quote:

---

For what it's worth, modesty isn't a character flaw that a young woman needs to overcome -- it's an asset that allows her to keep control of her own body and her own life in a way that flauntingly immodest girls never can. But it isn't done to extremes in this movie, so I gritted my teeth a little and bore it.

---

quote:

---

Wow. That's an incredibly sexist quote.[...] It's the bit about "flauntingly immodest girls." There's an implication
there that dressing in a certain way makes a woman "immodest," which is, IMHO, a loaded term. Why aren't men expected to be modest? Why is modesty a desired feminine characteristic? I suppose the originator of the quote would prefer us barefoot (but no low-cut shirts, please) and pregnant?

---

quote:

---

It suggests that a woman should expect to lose control of her body if she's
immodest. That might not necessarily be anything'-ist', but it's certainly
repulsive. But then, considering the source, I'm not that surprised.

---

quote:

---

Actually, my reaction was that it's a remarkably stupid thing for 'your movie
reviewer' to have said and equally...unwise...for you to have reposted it. I never thought for a moment, nor did I imply that it says anything at all about 'blaming the victim', only that the entire idea you espouse of 'indoctrinating' your daughters is repugnant to me.

---

The discussion thread then took off in directions about how modesty is relative, blaming the victim is wrong, and, not unimportant to me, all the different ways in which I am no higher than dog-waste for agreeing with OSC.

Some of these people are no longer talking to me. We had, up to that point, been able to carry on very friendly American-style conversation on any number of topics, including topics related to religions as disparate as Catholicism, Judaism, and the various modern forms of Wicca.

So I gotta ask, now that I've lost a few fair-weather friends over something *you* said, OSC, in which way can flauntingly immodest girls never keep control of their own bodies, but a modest girl can?

What kind of modern American taboo have I hit here, that people who are normally very nice to me are suddenly quite viscious? (I didn't include the really mean or profane stuff here...)

And, is there any point in replying to them with anything at all?
 

---

Posted by Jiminy (Member # 7917) on :
 
Well, if I were you, I would politely explain to them that they need to learn to control their knee-jerking, and that their mamas wear army boots.

Passing your moral set on to your children is a negative thing? What is wrong with these people? You have a moral set that you have learned through your life, and it is your JOB to teach it to your children. They will be able to alter it and fit it to their own lives whenever they feel like it, and until then, the best you can do is teach them the best you know.

And, with their presumptuous asshattery aside, I did not read in OSC's quote anything resembling "blaming the victim." Of COURSE the blame is with the rapist, but that doesn't make it any less stupid to walk around downtown at 3am in a mini-skirt and a bra. It would be nice if the people that make it unsafe to do this didn't exist, but they do, and anyone who doesn't realize this would do well to venture out of their upper middle-class suburb.

THAT is how a girl can lose control of her body by not attempting modesty. It doesn't have half as much to do with it being a "desired feiminine trait" as it does with it being a good way to stay safe. All things in life involve risk, and it's up to you to decide what risks are worth what reward. Evidently, to a lot of women the reward of being gawked at is worth the increased risk of some asshole sticking his hand where he shouldn't.

Then end your post with "Oh, and also, no amount of uppity women's studies credits will ever make your armpit hair attractive." That'll make them see reason.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
I'm amazed at how closed-minded and channeled into certain modes of thought some people can be. Holy crap. They can't see ANY benefits in teaching someone to respect themselves by NOT depending on sexual displays to get attention?
 

---

Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
 
I swear, some people want to be offended. They take any statement that is the least bit controversial and try their best to interpret it in a way which justifies moral outrage. Why? Because I think that moral outrage translates to moral superiority in their minds.
 

---

Posted by ElaRibeira (Member # 8306) on :
 
Some people are constantly in feminazi attack mode. OSC's statement was only sexist if you're insecure enough to be constantly looking out for anything you can twist into sexism. He never said men shouldn't be expected to be modest, he simply didn't mention men because he was talking about a movie about the development of four teenage GIRLS. And if parents don't instill their values in their children, their children will grow up as psychopaths with no sense of right and wrong.

Flauntingly immodest girls get in the habit of showing their bodies off, where modest girls tend to be shier/more protective/more reverent of their bodies. An immodest girl is more likely to get herself in an irresponsible situation with a boy - and if she's not used to restraining herself, she may not have the self control to keep physical interaction on the level that she wants it (because once she gets herself into physical interaction, she's going to kick that level up a notch or two without thinking of the consequences). It's not only a matter of attracting the opposite sex, it's a matter of forming habits of self-control and of forming mental patterns. It's a lot easier to cross the line in the heat of the moment when you're in the habit of letting boys see most of your body than it is when you're not.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
I think the "Why aren't men expected to be modest?" is just silly. They *are*.

Trouble is, IMHO, that it seems easier for a man to be fashionable AND modest nowdays than it is for a woman.

My mom and I were window shopping at the mall to get ideas for her latest sewing projects--Most of the conversation consisted of "this would be great with sleeves" or "this would be good under a jacket/sweater". Whereas it seems like a man of any age can look nice and pulled together without showing the least bit of skin.

How's that for sexist?
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
The idea people leap to get offended at, I think, is the idea that women are expected to be modest, but men aren't. At least that's what I gather from the quotes.

It's not at all implied by OSC (even though some people do, I think, come to that conclusion when they make that quote). It's a movie about young women, after all.

As for the quote about indoctrinatioin...that's just stupid. Parents indoctrinate their kids, end of story.
 

---

Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
 
I think that it's because the idea of modesty is different for men and women. Men can wander around without shirts on whereas a woman walking around without a shirt on would be considered immodest. I don't think that comes entirely from parental indoctrination either, it definately comes from societal norms, cultural norms, etc.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
You're definitely right about that I think, SM. Sexuality and fashion go together much more for females (at least in society's eyes) than they do for men.
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 
Well, that little gem about indoctrination could only have been dropped by someone who never started thinking in the first place. It's disgusting that someone would try to "indoctrinate" their children? I don't know what planet that person is from, but here on Planet Earth we believe that it's beneficial to teach your bloody children. Those who don't will find children are being taught by their peers, and if they can stand behind the person that turns them into, then I invite them to depart the gene pool. (That's not a wish for them to die. Merely to stop reproducing.)
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
The wicked taketh the truth to be hard...
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 
(Oh, and a strong case could be made that women walking around with their breasts uncovered is an act of immodesty, society or no. There is evidence to suggest that breasts evolved primarily as a sexual signaling device. It's true they are also a source of milk for infants, and that that was their sole function originally, but the size and shape of the human breast creates complications in that area that no other primate has to deal with. If milk had been their only function, it would have been far more useful to remain flat, and expand only slightly for nursing, as happens in other primates.)

(Of course, there is also a case to be made that human lips took the shape they did as a sexual signaling device. And I don't know of any culture that has a specific prohibition against that. Where exactly should one draw the line?)
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 

quote:

---

An immodest girl is more likely to get herself in an irresponsible situation with a boy - and if she's not used to restraining herself, she may not have the self control to keep physical interaction on the level that she wants it

---

I don't see it so much as a self-control issue. I just figure that there's no sense in putting on a human primate mating display unless you're actively seeking a mate. It's almost as silly as going around in spandex cycling shorts when you're not actually planning to ride and, in fact, do not own a bike.
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 

quote:

---

the size and shape of the human breast creates complications in that area that no other primate has to deal with.

---

I thought that was so the primitive human male would have no idea whether the primitive female was currently sexually receptive or not, since the breasts look non-flat all the time.
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 
Right. A sexual signalling device. Like I said, if they existed only for milk, they wouldn't be as big and round as they are.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
This thread reminds me of a Dave Chappelle stand-up bit.
(loosely quoted from memory)
(the set-up for the bit, forgotten)
"You can't judge a book by it's cover.
And no, guys, don't assume that just because a girl is showing all skin, has a bikini top and microskirt, that does NOT make her a hooker.
No.
It surely doesn't.
But you have to admit, when she's wearing the uniform, it's freaking confusing."
Meh, it's funnier the way Dave told it.

By the same token, if a guy is dressed as a gigolo or pimp, he'll probably be treated as such by people, rightly or wrongly.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Welcome to the forum, Oobie Binoobie!
That's too bad people were so harsh and rude to you and your opinions.
Here, we reserve that for a few select scapegoats.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Verily the Younger:
(Oh, and a strong case could be made that women walking around with their breasts uncovered is an act of immodesty, society or no. There is evidence to suggest that breasts evolved primarily as a sexual signaling device. It's true they are also a source of milk for infants, and that that was their sole function originally, but the size and shape of the human breast creates complications in that area that no other primate has to deal with. If milk had been their only function, it would have been far more useful to remain flat, and expand only slightly for nursing, as happens in other primates.)

(Of course, there is also a case to be made that human lips took the shape they did as a sexual signaling device. And I don't know of any culture that has a specific prohibition against that. Where exactly should one draw the line?)

---

What about veiling of women in Muslim cultures? Surely they don't do that to cover up the erotic schnozz.

Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape has a long section on breasts and primate evolution. He speculates that human breasts evolved to be bigger and more globular than other flat-chested primates' so as to imitate buttocks, to encourage face-to-face mating versus the ahh, other standard mating position that other primates use.

He claimed that this helped pair-bond early humans and led to more sucessful rearing of early human children, who had much longer developement times than other primates and needed both parents around for years to have good odds of survival.

An interesting hypothesis, but it's been over ten years since I read it, I'm not sure if he had any hard evidence to support it or was just speculating.

[ July 02, 2005, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
So I guess that's a scientific explanation for the new Hooters Air airline: it's good for kids, in the long run.
 

---

Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
 
This is so funny. Nobody seems to recognize that there are matters of degree. Just because you don't want 11-year-old girls to wear body-flaunting styles somehow you're putting them in chadur. And just because you don't mention male modesty means that somehow you're oppressing women. Here's a clue: Men ogle and act on what they see to a far greater degree than women do. That's just a fact, not a sexist philosophy. Men who are grossly immodest are taken for ridiculous or sad; women who are moderately immodest are regarded by the most dangerous men as having marked themselves as available. This is hardwired into the brain. What is insanely sexist is deciding that women should NOT protect themselves in any way. I mean, whose purpose does that serve? Just because men SHOULD be able to hear "no" in the midst of an "I'm hot" visual message says nothing about what will actually happen.

The sheer ignorance of kneejerk feminism is so anti-female as to boggle the mind. When someone can show me the immodest men that women make passes at or rape or marginalize or demean, then I'll start referring to male and female immodesty equally.

Any parent who DOESN'T alert a daughter to the dangers of the world and encourage them to protect themselves by their OWN behavior instead of relying on men to behave in an idealized way is a BAD PARENT.

[ July 04, 2005, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Orson Scott Card ]
 

---

Posted by Oobie Binoobie (Member # 8059) on :
 
Thanks for responding, OSC.

Will someone please tell me what to call him? Orson? Scott? "Mr. Card" seems a bit too officious for my taste.

I'm not his auditor or FAA examiner, after all, and thought his books connect with me in a way no other author has, except for Mormon, and Ursula K. LeGuin, he's still not *all* that, 'cause I like movies he panned, and I don't have a lot of favor for Adam Sandler, but I digress...

The context seems to be: "Don't you dare mention modesty, or criticize my clothes. If you do, you're a repugnant sexist bigot."

Replying with any of those ideas is dicey. I may want to just suppress the topic and watch for further incivilities.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
OSC is commonplace, and from what I can gather he goes by Scott to people who know him more often than Orson, but actually I don't think I know. It occurs to me I've been calling him OSC for a couple years now, just because I wasn't sure either and it was faster than typing Orson Scott Card. So now I want to know too, to know if I've been rude or not...

what was your question?
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
I believe he prefers "O captain my captain."

Referring to him in third person, I usually use OSC. In direct communication, I think he has said in the past that he doesn't mind being called Scott or Orson (gets called both about equally) by people who have asked him if they could call him that. Before that point, I'd go with Mr. Card. At signings I think I usually say Mr. Card, both out of respect and because I don't want to encourage someone else to call him Scott without asking him.

Next time, though, I think I'm gonna call him "Boss."

--Pop
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 
Well, in the title of his review column, he calls himself "Uncle Orson."

Or, we could call him Perfesser Orson.
 

---

Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
 
I do remember in some thread that we were to call him Sir.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
Meh, nevermind.

I thought I knew what I was talking about for a second.

Brain fart.
 

---

Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
 
Here's the jump in logic I don't entirely make: how is encouraging girls to dress modestly "blaming the victim?" Yes, I understand that it happens a lot, but that's not the point I'm making. Yes, immodesty is bad. Yes, rape is bad. But here's the point I'm making:

What if they're not a victim?

Or are we supposed to teach our daughters to go with their feelings, growing up in a sex-charged society? Tell them to decide for themselves, when they're in no position to choose?

When I have daughters, they're not leaving the house till they're 30
 

---

Posted by Jiminy (Member # 7917) on :
 
The jump in logic is "Well, I can't really be angry at him for not wanting pre-teenage girls to dress like hookers, so I'll just jump at the throat of this OSC-shaped strawman instead."

On a related note, I can't say I agree that immodesty is inherently bad.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 

quote:

---

Just because men SHOULD be able to hear "no" in the midst of a "I'm hot" visual message says nothing about what will actually happen.

---

I really agree with this.

Although I think I can see where the original comments where coming from to a degree.

Just because dressing modestly will protect a woman to a certain degree is a fact of life does not mean that it is *ok* that some men are can't hear the no because they're ogling too hard.

I don't think for one minute that this is what OSC is saying. But there are some people who honestly believe if a girl wears a short skirt "she's asking for it". Heck, even some judges have made comments to that effect in rape trials.

So maybe the balance is protecting one's children from the unfortunate realities of life on one hand but on the other in no way condoning or accepting those realities as unavoidable facts.

That is, some men (and women) perceive dressing immodestly as a sign of sexual promiscuity. That in itself is not a perception that should be embraced. It is not a perception that we should accept.

Because it exists, protection may be necessary. But that doesn't mean the "she was asking for it" defence should be accepted either.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
I think it's a bad idea to walk down a dark alley in the middle of a slum at two in the morning. Doesn't mean that I'm condoning muggers

Personally, I think the more serious problem with immodesty is what the wearer (or non-wearer) of clothing is saying about him or herself. Kids DO need to be taught that they are in constant visual communication with everyone around them, and everything they do communicates SOMETHING about who they are, or who they think they are. It's insane to go out broadcasting one message, and expect people to receive another. If you want to say, "I'm a person with self-respect that you should treat with dignity," there are really effective ways of saying that, and really bad ones.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
When I say that this problem is "more serious", I'm not denigrating the importance of the physical risks cited above. I mean, obviously, rape is AWFUL, but it's relatively rare. The consequences of immodesty (and other extreme modes of dress) that I'm talking about happen EVERY time you leave the house, and affect pretty much everyone.

I'm honestly not saying they're intrinsically immoral, either. I mean, I had different-colored long hair and wore a lot of black as a kid. Clearly, I thought that kind of thing was pretty cool I'm just saying, people should be aware of what their mode of dress communicates, and should send the message they WANT to send.

And for young people, certain messages are rarely appropriate. I mean, if someone is not legally able to consent to sex, should they really be running around sending off sex messages? Seems counterproductive.

Not that I minded when I was a teenager ... but it's FREAKING CREEPY now.
 

---

Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
 
In my lifetime, girls' clothing has been sexualized at an earlier and earlier age. In the first hot rush of puberty, girls - especially girls with "low self-esteem" - find that they get more attention from boys (and men) when they show off their bodies. They have parents precisely in order to protect them from dangers they don't recognize. If a girl's sexualized clothing makes it nearly impossible for her to have a nonsexualized relationship with a male of her own age; if it trains her to think that all men can be manipulated by flaunting the flesh or the shape; then how is that helping her? Quite apart from the risk that relating to men only on this level will lead to premature sexual activity that neither partner is likely to be ready for, it also cuts girls off from learning how to relate normally to men. Men get stereotyped in this process just as much as women do, precisely because sexualized clothing REPELS some men as much as it attracts others.

I'm in the repelled category. I'm a normal male - my eye goes where it's invited - but I also know, from experience, that women who dress that way generally know how to relate to men in only one way - that touchy, flirty, I think you're a machine that I can turn on at will in order to get my own way kind of way. (I just love how impossible yet completely grammatical that sentence is. Don't you just want to spit the word "way" out of your vocabulary after that sentence?)

There are plenty of men who only relate to women as sex objects; there are plenty of women who only relate to men as if they only reacted to women as sex objects. Immodest dress (which is a culturally relative term, of course) perpetuates this shallow way of relating to each other.

The saddest thing of all is that only a handful of women usually look at all good wearing immodest clothing. Most look appallingly bad. To men with a grownup sensibility - i.e., not lust-driven - women who dress attractively but not seductively look far better AND are actually more sexually interesting in the long run. There's such a thing as hopinthesack sexuality and longtermrelationship sexuality and oversexualized clothing is definitely in the former category.

The funny thing is that feminists are also in the forefront of the anti-pornography movement because it objectifies women. But let a woman deliberately objectify herself, and a man suggests it's not a good idea if she wants men not to treat her as her clothing suggests she wants them to, and I'M curtailing her freedom!

Rape probably shouldn't even be in this discussion, by the way. Rapists look for women they want to DOMINATE, not have sex with - and little old ladies and completely innocent, modestly dressed women and girls are as likely to be chosen as victims. I'm speaking of violent rape here, as opposed to those equally vile sneak-rapists who drug women while supposedly on a date with them.

You don't really teach your daughter to dress modestly in order to prevent her being raped - you teach her other things to help with THAT - you teach her to dress modestly so she can learn to know a better class of men.
 

---

Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
You don't really teach your daughter to dress modestly in order to prevent her being raped - you teach her other things to help with THAT - you teach her to dress modestly so she can learn to know a better class of men.

---

*applauds*

I hope I can get this message across to my daughter better than my parents did with me. In fact, I wish I had learned this lesson sooner. It would have helped me avoid a lot of trouble when I was young.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
I'm an Orthodox Jew and live in a neighborhood that has a lot of Orthodox Jews. Modest dress and behavior is a given with us. Our daughters's school dress code requires skirts below the knee, and you can be sure that this is what they wear outside of school, too. Arms are covered to below the elbow, the torso is covered to above the collarbone. Married women follow the same guidelines, but also cover their hair.

The look is more Princess Diana than Britney Spears.

Our girls look serious, mature, and classy. Our men find uncovered hair, legs and bare arms to be alluring.

Now what in the world is wrong with that?
 

---

Posted by Jiminy (Member # 7917) on :
 
Rape is the extreme end of the issue, and my sense of theater insisted that I use it as an illustration. And besides, I saw "blaming the victim," and apparently a five-paragraph rant is my ingrained response.

My irritation is with the arrogance and the knee-jerking. "Indoctrination"? Good god. It is this kind of confrontational stupidity that drives poor peace-loving hippies like me to drugs.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
Hatrack forums drive you to drugs? It sounds like you aren't looking for too big an excuse.
 

---

Posted by Jiminy (Member # 7917) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
Hatrack forums drive you to drugs? It sounds like you aren't looking for too big an excuse.

---

quote:

---

morons that don't look past their eyelashes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by imogen:

quote:

---

morons that don't look past their eyelashes

---

If this is how you usually characterise women who don't agree with you, perhaps their chagrin is not wholly related to the fact they are "uppity feminists".

---

quote:

---

The saddest thing of all is that only a handful of women usually look at all good wearing immodest clothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CRash:
The problem is that I can find no clothes. It's ridiculous. There isn't much of a market, apparently, for us "out-of-fashion" conservative-dressing teenage females.

---

You are shopping at the wrong stores, honey. Try google searching for "modest clothes", for some online resources. This will lead you to some hopelessly frumpy sites (which may be good for a laugh), but also some pretty nice stuff.

Landsend.com has a decent selection of stuff that is modest, but maybe too dowdy for you.

coldwatercreek.com has some gorgeous fashions. Skirts are long and slinky or long and flouncy. I'm not sure if it is too pricey for you, though.

blair.com has a lot of stuff online, really good prices, some very dowdy, but some less so.

If you know which stores are not catering to your tastes, well, stop going to those stores. You can find some decent clothes if you change where you shop.

Good luck,

Tante Esther
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I generally agree about modesty. However, I have lived with the other extreme of parenting. *Not* the balanced parenting many of you do or wish to do so I'm *not* pointing fingers at anyone.

However, my parents were convinced I was the most beautiful girl in the world. I'm not. I'm not hideously ugly, but merely of average attractiveness in appearance. However, when this leads to the extreme of causing a teenage girl to dress in such a fashion (dowdy would be the beginning of the extreme of the ugly clothes I wore) that she actually *is* unbecoming, it does bad things for the self esteem as well.

(And they were still certain every boy in the county was fawning over me, when there wasn't a single one that would consider me in any sort of romantic fashion)

I'm not even talking about garb dictated by religious conventions. Rivka, for example, dresses attractively, while maintaining her headcovering, and other requirements that Orthodox Judaism mandates.

Steve made me get rid of it during spring cleaning, but for a long time I held on to the denim jumper my mother gave me for Christmas one year as evidence. I'm not anti-denim jumpers specifically. There are some that are attractive and functional. However this one had the shape of a burlap sack. It performed its function even better than a chastity belt. Angelina Jolie would have looked hideous in it.

At a certian point you *are* judged on your appearance, and one should learn how to present a polished professional appearance if necessary. Unfortunately I had to figure all of that out on my own. Even something modest and professional, by virtually any other standard, would have been considered too wanton by my parents (while they were raising, me at least... they love my brother's girlfriend and I've seen what she runs around in )

Even as it is, I will always be hindered in my own employment by the fact I still don't put enough care into my apearance. Appearances are reality all too often in the corporate world, and unfortunately polished looks are part of that package.

AJ
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

Steve made me get rid of it during spring cleaning, but for a long time I held on to the denim jumper my mother gave me for Christmas one year as evidence. I'm not anti-denim jumpers specifically. There are some that are attractive and functional. However this one had the shape of a burlap sack.

---

quote:

---

Rivka, for example, dresses attractively, while maintaining her headcovering, and other requirements that Orthodox Judaism mandates.

---

Thanks.

quote:

---

Good appearances are a part of this corporeal world. You can drop out (hence the denim jumper), join a different world (Orthodox Jewish community) . . .

---

quote:

---

Good appearances are a part of this corporeal world. You can drop out (hence the denim jumper), join a different world (Orthodox Jewish community), try to "win" (get the most attention by flaunting what you have), or else figure out who are you and what you are as a package, and dress as appropriate

---

quote:

---

The saddest thing of all is that only a handful of women usually look at all good wearing immodest clothing. Most look appallingly bad.

---

Once, while leaving a restaurant, I saw a woman (I think she was about eighteen) wearing one of those midriff-baring shirts. This would not have been unusual in itself, but she was also holding an infant that she had (from the appearance of the aforementioned midriff) obviously given birth to herself, within the past few days. She looked like she had a semi-deflated balloon hanging over the top of her pants.
 

---