Posted
by Bethany Jones
February 3, 2006 at 12:33 a.m.
Hooters
We learn in women's forums that modesty is a virtue and is very important. However, modesty doesn't apply to bathing suits. It's okay to wear a bikini, or a tankini, or any kind of ini, but shorts and a tank top is immodest and sinful and incites lust.I said, on one prominent Christian board,"Hmm...if all skimpy clothing incites lust, I'm not sure how it would be any less of a temptation at a beach than at a restaurant , regardless of context, men are going to notice breasts, and if they're going to lust, they'll lust just as much at the beach as they would at Hooters."The reply to this was that I don't know what I'm talking about. Men who go to the beach or the pool don't lust after the girls running around in bikinis. They lust much more over waitresses in shorts and tank tops. I'm not justifying or saying that it's "OK" to wear skimpy outfits, but that there's this huge double standard in the minds of Christians when it comes to this issue. The girls at Hooters don't wear anything a guy won't see if he attends public school, or a public college.But, once again, that's different.So it's okay to send their teenage sons to public schools and to colleges where the women will actually date/touch/sleep with them, but letting them go to a restaurant where the women are just as naked is unnacceptable.Someone said, "if you say Hooters is OK, then it's OK to go to strip clubs, too." All I have to say is that your waitress is not going to be giving you lapdances. She may touch your shoulder, or flirt with you, but you aren't going to be getting handfulls of those breasteses anytime soon.It's not even that I think people should eat at restaurants they're uncomfortable with or that are centered around breasts. I really don't care, and I'd probably never eat there. I just think it's completely illogical to give the reasons for it being wrong in that context, but saying that in another context it's completely okay. I understand that there's a big difference from wearing a bikini at the beach and wearing a bikini to school, but if the reason for not going there (and wanting to "burn it all down") is because breasts incite lust, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but all men have already seen breasts and cleavage, and if they're living in Hawaii, they see it every five minutes.Maybe I just don't feel like wasting the time to get upset and throw a hissy fit if my husband sees cleavage. He's not going to scope out other women in front of me because he respects me and he thinks I'm haught. However, I can't censor everything around him. We live in HAWAII. If we go to the beach, there are going to be girls in bikinis who are thinner/bigger boobs/better smiles/whatever. (Okay, scratch the smile thing, I have the best smile evar.) And the girls that wear bikinis to the beach are the ones that get it ripped off. I can't be mad every time my husband sees a boob in a movie, or a girl with cleavage walks by, or I'd spend the rest of my life sitting around being stressed out.Marriage is about trust, and confidence in yourself that whoever you're married to married you because he loves and adores you and wants what's best for you. And if you're satisfying him at home, he's not going to need to go cheat on you with a 26 year old waitress. In his words, "ew, 26 is so old." ;)And in 3 years I'll get to make fun of him for that.But anyway, the point is that I'm confident in my looks and my haughtness. In the words of another poster, "I'm totally hot and anyone who doesn't look like me is weird looking."There is another girl I've been talking to who demands that her boyfriend reloads his email browser anytime an advertisement has a girl in underwear in it. He refused, and she got mad. I use hotmail so I know why he refused -- almost every page is going to have the underwear girl on it, and sitting around hitting "refresh" for an hour is a lousy way to spend an hour.Her reasoning is that if he respects her, he'll reload the browser, but in reality, he probably just doesn't care about the advertisement. I highly doubt he's using hotmail just so he can get off to the ads.Or maybe I'm wrong.
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says…
I think those married Xtian forums are scary as shit. You need to start surfing some Japanese tentacle porn or something healthier like that.
beatle919 (Marcy McGuffie) says…
Goodness gracious, those people you're communicating with need to get out more. Seriously!
"Ew, 26 is so old."
Alright. If I'm officially "so old," I'm gonna go crawl in a hole now to begin a vicious cycle of depression and angst. It's all downhill from here...
alm77 (anonymous) says…
Bethie,
Scary as Misty may find me, I have some random thoughts:
First of all, I think you've made a mistake in thinking your self confidence and good looks keeps your husband in check. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Jesus had strong words about this subject. "Anyone who looks upon a woman in lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart." That's why there is such a reaction in the Christian community. This IS a big deal. However, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.
There is something to be said about Christian liberty and intent. I think (im)modesty seems to be a grey area. Grey areas don't mesh well with my personality type; however, I do think this is one. Who's to say what immodest? My husband has HUGE opinions on this topic and I'm still trying to see his side of things. He's been known to turn over magazines in the check out line. (Usually he finds an ad just as racy as the cover he meant to hide...but that's another story.)
It's been explained to me (in vain) that men don't really regard or disregard their wife when looking at nudies. Its totally superficial and emotionally disconnected, which I'm told is part of the allure. Men are visual. That's why porn sells to men much more than to women. I'm not sure that a woman can ever fully understand the physiological reaction men get out of scantily clad or brazenly bare women.
Todd (anonymous) says…
My understanding of the Bible is that women are not suppose to dress in a manner that would encourage men to lust after them. Basically, people are flawed creatures and we are suppose to try not to taunt those flaws.
Now, men know that there will be scantly clad women at the beach, at Hooters, and strip clubs so I don't think the Bible verses apply there. This is all strictly regarding attire, not action.
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
Bethie, you are entirely too sane to spend five seconds of yr life worrying about whether or not the existence of Hooters is a sin.
I note yr use of "haught." As a student of the Paris Hilton School of Speech Dynamics, I was under the impression that the correct spelling was "hawt," but I like "haughtness" more than "hawtness," as "haughtness" suggests "haughty."
What is a "tankini"?
alm77 (anonymous) says…
Todd, now don't go blaming it on us girls....
Yeah, I know that Christian women have a responsibility, but not all women have embraced the values expressed in the B-i-b-l-e. So what's a guy to do? That's where it gets tricky. We can't start saying "This is in. That's out." Otherwise us girls will all be in burkas (which my husband thinks is a wonderful idea...)
BadEnglishMajor (Bethany Jones) says…
"Alright. If I'm officially "so old," I'm gonna go crawl in a hole now to begin a vicious cycle of depression and angst. It's all downhill from here..."
He's only 22. ;) 3 1/2 years seems like a long way away to him ;)
and seriously, 8 years away for me! ;)
BadEnglishMajor (Bethany Jones) says…
"First of all, I think you've made a mistake in thinking your self confidence and good looks keeps your husband in check. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Jesus had strong words about this subject. "Anyone who looks upon a woman in lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart." That's why there is such a reaction in the Christian community. This IS a big deal."
Oh, but I'm *really* haught. ;)
I just don't think sitting around worrying that my husband is going to see someone else in a skimpy outfit and run off without me is going to help my marriage. If I don't trust him not to cheat on me everytime we see a girl in a bikini or something revealing, then what sort of relationship do we have? And don't you think it's possible to see someone scantily clad and *not* lust? It's all a matter of self control.
BadEnglishMajor (Bethany Jones) says…
Quin -- a tankini is like a two piece swimsuit, but covers most/all of the stomach. Here's a pic:
http://www.bloomingmarvellous.co.uk/i...
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"don't you think it's possible to see someone scantily clad and *not* lust?"
I didn't lust when I saw Mike Myers' naked butt in "So I Married an Axe Murderer."
Much.
BadEnglishMajor (Bethany Jones) says…
Gross, dad, I'm banning you from my blog.
Shoo.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Bethie is right on this one (IMO).
If you want to avoid sinning, you avoid temptation ("and lead us not into temptation). That means you do not go to places where temptation is bound to be present. But unless you hide in a cave (and even that doesn't work entirely) this world is full of temptation. So avoiding the"near occasion of sin" doesn't always work. Staying away from people or places or things that temp us to sin must necessarily be augmented with spiritual resistance to temptation.
For the life of me, I really do not understand how sexual matters became the biggest sin for so many people. Perhaps because it is so easy to mis-use ones sexual nature and get hurt or hurt others because of it..... But the over-emhasis of sex (as good or bad) has really screwed up a ton of people.....
I can't see Jesus getting upset with some young man getting turned on by catching a glimpse of a pretty girl's breasts. Not nearly as much as he'd get P.O.d by a young man (or old man) cheating on his wife. And one does not have to lead to the next - if the person in question has learned to exercise good judgement and self control. It's like food; We need it and it helps us be healthy, but if we eat too much or the wrong kinds of food, it can hurt (and even kill) us!
Any person who thinks all sex or sexual matters are all bad/sinful has bought into the teaching of heretics that go back for centuries. God created our sexual nature. Anything God created is not bad or evil. It is human kind that perverts the goodness given to us by God.
alm77 (anonymous) says…
"And one does not have to lead to the next"
Jesus said they are one in the same. That's my point. They are both not OK. Herein lays the need for grace, redemption and salvation. We're not perfect.
Bethie, I do think it is possible not to lust. I've just been told that for a guy it's really difficult. I also think it would take a level of maturity that most young men don't have.
This is the phenomena you see on those "Christian boards": Many people in many phases of their faith, both mature and immature arguing over matters of liberty. Some have been freed to do things that others have not. In a case where a guy is experiencing lust issues, he may want to avoid the beach, Hooters and any other place that may cause him to stumble. Where another guy who has dealt with the issue may not give it a second thought.
Todd (anonymous) says…
It's all relative. If topless beaches were common place in the US I bet public breastfeeding would be less of an issue. My guess is that Hooters doesn't make much since if bare breasts weren't taboo.
The whole dressing modestly thing is to not introduce temptation. You can't avoid it but you can do you honest best not to introduce it. I think the double standard comes from the fact men are more visual and always have been. It the nature of the beast.
Todd (anonymous) says…
So here's a question to blow this thread wide open? Cosmetic surgery (breast augmentation), is it okay per the Bible? Is it a destruction of what God gave you or decorations like Tatoos? Is it dressing in a immodest manner?
beatle919 (Marcy McGuffie) says…
I think there's a difference between lusting and appreciating. Just because a guy finds a gal aesthetically appealing, doesn't mean he wants to cheat on his gal...
Anyway, Bethie...I s'pose I thought 26 was old when I was that age. My definition of old keeps increasing!
scary_manilow (anonymous) says…
"...if you say Hooters is OK, then it's OK to go to strip clubs, too."
Um... It IS okay to go to strip clubs. There's nothing wrong with a naked body. There's nothing wrong with looking at a naked body. Hell, there's nothing wrong with groping a naked body, so long a sboth parties are consenting. Nature programmed carnality into us for a reason, and the more people try to demonize healthy sexual urges, the more repressed our society becomes.
BadEnglishMajor (Bethany Jones) says…
"Cosmetic surgery (breast augmentation), is it okay per the Bible? Is it a destruction of what God gave you or decorations like Tatoos? Is it dressing in a immodest manner?"
Well, I wouldn't say breast augmentation is nessecarily "dressing" in an immodest manner, it's just how you cover them up. ;)
The Bible doesn't really say "thou shalt not get breast implants/reduction," so I think it's pretty much up to the individual as to what is right for them and their own religious convictions.
I wouldn't ever get implants (not because I think it's immoral, but because I have no need to), but if it's something that will give someone confidence in themselves and make them "happy," is it wrong?
At the same time, being attractive is going to fade with age. (Though probably a little later than 26!) And I think for most younger women, breast implants wouldn't be so much to feel better and like their bodies more, but to fit in with the rest of the crowd and to be accepted.
AWSHEO - all women secretly hate each other, and women can be downright mean when it comes to other people's breasts. If someone is even the slightest bit unhappy with their bodies, it's really easy to jump on that and make them feel even more worthless, so I think the issue of breast implants is -usually- something to do with a person's emotional state at how they feel about themselves and their worth as a person, rather than simply a dissatisfaction with their body.
As far as the body being a temple -- how is being obese any worse for your body than getting breast augmentation? The church seems to accept gluttony as being OK but is quick to frown on breast augmentation and tattoos....seems kinda like a double standard to me...
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
All women secretly hate each other? Really? I guess I did not get the memo. I presonally would be a very sad person without some of my dear women friends!!!!! I think insecure women often hate each other because they regard others as competition for "the man" (sigh). Secure women don't hate people, unless it's well earned!
And while Jesus might have had words to say about lusting and/or forms of sinning, I am pretty sure he also said (LOUD and clear and repeatedly) that it is NOT a good idea to judge other people.
He also did not condemn all sexual urges. In fact, for those who believe Jesus is God, he created sexuality, which is the source of those urges in the first place!
Nothing that comes from without (in this world) is sinful. It is what we do with and in the world that can cause us (and it) harm. See -Matthew 15:10-20.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
And what I meant about one not leading to the other was this...Temptation does not always lead to giving into tempation. At least, not for most people!
edie_ (anonymous) says…
Sort of off the subject. I'm forever running across marquees on Highway 40 that say things like this: wednesday night buffet with bikini girls.
i always think about how totally hilarious it would be if a bunch of fry daddies showed up ready for Miss March to serve them drinks in a g-string. Instead the affair would really be a bunch of ladies who happened to be descendants of the Bikini islanders, wearing mumu's and drinking volcanoes all night long.
The fry daddies would be like "What the fuck's goin on? (scratches ass) I thought this was the night for bikini girls."
No one else in the world ever thinks there's anything amusing about that but I think it's a fucking riot.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"I guess I did not get the memo."
There was no memo. It's a secret.
"Cosmetic surgery (breast augmentation), is it okay per the Bible? Is it a destruction of what God gave you or decorations like Tatoos? Is it dressing in a immodest manner?"
Obviously since breast augmentation was not an issue dealt with by the Israelites or Romans, there's nothing specific about it, so all we have is principles. Frankly I don't see it as a 'decoration' (not that there's anyting wrong with that) nor immodest; at its bottom its a re-shaping of the body, not unlike weight loss. The question becomes one of inner attitude, and it's that attitude that must pass biblical muster, not the action which is an external manifestation of that attitude.
That's why Jesus said what he did about lust. It's not that lust is the worst possible thing a human can do, but that external actions flowed from internal attitudes, hence it is the internal things that are most important.
They are also, coincidentally, the thing we are most likely to misjudge in others, which is also why we are warned about trying.
MyName (anonymous) says…
Right, here's my problem with the whole puritanical "lust is evil" thing. Part of being an adult is having to think about sex. It's just a fact of life and there's not alot you can do about it. It's not a top down kind of thing where you wake up in the morning and decide, "today I'm going to think about sex 3 times and then go pick up some groceries and do the dishes."
I mean sure, there are cases where you see someone in a skimpy outfit and you're suddenly thinking about that person, but sometimes it just pops into your head out of nowhere. Really, it's just like being hungry: sometimes you walk by Wheatfields and see a cake and think, "that looks good", and then you realize you're hungry. And sometimes you're not thinking about anything at all and then you think start to think about food and then you realize that you're hungry.
The bottom line is that you can either grow up and understand that, even if you're thinking about sex, it doesn't really *mean* anything, and move on. Or, you can take the puritanical approach, and feel all guilty about it and then you're having to deal with all of this guilt over nothing. Believe me, I've tried both and the puritanical approach stinks.
As far as dressing modestly goes, I think that it has more to do with respect then about lust or sex or whatever. It's sort of like the difference between dressing sexy and dressing like a tramp. There are some men who will treat a women with respect no matter how she dresses, mostly because of the kind of person that guy is and maybe because of how the guy was raised. The opposite is also true, and the guy will treat a woman badly no matter what because he doesn't respect women. But there are an awful lot of times when a guy will treat a woman badly because he thinks she's dressed like a tramp and he thinks he can get away with treating her badly.
This is not saying that it's the woman's fault for dressing the way she wants to dress, it's just that at that moment, she's around someone who's a bit of a jerk. Sad but true.
And this also ties into to the whole relationship thing. If you're in a relationship with someone who respects women, or at the very least respects you, than it doesn't really matter to you what other women are wearing, because you know the person you're with is going to treat you okay. But if you're around someone who's a bit of a jerk, then you're probably going to worry quite a bit about what other women are wearing. Again, not because the other women are doing something wrong for dressing the way they want to dress, but because the guy you're with is a bit of a jerk and needs to grow up.
Just My 2 Cents
(Oh, and FWIW I've certainly never considered 26 old, at least not since I was like 14 or something).
thomas13 (anonymous) says…
Do ethical judgements, commands, obligations, etc. have truth-values?
Is 'killing is wrong' true or false? Atleast in the same way as 'there exist trees' is true or false? If so--WOW!!! If not, then what makes ehical judgements true or false despite their lack of x,y,n (whatever it is that, to you, makes the two sentences differ)?
Basically, can it be true or false, that 'dressing slutty is wrong'?
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"Is 'killing is wrong' true or false? Atleast in the same way as 'there exist trees' is true or false? If so--WOW!!! If not, then what makes ehical judgements true or false despite their lack of x,y,n (whatever it is that, to you, makes the two sentences differ)?"
In order to answer, one must make reference to an external moral system, because 'wrong' is a moral judgment. For me the answer is "yes it's wrong" because killing someone is taking that which they have a right to. But if one does not believe in rights owned by the individual, I don't see how one can come up with that kind of moral judgment (I guess one could say, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" as some do without thinking) but the last century was filled with governments who answered the question, "no." The skull piles still reek.
"Right, here's my problem with the whole puritanical "lust is evil" thing. Part of being an adult is having to think about sex. It's just a fact of life and there's not alot you can do about it."
But I think we're confusing terms. Lust is not 'thinking about sex.' Sex is good and right and we ought to think about it, just like we ought to think about eating, sunsets, and fishing. Lust is an intense, overwhelming, and unrestrained craving which is often but not always sexual. It is a desire to take, to possess that which is not one's own, and unrestrained leads to doing those things often to the hurt of others.
To say there's not a lot one can do about it is false, because it's an admission that one cannot control one's self. Desire for anything can be fed and can grow, whether that desire is a lust for sex or money or power. It can also be controlled, at least up to a certain point.
What is needed is a balance, the joy of sex combined with an understanding and respect for its power. Sex is in some ways unlike other drives (I've never seen men pay good money to have a lamb chop undressed on a stage), and mankind - especially religious mankind - has reacted to that power by hushing it up and treating it like a crazy aunt in the closet. That, of course, is a separate problem which you well know.
mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says…
edie, honey, I'm going to be laughing my ass off about that one for a long, long time to come.
For five minutes now, I can't take a fucking drag, this pock-marked crag-faced muumuu mama keeps grunting in my head at every male stereotype I ever lapdanced at. . . .
edie_ (anonymous) says…
Finally another drag queen trapped in a woman's body sees the humor in it! :^)
OtherJoel (anonymous) says…
I just think the word "mumu" is funny.
I don't have much to say about this topic. People can wear or not wear whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. I might cover my eyes and scream, depending on who's doin' the exposing. But I'll deal, so whatever...
I mainly just wanted to give props to Bill for referencing one of my favorite flicks -- So I Married An Axe Murderer.
"I was naked just then. Very nuuuuude..."
beatle919 (Marcy McGuffie) says…
I l-o-v-e Mike Meyers!
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Hey, since I fit the age and weight requirements for the mumu wearing mommas, I hereby volunteer. Nothing more I like then turning the tables. I don't think I am a drag queen trapped in a woman's body...but I'm willing to consider the possibility...LOL.
MyName (anonymous) says…
>Lust is not 'thinking about sex.' Sex is good and right and we ought to think about it, just like we ought to think about eating, sunsets, and fishing. Lust is an intense, overwhelming, and unrestrained craving which is often but not always sexual. It is a desire to take, to possess that which is not one's own, and unrestrained leads to doing those things often to the hurt of others.
I'm not going to go into a semantical argument as it still does nothing to add or detract from my point. I'll just say that your definition of lust differs from my definition only as a matter of degrees. Kind of like the degree of difference between "anger" and "hate". You're saying that 'thinking about sex' is okay, but "lust is evil" is just like saying that being angry with someone is okay, but it's wrong to hate. It's the intensity of the feeling that matters.
My point is that, no matter how you label it, lust is still a thought. If it is "evil" to even think or feel a certain way about someone, than it should be evil no matter how small or large those thoughts or feelings are (FWIW, I believe this line of reasoning is in the New Testament as well). Moreover, you can start to lust after someone just by walking down the street, without even interacting with the person. It seems odd to me that something that requires no forethought or premeditation and does nothing to affect another person can be considered immoral or unethical.
In summary, I believe that actions are the only thing that matters. If this is the case, then thinking "lustful thoughts" about a person really doesn't mean anything and there's no reason to feel guilty about having such thoughts or feelings. That being said, I think we can both agree that it is wrong not to do something to change the situation if you think having these thoughts or feelings will cause you to do something you shouldn't. I guess that's what self control is all about.