The following was posted on Allie Beth Stuckey’s Facebook page, 1/13/26. She was showing a video of a woman named Rosaria (I never found the last name). This was the talk on the video:
Immodesty is a sin. It’s the kind of sin that destroys the peace and purity of the Church. It’s the kind of sin that brings dishonor to the name of Christ. The Puritans, who were very colorful with their metaphors, said this: “A beautiful but immodest woman entering a room of men is a lit candle in a world full of gunpowder.”
There were several comments about how the men should control their lusts, as if that absolves the woman’s immodesty. Women know they will attract the looks of men with immodest dress and that is why they dress immodestly—for the attention it gets.
Women, including young women in your teens, dress appropriately in public. Your bodies should not be displayed to anyone but the man you marry.
It's astounding to me that anyone would have an issue with this incredibly wise position. As you say, and I've said before myself on more than one occasion, it's not that men should control themselves...though they must and always ought...or that anyone is trying to "force" women to do as they're told as if men are desperate to recreate a patriarchy. To arouse the prurient interest...usually on purpose...is to lead or invite others to misbehave or as a means of exerting female control (a matriarchy, if you will) on men.
ReplyDeleteIn some cases, women will dress provocatively to flaunt themselves in front of other women not blessed with their level of attractiveness so as to demean and disparage those upon whom they look down their powdered noses.
I'm especially amused by those who dress provocatively, exposing much cleavage or thigh, and then scold men who look at those exposed body parts. They dress to attract attention without the means of selecting who can be attracted without accusing those whose attraction they weren't after of being perverse and depraved. "I only want THAT man to leer at and be drawn to me. All the rest of you guys must avert your gaze!"
Other than my enjoyment at the sight of a hot babe all dolled up lookin' good, there's really no value in her being dressed provocatively.
And finally, it is a fact that this is a dangerous world with evil all over it. To pretend that among those these women didn't wish to attract are the most vile of predators. Folks can whine all they want that a woman shouldn't be denied dressing as she pleases and going anywhere she pleases at any time she pleases to do so. The predators totally agree with that
Marshall Art, I was following your thoughts, in general agreement, until I reached this rather incongruent statement of yours: “Other than my enjoyment at the sight of a hot babe all dolled up lookin' good, there's really no value in her being dressed provocatively.” Perhaps many women consider that the “value” would indeed be “[your] enjoyment” (men in general, not necessarily you specifically). As I see it, that sentence revealed your true feelings towards women in general and those “dressed provocatively” in particular.
DeleteI bet that she'd shutter at Michelangelo's statue of King David. To be honest, I couldn't care less if everybody started literally wearing garbage bags. Stuckey's one of those talking parrots who doesn't deserve much credence.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't pay attention. Stuckey POSTED the video in which this was cited--Stuckey didn't say this, she just shared it and I think it is right on. And we aren't talking art, rather we are talking women who dress immodestly. I haven't followed Stuckey long but I haven't found a problem with her. Do you have specific issues with her or just the unsubstantiated statement about her lack of credence.
ReplyDeleteThat’s a fairly woodenly literal interpretation of medieval art. The point is that the boundaries of what counts as ‘modesty’ have always been debated. My argument stands on its own, and your response ironically reinforces it.
ReplyDeleteJesse, Are you trolling me? I gave no interpretation of art I only stated that art was not the topic and that REAL women are the topic. Yes, ideas of modesty has changed over the years, but the point is the same. A woman should not be dressed in a manner which entices lust. The woman's body should not be displayed for the world. That's what pornography does with women. Tiny bikinis are a horrid thing for women to be wearing, e.g.--There is nothing modest about them. I could give you many examples of dress which are revealing way too much.
ReplyDeleteNo, my response does NOT reinforce your argument and you haven't given me evidence about Stuckey's credence!
Glenn, I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. I wasn’t interpreting art or claiming that art was the topic—I was pointing out that standards of “modesty” have never been fixed. That’s why I mentioned Michelangelo: not to talk about art itself, but to show that what counts as “immodest” has always been debated across cultures and eras.
ReplyDeleteMy point wasn’t about bikinis or pornography; it was about the fact that appeals to an objective, timeless definition of modesty don’t hold up historically. That’s all.
As for Stuckey, my comment wasn’t meant as a detailed critique—just an opinion about her style of commentary. My original point didn’t depend on her credibility either way.
Common sense says modesty standards have changed, but they keep changing for the worse. It used to be a woman had to wear long, full dresses and bonnets so men would lust after them--but the men the would look at their faces and decide their beauty. So Islam covered everything but eyes!
ReplyDeleteYOU know the immodesty I'm referring to and that is attire which leaves nothing to the imagination.
YOU said I had a literal interpretation of medieval art when I never even addressed art--YOU bought up that nonsense which has nothing to do with real life.
Yes modesty is subjective, but for Christians modesty should be that which does not arouse prurient interest by leaving little or nothing to the imagination.
You opinion of Stuckey's "style of commentary" has nothing to do with her credence, and you said "doesn't deserve much credence." One's credence should not be denigrated by one's opinion of commentary style. You made a charge of lack of credence I simply want evidence where she lacks credibility.