FYI (if you’re a teenage girl)

I agree with all of you have emphasized the importance of teaching males to be personally responsible for themselves. I don’t think the article undermines that at all. In fact, the writer is teaching her sons to be accountable for themselves. If they find their friends doing things that are inappropriate, they remove themselves from the situation. But the thrust of the article isn’t for the boys; it’s for the girls who are friends with the boys. And I don’t think the author said anything inaccurate or inappropriate in her counsel to the girls. I have one son and two daughters. This is good advice for all my kids.

[James K]

Susan, the options are not to ignore the problem or scold her. Shame is a useful tool when appropriately used. Again, Paul used it.

God does indeed hold women responsible for dressing in a manner to incite. To say otherwise is to ignore much of scripture on this matter and to speak as a fool.

I didn’t say that we should ignore the problem, nor did I say we should never use shame. I also didn’t say that women weren’t responsible for how they dress. Were you planning on commenting on something I actually said?

I do agree that girls and boys who aren’t acting in a responsible manner with digital tech should not be allowed access to it. I also agree that removing oneself/blocking people who are taking inappropriate photos, and telling them why, is fine.

There are a lot of assumptions that the mother didn’t talk to her boys about lust, etc. The post had a very specific point, that she would unfriend girls who posted such pictures because she takes that kind of thing very seriously. That’s all. Not sure why she would have to cover every angle of the issue.

[Susan R]

I have a 15 yo daughter who is getting more gorgeous by the day, and we have to have many, many talks about the correct, Biblical meanings of beauty, allure, and sexuality, and how God intends women to view themselves in the light of His Word. Just scolding her about men and lust and implying that she might even be responsible for inciting men to violent acts doesn’t give her a meaningful Scriptural picture of her standing and purpose in Christ.

Susan, Susan, Susan…

You said in the 2nd paragraph that “just scolding…” Do I really need to point out that that wasn’t an option put forward by anyone?

You said in the 2nd paragraph that “implying that she might even be responsible for inciting men to violent acts doesn’t give her a meaningful Scriptural picture of her standing and purpose in Christ.” Do you think Herodias’ daughter had any responsibility for exciting Herod to a violent act? Was it her personality or use of her body? This statement is just so incredibly naive (I hope) and ignorant of many biblical texts that I am shocked at having to address this…to a woman…who is raising a 15 yo daughter.

If a 15 yo girl can’t legally consent to sex, how can we say that she has full cognition and responsibility for her sexuality? Would an early blooming 12 year old be responsible for “seducing” an older man who finds her attractive? What about a 14 year old? The truth is that men and boys who lust after teenage girls are the ones who are most aware of their sexuality.

This is a very delicate and tender age for girls who are blossoming into womanhood—and it is going to become even more of an issue with the trend toward early puberty. Today, it is not uncommon for a girl as young as 10 to physically enter womanhood while still retaining the cognitive and emotional capacity of a 10 year old. The problem is that as a girl’s body changes, men begin to think of her as a woman before she herself does!

Because of this, we must be extremely proactive in guiding and teaching young women about modesty. We must teach them about the power their beauty gives them, and we must teach them, not to use that power to gain attention for themselves, but to preserve it for their future marriages.

Mrs. Hall’s post does none of this.

Wow, so much…

The Bible doesn’t recognize the teenager. You are a child, or you are an adult. You seriously want to appeal to the age of consent (varies by country) as authoritative?

When a child begins puberty, he/she needs to be aware that decisions they make will have lasting consequences for good or bad. Young men need to know that they desires could produce life without the ability to care for him/her. Young women need to know that they could tease, frustrate, and provoke men. The consequences to her are more due to her being the one to carry the child to term.

If young women wanted to do what Mrs Hall was objecting too, then I also would step in and remove said person from FB or whatever social media.

Let’s stop treating teenagers like toddlers and pretending that they have an age of grace that spans 8 years before they can know what is going on with their bodies. It is just biblically negligent and socially irresponsible.

No one is talking about a violent act being justified.

@James K: So you’re comfortable with viewing a 12 year old the same way as a grown woman? Look, I’m not appealing to age of consent—I’m appealing to wisdom and maturity. And I expect those with more life experience to be the first ones to exercise it—not those who are just on the cusp of adulthood.

This is not simply about the ability to consent to sex. This same girl is also not legally able to make ANY decisions for herself. She can’t drive; she can’t drop out of school; she needs parental permission to attend field trips; she can’t drink; she can’t smoke; she can’t vote. And in most churches in our circles, she can’t even be a full-fledged voting member of the congregation. And yet, you seem to believe that in this one area—in her physicality and sexuality—she can act with full volition and knowledge of what she is doing and be held fully culpable for it.

No one is suggesting that we excuse immodesty. No one is saying let it pass. What we are discussing is how to respond to it. How should an adult engage a young woman who is obviously struggling. If Mrs. Hall were exercising grace and wisdom, she would have addressed her concerns to the girl’s parents instead of the girl herself. The girl is not Mrs. Hall’s equal; the girl’s mother is and the girl is still under her parent’s authority and guidance.

I often wonder if we don’t do this because it’s simply easier to come down on teenagers. It is easier to saddle a teenage girl with the full weight of the problem, to make her the object of our frustrations over our culture’s widespread sexuality and immodesty. It is easier to correct her than it is to actually engage her parents or lovingly teach her. By all means, help her. By all means, engage the situation. But do it will grace and an awareness that she is still a child under the authority of her parents.

Sums it up for me

[handerson]

@James K: So you’re comfortable with viewing a 12 year old the same way as a grown woman? Look, I’m not appealing to age of consent—I’m appealing to wisdom and maturity. And I expect those with more life experience to be the first ones to exercise it—not those who are just on the cusp of adulthood.

This is not simply about the ability to consent to sex. This same girl is also not legally able to make ANY decisions for herself. She can’t drive; she can’t drop out of school; she needs parental permission to attend field trips; she can’t drink; she can’t smoke; she can’t vote. And in most churches in our circles, she can’t even be a full-fledged voting member of the congregation. And yet, you seem to believe that in this one area—in her physicality and sexuality—she can act with full volition and knowledge of what she is doing and be held fully culpable for it.

No one is suggesting that we excuse immodesty. No one is saying let it pass. What we are discussing is how to respond to it. How should an adult engage a young woman who is obviously struggling. If Mrs. Hall were exercising grace and wisdom, she would have addressed her concerns to the girl’s parents instead of the girl herself. The girl is not Mrs. Hall’s equal; the girl’s mother is and the girl is still under her parent’s authority and guidance.

I often wonder if we don’t do this because it’s simply easier to come down on teenagers. It is easier to saddle a teenage girl with the full weight of the problem, to make her the object of our frustrations over our culture’s widespread sexuality and immodesty. It is easier to correct her than it is to actually engage her parents or lovingly teach her. By all means, help her. By all means, engage the situation. But do it will grace and an awareness that she is still a child under the authority of her parents.

I think part of the frustration here is it is almost like people don’t want to even admit that a girl might carry SOME of the responsibility (not all the responsibility or most of the responsibility but at least some of it). I am not talking about legal responsibility, but moral responsibility.

In other words, let’s say a young girl dresses provocatively and a man lusts as a result. Who is responsible? Both are. The man is more responsible and should know better. Maybe 90% of the responsibility falls on him but you can’t completely absolve the girl.

It seems like you can’t even say that today. I was recently on jury duty and being considered for a civil trial in which a teenager had a sexual relationship with her youth pastor. He had been convicted and was in prison but she was suing for monetary damages. Her attorney asked this question to all jurors: “Is there a way that the girl could be responsible for what happened?” Not one of us raised their hand but I asked for clarification as to whether he meant moral responsibility or legal responsibility. He said both and then asked the question again. This time, I raised my hand (I was the only one) and when he asked me to explain, I said that while I was convinced she was legally innocent, I could not be sure she did not bear any moral responsibility. Maybe the blame might be allocated 90%-10% toward the man, if she was a consenting teenager, she probably had moral responsibility too. (Needless to say, I was not picked on that jury.)

To me, that seems clear. There has to be a balance between the ridiculous excesses we have seen in the past where the girl is treated like an actor in The Scarlet Letter and today’s equally invalid idea that a girl in her teens bears no responsibility whatsoever just because she is less than 18.

Lots of different topics jumping into this thread:

- shame

- how to appropriately confront others

- child vs. adult understanding, authority, “age of responsibility”

- modesty

- lust

- responsibility for sin

Let me address the last one—and touch on modesty and lust too.

Have we forgotten what Scripture says about who bears the blame for sin?

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his OWN lust, and enticed (James 1:14). [emphasis mine]

Pointing fingers is a problem as old as Adam and Eve. Eve tempted Adam, and when confronted by God, Adam pointed the finger at Eve.

But God left the responsibility for Adam’s sin 100% on Adam. Not 90%. One hundred percent. And Eve bore the responsibility for her sin 100% too.

I agree with Hannah that there is an issue here of the girls’ lack of understanding (teenagers are still children in many ways, and even biblically speaking too … but that’s another subject), and I think that plays a huge part in how Mrs. Hall fails to address this issue properly. And I think there’s also an issue of shaming and appropriate confrontation. But those are other topics.

Let’s talk about who’s responsible for sin, and in this case in particular, the sin of lust.

Scripturally, God holds the person who lusts 100% responsible. And, of course, if the person acts outwardly on that lust, they are 100% responsible for those actions as well. [Note that I say “the person,” not “the man,” because lust is not a gender-specific problem.]

Who bears the responsibility for dressing appropriately—dressing as one who bears the image of God? Each person who dresses themselves bears that responsibility 100%. And each person will be held 100% accountable for that. There is such a thing as a stumbling block—I don’t think anyone on this thread is disagreeing with that—but stumbling blocks never bear 10% (or any other part) of the responsibility before God for another person’s sin. They bear 100% of the responsibility for their own sin.

Scripture talks about different ways we are tempted—different things that draw us away: the world, the flesh, the devil… . I don’t think any of us would ever say that the devil is 10% responsible for our sin, and we are 90% responsible. No, we are 100% responsible. Doesn’t absolve the devil (or the world or the flesh) of responsibility before God, but we must own up to our own faults in this matter.

I think men who lust tend to bristle when they hear that women aren’t responsible—because they rightly recognize a modesty issue that women need to care about. But immodesty never necessitates lust.

But I also think women rightly bristle when they hear that men aren’t fully responsible for their lust/immoral actions—because they rightly recognize that each person is 100% responsible for his own actions, and they recognize that lust and immorality can—and in many cases do!—happen even if women are completely covered (re: the “potato sack” comment above).

Men, women, let’s each own up to our own sin. We each are 100% responsible when we lust or act on lust. We each are 100% responsible to dress as image bearers of the Most High God.

GregH,

StephL has already addressed it but I want to reiterate that your understanding of a 90% / 10% paradigm is very disturbing.

This is the same argument that has been used against women divorcing their husbands for infidelity. I have heard Christian leaders say “there are no innocent parties” and others actually teach that a woman’s failure to keep herself attractive contributed to her husband’s unfaithfulness. And to give a more extreme example, with this reasoning, children should be held responsible for sexual abuse if they don’t report it and it continues.

Does a girl bear the responsibility to be modest? Yes.

Does a man bear the responsibility to not lust? Yes.

Do the two interact? Yes.

Are they dependent on each other? Absolutely. Categorically, Undeniably, in any way shape or form, NO.

So, using the above reasoning, was the woman to say to her sons, “Well, it’s 100% your fault for lusting…” and fail to address the girl at all? Why can’t she do both? Again, there are a lot of assumptions made that she has not talked to her boys about this.

It is absolutely true according to James that sin comes from our desires within. It is also absolutely true that we are to flee sources of temptation, as Joseph did. Could the mom have made her sons “flee” facebook entirely? Perhaps. But a better option is to “flee” specific sources of temptation by blocking them. Easy as that…while at the same time addressing heart issues (which, I agree, is a weakness of this article).

And just to add one more thought …

For the person caught in the terrible grip of lust, there is nothing more freeing than recognizing, admitting, confessing that lust is 100% his own heart problem, not an environmental problem or partially the fault of anyone else.

The person who thinks he would no longer struggle with lust if he lived in a culture where women dressed differently, or where he never interacted with women at all, needs to think again … and read his Bible … and maybe read some history too.

You’ll fight all your life and lose the battle to completely change your environment and everyone else. But when lust is recognized as your own heart problem, then the solution is immediately available, and there is hope—in Christ, and in the gospel applied to everyday life.

Sure, recognize your weaknesses. Identify things that increase your temptation levels, and avoid them. And recognize that your boundaries will most likely not be the same as anyone else’s. And don’t be ashamed of that. Flee also youthful lusts …

But, don’t forget the rest of that verse. Victory comes not just from avoiding evil, but from following hard after God:

… but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart (II Timothy 2:22).

Part of the initial response to the OP was that her objections to published pictures of ‘scantily clad’ girls were interspersed with her shirtless sons flexing for the camera on a beach. ‘Cause we all know that every young woman on a beach is fully clothed, right? It’s only when they post pics on FB that they are immodest. Sheesh.

The author has since removed those pics of her sons and replaced them with ones in which they are wearing clothing. Or I guess we would have had to block them on Facebook. :/

All of this lent itself to the impression that the article was just another slut-shaming of young girls. As in ‘discipling-by-humiliation’ while ignoring the Brooklyn Bridge hanging out of her left eyeball.

On responsibility- Has our society infantilized young people? Yes, it has. Which means we have to deal with the reality that many responsibilities and rites of passage that were SOP in the past no longer exist. Except that of sexuality, which means our society is warped, and kinda’ creepy.

Teens can’t enter into any sort of contract, and can even have a hard time finding a job because of all the restrictions on young people working. They may have entered sexual maturity, but they are forbidden to act on it until they are 18. This makes the teen years a frustrating conundrum for kids and parents.

The point of not always focusing on how a woman’s appearance affects a man when teaching young women about modesty is that her focus needs to be on how she is viewed in the light of Christ. A young woman who is the model of demure appearance and behavior can still find herself being ogled, and she shouldn’t feel that she has to take responsibility for every time a guy thinks she’s attractive. As I said before, so say I now again- Her responsibility ends where his free will begins.

And not every man is excited by immodesty. Some are repelled and grieved, as they see women as human beings with an eternal soul, and not a sexual object. Perhaps if young men were taught the right attitudes toward women, they wouldn’t be forever warped by the sight of a girl in a towel.

And then ditto Hannah and StefL.

[handerson]

GregH,

StephL has already addressed it but I want to reiterate that your understanding of a 90% / 10% paradigm is very disturbing.

Disturbing? Seriously?… Exactly why is this topic so emotional to you that you have to go there?

It is just a different way of looking at it and not very complicated. It is not a stretch to say that in a problem situation, both sides can be at fault and at varying degrees. All I was saying that it is conceivable in that in a bad situation, both sides can bear some of the responsibility but at different levels.

I don’t disagree with your 100%/100% paradigm but we are not talking about the same thing.