Last night, Victoria Secret hosted their annual Fashion Show on CBS. A comment by Martha at “I Don’t Love Pink” inspired me to write a little response to the feathers, fur and fabulous bodies featured last evening. In response to Martha’s questions.
What happens when lingerie becomes mainstream entertainment?
We find ourselves quite interested. I mean, how can you not be? This is probably worse for women than men. How do we cultivate the capacity to watch these shiny bodies without feeling sort of dull?
How do you watch lingerie shows? Open-mouthed? Critically? Amazed? Delighted?
Can you bask in the goodness of God’s beauty in these women’s bodies?
Honestly, some are easier to enjoy than others. I like the freshness of this woman wearing a tinker-toyed skirt, for instance. Suggestive, sure. But she feels like play and hope all rolled into one.
Yes, that’s Bieber in the background
Reminds me of the way Victory Liberty loan used scantily clothed females on posters to bring hope (and sales) during World War I. I snapped this woman last week in the magnificent museum of Cantigny in Wheaton, IL.
Victoria’s Secret begins with their love for using a female form as a canvas. They paint more beauty than most of us see all week. And yet, I wonder, what exactly are they selling?
An experience? What do we buy into when we admire these clothes?
What do we want when we buy a fantasy bra?
Any fashionistas want to give us some tips?
For a round two on Victoria’s campaign “Love Pink”, let me introduce Mandy Orozco, a beautiful friend of mine who could be a model (seriously, folks).
Mandy loves to cook, eat, and run often, so it’s a great arrangement. Mandy has been serving on Soulation’s board since its inception, and has been Soulation’s Director of Development for the past 2 years. She works as a nonprofit consultant when she’s not chasing after her two rough-and-tumble boys or having good conversation with her beloved philosopher husband. Mandy and I have been good friends since graduate school swapping good reads and creativity for making our homes and souls more beautiful.
In Mandy’s words . . .
I was all for the Victoria’s Secret Pink campaign when it first came out several years ago. As a young Christian dating my soon-to-be husband, Pink offered more realistic bedtime options and I thought this would be an easy way to bring sexy into even everyday sleepwear.
But while I was perusing the then-fresh Pink line, a dear friend of mine pointed out what is deeply disturbing with Victoria’s Secret Pink: it’s marketed to high schoolers. Go look at their marketing. Young girls modeling a more “accidental” lingerie. It’s marketing sexy sleepovers. It’s designed to look like you stole your boyfriend’s boxers or hoodie after you shacked up.
Highschool . . . or grade school?
We lose one for womanhood when we buy into that – that this is what high schoolers should be wearing or this is what sexy women look like (e.g. 16-year old models).
But Victoria’s Secret does bring something to the table.
Interesting statistic: women shopping at the mall feel more feminine, glamorous, and good-looking when they carried a Victoria’s Secret shopping bag. There is something empowering and confident about lingerie. And healthy when it’s in the right context.
Sexy lingerie is correlated with longevity in marriage. It shows effort made on the part of the woman, and communicating this effort to your spouse is important. It’s also important because the wife needs to be able to express herself and feel confident sexually, and lingerie can help that.
Jonalyn’s previous post on this is accurate – sexy isn’t just discardable sex. Sexiness isn’t a one-night-stand. That’s not sexy, that’s just sex.
And sexy isn’t wearing “Love Pink” on your butt or breasts. That’s just cheap.
Sexy is having a healthy sexual relationship with your spouse where you’re pleasing each other, where you’re looking out for him and he’s looking out for you.
And where Victoria’s Secret misses the mark is sexiness isn’t just the fresh-faced 16-year old. Sexy is growing in age and wisdom, learning how to please your spouse and how to ask for pleasure, regardless of the stretch marks and pocked skin. That’s something the narrow-mindedness of Victoria’s Secret shows no understanding of.
Thank you, Mandy.
Let me be very honest and clear.
I still love and buy lingerie. Victoria’s Secret knows, as I know, there’s power in that lace and boning.
But I don’t expect lingerie to turn me into a sex goddess. Clothes, even those as stunning as VS showed us, can only do so much to shape my soul to be sexually holy, can only give me so much boning to make me sexual strong. I need more, I need a God who took on flesh to make me strong and holy enough to steward my own sexuality.
And that is just one more reason to be glad he came to us, in a little town called Bethlehem.
Great article! I can’t help but wonder, what does the VS fashion show do to the men who watch it? We know why women watch it, and what it does to them, but why do men watch it and what does it do to their perception of women?
Rubi, good question here. There was an interesting study conducted 10+ years ago wherein a men were told to rate the beauty of women in photographs before watching the movie Charlie’s Angels and then rated the photographed women after watching the movie, and the men gave the photographed women significantly lower ratings after viewing the movie. As if we needed an expensive study to confirm this, when we expose ourselves to unobtainable ideals, it changes our perception of what is normal. I receive VS catalogs, but do not leave them around for my husband or my 2 boys to find. They are just for me, I peruse them and then recycle them. I do not think it is healthy for my husband or my boys to see the catalogs or watch the fashion show.
That being said, I have a daughter, and I don’t want her seeing them, either. I don’t want her to think she needs to look like that. I know I can’t hide her from all the advertising that uses “sexy” women to coax, but I want to empower her to have a healthy body image as much as I can.
That’s interesting, Savvy. I don’t think VS is quite as powerful as you’re making it out to be.
If I had a daughter I’d want to go through VS with her, to show her what our culture sees as beautiful, to show her how the airbrushing happens, to talk about the limits and advantages of this one type of beauty. I’d also want her to see the limitations of the images in terms of show-casing women’s souls.
I do plan to help my son by using VS as he grows.
I have sons (and daughters)…I’d love to hear more about how you might use VS as your son grows?
Hmm,
I’d begin by recommending you read America’s previous Poet Laureate, Billie Collins, poem “Victoria Secret” found here: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/cae_core/Links/CollinsVictoria.htm
After reading you’ll know what I’m talking about when I say there is fuel for laughter in the seriousness of VS take on sexuality. I want to use VS as a warped example of how our culture sees sex.
Sex is much funnier and sillier, clumsier and creative than VS portrays. So VS serves as a foil.
Secondly, VS does capture some alluring, lovely and seductive ways to move your body, wear clothes and a limited form of beauty. I would use VS as an example of all of these.
In my mind VS is a curiosity, a place where the sexual gluttons must go to learn what is sexy. I think it’s too thin a slice of the pie and would instruct my son on that as well.
Btw, my husband is the one who first modeled to me how to laugh at rather than revere and fear the VS culture. We walk through the store sometimes, hand in hand, to comment, critique and sometimes buy.
I am definitely not a writer and rarely am able to express my full thoughts but couldn’t help but post a comment about what comes to mind as I read this…
Sex is a glorious gift given to us by our Creator, it has two main purposes: bonding and babies, and is something that should intimately and joyfully be shared with our spouses. If lingerie helps in achieving these missions then great. Victoria Secret has neither of these in mind in creating their products. They are selling lust which is clearly pronounced a sin in the Bible. For men, seeing this leads them to lust (sin) and for women it encourages us to lead men to this. Why would I want to promulgate that?
Hello Sarah,
Thank you for sharing.
I’d add a third purpose to sex, to have fun. So that would be: procreation, unity and recreation. I think this is what Solomon means when he says “Be exhilarated with her love at all times.” (Prov 5:19).
That said, I think that while VS is not concerned about marital commitment, they do seem very concerned with fostering sexual fun. It reminds me a little of how Disney is not concerned about loving God, but they are very concerned with fostering fun entertainment.
I think in both these cases, Disney and VS, we can plunder the Egyptians, so to speak (more on that here: Exodus 12:35).
All good fun, all good entertainment has as it’s source our God of goodness and love.
Sarah, I don’t think VS and monogamous sexual bonding are mutually exclusive. I think VS is simply selling sex and most of it in this world happens to take place outside of wedlock. But by shopping there I am not encouraging anyone other than my husband to pursue me sexually, as long as I reserve my purchases for my husband.
I love the thoughts from Mandy. YES!
“And where Victoria’s Secret misses the mark is sexiness isn’t just the fresh-faced 16-year old. Sexy is growing in age and wisdom, learning how to please your spouse and how to ask for pleasure, regardless of the stretch marks and pocked skin. That’s something the narrow-mindedness of Victoria’s Secret shows no understanding of.”
(The Love Pink has always turned my stomach, the way it is marketed to children. NO!!!!)
(These are mostly just my thoughts on Victoria’s Secret and the like, in general) As the only man to comment (so far), I have to agree with Sarah. I have led many men’s Bible studies and fellowship groups, and this subject is discussed often among honest and transparent men, as it is a major struggle for virtually all men. These pastors, elders, deacons, and God-fearing men, in general, tend to agree that anything that produces lust within a man (apart from lust for his own wife) is to be avoided (even Job made a covenant with his eyes Job 31:1). We also all agree that when it comes to such “parades of flesh”, it is nearly impossible to avoid lustful thoughts, and unfortunately, those thoughts rarely involve one’s own wife. 1 Timothy 2:9 has Paul speaking specifically to modesty because he understood that men are aroused by what they see, and a woman’s body is a gift to her husband…only. I’m not a prude, and I cringe whenever the “Spiritual Police” pick up their legalistic bullhorns. But as a man, I would like to close with two thoughts: (1), it is hard enough to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives (Titus 2:12) and to also keep our thoughts trained on Christ (2 Cor 10:5) in a world where is seems like the greatest woman’s fashion designer is often the enemy; and (2), as my paraphrase of what Sarah correctly pointed out: immodesty, which leads men into sin, is a sin itself (1 Cor 10:32), and in many homes where intimacy is limited, for whatever reason, men are all the more vulnerable when it comes to very revealing outfits. I love the blogs and the work that you and Dale are doing, Jonalyn! I just hope my comments are received in the prayerful spirit that they were intended. As an aside: I am not only married to a beautiful and very sexy woman, I have also been blessed with 3 wonderful sons and 4 terrific daughters!
Eric, what you said does make me curious. Is it possible for a man to look upon beauty and not lust? I have a general concern that in conservative evangelical culture, this area of lust is not much examined but in the denial of any possible temptation (like the prohibitionists over alcohol or the vow of poverty against money). And sexual misconduct in said subculture is also the most egregious of all sins, which only amplifies the shame and prohibits the exploration and meaning of it. Because of this, “lust” is rarely defined in the circles where I hear the discussions. And when I do hear it defined, it is often conflated with pleasure, desire, and a range of other things that are not the classical Christian definitions: the predatory covetousness to have intercourse with the person who is not your own. Admiration is not lust. Marvel is not lust. And extra-sensitivity about “lust”seems to draw from a general anti-pleasure and anti-beauty undercurrents with many issues conservative evangelicals deal with. Are all artists lusting who paint beautiful form? Are not Christians capable of going into professional theatre and or dance because costume changes are sometimes revealing back stage? I know Christians in the arts who are puzzled by these questions because, while they seek to honor God, they also see life from different angles, even of Scripture, that we may benefit from.
VS shows aside, is it possible for a man, without having to look away, able to admire a woman for her humanity and beauty without wanting to bed her? And is it possible for a man to learn the virtue of self-control and proper arrangement of things in his own mind and heart? Is it possible for a man (or woman!) not to compare? Is it possible for a man to be glad for others and not covet? Can he admire his neighbors car without lusting after it? Or his wife? I would certainly hope that is what Jesus is doing in us… not forcing us to simple abstinence but to see things for what they really are, parsing good from bad, healthy from unhealthy, light from darkness. The image bearing qualities of God in every man and every woman is beautiful, if not always culturally attractive. And even beautiful as God intended even if she is culturally attractive. If we we do not admire beauty, what do we do with it? Disdain it? Be ungrateful for it? What other options are available to us? That there is beauty “over there” but that all are too weak to behold it? And if we limit admiring beauty to only our spouses, what message are we sending to all who are still single who somehow have “permission to admire” while the married do not? I would think the same virtue would apply to both marrieds and unmarrieds.
Abstinence rarely cultivates strength. We don’t develop courage by avoiding the battlefield. And we don’t develop perseverance by giving up. And we don’t develop chastity by avoiding all scenarios in which we would be tempted to be unchaste. The virtuous man endures temptation to the very end and grows stronger so that the next confrontation has less power on him. And when he fails, he examines why he failed and gets up again with wiser tools in his bag.
This kind of soul formation is rarely talked about in the church. I’m honestly curious to hear your opinion on this.
Great points, dale. There is obviously a difference between lust and admiration, etc. To stay with your courage in battle metaphors, I agree that staying in the foxhole does not necessarily develop courage. Then again, deciding to stand in the midst of enfilade fire doesn’t either. Courage is found in keeping our eyes on Christ when temptation is near. That’s because my own courage stinks, and his is awesome.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, I agree with you… but wonder if we can equate another person with an enemy throwing bullets. I’m not saying we throw ourselves into areas we are weak, but I am saying is it possible for men to not be victims? For this is what I hear in these kinds of conversations… men are simply not strong enough (to say nothing of women at this point) to resist sexual beauty… we automatically must become a predator. I wonder if this is the mistake the religious leaders made with Jesus let a very sexy and sensuous woman wash his feet. He did not forbid it nor ask the men to close their eyes. He simply took her for who she was, an attractive human in need of love, needing to be seen as a person and not as prey…
Just more thought on it.
Another thought: you are sooooooo correct in stating that the type of “soul formation” you described is rarely discussed and/or taught in many churches or small groups. However, I am encouraged to know from following your family (from the east coast – I’m not a stalker!) that you are both bold in the Lord in not only discussing difficult topics, but Biblically teaching on them, too. May the Lord continue to abundantly bless your growing ministry and your growing family!
Eric,
Your words are encouraging to me. Thank you for writing in and pushing us to work harder on communicating what sexual holiness looks like.
I appreciate your comparison to a satiated person after a good breakfast and a starving person. Your euphemism of manicures made me smile. You reminded me of C.S. Lewis’ excellent analogy of aliens who visited our world and see people transfixed by watching plates of food served, going to peep shows to see food unveiled, they would rightly believe the people on our world are obsessed with food in an unhealthy manner. Or better yet, that this world was full of starving peeps. So it is with sex in our world these days. We are starving, so shows like VS Fashion seem like a nice feast.
I talked a little bit about sexual starvation in this post: http://soulation.org/jonalynblog/2012/05/sex-food-and-fifty-shades-of-gray.html You might enjoy it.
I’m glad you brought up this sliding scale. In my experience, I also struggle against lust of the eyes when looking at men. But, as I admit the beauty of men’s bodies and the reality of their souls I have found myself equipped to bring Jesus into my admiration and keep me from sliding into lust. I write about that in several places.
It also helps that I have a husband who satiates me and that I have training and talent as an artist who has worked to separate beauty from predatory lust. That doesn’t mean I’m immune, there are still men’s bodies that I can return to and dwell on (and not in the admiration-holy sense) in my imagination that I’ve seen and will never forget. However, since I know bodies have more purposes than enticing me to lust, I do want to see those purposes. I ask God, “Show me how to see the human in this body” all the while knowing we all have our limits.
That said, I would only quibble with one point you made: I have found the men I know (including yourself) to be bright, sharp and worthy partners in this race we call life in the kingdom.
Glad you took time to write in!
Ah, Jonalyn…you and Dale bring such a twinkle to this old man’s eye (I am about to become a grandfather for the first time in a week or two, so the “old” part is apropos)! The transparency that you and your husband model is very inspirational, and I think the lack of leadership transparency in many Christian environments reads directly on Dale’s concerns with respect to what churches (and small groups) often fail to teach, study, and model. Thank you both for not hiding from the toughest of topics.
I am going to check out the links which you embedded (thank you!), as I am certain your inspiration and insight will be a blessing! Oh – just because Dale is clearly the sharpest tool in the shed doesn’t mean that all the rest of us were at the front of the line when the brains were being handed out. My daughters are simply delighted to tell me, “Dad, it’s not your fault you’re a dork”, while my sons console me with, “Don’t listen to them, dad…the dog still loves you.”
Eric,
You make me laugh. Thank you for your kind words!
Hi Dale! In our men’s groups and as a topics at retreats, we openly discuss all of the things that you mention, and you make some very good points (Tim’s follow-ups were also excellent). Yes, sometimes the ultra-conservative evangelicals (or any legalistic Body) can be quite the conundrum. On the one hand, there is the tendency to define everything in black and white terms, often framed as though the only choices are between denial and sin. Then, once the sinner is exposed, in my experience that individual is often not approached as the Bible teaches by the Body of Christ: with a loving eye on repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration, whenever possible. Add to that the often present “gossip mill”, and it can be a pretty volatile environment. So I am in absolute agreement with you when it comes to admiration, marvel, etc, and distinguishing the same from the extremists’ point of view. My own concern is more towards the extent and type of exposure, and as Tim correctly pointed out, not every battlefield is one to be unwisely entered.
I’ll expand on this a bit (and try not to write a book in the process). The benchmark isn’t acceptable culture or even the various battlefields. It is God’s Holiness and our desire to “be holy, because I am holy” (1 Pet 1:16). I used the examples of Job and what Paul said in my post because they didn’t paint “black and white” pictures, for precisely the reasons you mentioned. But there are two sliding scales that we must consider. The first is the “admiration/intrigue/desire/lust/ scale.” I used the word “sliding” for a reason. If I have a HUGE breakfast at 7 AM and then see the most magnificent plate of bacon, eggs, and sausage at 10 AM, I will likely admire the cuisine, and nothing more, because I am still stuffed. By 2:30 PM, that same plate is intriguing! By 8:00 PM I have incredible desires, and 24 hours later – having eaten nothing at all in the interim – I am challenged by the indelible image in my brain of those bacon and eggs such as to be incredibly distracted. Our lives are very much like that in areas where we are vulnerable, and those times and seasons are not always predictable, despite the Biblical avenues of escape (1 Cor 10:13 comes to mind). As men, we’re not always the brightest bulbs on the tree, and the enemy knows it. He doesn’t have to be very creative, and God often allows the enemy (for too many Biblical reasons to be cited here) to test us. Job and Paul understood this. Let’s look at Job for just a moment. What did God say about him? “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.” (Job 1:8). Yet this righteous man made a covenant with his eyes, nevertheless. He understood the danger, despite his standing before the Lord. The other sliding scale is the enemy’s, as I would humbly suggest he might be the ultimate fashion designer (I’ll use that label here, as it bears on the Jonalyn’s blog topic, although it could be any temptation area of interest). Scroll up and take a quick look at the photo that says “Love It”. I’m pretty confident that 99% of ALL men first take notice of her manicure, and the fantastic artwork on her fingernails. I know I did (shoot me now). All kidding aside, the enemy is a marketing genius. He is looking to accentuate some specific…areas of interest (?)…knowing that he can move a man down the “brief-acknowledgement/head-turn/temptation/sin” scale of that man if he catches him on the right day. He also knows the baseball cap doesn’t get him there very quickly, while the “sneak-peek” that’s in that photo does. Sadly, our pride often convinces us that we are capable of various levels of exposure to various types of temptation, because we are able to control our thoughts, etc. That man, I would humbly suggest, is not only the most vulnerable, but also the most likely to lead others into sin – particularly if he is a leader. The enemy loves those kinds of guys. He gets little mileage out of those who display an obvious lack of character, but instead loves the leaders because of the trickle-down effect (his influence upon others).
So it’s not about beauty: we should praise and thank God for ALL things beautiful, and strive to see God’s Creation as He intended! It is about reasonable boundaries, and the God-given responsibility from the Lord to protect ourselves, our families, and the Body of Christ by understanding the dangers and avoiding certain battlefields. Tim’s later post caught my eye: “these people are almost naked and the point of the clothes is to use them to get all the way naked and then have sex”. When worn by our wives, I think that’s a great idea! When worn by other women, I need to remember Job’s covenant. I am saddened to think that Victoria’s Secret actually seems to be somewhat modest compared to what is very openly displayed in the world today (I’m talking about manicures, of course…).
Hey – thanks so much for the reply and the dialogue, Dale! And thank you, too, Tim! Every blessing in the Lord to you men, your families, and your ministries!
I am not informed in the fashion world what-so-ever and I am not a fashionista.
But I am an artist. And I have a feeling that art plays some role in fashion. While these runway sets may not be installation art and the way the models interact with them may not be performance art, I still think there is a level of performance and symbolism.
Like Adrianna with the football- it’s symbol for entertainment saying, “I am for your entertainment like football but better.” Jonalyn, you said the first photo above was suggestive. I agree. To me it says more than playful fun though. It says, “play with me”. And not like laugh with me, but play with me as an object to be played with. “I am a toy to be handled”… “I am bicycle to ride”…
What do ya think? Was this what you meant by suggestive or am I reading too much into it?
Katelyn,
Interesting take, Katelyn. I do think the tinker toys allows for several possibilities. Some positive, some damaging:
1- a woman’s body is a playground
2- tinker toys as a euphemism for vagina, breasts, penis, etc.
3- sex toys
4- fun, fresh innocence in sexuality
5- handle me, use me
6- laugh with me, invent with me, try new things with me
It’s actually a brilliant metaphor.
When I said suggestive I meant it’s more than play and hope.. it’s also sexually playful.
And honestly, a playful spirit is probably the most lasting ingredient to good sex. Playfulness means laughter and novelty, it also means “I’m coming to you wanting to play and be played with” which are great ways to enjoy foreplay, etc, etc. I don’t want to get too explicit, but as Mandy rightly pointed out, sexy means how to please your spouse and how to ask for pleasure yourself. Playfulness is a great way to start that.
I just wanted to clarify something with respect to my post above: my comments are not with respect to men’s own wives wearing Victoria’s Secret lingerie in the privacy of their own homes, but towards the almost inescapable onslaught of advertising, publications, etc., that bombard men who are trying so hard to honor the Lord and their wives. Yes, the option to avert one’s eyes is the man’s choice, but it is indeed a battle. I have two sons-in-law who love the Lord who have thanked me for not allowing my daughters to wear bikinis in their youths, knowing as men that I was honoring the Lord and protecting them for their future husbands. Of course, that didn’t exactly play well at home during the teenage years…lol
As to what VS is selling, it’s clothing of course. They use sex to do so. If they could sell more clothes by using yak manure, we’d see a new ad campaign in a heartbeat. (OK, take a moment to visualize that one.)
But as to what the current campaigns are saying, it’s that these people are almost naked and the point of the clothes is to use them to get all the way naked and then have sex. A crass and simplistic take on things? Perhaps, but (as Eric mentioned above) that’s how a lot of guys see these photos.
I fully agree that VS is doing this, not primarily as an art form but to make money. That is first and last in this enterprise.
And I think there is great danger, for both men and women, to be trained to see each others as pawns in the money game, to be used for their powers… even being willing to be exploited is still exploitation.
Tim is obviously correct as to what the point of the fashion show is. These women are playing the seductress in order to make sales. I don’t find the VS fashion show (parade of flesh, as Eric says) acceptable at all. It is the purpose and intent. Many fashion campaigns do this same thing, even when the people are dressed in more clothing.
For example, my husband does not like the Anthro catalog lying around because all the women look like they are trying to seduce you to bed. It is not the clothes in this case. He is quite comfortable with me wearing the same clothing. But, the catalog plays heavy into seduction to make the sale.
That being said, I agree with everything Dale says, too. A man should be able to see a beautiful woman and not lust. Lust is a matter of the heart, not a matter of nature or “wiring”. The church has dropped the ball on this big time by being afraid to dig deeply into this.
It is okay to find someone attractive, even sexually attractive. It does not follow that you desire to use that body for your own pleasure or gain. That is a whole different thing. The church should not be teaching men to always avert their eyes. Job did not make a covenant with his eyes not to look. He made a covenant with his eyes not to look lustfully. Big difference.
Example, we have a former neighbor who works as a prostitute to feed her drug addiction. She is a hurting, lost woman who has a good body. My husband could see her on the sidewalk in the evening in her lingerie, (yep…) & look at her without lusting. He could address her by name, look her in the eye & engage her in friendly conversation. Just because a woman is dressed provocatively, does not mean that all faithful Christian men should turn their heads. Is that being the love of Jesus to that women? Do we not then treat her as the sex object that the world is treating her as?
Great points, including, to shun is to continue the sex object problem….
Nice distinction on what type of covenant Job made. What helped you see this up in Scripture?
LOVED the example of your husband, my hubby is like him in that. Appreciate hearing more stories of men who know how to respect women who don’t even respect themselves.
My husband & I have hashed out these ideas for years. But, when we read this article in Relevant it helped us get a good handle on what we were throwing around – http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/relationship/features/28856-beauty-vs-sexuality
Have you read it? That is where it was well noted for me -the adverb of lustfully.
And to Eric’s point of a man thinking he is above the sin of lust & cannot fall, I think that is very important. We can’t bombard ourselves with these images and think it does no harm. It is not because the female (or male) form is the problem. It is because of the way our culture turns it into a sex object. That is why the crux of the issue is to remember that is a person, not just a tempting, shiny object. A person. I think when we feel tempted to lust after someone, we are usually forgetting that.
The issue that Eric brings up of the lack of intimacy in the home is also a huge issue. This is something I tried to discuss in my small group recently & it didn’t go terribly well. So many husbands are under the impression that women don’t like sex that much. I think that is so off. I believe that if a wife doesn’t like sex, you should work to discover the reason. Do not let yourself believe that it is just because she is a woman. Have you guys written about this topic, Jonalyn? And also, do you guys ever speak for couples retreats? Just a thought…
A good post at Relevant by Hugo. I appreciate Hugo Schwyzer’s comments on modesty so much. He’s become a twitter friend and we’ll be speaking in Chicago together this April at Bold Boundaries: Exploring Friendship between Men and Women http://sacredfriendshipgathering.com
I’ll be covering modesty.
I wrote a post on modesty here: http://soulation.org/jonalynblog/2012/08/modesty-is-a-chameleon.html based on much of what Lauren Dubinsky writes about in her post.
I’m so glad you asked about speaking on the sex drive and the culturally perceived ocean of differences. I have a RS post up my sleeve on a theory as to why so many women claim to be less interested in sex than their husbands. It’s almost entirely sociological (and not nature) based.
Short version: women don’t tell their husbands what pleases them so sex is a whole lot less fun for them and less involved for their husbands. We need to change that.
And yes, we do speak at couples retreats. AND, if you’re interested, we have a Soulation Couples Gathering planned for this summer. more here: http://www.soulation.org/gatherings/
If you want to apply, do so today and I’ll extend the deadline for you.
Oh I WANT to apply. Looks super awesome. But, I don’t know if we can pull it off. We are in waiting to travel to Ethiopia at an unknown date to adopt another child. It looks super awesome, though. I want, I want to…
I’m excited for your hopeful adoption soon! Glad you shared about that.
I have a question for Mandy…would you rather women with stretch marks and pocked skin walk the runways at the VS show?
Sometimes, I think we are asking too much of fashion and too much of companies seeking to sell a product.
As per Jonalyn’s questions:
What do we buy into when we buy these clothes (lingerie)? Maybe it is simply materialism or a desire for beauty or a feeling that I am sexually attractive. When I see lacy red panties, I go ohhhh so cute,gotta get a pair.
And I guess my next question is where does sexiness come in for single celibate women?
Glad you asked this, Esther.
How about you define sexiness for us first?
Then, I’ll be happy to answer that.
I loved Erin’s comments! The importance of not bombarding ourselves with these images, yet remembering that they are people. Just like it is easy to see a homeless person and think “homeless” instead of seeing a person who just might need our help. Probably not the greatest analogy, but it’s how I see it!
Yes, VS models are people, with desires and foibles who floss their lovely teeth at night, too.
VS is only interested in sexiness for women of a certain size. Not saying I expect differently for these practically porn TV shows, but even in their stores, they only cater to a subset of women. If you don’t meet their ideal, you’re just not sexy enough to wear their product. I watched a brief portion of the show; with a prepuberty looking Justin B. dancing around and staring at the women’s breasts, I felt it was disgusting. And I’m no prude.
Doreen,
The size-ism of VS is a good point. Sexy usually slips into meaning “sexually appealing to the most number of men” when in reality it should mean “sexually available” which can be further qualified “sexually available to one person.”
For instance, a woman can be sexy to her husband, but not be attractive to the general public. Does that make sense?
Hello Jonalyn! I love your work and was so excited to meet you recently in Clackamas OR. I I also enjoy being a fan of yours on Twitter.
Great thoughts here! I’m curious how you would recommend teaching teen girls about what sexy is and how to value their bodies. I have worked with teens for many years now and that coupled with my own past growing up in a supportive Christian home has left me realizing just how off my own ideals about this topic were.
When I began working at a church youth group many years ago the staff actually had an unwritten dress code and guess what it pretty much only pertained to girls…well okay…always to girls. In fact the staff kept on hand super extra large tea shirts (leftovers from summer camps) to slip to girls that walked in “inappropriately dressed” (they showed cleavage). Sad, right?
I am often frustrated that the topic of purity from many youth groups seems to put most of the attention toward girls, whereas, in my experience, the topic of lust is often tailored toward guys. There are so many issues with that logic.
So, how can we lovingly, with grace, help teach young people about valuing their bodies and sexuality without playing the game of “don’t do this.” What I mean by this is, how can we simply yet honestly teach and indeed model what to do and how to find value and purpose in it.
Another thought dealing with singleness: how can those who are single find value in human sexuality? And how can the church encourage these sorts of discussions. I have seen damage and soul wounds in this area. I have a close male friend who is 25 and believe it or not he didn’t know what a vagina was. And to make matters worse his mom’s description to his question was alarming and totally vague. Again…sad.
He’s a Christian, very intelligent and knowledgable…yet when it comes to understanding and appreciating the human body and sexuality…it’s a hush hush issue in his family (their conservative Christians).
Okay I’ll stop for now! Thanks for the platform to share some thoughts and ask some questions!
Wow Anna, I love your questions.
I’ll focus on the last one.
To the young man I would say pick up a book…when I was thirteen, my parents gave me a book about sexual organs and sex. Doesn’t everyone get those?
My parents were never hush hush about sex. They always said it was beautiful and recognized and affirmed sexual feelings/desires. They were pretty open about answering our questions.
I can only speak as a woman. For me I recognize that I am a sexual being and that has many ways of working itself out besides having sex. That’s an important thing. Own who you are. Look at yourself naked in the mirror. Aren’t you beautiful? Isn’t your body so amazing? Don’t be afraid of your private parts.
I also celebrate my sexuality through dancing. It is a physical activity that involves all senses except taste. Well, if you’re tasting your sweat while you dance, then taste too.
Or when I do something thrilling, like go surfing. Sex is about unity or whatever. When I surf I feel like I am one with the ocean. I am moving with its strength and power. And there’s excitement and fear because the ocean can easily consume me. I get the most incredible high. Letting loose sexual energy into that is unbelievable.
But I want to try something else as well, Ravi Zacharias suggests worshipping God when you feel “I want to have sex now.” Sex is a hunger that points to something greater than just the physical.
Just my thoughts. No expert on human sexuality. But really intrigued that people don’t have more open discussions about sex with their families.
I
Excellent points, Esther. Sex is a hunger, for unity, for significance, for adrenalin, for safety. All of these can be found in other legitimate ways besides sex.
It is a struggle to maintain chastity, but it also means you have more energy for other things. Sex is, after all, rather time-consuming and draining
Anna,
I love knowing you enjoy my tweets
In terms of training teens on their body’s beauty, sexiness and value I’d start with showing them the book Girl Culture. I’d walk through most of it with them and ask them to identify what makes these women insecure or powerful.
Then, I’d take them to an art gallery and talk about the many roles of nudity, how it’s more than sex appeal. I’d ask them to notice the changing roles of female beauty across the centuries.
Then, I’d have them watch this video: http://www.soulation.org/Video/FemaleSexualityFullVideo.html It will give them a chance to air the harder topics to bring up like masturbation.
I’d have them read my post on modesty and ask them to define what a modest person does, looks like, talks about, etc. I’d ask them to explain how modesty is something men have to think about, too.
I’d have them read my post on lust and women. Let me know if you want links.
And this is just a start… I think you and I could talk further about this. Feel free to email Heidi@soulation.org to set up an Ask LIVE! appointment with me. I’d love to explore this further.
Regarding singleness and sexuality, many Christians don’t talk or study this because they have some Separatist and/or Gnostic residue in their thinking that ascribes evil or nastiness with their human bodies.
I have hopes to post on sexuality and singleness with a single male friend of mine in a few months. Stay tuned at BreakfastReading.com. I’d recommend any single person read Sex God by Rob Bell to start realizing the potency of sex no matter your marital or sexually active or “inactive” (I hate that term) state.
In the meanwhile, take a look at Sex for Christians by Lewis Smedes to begin to integrate sexuality and Christianity. And I’d suggest your intelligent, male friend start reading for instance, my blog. Have him begin with the posts on modesty and lust. Suggest he read Sex for Christians, too.
Sexuality is something most Christians haven’t turned over to the God of Israel because, frankly, they’re afraid he’ll either shame them or be embarrassed of them. But sexuality is one of the things he made, so beginning by simply saying you’ll trust God with your sexuality is a huge step.
This video is helpful about that, too: http://www.soulation.org/Video/YLML-SexMatters.html
I’m a plus-size woman. I used to feel like an ugly duckling walking past any lingerie shops, so my own admiration of the beauty of lingerie started after I began to feel empowered as a woman – thanks to a really awesome husband and some books that opened my mind to the lies I had accepted about myself. I’m still plus-size and not under any delusion that I currently would look good in any of that (That stuff is not cut for curvy women, and I’m curious to see how long it takes Victoria’s Secret to realize the whole new clientele they could have.), but this year I recorded the show on the DVR and thoroughly enjoyed watching it, ’cause everything looked so gorgeous and creative. I love admiring beauty, and the creativity of those clothes, and my favorite part was the calendar portion.
One of my best friends’ daughter LOVES the “Love Pink” store. Her sense of self isn’t wrapped up in a need to look sexy, but she’s fortunate to have a mother who is helping her be the best version of herself. Not all girls have that – maybe a huge part of why so many women see sexuality and beauty as a contest they have to win or they’re unwantable. Her daughter is not into sex costumes, but loves the sweat suits and the cute little dog.
For me, sexy is about the person, and caring, and what about my husband I find physically appealing, which is a lot. For him, it’s much the same way.
I was raised in a home where my Dad made us completely cover ourselves at all times, even as little girls, having to be swathed in a big bathrobe if our PJ’s (had to be long heavy nightgowns) were on. If we didn’t, we would get spanked and lots of dirty looks and shamed. It felt stupid and made me feel like I had something yucky to hide. Therefore, when I saw my first Victoria’s Secret at the mall while I was in college, it was embarrassing and made me feel ugly, because I felt like there was nothing attractive about me. I would feel embarrassed walking into Victoria’s Secret with someone I drove to the mall with during college, and felt like the sales girls were looking at me with derision. Now I walk into those stores with my friend when she’s shopping for herself or her daughter and I feel beautiful, because I no longer feel like I need to hide anything, and that my beauty is my own – what God gave me, not dictated by some marketing person’s effort to sell something by setting a high impossible standard for everyone to envy and worship (the major point of Vogue and other magazines, for example). I feel that sexiness is in the eyes of the beholder, and that everyone is in a different place in life and has different views, but that there are some things that make me more able to love, and those are the things I think are the most sexy – like how I affect people in my life in a way that adds to their emotional strength, validation to not have to fit into the box someone else might be busy making for them out of convenience, or simply being blessed by them in a way that takes one more piece of the lies I accepted in the past out of my heart and puts confidence and joy in it’s place. It’s in knowing God made me female on purpose and likes me that way, and He really DOES love me unconditionally – whether or not I can wear Victoria’s Secret lingerie.
I think lingerie is fantastic, and I know you’re not saying it’s not. I think wearing amazing things under our clothes that feel pretty is not bad, but needing them to feel sexy and feeling deficient without them is bad. I think we women who recognize the unhealthy messages, and the men who have the grasp and courage to join us, need to change the conversation. Yeah, I definitely agree most Christians need to quit hiding in a closet. I wonder if anyone realizes that by hiding we’re actually refusing to give control to God, even though He sees it all and we’re concealing absolutely nothing from Him? I want to see Christians raise the freedom flag (like your words about changing the culture by changing the way people’s souls are formed into warped things.) Adult Christianity to me often reminds me of the adorable thing children do when playing hide and go seek – covering their eyes (in this case to certain subjects) and thinking no one can see them (i.e. see what God wants for them in that area) – except with Christians it’s not cute.
I don’t need a bathrobe, or a veil. I don’t need lingerie. I do need God and know Him. For me, one of the most sexy things is the way my husband respects women and our freedom to be all we can be. THAT is sexy. In my female friends, it’s seeing them have courage to be honest with themselves.
Do you know that moment in that movie “The Women” when Meg Ryan’s character is trying on this white baby doll and ends up realizing the women her husband is having an affair with is in the changing room across from her also trying on something, and when she (Ryan’s character) walks in and sees the woman, she feels totally less attractive ’cause the “other woman” more fits the marketing standard of attractiveness? The “other woman” already saw herself through her physical beauty and sexuality and totally had no respect for Meg Ryan’s character’s efforts to appeal to her, and Meg Ryan’s character at the time was totally unaware of how pitiful the other woman really was and how much as a woman she herself had to offer to herself, and her family. It brings to mind a moment with my chiropractor at the end of an appointment. She was feeling less than pretty because of a comment her husband made about her having “manly” arms and hands. My chiropractor used to be a body builder, and although she doesn’t have ripped arms, they’re toned. She immediately felt un-kitten-like and ugly and believed it. I have always thought of her as beautiful – her sparkling eyes and big heart, confidence and teasing bossyness, intelligence, and caring nature and adorable curly hair. Right then in the moment she was sharing the comment with me, and I knew it was a moment to share some of the freedom I have gotten from people who have shared from their own experiences – like things you write in this blog and in your book Ruby Slippers. I told her that I think she’s beautiful, and the fact that she keeps herself healthy is beautiful, and that no one should make her feel down on herself because she doesn’t measure up to some airbrushed goddess in a magazine. I said that God made us all unique, and anything less would be boring, so why volunteer to be boring? She got the biggest smile and just hugged me for a minute and gave me a big kiss on my face (She’s Italian-American. It’s a cultural thing.). I want a world where humans and lingerie can co-exist peacefully, where it doesn’t cause pain and isn’t part of a system women and girls think they have to measure up to. My Mom used to tell me that beauty is only skin deep. I don’t believe that at all. It’s internal as well, and how we treat lingerie I have come to believe reveals a lot about us.
…and I forgot to say I would love to read a post from you about male and female sexuality. I don’t fit the mold, and feel it’s cool to give the men permission to not always have to have a stronger sex drive or risk being viewed by male counterparts as unmanly…or the woman to be misjudged by other women because she loves sex more intensely than her husband.
Great post. Just read this today.