Men and Modesty, or a Clarification on Modesty Pieces

Good day to you, ladies and gentlemen!

I must, perhaps, rephrase my greeting, as the principle audience for this particular memorandum is the ladies. By no means, gentlemen, is it my desire that you remove yourself from the audience. Rather, I should like to attempt, in the most exceptional language possible, to convey a particular thought – ever present on the mind of my fellow gentlemen – to the ladies who may, or may not, be aware of our rather particular plight.

Ladies, I wish to address the issue of modesty, coverage, and accountability. In vain I have struggled, it will not do: I am aware that many a piece has been written on the subject (truly, the existence of this letter is a direct response to one such opinion), but they all fall short in addressing the real problems at hand. If you will indulge me, I shall attempt to explain our situation using examples from your very own Jane Austen.

This is a response, in part, to Miss Bailey’s piece “I Don’t Accommodate Uncontrolled Men”. (Though gentlemen, I must warn you should you proceed to investigate the article, as the cover photo prominently displays a lady who is hardly dressed). In this piece, Miss Bailey says, in essence, women are not responsible for what men do with their eyes and thoughts. She goes on to say that men should be able to admire and deem women’s bodies as attractive. Furthermore, she conveys that, since men can fight lust, they should; if they don’t, that is solely the concern of the gentleman, not hers. The predominant heart in the article is, in her own words:

 “I’m going to stand up and look that man in the eye and tell him… I have no sympathy for his struggles.”

If you are taking a turn about the room, do ensure that a fainting sofa is available, not due to the desperate nature of this elegy, but I fear this may be quite a lengthy discussion. Do not be alarmed at receiving this letter, but I must be allowed to express my opinion. At least on that account, I may defend myself. Now, once you are comfortably situated, allow me to recount tales from Miss Austen’s work, hopefully for both the education and the entertainment of all concerned parties.

I must confess, one of Austen’s most despicable character creations is that of John Willoughby. Perhaps even regardless of his most inexcusable past, his manner toward Miss Marianne Dashwood was most appalling. His appearance of honorable intention was most deceptive, and we are all duly heart-broken when we discover the disreputable character that he is. To lead somebody on, encourage them to have feelings that are not reciprocated, or to imply something false are villainous actions, to say the very least.

Women may, in the same way, lead on a man with her dress (or lack thereof): where Marianne was provoked into attraction through kind words and gallant deeds, men are quite often provoked by visual stimulation. While we are all most aware that the random bikini-ist on the beach has no intentions toward us, there is instantly an attraction on the part of the man; be this defined as biology, instinct, or other, it is a most common occurrence amongst gentlemen. While Miss Bailey claims to know such a man for whom this is not true, I have never met a man for whom this is not the case.

Now, should the man be able to avert his eyes, guard his thoughts, and not conjure up the image later? Indeed, this power is granted to Him through the grace of our Lord, but it is an intense struggle not to do so. Should Miss Marianne have been able to avert her attentions, guard her heart, and not conjure up feelings for John? A resounding “yes” ought be heard (and truly we wish that she had taken such a course of action), but it was a struggle not to do so. I am not removing the blame of the individual who, under intense pressure, caved to the temptation, but in the same way we would condemn John Willoughby for taking advantage of Miss Marianne’s weakness, may we not do the same for women who treat men as such by their dress?

As another anecdotal example, may I recall to your memory the scandal of Captain Frederick Tilney and Isabella Thorpe? Again, one of Miss Austen’s more vulgar characters, to say the least, Captain Tilney made it his mission to involve Miss Thorpe in scandal, to which she succumbed (and arguably, not unwillingly). Now, was Miss Thorpe completely capable of rejecting Captain Tilney’s advances? Indeed she was, and she is rightfully condemned for not doing so. However, let us not forget the object of her provocation, for indeed we condemn the captain just as much, if not more so, as an aggressor that encouraged Miss Thorpe to fall.

May I again reverse the roles here, if you will permit me, to make the point? While women may not be intending to fell young men (as Captain Tilney intended for Miss Thorpe), they may still do so through their dress. Now the young man is to blame for giving into the temptation to lust (archaic words, perhaps, but potent ones), but is the source of his provocation blameless? While she may have not sinned, was she not an accomplice?

Now, I should like to make a brief clarification. In both of Miss Austen’s tales, the provocateur was intentionally malicious. I do not believe that my sisters in Christ have such ill-will against her Christian brothers, but, unfortunately, the effect is the same, intended or not. For those women who do indeed dress to “catch men” or “show off sexiness”, I have a different address, but not outlined here.

Miss Austen’s anecdotes concluded, may I call two verses to mind, from which I may build a conclusion and a plea:

“But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:8)

“But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak… Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” (I Corinthians 8:9, 12-13)

In regards to the first verse, may I simply inform ladies of a very blunt fact: a man can sin just by looking. While Miss Bailey claims time and again that this is not a problem for her (may I first point out that she is not a man?), and that it therefore should not be a problem for all men, Jesus Himself recognized this as a very real and dangerous sin. Adultery was punishable by death, and that judgement could be incriminated by one lustful thought. Miss Bailey’s continual insistence about cultural conditioning leading to this weakness of men does not change the fact that men are indeed weak here.

Paying heed now to the second verse: Paul here speaks that actions (moral or even amoral) that can cause our brothers and sisters in Christ to stumble is a terrible offense. This verse speaks about brothers in Christ when who are susceptible when their conscience is weak. May I be blunt? All men (whom the Lord has not called to singleness), regardless of age, spiritual maturity, or culture, are weak in this area of life, and always will be. Yes, some may put up a better fight through the grace of our Lord, but it is still a point of weakness that haunts every man. Miss Bailey’s attitude of I have no sympathy for his struggles could not be more contrary to Scripture, where Jesus says “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:35)

Miss Bailey claims that our “conservative purity” culture has trained men to be guilty when seeing cleavage, curves, or other features of a woman’s body. Her claim is that, if conditioned differently, men could purely admire a woman’s physical form without fear of lust. To be blunt, this idea is total bunk – if that were true, clothing would eventually become obsolete and a command that Jesus Himself gave would no longer be relevant. We would have, in essence, evolved beyond a point of sin. The battle against sin is always a struggle, and changing the culture will not change that fact. Furthermore, this does not address the men who are still of the world, currently powerless against the enemy, unstrengthened by the Holy Spirit – they ought be considered helpless, as lust is not even considered wrong, and may, therefore, be indulged in with no regret.

The statement “cover up” or “dress more modestly” is not by any means an attempt at patriarchal control, body shaming, or the like. If I may speak with the utmost honesty, ladies: we as Christ-seeking gentlemen are all too aware of our weaknesses and shortcomings. We struggle with them when walking on a summer beach; we fight them during our daily gym visit; and many a “God, help me!” prayer is sent when trying to fall asleep and our minds wander. It is disrespectful to you as a daughter of God, it is harmful to us in our own relationships, and it is a blow to God to see our mental purity tainted. The request to cover up is not a demand for dominance, but a plea for mercy. Please do not answer our cries for help with “I have no sympathy for your struggles.”

In short, I hope that I clarified the original intent of pieces similar to this that, unfortunately, fall short of their desired intent. I do not excuse men (myself included) for falling; I do not say that we are not to ultimately blame for the sin into which we fall. May I ask, nay, beg that you grant us a boon: we are sinners; we struggle; we often fail. Do not treat our struggle with contempt or indifference. Please help us.

Post Scriptum – Gentlemen, this conversation is not over. I currently am devising a letter to you all in regards to this matter. Asking for assistance from the womenfolk is by no means an invitation to licentiousness. Prepare yourselves, as the next pieces will be much more personal, and – I believe – much more potent. I shall publish the letter upon its completion.

Post Post Scriptum – all, I do understand that, despite my best attempts at eloquence and congeniality, this topic is extremely personal and of great import. Do, should you feel the leading to comment or contribute, do so with the greatest respect for others. I do not mean to be condemning here – I simply seek to clarify a common misconception and, hopefully, commincate clearly a commonly misunderstood request.

Post Post Scriptum – Soli Deo gloria