What to Read.

I’m here in Dallas (no one told me it was beautiful!) with a slooooow internet connection, so you’ll have to read somewhere else this week. No shortage of options.

Two brand new homeschooling blogs, written by internet friends of mine, that I think are worth a look:

Home Grown is by a Catholic mom of 1, and for all everyone sighs and moans at the sight of large homeschooling families, 1-child families have a dynamic that can be quite challenging for the stay-at-home parent.  I love how Susan is up front about the problems she works through.  Also, I wish I could write as beautifully as her 4th grader. There’s a reason this blog doesn’t include penmanship samples.

[And so that you’re warned, any snide comments about family size, and I’ll scratch your eyes out. You have no idea.  No. idea.]

180 Days of Homeschool is by Amy, a mom of eight, ages baby to senior in high school.  She’s been at this homeschooling thing for a while, and the day-by-day approach gives a nice realistic look at what it is homeschoolers really do all day.  The other interesting thing for non-homeschoolers to note: by “homeschooling” what we often mean is “sending the kids to school, just not all day every day”.  Amy has a few kids taking classes at a home-school school — think private Catholic school, but courses ordered a la carte, much more like college.

On education: If you aren’t already reading Bearing’s tremendously thorough series on the goals of Catholic education, per the Church, check it out.

***

On the plane I started reading Grace in the Shadows by Denise Jackson.  I read a lot of self-published books for the Catholic Writers’ Guild Seal of Approval process, so I am fully aware of the trepidation one feels in picking such a work.  The content on this one is excellent.  It’s part-memoir, part no-nonsense talk about the reality of sexual abuse, and how to move forward despite a miserable past.  It has a very personal style (there’s poetry, for one thing) that you wouldn’t see in many traditionally-published books, so I’m glad Denise chose to stick to her guns and write it the way she thought it needed to be told.

At the halfway point, I’m giving it a ‘buy’ recommend for anyone who has the job of creating a safe environment for preventing abuse, or has the vocation of being the friend of a sexual abuse survivor.  Denise Jackson has a very mature, well-balanced Christian spirituality, and what has fascinated me as I read is seeing how many of the patterns of behavior and emotion surrounding sexual abuse are in fact the same patterns you see in many other situations.  Great book.  I can’t wait to finish it.

7 Takes: The Ease With Which We Lie

Lighter fare this way. Click as needed.

1.

I would like to thank all of you who have prayed for me.  I’m lousy at praying, but I do pray for my benefactors, and that would be you.  Because your work has been, thus far, very effective.  I would like to double-thank those who have been patient in practical matters as my attendance at this or that has been spotty.

2.

Tuesday  morning I learned a friend had been deceiving me for some time.  Not lying, not outright.  She’d made a (perfectly legitimate) decision that she knew I wouldn’t like.  She put off telling me, presumably in the hopes it would simply never become an issue. That I wouldn’t, in the end, need to know after all.

2468 Truth as uprightness in human action and speech is called truthfulness, sincerity, or candor. Truth or truthfulness is the virtue which consists in showing oneself true in deeds and truthful in words, and in guarding against duplicity, dissimulation, and hypocrisy.

What began as prudence and discretion, looking for the right moment to share the news I needed to know, turned into  a lack of candor as the months dragged out.   Sometimes I worry about doing the same thing.  Is there something I should be saying, and haven’t?  It is easy enough to be misunderstood.  It is possible to deceive without intending to, without any sin at all.

3.

2469 “Men could not live with one another if there were not mutual confidence that they were being truthful to one another.”²⁶² The virtue of truth gives another his just due. Truthfulness keeps to the just mean between what ought to be expressed and what ought to be kept secret: it entails honesty and discretion. In justice, “as a matter of honor, one man owes it to another to manifest the truth.”²⁶³

4.

I should note here that my own fault runs more often the other way — I had already strained our relationship by being quite blunt in a matter where I felt absolute candor trumped sparing of feelings.  There are long passages in the catechism about the importance of not saying too much.   I stink at that.

Even when I am trying to be prudent, to actually shut up and think for a change, there’s always the wondering.  Does someone truly need to know this thing I know?  Will I be more guilty for speaking, or for not?

5.

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

So I was composing this post in my head this morning before mass.  After, I had the privilege of being outright lied to, in a mortal-sin kind of way, if my fact-checking turns out to be correct.  (Completely different scenario, different people.)  It was . . . very strange.

But it happens.  People do evil things.  People who are kind and generous and pious sometimes do evil things.

6.

Why do Mark Shea and Chris Tollefsen get told off every time they point out lying is wrong?  I think it’s because we’re so used to it.*

We have a cultural fear of the truth.  Faced with a difficult thing to say about even the most trivial matter, we tend to look for away to skirt the truth.  How can I get my girlfriend to purchase a different outfit, without telling her this one she loves makes her look awful / is terribly tacky / is exactly the one I’m wearing to the same event?

We are so used to thinking of deceit as necessary for police work, or some similar situation, that it is unimaginable, truly unthinkable, that it might, possibly, be the wrong thing to do.  We so fear harming innocent children or the frail elderly with difficult facts, that I’ve been accused of great cruelty for suggesting that such people can, in fact, be given difficult but necessary news in some sensitive but honest way.

7.

And it cannot be denied: the moral life is not the easier life.  The freedom truth brings is bought at a cost.  A willingness to risk not nabbing the criminal, of making the little girl cry for the rest of her life, of causing grandma’s heart to fail.  Or a boycott by angry customers.  Or martyrdom.

Mostly, doing what is right is also doing what feels better.  What, in the end, makes like easier.  Our conscience is clear, our friendships are solid, people want to work with and help others they know to be decent, honest folk.  Mostly.

Not always.

Don’t forget to pray for Allie Hathaway, then go read more takes at the home of our lovely hostess Jen F. at ConversionDiary.com. 

*Not telling them off.  Lying.  Though we’re also getting used to telling them off.  Curiously, my Mark Shea link has no negative comments on it, at this writing.

Fortnight of Freedom June 21st – July 4th

Check out the many events around the country planned for the Fortnight of Freedom June 21st to July 4th.

Over at the Catholic Writers Guild blog, I just queued up a good troll-baiting guest post (Not mine! For once I’m mostly innocent!) to go live first thing in the morning.  And I gave our regularly-scheduled bloggers a private talking-to about how EASY it is to write on this topic.  So we’ll see how they do.

I’m going to keep this post sticky for the next two weeks, so if you post something on the theme of freedom, or have an on-topic link you’d like to share, feel free to put it in this combox.

Theology of the Body Conference, Simpsonville, SC July 6th & 7th

Why is Church teaching worth standing up for?  I’d be remiss if  I didn’t tell you about the Theology of the Body Conference in upstate SC this summer – July 6th & 7th.  I won’t make it out this year — I’ll be home attending a wedding, yay! — but I was able to go to Family Honor’s TOTB conference in 2002, and it was top notch.  Speakers this year include Janet Smith & Ray Guarendi . . . you can’t go far wrong with talent like that.  Check it out.

Hey and if you ever wondered where my header and sidebar photos came from . . . yeah, upstate SC has a few little secrets in those mountains.  Good place.

Faith and Morals: Willful “Confusion”

Via The Pulpit I discovered this great article at Catholic Lane on the morality of genetic enhancements: “Catholic Confusion on Enhancements” which is worth a read.  I’d never considered the question one way or another (we have no genes we are particularly keen to improve — want of ambition, as always), and now I know.  It’s not confusing at all — the Catholic teaching comes down to the old standby, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

But the cries of, “But I just . . . can’t . . . figure this out . . .” are so familiar.  It’s the line used to justify ignoring all the most obnoxious moral principles:

• Torture: I can’t tell whether I’m really torturing someone or not — I guess I’ll just keep at it.
• Theft: Is taking this one small thing really theft? Who knows — just don’t tell anyone and it’ll be okay.
• Lying: Is it really a lie, or am I just being deceptive?  Well it’s a good cause, so why worry?

You might also recall willful confusion was used back in the day for abortion — is this really a baby? — but now everyone knows it’s a baby, we just don’t worry about the very little ones no one much wants, that would be absurd.  Like worrying about little white lies and tax evasion and torturing people who surely deserved it anyway.

The most entertaining sort of pseudo-confusion is about NFP. Seriously, I kid you not, people will say with a straight face things like:

• “I don’t understand how NFP and contraception are different.”  Um, the part about not having sex, maybe?
• “But what’s the difference between using chemicals or latex to prevent conception, versus using time to prevent it?” I think if you can’t tell the difference between sex and abstinence . . . you’re doing it wrong.

These are excuses.  No one who is serious about avoiding immoral genetic manipulation, or torture, or theft, or lying, or contraception, asks these questions.

Excuses are different from honest inquiry.  When people are really trying to find out answers, they act differently.  Honest inquirers ask precise questions: Not, “I can’t know whether taking office supplies is stealing, I’ll help myself to this case of pencils,” but “Is it okay to make personal phone calls from the office phone?  I’ll e-mail the new boss and find out what the policy is.” And then are prepared to accept difficult answers: If the policy is no personal calls, I’ll wait and call later.

Excuses are different from honest mistakes.  A very, very common honest mistake is believing that the withdrawal method is a legitimate and morally acceptable form of NFP.  It isn’t.  But between some going jokes (now dated, but these things persist), the fact that no artificial devices or chemicals are involved, and the the insidious feeling that anything with as low an effectiveness rating as the rhythm method* must be okay, people get the wrong idea.

The answer is no — a very rough approximation of Catholic sexual morality would be more along the lines of “Don’t start what you aren’t gonna finish.”  The difference between the honest mistake and faux “confusion” is that the honest man might grumble about being corrected, but he won’t sit there acting like he can’t tell the difference between select body parts and a hole in the ground.

*Withdrawal and the Rhythm Method are both somewhat effective for avoiding pregnancy, though I wouldn’t want to bet on them myself.  The one is immoral, the other is not.  History buff though I am, when it comes to having babies, or not having them, give me nice shiny modern NFP over the quaint forbears any day.

7 Takes on Modesty: The Case for Rules

Pray for Allie Hathaway, then click to find more quick takes at ConversionDiary.com

Whenever I gather with Catholic women, we all agree: Modesty is important, and we want more of it.  Especially at church.

But many of the same people who want more modesty do not want rules.  And there are some good arguments from the no-dress-code crowd:

• Modesty is context-dependent.
• Any rule can be “worked” to create an immodest outfit that meets the letter of the law.
• Unless the rules are too strict.
• Burkas burkas burkas.
• Pants.  Pants. Pants.  Paaaaaants.

Add to that two bad arguments that fill us out at seven:

• Modesty is all about interior disposition.  (No, it’s not.)
• Rules about modesty are sexist.  (No, not the ones we’re talking about.)

Today I give you seven reasons parishes, schools, and families ought to consider making some specific rules to define modest dress.

1.  Modest is not only about interior disposition. I refer you, for a start, to this excellent post by Rebecca Frech on how guys are different from girls.  Can a guy work himself into a sweat just imagining things?  Certainly.  But that doesn’t change the reality that having a woman’s body in front of his eyes provokes a physiological response — the same way putting a plate of fresh-baked brownies in front of a girl makes her . . . well, you know.  Put the brownies away.  Away.  Please.  Now.

2. You have to get dressed.  Everyday. Modesty is not some abstract principle debated by philosophers and mathemeticians.  Girls have to choose what clothes to buy, and then which ones to wear in which combination.  This is not some theoretical exercise, like wondering what you’ll do if a hurricane should hit your corner of North Dakota.  Either the clothes you put on today are modest, or they are not.  You have to know.

3. It’s not fair to leave girls with nothing but judgement calls, and no hope of getting it right.  Yes, there are many, many classy outfits on the border between modest and not.  At home with mom, or in the fitting room with a trusted friend, you can say, “Yeah, that skirt’s a smidge short, but it’s a heavy fabric that won’t fly away, and with opaque tights and a sweater, you’re okay.”  Given how hard it is to find decent clothes on short notice and a tight budget, yes, this is sometimes the reality.

But what if you’re a teen who wants to get it right?  Girls deserve reliable guidelines — a set of simple tactics for choosing an outfit that will work.  It’s no fair to tell teens “cultivate a sense of modesty,” but refuse to tell them what they need to do in order to avoid being gossiped about prayed for by the ministry team.   Modesty isn’t hard.  99% of the time, if you follow a few basic rules suitable to your time and place, you’re gonna be good.

4. Clear rules help you better judge the judgement calls.  Fashion is weird and unpredictable.  Pretend for a moment you have a rule along the lines of “skirt needs to touch the knees”.  Just pretend with me, it won’t hurt.  It’s only pretend.

Okay, so we’re pretending about our rule . . . and now we have a skirt with a slit up the side.  Having already said, “Well, this much leg is okay, that much is too much,” we have a basis for deciding whether the slit is revealing or just convenient.  How does it compare with other skirts we’ve decided are A-OK?

5.  Clear rules end arguments.  If you’re the youth minister charged with deciding whether an outfit meets spec, you don’t have to use your imagination.  You can say, “Shoulders not covered.  Go grab a t-shirt from the supply closet.  Not my rule, parish policy.”  End of argument.

At home, of course, you have to admit you’re the bad guy and just stick to your guns.  And of course your daughter is going to try to negotiate all the stylish concessions she can.  But at least she can shop knowing that no matter how obnoxiously tacky you think the new sequins-and-puff-balls day-glow-bubble-skirt style is, if it’s below the knee and not too tight, and she buys it with her own money, you have to let her wear it somewhere.  Not necessarily anywhere you, your family, or your nationality are known.  But somewhere.

6. Clear rules give girls something to stand on against their friends.  It’s not easy to be that kid who doesn’t get to wear what everyone else is wearing.  Yes, of course girls ought to have lots of guts and inner convictions, and be totally unafraid to stand up to their idiotic “friends” and get new ones if necessary.  Yes, of course a girl should rather face death itself than ever utter a single word against her honorable, admirable, eminently reasonable parents.  But seriously?  Give the poor kid an easy out.  “It’s the dress code for youth group events,” or “My parents have a rule against it.”

7. Clear rules sharpen the debate.  So your right-wing fanatic friend (or pastor, or DRE) swears that exposed ankles are the first step on the way to Hell, and that many a collarbone had led a man to perdition.  Putting together a tentative list of rules, and then opening it up to scrutiny, helps better answer the question.  You can flip through photos from the parish picnic and say, “Look, Sister Immaculata is showing some calf and it’s okay.  Let’s up our hemline rule a few inches, I think the guys can take it.”

You have to get dressed.  Every day, every woman in the universe answers a question with her body: “I think this outfit is just fine.” Why not do it with the confidence?  Make some rules.  Ask for input. Try them out.  Adjust as needed.

Soldiers Breastfeeding in Public

UPDATE: In the combox, Larry L. explains the mysteries of military rules that civilians tend to miss.  This story explains it well:

Reference on uniforms and the idea of changing clothes…. True story and a friendlier than most of my military stories…. During lunch I run down to the bank to deposit some cash(in uniform). I get stopped walking into the bank.(navy federal) and get told I am not allowed to go into a civilian location in working uniform. I go back to my ship and no kidding…. you are not allowed to wear your working uniform anywhere but to military locations. If stopping to get a soda at the local 7-11 you can’t do it in “working” uniform. “Dress” uniform perfectly allowed though.

Thanks, Larry L.  Makes perfect sense.  In that special military way.

***

Original Post:

Since I was so pointed in my criticism of  Time Magazine’s pornesque breastfeeding cover photo, I wanted to observe that this photo that showed up in Yahoo news this morning is just a plain old breastfeeding photo, nothing to get freaked out about.  The mom with twins is not so discreet,  which I don’t care for.  I wouldn’t stick it on a billboard, any more than I’d post a mom doing wholesome mom things but wearing a dress or swim suit with similar amounts of cleavage showing.

(I would put that picture in a brochure for new mothers, which would be an appropriate place for a little technical instruction.  I’ve noticed in the past that sometimes formula companies will issue “breastfeeding guides” in which the explanations and images of breastfeeding positions are so uncomfortable and impractical that if you tried them, you’d be sure to give up and switch to formula.)

–> Even for nursing in public, I am far more inclined to give a pass to the breastfeeding mom-o-twins than any of the other 10,000 utterly avoidable situations where women not feeding children decide to create a temptation for hungry babies everywhere.  On that day when every other woman in the US manages to cover it up?  We can have a talk with the moms of multiples about whether there’s a more discrete way to do the one thing those breasts were actually made to do.

Bad journalism in an effort to stir up controversy:

“Also forbidden while in uniform: eating, drinking, . . .”

Er . . . no.  I imagine they meant to say something that was true.  But they didn’t.  Maybe, if I read the whole sentence and guess about how it’s punctuated, what they mean is “eating while walking” and “drinking while walking”.  Maybe?

Anyhow, I’m not military and so my thoughts on what soldiers do in uniform counts for very little, except that sheesh, yes, mothers need to feed their children.  If you’re going to have soldiers who are mothers of babies and toddlers, this is all part of the package.

Breastfeeding your baby is not some optional thing that ought to be saved for leisure hours.  It’s the normal way of feeding a baby.  It’s wonderful that safe, healthy alternatives exist for moms who can’t do it the usual way.  But it would be mighty bizarre to insist that every mother do the artificial work-around to solve a non-existent problem, just because someone’s got it in their head that normal isn’t normal.

3.5 Time Outs: Teen Boy Chastity Bleg, Part 2

Thanks once again to our host Larry D. at Acts of the Apostasy, this bringing old meaning to Man, you’re sick.

Dozens of takes, 3.5 at a time.

1.

The reason I’m asking internet strangers, instead of my dearly beloved, for advice on teen boy chastity, is this:  The SuperHusband has ample experience with “Teen Boy”, but neither he nor I had much exposure to the whole “Chastity” thing until well after our teen years.  So while we can tell you all about the Marriage-NFP Experience, if we were to draw on our own high school experiences for guidance on how to parent our boy, well, that would not be the most successful method.

And since this is the AoA 3.5 Takes, the Man Event to exceed all Man Events, I’m going to keep on asking.

2.

Here’s the round-up of answers so far:

Darwin wrote from his own experience: Avoid Porn, Develop Aesthetics.  That was very encouraging — we have both the porn-free household and the collection of art books (really just two or three, but it’s a start).  And I never would have considered the topic this way.  I’m really glad I asked!

Christian LeBlanc (this one) writes:

I’d tell my boys that all the trash you see on the net or movies or mags has nothing to do with real men, real woman, and real sex. It’s just a way to get money out of morons. In fact it’s the opposite of those real things, and only idiots waste time on it and screw up any chance of meeting and loving a real woman like my wife, who as my children know is The Most Glorious and Beautiful Woman God Ever Created.

August from Contra Niche say:

If you teach young men to value their first born, they will get in the habit of thinking about whether or not they’d want whoever it is they are looking at (and attracted to) to be their kids mom. It is very effective, especially if you imagine a smart little five year old berating you for your lack of foresight.

Valuable reminders, and it is so helpful to hear this from a man’s perspective.  Larry D.  assures me he has a post in the works (give him time, he’s got the plague), and I’m looking forward to that.

3.

So here’s a two-part question I still need you guys to answer for me:

• How should a boy deal with the, shall we say, overwhelming physical urges, that are known to afflict young men?

• And how does a mother, or father, provide these bits of practical advice without making the boy die from embarrassment?

The going advice in popular culture is not so helpful, since it tends to run exactly counter to CCC 2352 and 2396.

So guys, you know how ladies fill magazines with practical tips on cutting calories and avoiding over-eating at holiday parties?  We need the pocket guide to keeping it in the pocket.  I’m going to temporarily open this blog up to anonymous comments, and as long as they are Catholic* and on-topic, I’ll let them through the moderation queue.   What works?

Please tell.

3.5

 . . . Anna knew right away: Slugs.  If you ever need a cheap date, invite a slug.

Well that’s all for today.  Tuesday is Link Day for all topics, not just chastity and garden pests.  Help yourself if you are so inclined.   Post as many as you want, but only one per comment or the spam dragon will eat you up and I’ll never even know**.

*By “Catholic” I mean “all that is true and good”.  Your own faith or lack thereof is not the question.  A commitment to purity suffices.

** If your perfectly good comment gets stuck in spam, please TELL ME.  My e-mail in the sidebar works.  I get too much spam to check the spam folder post by post, but I will happily go fish out your misfiled comment if you let me know it’s in there.

 

QUICK UPDATE: I’ve turned off the anonymous comment feature (6/7/2012).  Amazing how much spam this one post generated — apparently hit all the right keywords.  I don’t *think* any honest humans were caught in spam (yes, I read it all), but you are always welcome to e-mail me if your comment gets eaten by the spam dragon, and I’ll rescue you.  Thank you to everyone who answered, here or elsewhere.  I’ll do a round-up post soon.

3.5 Time Outs: Assorted Measures

Thanks once again to our host Larry D. at Acts of the Apostasy, who’s got all your Apocalypse needs covered.  Especially Robot Apocalypse.

Click and be amazed.

1.

Yesterday was our 17th Anniversary.  We had dinner on the screen porch — steak, tater tots, spinach, cantaloupe, champagne.  Even the kids were full before dessert.  I can’t remember when it started, but we’ve taken to having a family dinner for our anniversary, and pointing out to the kids that it marks the founding of our family.  Which makes it their holiday, too.  After the kids went to bed, parents finished the champagne and got into the cheesecake.

2.

Best Water Meter Ever. It takes several layers of those cheap all-paper plates from Aldi if you’re serving steak.  Why paper?  Because the septic system is old enough to run for president, which in septic-years is much more than a little stately silver around the ears.  We’re avoiding all excess water usage until we can get a new drain field cut in sometime next week.  And so the SuperHusband installed one of these on the back patio:

It’s connected to the hose for a water-supply, and underneath, instead of drainpipe there’s a one-gallon bucket.  It’s fascinating seeing exactly how much water you use to wash hands or brush teeth.  Major incentive to conserve water so you don’t have to keep hauling the bucket off to some suitable corner of lawn.  Can I count this as school?

3.

Bleg: Boys, Porn, and Chastity. Had a friend in for tea Sunday afternoon, and she gave me a timely head’s up on the reality of tweenage boys and the very rapid transition into Exceedingly Immature Manhood that is somewhere on the horizon for our boy.  (Right now, the only girl he likes is the dog.)  Since I know that at least a few of my readers are:

1. Men.
2. Fathers of teens boys and former teen boys.
3. Catholic of the Chastity is Good, Sin is Bad type.
4. Remember what it was like to live inside the body of a teenage boy.

or:

1. Are married to such a person.

or:

1. Are the grown son of such a person.

Want to offer any advice?  Practical.  Links, comments, a post of your own and link it back here.  I’m all ears.  Anything helpful.  Thanks!

3.5

On Saturday I bought an 18-pack of Busch Light.  I tasted some, warm.  It’s kind of sweet — sort of a malty fruity seltzer product.  Interesting.  But it’s not for me.  It’s for

***

Well that’s all for today.  Tuesday is Link Day for all topics, not just beer, chastity, and laundry tubs.  Help yourself if you are so inclined.   Post as many as you want, but only one per comment or the spam dragon will eat you up and I’ll never even know.

Rant-o-rama: The Pornification of Everything

Brad Warthen posted a photo of the controversial Time Magazine cover over at his blog.  I won’t here, though I suppose you’ve seen it.  I’ll describe it in a minute. 

Time poses as a respectable newsweekly, and so it’s supposed to be reporting about real issues.  The topic at hand is delayed weaning, and we are supposed to be upset that a three-year-old might still be nursing.  Difficult to get upset about that, unless you can somehow stage it as a sexual issue.  Keep in mind that typically a three-year-old still needs help with bathing, toileting, and often may need diapers changed.  Can a child be sexually abused as part of all that?  Sure.  Would there be any reason to suspect a dysfunctional or abusive relationship merely because a parent looked after a child’s hygiene?  No.

I’m going to describe the photo, and what’s noteworthy is that there is nothing unusual about this.  I can be pretty sure that if I draw the right readership, I’ll be told I’m an uptight prude for calling the mom’s outfit immodest.  These are the clothes young women wear to serve in ministry at church, for example.  It’s all so normal.

Mom:

Mom’s wearing ballet flats — nothing tiltating there.  Which also make her as short at possible.  Important in a minute.

Mom’s wearing tight jeans — technically, these are tights.  Wonder of spandex, we can now have “pants” that fit like something which, a decade ago, went under a skirt to keep your legs warm in winter.

Mom’s wearing a camisole.  Remember camisoles?  They used to go under your clothes.

And that’s it.

We, as a culture, think this is normal.  Girls dress this way at church.  Well you know what?  It’s not normal.  It’s underwear.   And when you pose someone in her underwear on the cover of a magazine . . . it’s that type of magazine.

Now I know your daughter who dresses this way is sweet and pure and innocent, because I’ve met her or a girl just like her, and in addition she’s delightful, polite, intelligent, and devoted to her faith.  I don’t question her motives.  She’s just wearing what they sell.  But still.  She’s walking around in her underwear.  And doesn’t know it, because everyone else is too.  The empress has no outerwear.

So.  On the cover of Time, we have a woman in her underwear.  A young, beautiful woman.  Her eyes and her posture say, “I dare you.”  Or, perhaps, “Come and get it.”  We’ll go with “I dare you.”

Now for her boy:

He’s three, but he’s a little taller than a typical three year-old.

He’s dressed like a little GI – camo pants, grey knit shirt, running shoes.  Grown-up hair cut.

He’s standing on a chair, which though you know doesn’t make him taller, really, your eyes see that head way up by her shoulder, and your brain thinks “twelve years old.”

The clothing, the relative heights — this preschooler has been done up to look like a pre-teen boy.  In an age when grown men do their best to look like pre-teen boys.

Recap: A woman in her underwear, with a child made up to look like a grown-up, doing what grown-up men do in their bedroom with their wives during intercourse.  That’s child porn.

It’s not about breastfeeding.

Allow me to hurt your brain a little more.  Make that boy pose like a GI caught with his pants down.  Have mom kneel down, same outfit, same “I dare-you-eyes” as she reaches up with a baby-wipe to clean that bottom . . . child porn.

It’s not about breastfeeding.

It’s about the fact that our culture is sex-obsessed.

It’s about the fact that if you even mention modesty, you must be some kind of Victorian prude (I’m not so impressed with the Victorians, but apparently some people are).   Even among Catholics, the hot thing is to declare modesty is context-dependent, and more about a state of mind, and anyway here’s a picture of someone, somewhere, dressing this way fifty years ago, so that makes it modest.  Also, look at this piece of classic art.  We all know artists were protected from impurity until 1957.  And then it degenerates into the Burka argument, since neither Nazis nor pedophile priests can be brought into the discussion so easily.

Our culture hears the word “breast” and thinks “sex”, since sex is what everything is about, all the time.  We worry about three-year-olds nursing, because we know that by five the girls will be dressed like little prostitutes — surely that boy must be getting warmed up for his kindergarten girlfriend.

I edited out the last paragraph because the SuperHusband said it exceeded even the bounds of Rant-o-Rama.  For those who feel shortchanged, I point you to this excellent, charitable, and informative post on modesty over at Aggie Catholics.  Where they are kind, and hip, and not at all ranty like your cranky hostess here.