When Purity Culture Hurts Men, Too

[Lil Red]

http://seeprestonblog.com/2013/02/when-purity-culture-hurts-men-too/

 

I was but thirteen, a near decade to today, the first time I was told that by nature I was a rapist.

We were sitting in the upstairs portion of the church, the long hall with the offshoot rooms, in the largest one where the choir would practice, that night arranged with foldout tables covered in opaque white plastic, little red cards on the table in front of us with Comic Sans TRUE LOVE WAITS embolden across the top.

I was told that women should cover their bodies, lest they tempt men to stumble, that a v-neck could be the undoing of a man of God, that Scripture gives us a clear example—Bathsheba at her bath, enticing David by her nakedness—and that it is a warning to us all of the danger of our bodies, which have become the guilty ones.

So I signed the red card in front of me with a teenage scrawl and vowed then and there as a pledge to God and my genitals that I would never lust again.

I believe this lasted about an evening.

When it was over with, when the pledge had been broken—because as I have said before, the virginity line is grey—I wondered what the point of it all had been. Was it simply a setup to shame me, a guaranteed trap I would stumble right into as quickly as I had raised the pen to promise that I would never compromise myself or another man’s future wife.

Notice.

Notice the central focus of this discussion, to this point, has been about me.

I mention that I was told I was a rapist by nature, though I must admit these words were never explicitly said. Yet, the implication was resident in the articulation of the sin.

Women should cover themselves up lest men stumble implied that men could not help but stumble.

We had no control in the matter.

No choice.

And if rape is in its most minimal sense the taking by force and power possession over another’s body that has not been consented to you, I had been told in the space of a sentence that by nature I could not help myself from taking something from a woman if she chose to dress so as to ask for it.

If I lusted, it was her fault. She chose to dress the part of my desires. I was only being natural.

Another man’s future wife.

Notice, too, the phrasing.

It wasn’t that I would violate her, per se, as a woman formed in the image of God, but that I would have shamed her before she had been handed over to another man, the man who she was intended for, the man who, for all intents and purposes in this vocabulary of commodity, owned her.

I was stealing her from the one who was to possess her.

The emphasis on that card I signed to God and my genitals was that I was to keep myself pure so as to not defile another woman for the sake of another man.

Respect was defined in terms of masculine pronouns and the possibility that a woman could ever have a sexual desire outside of a motivation to destroy the men of God was largely not entertained.

(Though, I should make a firm note in that the culture of my home was completely antithetical to this line of thinking.)

Purity culture hurts men, too. It makes us poor readers of Scripture.

The story of David and Bathsheba is perhaps one of the most misinterpreted passages in the Text.

A close reading reveals that several narrative clues point out that David purposefully coerced Bathsheba when she was doing nothing more than the faithful working-out of the levitical code, having ended her monthly cycle and bathing herself as an expression of her purity before God. David was the one who violated her purity, who sinned against her. It wasn’t because she was undressed, but because David acted on his sinful desires.

I resent the culture of modesty that has shamed all of us into thinking modest is about dress codes or property when modest is about a faith worked out humbly, together, respecting image of God in one another, and before and within and a part of our God.

And people are hurt.

And people are angry.

And it’s a confusing time to try and discern what we should do, what we should say.

Because I do think we should still wear clothes, that some things are immodest, that Beyonce isn’t a Christian prophet, and that sexuality isn’t a no-strings-attached freedom.

But if we are not dignifying men and women alike in these conversations, we’re missing the point.

Objectification is a systemic, dangerous sin in our culture, and we as a Church need to say this out loud, from behind pulpits and in the streets.

It needs changing.

It needs healing.

It needs Gospel.

Because purity culture told me that I couldn’t help violating a woman, because if she wore something revealing, I was naturally inclined to have my way with her.

And you know what? I’m not buying it anymore.

I don’t think Jesus did, either.

And I think it’s time we said, loud, but steady, but clear: Enough.

[BG45]

Well this thread can only end well...

 

On a more serious note, I agree with the author.  It enrages me, whenever someone attacks a woman for her method of dress, saying it will lead men into sin, because it does pre-suppose that our natural inclination is to have no self control at best, or to be a born rapist at worst.  The objectification of any human being of either gender for sexual purposes is damaging towards both genders,   Absolutely loved the author's point about what modesty is too, and that it's as much an attitude and way of life moreso than it's about clothing alone.

[Lil Red]

Well this thread can only end well...

 

sigh. I know. but I really, really, loved this article and what the author had to say.

On a more serious note, I agree with the author.  It enrages me, whenever someone attacks a woman for her method of dress, saying it will lead men into sin, because it does pre-suppose that our natural inclination is to have no self control at best, or to be a born rapist at worst.  The objectification of any human being of either gender for sexual purposes is damaging towards both genders,   Absolutely loved the author's point about what modesty is too, and that it's as much an attitude and way of life moreso than it's about clothing alone.

 

great summation :)

[ImageTrinity]

Great article! The way purity is presented to teens is really problematic. Most chastity speakers I've heard ignore that fact that women struggle with lust and assume that men are consumed by it.

[GeorgiiMichael]

This is a great article. It's exactly what I try to get across to the teens at my parish during our youth ministry nights whenever this topic comes up (which is surprisingly often for not having any explicit chastity talks so far since starting).

[PhuturePriest]

I love you. :love:

 

But really, this is really important. It seems we're either saying men are rapists that will jump you for showing your shoulder, or we are saying women are the innocent victims without any sexual desire and men are demons that are behind every problem in our culture. Men and women have both made mistakes, and it's time we fixed it together, not individually. Telling women to cover themselves up like a Templar Knight in the first crusade is not going to fix objectifying, and telling women to keep a knife and pepper spray in their hands to ward off men because men are dirty scum waiting to find an opportunity to pounce isn't going to help, either.

Edited February 5, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[GeorgiiMichael]

I think everyone should dress like a Templar Knight.

 

Because armor is cool and swords are fun.

[PhuturePriest]

I think everyone should dress like a Templar Knight.

 

Because armor is cool and swords are fun.

 

You're a genius.

 

And beyond that, I bet if we got everyone to wear armor and play with swords guns wouldn't be such a big problem!

Edited February 5, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[MissyP89]

http://seeprestonblog.com/2013/02/when-purity-culture-hurts-men-too/

I resent the culture of modesty that has shamed all of us into thinking modest is about dress codes or property when modest is about a faith worked out humbly, together, respecting image of God in one another, and before and within and a part of our God.

And people are hurt.

And people are angry.

And it’s a confusing time to try and discern what we should do, what we should say.

Because I do think we should still wear clothes, that some things are immodest, that Beyonce isn’t a Christian prophet, and that sexuality isn’t a no-strings-attached freedom.

But if we are not dignifying men and women alike in these conversations, we’re missing the point.

Objectification is a systemic, dangerous sin in our culture, and we as a Church need to say this out loud, from behind pulpits and in the streets.

It needs changing.

It needs healing.

It needs Gospel.

 

Yes yes yes yes and amen.

 

I am tired of crying in front of my closet and buying into the lie that I need to cover up to be "safe" for others.

 

I am tired of hearing things like "no one likes an unwrapped present" and "you're not immodest, but your clothes are."

 

We're going about this modesty thing wrong, and our culture has also trained us to hear the message in ways that are backward and wounding.

 

It's all couched in so much negativity. We need to repackage this message in a way that is affirming and empowering, not steeped in fear, suitability and condemnation.

 

So many people need healing. I am one. I'm embarrassed to say it, but at the same time I'm tired of dealing with terrible resentment and pain, yet not saying a word.

[Nihil Obstat]

I feel like something might be missing, and I do not know what it is, so instead I will go a bit stream-of-consciousness and say everything that is popping into my head just now.

 

 

Chastity imposes a positive obligation on men and women. Not simply a negative obligation of "do not do this," "do not dress like that," "avoid thinking in this manner."

Positive obligation. What does the obligation entail? I think it must include, but not be limited to the way in which we dress, both men and women, as well as the ways in which both men and women maintain custody of their eyes and thoughts.

The positive obligations of chastity are ordered first towards God, then towards ourselves, then towards others. First we bring glory to God, then we respect ourselves, then we consider the burdens of others. None of the three could be ignored, but I think that must be the order of precedence.

 

 

That is all I have just at the moment.

[sixpence]

It always seemed to me like the more "talks" we had growing up, the more I began to suspect that being unchaste was nearly inevitable and I began to kind of marvel that I had apparently been so good...of course that ended very badly.

[BG45]

sigh. I know. but I really, really, loved this article and what the author had to say.

 

great summation :)

 

Thanks :)  And might I say I've been pleasantly surprised on the discussion thus far compared to most modesty threads.
 

[4588686]

How about we just stop propagating the sexual morals of a book that instructed society on when it was cool to stone a woman who was discovered to not be a virgin on her wedding might. Not that it's all bad. I mean under the right circumstances it does make a rapist marry his victim. Since she's now damaged goods. You'd think that the hip God who was secretly super cool with sex he just wants us to have the right sex which is really the BEST SEX EVER would have explained to Israeli society that a woman's virginity should be treated as a commodity but I guess that was a tall order for the God who sent a column of fire from the sky to buy Moses and the Jews time to escape the Egyptian army and then drowned said army in the Red Sea.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Hasan

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

I only have two words to say.

 

Hallelujah, Amen.

[Gabriela]

I can see where you all are coming from, but I actually found the article rather exaggerated. Who ever said anything about rape in that church session the guy was in? Since when does "stumble" = "rape"? The guy makes a huge, unjustified leap, IMO. As I read his description of the event, I was thinking of Jesus' statement that lusting after another is to commit adultery in one's heart—but just as much adultery as committing it in the flesh. That's what I think of when I hear "stumble" in the context of discussion on this subject. I think that's about as much as you can assume: "stumble" = "sin"—no particular sin specified. Why leap to the most egregious (feminist) one, unless you're already an extremist in gender matters and/or deliberately trying to bait religious people?

 

I do think women (and men) ought to take care about what they wear, because what a person is wearing (or rather, the way the person is wearing it) can cause others to stumble. Sure, the other person has a responsibility to guard his/her eyes, but we have a responsibility to help them.

 

I don't see why this is controversial.

 

Now, arguing that someone is more at fault than another, has more responsibility than the other, or always blaming the woman for being a cheap hussy, or the man for being a objectifying pig—those things are problematic. But why should we argue that we ought all to do what we feel is within reason to help our brothers/sisters not fall into the sin of lust?