Posted on 02/23/2021 11:02:55 AM PST by nickcarraway
Social media can either make you or break you, and a pastor in Singapore is bearing the brunt of her remark on sexual temptation.
On Monday (Feb 22), Christian youth-oriented website Thir.st came under fire for publishing an article by Pastor Joanne Chow where she appealed to young women to avoid dressing "in a revealing or provocative way" to help men "control [their] lustful thoughts".
In her article, Chow, a pastor for youths at Pasir Panjang Hill Brethren Church, recounted her own difficulties dealing with sexual temptation when she was in a relationship with her then-boyfriend who is now her husband.
The pastor also offered three tips to help youths from falling into such a temptation.
However, it was a particular remark that sent social media into a frenzy.
Shortly after her article was reposted on Instagram, many took offence with a particular paragraph that appeared to hint that a woman's dressing is to blame for a man's lustful thoughts:
Responses from netizens were largely negative. Many commented on how Chow's suggestion reiterates the traditional role of women in the sexual sphere.
A few others shared their own experiences of being sexually abused.
Others called for the removal of the Instagram post, with some netizens pointing out that it has shone a bad light on the Christian faith.
A few also stated that while the intention of the writer seemed clear, they felt that it was framed wrongly.
In response to the backlash, Thir.st said that the purpose of the article was to "offer practical advice on how Christians can avoid falling into sexual temptation", due to a recent case of a global Christian leader being accused of sexual misconduct.
Chow's article is part of a series called 'How not to fall', which focuses on the temptations both men and women face.
Her acknowledgement that everyone is "ultimately responsible for their own thought life" and her suggestion of "girls helping guys by dressing modestly" are "true at the same time and not necessarily in conflict", Thir.st explained.
Screenshots of Thir.st's response to the article. PHOTO: Instagram/thir.st In another comment, Thir.st said that the article does not condone sexual misconduct and added that both the website and the pastor do not intend to victim-blame women who have experienced sexual assault.
They also agreed that it is "simplistic to say that the issue of lust can be solved by modest dressing".
However, their explanation did not sit well with netizens, who pointed out the contrasts in their responses.
How did you get a picture of my mistress???
Jesus does not agree with you.
Matthew 5:27-28
27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Regards,
Hebrews 4:15
I got it from your wife's attorney.
“Guess I shouldn’t wear my undies on the flight deck then.”
Out of a monumental amount of respect, I shall have no pithy comment. :)
A man’s responsibility for self control is 100%.
Show me someone who says ‘she deserved it’ based on her appearance, or in *ANY* way excuses less than chivalrous behavior based on a woman’s dress or demeanor and I’ll show you someone who needs 158 grains in the cerebellum.
A man without self control is good only for donating organs to actual human beings.
no excuses, no forgiveness
I’m guessing this was for a Muslim audience? Most non-Muzzie men are capable of controlling themselves even during a “sexual emergency”. I’ve had a few “sexual emergencies” myself when looking at good looking guys in tight pants but nobody tells guys not to dress like that so as not to tempt women.
A radical feminist once told me that she should be able to walk down the street naked and if a man found it provocative or looked at her wrong it’d be a form of rape.
Careful here: there’s a fine line between “female empowerment” and strippers, something the feminazis simply ignore.
Modest dress doesn’t actually do diddly against sexually predatory males. I’ve been catcalled by men while wearing loose-fitting jeans and a modest blouse. Had I not been armed at the time maybe they wouldn’t have stopped at catcalling. Men who disrespect women are going to disrespect women regardless of what that woman is wearing. Muslim women in burqas are raped because their men are taught that they are helpless to resist their sexual urges, no different than beasts of the field. I dress modestly because that’s my personal preference, not because I believe it will make any difference in how much men respect me.
That’s one of the reasons I support Second Amendment rights so strongly; it’s the only we’re going to drill a minimum level of respect for women into some men’s heads. If a man is going to behave like a rapist he should be treated like a rapist.
I will believe this person’s intentions are good when she tells men to stop wearing shirts unbuttoned to the waist and tight leather pants. Apparently nobody cares about the many young women being led into temptation by provocatively dressed men.
LOL
“Apparently nobody cares about the many young women being led into temptation by provocatively dressed men”
Well Miss, it’s a tough job, but somebody has to do it.
I do not suggest I want lust. Something else to consider:
“Temptation, by its very nature, feels wrong. God’s moral law is written in the heart of every human being (Romans 1:20), and when a sinful temptation is introduced, our consciences immediately sense danger. However, the temptation itself is not the sin. Jesus was tempted (Mark 1:13; Luke 4:1-13), but He never sinned (Hebrews 4:15). Sin occurs when we mishandle temptation.”
Have Blessed day my FRiend.
In and of itself, while I consider that indecent, I'm generally not a fan of regulating "victimless crimes."
and if a man found it provocative or looked at her wrong it’d be a form of rape.
Jesus' teaching on sin is one thing. Criminalizing thought or inferring intent vial facial expression is patently stupid.
Nice. So nice. I would like to comfort her and provide any service needed. Wow. Hottie.
Chivalry is the code of a warrior. Too few people understand that.
It seems you do.
L
The spirit may be willing...but the flesh is weak.
The phrases in question are:
Let's help our brothers by not dressing in a revealing or provocative way. Of course you don't have control over their lustful thoughts. and it's not a sin to wear that skintight dress or post that bikini photo. but if we can help out brothers. why not?
So, let's keep the same phrases but replace some words...
Let's help our brothers who are inclined to steal by not showing the things you own in a revealing or provocative way. Of course you don't have control over these brothers' thieving thoughts. and it's not a sin to wear that Patek Philippe or post a photo of your mansion. but if we can help out brothers. why not?
It's a little odd when it's put that way...in essence Pastor Chow is saying we can help potential thieves by not tempting them with stuff.
Now, I fully recognize that "Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!" So, yes, the temptress and tempter has moral culpability.
But Jesus doesn't qualify that statement by saying that anyone acting on a temptation gets off scott free.
Perhaps the linchpin is the intent of the the bikini-clad woman - and by extension, the watch-wearing man. Are we saying that if the woman is intentionally leading the man to sin, that she is culpable? Similarly, are we saying that if the Patek Philippe-wearing man is intentionally provoking the thief, that this man is morally culpable? Concurrently, women who simply like to wear bikinis and guys who simply like expensive watches have no culpability.
Maybe. But this does not excuse the sinner, which is my point.
She was, and I miss her terribly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.