By Jennifer Fulwiler

I got the memo. Those shady powers-that-be behind the faith blog world called me, Simcha, Janet, and Darwin and told us that we’d better write about modesty this week or else! So, alas, I have no choice but to share with you something I learned about modesty after my conversion:

Growing up in secular culture, I don’t think I ever heard the topic of modesty discussed, at least not like it is in religious circles. Parents of high school classmates might have told their daughters that they had to wear mini-skirts — no micro-minis allowed in this house! — but there was a sense of purposelessness to it, like, “I don’t know why it’s a bad idea for my daughter to go out of the house looking like that…I just have this vague feeling that it is.”

Years later, in the process of converting, I encountered serious discussion about this strange new concept called “modesty.” Plenty of women in the secular world dressed with dignity and restraint, of course, but this was the first time I’d seen modesty held up as a virtue with specific characteristics, something clear and definable and worth aiming for. These religious folks even had an interest in discussing this issue! A lot! My first few forays into this strange new world involved reading some threads online in which folks talked about modesty proponents who create strict guidelines for how women should dress, then judge them accordingly. Though I never encountered any of these people myself, everyone seemed to know a friend’s cousin’s brother-in-law who believed that women who wore anything but ankle-length skirts were on a one-way bus to hell.

Despite all the vitriolic debates that surrounded this issue, it seemed to me that, as its core, there was something worth considering here. Nobody in secular culture even wanted to discuss the downsides of women using the Kardashian family as sartorial role models, and so I was relieved to see that the concept was at least on someone’s radar. But something still felt wrong. Christianity was said to be the religion of love, but all these harsh judgments based on arbitrary regulations didn’t seem loving at all. If these kinds of modesty standards really existed, they struck me as fear-based and legalistic.

Then I began hanging out with followers of the Bible, and the whole modesty thing clicked. The problem with both the secular and the religious extremist views was that they were too narrowly, inwardly focused: Secular culture said that each woman should be able to wear what whatever she wants, without regard to how it might impact others; the modesty extremists said that women were made worthy or unworthy depending on the details of how they clothed themselves. In both worldviews, all the energy around the discussion is pointed like a laser beam back at the woman.

In contrast, what I saw in practice among my new Bible friends was a natural sense of modesty that was other-focused. They didn’t avoid cleavage-bearing shirts because they read somewhere that it would make them bad people if they were to wear that kind of thing; they didn’t favor longer, flowing skirts over shorter and tighter styles because they thought they could earn points on some holiness meter. Instead, they seemed to have a natural orientation to how the way they clothed themselves could impact the world around them.

I remember a gorgeous young mom friend telling me at a playdate how sorry she feels for young men struggling to live chaste lives in our decadent society. She spoke of her teenage brother with so much concern I thought she was going to cry, saying how proud she was of him for fighting the good fight every day, despite the temptations he must face every time he looks at a billboard or a magazine ad or a television show. As she spoke, I noticed the way she dressed herself: A simple cardigan over a matching tank top, over a fitted but not too-tight pair of jeans. She had the kind of natural physical beauty that could certainly lead others to temptation if she even made half an effort, yet it was clear from the way she carried herself that she was going out of her way to avoid using her appearance to wield power over others. Though I doubt she articulated any of these ideas, on some subconscious level, when she got dressed that morning she considered how her choices might impact the people she would meet that day; she was thinking of them more than she thought of herself.

The more women I met like this, the more the entire issue of modesty made sense. Earlier in my conversion, I had thought of it as an interesting but ultimately restrictive concept that limited women’s freedom. But once I saw it in practice, I saw it as an opportunity, not a punishment. By dressing in a way that dignifies the body that God gave us, we have an opportunity to show our gratitude to God. By clothing ourselves in a way that doesn’t cause the men we meet to face one more source of temptation that day, we have an opportunity to help them carry their crosses. By not drawing unnecessary attention to ourselves through our physical appearances, we have an opportunity to bless our friendships with our girlfriends.

As my own daughters grow up, I hope they don’t face the same confusion I faced. I hope that they never see modesty as irrelevant, as I did when I was in the secular world, or as potentially filled with arbitrary and stressful rules, as I did when I first encountered the subject. I hope they understand that the way we dress is ultimately a chance to love; that, through the way we present ourselves, we have an opportunity to show love to ourselves, to God, and to others.

By Daily Sun

An open letter to Kia Sinclair:

I am well aware as to what the Free the Nipple movement is trying to accomplish. However, it is woefully inaccurate to make the assertion that in not supporting Free the Nipple, one cannot support breastfeeding, an absurdity of course, as I wholly support the latter. Although I’m sure much support has been shored up by presenting Free the Nipple initially as a movement to reduce the shaming of breastfeeding, the two issues at hand are not inexorably intertwined.

The Free the Nipple movement has grievously failed in its main mission statement, creating equality for women and men. Do not delude yourselves into thinking FTN is about equality, it’s about empowerment, which is a very different animal altogether. We aren’t discussing matters such as equal pay for equal work, or equal representation in government or corporate management, the cost of household products for women versus men, women’s under-representation in the tech sector, and the alarming rates of rape and domestic violence toward women. We’re talking about exposing, agree with or not, what is universally perceived, especially by men in the U.S. as a sexual body part, a perception that is not shared for men’s nipples.

The female breast evolutionarily developed, according to many an anthropologist, to attract men. As primates moved from quadrupedal to bipedal motility, the principal physical attractant for males slowly moved from the once prominently displayed buttocks, to the fuller, more voluptuous, curiously butt-shaped breasts we women have developed today. Encouraging women to bare their nipples to empower feminist ideals, is not going to reduce or desensitize a man’s arousal when exposed to bare breasts and nipples.

Aside from supporting breastfeeding, the FTN is misguided in their baby-step approach to reaching women’s equality. Much like trickle-down economists, focusing entirely on one end of the spectrum, and in this case something you yourself claim to be insignificant, does not necessarily translate into further legislation and change in regards to more pressing and important issues, nor is it an effective strategy in producing efficient and radical changes for the betterment of all.

Simply because I wish unicorns exist, or that I could defy gravity and take off to soar the skies at any moment, does not make unicorns any more real, nor allow me to break the laws of physics, or yet defy the physical limitations of my body. Likewise, just because you wish female breasts were not sexual, does not make them not so, and just because the chest of a man is not sexual, does not mean your breasts should not be sexual either.

This is like feeling because men are more predisposed to developing greater musculature, and possess a higher level of free testosterone, that women’s biology should be changed to accommodate these desires. The fact of the matter is the sexes are not the same, and while both sexes need to be treated the same in terms of opportunity and representation, women and men are biologically different, and wishing it weren’t so won’t equalize this for you.

There is an inherent blindness and denial going on here, like claiming racism is dead, or white privilege doesn’t exist. Good intentions or not, these things, as well as many double standards for both men and women persist to this day, and will continue to persist, culturally ingrained in our collective subconscious. Whether a police officer considers himself racist or not, many studies show they are much quicker to shoot a black assailant than a white one, just as though you wish your breasts were not sexual, they are, perceptually, biologically.

My initial letter was not whatsoever directed toward you or your mother, and was indeed simply extolling my views on the movement. I think given your reaction, and your personal attacks, this speaks more to your own insecurities and inferences, and not any implication made on my part. It’s disappointing that someone who is suppose to be a leader and role-model would devolve into personal attacks in an open forum discussing ideas and viewpoints. The way to get your point across is not through ad hominem.

A brief addendum in regards to the other letter, while not specifically mentioning the bareness of nipples in the Bible, the shame of nakedness is constantly referenced. Nakedness is consistently exposed as an abomination, induced as punishment, as well as abolished in the face of the Lord or Jesus, but, understandably, sometimes the forest can be lost for the trees. I think the FTN movement may have spent too much time focusing on the rotten log on the forest floor, and not enough time considering the lush wilderness in front of them.

Chelsea Davis
Tilton

By Jennifer Fulwiler

Last week Charles Pope wrote a thought-provoking post lamenting our lax modern attitudes regarding the way we comport ourselves in public, especially when it comes to attire. It was occasioned by an ad for Skinny Girl liquor (which you can watch at the bottom of Msgr. Pope’s post) that juxtaposes a caricature of a woman from the 1950s to modern women. The ’50s woman wears a tailored dress, white gloves, high heels — and of course the stereotype wouldn’t be complete without a gaudy string of pearls. While this woman sits stiffly and rattles off rules about how a real lady behaves, the ad flashes to images of modern women having fun while breaking all of these rules (and drinking Skinny Girl beverages, naturally).

There’s a lot one could say about this ad, starting with the crushing irony of the fact that its message dismisses the behavioral laws of generations past, while loudly proclaiming the unspoken laws of our own times (“A real woman watches her calories so that she can be ‘skinny’!” one hears in the undertones of the entire marketing campaign). But I think that Pope has identified the most telling aspect of the ad when he writes:

As the commercial rolls on, I think we see that we have lost a lot. The picture flashes away from the elegantly dressed woman, careful for modesty and dignity (though excessively portrayed), to the modern scene where we are suppose to rejoice and approve at how far women have come.

Skinnygirl Cocktails: Drink Like A Lady from Miguel Garcia Castillo on Vimeo.

And what do we see? Half drunk women, with painted nails and flip flops, liquor bottles in abundance, and the indelicate and boorish behavior of those who have been drinking too much. Further there are numerous displays of immodest dress, immodest posture and unbecoming behaviors. In effect, if you ask me, it is a celebration of all in our culture that is boorish, immodest, indelicate, and excessively informal.

This subject is a minefield, but I’m glad that Pope brought it up, because I think there are some issues worth thinking about here.

My 98-year-old grandfather often remarks upon how much more formally people used to dress. When he would talk about women pulling out their favorite attire to wear to church, or a man taking the time to press his shirt before going into town, I felt like there was something good there. Of course, this era had its own problems; like Pope, who went out of his way to make it clear that he doesn’t think everything was perfect in the past, it wasn’t that I thought my grandfather’s generation had everything figured out in all areas of life. Rather, it was just a vague sense that there was something positive behind the old customs regarding how people dressed and comported themselves in public, even though I couldn’t put my finger on what it was.

It finally clicked one day when I was sitting on an airplane, watching everyone board, and remembered a picture I’d seen of my grandparents getting ready to board a flight in the 1940s. I and the other passengers were dressed about five degrees more casually than my grandparents and the other folks around them in that old black-and-white photo. As I thought through what motivated the two different cultures, it occurred to me: Air travel used to be a privilege. People dressed up for it out of a sense of respect and gratitude, because not everyone got to do something like that. Today, most people take flights at least occasionally. It’s not a big deal anymore. We don’t feel particularly grateful to be able to do it. And thus, we don’t dress up.

I began to notice this in other areas too: Going out to a restaurant, or to a grocery store — perhaps even to church — are all activities that used to be valued more than they are today. The economy was different, and far fewer people could afford to go out to eat than can today. Many women who went grocery shopping remembered the days before the corner grocery store existed, back when people had to milk cows and churn butter and slaughter chickens in order to get the goods that were now wonderfully easy to pick up in a store. And some of it may even have be due to more awareness of the fleetingness of life: Though lukewarm attitudes about God have existed in all times and places, people certainly appreciated church more before modern medicine and conveniences made us feel like we could create our own heavens here on earth.

I don’t think that the social principle that you should dress up for what’s important to you has changed since the 1950s; I think there’s simply not that much that’s important to us anymore. I wore faded jeans and a t-shirt the last time I went out to dinner, because it wasn’t a big deal to me. As much as I hate to admit it, I wasn’t that grateful to be able to be served dinner in a restaurant; it felt more like a right than an honor. However, if I got an invitation from Queen Elizabeth to join her at Buckingham Palace for tea tomorrow, you can bet that that outfit would be the furthest thing from my mind. We still dress up when we feel that an activity is an honor or a privilege.

Hopefully it goes without saying that I’m not suggesting that those of us who dress casually most of the time are never grateful for anything. However, on a widespread cultural level, I do think that a blasé attitude toward our daily activities is at the root of our modern blasé attitudes about dress and manners. And so when Pope asks at the end of his post, “Have we lost something?” I would say yes; and I would suggest that if we hope to reclaim what has been lost, we must first reclaim a sense of gratitude.

By Celeste Behe

“It’s an innovative way to participate in the New Evangelization,” says Darla Wainscott of her exclusive clothing line.

“Put On Christ Apparel and Accessories is to the clothing industry what religious medals have been to the jewelry industry. We are a new take on the outward expression of one’s Christian faith.”

“Put On Christ” came into being just when athleisure sportswear was beginning to take off. Apparel with the comfort and ease of exercise clothing but designed for everyday use, “athleisure” wear won over consumers with the message that workout attire wasn’t just for the gym.

That message was not lost on Wainscott.

“I developed the Put On Christ business model based on what was happening all around me,” she said. “I’d go to the grocery store, the hair salon and even daily Service and see people, the vast majority of them women, wearing the popular athleisure designs.”

Wainscott conceived of clothing that would take the wearer from “errands to exercise, but with an accent on modesty, a concept not grasped by many of the existing manufacturers of athleisure sportswear.”

And consumers are pleased with her initiative.

“Ellen Giangiordano, author of Wonderfully Made! Babies, a Perspective on How and Why God Makes Babies, said, “When I first saw the Put On Christ fashions at the 2015 Marketing Conference, I actually thought, ‘Finally, someone who understands women who work out but want to stay modest at the same time!’”

The idea for modest workout clothing, coupled with a desire to “put Christ in our daily living” became, said Wainscott, “the foundation for Put On Christ.”

Each Put On Christ product is named after a saint and carries a “hang tag” that doubles as a prayer card.

Consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and operating under the patronage of St. Teresa of Avila and St. Ignatius, the company also externally labels every one of its pieces with the “Put On Christ” logo.

A few of the pieces from the Put On Christ collection are the “Calcutta Fitted Tank,” the “Faustina Dress,” the “Joan of Arc Capri Active Set” and the “Goretti Jacket.” The garments are mindfully constructed so as not to be too revealing, with modest scoop necklines gracing dresses and tops and wider shoulder bands on tank tops.

The “Gianna Pant” is the company’s signature piece, a knit wardrobe essential that was recently presented by Wainscott to Gianna Emanuela Molla, the daughter of St. Gianna Beretta Molla.

As Wainscott recalled, “It was a highlight of my life!”

Although there are other “Christian lifestyle apparel brands, many of whom sell t-shirts,” observed Wainscott, “none are doing what I am doing.”

With its unique appeal, it’s no wonder that Put On Christ Apparel and Accessories, launched mere months ago, can already boast of return customers. Among them is Johnnette Benkovic, founder of the Women of Grace apostolate and EWTN host.

Wainscott points her company’s success to God: “The fact that I have started a clothing company is a testament to the power of the Triune God working in my life.”

It’s that faith behind the fit that really connects with customers.

“The Put On Christ line of clothing is especially relevant for me,” said Karen Barbieri, co-creator of Pietra Fitness in Ohio.

“Ours is a whole-person fitness program that integrates physical exercise with Christian prayer, while drawing upon the rich and timeless traditions of the Church. Pietra Fitness was recently at the Cincinnati Women’s Conference, and we all wore outfits from Put On Christ. How exciting that we can express our faith in our clothing as well as through our exercise program.”

Put On Christ also offers accessories to complement its garments.

After all, it was while Wainscott was putting on a pair of cross earrings that the inspiration for Put On Christ first struck. “Why not put on Christ with more than just jewelry?” she thought.

And so, the “Cortona Tote,” the “Chiara Headband,” the “Gemma Water Bottle” and the “Lourdes Scarf,” a beautiful infinity scarf with a Miraculous Medal sewn into the fabric, were born.

Says Wainscott of her work, “I have two goals: to bring Christ to people in a very relevant way and to meet people where they are.”

“Our prices are targeted to be 20% lower than our big-box competition,” she added, “even though our clothes are of superior quality and comparable with those of the most popular athleisure manufacturers. Additionally, every garment and every accessory is made in America, with 80% of our fabrics also made in the USA. In order to stay relevant, we want our customers to not only experience this unique expression of faith, but to understand the comparable value and to feel good about their overall purchase.”

“Making faith fashionable” is the trademarked tagline of Put On Christ, and it succinctly sums up the company’s vision.

“My inspiration comes from my faith,” said Wainscott, “and I wish to bring people to the fullness of the truth. God can do great things with any of us if we just do three simple things — believe, be still and listen.”

Celeste Behe writes from

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/put-on-christ-adds-modesty-to-daily-living-with-aid-of-saints/#ixzz3vSLd3J3b

By FRC

Click here to Register for this event

Addiction is most commonly discussed in the context of substance abuse, but in recent years, mental health professionals have also recognized other compulsive, destructive behaviors as warranting the designation. Recently, over the protest of those who advocate for radical sexual license, leading experts across a variety of disciplines agreed that pornography use is, in fact, addictive and a public health crisis.

It is now evident that what has long been classified as a harmless, personal expression of sexuality is actually a behavior that is destructive not only to the addict, but also to his or her community. From an addict’s spouse to a trafficked teen on the other side of the country or the world, pornography consumption and addiction makes victims of many, degrading and commodifying human beings along its destructive path. It is for this reason that the National Center on Sexual Exploitation is using a multifaceted approach, calling on the media, legislators, and businesses to join them in exposing and responding to this public health crisis. Join FRC and the NCOSE’s Haley Halverson to learn more about the effort to reveal the consequences of pornography addiction and combat the industry that fuels it.

Haley Halverson joined the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) as Director of Communications in May of 2015. Haley cares deeply about human rights and the issue of sexual exploitation, particularly regarding those exploited in the sex industry. In her role, Haley acts as a spokesperson for NCOSE and oversees strategic messaging development, press outreach, email marketing, social media marketing, and creative video production.

Prior to working at NCOSE, Haley wrote for the Media Research Center. Haley graduated from Hillsdale College (summa cum laude) where she double majored in Politics and interdisciplinary religious studies, and conducted a senior thesis on the abolitionist argument regarding prostitution. During her studies, she studied abroad at Oxford University and established a background in policy research through several internship experiences in the DC area. Haley has appeared on, or been quoted in, multiple media outlets including Voice of America, the New York Post, the Washington Post, USA Radio Network, the Washington Times, the Christian Post, EWTN News Nightly, LifeSiteNews, and American Family News.

Light refreshments will be served.

Joining us in person for a lecture event:

We are looking forward to hosting you here for one of our lectures. In order for you to have the best experience possible, here are a few things you should know as you prepare to join us.

1. Registration is required – fill out the form under “Register for this event” on the individual events page, and mark “In person” for the type of attendance.
2. We require a photo ID for admittance.
3. All packages and bags are subject to search upon entry to the building.
4. We welcome an open and reasoned discussion of the social and policy topics we cover. However, your registration for our events is an agreement to conduct yourself with respect and courtesy toward our speakers and fellow attendees. FRC reserves the right to deny admission or remove from the premises anyone who conducts himself or herself in a manner which is disruptive, disrespectful, or dangerous.

By attending this event, you agree that the Family Research Council assumes no liability for injury, damage, or loss which may be related in any way to implementation of this policy. Anyone who is removed may be subject to arrest or detention by authorities for violation of this policy or the codes of the jurisdiction of the event. This policy is not designed to censor or limit free speech, but to ensure a safe environment where ideas can be freely exchanged.

Questions? Call 1-800-225-4008 and ask for the Lectures Coordinator.