To be Continued?

There's been a lot going on in my life lately. Working through my final semester of college, becoming betrothed and beginning wedding plans... I know I've been spotty with updates in the past, so it's only fair to warn that it could be several months before I get back into serious work on this blog.

In the mean time, for those few of you that actually follow this blog, I've set up with FeedBlitz to send emails whenever I update. This means you don't have to keep checking back here, but just wait for an email to tell you I'm back at work. (No spam, I promise) You can subscribe just to your right.

It Does Not Take Much

Update: renamed entry

This is old news by now in the blogosphere, but no amount of procrastination can justify neglecting it entirely. And since I can't sleep tonight, this seems as good a time as any.

There was a big stink made over a photo of some bloggers who got to have lunch with former president Clinton. One of the women became the target of a lot of crude comments for wearing a shirt that fit more, *ahem* snuggly than the other ladies.

I'll throw my two cents in and say that there was room for a lot more maturity in the way people responded to her outfit. That side of it has been blogged to death already.

Since I'm probably going to get some actual outside attention for this post, I should point out that Jessica is not a part of my target audience; I've got no place to criticize her personally. (And even I have to say that I've seen a whole lot worse, even if it is beyond the standard I'm promoting.)

That said, it's worth noting just how quickly the innuendo started to fly. Her outfit was seen as sexy. Bloggers and commenters alike associated being sexy with sex. The fact that Clinton was there only magnified the effect.

I can't help but hear some of the comments in her defense as, "how dare you associate that poor innocent woman's sexy outfit with sex!" It just strikes me as silly.

How does it strike the rest of you?

Truely Modest Swimwear

Not long ago, I caught some blogger making fun of a new style of womens' swimwear. (Lucky for him/her, I lost track of their blog)

This blogger had a hard time accepting that such a radically different design could be modest when it would draw so much attention. This blogger also missed the point.

Modesty is not simply trying to avoid attention. Modesty is about avoiding inappropriate attention. Or to put it bluntly, it's about avoiding sexual attention.

I learned something about myself when I checked out the designs. As they came up on the screen, I could feel my eyes heave a huge sigh of relief. Without even realizing it, I've trained myself to visually tense up and keep my eyes on high alert when I know I'm going to see womens' swimwear.

With these designs, I felt for the first time that it was safe to let my guard down around clothing of this type.

Keep that in mind when you check out the designs at WholesomeWear.com

UPDATE: I found it.

Situational Ethics

[UPDATED 9/16/2006]

It took me a couple weeks, but I've finally got my finger on what was bothering me about that Focus on the Family broadcast I'd mentioned some posts back.  The answer came to me this morning from the prof. who teaches my portfolio/career development class and happens to share my Christian world view.  (He was careful not to preach, if that's got anyone worried)

Ethics in the workplace was part of today's discussion (I may have to be long winded to get there, but there is a connection.).  We looked at a case study where someone was asked to pass the blame from the dealership's mechanic who botched the repair job to the manufacturer.  Now the point was made that the great big manufacturer could absorb the cost of the repair much more easily than the not-as-big dealership.

Mr. M paraphrased the idea as, "no, it's not your problem, but you can handle the pain better than we can."

Situational Ethics as defined by Google:

Definitions of Situational ethics on the Web:
* Situational ethics refers to a particular view of ethics, in which absolute standards are considered less important than the requirements of a particular situation. The standards used may, therefore, vary from one situation to another, and may even contradict one another. This view of ethics is similar to moral relativism, and is contradictory to moral universalism, and moral absolutism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics

So what does that have to do with Dana Gresh of PureFreedom.org and her comments on the radio?

First I want to say that I really appreciate what she's doing and the standard she's promoting. I don't mean to discredit her or her ministry at all. In fact, she's not the one that I'm going to be really critical of today (though she's not off the hook completely).

I especially liked that she had suggestions for making the difficult task of shopping for modest clothing more fun. (I have seen the selection, and I know it can't be easy.) The Truth or Bare checklist is lighthearted, but does a good job of covering everything to be considered (pun intended).

What got to me was the workarounds. How a girl/woman can adapt or modify an outfit that she's simply "fallen in love with" to bring it up to code. I realize that it can be difficult to part with something that's been in your closet forever, but she was talking about something you've just discovered at the mall.

As a sidenote, not all of the workarounds are that effective. When you reach for the top shelf or bend over and your shirt rides up, you've got our attention before we have time to realize that there's another layer.

Initially, my mind had reflexively pulled up an incomplete reference to the importance of guarding our hearts. How we need to be on guard and watching for what may or may not be good for us (or people around us) and not letting ourselves get too attached before we've determined that. This should include every part of life, shouldn't it? Including shopping.

Being a guy, I'm sure the pain of letting go of a cute outfit is rather different for you ladies than it is for me. I've heard a lot about this pain and how agonizing it can be. Now that I find myself bold enough to talk about the pain a guy feels when he catches himself glancing down the shirt of a friend or paying too much attention to a sister in Christ bend over. For a guy trying not to look, it's agonizing when these tidbits of Beauty present themselves, whether he gives in or not.

For those of you who complain about not wanting to part with some cute thing you just met at the mall, I want you to ask yourselves if your pain is really so much greater than mine.

UPDATE:

Just to be clear, I'm not comparing your pain of parting with cute outfits with my pain of parting with cute outfits. I'm comparing this pain of yours with the male pain of trying not to lust at these cute oufits.

And because it's not something we can directly compare, it would be wrong for either gender to presume it's own pain to be greater. To take the easy way out and let someone deal with it (however easily the other person could) is not a Christ-like attitude.

Situational ethics is about claiming imunity because a person thinks that his/her situation justifies giving in.

This is why I can't just demand that all women in the Church dress by my standard. This also is why you ladies can't just demand that us guys get over it and let you dress however you want.

powered by performancing firefox

Change of Address

It's official; I've got a new name. Since I'm writing from the perspective of a man who's chosen to stop looking/staring/lusting at women, yet still can't help noticing because of the male programing God gave me; I thought Unblind Eye would be a fitting title.

More importantly, there's going to be a change of address. The new domain [www.unblindeye.com] is active and pointing to this very blog. The old address will still work for a while so that everyone has time to see what's about to happen. Or maybe I'll just leave this here and start posting with another blog system I'd have more control over, and redirect the domain there. (I'm open to suggestion)

We. Are. Different.

I may be going slightly off topic by linking this, but not entirely.

FotF on Purity and Modesty

I was going to respond to today's Focus on the Family broadcast, but decided to let them finish the series first. Alright, it's partly because the day got away from me and partly because my response was getting kinda long. I'd really encourage you to check it out. At least today's broadcast, if not all 3 in the series. (Aren't podcasting and streaming audio great?)

Thank you to those of you that responded to my last post. I might as well admit, sometimes I still get caught up in wondering what a woman is going to think of me if I point out where I see more beauty than the average guy (including myself) ought to be trusted with. (I hope) I've gotten better, but I don't always remember that the lady in question can easily end up questioning herself. I don't think it was until I started reading Captivating this summer that I really caught on to how important a woman's personal body image is to her. (For Men Only touched on it also.)

In other news, I was given the opportunity to have the Beauty is Power post from a few weeks back published in the school paper. The audience isn't exactly the same, so I had to do some editing. It's not terribly different, but I may post article here once the paper is out.

And as long as there's no real focus to this post anymore, I guess now's as good a time as any to mention that I'm considering yet another name change for this blog. 'God Made Women Beautiful' is sorta descriptive, but really only covers part of the issue. It doesn't exactly roll off the tong either. I've got something in mind, but am a little paranoid about mentioning it before I buy the domain. (though, I'm open to suggestion too.)

How Would You Rather Hear it?

Tell me ladies; if you inadvertently dressed yourself in a way that one/some/all of your guy friends found distracting, how would you want him to bring it to your attention *Just to be clear, I'm only talking about between trusted friends. The topic is hot enough without having to hear it from a stranger? I'm sure most of you would be embarrassed if we made a scene. Would it make you too uncomfortable to have him look you in the eye and tell you that he is working to keep his eyes from going elsewhere as he's talking to you? (I'm not real comfortable with that myself) Or would it be worse to know that he let it pass without saying anything?

I've been told that the ideal would be to pass the message through an older woman in the church. Is that important enough that you'd rather wait? Or would involving a middle-(wo)man make it worse? A discrete email, perhaps?

Can you help us out?

"New" Porn

The guys at xxxChurch.com are my my heroes.

What is the new porn? From the Victoria Secrets mall windows to overly sexual driven ads on Myspace. The new porn targets the temptation of the imagination. Just enough skin, Just enough seduction to get lost in the lust of imagination. The new porn isn't the latest hard core illegal download, or in the magazines behind the counter. The new porn is sitting on your coffee table and on your teenagers favorites on the computer. The new porn is myspace, Bud ads, Maxim magazine, pick any MTV show or new music video. The new porn has made it's way into mainstream America simply by not being the old porn.

~X3 Blog

When I get around to catogorizing my posts, this is going under People-Who-Said-it-Better-than-I-Could.

Beauty is Power

I've grown up in a world where men who are caught looking at a woman's [name any popular female feature] was called a pig and potentially slapped. Men of the church have the added pressure of being accused of lust if it be any woman other than his wife (which is good pressure), but sometimes even then (which is not so good).

This pressure has always been there. We are surrounded by beauty and told not to look, or at least don't get caught, or I guess you can look - but don't touch, well, not too much touching... The pressure isn't quite what it used to be, is it?

So what's a man to do? Either repress the urge to look, or peek on the sly and repress the desire to pursue, or just stare openly and accept the title of pervert (among other consequences). Either our reputation takes a hit, or we deny our natural desires [and i'd wager that the male desire for respect dives most of us to hide it.]

Meanwhile, skirts get shorter, necklines and waistlines plummet; and we wonder why so many of our men have become so repressed that they need medication to act on natural bedroom desires.

But how?

Living in college dorms, you're bound to see bits and pieces of movies or tv shows you normaly wouldn't, otherwise. I saw a piece of one of the Highlander movies while poping into another room for a reason I've now forgotten.

The lead guy and his female companion are back in their ... appartment? (I only saw about 5 minutes, so I'm fuzzy on the details.) The two of them are talking about something or other that happened earlier, when she gets a romantic look in her eye. He was either unaware, or still focused on whatever they'd been talking about so that he doesn't notice right away.

She gives a couple tugs at her relativly modest shirt and bares her shoulders; she now has his undevided attention. (.. as well as us male viewers) They start kissing and the scene cuts to the two of them in bed, basking in the afterglow.

After a cold shower, I realized that it was a perfect example of just how powerfully captivating a woman's body/beauty is (as per God's design). I'm sure it's anti-romantic dissect the way she got his attention, but I'm too much a nerd to let that stop me.

I see two parts to it: she showed that she was willing to share her beauty/body and had an inviting look in her eyes. I'm sure it sounds like I just repeated myself to some of you, but stick with me. Those are two very different things.

When she exposed her shoulders, she unveiled a small portion of her physical beauty. Whether her intention was sex or not, that Beauty was out for all to see and would not go unnoticed. But without her invitation, any action on his part would likely be taken as offensive .

Without the second element of her silent, but clear, invitation, he would have no clue if his advances would be welcome. To be nice and avoid offending her space and/or body, he's got to keep it to himself. (Remember that pressure I mentioned earlier? I know most of the guys out there do.)

As I'm writing, I was distracted in Proverbs for a while and stumbled across (more likely, was led to) this same principle. Solomon (smartest guy ever) writing to his son about how to avoid being swayed by the "Immoral Woman."

Proverbs 6:

24 to keep you from an evil woman and from the smooth talk of a loose woman. 25 Do not desire her beauty in your heart. Do not let her catch you with her eyes. ('GodsWord')

(24-25ish) Don't lustfully fantasize on her beauty; nor be taken in by her bedroom eyes. (The Message)

When us guys get hung up on her physical beauty, the battle is already nearly over. Add that Come-Hither stare and it could easily be the final blow.

And that's exactly how God intended it to work! But that's for married folks to enjoy (more on that in a second).

Go back to Leviticus 18 and 20 and you'll see that all of the commands against pursuing or initiating inapropriate sex are worded to target men. The translation I linked to seems to put equal emphasis on exposing nakedness as it does on actual sex.* I'd like to know more about the original language, since some versions seem to dumb it down to simply "don't have sex with___." I see this as God commanding, not just a respect for our sexuality, but especially for the female body.

God made these commands becase men will always be living among women and will always have the opportunity to lust or even pursue something inapropriate * (ever wonder why most sexual predators are men?* [of course that's not an excuse for them]). The same laws are equally explicit on women's responsibility for how they present themselves. (even though they aren't quite as extensive)

Or an example from an easier read, three times throughout the Song of Solomon* (the book of steamy, Biblical passion), the woman pauses to caution the reader not to stir-up/awaken romance before the time is right. And her warning is directed to the Women in her audience.

Remember when Jesus equated a mere lustful gaze with outright adultery? Doesn't that seem to make a little more sense now?

The Fun Part

Of course, all those warnings and commands go out the window for married couples.

Like where Proverbs encourages the enjoyment of the wife of our youth (Check it out: [MSG] [NIV] [AMP]). The 'tamer' translations go on to say, "may her body always satisfy you." Personally, I prefer the translations that unashamedly draw direct attention to her breasts.

Don't give me that look. Just how many jokes are floating around out there making fun of men for fixating on breasts? They had to come from somewhere, right? How long now have women been complaining about men talking to their chests instead of looking them in the eye?

Lets be honest. We know that men are always getting a hard time about allegedly fixating on them all the time. It's part of the Beauty that God created. A part of the set meant for an audience of one, but meant to be enjoyed.

And so no one accuses me of overlooking it, the same passage puts the same emphasis on enjoying the Love of our wives. God intended us men to enjoy our wives physically AND emotionally.* (It's my belief that you ladies ought to hold out for a man that appreciates Both.)

(If me talking about female anatomy like that makes any of you uncomfortable, then it only seems fair to warn you that the topic will come up again.)

I hope that answers the question I'd left hanging for so long. If not, well, let me know what I should come back to.

::suggested reading::

Edit:this is what I'd meant to link, but the other is good, so it stays.

refocusing

I'll need to be careful how I say this, but try and follow me.

I've been too soft on this. Too timid to speak any louder than I have. And so I've hardly spoken for a while. Though, I know I'll have to be more careful not to go too far the other way.

I've said that I'm not demanding a change from every last woman of the Church. I want it to be clear that I am however, urgently requesting that change. Men all over are stumbling into lust and are fighting for their lives to get out of it.

And please don't think of me as some distant prude behind a digital pulpit. I have been one of those men who feast on women with their eyes. and (by the Strength/Grace of God) I have learned to reverse those habits.

But the temptation is always there, and I'm still human. Put simply, it's a daily struggle not to become that man again. I'm writing on behalf of all such men who are also engaged in this battle and want to be able let their guard down when they come before God on Sunday morning.

I'm asking you, the ladies of the church, to take a closer look at the sheer power of your beauty and to help us men by shielding us from it. (I'm not asking you to dress down in the least. Mandatory potato sacks are the last thing I have in mind).

I've also got to make it clear that I'm only talking to women within the church. None of this is by any means a basic requirement for Christianity, and I refuse to allow it to be mistaken as such. If you don't consider yourself to be part of the Family of Christ, you are not my target audience. (You're welcome here, but please know that you are not under fire, and defending yourself will just make you look silly. Though, if you don't like the idea of men ignoring your personality because they're distracted by your body, I encourage you to stick around anyway.)

Fair warning: I'll be doing my best to avoid going into graphic detail, but that won't always be possible. When a man starts giving in to the desire admire a midriff or glance down a low cut blouse, it only satisfies for a moment. Before long it only creates a hunger for more.

Again, I'm not blaming your Sunday Best for luring us to dark corners of the internet. But if any other man's story is anything like mine, those small compromises of just-a-few-more-inches-of-skin or just-a-little-bit-tighter; as small as they may seem, they remind us of where our journey into lust began.

Oh, that response I promised a while ago? I've started and restarted writing it countless times... but I think God wanted the above out of my system before moving forward. Whatever I've got by the end of the week is getting posted. (I'm also a recovering perfectionist)

Rebuttal Brewing

Comments function normally again. Seems I overlooked something in the template design.

As you can now see, a few posts back my buddy Andy made a comment regarding Beauty and Sex. Honestly, I agree with most of what he said. I can't believe God meant for that to occur outside of a committed marriage, but the dynamic he described is right on.

I can't really do justice to what's in my head right now, but shall return following finals week with a more coherent reply.

Stay tuned.

Advocate for Beauty

This may sound familiar to anyone who reads my other blog, but I think it bears repeating for those who don't.

In reference to this blog from the other:

It's up now, with a different name, at a different address than what I'd said a few posts ago. I've decided to stear the focus more toward the basic truth that God made women to be beautiful (and they all are!). And that us men were designed to notice and enjoy what we see. I'm starting to think that I'd much rather be mistaken for a pervert in looking forward to and celibrating these sexual Gifts than as a closed minded prude making women ashamed of their God given beauty (I'm serious when I say all of you).

Of course, I'm not going to let up on need to guard that beauty until the time and audience is right. I just want to be absolutly clear that I'm an advocate for that Beauty.

comments

Just a quick note to mention that I've changed the settings so that anyone can comment. Anyone but spam bots, that is.

Couldn't Have Said it Better

http://girltalk.blogs.com/girltalk/2006/04/a_candle_among_.html

Half Truth

I've heard it said that the best lie is the one that's closest to the truth.

I was listening to Pandora.com earlier this morning and caught myself about to skip over a song that I reflexively identified as objectionable. The guy started singing about snuggling up with his sweetie in bed, I instantly brought up the window, and I hesitated.

Is this not a part of the Beauty I'm looking forward to? Is our sex crazed culture really that far off? Should Christian-folk really be any less excited about it than anyone else? (as long as we keep it in His context, of course.)

The lyrics never got anymore explicit that what I just described, and he didn't brag about or even mention that she wasn't his wife, so when I got over my initial reaction and rethought what I was listening to, it was really kind of sweet.

It seems like the Church is considerably more efficient at telling us what God has to say about what not to do before marriage, but what about after? Why do we hear so much more about the time Jesus equated gazing lustfully with adultery, than we do about, say, any thing from the Song of Solomon? Neither topic is kid stuff, so it can't be that we're too shy, can it? Is it just that it's easier to shun all sexual activity in general?

Seems like this is why church people are thought of as close minded or prudish about sex.

Beauty

"When God says 'no' to something, it's because He's saying 'yes' to something better."
~Joshua Harris

I only wish I could convey the sheer power of that beauty that you all have. I'm serious, all of you. Because of that power, and the feelings that I allowed that power to awaken, I sincerely believe that it was meant to be preserved for the sole enjoyment of your (future) husband.
When I am blessed with a wife, I certainly don't want her even slightly exposing herself to all the other hungry eyes out there. We'll each have rights to each other's bodies, and I don't foresee any desire to share.

I do not believe that men were meant to be aroused as we are in our culture by the women on display all around us. The male reaction of sexual arousal is a Natural response to the female body (God planed it that way to help man and wife to enjoy each other). The more of it that we can see, or even discern, the more powerful the urges.

Is it any wonder that so many men declare these urges as 'needs'? We are surrounded by constant stimulus. And it adds up. The effects are cumulative. The more cleavage I see, the more difficult it becomes to control my thoughts.

Women, of course function differently. The female sex drive is not activated by mere visual stimuli like us guys. So of course it could be easily overlooked in preparing the day's outfit, it's not something that naturally occurs to you ladies.

However... In a recent survey of 400 men, when asked how they would respond to a beautiful and/or scantly clad woman entering a room, only 2% said they were unaffected. The other 98% had answers that ranged from making a conscious effort not to look, sneaking glances, to staring outright and drooling.

See for yourself:
Create an account here. (I can vouch for their no-spam policy.)
See the survey here.
It's the very first question.

The point is, that it is Impossible for us not to notice how your bodies are presented. We can chose to ignore the signals that our own bodies are giving us, but it takes effort.

Through For Men Only, I've discovered that most women are programed to be more receptive of sexual advances, rather than to actively pursue. It's us guys that are wired for pursuit. And what is it that makes us take pursuit? Beauty.

I used to think the old classic paintings of nude women were done by perverts. (Not that I could really judge, since I could scarcely look at any without earning the same title for myself.) Though, some artists claim that they can admire the female figure without even a hint of lust. I'm still not sure I buy that, but whatever the motivation for putting the figure on canvas, the beauty is undeniable.

I Come in Peace

I feel I should appologise. A friend alerted me last night that I've already managed to offend some(one) with my my talk of male-self-control/feminine modesty. That I'd made them feel dirty, less than morally dressed. I don't know who or even how many, but please know that I did not intend to inflict feelings of shame and/or guilt. I'd really hoped that I wouldn't.

That being said, and given that most of this blog is going to come from my own personal experiance in my own continuing battle to keep my eyes on appropriate beauties... In the same conversation last night, the question was raised "which gender is less wrong?" (something to that extent anyway) It seemed an inavoidable question, and yet... it's really not the one I'm trying to answer here. I certianly don't want to be accused of starting a round of finger pointing. That won't help anyone.

So where does that leave us? I'm not entirely sure. I would greatly appreciate more feedback from the female perspective.

What's this all about?

I've been talking to a few friends about the concept of this blog, and was reminded of a few things I should make sure that I don't end up saying.

First of all, I'm not out to place the blame on women for turning men into lusty animals; we've done that all on our own. Controling our thoughts and/or actions is our own job.

Second, I'm not out to condemn anyone because of their clothing. I don't want it to sound like God has a required dress-code that has any bearing on how He feels about us or whether we get to chill with Him after we die. If I ever get to sounding focused only on mindlessly following rules like that, please stop me.

Finally, there are some folks out there who would say that the idea of modesty is based on being ashamed of your body. I'm really promoting just the opposite. It's about having enough respect for your body that you won't let just any male eye in the general public scan you into his fantasy center.

True, not all of us are that bad, but a lot of us aren't even that good. The man I was before I really got serious about listening to the God I'd been saying I believed in... I would easily count him among the worst. And while God's helped me overpower that side of me, I'm still a human male so the animal within is not really gone (and no, I'm not saying that the male sex drive is inherently bad either; only that it's more easily triggered than a lot of women seem to realize).

This blog is not about demanding change. It's about asking for help against a common enemy.