The Sappy Post.

Have you ever wondered what it actually looks like to "fall for somebody"?

It appears that "falling for somebody" has become synonymous with love; whatever society thinks that means is anybody's guess. But yeah. I've been wondering about that lately. How are you supposed to know if you've fallen for somebody or not? I mean, that scrumptious-fuzzy-butterfly-feeling is supposed to be an indication, but is that it? How is anyone supposed to know? And I mean, really know?

Is it remembering every little thing they said when you two talk? Is it thinking about them all day? Or is it when any given thing reminds you of them? Is it wanting to talk to them all the time, or share every tiny moment with them, or even tell them everything about yourself? Is it when you trust someone - and I mean wholly trust them, where you let them know everything about you - and they hold it safer than you would? Is it when you crave their presence? And being with them, or beside them, or near them, is purely enough? Is it wanting to kiss them every morning, and hold them every night? Is it when you would give anything in the world just to bring them joy? Or is it when you're willing to sacrifice everything for them, maybe even your own happiness or dreams, without breathing a single word?

How do you know when you've fallen for somebody? Maybe it's not easy to determine. Maybe it looks different for everybody. Maybe it feels different for everybody. Maybe "falling for somebody" just means you regard someone in a more meaningful way than "just friends". Maybe it means even more than that. Maybe it's when you care about somebody so much that you can't get over them. They might hurt you or lie to you or get ugly or fat or irritable. And maybe then, that butterfly feeling goes away. But somehow you still bring yourself to love them, to fight for them, to simply care for them. And maybe that's what it looks like to fall for somebody. Wanting to be with them and never give up. And if a day comes when you want to give up, you fight to keep them anyway. Because sometimes love is a choice. Maybe "falling for somebody" is a dressed-up-term for a decision to make that choice.

I don't think love is about self-fulfillment or finding happiness or hugs and kisses or even friendship. It's not the completion of self or filling in the gaps.

That's part of it, but not the extent of it.

I think, ultimately, that love is about several things. Sacrifice, intimacy, and companionship. When the Bible said that God created woman because it wasn't good for man to be alone, it was right. Aloneness isn't good. It often causes selfishness, and of course, the pungent loneliness. Companionship is beautiful because it alleviates the pain of loneliness, but it also gives you the opportunity and necessity for sacrifice. I think sacrifice is important because it is a redefinition. Because, if you think about it, we spend our entire lives doing things mostly to make ourselves happy. Sacrifice redefines that. We do things for somebody else; we try to make somebody else happy, for a change; we love and are concerned with another. It's not just ourselves anymore. Sacrifices, ultimately, although in really tiny way, redefine our day-to-day purpose. We don't exist to make ourselves happy anymore; we exist to pour ourselves into another. 

And one of the most beautiful things ever is when, in a relationship, two people find it within themselves to sacrifice for each other. It's so beautiful. Mutual sacrifice is, I think, at least the partial definition of intimacy. Intimacy is when you have an exclusive and deeply close bond with someone. And it honestly takes sacrifice to have that; letting somebody in like that. Allowing a person to know and see and have access to every part of you. Taking the effort to know somebody else like that. That's sacrifice. And mutual sacrifice leads to such a colorful intimacy that I'm not even sure how I would describe it. 

I guess intimacy is a gift that is also a labor. It is a deep interlocking and intertwining of souls. It is a perpetual withdrawal of all selfishness and stinginess; it is a perpetual replenishing of closeness and warmth. I think everybody wants that, this "intimacy". But so few people actually get there. Shallow dual-interest is often mistaken for intimacy. 

But knowing all of one's secrets, memorizing them inside and out, and sharing their bed is not the extent of intimacy.

Full intimacy teems with depth and bonds so deeply interlocked that they are indestructible. Full intimacy is a dual-denying of self, for the interest of each other. Maybe full intimacy is when two souls become one. The lines of their pain and your pain begin to blur. Like a drop of water on a watercolor painting, your separate colors begin to blend together. Individuality is not breached, but your souls collide and twist their roots together, and then they grow on as one. Full intimacy is when two hearts fall so hard for each other that they sacrifice for each other, even when unwilling or the other is undeserving.

But honestly, full intimacy is a love so vivid that it can only be modeled by Christ, and reproduced through us.

I don't really know. I've never experienced any of this. Breaking news: 90% of the stuff I write is stuff I know nothing about. All of this sounds lovely to me, but yeah. This is just how I hope it all goes.

_

The Uncomfortable Post

After this post, I'm probably going to be labeled as one of "those people". And that's okay. I used to label people like me, too. Until I realized the absurdity of what I actually believed.

I think the Christian modesty culture has gone too far.

There are a few basic premises I want to go over in this post. They range from the goals of the Christian modesty culture to sexual objectification to even some of my personal struggles. And probably some more stuff. But first heed my warning. I plan to speak openly about sensitive issues. I think that the church has been deceived on this issue, and I want to talk about it. If you disagree with me, you are free to do so. I think it needs to be talked about. If you don't think that? Okay. I am not offended by you. This is just what I think.

The Three-Faceted Issue

In my humble opinion, the problem with the whole modesty culture lies within three fairly obvious areas, each of which perpetuate the other.

1. Society.
2. The Church.
3. Ourselves.

It's like this. Society has trained us to believe that we are all purely sexual creatures. Skin is interpreted only sexually. Lips are interpreted only sexually. Genitals are interpreted only sexually. The way we walk, sleep, carry ourselves, talk, and dress becomes a sexual statement. Anything can be sexy. We've gotten used to a society that objectifies, over-sensualizes, and isolates sex. We even market it. Everything, even the clothes we put on our body, are interpreted with a sexual connotation. Society has told us we're sex-crazy. Modesty, therefore, has become directly correlative with controlling this crazy sexuality. 

That's where the Church has come in. The Church, in denying this shallow focus on sex, has tried to control it; with, oddly enough, sex. The church has confirmed that the human body, particularly a woman's body, is a lethal weapon. Yes, the church just confirmed the sex-crazed-culture's fatal flaw. Instead of seeing human bodies as containers of persons of worth, the church sees us exactly like society sees us. Sex-objects. Viewing all people as purely sexual creatures. But, unlike society, the Church tries to label "sexual objectification" as wrong. "You're all just sex-objects, guys, and it's wrong. But don't bother trying to adjust your viewpoint of sex and the human body. We're just going to give you random rules. Ladies, it starts with you."

Obviously, the way to fix lust is to fix the object of the lust. 

So the Church has dutifully spent millions creating programs about modesty. Changing the ways girls dress. Creating absurdly arbitrary standards as to what is too short, what is too tight, what is too revealing, what is too provocative. A girl's body becomes wrong; a potential for sin; immoral. Needing perpetual covering. She is taught, either directly or inadvertently, that her body is the powerful vortex of endless evil. All men will "stumble" if they see it, because men are naturally bottomless-sexual-pits. And by "stumble", we really mean, "Men will desire her in a sexual context, because that's all her body is capable of portraying." Her body has so much sexual power (and that's about it), and it must be controlled. The church objectifies the body as much as society. Restricting the female body is not the answer to a societally-perpetuated objectification of the human body. But the church and society are really both doing the objectifying.

Society: Hey look! A human! I want to have sex with it! 

(doesn't recognize a human body as a soul; only recognizes sexual potential.)

Church: Hey look! A human! Let's make sure nothing has sex with it!

(doesn't recognize a human body as a soul; only recognizes sexual potential.)

Finally, the Church has failed to see two ridiculously fatal flaws with this whole 'you-are-a-sexual-creature-and-we-haz-rules-to-control-it' thing. First, wardrobe standards are arbitrary. And second, wardrobe standards are pointless. 

By arbitrary, I mean this: the Bible does not set parameters that specifically define what is modest or immodest. I've yet to find a definitive, "burkas are okay; leggings are not" type of thing. Thus, any "modesty standard" is man-made, subject to interpretation, and subject to change. And you're having pre-teen girls/grown women base their sexual conscience on an arbitrary standard. Story time: I was called a "baby [inexperienced] whore" at a debate tournament for wearing leopard-print heels with a matching leopard-print blouse. My suit was not tight. My skirt was not short. My blouse was not revealing. I met all the "right standards", right? But no. There are no "right standards". Everybody has a different standard. Thus, you're subject to falling short, being immodest, and receiving "whore status" at any given moment.

And by pointless, I mean this: women are not responsible for, or capable of, controlling a man's sexual desire. This is one of the hugest problems with the idea of the modesty culture. A woman, or anybody, cannot possibly be responsible for preventing any given person's sin. No matter how thoroughly you cover up their body, they are still subject to lust and objectification due to the state of our society. Ridiculous amounts of undue pressure have been put on women, all with the goal of stopping other men's sin. They are guilted into believing their body is the problem. If they conceal the problem, the perception of it will cease, right? But it doesn't work. It's impossible. As patheos.com put it:

Um, hey, guys, don’t you know that people are attracted to wildly different things and you can’t possibly create a standard that crushes every salacious impulse in every conceivable instance? Also, not every guy is a sex-crazed maniac like you think they are.

Well-said.

And then there's the final prong of the problem. Ourselves. We are part of the problem simply because we have chosen to go along with things, on both ends of the spectrum.

Example: I went through a stage where I was so paranoid about possibly causing a guy to sin (i.e, view me in a sexual fashion) that I wore no makeup and donned long denim skirts, and loose XL blouses. I made sure to keep my hair in a simple medium-length style; I remember when my stylist cut me side-bangs, and I cried. I thought they looked too cool. Too trendy. Too sexy. I was clearly on the path to becoming the next Delilah with those trampy side-bangs. I thought that, by controlling my appearance, I could control the thoughts of every man I met.

And I also went through a stage where everything I bought was purchased with sexual awareness. Actually, that still kind of happens. You know, where you try something on, look in the mirror, and ask yourself if it passes "the test": if it makes me look hot, buy it; f it doesn't make me look attractive, put it back on the rack. And in a way, that's fair enough. We should all buy things that look good on us. But that's different than buying things for their sexual allure. Honestly, I've bought things before that I knew made me look sexually desirable. And I think that's wrong. I think it perpetuates the problem - putting the focus on clothing and sexual potential, rather than the value of human identity and individuality. And here, I also thought that my wardrobe could control the thoughts of every man I met. In both instances, I obsessed over thoughts about purely my body. Objectifying myself, in both scenarios, before anyone else even had a chance.

We all do it. The problem rests with ourselves. 

Society reduces us all to purely sexual creatures. The church has confirmed this stigma and thrown arbitrary, pressuring, and absurd rules at us. And then we've just blithely gone along with it all. 

The solution is certainly not to wear denim skirts and sweatshirts. The solution is also not to walk around naked. The solution is to stop objectifying clothing, and the people who wear them, as sexual items. The solution is to learn to value the person, rather than their sexual potential. The solution is to swim upstream, deny the culture, and stop using arbitrary standards to control our stigmatized sexuality. 

Disclaimer: I understand that my solution here sounds a little bit idealistic. It would be wonderful if we all could just wear what we want and it not bother anybody. It would be wonderful if we could all just realize that our clothes are just clothes, and shouldn't be hyper-sensitively sexualized. But most people won't do that. Most people will still either gawk at you or judge you.

Maybe I'm asking you to apply an ideal standard to an unidealistic world.

But the challenge still remains. Realize that the true issue is our view of the human body and sexuality. The issue is not the human body; it is how we have dealt with it. The solution is ultimately to be unafraid, of change, of truth, of wisdom, of grace. Just be wise. But be bold. All you can do is change the culture by changing your views. Stop reducing yourself, others, and the human body to an isolated sexual object.

_