1. Read the seventh point of contrast between a Wild and a Wise Thing (Pages 93-108)
2. Download and complete the Chapter Questions for Personal Reflection
3. Post your comments on the Blog

• What does it mean to dress “as a prostitute?”
• How might the concept that clothing is meant to display deep and profound spiritual truths about the gospel change the way a woman dresses?
• Refer to the second paragraph on page 102. Which pitfalls about the practical question of what and what not to wear have tripped you up?
• In what way do the principles that a woman’s clothing ought to be  “becoming, decent and moderate” challenge you?

© Mary A. Kassian

Please include the following statement on any internet copy: © Mary A. Kassian, Girls Gone Wise. Visit Mary’s Website at: GirlsGoneWise.com

The highlight of the afternoon was the famous “Burn Your Bra” Freedom Trash Can. With elaborate ceremony and shouts of joy, the protesters threw away what they identified as male-promoted “instruments of torture”–high-heeled shoes, corsets, girdles, padded bras, stockings, false eyelashes, curlers, and copies of Playboy, Cosmopolitan, and Ladies Home Journal. They shouted “Freedom for Women!” and “No More Miss America” and hung a banner from the balcony reading “Women’s Liberation.”

The display marked the cultural launch of feminism—the philosophy that women have the right to define their own existence. Feminists argued that women had been wrongly defined by men as housewives and/or sex objects. They reasoned that women would find happiness, wholeness, and self-respect when they had the freedom to define themselves. And culture promptly set about giving them the power and right to do so.

Fast forward to 2010.

Last week, Miss USA released the official contestant photos of  51 pageant hopefuls. The look? Lacy black lingerie, fishnets, smudged kohl eyeliner, knee-high boots, stilettos, voluptuous cleavage, and naked flesh, the like of which have traditionally been associated with prostitutes and porn stars, not beauty queens.  The photo shoot, entitled “Waking up in Vegas,” featured steamy, seductive Playboy-like poses on a large bed and other bedroom furniture.

Rima Fakih made history as the first Arab-American to win the pageant. Besides being crowned Miss USA, she also has the dubious distinction of procuring top honors in a pole dancing competition. What’s even more startling than her lewd behavior, is that this behavior is supported by women. It’s women who uphold the right of Fakih and other contestants to break the “princess, good-girl” stereotype. According to female organizers, princess is passé – but the woman who exerts her sexual power is smart, sophisticated, and worthy of a Miss USA title.

What was once considered exploitative is now considered empowering.

How did this happen? The feminists of the past protested against the sexual objectification of women. Thus, it would appear that modern women have rejected the tenets of feminism. Ironically, however, quite the opposite is true. The raunch culture of today is due to the fact that young women have so thoroughly embraced feminist thought.

Feminism taught the new generation that:

1. Men have historically deprived women of power and freedom
2. Women need to reclaim their power and freedom
3. Women exert power and freedom by rejecting the restrictive, male-defined roles and boundaries of Judeo-Christianity
4. Women have the right to define their own behavior
5. Women have the right to define what womanhood is all about

The daughters of the feminist generation were raised on these ideas. They embraced them and took them to heart. Since sex is power, what better way for women to exert their power than through sexuality? They concluded that Girl Power is best expressed by throwing off all boundaries and becoming brazenly sexual. The Spice Girls, The Sex & the City stars, and celebrities such as Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan all modeled the idea that empowerment equals the right to be raunchy. The idea quickly caught on.

Joe Francis, the Hugh Hefner of Gen X and founder of the Girls Gone Wild porn video series, capitalized on the trend. Accompanied by his camera crews, Francis visited beaches, nightclubs, and parties across America seeking “everyday” college-age women who would flash their breasts, make out with each other, and be sexually lewd on camera in exchange for GGW-emblazoned T-shirts or hats. Francis raked in as much as forty million dollars a year from the sale of these videos. When asked why he thought thousands of young women were so eager to exhibit themselves for his cameras, so willing to objectify themselves in exchange for trucker hats and tank tops, Francis simply said: “It’s empowering. It’s freedom.”

This generation thinks that raunch equals power and freedom. Newsweek has dubbed this, “The Girls Gone Wild Effect.” Nowadays, raunchy sexuality has become the prevalent expression of a woman’s freedom and power.

Joe Francis sees the Girl-Gone-Wild phenomenon as the ultimate expression of feminism. Muzi Mei, the Carrie Bradshaw of Beijing who became a superstar by blogging about her sexual conquests, agrees. She told a reporter, “I express my freedom through sex. It’s my life, and I can do what I want.”

It’s the ultimate irony that the foundational beliefs of feminism have contributed to the increased sexual objectification and pornographication of women. Society’s thorough acceptance of feminist precepts is one of the reasons why behavior that was seen as destructive in 1968 is celebrated as desirable in 2010. When Miss America 1968 appeared in an evening gown and swimwear at the bequest of men, feminism identified her as “exploited.” But when Miss USA 2010 appears in fishnet stockings in sexy bedroom porn, and boldly rejects social convention by entering a pole dancing competition—and does so of her own choice, self-determination and exerting her right to freedom—she embraces and lives out feminism’s core tenets. Given a feminist belief system, culture has no choice but to identify her brash, immoral behavior as“empowered.”

Feminism didn’t provide the answer for woman’s happiness, wholeness, and self-identity. It’s just led us further away from the truth. Girls, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again…. I think the time is ripe for a new movement—a seismic holy quake of counter-cultural men and women who dare to take God at his word, those who have the courage to stand against the popular tide, and believe and delight in God’s plan for male and female. A revolution of women embracing God’s design is the needed antidote to counter the self-deterministic feminist mindset that unwittingly justifies the Miss USA type of madness.

© Mary A. Kassian

Outraged by this statement, Jennifer McCreight, a 22-year-old student at Purdue University in Indiana, invited women to collectively bare their breast cleavage today–April 27. She claimed that this would scientifically test the cleric’s theory. McCreight, who calls herself “a liberal, geeky, nerdy, scientific, perverted atheist feminist,” mockingly encouraged women to “embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts” by dressing immodestly.  “With the power of our scandalous bodies combined, we should surely produce an earthquake.”

With the help of Facebook and Twitter, word of the event, dubbed “Boobquake,” travelled like wildfire across the internet, and within 24 hours had recruited tens of thousands of supporters and garnished international media attention. But as the morning of the event dawned, and women around the world began to bare their cleavage, a strong earthquake measuring 6.9 on the Richter scale struck southeast of Taiwan.

The earth averages more than a million earthquakes each year. Only about 135 reach the magnitude of the one in Taiwan this morning.  The phenomenon of the earthquake coinciding with the Boobquake event could be interpreted either way. The Islamic cleric will no doubt use it as proof that that the seductive behavior of females leads to natural disasters, and that Allah has endorsed the cleric as his spokesman. The cleric will insist that the Islamic law enforcing the Hijab be strictly enforced– that females be forced to cover all parts of their body except hands and face, or be subject to punishment of up to seventy lashes or sixty days imprisonment—or even worse.

On the other end of the spectrum, a scantily clad McCreight predictably brushed off the earthquake as statistically insignificant. Following the disaster she wrote, “If we get many of a similar magnitude in the next 24 hours, then we might start worshipping the power of immodesty.” In any case, since McCreight is an atheist, she denies that God has anything to do with earthquakes, and since she is a feminist, she maintains that women have the right to do whatever they want–even if it does cause a disaster.  Women have the right to make the rules. They can dress immodestly and be as seductive and promiscuous as they want – it’s their own business. She said,“If men ogle, that’s the fault of the men, not me for dressing how I like. If I want to a show a little cleavage or joke about my boobs, that’s my prerogative.”

The whole discussion leaves me shaking my head. On the one hand, you have an Islamic male suggesting that immodest women are to blame for natural disasters and for causing men to sin.  On the other, you have a feminist female suggesting that there are no natural consequences of women dressing immodestly and seductively—men are the ones with the problem. The former supports the oppression of women, while the latter supports woman’s unbridled right to be immodest, or even immoral if she so pleases.

It never ceases to amaze me that the assault on the biblical pattern for womanhood comes from multiple angles, and must be fought on many fronts. We must combat the idea that it’s man’s prerogative to define womanhood—that women are somehow inferior, and can be demeaned, degraded, assaulted, or abused.  We must also combat the idea that it’s woman’s prerogative to define womanhood—that men are somehow inferior—that men are the oppressors and women are above reproach. Furthermore, we must combat the idea of an egalitarian gender-neutral or gender-fluid type of existence.  None of these conform to the biblical pattern.

Boobquake is the foolishness of an arrogant man compounded by the foolishness of an arrogant woman.. and the foolishness of all who follow their lead. According to the Bible,  it’s God’s prerogative—not man’s and not woman’s – to define who we are and how we ought to live.

© Mary A. Kassian

Girl-Gone-Wild: Suggestive
Girl-Gone-Wise: Demure

Girl-Gone-Wild: She captures him with her eyelashes. Proverbs 6:25*  She’s “graceful and of deadly charms.” Nahum 3:4

Girl-Gone-Wise: She does not resort to deceitful charm. Proverbs 31:30*

My daughter-in-law and I gaped in disbelief. The girl was only 5 years old! But what really fascinated me, was what happened next. My husband walked into the room. He came in humming a tune, carrying a massive mug of soda and a plate piled high with munchies, in anticipation of the family movie we were about to watch. When his eye caught the image of the young beauty pageant contestant on TV, he stopped dead in his tracks. A look of fury, as I have rarely seen, darkened his eyes. With teeth clenched, he grimly ordered us, “Turn that garbage off! How DARE they do that to that little girl?!!”

As women, Jacqueline and I were morbidly amused and critical of the mom teaching her five-year-old daughter the non-verbal innuendo that a female does not normally learn until she is much older. But Brent, as a man, processed the body language of this little girl in an entirely different manner. Her non-verbal communication told him, and every other watching male, “Come get me!-I’m available.” That’s why he was overcome with righteous indignation and holy anger. The thought that anyone would teach a five-year-old girl to send such a message was absolutely reprehensible to him. His outrage and protective fatherly instinct was so strong, that I’m sure he would have dropped the snacks and crashed his way through the TV screen onto that stage if he could have, to halt the pageant and administer a severe tongue-lashing to the all the adults in the theater.

The look. The tilt of the head. The flip of the hair. The sway of the hips. The deliberate caress of a curve. The cross of the legs. The leisurely forward lean. The titillating exposure of skin. The brush of the bottom lip. The cat-like stretch. The lingering touch . . . By the time a female reaches adulthood she has learned how to move and position her body in a provocative way. If she so chooses, she can hit the “sexual charm” button and turn it on. When activated, her body sends out alluring non-verbal messages to entice her chosen prey. Women, you KNOW what I’m talking about! I don’t think men have any idea how calculating women are when they employ this strategy. As Jacqueline said, “Every woman knows how to do it. Not every woman chooses to use that artillery. But we all have it. And we all know how to use it. We can turn it off. Or we can turn it on.”

A discussion about a woman’s appearance isn’t complete without a discussion of her body language. The Girl-Gone-Wild uses suggestive body language to attract the attention of men. Her counterpart, the Girl-Gone-Wise, is demure. She does not resort to deceptive charm.

Deadly Charms

Scripture says that a Wild Thing is full of “deadly charms.” (Nahum 3:4) The Hebrew word charm means “to cut up.”  It’s most likely a reference to a sorceress shredding herbs to cook them in a magic brew. In Assyrian and Babylonian culture, charms were magic formulas that women chanted or recited to get a certain desired result. They believed that love-charms, spells, and incantations to the goddess of love were very effective at helping them bewitch the man of their dreams. Often, they wore an ornament, gem, stone, bead, plaque or emblem on a bracelet or chain to symbolize the charm. Sometimes the ornament or stone had an incantation inscribed directly on it. A woman could wear any number of charms. Charm jewelry was very popular and fashionable.

To charm a man is to affect him by magic or as if by magic. Spells, potions and incantations are not necessarily involved. A charm is any method of enchanting and compelling him. The women in Jerusalem were experts at charming men:

“The Lord said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks, glancing wantonly with their eyes, mincing along as they go, tinkling with their feet, therefore the Lord will strike with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts.

In that day the Lord will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents; the pendants, the bracelets, and the scarves; the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets; the signet rings and nose rings; the festal robes, the mantles, the cloaks, and the handbags; the mirrors, the linen garments, the turbans, and the veils. Instead of perfume there will be rottenness; and instead of a belt, a rope; and instead of well-set hair, baldness; and instead of a rich robe, a skirt of sackcloth; and branding instead of beauty. . . empty, she shall sit on the ground.” (Isaiah 3:16-26)

It’s obvious that the women in Jerusalem wore charm jewelry such as crescents, pendants and amulets. But that wasn’t the only way they tried to charm men. The passage indicates that these women also tried to charm them with their flashy clothing. They were shopaholics. Isaiah’s extensive list indicates that they stuffed their closets full of shoes, handbags, belts, scarves, tops, bottoms, dresses, party dresses, lingerie, sweaters, jackets, coats, bracelets, signet rings, nose rings, anklets, armlets, headdresses, headbands, and hats. These women were also obsessed with primping themselves up- meticulously styled hair, perfume, and cosmetic boxes are a few clues. It appears that these women groomed and dressed with the single, over-riding purpose of charming men.

But those weren’t the only weapons in their arsenal. They also attempted to charm them in the way they carried themselves-with their body language. The passage says they were in the habit of walking with “outstretched necks,” “glancing wantonly with their eyes,”  ”mincing along,” and “tinkling with their feet.” This indicates that they had perfected the feminine art of the LOOK. They swayed their hips. They seductively moved and positioned their bodies. They allured and enticed men like charmers hypnotizing snakes.

The women in Jerusalem may have impressed the guys, but they certainly didn’t impress the Lord. He was dismayed that they had neglected the most important aspect of womanhood-the beauty of a holy heart-and had attempted to seduce men with their deceptive charm. God called them to task, but his daughters didn’t repent. So as predicted, He punished them by having the Assyrians and Babylonians invade and decimate Jerusalem. The women lost everything. “Empty, they sat on the ground.”

It’s self evident why God didn’t like his daughters wearing Babylonywood charm jewelry. This type of jewelry was overtly associated with the Babylon sex goddess, Ishtar and with magic incantations. It’s no surprise He didn’t like those charms. But the jewelry wasn’t the only charm the Lord viewed in a negative light. Something about the way the women in Jerusalem dressed and primped bothered Him. Based on what we learned last chapter, it was undoubtedly that their adornment was unbecoming, indecent, and excessive. However, the charm that topped His list, the one He mentioned first, was their body language-their outstretched necks, wanton looks, wiggling hips and mincing feet. The Lord was highly offended by the provocative way these women moved their bodies and directed their eyes.

Not a Hint

What was God’s issue? What’s wrong with a woman being attractive and alluring? Is He saying that a woman shouldn’t be charming? What’s the problem with flirting and showing off your womanly charms?

The Bible makes a clear distinction between women who are truly “charming” and those who deceptively try to charm. Women who are charming (Hebrew: chen) are gracious, full of favor and elegance. Their selfless goodness makes them attractive from the inside out. Women who deceptively try to charm (Hebrew: kesheph) have an underlying selfish agenda. Their intentions are impure. That’s why Proverbs 31:30 says, “charm is deceitful.” There’s a huge difference between a Girl-Gone-Wise who looks and smiles at a guy to show that she likes him, and a Girl-Gone-Wild who looks and smiles at a guy to try to allure him.

A Wild Thing turns on her seductive charm in order to get a man to turn on to her. The sage father warns his son about a woman like this: “Do not desire her beauty in your heart, and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes.” (Proverbs 6:25) The father didn’t want his son to be enticed by flirtatious, coy glances. He wanted him to be aware of the danger of women who used body language to seduce men. One ancient commentator suggested that the word translated eyelashes could also be “the nets of the eyes.” A Girl-Gone-Wild uses her eyelashes to “capture” men as in a net.

You might defend your flirtatious behavior by claiming that you don’t intend to seduce a man to have sex-you’re just “playing,” and not really serious. But “suggestive” body language implies or hints at something improper. The Bible’s perspective on the sin of seduction includes more than merely the type of seduction that leads to illicit sex. Seduction is any behavior that leads another person in the wrong direction. It’s any behavior that falsely hints that evil is desirable or exciting. It’s any behavior that entices someone to think about something improper. Even if she’s just playing, the woman who turns on her sexual charm clearly wants men to think that sex with her is a desirable and exciting idea. That’s seduction. That’s sin.

The other day, I heard a talent judge compliment a performer on how enchanting her “naughtiness” was. As if just a little bit of naughtiness is cute and doesn’t matter. Naughtiness might not be an offence on your radar, but it’s a crime on God’s. A woman who gives any man (other than her husband) a “come-and-get-me” look is telling a lie. She is thumbing her nose at God by hinting that illicit sex is desirable and exciting. She is sinning by willfully enticing a man’s thoughts away from the path of virtue. Body language that implies or hints at a wrongful sexual act is just as heinous to God as performing that sexual act. Jesus told men that looking at a woman lustfully was just as sinful as having sex with her. So I’m sure He would tell you that giving the LOOK to the stranger across the room is just as sinful as jumping in bed with him.

Seductive body language may have been one of the sins Paul had in mind when he told the believers in Ephesus, “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity . . . because these are improper for God’s holy people.” (Ephesians 5:3 niv) Wow. That certainly takes all the hot air out the theory that a little bit of naughty is okay. According to Paul, not even a hint of sexual immorality or impurity is appropriate among believers. Not even a hint! That means that even the tiniest allusion, suggestion or whiff of sexual “naughtiness” is NOT okay. It means the “I’m just teasing” excuse is not acceptable. “Teasing” doesn’t negate the fact that this type of behavior is sin. The woman who hints at sexual sin is just as guilty as the woman who participates in it. If you give the suggestive “come get me” signal to a guy, it is as though you’d already slept with him.

I wonder if those women in Ephesus with the big hair, low-cut togas and tinkling jewelry were guilty of seductive body language. I wonder if they were stretching out their necks, mincing with their feet, and glancing wantonly with their eyes. I wonder if Paul wrote these instructions because of them. Nowadays, the church routinely addresses the problem of sexual sin in regards to men looking at porn and lusting after women, but it rarely addresses the problem of women inviting men to lust. Let me say this loud and clear to all you women: Suggestive dress and suggestive body language is sin. There’s no getting around it. The woman who sends the invitation to look is just as guilty as the man who accepts it.

© Mary A. Kassian

This is a pre-publication excerpt from “Girls Gone Wise in a World gone Wild,” © Mary A. Kassian to be published by Moody Publishers in 2010. All rights reserved. You are welcome to link to this post, but please do not copy and/or reproduce this copyrighted material without express written permission of Moody Publishing.

You don’t have to just trust me or your own instinct on the matter. The American Psychological Association (APA) task force on the sexualization of little girls links skimpy clothes to sexual activity.
Moms, we need to do more than just complain about it and tell our daughter’s “no.” After all, we have boys to protect, too. We need to do everything we can to get as many girls as possible to dress tastefully! One year ago this I month, I introduced the Bod Squad Petition to raise awareness of the need for retailers to provide age-appropriate clothing for girls.

My goal wasn’t just to ask them to change what they sell. It was (and is) to get moms to be more careful about what they buy. Since October 1, 2008, over 13,000 have joined. Now, the petition is going to a new level with national news and media support, with which it can gain the attention of the industry it hopes to shape. The Bod Squad’s request will be for the Council of Fashion Designers of America to read the findings of the APA report, and to tell the fashion industry that mothers want to purchase age-appropriate clothing for their girls and would like the fashion industry to evaluate the clothing they design and the messages they send to our daughters through advertising.

We don’t want to ban anything. We will stay positive. We are consumers who just want to express our concerns. In fact, this month we’ll be sending a positive message by initiating a national Shop ‘Til You Drop Event on October 23 & 24 to thank retailers who consistently provide age-appropriate and modest clothing for little girls up to age twelve.

To view the Bod Squad petition go to: www.secretkeepergirl.com where you can also download a copy of the APA Task Forces study on the sexualization of girls and learn more about our Shop Til You Drop event!

© Dannah Gresh