Here is a perceptive op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by Jennifer Moses, a Jewish “New Millennium mom,” wrestling with this question: “Why do so many of us not only permit our teenage daughters to dress like this—like prostitutes, if we’re being honest with ourselves—but pay for them to do it with our AmEx cards?”
Here’s the heart of her analysis:
We are the first moms in history to have grown up with widely available birth control, the first who didn’t have to worry about getting knocked up. We were also the first not only to be free of old-fashioned fears about our reputations but actually pressured by our peers and the wider culture to find our true womanhood in the bedroom. Not all of us are former good-time girls now drowning in regret—I know women of my generation who waited until marriage—but that’s certainly the norm among my peers.
So here we are, the feminist and postfeminist and postpill generation. We somehow survived our own teen and college years (except for those who didn’t), and now, with the exception of some Mormons, evangelicals and Orthodox Jews, scads of us don’t know how to teach our own sons and daughters not to give away their bodies so readily. We’re embarrassed, and we don’t want to be, God forbid, hypocrites.
Still, in my own circle of girlfriends, the desire to push back is strong. I don’t know one of them who doesn’t have feelings of lingering discomfort regarding her own sexual past. And not one woman I’ve ever asked about the subject has said that she wishes she’d “experimented” more.
As for the girls themselves, if you ask them why they dress the way they do, they’ll say (roughly) the same things I said to my mother: “What’s the big deal?” “But it’s the style.” “Could you be any more out of it?” What teenage girl doesn’t want to be attractive, sought-after and popular?
And what mom doesn’t want to help that cause? In my own case, when I see my daughter in drop-dead gorgeous mode, I experience something akin to a thrill—especially since I myself am somewhat past the age to turn heads.
You can read the whole thing here.
Entirely missing from her article is the same thing missing when it comes to this issue in the first place: dads.
Children should learn about sex from the Old Testament.
The buck stops with Dad, doesn’t he know that? God help us to man up to our responsibilities in this arena.
Many parents are wimps and let their children run the house.
We saw some of these wimpy parents at Disney World years ago. The 12-13 year-old daughter was wearing boxer briefs. I was in shock. Being the redneck that I am I decided to taunt the dad. I leaned over and said to the girl, right in front of her dad, “Nice underwear.”
He said nothing.
I couldn’t believe it.
I would never downplay the importance of modesty, but we should be careful in thinking that a cultural shift in what clothes are worn is certainly, unquestionably a sign of immorality. As C.S. Lewis put it:
The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of “modesty” … The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed … according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally “modest”…
I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and implifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing. At its present stage, however, it has this inconvenience, that people of different ages and different types do not all acknowledge the same standard, and we hardly know where we are. While this confusion lasts I think that old, or old-fashioned, people should be very careful not to assume that young or “emancipated” people are corrupt whenever they are (by the old standard) improper; and, in return, that young people should not call their elders prudes or puritans because they do not
easily adopt the new standard.
At the heart of this issue is what should that standard should be based in; the Lordship of Christ or in the worldlyness of sinners?
I also don’t think that age is the dividing line. Go to Walmart or the mall and I’m sure you’ll find a cougar on the prowl.
Just two cents from one of those old prudes (27).
Steve, you can’t dismiss the issue by appealing to some catch phrase. Obviously Christ is Lord over all things, but you seem to be asserting that it’s self-evident that Christ has certain specific, culturally independent and objective rules for what people should wear. I just don’t see how such a position is philosophically defensible.
What has philosophy got to do with it? Should daughters dress in a way that is alluring and provocative – no. It blesses no one and cheapens the daughter.
Is it possible to dress in a youthful, feminine, way without being one step removed from a street walker – yes. I speak as the father of a teenage daughter, with whom I have a great rapport and with whom I have had such discussions (not always in favour of what she at first picked, but she does listen to reason, praise God)
Justin,
My guess is if / when you have a teenage daughter and she wants to go out dressed like a hoochy mama you will find a modesty standard “philosophically defensible.”
At the heart of this issue is Parenting! Parents have a right to tell their kids how to dress! Period! I do not need a “philosophically defensible” position to tell my daughter “she ain’t goin’ out dressed like a proverbs 7 woman!” And I do have a defensible position, Children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right. Eph. 6.
But we must shepherd their hearts so they don’t want to dress like that or get “tramp stamps” etc. Praise God for Tedd and Paul Tripp who I owe so much to for their parenting wisdom!
“hoochy mama” … now that’s a term I haven’t heard for many years.
Justin,
Per my comment below, modesty is a fundamental aspect of Christian character that is unquestionably bigger than just the clothing issue, but certainly encompasses it. And, with respect, that women and men in other countries choose what to cover differently than they do (or do not) in the U.S. still speaks to the central issue of a perspective of the body that is universally broken. I’m not a missionary to those places, but I’d be interested to learn from those who are what happens when the kind of culture group of which you speak are converted.
And just in case I’m not being clear enough, any guy that tries to argue with any of my daughters that the way they dress is a “cultural construct” and simply a matter of social relativity is going to find his own body construct relatively-altered, courtesy of their Daddy. ;)
“any guy that tries to argue with any of my daughters that the way they dress is a “cultural construct” and simply a matter of social relativity is going to find his own body construct relatively-altered, courtesy of their Daddy.”
That is delightful.
It truly is.
We also need to distinguish between what is wrong and that is imprudent. Something may not be inherently wrong, but may still be imprudent.
The bigger question for us is:
Why Are [Christians] Letting Their Daughters Dress Like Prostitutes? Especially in church??
Because if anyone makes a comment about how they are dressed, they are immediately labeled a legalist. If a pastor approaches the topic of dress from the pulpit, he is immediately labeled a legalist when he starts discussing length of shorts, skirts, etc.
Indeed, Indeed! Yet God does care about dress.
I Tim 2:9-10 “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.”
A lack of biblical education and discipline is certainly one of the causes. Sexuality has no place outside of the marriage bed.
Because their friends are dressing like prostitutes? And they whine that that’s what their friends and friends’ parents are doing?
Many pastors and many dads are unwilling to speak up on this important issue. And I’ve found that even when pastors say something about modesty, they are often so vague that they are wasting their time.
Ultimately, it’s the Dads who need to hold the line. If you have daughters (out of diapers) and you haven’t told them that they can’t wear a specific item in the recent past, you are probably part of the problem.
Here’s a related post that I found very helpful: http://stuffoutloud.blogspot.com/2011/03/good-word-about-modesty-and-parents.html
I think that husbands and wives equally sharing authority could have something to do with it. Or, worse, the wife ruling the house over the husband. Both wife and children should be in submission to the husband, and if one of them is not, it can only cause problems. The wife can circumvent any moral rules set by the husband, and thus so can the children, who have no reason to listen to their father even if he tries. Of course, all of this is pointless if the father is a deadbeat, but ultimately the responsibility does lie with the father: both to exercise authority over his family and to ensure that they obey God’s law.
Egalitarianism is a significant part of the cause? This could very well be.
Chase….
Although, I appreciate your words and intent, here is what the scripture says to husbands regarding their treatment of wives.
Eph. 5:
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.
Christ lives in authority over the body because He first laid down His life for them. He doesn’t rule His bride like a despot, He woes her and serves her in love and the gentle hand of mercy, with all wisdom. I would encourage godly men to strive to lay down their lives in marriage and see the glory of God revealed to their families.
Topic reminds me of this commercial…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgpGlzsx2rk
I’ve noticed more and more commercials are making Dad’s out to be irrelevant.
Also, this issue is bigger than teenage years. Has anyone tried to find appropriate shorts/dresses for their 4 year old daughter? Difficult!
Paul,
You’re absolutely correct about immodest clothing being sold for very young girls.
I think age-appropriate discussions about modesty need to be taking place when our daughters are 3 and 4 years old. If we assume that modesty begins in the teen years we’ve missed the boat. It’s never too late to start, but it’s going to be a lot harder to get a 14 year old girl to dress modestly if she did not dress modestly as an 8 year old. As much as we may dread “shopping”, Dads need to be both present and involved in the shopping trips for new clothing.
Because we don’t have a proper theology of the body. We don’t understand what our bodies are for, and what it means to honor God with them.
It’s easy to focus narrowly on the issue of modesty “mechanics” – well, no, I’d agree, in that it’s not easy, given that doing so, from the pulpit or elsewhere, is fraught with peril! But Paul’s admonition in 1 Timothy isn’t about those mechanics. His admonition is about conveying status and importance, and generally creating a big, noisy fuss around yourself with all the clanking of the jewelry and flipping of the hair. It’s about glory-seeking. And that, at its’ heart, is what all immodesty is about. It’s stealing glory from God and taking it for our fabulous self.
It’s not that modesty is less than considering the geographical boundaries of our garments. It’s that it’s so much more than that. My dear, very British, very fundamentalist mother used to refer to a particular kind of outfit or even shade of lipstick as “way too loud.” While I laughed at her then, I don’t as much now that I’m the mother of three daughters who watch and imitate my every move. Our collective question as we chose our clothes each day, and as they watch me up on makeup is “If you stand that way/dress that way, will people see Jesus or see you?”
That’s why the most heartbreaking sentence in that article is the one about the Mom getting a vicarious thrill at the kind of response her daughter will get, now that she no longer gets it herself. People will look at her daughter and see her daughter, and the Mother is nostalgic for the day when that was true for herself. So, so sad.
Good word, Rachael! I agree with your assessment of those seeking their own glory. When our clothing says “look at my cleavage, please, look at my thighs” I think that can be called self-worship. But maybe more serious is the desire to attract sexual attention to ourselves, perhaps stumbling our brothers in Christ.
Just t to be clear, Kate, what I’m arguing for is that immodesty/glory-seeking manifests itself in all kinds of ways, not just in clothing. The example I’m thinking of is in Luke 18 in the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector. In that case, the Pharisee wasn’t thinking “look at my washboard abs!” He was saying “look at my holiness“. In that instance, immodesty is far too kind a word for the sin in the Pharisee’s heart (covered up by his, no doubt, immaculate and modest robes).
Some of the comments here seem to trending towards the “Just keep the girls at home under the authority of their fathers, and that’ll keep them in jumpers and stop them from becoming floozies” strategy. I know from experience that will not work, nor does it begin to address the real issue of the heart. What will work is teaching our daughters, and ourselves, about the matchless glory of Christ in exchanging the shame of our sin for His righteousness through His life, death and resurrection. As Edwards says, it’s about the expulsive power of a new and better affection. Teach them to see and love the glory of Jesus, and watch them toss the glory of self aside as so much worthlessness.
Agreed. I was just keeping with the “Why Are We Letting Our Daughters Dress Like Prostitutes?” thread.
Rachel,
Thank you for sharing your wisdom on this issue. You are so right on track about the need to teach our children about the character of our loving God, who sees His children and adores them. If that sinks in to a child’s heart, then it relieves the need to seek self glory in the world through immodest behavior and dress.
The Pill is the gateway drug leading to abortion. When your daughter takes the Pill and dresses as a prostitute, she’ll eventually fornicate. Then, abortion becomes nothing more than a clean-up operation — even for your Christian daughter.
Educate her at home and “dressing like a prostitute” is irrelevant.
A good book I used for one of my classes is A Return to Modesty by Wendy Shalit. About a third of the class were Christian (to some degree). Some of the girls in class really hated the book. The big opposition to it was that she had the gall to offer a perspective that was different and foreign.
Melody Green had a wonderful tract (way back in the 80’s) called Uncovering the Truth about Modesty. You can read it online for free if you google her name. I think it’s worth a look. Gives the Biblical answers to anyone (I’m talking adults, too!) as to what is right and is true godliness.
Proverbs 11:22 Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout
is a beautiful woman without discretion.
I unpacked that verse with my daughter when she was 11…the image was so strong in her mind that she never asks, “how close to the line can I come and still be modest?” Instead she asks, ” will this outfit honor God and convey a right message about who I am in Christ?”
I am also in debt to the godly 20 somethings at my church who demonstrate what dressing in a way that honors God looks like…they have a commendable sense of fashion without degrading who God called them to be. …