FYI (if you’re a teenage girl)

This is all about perception and opinion. I’ve stated mine, so to each his own.

First, I would not agree that it’s not all about opinion and perception. There are actual facts, and some people’s opinions and perceptions are wrong, and should be corrected (perhaps even mine).

But that aside, Susan, even after her agreement with her critics and her change, you still bring it up and say you don’t care that she changed. So the question remains, what do you want her to do?

I am not sure it is a legitimate to go after her for something on which she agrees with you?

[Larry]

First, I would not agree that it’s not all about opinion and perception. There are actual facts, and some people’s opinions and perceptions are wrong, and should be corrected (perhaps even mine).

But that aside, Susan, even after her agreement with her critics and her change, you still bring it up and say you don’t care that she changed. So the question remains, what do you want her to do?

I am not sure it is a legitimate to go after her for something on which she agrees with you?

Agreed. There are far too many opinions about this already. There are multiple ways of looking at this and I try to respect that, but this is not just about opinions and perception.

And it does seem more than a bit uncharitable to keep hounding her about the pics of her sons when she has publicly said she was wrong and removed them.

I am amazed that that post has gotten the attention it has. An unprofessional writer with a tiny readership writes a blog post with an awful lot of good sense but a less than desirable tone. Why not cut her a break, take the warning as valid and excuse the tone?

Someone mentioned this already, but it’s worth repeating. I think most of the push back is coming from how widely and quickly Mrs. Hall’s post was applauded by those in the church, without anyone noticing that she was doing the very thing that she was criticizing the teen girl for. That’s when it became something more than a single blog post on a small blog. It revealed a widespread double standard—girls can’t post immodest picture but boys can. The grace that people extended to Mrs. Hall (because they understood where she was coming from and that she meant nothing inappropriate by posting those pics) was not extended to the teen girl in the post. So perhaps the negative feedback is not simply about Mrs. Hall—as you said, she apologized and took the pictures down—but the fact that so many people missed the point entirely.

Okay, serious question here because I can’t seem to understand this one: are some of you actually equating a boy/man without a shirt on with a girl/woman in sexy/provocative attire or a towel?

Isn’t this what those crazy women in New York are arguing by walking around topless?

Modesty has to do with not flaunting. The covering up is the means not the end. I fail to see how a guy’s chest being exposed is comparable to a gal’s breasts on display. At the risk of stating the obvious but maybe not really, the gal’s breasts are explicitly referred to as sexual parts in Scripture.

Someone mentioned this already, but it’s worth repeating. I think most of the push back is coming from how widely and quickly Mrs. Hall’s post was applauded by those in the church, without anyone noticing that she was doing the very thing that she was criticizing the teen girl for. That’s when it became something more than a single blog post on a small blog. It revealed a widespread double standard—girls can’t post immodest picture but boys can.

The pushback actually started by the fourth or fifth comment on that very day. Check the comments.

I agree with JamesK - women, as well all know, are not attracted to guys by sight. Men are visually oriented. So I don’t like it, but I don’t think that what Mrs. Hall did was a double-standard. And if you read some of the pushback closely, it’s VERY clear that some of it is more ‘boys are obnoxious, selfish, lusting, and out of control’ than it was about ‘hey, maybe putting selfie on my facebook page without a bra on isn’t really a great idea’ posts. But maybe I just missed that reaction.

Let’s be serious for a minute - whether we like it or not, our society is hypersexualized. And maybe - just maybe - this post got the reaction that it did because someone finally pointed out that the Emperor needs clothes.

As an aside - and I don’t know because I’ve never been to one - but are the women’s lessons on modesty and purity (usually held at camp or elsewhere) really oriented towards “Don’t look at guys with no shirts on?”

Modesty is just about effect. So an unclothed man is not immodest, while a scantily or sexily clad woman is immodest. As a matter of fact, if she does anything that draws attention to herself that results in a man lusting, she is being immodest. And because women are not attracted to men by sight, what guys do or wear doesn’t matter.

Thanks, I’m all clear on that now.

Someone needs to call the Chippendales, though.

Jay, James, Greg,

Not sure if any of you have (or had) teenage daughters around, but I have (in fact, I did not have any sons), so I can tell you from my experience having been around them and having had their friends visit our home, that the notion that lust is not occurring (or it’s somehow not the same) when young women are viewing shirtless young men is most definitely not correct.

Is it exactly equivalent to what would be generated by immodest young women? I’m not sure I’m in a position to make that comparison accurately, but it seems to me the principle is much the same, though I would agree that in our culture it is still viewed as somewhat different, as evidenced by the fact that the OP didn’t consider her original photos to be the same as what she was decrying. However, she did in fact change the photos and agree that it was unwise, leading me to believe she does in fact see a similar principle, even if she doesn’t think the situations are equivalent.

Whether immodesty is the same from a woman as from a man or not is not in my mind the issue, and honestly I think it’s a waste of time to spend much time arguing that those types of immodesty are somehow class from each other. Our entire culture has grown more immodest over time, and we should be holding both our men and women to a higher standard. At least if we take great care to dress and act modestly, we then don’t need to be too concerned about the lust of others towards us. If we are not taking such care, then yes, we do bear some responsibility, whether we like to believe so or not.

The grace that people extended to Mrs. Hall (because they understood where she was coming from and that she meant nothing inappropriate by posting those pics) was not extended to the teen girl in the post.

What’s the chances that the “grace extended” was because (1) Mrs. Hall had an excellent and valid point, and (2) she changed when people pointed something out. Perhaps if the girls in question did that, might the same grace be extended? The fact is we don’t know whether or not these girls changed as Mrs. Hall did, or what the result was or would have been if they did change. So we can’t really comment on the grace that was allegedly not extended.

So perhaps the negative feedback is not simply about Mrs. Hall—as you said, she apologized and took the pictures down—but the fact that so many people missed the point entirely.

Perhaps people did miss the point. The point was about immodesty. People turned it into a point about hypocrisy and the proper means of dealing with a problem.

[Susan R]

Modesty is just about effect. So an unclothed man is not immodest, while a scantily or sexily clad woman is immodest. As a matter of fact, if she does anything that draws attention to herself that results in a man lusting, she is being immodest. And because women are not attracted to men by sight, what guys do or wear doesn’t matter.

Thanks, I’m all clear on that now.

Someone needs to call the Chippendales, though.

Wow, overreaction is on the phone and would like a chat with you Susan.

Find one person who said what your 3rd sentence rant said. Hard to believe this is an actual conversation, but men will lust if men want to lust. The Bible itself in Prov 7 refers to the rich, married woman who put on clothes to identify her with a prostitute. So however you choose to define it, I will speak generally that it refers to the kind of clothing meant to be provocative.

So the Bible warns women multiple times about not dressing in a provocative manner. Are there passages aimed at men with the same kind of warnings? I am drawing a blank on that one.

Modesty is about not flaunting, about being appropriate. Technically, a woman could cover all of her skin from the neck down and be flaunting. It is wrong to say modesty = complete cover up. It might mean that the bustier girl chooses to not wear the same shirt another girl wears because of how much it accentuates.

I think I am done here because the original objections by you and Hannah and others were demonstrated to be lacking in substance. Your sarcasm at this point indicates hostility that I won’t entertain. Unless there is something substantive, I bid you farewell on this thread.

As Calvin would say: good luck.

GregH wrote—

I was going to post something similar to James and Jay but didn’t know how to word it. A young woman in a swimsuit and a young man in a swimsuit are not equivalent as far as the effect they have on the vast majority of the opposite sex. At least that’s what my wife tells me, and what porn user stats would indicate.

Forget how women respond to men, what about all the men and teenage boys struggling with SSA who had opportunity to view Mrs. Hall’s sons shirtless?

The problem with how we are conducting the modesty conversation is that it is too-often based on assumptions about male/female dynamics without actually dealing with the broader concepts of lust and modesty and how these two different things interact. Men essentially can say, “Of course this teenage girl is immodest because I find myself tempted by this kind of picture. You women simply don’t understand.” But they don’t say the same thing about a boy in swim trunks sans shirt because, in general, they aren’t tempted by this and therefore they don’t deem it immodest or significant enough to warn against.

And suddenly the determinant for what is modest and what isn’t becomes the individual’s own desire.

And this is why women, like myself— who firmly believe in modesty and teach it to my daughter and make her change even at 9 years old if something is inappropriate—are pushing back. I will firmly and stridently argue for modesty; I will model it personally; I will write about it; I will teach it to the girls and ladies under my ministry at church; but I will not teach them that modesty is defined by whether or not a man lusts after her.

So here’s a challenge: could you define modesty, could you teach about modesty without addressing lust? Could you teach modesty to a group of nuns shut away from the world who never encounter a man? I think the answer must be yes because modesty is a virtue that is not defined first and foremost by sexuality. There is certainly an application to our sexuality, but modesty is so much more and to start there—and stay there—undermines the true significance of it. Modesty is about not drawing attention to yourself whether that is intellectually, physically, emotionally, or spiritually. And it applies to male and female alike.

(FWIW: I do care deeply about modesty. So much so that I believe we must talk about it accurately and understand that it is ultimately an issue of the heart not simply the body. http://www.sometimesalight.com/1/post/2012/08/keeping-up-appearances.html)

I mirror a lot of what James K said, although I’m not quite ready to quit yet. Dave, I appreciate your input as well and agree with you; I do know that women find men’s physiques desirable.

Susan-

I’m very disappointed in that last response of yours. I do not for one millisecond believe that you seriously imply that I’m somehow excusing lust on the part of men. A BIG reason why I wrote the posts that I did earlier (here and here)- even though I really didn’t want to open up like that and expose some of what every Christian guy struggles with for public consumption - is because I felt like someone needed to stand and argue what kinds of struggles men go through. Thought life and mental issues like that are not visible, and I think, often get ignored or slighted because that’s just “what guys do”.

Well, that may be what some guys do - especially the unsaved, who I am sure are completely laughing at all of us right now. But you and I and the others on this thread know better. God repeatedly warns men to guard their eyes, and to beware of lust. It is not unique to men, but the potency of that temptation is. A cursory review of Proverbs 1-7 will demonstrate that.

Song of Solomon 8:8-9 celebrates a young, developing woman, and it discusses her brothers, who are trying to safeguard her purity and innocence. Romans 14 is very clear that whatever liberties we take are to be curtailed for the sake of another believer’s conscience. I think that kind of spirit is being manifest here - I know that I want these girls to be happy, healthy, and well adjusted. I don’t think that anyone here is ‘slut-shaming’ them, as the HuffPo put it. But I don’t honestly understand why the need to continue to point out Mrs. Hall’s “wrong” is appropriate.

Psalm 103:10-12 refers to the fact that God has removed our sins from us as Christians, and we know that they are ‘remembered no more’. So why does what Mrs. Hall did even matter, now that it’s been handled? She has dealt with it well. So let’s discuss the point she made and the implications of it instead of pointing out that she screwed up, or by falsely ascribing motives that aren’t present.

Modesty has to do with not flaunting.

… women, as well all know, are not attracted to guys by sight.

A young woman in a swimsuit and a young man in a swimsuit are not equivalent as far as the effect they have on the vast majority of the opposite sex.

My remarks were engaging these remarks. I said earlier that much of this is about opinion and perception. When you make statements like this, you know what you mean, but that isn’t always what is communicated. I think Hannah and I both are trying to point out some things that others refuse to acknowledge or engage with in any meaningful way.

For instance, James K chooses to read hostility into my sarcasm, instead of simply reading it as tongue-in-cheek. That’s his perception, but his perception and stated opinion is not the reality. And how Mrs. Hall’s post was received is all about opinion and perception, because while she was trying to communicate principles, she did it in such a way that undermined the points she was trying to make to a significant number of readers.

Are all those readers wrong? Well, if you want to declare your own understanding as the measuring stick by which the rest of us should hold ourselves to, feel free.

I don’t believe that modesty is defined by what is accepted by our culture. Does the Bible really teach that only women should be covered, or that issues of modesty only apply to them? Are we going to say that because a preponderance of verses on a particular subject are aimed at a particular group of people, that other groups don’t need to worry about those issues as well?

So then it follows that men who are shirtless are appropriate because our culture declares them so, and, supposedly, women don’t lust after men’s bodies?

I’ve heard that old saw for years- that men are attracted by sight and women by charm or sweet talk. Newsflash- this is hooey-hokum-bunkum and nonsense.

I think Mrs. Hall’s initial post is a huge part of the issue. It indicates a mindset that is harmful to our girls. So she changed the pics after the kerfuffle began, but does that mean she changed her mind?

Readers, two days ago I wrote this post for my normal audience, which is usually very small. That said, I included recent pictures of my kids at the beach, and many new readers found that to be a grave lack of discernment, considering the topic. I agree, and have replaced them with different photos than the original post. Thank you for your counsel.

This retraction doesn’t communicate to me that she has decided that her shirtless boys flaunting for a camera is immodest (unless you don’t think boys flexing their muscles is ‘flaunting’). And she hasn’t removed other pics of her boys sans shirts from her blog and Facebook. Just from that particular blog post. That leads me to believe that she doesn’t think those pics were wrong, just that they were wrong for that post.

If none of this matters to you, fine. But it matters to me, and it matters to other women who also take modestly very seriously, for both boys and girls.

Susan,

I don’t think anyone has said “that men who are shirtless are appropriate because our culture declares them so, and, supposedly, women don’t lust after men’s bodies?” The quote you cite doesn’t say that. What it says is that shirtless women and shirtless men are simply not the same, “A young woman in a swimsuit and a young man in a swimsuit are not equivalent as far as the effect they have…” What has caused most of the raised eyebrows is the stubborn attempt to insist that they are exactly the same when they are not. That is not the same as arguing one is ok while the other is wrong. While all sin is violation of the law, I think scripture indicates and most people understand that there are degrees of sin as well. Sex is a good example of this. Fornication is wrong. Rape is worse. Child molestation might be worse yet. The point is that the college coeds who shack up after a party are not equivalent to the predator stalking the streets looking for vulnerable women on whom they can prey. Both are wrong, but one is worse than the other.