Dr. Phil is wrong.
I don't usually watch too much daytime tv. I'm busy being a serious student and keeping my house clean. Ok, keeping enough laundry clean that I can leave the house on any given day with clean socks and underwear, to be honest. But yesterday I caught about 20 minutes of a debate about modesty.
The main character at issue was a middle aged man who believes that if women dress "a certain way" they are asking to be objectified, used, raped. They are at fault for the actions that men are somehow forced into simply by looking at them. To "tease" by dressing provocatively is to invite lust and assault. Clearly, this man is out of his mind wrong, and speaks from a place of woundedness.
His opponent in the debate came across as a mouthy women's liberation zealot. She reminded me so much of girls I knew at Rutgers - her message had a lot of weight, but the delivery was aggressive and whiney. I wished she were able to sound more thoughtful than loud. Her message was that women have the right to dress their bodies any way they like, and no one has any right to judge them, call them "sluts" or criticize them at all. Her point was that clothing is purely personal choice, and that provocative clothing is a woman's right, and does not in any way indicate immorality or poor choices.
Dr. Phil, clearly eager to put bullies in their place, agreed with the woman. 100%. With no nuance.
To that end, he invited a "blonde bombshell" with peroxided hair and beautiful curves as his next guest. They showed a series of photos of her wearing clothing and posing her body in ways that would make your grandma blush. Dr. Phil asked if she was promiscuous. And the blonde woman answered "not anymore". She "loves her curves" and "wants to show them off" and "hasn't had sex in three years." So that proves it. Posing sexually and wearing -not simply short, tight or revealing- but purposely provocative clothing is a right. And no one can judge a person for their choice of clothing. Dr. Phil was on her side.
The last guest was a very courageous woman who disagrees. She was young and beautiful, stylishly dressed, a young mom and very intelligent woman. She stated very clearly that the man who thinks women should be degraded for their choice of dress or played any part in their victimization was absolutely wrong. (yes!) But she offered that, especially for young girls and teenagers,the trend to call oneself a slut, to compete to wear shorter or skimpier clothing than the next girl, to crave male attention for their bodies is a dangerous thing. She pled that provocative clothing often leads to promiscuous actions, and that the consequences of this are long and deeply wounding. And she demanded the right to protect her dignity and teach young women about their own value - not as masculine objects- but as women of worth. She refused to be shamed for believing in modesty.
Phil (and the Rutgers type woman) jumped all over her. They insisted that she had no right to judge anyone because of their clothing, or criticize it in any way.
I call BS, Dr. Phil. I have never seen you walk out on stage in anything less than a thousand-dollar suit, jacket, tie and pricey shoes. You do not walk on stage in jeans and a t-shirt. Ever. And why not? Because you know, if not from common sense then from many years working with federal witnesses in court, that clothing is a form of communication. In your case, the Prada suit communicates not only wealth, but expertise. It says you are a man who can be trusted to be the best, because you can afford to buy the best. You mirror the respect given you by virtue of a well cut suit. You must have earned his way into those Jimmy Choos.
Clothing is non-verbal communication.
And he is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that if a woman chooses to dress herself like a five dollar hooker, even if she IS a five dollar hooker, she never, ever deserves to be treated as an object. She never is responsible for the abuse she may receive. Her clothing can not be blamed for violence. She has value and dignity regardless of what she does or does not wear.
However. When a woman has a choice of how to clothe her body, and most women have some choice in the matter, then she has an obligation - not to men or other women or anyone else- but to herself- to honor her body the best she can. She has a right to wear whatever she wants, and a responsibility to herself to wear what best protects her dignity.
This is modesty. Not some long list of approved apparel. Not long floral skirts and neck high blouses. Not head gear or gloves or fashion from decades past. Modesty is clothing one's own body in a way that shows love for self, a way that communicates one's own dignity and worth. Modesty may be a well-talored suit or a fashionable bathing suit. But every woman needs to be honest with herself and others. If we are speaking or dressing (non-speaking) or acting in ways that invite objectification, then we do ourselves a great indignity, we become victims of our own misguided sensibility.
As David Hart says: "All of man’s bodily life is also the life of the soul, possessed of a supernatural dignity and a vocation to union with God." Our bodies live the life of the soul. Our bodies reveal the person, and so does our choice of jeans and tops and sweaters and swimsuits.
No woman can be blamed for any other person's actions. Neither can a man. But we can own our own actions, our own words. And we should. We women have fought for so many years to keep others from taking our voices. Let us now speak well of our own bodies by refusing to be objects of attention, and rather by using our bodies to express the supernatural dignity of the soul.
Well said. :)
ReplyDeleteBeautiful! Thank you for this.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I agree 100%. I often loathe discussions of modesty because I find so many of them turn into rape-blaming. Which I call BS. But this avoids that while still speaking of why modesty is itself good. Because we are persons, not things, and if our clothing can help communicate that, good.
ReplyDeleteWell said! If only all women knew how instrinsically "good" they really are - modesty might be a natural response.
ReplyDeleteWell said! If only all women knew how instrinsically "good" they really are - modesty might be a natural response.
ReplyDeleteWord, Christine.
ReplyDeleteThanks all. I am so grateful to be encouraged by your words, and to continue to build up women in the truth!
ReplyDelete"she has an obligation - not to men or other women or anyone else- but to herself- to honor her body the best she can."
ReplyDeleteThis. This is what I've been trying to say! Modesty is not about dressing so that men aren't tempted when they see you. It's about dressing in a way that respects our dignity. It is for us, not for others.
Yes! :)
Delete"It is for us, not for others." I respectfully disagree because the statement is too extreme. It is first of all, for others, namely The Other who is God. It is secondly for others as to not be a party to scandal and an occasion of sin for others - Jesus is very clear about the danger of scandal. I guess if one does not have a concept of doing things for the love of God and out of charity for one's neighbor, then certainly doing it for oneself is better than not doing it.
DeleteAMDG- you misread this. Modesty - the virtue of modesty - is a virtue that is self-oriented. Wiser voices than mine define it: "Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity."
DeleteSo it is not first of all for others. It is first of all, about MY responsiblity about how I use my body and how I approach other bodies. And clearly, I meant PEOPLE. God does not "need" me to be modest.
And I don't think you were trying to imply that I have no concept of doing things for the love of God our of charity for my neighbor. No, you couldn't have meant to say that because you don't know me.
But rather, you will agree with me that modesty "protecting my OWN dignity" works in hand with charity, which is oriented to the OTHER, and would concern the ways in which I might choose to dress or speak for others' sake, yes?
The guests on Dr. Phil were speaking about shaming those who wish to dress their bodies with dignity, and Dr. Phil was supporting a woman who dressed provocatively because she wanted to, scandal be damned. Because these women believed the choice to provoke others to sin was not problematic, I heartily disagree with his take on the matter.
I agree that modesty is definitely about honoring our own dignity, but I don't think that's all it is. It can be dangerous to make it sound like we have no responsibility to anyone else. As Christians, we do have a responsibility to each other. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 8:9-13.) I think that consideration for others should also come to mind when we dress. The conscientious thing to do is to dress modestly not onlybecause of my own dignity, but also because dressing scantily could tempt someone to look at my body in a way that is also contrary to his own dignity as a person.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThank you Elizabeth. The Church would say that this action is "chastity". Modesty is ordered to chastity, but it is not the same thing. Modesty itself is a virtue that protects the self.
Delete"Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity." -CCC 2521
The Church does not define modesty in itself as an action performed to protect another from his or her possible temptation to sinfulness. However, you are right that as a matter of personal chastity, the way I am modest for my own sake can have impact.
An interesting distinction, though wouldn't even the passage of the CCC you quote seem to have an element of other directedness to it when it comments that modesty guides how one behaves toward others?
DeleteIs your point that one's motive to dress (and I see that the CCC indicates that it is not limited to dress) to guard one's own dignity should fall under the definition of "modesty," and any actions (including dress) taken from the motive of protecting others should fall under the definition of "chastity"?
Yes, the idea is that the virtue of modesty is a self-directed action. It is about the choices one makes for oneself, the inner disposition towards ones own dignity, whether through dress or speech or action.
DeleteI am always perturbed when the discussion comes down only to dress- and most often to the way Women dress... that only touches the concept of modesty. Men and women alike are called to this virtue, which is more about behaving with dignity.
Chastity, on the other hand, is communal. While initially self-directed, it is done so as a sub-order of charity. So with true understanding of my self, I will be inclined to modesty, and my understanding of self should compel me towards others in chastity - truly both sub-ordered to charity. "Love others as you love yourself."
The messiness of this argument occurs, I think, when people decide modesty is something that can (or should) be imposed from Without. This often leads to rules of personal preference that are stated absolutely - skirts above the knee are immodest, for example. But it is truly an internal discipline. For parents, modesty can be taught through the concepts of chastity and charity.
That makes sense. I think I see where the misunderstanding can occur, that is, in two different senses of the word "modesty." The first, is the popular sense in which Dr. Phil probably understood it, modesty as covering up/behaving with discretion. The second is the sense in which you are using it to refer more broadly to actions being taken in recognition of and to protect one's own dignity.
DeleteSo if someone says, "why should women (or men) dress modestly?" it depends on the sense in which we use the term "modesty." In the pop. sense of the term, one might say that one is modest either 1. to protect one's own dignity or 2. to avoid leading others into temptation. In the broader sense of the term, then, to say we should be modest is simply the same as saying we should act in recognition of our own dignity. If someone says "why?" the answer would simply be because we have dignity made in God's image.
I think this is a good clarification.
DeleteHowever, I stand firm in saying that modesty is not about leading others into temptation or not. Even in the "pop" sense of the word. I think one point that should be clear is that unless I am choosing to dress in a way that is provocative - at the risk of my own modesty - and at a disservice to both chastity and charity - my dress is a reflection of my own relationship to my dignity, and cannot be blamed for someone else's response or reaction to me.
Too often men blame women for their own sinfulness due to a woman's clothing. And again I say that men (in this case especially men, but women too) have their own charge to act in charity. That being said, I would agree with my husband's take on this - that many men are spiritually wounded in this area, and that as an act of sincere kindness and love, women may prefer to clothe themselves and act in a manner which helps heal those wounds and relieves our brothers in Christ from unnecessary temptation.
Dr. Phil's sense of modesty, however, is that it is a way of shaming people who prefer to express sexual freedom without consequence. I am sure you would agree with me this is way off base :)
I wonder if they are really two sides of the same coin. A women is modest in the pop. sense of the term to protect her dignity. Why? Well, because in a fallen world she needs to protect herself from being reduced to an object. This is necessary because, being fallen, our ability to see each other as the image of God has been warped. So if one side of the coin is a woman dressing carefully to protect her own dignity from use by men, then the other side is protecting men from the temptation to misuse that dignity. I don't see that that is an ignoble or unworthy motive.
DeleteThe medievalist in me also wants to distinguish two different senses of the word "responsibility" but I think that might be for another conversation.
Matthias- I am really honored by your careful consideration both of this matter at hand and by what I have to say. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right- and that the catechism agrees - that modesty "protecting my own dignity" and chastity "helping protect others from using me" are ordered to one another. However, I will push this further. Modesty is *not* about a "woman" protecting herself, etc... but rather a virtue to be shared by both men and women, yes?
Most importantly, though, and perhaps the reason I keep responding to the comments: No person is responsible for the sins of another person. That is to say, my choice of action is on my soul: I cannot be blamed for your sin. In the case of dressing the body, if I choose to wear clothing *In Order To* provoke a lustful response (with that purpose), then my sin is both immodesty and unchastity. However, for you the temptation may then be enormously magnified, and you may refrain from the sin of lust, or succumb to the sin of lust, but that is your responsibility, yes? That is to say, others do not bear responsibility for our sinfulness - we control our will.
(I am using able minded adults as my examples in every condition here).
And I appreciate your reflection on responsibility. But I will continue to insist in any case that God will hold me solely responsible for my own sin. Lord have mercy.
Christine, I'm glad to have engaged in this discussion, it has been very enlightening. As to modesty being for men too, of course I agree, and would probably include as an example avoidance of unnecessary coarse or otherwise wrong language.
ReplyDeleteThe question of responsibility is an interesting one. There are two senses of the word responsibility, moral responsibility and physical responsibility. A nail is physically responsible for puncturing a car tire, but has no moral responsibility (because conditions required for moral responsibility were lacking). A man might be able to claim that an immodest woman bore some degree of physical responsibility for causing lust and sin. This seems obvious enough and is not to put moral blame on women, but to simply make the obvious observation that multiple conditions may contribute to human action (in this case sin). So a man might claim that an immodest woman was a factor that caused him to sin (along with say, a weak will, fallen nature, old porn habit etc.), without necessarily placing moral blame on her.
The degree of moral blame, if any, incurred by the woman in our example, would depend on her intent and knowledge. We agree that a woman who intentionally behaves provocatively incurs blame and guilt. But I would add another category. A person also incurs guilt if he or she "should have known better." In the same way I incurred guilt as a child because I should have known that throwing an iceball toward a garage door could break the window, though I did not intend to break the window.
Finally, I do think a person can incur moral guilt for leading another to sin and that this may be a mitigating factor in the level of guilt in the person led to sin. So if we are to be very precise, it is not wrong for you to say that I alone bear the guilt (and moral responsibility) of my sin, but another person may bear either physical or moral responsibility for leading another to sin and incur moral guilt as a result. (Matthew 18:6- and though this refers to children, the principle seems the same.)
As you say - with INTENT and Knowledge. In grave matter, mortal sin occurs when a person disobeys the moral law with full knowledge and complete consent.
ReplyDeleteAnd because the sin you speak of is someone else's sin, I would hold that this cannot be grave matter, in which case even venial sin does not apply (a sin of grave matter with partial knowledge or partial consent).
The millstone example is not necessarily pertinent here. Because the Church would clarify this as "with intent".
Sorry - I meant to add... the Church is pretty clear on the Mt. 18 passage, that it specifically refers to the innocence of children and is NOT the same as the actions of two fully aware adults. The principle is not the same.
DeleteThe thing is, I think that we agree in essence and would agree on nearly any specific example given, but I think that your (perfectly laudable) desire to protect women from being wrongly blamed for male sin is leading you into too extreme a position. Two thoughts:
Delete1. Matthew 18:6, "who causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin... [is in big trouble]." It is not obvious that this does refer to children because Jesus uses "little ones" in Matt. 10:42 where it is obvious that he means "disciples." In Mark 10:24, he again calls the disciples children. And in the first passage, it occurs in the context of telling the disciples to be like little children. At any rate, the principle is that to lead a person into sin who otherwise would not have, is serious business.
2. Second, I think there is a serious problem with your claim that by definition, someone else's sin cannot be a grave matter for another person. How can acting in a way that could lead another person to be separated from the love of God not be a grave matter!
Take an example: A 20 year old man pushes a woman of the same age into pre-marital sex. He pushes, prods, mocks her old "puritanical" values, tells her the Church just wants to "control women," etc. And he succeeds. It seems obvious to me that each acquire moral guilt for the sin of premarital sex, but that the man also acquires guilt for leading another person to sin who otherwise would not have. This is so even if he sincerely thinks he did nothing wrong because he "should have known better." As I say, how can acting so as to separating another person from the love of God not be a grave matter?
You can easily multiply such example, a man pushes a woman to have an abortion, a person carelessly encourages a recovering alcoholic to have just one drink, which triggers a relapse (not intending to do this, but he "should have known better.").
In short, while in practice, I would probably mostly agree with you, in principle, I do think it clear that a person can acquire moral guilt from leading another person to sin. That this principle can be abused by men (and women) to wrongly blame others for their own sins, does not invalidate the principle.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou're absolutely right. I'm disappointed that Dr. Phil jumped all over the last guest in the way you're describing. :-/
ReplyDeleteJamie
Joy of Truth
Hi Christine,
ReplyDeleteI have a book that I'd like to send you for review. Please contact me if you're interested (kamoore@randomhouse.com). Sorry for contacting you about this in a comment box!
Katie Moore, Image Books
Awesome post, Christine! Amazing how in our media consumption, these gems present themselves in which all of the right material is there, if only we can identify the truth for what it is and the lies for what they are.
ReplyDeletePaul - Thank YOU! So great to hear your thoughts.
ReplyDelete