Are women responsible for keeping men from lusting?
There’s a chilling and glaring error in complementarian theology; men are supposed to lead women and children – both at home and in the church (with many teachers going so far as to say that women cannot even give directions to a man who is lost), and yet we are also told that men are completely powerless to control their sexual urges.
Therefore, they tell us, women must take care to always dress modestly and to never be alone with a man they’re neither married to or related to, lest they cause men to sin or “fall” into an “affair” (as so many pastors have phrased it lately regarding clergy sexual abuse).
Every time I hear this teaching from a male pastor or teacher, it always strikes me as strange.
These men, who have appointed themselves as leaders over women, are telling on themselves. When they generalize men as inherently dangerous to women and young girls due to a lack of self-control, they are telling on themselves. And let’s not take advice from men with a pornified style of seeing women!
A while back, on Faceboook (before my old page was stolen–follow me on my new page!), I shared a post from Ezer Rising that called out this problematic position, and the replies I got back from all of you were amazing. But there was a super interesting discussion I wanted to draw attention to, because it encapsulated the argument in a new way.
Have you ever heard modesty compared with not serving alcohol to alcoholics?
That analogy is often used when we end up talking about modesty. If you knew an alcoholic was coming over to your house, you wouldn’t serve alcohol. So in the same way, if we know that men have trouble with lust, we should dress really modesty as a way of helping them in their fight.
I do have an issue with this, as I wrote in reply:
When a man lusts, he is sinning against her. When someone drinks alcohol, they are not sinning against anybody (unless they drive drunk or fail in their responsibilities to others). A woman is a person, she is not a consumable beverage. And that’s really the problem, is that all of these analogies keep objectifying women.
But then there was a reply that I really liked! A woman named Lizzie wrote this:
I appreciate not wanting someone to stumble and the comparison to alcohol. However, I think a better comparison is food. Because everyone must eat, food abstinence is not an option. Being able to self moderate food intake is essential and expected. Yes, people struggle. But, just as we cannot just remove food from our lives, we cannot wholesale remove being exposed to the opposite sex.
Yes, we can help ourselves by removing certain food temptations (don’t keep cookies in the house). But the responsibility is on the person with the disorder. And just like an eating disorder is not about specific foods, lust and objectifying women are not about specific women body parts. And just like food is not objectively bad, women’s body parts are not objectively bad. And in both cases, the responsibility is on the person to learn self management.
That’s it in a nutshell, and I love how she expressed it!
One of the things that has always bothered me about the emphasis on telling girls and women to dress ultra modestly in church to help out the guys is that in the rest of the world, women will not be dressed modestly. If men can only treat women respectfully and not sin if the woman is covered up, then what will they be like in the rest of the world?
Christian men should be mature. That’s a theme of the New Testament–we’re supposed to grow. And yet we are constantly coddling men in such a way that they can’t even function in the real world, as Sam Jolman and I talked about yesterday on the Bare Marriage podcast
I’m not saying that women should go around naked. Both men and women have a responsibility to be appropriate and welcoming to others (which is what the modesty passage in 1 Timothy 2 is really talking about). But men have to be able to function when women are dressed in a culturally normal way (and even when they aren’t).
So Lizzie’s analogy is a great addition to the discussion!
What if we changed the script?
What if we held men accountable for the way they have sexualized women and girls?
What if we demanded men to meet the basic requirements that God called all of us to in Scripture?
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
What if we remembered that treating women with respect, as whole people, is something that all men are expected to do in all situations? And women aren’t responsible for how a man chooses to treat her.
If you’ve been bothered by this kind of rhetoric, too, we’re having an amazing FREE webinar with Dr. Camden Morgante tonight to celebrate the release of her book Recovering from Purity Culture tomorrow!
We’ll have prizes (you have to be there to claim them!), games (can you guess who said it?), and some great thoughts from a licensed psychologist on how to deal with this kind of shame that purity culture often gives you. So, please:
Join Dr. Camden and Sheila for a FREE Webinar!
Recording will be available if you can’t make it live. So just sign up now to get access!
They are also talking specifically to young women. If an octogenarian woman wanted to wear a short skirt and a low-cut top, they would hardly object. The objects of their modesty tirades are young women, who, let’s be honest, would look alluring in an old potato sack.
That aside, we all have temptations and crosses to bear. In no other situation do we really require that other people twist themselves into knots to prevent sinning. “Thou shalt not steal” isn’t license to tell people to drive bad cars or not wear nice jewelry because it’s a “stumbling block.” It’s our job to not sin, not other people’s job to pave the way for us so we don’t have to be uncomfortable.
I think every man in church needs to immediately stop wearing ties, unless they’re bow ties.
Because a regular tie has an arrowhead shape that is pointing directly at the man’s penis. How am I, or any other red-blooded woman, supposed to concentrate on singing hymns, reading the Bible, and especially listening to the pastor when he’s got what is frequently a brightly colored arrow pointing at his penis?
Do men not understand what they doing to us women? How they’re advertising their penises? Do they not care about the spiritual health of the women around them? Do they not realize how impossible it is to not follow that long line straight down their torsos to their crotch?
SOOOO unfair. And it’s all done chillingly, and calculating. Men KNOW where it leads women’s brains and imaginations, so men must be doing it on purpose, despite their protestations of innocence in merely following fashion trends.
The mimbos (https://youtu.be/Po-tSDxGvj0)! The big hussies! Don’t get me started on the suit jackets that make their shoulders oh so square!
Said no pastor, EVER. 🙄
Naturally a pastor would never say that. Women don’t have sex drives and never think about sex, so our ties are effectively pointing to nothing. (Pause to roll eyes sarcastically here).
For the record, I never wear a tie to church and rarely anywhere else.
Most men I know don’t wear ties anymore, either, even in the workplace. It must be a relief not to button the very top shirt button and tie a windsor knot! Button-down shirt necks and collars sure don’t seem to be made very wide, either.
Thank you for not causing us to stumble, Nathan! Lolll!!
Jo R, you broke the internet for me today. Your comment is GOLD!
On that note, have you ever seen this one? https://juniaproject.com/10-reasons-why-men-should-not-be-pastors/
Wowie, wow, wow, wow!
That is absolutely genius! Bookmarked!
Thanks for sharing that!
A case could be made that is only one true pastor – one Shepherd with one flock. Titles like minister, deacon or deaconess may be better because they only signify serving. A pastor is a shepherd.
Apostles are messengers, and if we use the criteria of the book of Acts to pick a replacement for Judas, then there can be no more apostles in our time. To qualify as the messenger of Jesus it would be necessary to have been His disciple during His earthly ministry.
It seems safer to just call oneself a word that means “servant,” because Jesus said that whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. He even told his disciples that they were to call no man rabbi (teacher) because they have one teacher and they are all brothers.
The Orthodox church has always had deaconesses. They believe only a man can fill a priest role, because they see the priest as symbolizing Jesus in relationship to the bride, the church. (But it could also be argued that no man should be called a priest if Jesus is the high priest who mediates between every individual and God the Father.)
Erica…I just read your link and it is hilarious! I laughed out loud! Thanks for sharing that 😊
Msg clear Jo. 😉
Hi Nathan. She’s not serious. She making a tongue in cheek example, an analogy, pointing out how absurd purity culture can be. Thus likewise, she is comparing the “tie pointing down” to Sheila’s article on “little girls bellies being enticing or little girls in a mini dress and tights in the church parking lot” 😱, These are reportedly actual comments by church men.
The people who tell women ‘cover-up-for-your-own-safety’ also conveniently forget that in much of the Muslim world, women are forced to cover up, but still get raped. If this doesn’t show people that sexual abuse begins and ends in the mind of the abuser, I don’t know what does.
Sorry, that should read *lust begins and ends in the mind of the abuser
Good point. Women wearing full burkas are frequently grabbed on the streets of Egypt when they pass by groups of young men. The men of the streets of Egypt seem to have gotten the message about the low expectations for their self-control.
Why can’t we be friends?
https://aimeebyrd.com/why-cant-we-be-friends-2/
Why Men Are The Reason That Men And Women Can Never Be ‘Just Friends’: https://www.elitedaily.com/life/platonic-friendship/1423164
I’m so sorry for the relational pain and trauma you’ve experienced. I would never recommend being in denial about the relational signals that another person is not trustworthy. It’s important to listen to those warning signals so that you can protect yourself from harm before it happens.
My link was to a book written about the church by Aimee Byrd. She wants men and women in the church to stop reducing each other to their sexuality and to relate as brothers and sisters, which is what they will be in the Kingdom.
The hook-up culture of the world is another context but is also worth discussing.
With the risk of diverting the conversation too far away from the main point of Sheila’s article … [moderators feel free to remove this comment]
Sorry Jen, I think you misunderstood what the Elite Daily article was talking about. There was a survey done (see above linked article for the link to it) that a linked Scientific American article referred to, that basically showed that men in platonic relationships are nearly always wanting to take the relationship further. Yes the survey was not church specific, but I strongly suspect that the same is true in churches. To quote:
“As a result, men consistently overestimated the level of attraction felt by their female friends and women consistently underestimated the level of attraction felt by their male friends.”
Basically us men are a bit rubbish at being “just” platonic friends. To quote again:
“the opportunity (or perceived opportunity) for ‘romance’ is often lurking just around the corner, waiting to pounce at the most inopportune moment.”‘
and it’s mainly us men who are harbouring this hope. Whether a particular man and women can be just friends, essentially depends on whether the man is attracted to the woman or not. I agree completely that in the New Kingdom we’ll be brothers and sisters together and all this nonsense will be behind us, but until then, it is often going to be very hard to “just” be friends.
That said, Aimee Byrd’s book is on my Amazon shopping list and so I may learn a whole new perspective. I hope so, because I think it is great when men and women are “just” friends, we have so much to learn from one another.
It can be hard for a nubile, young, single woman to “just be friends” with men. As a young tomboy, it’s not hard to “just be friends” with boys. As a married lady, it’s not hard to “just be friends” with the friends of one’s husband or with the men in a church or with male co-workers. From the perspective of an older woman watching men with younger women, now I realize the way those men looked at me when I was like those younger women. But I’m not anymore. I have never had problems, except for once, when I realized I had been too nice to somebody in my circle who was too lonely. I put some more space between us, and he got over it and moved on to another woman in our circle who was also very friendly to him (and also married). None of this was in church. I usually don’t have trouble with men who are parents just like I am when I am relating to them on that basis.
The friend in the example wasn’t a predator. He was a single, unemployed father whose wife had abandoned him and his son both. Everybody’s family was so fragile in our circle. And we needed each other. And our kids needed each other, too. His feelings were dangerous. I felt sorry for him, and he remained a friend – just one that needed to be kept more at arms length. He seemed to get over it easily enough. Emotional intimacy had been starting to emerge between us after one conversation we’d had. It was a shame it had to be ended. But if anything were to have been noticed between us, even unilateral sexual tension, it would have been so dangerous in terms of what other relationship dynamics or gossip would have happened as a secondary effect. Anything could have been possible, even him becoming shunned, hurting his son, who was a very vulnerable little boy.
Yeah, sometimes these interpersonal dynamics can be so tricky! Even when there’s nothing predatory about it.
Regarding “cover up for your own safety”
Many women here and elsewhere have reported that at churches, Christian camps, etc. it’s the girls who cover up the most that often get attacked or harassed the most.
Yes, predators tend to zero in on those who look like they have low confidence, and super baggy clothing is correlated with that.
Also predators in a way could be wanting to see and do what they are being told or implied they shouldn’t do.! To their sick mind to them a women or girl is covered up is communicating to them,” I got something you are not allowed to see.” and “My body is off limits, you are not allowed to see my body.” In their sick mind they are being teased by it. Is like taking a box and saying to a child “You can’t see what’s inside.”
In a way a really pure innocent girl/woman is the ultimate forbidden fruit.
In addition to what you mentioned, this could be playing into thief minds also.
“why men can’t be pastors”
Number 1 is the most interesting. Many people say that the taint of original sin affects all women for all time, since Eve picked the fruit, ate it, then tempted Adam into eating it (never mind the fact that Adam was there the whole time and did NOT need to be tempted by Eve to eat it, but that’s another story).
Yet, Judas’s act never seems to taint any man anywhere.
I also have the very cynical take that Adam sinned right along with Eve, and in some respects, more so. He wanted to know if the fruit was good. Eve had the guts to eat it herself; Adam was a coward who used his own wife as a guinea pig. He ate it after her because she didn’t die.
Just as plausible as any other reading.
Ya dropped something there, Jane Eyre: 🎤
Why thank you! Glad you found that. 🙂
Original Sin Debunked – Dr. Eitan Bar
https://eitan.bar/articles/original-sin-debunked/
Wow what a read. I felt like a huge weight had just been lifted off my shoulders as I read that entire article. How amazing. Thank you so much for sharing that.
I’ve found blessings in the articles of Eitan Bar, and I’m glad you have, too.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus has sometimes been understood to have been saying that it is sinful to look lustfully at any woman, but he was actually saying it’s sinful to look lustfully at a married woman (covet somebody’s wife). Some translations have made it seem as if he was saying that looking lustfully at any woman – even if a single man is looking lustfully at a single woman – is just as sinful as committing adultery.
I would worry that maybe that type of mis-translation contributes to purity culture. But I wonder how realistic my concern is. Predators seem far more likely to take a “grace for me, but not for thee” approach to the Bible. “I’m under grace, but you’re under the law – my law,” too frequently seems to be their perspective.
So maybe they aren’t worried about their own sinfulness, anyway. “Easy believism for me, legalism for you. My legalism.”
What do you think?
I think it also applies to single women. Jesus was calling out objectification in general. In those days, most women were married, and the sin of adultery was seen as a sin against the husband (just like rape of a single woman was a sin against her father, not against her). I don’t think Jesus was implying that it was okay to lust after a woman as long as she wasn’t married, though.
I would definitely agree that objectifying another human being for any reason doesn’t go along with doing unto others what you would have done unto you.
But I don’t think feelings of attraction need to make objectification inevitable, and I think single men and single women are going to feel attracted to each other, the more so if they don’t have an outlet in a relationship already, and their youthful hormones are peaking.
The Israelite women would dance and sing and play music when the Israelite men returned from a successful battle. Part of what they were celebrating must have been that their young women would not be captured and raped, and that the people would continue to enjoy being fruitful in their promised land and enjoying the fruits therein, un-pillaged and unspoiled.
We know what it looks like when lust goes wrong, but is there a place for imagining what it looks like when attraction goes right?
If women are responsible for doing something that a man has a sinful response to, that is wear something that a man gets a sexually attracted and then thinks something bad.
What about if a man who.goes and buys a new Harley Davidson
Motorcycle or a woman buys a new Mercedes’ SUV and a financially poor Christian ends up coveting or thinks some other sinful thought. Is the one who went and made the purchase responsible for the sinful reaction in the poor Christian? If we apply ‘Don’t do this or you’ll cause others to stumble’ to one sin. wouldn’t it need to applies the same way to other sins?
These teachers who teach this are not thinking about this.
Very good point! And in the New Testament modesty tends to refer to wealth.
The way they teach about modesty backfires anyway by hyping up certain clothes and body parts as being scandalous and saying women shouldn’t wear them, they’re actually causing guys to get more drawn by those things and increasing the sexual tension that men will
feel when they see them.
Apostle Paul in Romans talks about how the law tends to stir up the those desires to to do what it says not to do, legalistic rules tend to do the same thing.
It’s the forbidden Fruit Effect.
I have read numerous books and articles and seen films about life under the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Women are to be completely covered by the Burqua. Eg.,a woman flipping aside her burqua to see an item more clearly (burquas have a netting over the face) and if observed by the the moral/vice TEENAGE youths patrolling the streets, will be beaten by use of sticks. No matter the age of awoman. No respect to an elder. As women are so enticing, men cannot resist temptation. 😱😣 Thus, this DIABOLICAL belief system has infiltrated the church, separated only by a question of degrees.
Well, according to the word of God “every good and perfect thing comes from God.” That means that those women that dress modestly comes from God and such would not make any many sin.
In other words, women should not be blamed completely for making men sin because of how they dressed, after all men are called to be self-controlled.
For me, If I see a woman not dressed modestly, I will only remove my eyes and forget her. If her dress makes her feel good, then there is no need for me to blame her.
Thanks for sharing this.
Every man on the planet has a different definition of what constitutes modest clothing for women. How do we appease them all, all at once?
Some guys like ankles. Some like upper arms. Some like long hair. Some like flowing dresses. Some like ears. Some like pinkie fingers.
Some men are going to fantasize or at least wonder about what a woman is hiding under her “extremely modest” baggy clothing featuring long sleeves, ankle-length skirts, and necklines that go to the base of the throat. What can a woman wear so that she isn’t, as you say, “completely blamed for making” such a man sin?
And let’s not forget, Jesus was all over berating women for how they dressed. He said absolutely zero, zip, zilch, nada to men whose own eyes are causing them to stumble. 🙄
Meant as a reply to Murphyaik.