Letters on Leggings, Naturally

The Second Most Obvious Thing About Leggings

“This leggings parade is not (in most instances) a personal and lascivious ‘screw me’ invitation. It is an insolent and culture-wide ‘screw you’ that is aimed at the patriarchy and men in general.” Boom. I love how you can take arguments out of the same old surface back and forth and get to the heart of the matter with truth bombs like this. I came of age in the heyday of feminism (late ’70’s) and to Christ much, much later, so the word “submission” grates to this day. (The fault is mine.) No doubt the root sin IS a lack of submissiveness, but it is also a lack of love. (“Screw you.”) Thinking of it that way helps me. And so does your commentary. Thank you.

Lynn

Lynn, no, thank you.


I wear leggings out in public under a dress. When I go to the gym in leggings, I put a short skirt on. But I’m a more flamboyant type, and if I put it out there, I expect it to be admired. I don’t put out there what I don’t think will be admired, and even in my short skirts I dress up in Fort Knox underwear. I have the confidence and the self-carry that doesn’t earn me harassment. And I don’t mistake admiration for attraction. Everyone enjoys beauty, but all beauty does not cause sexual attraction. I expect men to be in control of their behavior and their thoughts and to also know the difference between admiring beauty and being sexually attracted. I admire beauty in men and women, and I don’t allow lust to grow, though my weakness is more covetousness than lust, and I have to keep careful reign of those thoughts. They aren’t anyone else’s fault—they are my responsibility. I don’t expect my friends to hide their glorious lives because I have a problem with covetousness. Women should not have to hide themselves because men have a problem with lust. That being said, modesty is important to a civilized society, and our society has quite lost its civilization . . . I am sorry that society is crumbling. America is being destroyed from within, and it is unbearably sad. My Father has not yet given me any specific actions to halt the progression towards our demise, so I watch it with mourning for the loss of life and souls it will cost. I continue to pray and put my hope in the Lord, but Jesus did not come to save nations, after all.

Caron

Caron, I am sorry but it is not possible to go in two different directions at the same time.


The Outrage of Leggings as Tip of the Iceberg: This is where the madness begins/began (see Eve in the Garden). Great article. Does anyone wonder where we are on the proverbial Iceberg today? There’s Keith Raniere, claiming that his crimes are merely part of his “lifestyle,” and while socially distasteful, not criminal.

While many women would condemn Keith Raniere, they don’t recognize Raniere’s sin in themselves, a failure to recognize and submit to proper authority. So some will cheer on feminism and the slaying of the patriarchy, providing Raniere a defense for his heinous abominations.

Side note on modesty: What does this one-piece swimsuit say?
Who should/would wear this? Doesn’t it testify to how glorious creation is?

Ron

Ron, thanks. And anybody who thinks they’ve seen everything should take a gander at that swimsuit.


First off, spot on for the leggings article—amen and amen. However, I am confused about your comment: “. . . and if the woman is attractive, then godly men really don’t want to see that.” Did you mean this as sarcasm? I ask because I remember a piece you did (can’t recall exactly the source) that gave a scenario (not sure if hypothetical or real) in which you are walking in the mall with your wife and there is an attractive woman with maybe less than modest apparel that makes her physique very obvious (think: bear cubs). As I recall, in the scenario you say something to your wife like, “Wow, God really blessed her.” Again, I believe that the point was that God was the one that “blessed” her with her attractiveness, though she was not necessarily in obedience as to her modesty, and notwithstanding the poor choice it would not be sinful for the attractiveness to be noted ( though maybe not necessarily wise to make the comment to your wife), indeed, if I recall correctly, the point of the article was a call to spiritual maturity and being able to correctly enjoy God’s blessings in creation vs. always over-reacting and running scared from every potential temptation. If I have this close, then this seems to contradict your statement quoted above from the leggings article, and in fact the statement in the article would seem to contradict the point of the article. Thanks.

BJ

BJ, no, the statement in this article was not sarcastic, or a joke. The statement you referenced from the previous article was the joke. I think it was in my article on Nuisance Lust, and the scenario was this. You see someone who is being both attractive and out of line, and the whole thing is stinking obvious. I suggested making a joke of it to your wife—“Is this a great country or what?” So the point was not to enjoy, but to disapprove with a joke. To take it seriously in one way, but not in another.


In the post “The outrage of leggings . . .” you wrote, “When a husband wimps out, one side of her triumphs and gloats over it while the other side detests it (and him). Over time the detesting side grows emotionally stronger and ethically weaker. She is in the process of becoming enslaved to what she hates.”

My question is, what is a wife supposed to do when she wants to be submissive but her husband is constantly “wimping out” preemptively, so to speak? In the hypothetical case that it doesn’t have anything to do with overt conflicts between the two of them, and its more issues of ambition and energy and professional and familial initiative? When she is genuinely trying to honor God and her husband and be respectful and courteous and kind and loving, but there are emotions of detesting and contempt that keep popping up? Just confess them, give them to God, and try to hang in there miserably? Thanks for your thoughts. Please leave my name out of this if you choose to publish.

K

K, I would suggest two things. The first is to seek out a conversation with your husband, at a time when there is no current conflict between you. Ask him—and be prepared not to answer him in the moment—if you are telegraphing any kind of unsubmissive spirit to him You think he is surrendering preemptively before there is any resistance from you at all. Ask him if that is his perspective, or if he has examples of times when he clearly picked up on the fact that you already had your heels dug in. I said not to answer him in the moment—if there is a clear and obvious answer, then come back with it the following day. But commit yourself to prayerfully consider whatever he might have say. Actually consider it as a possibility. The second thing I would suggest, if the first suggestion makes no progress, is that you ask him if the two of you could seek out pastoral marriage counseling.


Reading your posts about this issue always feels like a splash of refreshing cold water in a fog of confusion. For some time I have watched this mentality creep into my fellow sisters in the church and have been on the receiving end of the laughter you described when I have appealed to them to stop and consider the direction we’re heading. But the twist in all of this is the mixture of feminism with a hyper (?) sensitivity to legalism. In the church, the response to requests to even small measures of moderation in dress is met with “we can’t make rules.” And that is not just from the women—that is from the male leadership. I would be very grateful if you could offer some insight into this as it is a very confusing redirection. I mean, obviously, what sincere Christian wants to play the Pharisee? And the suggestion, to use your example, that leggings may be inappropriate is immediately met with “we cannot address that, because legalism!” I have encountered this in real life discussions and it mirrors the tone online. It seems as if modern church leadership is more afraid of legalism than the drift towards the values of the world. I would greatly appreciate some help on this issue as I am truly confused over how to navigate it for myself, my daughters, and my sisters in the church.

Concerned Christian Woman Johnson

CCWJ, yes, this needs to be addressed further, and I should develop this more in a follow up article. Behind the reaction to the threat of legalism is the assumption that the Bible has not spoken directly on the subject. “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel” (1 Tim. 2:9). It is not legalism to say that men shouldn’t get drunk because Scripture says not to. The same goes for this.


Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Pastor Wilson, for this article and for so many of the insights you’ve given me through your writings. Even my local “tribe” (evangelical, reformed, etc…) has drunk the Kool-Aid that a godly, loving husband “leads” by agreeing with whatever the wife decides—that’s the essence of the counsel I receive typically. In fact, husbands who do not help their wives follow the command to submit are harming their wives—as you put it, enslaving the wives to their fallen nature. This also encourages husbands to not lay down our lives for our wives in taking on the hard, anti-culture task of leading our families (my life gets really easy if I do only whatever my wife agrees to and not do what she does not want to do—no need to invest my time and resources to think hard, assess, analyze, persuade; no having to deal with blow back; just kick back, turn on the TV, and remember to say “yes, honey, whatever you think”). In other words, this also leads husbands to become enslaved to our fallen nature (wimpiness, laziness, chest-less-ness, etc…).

Paul

Paul, yes. Real leadership is real work.


Quick comment about leggings from a college professor who sees many students wearing leggings—I don’t think most of them are actually in conscious rebellion, or trying to send a “screw you” to the patriarchy. Rather they simply look around them, see what other students are wearing, and see what advertisements and social media tells them they should be wearing, and want to be trendy and fashionable. That’s it. As seems to often happen in America, what perhaps begins as rebellion then becomes the trendy mainstream, and then a bunch of people who do not have personalities eager to join the public rebellion do jump in, because they absolutely do want to be part of the trendy mainstream.

David

David, good point, and I agree. There is more than a little bit of monkey see, monkey do in this. Many have not really thought about it—but they ought to.


In many an evangelical church, the feminist corps has moved well past leggings and on into hot pants, midriffs, and shirts where they forgot to install a back. Everything you said applies, and a hearty amen to all of it, but I’m afraid it risks appearing anachronistic in its restrained description of the true state of our distress. But I will give you the excuse that it is not November.

Steve

Steve, fair point. It is not November.


Years ago, when I was teaching at a public high school, I had a “Me Share” (bring 5 things that tell about you) activity with my Band Flag Team for the purpose of building camaraderie. Some of the girls were new Christians who attended a local church. One lovely girl shared her Bible and how she was reading every day to become more Christ-like. The next thing she shared was her black leggings “because I like to be sexy (giggle, giggle).” I’ve learned the hard way to be careful about uncontrolled group sharing with kids in today’s world.

Melody

Melody, yes. Sharing times may be thought of as the enemy of all true propriety.


Leave Me Alone

“The Constitution was ratified in the ‘Year of our Lord, 1789’ This was, according to the common reckoning, 1789 years after Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene in the garden.” Erm . . . don’t you mean something closer to “1789 years after Gabriel appeared to Mary Galilean?”

Kyriosity

Kyriosity, no, I didn’t mean that. But I am willing to grant that I should have meant that.


Bible Reading Challenge Question

Hey why do are certain books and passages repeated? I see Ephesians June 15, June 18) repeated, and other passages . . . These are just two examples. Intentional or an error?

James

James, that was intentional. On the catch-up days, those who want to can read a little bit extra.


My App Is No More

I always read your blog on my iPad, but today the app would not refresh and remained blank. I finally deleted it with the intention of reinstalling it from the app store. But when I searched for “dougwils,” nothing showed up. Did the Apple app store “deplatform” you.

Steve

Steve, the good news is that I have not been deplatformed yet. The reason this happened is that the app was simply too buggy to be function for many users, and was an ongoing exasperation. So we pulled the plug on it.


And a Quick One on Climate Change

I’m wondering how you have come to disagree with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists from around the world on this issue. I understand having distain for Al Gore, but to omit that thousands of specialized climate scientists from every part of the world have a made a consensus is questionable. And disagreeing with their consensus seems to me to be remarkably audacious. As someone who grew up in the Calvinist Christian reform tradition I find it hard to comprehend why the evangelical Christian community is so decided on political issues, and almost always without a clear biblical mandate. On what grounds do you dismiss them all? And what is your motivation in doing so? Looking for answers,

Ben

Ben, four quick reasons. Structurally, we have not been measuring temperatures around the globe for anywhere near long enough to have anywhere near enough data to begin making serious hypotheses as anything so complicated as the climate of an entire planet. Second, I am old enough to remember all the other false alarms that have been raised in the name of eco-science. There have been many. Third, the scientists who affirm climate change treat those who dissent as heretics (“deniers,” evil ones) instead of colleagues worth answering. They don’t answer dissenters, they punish them. And last, all the proposed solutions thus far consist of granting plenipotentiary powers to the state, which is a far greater threat to us than our summers being a bit warmer. God gave us the sun to rule our day, not the state to rule our day.

95
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
5 Comment threads
90 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
18 Comment authors
JonathanJohn CallaghanJaneClayDave Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Matt
Guest
Matt

” Structurally, we have not been measuring temperatures around the globe for anywhere near long enough to have anywhere near enough data to begin making serious hypotheses as anything so complicated as the climate of an entire planet.” This is a bit like saying you are unsure whether a forest exists because you haven’t accounted for every single tree. “Second, I am old enough to remember all the other false alarms that have been raised in the name of eco-science. There have been many.” This, whether true or not, has no bearing on whether the climate is changing. “Third, the… Read more »

Nathan Smith
Member

“This is a bit like saying you are unsure whether a forest exists because you haven’t accounted for every single tree.” This is absurd and weakens everything else you might have to say on the matter. “This, whether true or not, has no bearing on whether the climate is changing.” But it DOES have bearing on whether or not climate “scientists” are trustworthy. When they have been lying for years and years, why would they not be lying now? I would offer a fifth reason to Doug’s four – which is my predominant reason. The Bible doesnt say the world… Read more »

Matt
Guest
Matt

I don’t consider it reasonable to hold climate scientists today responsible for media sensationalism of decades ago.

Nathan Smith
Member

When they say what you want they are “climate scientists.” But when they end up being way off base, it is “media sensationalism.” Why can’t they just tell me what to think and then stick to it?

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Who is “they”? Obviously the media and the scientists are very different entities, so why conflate them? People talk about the scientific community engaging in fear-mongering. Then when asked for evidence of this, they often post a popular-level article that will at most quote 1-2 scientists who say what the author wants them to say, which often has more to do with grabbing eyes than with disseminating truth. As there are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of scientists in the world, cherry-picking a few voices who parrot a scary narrative isn’t particularly difficult or meaningful. As any one scientists among those… Read more »

soylentg
Member

I’ve never been a fan of “poetry” that does not rhyme, but on a particularly snowy day in the middle of April this came from my keyboard without much prompting: MORE PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING When I was young, we had a few really cold winters They said it was global cooling, the beginning of a new Ice Age The end of the world as we know it When the weather got really hot, they chastised us, “weather is not climate!” When I was older, we had a few really hot summers They said it was global warming, the beginning… Read more »

Jane
Member

Doug didn’t say the problem is that we don’t have every possible data point for all possible time. He said we didn’t have *enough* data to make the conclusions being made. I would think explaining why the amount of data we have is sufficient to draw conclusions would be a more effective refutation than attacking a claim he didn’t make.

Matt
Guest
Matt

Are you arguing that Wilson has some concrete idea of how much data is necessary over how much time to reach a particular satisfactory confidence level, and that he has actually assessed the amount of data that is actually available and found it falls short of this standard? If so I think you’re putting way too much stock in a regurgitated talking point.

Jane
Member

I think you should concern yourself more with addressing claims actually made in constructive and factual manner, than with defending straw men attacks based on assumptions about Wilson’s background knowledge and assumptions. If you want to argue that the data we have is sufficient to draw the conclusion, it shouldn’t be difficult to make that case. Attacking what he didn’t say and then defending the attack because you just know what he meant by what he did say and what does it matter anyway because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about anyway seems at best an exercise in futility… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

If you want to argue that the data we have is sufficient to draw the conclusion, it shouldn’t be difficult to make that case.

Claiming that case wouldn’t be difficult defies reason and experience. A significant number of people on this board (including our host) don’t even accept that the world is over 10,000 years old despite a ridiculous amount of data in support. How can you claim that making that case wouldn’t be difficult here? How would you even go about making the case to this audience that we have enough data to draw conclusions?

Jane
Member

I said making the case wouldn’t be difficult. I didn’t say persuading us all would necessarily result. If you have data and reasoning, you can make a case for anything. I literally meant that he could make a case, not that we would all jump to agree with the case. Surely there exist plenty of accessible explanations made by those who believe that it is possible to glean enough information about historical temperature data to draw the kinds of conclusions we’re talking about. I mean, I’ve seen people do it before, so I know for a fact the case can… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

The case has been made, of course, in the numerous scientific papers that place global warming in historical perspective which have passed peer review in respected journals. What do you want Matt to add to that? As Clay points out, there’s no indication that Pastor Wilson has intended this to be more than a talking point or has any interest in actually evaluating the truth of his unsupported claim.

Clay
Guest
Clay

Jane, I guess your short answer to Matt’s question is, “While Mr. Wilson has made claims as to the veracity of global warming data, Mr. Wilson has not indicated that he has a concrete idea how much data is necessary over how much time to reach a particular satisfactory confidence level, nor has he actually assessed the amount of data that is actually available, but that has not stopped him from determining that it falls short of this standard.”

See, that wasn’t so hard.

Jane
Member

Yes, I agree it doesn’t seem hard which is why I wonder why he didn’t just say that. That would be engaging in discussion, as opposed to {snark snark too stupid to do obvious reasoning snark snark hyperbolic misrepresentation of his point} which is more like what the monkeys in the zoo like to throw around. But of course what he said can’t be disputed because it’s obviously true even though misleading, but if he said what you said, then perhaps that could be responded to.

Clay
Guest
Clay

To the best of my knowledge, he doesn’t claim to be climate scientist. A better idea would be for Mr. Wilson to do the hard work providing evidence for his four, at this point, subjective claims prior to making them. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?

Clay
Guest
Clay

By way of clarification: by “he”, I mean Mr. Wilson.

Jill Smith
Member

I would rather like to have a rousing debate about leggings. A quick search showed me that people have very extreme views, that men in general hate them, that a lot of the contention arises from the burning question “Are leggings pants?”, and that even the hallowed Guardian has entered the fray. Although I personally would not be caught dead in leggings unless they were concealed by a tunic reaching almost to my knees (I find the What ho Mercutio! look a little ridiculous), I can probably argue both sides without much caring who wins.

Jane
Member

You may be right, but what you think is fairly irrelevant to the discussion here since you have an ample history demonstrating that you really have no interest in actually discussing things here.

But I really don’t see how your last comment is responsive to mine anyway (not that that’s unusual.) Nobody said he claimed to be a climate scientist.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Yet Pastor Wilson makes declarative claims, without any backing or evidence, about things that only climate scientists would know. That’s the issue.

Clay
Guest
Clay

Thank you. When are we going to learn? Logic is not required in the defense of Mr. Wilson. Allegiance, yes. Logic, no. Ethics, optional.

Clay
Guest
Clay

Kudos for dismissing someone who might be right that Mr. Wilson might be wrong regarding climate change. A+ on the use of a double standard.

Jane
Member

It’s not a double standard. I dismiss you because you dismiss everybody and only show up every few months to make snide remarks about how Wilson and all his readers deserve be dismissed. I don’t dismiss people who demonstrate that they are here to engage in actual conversation, even when I disagree with them.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

That’s very fair Jane. Clay, I have to say that right or wrong, the way you’re coming in is a bit grating and not helpful.

Jsm
Guest
Jsm

I have a question for everyone but I hope Doug will answer as well. I am looking for a website that gives current event news that’s not full of the banality exhibited on many search news sites like msn and yahoo. I don’t care about celebrities or the plight of the sexually perverse. It doesn’t necessarily have to be from a christian source. I just don’t want it to be a mouthpiece for the left.

JP Stewart
Member

The “Christian Daily Reporter” (see links on the right side under “Bookmarks”) is a good. Very stripped-down site (a bit like Drudge Report) with no celebrity gossip or celebration of LGBTQ+ (though some links may cover sexual deviancy from a Christian point of view). It might not be as comprehensive as you’re looking for but it’s a start.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
Guest
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp

Try whatfinger.com.

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

Two Things: (1) The BJ in the letters is not me. Just for clarity’s sake. (2) Ben, it is easy for those of us in the religious community to spot other religious communities, even if they deny it or try to hide it behind “science” or “compassion” or “justice” or whatever other pretext they select. Plus, part of a good scientific theory is falsifiability. The list of failed predictions for climate change is growing rapidly and the degree of their failures is stunning at times. What is currently called climate science, much like the theory of evolution, acts less like… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
Guest
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp

To the chalkboard, Ben. You are to write the following one hundred times:

Consensus is not science. Science is not consensus.

Kong
Guest
Kong