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?)
Now I’m starting to wonder if I ought to know what the FOC is (or what churches are part of it), and whether I really ought to have endorsed the twins’ book “Do Hard Things” awhile back on my blog. Thing is, it’s a good book, but the spinning of it into some mega movement is disturbing.
Their “Modesty Survey”…the mind reels. Eldest Daughter has enough to worry about in the image department what with her leg braces and uneven gate; that she has a lovely face and is nicely stacked is some kind of divine compensation as far as I’m concerned. I’m not about to suggest she hide the assets God gave her. In fact, I think she ought to be happy that she has pretty curves, and dress to flatter–not flaunt, just flatter–them.
I’m getting seriously cranky now thinking about some of the ludicrous suggestions on that survey. GO TAKE COLD SHOWERS, you horny teen boys. Get over the need to control the appearance of women because their unconscious adjusting of a bra strap might be a “stumbling block” to you.
Your reaction is perfect, Tracey, just perfect:
“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 …… I ain’t wearing any underwear at all. Think about that next time you see no panty lines.”
Poor guys, you’ve just doomed them to burn with lust.
Apparently there’s a lack of belief in personal responsibility for men over there. Sheesh.
RT — You know, I don’t think that book is horrible or anything. Admittedly, I’ve only skimmed it at a bookstore, and I don’t see those fellows doing too many “Hard Things” themselves, but I think it’s basically a benign little missive meant to make teenage and 20-something girls go oooh and ahhh over what godly men the twins are. It’s marketing for a couple of nice-looking “godly” guys. The principles aren’t bad. I just don’t see them doing these things themselves. They live the lives of little princes within the movement. At least it seems to me. But please don’t beat yourself up at ALL because you endorsed the book. The movement of the FOC as a whole is something to be concerned about, not one book.
And the panty line thing. First, yes, I’m a horrible person. But second, it’s ludicrous to me that the spiritual equation seems to be this:
panty lines = trollop
no panty lines = Mary, the mother of Jesus
Honestly, if you DON’T see lines, fellas, she MAY NOT BE WEARING ANY. Ohnooooooooooooo!
But what choice do we have if lines — LINES — make you lust? Best take off this bra right now! I can see the lines on my shoulders!
My lines are turning me on!
Vince — Thanks for saying that, especially as a man. I don’t want to mock or belittle the fact that men struggle in this area. I really don’t. But some of this is just extremism. The full impact of that survey — to me — is to convey that women essentially have no wiggle room. Literally and figuratively.
I mean, when it’s down to analyzing how we bend over or how we walk, it gets a bit absurd to me. If there was some kind of similar call for men in the church to watch THEIR modesty, then it might seem slightly less oppressive and misogynistic to me.
When I finally go try to infiltrate the church, Tracey, we need to have a conference about my wardrobe.
Basically, if you think “boobs shouldn’t bounce” then you have no understanding (or appreciation) of human anatomy. How on earth should we not have them bounce? I have big boobs. I am not ashamed of them because, duh, it’s how I’m made. I need support, clearly, and I almost have stylists on retainer at Victoria’s Secret to help me with that. But if my boobs just naturally move – because, duh, they’re boobs – then those guys at the stupid church just have to deal with it.
This is seriously PHOBIC, tracey.
I’m also sensing some homo-erotic undertones here, although that of course would be anathema to these people. If you are so phobic about the female body, so fearful of it and how it is made naturally – then would you rather we were men? Wouldn’t it be so much easier if everyone were just MEN? Right, boys? Women are so problematic – men are much much better. I’ve looked thru the church’s website and read their testimonials, and I get a serious Ted Haggard vibe. Sorry. I just do. It’s the perfect cover – for THEM to hide who they really are. That level of phobic-ness about a woman’s body rings really really wrong for me for supposedly straight guys. Underground homosexual activity is rampant in countries like Saudi Arabia. I am not surprised at all. Same thing.
And let me say, for the umpteenth time, that MB rocks.
🙂
Also, sorry, but I think the whole “women are not visually stimulated” thing is a myth perpetuated by insecure men who NEED it to be true. “She won’t care about my beer gut, my bad skin … because she’s not visually stimulated.”
I am definitely “visually stimulated”. Most women I know are. Ridiculous.
Ugh. I spent my summmer interning in the chaplain’s office at a local hospital. There were four of us interns – 3 women, 1 man. Our supervisor was a woman who, for some reason, spent ALL SUMMER telling the female interns (basically every day) that we were dressed inappropriately. Now, mind you, we were well within the hospital’s written dress code, and no one else had a problem with our dress (none of her supervisors, who we specifically asked, none of the other staff that we worked with the most, and not even the guy intern, a very conservative Catholic seminarian). At one point, she specifically told one of the other girls I was interning with that she needed to buy new bras, because the…style, or whatever…was not appropriate for the ministry. Hello, AWKWARD. She also told us that if we felt it that important to express our personality through our clothing choices (egads!), then we might want to reconsider if we were really cut out for ministry. Of course, it has turned the three of us into completely paranoid individuals who now have a hard time dressing in anything other than snow pants and turtlenecks, lest we appear unfit for the ministry.
What I wanted to say was, “Sorry, God gave me boobs. If he wants to take some of them back, he is MORE than welcome to do so, but for now I seem to be stuck with ’em. Try to manage your envy.” but I thought would seem rude, and I really need to “pass” this internship to graduate. 🙂
People annoy me.
Hoo boy. This is not isolated to just this sect–you should’ve seen the huge dust-up that happened a couple of weeks ago when a Catholic blogger brought up women and pants. That’s right, I said PANTS. Arrrrgh.
I admire the other stuff these boys do–I like their whole “do hard things” theme and their condemnation of the “adultescence” malaise plaguing young adults–but blaming women seems to go against all that.
sheila — You’re killing me.
/I almost have stylists on retainer at Victoria’s Secret to help me with that./
/I get a serious Ted Haggard vibe./
Hahahahahahahahaha. There IS a definite Ted Haggard vibe with the Pope of FOC. Yup.
Yeah. I call BS on that “women aren’t visually stimulated” thing. Baloney. I am. You are. Most women ARE.
/I think the whole “women are not visually stimulated†thing is a myth perpetuated by insecure men who NEED it to be true. “She won’t care about my beer gut, my bad skin … because she’s not visually stimulated.†/
AMEN.
And you know what? All those TV shows with the chunky husband and the unbelievably hot wife bugged the crap outta me. The one with Jim Belushi and Courtney Thorne What’s Her Name. The one with Leah Remini and that Mall Cop guy. It perpetuates what I think is a myth: that guys who don’t give a rip about their looks could actually get a babe who does everything to look hot for him while he does nothing similar for her. I don’t expect a man to be model perfect — not at all — but, YES, we are visually stimulated too, so maybe think twice about the beer gut or the bad hair cut.
Why does it feel with these guys that the responsibilities to stay “modest” AND stay attractive fall only to us, the women?
Katie — Hahahahahahaha. /Try to manage your envy./
That pisses me off, though, that now you’re paranoid about “appearing” fit for ministry. What about just watching how you operate, how you work with people, how well you do your job rather than sitting there sizing up your boobs and clothes? What about “being” fit for ministry as opposed to “appearing” fit for ministry? There’s a difference, if you ask me.
It’s ridiculous. It makes me mad.
I will say there were men at Maybe Church who regularly checked out my boobs — no matter what I did. Men notice boobs. That’s what they do. They work and watch sports and notice boobs.
sheila — I’m dying for you to infiltrate. Wear fishnet stockings. Sport some cleavage. Report back to us. Hahahaha.
Sheila, I think I love you (in the best sort of way, of course) for this observation: “If you are so phobic about the female body, so fearful of it and how it is made naturally – then would you rather we were men? Wouldn’t it be so much easier if everyone were just MEN? Right, boys? Women are so problematic – men are much much better….That level of phobic-ness about a woman’s body rings really really wrong for me for supposedly straight guys.”
The more I think about this modesty survey, and the entire meme it embodies (women need to be constantly aware of any men around them, and will be held responsible for any sexual thoughts men have about them) the more it irks me.
Is it only me, or does anyone else find their graphic of a woman peeking from behind a diaphanous drape a bit provocative? Someone really needs to point out to the Harris boys how a sheer drapery over a woman is a stumbling block to a lot of guys; what is only hinted at is far more titillating than what is openly revealed.
Somehow I think that utterly escapes them. They’re far too fixated on things like the provocation of women who bend over with their backside toward a man (how homoerotic is THAT?).
I want to find the author of this comment, just to see if he’s as hopelessly socially maladjusted as he sounds:
“Please kneel down, or modestly crouch if you need to reach something. Bending reveals an attitude of carelessness and hastiness. A girl who makes the effort to kneel to attend to something draws good attention to herself because it shows her careful and sincere attention to what she is doing.”
Please tell me this fellow is gay, because I can’t bear to think of him inflicting that mindset on any woman. The idea of him marrying and possibly having daughters sends chills up my spine.
I dig the “Do Hard Things” ethos… my suggestion would be, one of those Hard Things to Do is to be a modest man, and to respect one’s lady friends.
+1 to RT about that graphic at the top of the survey pages. That comely lass is lookin’ quite alluring. One can encourage modesty in dress without encouraging morbid self-consciousness.
Something I’m thinking about as I read the comments and results… how is it helpful to the weak natures of men to have them obsessing over how every passing girl is dressed? Judging them against an impossible standard of modesty vs. beauty? And that one over there coming out of Hot Topic, omigosh, isn’t she a tramp? (Better take another peek to see if the back end is just as bad as the front, amiright?)
When I was in college, I remember an older student from my bible study group advising me about “stumbling blocks” – essentially he said, kid, you’re 18, everyone who’s 18 deals with this – including the girls. It’s not like you’re suddenly going to pair off in middle of the quad, so don’t stress. I laughed myself silly. That wise advice served me well for many years.
RT — Seriously, if I need to pick up something, I pick it up. I WILL hold my hand over my chest, though, if I’m bending over and men are around. Because I’m just that virtuous.
And the image of the woman. I thought that too. She’s got the come-hither with her eyes, doesn’t she?
Does nobody involved in this survey see the irony in the fact that there are photos of so many of the potentially lust-inducing clothes? “Hey, men. Does this halter top — worn by a pretty chick — cause you to lust, yes or no?”
But please don’t lust while we incite you to lust.
Hahahahahaha.
I’d like it if there was a photo of Rosie O’Donnell in the same halter top with the same question. I’d bet the responses would be much different. It’s not necessarily the clothing. It’s who’s wearing it.
NF — /It’s not like you’re suddenly going to pair off in middle of the quad, so don’t stress./
But …. but … I promised Elder Nephew that’s what would happen to him at college! 😉
Oh, and to the 17 year old who objects to bouncing boobs:
Uhm, please don’t get random erections in history class. They can be really distracting.
/Why don’t they just issue Christian burqas at their churches?/
This was my exact thought. I especially enjoy this line of thought because out of one side of their mouth Christians like this will preach about the horrors of the Muslim world and what they do to women and out of the other they are subtly doing the same thing.
“Oh, and to the 17 year old who objects to bouncing boobs:
Uhm, please don’t get random erections in history class. They can be really distracting.”
I think you put the cart before the horse, there, tracey… Perhaps it’s BECAUSE some of these guys can’t control their, um, emotions (which I think will now be my new euphemism for an embarrassing erection) when they see bouncing boobs, that they project the blame on women.
Buddy, if you can’t control your own feelings, don’t look at the things the “offend” you. From my experience, women prefer for you to look them in the eye.
I went to a Christian college. The girls had a dress code four or five pages long, the boys had one that basically said “No overalls.” Seriously, OVERALLS. (We *could*, however, wear them, and I did. All the time. I had a Guess pair. IT WAS THE 80S SHUT UP.)
Neither sex could wear shorts to class at all ever, and the girls couldn’t even wear them for sports. BUT the boys had no such restriction, and remember? 80S! so those Dolfin shorty-shorts — the ones with the flap? — were in style. The boys COULD wear those to play sports in or run, and believe me, they did. Talk about your occasion of sin. Sheesh.
One thing that’s absolutely *fantastic* about many of the comments is the casual assertion that “cute clothes that cover you appropriately are SO easy to find!” or some variation thereof. Really, men? And you know this… how? Because of all of the times you’ve gone shopping and tried WOMEN’s clothes on your WOMAN’S body (all the while telepathically anticipating what every single man or boy you will encounter will consider “modest?”)
And then there’s the priceless responses to the questions about “frumpy” clothes, when they whine “well, we don’t want you to hide EVERYthing (despite the fact that, based on our other comments, we are apparently tempted if you flaunt so much as a toenail), it is your God-given shape after all” (why, thank you for your insight guys! Hey, there is that cute Bible verse about God creating man AND woman, lalala, fancy that!)
Also how there is absolutely NO thought given whatsoever to what women might like dressing a certain way…for themselves. Because they like how they feel/look in certain clothes, without reference to the uncontainably lustful suns that women should [apparently] demurely orbit as their *faces* radiate inner beauty. Because women are clearly in control of that.
One word: RIDICULOUS. Well. Two words. Ridiculous AND Enraging. And…pity-inducing. (Three). Because, with this mindset, nobody really wins.
No overalls? Was your college worried about the raw sexual energy of Dexy’s Midnight Runners?
You know, I just remembered something… the Harris twins’ older brother Josh Harris is the “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” guy. FWIW.
Tracey,
the guys at our church are supposed to be practicing ‘custody of the eyes’, an old-fashioned concept that says if it’s causing you to deliberately harbor impure thoughts, then DON”T LOOK.
Emphasis on ‘deliberately’.
So, the responsibility is shared. We have a dress code for both sexes, but giving anyone a hard time about it is frowned upon. Severely.
Cullen — I agree with you to an extent. There are factions within Christianity that are oppressive towards women whereas the burqa in the Muslim world is a universal practice — to my understanding. In my lifelong experience in the Christian world, I’d say the paranoia of the FOC in this area is more the exception than the rule. Besides that, I’m leaning more and more to believe that they’re actually a cult and not within the “pale of Christianity” — or however you want to say it. I’m not alone in this belief, either. But that’s a post for another time.
Lisa — Oh, according to the survey a woman in a pair of overalls might be a temptation. What if someone can see down them???
Sal — At the FOC, confronting a woman about her clothes is common practice. And it’s generally expected that the woman will take the correction and change her ways. There’s a story that the wife of the Pope of FOC was approached once about HER wardrobe — by a couple of women in the church. Mrs. Pope listened to their correction, said she’d pray about it or whatever, and lo and behold! After much prayer, she decided there was nothing wrong with her outfit that day.
So the rule REALLY is: You can confront any woman EXCEPT Mrs. Pope. Her clothing is above reproach.
JFH, Lizzie, NF —
You guys went into moderation. Sorry!
Lizzie — Welcome. I love your comment. Please know I’m sitting over here radiating inner beauty. Demurely, of course. I’m nothing if not demure.
NF — Ah, yes. Josh Harris. Know ALL about him. Mr. Courtship. Gimme a break. He wrote that when he was 22. And people bought it! The anti-dating musings of a 22-year-old dude! That book has wreaked much havoc in the FOC. He’s now lead pastor of their flagship church. Took over when the Pope stepped down to run the business. I’m taking the link out of that title, if that’s okay with you, because I don’t want Mr. Harris tracking back to here if anyone clicks on it.
I think the overalls thing stemmed from class-ism. My college is in Arkansas, and back when that handbook was written, it was a sign that you were “poor” if you wore overalls. So sell a cow for a nice pair of chinos, farm boy. Ain’t no overalls allowed up in here.
We also had very strict dorm rules. And by “we,” I mean girls. 10 pm curfew on weekdays, 11 on weekends. No boys past the lobby. Late minutes — which if you go over, leads to being “dormed” — if you’re out past curfew. Doors were locked from the inside. Etc. Convents had less rules than we did.
Boys? Could come and go as they pleased. My then-boyfriend and his friends used to go to the local truck stop in the wee hours of the morning to eat breakfast. JUST BECAUSE THEY COULD.
Lisa — Wow. I’m stunned.
/So sell a cow for a nice pair of chinos, farm boy./
Hahahahahaha.
Here’s one from the survey in the “General” category (that one’s a pisser):
/Girls should always wear clothes that show little body definition (e.g., jumpers or loose dresses)./
Okay. 41% disagreed and 22% strongly disagreed.
Fine. So two-thirds of those surveyed WANT women to show body definition in their clothing, but the entire point of the survey — to me — seems to be to tell women which specific form-fitting things we can’t wear even though they secretly want us to.
Another assertion from that category:
/A modestly dressed girl can still be a stumbling block because of her attitude and behavior./
40% agree, 53% strongly.
Wow. So you could be in a denim jumper but still be judged a whore if your behavior isn’t just so. Then I think an FOC woman should just dress as she pleases and when confronted about it, say, “Well, I’d dress more modestly, but my inner tramp just shines through anyway.” I mean, damned if you do; damned if you don’t.
And if the above is true for 93% of the guys, why can’t the converse of that be true? That a girl in a more form-fitting dress or jeans that fit well and don’t “bag” can have a “demure” attitude? Notice they didn’t ask THAT question.
If their version of “tramp” is “woman who bends down to pick up something she dropped without self-consciously arranging herself in the proper position”, then these people are far too sensitive to have any truck with secular society.
Tracey – hey, your blog, your rules! I have no problem with losing the link. I didn’t realize the ties between the FOC and the Harris family, much less that Josh had been “elevated” as we Catholics call it. Fairly young for that sort of thing, ain’t he?
On the church closest to me – where I will soon be infiltrating, it says in their FAQs:
What should I wear?
// You don’t have to dress to impress others. We believe that God is concerned primarily with our hearts. Some people dress up for our times together while others come dressed quite casually. You will be welcome either way and are not likely to feel out of place, no matter how you dress.//
I wonder if they know what a provocation that is, to one like myself.
NF — Yeah. I think that too — that he’s young for that, but then, I think that many of the senior pastors at the FOC are guys in their 30s. I think Maybe Church might be one of the few where that’s not the case. The pastor there is in his 50s and went to an actual seminary, not the 9-month Seminary Lite the FOC has for their pastors.
My view is this: The FOC likes ’em young. They’re more malleable.
One newly adopted FOC church had a recent incident where they BARRED people from the door. The place is crazazy.
sheila — The anticipation is killing me.
Rumor has it that the Pastors Community College or whatever it is has been disbanded. I am sure there are better uses for my time than doing research on some bogus Pastors College where you supposedly can speak Greek in 10 months, but clearly that is not the case.
I just sent you 10 emails in a row, Tracey. Be scared. Be very scared.
Hahahahahaha! I love my 10 emails!
Oh, yeah. The “PC.” Their enrollment is waaay down this year. Three students? Something like that? Insane.