If the above question were the entire subject of this article, the answer would be “Yes,” generally speaking, for they often prove themselves more responsible than men with children, finances, etc. But that is not the real subject here. It is too long for an article title, but the real subject considered here is, “Are women responsible when they dress in such a manner that men are enticed to lustful thoughts?” It is a sad fact of our society today that this may also have application to the enticement of women who have lesbian tendencies.
Many today seem to believe that women are free to dress however they please, and men should just learn to deal with it. In the arguments, little or no Scripture is given to prove the point, because it would be very difficult to find Biblical support for that mentality. However, some objections to that line of thinking can be found in the Word of God.
First of all, God is always offended when man sins, and those who seem to not care when men entertain lustful thoughts should at least be concerned about how their contribution to man’s lustfulness grieves the heart of God (Heb 3:10, 17; Eph 4:30).
Second, it is an unloving spirit that is unconcerned about the spiritual condition of others. An automobile driver in a residential neighborhood ought to take special precautions when he sees a child riding a tricycle near the road. The driver ought to defer to the immaturity of the little child, even if it inconveniences the driver to the point that he slows down, moves to the opposite side of the road, or comes to a complete stop. Any caring person would try to assure that he does not bring harm to the little child, rather than coldly saying, “He ought to look out for himself.” Similarly, every Christian woman who has a loving spirit will care about the spiritual influence she has upon others, desiring to avoid hurting them spiritually (Jn 13:35).
Third, it is an abuse of “Christian liberty” that has resulted in the unwillingness by some to accept responsibility for their influence upon others. Galatians 5:13 explains that “Christian liberty” is not intended to excuse fleshliness, but that it means we are free to lovingly function as servants to one another. In this area of discussion, the application would be that a Christian lady should consider herself a servant to those men (and lesbians) who might be enticed by her dress.
Fourth, it is clear in Scripture that it is sin to function as the “facilitator” for the sins of others. This is true of alcoholism (Hab 2:15), provoking children to anger (Eph 6:4), or in general, being a “partaker (‘partner, sharer’) of other men’s sins (I Tim 5:22).” It is not only wrong to take illegal drugs; it is also wrong to provide illegal drugs to others, even when they are provided for free. Sensual dress in public can “contribute to the delinquency of a minor,” when a young boy is enticed, and can contribute to the sinfulness of an adult as well.
Fifth, it is diametrically opposed to the attitude of the Apostle Paul, who said, “. . . if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh. . . . (I Cor 8:13).” He did not want the “weak brother” (v 12) to suffer spiritually, so he was willing to defer some of his own freedoms, in order to be a good influence.
Sixth, the motivation on the part of a woman who dresses in a sensual manner should be examined. Whether her intentions are sensual or not, she is still drawing attention to herself. At best, then, her motivation is pride. Biblical modesty (I Tim 2:9) is the opposite of seeking attention. It places greater emphasis upon Godliness than upon “fashion” (v 10).
Seventh, it accepts pagan society’s definition of “nakedness,” rather than God’s. God calls the uncovering of the thigh “nakedness” for men (Ex 28:42) and for women (Isa 47:2-3). It is also apparent that tight, revealing clothing, although legal in the eyes of the government, is not Biblically modest. The result often is that “evil” is called “good,” and vice versa (Isa 5:20)
Eighth, when society’s “fashion” dictates women’s dress, Bible principles are either denied or diminished. When Hollywood says to dress in a way that contradicts the Bible, Christian women “. . . ought to obey God, rather than men (Acts 5:29).” Christians should ascribe truth to God, considering those who oppose Him to be liars (Rom 3:4).
Ninth, when a woman dresses to attract the attention of men (or lesbians) to the sensual parts of her body, she is dishonoring her male head (her father, if unmarried, or her husband), whether her male head is living or dead. “Shamefacedness,” in I Tim 2:9, means “modesty, in the sense of respectfulness.” Godly men do not want their wives or daughters to appear sensual to other men.
Tenth, it has been true for centuries that some women have attempted to entice men through the way they dress. Harlots have “advertised” by the way they dress, and it should not be surprising that unsaved or carnal men would react to that visual enticement in a wicked fashion. In Genesis 38, Judah thought the veiled Tamar was a harlot, based upon her adornment. While Judah certainly had character deficiencies, Tamar sent a message by her dress that she was available. Even those women who do not have evil intentions could be exposing themselves to danger and unwanted sexual advances by the way they dress.
Is it wrong for men to entertain lustful thoughts about women? Yes. Is it wrong for men to speak and act in lustful ways toward women? Absolutely! But it is also true that Christian women who are careless with regard to their dress can be Satan’s tools to sin against both God and men. Just as it is wrong for a man to entice a woman to sensuality with false promises, flattery, etc., it is wrong for a woman to entice a man to sensuality by her dress.