Comments on: Let’s Talk About Sex

By: Mike Clawson

Mike Clawson — Thu, 29 May 2008 17:16:12 +0000

But to be physically attracted to someone is not the same as to lust after them

I agree, lust is something different. In fact, I think the mistake is in thinking that lust primarily has to do with our sexual desires. I do not equate finding someone sexually desirable with lust, nor do I equate dressing sexily with “exciting lust”. Lust is something far more serious. Lust, at its core, is a desire to possess and control. I can find a woman sexually attractive without desiring to own her, to control her.

As for “dressing to excite lust”, this strikes me as a “blame the victim” idea. If someone is truly lusting after another person, it is the fault of the person doing the lusting, not the person they are lusting after, no matter how he or she is dressed. This is why I get really annoyed by all the advice to Christian women about dressing “modestly” – it basically places the blame on them for men’s own sin.

To use your analogy, if your neighbor buys a nice new car that you covet is he guilty of exciting covetousness in you, or is your covetousness your own problem? Should he park it in the garage at all times and only drive it at night so as not to accidentally cause you or others to covet?

By: Karl

Karl — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:10:38 +0000

“when you say “dressing to look attractive”, what do you mean by “attractive”? If you don’t mean physically attractive to the opposite sex, then what in the world are you talking about?”

Mike, I do precisely mean physically attractive to the opposite sex. But to be physically attracted to someone is not the same as to lust after them, no more than noticing that someone has a nice car and even appreciating the niceness of that car, equals coveting. That’s not a new idea even if it’s been obscured by simplistic and wooden legalistic teaching. You seem to have retained fundamentalist categories and habits of thought even while rejecting fundamentalist conclusions.

The last paragraph, the relevance of which you don’t see, is a restatement and application of the second great commandment. We shouldn’t condemn the person whose chosen dress offends our sense of propriety (rather, we should “believe all the good” we can of them and assume their motives are pure). Nor should we offend against charity by purposely flouting the “social rule of modesty” in our present culture and setting, dressing so as to make others uncomfortable – i.e. you shouldn’t go to a mosque wearing a bathing suit that would be just fine on Miami beach (Lewis’s “desire to make others as comfortable as you can”).

By: strewnike

strewnike — Wed, 28 May 2008 00:32:45 +0000

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJK

By: Mike Clawson

Mike Clawson — Fri, 23 May 2008 19:10:11 +0000

“Mike, the key phrase you ignore in the portion of Lewis’s quote that you highlighted is “in order to.””

No Karl, I didn’t ignore that phrase. I just don’t see how it affects my position at all. I simply disagree with both you and Lewis that it is necessarily wrong to be “sexually provocative toward others around you” or to “excite lust”, regardless of whether it’s being done “intentionally” or not.

“Maybe part of the problem is that you seem to be conflating “dressing to excite lust” with “dressing to look attractive.” I realize some ultraconservatives do the same thing, but I am surprised that you would do so. Your thought is usually more nuanced than that. Do you really see no difference between them?”

Nope, I really don’t. That seems to be nothing more than a semantical game. For instance, when you say “dressing to look attractive”, what do you mean by “attractive”? If you don’t mean physically attractive to the opposite sex, then what in the world are you talking about?

I think the real key to the Lewis quote though, lies in part you didn’t quote:

“A real desire to believe all the good you can of others and to make others as comfortable as you can will solve most of the problems.”

Sorry Karl, I don’t see the relevance.

By: Liz

Liz — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:04:56 +0000

another thing: I think what I find disturbing in the whole vein of the social justice focus is not the idea of doing good. Yes, people look at our lives to see if we are consistant or hypocritical. yes sometimes people come to know Christ because of a relationship with us. But the big picture is inconsistant with scripture. By and large, the masses of converts in the early church were NOT won through painstaking years of relationship building and good example setting. The apostles came to a town and people responded to truth. we should be loving BECAUSE Christ commands us to, NOT because we have seen this as the ultimate evangelism strategy. There are totally situations where it is appropriate to present a logical argument for Christ whether in a converstation with a stranger or in print or whatever. It almost seems like the emerging church is curling up in a ball and saying “see, we really are OK, please like us and we promise not to say anything about the exclusivity of Jesus while we are at it”. I see nothing wrong with Christians being compassionate. I don’t see every time one speaks with someone as an opportunity to cram something down their throat. But by gosh, I think if one is led by the spirit, the times when God WILL tell us to speak the truth WILL come up. Its not a bad thing to be avoided at all costs. the bible DOES say that the truth will be divisive, does it not?

By: Liz

Liz — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:56:22 +0000

again, thank you Karl. You hit the nail on the head. I guess some of the stuff I have criticized with the emergent people may stem from the fact that 99 percent of them seem to come from a very legalistic background and are probably reacting to stuff. I came from the world. I went through a very brief extreme period which was promptly nipped in the bud by some of my odd ideas not really working out. I didn’t really gravitate towards the KJV only, dress code types of places. Mostly I was relieved to be away from the Cosmo/MTV culture. The other thing is, some of the stuff like social justice, environmentalism, allowing people to be real,talking intelligently to people instead of throwing sound bites at them is stuff that was assumed by me to be part of the Christian faith from the beginning (hey I was an Episcopalian for the first part of my Christian walk) I also saw a lot of people for whom the “good works” were so important that the gospel ceased to matter: all that mattered was making the world a better place. And Christ clearly addresses this. If we are all sinners because our own pride, self interest, etc poison even our best deeds, then “just” doing good works is not going to cut it. I guess when I see people who seem to think they have discovered some radically new form of Christianity, my first thought is that no, you didn’t dream this up, my (non emerging) church believes this as well. I do realize though that I have heard stories and maybe i have just been extremely fortunate to only have hearsay about some folks that claim to be Christians. I struggle though with seeing people throwing the baby out with the bathwater, because I know so many people who HAVE engaged with the idea of doing good in the world, being good stewards, engaging in intelligent discussion, allowing people the freedom to be themselves and not have to be fake WITHOUT throwing out orthodox doctrine and muddying the lines between Christianity and other faiths. Therein lies my frustration. I am NOT one of those pat answers for every situation Christians, but I just see “truth’ being completely chucked out in the name of including things that have been part of the Christian life from the very beginning, even if pockets of American christians seem to ignore them. It doesn’t mean they all do. Or even most.
So it is with this issue of sex. I guess I have heard some very frank discussions of sex at church (and no, my church is NOT emerging, we do not have women “pastors” although there are women on staff) No one I know advocates dressing like androgenous Pat but most I have heard express an opinion on this matter lean far more in the direction of showing less skin, having less form fitting clothes than not.

By: Karl

Karl — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:19:49 +0000

Mike, the key phrase you ignore in the portion of Lewis’s quote that you highlighted is “in order to.”

If you dress in a way that you are comfortable with, and aren’t doing it in order to be sexually provocative toward others around you, then I don’t think you have offended against chastity even if someone else looks at you and thinks lustfully about you. As Lewis points out, in such a case you *may* have (either knowingly or unknowingly) offended against the social rule of modesty current in your culture and for the context/event in which you are situated. Maybe you’ve shown poor taste. And if you did so intentionally, to make others uncomfortable and to thumb your nose at convention, you may have offended against charity. But that’s a separate issue from whether you have offended against chastity.

Maybe part of the problem is that you seem to be conflating “dressing to excite lust” with “dressing to look attractive.” I realize some ultraconservatives do the same thing, but I am surprised that you would do so. Your thought is usually more nuanced than that. Do you really see no difference between them?

I think the real key to the Lewis quote though, lies in part you didn’t quote:

“A real desire to believe all the good you can of others and to make others as comfortable as you can will solve most of the problems.”

By: Liz

Liz — Thu, 22 May 2008 07:51:05 +0000

of course I was paying attention. MY point is that rather than have a balanced view, I think you two have just gone to another extreme. Maybe not as far as some who just shed all inhibition in reaction. But I don’t know that where you are coming from is necessarily any more biblical than extreme repression. I realize you can’t control what might turn some person on, but to then use that as an rationalization to dress provocatively or encourage others to dress provocatively (the better to shake off their legalism) isn’t correct either. I also realize that quite possibly what extreme legalists consider “provocative” may not even be that. It may very well be that what you are considering is pretty conservative by our cultures standards. Your wife certainly doesn’t look like Cosmo is going to chase her down for a cover anytime soon, unless how she dresses on the website photos is not representative. It may be that just wearing “normal” clothes seems incredibly freeing compared to what you grew up with. Maybe i don’t give this much thought since i never was involved in this type of church AND I grew up in the world and it was nice to drop the Cosmo lifestyle and just dress like I wanted to instead of looking at every item for its man attracting potential.

By: Mike Clawson

Mike Clawson — Thu, 22 May 2008 03:23:35 +0000

I think you two have baggage from the extremely legalistic environment you grew up in and are reacting to that.

Weren’t you paying attention? We’ve already said as much. That’s the whole premise of this post.

By: Liz

Liz — Thu, 22 May 2008 00:48:14 +0000

I think there are lines somewhere and if we are led by the HS, we will find those lines. On one end, you have people who are clearly trying to provoke lust. On the other, you have people who feel that nothing short of a shapeless ugly dress is immodest. There is obviously discomfort even among nonChristians about the level of provocativeness in our culture or you would not have women like Wendy Shalit (jewish) writing about modesty. Clearly a lot of women (and men) are tired of being leered at and would like to be appreciated for less base qualities. As for the beach: I for one am very very glad that things like board shorts and tankinis have appeared on the swimwear horizon. I don’t like to feel I have to prance around nearly naked to enjoy a swim and one piece suits are almost worse in that they are completely form fitting. Why do you think picking a swimsuit is so agonizing for so many women? They are acutely aware that they are going to be evaluated and might possibly be seen as “less than”. It is objectifying whether you want it to be or not. And men in speedos: that isn’t even attractive, it is just gross. A lot of what people think is “sexy” is actually really unappealing. I suppose people can be turned on by people in anything but that’s a bad excuse to say it doesn’t matter if someone is deliberately dressing provocatively. I guess the question is “why” is a married person wanting to flaunt it? Are they that insecure? Do they feel the need to prove that they still “have it”? And an unmarried person…well…that is really what is at the root of our society treating people like commodities. One can look nice and fashionable and attractive without deliberately trying to look “sexy”.
Years ago, I used to work as a cocktail waitress. We were all encouraged to wear low cut shirts and bend over just enough for a good look (better for business and we would get better tips). And high heels (again: sexy and so what if you are on your feet for an eight hour shift). I refused. I am surprised I wasn’t fired. I have to say, I made just as good, if not better, tips than the girls dressed provocatively. I was nice and friendly and moved quickly and remembered what people ordered. I took plenty of heat from a (now ex) “friend” for refusing to tart it up.
I think you two have baggage from the extremely legalistic environment you grew up in and are reacting to that.