Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 6
Laura argued that head covering is not only submission but also modesty because women’s hair is sexually alluring, citing Apuleius (“prime concern… heads and tresses”) and modern magazine advertising—what do you think is gained or lost when Christians dismiss this as “just ancient culture,” and what evidence would you require to take her claim seriously?
Another way to ask: What do Christians gain or lose by saying Laura’s point about women’s hair being sexually attractive is “just ancient culture,” and what proof would you need to take her claim seriously?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests dismissing her argument as “just ancient culture” can cause Christians to miss a continuing pattern: men’s attraction to women’s hair appears in ancient testimony, modern advertising, and Paul’s language about hair as “glory.” To take it seriously, she points to both historical documentation and present-day observable evidence.
- She quotes Apuleius (2nd century): his “prime concern… to observe in public the heads and tresses of beautiful women,” showing hair as an object of desire.
- She argues this is like future people learning modern lust patterns from “lyrics… or a men’s magazine”—a window into what is alluring in a culture.
- She gives a modern observation: magazine covers and ads often feature women with “long, flowing hair,” suggesting advertisers “know something”—that it sells because it is sensual.
- She connects to Scripture: Isaiah 47 treats removing a veil as part of public shame, implying hair is a “private part” in modest cultures.
- She also notes Paul calls hair a woman’s “glory,” reinforcing that it carries social/sexual power.
- She concludes head covering is modesty because it limits public access to that “glory.”