One of the few things our culture at least kinda gets right is that it is wrong to treat women as if they are just objects that exist to have sex with. Granted, that standard only gets trotted out when it’s a convenient tool to use in pursuit of other (usually objectionable) goals, but as Christians we can agree that it is a sin to treat women as sex objects. Men who do this get a lot of flak, and rightly so; I’m not here to defend guys like that. However, the biggest culprits of objectifying women get away scot free without so much as a crosswise glance: women.
Now, before we proceed, let’s get a few things straight:
- I’m not saying that all women treat themselves as sex objects. Too many do, but not all. Keep this in mind, because I’m not going to stop and qualify every statement I make. That would be an unreadable nightmare.
- Ladies, I’m on your side here. I’m not trying to offend you, but I’m going to be direct. If you find yourself getting offended, remember Proverbs 27:6
Faithful are the wounds of a friend,
But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.
Ok, now that that’s out of the way, let’s dive in.
For starters, let’s make sure we have a clear definition of what objectification is. To objectify someone, in this context, is to treat that person as a sex object. A sex object, in turn, is something that exists for the sole purpose of exciting and/or gratifying sexual desire. Thus, when someone objectifies a woman, they are treating her as if she exists for the purpose of exciting or gratifying their own sexual desires. Men can also be objectified in the same way, although it is less prevalent.
Now for the uncomfortable truth: women present themselves as sex objects all the time. The scantily-clad women in commercials, on billboards, or on social media dressed that way by choice, whether for money or attention. They were perfectly free to refuse to degrade themselves, but they did it anyway. Just as bad are the women who wear revealing clothes in public, flaunting for everyone what should be reserved for their husbands. Thus we have the pornification of society driven by promiscuous women enticing men for money and status.
Now, I know what you’re probably thinking; men shouldn’t be looking at that stuff. Men shouldn’t allow themselves to be enticed. Well, duh. Of course men should resist the temptation to lust after these women. But does that excuse the women for enticing them? No more than the false teachers in 2 Peter 2:17-19 were excused for enticing people into apostasy. Furthermore, that doesn’t address the other sin these women commit by objectifying themselves, that of degrading the image of God in them.
Even if men were to completely shun all forms of pornography (and I can’t stress enough how in favor of that I am), these women would still be presenting themselves as sex objects; even if nobody is looking at them. They would still be objectifying themselves. In doing so, they are proclaiming through their actions that people, made in God’s image, exist only for the purpose of sexual gratification; that their value is determined by sex appeal, not by the presence of the image of God. They take God’s good gift of sexuality, intended to be enjoyed exclusively by husband and wife, and treat it as a cheap, common thing, available to anyone with a few bucks or a few extra minutes to browse Instagram. That is a sin even if no one is lusting after them.
Furthermore, this is not a cultural thing. The aspects of the female form that these women are drawing attention to are considered attractive by men because they are men; it is a natural attraction that is built into us on a biological level. Just because a culture considers it acceptable does not mean it isn’t enticement.
Likewise, this doesn’t apply to women dressing provocatively in private for their husbands. That’s fine, sex is to be enjoyed by husband and wife in private. She’s not enticing him to sin and, realistically, he’s not viewing her as a sex object. Contrary to what feminists would have you believe, a man can view his wife as a full person with thoughts, feelings, etc. and still desire her sexually. We’re not dumb animals.
Now, I think it’s safe to assume that if you’re reading this you’re probably not posting inappropriate content online, and are trying to dress appropriately to the best of your knowledge. That’s good. Unfortunately, there is more to not objectifying women than the blatantly obvious. Over the past few decades, there has been a subtle shift in how women dress from an emphasis on beauty to an emphasis on sex appeal. This is evidenced by where clothing draws people’s attention.
Historically, throughout Christian-influenced societies, women’s clothing was designed in such a way as to focus on the woman’s face. In Medieval Europe, for example, not only were women fully covered below the neck, they would often wear a headscarf. The same pattern can be seen across time and throughout different cultures that have been influenced by Christianity: women who were deemed worthy of respect dressed in a way that drew attention to their faces, not their sexuality. Consider this mosaic of the Byzantine empress Theodora:
It is noteworthy that Theodora was an actress before she married Emperor Justinian, at a time when ‘actress’ was synonymous with ‘prostitute’. (A Christian-influenced society will still have sin, obviously.) Notice how, although she would have been quite used to objectifying herself for gain, she instead dresses in chaste clothing to command respect. She understood what most women throughout history have understood: nobody respects a sex object. This is why women’s clothing has historically drawn attention to the face in cultures where women are respected.
This is because, as the Apostle Peter lays out in 1 Peter 3:3-4, a woman’s real beauty isn’t her body, but her character. A person’s face says a lot about their character since thoughts, emotions, and attitudes, all of which spring from one’s character, are expressed on the face whether consciously or not. This is why poker players wear sunglasses, to keep other players from reading their emotions. It’s also why people wearing sunglasses look ‘tough’, because we can’t see their emotions nearly as easily. People can intuitively tell the difference between a fake smile and a genuine one, even if we have trouble pinning down why. (Because a fake smile doesn’t reach the eyes.) Our inner lives make their mark on our faces. Thus, by emphasizing their faces, women were really drawing attention to their character.
As anyone who has eyes can tell you, women’s clothing today doesn’t do that. Women’s clothing today is designed to focus attention below the neckline, whether through leaving places uncovered, or by clinging to the body. There’s a vast array of ways to do this, from short/low cut shirts to tight pants, but it all stems from the same unbiblical principle: it’s designed to maximize sex appeal by where it draws attention.
The question nobody asks is what message this way of dressing sends. It not only draws attention to the woman and away from God, in direct violation of 1 Timothy 2:9-10, but it draws attention to her sexuality. At least the women that Paul was admonishing were only flaunting wealth and status; nobody would mistake them for a Proverbs 7 woman. Where your clothing draws the eye says a lot about what you believe to be the most important thing about you. This is important to keep in mind because, even if you’re not trying to draw attention away from God and onto yourself, you are still broadcasting the message that the most important thing about you is your sex appeal.
The failure to understand this, I think, is the core of the issue. I seriously doubt that any significant percentage of women in the church are consciously trying to be seductive when wearing the clothes our culture offers them. The problem, ladies, is that you’ve been lied to. You’ve been told that you can dress however you want without consequences. You’ve been told that no attire is inappropriate, and men are to blame for any stigma. You’ve been told it’s empowering. You’ve been taught to be shameless.
This started in the ‘60s with the Sexual Revolution and its rejection of Biblical sexual ethics. The celebration of promiscuity was inextricably linked with clothing that was as titillating as possible without getting thrown in jail for public indecency. The women who dressed that way thought nothing of their own dignity or worth; all they cared about was having a bunch of casual sex. They viewed themselves as sex objects, and it showed in their clothing. Now, most of the clothing of the sexual revolutionaries is considered tame and even ‘old fashioned’.
Christian women, unfortunately, haven’t been immune to this trend, and I’ve seen outfits in churches where it was necessary to develop an intense interest in the floor or ceiling whenever the woman wearing them walked by. (My male readers will be familiar with this.) The church has been uncritical of our culture’s mode of dress for far too long, and has allowed the culture’s ethic of lust-maximization to seep into our own standards.
But ultimately, it’s not about whether or not men lust after you. Dressing in a way that is designed to entice is a sin, because enticing others to sin is a sin in and of itself. Women’s fashion today is designed to portray women as sex objects to entice men. That on its own should be enough encouragement to dress modestly, after all do you want to be the kind of woman that men should not look at?
But even more important than the matter of enticement is what your clothing says about God. As human beings, we are made in God’s image and as Christians we are His representatives. Thus, when a woman dresses in such a way as to present herself as a sex object she is denigrating the image of God in herself, by saying that her only value is her sex appeal. It would be like using a nation’s flag as toilet paper, but infinitely worse. For a Christian woman to dress in such a manner is not just to denigrate the image of God, but to say that He is okay with it.
Thankfully, it is not hard for women to dress appropriately. If you’re covered from collarbone to knees in something that’s not skin tight, you should be fine. More wouldn’t hurt, but that’s a reasonable minimum. That leaves you plenty of options that are not a potato sack or a hijab. If you need more individualized help, seek out the sweet little old ladies at your church; they have a lifetime of experience to draw on. Dressing in a chaste manner isn’t actually all that difficult, and it honors God.
Like what you read? Leave a comment or share with your friends! (Or both. You can do both.)
Applied Christianity 