"Cult"ure of the IFB, bigotry, racism, and sexism...

I'll talk more about my abuse in another post, I have to take those posts with a bit of space between them, as it's difficult for me to write them. So this post is more about what the IFB church was like growing up, so that you can perhaps better understand the controlling, cult like tendencies of that church and how the church groomed me to be a perfect victim for abuse.

School started in the fall and I was in fifth grade. I had a few friends, of which, Julie, Holly, and Mary were the ones I hung out with the most. Julie lived on a dairy farm just down the road a bit from our school where I loved riding her pony and playing on her Atari (I wasn't allowed to have video games, they would rot my brain). Holly was a bit snobby and we were constantly butting heads but she threw great birthday parties so I didn't want to be left out of those (thanks to her slumber party I got to watch the Neverending Story and be puzzled by the ceiling mirror in her parent's bedroom above the waterbed). Mary was Pastor Fatty's youngest daughter whose house was the most posh of anyone's in the church outside of the Gibbs' (Yes, those Gibbs, of CLA fame, known to protect IFB abusers at all costs, though now DG III is representing the accuser, not the accused in the Doug Phillips case.) and she had an entire room devoted to her extensive collection of Barbies. Now when I say hung out I mean that quite literally as the monkey bars were my favourite piece of playground equipment and we all scrambled all over them every chance we got. 

I went to an A.C.E. school, which was what I had been in when we lived in Maine. My school had strict rules, a totally fundamental baptist curriculum, was KJV only, was run by men, and had a rigid dress code. Also, no minorities were enrolled in our school. Remember, this is the 1986-1987 school year, not 1950, and we didn't live that far from Cleveland so you can't tell me that there were NO African Americans that lived in the area. The ACE curriculum espoused segregation. There were comic strips in our curriculum that taught little lessons or verses at the bottom of certain chapters. In the comics, there was a white ACE school, an asian ACE school, and a black ACE school. They didn't mix. Apartheid was taught as a good thing, and beneficial to the people of South Africa. We didn't celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. day, we were taught that he was a communist, and was not a Christian and certainly not a Baptist since he was a liberal theologian, and that he caused rioting, violence, and assaults to happen wherever he went.

This year at my school they didn't have uniforms, they would implement them the following year. I had been used to being in a uniform in Maine, so being able to wear different clothes every day to school was a novelty.

 

That's me in the standard ACE polyester jumpsuit uniform.

The culture within the Independent Fundamental Baptist Church is often difficult for others outside to fully comprehend. Many IFB people who are still within the church will cry foul at what I am writing here, but I assert that the IFB as a whole is a cult. So from here on out I will refer to it as the IFB "cult"ure. 

The beauty of the IFB church is that they are independent, have no national governing body, they set their own rules and beliefs, don't believe that they are under civil authority, and they answer to only themselves. That's actually not so beautiful when you read it put that way. There are some state and regional IFB organizations, like the GARBC (general association of regular baptist churches) and the Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America (my church during my high school years was part of the latter). However, neither organization actually has any power over individual churches under their umbrella. They basically exist to have annual conferences for guest speakers to come and talk about current issues and how they think is the best way to pastor. Churches rarely get kicked out of these organizations and when they do, it's because the church became too liberal.

IFB churches are run by men, usually white men. The structure within the church goes like this:

1. Pastor
2. Deacons
3. Sunday School Teachers/Teachers in IFB schools
4. Ushers
5. Adult Members
6. Children

Now number three and four are not officially recognized as part of the hierarchy, and "officially" the Pastor and Deacons are not supposed to be any higher than the members, but make no mistake, that's how it works. Pastors are the "Lord's anointed", the "shepherd" and we were the flock.

I can't begin to tell you how many times I was told that we couldn't talk badly about the "Lord's anointed" or speak harm against him or try to remove him. Pastors were gods. They could be kind and devout though legalistic, as my first Pastor in Maine was, or they could be lispy tyrants, as my Pastor in Ohio was, or they could be deceptive power houses who protected abusers like my Pastor in Pennsylvania. In the IFB, all born again Christians are supposed to be shared priesthood holders within the church, and all matters of importance are to be brought before the church and put to a vote. We used to vote on some pretty stupid stuff, like skirt lengths and carpet colours. Sometimes it was an important vote, like a new deacon (which was a popularity contest, let's not kid ourselves), or a new Pastor (which we were supposed to spend a lot of time in fervent prayer about so God could show us if He had sent us, "the one", it was always disappointing when God sent us an asshole or pervert. Oh God, what a sense of humor you have!).

Music was old fashioned hymns. No drums. No electric guitars or electric anything. Soundtracks for special music had to be pre approved by the music minister and only musical tracks by approved baptist institutions made the cut (Hyles Anderson College, Word of Life, Moody, Bob Jones University, Pensacola, those were approved). No contemporary christian Music ( I once was called into my youth pastor's office over a Michael W. Smith tape of mine that my friend had stolen from me and I was preached at for about an hour about the evils of CCM.). Rock and Roll was forbidden, country music was vacant of morals and not be listened to. Backward masking was a very popular tool used in chapel services to scare us into thinking rock musicians wanted us to worship Satan and kill babies. That backward masking thing fell out of popularity in the IFB as it rose in popularity within the assemblies of God churches. If the AoG liked it, then we had to separate from that trend, because Pentecostals were likely going to hell and we were holier then they were.

Attire was proper, modest, neat, and dated. No pants for women, no shorts, no tops where your collarbone would show, skirts that were knee length or greater, no slits in skirts that went above the knee, no midriffs, nothing form fitting, no tight or fitted sweaters, no bare shoulders. Jean skirts and culottes were almost a uniform of the IFB woman. I like to call culottes the Baptist burka. I did own a couple pairs of pants as a small child, but they were only to be worn at home, when it was cold. I was not allowed to wear them in public. Girls needed to have feminine hairstyles, longer was holier. Short was unnatural unless you were over thirty and had a perm. Our dress was supposed to protect us from men and boys lusts. If they lusted after us, it was our fault.

These culottes would not have been approved, they are above the knee, also the cowboy boots wouldn't have been acceptable, those are men's shoes.

Boys had short haircuts, hair not touching the ears, no facial hair or very tightly groomed facial hair on men. Suits on Sundays, khaki's on Wednesday nights, polo shirts or button down shirts, dress shoes, sneakers with jeans only if you were working on a project at the church or at a job that required it. No t-shirts with writing or graphics on them again, unless you were working or if the graphic T said something about Jesus. But in church, dress attire only.

Homosexuals weren't talked about in the church in my formative years. Or if they were, I was too young and probably in children's church. The first time I remember anything being mentioned about homosexuality was when we were living in Maine and I read a chick tract about the dangers of homosexuality.

This tract would haunt me in later years. When we moved to Ohio, and I met my first gay man, I remembered this tract. I loved him. Not romantic love, just that I loved him as a person. He was a bit arrogant, but I honestly think that arrogance was his way of putting distance between himself and the IFB. He wasn't arrogant so much as he was hurt. He was one of Doc's sons.

Men were the Pastors, the Deacons, and the teachers, women could be Sunday school teachers for other women and girls, or play the piano/organ. Women could hold no other positions within the church. Women were supposed to ask their husbands any questions that they had about the sermon and be silent in the church. Men were the head of the household, women were submissive to their husband's God-given authority.

As children, we memorized scripture weekly. Bible verses for Sunday school, then for school entire chapters, more verses in AWANA on Wednesday. We went to church Sunday morning, Sunday night, were at our christian school Monday through Friday, and had prayer meeting/AWANA on Wednesdays. Soul winning was Thursday nights and some Saturday mornings. (I didn't do a lot of soul winning, thankfully.) Our entire life and identity was wrapped up in the IFB way of life.

As children, the positive thing was that we were seen as blessings. The negative thing is that we were seen as arrows in the hand of God and our earthly father for God's army. Spiritual warfare was seen as a very palpable thing and hearing about demons and Satan and how evil the world was really wears on you as a child and scares you. You are taught that someday you will have to engage in spiritual warfare and you have to be willing to die for your faith.

As children, we were spanked, and often we were physically abused. I was not spanked in an abusive manner. My father never struck me in anger and he very rarely raised his voice. I was spanked though, and I can see how even that could contribute more to the feelings that I had that my body was not my own to control. My father didn't mean to convey that to me of course. It was widely taught that spankings could be carried out until bruises formed and that if you didn't spank you were disobeying the Bible and God's law. I think that most IFB churches have changed this teaching in recent years, though I could be wrong.

For girls purity was the ideal. No sex until marriage and if you had dared to have sex you could face church discipline and expulsion from the church. Boys often didn't face the same consequences, though sometimes they did. Girls who had sex outside of marriage were promiscuous. Boys who had sex outside of marriage had fallen. Neither one a great descriptor, but it's easier to stand up then to erase promiscuity.

Guest preachers that I heard during my lifetime: Bob Jones II, Bob Jones III, Jack Hyles, Bill Gothard, David Gibbs Jr., and many others of the same cloth. I remember our Pastor in Maine getting up and telling us about Lester Rolloff dying in a plane crash when I was around six or seven. You'd have thought the president had been assassinated.

Sometimes we'd have families or staff members who would leave under somewhat suspect or abrupt circumstances. We were not allowed to ask questions about why they had left. To do so was to gossip, though gossip was pretty rampant in the IFB church. The Pastor might get up and address that such and such a person or family had moved but that was about it. He might offer up some explanation, but usually we knew that that family had been questioning the "lord's anointed" inappropriately, stirring up strife, had become liberal, or had done something "immoral". There were times when people were thrown out of the church, but I discussed that in my last post so I won't repeat that here.

We didn't associate much with the outside world and we didn't associate with churches outside of our denomination. Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, and eventually Jerry Falwell were all seen as too liberal. Oral Roberts was surely going to hell and leading others there in droves. Billy Graham was the anti-christ, or was training the anti-christ, or something along those lines, he was bad, that's all I knew. Jerry Falwell became too liberal because he allowed CCM music at Liberty and other translations of the Bible. Pat Robertson was a nutter (the IFB didn't get EVERYTHING wrong after all) because he believed in spiritual gifts still being real.

That was my "cult"ure. It took me many, many years to completely leave it behind. For those who don't think the IFB is a cult, please look at this list and if you are in a cult, leave it behind: http://www.esama.ca/warning-signs-that-you-are-in-a-cult

If you suspect the group you are in is harmful, but are not sure, ask yourself these questions:

• do they claim to have a special corner on the truth, something no other groups has?
• are you told to not question what is being taught, as the leadership are godly, honest, have divine authority and you must trust them?
• are you discouraged from asking questions as to why members have left, and expected to accept the reasons the group leadership gives you?
• do they put down other churches, groups, etc, while pointing out their faults and errors to build themselves up? do they use peoples faults and sins as examples of what to do and what not to do?
• are you made to feel your failures, as though your performance is not up to par to their righteous standards?
• do they recommend for you to be around their people, expecting you to attend all group activities? if you do not, are you are questioned about your spirituality or dedication?
• do they stop you from reading anything negative about themselves?
• do they call those who fall away enemies, dogs, or cancer, even using examples from the Bible or other such materials?
• do they place and emphasis on evil and the devil, declaring that the world outside is a threat to the group?
• do they defend themselves in every area?
• do they give importance to a spiritual goal, such as enlightenment, godliness, salvation, that has no real tangible way of being measured?
• do they operate in humility, or seem arrogant, and make demands on you to obey, using such statements such as “real believers obey without question or if you really were a devoted follower you would do such and such"?

Let's get technical...

I have a new book on my list to buy and read from Hayley Dimarco, called Technical Virgin, How far is too far? Not because I expect to like the book or even agree with most of it, but because of a recent broadcast that featured the author on Family Life Today. a-new-standard-or-an-old-sin And now, like a person who sees a train barreling down the tracks at a stuck vehicle, I must read it. 

I listen to Family Life today fairly regularly. On the whole, I enjoy their broadcasts. Although there are things that are sometimes said that make me cringe inwardly and trigger my inner fundy, I tend to enjoy their programs when they are talking about blending step families, strengthening your marriage, dealing with different phases of parenting, etc. Whenever I'm out for homevisits to Amish country in particular I listen to the program because it's a lot of driving around and I like the distraction.

However, this broadcast was a doozy. A misinformative, toddler shaming (why is that a thing?!), rape culture promoting mess of a broadcast. 

So firstly, let's examine the presenter Hayley DiMarco, from her website, hungryplanet.net 

Hayley DiMarco  is the best-selling author of more than thirty books, including Dateable, Marriable, Mean Girls, Sexy Girls, God Girl and The Woman of Mystery. She spent the early part of her career working for a little shoe company called Nike in Portland, Oregon and Thomas Nelson Publishers in Nashville, Tennessee.

In 2002 Hayley left Nelson and founded Hungry Planet, a company intensely focused on feeding the world’s appetite for truth by producing books and new media, taking on issues of faith and life with a distinctly modern voice.  Shortly after founding Hungry Planet, Hayley successfully completed a nationwide executive search for someone to run the company so she could focus on writing. She describes her husband, Michael, as her most successful business acquisition!

Hayley has been a featured guest speaker for such large events as Women of Faith, Precept National Women’s Convention, and MOPS Intl. Leadership Convention among others. She has also consulted on the creation and enhancement of some of the largest stadium events tuned to teens and young women in North America.

Does it bother anyone else that she describes her husband as a business acquisition? 

In the broadcast, Hayley reveals that she has one daughter who is eleven months old. And yet, we are to take her as some sort of expert in parenting teens and sexuality of teens. I don't see in her description on her website any sort of background in childhood behaviour or teaching or....or anything really other than working for nike, working for a publishing company, and being an author.The only expertise that she has is the fact that she is a woman. I'm not dismissive of this fact, just that it is her only qualification. But perhaps her husband is an expert in the field? Maybe he is a pediatrician? A pschologist? Social worker? Youth Minister? Teacher? Sadly, but not surprisingly, no. 

Michael's background includes a degree in mass communication, hosting talk radio, coaching volleyball at the university level, working in digital publishing at the largest Bible software company in the world, and stints as a marketing and creative strategist for international organizations and ministries.  He is general manager of Hungry Planet, a publishing company founded by his wife, Hayley, that works with fresh authors who want to reach an increasingly postmodern culture with premodern truth.

Hayley and Michael are married, and live with their daughter, Addison, on the shores of Old Hickory Lake just outside of Nashville, Tennessee.

So we have two non experts, with no life experience raising teens, telling us how to approach teen sexuality. That sounds...great?

I knew I was in for a doozy of misinformation when the broadcast opened up with this quote from the show: 

Bob: For years, teenagers, who have a boyfriend or a girlfriend, have been asking the 

question: “So how far can I go? What does the Bible say about how far I can go?” 

Hayley DiMarco says that's really the wrong question. What they need to be asking is, 

“What is a virgin?” 

Hayley: I don't like to draw lines. A lot of kids just want to know: "Draw the line for me. 

Just tell me, ‘Here it is’." The trouble with drawing a line is that they tend to fall over it 

very easily because they didn't decide, in their heads, "This is how far I'm going to go," 

or, "This is what constitutes virginity." 

But I think that a virgin is someone that doesn't allow her body to become sexual 

temptation or to become an object of lust to her boyfriend. 

Somebody needs to tell Mrs. Dimarco what a virgin is. The dictionary is pretty clear. A virgin is someone who has not engaged in sexual intercourse. That's it. We don't need to redefine it and and we certainly don't need to heap shame upon girls whose boyfriends might find them sexually attractive. Also, Mrs. Dimarco, children need definitive boundaries and lines. And they definitely need honest answers, not your made up definition of what you "think" something is. 

So, I sit back, sip on my coke and continue to drive on, waiting to hear what other pearls of information this young, inexperienced mother has to give to me. 

Hayley: ...There was recently a study done by Yale and Columbia 

Universities that stated that girls that sign up to these pledges you're talking about—

abstinence pledges—agree to stay pure until they're married are contracting STDs at 

the same rate as girls that haven't signed the pledge. So, there's something wrong. 

I agree with True Love Waits and all those pledges—I think they're fantastic—but we're 

missing—somewhere along the line, whoever is communicating it to the girls is missing 

the mark of what, as you say, innocence really is. 

I agree, there is something wrong, and that something wrong is that parents aren't talking frankly to their children about sex and STI's. It's an all or nothing policy that is damaging a whole generation of young men and women. At least she at least acknowledges that studies are showing that abstinence pledges aren't working the way parents are wanting them to.

Hayley: A technical virgin would be somebody who believes that anything, short of 

intercourse, does not count against her virginity. She thinks if she does any kind of 

fooling around—oral sex is a very big issue—a very big, big, big problem—even in the 

Christian church. I know that word is not even popular. It's hard to say in a lot of media 

outlets, but it has to be said because parents don't understand that it's happening to 

their kids. It's happening in 8th

 grade. It's happening in high school, and it's happening 

because we're afraid to say the word. We're afraid to talk about it. So, our girls are just 

assuming that what the world says—"Yes, that's like a hug. It's no different. It's not 

intimate. No problem. Don't worry about it,"—they're buying that line. 

Here's an idea, don't be afraid to say the words, Oral Sex. There, I said it. Oral sex. Oral sex. Oral sex, oral sex, oral sex. Parents, say the words, give the information. Oral sex, it's not like a hug, it's better than a hug, and it's a bigger commitment than a hug, and you can get STI's from oral sex. There ya go, easy.

Hayley: Yes, pediatricians are being warned—that if they have girls coming in that are 

showing signs of being sexually-active or being intimate with their boyfriends—that they 

should be sent to counseling for depression. Sexual activity—and even just—they say 

even relationships, when they're young girls—leads to depression. 

Yes, she said that. She lied. There is no such warning that I could find on the american academy of pediatrics website. I have never head anyone say that their daughter was sent to a counselor for depression just because they had become sexually active. What is common is for a pediatrician to counsel the sexually active teen on birth control options and STI's. That's it. The only thing I could find that she might be referring to with her assertion that sexual activity leads to depression is this: link-between-sexual-promiscuity-and-depression-in-teens Notice it is sexual promiscuity, multiple casual sex partners, not simply being sexually active. The lowest rates of depression are found in abstinent teens, that is true and why abstinence in teens is the gold standard used. However as those of us who have been in relationships can attest, if you break up with or have difficulties in your current romantic relationship, you may go through short periods of depression. That's not abnormal, it's normal. Its also part of growing up. Also, notice how she only mentions that if it is girls coming in, they need counseling. There is no mention of boys needing counselling. Again, a prime example of girls being at fault or damaged by simply having sex.

So now, on to "prosti-tots". No, I didn't make that up. Here she is talking about how important it is to talk to your kids about sex, which I agree, it is important.

Hayley: But, Dennis, the important thing is it's more than just "the talk." I think it has to 

start as soon as they're old enough to understand that their body is different—even that 

it's separate from the mom—you know, that when they're starting to pick out their own 

styles and their own fashions. If we don't start to talk about what little girls' bodies do—

you see a lot of little girls that—well, what we call them is "prosti-tots." They're dressing 

them very sexually because: “Well, they're little girls. They can wear little miniskirts and 

little tank tops.” That is just starting the conversation, silently—that this is okay and that 

you can use your sexuality to attract people. 

Oh those little tramps, those little prosti-tots, using their sexuality to attract people.

Oh, so sexy? At least the little tramp in the top has a sweater on to hide those sinful, lust inspiring shoulders, but my eyes! Agog are my eyes are at her knees! No, no knees on a little girl! She is using her sexuality to attract me, sinful child! Look at what they are using their bodies to do!

Obviously, I am joking. No sane person looks at a toddler in any state of dress and thinks about them sexually. This overt blaming of women, from toddler years and beyond, for anyone having sexual thoughts about them, is pervasive within the church and needs to stop. If you look at any toddler wearing a short skirt or tank top and think that they are sinful or trying to sexually attract you, you need to seriously examine your own heart and mind. Now just scroll back up and enjoy how absolutely adorable, gorgeous, and innocent those little darlings are!

However, it's ok for the author to violate her own sense of modesty for the sake of selling a book! Oh yay, I love loopholes like that! What's good for you doesn't apply to me!

Bob: Okay, I have to stop you right here because I'm looking at the cover of Technical 

Virgin. 

Hayley: Yes.   

Bob: This is somewhat provocative right here; right? 

Hayley: Well, one might say—that one and Sexy Girls as well. 

Dennis: No, no, no, no: “one might say”—one would say. [Laughter] I mean, it's the way 

they dress today. 

Hayley: It is the way they dress today. That's the reason all the covers that you'll see 

coming out of Hungry Planet are designed so that the girl—that's dressing like that—will 

pick it up and say, "Oh, that's a cute top." 

Bob: You're being intentionally provocative with this. 

Hayley: That's exactly right. I want them to read these books. There are a lot of books 

out there on immodesty and sexual purity—that are being bought by parents with good 

intentions—they bring them home / they give them to their kids. I talk to those kids—

those books are under their bed. They're not being opened because they look like 

parental propaganda. 

Our books don't look like parental propaganda. They look like something they might, 

you know, see at one of the stores where they shop. We want to make sure that we 

connect with the teenagers so they'll read it because, if they don't read it, they're not 

going to get the message.

Alright, so their books don't "look like parental propaganda". And yet, they are. So, again it's ok to be dishonest? I must also be missing something because I don't see the provocativeness in this cover.I suppose it's the inch of abdomen that is showing? So I looked up Sexy Girls, the other book she wrote and references.

This one is more provocative because there is more flesh showing, but hey, that's ok because Mrs. DiMarco needs to sell her book and tell you what a tramp the girl on the cover is!

The conversation goes on, with the quote from the beginning about what her definition of virginity is. Then, it takes this turn...

Hayley: I want them to understand God's Word, when it comes to sexuality and sin. 

Jesus tells us that if a man even thinks about a woman lustfully, he's already committed 

adultery with her. Okay, so what responsibility does the girl have in that problem—in 

that temptation?  

I think that—when you have a boyfriend and you are fooling around with him—if you're 

doing something that's causing him to think about sex—which, keep in mind, that boys 

think differently—and this is what I'd want her to know. This is, obviously, still, a very 

long conversation—that she has to understand that guys think differently and they're 

very sexual beings.  

Bob: Yes.  

Hayley: So their minds—even if they see skin—their minds can immediately go to 

sex—but if you're fooling around with them, that is preparation for sexuality—which 

means that he, in his mind, could be, potentially, having sex. I would want her to back it 

up and really realize that it starts in your mind. 

Here's the scriptures that she is referencing: Matthew 5:27-30 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. Notice this, there is no blame put on the woman for the man's thoughts in this passage. Also, it says adultery, which is to tell us that this man is looking at someone's wife and lusting after her. We can presume that the woman in this fictitious scenario is married because of that word alone. And, if the man has these thoughts, he is to make changes (extreme changes granted, and please don't go gouging your eyes out fellas) to keep himself from sinning. See, he has to make the changes, not the woman.

The other difficulty I have with the above conversation is the presumption that if boys see skin, their minds immediately go to sex. That's just not true either and is highly insulting to boys and men. Yes, men are wired differently and they are very visual creatures, but that does not mean that the instant that they see skin they are thinking of sex. The other thing that she says is that in his mind he is potentially having sex with the girl if they are fooling around. That could be, or it could not be. No matter if it is or isn't true, he isn't actually having sex with her and the girl is not responsible for his thought life, that's on him.

Next topic, Danger signs!

Hayley: ...But almost every day, when I get dressed, I say: "Okay, can you see anything? Is there 

anything that is a danger sign?"  

You know, just a little example—when your top is a little bit low—where you can't see 

any cleavage but, when you bend over, you can see something—I discovered 

something that's fantastic—toupee tape.  

Bob: Oh, really?  

Hayley: Yes, you just stick it on the back of your t-shirt or your tank top—stick it to 

yourself—then, when you bend over—nothing.  

Bob: Now, you know, some people will hear that; and they'll go, "Okay, you're just 

psycho on this deal"; right?  

Hayley: They might do that; but, Michael, you might—all of you can probably speak to 

what a stolen glance can do to a man.  

Bob: That's the point. I don't think you're psycho. I wish more people would get psycho; 

you know? [Laughter] 

Lovely, Bob wants us ladies to be more "psycho" to prevent him and other men from having "stolen glances". If she wants to go to such lengths to protect the rest of us from the danger that is her cleavage more power to her, however, I find it incredibly sad that she takes on the sole responsibility for how men perceive her. 

Hayley: Right, yes. Well, you know, we have a tendency to be very self-absorbed: 

"Well, I want to wear this. This is cool," or I mean, you know, “…not so hot. I'm 

comfortable.” We spend so much time thinking about ourselves—we think, "Well, men 

should just be able to control themselves. That is ungodly.” 

We are not called to just be self-focused, but to care more about the sin that we could 

be imposing upon our brothers. God’s Word says everything is permissible, but not 

everything is beneficial. 

Bob: Right.

Hayley: If what you’re doing is not benefiting others, then you might even be able to 

take the leap and say it’s sinful.

No, I am not able to make that leap. That isn't Biblical and it's more than a little bit ridiculous. What I do agree with is that, on the whole, we should not be so self absorbed. In fact, don't be so self absorbed that you believe that your body holds this amount of power over another human being. That's rank with pride.

Hayley:...the trouble is—every guy—cute and gross, from 13 to 80—is looking at you and

having fantasies, potentially, about you. Your grandfather and all his friends might be 

just checking out your chest—it's not just the young guy. When you start to think about 

all those "Ooooh" moments, it really helps you understand, "Oh, I don't want anybody 

thinking about that."

So here we are again, blaming the girl's way of dressing as making her a sexual target and painting all men as potential perverts. This is a part of rape culture that is so pervasive in the church. Every guy is painted as an oogling perv. Every guy, even your grandfather and all of his friends are potentially checking out your chest. But it's all the girl's responsibility, she has to dress more modestly. How does she come to this conclusion? A bit earlier she made mention of when she was first a young, on fire for God Christian, and another younger woman came up to her and showed her Ephesians 5:3 "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality..." and helped her to dress more appropriately so that she would not be a temptation for others. I can't tell you how sad that makes me that another woman heaped shame upon her, making her think that how she dressed would show a hint of sexual immorality. 

We need to change this way of thinking, we have to speak out on this, and tell our girls that they are not responsible for how men think. Men are responsible for how they think. Teach your sons to respect women, to not see them as sexual objects, regardless of how they dress or don't dress. A girl's worth is in her heart, in how she treats her fellow man (and woman), not in whether or not she bares some cleavage or shows her legs above her knees. 

It's ok to acknowledge that straight boys are visual and appreciate a woman's beauty, curves, and the female form and not make it out to be a sinful thing. It can be ok to acknowledge that girls have curves, beauty, and that they will be sexually attractive to others without being afraid of that. These are the things that we should be teaching our children, ideas that are empowering for both genders. Stop the shame, stop the blame.