Every now and then, an article will appear in the mainstream media decrying what they call "clothes-shaming" or sometimes "slut-shaming". The latest such article is by Virginia Fallon and was recently published on Stuff:
Before I continue, let me just quote a couple of key sentences from this article:
"Clothes-shaming is the practice of criticising someone for daring to don an outfit deemed too revealing by the person doing the condemning."
"Clothes-shaming feeds rape culture. It insinuates it’s a woman’s responsibility to avoid being sexually assaulted, and police their behaviour as a result.
Those who shame us are complicit in normalising sexual violence and keeping victims from speaking out."
Ms Fallon notes that it is often women who do this "clothes-shaming". Well, the reason for this is because everyone has the law of God written on their hearts, and even if they don't know (or don't want to know) the Bible, their consciences still bear witness to that:
"Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another[.]" (Romans 2:15)
Now while many of God's commandments apply equally to men and women (e.g. Thou shalt not steal, Thou shall not commit adultery etc.), there are others that are specifically for one or the other. One requirement that God particularly directs towards women (which is not to say men are exempt from it) is to dress modestly:
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." (1 Timothy 2:9-10)
Regardless of whether they are Christians or not, all women have an inherent understanding that they should dress modestly due to the law of God being written on their hearts and borne witness to by their conscience. They may decide to rebel against that, but they still understand it in their consciences. A woman who "clothes-shames" another woman also has that understanding. (She may also have pride in her heart and be seeking to put the more revealingly-dressed woman down, but there will still be something in her conscience that says, "This isn't right".) Something else that women generally understand is the effect that revealing clothing has on men. In fact, the Bible shows us that some women quite knowingly dress in revealing clothing in order to entice men:
"And behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart." (Proverbs 7:10)
Read Proverbs 7 in its entirety, and you will see that the woman in question (who was married and all) was utterly bent on seducing the young man who came into her street. Wearing revealing clothing (like what prostitutes soliciting in a street might do) was a key part of her scheme. However, that young man is by no means an innocent victim. In fact, the Bible describes him as "void of understanding":
"From the window of my house I looked through my casement, And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding, Passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house, In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night[.]" (Proverbs 6-9)
So what the passage makes clear is that both the man and the woman are at fault in this particular situation. The man is at fault for going to places he had no business going to and actively seeking out sexual thrills, and the woman is at fault for seducing him into an adulterous encounter (with her choice of immodest clothing being an essential element of her seduction method). They are both guilty before God here, but in different ways. (Before I go any further, I do want to stress that this scenario was also one in which both people consented to the act. So they were both sinning in ways mentioned above, and maybe others too. Obviously, in a case of rape, one person is not consenting and is therefore being sinned against. The main point of bringing up this passage is to show that women who dress immodestly often know exactly what they're doing.)
By the way, to address men now, the Bible has some commandments and counsel just for you as well. Let's take a look at just three verses aimed at men:
"I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?" (Job 31:1)
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)
"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman." (1 Corinthians 7:1)
As the context of 1 Corinthians 7 makes clear, the touching being referred to there is that of a sexual nature. So God is not saying that a man can't give his mother or grandmother a hug or a quick kiss, just to be clear on that.
We can see then that God has standards for both men and women that He requires adherence to. While God wants women to dress modestly, He also wants us men to control our eyes and hands. So, if a man sees a woman dressed in enticing clothing, and ogles her, they have both committed sin in God's eyes. The woman's sin is in dressing immodestly and drawing male attention to her body, while the man's sin is in lusting and thereby committing adultery with her in his heart. Even if the adultery in question never goes beyond his imagination, that still makes him guilty before God. But if the hypothetical woman in that situation had dressed more modestly, the man would not have been tempted to think those dirty thoughts. (If he chooses to lust after even a modestly-dressed woman, the fault in that instance is his alone.)
However, feminists - especially hard-left ones - don't want to acknowledge the responsibility of women for their actions, because they subscribe to this belief that men are entirely to blame for the world's ills and women are wholly innocent in every way. (To be fair, a man who rapes a woman is entirely to blame for his own wicked act. Also, there are more moderate feminists who don't fully adopt the Marxist narrative of "women good, men bad". So I don't mean to lump all feminists in the same boat.) And from the rhetoric she uses in this article, it appears that Ms Fallon is a left-leaning feminist. (Side note: in many ways, feminism, especially in its most extreme Marxist form, is a kind of grand conspiracy theory. I wrote in another post about how conspiracy theories set up boogeymen for us to fear and fight against. Well the boogeyman created by feminism is "The Patriarchy". Just as the Illuminati or Global Elite are purportedly out to enslave mankind, "The Patriarchy" is supposedly out to enslave womankind, and the accusations of "toxic masculinity" and "rape culture" are all part of promoting this narrative of a Great Male Conspiracy Against Women. By the way, feminism is not that new an invention. Read the Book of Esther for instance to see how a feminist movement nearly took off in ancient Persia, and also how Queen Vashti, the main feminist in that book, suffered a broken marriage, which is one of the fruits of modern feminism as well.)
In my post about vaccines, I touched on the subject of managing risk. I'd like to raise it again here. Why do we generally lock our homes up when we go out? It is to mitigate the risk of being burgled. Most people don't take the attitude, "It's my house and I'll do what I want with it" when it comes to protecting their property against criminals. They understand the risk of being burgled and take precautions accordingly when they leave their home for a while. As a general rule, nobody claims that locking up your home to prevent burglary creates a "theft culture".
Now, let me pose this question to you. Suppose I go out one day and leave my house completely unprotected. I don't lock my doors or bother to set a burglar alarm. Shock horror, along comes a burglar who sees my unprotected house and thinks all his Christmases have come at once as he proceeds to clean me out. I return home and am devastated to find a near-empty house, so thorough a job did that burglar do.
In this hypothetical situation, who is to blame? Well, clearly the burglar is primarily to blame. Indeed, there is only one criminal here: the burglar. He has broken the laws against stealing and housebreaking. I have broken no laws. The crime victim in this situation is me. The burglar is the one who will be charged, if caught. The burglar is the one who will go to prison if found guilty, and rightly so. Yet I would imagine that if I shared my tale of woe, at least some people would point out that my negligence played a part, given that my unprotected house was almost an open invitation to our thief. I could argue nonetheless that I didn't ask to be burgled. Surely I should be able to leave my house unguarded and trust people to control themselves at all times! But the reality is, had I been smarter with my risk management and more diligent with my home security, the burglar might have bypassed my house and gone in search of an easier target. Ultimately, the burglar is the one who chose to commit the crime against me, but I needlessly made myself more vulnerable to that crime.
Or let's say that somebody offers me several million dollars and all I have to do is pay a "small fee" to obtain riches beyond my wildest dreams. Wow, here you go, bring on those millions! Oops, very sorry, some unexpected costs have arisen, would you be kind enough to pay those? Sure, no problem. Well you know what happens in that situation. I continue to be fleeced for money as more "unexpected costs" have to be covered and never get those millions. In fact, in a worst-case scenario, I could end up bankrupt. So whose fault is this? Again, only one person has broken the law here, and that's the con artist. And there is only one crime victim: me. But had I not committed the sin of covetousness in lusting after those immense riches, I would never have fallen for the scam in the first place. So once again, I laid myself open unnecessarily.
Ladies, whether you're Christians or not, dressing modestly is, among other things, just good risk management. While it does not absolutely guarantee that you won't be ogled, harassed or raped (just as a good alarm and locks don't absolutely guarantee you won't be burgled), it will considerably reduce your chances of that happening. (As a general rule, risk management doesn't wholly eliminate risk, just reduces it as far as reasonably possible.) Moreover, whether you want to admit it or not, seductive clothing sends a message. The message that men tend to read from seductive clothing is: "Look at me! I'm available and seeking a man to have a good time with!" And as the Proverbs passage I referenced above makes clear, many women who dress immodestly are knowingly conveying that exact message. But gentlemen, as the Bible makes plain, a woman who is dressed seductively does not give you any kind of licence to sin with your eyes or hands. Or your mouth, for that matter. (So, no lewd comments etc.) If you encounter such a woman in the street, look the other way. Just go about your business and let her go about hers unmolested. If you have no choice but to talk with a seductively-dressed woman (for example, if you're colleagues and need to discuss some work-related matter), look her in the eyes. Keep your eyes focussed on her face and don't allow them to wander. And keep your conversation polite and chaste (or professional, if you prefer).
Before I wrap up this post, let me be very clear about one thing: if a man rapes a woman, that is his fault alone, just as a burglar is to blame for his thefts or a con artist for his scams. A man guilty of rape should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and what the woman was wearing should not have any bearing on a guilty verdict if his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. (In like fashion, a burglar who robs an unlocked house cannot reasonably make the defence that the house was unlocked, so the homeowner was "asking for it".) Men (and women, for that matter) who commit acts of sexual violence have wicked, sinful hearts, and they will also answer to God for what they do. But that doesn't altogether absolve women who dress immodestly (God will hold you accountable too, though NOT for the evil a man does to you - everyone is responsible for their own sins). Men certainly shouldn't go around raping women (and most don't, contrary to what feminist propaganda would have you believe). Nor should they go around robbing houses or ripping people off. It should be possible to leave your doors unlocked when you go out, but that's not how life works in this sinful world of ours. Just as you increase your risk of being a crime victim if you leave your doors and windows unlocked, so, alas, is the case if you wear revealing clothing. In both cases, you're inviting trouble. That doesn't justify the crime if it happens, but why add to the risk? And ultimately, women who "clothes-shame" understand that, I think, even if perhaps they could be more tactful in how they do it sometimes. (Certainly, a girl of twelve like Ms Fallon was when she had her first "clothes-shaming" experience probably doesn't fully appreciate the potential danger of showing too much skin and should be guided with kindness and understanding rather than being harshly rebuked as she was. I do actually feel some sympathy for her over that, even if I don't agree with her overall position.)
Further recommended reading (at least, for Christian ladies): Dressing for the Lord by David Cloud. (https://www.wayoflife.org/publications/books/dressing_for.php)
And also well worth a read in relation to feminism (including the issue of a "rape culture") is Feminism: Castrating America by Christopher J.E. Johnson. What he says about feminism in the US is very relevant to NZ also. (http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/feminism.php)
UPDATE (3/5/21): Tonight on TVNZ 1, I saw a BBC documentary called I Am Not a Rapist, which is also available on YouTube. I am providing a link to the YouTube version of the documentary. Made just last year, it tells the story of three men falsely accused of rape and the impact the false accusations had on their lives. One of the men sadly ended up committing suicide, and later his mother did as well. This was despite the fact that the accusation against him was ultimately dropped. Another man in the documentary was also accused but cleared after a police investigation that took some three months. But the third man was actually charged on twelve counts of assault and rape, and the case against him was ultimately dismissed when his defence lawyer was able to obtain the phone records of his ex-girlfriend who had made the false accusations. The young woman had deleted the text messages that she had exchanged with the man, but it was still possible to retrieve them. These messages conclusively proved the innocence of the accused.
There is a popular slogan today (also a Twitter hashtag) that says, "Believe Women". Now, if a woman lays a complaint of sexual harassment, assault or rape, she should absolutely be taken seriously and carefully listened to. However, the sad truth is that some women lie. And these lying women make it more difficult for those who really are victims of crime. But these lying women have victims themselves - the men they falsely accuse. In Old Testament times, a man who raped a woman could be put to death (see Deuteronomy 22:25). So you may rest assured that God takes the crime of rape very seriously. And of course today, especially with feminism being so prevalent, a man only has to be accused of rape to become an outcast in society. So when a man is FALSELY accused of rape, this can have a devastating impact on his life, even if he is proven innocent. Just as being raped can have a horrendous impact on a woman's life. In Christopher Johnson's book about feminism (linked above), he recounts some American cases of women falsely accusing men of rape and the awful impact that had on those men's lives.
Men being falsely accused of rape (or attempted rape) is not a new phenomenon. The Bible records an instance of a man who was sent to jail because a false accusation by a woman who had sexually harassed him:
"And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there within. And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out. And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth, That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice: And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got him out. And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home. And she spake unto him according to these words, saying, The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me: And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out. And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spake unto him, saying, After this manner did thy servant to me; that his wrath was kindled. And Joseph's master took him, and put him into the prison, a place where the king's prisoners were bound: and he was there in the prison." (Genesis 39:11-20)
Verse 10 of this passage records that Potiphar's wife made daily efforts to seduce Joseph even though he had clearly stated (in Verses 8 and 9) that he did not wish to sleep with her. That is plainly sexual harassment, and while men certainly do this, women can do it too (something many feminists are in denial about). In fact, there is a double standard in our modern society whereby harassment of men by women is seldom taken seriously. Anyway, in Verse 12, Potiphar's wife goes from verbal harassment to physical assault. Again, women can do this sort of thing as well as men. Notice how Potiphar's wife then behaves in a very calculated manner. With Joseph having left his outer garment behind in a bid to get away from her unwanted attentions, she summons the men of the household and accuses Joseph of attempting to do to her what she had just been trying on with him. The garment is used as "evidence". Now, the reason she tells the men first, I believe, is so that they will back her up when she makes the accusation directly to Potiphar. She's laying the groundwork for when he comes home. And what happens when Potiphar hears his wife's story? He automatically believes her and has Joseph thrown in prison. It does not appear that Joseph is even given a chance to speak in his own defence. If he was, he was not believed. Sounds a lot like our modern Western society today!
In real rape cultures (they do exist, especially in the Middle East), women who make complaints of rape are almost never believed. In fact, in some Muslim countries where Sharia law is applied especially strictly, a woman who is raped can end up being the one put to death for it! (That is bound to make any feminist's blood boil, and I am right there with them on that one. It is frankly one of the most unjust things I have ever heard of.) In our Western culture, on the other hand, we have gone almost too far the other way, where a woman is readily believed and a man merely accused is instantly branded a monster. And even when the woman's false accusation is proven to be such, she seldom faces prosecution for it (which is shown in the documentary and also mentioned in Feminism: Castrating America). So the claims by feminists that there is a rape culture in this or other Western countries are frankly exaggerated, if not outright false.
One more point I'd like to make though, and this one is for the men. The common denominator with all three men depicted in this documentary is that they had committed fornication with their accusers. The man who went to trial had been in quite a lengthy relationship with the ex-girlfriend who accused him. The man who had to put his life on hold for three months while the police investigated him had had sex in a car with the woman who accused him. And the young man who committed suicide had been in the process of fornicating with his accuser when she froze and said she didn't want to continue. He respected her wish, but she accused him anyway.
Guys, there are many reasons why the Bible tells us to flee fornication (1 Corinthians 6:18). It can lead to all sorts of heartache, like STIs, unwanted pregnancy, and other problems besides. But one of the consequences of fornication may be that you end up falsely accused of rape, especially if a relationship ends badly or if a girl wants to protect her reputation. After all, there will usually be evidence of sex taking place. But if you avoid the sin of fornication and save yourself for marriage, you will greatly reduce your chances of such a thing ever happening. Note I said reduce, not eliminate. A woman who dresses modestly reduces her chance of being raped, but certainly doesn't eliminate it. Likewise, a man who avoids fornication considerably lessens his chances of a false rape accusation, but it could still happen. Just ask Joseph. He fled fornication (quite literally!), but still found himself falsely accused. All the same, it is far better to avoid fornication altogether, Christian men.
No comments:
Post a Comment