Modest Expectations by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 04/04/2008 at 3:28 PM

With the arrival of spring, the Girl Talk blog is offering its annual public service announcement on behalf of modesty. Stores are filling up with their spring and summer lines. (Having just returned from New York City, I know this well. My sister forgot her coat, and there was nary one to be found!)

In Girl Talk's 2007 article, "Fashion and Following the Savior: Part 1," Carolyn Mahaney writes:

More than just the latest style, spring and summer (in particular) usher in a vast array of immodest and indecent clothing. Thus the racks and shelves at the nearest mall are crammed full of body-revealing attire.

We must consult God's Word rather than the fashion magazines. We must take God with us when we go shopping. And what's interesting--and freeing, I might add--is that God's clothing style for women doesn't change from season to season. He presents his fashion standard to us in 1 Timothy 2:9-10:

Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness -- with good works.

Dressing fashionably is a value for me. And finding cute clothes that are modest often requires additional time -- or saying no to something that looks a little TOO good. But as Carolyn's daughter Nicole points out, clothes themselves are not the only thing to consider when it comes to modesty:

Immodest dress is more than simply wearing skimpy clothing. Often, it's an expression of pride, the opposite of humility. Simply put, immodest clothes are pride on display. In his book Humility: True Greatness, my dad explains that "The proud person seeks to glorify himself and not God, thereby attempting in effect to deprive God of something only He is worthy to receive."

Outward modesty is an expression of a heart and soul seeking to bring glory to God. But taking the Timothy 2 challenge doesn't mean you have to dress like a pilgrim. Web sites like Downeast Basics and Christa-Taylor, which are comprised entirely of beautiful (and modest) women's fashions, make it easy to be stylish and modest.

(The picture is of my sister Sarah in the $10 coat we finally found her at Conway's in NYC.)

Modest Expectations by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 04/04/2008 at 3:28 PM

With the arrival of spring, the Girl Talk blog is offering its annual public service announcement on behalf of modesty. Stores are filling up with their spring and summer lines. (Having just returned from New York City, I know this well. My sister forgot her coat, and there was nary one to be found!)

In Girl Talk's 2007 article, "Fashion and Following the Savior: Part 1," Carolyn Mahaney writes:

More than just the latest style, spring and summer (in particular) usher in a vast array of immodest and indecent clothing. Thus the racks and shelves at the nearest mall are crammed full of body-revealing attire.

We must consult God's Word rather than the fashion magazines. We must take God with us when we go shopping. And what's interesting--and freeing, I might add--is that God's clothing style for women doesn't change from season to season. He presents his fashion standard to us in 1 Timothy 2:9-10:

Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness -- with good works.

Dressing fashionably is a value for me. And finding cute clothes that are modest often requires additional time -- or saying no to something that looks a little TOO good. But as Carolyn's daughter Nicole points out, clothes themselves are not the only thing to consider when it comes to modesty:

Immodest dress is more than simply wearing skimpy clothing. Often, it's an expression of pride, the opposite of humility. Simply put, immodest clothes are pride on display. In his book Humility: True Greatness, my dad explains that "The proud person seeks to glorify himself and not God, thereby attempting in effect to deprive God of something only He is worthy to receive."

Outward modesty is an expression of a heart and soul seeking to bring glory to God. But taking the Timothy 2 challenge doesn't mean you have to dress like a pilgrim. Web sites like Downeast Basics and Christa-Taylor, which are comprised entirely of beautiful (and modest) women's fashions, make it easy to be stylish and modest.

(The picture is of my sister Sarah in the $10 coat we finally found her at Conway's in NYC.)

Comments

[101. Katie P. said the following at 10:18 PM on Apr 15:]

101

Luke,

I totally agree that girls like to be delighted in for their beauty. I can relate to that on a personal level! I guess what I am having a hard time understanding is how you are deciding where to draw the line. Since I am not male and really have very little idea what actually goes on in a man's mind concerning lust, I will not try to get into the "what is, what isn't" debate. But it seems to me that the line between delight and honor is being blurred in some of your accounts, at least from a woman's perspective. It could be totally, 100% true that you can intentionally look at a woman's chest and not lust after her (not doubting your experience here at all!), but I also know that if I was that girl I would not feel very honored - I would feel extremely uncomfortable. I think our definitions of "delighted in" might be a little different maybe? :)

[102. Leah said the following at 9:40 AM on Apr 16:]

102

Luke,

You said And so, I am quiet certain that the guys who struggle with lust are like me: They have sexual desires and seek out ways to have them satisfied. But, also like me, this does not happen when they notice a pretty girl in short shorts. Rather, this happens when they allow themselves to go there.

Sure, the girl in short shorts does not force lustful thoughts into a guy's head. But she does trigger it. Yes, you're right in saying he then has the choice of following down that path or refusing those thoughts. But you can't say that looking at a girl in short shorts is completely neutral to a guy, because chances are (and I realise this is not the case for ALL guys) that sight will TRIGGER lustful ideas which the guy then has to make a choice regarding. My point was just that it seems while your trigger is just as active as any other guy's, you seem to have been blessed with the ability to turn off the thoughts it triggers. Other guys struggle with that more, not because they choose to go down that thought path, but it's just harder for them to turn it off. People struggle more with different things. Some people have a lot of difficulty limiting their alcohol intake, or their gambling habits, and some people have more difficulty controlling their sexual thought life.

(Not to mention, from my understanding, the fact guys are visually-oriented means a suggestive picture they saw last week can unvoluntarily pop up into their heads, and they then have to work to get it out. It would have been helpful to them if they hadn't been exposed to that image in the first place.)

[103. Dawnson said the following at 11:02 AM on Apr 16:]

103

Katie P. #101:
"I guess what I am having a hard time understanding is how you are deciding where to draw the line. ... it seems to me that the line between delight and honor is being blurred in some of your accounts, at least from a woman's perspective."

The line is very "grey" yes. And that's because God's work of sactification in each of our lives isn't a one-size-fits-all. We are individuals, we each have different lessons to learn and rates of growth. That's why the Holy Spirit was sent, to "guide you into all truth" as Jesus put it (John 16:13). Notice the word 'guide' -- it implies a journey, not a blueprint. And so we humbly walk by the Spirit's leading, at least ideally.

That's why I believe black-and-white judgements of "this is always lusting, but that is not" aren't helpful, because those kinds of rules completely ignore a person's heart and motives. So Luke and I stop to ask guys, "What are you really thinking?" as an attempt to help them evaluate where their minds really go and be able to sense where the point of choice (to lust or not to lust) actually is. And both of those are going to be different for every guy. Asking the right questions of yourself, paying attention to your motives, listening for the Spirit's subtle leading -- those are the ways I believe guys can learn how to keep their minds pure.

But you're right, all of that is *very* grey, because we're trying to develop good judgement rather than just laying down rules.

"It could be totally, 100% true that you can intentionally look at a woman's chest and not lust after her (not doubting your experience here at all!), but I also know that if I was that girl I would not feel very honored - I would feel extremely uncomfortable."

As Luke said above, "Drooling is not honoring" and that's not what we're advocating. Respecting and honoring women includes things like opening doors, offering to carry things, encouraging, sincerely complimenting, speaking respectfully (rather than "Hey baby.."), basically holding to what used to be called "chivalry" but has been lost over time.

PS: The move went fine, and I'm back. :)

[104. TomySky said the following at 3:58 PM on Apr 16:]

104

Katie (#101):
"[I]t seems to me that the line between delight and honor is being blurred in some of your accounts.... [I] know that if [a guy looked at my chest,] I would not feel very honored - I would feel extremely uncomfortable."

And that is why I do not go around just staring at girl's chests all the time . That would be completely against what I am trying to accomplish. Rather, I did this experiment outside the knowledge of the young women so they would not feel uncomfortable.

"I think our definitions of 'delighted in' might be a little different maybe? :)"

That's entirely possible, but I think I'd agree with you.

Leah (#102):
"[Y]ou can't say that looking at a girl in short shorts is completely neutral to a guy, because... that sight will TRIGGER lustful ideas which the guy then has to make a choice regarding. ...[Y]ou seem to have been blessed with the ability to turn off the thoughts it triggers."

Leah, let me admit freely again: I am far from a saint in regard to lust. I struggle with it just as much, if not far more, than the other guys I know. But, the issue that I am trying to help people rethink is that seeing a pretty girl does not trigger lustful thoughts. We do not immediately go there. And if I don't, I'd be shocked if other guys do (considering how lustful I am).

I have not "turned off" the triggers. Instead, I turned off the voice in my head that told me that seeing such a thing was a trigger. Once I did that, I realized that seeing such things didn't spark my lust. In fact, thinking 'Oh, that's going to be problem for me' made girls who were dressed immodestly a problem. That's why I am so adamant that we change our approach to--and thinking about--this issue.

Now, when we see a sexually attractive sight, we could easily then decide to allow ourselves to go down the lustful thought lines. So, yes, if we were to be devoid of female contact, we may not lust after a girl's body as much, since we've never seen one. But that does not change the underlying issues. And we would be just as prone to sin in this area, it just wouldn't be with girls. Hence, the ankle issue of comment #74.

"Not to mention, from my understanding, the fact guys are visually-oriented means a suggestive picture they saw last week can unvoluntarily pop up into their heads, and they then have to work to get it out. It would have been helpful to them if they hadn't been exposed to that image in the first place."

Well, I've never been able to "work" an image out of my head. Sometimes they fade. Often they don't. What you see is what you see. And yes, you're right, we are designed by God to be visually stimulated. But stimulated does not mean "primed to lust". That is certainly an action we could take, or we could simply enjoy the "buzz" and move on.

But, yes, it would be nice to be never exposed to sexually suggestive things, but the issue is more complicated than that. We are "bombarded", if you will, by things which we could lust after. The goal is to figure out how best to respond to/handle such things. Is it better to say, "Ahh!! I shouldn't have seen that! She should cover up", or, "She looks good like that, but I wish I could tell her she was beautiful so she wouldn't have to try so hard to 'prove' it"?

Thanks one and all for your comments thus far. This has been a great discussion (I hope you feel the same way).

~Luke

[101. Katie P. said the following at 10:18 PM on Apr 15:]

101

Luke,

I totally agree that girls like to be delighted in for their beauty. I can relate to that on a personal level! I guess what I am having a hard time understanding is how you are deciding where to draw the line. Since I am not male and really have very little idea what actually goes on in a man's mind concerning lust, I will not try to get into the "what is, what isn't" debate. But it seems to me that the line between delight and honor is being blurred in some of your accounts, at least from a woman's perspective. It could be totally, 100% true that you can intentionally look at a woman's chest and not lust after her (not doubting your experience here at all!), but I also know that if I was that girl I would not feel very honored - I would feel extremely uncomfortable. I think our definitions of "delighted in" might be a little different maybe? :)

[102. Leah said the following at 9:40 AM on Apr 16:]

102

Luke,

You said And so, I am quiet certain that the guys who struggle with lust are like me: They have sexual desires and seek out ways to have them satisfied. But, also like me, this does not happen when they notice a pretty girl in short shorts. Rather, this happens when they allow themselves to go there.

Sure, the girl in short shorts does not force lustful thoughts into a guy's head. But she does trigger it. Yes, you're right in saying he then has the choice of following down that path or refusing those thoughts. But you can't say that looking at a girl in short shorts is completely neutral to a guy, because chances are (and I realise this is not the case for ALL guys) that sight will TRIGGER lustful ideas which the guy then has to make a choice regarding. My point was just that it seems while your trigger is just as active as any other guy's, you seem to have been blessed with the ability to turn off the thoughts it triggers. Other guys struggle with that more, not because they choose to go down that thought path, but it's just harder for them to turn it off. People struggle more with different things. Some people have a lot of difficulty limiting their alcohol intake, or their gambling habits, and some people have more difficulty controlling their sexual thought life.

(Not to mention, from my understanding, the fact guys are visually-oriented means a suggestive picture they saw last week can unvoluntarily pop up into their heads, and they then have to work to get it out. It would have been helpful to them if they hadn't been exposed to that image in the first place.)

[103. Dawnson said the following at 11:02 AM on Apr 16:]

103

Katie P. #101:
"I guess what I am having a hard time understanding is how you are deciding where to draw the line. ... it seems to me that the line between delight and honor is being blurred in some of your accounts, at least from a woman's perspective."

The line is very "grey" yes. And that's because God's work of sactification in each of our lives isn't a one-size-fits-all. We are individuals, we each have different lessons to learn and rates of growth. That's why the Holy Spirit was sent, to "guide you into all truth" as Jesus put it (John 16:13). Notice the word 'guide' -- it implies a journey, not a blueprint. And so we humbly walk by the Spirit's leading, at least ideally.

That's why I believe black-and-white judgements of "this is always lusting, but that is not" aren't helpful, because those kinds of rules completely ignore a person's heart and motives. So Luke and I stop to ask guys, "What are you really thinking?" as an attempt to help them evaluate where their minds really go and be able to sense where the point of choice (to lust or not to lust) actually is. And both of those are going to be different for every guy. Asking the right questions of yourself, paying attention to your motives, listening for the Spirit's subtle leading -- those are the ways I believe guys can learn how to keep their minds pure.

But you're right, all of that is *very* grey, because we're trying to develop good judgement rather than just laying down rules.

"It could be totally, 100% true that you can intentionally look at a woman's chest and not lust after her (not doubting your experience here at all!), but I also know that if I was that girl I would not feel very honored - I would feel extremely uncomfortable."

As Luke said above, "Drooling is not honoring" and that's not what we're advocating. Respecting and honoring women includes things like opening doors, offering to carry things, encouraging, sincerely complimenting, speaking respectfully (rather than "Hey baby.."), basically holding to what used to be called "chivalry" but has been lost over time.

PS: The move went fine, and I'm back. :)

[104. TomySky said the following at 3:58 PM on Apr 16:]

104

Katie (#101):
"[I]t seems to me that the line between delight and honor is being blurred in some of your accounts.... [I] know that if [a guy looked at my chest,] I would not feel very honored - I would feel extremely uncomfortable."

And that is why I do not go around just staring at girl's chests all the time . That would be completely against what I am trying to accomplish. Rather, I did this experiment outside the knowledge of the young women so they would not feel uncomfortable.

"I think our definitions of 'delighted in' might be a little different maybe? :)"

That's entirely possible, but I think I'd agree with you.

Leah (#102):
"[Y]ou can't say that looking at a girl in short shorts is completely neutral to a guy, because... that sight will TRIGGER lustful ideas which the guy then has to make a choice regarding. ...[Y]ou seem to have been blessed with the ability to turn off the thoughts it triggers."

Leah, let me admit freely again: I am far from a saint in regard to lust. I struggle with it just as much, if not far more, than the other guys I know. But, the issue that I am trying to help people rethink is that seeing a pretty girl does not trigger lustful thoughts. We do not immediately go there. And if I don't, I'd be shocked if other guys do (considering how lustful I am).

I have not "turned off" the triggers. Instead, I turned off the voice in my head that told me that seeing such a thing was a trigger. Once I did that, I realized that seeing such things didn't spark my lust. In fact, thinking 'Oh, that's going to be problem for me' made girls who were dressed immodestly a problem. That's why I am so adamant that we change our approach to--and thinking about--this issue.

Now, when we see a sexually attractive sight, we could easily then decide to allow ourselves to go down the lustful thought lines. So, yes, if we were to be devoid of female contact, we may not lust after a girl's body as much, since we've never seen one. But that does not change the underlying issues. And we would be just as prone to sin in this area, it just wouldn't be with girls. Hence, the ankle issue of comment #74.

"Not to mention, from my understanding, the fact guys are visually-oriented means a suggestive picture they saw last week can unvoluntarily pop up into their heads, and they then have to work to get it out. It would have been helpful to them if they hadn't been exposed to that image in the first place."

Well, I've never been able to "work" an image out of my head. Sometimes they fade. Often they don't. What you see is what you see. And yes, you're right, we are designed by God to be visually stimulated. But stimulated does not mean "primed to lust". That is certainly an action we could take, or we could simply enjoy the "buzz" and move on.

But, yes, it would be nice to be never exposed to sexually suggestive things, but the issue is more complicated than that. We are "bombarded", if you will, by things which we could lust after. The goal is to figure out how best to respond to/handle such things. Is it better to say, "Ahh!! I shouldn't have seen that! She should cover up", or, "She looks good like that, but I wish I could tell her she was beautiful so she wouldn't have to try so hard to 'prove' it"?

Thanks one and all for your comments thus far. This has been a great discussion (I hope you feel the same way).

~Luke