Month: October 2010

I’ve been meaning to link to this for months now — the almost laughable “Modesty Survey” brought to you by “The Rebelution,” a Christian youth movement created by twin brothers and rising stars in the Family of Churches (FOC) that “Maybe Church” is a part of.

First, let me go through how to navigate that site. It’s a bit counterintuitive, I think. Click on that link. It will take you to the results page. You will see a box that says “Select a Category.” Choose a category that interests you. In the right portion of that same box, some modesty “assertions” — for lack of a better way to say it — will appear. The boys/men who take the survey are asked to what extent they agree or disagree with the given assertion. Make sense? If you click on a statement, it will give you the results for that specific statement. Scroll down to click on a link to a photo of the item featured in the statement. (Not all have photos.) Scroll down further to see the chart with the agree/disagree percentages and even further to read some of the boys’/men’s feedback. That’s the meat of it to me. What the guys are saying. Some of it is so asinine, I can’t deal with it. But more on that later.

Now if you’re a female in the FOC, there are certain standards of modesty expected of you. Cover the boobins. But don’t follow their outline too closely. Watch out for bare shoulders. They might be a “stumbling block” for your “brothers.” Legs are a problem. And your butt. Oh, also your stomach. And bra straps. And purse straps that you wear across your chest. Don’t stretch in front of men. Or touch your hair. Watch the way you walk. And stand. Basically, when you’re around men, don’t be a woman. Because if the men around you lust after you, it is, naturally, your fault. They can’t help it, poor menfolk. Their thought processes are not their own. Duh. Sure, we believe in male headship, in patriarchy, but we apparently also believe that men are powerless at the sight of, say, a V-neck sweater. Nonetheless, women must submit unquestioningly to these weaklings with no control over their thoughts.

The weird thing about these standards is that they’re not put out there as hard and fast rules. No, of course not. It’s more subtle than that. The head of the FOC has a modesty sermon that he delivers — in mixed company to up the ick factor here — where the emphasis is on a woman’s heart, her motives and her intentions in her dress. Whom is she dressing to please? Man or God? Women need to check their hearts, he says. (Something I don’t disagree with in principle. It’s how far it’s taken that I have a huge problem with.) Wives need to run wardrobe purchases past their husbands. Daughters need to ask dad if what they’re wearing is appropriate. Uhm, ew. (Daddy, does this show my boobs too much?) But don’t worry if you forget to do those things because, eventually, if someone at your local FOC — usually a woman — decides she doesn’t approve of what you’re wearing, she’ll confront you. In love, of course.

I remember a tiny incident during our brief foray into paranoia at Maybe Church. Well, at the time I thought it was tiny, but now I’m not so sure. The lady that kept trying to befriend me, the curly-haired lady, came up to me one morning before the service and made a big fuss over what I was wearing — an Indian-style tunic over jeans. At the time I thought she was complimenting it because she genuinely liked it, but now, given what I’ve learned about the FOC, I can’t help but wonder if she was doing a bit of subtle positive reinforcement. “Yes. Thisssss is the kind of thing you should be wearing. Things that cover what you’ve got. For the menfolk.” I think the excessive praise was for “getting it right” one week out of the 16 we were there. (Widdle whore.)

Look. I don’t dress like a tramp. I’m modest by nature, actually, and spent years — years — ashamed of my God-given shape. I covered myself up, wore baggy clothing so no one could see that, well, my basic body shape was …. sexy. To this day, I wear loose clothing around my dad because I don’t want him to be uncomfortable with my breasts. I swear, it’s true. I don’t want him to think of me even having any particular kind of body in any particular arrangement or location because I know he needs to think certain things about me even now, one of them being that my body consists of everything in general but nothing in particular. I was raised to think my form was problematic. From an early age, a deep shame took root over something that wasn’t my “fault” or even my idea. In college, when a costume designer took my measurements, I thought I was going to die from embarrassment. I could feel the heat of my face, so hot I thought my head would explode. When she was done, that woman looked me dead in the eye and said, “Why are you hiding all this, girl?” I mumbled, stuttered, had no answer, and just went back to wearing my baggy bohemian clothes. Her words couldn’t penetrate the thick crust of shame. But over the years, because of MB and his influence and encouragement, his love, basically, the body shame instilled in me from puberty — from the moment the breasts adamantly appeared — has faded. Not disappeared. Faded. When I dress, I’m careful, but I don’t hide what God gave me, not anymore, although as far as I’m concerned, I don’t flaunt it either. Still, I guess that makes it a “heart issue” on my end then because while I do keep myself covered — I’m not cut down to there and up to here — I don’t hide my shape. I think the fact that I wasn’t wearing some kind of Muumuu for Jesus may have made those people uncomfortable.

Honestly, does any man understand how hard it is to hide 36D breasts? They ….. protrude. They’re made that way. Sometimes they’re hard to wrangle. Sometimes I tire of having to grapple them on a daily basis. But I wrestle them and subdue them because I am modest, but at the same time, I won’t allow some ridiculous, misogynistic — mostly unspoken — standards to force me to retreat back into shame over what God gave me.

Do men have any similar modesty standards put on them in these churches? No. No, they don’t. Men are the “visual” ones, the FOC says. Oh, please. Guess what, peaches? Women are visual too. Pretty darn visual. So, hey, how about you put on a shirt at the “Bible study pool party”? Maybe the sight of your chest turns me on. Maybe the sight of your forearms or your biceps. Maybe it’s your legs. Or your butt. Maybe it’s something as seemingly harmless as your hands. Ohh, believe me, women are visually stimulated too. Perhaps not to the level of men, but to act as if we’re not, as if what we respond to is only romance and ooshy-gooshy sentiments shows a deep misunderstanding of what turns women on. I’m not saying the visual turn-on is as universal for women as it is for men, but it’s not nonexistent, and it’s probably more prevalent than men would think.

It’s the misogynistic straitjacket of this whole survey that makes me sick. Really, there’s nothing you can do, women. No matter what you wear, some man somewhere will be turned on by it. It’s insane. Why don’t they just issue Christian burqas at their churches? Why not? I mean, I could be completely covered in a loose top and baggy pants and Kleenex boxes on my feet, but wearing a purse that cuts across my chest and BAM! some guy is turned on by that because it “calls attention to my chest.” How can any woman dress each day to ensure that no man finds her attractive or thinks “unclean thoughts” about her? Well, I guess it helps if the woman is a total bow-wow. I’m sorry. But it’s true. These standards will come down harder on the attractive woman than they do on the unattractive woman. A well-endowed woman could stand next to a flat-chested stick of a woman, wearing an outfit identical to hers, and it would not look the same on each of them. What may look perfectly “modest” on the first woman, may not look that way on Chesty LaRue. So not only are these “standards” misogynistic, they create prejudice against the attractive woman. They pit women against women — in their hearts. Their hearts, pippa! Their hearts that they’re supposed to be checking in terms of wardrobe but not in terms of how they treat each other, I guess. I mean, what a little green-eyed thrill to be able to approach Chesty LaRue at some point and confront her in love about her clothing. What a self-righteous surge of power. Any time she wants, some petty church beyotch can play the alpha female over a decent but booby woman who threatens her.

But back to the survey itself. While I do think it’s important not to be a widdle whore, most of this survey is just ridiculous to me.

For instance, in the “Undergarment” category, I clicked on the statement: “The lines of undergarments, visible under clothing, cause guys to stumble.”

Turns out, 46% agreed and 25% strongly agreed. Whatever.

I scrolled down and found a random 22-year-old guy who said:

We’ll think of what you look like in only your underwear. Also, if we can see the lines of your undergarments under your clothes, than your clothes themselves are not modest.

(First of all, it’s “then.” “Then,” ‘mkay?)

So you don’t like those lines, huh? You feel better if there are no lines? Most girls don’t like the lines either. Can I tell you something, precious? Sometimes when you don’t see any lines and are inwardly praising the Lord for a virtuous woman, etc., it’s because …. well …… she ain’t wearing any underwear at all. Think about that next time you see no panty lines.

Aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

In the “Posture/Movement” category, there’s this assertion: “Seeing a girl’s chest bounce when she is walking or running is a stumbling block.”

And one of my favorite insane comments, courtesy of a 17-year-old?

Please don’t let your chest bounce. I’m sorry, but that can really be distracting.

Oh, you silly little boy. Please don’t let my chest bounce? Uhm, how? How? Boobs bounce! Even in the best, most bulletproof of bras, they bounce! Good Lord. That comment shows such a lack of understanding of how the female anatomy works that I can’t even deal with it. Physics, young man, physics.

This is what I wish I could ask all the boys/men who took this survey:

Men, if your penis and testicles were normally and at all times the size of 3 water balloons — if men were just made that way — how would you minimize that, first of all, and make sure the whole apparatus didn’t flop around, second of all? How? How would you do that? If pressure were put on you as a gender to minimize the turn-on factor of your water balloons, what would you do? How would you dress so that we women aren’t aroused at the sight of that?

Or, maybe a better but more graphic question. (I’m sorry.)

Men, if your penis was designed to be erect all the time — again, it if just came that way and never assumed any other form — how would you dress around that? How? If it always protruded from your body and if the sight of that was a turn on for women and they expected you to hide it, cover it, make your manhood less apparent, WHAT would you do? How could you cover that up so that no woman anywhere ever lusts after you at the sight of your protruding penis? If God made your shape that way and you were expected to minimize something that’s virtually impossible to minimize — short of a burqa — wouldn’t you start to feel resentful of that expectation? Wouldn’t you start to wonder if women actually had contempt for how God made you? Wouldn’t you start to feel that no matter what you do or wear, you’ll never get it right? That someone will notice and take issue with your shape, your protrusions, and their lust will be all your fault?

Give me a break. I’m a woman. Things stick out from my body — and all women’s bodies — all by themselves. I have a shape. And I know that I’m not alone among women when I say it’s taken me years to like my shape.

I’m modest within reason. Don’t straitjacket me with your ludicrous standards.

Go read some of the guys’ comments, pippa. They’re crazy.

And I’m sorry that you will lose an entire day going over all the results.

(Edited 12/13/12 to add: If you really want to know what churches I’m talking about when I say “FOC,” please read this phonetically: “Ess Gee Em,” Google those letters, and see if you don’t come to a site called “Survivors.” That church is currently in a heap ‘o’ well-deserved, well-publicized trouble regarding child molest, etc. Neat, huh?)