Are Evangelical Men Suffering fom the "Modesty" Scapegoat Syndrome?

The power to make sure men don’t see women as objects of sexual gratification lies within men’s — and only men’s — control. ~Don Linzer

My attention was diverted this morning by my little brother's Facebook post, and it made me stop and really reflect on the attitude and beliefs that were under-girding what turned out to be his very popular comment. 

Why do girls (not all) try so hard getting guys attention by posting half naked pics of suggestive poses all over the internet, and then have the nerve to wonder why men are drooling dogs? I mean lets face it... if you can't respect yourself, what makes you think anyone else is going to respect you? Either cover yourself up... or get use to being objectified. It's really that simple.

I couldn't help but think about an article I had recently read by rabbi Dov Linzer, and how I feel about this push for female "modesty" can be perfectly summed up in his above quote which I plucked out of his article. It is worth reading in its entirety.
 
So my thoughts...

There is the possibility of acknowledging a woman's beauty and sexuality without automatically assuming her to be a mere object for consumption. All people deserve to be treated with respect, not by virtue of how covered their bodies are, but by virtue of their status as human beings. The failure to realize this is my primary concern here, for the following reason.

If  the measure of a woman's respectability is the extent to which she covers herself (or does not drink alcohol or go dancing or walk alone, or whatever more subjective stipulations you want to place on women if they wish to be treated with respect), then there will always be a storehouse of excuses men can draw from to excuse their disrespectful actions and thoughts toward women. I felt the sting of this same injustice myself as I was blamed in court for the sexual attack I experienced as a fifteen-year-old, which was perpetuated against me by a full-grown, sixty-year-old man, simply because I had a few beers and therefore was not considered a respectable girl. They thought my use of alcohol stripped me of my right to not be assaulted.This miscarriage of justice was made possible only because there existed a deeply entrenched belief among the judges that the responsibility for a man's own sexual behaviour weighed more heavily on the female then on himself, the possessor of his own faculties.


So I adamantly maintain that, regardless of how a woman dresses, the impetus falls on each individual to control his or her own thoughts and actions, to "know how to control his own body in holiness and honor" (1 Thess 4:4).

And then there are the logical implications for this belief.

Some men find a woman's toes hopelessly stimulating; some, eyes; some, voice. Who gets to decide what is deemed sexually provocative when it is so subjective?  Shall we just err on the side of caution and force women to wear burqas and other such ridiculous attire lest they reveal a leg and stimulate a man's hopeless instinct to make her an object to lust after?
This is it's utter absurdity! If we subscribe to this thinking, we then have to take it to it's next logical step, which can become as ludicrous and misogynistic as this Islamic bike that was designed to "protect Muslim women and their values' (but, rather, effectively shames them for possessing this 'incitement for men to sin' called femininity).
 

I happen to like freedom.

More precisely, I appreciate my freedom to live without the incessant preoccupation with my 'inherently sexual body' and how well I am concealing anything that might be considered by men to be even remotely sexual. And, as I intimated already, I also desire to live in a country that holds each man accountable for his own violations of human dignity -- and quite frankly, this kind of thinking that makes the woman's body the scapegoat for a man's own sexual thoughts and urges. It is very unbiblical - indeed, it is simply dangerous - and it is misogynistic.

Why misogynistic? Because it is believed that A WOMAN'S BODY is an inherent incitement for men to sin. In reality, however,  it is a man's OWN FAULTY THINKING and DEPRAVITY that entices him to sin.

but each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed.
- James 1:14, American Standard Version

 Take the culture of Papua for example...

The bare breasts of a woman here are considered natural; they are not perceived as being inherently sexual. It is only here in the West, and in other like-minded cultures, that have objectified the bodies of women as if they exist for the sexual pleasure of man - that they cannot be seen in any other context except sexual.

Why should we women have to conform to a man-made social construction in order to be treated as  respectable persons in our own right? If men are perceiving women to be sexual objects - regardless of what they're wearing or not wearing - that is a reflection of their own perversion, not the woman's.

Which brings us right back to the opening statement:

"The power to make sure men don’t see women as objects of sexual gratification lies within men’s — and only men’s — control."

So let's change the attitudes that bring life to the lust. Let's take responsibility for our own sins.