Today we’re continuing our exploration of modesty and doing a deep dive into what God has to say about the subject. In Part 1 we discovered that modesty (from a Biblical perspective) is more about the display of wealth and excess, and less about skin-baring. Read Part 1 here. Read Part 3 here. Read Part 4 here.
In this installment, we’ll explore how traditional modesty culture has influenced the Christian view of sexuality and how sexualizing non-sexual things does more harm than good.
To understand how this happened, it’s worth noting that purity and modesty culture (in its most recent iteration; certainly modesty has been a conversation for more than just the last few decades) were a response to the “free love” movement of the ‘60s and ‘70s. To combat the free-for-all messaging, churches and youth groups swung wildly in the opposite direction and began teaching a countercultural sexual ethic that was more in line with the Bible. It’s important to understand this because we need to acknowledge that the intention was good. Advocating for strict dating/purity/modesty standards was designed to protect followers from a harmful (though enticing) worldly sexual ethic that was emerging, and to help people follow God’s design for sex.
But the problem is that “modesty” got lumped in with “sexuality” and then it became only about sexuality. And when modesty became only about sexuality and skin-baring, non-sexual things became sexualized. Legs. Thighs. Bellies. Collarbones. Cleavage. None of those things are inherently sexual – they’re simply part of the female anatomy – but we’ve assigned a sexual meaning to them.
In fact, the reason that traditional modesty conversations are traditionally centered around female modesty is based on the historical belief that men are more visually stimulated. However, recent studies challenge that view. One out of three visitors to porn sites are female. Keyword searches are increasingly hardcore. 15% of Christian women say they watch porn at least once a month. Song of Solomon is filled with commentary from a woman who delights in a man’s physical appearance and is filled with physical descriptors of his body.
So as we can see, it’s not just a one-way street. However, traditional modesty culture that focuses on women covering their bodies perpetuates a myth that women are not visually stimulated, which is harmful in three primary ways:
1. It elevates sexuality to an idol. Traditional modesty culture has made sexuality and sexual temptation THE MOST IMPORTANT AND DANGEROUS THING but in reality we all struggle with sin and temptation in our lives, and sexual sin is no more (or less) important.
2. Women are viewed as sex-less. Their bodies are “stumbling blocks” but there is no mention of men’s modesty. What about women who struggle with lust? A woman’s sexual feelings or desires become shameful because they aren’t normalized.
3. It reduces women’s bodies to a singular function: sex/sexual temptation. It contributes to the dehumanization of women when we encourage men to “avert their eyes” rather than coaching them to see and appreciate women for ALL of what God created them to be.
Is it complicated? Of course it is. From what I hear from men, raging teenage male hormones are no joke. But this is part of the tension of living in the gray. We can’t continue on the way we always have because it’s not rooted in Truth, and it’s caused harm. What started out as a well-intentioned movement contributed to an incomplete view of the female body and a flawed view of sexuality; continuing down this path only feeds the harmful messaging. We need to remember that in Genesis 1:31, after creating Eve, “God saw everything He had made and it was very good.” Bodies are part of that. And after the temptation and fall of man (Genesis 3:1-10), Adam & Eve covered up because they felt shame (a sin), not because they were tempting each other with their naked bodies
We need to separate the issue of sexual integrity from modesty because, while there is some overlap, sexuality integrity is not the primary goal of modesty as it’s portrayed in the Bible. Women are far more than just sexual creatures and implementing a blanket “cover-up” approach fails to acknowledge that sexuality is only a part of who they are and elevates it to a level above all other God-give identities and abilities.
Now, because of a flawed framework does this mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater? That modesty is unnecessary and displaying our bodies is a free-for-all? Of course not. That’s not biblical, either. But as we re-evaluate our traditional view of modesty we need to acknowledge the flaws and the harm that comes from the conversation being a one-way street that makes women culpable and men creatures who lack self-control. It’s not a flattering (or Godly) portrayal of either sex.
In the next installment we’ll tackle the “don’t cause your brother to stumble” passages and boy, have I learned a few things. Stay tuned!
What we got right: There IS a sexual element to bodies & modesty.
What we got wrong: Sexuality is not the WHOLE issue of modesty (or even the biggest part, for that matter).
TELL US: Do you agree that the historical approach to modesty has been harmful? Why or why not?
