Annie Peguero and her nineteen-month-old daughter attended church last Sunday at Summit Church in Springfield, Virginia. During the service, Peguero’s baby became hungry, so she breast-fed her. Little did she know that she was surrounded by horny, weak, pathetic men who can’t control their sexuality when ‘forced” to view a breastfeeding mom’s partially exposed breast.
Annie Peguero was trying to soothe her agitated 19-month-old baby in church on Sunday when she did what she often does — she nursed her. But her efforts to calm her daughter caused a stir in the sanctuary of Summit Church in Springfield.
A woman promptly asked the Dumfries mother to decamp to a private room, she said. Peguero declined and was later told that the church does not allow breast-feeding without a cover because it could make men, teenagers or new churchgoers “uncomfortable,” she said. One woman told her the sermon was being live-streamed and that she would not want Peguero to be seen breast-feeding.
The mother of two left her seat in the back of the church and fled, embarrassed and in shock. The next day, she posted her own livestream video on Facebook — with her baby, Autumn, at her breast — telling viewers what happened and urging women to stand up for breast-feeding.
“I want you to know that breast-feeding is normal,” she said.
It is also a legally protected right in Virginia, where the legislature passed a 2015 law that says women have a right to breast-feed anywhere they have a legal right to be.
….
Peguero, a 42-year-old personal trainer and fitness and nutrition specialist, often posts live videos online with tips and advice about managing life with two young children. She talks about getting through the day when a spouse is deployed, drawing on her own experience as the wife of a Marine serving overseas.
The self-described “hippie mama” said she looked forward to breast-feeding long before she had children.
“I knew it was the very best thing for my baby,” she said. “I wanted to give them that gift for as long as I could, and that’s what I did.”
She nursed her older daughter — now 4 years old — until she was 8½ months pregnant with Autumn. In all that time, she never had a problem nursing in public, she said.
“I have breast-fed in a few different countries. I have breast-fed all over the place,” she said. “No one has ever said anything to me.”
Virginia was one of the last states to pass a law protecting a woman’s right to breast-feed in public.
Before passage, women in Virginia had the right to nurse their babies on state-owned property, but restaurants and other privately owned businesses that were open to the public could prohibit it.
Under identical bills brought by Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax) and Sen. Jennifer T. Wexton (D-Loudoun), mothers are permitted to breast-feed anywhere they are “lawfully present.” The measures cleared the Republican-controlled House and Senate without opposition and were signed into law by Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D).
Albo and Wexton were not familiar with the details of Peguero’s case but said the law clearly gives women the right to breast-feed anywhere they are otherwise allowed to be.
“Women don’t really have a choice,” Albo said. “If you have a kid, and the kid’s hungry, you have to feed ’em.”
Wexton said she brought her bill after hearing from a woman who had been told she could not nurse her baby in a hallway outside the children’s room at her gym. Employees said she could only breast-feed in the bathroom, Wexton said.
“The fact is, women just want to feed their babies. Women are very discreet about their breast-feeding. . . . It’s not in any way an indecent exposure situation,” she said.
Leave it to Evangelicals to have a big problem with a human natural process — breastfeeding. What’s more natural than a mother feeding her child using the mammary glands the good Lord gave her? The problem is that Evangelical men are deeply immersed in a culture where women’s breasts have been sexualized. And as with anything having to do with sex while the lights are on, Evangelical churches and pastors — at least as far as the keepers of male mental virginity at Summit Church are concerned — overreact and enact stupid policies and rules.
Sadly, a century of Evangelical obsession with sex has resulted in multiple generations of men being taught that they are not in control of their sexuality, and that women are seductresses out to bed them. Women are forced to cover up their bodies and mute their comeliness lest some horn-dog of a man cast a glance their way and feel some sort of sexual stirring. Evidently, the Holy Spirit living inside Evangelical men is not enough to keep them from lusting during their pastors’ sermons.
Non-Evangelicals read posts such as this one and snicker while shaking their heads. There is nothing sexual about women breastfeeding their children. Babies need to eat, end of discussion. As long as women are discreetly feeding their babies, I can’t think of one reason why their doing so should be a problem. My wife breastfed all six of our children. Rarely did she leave a church service to do so, and if she it did it was because the child was being fussy and she didn’t want to disrupt the service.
I pastored scores of breastfeeding women during the twenty-five years I spent in the ministry. I can think of only one time where a woman breastfeeding a child proved to be a distraction. One Sunday, as I was preaching away on the unsearchable riches of Christ, a church member sitting about three rows back unbuttoned her dress, pulled up her bra, and fully exposed her breast. She did this so her four-year old child could have a snack. Most church members had no idea what was going on in the third row, but unfortunately for me, I had a boobs’-eye view.
In many Evangelical churches, men are viewed as metaphorical infants, unable to control their desires. Women are repeatedly told that they must be the adults in the room, and for the sake of infantilized men, cover their bodies. What’s even more astounding, as in the story mentioned above, is that it is left to church women to police their ranks. Taught that they must be gatekeepers, church women make sure that no Jezebel tempts their men. Perhaps the real solution to the breastfeeding problem is for men to own their sexuality. Stop with all the silly rules that only serve to embarrass and demean women. To Evangelical women, I say, it’s time to rebel against thinking that reduces women to sex objects. Of course, such rebellion requires Evangelical women (and men) to stand against the patriarchal, anti-women bullshit that their pastors preach Sunday after Sunday. Sadly, I am not hopeful that church women will do so. The pressure to conform is so great, that only by leaving Fundamentalist churches can women truly be free.
Warning! Slightly risque language ahead. You have been warned.
Another day, any yet another Evangelical explaining the importance of women covering up their bodies lest they cause men to “sin.” Today’s member of the clothing police is Kara Barnette, wife of Tim, pastor of Faith Baptist Church in Faith, North Carolina. In a post titled Modesty Matters, Barnette had this to say about modesty and the dangers of women spreading their “sin” to men:
It’s that beautiful yet dreadful time of year when summer clothes come-out. And it seems that every summer shorts get shorter, necklines plunge lower, styles get tighter, and fabrics are so thin that one could read a newspaper through them. Yet issues over modest clothing aren’t just significant to the Amish and crotchety old people who complain about “those ‘dang teenagers.”
When a glutton eats too much, no one else gets fat. And when a thief steals from a convenience store, only the thief goes to jail. But when a young lady dresses inappropriately, the effects of her sin are expansive.
Her sin spreads.
As she strolls down the beach in her immodest bathing suit or worships on a Sunday wearing a revealing dress, everyone who sees her is handed temptation. The men and boys around her must battle the sin of lust, while the women and girls around her must battle the sins of bitterness and jealousy and the temptation to show-off their bodies, too. Everyone is distracted by the young lady’s clothing and everyone struggles to think pure thoughts.
Sadly, today there is often little difference in the immodest clothing choices between girls who’ve never heard the name of Christ and those who come from Christian homes. Satan is winning the war of indiscrete clothing, and these are the weapons he’s using on parents:
….
My daughter must dress in short/tight athletic-wear to play her sport. Newton’s Lesser-Known Fourth Law of Motion: A volley ball will travel at the same velocity and direction whether it’s served by a player dressed appropriately or by a player dressed inappropriately. (The law likewise holds true for golf, tennis, and soccer balls, as well as for the dynamics of jogging, cheerleading, and dance…) Joking aside, if a team uniform doesn’t meet God’s standards and an alternative is not allowed, then God doesn’t want my daughter playing that sport or participating in that activity. Her personal testimony is worth even more than an athletic scholarship to college.
I can’t find modest clothing for my daughter. Principals often hear this complaint from moms about school dress codes, and youth pastors similarly struggle to enforce clothing standards for youth groups and camps. God has plenty to say about ladies dressing modestly (1 Timothy 2:9, 1 Timothy 2:8-10, 2 Peter 3:1-4), and He doesn’t give commands that our daughters cannot follow. Shop a different store. Order on-line. Buy a sewing machine and make clothes yourself. Or have your daughter wear the same modest clothing over and over if that’s all she has. Parents must go to whatever lengths necessary to help our daughters protect their purity.
My daughter will hate me if I make her dress conservatively. Following the Lord’s commands should not be a chore, but a joy! Teaching a daughter to present her body as… ‘a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to the God, which is her spiritual service of worship’ (Romans 12:1) ought not be a knock-down fight in the dressing room at the mall; it should be a pleasant experience as she learns to embrace colors, fabrics, and styles that please God and accentuate her beauty. All rules given by the Lord are for our good and His glory, so helping girls learn to dress modestly can be a fun and creative challenge.
Modesty isn’t an important Scriptural issue. Tell that to the wife humiliated by her husband’s pornography addiction. To the congregation who lost their pastor because he had an affair. To the teenager who has to inform her parents she’s pregnant.
….
My daughter needs to show some skin if she’s going to get a guy. Allow your daughter to dress provocatively so she can catch the attention of boys, and you’ll get your wish. But it won’t end well for her.
While you would never throw chum into the ocean water where your little girl was swimming, you’re doing something far more dangerous when you allow her to capture boys with her body. It’s a deadly proposition.
Just ask Bathsheba.
2 Samuel 11:2 simply states… and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful in appearance. David’s sinful lust of Bathsheba was provoked because of her revealing appearance. David didn’t fall for Bathsheba because she was a great conversationalist, or because he felt an emotional connection to her, or because she could cook a delicious rack of lamb.
He fell for her skin.
And while we will never fully understand Bathsheba’s culpability in the affair, we know that it sure caused her a lot of grief. Literally. Bathsheba would eventually grieve both the death of her faithful husband Uriah and the baby she conceived with David.
When we allow our daughter to show too much skin, we lead her into temptation. We deliver her into evil. And that evil is contagious: it not only harms her but will infect every person she contacts.
Modesty matters.
Once again, we have an Evangelical blaming “immodestly” dressed women for the inability of men to keep themselves from “lustful” thoughts. Pathetic men, they are, who can’t control their thoughts once their eyes focus on women showing too much of their bodies. In Barnette’s mind, dressing “immodestly” causes women to spread their sin and we all know that women spreading their sin leads to them spreading their legs.
Yes, we live in a culture when women publicly expose more skin than previous generations. My God, my wife wore a dress to a wedding last weekend that showed a bit of cleavage! What’s the world coming to? Doesn’t Polly know that she is spreading her sin by wearing a 38DDD push-up bra? (Her first push-up bra, by the way — a sure sign of her atheistic depravity.
Polly and Bruce Gerencser, March 2017. Several firsts….cleavage and a black fedora. (my cleavage is covered up)
Barnette’s problem is that she is immersed in a Fundamentalist religious culture that treats human sexuality as something that must tamped down and, at times — because the Bible commands it — denied. Women are viewed as Jezebels, temptresses out to bed every man who casts a gaze their way. These weak, pathetic, horn-dog men have little or no power to keep themselves from lusting (evidently God living inside of you is not even enough), so it is up to women to keep men from lusting by covering up their bodies and avoiding behaviors that might lead men to think they are “available” — Greek for “easy.”
Most Evangelicals are Republicans who supposedly believe in personal responsibility. One need only listen to Evangelical congressmen pontificate about welfare and the importance of holding assistance recipients accountable for their behavior to see this thinking at work. Yet, these haters of the poor attend churches that preach, when it comes to sexual matters, that heterosexual men are not totally accountable for what are deemed immoral behaviors; that women who tempt men to lust are also culpable for their “stiff prick having no conscience” (a line told to Midwestern Baptist College ministerial students by crusty IFB preacher Paul Vanaman).
Lust is a religious construct meant to elicit fear and guilt. Two thousand years of preachers lustily preaching about the dangers women present to unsuspecting men have led to the female sex being blamed for the inability of the males of the species to keep from wanting to bed women they find attractive. And therein lies the problem. Evangelicals live in denial of their biology — that men and women being physically attracted to one another is necessary for the propagation of the human race. Some Evangelicals will grudgingly admit the biological aspect of human existence, but will then say that our biology has been corrupted by the fall — Adam’s and Eve’s sin in the Garden of Eden.
Remember the story? God created Adam and Eve naked, put a mystical fruit tree in the middle of their subdivision, and told them he would kill them if they ate fruit from the tree. Adam and Eve ignored God’s threat and once they ate kumquats off the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they became knowledgeable of good and evil. Since that day, all humans are cursed, born with a “sin” nature. According to Evangelicals, we don’t become sinners, we are by nature sinners — haters of God. This is why we need the salvation that was made possible through the sacrificial death of the God-man Jesus on the cross.
The first thing God did after confronting Adam and Eve over their poor choice of a snack was to kill several animals and make the sinning couple one-of-a-kind fur outfits — covering up their nakedness. Implicit in this story is that nakedness is sinful. Christians, Muslims, and Jews have spent several millennia drilling this idea into the minds of primarily the fairer species. Why? Because it was Eve who first ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was Eve who gave a kumquat — I love that word — to Adam. Get the gist of the story? Adam may have been the head of earth’s first family, but Eve is the one that plunged the entire human race into sin. A woman was to blame then, and women are to blame now.
Let me conclude this post with my view of human sexuality and personal accountability. I am an atheist, so Barnette’s Puritanical, anti-human views on sexuality play no part in my sexual ethic. I recognize that I am sexually attracted to some women. How women dress can get my attention sexually. As Polly will attest, my eyes have on more than a few occasions been drawn to the comely shape of women who are not my wife. (And Polly will admit to the same. Last weekend she told me over dinner, why are some gay men so damn attractive? I laughed, thinking of how, not so many years ago, such a discussion would have been impossible.) I subscribe to the look but don’t touch school of thought. Everywhere I look I see attractive women. I saw them as a fifteen-year-old Baptist virgin and I see them forty-five years later as a well-used atheist. What I have learned as a grown-ass man is that I am TOTALLY responsible for my sexual behavior. I am TOTALLY responsible for how I deal with my sexual desires. It is up to me, not women, to control my sexuality. If I behave inappropriately, the only person responsible for my behavior is yours truly. I am mature enough to be around women I might find attractive, and if I feel some sort of sexual stirring — down boy, down boy — it is up to me to control my physical response.
My wife and I are in a committed monogamous relationship forty years in the making. Now that we have been liberated from the sexual bondage of Christianity, we are free to embrace our sexuality, while, at the same time, living according to the commitment we made to each other thirty-nine years ago on a hot July day in Newark, Ohio. Both of us are TOTALLY responsible for how we behave sexually. Knowing that marriage is far more than sex, neither of us worries about the other being tempted to sin by a nice ass or an attention-seeking babe or hunk of a man. (And yes, both of us are comfortable enough in our sexual skins to admit that there are times we have found someone of the same sex attractive, all without flying a rainbow flag on our porch.)
Humanism and Buddhism teach me to treat others with respect, and while I may not be able to control what happens to or around me, I am responsible for how I respond to these outside influences. When a nurse puts an IV in my arm I know it is going to hurt, and that it might take her several attempts to get the job done (thick skin, deep veins, genetic curse). I also know that it is up to me to decide how I respond to the nurse. After making sure the nurse has sufficient experience to do the job (I am considered a difficult stick, so only the experienced need apply), I turn to humor to control the pain that is coming. I tell the nurse about my best and worst phlebotomist list, sharing stories about who is at the top of the list. Once the IV is in, I let the nurse know where she placed on my list. By doing this, I am choosing to be accountable for how I respond. I have heard more than one patient go into a profanity-laced tirade at a nurse who couldn’t magically make an IV insertion pain-free. It is not the nurse’s fault, and blaming her is misplaced. So it is with people who wrongly want to blame women for the moral failures of the human race. Barnette’s blaming of women for unapproved chubbies is misplaced. Men are, from start to finish, responsible for how they respond when sexually attracted to women. Instead of long lists of rules that have proved to not work, why not teach not only men, but women too, how to behave sexually. Surely Evangelical churches can teach men that the Billy Graham rule — never allow yourself to be alone with a woman who is not your wife, a rule even Jesus didn’t practice — is fear-mongering bullshit; that the Vice President of the United States should be able to have a private lunch with a woman without fearing that he will succumb to lust and try to fuck her. Surely the people who gave us purity rings made in China can instead teach men and women that it is not what you wear that matters — no ring has ever successfully kept young adults who want to have sex from doing do; that the choice of how to respond to sexual attraction rests solely with us, not others; that inappropriate sexual behavior by me is not anyone’s fault but mine.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Male Commenter on Lori Alexander’s post (protect yourself from what, rape?)
Many women are rebellious today and want to do what is right in their own eyes. They are rebellious to all types of authority and they don’t want to be told what to do: what to wear, what to do with their bodies, and what to do with their lives. They want to do what they want to do regardless of who it hurts in the process. One example is from a man who wrote about his disgust with so many women wearing yoga pants.
….
Yes, this is very foreign in today’s culture since most women are taught to be independent and do their own thing since the women’s liberation movement freed them from the shackles of modesty, motherhood, marriage, and all the other things that they believed held women in bondage.
….
I wrote an entire chapter in my book on modesty since women are not taught modesty anymore. I warned about yoga pants since I know they are not modest and cause men to stumble. It’s a little tough on guys to continually avert their eyes when almost every single women they see is wearing them no matter what they look like in them.
….
Most everything that is good, decent, and the Lord’s ways are offensive to women today. Try to teach Titus 2:3, 4 to younger women and see all the offended women come out of hiding. The things that should offend them, like evil, don’t offend them anymore…. No, never tell women what is good and right and what the Lord requires of them since they are their own god now and decide what is right.
Church of Christ preacher Al Shannon wants pubescent teen girls and women to know that if they dress “immodestly” and are raped it is their fault. And if parents don’t teach their girls to dress modestly and they end up being impregnated by Christian horndogs it is the fault of lax mothers and untrained daughters. Shannon writes:
Mothers with young girls will do them a real favor by teaching them while little to learn to dress in modest apparel. It just may keep your unmarried daughter from being raped or getting pregnant out of wedlock.
Shannon also wants sexually aware girls and women to know that if they dress inappropriately and some poor, hapless, weak, pathetic teenage boy or man lusts after them, it is their fault. Shannon writes:
The Bible teaches that we must dress in modest apparel. “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame facedness and sobriety” (1 Tim. 2:9). A failure to dress properly induces others to sin. Mary Quant, the London fashion designer and mother of the miniskirt said, “Mini-clothes are symbolic of those girls who want to seduce a man . . . and leads to sex.
Modesty Enforcer Shannon also wants teen girls and women to know that if they wear skimpy bathing suits they shouldn’t be surprised if teen boys and men lust after them and want to fuck them. Shannon warns:
Women on board the hi-jacked pleasure ship Santa Maria left off wearing “enticing clothing of shorts, halters and swim suits” and stayed out of the ship’s pool for fear the rebels might have designs on them sexually! This was in the 1960’s. If you plan on swimming, you need to pick a place other than where there is mixed swimming. When women dress in such a way as to entice men, don’t be surprised when they want to do more than just look! Women of the millennium wear macro [sic] bikinis that reveal every aspect of he [sic] human anatomy. In other words, women of today parade themselves naked before the eyes of the world to see and cause them to lust after their bodies.
What about how teen boys and men dress, Preacher Shannon? Here’s what he had to say:
Fathers need to also talk to their boys about proper attire. Way too often today we see boys wearing their underwear on the outside of their pants and revealing the imprint of a certain body part. This is totally indecent.
Oh my God, teen boys are showing off their underwear by wearing it outside of their pants and this somehow indecently shows the imprint of “certain” body parts! I wonder what that “certain body part could be? Penis? Dick? Or any of the dozens of euphemisms men have for their rod? Is Preacher Shannon ashamed to say the word “penis,” lest he corrupt the minds of his readers? How does wearing underwear outside of your pants show off your penis any more than wearing underwear inside of your pants? And why doesn’t Shannon mention men’s bathing suits?
While women continue to make inroads outside of the Evangelical church, within its walls they are still viewed as the keepers of zippers. If teenage boys and men are to keep their “certain” body parts in their pants, it is up to teen girls and women to make sure that they never dress in ways that will cause lustful Johnny to reach for his package. Once Johnny unzips his pants and lets loose his manhood, why, there’s no telling what he might do. And if he impregnates or rapes a woman he’s not to blame! Remember, the Bible says in Proverbs 7:
For at the window of my house I looked through my casement, And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding, Passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house, In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night: And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart. (She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house: Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.) So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him, I have peace offerings with me; this day have I payed my vows. Therefore came I forth to meet thee, diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee. I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves.For the goodman is not at home, he is gone a long journey: He hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the day appointed. With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks; Till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life. Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her.
Never, ever forget that when men lust women are ALWAYS to blame. If teen girls and women would just dress like they did in the days of Little House on the Prairie or wear some sort of Christian burka, burning male lust would be extinguished, women would no longer be raped, and no children would be born out of wedlock. Or so say the Al Shannons of the world. Perhaps the real solution is for women to stay away from Evangelical churches, much as they would dimly-lit alleys late at night. If Christian men are so easily aroused that exposed cleavage, legs, or tight clothing causes them to lust and have thoughts of rape, wouldn’t women be safer if they spent Sundays at home?
KTLA meteorologist Liberté Chan was recently forced to cover up her “inappropriate” dress after news anchor Chris Burrous received emails complaining about it. At first, I thought, surely this is a news channel somewhere in the Bible Belt. Nope, Los Angeles, California.
KTLA meteorologist Liberté Chan appeared shocked over the weekend when morning news anchor Chris Burrous interrupted her weather report to ask her to cover up her sleeveless dress.
As Chan was delivering a wind report during the a 8 a.m. hour, a hand dangling a gray sweater appeared on the screen.
“What’s going on?” Chan asked. “You want me to put this on? Why? Because it’s cold?”
“We’re getting a lot of emails,” Burrous quipped.
“What!” Chan exclaimed, reluctantly accepting the sweater. “Really?”
“There you go,” a satisfied Burrous replied.
“I look like a librarian,” Chan complained.
“That works,” the anchor insisted. “It’s a librarian who’s gone to a cocktail party. Everyone’s got an opinion about your dress this morning.”
The incident left Chan stuttering through the remainder of her weather report.
“I’m trying to hold it together in my little sweater,” she explained.
News anchor Chris Burrous should have told complainers, tough shit. Instead, he bowed to their demands, embarrassed Chan, and made himself look like a sexist pig.
Since the incident went viral, Ms Chan says she has been on the receiving end of inappropriate comments about her appearance and body size.
“I’ve gotten emails that say, ‘She has fatty arms. She has this. She has that,’” Ms Chan told Time.
“As a meteorologist, you’re in a very vulnerable situation. You’re showing your entire body. It became much more about my body than my brain. This has turned into a much bigger issue than just a sweater.”
Ms Chan said she would not change her choice of clothing in the future. “I’ll just be me and being me has not caused me any issues until Saturday morning. It is what it is. I’m not crying over it.”
Although Ms Chan has received a number of negative body shaming emails in the aftermath of the incident, she explained there had also been a supportive response from other viewers.
“I’ve gotten emails saying, ‘We fought for equality.’ And the older generation is thinking, ‘Why is she being told what she should wear or what she shouldn’t wear? We’ve lived through a generation, a time when men told us what we should wear,’. Are we going backwards? It’s 2016.”
Sadly, Chan said she didn’t consider Burrous’ action sexist. She even went so far as to “defend” the TV station. Whether her response was due to job security is unknown. Regardless, Burrous’ sexist behavior should be roundly condemned by WTLA. It’s 2016, not 1910.
This is the thirteenth installment in The Sounds of Fundamentalism series. This is a series that I would like readers to help me with. If you know of a video clip that shows the crazy, cantankerous, or contradictory side of Evangelical Christianity, please send me an email with the name or link to the video. Please do not leave suggestions in the comment section. Let’s have some fun!
Today’s Sound of Fundamentalism is a clip taken from a sermon preached by Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Paul Chappell, pastor of Lancaster Baptist Church, Lancaster, California. This is video is another reminder of the fact that in IFB churches women are always blamed for the moral weaknesses of men. If church women will just cover up their legs and cleavage, IFB men will never be inappropriately sexually aroused, or so the thinking goes, anyway.
This graphic perfectly illustrates the puritanical culture found in many Evangelical churches. Women are considered lust magnets, sure to attract weak, pathetic Christian men who have little control over their sexual desires. Starting with primary school age, females are taught to never, ever expose any of the sexual parts of their bodies–breasts, cleavage, bare shoulders, legs, and ass. In other words, girls and women are expected to dress similar to burka-wearing Muslims. The only difference is the head covering.
This kind of thinking robs Evangelical girls and women of any sense of self-worth. Like pornographers, modesty Nazis reduce females to commodities that must be protected and hidden until it is time to put them on the (marriage) market.
The most astounding fact about this picture is that it comes from Harding University — a Churches of Christ-affiliated institution. It is hard to imagine — in the twenty-first century — grown women willingly submitting themselves to this kind of male-driven body control. Yet countless young women attend Evangelical colleges and universities that have rules which govern virtually every aspect of their lives. Such control would be impossible without women being indoctrinated as young children and teenagers by pastors, Sunday school teachers, youth leaders, and parents.
Just remember girls. Regardless of what you think, IT’S THE RULES.
Harding University Dress Code 2003-2004Uplift Camp Dress Code — Summer Youth Camp held (and sponsored) at Harding University (Note that the majority of the rules apply only to women.)
Youth ministers and sponsors are responsible for their group (adults included) complying with the dress code for Uplift. You should have a meeting with all participants and make sure they understand the dress code BEFORE they pack for Uplift. The dress code will be enforced. If you have students or adults who are out of dress code, we will come to you or a sponsor to address the issue. If there are offenses while at Uplift, it will be your responsibility to see that all in your group meet dress code. You may need to take your campers to Walmart, Goodwill, etc. to find suitable clothing.
All clothing must have sleeves (guys and girls). Sleeveless clothing is not allowed under any circumstances, even recreation time. This includes sundresses, tank tops, sleeveless blouses, athletic shirts, and cut-off T-shirts.
No visible midriffs. Clothing that exposes any part of the mid-section when standing, sitting or bending over is not allowed. All tops should be long enough to be tucked in.
Shorts must be fingertip length at least when standing straight, arms to the side. This is measured from the shortest part of the shorts. Nike-style running shorts are not allowed, even if they are long enough.
Skirts and dresses must come down to the top of the knee.
Skin-tight or otherwise revealing clothing is not allowed. Low-cut shirts, spandex, tight jeans, halter tops, etc. are not acceptable. Leggings do not count as pants. If your outfit is against dress code without leggings, it is against dress code with them.
Shocker!! Harding University has students who are gay. Students operate a site called HU Queer Press: The State of the Gay — “a self-published zine that aims to give voice to the experiences of gay and lesbian students at Harding.”
As I have shared before, Evangelical young men are taught that they are weak, pathetic creatures easily led astray by mere exposure to too much female flesh. A little cleavage or a tight blouse has led many an Evangelical man to the slaughter. Instead of being taught to own and control their sexuality, many Evangelical men whine, moan, and complain about women “tempting” them to sin. Well, the moaning part is them masturbating after seeing too much of Sister Sue. Let me give an example of this kind of thinking. A year ago, Homeschooler’s Anonymous published a 2006 letter written by two Patrick Henry College (PHC) male students to the female students of the college. For those not familiar with PHC, it is fundamentalist Christian college in Purcellville, VA. Michael Farris, of Home School Legal Defense Association fame, is the chancellor. According to Wikipedia, PHC has 320 students.
…We rejoice to say that the women at Patrick Henry are, overall, some of the most conscientiously-dressed ladies it has ever been our joy to meet. And we have seen a number of our sisters here grow in this area over the past few years. However, we must in honesty say that there are many who could do better. We do not believe that there is a general wicked desire to “cause a brother to stumble”—quite the contrary. You all show great love and care for us. But many Christian women, probably a large majority, simply do not understand the depth and extent of the foul perversity of the male mind. (If you’re a man and some part of this doesn’t apply to you personally, just assume we’re only talking about ourselves at that point.)
We have a duty as brothers in Christ to guard the purity and holiness of our sisters, which means restraining how bluntly we speak. On the other hand, part of that duty is to help you understand the problem. To avoid causing offense for our own sake, all the most explicit bits are taken directly from Scripture. Anyone who finds God’s authoritative written revelation inappropriate is advised to skip this section.
You’ve heard this before, but we’ll say it again: men are visually wired. A man notices a pretty female walking by. His eyes lock on, his brain clicks in (we mostly tend toward one-track minds). He is attracted to her. Attraction, when left undirected, leads naturally to desire.
If she’s his wife, all is well. In itself this visual attraction is a good thing. A man is supposed to look upon his wife and be drawn to her beauty. Please, please, ladies, don’t confuse the abuse of the thing with its good and proper and holy purpose in God’s plan. Husbands are not merely allowed but commanded to take pleasure and fulfillment in their wives’ physical beauty: “Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love” (Proverbs 5:18-19). This intoxication is a blessed fact and should be a cause for great rejoicing. As C. S. Lewis says in a very similar context, “God likes it. He made it.”
But there is a great deal of abuse. If the attractive female wandering by is not the man’s wife (and mathematically, the odds tend that way), then there’s a nifty Biblical phrase for desiring her: “lusting after her in your heart.” We’ll leave out the details; you don’t want to know. Suffice it to say that he wants to be intoxicated and filled with delight too. As Solomon says in that passage we declined to quote from earlier: “I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.” It’s all right for Solomon, he’s talking about his wife, but many of us are not married. Of course most men—here at least—are decent enough not to actually do anything much; but that’s beside the point. The man has spoken these words to himself. He has made the act of volition…
…We are not trying to blame you for our sin. Rather, as a warrior with many wounds, on behalf of ourselves and these our brothers, we are asking for allies. This is a cry for reinforcements, lest the battle go to the enemy. We are sorely pressed on every side. This is no exaggeration: we need all the help we can get. We don’t need to be struck down from behind by friendly fire.
Remember, Adam’s sin was Adam’s, but that doesn’t mean God held Eve guiltless in the affair.
Eve tempted her husband, and God cursed her for it.
If we give in to temptation, we are judged; but if you deliberately tempt us, you are judged, whether we give in or not—even whether we notice or not. The sin is not in successfully tempting a brother, but in trying to do so. The immodest swimsuit is still immodest and sinful even if there happen to be no guys on the beach that day—if you decided to wear it because you hoped there would be. Deliberately choosing the barely-too-tight top is still immodest and sinful, even if the RA catches you before you make it out the door…
…But let us also offer a warning. Although women almost never completely realize the extent to which (or the ways in which) they can affect men, most women are aware on some level that certain things attract men. And women like to feel attractive. This is natural; we have already said that you are created to be beautiful. But we have also said that the purpose of attraction is enjoyment.
Please be careful of this desire to attract. It is a good thing; but it is easy to misuse. Many females drive us to ask some pretty unpleasant questions.
If a woman does not want to be the subject of wicked imagining, why does she provide so much scope for the imagination? If she does not intend to be suggestive, why does she tantalize with hints, peeks, glimpses, suggestions?…
…Some articles of clothing are just irredeemably scandalous (in the Greek sense of “causing to stumble”), but many others may be immodest on one woman and perfectly modest on another, and not simply because of physical differences. (Just be careful of the “Well, it could be immodest, but I’m not wearing it like that” argument.) Any woman can be immodest “by accident,” but she is far less likely to do so if she has sisterly love in mind as a deliberate daily goal. “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” Modesty flows from a heart devoted to the service of God.
“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.” (I Timothy 2:9-10)…
You can read the entire letter here. These two men took over 4,000 words to tell the women of Patrick Henry College that they are making them lust. Lest you think that PHC women are running around half-naked, here’s the dress standard for women:
Women should not wear clothes that are too revealing, (e.g., spaghetti straps, halter tops, tube tops, see-through tops, or tops that reveal bare midriffs, that strap at only one shoulder, or that strap below the shoulder).
Shorts: Shorts should extend mid-thigh.
Skirts: Skirts and skirt slits should end no higher than 2 inches above the top of the knee when standing.
Under the Business Dress section for women, the Student Life Handbook states:
Shirt: blouses and nice tops are to be worn.
Skirts/Slacks: Women are to wear skirts, dresses, or slacks (dress slacks or Dockers style).
Shoes: Women are to wear dress shoes; sandals that would be considered professional business attire may also be worn. Tennis shoes and flip-flops are not allowed.
Appearance: Excessive or gaudy jewelry or make-up should be avoided.
These standards, when compared to those of other fundamentalist institutions, are quite liberal.
This letter reflects the common notion among Evangelicals that if a man lusts after a woman it is her fault. While the letter writers try to distance themselves from the suggestion that they are “blaming” PHC women for their lust, their argument loses its force when they demand that the women dress in ways that will not cause them to be tempted. Based on the Student Life standard for female dress, what could PHC women possibly be doing and wearing that would cause these poor, weak men to lust?
These men have likely been schooled in a Puritanical form of morality that requires women to be the moral gatekeepers. It is up to women to keep men from lusting after them. After all, men will be men and they can’t help themselves; it’s just how they are wired. Instead of embracing their sexuality and realizing that it is quite normal to be physically attracted to women and to admire their beauty, they are taught that such feelings and desires outside of marriage constitute sin (even though these very desires will likely draw them to the woman they will someday marry).
These men need to be taught to look but not touch and if they are being tempted to touch then it is their problem, not the woman’s. They need to grow up and take control of their sexuality and not blame others for their own perceived weakness. I say perceived weakness because I think this weakness is a manufactured one brought on by a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible and fundamentalist moral/social standards.
So what do you think, you slutty temptresses? Is it your fault these men are tempted to lust? Please share your thoughts in the comment section.
No doubt our Facebook pages can be a witnessing tool for the Gospel and with the advancement of modern technology and all the various social media venues, we don’t even have to leave the house to be a witness for the Lord. In fact, why else have a Facebook, but to tell of the Lord’s wondrous deeds and call others to turn from their sins and trust in the Savior, Jesus Christ. I’m sure there are many other reasons why we have Facebook pages but in the midst of it all, proclaiming the gospel should be the chief aim for any follower of Christ.
To show this more clearly, when you accept a friend on Facebook, typically the very first thing they do is view your pictures. In fact, sometimes that’s all they may do. They quickly skim through them to see how you look and what you’ve been up to for the past decade or two and then off they go, onto the next person’s page. It reminds me of the ol’ adage, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” This saying refers to the idea that a picture communicates something. Sometimes it communicates too much. So with that in mind, when was the last time you went through your Facebook pictures and asked yourself, “Is this modest?” or “What am I communicating to my ‘friends’?” and “Would I want my brothers and sisters in Christ looking at theses pictures?”
Ladies, this is especially for us. If you are a professing Christian and if you haven’t done this already, here’s something practical that you can do: Go through every picture on your Facebook (This may take time depending upon how many pictures you have, but it will be worth it since on Judgment Day you will give an account to the Lord for all of these things) and if you are dressed in an immodest manner, hit ‘Delete!’
If you need help with deciphering what is modest and what is immodest, ask a modest sister in your local church for help, or a godly older women who can give you wise counsel, or ask your husband (assuming that he has biblical standards for modesty). And if all else fails and you have no one else to go to, well then, there’s always me and I’ll be quick to toot my modesty horn.
For starters, here’s a few specific areas that might help you out, let’s begin with cleavage. Ladies, if you are showing cleavage, hit ‘Delete’ as fast as you can! I don’t care how “cute” you look or if someone else posts to pic of you or if it was way back in your BC (before Christ) days. This is not acceptable in any circumstances for a woman who professes to follow Christ. Simply delete the picture or ‘Un-tag’ yourself.
If you have photos of you or your friends in bikinis, hit ‘Delete’ as quickly as you can and don’t look back. Or if your mid (midriff) section is showing hit ‘Delete’ please. And short shorts are a no no, so you know what to do with that, ‘Delete, delete, delete’. And then check your heart and ask yourself, “What is it within me that desires to present myself in this manner?” and “What does this speak of the condition of my heart?”
“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel…” 1 Timothy 2.9a
Like the Pharisees of old, modern-day fundamentalists major on the minor. Cleavage is everywhere these days. Women have two breasts and the space between them is cleavage. Women have had cleavage for as long as I can remember. It is utterly amazing that anyone would give one moment of time to the issue of women showing their cleavage. Cleave away dear women, cleave away, I say!
Are Christian men so weak that any show of cleavage causes them to lust? Maybe I am too old, but when I see cleavage my first thought is “are the breasts real?” I am glad to be free from the Puritanical shackles of fundamentalist Christianity. As a man, I am grateful that I have the freedom to say “nice” in the presence of my wife and not get a lecture on “if your eye offends you pluck it out.” It is refreshing to hear my wife say “that’s a nice looking guy.” No fear of infidelity. No fear of moral compromise.
We are sexual beings. It is quite normal to “look” and even speak out loud what we are thinking as we look. It is the Christian who is abnormal, living under fear of judgment or disapproval if they dare embrace and express their sexuality. I know the morality police will tell me that I am a licentious, lascivious person who has been given over to the lusts of the flesh. According to them, I am a reprobate who is beyond the influence of God. (Romans 1)
There is a lot of sexual dysfunction in the Evangelical church. Blogs like the one mentioned above help reinforce this dysfunction by teaching women to treat their body in ways that diminish their sexuality or turn their sexuality into something to be ashamed of. Christian men are viewed as helpless and weak, turned into horn dogs by the slightest bit of cleavage or leg. Evangelical women are taught that it is their job to keep these poor, helpless men from lusting and falling into sin. Time to cover up, head to toe…wait a minute…isn’t there another place in the world where women are required to do the same?
World renowned Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) clothing designer Zsuzsanna Anderson has brought to market a new line of bathing suits that is sure to strike fear in the heart of bikini designers everywhere. As a lifelong observer of the female body, I predict that Anderson’s new line of bathing suits will result in 17th century women everywhere groveling before their husbands, begging them to buy them a 100% Lycra/Spandex King James Virgin bathing suit.
I know God-fearing culotte wearing Jesus loving women are peeing their white full-bodied underwear in anticipation of seeing what the King James Virgin bathing suit looks like, so without further snark I give you:
I know you want to own a King James Virgin bathing suit, so, before these $80 testaments to sexual repression and shame are sold out, go to Cute and Covered and buy yours today.
In 2016, Anderson plans to design and release what she is calling her greatest work yet, Faithful Word Chastity Belts. Embroidered with verses from the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, these belts are sure to keep frisky, sexually repressed unmarried Baptist men from impregnating you. Get one now because we know there was only one virgin birth.
Zsuzanna Anderson did not compensate me in any way for writing this glowing, heartfelt review of her latest designs. Personally, I can’t wait to buy Polly a King James Virgin bathing suit. I am sure she’ll be excited to own one.
Annie Peguero and her nineteen-month-old daughter attended church last Sunday at Summit Church in Springfield, Virginia. During the service, Peguero’s baby became hungry, so she breast-fed her. Little did she know that she was surrounded by horny, weak, pathetic men who can’t control their sexuality when ‘forced” to view a breastfeeding mom’s partially exposed breast.
KTLA meteorologist Liberté Chan was recently forced to cover up her “inappropriate” dress after news anchor Chris Burrous received emails complaining about it. At first, I thought, surely this is a news channel somewhere in the Bible Belt. Nope, Los Angeles, California.
