First, I find this a brilliant display of freedom on Christo's part, and the Falcon's part. As a business major and lover of freedom, I'm frequently concerned that freedom might be put aside in the quest for profit. It's a fine line. Also, regardless of what Christo says, any non-fascist should be willing to defend his right to say it. I'll do that any day.

Second thing. To write off Christo's opinion immediately is close-minded and perhaps judgmental, depending on how your phrase your possibly ignorant criticism. What I'm hearing is that Christo is advocating a woman's freedom, which is supported by his explicit claim to be a feminist. Women should have the freedom to choose how they dress, if they so please--I believe that going down a road of legalism isn't probably the best avenue for a college society to go down.
That being said, Christo utterly disregards any bit of community avocation in doing this. By saying "if men stumble, they stumble," Christo is saying that it is the man's fault for stumbling. Yes, this is true, but lust is a sin, and I believe it is certainly not helpful to a community of believers that men are being put in a place where they can stumble. Just as men should look to support women, women should look to support their brothers in Christ. There is a shared responsibility in a community environment. However, if you don't want a community, growing together, wear whatever the hell you want! Really. You have that freedom.

Let's turn the tables though. Any psychologist will tell you that men are more visually stimulated, while women are more emotionally stimulated (why else would chick flicks be so successful?). In the same context that women can be visual stumbling blocks for men, men can be emotional stumbling blocks for women. It's easy to mess with women, because they are often more trusting and more vulnerable (traits I REALLY appreciate, but it comes at a small price). I don't think Christo would be advocating men going out and messing women up emotionally, then saying it's the woman's fault for being so emotional. Hot women can make men stumble. Relationships and emotions can make women stumble. Both are easy to manipulate for good or evil.

Knowing all that, it's not a competition, anyone seeking God is on the same team. Also, it's always going to be a trade off. Sure, there are times when women feel the need to express themselves. During these times, men need to step up and take responsibility for their line of sight and their own minds. But make it a pattern (which is decided personally), and a man might ultimately to remove himself from the situation to take away stumbling blocks. At this point, the woman has the right to choose whether she'll support whatever man, or continue expressing herself how she pleases. That's her choice, but the trade off is now known.

Trade offs don't sell newspapers and compromises don't make headlines. But they're the reality in nearly every polarizing situation.

First off, your obvious jabs at Mark Driscoll (whoever he may be) are juvenile and rather inaccurate.

I am Greek scholar (among other languages) and Driscoll's intrepretation as quoted above, is very close to accurate.

Secondly, are you really debating this issue on Biblical/religious grounds? It sounds like your disregarding the Bible all together for the more modernistic/secular perspective.
Be one or the other, but don't tout Feminist beliefs and try to make it sound spiritual. From this article, it doesn't seem you care what the hell the Bible says.

If you are basing your argument on a Religious/Bible basis-
LETS SEE SOME PROOF OF YOUR POSITION

Your statements sound all liberating, but

Why should we believe what you're saying?

Secondly- whose forcing women to conform to men's standard?
Are guys outside the plastic surgeon's office forcing women inside? Did Heidi Montag's boyfriend force her to get 10 procedures?

Hardly.

Women are their own enforcers. I work with them every day in my industry, and I can ensure you- they drive themselves.

Greetings Christo,

If I may start by saying that I do believe I agree with some of the things you are saying here in principle.

Your right to say men should be self controled to a degree where the expectations of womens dress should not be unreasonable (IE, wearing a burka, no skin whatsoever). The bible says that men and women should exercise self control in the area of sexuality, abstaining from fornication and sexual sin. We live in a society that.... doesnt make it easy for men in particular in this regard. I confess that this for me has been a huge area of struggle in my life, remaining sexually pure, and before I became a christian I was the worst of the worst. Porn addicted, sleeping around, emotionally inappropriate. And since my conversion God has really opened my eyes to how subtle and oversaturated sexually our culture has become, and how much damage I have done to my mind. I have contributed in some major way to the oversexualization of this culture. And honestly I can *to some degree* understand why you write with the tone you are writing. And its funny that the poster above me mentions Heidi Montag because that episode of the Hills was seriously tragic. To think that Heidi, who was a perfectly fine looking young lady, via whatever events that happened to her ( I will not indulge in speculation) culminating in her decision to make such an unfortunate decision.... As a man that is truly heartbreaking. I think your lashing out is justified in one sense, even though I do believe its misguided if your speaking from the Biblical perspective.

However, where I think you are in error is that somehow have decided it would be better cross over into abuse of your freedom in Christ and disregard your christian brothers who may be struggling in this area. Out of love for your brothers and sisters in Christ, you should want to do everything in your power to assist them in conforming to scripture and sexually properly understood. Your right, God made sex. He made orgasms, He made very attractive women, He made sexuality. And He did it for His glory and your pleasure. But you seem to want to take this gift, your body and your seuxality, and turn it into something God never intended it for.

Why do you want a bunch of horny MTV minded dudes looking at your legs all day, saving those images and then going home and beating off to memories of you? Do you really want to end up in some guys mental reel? What kind of attention is that? Thats just more sexed out, american, MTV/planned parenthood garbage that has become a normative part of american society (I know I probably sound like a fundamentalist now, lol). You dont want that, sister. You dont want to be just another 'hot chic' that guys add to thier database of generic women. Thats not what your heart wants, and thats not what the Bible teaches. You can have your sexuality, you can look and dress good. You can wear your Diesel or DKNY or Vivienne Westwood or Marc Jacobs or Calvin Klein or D&G or whatever your thing is. God isint calling you to a list of "do's and do nots". Hes calling you to a loving relationship with him and a to live and lead a transformed life. So dont recoil when you see in the Bible for you to dress modestly. Did you know that God has given you the freedom to dress modestly? You dont need to be restricted and contained to wearing virtually nothing? Use your wardrobe to glorify God and lift up your brothers and sisters in Christ. Use the freedom God has given you to look good. Dont abuse it and lead men -- even if these men like me have done terrible and sinful things, which are ENTIRELY thier fault -- to stumble. And if they are stumbling beyond your control, then let God deal with that.

I hope you hear me when I say I understand at least a bit where you come from. But I also hope you have a change of heart on this issue. At your deepest, friend, what you post is not what your heart desires. God loves you. So have a nice day and God bless you friend.

For his Glory

Chate'

The final sentence said that you are “sick and tired of watching women being forced to cater to a man's view of what is sexual and what is not.” There are men who tell women a knee-length skirt is too immodest and is causing them to stumble. There are also men on the other end of the spectrum who subscribe to Playboy and view porn. As is proof by women of certain religions and then models, women do cater to men and all of their various responses. No matter how much we wear (or don’t wear), men will always find fault. Men are all over the place, and there is no standard. I agree that women should not cater to men and should not rely on men’s determination of how we should appear. So if we don’t look to men, who do we look to? Ourselves? No. I don’t think women are fully at fault for “causing men to stumble”, however we definitely play a role in it and often enjoy the attention when we look hot. So then, if women can be swayed by other’s responses and our desires the same as men, how can we define a standard? What about God?

Let me start by saying I agree that we were created as sexual beings and also that women (and men for that matter) should not let themselves be beaten down by magazines and celebrities defining how we should look. As a Christian woman, I view modesty as a form of respect. Respect for myself (I don’t want to be admired only for my legs or cleavage), my brothers in Christ (life is full of enough temptations, if I can prevent some by dressing modestly, why wouldn’t I?), my future husband (what would make my husband special if I expose my body to the public), and Christ (He gave me this body, shouldn’t I honor that?). Just because I was created as a sexual being by no means allows me to do whatever I want. After the fall, Adam and Eve were both given garments to cover themselves--to be modest (Gen. 3:21). Dictionary.com defines “modesty” as “regard for decency of behavior, speech, dress.” God clothed Adam and Eve because it wasn’t decent to be exposed. Everyone in American society knows what is decent and what is not because they joke about it, tease the standard, and are shocked when someone appears indecently on a magazine cover. Sadly, not many people appreciate decency. Why? Because we live in a fallen world and we allow our selfishness and sexuality to turn our focus from God.

In his first letter, Timothy speaks to women in chapter 2 verse 9 saying “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.” (NASB) Sure we can dress up and look nice but we don’t have to expose more skin than is covered in order to do that. “Braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments” refers to wearing things for the sake of attention, which brings us to another definition of the word modesty: “the quality of being modest; freedom from vanity, boastfulness, etc.” By drawing attention to ourselves we are focusing on ourselves rather than God.

This is not to say we can’t have self-confidence and feel beautiful, but being confident in your body and wearing revealing clothes is not the same thing. This is a matter of the heart. Everyone will have different standards for modesty. The Bible does not spell out how long shorts need to be, etc., but it does say that “a wife of noble character…[is] clothed with strength and dignity” (Proverbs 31:1 & 25, NIV). When we wear whatever we want to and don’t care about who it is affecting and what our witness is, we are not being modest, respectful, noble or dignified.

As a Christian woman, I am encouraged that God talks about modesty in His word—that He cares for us and knows we will struggle with how men view us. He would not have given us instruction if He did not care. To ignore His advice says we don’t care and will do whatever we want. Romans 12: 2 says “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” (NASB). It is certainly not always easy, but I consider it not only a duty, but also a privilege to break the cultural norms of dress and present myself in a way that says I respect my brothers in Christ by not putting temptation before them, I respect myself by not flaunting my body for attention, and I respect God who gave me this body by listening to His advice on modesty.

I do not believe Christo Lute’s stance is helpful in bringing clarity or understanding to gender relations on campus. Lute argues that Christian men's petition for women to dress with modesty is indicative of male oppression of women. I believe this article perpetuates negative stereotypes of both feminists and conservative Christians and breeds hostility between young men and women. While I don’t agree with the prevalent conservative Christian conception of modesty, I do not believe it steams from oppression, rather a genuine attempt to obey scripture and follow the examples given to young men by male mentors.

Young Christian men have been raised from puberty to understand physical/sexual attraction as the sin of lust. This comes from a literal reading of Matt. 5:28, “I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart”. From our youth, we have been trained by our male mentors to avoid attraction, not as a way to oppress women, but in an attempt to be obedient to that interpretation of scripture and avoid committing adultery. For those who maintain this reading of scripture into college, this task becomes increasingly more difficult and frustrating. Men are not making this petition to manage women's faithfulness, but in an attempt to hold fast to the ideal of sexual integrity that we were given by our male role-models and mentors. Rather than discussing clothing and modesty, we ought to be discussing our how our mentors raised us, what interpretation of scripture they imparted to us, and how we should interact with their views.

I do not believe sexual attraction is a sin or that it should be avoided. I do not believe I should be involved deciding what women wear. However, it is inaccurate and harmful for me to assume that men and women who think differently do so out of a mindset of oppression. Let us seek understanding and clarity before we dangerously hurl around titles like "Bible-beaters", "Mars Hillian", and "pissed off Feminist".

I don't agree with you in the slightest bit. Girls need to be respectful to their brothers in Christ, and vice versa. That's all. There's no other way around it. And one of the ways that we should be respectful to guys...is by being modest. I encourage you to do some more research and reconsider everything you just said. Try reading 'Secret Keeper...The Delicate Power of Modesty'.

Also, girls shouldn't advertise themselves with their bodies. That is so not the focus. Many times...girls who wear immodest clothes are doing it with the INTENTION of getting guys' attention...because they feel like they need attention and that's the way they choose to get it. Any girl who 'wants to show off those legs she worked all spring for' is NOT just simply showing them off for herself. She is 'showing them off' (boasting) in order to get attention from guys or even girls.

Many modest girls, could easily wear short skirts and low cut shirts and look great. It's not always that they are insecure. It's that they're obeying God and they don't need to get stared at by guys to feel good about themselves.

Sex IS Biblical:

‘Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.” But she said to her, “Is it a small matter that you have taken away my husband? Would you take away my son’s mandrakes also?.” Rachel said, “Then he may lie with you tonight for your son’s mandrakes.” When Jacob came from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him, and said, “You must come in to me; for I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.” So he lay with her that night’

Genesis 30:14

(i meant to put the bible quote on this one)

i think the opinion writer has good insight and articulates his position well. though some of his statements are dramatic, he raises insightful and thoughtful conclusions.

i do agree with above statements. "Let us seek understanding and clarity before we dangerously hurl around titles like "Bible-beaters", "Mars Hillian", and "pissed off Feminist"." And also: "First off, your obvious jabs at Mark Driscoll (whoever he may be) are juvenile and rather inaccurate. "
i appreciate the writer's opinion but his incorrect facts about a respectable Pastor who preaches at church where many students of SPU attend is really irresponsible.

I want to praise Christo for writing this! Period. No qualifiers. It's so refreshing to hear a male back females up, from a feminist point of view, about wearing clothes that make us feel sexy. It's empowering. If wearing something form-fitting or low-cut makes a girl feel good, then I say go for it. We should be proud of our bodies! We're beautiful! Why do we have to bring guilt, shame and fault into this?
'Secret Keeper...The Delicate Power of Modesty'...hmm.. I'll pass, and stick with my cute srping wardrobe. I can't wait until it gets warmer out!

Let me begin by saying this: I feel we as women do have obligations to be modest in our dress, but certainly not to men. Rather, our obligations for modesty lay in legal, spiritual, and self-regard. But certainly not so it’s easier for you men to follow the Lord. I am not here to make your life easier. I do not cater to your whims. And I certainly am not going to alter my lifestyle just so yours is easier.
That being said, I feel there is a grave misunderstanding of what modest is, and what immodest is. I feel that a woman wearing short shorts can be modest if she’s not also wearing a very low cut top with a midriff. It’s all about balance. And don’t slide into a slippery slope on this, with your “well what if she’s wearing a bra and then covered up what then?” because that’s not what I’m talking about and you’ll just misconstrue my argument and attack that (psst! It’s called a straw man for all you non-philosophy majors out there).
But I digress. People, you are missing the point! I find several things wrong with the comments thus far. First, it’s likened to some council discussing what some subset of a population can and can’t do, which is rather disconcerting, as the behaviors in question are not illegal and are relatively harmless (you can go ahead and attack that. I’d like to see the colorful arguments that paint me, a woman, as being dangerous, because it will only prove my point on the historical subjugation of women). Secondly, people are missing the point….terribly…..horrifyingly…..just wow!
Regarding this discussion of what women should and should not wear, I am a bit uneasy with the dialogue I have seen thus far. Men talking about what women should wear to help the men in their faith, and backing it up with scripture. Sure, I think that we have certain obligations to refrain from maliciously intending to contribute to another’s downfall. But there is a line to be drawn here. We should have this dialogue, because now we see the kinds of beliefs that are out there. And I shudder. To think that a man who is supposedly Christian will think that his staying in line with God rests entirely on my shoulders is scary. I feel that there is a community aspect, but the bulk of the responsibility is on you men! YOU!
Regarding the whole point of Christo’s article, I like the use of rhetoric and how he uses emotion to engage the reader and provoke a response. By provoking a response, he has successfully engaged us in dialogue! But people are talking about the wrong thing here! People are focused on what women should wear, when the REAL focus is on where responsibility for our faiths lie. THAT is the beauty of the argument. I don’t agree with everything he says (especially about the “to hell with modesty for modesty’s sake” bit….really Christo? I mean really?), but I certainly do think that we as Christians have to start owning our mistakes. It burns my heart when I ask a guy out thinking he’s single, and he whispers “Get behind me satan”. What, so now I am a messenger and vessel for satan? Seriously men, are you so high-minded in your search for purity that you ignore and even cause emotional harm to your sisters? So I flip the argument thus: If I have a responsibility to you as a member of this community, you also have this responsibility to me. If I have a responsibility to be modest so that it is easier for you to walk a straight line, then you should also have a responsibility to me to guard my emotional well-being and not do idiotic things like saying “Get behind me satan”, or restricting my freedom so that your lives are easier.
Or is it that you are tempted, fleshly tempted, and are finding it hard to resist? I am NOT the problem. Nor does the problem lay in satan’s tempting you. It is your flesh that must die so that you may live. Take some responsibility. Be a man. Man up. Grow a pair. Do whatever you have to do to be a strong, stand up Christian male, in a secular world where responsibility is shirked on the regular. Don’t be like the world. Get rid of the objectification and subjugation of women. Don’t argue that she brings it on herself because of how she dresses, because that doesn’t necessarily follow. Don’t argue that since we are to not be like the world, then she needs to dress modestly. Let her handle her own salvation; you are not her father. Handle yours.

Wow, Observer, you really said it all. I am first of all impressed by the organization of your thoughts, which mine so lacked.
However one point which I wished to bring up was the use of masculine language in reference to God. It's a small thing, and not one that particularly frustrates me, I realize how hard of a habit it is to overcome being raised in a God as Him environment. However, as a Christian feminist (yes, they are compatible), I prefer to refer to God as God. Because God is gender-neutral and creator of both genders. If we are all ok with referring to God as "Him", we should also be ok referring to God as "Her".
And thank you Cristo for your opinion. It was stated perfectly. For you readers who took it a little too seriously, I am so sorry that She (I refer to God, and yes, I realize people will have a problem with that) did not bestow you with a sense of humor or sarcasm.
Personally, I take pleasure in wearing my little sundress on campus without tights or leggings when the sun is out and particularly warm, because I feel safe and respected on my campus. I do not wear that little sundress everywhere, but I do show my bare legs on-campus. I do not feel as if I am disrespecting any members of my community.
Most of the boys/men at SPU have seen, or do see on a regular basis, porn. They know what a woman's body looks like, and that often feeds a struggle in lust in which my bare legs have no responsibility (I don't have cleavage so no worries there). I do not downplay the struggle that Christian men live with in terms of the images they are bombarded with, but Christian women are bombarded with images too. That factor is often downplayed, another form of subjugation. We are sexual beings too! Women deal with lust too! If the men of our community have not heard about it, it is because most young women feel that it is "immodest" and even sinful to recognize their own sexuality.
To finish, I would like to define what feminism means. Feminism is defined differently for every woman and man, as is Christianity, but for me it is recognizing that the ways our genders interact, relate to each other, and treat each other is not in the way we were created to be. To fully realize gender equality, to celebrate in our differences and similarities as creations in God's image, we need to work together in figuring out what gender equality looks like in a world of inequalities. This feminism involves a reconciliation of gender, seeing how historically the "brilliance of men have been compromised, and the genius of women negated" (to paraphrase a VDAY monologue).
With all the real gender inequalities in the world, I challenge SPU boys and girls, women and men to move past this intellectual stumbling block of "modesty". We have bigger fish to fry.

Dear fellow "stumblers" of SPU,
By now most of us are familiar with last week's opinion article regarding the injustice of female modesty for the sake of preserving our fellow men's "rampant" loins. Although I initially nodded in agreement at the author's call to end the repression of women's expressive rights, I was disappointed at the perpetuation of negative feminist stereotypes. True feminism does not furiously blame a particular sex or group as the source of injustice, but seeks to view the larger picture for the promotion of equality. This goal of gender egalitarianism is not obtained by being "pissed off," cheering for more cleavage or by pointing fingers at Mark Driscoll as if he were the innovator of an age-old mindset; it is done by articulating injustice and unveiling the invisible systems within our society. In this particular case, the issue is not simply a matter of women's apparel leading to "orgiastic" immorality; the real problem is that there is an inherent double standard between the modesty expectations for women and men. Granted, there is a general sense of agreement that the female body is visually appealing, but all too often we assume that this divinely inspired form is synonymous with purity. This mindset is false and has trapped women in a paradox of shame and confusion for thousands of years. The pedestal upon which Judeo- Christian women are elevated is wrong because it propagates an inequality that is directly counter to God's intention of egalitarianism. If you declare your belief in a God that created men and women with equality in mind, it is imperative that you begin to recognize the fact that women are just as susceptible to falling into the trap of lust as men. It might not be as apparent as "a few erections" here and there, but I can guarantee that women are not immune to the gaggles of strapping shirtless lads playing touch football on the fields, as is evidenced by the "hottie potty" where half-naked pictures are posted along with an endless list of desirable men around campus. Certainly, men can find ways to sexualize women regardless of what they are wearing, but I am not so sure that the same can't be said of women. We were created as sexual beings.
Although the article claimed to be representing women's freedom of sexual expression by encouraging the 3/4ths majority of our campus to dress in more revealing apparel, this suggestion does not liberate women, it merely offers them an alternative form of subjection.
Christian women are expected to adhere to Biblical ideals, but society also dictates that we meet the cultural standards in terms of image. Let it be understood that freedom does not merely switch one arbitrary standard for another, but rejects both in the quest for truth. I am not advocating for moral relativity, but professing Christians pursuing God's heart will dress as they feel is appropriate in terms of their relationship with God. It is not a matter of what we wear, but of our intentions. Women and men of SPU, I encourage you to check your motives and to approach even the most miniscule decisions (such as whether or not to wear that mini skirt, or whether to work on your shoulder tan in front of the women's dormitories) with the question "What would love do", and to proceed accordingly. Women: if love takes the form of embracing God's gift of sexuality by wearing a low cut shirt as a way of empowering others to love their bodies, so be it. If love looks like wearing a longer skirt to protect the heart of a friend who struggles with pornography, more power to you. The important things are these: Check your motives, check your heart, and check out of the paradigm of shame in which you find yourself trapped.


-Shawna Williams, Freshman

i love the false binary presented all throughout this comment thread. it's guys who lust after girls, and girls who lust after guys, as if there were no homosexuals on our campus.

where's the outcry over guy floors getting naked after floor hours? has anyone ever considered that full-frontal nudity might perhaps place a rather unavoidable stumbling block in front of our homosexual brothers, especially given the seemingly insatiable drive for 'floor unity,' where those who stay in their rooms (perhaps because of the nudity) are ostracized.

female modesty only ever comes up spring quarter. but nudity on floors happens all year long, and is an accepted and normative practice at SPU (and a lot of other universities). which one should we be more concerned with?

I find it ironic that short skirts and v-necks are being touted as an expression of feministic freedom. Let's be real: it's a male-driven sexual culture that's TELLING women to dress this way.

The cultural messaging of "show your breasts and bare your legs so that you will be worthy of lust (masked as love)" is so widely integrated into our culture that it permeates our mindsets even when we're on guard against it!

Expressing my sexuality by showing all the men in the world my cleavage and bare legs (which are quite nice by the way) is CRAP! That's not freedom, that's a culture that's telling me to prostitute my body for men's visual pleasure, and is neither a healthy nor helpful expression of my beautiful sexuality.

Modesty IS freedom, Christo. It's sweet!

As a liberated feminist, I don't want to be treated as an object, I want to be treated as an equal. It is both ignorant and inconsiderate to suggest that wearing revealing clothing makes this any easier for either party. By wearing clothes that subject me to being treated as an object, I'm not pursuing my own freedom or making it any easier for wonderful men who WANT to treat me with respect to do so. If I am choosing to wear clothes that cause a man who wants to not view me sexually to have to turn away, then I am violating a sacred human relationship of equality, friendship, and dignity.