The deliverers of Christian biblical scripture had no conception of or predictions for the existence of thirst traps. The abstract and incredibly novel nature of the internet, social media, pornography, and the modern-day expression of female sexuality escape the ancient guidelines that the Christian bible provides, despite the attempts of today’s Christian interpreters to apply verses about lust and temptation to these twenty-first-century concepts. Girl Defined, a blog and YouTube channel founded and run by Texan Christian influencer sisters Kristen Clark and Bethany Beal, seeks to interpret Bible scriptures and relate them to the navigation of today’s Christian womanhood. Despite Clark and Beals’s efforts to encourage the decentralization of female sexuality through scripture, the immense modernity of concepts such as thirst trapping and sexting evade the Bible’s ancient instruction, leading influences such as Girl Defined to promote highly idealistic standards for modern women.
Clark and Beal’s video content is comprised of a series of podcast-style episodes in which they sit side by side, almost a reflection of each other in their beach-wave blondeness and pastel clothing, and investigate the morality of being single, posting seductive pictures, gay marriage, feminism, modesty, and Coleen Hoover books. Girl Defined’s blog posts and videos typically take traditional proverbs and verses from the Bible, pull pieces from these verses that pertain to temptation, female sexuality, and lust, and ultimately tend to land on the conclusion that because women are created in the image of God, posting cleavage pics online is probably not in His best interest. Yet, the existence of Instagram, nude pictures, feminism (or anti-feminism), and even blogs would have likely been unimaginable to Jesus, his followers, and the scribes of the Bible. The introduction of the internet and twentieth-century notions about female sexuality greatly complicate and sometimes reject the ways in which Bible passages about temptation and lust can be applied and interpreted today.
Modern American society, and thus, interpreters such as Clark and Beal, possess gendered ideas or biases about modern-day female sexuality, and their interpretation of biblical scripture is likely informed by preexisting ideas about how women’s sexuality should be restricted. In other words, the only ways in which to fill in the blanks for the instructions not necessarily provided by the Christian Bible about sexting are to occupy these gaps with modern perspectives and socialized biases that demonize female sexuality. The degree to which novel, electronic sexual interactions can be condemned by texts that have no conception of their eventual existence is limited, and asks for socialized contemporary thought to be infused into the readings of scripture.
In an article titled Why Sending Nude Photos Isn’t God’s Best for Single Women, Clark compares her understanding of the drawbacks of “sexting” to applicable verses about modesty and sexual “morality.” Clark begins with a few primary points about the dangers of sexting and its potential detriment to relationships, namely, how erotica and sexting produce a “hyper-focus” on sex within romantic connections. She then cites four potential reasons why God would not be down with women sending nudes, including the beliefs that sex was created for marriage, lust is a sin, “nudity rejects God’s design for modesty,” and “purity is still a priority to God.” Clark refers to 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 and 1 Timothy 2:9-10 to evidence these arguments. Paul the Apostle’s instructions in Timothy 2:9-10 stress the importance of “modest” dress, that is without “elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,” and instead “with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.” His words have been sometimes interpreted not as anti-sexual or against the presentation of the body, but rather, as anti-materialist rhetoric that intends to reject vanity. However, braids, gold, and pearls are typically not viewed as sinful in the eyes of contemporary Christians, as long as a woman is dressing in clothing that covers her body. Clark uses Timothy to form an argument for women’s modesty when discussing the way in which sexting is “outside of God’s boundaries for singles,” stretching the bounds of Timothy 2:9-10 to fit socially constructed boundaries of female sexuality.
Clark’s citation of 1 Corinthians 6:18-20, in which Paul condemns “sexual immorality,” claiming that “whoever sins sexually sins against their own body,” encounters obstacles in its application to sexting. Sexual immorality has historically been understood by Christians to be sexual, bodily actions performed outside the confines of marriage. Yet, sexting and the sending of nude photographs don’t contain any physical sexual action, and therefore exist as concepts outside the borders of “sexual immorality.” The physical distance between bodies that exist within sexual interactions such as sexting complicates the Bible’s framing of what should and shouldn’t be done outside of marriage. Clark’s point, however, is that Jesus doesn’t have to explicitly say “don’t sext,” as modern Christians will come to this conclusion themselves through interpretation of scripture. Responses to and interpretations of these texts, such as Clark’s, in their application to modern media interactions, are thus a product of using socialized eyes on ancient texts.
In a video titled “Should Christian Women Post Seductive Selfies?” Beal and Clark similarly investigate the Christian implications of female sexuality as it exists on the internet. They initiate the conversation by first cringing at the ways in which Christian women post selfies on social media that reveal cleavage, while captioning these images with Bible verses or praises to God. They reflect (with relief) on how they don’t think they’ve done anything of the sort. When Beal and Clark ultimately get down to the title question, they urge that the female bodies are “vessels of the Holy Spirit,” and are not to be “consumed.” Referencing Genesis 1:27, Clark states firmly that women are God’s “image-bearers,” and shouldn’t chase fleeting validation on social media through “seductive” pictures. Clark and Beal, however, never quite identify the validators and perceivers of this imagery as sinful, despite Matthew 5:28–29, which harshly condemns looking upon women “lustfully.” Applying these biblical principles to the novelty of thirst traps, Clark and Beal appear to blame women for what the Bible claims is the objectifier’s sin. Clark and Beal intend to actively set guidelines for a Godly womanhood, yet, the questionable ability of Bible verses to truly capture and apply to modern concepts such as thirst trapping or sexting place Girl Defined’s creators in the position of shaping an argument from narrow evidence.
In attempting to fit the antiquity of Bible scripture to the intricacies of modern-day, social-media-laden forms of sexual interaction, Girl Defined creates an out-of-date vision for present-day women. This is not to say that sexting or thirst trapping is always a sensible decision, nor that it is particularly a liberating expression of female sexuality. However, the Bible’s pertinence in conversations involving sexting or the nature of sexuality online is slight. Girl Defined, trying to expand these limitations, ultimately configures an argument that feels unacquainted with nuanced ideas about women on the internet — and condemns the actions of individual women rather than the social pressures and desires of society. In an age of constant technological advancement that positions a uniquely oppressive gaze onto women, the judgment of female sexuality online persists and taints a declared nonjudgmental, neighborly Christian religion.