Afflicted by a hate for the feminine

[kfarose2585]

This morning, I awoke at about 3:00 with my mind overflowing with thoughts. Whether they were inspired thoughts, sent to me by God, or just an awesome mixture of my own, I cannot say. But they do make an awful lot of sense to me. To summarize (since it would take pages for me to write out the whole thing):

The Bible is a circle: the Old Testament predicts the new, the New fulfills the Old; women originate from men, and men are born of women, etc… Anything that violates the circular nature of the Bible should be re-examined. For example: God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. The Greek word used here for “head” is “kephale,” which means “source”–not ruler or one in superior rank. Another word is used to convey that, and it ends with a -dron…I don’t have my Greek book with me right now, so I can’t supply that word at the moment. Anyway, “source” or “origin” makes perfect sense here. Christ came from God, man found life in Christ, and woman was taken from man. To complete the circle, man is also taken from woman, Christ can be found living in man, and God comes to us through Christ. Yes, the circle does not convey the same sense the other way around, but it is nonetheless a perfect circle.

Let’s take a look at biblical submission too. Wives are to submit to their husbands, husbands are to love their wives “as Christ loved the Church.” At first glance, this looks like a linear statement. But the Bible does not work in lines, so we must look again. How did “Christ love the Church”? Every moment of His life was for her; indeed, even His death was for her. That, according to the Bible, is love. So what is submission? It is taken from the Latin for “to place below.” In other words, one who submits places themself below the one to whom they submit. Seems to me that loving and submission are closely related!

But they are not exactly the same, otherwise Paul would’ve just told wives and husbands to love each other, without distinguishing between love and submission. So why the difference? Here is another case of a circle that works both ways, yet in different senses. It is now my turn to stereotype. Men tend to be more power-hungry than women. The most brilliant way to use that natural desire for the good is to say, “fine, you can have your power, but none of it will be for you.” Women tend to be less decisive, and the way to use that trait for the good is to say, “fine, you don’t have to be the big decision maker, but you must submit to he who is.” Although the men get their power, they must also do something they tend to not like doing: use that power completely for another, and love that other so much that they do everything only for her sake. And although women get to forgo making decisions, they must thorughly trust that the one who is making the decisions is doing only the things that would benefit the women most. When any of these things goes wrong, that is when marriages suffer.

The circle can be reversed, and often is. Sometimes the best way for a man to love his wife is to submit to her. And sometimes the best way for a woman to submit to her husband is simply to love him. Of course, this conveys a different sense of the words, just as I said earlier. And naturally the way to follow the passage is to follow it as it is written, but to keep in mind that the opposite means much the same thing, and applies in a curiously similar manner.

 

[kfarose2585]

Continued:

I hope some of that made sense. Now to address you individually:

Annie: Thank you. Amen.

Teresa: It is not just secular messages that are confusing. The Christian community contradicts itself a lot too! One denomination says this, another says that, and different people in the same denomination often don’t agree with each other. I think that it what throws me off the most–especially since everyone vehemently argues that they are right, and that those who disagree are somehow offending God. It drives me crazy! I’m just glad that I’m Catholic, because I have the freedom to figure a lot of things out with God with the guidance of a more universal truth.

Csr: I see your points. My Indian-Christian analogy was just that–an analogy. And a generalization. My point was that something that is currently in existence should not just be judged by its origin. As far as clothing goes, I think I will always disagree with you, and I’m pretty sure that the Church allows me to (please correct me if I’m wrong). I wear pants almost everyday, and I don’t think it detracts from my femininity. They don’t show too much, and they don’t look like men’s pants. Keep in mind that the parents of every generation are mortified that their children dress in such “immodest” ways. The same goes for other aspects of culture. It used to be that baroque music was thought to be rebellious! Nowadays, I can see many people easily running back to baroque to escape the “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll” culture that has carried on since the 60s. I don’t idealize this culture at all, but I do believe that good things come out of every movement, even if the movement itself is not necessarily good. And in my opinion, dressing in any modest, feminine way is good–even if that includes pants and a nice shirt. Yes, women and men are looking more alike these days, but that is not always wrong (though not entirely right either). Sometimes it is in looking more similar that we are more inclined to understand our similarities and then discover, treasure, and renew our differences.

Della: I’m sorry if you thought that I dismissed your prenatal testosterone idea! I think I see where you are coming from better now. That is a very liberating thought: perhaps I was just naturally born this way. And what you say about the soul being feminine just fits perfectly in my “biblical circles” idea. The soul, like woman, was created to be deeply, personally, and wholly loved. Awesome.

 

[csr]

I like the way you summarized the husband-wife relationship: indeed the husband does all for the wife, and Christ gave His last drop of Blood for the Church. Incidentally, Christ did not specify every detail of all the sacraments, leaving some details up to the Church to determine over time. So the relationship is not a dictatorship of details.

As far as clothing goes, I think I will always disagree with you, and I’m pretty sure that the Church allows me to (please correct me if I’m wrong). I wear pants almost everyday, and I don’t think it detracts from my femininity.

The popes and bishops have bemoaned the masculinization of women’s dress. You should not consider their opinions lightly. You should not take too much comfort in the laxity of the Church since the 1960s. The laity must at times work to preserve the faith, when the hierarchy becomes lazy, as happens in some centuries.

Keep in mind that the parents of every generation are mortified that their children dress in such “immodest” ways.

Every recent generation has become more derelict. Parents are correct without necessarily knowing why or what to do about it.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

kfarose2585:

Let’s take a look at biblical submission too. Wives are to submit to their husbands, husbands are to love their wives “as Christ loved the Church.”

We may need to keep this in perspective. St. Paul was writing this in a culture that may have included adulterous and rebellious wives who abused their husbands and stole their money. We need to understand the perspective that men can be emotionally hurt by women who yell all the time, make difficult demands, threaten divorce at a pin drop, etc. I think part of St. Paul’s message may be for women to give their husbands a little bit of understanding and at the same time men are to be dedicated and faithful to their wives.

Paul seeks for people to have happy, strong, committed, fulfilled, and loving marriages. I view Paul’s statement as more of a defense of husbands than an offense toward wives.

Some women are strong and independent-minded and there is nothing wrong with that. I think Paul is saying to trust your husband enough to listen to him.

There may also be some relationship meanings what St. Paul is saying.

Let’s say a woman wanted to work and her husband did not want her to. I don’t think Paul is saying that the women must obey the husband in a case like that. Couples should lovingly work that out.

However, let’s say a woman goes out every night and drinks with friends and her husband is concerned about their marriage. If her husband were to ask her to stay home more often, I think it is fair because it directly affects the marriage. Of course, a husband should not be doing that either, so what do I know.

Do we say Jesus is less than the Father because He submits to His Father’s will? I think as long as love is the center of the equation we do not need to worry about it being an issue of domination or power. What women would not want to trust a man so completely that she could giver her heart to him without fear? I pray my wife feels this way.

Hope that helps.

Greg

 

[csr]

St. Paul was writing this in a culture that may have included adulterous and rebellious wives who abused their husbands and stole their money.

Adultery and theft are addressed apart from the discussion of husbands and wives, so this is not a reasonable paradigmatic limitation on the texts in question.

Let’s say a woman wanted to work and her husband did not want her to. I don’t think Paul is saying that the women must obey the husband in a case like that. … However, let’s say a woman goes out every night and drinks with friends and her husband is concerned about their marriage.

The hypotheticals favor our own predilections (radical egalitarianism) and attack only absurd exaggerations (boozing and gambling etc.). A woman who works is easily understood to be taking away from the vitality of the home. To work when the husband is opposed is also to introduce conflict. It also introduces money difficulties as the income streams, born in conflict, will tend to augment the conflict. An even more serious problem, when it occurs, is a woman who resists the husband’s need to move to a new city, on account of her own career. These examples of work are easily analogous to the kinds of things St. Paul was talking about. Christ didn’t leave everything up to the Church. Indeed He prescribed quite a lot. And the Scriptures indicate that relationship as analogous. When women compete with men and accept masculinity as behavioral standards, this is a bad thing.

Here is a simple way to look at the problem. Would you like the Virgin Mary to be shown wearing pants? I almost hesitate to ask, because some modernist yokel will probably think *hey yeah, let’s market one! *But I think if you are at all fair in your opinions, you will admit that you would be far less inspired by a Virgin Mary wearing pants. A woman wearing women’s clothes, and acting like a woman, and doing the things a woman ought to do, being a helpmate instead of a competitor, is far more a cause of sanctification in society. The question is, how to do all things in Christ? What is the best thing to do? Would you like me to wear a dress? Would that be a reasonable expression of my individuality?

 

[Teresa9]

Well said Greg!! I agree 100%

God Bless you and much peace and love to you

Teresa

 

[NightRider]

Dear Kiss for a Rose,

Firstly I’d like to say I love your user name; it is very unique and is a beautiful image to ponder.

Secondly, I’d like to thank you for starting this thread. I have found it extremely engaging.

I have always been a tomboy, too. I am 49 now and completely embrace my tomboyness! It is just who I am. I received my BA in English Literature and Creative Writing many years ago but for the past seventeen years I have worked in the blue collar trades. I am usually the only woman on the crew, and I find I just work better with men than I do with women. I worked in offices for years before and during college and hated it because of how catty many of the women were in those environments. Sometimes I have hated the trades, too, only because there are still many men who think a woman should not be in trades work. It took me a long time to sort it all out. I love working outside and I love working in the trades, so now I just don’t let the naysayers bother me anymore: it is *their *problem, not mine! What a relief!!

I was diagnosed with endometriosis when I was 40. That *is *a tough one, but I have learned to live with it. I have fibroids, too–yuck. Exercise helps my endo a lot, especially walking. Maybe that might help you, too.

Anyway, KFAR, I am so glad you are writing and letting us all in on your processes; writing is a powerful tool in healing. You are good enough, just as you are. You are enough, just as you are. You are loved, just as you are. Hang in there for the journey!

Geraldine

 

[kfarose2585]

Csr: I’d be just as disturbed to see Mary in pants as I would to see Jesus in pants! That just wasn’t what people wore then, and therefore it would be very inappropriate to depict them wearing such things now. If women wearing pants wounds your concept of femininity, then perhaps you are definining femininity on terms that are a bit too material. What about the female construction worker? Or the police officer? Do you think they should wear dresses too? I think that the decline in women constantly wearing skirts and dresses can be a positive thing because when they do wear them, it is for special occasions, thus reminding us even more strongly of the loveliness associated with *appearing *especially feminine. I get disturbed when women wear things that are truly masculine–tuxedos, suits and ties, stuff like that. But honestly, I think that a lot of clothing is ambidextrous, jeans and a t-shirt being a prime example. Women and men are not complete opposites; they are perfect compliments, and therefore we should behave that way, in dress and in actions. After all, we don’t want all men to be insensitive argumentative pigs, and all women to be hypersensitive passive wimps, right?

I believe that your definitions of what it means to be female or male are too rigid, but of course you are free to hold them. To me, a woman working does not necessarily disturb the vitality of the family. After all, nowhere in the Bible does it say, “Women, you must stay at home and tend to the children; your husbands must work, but you cannot.” I started a thread not too long ago on stay-at-home dads which deals with this in much more depth. When both people discuss what is best for their family and they arrive at a non-traditional situation, it does not make them wrong. Never should a man lord of a woman, and never should his desires take precedence over hers–they are equal, in all things. Again I stress that I do not mean this in an egalitarian sense. Women tend to do things differently than men, which is precisely why they are so valuable in the workforce and in society as a whole. A man who truly loves his wife will want to raise her up–just as Christ did for the Church–not keep her stuck in a mold that she may not fit in.

Greg: Great perspective. I see why csr thought you were a little rash with the infidelity of women in biblical times, but at the same time I recognize its relevance. Women do need to trust their husbands, just as husbands need to trust their wives. It is good to have an historical perspective on the way women and men interacted at the time to see who needed to be told to trust whom most.

Geraldine: Thank you for sharing your story with us! Some day I hope to be able to accept myself as thoroughly as you do yourself. No matter what we do, there will always be someone to criticize us. Just keep in mind that most people push their opinions because they are insecure about them. Fortunately, no matter what mistakes we make, no matter which beliefs we have (yes, even the wrong ones), we are still loved and accepted by God. Now that is something to be happy about!

 

[csr]

Has Our Blessed Mother ever appeared to anyone wearing pants, in any of the subsequent centuries? Should we expect her to? She appeared to the Mexicans in something akin to their dress.

I think that the decline in women constantly wearing skirts and dresses can be a positive thing because when they do wear them, it is for special occasions

I think that if something is inherently good, it is not a valid argument to say, let’s withhold it so it’s goodness will be appreciated more. We don’t withhold vitamin C so we’ll appreciate it when we get it, for example. We don’t over-do specific pleasures, but people have to dress every day. I might as well say I’ll avoid shaving, so when I do shave you’ll really appreciate the fact that I’ve decided to look neat.

To me, a woman working does not necessarily disturb the vitality of the family.

The argument that women may freely adopt the ways and means of men, as a whole, is premised upon exceptionalism of certain cases, assertions of cultural delimitations, radical egalitarianism, denial of sex role differentiation, new discoveries in science providing cover, and a range of other mental phenomena that all have the effect of introducing chaos and ugliness into society and relationships. Of course, working women disturb the vitality of the family, while the children are, say, under 12 or 15, and later if the children have been harmed. Women preferring work add to abortion, contraception, and tiny families and depopulation, and they create competition for their husbands in terms of where to live. A woman who raises children can do all kinds of things: educate them meaningfully, assure they have the Faith, make their clothes to avoid the disgustingly revealing clothing sold for young people, and ensure that they have good food and good culture. The Bible does extol motherhood for women, e.g. exclaiming joyfully of the Lord, in Psalm 112: Who maketh a barren woman to dwell in a house, the joyful mother of children. What about carrying our cross?

When both people discuss what is best for their family and they arrive at a non-traditional situation, it does not make them wrong.

True, but all we have today are non-traditional situations. Today we have radical non-traditionalism. Millions of children are being drugged for hypertension of different kinds, and girls are parading about the street showing their underwear, brassieres, buttocks, thighs, and anything else. It is important to study the connection between radical egalitarianism, the masculinization of women, the feminization of men, the falling away of the faithful, how we look and act, and actual social outcomes.

I’m not trying to browbeat you into wearing dresses. I’m just saying, you’re not the only one “afflicted by a hate for the feminine”. The girls who parade about showing their vulva in ultra-tight spandex exercise wear are also afflicted by this hate, although I don’t think they know it. Consider that there is an extent to which the broader cultural problems may be a part of your views. A compromise I would offer is this: Consider doubling your use of feminine dress. Suppose presently you wear a dress once in 30 days. Could you wear a dress once in 15 days? A woman who looks and acts like a woman sanctifies her surroundings. She gives the world a critical ideal and key values. This is not fanciful thinking. Our cultural roots–in Catholicism–are not random.

Fortunately, no matter what mistakes we make, no matter which beliefs we have (yes, even the wrong ones), we are still loved and accepted by God.

God loves us even if we hold a wrong belief, but He wants us to hold the right beliefs.Those in Hell are still “accepted” by God, but it’s not the type of acceptance we should wish even on our enemies. It is possible to be too sanguine about our relationship with God.

 

[Della]

csr, I too believe you are being too narrow, and thus bordering on heretical, in your condemnation of women wearing pants and working outside the home. I am not a feminist nut. I work at home by being a homemaker and am a freelance writer, for which I sometimes get paid, just so you know that not every woman who wheres pants is a defiant feminist.

The Church has not said that women cannot wear certain types of clothing nor that women cannot have careers. Show us where it does. Modesty is what the Church asks of ALL her children, men and women alike.

I too think women ought to first consider their duty towards their children before taking on a career, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it is damaging to the family if a woman works outside the home if she can also be an attentive mother to her children. And it is possible–many good Catholic women are doing it every day.

You are entitled to live any way you think best for you and yours, but you cannot tell other Catholic women to do things or not do things that the Church has not denied to them or not said they must do.

 

[kfarose2585]

I recently bought myself a skirt. It is beautiful, and I love the way it flows in the wind. But you must be kidding me if you think I’d build a Habitat house in that skirt, or go skiing in it, or exercise in it, or operate on a person in it. These are cases in which dresses and skirts are wildly inappropriate, even for those who usually wear them. So what do you do then? Ban women from building houses, skiing, exercising, or operating on people? Or make exceptions to your rigid rules?

I have a male friend who likes to wear pink shirts. Traditionally, pink is a very “feminine” color. Is my friend damaging his masculinity by wearing pink? His shirts are all the formal, button-down type, and he never wears anything but nice slacks to go with them. But surely Jesus would never appear to someone wearing pink. Surely my friend is doing something very wrong by wearing clothes that are not entirely “masculine.”

Immodest male dress is as big of a problem as immodest female dress. Men who wear shorts, t-shirts, and bathing suits are dressing in a way that allows women to see more than they should. Why not condemn them too while we’re at it? Women can be tempted by men, just as men can be by women. If you happen to live in a particularly hot place near a beach, you should always cover your ankles, wrists, and necks and jump into the water fully clothed. Right?

Csr, if you are married, I think that it’s wonderful that you have found a woman as traditional as you. Just don’t assume that it’s your way or the highway–other happy Christian couples have made it without agreeing with everything you say. I don’t believe that women are job competition for men just as I don’t believe that men are father competition for women. Men ought to spend more time with their children, raising and nurturing them as a father should. Women must do the same, in their own, motherly way. And “motherly” does not mean “stay at home with the kids all day.” It could be that for some people, but certainly not for all.

I am not remotely against motherhood. I think it is a wonderful institution, as wonderful as fatherhood. Just note that I do not believe that working mothers are the primary cause of increases in abortion, contraception, or underpopulation. For the most part, women engage in these things because they feel like the men closest to them won’t support them in their pregnancy (dad, husband, boyfriend, etc.). The practice of these things is still very wrong, and the women are still culpable for engaging in it, but let us not forget that men performed the first abortions, and that men are a large part of the reason they and contraception still continue today. Perhaps if they stopped concentrating on being the big, tough breadwinner, they’d be able to do a better job as compassionate fathers and husbands.

Children have health problems these days for so many reasons that I can’t get into all of them. Absent parents may well be one of them. But notice that I said absent parents, not mothers. I know one man who never saw his doctor dad growing up, and was raised almost solely by his stay-at-home mother. He has hypertension, depression, ADD, and a number of other problems. Most importantly, he never believed that his father loved him since only his mother was around to take an interest in him. Men who think that “fatherhood” simply means “working all day to support a family” are gravely wrong.

I don’t know why I am dedicating so much time to this; perhaps it is because I feel threatened by you, csr. It seems that, no matter what a person believes, someone will always be there to argue that they are far off track. Maybe I am. Maybe I’ll learn something with age. Or maybe I’ll continue senselessly debating things like this without really growing. Who knows? Right now I just want to change the subject. Does anyone have something else to talk about?

 

[NightRider]

Dear Kfarose,

**Thank you for your response to my story. I really appreciate what you have to say. You have a really good head on your shoulders, and what is inspiring to me about you is how you are thinking through so many crucial ideas concerning women. You have an excellent command of language and express yourself very well in writing. I would like to encourage you to pursue writing throughout your life as a tool for your own growth as a woman. **

---

The topic of “appropriate” dress for women has always interested me. When I was in eighth grade girls were still required to only wear dresses or skirts to school (public school). That year we had a terribly cold winter and my mother said I could wear pants to school since it was too cold for wearing a dress or skirt. When I arrived at school I was sent home. My mother sent me back with a note explaining my attire to the principal. I was sent home again. This went on everyday for two solid weeks. Finally, at the end of the two weeks the school made a policy change to allow girls to wear pants to school, anytime. But during the two weeks preceding I sure saw the hypocrisy of the original dress code. It was ok for boys to be warm but not girls…and this, of course, was back in the day before the school system ever even considered hiring a woman as a principal. A woman could be a teacher but not a principal. Talk about hypocrisy.

---

**It saddens me that feminism has been so vilified by Catholics, because all feminism truly is is a belief that women are equal to men and deserve equal treatment under the law and in society. Not all feminists are against our faith! We would not have the right to vote if it weren’t for early feminists! While it is true that many feminists support abortion it is simply not true that *all *feminists do. There are as many different sorts of feminists as there are Catholics. **

---

I think you will make a fine physician, Kfarose, because you are very intelligent and quite openminded. Keep up the good work, sis! Here’s to many blessings for you on your road through life! God bless!

---

Geraldine

 

[csr]

What qualifies as modesty is a matter of theological speculation and opinion. To argue that one thing is inherently better than another is simply a continuation of the discussion, and takes the form of applying principles to practice. To be neat is better than to be slovenly. To look dignified is better than to look barbaric. For a man to look like a man is better than for him to look nondescript. Likewise for a woman. Women have a special burden in modesty, not so clearly pronounced for men (*), but both sexes should dress according to principles of modesty. We do, and are supposed to, influence others. A woman wearing modest women’s clothes (not clothes that have been retouched a bit from mens-wear) has a sanctifying effect on her surroundings. Her demeanor and faith are critical, but the clothes make a big difference. You are not always building things and running and jumping.

To the extent that the Church has given direction and made responses, it has never advocated for interchangeability, nondescript dress, and even quasi- or actual exhibitionism (although inviting “rock stars” to the Vatican does confuse matters, as these people advocate all these things and more in their “careers”). Instead, Holy Mother Church has encouraged
modesty in the traditional western sense (when speaking to us). At Olrl.org there is a good example of a balanced approach to the question of women wearing men’s dress, expressed by Cardinal Siri. That site has other helpful articles as well.

 

[cowgirl]

I didnt have a chance to read all of the posts, but all i can do is tell kfarose to read what the Holy Father has written on women!! Muliers Dignitatem (sp?) is one of my all time favorites, and of course Theology of the Body (if you want to read TOTB, i suggest Christopher Wests book which explains it) I dont think anyone could help your more…God bless!

Rachel <><
ps

Women have a special burden in modesty, not so clearly pronounced for men

men have a special burden to control themselves, which comes even before the womens burden to be modest, or so says the Pope

 

[kfarose2585]

Great story, Geraldine! That was precisely the sort of thing I was trying to point out–dresses and skirts may look pretty, but they are not always practical. You are also right about feminism: it is simply the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. Although some feminists believe in the masculization of women, it is not an inherent part of their identity.

Csr, the article from the Italian cardinal opened my eyes. The real problem is not the pants themselves, but the mindset that wearing them may create. I don’t believe that this is a problem today like it was in the 1960s. In fact, I believe that women these days appear very feminine, just not in the most modest of ways. Others are more modest; they simply don’t wear the traditional skirts or dresses. Those of us who regularly wear pants (like me) usually also wear jewelry, make-up, something nice in their hair, a pretty shirt, attractive shoes, or something else that identifies them as being “feminine.”

The real issue is when women wear these pants with the intent of being “like men.” Then, suddenly children have two fathers and no mother, a husband has another husband, and society becomes confused and demoralized. When women are told “you can’t do what you what; your only place is the home,” it tends to incite in them feelings of hatred toward their gender, which leads to the radical mindset that their femininity is a detriment to them (penis envy). Men, on the other hand, are told that they can do whatever they please, which gives rise to false airs of superiority (chauvinism). I think we should send women the message that they can do anything, but that they should embrace rather than reject their femininity in the process. In other words, tell them to be good women, good employees, good mothers, good wives, and to work respectfully alongside their male counterparts in their own unique ways. Men should be told that they are not the superior sex, and that they ought to treat female coworkers, bosses, mothers, wives, etc. with the dignity and respect owed them.

Combine those messages with adding some clothing to Britney Spears pop idols; eliminating all the casual sex scenes so often found in movies; scrapping hard core porn and soft core pornographic advertising; popularizing the ideas of modesty, chastity, and love; and perhaps we’d see a dramatic drop in “masculized” women. In fact, I am almost certain that we would.

Sexually ambiguous appearanes are not just an anomaly of the secular world: misinformed Christians unintentionally promote them too! A “helpmate” is “one who is a companion and a helper,” not “one who cannot pursue interests outside of family affairs.” Naturally, family should be important to women (and men too!), but not to the extent of completely ignoring life outside the family. One who tells women that they have an obligation to stay at home with children all their lives is sending them the wrong message. I believe that women should be told, “although you and your husband have the responsibility of raising these children well, you also have the right to climb mountains and corporate ladders in your own feminine way, so long as you and your husband agree on what you do.”

Send that message, csr, and I bet you could get more women to embrace their femininity. In fact, you may even be able to convince more women to wear dresses.

 

[kfarose2585]

Rachel, I just read your post. Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I have read *Mulieres Dignitatem *several times, and it gives me great comfort. I’ll be sure to check out Theology of the Body, too. I’ve not heard of it, but it sounds interesting.

Your comment about men controlling themselves is so true. Too often we focus on how women should be more modest without much of a word about men having restraint. Although it is in their nature to be more aggressive, they must learn to control themselves just as we must learn to keep our appearance in check. Bravo, Cowgirl!