fact is that many women who don’t conform to the social standards of beauty end up married, pregnant out of wedlock, or partners in adulterous affairs. I am not sure how much, then, that attractiveness really enters into this question.

Instead, I think the issue is what message is being sent by the body language, dress, etc of the young women Mrs Hall is writing about. That is really her message. Perhaps some of the young women her article applies to are ignorant of the message they are conveying (or relatively ignorant). Their ignorance still doesn’t make their behaviour right or acceptable. Someone needs to call their attention to it.

You can object to the method Mrs Hall has chosen all you want, but she is the one who is responsible for her family (along with her husband) and I found her message entirely appropriate. I find it really astonishing that Bible believing Christians would object to what she has to say.

Even more astonishing is to see some trying to turn the issue into a discussion of men’s lust - that’s not what the article is about. It is an issue that must be dealt with, but it is just a propaganda technique to dismiss her article with irrelevant questions. She wasn’t writing about male behaviour, but female. We live in a mad world where seemingly no one should ever question female behaviour without pounding on the male animals who we all know lurk everywhere around us.

It is interesting that as the rhetoric continues in this discussion the phrase “the person who is lusting/the sexual predator” enters the conversation. Astonishing. Absolutely astonishing. That is almost the same as saying “All males are sexual predators.” (Or all people?) Just unbelievable.

Last, I read an interesting article on Christianity Today’s website (no endorsement) that adds some thoughts that might be pertinent to the discussion. I don’t think that everything the author says is correct, but in analyzing our culture and calling for the church to teach people to live as adults in a non-sexualized way, I think the author is getting somewhere with this discussion.

Instead of criticizing Mrs. Hall, I think readers should be piling on, calling young women to learn to behave as mature Christian adults instead of as infantile versions of the foolish women we see portrayed in our culture through all kinds of media.