The latest controversy over women's revealing clothing in gyms illustrates something rather peculiar about contemporary conservative culture. What should be a relatively straightforward matter of personal standards, modesty and individual choice has become another front in the seemingly endless war between men and women? Comedian Shane Gillis has been drawn into the wider discussion, while YouTube commentators and conservative female personalities, including Pearl Davis, have criticised women who wear extremely revealing exercise clothing. The language can become remarkably heated, with accusations of attention-seeking, exhibitionism and moral degeneracy. Yet there is a much simpler response available to Christian conservatives who find contemporary gym culture objectionable: stop participating in it. Vote with your feet.
This is not an argument that modesty is unimportant. Quite the contrary. Modesty has a substantial place within Christian moral teaching, and the contemporary culture of bodily exhibition deserves serious criticism. But there is an important distinction between maintaining one's own moral standards and becoming consumed by indignation over the clothing choices of strangers. The former is an exercise in personal discipline. The latter can become an exhausting and ultimately unproductive form of cultural warfare.
The controversy itself is not difficult to understand. Modern commercial gyms have increasingly become environments in which physical training intersects with fashion, social media and the public display of the body. Tight leggings, abbreviated tops and clothing designed to emphasise particular physical features are commonplace. Some gym users film themselves exercising, sometimes creating situations in which other patrons appear in the background of videos intended for social media. Fitness influencers have turned what was once a relatively private activity into a form of public performance.
For some conservative observers, this represents another stage in the erosion of traditional standards of modesty. The gym, they argue, should be a place for exercise rather than sexual display. Men should be able to train without encountering clothing that they consider deliberately provocative. Women, according to this argument, should exercise greater restraint and recognise that their clothing affects the social environment around them.
There is a reasonable discussion to be had about standards of dress in shared facilities. Commercial gyms already establish rules concerning footwear, hygiene, appropriate clothing and acceptable behaviour. There is nothing inherently unreasonable about a business deciding that its premises should maintain particular standards of presentation. Customers can then decide whether those standards suit them.
The difficulty begins when critics assume that they can reliably determine the intentions of every woman wearing revealing exercise clothing. Certainly, some people dress to attract attention. Human beings have been doing that for thousands of years, and the invention of Instagram did not create vanity. But other women may choose similar clothing because it is comfortable, fashionable, practical for particular exercises or simply what they are accustomed to wearing. The same outward appearance does not necessarily indicate the same intention.
This is where some of the more aggressive conservative commentary becomes questionable. A woman wearing tight leggings is not thereby announcing her moral character, sexual availability or desire to be approached by strangers. Nor does her clothing establish that she is deliberately attempting to provoke the men around her. Such conclusions require evidence beyond the observer's personal reaction.
There is also an obvious problem of consistency. If revealing clothing is objectionable because it exposes or emphasises the human body, what are we to say about beaches, swimming pools and sporting activities? Contemporary swimwear often reveals considerably more than gym clothing. Competitive athletes sometimes wear extremely abbreviated garments for reasons involving performance, comfort or sporting convention. Men themselves routinely train shirtless, wear tight cycling clothing or display their physiques in ways that might reasonably be described as exhibitionistic.
The point is not that all clothing is morally equivalent. Context matters, and Christian modesty cannot be reduced to a mathematical calculation of exposed skin. But any serious moral argument must explain why a particular garment is unacceptable in one environment while similar or more revealing clothing is tolerated elsewhere. Simply declaring that women are seeking male attention does not resolve the problem.
More importantly, Christian morality does not place the entire burden of sexual discipline upon women. In Matthew 5:28, Christ warns against looking upon a woman with lustful intent. Whatever theological interpretation one adopts concerning the precise meaning of this passage, its relevance to personal responsibility is unmistakable. Men are responsible for their own thoughts and conduct. The fact that someone else is dressed in a manner they find attractive does not eliminate that responsibility.
Christian teaching about modesty is therefore inseparable from teaching about self-control. It would be a strange form of Christianity that devoted enormous energy to condemning women's clothing while neglecting the moral discipline of the men doing the condemning.
This brings us to a practical question that seems to receive remarkably little attention in the online controversies. Why must a Christian conservative who dislikes the atmosphere of a particular commercial gym continue attending it?
There is no biblical commandment requiring Christians to purchase memberships at establishments whose prevailing culture they find objectionable. There is no moral obligation to participate in an environment that repeatedly generates resentment, distraction or temptation. If a particular gym is incompatible with one's convictions, the obvious solution is to find somewhere else to exercise.
This is not surrender. It is the ordinary exercise of freedom of association.
A man who dislikes the atmosphere of a nightclub does not need to spend every Saturday evening standing inside it complaining about the music, clothing and behaviour of the patrons. He can simply go elsewhere. A family dissatisfied with the entertainment offered by commercial television can turn it off. Christians who object to the prevailing values of particular institutions can withdraw their patronage and support alternatives.
The same principle applies to gyms.
Home training is an obvious possibility. Strength and cardiovascular fitness do not require elaborate commercial facilities. Depending upon individual circumstances, considerable progress can be made through walking, push-ups, squats, resistance bands, dumbbells, basic weight-training equipment and other relatively inexpensive methods. A modest home training area can provide years of productive exercise without the distractions associated with crowded commercial establishments.
For those who prefer company, there is an even more interesting possibility: community-based men's training groups.
Christian churches, community organisations and groups of friends could establish modest exercise facilities or regular training sessions organised around shared values. Such arrangements would offer something that many commercial gyms struggle to provide: genuine fellowship. Men could train together, encourage one another, discuss personal difficulties and develop friendships extending beyond physical fitness.
This would be particularly valuable in an age when male loneliness and social isolation are increasingly recognised as serious problems. Many men lack the ordinary institutions through which earlier generations developed enduring friendships. Churches, sporting clubs, voluntary associations and community organisations once provided regular opportunities for men to work together towards shared objectives. Some of these institutions have weakened, leaving commercial entertainment and digital interaction to occupy much of the space they formerly filled.
A Christian men's training group could help rebuild a small part of that lost social infrastructure.
The emphasis need not be upon spectacular physiques or competitive displays of masculinity. Physical strength is valuable, particularly as men grow older and seek to preserve mobility, independence and general health. But the cultivation of discipline, perseverance, mutual assistance and friendship may be more important than the amount of weight lifted.
There is also no reason why women who prefer greater privacy should not have access to women-only exercise environments. Some women are uncomfortable exercising around men, whether because of religious convictions, personal modesty, previous experiences or simple preference. Women-only gyms and training sessions offer one possible response, subject to applicable laws and practical arrangements. Their existence need not imply hostility towards men, just as voluntary men's training groups need not imply hostility towards women.
A pluralistic society should be capable of accommodating different preferences without interpreting every difference as an ideological confrontation.
Indeed, one of the peculiarities of contemporary culture is the tendency to treat voluntary separation as though it were necessarily an act of aggression. Yet people routinely organise activities around shared interests, beliefs, age groups, sporting abilities and social preferences. The purpose is often not to condemn outsiders but to create an environment in which participants feel comfortable pursuing common objectives.
Christian conservatives should recognise the importance of building such institutions rather than devoting all their energies to criticising those established by others.
There is a broader political and cultural lesson here. Much of contemporary conservatism has become reactive. A provocative video appears online, commentators express outrage, opposing commentators respond, and another cycle of indignation begins. The original incident may involve only a handful of people, but the resulting controversy can attract millions of views. Participants become convinced that they are confronting a major civilisational crisis when they may simply be witnessing another example of social media turning ordinary disagreements into profitable entertainment.
The commercial incentives are obvious. Outrage generates engagement. Engagement generates advertising revenue, subscriptions and publicity. A measured discussion about differing standards of modesty is unlikely to attract the same attention as a furious denunciation of supposedly shameless women or allegedly predatory men.
The result is a peculiar economy of resentment in which both sexes can be encouraged to regard the other as a collective moral problem.
This is particularly unfortunate because there are genuine questions concerning relationships between men and women in contemporary Western society. Declining marriage rates, family breakdown, loneliness, hostility between the sexes and the influence of pornography and social media all deserve serious examination. But these problems are unlikely to be resolved by endless arguments over leggings in fitness centres.
Nor is it obvious that public denunciation produces greater modesty. People who feel personally attacked frequently become defensive, while those already sympathetic to the criticism may become more entrenched in their hostility. The controversy then reinforces the very antagonism it supposedly seeks to overcome.
Christianity offers a different emphasis. The cultivation of virtue begins with the individual and extends outward through family, church and community. Christians are called to exercise judgment, but also humility, charity and self-restraint. They are not required to approve of every prevailing social practice. Equally, they are not required to become permanent spectators of behaviour they dislike.
There is an old practical wisdom in refusing to place oneself unnecessarily in situations that encourage temptation or resentment. Avoiding such environments is not necessarily evidence of weakness. It may represent a sensible recognition of human limitations.
A Christian man who finds himself continually distracted by women's clothing at a gym has several choices. He can exercise greater personal discipline, attend at a different time, find another establishment or train elsewhere altogether. What he need not do is transform his dissatisfaction into an ongoing campaign of hostility towards women.
The same principle applies in reverse. Women who encounter genuinely inappropriate conduct at gyms should be able to raise concerns with management and expect reasonable standards of behaviour. But the existence of some badly behaved men does not justify treating all male gym users as potential predators.
Individual conduct should be judged individually.
The deeper issue is whether Christian conservatism intends merely to protest against contemporary culture or to develop viable alternatives to it. Protest has its place, particularly where important legal rights or public institutions are involved. But cultural renewal cannot consist entirely of denunciation. It requires the patient construction of families, communities, associations and institutions capable of embodying different values.
A small group of men meeting regularly to train, encourage one another and develop friendships may accomplish more for Christian community life than a thousand angry YouTube comments about women's exercise clothing.
Such an approach also restores a sense of proportion. Not every cultural disagreement requires a national campaign. Not every provocative outfit is evidence of civilisational collapse. And not every individual whose behaviour offends conservative sensibilities needs to become the subject of public moral condemnation.
There are far more substantial challenges confronting Christian communities than the clothing choices of strangers in commercial gyms. The decline of religious participation, the weakening of family relationships, the isolation of older people, the difficulties faced by young men and the loss of local community institutions, deserve sustained practical attention.
The time spent arguing about gym clothing might be better invested in establishing a community training group, helping a neighbour, mentoring a younger man or strengthening the institutions upon which Christian life depends.
Ultimately, the Christian conservative response to modern gym culture need not be complicated. Maintain your standards. Exercise personal discipline. Treat others with courtesy. Support businesses and institutions compatible with your convictions. Where suitable alternatives do not exist, consider creating them.
And if the atmosphere of a commercial gym is genuinely offensive to your beliefs, there is a remarkably simple solution.
Walk out, take your membership money with you, and put it towards something better.
That is not abandoning Christian principles. It may be a considerably more effective way of living by them.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/a-womans-gym-outfit-has-unleashed-a-huge-debate/news-story/d2115cc4884d1ebe3170b41c8a1c634d