Faith & Modesty Part 2.

 

Sex is everywhere. Everyone is doing it. It is how our society has evolved. Don’t fight it. Just submit to it. If you are in the raging river, swim with it, dirt and all. 

In America, a 12-year-old girl is estimated to be exposed to 280 sexy images a day. Imagine how many such images and running videos of similar explicitness our sons are exposed to. 

During my time, we were familiar with this 1984 lyrics, “Like a virgin, touched for the every first time. Like a virgin, when your heart beats next to mine.” 

Today, it is this by Britney Spears (2003), Don’t really wanna be a tease. But would you undo my zipper please. Uh uh, please don’t talk. Listen. I’ll let you touch me if you want. I see your body rise, rise. And when you come, don’t get too hot.” Are they role models or eroding models? 

Last night, I was watching Fatal Attraction, a thriller where traditional family values crashed with a man’s unbridled sexual libidos. It was no doubt amazing acting by Glenn Close and Michael Douglas, as you witness a night of sexual freedom, that is, sex without boundaries, turned into a nightmare, an attempted suicide, and a violent obsession that nearly tore a family apart. 

Everything we do have consequences. The choices we make, we live with them. And the life that is lived demands that we either learn our lesson or continue to make the same mistakes until we go to our graves.

 

Mind you, what we accept as normal in this world will change us for better or for worse. And it is similar to marriage. You break the marital oath, you pay the price. Some oath broken are resilient and they come back stronger. Some is unable to withstand the broken trust and they go their separate ways, with kids struggling for love at different places. 

No, I am not talking about marriage today. This post is not about that per se. I am however talking about sexual responsibility. More specifically, I am talking about modesty, the traditional virtue that many have looked down upon as passé, prude, puritan, a prig. 

No one wants to talk about such virtues anymore because, I believe, of moral fatigue - for we are fighting a world where sexual abstinence is anachronistic, chastity is for our grandparents’ time, and a good virtuous woman and a chivalrous man only appear in fairy tales or gospel stories. 

The raw reality is, the age of first intercourse has dropped from nineteen to fifteen for female. That was a survey carried out more than ten years ago in America. I trust it is even lower now. And oral sex has also skyrocketed in the same survey from 42 to 71 per cent. And it is no surprise that preserving yourself for marriage has become an embarrassing topic to talk about, when in the past, it was something to be proud of. 

When anyone talks about modesty, there is always a high chance that he or she will be accused of being anti-feminist, a chauvinist or anachronistic. But you seldom hear the same accusation being leveled on a father when he tells his daughter to dress less provocatively on a date or of a mother warning his son to respect a lady when he goes out with her for a movie.

At home, we were taught to uphold virtues like modesty, chastity and respect for the opposite sex, but in the world, we are constantly told to seek our own pleasure first, race to the top at all costs, and do whatever makes us happy because we only have one life to live. 

It is like we have something firm to stand on at home, the values that we strive consciously to protect and pursue, and when we are out there, we are only given a paddle and a dinghy to navigate the vast ocean, the wild tides and the unpredictable storms of anything goes, of you define your own happiness, and of there being no absolute truths anymore (make of it as you grope along). 

The president and founder of character and chastity program in America, Elayne Bennett observed this: “When society keep giving a message that (a) you won’t get pregnant and (b) that society doesn’t condemn you (for engaging in promiscuous sexual activity), it really wears down some of the healthy and correct hesitancy on the part of young girls.”

We have thus taken freedom too far. We have allowed ourselves to be free from the chains of traditions, and in doing so, we have thrown the baby out together with the bathwaters. What was meant for the good of our soul and spirit, we have turned it into something that is devoid of soul and spirit. 

We view modesty with suspect, a patriarchal scheme to suppress women’s sexual freedom. We view chastity with prejudice because it doesn’t gel with our postmodernist values in a post truth world. And we view monogamy as a romantic ideal that has its head in the clouds and its feet dangling in the air. There is just no practical value in being faithful to one throughout a lifetime because love has to be freely offered and freely accepted. Promiscuity is the result though, but we rather call it sexual freedom to do as thou pleases. 

It is no wonder that freedom taken to the extreme is freedom mindlessly drawing us to the repudiation of whatever that gives us hope, meaning and purpose. Here, Edmund Burke puts it pointedly: - 

“Men are qualified for freedom in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power on will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.”

And returning to modesty is not returning to a time of sexual repression. It is also not a tool used by men to control woman. It is in fact the opposite. A woman of modesty is a woman of integrity. She commands respect because she is not only confident of herself, of her worth, she also has an empowering influence (or injunction) over a man’s desires to seek just an outlet for his carnal pleasures. 

When my 16-year-old daughter dresses in a way that exposes her cleavage, as a father, I would tell her to cover up. She is my daughter, and I want her to be valued and treasured not for things transient and superficial. 

I say this because I realise when a female colleague bends down in front of me to pick something up, there is a sobering effect on me when she instinctively places her hand on her blouse just below her neck to cover her chastity. The effect on me is one of mutual respect. As a man, I immediately got the message from her. She is someone who protects her modesty because it gives her the freedom to take personal responsibility for her sexuality. And that freedom is what defines her as a woman, a woman of integrity. 

But the world would look at that as one being prudish, backdated or repressed. Alas, George Orwell once said, “We have now sunk to the depth that the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” 

Imagine that, a world where every father restates the obvious to their daughters, reminding them to uphold their modesty as they go out there in the world, and every mother doing the same, reminding their sons to respect and protect the opposite sex, as they would their own mother, sister or even daughter. 

In such a world imaginable, the timeless values we impart to our children will not be turned upside down, where promiscuity is sexual freedom, monogamy is monotony and sex-before-marriage is the way to sexual maturity. 

Such a world is conceivable because modesty is not a weapon deployed by men to control woman. It is on the contrary an enduring influence a woman has over men to remind them of their first duty, that is, to always uphold that which is “the restatement of the obvious”.

 

Faith & Modesty Part 1.

 

“Can I make a special appeal to the girls?

Let’s help our brothers by not dressing in a revealing or provocative way.

Of course you do not have control over their lustful thoughts, and it may not be a sin to wear that skintight dress or post that bikini photo, but if we can help our brothers why not?

Avoid it not because we must do it, but because we love each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.”

That was the appeal of a youth pastor, published in Thir.st, and it was aimed to help our brothers fight against sexual temptation.

Well, it may not be a sin to wear or post skintight dress or bikini, but there are three precautionary note regarding that post and its spillover aftermath. 

First, it was made public. I trust it was meant for the benefit of a Christian youth audience. It may even be spoken in a closed-door session like the time CCS’s closed-door candid session about the supply of masks, which was somehow leaked to the public. 

So, you can expect the talk to have more context and meant to be heart-to-heart, open and candid; thus less mincing of words. Or, at least should have been intended that way.

Second, it is spoken by a pastor, a religious leader. 

In the public eye, especially after so many leaders have fallen, religious leaders may just be the last person on earth at this time to talk about sin, temptation and revealing dressing. And to compound the issue, it is most unfortunate that it is made public for all and sundry. 

And third, the subject matter fell short or is of insufficient clarity - that is, helping our brothers fight against sexual temptation by dressing less revealing. Good intention definitely not doubted, but more understanding is needed. Also, discretion would be helpful here when one is phrasing it in that way. 

You see, we as parents want our sons to keep their lust under control. We want to warn them that they can turn something meant for pleasure within boundaries into pleasures without boundaries. And we want our sons (and daughters) to enjoy sex in the appropriate context where commitment, love, devotion and trust are the four defining bedposts in a relationship. 

Yet, it is not so much about clothings, or how one dresses, but it is more about preserving one’s modesty as a virtue in this world that has swung to embracing brash immodesty, with disturbing unintended cultural effect on our youth, grown men, and even men of the collar. 

Personally, I do not think it is naive to advise another to dress less provocatively, or to think twice when posting bikini photos, in our largely conservative society. But it cannot be an unqualified and context-lacking advice, because in this era of the woke generation, where one is highly militant against men in sanctimonious garb, you can expect to be target for open criticisms. 

And it is not naive because I trust those who issue out the advice are aware that men are more easily triggered than women when to comes to sexual temptation. This is not to excuse them, or their actions, not in any way, but it is to understand them. 

This understanding is necessary so as to let those - who are struggling with sexual desires - know that they are not alone in this struggle. For even the best or most restraint amongst us are confronting this issue too, to varying degree of course. 

Mind you, sexual desires are much more complicated than just about dressing well, covering those so-called trigger points or arousing signals. It is not so much about conservative dressing because that is also a matter of culture. By this, I mean that what is revealing in one culture can be normal, or generally acceptable, in another culture.

And even if one is fully dressed, covered in the most non-flirtatious way, a man obsessed with lust can very well undress his victim with just his eye and mind. And it can be something he brings back home to replay in the darkness of his mind, turning it into a nurturance of carnal desires carried out in the absence of any provocative or revealing dressing. 

So, never underestimate the power of the mind to grow a seed of thought into a fortress of sexual addiction. As such, this is what I meant by the subject fell short or is of insufficient clarity, when we just tell them about dressing less revealing and nothing more.

Let me end by going back to the virtue of modesty. Havelock Ellis wrote this in 1899: “Without modesty, we could not have, nor rightly value at its true worth, that bold and pure candor which is at once the final revelation of love and the seal of its sincerity.” 

Another view in agreement states as follows: “All peoples require a sense of shame in youngsters, especially in young girls and shame suits youth and protects the growth of sexual maturity.” (Kurt Riezler). 

For me, such shame sets the boundary for us in speech and conduct, especially on how one dresses, how one ought to treat another, and how mutual respect ought to be extended. 

This kind of shame closely co-partners with modesty as a virtue to restrain one from acting/dressing out of line. And that line is drawn by modesty’s sentry guard, that is, self-respect and self-reproach.

 

Is modesty still relevant today?

Is modesty still relevant in our world today? 

If modesty is taking responsibility for our sexuality, and this responsibility means conducting ourselves in a way that brings about respect, honour and protection from the opposite gender, are we at risk of allowing our sexuality to be used for ways other than what modesty demands? 

I thought of that because in the retreat’s workshop last weekend, we (panelist) were asked related questions about sexual boundaries, and one of the panelists (Rachel) mentioned modesty. 

She said she’s old fashioned, but she believed in dressing appropriately for the ladies so that one doesn’t become objectivised. 

She has a point, but I am afraid the world would not go with that flow. I am afraid the world would tell people like her that how I dress is my business, and if it seduces, then that‘s his problem. 

My body is mine to flaunt and your lust is yours to control. So don’t blame me for your uncontrollable urges. 

Incidentally, that reminded me of what Naomi Wolf once wrote. “There are no good girls; we are all bad girls.” She advocates that we should then admit it and “explore the shadow slut who walks alongside us.”

Mm...I wonder, have we carried feminism and sexual liberation too far? Have we taken the sexual revolution that is supposed to free one from the oppression of patriarchy and misogyny to another form of freedom which sets whatever sexual boundary one fancies as long as it leads to getting one’s way?

In “Return to Modesty”, author Wendy Shalit wrote this as a summary of the book: -

“I propose that the woes besetting the modern young woman - sexual harassment, stalking, rape, even “whirlpooling” (when a group of guys surround a girl who is swimming, and then sexually assault her) - are all expressions of a society which has lost its respect for female modesty.”

Wendy’s point on modesty coincides with Rachel’s advice to the young adult in the retreat to dress with self-respect. And this is what Wendy wrote: - 

“Women who dress and act “modestly” conduct themselves in ways that shroud their sexuality in mystery. They live in a way that makes womanliness more a transcendent, implicit quality than a crude, explicit quality.”

As a father and a husband, I’d like to say that we need people like Wendy and Rachel to tell the young what modesty means to them. 

It is, as Wendy puts it, a mystery, and a quality that is to be reserved and treasured for such time as it is safe to offer to the one who can guarantee the offerer a lifelong commitment to honour, respect and protect it. 

Most of all, it is not transactional, expressed most impatiently as “friends with benefits”, but it is transcendent, expressed as “lifelong lovers within the enduring freedom that a marital union brings”.

This may be considered as antiquated and prude by many out there, but it is funny how a father would go all out to cover his daughter’s modesty, glaring at those who even dare to ogle at his beloved’s assets, but when it comes to the other girls, he is often less strict and bothered. 

Worse, some may even objectivise her so as to release sexual tension and stress. Somehow, lust swells unthinkingly when the object of our loose desires is no more than a stranger or acquaintance to us.

But surely, that does not change the fact that the object of our lust is no less somebody’s daughter, wife and/or mother. 

So, we have collectively remade our own culture; most times, rather unwittingly. It has become highly or hyper-sexualised because modesty and conservatism are seen as backward or straitjacket values arising from an oppressed, Victorian mindset.

Our daughters thus dress as they like and flaunt as much as they want, leaving nothing to the imagination, because the shame that results from self-respect is misconstrued as an embarrassment and the virtue of protecting one’s private parts from leering eyes is derided as not flowing with the time. 

I recall an encounter when a teacher confronted a male student with pornographic materials, and the student said, “My father doesn’t mind. We sometimes watch together. He said I should not be ashamed of the female body.”

Alas, is it any wonder that our sons are rationalising and demanding that if she really loves, she will freely offer, holding nothing back? 

My parting shot is this, when our daughter let go of her modesty, we turn our sons into individuals on a hunt to satisfy their own lustful desires, and the sacred gift of sexuality that is reserved for marriage becomes a transaction for momentary release of self-centered pleasure.

The sexual revolution redux - metoo movement.

Is a touch on a lady's knee or a playful message with some suggestive sexual connotation to one's love interest a form of sexual harassment?

When Adam Sandler repeatedly placed his hand on actress Claire Foy's thigh in an interview on The Graham Norton Show, with Claire politely taking his hand away, is Adam a sexual harasser? 

He was criticised for that, but Adam defended his actions by saying that it was a friendly gesture and he had done the same with Dustin Hoffman in the Jimmy Fallon Show. 

Today's Straits Times talks about a counter-movement of the #metoo movement. 

It has pulled in Actress Catherine Deneuve, who "joined more than 100 other Frenchwomen on Tuesday in arguing in a public letter that men should be free to hit on women, and denouncing the #metoo campaign against sexual harassment as "puritanism" fuelled by a "hatred of men"".

Mm...we are "free to hit on women"...?

One must understand, this is France, the torchbearer of the French Revolution chariot led by the Enlightenment, and the breeding ground for international liberal order. 

Now back to the letter...

One part of the letter reads: "Rape is a crime. But insistent or clumsy flirting is not a crime, nor is gallantry a chauvinist aggression". 

Another part reads: "This expedited justice already has its victims - men prevented from practising their profession as punishment or forced to resign - while the only thing they did wrong was touching a knee, trying to steal a kiss or speaking about intimate things at a work dinner or sending messages with sexual connotations to a woman whose feelings were not mutual."

What is most provocative in this movement is that it raised the challenge that "a woman can, in the same day, lead a professional team and enjoy being the sexual object of a man, without being a 'promiscuous woman' nor a vile accomplice of patriarchy".

But what is disconcerting for me is how the Frenchwomen in this movement defines sexual freedom. 

It reports: "The philosopher, Ruwen Ogien, defended the freedom to offend as essential to artistic creation. In the same way, we defend a right to pester, which is vital to sexual freedom."

Now I know there is a lot to process here. 

Is the #metoo movement getting out of hand, an overkill, overreaching, becoming vindictive, overly misogynistic, and sweeping perverts and innocent flirters into the same bin of sexual predators? 

Or, should we do what the French do, live a little, enjoy life with some well deserved self-indulgences, even if it means being flirtatious with the opposite sex because the opposite sex views it as a form of complimentary gesture affirmimg their self-worth and self esteem? 

Recall, it is okay to hit on someone and the freedom to offend is excusable. And some people may find it a compliment when we view them as a sexual object.

So, if you have it, flaunt it with carefreeness? And if you don't have it, well, don't be too sensitive about it?

Lesson...?

Alas, what lesson can we ever learn here when even adults, like kids, are living in a world partly of their own creation and partly as a result of an emergence (convergence) of innumerable factors and values clashing together that are more complicated than what we adults can pinpoint, isolate and remedy? 

Undeniably, there is such an onslaught of libertarian and postmodern values against the timeless values that we traditionally hold dear in our hearts, until a stage or point where we no longer recognise what is right or wrong anymore, or what is good and what is bad for us and our children. 

It seems that the liberal phrase "Do as thy wilt" applies more to ourselves than others, and when the others do as they will, we criticise them for being too self centered, vindictive, prejudicial, one-sided and misguided. 

Self-awareness may be fast going extinct in our society. 

I guess I can't sieve through much of a lesson here this morning except for an incident my wife told me about returning from school with my girl who is 12 years old. 

My wife and daughter was with her classmate, a Malay boy. The boy was with his mother. They were walking together in a carpark. 

At this time, a car was approaching, and the Malay boy immediately held my girl's shoulder and pulled her away from harm's way. 

After that, the boy turned to my wife and daughter and sheepishly said, "sorry." His mother then came over and apologised too for the inappropriate conduct. 

The boy felt that he shouldn't have touched my girl. But my wife tried to explain that it was alright as he may have just save my daughter's life. He was merely being protective, without any thought for himself. 

My point? 

Sometimes you learn more from kids than the adults. 

Putting aside the two movements above, I learn from the boy's actions the timeless values of chivalry and selflessness. The latter virtue is self-explanatory, and chivalry is definitely not dead. 

From a 12-yr-old, I learn that it is definitely not right to hit on women. On the contrary, we must be like him, chivalrous in protecting a woman, her modesty and all. It is also not alright to express your freedom to offend others, but to care and show concern for them instead. 

And although the apology is not necessary from the boy (and his mother), I also learned that one (regardless of age) must always come from a position of humility and respect, and not from a position of making wild presumptions and taking liberties of another. 

A world that operates on the values of that little boy as seen from his actions is a world that is surely a better place for all. 

For it will be a world that chooses to exercise her freedom to put others first before self, respect and protect another's modesty in all circumstances, and always stand from the position of humility and integrity. Cheerz.